Monday, May 21, 2012

Teresinha:O meu amor
Tem um jeito manso que é só seu
E que me deixa louca
Quando me beija a boca
A minha pele toda fica arrepiada
E me beija com calma e fundo
Até minh'alma se sentir beijada, ai
Lúcia:O meu amor
Tem um jeito manso que é só seu
Que rouba os meus sentidos
Viola os meus ouvidos
Com tantos segredos lindos e indecentes
Depois brinca comigo
Ri do meu umbigo
E me crava os dentes, ai
As duas:Eu sou sua menina, viu?
E ele é o meu rapaz
Meu corpo é testemunha
Do bem que ele me faz
Lúcia:O meu amor
Tem um jeito manso que é só seu
De me deixar maluca
Quando me roça a nuca
E quase me machuca com a barba malfeita
E de pousar as coxas entre as minhas coxas
Quando ele se deita, ai
Teresinha:O meu amor
Tem um jeito manso que é só seu
De me fazer rodeios
De me beijar os seios
Me beijar o ventre
E me deixar em brasa
Desfruta do meu corpo
Como se o meu corpo fosse a sua casa, ai
A duas:Eu sou sua menina, viu?
E ele é o meu rapaz
Meu corpo é testemunha
Do bem que ele me faz
My love
Has a tender way that is all his own
And that drives me crazy,
When he kisses me
My skin gets goose pimples
And he kisses me calmly and deeply
Until my very soul feels kissed

My love
Has a tender way that is all his own
That steals my senses
He rapes my ears
With so many obscene, beautiful words
Then he plays with me,
Laughs at my belly button,
And bites me.

I am his girl, see?
He is my boy.
My body is witness
To how good he is for me.

My love
Has a tender way that is all his own
Of driving me crazy
When he rubs against the nape of my neck
He almost hurts me
With his unshaven beard
And of placing his thighs in between mine.
When he comes to bed.

My love
Has a tender way that is all his own
Of circling around me
Of kissing my breasts,
Kissing my belly
Leaving me in flames
He uses my body as if it is his home

I am his girl, see?
He is my boy.
My body is witness
To how good he is for me.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Scientists in films - article

Scientists: Band of misfits?
Why have the makers of Wallace and Gromit decided to rebrand their latest film in the US so that it doesn’t include the word “scientist”?
"Whatever you call it, it’s feverishly imaginative and fantastically funny, with a monstrously high ratio of ho-hos to yo-ho-hos. But when The Pirates: Band of Misfits opens in US cinemas this month it will be missing something from its British release. Scientists.

There are no scenes deleted or characters excised, and each features a wonderfully off the wall portrayal of Charles Darwin as voiced by David Tennant (either the last but one Dr Who or perhaps the finest Hamlet of a generation depending on where you’re coming from). On both sides of the Atlantic it’s exactly the same Aardman hard act to follow, with dazzling animation, an ingeniously ludicrous plot and non-stop visual and verbal punning. It’s just that in the UK, where it was made, it’s called The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists.

Which is the same title as the book by Gideon Defoe it’s adapted from. And since he also co-wrote the screenplay, and since (without giving too much of the story away) it is an adventure predominantly involving pirates and scientists, you can see the reasoning for sticking with the original. So why in the USA has “Scientists” become “Misfits”?

A spokesperson for Aardman says that Defoe's book doesn’t have “the same following outside of the UK” so there was no need to stick with the original title, whilst Hugh Grant – another actor who lends his voice to the film – claims the studio “didn't think the Americans would like the longer title.” But is there more going on here? Is it simply that scientists have become misfits – or at least a misfit with the notions about fun and entertainment you want to project when trying to attract people to a new movie? Is it still unthinkable that scientists have adventures?

Eccentric theories

At one level it seems like nit-picking. I don’t remember philosophers objecting when they were transmuted into sorcerers for the American release of the first Harry Potter film. And of course individuals and organisations realise that people who do science are important. All the signs are they are more aware than ever of the impact they make on lives, businesses, economies and the planet, whether it is receiving life-saving surgery or driving a more fuel efficient car. Surveys, such as those carried out by the US National Science Foundation find that people value science and scientists almost above all other professions.

On top of that there’s probably never been a time where we’ve had so many captivating presenters of popular science shows on television or so many broadly positive depictions of scientists in films. OK, so not all the scientists on TV are good presenters and not all the good presenters are scientists. And Hollywood remains far fonder of scientists who are geeky, freaky or downright mad that it is of ones who are normal and likeable. Still, it’s a lot better than it used to be when almost every movie scientist was crazy – either in a look-how-goofy-they-are way or a take-over-the-world way. Now at least some of the time we have scientists on our screens who you can admire and root for. Even occasionally scientists who are the heroes.

This gradual acceptance and reversal of fortunes in science is, in part I suspect, down to projects like the Science and Entertainment Exchange. This US National Academy of Science project started in 2008 and aims to link scientists and engineers with movie and television-show makers. Its ambition is to “create a synergy between accurate science and engaging storylines in both film and TV programming.” It’s this kind of project you, and frustrated scientists, can thank for more accurate – or less misleading - portrayals of science in everything from the Green Lantern and Thor to Tron Legacy and the Big Bang Theory.
However, none of this explains Aardman’s decision. There are of course various theories doing the rounds. One suggests that the animator is a “national treasure” here in the UK, is known for its [very British] eccentricity and therefore w...e are more tolerant of its whims...and seemingly its film titles. Sounds reasonable. Another theory suggests that the film title was dropped in the US because the film makers did not want to risk offending – and, presumably not selling tickets to – the considerable proportion of the US population who do not accept the theory of evolution. After all, Charles Darwin is the grand daddy of evolution. Again, plausible if hardly enlightened.

However, I believe there is a more simple explanation: what is fixed, and problematic, is that word “scientist”. The word dates back only to the 1830s, coined to solve a problem of what to collectively call the various geologists, biologists, chemists and others attending the annual gatherings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Various other permutations like sciencer, scientiate and scientman were considered, but according to reports from the time “some ingenious gentleman proposed that, by analogy with artist, they might form scientist”, although strictly speaking you should go from science to “sciencist” - that T is effectively down to the original proposal from the “ingenious gentleman” and means scientists share more with artists than they might realise.

Right from the start many great men of science – and back then it was almost exclusively men – were uncomfortable with the term. Even Darwin, the real one as opposed to the comedy version in the Aardman film, avoided using it, preferring to call himself a “naturalist”.

But somehow it stuck, meaning scientists share more with artists than they might realise. But that is where the common ground ends. Nearly two centuries after its inception, it’s a word that Hollywood seems reluctant to use. Look at the number of movies on the film website IMDB with “scientist” in the title and its slim pickings. It’s a word that – in the words of Jennifer Ouellette, director of the Science and Entertainment exchange – conjures up images “of the mad scientist or the dweeby nerd” that “dress funny, have no social skills, play video games, long for unattainable women”. Now that may make perfect material for a clay animation, but it is hardly an easy sell in marketing terms.

The fact is that science and scientists, no matter how much they contribute to our lives, are still not seen as cool or worthy of a Hollywood poster. Which is sad. It seems the word needs to morph its meaning, so it’s associated with something mysterious, creative and hip; something that seemingly comes naturally to artists. Scientists – the word, not the people – need rebranding and marketing before they appear in the brands and the marketing. Which is why in 2012 it’s still struggling to creep into the tail end of a title while the year’s big winner at the Academy Awards and the box office was The Artist."

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Another translation experiment

What I made of myself, I didn't know
And what I could have made of myself, I didn't
The domino I put on was the wrong one
They knew me at once for who I wasn't, I didn't deny it, and so lost myself
When I wanted to take the mask  off
It was stuck to my face
And when I got it off and saw myself in the mirror, 
I had aged,
And was drunk, and didn't know how to wear the domino suit I hadn't taken off.
I threw away the mask and slept in the dressing-room,
Like a dog tolerated by the management
Because he is harmless.
And I will write this story to prove I am sublime.

Fernando Pessoa, excerpt from the poem "A Tabacaria" (The Tobacconist"

Fiz de mim o que não soube
E o que podia fazer de mim não o fiz.
O dominó que vesti era errado.
Conheceram-me logo por quem não era e não desmenti, e perdi-me.
Quando quis tirar a máscara,
Estava pegada à cara.
Quando a tirei e me vi ao espelho,
Já tinha envelhecido.
Estava bêbado, já não sabia vestir o dominó que não tinha tirado.
Deitei fora a máscara e dormi no vestiário
Como um cão tolerado pela gerência
Por ser inofensivo
E vou escrever esta história para provar que sou sublime.

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Chicago tips part III

- Clothes shopping - both in the main american stores in the centre, and the more alternative (but less strange than London) stores around Milwaukee/Division
- Generally observe the people, the architecture,
the advertising  

the food menus 

and the shops - all worth an attentive look!

- Money to spend - Chicago is after all a major city in an economic super-power. Food, because of tax and tipping, is same price as in London. Clothes and transport are cheaper because of the good exchange rate.
- Do Division, or another of the summer street festivals that start in the first weekend in June

And things I didn't get to do but by all accounts are worthwhile

- Going around by bicycle

- A proper brunch in a recommended place
- A dip in the lake
- Jazz and blues clubs
- Free open-air concerts
- Try the local beers - this is a quite "hoppy" one (I had a taste) that is usually served with a slice of orange that you squeeze into the beer before drinking. I tried it before the orange squirt.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Chicago tips part II

- Fruit and salads- Fresh fruit and veg are much better than in the UK. In summer I would say it is impossible to sample the traditional pancakes, french toast, waffles, etc - temperatures are around 30 degrees and you just don't feel like stodge
- Teas - again better than in the UK. Hard to hear I know.
- Mexican food
- Brush up on your Spanish, almost as much spoken as English.
- The architectural boat tour

- The Signature Lounge on the 96th floor of the Herbie Hancock building, fantastic view of Chicago for the price of a coffee. No dress codes or uncertain entry like in the UK.

- The Millennium park with the Anish Kapoor "bean" 
and the Art Institute of Chicago
My favourite pieces in the Art Institute of Chicago

- The Garden Cafe of the Art Institute of Chicago, possibly one of the best places to be in the world on a hot summer day.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Chicago trip part I

Things I recommend in Chicago:

- Try to visit in late spring/summer - the warm weather starts sometime during May. Lots of sudden downpours and light (by american standards) storms.
- Friends there who can show you the things locals enjoy are best of course!
- The "beach" - the part of the lake that is in Chicago
- Bars with open-air areas: I went to four in the Damen area, most of which were considered cycle bars, i.e. bars where cyclists go.

Some also had a place to park bicycles or decorations made from bicycle parts. One of the bars had ping-pong tables.

- Breakfast cafes, the ones I went to were Ballou, Atomix, Filter and Earwax.

Admire the efortlessly vintage decoration, and wonder if this in America is just considered some old bits of furniture.
You can while away the time on your laptop - all have free wireless.

- Nightclubs - worth it for the weirdness, went to two, the one on Saturday was called Musicbox. Very open lesbian scene. The ones I saw had photobooths for the drunk punters to spend money on.

Thursday, June 02, 2011

The weather in Chicago

DayWeatherMax. DayTemperature
Min. NightTemperature
Wind Direction and Speed
Thu Day weather
Light Rain
Light Rain
1812North Easterly876%1023mbVery goodMore info for Thursday's weather
Fri Day weather
Sunny Intervals
Sunny Intervals
3023Southerly1364%1017mbVery goodMore info for Friday's weather
Sat Day weather
3216West North Westerly657%1016mbVery goodMore info for Saturday's weather
Sun Day weather
Sunny Intervals
Sunny Intervals
1912North North Easterly782%1019mbVery goodMore info for Sunday's weather
Mon Day weather
3220South South Easterly1158%1013mbVery goodMore info for Monday's weather

It was 31 degrees when I arrived on Monday, since then it has gone down to under 20 today, then it will climb back up to 30 tomorrow. If you think planning what to wear in London is hard, you should see how it is here...