The Horror of Sleeping Beauty

This year the British Film Institute is showing all 50 films in Disney’s official animation canon. It’s a wonderful opportunity to appreciate the quality of the animation on the big screen, and to catch some of the more seldom seen pictures in the Disney collection.

Not every one is a complete masterpiece, indeed, some of more obscure pictures are obscure for a reason. But there was one film I was particularly keen on seeing, and that was Sleeping Beauty. Why? Because Sleeping Beauty was to be Walt’s big attempt at a full length epic – something that would prove that animation could be taken seriously as art.

He spent 7 years animating it. Had actors perform many of the scenes so they could be rotoscoped. He scored the film with pieces of Tchaikovsky's ballet of the same name. He spent so much time developing the look of the thing, that he, alas, neglected some of the story telling.

The Prince and Princeless are entirely bland, totally pared down to little more than instruments of the story, not real characters at all. And the villainess Maleficent is humourless and colourlessly wicked – although admittedly an impressive looking creation. It’s as if the story is so tried and true, that Walt is going through the motions. Only the good fairies are really memorable.

But still, Sleeping Beauty is worth seeing, and because of the seven good years Walt spent on it. Just admire the beautiful colours and the stunning layered effect of this opening sequence (well as best as you can on YouTube.



Despite it’s duller than average storytelling, Sleeping Beauty is still a worthwhile spectacle. Walt’s excesses are justified. But besides the wonderful opening, the other sequence of note is the climax, which is what stimulated me to write this post.

I went to see Sleeping Beauty on a Saturday, and what had not occurred to me at all, is that the screening would be full of kids. It was packed too, which was good to see. The kids were quite well behaved too. But it was the parents who surprised me. They hadn’t seemed to have expected that the film just might be a bit scary.

Now this is the BFI, where a film is part of a programme, it’s not screened over and over – the parents will have chosen to bring their kids here, they won’t have been badgered by them. Could they really not have known what they were seeing?

In the climax, the handsome Prince escapes from Maleficent’s dark castle (as frightening a dark castle as has appeared in any animation) and having dodged many of her attacks, he rides towards the Princess’s kingdom. Maleficent casts a spell which surrounds the city in a forest of thorns. But the Prince hacks through the thorns with his enchanted sword.

Enraged, Maleficent roars through the sky and lands ahead him. She transforms into a dragon and roars waves of fire at him. He is forced back, protected by only his shield. The forest is set on fire and the ground collapses under the weight of the dragon’s strength. The Prince is pushed to the edge of a cliff; his shield falls from his grip. All is almost lost, but the good fairies bless his sword once more and he plunges his sword into the dragon's heart. It falls dead, almost upon the Prince, who is forced to run up its back to avoid plummeting into the chasm as the ground collapses under it.

It’s a dark sequence and pretty scary. There was a sense of tension in the air, not just because of the drama. Maybe it was just me, but I thought I could feel mumblings of “that’s a bit much”. Judge for yourself:



Then as the sword hits the dragon’s heart, I heard the women sat next to me, I’m guessing a grandmother, with granddad and granddaughter, made a very audible tut. When the film end As I stood to leave, I heard the woman next to me say to her husband “well it says a great deal about the people of that time”.

Now, I can only assume she was talking of the violence and horror, which she had so clearly shown displeasure at. I also heard others claim that it was quite a surprisingly scary sequence. True, it certainly has impact. I noticed at the screening, and confirmed on the YouTube vid, that there’s even a bit of blood.

I must admit to being rather aghast at this bizarre response. Now granted, I am not a parent. But I was a child once, and I saw Sleeping Beauty when I was a child, although perhaps a bit older than those in the screening. I don’t remember being scared by it. I remember it. When the dragon hits the prince with the fire and it knocks him across the ground - I remember that vividly. It made other dragons in other cartoons look pathetic.

So from personal experience, it was not too scary. But what about other children? You know, I don’t think I heard any child cry or scream during the scene. There was some crying earlier, when Maleficent stalked menacingly, but none during the actual sequence.

Just what did the woman mean when she said, “well it says a great deal about the people of that time”. That the audience was less sophisticated? This is Sleeping Beauty, one of the most gorgeous looking animations of all time. Is she seriously suggesting it is less sophisticated than, say, Sammy: A Turtle’s Tale or Rio. And the fact that the cinema is full more than 50 years after its first release says something surely for its credentials. There are no shortage of animated films, even in the Disney canon – we could’ve gone to see something else.

I’m guessing it’s the horror and the violence she objects too. Yet horror and violence have been part of children’s stories for centuries. Have you read a Grimm Fairytale? I have a vivid memory of one where an imp type creature tricks boys into climbing in hollow trees, and then traps them inside and dances off. The End – no happy ending at all.

So what’s so harmful about this particular film? The violence? Is the killing of the dragon with a sword condoning violence? Should the Prince have tried to reason with it, a monster who literally delights in evil? Where would the excitement be in that, do we not view fairy tales, not just for the romance, but for the excitement? They are never without adventure – why else would boys even give them a look.

Do they really think that children are going to pick up swords and start trying to stab each other? I don’t think in the last 50 years there’s been a huge rise in sword related violence. Knife crime perhaps, but again, I don’t somehow think the gang lads from East London and the council estates where brought up on a diet of Disney. And they’re not children are they?

Disney, the company, is not without its panics as regards violence. Another film I saw, Make Mine Music, features a hillbilly sequence, which was removed from the DVD release because of the constant gunplay. I can sort of sympathise with this, guns can look like a toy, but then again, it’s the parent’s responsibility to store them safely. And again, I don’t think gun deaths in America are likely to have risen between kids after watching Disney – I doubt there was any rise at the time, and the movie came out during WW2!

Why do parents feel the need to patronise their children in this way? Do they not think they can tell the difference between reality and unreality? Do children not understand that an animation is an animation? That there are no Dragons or Witches or talking animals.

I watched cartoons with absolute obsession when I was a child. I knew the difference between truth and reality. I never thought that if I shot my brother (and believe me, we did not get on), in the way that say Elmer Fudd shot Daffy Duck, that he would be fine in 5 seconds time. Kids can believe what they know really isn’t true, and while every so often a story appears where a child had been hurt does appear, are these not very isolated incidents?

I just can’t believe that people honestly feel these things need censoring. Or that children today find this material too strong. There’s a bizarre lack of retrospection – if it was fine for you to watch as a child, why wouldn’t it be fine for children now? You know, there were no screams in the cinema, no crying during the big climax. Only adults were frightened.

Who knows what scares kids? When I was a child I screamed when, in an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine, he was covered black in coal*. I once babysitted a girl frightened by the appearance of Santa in an episode of Barney. Yet I turned out reasonably normal; I can honestly say I've hardly shot anyone in ages.

Is it possible, just possible, that kids knew it would turn out ok? Will they have now deduced by now that maybe it will turn out ok despite the horror? Maybe, just maybe, Walt knew what he was doing, and maybe that’s why Sleeping Beauty has lasted, while Sammy: A Turtle’s Tale and Rio will be forgotten quickly.

And I wonder whether some of the others there who were surprised by the scariness, where surprised because their memory had played tricks on them? Was it that scary when they were kids? Well yes it was, and is that the power of the happy ending – that it clouds out all the nightmares on the way?

It just worries me that such an engaging piece of art can be devalued by the wet-prejudices of people who would seek to protect children from scary things, unreal violent things. That they should think them so simple that they can’t determine truth from fiction. That they could be patronised so, and as result, deprived of such character.

We are depriving our children if we do not treat them to art, and fob them off with committee made CGI talking animal blandities. There’s a reason that the cinema was full, and that’s because generations have enjoyed this film, and wanted to share the movie with their kids. You are not different from your children, they are like you were when you were a child. They cannot take less than you can. And if they’re scared, well, they’ll get over it. Children are resilient too.

Still, I can’t help but wonder whether the tutting women, disgusted with Walt’s violent narrative, is happy with her granddaughter hearing the story of outspoken man who was betrayed by his friend, stoned, beaten and then nailed to a cross until dead.

Now that’s a story that’s had long-standing violent repercussions.



*I was put off by the idea of black-face even then.

Watching the National Theatre's Production of Frankenstein Live at the BFI IMAX

I’m a fan of the story of Frankenstein, and many of the adaptations inspired by the tale. So when the National Theatre production, directed by Danny Boyle and starring Benedict Cumberpatch and Johnny Lee Miller was announced, I was pretty excited.

I was very keen to go, and waited patiently for when tickets for the show would be available to the public; they had already been on sale to members for a while. Unfortunately, by the time this date had rolled by, all the tickets had been gobbled up by members, leaving absolutely none left to the general public.

I can't help but feel that this is pretty shameful. When a high profile performance is staged, it’s an opportunity to encourage and entice those who might not normally go to the theatre to visit. By allowing members to walk off with all the tickets, this opportunity is totally wasted.

Furthermore, it’s grossly unfair to more casual theatre goers, who can scarcely afford to pay membership for all of London’s art institutions, just in case something comes along that they absolutely can’t miss.

Having a number of day ticketrs available to queue for in the morning is hardly sufficient. Who of us can realistically take time out of work to go and queue and hope there are tickets left? In a time when arts budgets are being slashed here and there, this sort of thing seems rather short-sited. Why should people accept money going on the arts, when it’s only accessible to the wealthy, while their local services are being cut?

Anyway, there was a chance to see it at the BFI IMAX, broadcast live from less than a 100 metres away, and broadcast around the world. This I do at least give the National Theatre credit for - it's a wonderful idea.

Nick Dear's new adaptation of Mary Shelley's classic has one difference which very quickly sets it apart from all the others. The play begins right at the moment of creation, the monster's birth. Frankenstein's formative years, and the ideas and inspirations that drove him, are all omitted.

Nick Dear has stated that he wanted to give the monster back his voice, which often missing from most adaptations, particularly in cinema. This is because most big screen adaptations derive from the excellent Universal film, in which the monster is mostly mute, though not always. In the book however, the monster learns to speak from listening to others, and is more than eloquant enough to converse fluently with his creator when they meet again, years later.

The play begins with a flash of lightening(some parts of the Universal film are too good not to use).Benedict Cumberpatch then roles out of a cocoon, a new born who’s fully grown. Besides the excellent make-up, his performance is quite staggering. The first few minutes feature nothing but him rolling around the floor, gargling, slobbering and biting. He’s a baby, learning how to use his new body. There’s something quite enchanting, and unsettling, watching as he learns to walk, and to run, stomping uncontrollably around the stage.

Then Frankenstein, in Johnny Lee Miller’s only appearance in the first half, shoos him away, and he retreats into the forest. He begins to watch and imitate a small family, and befriends a blind man, the only one who could not be repulsed by his deformity. But there’s an interesting new consideration in this new version. As the old man teaches him about literature, the monster is taken by the violence inherent in many of the classics, and begins to see acts of revenge as noble and romantic.

He soon puts these notions of revenge into practice. He is spurned by the rest of the blind man's family, who are terrifed by his appearance. In the book he burns down their house, but only after they have left it. In this play, he burns it down while they are still inside it.

When he and Frankenstein meet again, it’s the monster’s quotation from Paradise Lost that startles Frankenstein so. How could this brutish murdersome creature understand the classics? And how could he have such a violent interpretation of such great works.

The second half sticks closer to the book, although it omits Frankenstein’s friend Clerval and execution of the family maid. One interesting change is the expanded role of Elizabeth, Frankenstein’s beloved. In the novel and film adaptations Elizabeth plays the role of saintly heroine, and untouchable who appears fleetingly but whom Frankenstein reveres and the monster destroys.

Frankenstein is never able to settle with Elizabeth. He is distraught at the destruction his creation causes, and feels unworthy. This play takes this angst a step further by suggesting that the creation of the monster is somehow an extension of Frankenstein’s impotence, that his creation provides him with the son he cannot create through procreation. It’s an interesting thought, though the creation of a man from cadavers might be a somewhat extreme reaction.

It culminates in a touching scene, on their wedding night, when Elizabeth approaches her husband, obsessed with the monster’s threat of revenge, and simply asks why he will not touch her. Then, shortly after Frankentein confesses all, Elizabeth finally meets the monster in a scene which seems inexorable, yet does not appear in the book.

Elizabeth treats the monster with a sympathy not yet shown to him, and most importantly, like a mother might. The monster is moved, almost seems to be entirely taken by her willingness to love. But he has given his word to exact revenge, and believes himself honour bound to carry out his threat. He pins her to the bed and strangles her, whilst thrusting in an unsubtle act of simulated rape. In this brief moment, the creature in his primal nature seems much more human than his intellectual, impotent creator.

Danny Boyle’s production really does celebrate what has made Mary Shelley’s story last through the generation – and it’s not the horror or the supernatural. It celebrates the depths of the book, which carries so many interpretations, from playing God to man's evolution, from fatherhood to human nature. The fact that Nick Dear’s script can still find new things in a book approaching its 200th anniversary shows just how forwarding think the novel is.

And the stars more than justify the stir that their casting has created. Somehow, one imagines that Benedict Cumberpatch, who besides playing the master detective Holmes is normally scene in costume dramas, would be better as the doctor. Yet in his remarkably physical performance as the creature, one can hardly think of anyone else playing it.

It’s the star role for sure, though Johnny Lee Miller still has plenty to work with as the doctor. Frankenstein is a stronger, more forceful man here than the rather weakly man in the book, yet there are moments when he becomes completely unstuck, particularly when faced with the honest emotions of Elizabeth, Naomie Harris, who deserves mention for her performance.

It’s difficult to imagine anyone else playing these roles, yet those who have seen both versions, have remarked that they are startling in their portrayals of either character.

And of watching the play at the Imax? Well, it provided views of the action that you could not possibly get from any one seat at the play. But it did not feel the same as being there, feeling part of the action as you do when only feet away from everything that occurs. That’s not to say that the audience weren’t enthralled. When digital system messages appeared in big blue boxes on the screen, there were gasps of panic from those present. These disruption, though irritating, were brief.

Alas, the production is now over, not that you would've been able to see it anyway.
But I will say is that had I been able to see it, it may well have been one of the most exciting nights of theatre I have enjoyed thus far.

April Film Highlights

As featured on the 50 Word Film Reviews blog

Howl (2010) James Franco, John Hamm, David Strathairn, Bob Balaban. Dir: Rob Epstein, Jeffrey Friedman.

Allen Ginsbourg explains and performs his poem Howl, which leads to an obscenity trial for its publisher. Including the trial was a mistake; it provides a disruptive narrative push to a film about insight and analysis. It screams out for its own full-feature. Interesting nevertheless and Franco does very well.

DDDd

Rubber (2010) Stephen Spinella, Roxanne Mesquida, Jack Plotnick, Wings Hauser. Dir: Quentin Dupieux.

A car tire comes to life and goes on a killing spree. Sounds like laugh-a-minute exploitation, but more avant-garde. Has a quirky idea in which the lead actor tries to kill the audience so he won’t have to finish the film. Would be funny if it wasn’t so boring.

DDd

Martin (1977) John Amplas, Lincoln Maazel, Christine Forrest, Elyane Nadeau, Tom Savini. Dir: George A. Romero.

Martin thinks he’s a vampire, so he preys on women with sedatives and a razor blade. Refreshingly unsentimental interpretation of the vampire myth, showing Martin as little more than a rapist. Romero makes Martin a pathetic figure to be pitied, rather than romanticised. The perfect cure for Twilight nausea.

DDDDd

Oranges & Lemons (2011) Emily Watson, Hugo Weaving, David Wenham, Richard Dillane. Dir: Jim Loach.

A social worker tries to reunite orphans forcibly migrated from the UK to Australia in 50s – 70s. A true and very moving story, told in a way that avoids melodrama, relying on a more believably human, and arguably English, response to traumatic events. Understated and the better for it.

DDDDd

Manos: The Hands of Fate(1966) Hal Warren, Tom Neyman, John Reynolds, Diane Mahree. Dir: Hal P. Warren.

A lost family insist upon staying the night with a jittery satyr who serves a demonic master. A movie made by a fertiliser salesman; someone who makes Ed Wood seem like an auteur. Uneventful, incompetent and downright puzzling, it’s like a badly filmed dream - surreal and utterly stupid.

D

Mephisto (1981) Klaus Maria Brandauer, Krystyna Janda, Ildikó Bánsági, Rolf Hoppe. Dir: István Szabó.

An actor is reluctant to leave 30s Berlin as his career is peaking, especially when he finds favour with the Nazi government. An engrossing character drama about a weak and naive man without moral courage. We can understand his behaviour, even if we can’t forgive it. Great script, great central performance.

DDDDD

The Kid (1921) Charlie Chaplin, Jackie Coogan, Edna Purviance, Tom Wilson. Dir: Charlie Chaplin.

A tramp finds and raises an orphan, but later the authorities take him away. Sited as the first tragedy and comedy blend. Undeniably moving, with rundown sets and contemporary social commentary that add real substance. There’s even a surreal dream sequence. A unique film – and Coogan is amazing.

DDDDDd

The Adventures of Ichabod & Mr Toad (1949) Basil Rathbone, Bing Crosby. Don Bluth, Colin Campbell. Dir: Jack Kinney, Clyde Geronimi, James Algar.

Disney’s telling of the Wind of the Willows and Sleepy Hollow. Lesser known Disney, and for good reason. Wind in the Willows is jolly but zips through the plot, and seems like a missed opportunity. Sleepy Hollow is pretty dull; only the finale impresses, and the ambiguous end is odd.

DDd

If you enjoyed reading about Batman's rather less than threatening adversaries, you may also enjoy reading about his least inspiring heroic adventures.

Batman Villains You Won't See In An Upcoming Movie

There are few films as highly anticipated as the new Batman movie. The Dark Knight was the most critically acclaimed and profitable superhero of all time, and naturally people are hungry for details, myself included.

After much speculation, amongst the details that have come include the villains Batman will face. Featuring in The Dark Knight Rises will be Selina Kyle - that’s Catwoman (though quite deliberately no one is calling her Catwoman), the brutish genius Bane and maybe the Holiday Killer, although this may be speculation.

Some people may consider these to be brave choices as neither Bane or the Holiday Killer are familiar to the general public not like classic villains like the Penguin or the Riddler.

That could be true, but they’re certainly not brave choices. It’s easy to forget that Batman is over 80 years old. And in that time he’s come up across some dangerous villains, and, well, some not so dangerous foes. Even if you don’t include the 60s series (remember Egghead, Bookworm and Louie the Lilac?) there are plenty of characters writers and fans would rather forget.

I’ve become somewhat enamoured with these rather less intimidating members of Batman’s rogues gallery, here are some of my particular favourites:

Crazy Quilt

Paul Dekker is an artist who leads a double life as a master criminal. He leaves instructions for his accomplices in paintings, but one betrays him and he is blinded by a gunshot wound. While in prision he is selected to take part in a scientific experiment to restore his sight. But the procedure produces blinding colours that drives him mad, and he becomes Crazy Quilt.

Quilt is unique in the Batman villain world, as he actually hates Robin more than Batman, as Robin accidentally blinds him again. Despite the silliness of the character, he has appeared a number of since being introduced. He even showed up in the most recent cartoon series. Perhaps writers have some fondness for his camp charm. Still though, not exactly sure where the whole Quilt bit comes in.

Calendar Man

Julian Day (geddit?) is obsessed with dates and plans crimes on said dates. And he likes dressing up too. He often puts on a new costume with each crime. The character’s so silly that they’ve had to acknowledge his ridiculousness within the comic, with heroes and villains viewing him as something of joke.

But he does date back to the Golden Age of comics, and attempts have been made to update him into a darker character. On one occasion his appearance is inspired by Hannibal Lector; someone who knows the identity of a killer but won’t give the game away. Alas, it’s not quite worked, but at least they changed the awful costume.

Ten-Eyed Man

Philip Reardon is a Vietnam vet who, after becoming a security guard at warehouse, gets blown up and loses his eyesight. But a mob doctor is able to rewire his optic nerves throughout his fingers, and reattach new eyes, giving him unique, potentially 360 degree vision.

Doesn’t sound like a terrible villain gimmick, until your realise that he has to go walking about his with his arms stretched out like a fool. And it’s also quite easy to compromise his vision – just throw something at him and let him catch it. A cactus turns out to be quite a good choice. When DC set about doing its first apocalyptic crisis cross-over series, the lead writer targeted Ten-Eye for elimination from the off. He’s never been revived.

The Eraser

Sometimes it’s not the idea, but the execution. Lenny Fiasco is a genius who will eliminate any evidence of a crime, for a large cut of the profits. Not a bad idea at all, it’s just the pencil idea that I think people have had issue with.

It’s not just that he dresses as a pencil, he actually uses his pencil head to literally rub-out finger prints and foot prints. Unsurprisingly he was only used once, but has oddly made recent appearances in dream sequences.




Polka-Dot Man

How on earth did anyone think that this would work. He even commits crimes related to spots and dots! Polka-Dot Man would produce a variety of gadgets from the spots of his costume; the spots would somehow transform in to weapons. Bits of fabric would become weapons all of a sudden.

Unamazingly, Polka-Dot Man would not make a return appearance until over 30 years later, when he no longer had any powers at all – he was just a tit in a suit who got beaten up a lot. Writers love a chance to revenge themselves on characters they hate.

Zebra-Man

Zebras are of course notoriously frigntening. Jake Baker performed an experiment which irradiated his whole body, causing black and wipe stripes to appear across his body, just as you’d expect. He also developed the power of Diamagnetism. This apparently means he can attract and repel anything that isn’t metal, although I’m fairly sure that’s not what the word means.

Zebra-Man appeared only once. A new Zebra-Man was later created deliberately by another villain, although this new Zebra-Man didn’t care for the whole Zebra gimmick. Readers probably didn’t care much either for the hilarious banter on whether he was a black man with white stripes of a white man with black stripes.

Kite-Man

Charles "Chuck" Brown was fascinated by kites when he was a child. So when he decided to become a criminal he quite obviously started using a variety of tools and weapons that utilised kites. Makes sense when you think about it. It’s hard to be much of a threat though when your schemes can always foiled by the weather.

Kite-Man was oddly never quite forgotten, and writers kept resurrecting him once a decade. This was until Joker casually reported he’d been thrown off a building and killed. But this wasn’t quite enough for the current writer, after all, comic book deaths can always be undone. So in 2006, the character was beaten to death and then cooked and eated - now get him out of that one!

Penny Plunderer

Yes, it’s a criminal who steals pennies. Created by Batman co-creator Bob Finger (just so you know that Batman was a bit camp even from the off), Joe Coyne (geddit?) used to sell newspapers for a penny each, but started to steal some of the pennies. After being fired, he became a penny stealing super(!)villain. Batman managed to stop him (obviously he was a threat to society) by luring him to the batcave with a giant penny.

This giant penny was the only legacy from the character’s one appearance, yet later this was retconned into being related to a battle with Two Face. However, brief tribute was paid to the character when this Two Face story in question was finally recounted, and the Plunderer made a brief appearance before being squashed.

Who says you can't go on to do great things after studying Media Arts at Royal Holloway...

March Film Highlights

Please visit my 50 Word Film Reviews blog

Wake Wood(2011) Aidan Gillen, Eva Birthistle, Timothy Spall, Eva Connolly. Dir: David Keating.

A couple experience a ritual that resurrects their deceased daughter for three days. A new Hammer film that actually feels like one. Has flaws; the script is pared back, and gives way to cliché in the end. But the idea is strong and embodies the spirit of rural chillers of old.

DDDd

Chimes At Midnight(1965) Orson Welles, Keith Baxter, Jeanne Moreau, Margaret Rutherford, John Gielgud. Dir Orson Welles.

Prince Hal avoids regal responsibility with the help of his friend Falstaff. 5 Shakespear plays are condensed into one simple, but beautiful story of friendship and responsibility. A little hard-going for Shakespeare novices, but Welles is as ever a dynamic presence as both actor and director. Battle sequence is superb!

DDDDD

The Creeping Terror (1964) Vic Savage, Shannon O'Neil, William Thourlby, John Caresio. Dir: A.J.Nelson.

Spaceship lands on earth, unleashing a monster that devours all in its wake. So bad it’s not even funny. Monster is a pathetic mix of rubber and bits of carpet. Heavy narration and occasional dubbing tries to mask the lack of sound recording, but can’t hide lack of plot. Excruciating!

d

The Black Cat (1934) Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, David Manners, Julie Bishop. Dir: Edgar G.Ulmer

A war veteran travels to the home of the man who stole his wife and child. Famous for Bauhaus sets, black magic and torture – making it prone to over-analysis. Cutting leaves plot holes and supporting players are bland, but nevertheless, remains one of the most interesting pictures of the 30s

DDDDd

Privilege (1967) Paul Jones, Jean Shrimpton, Mark London, Jeremy Child. Dir: Peter Watkins

Britain’s most popular pop-singer is actually the tool of the establishment. Curious faux-documentary that’s too OTT to be taken entirely seriously, but too bleak to be funny. A reaction to the screaming crowds of its day, but still has plenty to say about celebrity adulation. A fascinating and troubling film.

DDDD

True Grit (2010) Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper. Dir: Joeal and Ethan Coen.

A girl seeks the help of Marshal with ‘True Grit’ who can hunt down her father’s killer. A beautifully shot old-fashioned western yarn that certainly doesn’t hold back in its depiction of violence. The cast are uniformly marvellous. It’s good to see a coming of age tale with teeth.

DDDDD

The House That Dripped Blood (1970) Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, John Pertwee, Denholm Elliot, Ingrid Pitt, Joss Ackland. Dir: Peter Von Dufe superfluous

4 scary stories set in a house within a murderous reputation. Despite the name, there’s more tongue in-cheek than there is dripping blood. There are hits and misses but the whole thing is carried off with enthusiasm and the ensemble really is first rate. Iffy ending though.

DDDD

Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde (1920) John Barrymore, John Barrymore, Martha Mansfield, Charles Lane, Nita Naldi. Dir: John S. Robertson.

A noble scientist explores his dark side when he creates a potion that turns him into a monster. In this silent version, Hyde is not a sexual predator, but a disgusting monster. Later versions would flesh out the characters but none quite create such a disturbing and unsettling atmosphere.

DDDD

I'm assuming it comes in rolls

Things I've Enjoyed: Boardwalk Empire

When it was revealed that HBO were to begin producing a new period gangster drama, written by some of the people behind the Sopranos, starring Steve Buscemi and with the first episode directed by Martin Scorsese, TV critics across the globe had a collective orgasm. Once the series had aired, they were no less gushing in their praise.

Yet Boardwalk Empire is not quite the home run that all have called it. That’s not to say that’s it isn’t a great series – it is, but it does have its flaws. It would be truer to say that it becomes a great series, its beginning are a little... crowded.

Boardwalk Empire is the story of prohibition era America. Steve Buscemi is Nucky Thompson, the New Jersey county treasurer and, essentially, the city’s mob boss. The man who pulls the strings in the street and in the halls of power. When the ban on alcohol comes in, he quite jovially announces to his cohorts, including the major and the sheriff (his brother) that they’re going to make a fortune. New business brings new enemies, however, and his unwillingness to bend to the will of a New York gangster causes trouble, as does a zealous prohibition agent. But Nucky prefers politics to the violence of mob business, which gradually begins to undermine his position.

Sopranos comparisons are easy, and not just because of the writers. And the New Jersey location. There’s the young mobster who threatens the boss’ authority, the old gangster who jealous of his success, the powerful New York crowd trying to muscle in, and the women he loves, who struggles to reconcile her love for the boss with the criminal life he leads.

But then again, Tony Soprano was not involved in politics, and was not a subtle character. Steve Buscemi plays a character who holds his card much closer to his chest, and all times appears respectable. He’s a harder character to get an angle on. He has no psychiatrist to spill his inner thoughts to.

This is nub of the problem. Boardwalk Empire plunges head first into the action, before we ever get to know our characters. They’re all immersed in sub-plots. Plot driven action is always welcome, but most series let you get to know the territory first. One of the story techniques adhered to throughout the Sopranos run was that each episode should stand alone, and could be watched as an individual story. After the pilot, it’s quite a few episodes in before there’s anything resembling an A story begun and resolved in one episode.


All these ongoing plots leave character
development in the dark and loose ends dangling from one episode to the next. There’s one sub-plot, featuring a dumb gangster out of favour, with debtors on his back, that inspires hardly any interest at all. Eventually it comes in to contact with another sub-plot, and starts to add to something more, but only eventually.

So why all the praise then? Well it’s HBO, and as such it has all the resources the HBO can throw at it. The production values are superb, and the cast, you really couldn’t ask for a butter bench of actors.

Though the crowded plot causes issues, the writing is otherwise excellent. The show is packed with interesting and colourful characters, from the savvy boss of the negro mob to the gangster’s moll who’s true love is another women. By far the most fascinating, and disturbing, is FBI Agent Van Alden, a Christian zealot with a fiery temper, who struggles to suppress his rage at the abundant moral corruption that surrounds him. And is also gradually corrupted by it. It’s an interesting contrast to have the supposed voice of justice and right to be more dangerous than then those who shirk the laws of the land.

The other major point of interest is how the series brushes up against history. How historically accurate it is is one for the academics; it certainly gives pause to reconsider the history of American government and how criminality and corruption may have formed its policies and laws. And how criminality and corruption have contributed to the creation of society today.

In that respect it’s almost the thematic child of Deadwood – which for unfathomable reasons is not hailed as HBO’s true masterpiece – which showed how society is created and ascends from mobs and lawlessness. You could also link it to the Sopranos, the three shows showing the history of organised crime from the 19th to the 21st Century – moving from an accepted part of the governmental institutions towards the fringes of society, though never quite absent from the echelons of power

While the prolific sub-plots do create a certain unfulfillment as each episode closes, it’s never less than a pleasure to watch all the talent, behind and in front of the camera, at work. And as the series progresses, the plot strands do come together and we can really see where the story is heading.

The series certainly does get one thing absolutely right, and that’s that it leaves you thirsting for more. By the close we see Nucky opening up, becoming more vulnerable and closer to his mistress, the plain but smart Kelly McDonald (of Trainspotting fame). This, alas, may contribute to his undoing, as his friends are now moving against him, having judged him to not be the leader they want. Showing those first signs of mob and politics separating.

Boardwalk Empire is not a complete masterpiece, but it sure as hell seems like it may well become one.

I just like that somebody took the time to write 'Very mature' above it all.

They could be being sarcastic. But either way, they're still a tit.

Although I obviously don't approve of the violent sentiments towards Micronesia...

Not in the Stars

I think most of accept that horrorscopes are a load of old b******s. But as if the point needed emphasising any further, here are five of my horrorscopes from last Thursday. Have a read, and just imagine what kind of revelatory, life changing day I might have had, if even half the things of predicted by these c**p spurting f**knuts had actually happened:


Claire Petulengro – The Metro

If you don’t treat yourself as a first class citizen, then why should others. You’re allowing yourself to believe things, which are not true. You’re gorgeous; now let others know this fact too please.

Unknown - Yahoo

You have a non-stop day in front of you, Virgo. You are likely to be bombarded with email and voice mail from people asking your advice on a particular issue. It is flattering to be in such demand, but the attention makes it difficult for you to get anything else accomplished. Your frustration may be such that you swear off helping anyone. Just when you feel you're going to snap, someone lavishes you with praise, motivating you to respond to yet another crisis phone call.

Unknown - MSN

Working out the benefits of introducing energy saving gadgets into your home looks like a viable idea.

Mystic Meg – The Sun

As Venus settles into your commitment chart, a relationship that seemed to be just for fun turns into one with a future. At work, you have the right mixture of charm and confidence to make real progress. Your ability to forgive a relative shows strength. Luck calls at door 76.

Shelley Von Strunckel – The Evening Standard

The Virgo Full Moon may not take place for about two weeks. But it’s time to acknowledge and reflect on the emotional side of your life. Obviously this involves your concerns and complaints, but you’re also encouraged to focus on those arrangements that bring joy to your life.

I suppose my old favourite Ms Von Strunckel* is probably closest to the mark. After all, what she says is absolutely f**k all, and that's pretty much what happened on Thursday. It's odd, Strunckel used to be the most flowery of bulls******s.

Although there's some truth in the first one...

Words of Hate: Marmite

A new cliche is perhaps a contradiction in terms, but there is certainly one coined phrase that seems to be rising to prominence and really gets on my tits. And that is BLANK marmite, as in “it’s musical marmite’ or ‘movie marmite’. Basically what the sayer is describing is something that provokes an equally strong reaction of love or hate depending on who you ask, with few sitting inbetween. It’s popularly associated with music, because that also begins with an M, but it is also commonly used when discussing movies, for the same reason.

The Marmite comparison has taken a long time to weave its way into common usage, the Marmite Love It or Hate It campaign began back in the 90s. What I find particularly irritating about this phrase is that those who employ it always seem to use it with a sense of smugness and cleverness, as if they have discovered a clever way to encapsulate the feeling of ‘love or hate’ in one phrase. A complete defining and profound description of the subject.


Well it's not big or clever. There is something particularly irritating about the marmite thing. Is it because it has sprung from an advertising campaign? It was actually quite well employed there, amusingly capitolising on that fact that we all know people who both love and hate marmite. Of course that was a bit of fun, it wasn't until later it was used to describe certain art forms, and being employed lazily to describe the way something can devide an opinion. It smacks of a lack of imagination and an obviously vague understanding of one’s subject, and how an audience relates to it.


The reaction we have to a food or drink cannot really be explained, our tastebuds react to produce a positive or negative sensation. But why one group of people might like a piece of music or a movie can actually mostly be explained, can't it. You can break music and films down in to elements: instruments, vocals, visuals, attitude, words, lighting etc, any one of which may de singled out for criticism. You can also look at the times in which something is created. Foodstuffs don’t really tend to go in and out of fashion, with some exceptions of course. But music and film is very much attached to the time in which it is made. Consider punk, and who that impacted on other genres of music, drastically reducing their popularity, turning tides of people against bands who were once remarkably popular.

Consider also the fact that types of music and film considered ‘Marmite’ are not usually available easily available to the general public. They are generally unusual in some way and not considered desirable to the general public. Therefore, to enjoy it, you must search for it. And only if you really like something, are you likely to spend any great time seeking it out.

For those who dislike something in the extreme, they may not have taken fiercely to it at least to begin with, but may have taken more against in response to those who love it passionately. Music and movie fanatic travel in packs, and often the only way to discover fringe or new artists is to pass them on to try and covert more to the faithful. And there’s nothing like someone who likes something too much to put you really off it.

Let’s face it, there are actually plenty of people in the world who will sit in the middle, maybe neither loving or hating something. Thinking again of music and movies, you are not usually loving or hating something individually, you have feelings about a band, genre, director. Therefore you may find you love certain bits, eras of facets of a performance piece. In fact the more you love something, the more angry you are bound to get when it disappoints you.

The BLANK marmite thing just doesn’t really do anything justice. If something is divisive then explain why. If you can’t explain why, that maybe you don’t understand its appeal, negative or otherwise. And if you don’t understand it, then maybe you shouldn’t write about it!

In summary – I hate the marmite cliché comparison. It's tedious, dull and vague. Please, please don’t use it; It’s rubbish.

February Film Highlights

Aelita: Queen of Mars (1924 Russia) Yulia Solntseva, Igor Ilyinsky, Nikolai Tsereteli, Nikolai Batalov, Vera Orlova. Dir: Yakov Protazanov

A rocket engineer dreams of life on Mars while his wife is befriended by bourgeois conmen. Famous for abstract sci-fi scenes, but is largely dominated by a tedious plot involving dastardly upper class types cheating the honest workers. The ending, however, is unbelievable. Even martians can be part of the revolution...

DDD

Edge of Darkness (2010) Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston. Dir: Martin Campbell.

Revenge is suspected when a cop’s daughter is killed outside his home, but could she have been the target? A remarkable TV series becomes an unremarkable thriller. The subtly, scope and mystery of the series are stripped back to create an average conspiracy yarn that isn’t special in any way.

DDd

The Social Network (2010) Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Arnie Hammer. Dir: David Fincher.

The founding of Facebook and how it drove two friends apart. A drama about youngsters with high IQs and low emotional maturity. A surprisingly classical story of envy and ambition. Sorkin’s script is as witty and fast paced as you’d expect, though whether its fair on its subjects is debatable.

DDDDd

Dracula (1931) Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, Edward Van Sloan. Dir:Tod Browning.

A vampire comes to England to stalk new prey. First half boasts atmospheric visuals and stylish direction, but in England, Browning seems to get bored, though the anti-climactic script doesn’t help. Nevertheless, easy to understand why it’s influence has lasted. Lugosi, Frye and Sloan define their roles to this day.

DDDDd

Tarantula (1955) John Agar, Mara Corday, Leo G. Carroll. Dir: Jack Arnold

Scientific experiments to grow large animals gets out of control, unleashing a giant tarantula on a small town. Although it’s just a giant monster B-movie, the makers have taken time to make the effects as good as possible and to provide a respectable back story. Good quality nonsense.

DDDd

Death Proof (2007) Kurt Russell, Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, Rose McGowan. Dir: Quentin Tarantino.

A retired stunt driver gets his thrills by stalking girls on the road and crashing his car into them. Admittedly too talky, but it does make you care about the characters, making the visceral and brutal action all the more terrifying. A tense and exciting low-fi thrill ride.

DDDDd

Return of the Vampire (1944) Bela Lugosi, Frieda Inescort, Nina Foch, Miles Mander, Matt Willis. Dir: Lew Landers.

A vampire thought dead and buried is reawakened during an air raid and avenges himself on those who vanquished him. A fairly run of the mill Dracula retelling; the wartime setting has potential, but it isn’t realised, and the location shooting simply highlights how inadequate the sets are.

DDd

V For Vendetta (2006) Huge Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea, John Hurt, Stephen Fry, Tim Piggott-Smith. Dir: James McTeigue

A masked avenger pledges to bring down Britain’s fascist government on bonfire night. The intent was to update a story about Thatcherism, fascism and anarchism, and make it a contemporary tale of conservative extremism. Really though, just an above average superhero adventure, with some strong sequences, but some clubfooted dialogue.

DDD

Dear the Co-op

I’m writing to complain about your Morland Road, Lower Addiscombe Store in Croydon. The service there is appalling. I’ve lived in the area for over 12 months now, and I go to the store fairly regularly, although less and less often. The staff are lazy and slow, and do everything at their own convenience and I am sick and tired of standing waiting in lines because they simply don’t give a damn about the people they are there to serve.

Queues develop quickly at the store because the staff at the checkout do their work at their own leisurely pace. There response to growing queues is almost zero. They continue to operate at the same gradual pace. They may ring the bell for help, at which point a colleague may decide to wander over slowly, often continuing their work on the shop floor first, and them to assist them. They both then serve the customers at a pace they find comfortable, sometimes enjoying a casual chat. This behaviour seems to systematic of the whole staff; I visit the store at a variety of hours; the long queues and staff laziness persists regardless of who is present and what time of day it is.

There have been some improvements of late. Staff have found the energy to put your shopping in a bag occasionally, and at times when the queue reaches around the store, they’ve even dusted off the third till to use. Not that this causes them to move any quicker. This evening, as I stood waiting, one of them nudged the other to smirk “the queues past the end of the fridge”, his colleague laughed and shook his head, and on they went, doing their job with the minimal of effort. Urgency seems to be a term they are not familiar with.

After a long day at work, the last thing I want to do is to stand around waiting for people who can’t be bothered to make any effort. There are plenty of other stores around - the local Tesco always makes great efforts to keep queue time short - but I prefer to shop at the Co-Op because the food is better. But unless the quality of service improves, I shall simply go somewhere else. And no doubt the many people stuck in the queue behind me may be tempted to do the same thing.

Mr Nixon

Thank you for contacting the Co-operative Careline regarding your local store in Morland Road, Croydon.

As you would expect service is of paramount importance to us and any indication we have failed is treated very seriously. The Co-operative Group, as a national food retailer, takes great care in the training of our staff to ensure our customers receive the highest standard of service when shopping with us. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise sincerely for the service you received, and to advise that I have informed the Operations Manager regarding the issues you have raised with us. Please be assured that he will monitor the store, and take appropriate action where necessary.

Customer feedback is extremely important for us and I would like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to contact us about this matter as we do value all customer comments received, which assist us in making improvements.

If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to phone our freephone number 0800 --- ----

Regards

***** *****
Customer Relations
Co-operative Group Ltd

Job Application Incompetence Or A Guide On How To Not Look Like A Moron

Something I always find totally exasperating is advertising a job vacancy. It ought not to be, I am normally advertising writing vacancies after all; I ought to be receiving plenty of examples of fine writing. At least in theory...

Rather sadly, the majority of applications I read are depressingly inept and incompetent. You would think with a job market so badly constrained that people might want to make the extra effort. But no, slap-dash, ill thought-out submissions is the norm.

It’s mostly the cover letters that are to blame. Hastily written, not proofed properly... Yet they are the most useful part of any application. The CV is a-standard, the same for every application. But the cover letter is the thing that they have written specially for you, aimed directly at this vacancy, yet few seem to spend any time on it whatsoever. Not that CVs always come off well. Many of these are poorly thought out too.

Here are the most egregious errors I have come across, presented for your amusement, horror or education. Quotes used are real, but altered to maintain confidentiality.

Beginning your application

Just because you’re applying online, doesn’t mean that you don’t have to still be formal. It’s Dear Sir/Madam, not Hi or Hello, Greetings or salutations. I’m not your buddy; you want something from me so damn well approach me respectfully.

What always shocks me (because it seems so inconceivably stupid), is just how many applications begin ‘To whom it may concern’. Now to me, the phrase “To whom it may concern” is the kind of message I write on a notice I leave on the car that’s in my parking space, or on the gate at the end of my drive for the person whose dog is fowling outside my house. It’s a blunt and rude way to begin a letter and will get your application turned down in an instant.

Get the job title right

Here’s the opening sentence from a recent application:

”I found your advertisement for the position of article writer on Craigslist.org.”

Shame that I’d advertised for a Senior Writer not an article writer.

And pay attention to how things are spelt. I mean this in reference to how site names and company names are spelt and presented on the page. The website’s not called Gum Tree, it’s Gumtree.

Read the advert properly

Here’s another cover note opening of dubious quality:

“As a former writing teacher who currently writes and edits a wide range of writing projects full-time, I have the experience and connections to satisfactorily complete your projects on time and on budget.”

“Proud of my reputation for consistent, high quality, and affordable writing, which adheres to strict deadlines, I look forward to learning more about how I can use my experience to help achieve your writing and editing needs.”

Did I mention budgets or costs in my ad? No I did not, so that’s a sure fire way to show that the applicant has simply dusted off an old letter and not tailored it properly to this vacancy. I feel sorry for their students.

And take note of the bloody location of the job. You’re not going to be much help if you live in the Phillipines or New Delhi when the vacancy is based in bloody South London!

CVs should be two sides long

I don’t need an epic retelling of your life; I don’t need to know which primary school you went to, and every job you’ve done since you were able to walk upright. Keep it short and concise. Two sides of A4 and no more.

Photos are tacky

There’s a recent trend of people putting photos on their CVs, which, frankly, is pointless. What on earth does what you look like matter? I’ve seen pictures which made the applicant look like an adolescent super villain, and an applicant look a good ten years younger than they were. This is not helping your application. Worse still, if you’re a girl, adding a photo of yourself glammed up completely undermines any credibility you might have. Not every guy will hire you because you’re hot. Women certainly won’t!

Arrogance will get you nowhere

“This looks like an interesting position. I think I might be able to help you.”

Oh really? You might be able to help me? Well God bless you sir, please come along and give me aid in my time of need...

I am offering you a chance to work for me. I help you – you do not help me! Facts impress, not idle boasting.

Don’t be a poet

“Whilst I was overseas I enjoyed the stimulation that every new day within such a different culture offered me and the difficulty and sense of accomplishment that learning Arabic afforded me.”

And how will that help you to write ecommerce copy for me? Any writer worth his salt can smell bullsh*t a mile away.

Don’t sabotage yourself

Check out this bit of application copy:

“My English Literature with Creative Writing university degree has helped to perfect and assist in the development of my fluency of writing, accuracy in typing both oral material and written documents, writing to deadlines and researching relevant material both under the constraints of deadlines and also under the pressure of managing other projects running simultaneously.”

Paying attention to sentence length or repetition seems not have been part of this course. 55 words in one sentence, seriously? Still, it’s not as bad as this travesty. Is this person being sarcastic about being a teamplayer?:

"I'm writing to see if the position is still available. I have extensive experience writing for publication and deadline.My CV contains a full publications list at the end. I have experience writing copy, I am a good "team player", am highly organised and have strong editorial experience both in terms of academic work and in terms of editing and proofing for publication. "

Check properly before sending

Mistakes never look good, but in an application for a writing position, they are unforgivable. Here are some selected clangers:

"I believe I am greatly suited for this position as I have gained over 5 years experience at working in various different customer focust roles."

"I've attached my CV as requested and dome of my writing."

"To whom is may concerned."

And my personal favourite:

"I am a journalist, looking for a challenging career change and this opportunity looked ideal."

Was it some kind of sub-conscious foresight that made them put the opportunity in the past-tense?

January 2011 Film Highlights

Vist the blog damn it!

Rare Exports (2010) Onni Tommila, Tommi Korpela, Per Christian Ellefsen, Ville Virtanen. Dir: Jalmari Helander

Archaeologists dig up the frozen body of Santa, who soon unleashes his wrath against the naughty. Terrific dark horror comedy with a wickedly funny anti-festive premise. It’s also visually splendid, boasting some suspenseful direction and moody scenic cinematography. An absolute hoot from start to finish.

DDDDd

The Green Hornet (2011) Seth Rogan, Jo, Cameron Diaz, Christophe Waltz. Dir: Michel Gondry

A spoilt rich layabout teams up with a fighting genius to become a new crime fighting hero. A shaky script, some good laughs, but the side-kick is more likeable and engaging than the hero. The plot doesn’t kick in until very late and Gondry is not in his element.

DDd

Ghost Ship (1943) Richard Dix. Russell Wade, Edith Barrett, Ben Bard. Dir: Mark Robson

A new ship’s officer starts suspecting that the Captain is unhinged and possibly dangerous. A tense, moody film that doesn’t quite have the chance to develop its character’s decline in its brief running time. But it retains a strong sense of mystery and atmosphere found only in the best noirs.

DDDD

Catfish (2010) Dir: Henry Joost, Ariel Schulman.

A photographer develops a multi-layered online relationship with a child artist and family, but eventually smells a rat. Documentary unveiling of an elaborate deception, which may or may not have happened. Moments certainly raise doubts, but the pay-off is worth it. A troubling film about a prevalent modern phenomenon.

DDDD

Night and the City (1950) Richard Widmark, Googie Withers, Francis L. Sullivan, Gene Tierney, Herbert Lom. Dir: Jules Dassin.

A small time tout finally finds a scheme to make him rich, but quickly makes dangerous enemies. Absolutely terrific film noir strikingly filmed in post war London. Unremittingly bleak and full of fascinating seedy characters; it’s tautly paced with always a hint of danger in the air.

DDDDD

Van Helsing (2004) Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh, David Wenham. Dir: Steven Sommers.

The vampire hunter goes after Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man. Uses a coda of ‘more is more’ inevitably resulting in a loud, gaudy, stupid mess. The script is appalling, the dialogue: groan-inducing, acting: wooden, and the plot: hole-ridden. An insult to Universal’s monster legacy. Beckinsale’s corset – the only highlight.

D

Arsene Lupin (2005) Romain Duris, Kristin Scott Thomas, Pascal Greggory, Eva Green. Dir: Jean-Paul Salomé

A master thief with a troubled past seeks an ancient treasure with a seemingly immortal women. Stuffs so much into two hours that it never stands still for a moment, making it difficult for you to feel for the characters, or be really impacted by the drama. And it has so much potential...

DDD

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Laurence Luckinbill, James Doohan. Dir: William Shatner

A cult leader and his followers hijack Enterprise and take it on mission to find God. Why anyone thought they could satisfactorily realise such an abstract concept is anyone’s guess. There’s too much jokiness too, but at least Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley get plenty of screen time together.

DDD

Scenes from Croydon: Lower Addiscombe Super Fun Park

Concrete has never been more colourful or delightful. It's a park that appeals to all ages. Well mostly older kids. Teenagers; they particularly enjoy that bus shelter thing... and cigarettes.

RIP Nathaniel Boothby Featherington-Smythe II

Oh poor Nathaniel. Once you were healthy, leafy and beautiful. First adopted late Summer 2009, you boasted pretty purple leaves, bright and cheerful. You were a little temperamental, your stems drooping rapidly when deprived of water. But once nourished, your colour and strength would rapidly return, and your stems and flowers would cunningly ease aside the broken office blinds to feed your lust for sunlight.

I cared for Nathaniel dutifully, and of all the content room plants, you were the boldest, the one that thrived most. But alas, I could not care for you all the time. During my absence in India, the content office was taken down to create an open plan office*. On my return, I found my team decamped to the office kitchen downstairs, sat on temporary desks while the refurbishments were taking place.

You were tragically crippled by this move. Stuck in the dark and dim kitchen, deprived of natural sunlight, your beautiful petals were malting and discoloured; your stems drooping across the counter. I scorned my writers for this shameful neglect. I quickly found you a new spot in the sunlight, somewhere safe for your recovery. But I knew, even then, that you would never be the same again.

As the months went on your colour came back and you started to grow again. But your growth was always flat, your stems bent down towards the ground. Your leaves grew large, they soaked up the sun, but you were never able to stand tall. You managed, bravely, to grow a new flower or two. Never more than one though, you didn’t quite have the strength. Despite many promising new sprouts, few came to prominence.

You seemed your healthiest in many months but as autumn drew near, it would always be a difficult time. A move into the centre of the office, well away from the windows, helped neither. Your last flower fell in October. It helped not that your were being overwatered, the foolish and unsympathetic cleaner, emptying half the unfinished cups of water from the office over you.

Your large leaves began to lose their colour. I could see that you were suffering, and I restored your place in the window. It was too late though, your leaves dying, and going unreplaced; your time had come.

In your youth, your beauty was unparalleled. You were the bright light in a career that often seemed so full of darkness. It would have been wonderful to have taken you to my new job, but I suppose as this chapter of my life closes, I too should leave you behind.


*F**king modern barbarism

The Agony of Indecision

So you’ve been in a job awhile. You’ve had some ups and downs. There was a time when it seemed like a land of promise, where you thought you could become indispensible and able to pitch for lots of money. But those days are long gone; financial cutbacks and some short term thinking devalued your work and you found yourself prevented from doing your job well, and constantly under fire from those who prevented you from doing it. You felt trapped, unable to improve your situation, and resented by those who work for you, those who depended on you to try to improve their lot.

Then came what seemed like the final insult, the removal off most of your responsibility and the disbanding of your time. You knew it was coming, the company had been reorganised recently, but it was as if all your effort had come to nothing. So you settled into new role, got back to doing the regular, daily writing, which is in truth what you do best. And the pressure is off, you can relax a little more and your new manager treats you well and gives you some more challenging work to do.

But you’re still getting your old wage, even though you’re not a manager, and it’s a lot more than the average employee gets. Sure, your company is doing well, but what happens when belts need tightening again? You feel bitter too, alienated from the team you once had, all your ambitions and intentions thwarted. It feels like time to move on.

You do some applications; you get some interviews and asked to do some tests. You don’t quite get what you want (to add insult to injury, someone who used to work for you got a job you yourself applied for) but finally, as Christmas approaches, leads come in abundance. Interviews are suddenly arranged, one for JML Direct, one for Totaljobs, could this be your way out after all?

Life, alas, never goes as your expect. A week before Christmas you are pulled into the office for what seems like a mundane meeting with your manager, but the director shows up and suddenly it’s getting serious. They want to know how you feel about the job , and ask you up front whether you’re looking for work, because they know about the job you didn’t get that went to the guy who used to work for you. You tell them the truth as close as you can, still not sure where this is going.

They surprise you. Say that they’re very pleased with the work you’re doing and results you’ve been getting. They want you to know that they consider you to be an essential member of staff and want to secure your ongoing commitment. They make you an offer, a very good offer. It’s the kind of offer you were hoping to secure months ago. It all sounds good; work’s near where I live, it’s challenging without being too difficult, and it would be very comfortable to stay.

So you decide to stay. But of course, you must contact those recruiters to tell them that you’ve decided to stay. You’re not specific about what position you accepted; you don’t want to tell them you’re staying after how much you said you wanted to leave. It’s difficult to turn down potential opportunities, jobs that could deliver a number of interesting possibilities. You never know what might’ve been; sorry Experian I won’t be available to interview, apologies Totaljobs, I won’t be able to come into the interview on Tuesday.

JML... Well, that’s difficult. They do everything in house, from naming new products, to creating the packaging, the instruction leaflets, the marketing campaign and even the TV and radio commercials. Quite a unique position; the sort of thing that would go on in a big agency, and across many departments, not just all in one small organisation. No, you can’t quite bring yourself to turn this one, down. After all, what’s the harm in checking it out? Nothing may even come of it.

You smile through another meeting with the director on Monday, trying to be honest without giving anything away. You go to the interview on Tuesday, seems to go well. Quite a tough test, but luckily you happened to watch one of their videos about a new fancy kitchen knife set, so bit of a stroke of luck when that’s what you need to write about.

In some ways you hope that you don’t get offered the job, that way you can take the easy decision and stay where you are for the money. Of course, nothing’s ever easy. You are offered the job the next day.

Oh what to do. All Christmas is spent trying to decide what’s best. Sure, JML is a much more interesting job, and it’s unique, and I have had plenty of issues with my current job. But the money is so good; you can do a lot with money, and in these difficult volatile economic times, having a bit of cash to hand is no bad thing.

So you decide that the best thing to do is ask JML if they can up there offer. It’s expensive to commute after all. It’s really awkward, you literally clam up, you’re so nervous asking for this. They seem responsive, but they can’t confirm until the office reopens in the new year. And you’ve got a couple of days in the office before new year. And as your boss tells you about all his plans for the new year, and about the new team member who’s starting who’s going to work for you, you feel the pangs of guilt. You want to just tell him you’re probably going to leave, but you know you can’t just in case there are any issues.

Your resolve begins to waver. You see all these news stories about rising prices and problematic economic forecasts. Do you really want to turn down the big money? JML finally call you back. They’re going to meet your offer. You feel relief, joy – but know you must face the music and come clean with your boss.

It helps not that they take time to send you the paperwork and that your boss is away for days ill. The time finally comes, and you sit before him like a naughty school child confessing to a headmaster. He’s disappointed, actually says “ where am I going to find someone as good as you?” You feel guilty, but also immense relief. You’ve done the right thing and it’s the right time to move on.

So yeah basically I’m going to work for JML Direct next month. My Viagra writing days are behind me at last!

December Film Highlights

The 50 Word Film Reviews blog has changed domains, and is getting a bit more attention now.

Tron: Legacy (2010) Jeff Bridges, Garret Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Michael Sheen, Bruce Boxleiter. Dir: Joseph Kosinski.

Years after his computer genius father disappeared, a boy is absorbed into an artificial computer reality. Design – superb; effects – dazzling; soundtrack – excellent; plot – predictable; characters – bland; dialogue – terrible. Worth-seeing, actually yes, it’s pretty good fun, despite its obvious faults.

DDDD

The Killer Shrews (1959) James Best, Ingrid Goude, Ken Curtis, Gordon McLendon. Dir: Ray Kellogg

A group of people are trapped on an island surrounded by genetically engineered giant, poisonous shrews. No amount of exposition is going to make shrews scary, and neither is taping some shaggy carpet to some dogs. Would be hilarious if it didn’t mostly consist of people standing around being boring.

d

The Shop Around the Corner (1940) Margaret Sullavan, James Stewart, Frank Morgan, Felix Bressart. Dir: Ernst Lubitsch

A shop clerk develops a relationship with a pen-pal, little realising it’s his rival, the junior clerk. A cosy Christmas film, with very sweet comedy and a few surprising dark moments. The pacing and dialogue sweeps by so smoothly, and the romance, two romantics living mundane lives, is very enchanting.

DDDDd

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (2010) Michael Douglas, Shia Lebeouf, Carey Mulligan, Josh Brolin, Frank Langella. Dir: Oliver Stone.

A broker seeks revenge on those who ruined his mentor, by seeking advice from his fiancee’s father, Gordon Gecko. Starts off well, but peters out and reaches an unconvincing conclusion. Focuses on personal relationships without making a clear point about today’s financial world, which is surely why it was made.

DDDd

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Deforest Kelly, Stephen Collins. Dir: Robert Wise.

Kirk takes control of the Enterprise again as a dangerous unknown entity plots a course for earth. Boldy goes nowhere, very slowly. It wallows in its own budget, attempting to create awe, but merely becoming tedious. Slim characterisation and a thin plot don’t help either. Thankfully, better was to come.

DDd

The Old Dark House (1932) Boris Karloff, Melvyn Douglas, Charles Laughton, Ernest Thesigner, Raymond Massey, Gloria Stuart. Dir: James Whale.

A group of travellers take refuge in a house of sinister eccentrics and their alcoholic neanderthal butler. Not really a horror, but a dark comedy about a family of insane inbreeds. Karloff is wasted, but Theisigner and the other cast are great and Whale develops a wonderful atmosphere.

DDDDd

My Summer of Love (2004) Natalie Press, Emily Blunt, Paddy Considine. Dir: Pawel Pawlikowski

An aimless young village girl and an empty wealthy middle class girl develop a relationship to escape their loneliness. A tender coming of age drama, but one with an unsettling conclusion. Both Blunt and Press put in endearing natural performances and Constantine scores highly as phony born again Christian.

DDDD

Forbidden Planet (1956) Walter Pidgeon, Leslie Nielsen, Anne Francis, Jack Kelly. Dir: Fred M. Wilcox

A space crew track down a missing doctor and his daughter, but are attacked by the monster that killed his colleagues. Slow starting, but still provides a visual treat with superb art direction and colour. It boasts an intelligent and intriguing concept even if the leads are a tad dull.

DDDDd

Top 5 Films of 2010

I would be lying if I said I'd seen huge amounts of new films during 2010, but I've seen a fair a few and below are my five favourites. This is based on films released in the UK in 2010, at least one of these was first out in 2009, but not over here, so I couldn't have seen it. It was a tough job, several films almost made it onto the list* but these 5 superlative effort are the one's I feel stop out for me the most.

5) Four Lions

Starring: Riz Ahmed, Arsher Ali, Nigel Lindsay, Kayvan Novak, Adeel Akhtar. Directed by Chris Morris.

A comedy that’s hilarious, but really isn’t very funny. For the first hour we can laugh at the wannabee jihadists incompetence and their ridiculous half-baked ideology, but when they descend on London for the final part, strapped to explosives, their antics become truly frightening. It’s an intelligent and insightful film, which makes a convincing argument that the threat comes less from terrorists, but from more familiar outcasts of society. Just ones with explosive ambitions.

4) Inception

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Hardy, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy. Directed by Christopher Nolan

A rare example of the intelligent summer blockbuster. Dark, mysterious and complex; it combines spectacular effects with thought-provoking concepts about our perceptions of reality and the sanctity of our own thoughts. It sweeps you up with a formidable pace, and yes, it’s very convoluted, and there may be too many layers to the puzzle box, but excitement and intrigue by far win out.

3) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Starring: Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace, Sven-Bertil Taube, Peter Haber. Directed by Niels Arden Oplev.

A thriller par-excellence. A case of a powerful, incestuous family, with dark secrets is not especially original, and could’ve been given a rather mundane treatment. But the success of the books is in its characters, the formidable morale crusader Blomkvist, and more interestingly, Lisbeth Salander, the goth-computer hacker with a disturbing past and a determination never to be defeated. Nyqvist and Rapace evocatively bring both characters to life, and the icy cold cinematography and careful pacing makes this one of the most exciting and tense mysteries to hit the screen in many years. It was such a hard act to follow that the second and third parts of the trilogy had a tough time competing. And by default, the prospects for the American remake already look bleak.

On a personal note, seeing this film also gave me one of my own personal all-time favourite cinema moments. During one particularly tense scene, one revelation gave a member of the audience such a shock that he literally jumped out of his own chair, and threw his hands up in the air, resembling a solo, spontaneous Mexican wave.

2)The Illusionist

Directed by Sylvain Chomet.

One of two films that left me emotionally drained (see the other below) the Illusionist is the belated second feature animation from Sylvain Chomet, director of Bellevue Rendezvous. It’s based on a never-produced script from French director and comedian Jacques Tati and it follows a stage musician who finds his act going out of date during the sudden cultural upheaval of the 60s. His search for work takes him all the way to Scotland, where in a village he meets a young girl who believes in magic, who then becomes his travelling companion.

The film is melancholy when at its most jolly, and absolutely tear-jerking when at its most tragic. The magician’s life is saved when he meets this young girl, while his contemporaries are not so fortunate. Their careers over, they turn to alcoholism and suicide. The music halls close, and the theatres fill the bill with new beat combos, and our leads future continues to look uncertain. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to feel for those left behind at the cost of the changing times; their long practiced arts suddenly devalued and rendered obsolete. And the animation is stunning; the streets scenes of old Edinburgh are so gorgeous. A downer, but a beautiful one.

1)The Secret in their Eyes

Starring Ricardo Darín, Soledad Villamil, Javier Godino, Guillermo Francella, Pablo Rago. Directed by Juan José Campanella

It’s hard to know where to begin with a film that just has so much going on. To summarise the plot, an Argentinean detective returns home after many years away, planning to write a novel based on an old rape case. Although nasty, the case itself does not immediately appear to be exceptional, but then of course, much more is going on. The detective was in love with the young prosecutor on the case, and their meeting years later rekindles old feelings. And the case turns out to have been far from easily resolved.

This is a film that never quite reveals its full hand. Even when you think you have the full story, it still manages to produce a surprise from nowhere. And although it eventually delivers a happy ending, it’s far from sugar coated. It’s rich with symbolis:, love, loss, regret, corruption, revenge, action, intigue – it has it all, and never feels overcrowded, overblown, contrived, or earnest. The blend is perfect, and the film more than deserved it’s Oscar. Simply one of the best films I’ve ever seen.

* oh Human Centipede, you were so close.

Snow

Many people have fallen victim to the UK's pitifully woeful response to snowy conditions. I fortunately was only slightly effected, alas, others I know have missed their holidays, or been stuck in airports for days.

By far however, my favourite snow related travel mishap has occured within the A50 tunnel in Stoke. The A50 is a bypass which handily allows you to pass right through Stoke-on-Trent with ease. The A50 tunnel passes under a round-about in the town of Meir, handily helping to reduce traffic in this very busy area.

However, due to the snow, there was a power cut, and the lights inside the tunnel, which is not very long, went out. Thus, for the safety of drivers the tunnel was closed. This of course led to huge traffic jams and more stress during the holiday period.

This incident did make we wonder whether some one ought to invent some kind of device, which you could attach to a car, that would allow you to see in the dark. Some sort of illuminating device that drivers could use in times of reduced vision that would help them to see where they were going...

Merry Christmas.

November Film Highlights

Read more at the blog.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest (2010) Noomi Rapace, Michael Nyqvist, Lena Endre, Annika Halin. Dir: Daniel Alfredson

While Lisbeth recovers in hospital, Blomkvist tries to uncover the organisation that’s determined to silence her. The final chapter is a conspiracy thriller; lower on incidence but still maintains the same edge-of-the-seat tension. If only Rapace and Nyqvist had more screen time together. A fine end to a fine trilogy.

DDDDd


The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) Grant Williams,Randy Stuart, April Kent, Paul Langton. Dir: Jack Arnold

A man is caught in a strange mist, and begins to shrink. Too melodramatic, it’s not ‘till the second half that it becomes the adventure yarn it should be. Effects are decent, but ostentatious narration will make you cheer for him to be squished .And the ending is unbelievable.

DDD

Murder, My Sweet (1944) Dick Powell, Claire Trevor, Anne Shirley, Otto Kruger. Dir: Edward Dmytryk

A botched ransome handover and a missing nightclub singer add up to trouble for Philip Marlow. Unfairly overshadowed by Bogart, Powell is excellent as the cynical PI, and backed by a strong supporting cast. Set the template for many seedy noir thrillers to come, and benefits from sequences of expressionist flair.

DDDDd

The Mark of the Vampire (1935) Lionel Barrymore, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Elizabeth Allan. Dir: Tod Browning.

Vampires are accused of murdering a wealthy man and return for his daughter a year later. One of the silliest and most anti-climatic of early horrors. Lugosi lingers silently while Barrymore chatters endlessly. Sort of fun; the ending is so nonsensical that one expects a Shyamalan remake any day now.

DDD

The Abominable Dr Phibes (1971) Vincent Price, Joseph Cotten, Peter Jeffrey, Virginia North. Dir: Robert Fuest

A mad organist plans elaborate deaths for the doctors responsible for his wife death. Deliberately outlandish horror lark which delights in camp flamboyance. Being built around grisly, creative, death sequences causes some pacing issues, but if viewed with tongue in cheek it is more than worth a few good laughs.

DDDd

Mystery at the Wax Museum (1933) Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Glenda Farrell,Frank McHugh. Dir: Michael Curtiz

A new wax museum opens, but the sculptures are too life-like, almost familiar.... Superior to the remakes, but seldom seen. It’s not just fascinating for its early colour and pre-production code dialogue, but also for it’s fine set design, dramatic direction and extremely strong script.

DDDDd

House of Wax (1953) Vincent Price, Frank Lovejoy, Charles Bronson, Carolyn Jones. Dir: Andre De Toth.

Another new wax museum opens, but the sculptures are far too life like, almost familiar... Inferior to the original, in both direction and the script, but generally good fun. The horror is played up and Price is good fun as always as the villain. Was originally 3D, hence the amazing paddle-ball man.

DDDd


House of Wax (2005) Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt, Paris Hilton. Dir: Jaume Collet-Serra.

Beautiful youngsters get stranded near a ghost town with a sinister wax museum. It’s as if they wanted to remake Texas Chainsaw but were forced to do this instead. They clearly didn’t understand what made the originals work and made a bland, clichéd, rubbish teen slasher instead. It’s boring too.

Dd