am stat de vorba cu un Prieten Avocat – despre ceea ce am considerat a fi “cheia” discursului regal de astazi: anume “imprumutul tarii de la copii” …
Si am primit urmatorul raspuns care m-a fascinat: Tara e un bun transmis deja viitorimii de catre cei din antecedenta noastra. Fiind o proprietate a viitorimii, (care nu mai poate fi a celor care nu mai sunt ), nu este nici a noastra – caci trebuie sa renuntam la a mai considera ca am primit-o mostenire (deci am avea vreun drept asupra ei)!
Motivul principal pentru care trebuie sa avem mai multa grija de Tara noastra, macar de acum incolo: cei care am auzit, nu vom putea spune ca nu am stiut!
Altfel … prin dictionarele juridice exista definitia detentorului precar: “Persoana care detine un bun, stapanindu-l fara intentia sau vointa de a efectua aceasta stapanire pentru sine, de a se comporta cu privire la bun ca proprietar sau ca titular al altui drept real” … important e sa corelam sensul profund al acestei definitii cu modul nostru de a ne comporta!
Oare nu spun si Parintii Bisericii ca trebuie sa ne comportam cu lucrurile din jur, ca si cum le-am fi primit cu imprumut?
Si mai ales: cat de departe suntem de acest deziderat?
Sa ne fereasca Dumnezeu sa-si intoarca Trecutul fata de la noi!
Stramosii sunt la mana noastra: precum copiii nenascuti inca, ei nu se pot apara in vreun fel de gesturile noastre, de legaturile pe care noi cei de astazi le cautam, le dorim si – de prea multe ori – le fortam, cu cei din trecut …
Ce mai are in comun Casa Regala a Romaniei cu Fondatorul Dinastiei de Romania? Nu pot sa va raspund, sunt altii mai in masura decat mine – insa ma trezesc uimit si tare neplacut surprins de stirea ca o statuie a lui Carol I a costat contribuabilul roman 3 milioane de Euro.
Mai mult, aflu ca nu s-a depus nici un efort pentru refacerea originalului si s-a ales varianta unei copii (nu discut cat de reusita, doar punctez faptul ca cineva a primit tema de a face ceva intocmai “in genul” acelui ceva care a preexistat pana nu demult !!! Da’ stiti, sa fie original. Si daca se poate, calul sa aibe piciorul ridicat. E mai impozant asa :-)!)
La aceasta mascarada trista, reprezentantii Casei Regale – vin si tin speech-uri de impacare. Impacare cu cine? Impacare de ce? Iertarea – daca s-a dat, s-a dat de mult -, si a venit din alta parte (mai de sus).
Iar profesionistii din mass-media nu gasesc timp sa traga o fuga la gliptoteca din Zagreb pentru a lua contact cu cei care poate ar fi putut pune la dispozitie toate datele unei refaceri corecte a lucrarii lui Ivan Meštrović (1883-1962).
Filmul “The Buddy Holly Story” a ajuns in Romania pe la inceputul anilor ’80. Noua ne-a placut mult de tot, l-am sorbit de vreo cateva ori cu nesat, pentru ca aducea vesti despre nasterea Rock-ului … vesti din Lumea libera, de dincolo de Ocean.
Nu aveam de unde sti atunci si imi pare incredibil si acum – ca specialistii in istorie muzicala din Statele Unite au reactionat criticand dur anumite nepotriviri intre scenariul filmului si realitatea faptelor.
Din felul lor de a descoperi fiecare detaliu care nu concorda cu cele intamplate de fapt, din lipsa de toleranta fata de nerespectarea adevarului, deducem cat de mult a fost iubit si apreciat Artistul Buddy Holly – care a murit la 23 de ani intr-un accident aviatic, reusind ca in atat de putin timp sa deschida un drum atat de larg celor care i-au urmat.
Fara acest film insa, cred ca noi romanii am fi fost astazi mult mai saraci, cel putin in capacitatea de a intelege preferintele muzicale ale copiilor nostri! 🙂
Iata lista erorilor, vanate din dragoste pentru Holly cel adevarat, care nu ar fi avut nevoie de croseta scenaristului pentru aprecierea publicului din toate timpurile (cf. Wikipedia):
Holly’s parents were not opposed to his music career in real life, nor was Holly’s pastor.
Holly’s romance with Santiago was “whirlwind”, not the stubborn courtship portrayed in the movie.
The scene in the garage in which the members of the band hear a cricket on a recorded tape is pure embellishment. This event did indeed occur, in the Norman Petty studio in Clovis, New Mexico, but it did not inspire the Crickets to choose the name: it happened after they had already decided on using the name the Crickets. The cricket can actually be heard chirping at the end of the song “I’m Gonna Love You Too”.
The scene in which Holly’s former friends in the Crickets appear unannounced at Santiago’s door in New York is also a fabrication, but a full reunion with the Crickets had been discussed with Holly prior to the Winter Party Dance Tour in 1959, and was scheduled to occur after the tour.
The scene showing Lubbock with mountains in the background of the bus station caused gales of laughter when the film was premiered in Lubbock, which is located on the flat West Texas plain.
The family name on their truck is spelled “Holly,” but the correct spelling was “Holley”.
Holly, Ritchie Valens, and the Big Bopper gave their final concert at the Surf Ballroom, not at the “Clearlake Auditorium,” as depicted in the film.
Buddy never toured with Sam Cooke as depicted in the film.
Clear Lake, Iowa is misspelled as a single word in the film, both on the auditorium marquee and the on-screen text just before the closing credits.
In one scene, Holly is shown writing a music score in a studio. In reality, he could not read or write music; he instead hummed the tune and worked it out himself.
In the scene where Holly sings “Rave On!” and “It’s So Easy” at the Apollo, the year was 1957. However, none of these songs were written or released until 1958. “Oh, Boy!” would have been the only song released at that time.
The Crickets said that their portrayal was negative and they didn’t like it. Their names were altered to avoid legal action, and the drummer has a racist portrayal — this prompted their then singerSonny Curtis to pen a critical song about the film called “The Real Buddy Holly Story”. In turn, this became the title of a Buddy Holly documentary made by Holly fan Paul McCartney and his MPL Productions company in association with the BBC. They also didn’t like that there were only two Crickets portrayed (rhythm guitarist Niki Sullivan was left out entirely), and being renamed, as they had already sold their movie rights to another studio. Norman Petty, the Crickets’ manager, was controversially, never depicted.
The guitars used by Gary Busey in the movie are inaccurate from a historical point of view. Holly is known as the first prominent Fender Stratocaster player. In the movie, the Stratocaster appears toward the end, but seems to be an early 1970s model. The first guitar shown in the movie is a Bronco, launched for the first time by Fender in 1968. The actual guitar seems to be from the early 1970s. The main guitar in the movie is a Fender Telecaster. Even though the Telecaster was launched in the early 1950s, the guitar used in the movie is most likely an early 1970s model as well. But more importantly, as far as is known, Buddy Holly never played a Telecaster on stage.
The lyrics of many songs in the film, including “That’ll Be the Day”, “Oh Boy!”, and “Maybe Baby”, are sung incorrectly. In some cases, lines or entire verses are sung out of order, combined with other lines or verses, or omitted entirely.
Filmul ne priveste pe toti, pentru ca e vorba de viata noastra. A celor multi, care suntem intelesi diferit de cei care ne privesc din balcon.
Era nevoie si de perspectiva propusa de Ujica asupra vietii unui om de stat, al carui destin strabate peste doua decenii din viata tarii: pentru cei tineri, imaginati-va un superconducator, care a condus mai mult decat Iliescu, Constantinescu si Basescu la un loc!
Din pacate – si asta e la urma urmei limitarea oricarei autobiografii – istoria se scrie cu patima, atunci cand e povestita la persoana intai! Iar acest film, prin titlul pe care-l poarta, nu poate fi suspectat de exagerare …
Imagini document, pentru care merita vazut si revazut: epoca Ceausescu capata sensuri noi si mult mai nuantate – prin etapele in care e subimpartita de cei harnici care au lucrat cu daruire la asamblarea acestui film . . .
Calin Diaconu 