Omigod, omigod they're back!

From The New York Times, May 31, 2006



'The Hills,' a follow-up to 'Laguna Beach,' makes its premiere on MTV

By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN

"Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County," MTV's superfine docudrama, has created three trifling teen-beat stars. Stephen Colletti, still fighting to acquire some charm to animate his idol looks, is a guest V.J. on MTV. Kristin Cavallari, after the instantaneous vaporization of her lame UPN party show, is to appear in an actual movie, "Fingerprints." And Lauren Conrad has landed "The Hills," her very own follow-up series, which starts tonight on MTV.

If "Laguna Beach" looked perpetually like late afternoon — the mellow light of cocktail hour, the promise of a party — "The Hills" looks like a workday.

Blue and silver have replaced red-orange in the color mix, and though the virtuoso Hisham Abed is once again doing cinematography, "The Hills" also uses fancy color grading and online finishing; the result is a kind of visual flaw-intolerance and a sense not of romance (as in "Laguna Beach") but of tension (as in a Michael Mann movie). This works well for Lauren, who is actually not so trifling as the others; she was always much more wary and anxious than a pretty teenager should have any cause to be. Her heavily lined eyes appeared more watchful than bright or twinkly, even in the old golden light; now she has the thriller lighting to match her mood.

Lauren's workday, granted, is a charmed one: the series chronicles her experience as an intern at Teen Vogue (which receives heavy promotion here). But sand and surf have given way to steel and glass in her world, and she is earnestly trying to forge a Mary Tyler Moore existence in Los Angeles. (Who knows what Lauren Conrad actually wants? I watch this show as fiction.) She really does have to work, as we see her stamping envelopes and typing on a computer. And put it this way: now she wears a headset when she goes to parties.

As on "Laguna Beach," Lauren is unevenly yoked in her social life, this time to her roommate, a hammy deadbeat named Heidi, who seems to be trying her spin on the evilly entitled Nicole Richie shtick from "The Simple Life." Heidi has an interview at the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, which she brilliantly blows. After telling her interviewer that she spent high school shopping and cutting class, she lays her ambitions on the line: "I want to be the fun party P.R. girl in L.A."

The skeptical interviewer tells Heidi that party-promoting takes work and proposes that she work in retail sales first. Heidi takes the withering suggestion in the spirit in which it's offered, and responds flatly, "Yeah, I don't think I could do that."

It's hard to imagine a more contemptuous job interview, and it's a memorable women-in-the-workplace set piece.

Lauren, meanwhile, is repeatedly warned that she had better make good at Teen Vogue. Something about her seems to invite these stern talking-tos; maybe she gets them because she takes them so seriously. As usual, she looks fearful here, as if she somehow believes that she has to work 10 times harder than the next person; that's just her lot.

When, before the internship, she's told by phone that her Teen Vogue interview has to happen in 20 minutes and she's not dressed, she's in the bathroom redoing her makeup and using a hair-straightening iron on a skirt before she has even registered annoyance at the rapid change of plans.

Similarly, when Heidi and some friends crash a work event and endanger Lauren's job, she briskly accommodates them and then adroitly distracts and sweet-talks one of the Teen Vogue heavies. We leave the episode as she schemes about how to smooth things over with her boss on Monday. And she's not even mad at Heidi, who blithely walks all over her.

But having survived Stephen's moral indifference and Kristin's emotional checkmate in "Laguna Beach," Lauren is becoming a pro at the art of enduring. Whether she's gonna make it after all, Mary Richards-style, we can't know. But it's at least a fair bet.

---------------------

Kristin Cavallari's punk'd was like the best ever, I think, even better than Justin Timberlake, because she was like crying and screaming and stuff. I also think Kristin and LC should kiss and make up, you know, like old people used to say - when they were young, naked and had long hair - make love, not war.

Rise of the far right

I received an SMS from a friend in Berlin yesterday, informing that he was attacked by a bunch of Skinheads, just days after reading some news on racist attacks in Russia.

Excerpts from a news article in The New York Times:

"The authorities in St. Petersburg announced today that a loosely organized extremist group had committed a string of racially motivated killings that have shocked Russia, including the murder of an African student in April and that of a prominent expert on hate crimes nearly two years ago."

"Even as officials made the announcement, however, they played down the scope of racially motivated crimes in Russia and specifically in St. Petersburg, which has been the scene of some of the most grisly killings, including that of a 9-year-old Tajik girl in 2004. It is also President Vladimir V. Putin's hometown and the site of this year's meeting of the leaders of the Group of Eight."

"The public attention on extremism has clearly irritated officials. St. Petersburg's chief of police, Mikhail G. Vanichkin, underscored that when he appeared at a government conference on racism and suggested that too much attention was being paid to attacks on foreigners.

"'It is insulting that all these efforts are being directed at solving crimes involving foreigners,' he said in remarks widely quoted in the Russian media, 'while attacks on our guys are not being investigated fully.'"

Coincidentally, there's an article in Der Spiegel about the far right in Germany, written in Berlin.

Here's a link to the article: My Train Ride with the Nazis

"Sadly, I now add to the pile of reports about racially motivated attacks, right-wing extremists and bigots on the march with my own short account of my train ride with the Nazis. Perhaps it will offer some insights into the challenge Germany is facing at the moment."

But some newspapers in Malaysia have also displayed some kind of xenophobia, although it may be more due to insensitivity and ignorance than far right inclination.

Terms like Indon and Bangla have been used too often. You can read almost everyday headlines like "Bohsia Indon" and the like.

And today, there is a story on a bus hijack by a Myanmar national. There was a bus hijack, but the most important thing was the "lelaki Maynmar," who is also a junkie, according to the paper.

And a couple of days ago, I saw on TV - I'm not sure which channel - the word Japs - "The Japs are back," or something like that. Maybe someone thought it was what cool people call the Japanese. And maybe it's cool because we're not Americans.

Politik sains dan sains politik

1. Top scientist gives up on creationists
2. Controversy over claims in favour of GM corn
3. The new geopolitics
4. Global warming politics
5. McDonald's takes on critics
6. Climate change politics

Weekend edition: Mau cakap ka tak mau cakap?

1. From The New York Times, May 27, 2006

U.S. Is Debating Talks With Iran on Nuclear Issue
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

The Bush administration is beginning to debate whether to set aside a longstanding policy taboo and open direct talks with Iran, to help avert a crisis over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program, European officials and Americans close to the administration said Friday.

European officials who have been in contact with the administration in recent weeks said the discussion was heating up, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice worked with European foreign ministers to persuade Iran to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium.

European leaders make no secret of their desire for the United States to join in the talks with Iran, if only to show that the Americans have gone the extra mile to avoid a confrontation that could spiral into a fight over sanctions or even military action.

But since the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the crisis over the seizure of American hostages in November that year, the United States has avoided direct talks with Iran. There were sporadic contacts during the war in Afghanistan, in the early stages of the Iraq war and in the days after the earthquake in Bam, Iran, at the end of 2003.

European officials say Ms. Rice has begun discussing the issue with top aides at the State Department. Her belief, they say, is that ultimately the matter will have to be addressed by the administration's national security officials, whether talks with Iran remain at an impasse or even if there is some progress.

But others who know her well say she is resisting on the ground that signaling a willingness to talk would show weakness and disrupt the delicate negotiations with Europe. Ms. Rice is also said to fear that the administration might end up making too many concessions to Iran.

Administration officials said President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have opposed direct talks, even through informal back channels. As a result, many European officials say they doubt that a decision to talk is likely soon.

The prospect of direct talks between the United States and Iran is so politically delicate within the Bush administration that the officials who described the emerging debate would discuss it only after being granted anonymity.

Those officials included representatives of several European countries, as well as Americans who said they had discussed the issue recently with people inside the Bush administration. Some of the officials made clear that they favored direct talks between the United States and Iran.

State Department officials refused to talk about the issue, even anonymously. But over the last week, administration spokesmen have been careful not to rule out talks.

Discussion about possible American contacts with Iran has been fueled not simply by the Europeans, but by a growing chorus of outsiders with ties to the administration who have spoken out in favor of talks.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in a recent column in The Washington Post, raised the possibility that the recent rambling letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to President Bush — dismissed by Ms. Rice as an offensive tirade— could be seen as an opportunity to open contacts.

Both Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former top aide to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Powell, have also advocated talks with Iran.

"Diplomacy is much more than just talking to your friends," Mr. Armitage said in a telephone interview. "You've got to talk to people who aren't our friends, and even people you dislike. Some people in the administration think that diplomacy is a sign of weakness. In fact, it can show that you're strong."

Mr. Armitage held the last high-level discussions with Iran, after the Bam earthquake. In November 2004, Mr. Powell sat next to the Iranian foreign minister at a dinner during a conference in Egypt on Iraq, but he said they engaged only in small talk.

The United States has stayed out of the talks with Iran, which began in late 2004 and got new life last summer when, with American endorsement, the Europeans offered to help Iran integrate politically and economically with the West if it ended its nuclear ambitions.

Also on the table were unspecified security guarantees suggesting that Iran would not have to worry about outside efforts to topple the government.

The Europeans are now working with the United States, Russia and China on a revised package of economic, political and nuclear energy incentives if Iran ended its nuclear enrichment activities. Also being sought, at least by the Europeans and the United States, is an agreement to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council if it continues to defy the demands for compliance on nuclear issues.

European officials say the discussions about possible American-Iranian contacts are not part of these talks, but would be a way to improve the atmosphere with Iran.

Among the European diplomats who have urged Ms. Rice to consider direct contacts with Iran are Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, and the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, raised the issue with President Bush when she visited Washington earlier this year.

"What's interesting about Rice is that she listens when you make your case," a European official said.

Another European diplomat said, "It's a European aspiration for talks to happen," but added, "Nothing is likely at the moment." Still another European diplomat said of the Americans that "everyone and their brother has been telling them to do it."

One reason senior administration officials do not like the idea of talking with Iran, many of them say, is that they are not certain Iranian leaders would respond positively. A rebuff from Iran, even to a back-channel query, is to be avoided at all costs, various officials agree.

The administration, for example, has been embarrassed by the on-again, off-again possibility of talks with Iran on Iraq, which were authorized by Ms. Rice late last year.

The concern, some say, is that talking to Iran only about Iraq will anger Sunni dissidents in Iraq, reinforcing the Sunni-led insurgency while enhancing the status of Iraqi Shiites, whose strong ties to Iran make Washington uneasy.

On the other hand, the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, was said to be eager to enlist Iran in helping to deal with Iranian-backed Shiite militias, which are accused of carrying out killings and kidnappings of Sunnis in Iraq.

Some Europeans favor American participation in the European-Iranian talks, at least down the road. Others raise the possibility of informal contacts through nongovernmental organizations or policy institutes.

Incentives and possible sanctions against Iran are to be the focus of negotiations between the United States and the European nations in coming days and weeks.

The United States is resisting the Europeans' desire to increase economic incentives for Iran, because that would involve a lifting of American sanctions on European businesses that helped Iran. At the same time, Russia and China are resisting the idea of seeking a new resolution at the United Nations Security Council that could be seen as clearing the way for sanctions or possible military action against Iran.

David E. Sanger contributed reporting for this article.


2. A review of The Da Vinci Code.

3. A feature on V for Vendetta.

Avril Lavigne dan cerita-cerita lain

Avril Lavigne


"It seems that everything's gone wrong since Canada came along!"

- Blame Canada


Bagi ramai rakyat Kanada, kejayaan Avril Lavigne mungkin sesuatu yang boleh dibanggakan. Setelah semakin ramai konsumer budaya popular (yang bersumberkan Amerika) mula "muak" dengan Britney Spears, kemunculan Avril Lavigne (artis yang boleh disifatkan sebagai anti-Britney) dengan album Let Go mengubat kerinduan pendengar untuk sesuatu yang berbeza. Bagi sejumlah rakyat Kanada yang memiliki fanatisme tersendiri dalam hal budaya, kejayaan Avril boleh dilihat sebagai kejayaan Kanada menewaskan pengaruh meluas Britney, seorang rakyat Amerika.

Cerita di media mengenai Avril, yang setakat ini hampir semuanya positif, juga seringkali membandingkannya dengan beberapa artis wanita dari Amerika, termasuk Mandy Moore dan Christina Aguilera, seperti di majalah Rolling Stone tidak lama dulu yang melaporkan: "An icon … who wears baggy pants, plastic bracelets and a scowl -- not the skimpy threads and Ultra brite smiles of Britney and Mandy and Beyonce and pre-‘Dirrty’ Christina."

Tetapi, hubungan budaya Amerika-Kanada sentiasa, seperti dinyanyikan Avril, agak "complicated." Avril, artis berketurunan Perancis-Kanada (dua negara musuh ketat budaya Amerika) dari sebuah keluarga Kristian yang patuh ini, lebih mudah untuk dilihat sebagai ikon budaya popular global, dan menjadi bukti bahawa budaya popular Amerika bukan milik Amerika tetapi milik dunia.

Kanada, walau kelihatan tidak ada beza dengan jirannya di selatan itu, adalah antara negara yang paling kuat mewujudkan pelbagai bentuk peraturan yang dikatakan bertujuan melindungi budaya Kanada yang semakin terpinggir. Beliau juga membawa bersama nama keluarga Perancis (negara yang paling kuat berperang budaya dengan Amerika) yang seringkali disalah sebut. "People mispronounce my name all the time," katanya.

"Cheese-eating surrender monkey"


"You know what they call a Quarter-Pounder with Cheese in Paris?"
"They don't call it a Quarter-Pounder with Cheese?"
"They got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter-Pounder is."
"What do they call it?"
"A Royale with Cheese."

- Pulp Fiction


Sejak dulu lagi, Perancis, yang kaya budayanya, menganggap budaya dan citarasa Perancis sebagai yang terbaik, sebagai kayu pengukur bagi budaya lain. Hari ini, Perancis melaksanakan pelbagai peraturan untuk cuba menyekat dan menghadkan kemasukan produk-produk budaya popular Amerika.

Negara ini, yang melahirkan aktivis antikorporat José Bové (dikenali melalui tindakannya melaku musnah sebuah restoran McDonald's di Perancis), juga cuba mengheret Kesatuan Eropah (EU) dalam perang budayanya. Ia pernah menggesa EU agar mengeluarkan dikri untuk menghadkan kemunculan produk budaya "bukan Eropah" (sebenarnya bukan-Perancis) di media negara anggota EU. "Europeans must love Europe," kata François Mitterand, bekas Presiden Perancis di parlimen Eropah.

Di Perancis sendiri, kuota diwujudkan oleh pihak berkuasa untuk menyekat penggunaan produk budaya Amerika, terutama di kalangan anak muda yang semakin biasa dengan MTV, McDonald's, Coca-Cola dan lebih mengenali William Shakespeare dan Avril dari Molière serta semakin mudah menuturkan "fuck" dan "cool." Cukai dari jualan tiket filem asing disalurkan kepada industri filem Perancis, yang semakin tidak mendapat tempat di kalangan generasi baru negara itu.

Bagaimanapun, di Amerika, Perancis menerima layanan yang tidak lebih baik. Akibat percaturan dasar luar Amerika hari ini dan keengganan Perancis menyertai dan menyokong kempen ketenteraan kuasa besar dunia itu di Teluk Parsi, prejudis dan stereotaip rakyat Amerika terzahir dengan berleluasa. Ungkapan "cheese-eating surrender-monkey" disebut dengan meluas akibat kemarahan Amerika terhadap Perancis yang menolak untuk menyokong perang.

Ungkapan stereotaip ini pula asalnya dari komedi The Simpsons, hasil karya Matt Groening yang dikatakan sarat dengan stereotaip perkauman. Watak yang pertama kali mengucapkannya ialah Groundskeeper Willie, pekerja sekolah berketurunan Scotland. Walaupun beberapa watak dalam The Simpsons boleh dilihat sebagai mempamekan stereotaip perkauman terhadap bangsa bukan kulit putih seperti pengusaha kedai runcit Kwik-E-Mart, Apu Nhasapeemapetilon, bangsa kulit putih juga dipersembahkan dengan stereotaip tersendiri seperti Homer yang malas dan kurang bijak dan jirannya Ned Flanders, seorang nerd dan Kristian yang taat.

"Blame America"


"For Canada and other countries, globalization has been a phenomenon within which their distinct, non-American cultures must struggle to survive."

- Bekas Perdana Menteri Kanada, Kim Campbell


Suatu ketika dulu, lagu nyanyian Lenny Kravitz, American Woman berjaya memperoleh kedudukan sebagai satu karya Kanada dan boleh dimainkan untuk mengisi kuota karya tempatan yang diperintahkan oleh kerajaan. Perkara ini mungkin mengelirukan, memandangkan penyanyinya ialah seorang rakyat Amerika. Tetapi, menurut peraturan budaya Kanada, lagu itu memenuhi syarat yang ditetapkan, kerana ia dihasilkan oleh artis 1970'an yang berasal dari negara itu, The Guess Who.

Peraturan ini meletakkan empat perkara yang perlu dipenuhi oleh sesebuah karya, iaitu muzik, artis, produksi dan lirik (MAPL). Sekurang-kurangnya dua kategori perlu dipenuhi (dengan penglibatan utama rakyat Kanada) untuk dianggap sebagai karya Kanada, dan American Woman bukan sahaja berjaya memenuhi dua syarat itu, tetapi juga menggambarkan sikap sejumlah warga Kanada yang kurang senang dengan Amerika.

Peraturan ini sememangnya mengelirukan, dan boleh juga merugikan. Lagu artis popular dari Kanada, Celine Dion yang menjadi lagu tema filem Titanic (1997), My Heart Will Go On hanya berjaya memenuhi satu syarat; artis Kanada, dan diketepikan dari kuota karya Kanada. Sikap Kanada ini menerima sindiran tajam dalam filem antisensor South Park (1999).

Filem ini mengisahkan sikap gopoh sekumpulan ibu di sebuah bandar kecil di Amerika yang berjuang mengharamkan apa-apa yang berasal dari Kanada, sehingga membawa kepada peperangan antara dua negara jiran itu, ekoran pengaruh filem dari negara itu, Asses of Fire karya Terrance dan Phillip yang menyebabkan anak-anak kecil mereka mengucapkan kata-kata seperti "fuck," "ass," "donkey-raping shit-eater" dan menyanyikan lagu "Shut Your Fucking Face Uncle Fucker."

Karya Matt Stone dan Trey Parker ini merupakan kritikan terhadap penapisan (satu watak dalam filem ini berkata: "Men, when you're out there in the battlefield … and people are dying all around you, just remember what the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) says, 'Horrific, deplorable violence is okay as long as people don't say any naughty words.'") dan sikap simplistik penentang budaya popular Amerika, terutamanya Kanada. Lagu Blame Canada menggambarkan pandangan simplistik pemelihara budaya Kanada yang menyalahkan Amerika sepenuhnya.

"Don't play-play"


"Traditional Asian ideas of morality, duty and society which have sustained us in the past are giving way to a more Westernized, individualistic, and self-centered outlook on life."

- Bekas Presiden Singapure, Wee Kim Wee


Pensejagatan budaya yang rancak berlangsung hari ini seolah-olah menyatukan seluruh dunia dengan satu budaya. Di Singapura, negara tuan rumah anugerah MTV Asia -- yang menyaksikan kemenangan besar dan sambutan luar biasa terhadap Avril baru-baru ini -- satu contoh yang unik dapat dilihat.

Di negara yang diiktiraf sebagai salah sebuah negara yang paling banyak menerima pensejagatan ini, wujud produk budaya popular yang diterima baik dan menggambarkan rakyat biasa kota kosmopolitan itu. Di tengah-tengah kegilaan terhadap American Idol -- yang hampir menyamai fenomena rancangan ini di Amerika sendiri -- dan cara hidup ala-Amerika pelajar-pelajar sekolah Moulmein High, sit-com Phua Chu Kang (PCK) kekal sebagai rancangan tempatan paling digemari.

Rancangan ini, dan juga Under One Roof, kelihatan lebih realistik dan menggambarkan kehidupan sejumlah besar rakyat Singapura, terutama dengan nilai-nilai tempatan dan penggunaan Singlishnya. Dan tidak kurang yang berpendapat rancangan berkenaan lebih menarik sebelum kempen bertutur dengan Bahasa Inggeris dengan betul oleh kerajaan.

Phua Chu Kang, watak lakonan Gurmit Singh ini diperlihatkan sebagai seorang yang "biasa," seorang kontraktor yang tidak berpendidikan tinggi. Watak beliau dipersembahkan sebagai seorang yang menyangka Arsenal (Arsenal FC) ialah sebuah bandar di Britain, seperti juga Manchester dan Liverpool, dan menganggap pemindahan hati artis Pierre Png (melakonkan Phua Chu Beng dalam PCK) kepada kekasihnya Andrea De Cruz sebagai satu "compiracy" (conspiracy). Mungkin watak beliau yang mudah itu menyebabkan komedi itu terus diminati, setanding dengan produk Amerika yang membanjiri televisyen Singapura.

Perang budaya, seiring dengan integrasi budaya, akan terus menjadi satu ciri penting pensejagatan hari ini, kerana mereka yang mempertahankan budaya masing-masing mempunyai sebab tersendiri. Menurut pakar sosiologi dan sains politik Universiti Harvard, Theda Skocpol, "In an era of global capitalism, cultural distinctiveness can become more important, not less important. Because it's sort of what people have left." Tidak mustahil satu hari nanti Avril Lavigne juga akan menjadi mangsa sikap dan peraturan budaya negaranya sendiri, memandangkan beliau kini merupakan ikon budaya popular, yang boleh dilihat sebagai sebahagian imperialisme budaya Amerika oleh sebahagian masyarakat dan kerajaan Kanada. - April 2003

Tuhan, tolong

More Da Vinci stuff coming our way:

1. Da Vinci prequel.
2. Da vinci prequel 2.
3. Da Vinci spinoff.

On cool scientists

From The New York Times, May 23, 2006

In the Quest for Coolness, Science Could Really Use a Vito Corleone
By DENNIS OVERBYE

Somewhere out there, more elusive than a snow leopard, more vaunted in its imagined cultural oomph than an Oprah book blurb, is the Science Movie.

You know, the film that finally does for science and scientists what "The Godfather" did for crime and what "The West Wing" did for politics, accurately reproducing the grandeur and grit of science while ushering its practitioners into the ranks of coolness.

I went to the Tribeca Film Festival recently in search of that movie. I didn't find it, but I didn't expect to. Like some foggy quantum possibility still lurking beyond the limits of measurement, that movie doesn't exist — yet. The best you can hope for is a glimpse, like fragments of a not-yet-dreamed dream, of a genre slouching toward birth.

Scientists often say nice things about science-oriented plays, like "Copenhagen," "Arcadia," "QED" and "Proof" — to name a few that have been on Broadway in the last few years. But you get mostly silence when you ask about movies, except for imprecations about directors who get the curtains right while the science and the characters are loony. For my money, "Apollo 13" did a great job of showing the heroics of the everyday smartness of rocket scientists, but then again, that was a true story.

I was going to ignore Tribeca this year. But my wife, Nancy, noticed in an article in this newspaper that a Spanish movie at the festival, "The Mist in the Palm Trees," was being heralded by its makers as "the first quantum movie." How could I resist a movie whose sections are named for quarks?

Directed by Lola Salvador and Carlos Molinero, "Mist" is a presented as fictional documentary about a Spanish photographer and physicist, one Santiago Bergson. In it, the dead Bergson muses on his atomized life and lack of memory as old photographs and grainy home film clips shuffle past, over and over again, arcing from his childhood in Asturia, in northern Spain, to the cataclysmic climax of the Manhattan Project. In one much-repeated grainy clip, a man in a suit leaps headfirst over a row of chairs on the lawn and lands in a somersault.

Bergson, whose voice is done by a woman, complains at one point that he has no memories; they have been replaced by images, "dead photons."

Instead of becoming familiar the way they would in a conventional narrative, however, the people in these images become more mysterious, and their relationships become more confusing as the movie goes on.

When I asked Ms. Salvador and her colleagues what made this a "quantum film," I was braced to hear some new-age mumbo jumbo about art, consciousness and randomness, perhaps the destructive impact of modernism.

Instead, they began to lecture me about the famous and deeply subversive quantum physics exercise known as the double slit experiment, a staple of college labs and pop-sci books. In it, an electron or some other elementary particle is shot at a screen that has a pair of slits. In seeming contravention of common sense, the particle appears to pass through both slits at once and then interferes with itself, splatting into a pattern that looks like overlapping waves on the far wall.

It turned out that one of the screenwriters, Ricardo Enriquez, is a former particle physicist. Over coffee, he and his colleagues explained how he had prevailed on Ms. Salvador to forgo a classical narrative for one that enfolds quantum principles.

Films usually follow a narrative that unfolds in a straight line in accordance with cause and effect, he said, adding, "That's not true in quantum mechanics, and that's not true either in 'The Mist in the Palm Trees.' "

And so in the movie's conceit, Bergson, like the electron traversing two slits at once, does not have one life, he has many lives, which interfere with one another, like the conflicting versions of a fight on a childhood Thanksgiving told by quarreling cousins.

The result is confusion, a braided arc of love, memory and loss, whose details keep slipping through your fingers. That is to say, it really is a quantum film. But it's not about quantum mechanics, and there is no exam.

"It's not a scientific commentary," Mr. Molinero said. "It's just art."

Since being mystified is my normal state, I enjoyed "Mist." But it may not be for everyone.

At the other end of the scale at Tribeca was "Kettle of Fish," a screwball romantic comedy involving a frog biologist and a jazz saxophonist. That movie, directed and written by Claudia Myers and filmed in my very own Upper West Side neighborhood, was replete with polysyllabic jokes about pair bonding and the courting habits of frogs.

You could argue that every romantic comedy is about biology. Despite a sneaky plot that, among other things, has the biologist making the first pass, however, "Kettle" hews a little too closely to the stereotype of the scientist as socially inexperienced, if not inept. The most fetching relationship is between the saxophonist's fish, Daphne, and a frog named Casanova.

"Kettle" was one of several films and screenplays making its debut under the imprimatur of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, as part of its program for the public understanding of science.

Every spring some of the foundation's flowers bloom at Tribeca in the form of staged readings of screenplays under development, and it is in these readings and the discussions that follow that one can perhaps most clearly discern the shape of the cultural beast still fighting to be born.

Two of these screenplays have now been signed to production deals. Just before Tribeca opened, the foundation announced that Peter Bogdanovich, best known for "The Last Picture Show," would direct "The Broken Code." Written by David Baxter, "Code" is based on the book by Ann Sayre about the genetics pioneer Rosalind Franklin, whose work led to the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA.

Last week at Cannes it was announced that David Strathairn, of "Good Night, and Good Luck," would star in a production of "Challenger," about the physicist Richard Feynman and his adventures investigating the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger in 1986.

Doron Weber, who heads the Sloan program, noted that Nicole Perlman, the author of "Challenger," first received a Sloan grant years ago as a film major at New York University, adding, "I believe we're spotting talent (and exposing it to science) at a very early stage, and that this group of Sloan winners will be running Hollywood and indie films in the coming decades."

"Challenger" and "Project Mustard," a comedy about a British entry into the 1960's race to land men on the moon, were the subjects of a staged reading one morning by professional actors, including Judd Hirsch in the role of Feynman, during the festival.

A brunch and a panel discussion afterward devolved into a referendum on the direction of the nation's space program over the last 20 years and reminded me that the romance of space was an enduring and perhaps easier hook for people who might not be ready to embrace quantum mysteries.

That longing is at heart of "The Starry Messenger," a portrait of an astronomy teacher at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, by the writer Kenneth Lonergan.

Excerpts from the play, which has a date with Broadway next year and then Hollywood, were read by a group including Matthew Broderick at an invitation-only event one night during the festival. The title comes from Galileo's 1610 book "Sidereus Nuncius," in which he first reported his telescopic observations.

Mr. Lonergan, who was born in New York City, grew up going to the old Hayden Planetarium, which was closed in 1997 to make way for the new Rose Center. The play is set in the period leading up to its demolition.In a panel discussion after the reading, Mr. Lonergan made no bones about his dismay over the loss of the old planetarium building and his distaste for its successor.

He joked that the movie version of his play would have to be shot at the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles.

This clearly irked Neil deGrasse Tyson, the planetarium's director, who was on hand and said that he too had grown up with the old planetarium. Its night sky was his first night sky, he said, but by the time it was torn down, Dr. Tyson argued, the old planetarium wasn't appealing to young kids anymore.

He and Mr. Lonergan were able to agree, however, on the glories of the old Zeiss 6 projector they had both grown up with, which started every planetarium show with the skyline around Central Park.

Mr. Lonergan said that once upon a time he could not look at the sky without getting lost in the wonder and terror of it all, but that the day to day drudgery of life and teaching could dull those feelings. He reported sadly that he could look at the sky without that fear and trembling now. "Something has been lost," he said.

Something like this seems to have happened to the teacher in his play, who aspired to a career in research but, as a teacher, is only one of the low-level communicators of science, not unlike your faithful correspondent.

He has lost his faith, but I'm not giving up on him. I am a starry messenger too, and I am hoping for Mr. Lonergan's play to ennoble us all. It might be asking too much to make us cool.

-------------------------

A few TV shows have succeeded in making scientists look cool, like CSI and Numbers. But it is not without the help of quite extreme makeovers. CSIs in the shows look quite freakishly "proper" - except maybe their middle aged bosses (Grissom, Horatio) who look freakishly realistic - they look like they are dressed by the guys from Queer Eye and they drive P Diddy's car. One of them, Catherine Willows, never runs out of lip gloss.

And Numbers really have achieved something. They have made a scientist that deals with numbers - and some science symbols - look cool. Why haven't anybody thought about that?

Doctors, also scientists, have also appeared cool in E.R. and Chicago Hope. Now there's Grey's Anatomy, where the doctors are younger and look more cool. Maybe it's because they have sex with each other all the time, or something.

Who's afraid of Mesbah Yazdi?

Satu lagi "pengharaman" berlaku di Malaysia. Program kuliah awam Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi yang dijadualkan di Universiti Malaya pada 24 Mei telah dibatalkan.

Pembatalan program ini hanya diketahui semalam, dua hari sebelum program dijadualkan berlangsung.

Puncanya menurut Pusat Dialog Peradaban U.M. ialah "sebab-sebab teknikal," tetapi menurut sumber yang rapat dengan penganjur, pihak U.M. diarahkan membatalkan program itu oleh pegawai dari Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi.

Menurut sumber itu yang mahu namanya dirahsiakan, Mesbah Yazdi, ulama aliran konservatif Iran itu akan meneruskan lawatannya dan berdiskusi di U.M. dengan beberapa orang ahli akademik, tetapi tidak akan meneruskan kuliah awam yang ditunggu-tunggu ramai itu.

Mesbah Yazdi mengetuai Institut Pendidikan dan Penyelidikan Imam Khomeini di Qom, Iran. Beliau dilihat sebagai mentor ideologi kepada Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

About that evil organization that wants to take over the world

"It seems you can't open a movie these days without provoking some kind of culture war skirmish, at least in the conflict-hungry media. Recent history — 'The Passion of the Christ,' 'The Chronicles of Narnia' — suggests that such controversy, especially if religion is involved, can be very good business."

"So I certainly can't support any calls for boycotting or protesting this busy, trivial, inoffensive film. Which is not to say I'm recommending you go see it."

- The New York Times


BBC's Hardtalk featured Opus Dei U.K.'s Jack Valero recently. Acoording to the Opus Dei spokesman, the Catholic organization is not secretive, although we haven't heard much about it before. He also said that it has changed a lot and now is very different from the stories that many heard.

This Da Vinci thing is perhaps the biggest conspiracy theory story these days. Maybe even bigger than 911. Catholics all over the world are seeing red over this novel and film.

See the interview here: Opus Dei: Fact vs Fiction

And according to a BBC journalist who attended the screening in Cannes, many journalist who watched the film did not like it much.

Now it looks like this movie is gonna be the biggest hype these days.

World watch: North Korea

From The New York Times, May 18, 2006

U.S. Said to Weigh a New Approach on North Korea
By DAVID E. SANGER

President Bush's top advisers have recommended a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty, even while efforts to dismantle the country's nuclear program are still under way, senior administration officials and Asian diplomats say.

Aides say Mr. Bush is very likely to approve the new approach, which has been hotly debated among different factions within the administration. But he will not do so unless North Korea returns to multinational negotiations over its nuclear program. The talks have been stalled since September.

North Koreans have long demanded a peace treaty, which would replace the 1953 armistice ending the Korean War.

For several years after he first took office, Mr. Bush vowed not to end North Korea's economic and diplomatic isolation until it entirely dismantled its nuclear program. That stance later softened, and the administration said some benefits to North Korea could begin to flow as significant dismantlement took place. Now, if the president allows talks about a peace treaty to take place on a parallel track with six-nation talks on disarmament, it will signal another major change of tactics.

The decision to consider a change may have been influenced in part by growing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. One senior Asian official who has been briefed on the administration's discussions about what to do next said, "There is a sense that they can't leave Korea out there as a model for what the Iranians hope to become — a nuclear state that can say no to outside pressure."

But it is far from clear that North Korea would engage in any new discussions, especially if they included talk of political change, human rights, terrorism and an opening of the country, topics that the Bush administration has insisted would have to be part of any comprehensive discussions with North Korea.

With the war in Iraq and the nuclear dispute with Iran as distractions, many top officials have all but given up hope that North Korea's government will either disarm or collapse during Mr. Bush's remaining time in office. Increasingly, they blame two of Mr. Bush's negotiating partners, South Korea and China, which have poured aid into North Korea even while the United States has tried to cut off its major sources of revenue.

In his first term, Mr. Bush said repeatedly that he would never "tolerate" a nuclear North Korea. Now he rarely discusses the country's suspected weapons. Instead, he has met in the Oval Office with escapees from the country and used the events to discuss North Korea's prison camps and the suffering of its people.

Mr. Bush has also been under subtle pressure to change the first-term talk of speeding change of government. "Focusing on regime change as the road to denuclearization confuses the issue," former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger wrote in a lengthy op-ed article that appeared in The Washington Post on Tuesday. Noting that the negotiations have been conducted by Christopher R. Hill, a seasoned diplomat who played a major role in the Dayton peace accords, which halted the civil war in Bosnia, he said, "Periodic engagement at a higher level is needed."

A classified National Intelligence Estimate on North Korea, which was circulated among senior officials earlier this year, concluded that the North had probably fabricated the fuel for more than a half-dozen nuclear weapons since the beginning of Mr. Bush's administration and was continuing to produce roughly a bomb's worth of new plutonium each year. But in a show of caution after the discovery of intelligence flaws in Iraq, the assessment left unclear whether North Korea had actually turned that fuel into weapons.

With the six-nation negotiations over North Korea's nuclear program appearing to go nowhere, the drive for a broader strategy was propelled by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and one of her top aides, Philip D. Zelikow, who drafted two papers describing the new approach.

Those papers touched off what one senior official called "a blizzard of debate" over the next steps that eventually included Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who has been widely described by current and former officials as leading the drive in Mr. Bush's first term to make sure the North Korean government received no concessions from the United States until all of its weapons and weapons sites were taken apart. It is unclear where Mr. Cheney stands on the new approach that emerged from the State Department.

Now, said one official who has participated in the recent internal debate, "I think it is fair to say that many in the administration have come to the conclusion that dealing head-on with the nuclear problem is simply too difficult."

The official added, "So the question is whether it would help to try to end the perpetual state of war" that has existed, at least on paper, for 53 years. "It may be another way to get there."

An agreement that was signed in September by North Korea and the five other nations involved in the talks — the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia — commits the country to give up its weapons and rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty "at an early date" but leaves completely unclear what would have to come first: disarmament or a series of steps that would aid North Korea.

It also included a sentence that paves the way for the initiative recommended to Mr. Bush, declaring that "the directly related parties will negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum." But it does not specify what steps North Korea would have to take first.

As described by administration officials, none of whom would speak on the record about deliberations inside the White House, Mr. Bush's aides envision starting negotiations over a formal peace treaty that would include the original signatories of the armistice — China, North Korea and the United States, which signed on behalf of the United Nations. They would also add South Korea, now the world's 11th-largest economy, which declined to sign the original armistice.

Japan, Korea's colonial ruler in the first half of the 20th century, would be excluded, as would Russia.

A National Security Council spokesman declined to comment on any internal deliberations on North Korea policy and referred all questions to the State Department, which has handled the negotiations with the North. The State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, declined to discuss the recommendations made to Mr. Bush and said, "The most important decision is with North Korea — and that is the strategic decision to give up their nuclear weapons program."

"They signed a joint statement," he added, "but they have yet to demonstrate that they have made a decision to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs."

In justifying its refusal to return to talks, North Korea has complained bitterly about the financial sanctions imposed by the United States, which have been aimed at closing down the North's banking activities in Macao and elsewhere in Asia. The United States has described those steps as "defensive measures" intended to stop the country from counterfeiting American currency and exporting drugs and missiles.

Even if peace treaty talks started, officials insisted, those sanctions would continue. A month ago, Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, told a small audience of foreign policy experts that the sanctions were "the first thing we have done that has gotten their attention," several participants in the meeting said.

Some intelligence officials say they believe the protests may have arisen in part because they affected a secretive operation in North Korea called Unit 39 that finances the personal activities of Kim Jong Il, the North Korean leader, providing the money he spends for his entertainment and to win the loyalty of others in the leadership.

------------------------------

Washington has been quite soft on Pyongyang, compared to the other two members of "axis of evil," Tehran and Baghdad. China, the Asian power is one of the reason for this. North Korea is a very important part in the Bush administration' manuevers in East Asia, in "handling China."

The U.S. also seem unable to afford another crisis, as it already has its hand full in Iraq and is now busy looking for support to punish Iran.

It would also not be a wise thing for the U.S. to pick fight with both Tehran and Pyongyang at the same time, who are Beijing's allies.

Washington needs the support of Beijing and Moscow - both members of the Security Council - to punish Iran.

Bush is now in a new axis with Britain's Tony Blair, according to The Economist, dubbed the axis of feeble.

More painter's secret code movie publicity by The New York Times

From The New York Times, May 16, 2006

'Da Vinci Code': The Mystery of the Missing Screenings
By SHARON WAXMAN

Question: How do you market a movie that has near 100 percent public awareness, yet has been seen by almost no one? Answer, as Sony Pictures sees it: Very, very carefully.

In contemporary Hollywood, movies released without first undergoing test screenings, media screenings, "tastemaker" screenings and screenings for critics are fairly rare; that course is usually reserved for duds that studios would rather nobody notice.

For a movie like Sony's "Da Vinci Code" — with huge anticipation, a blockbuster-size budget, a major movie star in Tom Hanks, an Oscar-winning director in Ron Howard and source material read by tens of millions of fans — it is something close to unprecedented. Yet that has been the studio's course.

"The Da Vinci Code" will make its debut at the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday night. Critics and other journalists will first see the movie on Tuesday night, barely allowing them time to write their articles for the Wednesday premiere and Friday opening in theaters around the world.

Even theater owners, who by law must be allowed to see a film before formally booking it for their movie houses, saw the film — running two hours and 29 minutes — only Friday, which by exhibition standards is as last minute as it gets.

The strategy, studio representatives say, is to preserve a climate of mystery and excitement around the movie, despite the fact that anyone who is interested probably already knows the plot.

"There was an inordinate amount of interest in this film, and we wanted to contain the excitement and anticipation," said Valerie Van Galder, president of domestic marketing for Sony Pictures, speaking from London, where executives and the cast had gathered to take a train with selected media representatives down to Cannes. "We wanted people to see the movie for themselves and not react to months of endless debate about the movie."

While that approach has not prevented the debate, it was particularly championed by Brian Grazer, the film's producer, said executives involved with the film, who were granted anonymity because of the studio's policy of secrecy regarding the film. To limit exposure in the age of blogs and constant leaks, both Sony and Mr. Grazer's company, Imagine Entertainment, decided to forgo test screenings, a form of market research usually considered critical to fine-tuning a picture.

In the past, Mr. Howard has said he would be loath to release a film without it. In a 1998 interview with CNN about test screenings, he said: "What I would hate to do is put the movie out there, find out that the audience is confused about something or upset about something that you could have fixed, and go, 'God, I had no idea they'd respond that way.' "

Instead, the film was shown on the Sony lot, with strict security, to close friends and family of the filmmakers, said Michael Rosenberg, the president of Imagine. Their comments were used in place of more scientific feedback, he said.

The concerns, said executives involved with the picture, were that information about the film could start a nit-picking debate over the filmmaker's choices in adapting the book, rather than focus on the movie overall, or that it might fuel religious opposition to the film.

Early in the marketing, tension arose between Sony and Imagine over the approach to take, with Sony more inclined to feed mass interest in the film, and Imagine focused on trying to maintain more of the film's mystery, said executives close to the project. In addition, Sony was worried about contributing to a religious controversy over the perceived anti-Catholic aspect of the film — which has elements in the Catholic Church conspiring to conceal the secret life of Christ — while Imagine wanted to use the controversy as a promotional tool, an executive said.

At one point Sony favored taking out an ad during the Super Bowl, which Imagine opposed. The studio and producers also turned down the offer of a Time magazine cover, which some might consider to be the Holy Grail of free publicity (perhaps a misnomer in this case, however), because the magazine editors needed to see the film to do so.

Jeff Blake, vice chairman of Sony Pictures, disputed the notion of tension with Imagine. "I have been as close to it as anybody, and I found them to be so helpful in this process," he said. "A lot of issues come up that don't normally come up. We're very happy with the result."

With movie research showing awareness of the film at 96 percent, and the barometer of "definite interest" polling at around 60 percent, the studio is most concerned to do nothing that could put a dent in those figures. Industry estimates of the film's expected ticket sales for the opening weekend at the domestic box office range from $70 million to over $100 million. The marketing materials were also designed to nod at elements of the film without revealing too much: first came the iconic image of the Mona Lisa from the cover of the best-selling book, followed by pictures of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou as the characters trying to solve a murder in the Louvre, followed by a picture of Silas, the evil conspirator from the Catholic group Opus Dei and Mr. Hanks and Ms. Tautou — photographed from above — as they rush past a group of nuns.

But much is at stake with this film, as even the most close-mouthed officials will privately acknowledge. One executive close to the film, who acknowledged being nervous, said, "There are amazing expectations on this title, and there is no knowledge of what the audience and the critics will think."

Politik (dan falsafah) bogel

"Famous, naked!"
- Ashton Kucher

I saw nudity on Malaysian TV a couple of days ago, in National Geographic (or was it Discovery?) It was a program about some natives and their "exotic" lifestyle. It was quite disturbing. No, not the nudity but the fact that it was allowed to be shown on our TV.

The disturbing thing is, I think, the program was allowed because it showed naked natives. Let's get to the bottom of this (no pun intended). If there is a show that features Gisele Bundchen, Adriana Lima and Natalie Portman naked, you can bet your ass that it would never be shown, even with the excuse of science, and on NatGeo or Discovery.

The reason is most people see natives as less than human so its alright to show them naked, but when it comes to celebrities, or other people who are not natives, suddenly its invasion of privacy, or something.

This is the thing that explains why naked, dying/dead famine victims in Africa can be shown in the media but a naked, dying/dead Gisele equivalent would never be published, unless they are paid to appear naked, or/and dying/dead.

So what separates science(?) and indecency?

Filem komunis Jerman

A film which focuses on Stasi, the East Germany's intelligent agency, won several awards at a German film festival recently, including best film, best actor and best director. Here's some links to stories about the film.

1. Seven awards to German Stasi film (BBC)
2. "I remember an atmosphere of great fear" (Der Spiegel)
3. Stasi film stirs up plaudits and a spying row (The Guardian)
4. German film helps rekindle debate over Stasi (NPR)
5. Stasi film breaks with nostalgia (BBC)
6. Stasi film a reality check for Germans (The New Zealand Herald)

More on this later.

The beautiful people

From The New York Times, May 14,2006

A Vision of Pale Beauty Carries Risks for Asia's Women
By THOMAS FULLER

Neighbors gawk and children yell, "Ghost!" The manager of the restaurant where Panya Boonchun worked simply told her she was fired.

The cream that she applied to her face and neck was supposed to transform her into a white-skinned beauty, the kind she saw in women's magazines and on television.

But the illegally produced lotion she bought in a store near this village in southeastern Thailand turned her skin into a patchwork of albino pink and dark brown. Doctors say her condition may be irreversible.

"I never look in the mirror anymore," she said, sobbing during an interview.

Whiter skin is being aggressively marketed across Asia, with vast selections of skin-whitening creams on supermarket and pharmacy shelves testament to an industry that has flourished over the past decade. In Hong Kong, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan, 4 of every 10 women use a whitening cream, a survey by Synovate, a market research company, found.

The skin-whitening craze is not just for the face. It includes creams that whiten darker patches of skin in armpits and "pink nipple" lotions that bleach away brown pigment.

And while many if not most whitening creams are safe, doctors, consumer groups and government officials are reporting dangerous consequences of the trend. Some involve women who use blemish creams in large, harmful amounts; inexpensive black-market products with powerful but illegal bleaching agents are selling briskly, particularly in the poorer parts of South and Southeast Asia.

"I have a lot of complaints — with photographs — which show that before the cream is used the face is fine and then after it looks like it's been roasted in the oven," said Darshan Singh, the manager for Malaysia's National Consumer Complaints Center, a nonprofit group.

Skin-whitening products work in various ways. Some contain acids that remove old skin to reveal newer, lighter skin underneath. Others inhibit melanin, like those with mulberry extract, licorice extract, kojic acid, arbutin and hydroquinone, an ingredient in prescription creams for blemishes as well as in photo processing materials.

Some of the most effective agents are also risky — and are often the least expensive, like mercury-based ingredients or hydroquinone, which in Thailand sells for about $20 per kilogram (2.2 pounds), compared with highly concentrated licorice extract, which sells for about $20,000 per kilogram.

Hydroquinone has been shown to cause leukemia in mice and other animals. The European Union banned it from cosmetics in 2001, but it shows up in bootleg creams in the developing world. It is sold in the United States as an over-the-counter drug, but with a concentration of hydroquinone not exceeding 2 percent.

Sociologists have long debated why Asians, who are divided by everything from language to religion to ethnicity, share a deeply held cultural preference for lighter skin. One commonly repeated rationale is that a lighter complexion is associated with wealth and higher education levels because those from lower social classes, laborers and farmers, are more exposed to the sun.

Another theory is that the waves of lighter-skinned conquerors, the Moguls from Central Asia and the colonizers from Europe, reset the standard for attractiveness.

Films and advertising also clearly have a role. The success of South Korean soap operas across the region has made their lighter-skinned stars emblems of Asian beauty.

Nithiwadi Phuchareuyot, a doctor at a skin clinic in Bangkok who dispenses products and treatments to lighten skin, said: "Every Thai girl thinks that if she has white skin the money will come and the men will come. The movie stars are all white-skinned, and everyone wants to look like a superstar."

In Thailand, as in other countries in the region, the stigma of darker skin is reflected in language. One common insult is tua dam, or black body. Less common but more evocative is dam tap pet, or black like a duck's liver.

Advertisements for skin-whitening products promote whiter skin as glowing and healthier. Olay has a product called White Radiance. L'Oréal markets products called White Perfect.

Last year, 62 new skin-whitening products were introduced in supermarkets or pharmacies across the Asia-Pacific region, according to Datamonitor, a market research firm, accelerating a trend that has seen an average of 56 new products introduced annually over the past four years.

Meanwhile, Thailand's Food and Drug Administration has published a list of 70 illegal whitening creams. Indonesian officials have identified more than 50 banned cosmetics.

Small groups of people in Asia seem to prefer tanned skin. In Japan, young women commonly referred to as Shibuya girls, after the Tokyo neighborhood they favor, have been regular patrons of tanning salons for a decade. But they are an asterisk in Japanese society, and Asia over all.

"Everybody else basically wants white skin," said Leeyong Soo, the international fashion coordinator at Vogue Nippon. "People might say to you when you come back from a holiday, 'Oh you have a tan.' But it's not necessarily complimentary."

Thada Piamphongsant, the president of the Thai Society of Cosmetic Dermatology and Surgery, said he believed that about half of all Thai dermatologists prescribed creams with hydroquinone. He stopped prescribing it a decade ago when he noticed patients with redness and itching and with more serious side effects like ochronosis, the appearance of very dark patches of skin that are difficult to remove.

Some patients also develop leukoderma, where the skin loses the ability to produce pigment, resulting in patches of pink like those on Ms. Panya's face and neck.

When she first began using the cream, which was packaged under the name 3 Days and cost the equivalent of $1, she said she was very happy with the results.

Her skin started itching, but she tolerated it because her complexion lightened considerably. She got bigger tips at the restaurant, where she sang folk songs, she said.

But when her face became blotchy two months later, her boss told her she could no longer sing at the restaurant because she was unsightly.

In April, she told her story on a Thai television program, breaking down as she described how she ruined her face and lost her job.

But first, the announcer ran through a list of the show's sponsors, including a cream called White Beauty. "Use this cream," the announcer said. "It gives you expert treatment."

-----------------------------------------

The beautiful person in the picture is Natalie Portman.

Pasal buku yang popular sangat tu

From The New York Times, May 13, 2006

Mystery of the 'Da Vinci Code' Film: Will We Love It?
By ALAN RIDING

PARIS, May 12 — So here we go again, still more "Da Vinci Code." And with the screen version of the novel being released on Friday, twin publicity machines are busily at work: Columbia Pictures is plastering the globe with posters of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou looking worried, while Christian prelates are drum-beating warnings about the movie's presumed blasphemous content.

Not, of course, that there has been much letup in the hype since Dan Brown published his quasimystical thriller in 2003.

The novel, which has sold some 60 million copies to date, has inspired tours to the museum, chateau, churches and monuments mentioned in its plot. It has also spawned Web sites and nonfiction accounts debating its merits and has boosted the sale of other Holy Grail books. (Two authors of one contended unsuccessfully that their work was plagiarized by Mr. Brown).

But now this pop-culture juggernaut is facing a new test: will "The Da Vinci Code" also become a hit movie?

Ron Howard, the film's director, and Akiva Goldsman, its screenwriter, have a lot going for them, but the outcome is far from assured. Adapting much-loved books to the screen can be a tricky business because readers have already imagined — even visualized — the story. And if the screen version strays too far from the original, it may not please audiences who know the book.

"We are definitely in competition with everyone's imagination," Mr. Goldsman said in a telephone interview from New York. "It's a hard battle to win. We're hoping for a draw. When we were shooting the film, we tried not to think about it. But it's all we're thinking about now."

Yet too literal an adaptation can also be fatal. In this case, for instance, it is evident that all the plot's multiple twists and turns cannot be squeezed into a 2-hour 20-minute movie; nor can the movie risk being entirely true to a novel in which talking heads spend a good deal of time debating competing accounts of Christianity.

"At some moments the novel has an action-movie pace and at other times a very thoughtful, intellectual and considered slowing down of action," Mr. Goldsman noted. "These don't usually coincide in a book. For a movie to go from thriller to drawing-room talkie is a challenge that needs to be managed with a lot of smoke and mirrors."

So is there a secret to bringing books successfully to the screen?

"Ruthlessness," said the novelist Diane Johnson, who has written screenplays herself, including that of Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's novel "The Shining." "In a movie, you're working with 120 scenes, so the first thing is to throw out half of the novel. Novelists who follow their screen versions too closely are in for a lot of agony."

A more obvious starting point is the recognition that literature and cinema are different media — created differently, appealing to different senses, aiming at different audiences.

And yet, since the days of silent movies and their early penchant for exploiting Shakespeare's plays, movies have leaned heavily on novels and short stories for their raw material. Even today, it is often easier to peddle the movie rights to a novel than it is to sell an original screenplay.

The theory is that the novel already has a track record. But that may also limit a director's freedom. Kubrick, for one, adapted many novels to the screen. But with the exception of "Lolita," he pointedly avoided books that were already enormously popular. With "A Clockwork Orange," "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut," he brought renown to overlooked novels.

With movie versions of best-selling novels stirring unpredictable expectations, anything can happen: John Madden's adaptation of Louis de Bernières's beloved "Captain Corelli's Mandolin" proved an embarrassment, while the Harry Potter movies have done well, even though youngsters' minds are fresh enough to remember every line of the books.

Adults, though, can be more demanding because they focus less on action (or special effects) than on character and mood.

"That's the most difficult part," said Ms. Johnson, whose best-selling novel "Le Divorce" written in the first person, was later adapted to the screen. "As a writer, you have the power to render the subjective experience of the character — and that, in fact, is what's interesting. But since cinema is an objective medium, it's very hard to capture this. Very often you don't get it at all."

Casting too is a variable.

"People have a clear idea of what a character should look like," Ms. Johnson said. "Or rather, even if they don't actually picture the person, they immediately know if he or she looks right on the screen."

In that sense, a little-known actor whose face carries the memory of few other roles may be better placed to play a high-profile fictional character. But good actors can also impose themselves on roles: Laurence Olivier was already a star in 1939 when he "became" Heathcliff in "Wuthering Heights," and Marlon Brando, long fat and famous, was a convincing Mafia boss in "The Godfather" in 1972.

So, in "The Da Vinci Code," which opens the Cannes Film Festival on Wednesday, will Tom Hanks "become" the Harvard academic Robert Langdon?

"The economies of films of this size demand a star," Mr. Goldsman said. "But Tom is also one of few movie stars who is also a great actor. If the screenplay is true to the spirit of the novel, it should allow the image in the book to marry the image in the film."

Perhaps more relevantly, will the movie be judged against the novel or on its own cinematic merits?

It can work both ways. Many readers will no doubt be pleased to see "their" novel unfold before their eyes. Even those who hated Mr. Brown's writing style may find the movie enjoyable. And as a treat for those who like mumbo-jumbo symbols and codes, Mr. Howard has inserted a few secret codes of his own.

But until critics and the public return their verdicts, Mr. Howard, Mr. Goldsman and Columbia Pictures can meditate on one proven reality: good movies can rescue bad novels; bad movies cannot kill off good novels; but popular novels can smother movies. With "The Da Vinci Code," then, the leap from page to screen represents a $125 million gamble.

-------------------------------------------

The Da Vince Code film is not the only thing offending some Catholics these days. An MTV cartoon lampooning the Pope has caused an outrage in Germany. The debate on the show, Popetown, has been going on for a while now in many countries, from Canada to the U.K. A lot of people are complaining. The Catholic Church in Germany, where the current Pope - Beneduct XVI - came from, tried to stop MTV Germany from airing the show, but to no avail.

This may look a little like the Prophet Muhammad cartoon controversy, but nothing much happened when South Park made fun of The Virgin Mary and the Pope a couple of months back. Wonder what will happen next.

That commie dude

Filem Lelaki Komunis Terakhir muncul sebagai ancaman kepada negara, kata "pihak berkuasa." Alasan seperti ini, yang kedengaran sangat cetek dan tidak matang bagi sebahagian orang, muncul daripada aliran pemikiran konservatif yang melihat unsur yang lain daripada yang state-sanctioned sebagai "pengaruh tidak baik."

Ketakutan paling besar pihak terbabit ialah apa yang dikatakan sebagai pengaruh komunisme filem itu, fahaman yang dianggap bertentangan dengan pandangan rasmi.

Masalah paling besar dalam hal ini ialah pandangan rasmi bahawa rakyat perlu dilindungi daripada apa yang disifatkan sebagai pengaruh tidak baik ini. Pandangan saya, sukar untuk terjadi penonton terpengaruh dengan filem ini dan terus beralih ke kiri. Filem ini juga kemungkinan besar tidak sampai kepada mereka yang ingin dilindungi oleh pengharaman ini.

Hal ini sama seperti pengharaman buku. Buku A History of God misalnya, sangat kecil kemungkinan akan dibaca oleh mereka yang dilindungi oleh pengharamannya, dan mereka yang membacanya hampir pasti sudah cukup matang menangani karya itu.

Pertembungan budaya popular dengan politik ini kini menjadi salah satu pertembungan paling panas dalam sejarah Malaysia, sebaris dengan isu rambut panjang artis rock tahun-tahun 1980-an dan black metal tidak lama dulu.

Pertembungan ini ialah sebahagian perang budaya Malaysia, melibatkan dua - atau lebih - aliran, tetapi ada dua aliran besar: konservatif dan liberal.

Ini terjadi di mana-mana. Antara kes paling sering disebut ialah serangan senator Joseph McCarthy terhadap beberapa figur budaya popular Amerika dengan mengaitkannya dengan "unAmerican activities" atau komunisme.

Terbaru di Hollywood ialah satu gerakan kiri liberal antiperang yang tercetus akibat perang global diketuai pentadbiran George W Bush.

Reaksi komuniti budaya popular Amerika terhadap era Bush ini telah memberikan takrif kepada Hollywood zaman ini, menyamai reaksi terhadap Perang Vietnam tahun-tahun akhir 1960-an hingga awal 1970-an.

Pada zaman inilah muncul hasil-hasil karya yang boleh disifatkan sebagai karya yang mentakrifkan zamannya. Episod penting dalam perjalanan masyarakat Amerika telah didokumentasikan dengan baik akibat debat nasional yang berlangsung itu.

Malangnya, di negara kita, banyak episod penting sejarah kita tidak didokumentasikan oleh komuniti budaya popular, contohnya gerakan reformasi pimpinan Anwar Ibrahim pada 1998.

Dan banyak episod yang muncul di seluloid tidak lebih daripada sekadar propaganda establishment atau sekurang-kurangnya versi bersih episod itu, yang dibina semula berdasarkan pandangan establishment.

Lelaki Komunis Terakhir - walau apa pun kekurangannya dan buku yang menjadi dasarnya - memainkan peranan mendokumentasikan sejarah negara kita, melalui perspektif yang berbeza daripada yang direstui pemerintah.

Kes ini sekali lagi menunjukkan dengan jelas sikap antiintelektual pihak berkuasa, yang sebelum ini pernah memerangi buku-buku mengenai pejuang kemerdekaan yang dilabel komunis.

Ada yang menimbulkan persoalan kenapa tokoh-tokoh kemerdekaan lain tidak dimuncul, kenapa Chin Peng. Ini adalah pilihan pembikin filem itu. Beliau berhak memilih siapa yang hendak dikemukakannya.

Landskap baru budaya ini telah menunjukkan kuasa budaya popular dalam politik, dan keberkesanannya dalam debat nasional.

Iran seeks Malaysia's support

"The Iranian nation has decided. It will defend and never renounce its rights."

"Iranians are strong enough to defend their rights. But it should also be stressed here that resistance of the Iranian nation will not only be for Iran but for all independent-minded states including Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt and other Muslim countries."

- Mahmud Ahmadinejad

Letak jawatan

An outgoing leader wrote two letters and handed them over to his successor. He told the new leader, "When you face a great difficulty, open the first one. Then, if you face another big problem, open the second one. This should get you through."

Then, his successor faced a very difficult situation. He opened and read the first letter. It said, "Tell them it's your predecessor's fault."

He did as told and got himself out of trouble.

Later, he faced another big problem, and left with no option, opened the second letter.

It said, "Sit down. Write two letters."

Pasal minyak dan Ukraine

Ukraine: Kisah dua Viktor dan dua George

Perang Dingin antara blok Barat diketuai Amerika Syarikat dengan Soviet Union telah berakhir, tetapi kepentingan dan sentimen permusuhan itu masih segar dalam minda rakyat negara terbabit. Hari ini, di Ukraine, hal ini terbukti apabila negara itu dilanda satu krisis politik berikutan kontroversi pilihan raya negara itu baru-baru ini. Perpecahan rakyat Ukraine, sama ada berdasarkan budaya, kecenderungan politik atau sebab-sebab lain, semakin jelas dilihat dalam krisis tersebut. Bagaimanapun, empat orang tokoh yang dikenali dunia menggambarkan dengan lebih jelas dan mendalam krisis yang melanda negara itu hari ini.

Selain Viktor Yanukovych, pemenang pilihan raya presiden, dan lawannya Viktor Yushchenko, dua lagi tokoh, Presiden Amerika George W Bush dan pedagang mata wang George Soros merupakan tokoh yang memainkan peranan sangat penting dalam politik Ukraine di era pasca-Soviet hari ini. Pertembungan kepentingan blok Barat dengan Rusia mengulangi kembali Perang Dingin antara Barat dengan Rusia.

Sekiranya media antarabangsa yang membuat liputan krisis Ukraine dapat dipercayai, apa yang berlaku di negara itu kini sangat menarik; Rakyat seluruh negara sedang bangkit mempraktikkan hak demokratik mereka menentang tokoh autoritarian pro-Rusia. Rakyat Ukraine ingin tokoh pilihan mereka, Yushchenko memenangi pilihan raya tersebut. Keputusan yang terhasil mengecewakan mereka. Yushchenko tewas kerana kuasa yang sangat meluas Yanukovych telah membolehkannya memanipulasi sistem pilihan raya dan melaksanakan pemalsuan besar-besaran untuk memenangi pilihan raya itu.

Bagaimanapun, laporan seperti itu tidak menerangkan segala-galanya tentang Ukraine dan kisah-kisah di sebalik percaturan politik tersebut, lebih-lebih lagi yang melibatkan perkara yang tidak selari dengan imej Yushchenko sebagai seorang "tokoh demokrasi." Yanukovych sememangnya bukan seorang pemimpin yang wajar disokong. Rekod pemerintahan beliau memperlihatkan sikapnya yang tidak menghormati demokrasi, seperti ramai pemimpin negara-negara di rantau itu.

Kemenangan Yanukovych akan menyebelahi kepentingan Rusia dan agenda politik Vladimir Putin, yang kini sedang gigih berusaha menyelamatkan "empayarnya" daripada ditarik blok Barat pimpinan Amerika. Awal-awal lagi, Putin telah menyampaikan ucapan tahniah kepada Yanukovych. Usaha Barat untuk campur tangan dalam krisis itu juga ditolak keras Putin. Katanya, pertikaian itu perlu diselesaikan tanpa campur tangan luar. Setelah bersungguh-sungguh menyokong dan berkempen untuk Yanukovych, kini beliau bersungguh-sungguh pula menolak sebarang usaha Barat untuk "membetulkan keadaan."

Pentadbiran Bush pula sangat ingin melihat Yushchenko menang. Selepas negara seperti Uzbekistan dan Georgia "ditawan," kejayaan pemimpin pro-Barat di Ukraine akan memenuhi beberapa kepentingan Amerika, termasuk mengukuhkan penempatan ketenteraan di negara jiran Rusia, untuk menjaga pelbagai kepentingan lain.

Amerika dan Kesatuan Eropah (EU), walaupun mendakwa membantu perjuangan demokrasi rakyat Ukraine, tidak terkecuali dari memperjuangkan kepentingan politik mereka, seperti juga Putin. Soros dan Bush, walaupun tidak sehaluan dalam politik domestik Amerika, berkepentingan sama untuk meletakkan pemimpin pilihan mereka untuk menerajui Ukraine.

Dasar propasaran bebas dan liberalisasi ekonomi yang menjadi agenda Yushchenko sememangnya disokong pihak Barat, kerana kepentingan ekonomi mereka dalam hal ini. Di mana-mana pun di dunia, pemimpin yang tidak memegang dasar ekonomi nasionalistik lebih disenangi Amerika dan Barat. Pemimpin-pemimpin begini diharapkan untuk membuka negara mereka untuk korporat Amerika dan Barat.

Yushchenko dikenali sebagai pemimpin pro-Barat. Kelompok yang menyokongnya lebih memandang ke Eropah dari penduduk di timur Ukraine. Beliau dikaitkan dengan penyelewengan wang bantuan Dana Kewangan Antarabangsa (IMF) sebanyak lebih AS$600 juta. Beliau yang pernah mengetuai bank pusat Ukraine juga sebenarnya merupakan sebahagian establishment Ukraine yang terlibat dalam kapitalisme kroni yang menjadikan kumpulan mereka jutawan segera.

Kelompok ini juga merupakan kumpulan yang paling mendapat manfaat dari program penswastaan Ukraine pada tahun-tahun 1990-an. Rasuah dan penyelewengan menjadi sebahagian cara hidup elit ekonomi Ukraine, yang ramai daripadanya mempunyai hubungan rapat dengan Yushchenko. Yushchenko hakikatnya seorang tokoh penting kumpulan oligarki Ukraine.

Usaha Barat membantu kumpulan prodemokrasi di Ukraine tidak jauh bezanya dengan apa yang berlaku di Georgia pada 2003. Eduard Shevardnadze di Ukraine ialah Yanukovych, manakala Yushchenko menjadi Mikhail Saakashvili versi Ukraine. Kumpulan-kumpulan pro-Yushchenko mendapat bantuan kewangan dari AS dan George Soros, selain agensi seperti United States Agency for International Development (USAID), National Endowment for Democracy dan Bank Dunia.

Di Georgia pada masa itu, aktivisme menentang pemerintahan Shevardnadze mendapat sokongan kuat Soros dan Barat. Salah satu organisasi terlibat, Liberty Institute, diuruskan oleh Saakashvili, yang kini menjadi presiden Georgia yang direstui Barat. Liberty Institute bekerja sama rapat dengan USAID. USAID merupakan pemain penting dalam kempen menentang penipuan pilihan raya di Georgia, selain Open Society Georgia Foundation, sebuah pertubuhan Soros.

Pada masa sama, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) menjadi pemerhati pilihan raya di Georgia, peranan sama dijalankan di Ukraine hari ini. OSCE juga dilihat sebagai hanya memperjuangkan kepentingan Barat kerana bersikap selektif dengan hanya membela pemimpin pro-Barat dalam pilihan raya seluruh dunia. Peranan pertubuhan yang mendakwa ingin menyuburkan demokrasi ini kelihatan hanya sebagai alat kuasa Barat mencatur kepentingan mereka.

Nama Soros kerap muncul di media sejak beberapa tahun lalu, apabila beliau mula aktif memberi bantuan kepada pihak propasaran bebas seluruh dunia. Tulis Mark Almond dalam majalah New Statesman November lalu, "George Soros yang prihatin memberi bantuan dengan membayar gaji menteri-menteri presiden baru dan anggota polis Georgia. Aneh sekali, rakan perniagaan Soros, Kaka Bendukidze, menjadi menteri ekonomi Georgia." Almond turut mempersoalkan, adakah rakan Soros sedang menunggu untuk dinaikkan ke tampuk pemerintahan di Georgia. Terbukti, kelebihan kewangan Soros membolehkan beliau menyumbang kepada jatuh bangun seseorang pemimpin.

Pertembungan yang berlaku di Ukraine memberi pengajaran penting kepada masyarakat dunia agar tidak menerima bulat-bulat laporan media antarabangsa yang sama ada sengaja atau tidak, tidak memberikan gambaran keseluruhan mengenai konflik di Ukraine, dan juga di mana-mana negara di dunia. Campur tangan pihak asing, yang biasanya memiliki kepentingan mereka tersendiri, telah dibuktikan tidak mampu membawa perubahan ke arah kebaikan kepada rakyat negara terbabit. Akibat permainan politik seperti yang berlaku di Georgia, Ukraine, dan banyak lagi negara, wajar sekali gerakan prodemokrasi - yang mudah menerima bantuan pihak asing - dilihat dengan lebih kritikal, agar tidak menggadaikan kepentingan rakyat.

Artikel ini ditulis pada Disember 2004, sejurus selepas Orange Revolution berlangsung.

----------------------------------------------------

From The New York Times, May 6, 2006

As Profits Surge, Oil Giants Find Hurdles Abroad
By JAD MOUAWAD

To many Americans, oil companies like ExxonMobil or Chevron appear all powerful, pocketing record profits as energy costs soar. But in many countries around the world, high oil prices are also making life considerably harder for big oil companies.

Sharply higher energy prices have shifted the power to oil-producing countries, as some governments seek a larger share of the riches. As a result, even as Western oil companies expand their reach through acquisitions and multibillion-dollar projects, a resurgence of nationalist policies is weakening their influence.

"We've seen a return to a 1970's style of resource nationalism riding along the crest of high prices," said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "During times of low prices, governments are keen to open up. But when prices are high, they have the high cards."

This trend could lead to fewer investments by Western oil companies, lower production, and with more limited supplies, even higher prices at the pump. So far, the power shift has taken on various shades and tones. In Bolivia and Russia, governments have taken outright control of oil and gas fields; in Venezuela and Britain, they have increased taxes; and in Nigeria and Kazakhstan, they have given highly preferential treatment to state companies.

Last week, Bolivia said it would seek 82 percent of the sales from the biggest fields, up from less than 18 percent.

In Venezuela, the government recently asserted its hold on 32 small oil fields developed by foreign companies and increased taxes to 83 percent from 56.6 percent.

The Congress in Ecuador recently approved a law that introduces a 50 percent royalty fee on existing fields.

Even the British government changed the tax regime in the North Sea at the beginning of the year, increasing its taxes by 10 percentage points, to a total of 50 percent. And if the talk in Congress over windfall profit taxes is any indication, the same might be said — at least to a limited degree — in the United States.

For all their riches, global oil companies have been on a long path of decline, progressively losing out to national oil interests around the world. These days, with higher costs, lower returns and increased competition, the screws are tightening even more, leaving executives anxious about the future of their industry.

"Oil companies," Mr. Yergin said, "are feeling cramped."

Exxon's oil production of 2.5 million barrels a day, for example, accounts for less than 3 percent of the world's daily output. The top seven international oil companies — Exxon, BP, Royal DutchShell, Total, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Eni — control less than 5 percent of the globe's reserves. Most are having trouble finding enough oil to replace what they pump out each day.

Major oil companies have substantial assets, of course. They generate huge profits, they own leading-edge exploration and production tools, and they have developed financial and managerial expertise. They also have a long history of adapting to hostile environments, both natural and political.

Still, the latest trend in the oil business contrasts sharply with the previous decade-long period of privatizations that came after the fall of the Berlin Wall. For the industry, those now seem like distant memories, when oil executives from Houston to London raced to Siberia or the Andes, the Caspian Sea or the Gulf of Guinea, in search of new prospects and bargain opportunities.

Two decades of low oil prices and abundant supplies meant that Western companies were granted favorable terms by governments that were then eager, often anxious, to raise their production, increase their revenue and refill their coffers.

How times have changed.

Meanwhile, of course, energy prices have soared.

"It's quite natural that during a period of high prices the phenomenon of resource nationalism returns," said Leonardo Maugeri, a senior executive for strategy at Eni, Italy's giant oil company. "It's a byproduct of high prices."

"In periods like this," he said in a telephone interview from Rome, "producers think they have the upper hand, and probably they are right. So they impose higher taxes, or worse."

This trend has been particularly pronounced in Venezuela. There, the government is considering rewriting the rules for investment in the Orinoco belt, where the country's heavy oil reserves are found. Oil companies have invested more than $17 billion there, hoping the reserves might rival those of Saudi Arabia.

Venezuela has already increased royalties to 16.6 percent from 1 percent on the country's four major projects and is planning to raise taxes to 50 percent from 34 percent. It also wants Petróleos de Venezuela, better known as Pdvsa, to increase its stake in these projects to 60 percent or so, from about 40 percent.

"Many companies are willing to play ball because the reserves are huge, but Venezuela is taking a big risk," said Patrick Esteruelas, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy in New York.

Indeed, in most cases where governments nationalized their oil industries in the 1970's or have tightened the fiscal terms more recently, production has sagged: Iran today is nowhere near its peak production, nor is Libya, nor Iraq, and until last year, Saudi Arabia had not increased its production capacity in more than three decades. More recently, output from Venezuela and Russia has been stagnant or falling.

"The 1990's was the reverse of what we have today: there was competition for capital rather than competition for reserves," said Michelle Billig, director of political risk at the PIRA Energy Group, a consulting firm in New York. "Now that bargaining power has shifted."

"This totally affects the supply outlook for the future," she said.

"The world is depending on the continued growth of production. If there are fewer incentives to increase production, you will have continued tightness in the market."

Derek Butter, who heads the corporate analysis group at Wood Mackenzie, an oil consultancy based in Edinburgh, said that many oil projects now being renegotiated were drawn at a time when oil prices hovered around $15 a barrel. There was no mechanism that laid out how governments and oil companies would share the larger profits. At the time, he said, no one anticipated that oil prices would reach $75 a barrel.

Their standing has eroded considerably over the years, and most companies have little choice but to go along. At their peak after the Second World War, the so-called Seven Sisters dominated the world oil market. In return, they granted an allowance to host governments, like Libya, Iran, Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, and set oil prices for the world.

Then came the backlash. Oil producers in the Middle East and in Latin America organized themselves, starting in 1960 with the creation of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. They demanded a higher share of the oil revenue and higher oil prices. Finally, in the 1970's, they kicked the foreign companies out.

Today, Western oil companies as a whole have full access to countries with 6 percent of the globe's known reserves, mainly in North America and Europe, according to PFC Energy, a Washington-based consulting firm. They can also invest in countries that own an additional 11 percent of reserves through joint ventures or production-sharing agreements. The rest of the world is closed to them.

Paolo Scaroni, the chief executive of Eni, called it "the paradox of plenty." International oil companies, he said during a conference in London earlier this year, "are awash with enormous cash flows, but their opportunities to reinvest that cash are severely limited."

Speaking at a panel discussion held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington on Monday, Rex W. Tillerson, the chairman of Exxon Mobil, said Western oil companies can help increase production because they bring unique technological skills.

"The biggest challenge for us from a geopolitical standpoint is simply being granted access," he said. "And some countries are more willing and open to allow industry to develop their resources than others."

At the same time, oil companies are facing rising competition from new rivals, like Chinese and Indian state-owned companies, as well as the many increasingly experienced national oil companies, like Petrobras of Brazil or Petronas of Malaysia. That has led to a rush for resources around the world and higher costs. In Libya and Angola, for example, oil companies have recently bid record amounts for new exploration rights.

"There's a lot of arrogance on the part of international oil companies, who believe they can offer something that no one else can," said Valérie Marcel, an energy analyst at Chatham House in London, whose book, "Oil Titans: National Oil Companies in the Middle East," is being published later this month.

"But they are not the only game in town anymore."