abdal malik Rezeski

This is a five star movie. But many will turn it off after five minutes. For those of us who watch it to the end, we find it at the very minimum intriguing. This word does not do the movie justice. The cinematography is certainly five star. The acting is certainly five star. Is it work of art in general it ranks with the very best. The movie is at once disturbing, puzzling, brilliant, and ambiguous. A loosely stitched plot. If we can even call it a plot. It is really a movie of private thoughts. About love, deceit, pain, relationships of all sorts, and the nausea of Sartre‘s famous book. The images in virtually every scene, that is architecture and nature, are quite impressive. Even the music, truncated and inserted, is powerful while it punctuates the dialogue in between pauses and phrases. I’m one hand, I dare say that for most moviegoers, even film buffs, this film is too self-absorbed like it’s dialogue and it’s art. On the other hand, if we are to find profound meaning in art of any sort, well it is all about the self then, isn’t it? It must be. Many thoughtful Ragers, cultural critics, philosophers, and the lake, came to a mostly unspoken conclusion. Absolutely nothing in the overall scope of things matters. Nothing matters. It is for this reason this movie can even exist. A movie where in the performers stumble about quite gracefully, thinking out loud, expressing their thoughts, thoughts we hide from ourselves and others. The very thoughts seem when put into film into dialogue into art, appear quite boring in mundane. Because the some total of these thoughts, these realizations and epiphanies, screams at the absurdness of existence. In the end I think this movie is generally underrated. As is existence itself.

Every time I read Jabès it is as if it is the first time. It is always the same, my thoughts. "This is a new kind of writing," I think to myself. "This is a new kind of language," or, "This is his best book." (I have read all but Le Livre de L'Hospitalité). This book is generally not a new book. Rather, it is a collection of all of Jabès's books assembled, ordered, and selected by Jabès. So, it is representative pieces of his work over time that together create a new narrative--coherent, cohesive, and comprehensive. One might think to read this collection as the best, or a perfect sampling of his work, or a great introduction to his work. Perhaps it is all of this. However, I would not like to recommend reading this text first. If one is at a loss as to where one should begin with Jabès, I think perhaps the first *Book of Questions,* or the interview he does with Jason Weiss in the wonderfully insightful, *Writing at Risk.* Did I say *From the Book to the Book* was his best work? Think of it as a fresh collection of everything he did put together in such a way as to be a joyful new reading of Jabès for those that have read everything else. For the new reader of Jabès, it may be a piercing narrative of 40 years of writing. Perhaps that is fine. To me, I believe one should read the complete Book--that is, all of Jabès's books before this one. Not only will *From the Book to the Book* be more enjoyable, because one has all the material in mind and ready. But more importantly, one will have already 'earned' the right to read this material. That said, whether one begins reading Jabès with his first book or his last, or even From the Book to the Book, one owes it to their self to start reading Jabès. That is, if they want to enrich their literary lives.

While it is true that I haven't been watching much television since the 90s, I've seen enough to know that this is one of the best productions for television ever produced. Even that unlovable Rolland grows on you after a couple of seasons. At any rate, the writing is incredible. But even that would be nothing without the incomprehensible performances of these extraordinary actors--the Rose family. And of course there is Patrick, Twyla, and STEVIE. Characters that are all lovable and marvelous in their own right--that could not have become who they are if not for the actors that play them.