BOOKS
DIARY OF A WIMPY KID, by Jeff Kinney. Twelve year old kid has a best friend but plays a nasty trick on him and has a best friend no longer. Worse still, his former friend has stolen his idea to become most popular kid in class. Will things work out before the denouement? Of course they will. This is a little portrait of life in small town America where nothing stays bad for too long.
I kind of enjoyed this little tale along with its sometimes hilarious illustrations that augment the text considerably. This book is one of those publishing phenomena where a relatively simple idea catches the imagination of the public in a way which was hard to see ahead of time, and ended up so successful it spawned a highly profitable film version not to mention at least one sequel. I read this book in three enjoyable hours and I have to say I am a little envious at the brilliance of its original concept. Being original is hard, but boy is it a recipe for success...
SHROUD FOR A NIGHTINGALE, by P.D. James. In a 1960s general hospital a nurse is demonstrating the procedure for introducing a naso-gastric tube, but instead of placing an innocuous liquid into the stomach, somehow pure bleach is substituted and the nurse dies a horrible death. An accident, or deliberate murder? Tall, lean, cerebral Adam Dalgleish is brought in to investigate but before he has even parked his bum at his desk another nurse is found dead. This case looks like suicide, but in Dalgleish's world nothing should be taken for granted. Everyone in the hospital starts furiously covering each other's backs, as staff in hospitals always have, and still do, but Dalgleish has the brains and the gravitas to cut through the lies and concealment and come up with a solution.
P.D. James died in December last year after a glittering career writing detective stories, many of which were turned into highly successful television shows. Until now I had never delved into her oeuvre so I thought now was the time to pay her a minor tribute. The market is saturated with detective crime novels of inconceivable variety; even so the novels of P.D. James have found a niche in British society in a way many authors must envy. You can see why. This novel, an early one in her extensive canon, is well written and holds the attention from the outset. As someone who worked in NHS hospitals from the early 1970s onwards I can attest to its high level of authenticity. And I didn't work out who dunnit until James chose to tell me. Superior crime fiction.
THIRTEEN HOURS, by Deone Mayer. A young American girl is running for her life through the mean streets of Cape Town. She has just seen her companion have her throat cut, which somehow adds to her sense of urgency. Her pursuers seem perfectly happy to kill anyone who gets in the way of their recovering what the girl has in her possession. Meanwhile, in another part of town, a wealthy record producer is found shot and an initial appraisal suggests his alcoholic wife did it. Somehow inspector Benny Griessel has to deal with both of these cases simultaneously. Staff shortages in post Apartheid South Africa are biting deep...
This novel, translated from the original Afrikaans gripped from page one. We get right inside the character of Benny Griessel almost immediately, along with the motley multi-racial crew of colleagues he works with, while the villains are equally well drawn. Of course the beating heart of any detective story is its plot, and this one works really well, as the diverse threads within it slowly but inexorably begin to converge. Good stuff, and clearly an excellent translation.
FILMS
SHOAH (1985) (documentary) D- Claude Lanzmann. In 1974 Claude Lanzmann decided to make a film about the holocaust. Eschewing all the terrible stock footage that the world is so familiar with, he opted instead for a series of in-depth interviews with the various players in history's greatest example of genocide: the survivors, the guards, the officers and the civilians in the countries concerned, especially Poland, where much of the slaughter was carried out. Some of the interviews were conducted with a hidden camera (you can tell these immediately from the grainy quality of the film) but most were conducted quite openly, and it is quite astounding how candid his interviewees were persuaded to be. Slowly, sedately, we are guided through the banality of evil which sums up the holocaust. Most telling for me were the interviews with the Polish civilians, whose anti-Semitism still shines brightly thirty years after the events. One man was asked if he approved of the mass deportations and exterminations and he replied: "No! They took the women too, and some of those Jewesses were really good looking women!" Pressed for an outright condemnations of the Nazi's behaviour, however, he refused to give one. Lanzmann got himself in hot water with the Polish community in the US when the film came out, who complained bitterly of their unsympathetic portrayal. But the interviews speak for themselves...
Lanzmann wished to do full justice to his subject, and took nearly twelve years to complete the project. And at 545 minutes it is certainly the longest film I have ever seen. Was it worth the effort and emotional exhaustion which such a subject is bound to bring about? Definitely. This is unquestionably one of the greatest documentaries ever made.
THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN (2005) D- Roger Donaldson. Burt Munro (Anthony Hopkins) is something of a cult figure in Invercargill, New Zealand, owing to his ability to ride motor cycles very fast indeed (that's right, the Indian in question is a vintage American motorcycle, not some quick-off-the-mark Native American). He decides to have one last try at setting yet another speed record on the legendary Bonneville salt flats in the state of Utah. So he undertakes an epic journey (with his bike) across the great Pacific to relive his glory days. But he's an old man now, and has to rely on the kindness of strangers even to find his way there; surprisingly there seem to be no shortage of such souls in the Land of the Free...
I love these languorous, whimsical tales that sometimes emerge from the Antipodes, and this one is skilfully directed and well written. And although Hopkins was criticised for his accent in the film, the fact is that you will hear a multiplicity of varied accents when you visit Australasia- in other words, I thought it was just fine.
THE GHOST (2010) D- Roman Polanski. Pierce Brosnan plays a former British Prime Minister who has engaged a ghost writer (Ewan McGregor) to write his memoirs. Things go well at first, but then McGregor uncovers some documents suggesting his boss may have been involved in shady dealings at the highest level. If our boy goes public Brosnan is finished, but from that point on the ghost himself is in serious jeopardy...
A barely concealed take on Tony Blair, this Polanski effort has all his usual hallmarks: a good script, good players and a directorial elan that has not failed him for fifty years. Good stuff.
THE WIND RISES (2013) D- Hayao Miiyazaki (Studio Ghibli) In the 1920a a young Japanese apprentice aircraft designer is noticed by his seniors and his talent nurtured. He is even sent to Germany to learn from the world's leading aircraft manufacturers. Along the way he falls for a beautiful young Japanese aristo and even gets mixed up with anti-fascist agents within Germany, before returning home where he eventually is responsible for one of Japan's most successful fighters: the Mitsubishi Zero.
Studio Ghibli has established a reputation for making beautifully wrought animated features and this fictionalised biopic is a typical example; indeed, it was the highest grossing film in Japan in 2013 and made a lot of money in America too. It isn't as good as the 2005 classic Grave of the Fireflies, but that was one of the greatest animation features ever made, so the comparison may not be fair. It's still pretty good though.
THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT (2004) W/D- Eric Bress and J Mackie Gouber. An American high school teen (Ashton Kutcher) discovers one day he has the ability to travel in time. And as his life has gone seriously awry he quite understandably wishes to relive some of his less happy life experiences and arrange a better outcome than the first time. Unfortunately, as so many time travellers have discovered, this process is full of pitfalls for the unwary...
The "Butterfly Effect" is the name given to a concept introduced by the physicist Edward Lorenz which has to do with "amplified causality loops": when transcribed into graph form it does indeed resemble a butterfly in flight. You can google this if you wish; suffice it to say that it accounts for that famous adage that a butterfly beating its wings in China can engender a hurricane in some other part of the world. Personally, I put this idea in the same category as the "six degrees of separation" thing, ie unprovable and probably wrong, but you know how concepts like these grab the public's imagination. As for the film, I rather enjoyed its dark, claustrophobic feel which was reminiscent of Donny Darko, and I rated Ashton Kutcher too in one of his earliest leading roles.
ENOUGH SAID (2013) D- Nicole Holofcener. Recently divorced Julia Louis-Dreyfus allows herself to go on a date for the first time in a while, and she chooses a James Gandolfini (in his last major film role before his untimely death last year) who is in a not dissimilar situation to hers. JLD is a masseuse, and one of her clients is the lovely Barbara Keener (she was the good looking alien Picard fell for in Star Trek: Insurrection) and she spends most of her time slagging off her ex. It isn't long before we, the audience, discover that her ex is none other than, you've guessed it, James Gandolfini, though the truth does not reveal itself to the lovers for some time.
An intelligent and well made rom-com with excellent acting all round. JLD shows that she is the genuine article, and James Gandolfini showed that he could still hold an audience without ever shooting anyone.
3.10 to YUMA (2007) D- James Mangold. Ben Wade, a notorious bad man ( Russell Crowe) is finally arrested and committed to trial in nearby Yuma. But first he has to get there, and his gang is determined to bust him out before he does. A struggling farmer (Christian Bale) is paid the money he desperately needs to guard the prisoner. When the threat from Wade's gang becomes lethally apparent, other deputies begin to fall away, leaving Bale alone to take him to the 3.10 train.
This film is a remake of the very fine original production in 1957, with a supremely laconic Glenn Ford in the Wade role. This could be another case of the totally unnecessary remake, but here I make a rare exception. This is an excellent re-interpretation, far more violent than the original as we might expect, but retaining the subtlety of the original and portraying the sensitive, almost loving relationship that gradually develops between captor and captive with considerable skill. A western for the Millennium.
MISTER PEABODY AND SHERMAN (2014) D- Rob Minkoff. A hyper-intelligent dog adopts a young orphan boy; together they have a variety of mystifying adventures, some courtesy of the time machine Mr Peabody has invented.
Based on an American animated TV series, this film looks pretty good, as indeed it should do, considering it cost more than $140 million to make. But it did not gell with the public, barely making its money back. Why? I think we have the same problem here as with Polar Express, where a dazzling look could not make up for unengaging characters and a lacklustre script. There are jokes, just not particularly funny ones. Disappointing.
PADDINGTON (2014) D- Paul King. A family of bears befriends an intrepid British explorer in the depths of the Peruvian jungle. Later, when their habitat is devastated by earthquake one member of the family decides to travel to England to look him up. Strangely, all trace of the explorer seems to have vanished, and the bear, named Paddington after the station in which he is discovered, goes to live, on a strictly temporary basis, with a middle class family in Kensington. However, a gloriously evil Nicole Kidman plays a taxidermist who would love to have said bear in her collection of stuffed animals. OMG!
Attention makers of Mister Peabody and Sherman: this is how you make a quality kids film. First you have an iconic character that is almost universally loved. Then you take the project to a highly talented screen writing team who knows how to construct a cracking script. With jokes. Funny jokes. Then you choose some top acting talent to bring it to life. Finally, you make a genuinely salient point about society, namely that Britain has a long history of accepting the unfortunate and threatened from other nations and giving them a loving home- UKIP take note. I am told that the high tide of UKIP's success in the European elections is definitely receding as more and more people are coming to realise what a disaster to Britain it would be if they gained real power. This film illustrates how UKIP will never really get anywhere in Britain- because we're a country that cares- and not just about ourselves.
Saturday, 28 February 2015
Friday, 27 February 2015
Heavy colds cause brain failure: official
What you don't want to happen when you're taking a forensic grilling from an astute and unsympathetic journo is to be nursing a heavy cold at the same time. Which unfortunately is exactly what happened to poor Natalie Bennett on Tuesday. Hoping to launch the Green Party election campaign with a flying start it ended instead in sniffs, sneezes and harsh questions as to its leader's performance skills under pressure. And what about that advisor who jumped up on the dais shouting No! No! when Bennett came under questioning again about her "brain failure" at a subsequent news conference? I tell you, that girl must have seen too many episodes of The West Wing or Veep. Here's the news, lady: things don't work like that over here. And by the way, don't you realise that your contribution just made a bad situation even worse?
Last week my wife returned from Palestine with a stonker of a cold which she duly passed on to me. There can be little doubt this is the same rhinovirus which has been afflicting a substantial proportion of the world's population, and it is a nasty one. My wife reported her own intellectual performance waning alarmingly (mine too) so perhaps we should be gentle on the hapless Bennett. But not too gentle. On Tuesday night we saw Caroline Lucas, the Green's first MP, on Newsnight, and the difference in delivery was startling. True, she didn't seem to be under the influence of a heavy cold, but even so the polish of her performance left many wondering if the Greens have really made a good decision in not having her as their leader. They have apparently benefited hugely from the recent migration away from the mainstream parties and are rumoured to have their best chance ever to make a killing at the polls in May. But not if this happens again. I think we should cut some slack for Natalie Bennett- this time and this time only. If she fucks up again, cold or no cold, she should go, and be replaced by la Lucas- before it's too late. We can't have her screwing up royally in the leadership debates- the public and the media will destroy her- along with the Green Party's chances of making a real impact.
Last week my wife returned from Palestine with a stonker of a cold which she duly passed on to me. There can be little doubt this is the same rhinovirus which has been afflicting a substantial proportion of the world's population, and it is a nasty one. My wife reported her own intellectual performance waning alarmingly (mine too) so perhaps we should be gentle on the hapless Bennett. But not too gentle. On Tuesday night we saw Caroline Lucas, the Green's first MP, on Newsnight, and the difference in delivery was startling. True, she didn't seem to be under the influence of a heavy cold, but even so the polish of her performance left many wondering if the Greens have really made a good decision in not having her as their leader. They have apparently benefited hugely from the recent migration away from the mainstream parties and are rumoured to have their best chance ever to make a killing at the polls in May. But not if this happens again. I think we should cut some slack for Natalie Bennett- this time and this time only. If she fucks up again, cold or no cold, she should go, and be replaced by la Lucas- before it's too late. We can't have her screwing up royally in the leadership debates- the public and the media will destroy her- along with the Green Party's chances of making a real impact.
Wednesday, 25 February 2015
Servants of Satan
That's what they look like to me, those ISIS brides snapped as they passed through security at Gatwick airport last week. Like that immortal image of Myra Hindley, those images seemed to me to be the very personification of evil. High achievers at school allegedly, they became "radicalised online" as the saying goes, avidly following up to 70 Jihadists on Twitter, presumably promising to marry them and going out there to consummate their union?
I tell you, these girls are seriously disturbed and ill informed. They share in common that bizarre belief apparently held by quite a number of otherwise intelligent Muslim women who argue the Burqa is a liberation and not the expression of male domination of the weaker sex. And while I can sort of see the attraction of hiding your face in public they buy the whole line like the ideal conman's mark, buying wholesale into the terrible, medieval value system adopted by the fundamentalists of IS. Maybe they support the practice of female genital mutilation, seeing it as one of Mohammed's precepts (there is in fact nothing about it anywhere in the Koran) for the actual benefit of women, rather than a technique specifically designed to prevent them experiencing orgasm. Maybe it is at the top of their wish list once they get settled in Syria.
What is wrong with them? Can't they think for themselves? If they are such high achievers, how come they haven't researched the issues properly? Can't they see what lies ahead of them? A life of subjugation to their male masters, a life as mere slaves to the will of conscienceless murderers. Well, no, they can't, or won't, see the truth that is in front of them.
So, in answer to the question, what is wrong with them? My first thought would be, a lot.
I tell you, these girls are seriously disturbed and ill informed. They share in common that bizarre belief apparently held by quite a number of otherwise intelligent Muslim women who argue the Burqa is a liberation and not the expression of male domination of the weaker sex. And while I can sort of see the attraction of hiding your face in public they buy the whole line like the ideal conman's mark, buying wholesale into the terrible, medieval value system adopted by the fundamentalists of IS. Maybe they support the practice of female genital mutilation, seeing it as one of Mohammed's precepts (there is in fact nothing about it anywhere in the Koran) for the actual benefit of women, rather than a technique specifically designed to prevent them experiencing orgasm. Maybe it is at the top of their wish list once they get settled in Syria.
What is wrong with them? Can't they think for themselves? If they are such high achievers, how come they haven't researched the issues properly? Can't they see what lies ahead of them? A life of subjugation to their male masters, a life as mere slaves to the will of conscienceless murderers. Well, no, they can't, or won't, see the truth that is in front of them.
So, in answer to the question, what is wrong with them? My first thought would be, a lot.
Wednesday, 18 February 2015
A glimmer of hope in the American penal system
Penal systems around the world are not known for their deeply compassionate regimes. Whilst almost all may boast of their enlightened practices which stress redemption and rehabilitation of the offender, in practice most, like ours, simply lock people up in a place where they learn from others how to commit crime properly and then let them out to carry out what they have learned on the inside. Hence the "revolving door" where the majority of inmates are re-offenders.
America solves this problem partly by locking people up for so long they're too old and arthritic to be a threat when they are finally released. Or, for the most serious crimes, when they don't actually murder them judicially they simply keep them incarcerated until they die. Thousand upon thousand of criminals under the age of 25 are languishing under this "life means life" principle.
But as we saw last night in the Channel 4 programme Kid Criminals, there are some states which are trying something new. The programme looked at the new system in Indiana which attempts to rehabilitate young offenders (under 21) by addressing their impulsivity and anger management issues. And if the authorities are satisfied that they are making genuine progress then some of the most serious offenders may find their time in prison cut from many years to less than one. We saw how one young woman who had been convicted of arson at the tender age of ten (she set fire to a house knowing there were several people in there including a baby) making slow but steady progress in understanding herself. Another one aged twelve persuaded her friends to mount a home invasion and robbery at gunpoint of an old lady living just down the street. They took her flat screen TV but the police traced them quickly by the simple recourse of following their footsteps in the snow. In Texas she would have been put away for 400 years. Here, under this new and refreshingly enlightened scheme, she could be out in less than three.
It is good to see the most advanced country in the world finally coming up with new and creative methods of dealing with their young offenders. They've still got a long way to go. But then so have we.
America solves this problem partly by locking people up for so long they're too old and arthritic to be a threat when they are finally released. Or, for the most serious crimes, when they don't actually murder them judicially they simply keep them incarcerated until they die. Thousand upon thousand of criminals under the age of 25 are languishing under this "life means life" principle.
But as we saw last night in the Channel 4 programme Kid Criminals, there are some states which are trying something new. The programme looked at the new system in Indiana which attempts to rehabilitate young offenders (under 21) by addressing their impulsivity and anger management issues. And if the authorities are satisfied that they are making genuine progress then some of the most serious offenders may find their time in prison cut from many years to less than one. We saw how one young woman who had been convicted of arson at the tender age of ten (she set fire to a house knowing there were several people in there including a baby) making slow but steady progress in understanding herself. Another one aged twelve persuaded her friends to mount a home invasion and robbery at gunpoint of an old lady living just down the street. They took her flat screen TV but the police traced them quickly by the simple recourse of following their footsteps in the snow. In Texas she would have been put away for 400 years. Here, under this new and refreshingly enlightened scheme, she could be out in less than three.
It is good to see the most advanced country in the world finally coming up with new and creative methods of dealing with their young offenders. They've still got a long way to go. But then so have we.
Thursday, 12 February 2015
Environmental rape: right on our doorstep
You hear the term "environmental rape" and you immediately think China or Russia, with their headlong rush to industrialisation with little regard to citizens and the environment they live in. Yet yesterday we heard that the despoilation of a vital piece of ecology happened in North Wales, not in the dark days of the 19th century but last year.
I refer to a river in the Conwy valley in the town of Llanrwst, a river which has flowed since the end of the last Ice Age being torn up and replaced by a concrete sluice, in the name of flood prevention, and, wait for it, carried out under the auspices of the NRW (Natural Resources Wales). You might think a little forethought might have prevailed prior to carrying out this despicable act of environmental vandalism, but NRW stated that it took a "pragmatic view" in an "exceptional case" where a delay could have threatened the project. What they were trying to say is that they had to spend £280,000 before the end of the financial year and so they rushed in and destroyed the stream before their funding dried up.
We must conclude NRW cares more about its funding than the environment in which it operates. Indeed, they care so little about issues outside money they went ahead and concreted over the stream right in the middle of the salmon breeding season (that's right, it's a salmon spawning ground) when thousands of salmon eggs were in the river.
Who cares? they probably said. We've got to spend this money in double-quick time so lets get those bulldozers moving. No one cares about one little stream do they?
Well, here's the news, NRW. We do. I utterly condemn this rape of a river as showing an utter poverty of ideas, ethics and morality and an attitude that smacks of cynicism and negligence. If it were in my power I would prosecute the leader of NRW and the executives who signed off on this disgraceful act to the fullest extent of the law. Which as it stands is probably not very much. But future generations will look back on this act of rape and shake their heads in despair, just as we look back on the era of slavery and wonder how we could ever have been part of such a barbaric system.
I refer to a river in the Conwy valley in the town of Llanrwst, a river which has flowed since the end of the last Ice Age being torn up and replaced by a concrete sluice, in the name of flood prevention, and, wait for it, carried out under the auspices of the NRW (Natural Resources Wales). You might think a little forethought might have prevailed prior to carrying out this despicable act of environmental vandalism, but NRW stated that it took a "pragmatic view" in an "exceptional case" where a delay could have threatened the project. What they were trying to say is that they had to spend £280,000 before the end of the financial year and so they rushed in and destroyed the stream before their funding dried up.
We must conclude NRW cares more about its funding than the environment in which it operates. Indeed, they care so little about issues outside money they went ahead and concreted over the stream right in the middle of the salmon breeding season (that's right, it's a salmon spawning ground) when thousands of salmon eggs were in the river.
Who cares? they probably said. We've got to spend this money in double-quick time so lets get those bulldozers moving. No one cares about one little stream do they?
Well, here's the news, NRW. We do. I utterly condemn this rape of a river as showing an utter poverty of ideas, ethics and morality and an attitude that smacks of cynicism and negligence. If it were in my power I would prosecute the leader of NRW and the executives who signed off on this disgraceful act to the fullest extent of the law. Which as it stands is probably not very much. But future generations will look back on this act of rape and shake their heads in despair, just as we look back on the era of slavery and wonder how we could ever have been part of such a barbaric system.
Saturday, 7 February 2015
The Turing Test: they're closing in
A computer possessing human intelligence has been a thought dreamed up in the minds of prominent thinkers for some time. Alan Turing set the gold standard for such a computer in the late 1940s with his famous test; a test which was passed with ease by the fictional computer Hal in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Such computers have remained in the fictional world until now. But in 2011 something amazing happened in America when IBM set up its computer "Watson" against Ken Jennings in the famous quiz show "Jeopardy". Jennings was the "winningest" ever competitor of the game, which demands a sophisticated and wide ranging field of general knowledge. In addition, the format requires a special skill. The questions are given in the form of answers, for example: "Built in the 11th century, it is a fortress built on the banks of the River Thames in England's capital city", for which the answer is given in the form of a question: "What is the Tower of London?"
Watson, loaded up with the entire content of Wikipedia, about 200 million pages of text, but not connected to the internet, had to give responses in real time in a human-sounding voice in five seconds or less (actually it usually supplied the answers in less than one second) . In Ken Jennings it was up against a phenomenally successful contestant who had previously set the record for consecutive wins in the show. What happened? Watson won, indeed Watson creamed its opponent and a couple of other high-achieving contestants.
Was Watson thinking? It is still a tricky issue, but we must concede it worked in such a way as to imitate human intelligence and surpassed the best humanity could put up against it. If you play jeopardy, presumably you are thinking. Is Watson thinking when it plays? It is beginning to be hard to say it isn't. And if so, I suspect we are very close to a Watson-like machine sailing through the Turing Test. And when that happens the implications will be huge...
Such computers have remained in the fictional world until now. But in 2011 something amazing happened in America when IBM set up its computer "Watson" against Ken Jennings in the famous quiz show "Jeopardy". Jennings was the "winningest" ever competitor of the game, which demands a sophisticated and wide ranging field of general knowledge. In addition, the format requires a special skill. The questions are given in the form of answers, for example: "Built in the 11th century, it is a fortress built on the banks of the River Thames in England's capital city", for which the answer is given in the form of a question: "What is the Tower of London?"
Watson, loaded up with the entire content of Wikipedia, about 200 million pages of text, but not connected to the internet, had to give responses in real time in a human-sounding voice in five seconds or less (actually it usually supplied the answers in less than one second) . In Ken Jennings it was up against a phenomenally successful contestant who had previously set the record for consecutive wins in the show. What happened? Watson won, indeed Watson creamed its opponent and a couple of other high-achieving contestants.
Was Watson thinking? It is still a tricky issue, but we must concede it worked in such a way as to imitate human intelligence and surpassed the best humanity could put up against it. If you play jeopardy, presumably you are thinking. Is Watson thinking when it plays? It is beginning to be hard to say it isn't. And if so, I suspect we are very close to a Watson-like machine sailing through the Turing Test. And when that happens the implications will be huge...
Monday, 2 February 2015
January 2015 book and film review
BOOK
THE DIARY OF JOHN EVELYN.
John Evelyn (1620-1705) was a gentleman who kept a meticulous diary throughout the tempestuous age of the English Civil War, the Protectorate, the restoration of King Charles II; onto the accession of catholic James II and the "Glorious Revolution" which replaced him with the protestants William and Mary in 1688. And lots, lots more.
Coming from what we would today call the "landed gentry, born into an old country family in Kent with a capacious family home and 4000 acres we can safely say he was born into great privilege. However he made the most of his advantages and the natural gifts of a keen intelligence to comment on high society and the power players of the 17th century (often the same people: in those days parliament was peopled mainly by aristos and their protégés) who partied hard and schemed long, often to the distinct disapproval of a rather straight-laced Evelyn, who could never quite handle the promiscuities of many of the most powerful people of his day. In this he differed significantly from his long-time friend Samuel Pepys (who he described as "a most entertaining and knowing man") who delighted in the peccadillos of the great and not so good, expressing his envy at their conquests.
And there lies the critical differences in the two diaries. Pepys (who kept his dairy secret during his lifetime) is unafraid to lift the lid on his darkest and most lascivious feelings, and doing so in his incomparable writing style produced one of the greatest works of English literature. Evelyn on the other hand was a devout Christian and believed in astrological portents (to the dismay of his devoutly atheistic friend). Even so, his diary is, like Pepys's, beautifully written and represents a unique and exhaustive analysis of English society in the 17th century. The poor man had to bury five out of his six children, three to the great scourge of the age, smallpox, a pestilence that seemed to affect all levels of society from street urchins to dukes and earls. Yet he must have been a remarkably phlegmatic man. After the loss of his third son to the "sweating fever" (which I take to be typhoid) he is clearly bereft: he goes into seclusion for five weeks, avoiding his usual round of socialising in London. But then he writes: "Feeling now a little more composed, I went to London to a banquet for the King at Whitehall and there had myself a pleasant time..."
My edition (Everyman Press) runs to 1000 pages and is itself condensed from no less than five volumes of similar length, hence it has taken me a whole month to read just this one book. But I can attest to its great value, both in terms of information and entertainment.
I would add one postscript: the spelling. Pepys's diary was written in an early form of shorthand, so when the book came down to us all the spelling was corrected to appease our modern eyes. But Evelyn's diary benefits from no such amendment: In this era there was no general consensus for how words should be spelled, hence we might find the same word spelled in three or even more different ways on the same page. There is one extraordinary section dealing with his visit to the French city of Tours, where he spells the word "tower" and the name "Tours" in six completely different ways in the space of 500 words, lending an unintended hilarity to an otherwise straightforward piece of travel writing. Thank God for Dr Johnson and his famous dictionary. Only problem, it came a generation or two too late for John Evelyn...
FILMS
THE HEAT (2013) D- Paul Feig. Sandra Bullock plays a methodical and rather arrogant FBI agent. Melissa McCarthy is a potty mouthed cop from the wrong side of the tracks. Much against her wishes (her boss threatens her it will damage her career if she doesn't) Bullock is forced to work with McCarthy, and the two eventually form an unlikely alliance in a bid to bring down a drug lord in this entertaining and sometimes hilarious new take on the buddie movie. My favourite moment comes when Mullins (McCarthy) is lighting up in a hospital corridor. A nurse comes over to her and says: "There's no smoking here." McCarthy draws her .357 magnum and puts it right in her face. "How about now?" Good fun.
VERONICA MARS (2014) W/D- Rob Thomas. Kristen Bell (the voice of Anna in Frozen) reprises her role of a youthful private dick in three series on American TV. Now a young adult she agrees to help out an ex who has been accused of murdering his rock star girlfriend.
The project is reasonably well written and Bell herself is engaging as the feisty young gumshoe, but really I found it very difficult to recall much of this film one month after seeing it. And that can't be a good sign...
THE GOLDEN DREAM (2013) W/D- Diego Quemada-Diez (Mexico) A group of Mexican youths, plus a kid from Guatemala they can't seem to shake off know only one thing for sure: life in the U.S. has to be better than the shit existence they endure south of the Rio Grande. So they ride the trains north, hoping they will find a way to get across the border and start leading the good life. But again and again their plans are foiled by the border guards who are superbly equipped to keep the wet-backs out of their country. Meanwhile, the boys gradually get over their racism and accept the Guatemalan into their circle.
A marvellous little tale, full of humanity and compassion, illustrating with great force the problems of having two countries of vastly differing prosperity sharing an equally vast border. Highly recommended.
HEADHUNTERS (2011) D-Morten Tyldum. Norway's most successful headhunter has a sideline: working in a home surveillance company he is able to rob his clients of their most valuable possessions- he especially likes an old master. And when he hears that of one of his biggest clients has inherited a Rubens he formulates an elaborate plan to deprive her of it. But are they already a step ahead of him? And if so, how?
Quite interesting offering from the man who went on to direct The Imitation Game, though it does not have the stature of his later movie. Watchable.
NOSTALGIA FOR THE LIGHT (2011) D- Patricio Guzman (Chile, documentary) The empty, lifeless altiplano of the Chilean Andes is only good for one thing: it's the perfect place to build a telescope. That, and dumping the bodies of anyone you might have murdered during a political coup. And so, as the astronomers train their massive instruments on the skies, mothers travel up to the high plateau to search for signs of their loved ones, sometimes almost in the shadows of those mighty telescopes.
Following the bloody coup that ousted Salvador Allende in 1973, Pinochet's men dug mass graves in remote places (some of which have now been uncovered); sometimes they would simply throw people out of planes over the high deserts, thinking no one would ever find their remains. But the thin, clear air helps preserve the bodies, and some have actually been found by a small group of grieving, but incredibly determined women.
A fascinating and disturbing film, contrasting the insulated world of the scientists, some of whom lived out Pinochet's bloody coup high in the Andes and away from all the suffering, and the women who lived in the thick of the terror and who now find themselves rubbing shoulders with those very same scientists who are now forced to confront the truth of the killing. Absorbing cinema.
IN SECRET (2014) D- Charlie Stratton. In 19th century rural France a young orphan girl (Elizabeth Olsen) is married off to her adoptive parent's only son (Tom Felton). But he is a rather sickly, nerdy character and her attention soon wanders to her husband's best friend, megahunk Oscar Isaac. It isn't long before those two do something about it. Their affair continues when they all move to Paris together, but when the husband wants to move back into the country for the sake of his health the two lovers hatch a dreadful plan...
I quite enjoyed this re-working of Zola's famous novel Therese Raquin, especially the first 45 minutes. But oddly, just at the point in the book where the action really accelerates, the pace of the movie seems to stall, leaving a sense of disappointment. Zola's novels are so cinematic they can almost read like screenplays, so why the writer and director didn't simply reproduce the book faithfully right to the end is something of a mystery. Still watchable though.
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (2014) D- James Marsh. In 1960s Cambridge a physics graduate is working on his PhD but is finding difficulty finding supervisors gifted enough to keep up with him. Then he discovers true love, his bliss spoilt only by the fact that she's a devout Christian and he has always been a committed atheist. Love conquers all, however, and all seems set for an idyllic marriage and a glittering career in theoretical astrophysics. Then he starts dropping things and falling over...
Based on the memoirs of his first wife, this biopic of Saint Stephen of Hawking is superior movie making and is distinguished especially by the phenomenal performance of Eddie Redmayne as the genius with a funny voice. He is well supported by the cast too, making this one of the best films to come out of Britain last year. The Oscars committee seemed to agree, nominating Redmayne for the best actor Oscar. And knowing how much Hollywood likes disability portrayed on screen, and how much they have fallen in love with Hawking himself, I would say Eddie is a shoe-in for the big prize. We won't have to wait long to find out...
THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY (2013) D (and starring) Ben Stiller. A lowly photo editor on Life magazine is given the daunting task of finding the ultimate cover picture for the final edition. Seeking relief from the stress he retreats into a fantasy world which is a lot easier to cope with. But all this fantasising won't help him snag Kirsten Wiig, whom he admires from a distance but is afraid to approach, thinking she must be out of his league. Fantasies are all very well, but never try to make them real...
James Thurber's famous short story was first filmed in 1947 with a Danny Kaye who at that point was one of the world's biggest stars. The result was hilarious and memorable, being firmly built around Kaye's zany, anarchic screen persona. Here we have one of today's most bankable comedic talents directing himself in a creditable remake, but unfortunately despite some very good moments it doesn't work because the film doesn't seem to know which tone to take. Is it going to be a straight comedy or does it aspire to be something more? Woody Allen is probably the finest exponent alive of making riotously funny movies that still have something serious to say (like Crimes and Misdemeanours), but regrettably Stiller is no Allen, hence the film's rather uneven feel. Shame. Keep trying Ben. We still like you.
THE DIARY OF JOHN EVELYN.
John Evelyn (1620-1705) was a gentleman who kept a meticulous diary throughout the tempestuous age of the English Civil War, the Protectorate, the restoration of King Charles II; onto the accession of catholic James II and the "Glorious Revolution" which replaced him with the protestants William and Mary in 1688. And lots, lots more.
Coming from what we would today call the "landed gentry, born into an old country family in Kent with a capacious family home and 4000 acres we can safely say he was born into great privilege. However he made the most of his advantages and the natural gifts of a keen intelligence to comment on high society and the power players of the 17th century (often the same people: in those days parliament was peopled mainly by aristos and their protégés) who partied hard and schemed long, often to the distinct disapproval of a rather straight-laced Evelyn, who could never quite handle the promiscuities of many of the most powerful people of his day. In this he differed significantly from his long-time friend Samuel Pepys (who he described as "a most entertaining and knowing man") who delighted in the peccadillos of the great and not so good, expressing his envy at their conquests.
And there lies the critical differences in the two diaries. Pepys (who kept his dairy secret during his lifetime) is unafraid to lift the lid on his darkest and most lascivious feelings, and doing so in his incomparable writing style produced one of the greatest works of English literature. Evelyn on the other hand was a devout Christian and believed in astrological portents (to the dismay of his devoutly atheistic friend). Even so, his diary is, like Pepys's, beautifully written and represents a unique and exhaustive analysis of English society in the 17th century. The poor man had to bury five out of his six children, three to the great scourge of the age, smallpox, a pestilence that seemed to affect all levels of society from street urchins to dukes and earls. Yet he must have been a remarkably phlegmatic man. After the loss of his third son to the "sweating fever" (which I take to be typhoid) he is clearly bereft: he goes into seclusion for five weeks, avoiding his usual round of socialising in London. But then he writes: "Feeling now a little more composed, I went to London to a banquet for the King at Whitehall and there had myself a pleasant time..."
My edition (Everyman Press) runs to 1000 pages and is itself condensed from no less than five volumes of similar length, hence it has taken me a whole month to read just this one book. But I can attest to its great value, both in terms of information and entertainment.
I would add one postscript: the spelling. Pepys's diary was written in an early form of shorthand, so when the book came down to us all the spelling was corrected to appease our modern eyes. But Evelyn's diary benefits from no such amendment: In this era there was no general consensus for how words should be spelled, hence we might find the same word spelled in three or even more different ways on the same page. There is one extraordinary section dealing with his visit to the French city of Tours, where he spells the word "tower" and the name "Tours" in six completely different ways in the space of 500 words, lending an unintended hilarity to an otherwise straightforward piece of travel writing. Thank God for Dr Johnson and his famous dictionary. Only problem, it came a generation or two too late for John Evelyn...
FILMS
THE HEAT (2013) D- Paul Feig. Sandra Bullock plays a methodical and rather arrogant FBI agent. Melissa McCarthy is a potty mouthed cop from the wrong side of the tracks. Much against her wishes (her boss threatens her it will damage her career if she doesn't) Bullock is forced to work with McCarthy, and the two eventually form an unlikely alliance in a bid to bring down a drug lord in this entertaining and sometimes hilarious new take on the buddie movie. My favourite moment comes when Mullins (McCarthy) is lighting up in a hospital corridor. A nurse comes over to her and says: "There's no smoking here." McCarthy draws her .357 magnum and puts it right in her face. "How about now?" Good fun.
VERONICA MARS (2014) W/D- Rob Thomas. Kristen Bell (the voice of Anna in Frozen) reprises her role of a youthful private dick in three series on American TV. Now a young adult she agrees to help out an ex who has been accused of murdering his rock star girlfriend.
The project is reasonably well written and Bell herself is engaging as the feisty young gumshoe, but really I found it very difficult to recall much of this film one month after seeing it. And that can't be a good sign...
THE GOLDEN DREAM (2013) W/D- Diego Quemada-Diez (Mexico) A group of Mexican youths, plus a kid from Guatemala they can't seem to shake off know only one thing for sure: life in the U.S. has to be better than the shit existence they endure south of the Rio Grande. So they ride the trains north, hoping they will find a way to get across the border and start leading the good life. But again and again their plans are foiled by the border guards who are superbly equipped to keep the wet-backs out of their country. Meanwhile, the boys gradually get over their racism and accept the Guatemalan into their circle.
A marvellous little tale, full of humanity and compassion, illustrating with great force the problems of having two countries of vastly differing prosperity sharing an equally vast border. Highly recommended.
HEADHUNTERS (2011) D-Morten Tyldum. Norway's most successful headhunter has a sideline: working in a home surveillance company he is able to rob his clients of their most valuable possessions- he especially likes an old master. And when he hears that of one of his biggest clients has inherited a Rubens he formulates an elaborate plan to deprive her of it. But are they already a step ahead of him? And if so, how?
Quite interesting offering from the man who went on to direct The Imitation Game, though it does not have the stature of his later movie. Watchable.
NOSTALGIA FOR THE LIGHT (2011) D- Patricio Guzman (Chile, documentary) The empty, lifeless altiplano of the Chilean Andes is only good for one thing: it's the perfect place to build a telescope. That, and dumping the bodies of anyone you might have murdered during a political coup. And so, as the astronomers train their massive instruments on the skies, mothers travel up to the high plateau to search for signs of their loved ones, sometimes almost in the shadows of those mighty telescopes.
Following the bloody coup that ousted Salvador Allende in 1973, Pinochet's men dug mass graves in remote places (some of which have now been uncovered); sometimes they would simply throw people out of planes over the high deserts, thinking no one would ever find their remains. But the thin, clear air helps preserve the bodies, and some have actually been found by a small group of grieving, but incredibly determined women.
A fascinating and disturbing film, contrasting the insulated world of the scientists, some of whom lived out Pinochet's bloody coup high in the Andes and away from all the suffering, and the women who lived in the thick of the terror and who now find themselves rubbing shoulders with those very same scientists who are now forced to confront the truth of the killing. Absorbing cinema.
IN SECRET (2014) D- Charlie Stratton. In 19th century rural France a young orphan girl (Elizabeth Olsen) is married off to her adoptive parent's only son (Tom Felton). But he is a rather sickly, nerdy character and her attention soon wanders to her husband's best friend, megahunk Oscar Isaac. It isn't long before those two do something about it. Their affair continues when they all move to Paris together, but when the husband wants to move back into the country for the sake of his health the two lovers hatch a dreadful plan...
I quite enjoyed this re-working of Zola's famous novel Therese Raquin, especially the first 45 minutes. But oddly, just at the point in the book where the action really accelerates, the pace of the movie seems to stall, leaving a sense of disappointment. Zola's novels are so cinematic they can almost read like screenplays, so why the writer and director didn't simply reproduce the book faithfully right to the end is something of a mystery. Still watchable though.
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (2014) D- James Marsh. In 1960s Cambridge a physics graduate is working on his PhD but is finding difficulty finding supervisors gifted enough to keep up with him. Then he discovers true love, his bliss spoilt only by the fact that she's a devout Christian and he has always been a committed atheist. Love conquers all, however, and all seems set for an idyllic marriage and a glittering career in theoretical astrophysics. Then he starts dropping things and falling over...
Based on the memoirs of his first wife, this biopic of Saint Stephen of Hawking is superior movie making and is distinguished especially by the phenomenal performance of Eddie Redmayne as the genius with a funny voice. He is well supported by the cast too, making this one of the best films to come out of Britain last year. The Oscars committee seemed to agree, nominating Redmayne for the best actor Oscar. And knowing how much Hollywood likes disability portrayed on screen, and how much they have fallen in love with Hawking himself, I would say Eddie is a shoe-in for the big prize. We won't have to wait long to find out...
THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY (2013) D (and starring) Ben Stiller. A lowly photo editor on Life magazine is given the daunting task of finding the ultimate cover picture for the final edition. Seeking relief from the stress he retreats into a fantasy world which is a lot easier to cope with. But all this fantasising won't help him snag Kirsten Wiig, whom he admires from a distance but is afraid to approach, thinking she must be out of his league. Fantasies are all very well, but never try to make them real...
James Thurber's famous short story was first filmed in 1947 with a Danny Kaye who at that point was one of the world's biggest stars. The result was hilarious and memorable, being firmly built around Kaye's zany, anarchic screen persona. Here we have one of today's most bankable comedic talents directing himself in a creditable remake, but unfortunately despite some very good moments it doesn't work because the film doesn't seem to know which tone to take. Is it going to be a straight comedy or does it aspire to be something more? Woody Allen is probably the finest exponent alive of making riotously funny movies that still have something serious to say (like Crimes and Misdemeanours), but regrettably Stiller is no Allen, hence the film's rather uneven feel. Shame. Keep trying Ben. We still like you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)