Tag Archives: Umberto Eco

And the news is where?

Well there was the news this morning ‘World leaders return to ‘Davos in desert’ a year after Khashoggi boycott‘, but I dealt with that 4 days ago during ‘When we say ‘Ney’ to an event‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/10/24/when-we-say-ney-to-an-event/), complete with the summit time frame, seems like such an interesting delay. Perhaps the entire Nikkei setting is rather more interesting than that. Nikkei review giving us “Mizuho and SMBC among 15 names planned for historic listing“, whilst also giving us “The roster of underwriters could change depending on where Saudi Aramco goes public“, that part will get more visibility in the stage where ‘Aramco proposes two-stage IPO, shunning London and Hong Kong‘, that partially made sense, especially as HSBC took a flounder in the last year, by itself it is not a explanation, yet the events that overlap Jamal Khashoggi and certain times events in that light have not been considered ‘fair play’ by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in that light the events shunning London would make sense. And this is the direct consequence of certain tasks made by certain elements who thought that jerking off the market because the going was good some kind of thing. Well, yes, that is exactly how I would phrase it, especially over the year when we saw Saudi Arabia being hunted and nagged in three different ways; I think it is fair to call it that. I see no reason to call it any other way. Now that the initial plans for a petrochemical location in China is ready to be mapped out at $10 billion, China will have new options whilst Saudi Arabia is opening a new vat of tactics, the US is now up in arms to sooth their longtime partner and they better pucker up. The US made sure that the Khashoggi matter got light and then the lost track of their novelty, they were not prepared for the windfall others made of it and now we are given: “The crown prince denies involvement, but told US TV last month that he took “full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia”” an issue that was out in the media, but did you not consider the cost involved? Did you think that this comes for free? Even as we were given “it triggered Saudi Arabia’s biggest diplomatic crisis since the 9/11 attacks as world leaders and business executives sought to distance themselves from Riyadh“, it does come at a cost and Aramco is the first to exact the cost of doing business, it is the first of several steps, the deals with India and China are too soon, too visible and it shows a Kingdom who was sick and tired of two faced options in oil, now that we see that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has options, now that the west is about to learn that you cannot play certain games, now they will all be about the ‘miscommunication’, they will be all about the freedom of the press even as we see that the freedom of the press is some convoluted story, some story that we tended to warn scholars about, like we see in Umberto Eco, the name of the Rose (post-glad infringed upon for this event) ““Until then I had thought each preacher spoke of the events, human or economical, that lie outside books not told of. Now I realized that not infrequently books speak of white papers: it is as if they spoke among themselves. In the light of this reflection, the gathering seemed all the more disturbing to me. It was then the place of a long, annual murmuring upon an imperceptible dialogue between one vision debated on and another ones paper, a living thing, a receptacle of powers not to be ruled by any human mind, but the cistern of wealth merely a treasure of ill spoken events emanated by many minds, surviving the death of those who had produced them or had been their conveyors.”

I recently had to revisit an abbey in northern Italy so it made sense as well and the years are actually in several ways applicable. The Divine Comedy (Dante Aliegieri) finishes at this stage, the era was founded by double entry bookkeeping, the Italian bankers who designed it had no idea what impact it would have on accountancy or that the practice would survive until today. Yet, Umberto Eco placed his novella in an interesting time, Yet that time 680 years later we see that the question of wealth is very much at the heart of the matter, yet not in hands of the Christian church, it is there that we see the actions of certain members of coinage to be handled from. Feel free to disagree with me, but when you place the events as they were played over the last year and who exactly started these accusations, with the preemptive part of evidence that cannot have any further meaning, including the UN Essay by A. Callamard, can we answer in any other way that something is apparently wrong?

We merely need to look at the impeachment of a Trump card, a mere clown in the entire financial orchestra, when we see the steps allocated by intelligence and civic groups, whilst a Crown Prince was indited on paper with no resulting evidence, do you really think that it is merely a farce? Now that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has met with two events, it is stronger than ever to settle Aramco, to settle oil disputes and America might not care, but now that their own surpluses and their own economic value is now under attack, its 21 trillion dollar noose will become more than just the chain around a junkyard dog seeking a larger yard to bark in. And now it is only just that I include the bank that was around in the beginning of Umberto Eco’s tale, in 1327, from brothers financing governments the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (BMPS) would grow and from its acquisitions in 2008, the hidden losses and the bailout in 2013 it never stopped being the BMPS, J.P. Morgan, Mediobanca, Banco Santander, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs had signed a pre-underwriting agreement with BMPS in July, with all kinds of assurances, several of them all now shunned in the Aramco deal.

There is part of it that I cannot prove, I am not stating that I found certain links that are personally as shallow as it gets, yet certain people made transfers to other avenues, and in those positions they would if that deal went through made huge waves, if nothing happened, then they would be in an interesting place, so we cannot go on anything that flimsy (I don’t work for the UN after all), but the time line is weirdly skewed in certain visibility graphs, one would consider that certain acts would have been ‘concidental’ top a fault if it would have happened and it would have been the savior of what would be the “the industrial plan of the bank was approved, which the bank would be re-capitalized for €8.1 billion, but only €3.9 billion would be underwritten by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (excluding additional shares that would be buyback from retail bondholders by the government), with the rest were the “bail-in” of bondholders, mandatorily converted the bond of the bank to shares” Some would ask questions on the grounds of Margrethe Vestager, yet they would be wrong, I believe that certain matters had been in the frying pan a lot longer than that. And the entire Saudi Arabia matter does not stop there, where it stops is up in the air, because both Wall Street and a wealth banker that is above all this would prefer it this way, so when some are stumping their chest giving you the goods on some deal, just be thankful that it is not your coinage that is depending on this deal.

That is the underlying sound of more than just an Aramco deal, it is all over the place and even if my view is not to be seen as the correct one, consider what evidence you are going from, I never told you the little evidence that I have based this on, for the mere reason that two or three memos could be seen as mere typo’s, but how could my story exist?

Consider that I gave visibility to certain parts weeks ago, and that I was ahead of the curve for some time, after which my interest merely grew in other directions, I had finished the puzzle, I had no real reason to watch it unfold until completion, it was merely an exercise at that moment and like all other people, I hate exercises.

Yet I left two parts out, it is not important, but it gives a larger play towards the entirety, consider Davos in the Desert 2015, who was there and who absconded, consider that this was BEFORE Khashoggi and who came out of the woodwork? That is one part; I let you figure out the second hint. Now consider what options the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has left when the table is spread the way it is, I wonder if you can see the irrefutable acts of discrimination.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Been There, Done that reprised

It was 2 weeks ago when I was confronted with the ‘Monk Soup‘ by Lucy Mangan, a view of a book that was made into a film 33 years earlier and now remade into a seasonal view with John Torturo, Rupert Everett and Damian Hardung. With 5 episodes on SBS on demand it was time to see how much of a soup this choice ragout actually was. I have to admit that I am not even sure whether this series is a soup, or food for the wretched. It shows how Europe was in those days, it is about half of the first episode that we arrive in the Italian abbey where the story takes shape, we are treated to the interaction of monks, the way we imagined that William of Baskerville would be, yet in this dirty and flaming Europe, a simple monastery is showing people in wealth, not through the wearing of cloaks and heavy garment, not through the power of wealth, but through the absence of dirt, a cooperation of virtue in letters and in an absence of hunger.

The people in the abbey do live an exalted life that much was clear from the first half of the story. It is hard to be of swift justice here, yet I try, for me the movie was an excellent way of setting the stage, yet at the end of the first episode we see that the movie was a great way to tell a story, but this story is worthy of more and that is how it is from the very beginning, yet I wonder how many seasons will follow the first, and how many are required to make this story a complete story.

It is the beginning of the second episode and at this point I am almost completely convinced that Umberto Eco’s work would require no more than one season, yet I keep an open mind, the interactions with the girl are more abundant that those in the original movie. We also see the search in much more detail that we saw in the movie, but that is also my flaw, the digestion of the movie is a wrong step as the movie is merely the representation of the book as the director saw it, in this version we watch a much larger version of the book and it is a wondrous trip that you will take in this version of the Name of the Rose, it shows a much more interesting abbey, with its machines working, with its faith working in different directions, what faith allowed for in those days, that is perhaps the strangest part of the journey you will embark on. And it makes sense as it is part of the story, when you think of it the entirety of the story is based on what the church thought, what the church allowed for and what the speakers of the church wanted for, perhaps that is the larger part of the story that we are not ready for, or perhaps better stated, we were not ready for it in 1986, now we are. We are more critical of what was, when we see the unfolding of the story, the unfolding towards a work wrapped in cloth, we get a version that is not monk soup, it is a hearty stew, with the main story in the setting, with the churches and their priorities. It is at the end of the second episode that we get some level of apprehension on how large the library of the Abbey truly is.

The name of the Rose is truly an amazing piece of work, something that you will watch, and consider for a long time to come. No matter how this is seen, it should not be seen as ‘Monk Soup‘, but if we have to go by food, then this is nothing short of a Spezzatino di Vitello, made with Veal carpaccio, which unlike ‘Monk soup‘ has delicious ground and the soup we expected s much more descriptive and much more verbose than the description we saw in other depictions. I expected that but I was willing to expect a different view, we do not all have the critical eye to set to the task of each work, I know this and I do not wish to judge to previous judgments, yet I feel I have to as this work was sold short, even by me, I let the folly of the ‘Season‘ cloud my judgment, but it seems that there is so much more to the setting of the Rose, that we are not ready of the full story that John Torturo and Damian Hardung are bringing is opposition to Rupert Everett as well as the members of the abbey who are not welcoming to Bernardo Gui, as well as an populous who is caught in the middle of it all. To know more you will just have to watch yourself and it is well worth watching. It is perhaps more critical on the Roman church then any work I have ever seen before.

I can’t wait to get this first season on Blu-ray, to admire this on the big screen, absent of advertisement and something I can replay when I feel like it.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, movies

Been there, done that

We all have those moments, we have all seen events where we attend, take notice and basically after 5 seconds we are in the stage of ‘What else is new?‘, that was the stage when I got my fingers on ‘The Name of the Rose review’ by Lucy Mangan. I am not judging her review, the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/oct/11/the-name-of-the-rose-review-john-turturro-umberto-eco) seems decent enough, yet the very first part where we could relate to the movie (also based on the book), released in 1986, where Sean Connery is the monk, Christian Slater is his apprentice and the prosecutor is seen in the shape of F. Murray Abraham. It is a wonderful movie and we get the story in less than 2 hours. In addition we see the rise of Ron Perlman as ‘La Idiota di stupido‘ (aka Salvatore) is not to be missed; he really puts his print there. In the movie the entire stage makes sense, the people, the interactions and the squabble (Gui versus William), we see that pride lives on many planes.

So when I see the review missing out on that reflection I wonder how much Lucy knew (perhaps the omission was intentional), yet I believe that when we look at stars the size of Sean Connery and John Turturro, both with very distinguished careers that comparison makes sense. When I see ‘Monk Soup’ (according to the reviewer) it is important to see the cast as it is. In that same stage, the shaping of Adso under William first by Christian Slater and now by Damian Hardung is also important, the movie makes that clear, whether the series will is presently unknown to me. It gives us how knowledge is seen and how some is optionally is wisdom but a lot is not, the presentation of evidence that gives rise to Bernardo Gui as the evil tool, first by F. Murray Abraham and now by Rupert Everett is equally important. And it is interesting that both sides have actors and stars that would be on equal footing. So why is the BBC version seen as ‘Monk Soup’? If I were to judge going by: ‘Episode 1: The Name of the Rose Series 1‘ then it would be that the Name of the Rose would be a great movie, optionally a great mini-series, but a TV series with seasons? Let’s not forget that the entire story plays over the time of around a week, so how are you setting that in multiple seasons? As I did not watch it I would speculate that we would be watching paint dry, making Monk soup a nice change of pace for the viewers.

In the end, I am not reflecting on the BBC series (not until I have seen them and I am curious), especially with this cast. My issue will become, where was the wisdom to do this story in series? Why not a mini-series of 3-4 episodes of 1-2 hours per episode, perhaps even merely one season all 8 episodes, the fact that the entire matter played over a week makes that an option, yet to set the stage of 60-90 minutes to cover a day at an abbey might make it long, slow and optionally dry. Abbeys were famous for an absence of wine and hookers, so whilst pharmacies and scrolls will not get the same result, it might have an impact on the people in the now (opposing those who were around in 1327).

In the end, I did not dislike the view of Lucy Mangan, yet the absence of any mention of the movie, the radio play and so on gives an incomplete view, a view absent of comparison, it was her choice and as such automatically a valid one, I merely would have taken a different look, hoping to give an optional clear view for all those curious to see it.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media