Book: Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

In the world of Guy Montag, the firemen’s hose does not spray water, but kerosene. It is a world were everything is backward, twisted, yet eerily familiar. People are discouraged to think, only talk about empty things and live like zombies, continuously entranced by empty popmusic and empty reality series on TV-walls. Books are illegal, and burned. It is the job of the firemen. Incidentally, fahrenheit 451 is the temperature at which book-paper catches fire and burns.

Just read some of the famous opening lines:

“It was a pleasure to burn.

It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed. With the brass nozzle in his fists, with this great python spitting its venomous kerosene upon the world, the blood pounded in his head, and his hands were the hands of some amazing conductor playing all the symphonies of blazing and burning to bring down the tatters and charcoal ruins of history. With his symbolic helmet numbered 451 on his stolid head, and his eyes all orange flame with the thought of what came next, he flicked the igniter and the house jumped up in a gorging fire that burned the evening sky red and yellow and black.”

As you can see already, Bradbury has a very visual style of writing, with great care of imagery and the rhythm of the words. Bradbury loves words. His poetic style is still unperfected and not as controlled as in his later works. Fahrenheit 451 was one of his earliest books, written at a young age. But it makes his novel fast, short and explosive, like a fire itself. It is also a bit quirky and over-the-top in its descriptions and metaphors, but its flaws make the novel actually more lovable. And more than 50 years after publication its messages are still glowing embers. This book refuses to be put out.

It is kind of distressing that some of Bradbury’s predictions have become recognisable in our modern times. This twisted world that he describes wasn’t the result of a twisted government, but it was the general tendency of the times. It was the overcrowded world, high on mass production and fast living. Fahrenheit 451 is about the loss of thinking, leading to the loss of books. But, predictably, Guy Montag the fireman sees the errors of his trade and starts an adventure of rebellion.


Like Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley’s Brave New World, this is a real dystopia classic and really worth reading. It has also spawned a reasonably good movie (1966), but that of course misses Bradbury’s virtuoso writing style.

Movie: Thank You For Smoking (2005)

Nick Naylor is a fast-talking advocate of the devil. He is the guy that endorses cigarette smoking on behalf of the tabacco industry. He knows perfectly well what he is doing and lives his life by constructing arguments and almost believes them. He goes out on a night with the advocates of alcohol and guns. He also has a son.

So the big question: how to be a good and honest dad while every day he walks a very very fine line between morals? He always twists the truth just the way he likes to, except with his son. Only in their interaction we see a glimpse of Naylor’s true self. But Naylor is transforming his son, to make him understand his dad’s world. His son is his only friend. But can Naylor continue down that path? This is no drama though, it is a comedy, filled with wacky characters.

Director Reitman’s filming is as flashing and fast-paced as Naylor’s talking, and he assembled a great cast of actors that give stellar performances! In short, this is a smart and funny movie.

IMDB: Thank You For Smoking

Book: Douglas Adams - Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (1987)

As far as I know, this is the only Science Fiction Mystery Detective Comedy ever written. A unique artistic project. Douglas Adams was also the writer of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and if you like that, you will probably like this lesser known work as well.

Douglas Adams is like a loose cannon that drills itself all the way through the most diverse subjects, and then injects all his newfound interests into his stories. While he was working on Dirk Gently, he was, for instance, completely fascinated by computers (which was a wholly new thing back then) and he enthusiastically added some computer talk here and there. Among other things and other things (and other things). But that is the whole point of Adams’ novel: the “interconnectedness” of everything. It is unsurprisingly also the very belief of his esoteric detective Gently. And so Adams created a free pass for himself to drag the wildest things together and fuse them into a novel like a master smith. Wildly different storylines about telephone recorders, a misplaced sofa and electric monks start to fit only at the end like a jigsaw puzzle, and Dirk Gently, master of the interconnectedness, once again solved the case.

As a result, Adams’ novel does not feel like the kind of novel that has been worked on for a decade to perfect, but more like a recording of Adams’ interests at the time. The whole interconnectedness theme sounds a bit as an excuse for Adams to talk about what holds his mind. What saves this book is, off course, Adams sense of humor. Adams is a very intelligent man with a power over words, and likewise his British silliness is intelligent and witty.

Tall. Tall and absurdly thin. And good-natured. A bit like a preying mantis that doesn’t prey -- a non-preying mantis if you like. A sort of pleasant genial mantis that’s given up preying and taken up tennis instead.

Book: J.D. Salinger - The Catcher in the Rye (1951)

Please excuse the following obliquatory slimy introduction. This is one of the most famous American novels of all time and has permanently claimed a high spot on all those all time top lists. The author, J.D. Salinger, recently passed away so his masterpiece is suddenly in focus again. It’s one of those books that get ruined because students have to read it against their will on schools, but it is actually an exhilarating read for everyone older than fifteen. End of introduction.

The Catcher in the Rye is about a loudmouthed teenager named Holden, who has some real problems with the adult world. He is no child anymore but wants to protect all that is childlike and innocent, that what he has lost himself. But the adult world waiting for him is fake, phony, a goddamn joke. For about 24 hours we look through his eyes while he tells us how he raves like a cussing madman through the streets of New York, disliking everything that crosses his path.

Holden is a worst case teenager and we all recognize some part of ourselves in him. His memoir is funny as we sympathize, because yes, we have been there and we know the world can be phony place, and we admire his skill to dislike almost everything. But his view of the world is also a bit of a trap that pollutes your own, because it isn’t very optimistic. It isn’t the answer to life, but Holden has yet to learn that fact.

J.D. Salinger delivers it all in sharp, witty, crystal-clear prose. Holden is a unique character, and one of the best ever written. The story feels straightforward, simple, but the writer is a master of dialogue and hides just beneath the surface a depth and complexity that you don’t even consciously notice upon first read. It is easy to read and to relate to, funny and sad. It will not leave you unstirred.

Movie: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)

To explain a film like The Imaginarium, a reviewer invariably turns to describing the unusual style of the director. Terry Gilliam is the director, and anyone familiar with his movies (try Brazil, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, or the more disturbing Tideland) knows that he is unconventional, but always tries to present something wonderful.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is Gilliam as we know it: a patchy film, quick and chaotic, a bit troublesome to follow or to get the hang on, and filled to the brim with imagination. Occasionally it looks like Gilliam tries to tell more stories than the two hours permit, throwing in whatever came to his mind at the time. My guess is that this movie is Gilliam’s ode to storytelling, much like Big Fish was Tim Burton’s, but Gilliam’s is a far more trippy experience. To explain the story would take another page, and, on screen as well, remains a bit hard to digest.

In the end, this film will probably go down in history as “Heath Ledger’s last film”. He died before completing his scenes, and halfway in the movie his role is filled by no less than Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. This is done quite seamlessly as we jump from imaginary world to imaginary world. They all give great performances, as do all the members of Parnassus’s team. You will probably not be transported into a world of wonders, but if you like your films to be unpredictable, vivid and visionary as a feverish dream, the Imaginarium is waiting for you.

IMDB: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Movie: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

A jolly adventure based on the famous book by Roald Dahl, complete with talking foxes, beavers and badgers in an English countryside of the Wallace & Gromit variety. It is not all fun though, there is drama too and familiar family problems. Before you watch it: you should know that this is a movie by director Wes Anderson, and Wes Anderson has a very unique style.

The ingredients of an Anderson movie are a bit as follows. His characters are witty, quirky, and often recognizable as stereotypes. His movies are very quotable. Then there is the settings and atmosphere. Every cameramove, every little piece of background has been taken care of and is often colorful and elaborate. Sometimes he contructs enormous sets to make his camera float over it, such as a house where the wall is cut away. Finally, to top it all off, Anderson has a strange sense of humor. His movies balance in a confusing way between comedy and drama. All of this goes for Fantastic Mr Fox as well. Once you get used to his style, it can be quite entertaining, so try it out.

Some like that stuff, some don’t. But perhaps all his movies so far have had more in common in style with animation than live action, and now is the first time that Anderson really turns to animation. And what kind of animation does he chooses? Stop-motion. Thats the way clay dinosaurs were made from the 1930s King Kong movie. But he succeeds bravely with an enormous production of top quality. Anderson is still growing as an artist and Fantastic Mr. Fox is one of the best animations of the year.

IMDB: Fantastic Mr. Fox

Book: Richard Dawkins - The Greatest Show On Earth (2009)

The Evidence For Evolution, as the second title goes. More than 30 years have passed since Richard Dawkins wrote the influential The Selfish Gene and followup books, and established himself as a brilliant scientist and educator. That was the start of his journey into popular science writing, ending up with the controversial The God Delusion. Any man changes over three decades and Dawkins’ journey is deeply reflected in his books.

Even though Dawkins explains that this book is not about The God Delusion but about science, The Greatest Show On Earth is hardly a return to the dense and high level The Selfish Gene. His stories have become simpler, using more words to explain less information, and sometimes are on the brink of being pedantic. Especially when the science he presents is interspersed with comments to and about creationists and the like (although, as a biologist, I must say that his chapter about Missing Links and likewise nonsense was very entertaining, yet also highly distressing that he needed to include it). His increasing passionate way of reasoning may have its origin in the tradition of British intellectials, but I am afraid it does not help Dawkins and instead impassionates the countermovement.

One could say that Richard Dawkins has “evolved” according to his environment during the last 30 years and is now conducting an “evolutionary arms race” with creationists. His clear reasoning is still there, and Dawkins remains one of the world’s foremost scientific minds and educators, but reading The Greatest Show On Earth is not unlike stepping into a crossfire where one is forced to pick a side. But I suppose that is what Dawkins set out to do.