Month: March 2005


  • Michael Schumacher on the starting grid
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race



    Renault team members on the starting grid
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race



    Start: Fernando Alonso takes the lead
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race
    Image by xpb.cc


    Start: Fernando Alonso takes the lead
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race
    Image by xpb.cc


    Start action
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race



    Fernando Alonso leads Jarno Trulli
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race
    Image by xpb.cc



    Jenson Button
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race
    Image by xpb.cc


    Rubens Barrichello
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-19 (Sepang International Circuit): Sunday race
    Image by xpb.cc


    Image by xpb.cc

  • Alonso on provisional pole for Malaysian GP









    Racing series   F1
    Date 2005-03-19 (Sepang)

    By Nikki Reynolds – Motorsport.com


    Fernando Alonso led the way for Renault in Saturday’s first qualifying session for the Malaysian Grand Prix with a best time of 1:32.582, just nine hundredths of a second ahead of Toyota’s Jarno Trulli. Giancarlo Fisichella strengthened Renault’s challenge with third fastest in what was a closely contested fight for the front row.















    See large picture
    Fernando Alonso. Photo by LAT Photographic.


    The track temperature was around 50 degrees as BAR’s Anthony Davidson, standing in for the unwell Takuma Sato, came out for the first lap. The Englishman, who previously competed in two races for Minardi in 2002, is using the engine that Sato started the weekend with and clocked 1:34.866.


    Christijan Albers, who was the first of the retirees in Melbourne, followed on and the Minardi was over five seconds down. Williams’ Nick Heidfeld bettered Davidson by 1.4 seconds to post 1:33.464 and next up was Michael Schumacher. The Ferrari couldn’t outdo Heidfeld and was six tenths down.


    Minardi’s Patrick Friesacher, who was the last man to take the chequered flag in Melbourne, went one place better than Albers by over a second. Tiago Monterio was the first Jordan on track and went ahead of the Minardis, as did his teammate Narain Karthikeyan, who was slightly quicker.


    Sauber’s Jacques Villeneuve was on a par with Heidfeld in the first sector but lost out in the middle and finished fourth, fractionally behind Davidson. Toyota’s pace from the morning practices held up enough for Ralf Schumacher to take provisional pole with a 1:33.106, three tenths up on Heidfeld.


    It was thought that Jenson Button may have needed an engine change after missing the last practice but BAR said they had only worked on his engine to fix an oil leak. Button posted third, half a second off Ralf’s time but over a second up on Davidson.


    The second Sauber of Felipe Massa started well then lost ground in the middle sector, but it was enough for fifth behind Michael. Trulli, who was fastest this morning, put in a good lap to take the top slot from teammate Ralf with a 1:32.672. An impressive performance from Toyota.


    Kimi Raikkonen was the first McLaren out and split the Toyotas with second, a tenth and a half off Trulli. Red Bull’s Christian Klien had a fairly good lap to go ahead of Michael for sixth and Juan Pablo Montoya was next on track. The Colombian took fourth, two places behind teammate Raikkonen.


    Mark Webber’s Williams stole the fourth place from Montoya on his flyer and Red Bull’s David Coulthard slotted into ninth behind Klien. Alonso led out for Renault and had a storming lap to take provisional pole by just nine hundredths up on Trulli, 1:32.582.


    Ferrari’s Rubens Barrichello was the penultimate runner and had a rather lacklustre lap to post 13th behind Massa, and two places behind Michael. That left Melbourne winner Fisichella as the last man out and despite his best efforts he couldn’t match Alonso and clocked third.


    It was a satisfying result for Renault’s engineering director Pat Symonds. “Fernando’s lap for provisional pole seemed very clean, and he thinks he could have got more out of the car,” he said. “Giancarlo lost time this morning when he spun, but recovered well in qualifying. The cars are much better balanced than yesterday after hard work from the drivers and their engineers last night.”


    Renault, Toyota and McLaren all looked strong in this first qualifying session and with less than three tenths separating the top four it’s going to be very close tomorrow. The top ten were only just over a second apart so there’s a lot that could happen on Sunday morning.


    Trulli’s second place, unsurprisingly, was very pleasing for the Italian. “It almost goes without saying that I am very happy with this result,” he commented. “This morning, we worked very well on the set-up of the car and on the tyres. We are showing a strong performance this weekend.”


    Williams looked reasonably in touch with the front runners and Red Bull, although not a fortunate as in Melbourne, still showed good pace. Ferrari was a bit of mystery with both cars outside the top ten but it’s never wise to dismiss the Scuderia.


    Michael was naturally disappointed, but optimistic. “I still expect to be competitive in tomorrow’s race, while I don’t think things will change significantly in second qualifying,” he remarked. “It’s a very long and tough race and our aim is to finish in the points, if not on the podium.”


    Massa’s 13th for Sauber was at least ahead of Barrichello’s Ferrari, while Villeneuve ended up 16th. Davidson landed 15th on is first qualifying effort for BAR and Jordan led Minardi at the back, the last four all over five seconds off the pace.


    It was an interesting session and tomorrow’s final qualifying promises more of the same to see who ends up on pole for the race. Can Renault make it two in a row? Final top eight classification: Alonso, Trulli, Fisichella, Raikkonen, R. Schumacher, Webber, Montoya, Heidfeld.







    Photos for Malaysian GP



    Discuss this article in the Motorsport.com Forums channel: F1


  • Reporters surrounded Lil’ Kim on Thursday outside federal court in Manhattan after her conviction. The rap star was found guilty after two and a half days of deliberations by the jury in the case.


    Rapper Guilty of Telling Lies About Gunfight


    By JULIA PRESTON





    Lil’ Kim, the rap artist known for her daring dress and dirty talk, was convicted of perjury yesterday in federal court for lying to a grand jury about a 2001 shootout between rival rappers on the street outside a Manhattan radio station.


    After deliberating for two and a half days, the jurors found the diminutive diva, whose real name is Kimberly Jones, guilty of three counts of perjury and one count of conspiring with a co-defendant to lie before the grand jury. They acquitted Ms. Jones and her co-defendant, Monique Dopwell, of a more serious charge, obstruction of justice.


    Each count against Ms. Jones carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, but it is unlikely that as a first-time offender, she would receive the full sentence. As the jury forewoman read out the lengthy verdict, Ms. Jones remained composed, leaning only slightly on her lawyer, Mel A. Sachs. While relatives and friends wept in the courtroom after the trial ended, Ms. Jones embraced them but stayed calm.


    Ms. Dopwell, 32, a friend who accompanied Ms. Jones on rap tours, was convicted of conspiracy and two counts of perjury, each of which carries a maximum of five years. She cried openly when she heard the verdict and pressed her fists to her face.


    During the two-week trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Ms. Jones sought to sway the jurors by recounting her ascent out of a broken family in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, to become the diamond-decked Queen Bee, as she calls herself, of rap. She appeared in court neatly turned out in ruffled blouses and proper suits, and tried to show that in real life she was not like the trash-talking Lil’ Kim.


    “It’s all just entertainment,” she said of her rhymes evoking violence and raunchy sexuality.


    But the prosecutors presented evidence that Ms. Jones, 30, had been less than candid when she testified three times in the summer of 2003 before a grand jury investigating a wild gun duel on Feb. 25, 2001, outside the Hot 97 radio station on Hudson Street in SoHo. Ms. Jones said that her manager, Damion Butler, was not at the station at any time that day.


    But the government introduced a videotape of the shootout, made by a security camera posted on the Hot 97 building, which showed Mr. Butler and Ms. Jones standing next to each other, even as Mr. Butler pulled a pistol and fired at a rival rap crew. Another security video presented by prosecutors showed Mr. Butler holding the door for Ms. Jones as she stepped out of the elevator into the studios at Hot 97, WQHT-FM.


    Ms. Jones was also convicted of lying when she claimed she could not recognize a photograph of another member of her rap crew, Suif Jackson. The prosecutors, Cathy Seibel and Daniel N. Gitner, demonstrated that Ms. Jones had been a friend of Mr. Jackson for years.


    The prosecutors said that the spray of gunfire erupted when Lil’ Kim’s followers came face to face with the entourage of a rival rapper, called Capone, whose name is Kiam Holley. One man, Efrain Ocasio, who came to the station with Capone’s contingent, was shot in the back.


    Mr. Butler, 34, pleaded guilty on Jan. 28 to firing a pistol at the scene and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Mr. Jackson, 34, pleaded guilty last June to firing an automatic weapon in the shootout and is serving a 12-year prison term.


    In the late morning yesterday, the jurors – seven men and five women – sent a note to the judge saying they had reached a verdict on three of the nine charges but were deadlocked on the others. They announced their verdict just before 4 p.m., then left the courthouse hurriedly. One male juror, who asked that his name not be published, said simply, “It was obvious.”


    But another juror, Juana Espinal, 49, said she had “doubts” about the conspiracy charge against Ms. Jones. “The perjury part was easy,” she said, “but the conspiracy I wasn’t sure about, and I’m still not sure.”


    Ms. Jones and Ms. Dopwell remained free on bail and will be sentenced by Judge Gerard E. Lynch on June 24.


    The verdict brought the final unraveling of a rap family that came together in Bedford-Stuyvesant and became the Junior M.A.F.I.A., with Notorious B.I.G., Christopher Wallace, as its patriarch. Ms. Jones said that Mr. Wallace first heard her rap more than a decade ago on the street in Brooklyn. After he was killed in a 1997 drive-by shooting in Los Angeles, she gathered the clan around her and became a solo performer.


    Judge Lynch, who ran a brisk trial, added an unusual postscript in response to a recent column in The Daily News suggesting that Ms. Jones had been prosecuted merely because the shootout took place in what has become a well-to-do neighborhood. The judge said he had tried many gun cases, all involving “poor or working-class” neighborhoods in the Bronx. But he said the press had not shown up to cover those trials.



    Johanna Jainchill contributed reporting for this article.


    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top



  • WindTunnel

    A taste of things to come?

    2005-03-14 F1
    Nikki Reynolds

    The 2005 season is finally here and while the Australian Grand Prix was not exactly a thriller, the results were rather interesting. Australia has produced a fair number of soap operas over the years and the Ferrari/Minardi/FIA saga was just as much rubbish as the rest of them. I’m not even going to go there; it’s just too annoying to waste any more time on.















    See large picture
    Red Bull Racing team members watch qualifying. Photo by Red Bull Racing.


    The new qualifying format was pretty much brown, smelly and slightly steaming, or to quote David Coulthard, it was shit. It was pointless — the second session barely made any difference to the grid line-up, leaving it much as it had been after the first. It was the rain that caused the jumbled-up positions, not the way qualifying was run.


    So much for supposedly spicing up the show — it was about as spicy as wallpaper paste. Some drivers who got caught by the rain in the Saturday session didn’t even bother setting a time on Sunday, because on aggregate it wasn’t worth the effort. Why put more wear on tyres and engines if you’re going to be at the back anyway?


    The drivers who went out first on Saturday and missed the rain had the advantage on Sunday morning: the top four didn’t even change position. The grid was practically decided after the first session so the second was just a waste of time. Mark Webber was actually fastest on Sunday but hardly anybody noticed due to the aggregate times.


    Giancarlo Fisichella was the king of Albert Park over the weekend. He hit the sweet spot in Saturday qualifying to set a good lap just seconds before the downpour commenced. With a two-second advantage for Sunday morning, there was hardly any doubt that he would be on pole position. And he duly was.


    He led the race from pole to flag and managed to celebrate his second career victory on the podium. Fisi was very ‘appy and so was Renault. While Giancarlo’s win was well deserved, Fernando Alonso’s drive from 13th on the grid to third was pretty impressive. Renault has lived up to its promise in winter testing and looks bloody fast.


    Fernando had not expected to end up on the podium and his amazed “I’m on P3?!” over the radio in the closing stages was rather amusing. Ferrari and McLaren had both named Renault as a likely threat this season, and for Melbourne at least, the French squad was indeed in fine form.


    Rubens Barrichello held Ferrari’s hopes together while Michael Schumacher, after being caught out by the qualifying rain, faffed about in the midfield. Barrichello’s efforts were as commendable as Alonso’s with his 11th to second drive. The interim F2004M looked good in Ruby’s hands and rather like a combine harvester in Michael’s.















    See large picture
    End of the day for Michael Schumacher. Photo by xpb.cc.


    Michael thrashed about aimlessly, his expected charge through the pack from the back not really materialising. Eventually he clanked and wheezed his way into the top ten, only to bang heads with Nick Heidfeld and both of them went off. Michael flapped like an agitated chicken until the marshals pushed him back on track, but then had to retire anyway.


    Who was at fault, if either of them, seems to depend which faction you belong to in regard to incidents where Michael is involved. One side thinks that any accident involving the champ automatically means he’s to blame, and the other automatically thinks he isn’t. It was unnecessary for Michael to put Nick on the grass but shit happens — but let’s not start on qualifying again.


    Red Bull was impressive, very impressive indeed, compared to last year’s Jaguar. For a while Coulthard looked like he was heading for the podium but eventually finished fourth, which was nothing to complain about. Christian Klien put in a creditable performance for seventh but one has to wonder if the team can continue with that kind of competitiveness.


    Coulthard and Klien had top-six grid positions after being on track at the right time in Saturday qualifying. Had they been farther down the field I find it hard to imagine that both would have been in the points. But good stuff from Red Bull all the same, and Ron Dennis’ po-faced look when DC finished ahead of the McLarens showed he didn’t appreciate the irony.


    Williams and McLaren were rather disappointing overall. Webber equalled his previous best finish of fifth but it’s a bit strange to think that his last fifth, also in Melbourne, was in a Minardi. Williams needs to have a bit of a scratchy-beard meeting to figure that one out. Heidfeld was doing reasonably well until the incident with the combine harvester.


    Juan Pablo Montoya and Kimi Raikkonen were a bit lacklustre in sixth and eighth. Raikkonen didn’t do himself any favours by stalling on the grid and having to start from the pitlane, although working his way back to the points was not a bad effort. Montoya was rather quiet and kept out of trouble, which, considering how he seems to like trouble so much, must have been difficult for him.















    See large picture
    Juan Pablo Montoya. Photo by xpb.cc.


    Just to go off at a slight tangent for a moment, I don’t know what McLaren has been doing to Montoya but I hope it continues. Juan looked exceptionally hot in Melbourne — and I don’t mean overheated. There are very few drivers I find better looking than their cars but Montoya could have driven a tractor ’round Albert Park and I wouldn’t have noticed.


    Maybe it was the new orange team t-shirts but Juan certainly made my temperature rise, much to my husband’s amusement — he does like to get my goat. “What? Him? He’s a fat bastard! A troll with a squint!” This, or variations thereof, applies to any driver I cast an appreciative eye on, I should point out, not just Montoya.


    Anyway, back to racing. Jarno Trulli started on the front row and went backwards to finish outside the points. Ralf Schumacher started 15th and had a tremendous drive all the way to 12th. Trulli’s performance was as mystifying as Ralf’s was unnoticeable. Jarno really should have been in the points after starting second but the Toyota just couldn’t hack it.


    Jacques Villeneuve has apparently been reading Trulli’s handbook, as he started fourth and went backwards to 13th. He blamed the car. Sauber teammate Felipe Massa, a victim of the rain in qualifying, started from the back and finished three places ahead of Villeneuve. He said the car was good.


    They were on different strategies but it’s hardly a stretch of the imagination to think that Jacques should have been in front of Massa if he was fourth on the grid and Felipe was 18th. Perhaps if Villeneuve had concentrated on racing instead of getting in Fisichella’s way, he might have scored some points.


    Last year’s heroes, BAR, looked about as competitive as sludge. Jenson Button and Takuma Sato, outside the points at the end, retired to the pits on the last lap. This was so they could take advantage of the rule that says if a driver does not finish the race he can have a new engine for the next one.


    Gosh, I bet you never thought someone would do that, eh? It seems to me that the two-race engine rule is going to be as pointless as two-session qualifying unless it’s sorted out. Getting an engine change if you start from the back or ending a race in the pits to get a new engine for the next race is making it too easy to get around the rule.


    The Jordan rookies, Narain Karthikeyan and Tiago Monteiro, both reached the chequered flag, which was the team’s aim and probably the best they could hope for. Minardi’s Christijan Albers retired with a gearbox problem while teammate Patrick Friesacher came home 17th. Both teams performed pretty much as you would expect.















    See large picture
    Race winner Giancarlo Fisichella celebrates with Fernando Alonso, Flavio Briatore and Renault team members. Photo by xpb.cc.


    So, was Melbourne a taste of things to come? Well, for Renault I would think so. The Ferdy ‘n’ Fisi show is likely to be one of the most watched on the grid and the car certainly performed better than the rest in Melbourne. But — and there’s always a but — without the rain in qualifying I think it would have been a different picture.


    Renault would have been at the sharp end anyway, but if Ferrari and McLaren had been up there too it would probably have been a harder fight. Michael will presumably exchange the agricultural machinery for his race car come Malaysia, while McLaren, Williams and BAR will be out to make amends for the walk in the park last weekend.


    Melbourne was not very exciting. The new regulations don’t seem to have made any difference at all; it was the rain that shook things up. However, it was a relief for many fans — not to mention the other teams — that Ferrari has already been proved beatable. If that’s a taste of things to come, I’ll have a bigger spoonful, thanks.

    Send your comments and other letters to writeline@motorsport.com.

    Discuss this article in the Motorsport.com forums: F1
    0

  • Lautrec’s lithograph “The Englishman at the Moulin Rouge,” from 1892


    ART REVIEW | ‘TOULOUSE-LAUTREC AND MONTMARTRE’


    Lautrec’s Life, High and Low


    By KEN JOHNSON





    WASHINGTON – “Toulouse-Lautrec and Montmartre,” a flawed but enthralling exhibition that opens Sunday at the National Gallery of Art here, frames the famously diminutive painter in the context of fin de siècle Montmartre and the Parisian demimonde. It features more than 120 pieces by Lautrec – paintings, drawings, prints and posters – and more than 100 works by others, including striking minor pieces by Manet, van Gogh and Bonnard, and many paintings and posters by lesser-known artists.


    The show argues that understanding the sociology of the place where Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec (1864-1901) started out as a student in the early 1880′s and achieved resounding success as a poster artist in the 1890′s will add much that a personal biography or a traditional art-historical focus on the work cannot reveal. As T. J. Clark showed in his influential book “The Painting of Modern Life,” knowing about topics like urban planning and middle-class leisure in 19th-century Paris can greatly enrich our experience of Impressionist painting.


    But in this show, organized by Richard Thomson, an art history professor at the University of Edinburgh, Montmartre does not emerge as a very revelatory or even a very clear lens through which to view Lautrec. Nor does it emerge as a gripping subject in its own right. Along with its catalog, the show provides lots of historical and sociological information, as well as ticket stubs, photographs, sheet music and other sorts of memorabilia. But it leaves in place the cast of characters and settings that are at least vaguely familiar to most viewers as the background of Lautrec’s cheerfully dissolute life: the singers, dancers, prostitutes, men in top hats, dance halls, cafes and brothels. The show turns paintings and prints by Toulouse-Lautrec and others into illustrations for a baggy popular history lesson.


    Fortunately, Lautrec is a wonderful enough painter to survive this treatment, and the works by other artists are illuminating. Pictures by Manet, van Gogh and Bonnard show Lautrec’s affinities with others who were creating Modernist idioms. And it is interesting to see how much better he was than the many lesser artists with whom he shared conventions of style, theme and subject matter. He was a draftsman and caricaturist of genius, with a powerfully acute sense of pictorial design. And his ability to imbue representations of people – especially women – with individuality, vitality and emotional poignancy is on a par with any artist since Rembrandt.


    Studying this exhibition, you may well conclude that the key to Lautrec is not Montmartre but the women of Montmartre, by whom he appears endlessly fascinated and depicts with remarkable empathy. He does not turn women into stereotypical sex objects, as does, say, Renoir. But neither is he clinically detached like Degas, who was a hugely important influence on Lautrec. Nor does he exoticize women à la Gauguin, or worship them as preternaturally beautiful goddesses, as the academic Bouguereau does.


    If not uniquely, at least highly unusually, Lautrec seems in his art to be interested in women as independent people, free agents and creative artists. His most famous pictures are of female theatrical performers, women like Jane Avril and Yvette Guilbert who, on the stage anyway, are in charge of their own destinies. But he is good with ordinary women, too, and though they may be frumpy, gawky and otherwise less than beautiful, he always seems to like them.


    Women, for Lautrec, are somehow connected to the spirit of contemporary art itself. “At the Moulin Rouge,” one of his biggest and most important paintings, shows a group of men sitting around a table with two women, while a third woman looms forward at the far right side of the canvas, her face bathed in an eerie green light. The two women at the table are also mysteriously spotlighted; the one with her back to us has glowing red hair and the one across the table has a white, masklike face. The men are all dimly lighted, hirsute and wearing top hats (the bearded and top-hatted Lautrec himself is identifiable in the murky background). It seems barely a stretch to read the men as personifications of unenlightened conformity and the women as possibly dangerous promises of creative possibility. It is clear whose side Lautrec is on.


    The woman with her back turned to the viewer and her eyes hidden is a recurrent motif in Lautrec. In a painting from 1888, a red-haired woman sits alone at a cafe table, her back to the viewer and only the side of her face visible. The lone woman at the cafe table is a standard motif for many artists at this time, yet you can sense in Lautrec’s picture a particularly tender attraction and curiosity. A painting from 1889 called “Rousse” (“Redhead”) offers the naked back of a woman sitting on the floor. She may be a prostitute washing up, but she is viewed with an affectionate intimacy, as though by a friend or a longtime lover.


    With its light palette, relative flatness and visibly busy brushwork, “Rousse” obviously owes much to both Degas and Manet, and it is instructive to compare it with a beautiful picture by Manet in the show: a small painting of a tired-looking young woman in a pink dress seated at a cafe table with a drink. Manet views his subject almost straight-on and his painting is similarly direct in its address to the viewer.


    The shock in Manet, for his contemporaries, was the full-frontal nakedness of his painting as much as his sometimes scandalous images. Lautrec is an artist of indirection and inflection – of shadows and silhouettes, hints and suggestions, finely tuned shapes and gestures but few details. What made him a great graphic artist was his ability to convey so much so quickly, and so economically.


    Lautrec was an aristocrat, but a bohemian, countercultural spirit animates his art. (He drank himself to death by the age of 36.) As opposed to the competitive aggression and rationalistic regimentation of modern business and industry, he evoked a world of sensual pleasure, personal intimacy, expressive spontaneity and erotic play. A Marxist like T. J. Clark might reasonably argue that the circuses, dance halls, cafes and brothels and the cult of celebrity that so inspired him were already industrialized forms of entertainment.


    But Lautrec did not emphasize the dark side. In his paintings and prints, the circus is an arena of acrobatic joy and the brothel, perhaps paradoxically, a haven from the outer, male-dominated world. In the maisons closes, as the brothels were called, the pace is slow and lazy, familial; men are rarely in evidence and women find romance in each other’s arms. He was not the only artist to visit brothels, but he was one of the most empathetic. (Think, by contrast, of Picasso’s terrifying “Demoiselles d’Avignon.”)


    The women of Montmartre were for Lautrec doorways to the more freely expressive, sensuous and sympathetic part of himself – to his own inner femininity, you might say. (Excepting the great posters for the cabaret singer Aristide Bruant, none of his pictures of men are nearly as alive.) In his many pictures of women who turn away and hide their eyes, it is as though he is patiently waiting to be let into the feminine world.


    In his famous 1892 print “The Englishman at the Moulin Rouge,” the all-purple form of a top-hatted fellow leans toward a pair of women, crowding them into the left-side edge of the picture, as though he were trying to penetrate their secret society and not just proposition them.


    The exhibition includes a curious set of small lithographs by Lautrec all based on a flat, nearly abstract image, like a cloud or a ghost. Look closely and you see it has little stick legs and an elementary head. It depicts Loïe Fuller, a dancer famed for swirling around her body the billowing skirts of her gowns, using poles held in each hand. A brief film of Fuller is on view and her act looks so ridiculous it is hard to see what could have been so captivating about her. But in Lautrec’s prints she becomes the epitome of expressive immediacy – the fusion of the dancer and the dance, of form and content – that he sought and, at his best, found in his own art.


    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top



  • Bringing the Heat
    By David Wallace-Wells
    Posted Friday, March 18, 2005, at 2:07 PM PT


    Bloggers slam the performance of evasive Mark McGwire and his congressional interlocutors at Thursday’s steroid hearings. They also discuss the merits of retributive torture and furiously debate the fate of comatose Terri Schiavo.


    Bringing the heat: Ten current and former major league baseball players and executives testified yesterday before the House Committee on Government Reform. ESPN has a lengthy account of the testimony, evaluations of the players’ performances before congress, and reactions from players warming up in Spring Training. Read Slate‘s Josh Levin’s account here.


    Noting that “Congressmen Are Vermin,” libertarian Lew Rockwell writes that “a panel of sanctimonious parasites in DC, pausing in their usual business of murder (war), theft (taxation), terrorism (homeland security). and extortion (regulation), ritually humiliated a group of men who have actually contributed to society, baseball players.” At Vertical Smiles, Minnesotan Dumb Ol’ Nick calls the hearing a witch hunt: “Their apparent goal isn’t to improve the game, it’s to trap users into admitting [using].”


    Many bloggers intuit guilt behind Mark McGwire’s steely appeals to privacy. “McGwire looked awful, and pleading the fifth unfortunately is as incriminating as saying ‘I always used steroids, and I think they’re great!’” writes student Dave Haller, in a comprehensive round-up at Knuckleball Sandwich. “These hearings, if nothing else, are forcing the public arena to start discussing the impact of science on sports,” writes journalist Sam Jaffe. “I believe that there’s nothing that can be done in the long term. … But I think we are the last generation to be lucky enough to have sports. Let’s make them endure as long as they can and enjoy them while they last.”


    Read more about the steroid hearing.


    Torturous debate: The BBC reported Wednesday that an Iranian serial killer was tortured publicly by relatives of his victims before being brutally executed. Law professor Eugene Volokh ardently defends the concept of public torture. “I particularly like the involvement of the victims’ relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he’d killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him,” he writes. “I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness.”


    The anonymous lawyer and musician at Strange Doctrines writes, “There’s a part of me too that would desire to meet savagery with savagery,” but “there’s another part of me that knows my humanity would be substantially diminished.” Software engineer and author Clayton Cramer finds “especially disturbing … the notion … that this torturous revenge constitutes justice. Does it bring back the dead children? Does it go back in time and prevent their suffering?”


    “It was a lynching, and lynching is not the ‘rule of law’: lynching is what the rule of law is meant to sublimate and replace,” writes Maimon Schwarzschild at San Diego-area blog The Right Coast. Mark A.R. Kleiman, a professor of policy studies, asks Americans repulsed by the idea of institutionalized torture to note that “prisons, too, are places of organized cruelty – much of it, it might be added, irrelevant to the task of crime control. … It’s a deeply sick fact about American politics that opposing the cruelty of our prisons and favoring measures to identify the innocent imprisoned are regarded as fringe-liberal positions.”


    Read more of the debate here.


    Terri Schiavo: Early Friday, legislators in Washington, D.C., tried to stop the removal of a feeding tube from the comatose Terri Schiavo. The presiding Florida judge overruled the appeals from Washington. The Washington Monthly‘s Kevin Drum bridles at “an obvious abuse of congressional power.” But what is “really nauseating,” he continues, “is the almost slavering Republican eagerness to treat Schiavo as a common media spectacle.” Conservative pundit Michelle Malkin heartily applauds the National Review Online‘s Andrew McCarthy, who calls the removal of the tube “court-ordered torture.”


    Read Slate‘s Dahlia Lithwick on the Schiavo case here, Clive Thompson on brain damage here, and more blog posts about Terri Schiavo here.


    Have a question, comment, or suggestion for Today’s Blogs? E-mail todaysblogs@slate.com.

    David Wallace-Wells is a Slate intern.

    Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2115073/


  • March 20, 2005

    ‘Saturday’: One Day in the Life


    By ZOE HELLER




    SATURDAY
    By Ian McEwan.
    289 pp. Nan A. Talese/Doubleday. $26.


    When British journalists complain — as they often do — about the ”elitism” of contemporary British literature, the honorable exception they often cite is the fiction of Ian McEwan. The distinctive achievement of McEwan’s work has been to marry literary seriousness and ambition with a pace and momentum more commonly associated with genre fiction. He is the master clockmaker of novelists, piecing together the cogs and wheels of his plots with unerring meticulousness. Even as the menacing, predatory mood of his novels tends to engender anxiety, the reliability of their craftsmanship — the relentlessness of their forward motion — instills confidence. The result, for the reader, is a sort of serene tension. That ticktock resonating through the paragraphs is the countdown to some horrible disaster, certainly, but also the sound of a perfectly calibrated machine working just as it should.


    In ”Saturday,” McEwan’s new novel, these characteristic virtues of structural elegance and coherence are on prominent display — not least in the Aristotelian discipline with which he has confined the temporal span of his story to a single day. The day in question, bookended by two symmetrical episodes of lovemaking, belongs to a British neurosurgeon, Henry Perowne. Perowne is a fortunate man. In addition to his worthy, fulfilling job and the panoply of upper-middle-class privileges it pays for, he is blessed with a joyous domestic life. He has two successful, attractive children — 23-year-old Daisy, who is about to publish her first collection of poetry, and 18-year-old Theo, a prodigiously talented blues musician. He also has a lovely, capable wife, Rosalind, with whom, after nearly a quarter-century of marriage, he remains deeply in love.


    This multitude of blessings, coupled with his confidence in the certainty of scientific progress, gives rise to a contentment that verges perilously on complacency. In another time and place, Perowne would almost certainly be a smug man. But it is his fate to live in the early 21st century — in the ”baffled and fearful” days following 9/11 and leading up to the current war in Iraq — and neither his embarrassment of riches, nor his general inclination to optimism, can protect him from the darkness of his times.


    In the opening pages of ”Saturday,” we find Perowne awake before dawn, gazing out from his bedroom window. As he surveys the jumbled rooftops of nighttime London, he is filled with a gratifying sense of the order of things. ”Henry thinks the city is a success, a brilliant invention, a biological masterpiece — millions teeming around the accumulated and layered achievements of the centuries, as though around a coral reef, sleeping, working, entertaining themselves, harmonious for the most part, nearly everyone wanting it to work.” But then he sees something strange on the horizon — a meteor, perhaps, or a comet. As it comes nearer, he realizes it is an airliner on fire — hurtling through the night sky in the direction of Heathrow. Might it be another terrorist catastrophe? In an instant, his illusion of intellectual mastery over his surroundings is shattered and the euphoric visions of civic cooperation are replaced by dreadful imaginings of panic and death.


    Over the course of the ensuing day, Perowne’s intermittent glimpses of this airplane drama as it unfolds on soundless television screens around London will emerge as the novel’s leitmotif — a persistent reminder of the fragmented, irreducibly ambiguous form in which the world presents itself to modern urban citizenry. Now, as Perowne stares from his window, he wonders if he ought to do something, call the emergency services, perhaps. It is an idle thought — there is nothing useful to be done — but the passivity of his spectator’s role troubles him. ”His crime was to stand in the safety of his bedroom, wrapped in a woollen dressing gown, without moving or making a sound, half dreaming as he watched people die.”


    Perowne is not a religious man. For him, religious faith ”amounts to what his psychiatric colleagues call a problem, or an idea, of reference. An excess of the subjective, the ordering of the world in line with your needs, an inability to contemplate your own unimportance.” Yet his bewildered sense of culpability and helplessness as he watches the fiery plane go past suggests a not dissimilar confusion. Problems of reference — problems, that is, of how to negotiate the relationship between the private self and the outer world — may not, it seems, be the exclusive preserve of the religiously minded, but rather the inescapable burden of being a modern human.


    As Perowne proceeds through the pleasures and chores of his day off — sex with his wife, a squash game with a colleague, a visit to his mother in a rest home, preparations for a family dinner — this tension between the personal and the public realms persists. Like 13-year-old Briony in McEwan’s previous novel, ”Atonement” — suddenly aware that ”the world, the social world, was unbearably complicated, with two billion voices, and everyone’s thoughts striving in equal importance and everyone’s claim on life as intense” — Perowne is caught between the vividness of interiority (the clarity of his private, sensuous pleasures) and the confusing demands of what lies outside.


    As a wealthy professional, he is better equipped than most to fend off the threatening cacophony of the two billion voices. His day is spent shuttling from one privileged, embattled sanctuary to another: his handsome house, bristling with locks and panic buttons, his cream-upholstered silver Mercedes, his squash court, his surgery. But McEwan is not interested here in satirizing yuppie solipsism. The truest sanctuary we see Perowne find in the course of his 24 hours is not in the sumptuous refuges themselves, but in the human relationships that they house. His moments of intimate communion with other people — whether achieved in the transcendent harmonies of music or the ”biological hyperspace” of lovemaking or the balletic collaborations of a surgical operation — occasion some of the novel’s most elegant and acute prose. In lieu of any larger social cohesion, McEwan suggests, such private joys, carved out from the clamorous world, are what must sustain us. They are our fleeting glimpses of utopia; the ancient ideals of caritas and community lived in microcosm.


    The world is always at the door, however, hammering to be let in, and the ”right” that Perowne postulates, to be left in peace — ”to forget, to obliterate a whole universe of public phenomena” — is under constant attack. While driving to a squash game in the padded privacy of his Mercedes, Perowne is forced by an antiwar march to make a detour from his usual route and becomes involved in a minor car accident. The three young men in the other car demand immediate compensation. When Perowne refuses to pay up, violence seems inevitable. But he has been closely observing the leader of the trio, a thug named Baxter, and he is pretty sure he has spotted in him the early symptoms of a degenerative illness called Huntington’s disease. By confronting him with this diagnosis, he creates a distraction that allows him to escape without injury. As he drives away, his relief is undercut by misgivings. He doubts the morality of using his medical authority as a stun gun, even in an act of self-defense. And his uneasiness proves well founded, for this encounter has set in motion a train of events that will result, by the end of the novel, in a much more serious threat to him and his family.


    Even without such literal intrusions on his privacy, Perowne’s right to forget is constantly being assailed by the promptings of his own ethical imagination. His son, Theo, protected by the self-absorption of youth, manages to shut out the large, grim stuff of world affairs through his ability to ”think small” — concentrating on the short-range pleasures offered by an upcoming snowboarding trip or a new girlfriend. Perowne’s mother, too, is afforded a kind of serenity by old age and senility. But for an able, sentient adult like Perowne, empathetic engagement with the world — and all the moral confusion that such engagement entails — is not really a choice. He cannot help seeing things from the viewpoints of others: his children, his mother and his Iraqi patient, whose stories of torture in one of Saddam’s prisons have persuaded him that the invasion of Iraq is probably a good idea. Empathy, once granted admission, has a way of multiplying its demands. While buying the ingredients for a fish stew he plans to make for supper, Perowne ponders the latest scientific research indicating that fish have a higher degree of capacity for pain than has previously been assumed. ”This,” he thinks, ”is the growing complication of the modern condition, the expanding circle of moral sympathy. Not only distant peoples are our brothers and sisters, but foxes too, and laboratory mice, and now the fish.” If empathy is the antidote to cruelty, the essence of what it is to be human, how far to extend it? To fish? To foxes? To jihadists who wish you dead?


    Unlike Joyce’s Bloom, whose precedent his daylong interior odyssey is surely intended to invoke — or Bellow’s Herzog, whose thoughts on what it is ”to be a man. In a city. In a century. In transition. In a mass,” provide this book’s epigraph — Perowne is not a lyrical thinker. He is a pragmatist, a ”professional reductionist,” a man whose preference for verifiable fact leaves him immune not only to the consolations of religion but, more significantly for McEwan’s purpose, to the pleasures of fiction. Perowne is bothered — irritated — by stories. They are at once too artificially precise, he feels, and not precise enough. They are always proposing faked-up watershed moments, yet they are incapable of delivering answers. Magical realism, with its reckless, childish inventions, is particularly loathsome to him. His daughter, Daisy, keeps prescribing him reading lists in hope of curing his philistinism, but so far, not even Tolstoy and Flaubert have managed to seduce him:


    ”In fact, under Daisy’s direction, Henry has read the whole of ‘Anna Karenina’ and ‘Madame Bovary,’ two acknowledged masterpieces. At the cost of slowing his mental processes and many hours of his valuable time, he committed himself to the shifting intricacies of these sophisticated fairy stories. What did he grasp, after all? That adultery is understandable but wrong, that 19th-century women had a hard time of it, that Moscow and the Russian countryside and provincial France were once just so. If, as Daisy said, the genius was in the detail, then he was unmoved.”


    In giving us a protagonist so steadfastly hostile to the charms of his own art, McEwan signals a return to some of the questions about the purpose and value of literature that he posed in ”Atonement.” Here, though, the contemporary setting lends the questions a new moral urgency. ”The times are strange enough. Why make things up?” Perowne asks. Which is to say, in a world that can present us with the phantasmagorical spectacle of 9/11, what has fiction to offer? Like Adorno, famously announcing that ”after Auschwitz writing poetry is barbaric,” or the many writers who, in the wake of 9/11, expressed anxiety about the relevance of their work, Perowne suspects that making up stories — fretting about mots justes while buildings burn — is not just an unnecessary occupation but a frivolous one.


    The paradox, of course, is that even as Perowne denies the fundamental usefulness of fiction, his daylong preoccupations supply the matter for the novel we are reading. He is surely right: literature cannot give absolute answers, or furnish watertight explanations. What it can do, McEwan proposes, is capture the moral tangle of personal life and historical context that is our lived experience.


    In the novel’s climactic scene, McEwan arranges for his protagonist to be given an explicit example of literature’s power. As night falls, Perowne is back once again in his well-appointed home, presiding over a family reunion. His son has returned from band practice. His daughter is just back from Paris. His aged father-in-law is also in town. But when his wife, Rosalind, arrives to complete the party, it is with violent invaders at her rear. The ensuing action is vintage McEwan nightmare. Knives are brandished. Noses are punched. Terrifying violations are threatened. And then, at the very moment of crisis, the recitation of a poem effects a miraculous transformation. Disaster is averted by the unlikely deus ex machina of a Victorian poet.


    This, it is safe to say, is a faintly preposterous episode. Apart from the credibility-defying spectacle of the fiendish underclass tamed, even momentarily, by verse, there is the garish literalism with which the novel’s constituent ideas are made manifest. Here is civilized joy threatened by Caliban-like hordes. Here are the twin feelings of culpability and helplessness foreshadowed at the beginning of the book. Here is the conflict between hatred and sympathy for one’s enemy. Here, too, of course, is the transformative capacity of art.


    McEwan is quite conscious, I suspect, of the burdens he has placed on our belief. Indeed, he underlines the excessive symmetries of this denouement by having Perowne remark upon the tidy way in which the scene assembles ”all the elements” of his day. Later, Perowne goes on to point up the almost magical quality of what has taken place: ”Could it happen, is it within the bounds of the real,” he wonders. Exaggerated tidiness and supernatural fancy, are, we recall, the very vices that inspire Perowne’s hostility to fiction.


    In the final sequence of the novel, coherence and symmetry give way, once again, to moral ambiguity. Perowne commits an altruistic action that appears to be a perfect gesture of liberal forgiveness. But Perowne himself is not so sure. Perhaps, he muses, this is merely an attempt to reassert control over his enemy. Perhaps it is a means to assuage his middle-class guilt. It might even be interpreted as a kind of revenge. The novel ends on a complicated chord of restored tranquillity and persisting uncertainty.


    If the earlier invasion scene deliberately plays up the artifices of storytelling that Perowne has disparaged, the uncertain aftermath embodies the other part of his complaint against fiction: its brazen inexactitude, its failure to ever fully resolve the complexities that it adumbrates. McEwan’s apparent purpose here is not a meek admission of literature’s crimes so much as a ludic defense of its virtues. Yes, the novel suggests, fiction is both fuzzy and disciplined, humanly messy and artificially neat — but it is in this fruitful contradiction that its peculiar redemptive power lies.


    In ”Saturday,” as in all McEwan’s work, there is much to admire in the efficiency and clarity with which he marshals his themes. Here, though, his control over his material is too pronounced. The final chapters, with their literal enactment of the notion that the truest poetry is the most feigning, only reiterate what has already been amply, if implicitly, communicated in the course of the novel. And in doing so, they threaten to undermine the very literary immediacy that they champion. Overstatement is still overstatement, even when effected with a knowing wink to the reader.


    In a recent interview, Cynthia Ozick spoke of some of the ideas underpinning her latest novel, ”Heir to the Glimmering World.” ”I think that if any reader can utter this as a thesis as I have just done, then the book fails,” she said. ”If the concept is going to be visible, you have written an essay. You have written a tract of some kind.” This, it would seem, is the difficulty presented by ”Saturday”: finely wrought and shimmering with intelligence though it is, it never quite fully submerges its thesis. Its concept is so high and prominent as to disallow the reader the distinctive novelistic pleasure of feeling, rather than coolly registering, the author’s intention. In other novels, McEwan has proved more than able at capturing the breathing warmth of life in fiction’s cold frame. Here, though, his symmetries seem to have gotten the better of him and his art comes perilously close to stifling life altogether.




    Zoe Heller’s most recent novel is ”What Was She Thinking?”



    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top




  • Sauber steering wheel
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-17 (Sepang International Circuit): Thursday
    Image by xpb.cc


  • Toyota steering wheel
    F1 > Malaysian GP, 2005-03-17 (Sepang International Circuit): Thursday
    Image by xpb.cc