Plug! This is a 'sponsored' review for the good people at ReviewMe, a new scheme for bloggers who are looking for cash to review, well anything. The idea is that you register your details with the site and then a company visits, selects your blog as being -- close to the aims -- and they pay you to plug, review and write about their product. The service is just getting started and I presume their own give away is creating word of mouth.
ReviewMe has a good, clean simple design, and very straight forward processes. They've integrated many features often forgotten by star-ups such as tagging and more interestingly an RSS feed which lets you know, outside of the site about movement within your account. They're not a completely new company though - they previously worked on Text Link Ads.
It's important to note that one of their primary terms and conditions is that you state on your blog that the post is a form of advertising which helps a bit with the conscience and provides some integrity to what they and the bloggers involved are doing. The bloggers themselves have a choice about whether they will choose to elaborate on a product - if it isn't something that interests their readership, they can deny access.
The only downside I can see is that although there hasn't (obviously) been a shortage of bloggers interested in taking part, I wonder how many companies have taken the leap and the kinds of companies they're going to attracting. Larger organizations will more than likely be able to garner the hype virally through word of mouth anyway so it'll be smaller companies that should be benefiting - but will they be able to afford the prices being charged (index linked to the popularity of the blog in question - I'm $50)?
It'll be interesting to see if it can take off and you'll know because you'll once again see the 'Sponsored Post' title
Desired food
Feminism "We're in a restaurant having dinner. "I'm paying for this," he says. He is trying to be assertive, not something that comes naturally. "No, don't argue. I want to do it." My first thought is oh, that's nice of him, but below there is something that won't let me accept. "But I want to pay for it," he insists; he's bewildered by my stubborn refusal. "I'm just trying to be nice." I know he's just trying to be nice, and as far as he's aware, he has no ulterior motive. But I still won't let him pay." - Claire McGowan in The f-word
This is actually food for thought, although I've been on the woman's side of the discussion. Claire's right, if someone offers to pay for your meal you are then in the situation of not always eating what you want. You might have been in the mood for a steak but because the other person is paying, you do subconsciously not want to step over the line and order something that might bankrupt -- so much easier to order for yourself and have what your heart and stomach desire.
This is actually food for thought, although I've been on the woman's side of the discussion. Claire's right, if someone offers to pay for your meal you are then in the situation of not always eating what you want. You might have been in the mood for a steak but because the other person is paying, you do subconsciously not want to step over the line and order something that might bankrupt -- so much easier to order for yourself and have what your heart and stomach desire.
Interactivity, people
Media What's the purpose of tv and radio blogs? is an excellent discussion from the BBC's pods&blogs blog surveying media adopters in the area and their impact on the whole blogosphere. One of the great lies some media organisations perpetrate is their interactiveness in respect to blogs. Some are better than others is the inevitable message, and the most innovative genuinely attempt to interact and discourse with other users. The worst are those which are merely using the format to post long textual items, that have comments areas in which users all talk to one another -- the journalist or whoever originated the post is nowhere to be seen, their job apparently done.
More nuts
Google feeling listless: "you think i'm nuts"? How did I manage to be the top search for that?
In need of hair
Reality Check I haven't watched Children in Need for many a year and tonight was no exception -- until I accidentally turned to BBC and their Live Feed of the goings on in a salon that appears to be preparing the guests for the main show. I'm currently watching something I don't think I'd ever imagine seeing. New Romantic Steve Strange attempting a World Record for shaving as many heads as he can in an hour, being aided and abetted by the excellent Sarah Cawood (who was lately on the lottery show, including the night that Fathers4Justice invaded. She was unflappable).
It's actually more fascinating than you'd imagine because the people passing through, presumably plucked from the studio audience, are all shapes and sizes and ages. A man passed through earlier mid-fifties, very long hair and glasses, who once shaven, looked about ten years younger and almost seemed to gain a different personality -- his face changed completely, even when he put his glasses back on.
Not too long ago I had very short cropped hair. It was a convenience because I couldn't get to the barbers too often. But what I found was that people's attitude to me didn't seem to fit the person I am. I'd go into shops and I'd be followed around by security or I'd be talking to people and I'd feel there was a barrier. I let my hair grow and suddenly that evaporated -- although now my hair is getting too long and that seems to have other implications. It's wiry and gets dirty quite easily which means there's a danger that it seems -- unkempt. Can't win really.
Incidentally, Mr. Strange is going with such pace that he's guaranteed to be going into the record books...
It's actually more fascinating than you'd imagine because the people passing through, presumably plucked from the studio audience, are all shapes and sizes and ages. A man passed through earlier mid-fifties, very long hair and glasses, who once shaven, looked about ten years younger and almost seemed to gain a different personality -- his face changed completely, even when he put his glasses back on.
Not too long ago I had very short cropped hair. It was a convenience because I couldn't get to the barbers too often. But what I found was that people's attitude to me didn't seem to fit the person I am. I'd go into shops and I'd be followed around by security or I'd be talking to people and I'd feel there was a barrier. I let my hair grow and suddenly that evaporated -- although now my hair is getting too long and that seems to have other implications. It's wiry and gets dirty quite easily which means there's a danger that it seems -- unkempt. Can't win really.
Incidentally, Mr. Strange is going with such pace that he's guaranteed to be going into the record books...
TV From TV Guide in the US:
"Question: Your superpower is super scoop. Save the world and give us some Heroes poop.— Sarah
Ausiello: Fanboys, prepare to piddle yourself. Christopher Eccleston — the original Dr. Who from the current Sci Fi/BBC series — is joining the cast in January in a really super (tee-hee) role. Speaking of cool casting, wait until you see who's ******* ****'s ****. You're going to flip."
Suddenly puts some of those post series interviews into sharp focus. What, he doesn't think the schedules going to be any more grueling over there? But it is Hollywood I suppose. Will he play a Mancunian again or will be treated to his American accent? What'll his special power be? I wouldn't click the link above though -- it's filled with spoilers for shows you might have seen. I'm really browned off now about what they're doing with the Gilmore Girls... [via]
"Question: Your superpower is super scoop. Save the world and give us some Heroes poop.— Sarah
Ausiello: Fanboys, prepare to piddle yourself. Christopher Eccleston — the original Dr. Who from the current Sci Fi/BBC series — is joining the cast in January in a really super (tee-hee) role. Speaking of cool casting, wait until you see who's ******* ****'s ****. You're going to flip."
Suddenly puts some of those post series interviews into sharp focus. What, he doesn't think the schedules going to be any more grueling over there? But it is Hollywood I suppose. Will he play a Mancunian again or will be treated to his American accent? What'll his special power be? I wouldn't click the link above though -- it's filled with spoilers for shows you might have seen. I'm really browned off now about what they're doing with the Gilmore Girls... [via]
'Remember Popworld?'
TV Has anyone been watching Never Mind The Buzzcocks with Simon Amstell. No one seems to be writing about it, even though it's one of the funniest half hours on television and should probably be renamed Amstell's Theatre of cruelty. It's basically become thirty minutes of us saying 'I can't believe they just said that' Tonight's episode with a (slightly) wired Amy Winehouse can be seen here for the next week.
Review 2006: 2/31
Review 2006 As the title says, there are two questions already in for Review 2006, with twenty-nine to go. If you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about, look here. Forgot to mention that I'd like as many in as possible by the end of November. I've much writing to do.
Lost in Snow
Music Aimee Mann has a Christmas album out soon. I like the title One More Drifter in the Snow. That's all of us isn't it? [via]
Lease
Film Lately I've been watching the film version of the musical RENT which I know had something of a mixed critical response with critics and fans of the stage musical. I was wary, particularly because when I asked a friend about it, someone who really likes musicals they said, 'And I bloody hate RENT' and that parody scene from Team America, "Everyone has AIDS". But having not seen or heard the original I was able to go in with an open mind. And against my expectations, really enjoyed it.
For all I know, this might be as much of a hash job as Milos Foreman's misunderstanding of Hair, but these eyes it's a beautifully shot, passionately sung piece featuring some really engaging performances. A shorthand would be Friends with problems although a closer touchstone for me structurally would be St. Elmos Fire but set in New York City amongst the artistic set. It has a real emotional kick in places and although I could see that some might consider the subject matter, in relation to homelessness, drug use and AIDS have been soft pedalld, within the artifice of a musical, it really worked for me.
Apparently Spike Lee had been trying to mount a version in 2001 with people like Justin Timberlake and Britney Murphey, which might have been commercial but couldn't get an agreement from the rights owners and ton the basis of this version that wouldn't have worked. By largely retaining the original Broadway cast, director Chris Columbus is able to make the most of the obvious chemistry between them which really increases the believability of the relationships. There's an element of commemoration here of the show, its fans and its late creator -- but not to the degree that potential new RENT-heads feel divorced from the work.
It's a film filled with great individual moments -- such as Rosario Dawson's luminous number in the opening act which begins at a strip club and ends in the apartment of a potential special friend. There's the tango between Anthony Rapp and newcommer Tracie Thoms and of course the really effective opening, Seasons of Love in which the cast appear on stage, as though to present the opening of the play or production (question for Chris if he's read this far -- is that the extra song that was shoehorned into the production of Hair that we saw at LIPA? It's the only song in the piece that I knew beforehand). Oh gosh, and 'Light My Candle'. And 'I'll Cover You' and ... it's one of those films/plays/musicals/whatever.
It's a beautiful looking film too. I'm not sure if it was intentional but it looks like it was shot in the eighties, something about the lighting design perhaps, and that suits the period in which the film is set. For once the steady-cam works for rather than against the performers and the editor hasn't been afraid to cut along with the songs, emphasising key lines where possible something that recent musicals have been afraid to do because of a certain cheese factor, but that's not too evident here, perhaps because there's something generally outrageous about the thing anyway. So yes, would recommend, although I just know that someone is going to disagree with me...
For all I know, this might be as much of a hash job as Milos Foreman's misunderstanding of Hair, but these eyes it's a beautifully shot, passionately sung piece featuring some really engaging performances. A shorthand would be Friends with problems although a closer touchstone for me structurally would be St. Elmos Fire but set in New York City amongst the artistic set. It has a real emotional kick in places and although I could see that some might consider the subject matter, in relation to homelessness, drug use and AIDS have been soft pedalld, within the artifice of a musical, it really worked for me.
Apparently Spike Lee had been trying to mount a version in 2001 with people like Justin Timberlake and Britney Murphey, which might have been commercial but couldn't get an agreement from the rights owners and ton the basis of this version that wouldn't have worked. By largely retaining the original Broadway cast, director Chris Columbus is able to make the most of the obvious chemistry between them which really increases the believability of the relationships. There's an element of commemoration here of the show, its fans and its late creator -- but not to the degree that potential new RENT-heads feel divorced from the work.
It's a film filled with great individual moments -- such as Rosario Dawson's luminous number in the opening act which begins at a strip club and ends in the apartment of a potential special friend. There's the tango between Anthony Rapp and newcommer Tracie Thoms and of course the really effective opening, Seasons of Love in which the cast appear on stage, as though to present the opening of the play or production (question for Chris if he's read this far -- is that the extra song that was shoehorned into the production of Hair that we saw at LIPA? It's the only song in the piece that I knew beforehand). Oh gosh, and 'Light My Candle'. And 'I'll Cover You' and ... it's one of those films/plays/musicals/whatever.
It's a beautiful looking film too. I'm not sure if it was intentional but it looks like it was shot in the eighties, something about the lighting design perhaps, and that suits the period in which the film is set. For once the steady-cam works for rather than against the performers and the editor hasn't been afraid to cut along with the songs, emphasising key lines where possible something that recent musicals have been afraid to do because of a certain cheese factor, but that's not too evident here, perhaps because there's something generally outrageous about the thing anyway. So yes, would recommend, although I just know that someone is going to disagree with me...
Bugged out
Nature Whilst I was tapping away at a job search this afternoon, I noticed something clambering down the wall. The shape didn't match any of the five known species of insect known to exist in my home so I led it onto some A4 paper so that I could have better look. It looked somewhat like a spider, somewhat like a scorpion and somewhat like an ant and the kind of thing that could have been used as a model for the massive monsters in the film Eight Legged Freaks. I trapped into a clear plastic file folder and sent it through the scanner. It was tiny, and my scanner's crap but I did manage to get these scary shots.
Of course I Asked Metafilter. Firstly I received an email from Paul R. F. Bowser, Ph.D. from Canada who said it was perfectly possible for scorpions to be in my neck of the woods but couldn't see the picture so was guessing. Then Sarah from New Zealand in the Metafilter thread identified it as a pseudoscorpion which was backed up by a number of different users. I love that this became a global problem. According to the wikipedia, the pseudoscorpion is a type of spider that can live for over three years. But are they friendly?
Of course I Asked Metafilter. Firstly I received an email from Paul R. F. Bowser, Ph.D. from Canada who said it was perfectly possible for scorpions to be in my neck of the woods but couldn't see the picture so was guessing. Then Sarah from New Zealand in the Metafilter thread identified it as a pseudoscorpion which was backed up by a number of different users. I love that this became a global problem. According to the wikipedia, the pseudoscorpion is a type of spider that can live for over three years. But are they friendly?
"Pseudoscorpions are generally beneficial to humans since they prey on clothes moth larvae, carpet beetle larvae, booklice, ants, mites, and small flies. They are small and inoffensive, and are rarely seen due to their size. They usually enter the home by "riding along" with larger insects (known as phoresy), or are brought in with firewood. They are often observed in bathrooms or laundry rooms, since they seek humidity. They may sometimes be found feeding on mites under the wing covers of certain beetles."So they're the cleaners of the arachnids, keeping the environment clean for other users. On this basis I had to set it free and it's just scurried away across the window ledge. Bye, then.
I Have The Power!
Film The Masters of the Universe film, yes with Dolph Lundgren, was a homage to the comics of Jack Kirby. Says director Gary Goddard:
"As the director of Masters of the Universe, it was a pleasure to see that someone got it. Your comparison of the film to Kirby's New Gods was not far off. In fact, the storyline was greatly inspired by the classic Fantastic Four/Doctor Doom epics, The New Gods and a bit of Thor thrown in here and there. I intended the film to be a "motion picture comic book," though it was a tough proposition to sell to the studio at the time. "Comics are just for kids," they thought. They would not allow me to hire Jack Kirby who I desperately wanted to be the conceptual artist for the picture?"This explains, so much. I always had a soft spot for the film, even if none of it made any real sense. I'm tempted to drag out my old VHS of it again tonight...
My location, my location, my location
TV I try to avoid daytime television if I can, not necessarily because of quality issues; Freeview is where old detective dramas go to be exhumed. There are still some crimes, and To Buy or Not to Buy is one of them. On BBC One every morning at eleven, this show, which comes across as a cheaper, evil version of Location, Location, Location and has the audacity to nick its title inspiration from Shakespeare, whisks a couple with small budget to burn on property around three houses, gives them what looks like about five minutes inside and then asks them which they might want to buy. Or not to buy. See what they did there?
It's evil because the couple (which are sometimes a couple of 'friends') look around the house alone, are expected to comment on what they see, and then the two presenters, a revolving door of daytimers, stand in the street or hallway outside, under headphones, listening to their prey's opinions and offer comments on what they're saying in a 'fun' and 'light' but usually 'sarcastic' way. Unlike Kirstie and Phil, the presenters, neither of whom seems to have a clue and only one of whom tends to be in the property business don't actually offer that much advice and the guests almost always judge a property on the furniture and decor rather than the thing they'll possibly be buying, the property itself.
Totally misseable then. But isn't it strange how, when one of these shows was filmed in your hometown it becomes utterly compelling? Today according to the Radio Times, 'a first-time buyer hunts for her perfect pad in Liverpool' and there she was, the 'first-time buyer', a quiet blonde from Knowsley looking like she's wondering what she's let herself in for. The presenters for the day were Kristian Digby, a southerner in a shocking burgundy coloured jacket and Simon O'Brien, minor local celebrity. Simon used to present the Rough Guides travel series with Magenta Divine, but that seems like a very long time ago and here he seemed to be trying to imitate the bald bloke who usually presents To Buy (the one from How Safe Is Your House? in which unsuspecting punters watched in horror as someone burgled their home -- nice).
The first house flashes by. The 'first-time buyer' had asked to see properties around Sefton Park/Princes Park so of course they took her to somewhere that looked to be off Penny Lane. That's close. Debrief outside, silly bit were she has to guess the price of the house and then she's whisked on to the next one. Which looked strangely familiar.
'Hold on, that's our flat.'
The four of them are standing in a garden on Ullet Road next to St Agnes Church and our tower block is right behind Simon's shoulder. It's not every day you almost see your home on the telly. Almost, because we're actually on the other side of the building to one that was in shot. But it's still a bit disconcerting. The property they're visiting is a flat that had been added to the top of an existing property. Disconcerting moment number two is that its the first time I've actually watched a property programme that isn't Grand Designs in which I've actually seen the thing being built.
I've always wondered what it looked like inside and here it was. Very snug. The 'first-time buyer' didn't think much of it though, because despite having a massive living room and kitchen, the first room accessible was the bedroom -- although obviously its only the bedroom because the current occupier has put their bed in it. Of course you always wonder how much local properties cost and in the event its revealed to be £99,000 which seems very expensive for a flat but still very reasonable for the area (but since there was snow in the programme it had to have been filmed earlier in the year so lord knows it that's still current).
The rest of the programme blurred by, as the 'team' drifted around a place on Pall Mall in a building called Pall Mall through a horrific flat that had small round portholes for windows (why?) and the 'first-time buyer' plummed for the house. Except she didn't because she wanted to 'think about it' so no Relocation, Relocation, Relocation-style last minute deal will they/won't they moment. See? The whole programme is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Today, I (almost) got to see my house on television. Why couldn't it have been in a good programme?
It's evil because the couple (which are sometimes a couple of 'friends') look around the house alone, are expected to comment on what they see, and then the two presenters, a revolving door of daytimers, stand in the street or hallway outside, under headphones, listening to their prey's opinions and offer comments on what they're saying in a 'fun' and 'light' but usually 'sarcastic' way. Unlike Kirstie and Phil, the presenters, neither of whom seems to have a clue and only one of whom tends to be in the property business don't actually offer that much advice and the guests almost always judge a property on the furniture and decor rather than the thing they'll possibly be buying, the property itself.
Totally misseable then. But isn't it strange how, when one of these shows was filmed in your hometown it becomes utterly compelling? Today according to the Radio Times, 'a first-time buyer hunts for her perfect pad in Liverpool' and there she was, the 'first-time buyer', a quiet blonde from Knowsley looking like she's wondering what she's let herself in for. The presenters for the day were Kristian Digby, a southerner in a shocking burgundy coloured jacket and Simon O'Brien, minor local celebrity. Simon used to present the Rough Guides travel series with Magenta Divine, but that seems like a very long time ago and here he seemed to be trying to imitate the bald bloke who usually presents To Buy (the one from How Safe Is Your House? in which unsuspecting punters watched in horror as someone burgled their home -- nice).
The first house flashes by. The 'first-time buyer' had asked to see properties around Sefton Park/Princes Park so of course they took her to somewhere that looked to be off Penny Lane. That's close. Debrief outside, silly bit were she has to guess the price of the house and then she's whisked on to the next one. Which looked strangely familiar.
'Hold on, that's our flat.'
The four of them are standing in a garden on Ullet Road next to St Agnes Church and our tower block is right behind Simon's shoulder. It's not every day you almost see your home on the telly. Almost, because we're actually on the other side of the building to one that was in shot. But it's still a bit disconcerting. The property they're visiting is a flat that had been added to the top of an existing property. Disconcerting moment number two is that its the first time I've actually watched a property programme that isn't Grand Designs in which I've actually seen the thing being built.
I've always wondered what it looked like inside and here it was. Very snug. The 'first-time buyer' didn't think much of it though, because despite having a massive living room and kitchen, the first room accessible was the bedroom -- although obviously its only the bedroom because the current occupier has put their bed in it. Of course you always wonder how much local properties cost and in the event its revealed to be £99,000 which seems very expensive for a flat but still very reasonable for the area (but since there was snow in the programme it had to have been filmed earlier in the year so lord knows it that's still current).
The rest of the programme blurred by, as the 'team' drifted around a place on Pall Mall in a building called Pall Mall through a horrific flat that had small round portholes for windows (why?) and the 'first-time buyer' plummed for the house. Except she didn't because she wanted to 'think about it' so no Relocation, Relocation, Relocation-style last minute deal will they/won't they moment. See? The whole programme is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Today, I (almost) got to see my house on television. Why couldn't it have been in a good programme?
"Colin Baker's Got One!"
TV Tachyon TV: The Fanzine is now available for purchase, proceeds now going to Infant Death Syndrome. Here's some of the story of why. "For approximately five minutes (which felt like five hours) Colin essentially called us a bunch of idiots who were peddling the very worst kind of undergraduate humour."
Lost & ...
TV Although this post about Lost is a bit of fun it does give one possibly way of having characters crossover during sweeps week. Why not have characters from other shows appearing in the flashbacks or even better as Amy suggests, they appear elsewhere? The Sayid one is surprisingly plausable although I think Jack would fit better in the e.r.*. What do you think Keith, any other ideas? [via]
* I have no idea if these shows are even on the same network.
* I have no idea if these shows are even on the same network.
Aspects of ...
Film "We set up our little guidelines," he said. For one, he banned the sophisticated zoom lenses that make life easier for today?s cinematographers, returning to the fixed focal-length lenses of the past. "I did some research and found some script continuities for a couple of Michael Curtiz films," he recalled, referring to records of the lens and exposure used in every shot, in case retakes were necessary. "I found that he restricted himself to at most five lenses, usually three or four. I talked to Panavision, and they happened to have some older lenses that they?d made that didn?t have all the new coatings on them and also were a focal length that isn?t really used anymore. One of them was a 32 millimeter, a wide-angle lens that nobody uses anymore but was one that Curtiz used a lot." -- Stephen Soderbergh on making his new film The Good German which he has made using Hollywood studio system techniques.
[tech]The film has also been shot in 1.66 : 1 aspect ratio, basically European widescreen standard, which is a shame -- square academy ratio was traditional back then although modern projection systems can be a bit frumpy with it. Perhaps it's an open mat which means that more of the picture could appear when the film goes to dvd, ala Stanley Kubrick's later work.[/tech]
[tech]The film has also been shot in 1.66 : 1 aspect ratio, basically European widescreen standard, which is a shame -- square academy ratio was traditional back then although modern projection systems can be a bit frumpy with it. Perhaps it's an open mat which means that more of the picture could appear when the film goes to dvd, ala Stanley Kubrick's later work.[/tech]
Small Worlds.
TV Another dispiriting fifty minutes in the company of Torchwood. I mean I've been largely positive about the series up until now, but this was a mess, and everything you could fear that show might descend into being. I really, really left tonight's episode afraid for the safety of Season Three of Doctor Who. They're different series, to be sure, but the same production team were happy to see tonight's drama broadcast as is despite the litany of problems. Why is it for every very cool moment, there's some bit of dialogue, or acting, or direction that makes you want to throw a pillow at the screen?
The positives first. Captain Jack's mystery is developing nicely and the revelation that he was knocking around on the planet in the very early 1900s was a nice surprise and beautifully ambiguous in relation to whether those scenes happened before or after The Doctor Dances. The flashback scene was shot well too, and it wasn't made completely clear whose side he was on in the war. My impression is that they didn't and that in fact he was romancing the old fairy woman before he went travelling in the Tardis and looked her up when he reappeared on Earth just recently. Otherwise we're in Highlander/Angel/Eighth Doctor Earth-arc territory, which wouldn't be such a bad thing as confusing -- were two of them knocking around during World War Two? The touching scenes between Jack and his old girlfriend helped to fill out this background -- he obviously loved her very much.
It was a good premise too, building upon the famous hoax pictures, fairies being some elemental shadows looking for children to join with them. In fact one of the highlights were the exposition scenes in which those photos were debunked again and the nature of the beasts was revealed even if 'evil since the dawn of time' seems a bit incongruous in a series that was supposed to be priding itself on its reliance on the gritty urban landscape and crap which haunts those street. You can see the actual pictures and the camera that took them at the National Museum for Film, Television and Photography in Bradford and the facts mentioned here were completely correct. For all of his cleverness, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was seduced by the children's story. The eventual monsters were very pretty, perfectly painterly like those fairies, almost the product of some late Victorian painted picture book.
Shame it was dogged by some extraordinarily listless storytelling and poor structuring. As with The Ghost Machine, the teaser was good and the first few scenes in which Jack looked up an old friend were sweet (although would Gwen really have been that rude in the talk about the fairies with all the eye-rolling? Surely that's more like Owen behaviour? This inconsistency of character from episode to episode is really irritating). The chase through through Cardiff Market and the flower petals were pleasingly gruesome (even if that imagery wasn't satisfactorily explained).
Beyond that once and again, we were treated to the girl being threatened, the timeless ones using the weather to defend her, Torchwood noticing the weather fluctuation and then chasing it up. It was a bit like watching an episode of Treasure Hunt, without Wincy Willis, the magenta jumpsuits or cross looking pensioners in stately homes on a coach trip.
This isn't necessarily just a problem with Mr. P J Hammond's work. All of the episodes have suffered from this repetition of action in one form or another, almost as though no one can get a grip of those extra five minutes which have been added to Doctor Who's usual running time. They've also suffered from moments of threat going on far too long, the cutting back, over and over to something which has already been established, like the kids in peril in the wind, or the spooky monsters looking at our heroes from above. This stylistic holdover from the parent series and seems out of place in the 'adult' world.
Time which could better be spent charting Jack's passage through history or providing Tosh with some character development outside of an upcoming episode that will no doubt include all of her character development or giving the characters a believable social life was instead used in the company of a vast range of characters that were no doubt supposed to be normal but were instead, well, boring. The strategy of the series is for largely than life characters to brush up against the realistic, but that's no reason for the so-called 'real people' to have nothing in the way of interesting characterisation, or anything to make you actually care if they lived or died. Compare and contrast the sinister lump of a step-father here with any of Gwen's colleagues from the first episode and there are some massive inconsistencies at play. Normal doesn't have to mean dull. Look at Spooks.
In this vein, were we supposed to care for Jasmine, the little girl? The Chosen One (and really, people, you're invoking Buffyology here?) needed to either be a sweetheart, someone the audience could really get behind, or The Omen's Damien in a dress. She was neither, and although the opening near abduction scene was winceful and said lump probably deserved to die for hitting the poor lamb, she was largely left standing around grinning as the elementals snuffed out her enemies. The resolution was troubling too -- Jack essentially advocated that offering up the odd small child for sacrifice was perfectly fair if it kept the 'aliens' at bay. Err, right. And you're expecting us to like Captain Jack after this? I mean his story doesn't really resolve itself. Perhaps if they'd spinned it into something related to him trying and failing to be The Doctor but ... oh no ... this is all we've got time for ...
On the subject of characters, a continuing annoyance is the non-reappearance of Gwen's police partner from the first episode. By making the police's participation irrelevant, they've lost one of the characters who could have been a secret weapon throughout -- he was the source of the oft quoted CSI: Kebab joke and his good humour would have provided much needed levity, particularly in a story like this. Why not make him the person who picked up the mad childcatcher at Cardiff Market? Recurring characters are a good thing.
But this was an episode filled with mini-irritations. The close-up of the name of the street in which the Chosen One lives as though this was supposed to be a big important plot point. The over reliance on that music cue which ends loudly and abruptly to signal 'ooh sinister'. The caption on the flashback even though Jack's voiceover was actually telling us the time and place. Oh and Jack holding back vital information about the enemy they were fighting to create false tension and fake climaxes when he reveals some piece of information, even though most of it was probably jibberish. UNIT syndrome strikes the van too -- they're a secret organisation (outside the government etc) so we'll have the name of it carved in the side -- did anyone else find it's sliding appearance into shot retina searingly irritating? And hey, why not the Mara? What's to say the Krotons didn't have a hand in it also?
[Well alright that reference was nice, and PJ might not have included it as a direct Doctor Who reference, but you can imagine Russell squealing with glee when he read it).
It takes me no pleasure in writing this, since obviously everyone involved had the best of intentions and it makes me look like the judges who lambasted Carol Smilie on Strictly Come Dancing on Saturday (I mean do they want Emma Bunton to win or what?). The cast were doing their best with the material and some of the direction was OK. But there are ongoing issues with the series, a kind of unsurety of tone and writing which is making it very difficult to watch, amplifying the faults rather than the successes. Fundamentally, the question must be -- was it scary? And unfortunately on this occasion, I'm sorry, no it wasn't. At least not in the way that was intended.
Scene from a Contemporary Award Ceremony
Liverpool Biennial I'm pleased to see the painting that I voted for in John Moores 24, 'Scene From a Contemporary Novel' by Nicholas Middleton has won The People's Choice Award. There's a picture of Middleton picking up his award here.
And with that ...
Film There have been surprisingly few major films about magic and the business of performing magic in particular. Most embrace the supernatural approach or use the process as a jumping off point for the ensuing comedy or drama. Woody Allen has used stage magic three times, most memorably in Oedipus Wrecks (his section of New York Stories), were the disappearance of his volunteering mother led to her appearance above New York with the expected hilarious consequences and therapy sessions. More often than not illusionists are knocked off the bill by ventriloquists, psychics or practitioners of the art of hypnosis. What's surprising about Christopher Nolan's The Prestige (an adaptation of Christopher Priest's novel) is not only that the business, at least in the late Victorian era version is presented in some detail, but also the mechanics of the tricks themselves. Their intricacies and the ingenuity of the trick designers, whose work is at the centre of this gripping thriller.
Stunningly, the narrative itself is something of a magic trick. Here, director Nolan continues his experimentations with storytelling and editing that were apparent in Following, Momento and even Batman Begins, restricting information all over the place and leading the audience on exciting, surprising adventure in which their deductive reasoning is tested in a form that is cleverly suggested within the film's own dialogue. As Michael Caine's Cutter notes, for the audience to believe in true magic, enough of the working must be left showing so that the audience always thinks it can work it out. The title refers to the moment at the end of the magic trick when the illusion is completed to the applause of that audience (the jargon the work of author Priest not history)
At the simplest level it's the story of two London-based magicians Alfred (Hugh Jackman) and Freddy (Christian Bale) attempting to out do one another through the performance of magic, an early accident leading to a tit-for-tat obsession in which one or the other must be victorious at all costs, the prize being the exaltation of the audience. The premise is complicated by an intricate storytelling structure in which flashbacks and voiceovers pile on top of one another, disorientating the viewer to the time scheme of events. It's 21 Grams, marinating in Six Degrees of Separation.
There's a fine cast here with Jackman extending his range and Bale turning in yet another effective performance. As their enmity develops, their characters are guilty of some unspeakable acts, and it's to the credit of both performers that they remain sympathetic throughout the business. Michael Caine is as dependable as ever and although there's been some criticism that Scarlett Johansson as the roaming assistant isn't firing on all cylinders, she's actually doing what a supporting player should do - be just remarkable enough without stealing scenes away from the stars. If Rebecca Hall's naturalistic performance as Bale's wife seems to have crept in from a different film, it's a pleasure to see Piper Perabo in another small role but vital role and full marks to English accent which beats Johansson's attempt.
One of the film's great successes is the photography. Nolan's film begins as a chamber piece that develops into something with a much larger scope and while some of the interiors have a conventionality to them, there are moments as lavish as anything I've seen in cinema. The lighting in particular seems to take its cue from key scenes in F W Murneau's 1927 film Sunrise, in which apparent lanterns are often the only light source creating a ghostly mood in which anything could potentially happen. And does.
To write anything else would spoil the mysteries that develop and the fragile hold that Nolan has on you as he drives toward's the film's own moment of prestige. The only real criticism is that he perhaps spends just too long getting there, provides a smidge too much information and risks the possibility that wilier members of the audience will be able to twig that mystery. Thankfully, the whole production is sumptuous and intelligent enough to engross. There's a commentary in here about old fashioned thrills have been stifled by the clamor for spectacle that could bespeak of film history itself. And even when all of its secrets have been revealed, against expectations, revisiting the piece will allow the viewer to see through Nolan's smoke and mirror.
Stunningly, the narrative itself is something of a magic trick. Here, director Nolan continues his experimentations with storytelling and editing that were apparent in Following, Momento and even Batman Begins, restricting information all over the place and leading the audience on exciting, surprising adventure in which their deductive reasoning is tested in a form that is cleverly suggested within the film's own dialogue. As Michael Caine's Cutter notes, for the audience to believe in true magic, enough of the working must be left showing so that the audience always thinks it can work it out. The title refers to the moment at the end of the magic trick when the illusion is completed to the applause of that audience (the jargon the work of author Priest not history)
At the simplest level it's the story of two London-based magicians Alfred (Hugh Jackman) and Freddy (Christian Bale) attempting to out do one another through the performance of magic, an early accident leading to a tit-for-tat obsession in which one or the other must be victorious at all costs, the prize being the exaltation of the audience. The premise is complicated by an intricate storytelling structure in which flashbacks and voiceovers pile on top of one another, disorientating the viewer to the time scheme of events. It's 21 Grams, marinating in Six Degrees of Separation.
There's a fine cast here with Jackman extending his range and Bale turning in yet another effective performance. As their enmity develops, their characters are guilty of some unspeakable acts, and it's to the credit of both performers that they remain sympathetic throughout the business. Michael Caine is as dependable as ever and although there's been some criticism that Scarlett Johansson as the roaming assistant isn't firing on all cylinders, she's actually doing what a supporting player should do - be just remarkable enough without stealing scenes away from the stars. If Rebecca Hall's naturalistic performance as Bale's wife seems to have crept in from a different film, it's a pleasure to see Piper Perabo in another small role but vital role and full marks to English accent which beats Johansson's attempt.
One of the film's great successes is the photography. Nolan's film begins as a chamber piece that develops into something with a much larger scope and while some of the interiors have a conventionality to them, there are moments as lavish as anything I've seen in cinema. The lighting in particular seems to take its cue from key scenes in F W Murneau's 1927 film Sunrise, in which apparent lanterns are often the only light source creating a ghostly mood in which anything could potentially happen. And does.
To write anything else would spoil the mysteries that develop and the fragile hold that Nolan has on you as he drives toward's the film's own moment of prestige. The only real criticism is that he perhaps spends just too long getting there, provides a smidge too much information and risks the possibility that wilier members of the audience will be able to twig that mystery. Thankfully, the whole production is sumptuous and intelligent enough to engross. There's a commentary in here about old fashioned thrills have been stifled by the clamor for spectacle that could bespeak of film history itself. And even when all of its secrets have been revealed, against expectations, revisiting the piece will allow the viewer to see through Nolan's smoke and mirror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)