parting shots

after spending 5 years in Paris as the bureau chief for the New York Times, Elaine Sciolino is about to move to a new post and last week filed her leaving piece, called A Guide to the French, about things she learned in the City of Lights. Even though she seems appreciative of her time there, the article doesn't exude too much warmth warm, toward the country or its inhabitants. From harping on France's obsession with history, to underscoring French women's evergreen sexiness, the list reads more like a jumble of slightly amusing observations than a true attempt at describing what makes the French so, well, French.
Where New Yorker correspondent Adam Gopnik had managed to make light of the tons of small annoyances one encounters when living in France in such a breezy and enjoyable way in his book Paris To The Moon, Mrs Sciolino sounds mostly like an outsider who never really figured out how to adapt to the charms and frustrations of this old country. It's far from bad, and she actually nails some of the details about life in France that generally take some time to understand (for instance the air-kiss thing, one of the big mysteries to Americans when they move to France), but there is unfortunately no sense that she understood the country beyond those details. Not to say it's an easy thing, in fact it's not one I'd necessarily try to describe myself even after spending nearly 10 years there, but if you're going to try, moving beyond the cliches might be a good start. Stating that no one says "bon appetit" before a meal make me wonder what type of French people she encountered during her stay. Methinks a lot of Varenne-St Germain-Montorgueil types and perhaps not too many of the 99.5% of those she's trying to describe. I might be incredibly dismissive here, but that's the feeling I got from reading her article.
In the end the reader's response to this piece will depend on their initial opinion of the French. Which means that publishing it will have had no positive impact whatsoever. And that, unfortunately, is fast becoming the norm when it comes to the traditional news media's cultural relevance.

jammed

so apparently everyone had taken last week off, because this week has been a sardines-fest on the commute. From the line 4 to the RER C, this has been a pretty good reminder how rush hour can suck, and commuters' attitude even more. And that's with nary a strike in sight, although that shouldn't be too long, what with the always-fun debate on pensions being put back on the news front-burner today. Of course morning commutes are never fun in big cities, it's just weird to see so many people go away and come back from vacation at the same time, I've never got used to it. I've done rush hour in London and in NYC, and they're often worse than Paris in terms of commuter volume, however the number of people is pretty constant, save from a few special days per year. RTTs, paid holidays, not living to work but working to live, all that stuff is great, but sometimes you wonder about the long-term prospects of the French economy in a country where so many people are away so often.

president ! president !

with all the burgeoning talk of the upcoming 2007 presidential election in France, I thought I'd ease myself into a political frame of mind by watching the recent France 2 documentary about Jacques Chirac. It was the talk of the town when it was shown in late October (seriously, I participated in multiple talks about it. in bars. on a Friday night), and I felt it would give me some insight into a very complex public figure. To people my age it might seem like the guy's been there forever, and this doc does nothing to dispel the notion. Presented in two parts, one focusing on the pre-1975 years (title: "the young wolf"), the other on the period since then ("the old lion"), the object of this program was to present a complete view on Chirac's accomplishments, bungles, and overall evolution. Chirac's been a part of French political life for so long (basically since the early 50s), it's quite fascinating to see how much his staying power has owed not only to his personal ambition but also to back-room wheeling and dealing on his part by different party elders.

The major impression I got after watching the whole thing was that although the current president of France has become somewhat of a caricature today, he has been one of the more impressive figures of the last 50 years in French politics. Apart from Francois Mitterand, who had his share of shady dealings, I don't know of anyone who has managed to adapt to ever-changing conditions yet remain true to his basic commitment to serving his country. I do not mean this particularly as a compliment, but simply because that's the feeling I get from everything I've read/hear/seen about him. You definitely get the impression that corruption was never far from the surface, especially during his years as mayor of Paris in the 80s and 90s, but looking at his entire work gives a more nuanced view. After all, he did do some good things like create the national unemployment agency ANPE (now the epitome of bureaucratic slowness, but a really good idea all the same), and apart from a single incident has always made it clear that he was completely against the extreme-right Front National party, something a few of his right-wing peers have not always been willing to do in tight election situations.

But since the last 20 years of his career have been marred by so many scandals and alleged corruption stories, the global view of his career has been marred, perhaps definitely. I don't particularly like him, but after watching this documentary I definitely kind of respect and understand what he's experienced a lot more than before. Yes he is stiff, yes he is a bit too loyal, but those character traits have mostly gotten worse as the years have gone on. I still would like him to face a real inquiry into what exactly his role was in those property scandals that happened while he was mayor of Paris, but I don't believe he was corrupted in the sense of increasing his personal wealth point of view, at least not more than anyone in that position would. While that doesn't make it excusable, that view is a bit more subdued than the ultra-shady and super-controlling figure that he has been portrayed as. Also, he gets criticized a lot for not doing much since becoming president, but if people agreed with the work of his prime ministers they wouldn't care about that. In France a president is mostly there for show, and the shaking of hands (of foreign dignitaries, old people and children), an activity at which Chirac seems to be especially good at, and fond of. So if you had to criticize him as president it would be mostly for picking his government heads too much based on his personal appreciation of them and not necessarily on their merits.

Of course it is quite probable that the real truth will never emerge, since that is the way things go when it comes to French politics. In that sense it was a pleasant surprise to see that this documentary was shown on a public channel, in prime-time. Programs like this are part of a healthy discourse on the role and work of our politicians, and though I wouldn't want to watch them too often (The Life and Times of Jack Lang, anyone ?), I'm glad they're made and not relegated to the late-night time slots.

no respite

first thought of the day : wow, it is coooold. I haven't put on any heating in my room, since 2 days ago it was still Indian summer-like. But apparently now that's done for and the pseudo-Parisian winter is here. I say pseudo because the seasons aren't too well defined here, it really depends on the years (like the 14°C days we had in August). This brings me to a strange fact I've noticed: guys who dress with no regard for the weather. No matter what the conditions are like, frosty or balmy, you will see guys in Paris dressed as if these were totally irrelevant. For instance, this morning I saw at least two dudes wearing just a suit, when it was probably 2 or 3°C. That happens a lot in the winter : apparently some men have superhero suits that enable them from feeling the cold. And these guys do not wear a scarf, wool hat or anything that might shield them from the cold. Likewise, on the warmest days of the year, I always see some fellas still wearing a jacket. Never fails to amuse me, considering the temperature's generally above 30°C. Makes me wonder what the thought process for these dudes is in the morning. "Hey, it's August 4, I should really wear an extra layer, just in case there's a cold spell coming in from Russia". For some reason I see less women doing this, probably because women are more logical when it comes to clothes here (I said for clothes :) ).

disguised

no doubt when it comes to cultural matters (and women) France is a complex place. One such case is how most people have an instinctive negative view of all things American, yet American movies, TV shows and music are still dominant. I've got another, kind of baffling, example : the popularity of Halloween.

It all started about 10 years ago when, so goes the urban legend, some costume manufacturers (there were probably some candy makers involved too, they're quite evil, especially that Willy Wonka fella) decided to promote the event as a way to increase their declining sales. Pretty soon every mass-market brand was joining in, and now Halloween is a pretty mainstream event.

Not to sound all Johnny McCranky, but that's ridiculous. I grew up in a place where we celebrated Halloween as kids, and the whole thing seemed pretty organic. Sure, it was also a hugely commercial event, as pretty much all these things are nowadays, but at heart it was still kids going door-to-door asking for candy. To me that day carries many memories of my brothers and I running around our building with friends, dressed in our best getups. I specifically remember going as Axel Foley one year, basing my costume mostly on the fact that I carried a toy gun and could imitate his -unmistakeable- laugh. If you'd seen me that night, there would've been absolutely no way for you to convince me my costume wasn't convincing (FYI since my pic isn't on here: he's black, I'm not). I just thought it was the coolest and I reckon that's all that matters when you're 8. Plus I think my brother went as Daniel-san, so we were like a gang of little tough guys that day, no one would've dared mess with us.

This whole kids looking for candy is the basis of Halloween. It's not about Coca-Cola putting out a special orange bottle, or clubs hosting costumed parties, or even people coming to work with fake teeth, although that's part of it too. Therefore the tradition at the centre of that day doesn't really exist in France, even if I have in recent years spotted more and more random kids walking around with candy bags. But since I'm guessing 90% of people don't stock on sugary sweets, how can they honestly do the trick-or-treating thing ? Unless they've got a North Korean-size stockpile of stink bombs, in which case I should be buying some emergency M&Ms myself.

But even if trick or treating does become a national occurence, it still will feel weird to be, because of how the whole thing started. I've read a bunch of articles explaining how Halloween really was a Celtic (read non-American) tradition, and that that was the custom we had adopted in France, not the crass mass-market US kind. Like I said, this whole thing started very recently, quite probably due to some savvy entrepreneurs who recognized a marketing opportunity. If that's not typically American, I don't know what is.

By now you'll probably understand that I won't be going to a costumed party next Tuesday. If you feel the same way I do, I've got just the thing for you : a gig by the soon to be world famous The Goodfellas (best.name.evaaar). They mostly play a bunch of classic rock/R&B covers, in fact I've got an idea for a tee-shirt for them that would say "If you haven't heard G.L.O.R.I.A played live, you haven't been to a Goodfellas concert". Or something to that effect.

The concert is at my favorite bar, Le Reflet (Google Maps; Metro: Odeon or St Michel), right next to the Boulevard St Michel and Rue des Ecoles intersection. The official start time is 7pm, but I know they'll be playing till late, so come in anytime. I know that my stats say on average only 4 people read this blog, but to them I say "screw you, I'm an optimist". So join me on the crabby express and say yes to good live music, and no to fake traditions !

huh ?

last week, while grocery shopping at the Réaumur Monoprix, I noticed stacks of boxes piled up along the exit stairs. A closer look led me to realize these were in fact chocolate boxes for Christmas (you know, Mon Cheri, Ferrero Rocher and their heinie-fattening brethren). I even took a craptastic cameraphone pic of them, but lack of internet access at la casa prevents me from sharing this highly essential piece of pictorial evidence witht the world.

This sort of thing I've come to expect in the US, where I once saw a xmas tree in a store in late September, but I thought France would be immune to the phenomenon. Is it too much to ask to wait till at least November 15 ? As Rob Cordry would say, "I mean come on" . To recap we're still having 20° temperature on most days, and retailers have already started to crank up the xmas machine. I know the Galeries Lafayette have started to put up their decorations and window dressings, so guys in full Santa attire (and your local boulangère wearing a Santa hat) can't be too far behind.

Thus in the spirit of the "if ya can't beat em, join em" strategy, I will be partaking in one of my personal traditions, the annual viewing of Elf, a bit earlier than usual. And to really feel festive, I'll probably pull out my Rat Pack and Sufjan Xmas albums. In the words of Buddy: SANTA! OH MY GOD! SANTA'S COMING! I KNOW HIM! I KNOW HIM!

up in smoke

so apparently, the full ban on smoking in public places is set to come into effect on January 1, 2007. Great news for non-smokers like me, for sure, but not just them. I understand people that smoke who feel that this is an infringement on their personal freedoms, but really in such a situation where two sides cannot coexist without one's behavior impacting negatively the other, it is the only way.

After living in Paris for close to ten years, I'm not going to say I don't mind cigarette smoke, because I do, but I have sort of gotten used to it. Still as someone who is moderately allergic to smoke, I definitely notice when i stay in a smokey environment. You eyes and throat sting, and you feel a bit dizzy if you stay too long. Some (mostly smokers in my personal experience) have been saying that separate sections for smokers and non-smokers were an acceptable solution. But truthfully, if there are people smoking in a closed environment like a restaurant or a bar, you're going to notice it sooner or later. And the same goes for terrasses, which tend to be static-air environments. Nowadays in Paris it's impossible to go out to proper bars and not come out smelling like a stale Gauloise. Getting soaked by a spillt beer happens, but having to clean your jeans every single time you go out because of cigarettes tends to get tedious after a while. Bar and restaurant owners fear many people will stop going out and prefer to stay in their homes so they can keep lighting up. But man is by essence a social being, and I'd be surprised if revenues for cafes and restaurants drop significantly once the law is actually applied.

And this is only from a lifestyle POV, without getting into the argument of health-care costs. One of the issues in France on that aspect is that the government actually makes money on both ends, since it taxes-dearly- a product it is also involved in selling (through Altadis). Yet the costs of caring for all the people suffering from tobacco-related illnesses has to be a staggering amount, and if I weren't so lazy I might try to search around for some information on that. But since I am I'll believe what I've read in recent articles on the subject, in The Economist and other publications.

Bottom line is this is a trend that's been unavoidable in recent years, and which is not borne by freedom-hating puritans, as some would have you believe, but mostly by logical interests of public health. And the result of such a ban can only be a good thing for society at large.