Music Although I'm not the kind of Eurovision fan who knows the songs back to front before competition week but I do like to watch both semis which has been a frustrating experience in recent years because rather than show the whole of Eurovision's telepresentation, the BBC show has instead presented their own business with Scott Mills and whoever his co-presenter is (this year Mel Giedroyc) presumably designed to provide some background to the performers but I think draws away from the event itself.
Fortunately this year, the ceremonies were live streamed on YouTube and the sections not shown on the BBC snipped out and turned into their own videos. Here's the more prominent stuff worth seeing.
The Interval Act from the first semi final, a contemporary dance piece about the refugee crisis:
The Interval Act from the second semi final, in which humans dance synchronously with factory machines :
The Nerd Nation Part II (part one was in the first Semi but that's not on the channel for some reason)
And here are the whole live streams of both shows, should you want to enjoy the opening number for the second show again (which was the best Eurovision moment in years) and any numbers which didn't make it through to the final (and I'm sorry but San Marino was just depressing):
Click. Click. Click.
Art Last night, Liverpool hosted Light Night, the art festival designed to frustrate those of us who can't decide on anything by hosting some exciting sounding events simultaneously. As ever I decided to focus on just a couple of events, filling in the gaps between with whatever was on route. My evening began with a RIBA tour of the waterfront, followed by a glance at the morris dancers outside Tate, to the International Slavery Museum for their Afro Supa Hero exhibition focus on Black role models in popular culture (mainly a display of action figures), the Everyman to have my brainwaves tested by the Neu Collective Consciousness (after concentrating on a giant rotating shape I was told that my reaction meant I have a unique mind) (no, really) then to LIPA to investigate the Liver Bird breeding programme (large and placid... and stupid) and ending at Liverpool Cathedral to see No Worst, There Is None.
No Worst, There Is None was a special Light Night commission, as per the booklet "a large-scale immersive performance" inspired by the Gerard Manley Hopkins poem of the same name, which to the visitor amounts to numerous giant screens throughout the cathedral projecting a series of computer generated shapes accompanied by a minimalist score (composed by Bill Ryder-Jones) performed by the cathedral choir accompanied by a Salvation Army brass band.
Arriving about half way through the nine o'clock performance, to a packed cathedral, I decided to go buy a coffee and then grab a seat for the second run-through an hour later, heading up to the front as soon as the first show had ended. Sure enough my strategy worked and after some misunderstandings about reserved seats managed to sit right at the front on the isle seat in the optimal position. The seats filled up around me and twenty-minutes later, after some announcements it began.
Screens projecting, music begins, a slow abstract thrum which -
Click.
... is supposed to engender a sense of meditation and -
Click.
... concentra -
Click.
- tion in the viewer.
Within moments of the show starting, I noticed a photographer was sitting on the floor in the middle of the aisle at the front parallel with me, presumably positioned so he could take shots from a similarly great vantage point I'd scoped. Now that the show had begun, he was taking photographs. Loudly. Distractingly.
He clearly thought he was being discrete, and I don't blame the photographer, he was just being hired to do a job and follow the rules he'd been given by the client, but with a piece which was so clearly designed to beg the concentration of the viewer, this is incredibly difficult when you all you can hear, every fifteen seconds is ...
Click. Click. Click.
At one point he changed the lense. Clatter.
He wasn't the only photographer. Another was just below the front of the pews on the floor out of the way and although I could see her screen out the corner of my eye she was silent.
Do digital DSLR cameras still have shutters? Or is this an electronic audio affection ala the smart phone?
Eventually the aisle photographer moved, but due to the way acoustics work in the cathedral, the sound of the clicking of his camera continued right through the first five minutes, all the while the band's playing, the choir's singing.
Then the clicks stopped as the photographer headed elsewhere.
At which point I just about relaxed. Apart from when the stranger sitting next to me decided to use his smartphone and take his own images. Will he ever look at them again? What are they for?
As we've discussed before, photography at events is an ongoing issue for me. I appreciate the need to officially record shows for posterity and future publicity purposes. But as I found at TEDx Liverpool the other year during the musical performances and various festivals, this should not ever be to the detriment of the thing which people have actually turned up for.
Was it just me who was distracted by this? Not sure. I did see a few eyes darting in his direction. The cathedral was busy anyway so there was noise elsewhere, but a background hum is less likely to impair your enjoyment of a performance than something at close quarters. Some people across the aisle began talking when boredom set in but they had the good graces to leave.
The performances ended, applause, and I sped to the door so as not to get caught behind the crowds leaving. On reflection, I don't know what I made of the show or what it was trying to achieve. Perhaps this wasn't the right venue for it anyway, too public, much more suited to a place where the sounds and images can wash over the viewer.
But: please event organisers, in future, try to consider the extent to which you're disrupting an event for the audience when organising photography and other ways of recording it.
No Worst, There Is None was a special Light Night commission, as per the booklet "a large-scale immersive performance" inspired by the Gerard Manley Hopkins poem of the same name, which to the visitor amounts to numerous giant screens throughout the cathedral projecting a series of computer generated shapes accompanied by a minimalist score (composed by Bill Ryder-Jones) performed by the cathedral choir accompanied by a Salvation Army brass band.
Arriving about half way through the nine o'clock performance, to a packed cathedral, I decided to go buy a coffee and then grab a seat for the second run-through an hour later, heading up to the front as soon as the first show had ended. Sure enough my strategy worked and after some misunderstandings about reserved seats managed to sit right at the front on the isle seat in the optimal position. The seats filled up around me and twenty-minutes later, after some announcements it began.
Screens projecting, music begins, a slow abstract thrum which -
Click.
... is supposed to engender a sense of meditation and -
Click.
... concentra -
Click.
- tion in the viewer.
Within moments of the show starting, I noticed a photographer was sitting on the floor in the middle of the aisle at the front parallel with me, presumably positioned so he could take shots from a similarly great vantage point I'd scoped. Now that the show had begun, he was taking photographs. Loudly. Distractingly.
He clearly thought he was being discrete, and I don't blame the photographer, he was just being hired to do a job and follow the rules he'd been given by the client, but with a piece which was so clearly designed to beg the concentration of the viewer, this is incredibly difficult when you all you can hear, every fifteen seconds is ...
Click. Click. Click.
At one point he changed the lense. Clatter.
He wasn't the only photographer. Another was just below the front of the pews on the floor out of the way and although I could see her screen out the corner of my eye she was silent.
Do digital DSLR cameras still have shutters? Or is this an electronic audio affection ala the smart phone?
Eventually the aisle photographer moved, but due to the way acoustics work in the cathedral, the sound of the clicking of his camera continued right through the first five minutes, all the while the band's playing, the choir's singing.
Then the clicks stopped as the photographer headed elsewhere.
At which point I just about relaxed. Apart from when the stranger sitting next to me decided to use his smartphone and take his own images. Will he ever look at them again? What are they for?
As we've discussed before, photography at events is an ongoing issue for me. I appreciate the need to officially record shows for posterity and future publicity purposes. But as I found at TEDx Liverpool the other year during the musical performances and various festivals, this should not ever be to the detriment of the thing which people have actually turned up for.
Was it just me who was distracted by this? Not sure. I did see a few eyes darting in his direction. The cathedral was busy anyway so there was noise elsewhere, but a background hum is less likely to impair your enjoyment of a performance than something at close quarters. Some people across the aisle began talking when boredom set in but they had the good graces to leave.
The performances ended, applause, and I sped to the door so as not to get caught behind the crowds leaving. On reflection, I don't know what I made of the show or what it was trying to achieve. Perhaps this wasn't the right venue for it anyway, too public, much more suited to a place where the sounds and images can wash over the viewer.
But: please event organisers, in future, try to consider the extent to which you're disrupting an event for the audience when organising photography and other ways of recording it.
Will McAvoy on Trump.
Politics It's with some irony that the very people who would be best placed to talk about Trump simply aren't there any more, although Ritchie episodes of The West Wing probably went some way to doing the job. Anyway, here's Will McAvoy from Sorkin's second best series going apeshit about the whole business [via].
As a bonus here's Jon Stewart being constantly interrupted by David Axelrod for an hour or so before the most uncomfortable Q&A moment in history.
Elizabeth Day on living out of a suitcase.
Life Oddly enough this sounds idyllic:
"I had no home, no partner, no children. There was no terraced house waiting to be populated by babies who I would watch grow into adults, before retiring and deciding to extend the kitchen. I had always thought things would turn out that way. But they weren’t going to.As I said yesterday (ahem), I'm easily distracted so I'm not sure I could write anything, let alone a novel, whilst sitting in a cafe unless I had loud enough music to drown out the sound of humanity.
"So I needed to be shown that there were other ways to live. I needed not to have the responsibility of fixing the boiler or buying pillows. I needed shelter in other people’s houses and I was fortunate enough to find it."
Elizabeth Wurtzel on Augusta.
Nature On how adopting an abandoned puppy changed her life:
"She was consuming. She wanted to do everything. I was afraid she was going to want a subscription to the ballet at Lincoln Center. She was busy. She wanted to walk all the time, and once we started, she did not want to stop.I always wondered what it must be like to own a dog. I'm allergic to cat hair, so that's out, but dogs. But I don't think I have the temperament. I'm already too easily distracted.
"She made me cry. Early one morning, I broke down. Work with me, Augusta, I pleaded. She did not care. She wanted to walk more.
"I discovered dogwalkers and dog daycare. I made friends with other dog owners. We worked it out. I cannot believe we worked it out. It is because I love her so much."
My Favourite Film of 1947.
Music The only David Bowie album I ever owned, or certainly owned on vinyl though I'm pretty certain I don't own any others is his soundtrack album to Labyrinth, bought from the Liverpool Central Library when it was having a clear out (having borrowed the same copy myself earlier).
The key track, or at least the track most people seem to remember most, is Magic Dance. It was parodied recently in the "outtakes" at end of the second episode of the brilliant BBC Four comedy, "The Life of Rock with Brian Pern".
Here's the scene from the film in which it appears:
Mainly people seem to remember it for the opening dialogue:
Bowie: You remind me of the babe.
Goblin: What babe?
Bowie: The babe with the power.
Goblin: What power?
Bowie: The power of voodoo.
Goblin: Who do?
Bowie: You do.
Goblin: Do what?
Bowie: Remind me of the babe.
Having listened to this blessed album incessantly as a child years before I realised (a) that Bowie was quite a famous musician and that (b) he'd done a few other things on top of playing the Goblin King, it's imprinted on my brain.
Shift forward to this evening during which I was entertained by Bachelor Knight (or The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer as it was called in the US), 1947 romantic screwball comedy starring Myrna Loy, Cary Grant and Shirley Temple (RIP) which is currently available on the BBC iPlayer after its broadcast on Sunday morning. For reason too complicated to explain here, Grant has been forced to date the much younger (and underaged) Temple and this scene in an attempt to overplay his hand in order to end his purgatory he's playing Jack the lad:
At which point I jumped out my chair as the years drifted away. There it is again. Slightly different but nevertheless:
Grant: You remind me of the man.
Temple: What man?
Grant: The man with the power.
Temple: What power?
Grant: The power of hoodoo.
Temple: Who do?
Grant: You do.
Temple: Do what?
Grant: Remind me of the man.
It's repeated in various ways across the film and colour me amazed as we find David Bowie influenced by this relatively forgotten Cary Grant film (though it's worth noting the screenplay written by Sidney Sheldon won an Academy Award). Hoodoo incidentally is "folk magic".
How did this happen?
Magic Dance's Wikipedia page merely acknowledges the reference as does the one for Bachelor Knight (or The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer as it was called in the US).
Google otherwise only turns up this Yahoo Answers conversation from eight years ago in which, as ever, no one has the faintest idea what they're talking about.
Clearly the answer is somewhere along the lines of "David Bowie was watching television one night saw the quote and thought "I'll have that." " Or was simply familiar with the dialogue from a familiarity with old Hollywood which also led to this. Or that they're both referencing a different literary source which I've entirely missed.
I can't think of there being any particular thematic connection other than that Temple and Loy's besottedness with Grant is signalled in hallucinatory sequences in which Cary is shown dressed as a knight in full armour obscured by soft focus and that like Labyrinth its about a young girl ambiguously obsessed with an older man.
Either way, my goodness. Any Bowie scholars out there who'd like to hazard a guess?
[Note: This was originally posted in February 2014 which is why some of you'll remember it, especially since I tweeted it a few times on the occasion of Bowie's passing. But it does feel like a proto-type for where this weekly column is heading and The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer or whatever it's called in your territory is my favourite film of that year - at least because the repetition rule dismisses The Lady from Shanghai for obvious reasons.]
All-Purpose Marvel Movie Review.
Film Funny because it's true. But it's true because they're so good at what they do:
"I didn’t know if Up And Coming Actor/Sort Of Famous But Never Starred In A Blockbuster Actor could carry a Marvel movie, but as the strong/funny/self-deprecating Good Man, he does so brilliantly. By turns steely, vulnerable, tortured, sarcastic, and heroic, Good Man is the epitome of the modern Superhero/Alien/Normal Guy Thrust Into Unforeseen Fantastic Circumstances. His journey from nobody to savior grounds in heartfelt realism what is otherwise an action-packed blockbuster of extraordinary magnitude."Oh my, Ant-Man.
Yesterday I travelled by steam train.
Life Yesterday I travelled by steam train.
The Steam on the Dock event is taking place this weekend at the Albert Dock as a way of celebrating the re-launch of the SS Daniel Adamson, a century old tug boat which has recently been restored. The busy, complicated life of the boat can he read here.
But sensing that a steam event wouldn't be right without featuring a locomotive, a fully working Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland steam train has been installed on temporary train tracks up the length of the side of the dock where the boat resides, between The Pumphouse and the bridge which you must cross in order to get to Tate Liverpool. The one which turns around on occasion.
Apparently, I travelled on the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland railways as a child. We have photographs. I don't remember, largely because I don't remember much of anything which happened in the seventies. I was too young.
Spending a lot of my time missing the news of anything happening in the city unless someone sends me a press release and sometimes even then, passing into the Dock for reasons, I had no idea that there even would be a steam train, let alone one on which it was possible to actually have ride.
On realising this and also noticing that the doors to the carriages were about to be closed, I ran across the cobbles, almost tripping over in the process. True to form, as always happens, even when I reach a non-platform in front of a train which isn't going anywhere in particular, the doors closed.
I leaned against the fence, accepting my fate.
"You'll have to wait for the next one." The volunteer guard said. To be fair, this would be in about four minutes. But I must have looked disappointed because the other guard opened the door for me anyway.
I wedged myself into the empty space on the bench and waited, the smell of the mechanics of the steam train wafting into the carriage. Century old train travel means tiny space with little foot room and no glass in the windows. Thanks goodness it wasn't raining.
Seconds later we were off at a pootling speed up the dockside, followed by a range of cameras and smartphones. If the NSA became bored with the other stuff, they could probably piece together a short film or panoramic image of my journey through all of these different photographs.
The last thing I was expected yesterday afternoon was to be sat in a train carriage going backwards and forwards with the front entrance of the Liverpool Maritime Museum as the view, especially having walked the same journey many times. There are no new insights to report as to its appearance.
But it was fun and even more fun when after the first trip, we repeated the journey, because the organisers know that adults are just children plus cynicism and what we really need sometimes is to be reminded of what it was like when we had shorter legs and always wanted to have another go of anything.
Then it was over.
On the Vowel.
Grammar Yesterday, The Guardian put out their usual request for subjects for their Review anything column and I offered the following:
They went with vowels:@guideguardian Advantageous, the indie film on Netflix. The YourNews section of iPM. Textured wallpaper. Asda t-shirts. Vowels.— Stuart Ian Burns (@feelinglistless) May 5, 2016
A – Pronounced “ay”. Though in the word “bath”, if you’re from the north it’s said “ah” and if you’re from the south, inexplicably, it’s “ar”. “A” is the vowel of the north-south divide. It is a vowel of hatred. Though it is also used to denote excellence in examinations and energy efficiency in boilers. Useful. 7/10I agree with their ratings.
An Earlier Day.
Journalism About the only surprise about The New Day closing is that it's happening this quickly. Newspapers and magazines take time to bed in but as Roy Greenslade explains in his column, its publishers Mirror Group stacked the odds against it by making it incapable of covering breaking news satisfactorily and messing up such things as pricing and pre-publicity.
Plus the launch issue was abysmal with a messy content structure, generic listicle articles which looked like they'd been copy/pasted from a website and a lack of seeming to actually do anything particularly different to The Metro or The i. You don't get a second change at making a first impression.
All of which reminds me that about ten years ago this week another similar experiment, The North-West Enquirer launched. The idea was to offer a weekly newspaper covering the whole of the region, for people who were interested in what was happening outside of their city, with a strong business, politics and cultural angle.
I loved it and never missed an issue. Travelling between Liverpool and Manchester for college during the launch period meant that I was probably the key target audience. Plus there were some brilliant idiosyncrasies, as my review of the first issue reminds me, like carrying four pages of syndicated material from the International Herald Tribune in the middle.
They included Feeling Listless in the blogroll on their website and even mentioned my work in the related column in the paper. Here and here (the latter a piece about handing in my dissertation). The Enquirer was especially good at understanding the online community at a time when blogging still seemed like a weird pursuit.
Sadly, within about five months, news came that it was to close due to not reaching sales targets and they weren't even given the opportunity to publish a final paper, the decision having been taken in the week between issues. One of the journalists emailed me to communicate their disappointment at the decision and I agree with their comments. It was a great paper that still leaves a hole in the market.
Thanks to the Internet Archive you can relive the good old days. Versions of the website are still here.
Plus the launch issue was abysmal with a messy content structure, generic listicle articles which looked like they'd been copy/pasted from a website and a lack of seeming to actually do anything particularly different to The Metro or The i. You don't get a second change at making a first impression.
All of which reminds me that about ten years ago this week another similar experiment, The North-West Enquirer launched. The idea was to offer a weekly newspaper covering the whole of the region, for people who were interested in what was happening outside of their city, with a strong business, politics and cultural angle.
I loved it and never missed an issue. Travelling between Liverpool and Manchester for college during the launch period meant that I was probably the key target audience. Plus there were some brilliant idiosyncrasies, as my review of the first issue reminds me, like carrying four pages of syndicated material from the International Herald Tribune in the middle.
They included Feeling Listless in the blogroll on their website and even mentioned my work in the related column in the paper. Here and here (the latter a piece about handing in my dissertation). The Enquirer was especially good at understanding the online community at a time when blogging still seemed like a weird pursuit.
Sadly, within about five months, news came that it was to close due to not reaching sales targets and they weren't even given the opportunity to publish a final paper, the decision having been taken in the week between issues. One of the journalists emailed me to communicate their disappointment at the decision and I agree with their comments. It was a great paper that still leaves a hole in the market.
Thanks to the Internet Archive you can relive the good old days. Versions of the website are still here.
"There’s a daisy."
Film TIME Magazine is reporting that Lisa Klein’s novelistic adaptation of Hamlet (which I reviewed here) is going into production with Daisy Ridley in the title role and Naomi Watts as Gertrude directed by Claire McCarthy. She says:
"Ophelia is brimming with youth-fueled charisma, exploring the nature of true love and beauty, and I’m so excited to bring this fresh mythic spin to Hamlet from a female perspective,” McCarthy said in a statement. “This retelling will be experienced through the eyes of Ophelia and has the kind of romance, complexity and suspense that makes this beloved story exciting to younger audiences."It's been a while but that review suggests that I enjoyed the novel and I do remember that it wasn't simply a rote version of the play which just happens to just have the Ophelia scenes. Klein brought real inner life to the character and also the story ranged well before and after the action of the play. If they're brave enough to just have that action in the middle section as per the book and properly background Hamlet then this could be something very good indeed.
[spoiler deleted]
Film The Guardian has an excellent point for point analysis of why Captain America: Civil War is a better film than Bus Dodge. I've deleted the minor spoiler in the middle of this quite:
The Civil War sequence is a hoot, with each character getting their licks in and using their powers in unique and fun ways. True, by this point the scene has 12 characters beating the hell out of one another, offering more room for innovation. [spoiler deleted] But Dawn of Justice’s fight is mainly just the bashing of heads. When Wonder Woman finally appears, we only see her lasso for five seconds, and it’s inconsequential. The celebrated breath of fresh air in that picture isn’t given anything to do other than look gorgeous and smile.Probably best to ignore the link until you've seen the film. Does anyone know why MARVEL films tend to be released internationally before the US? Buzz? Word of mouth? You're welcome.
My Favourite Film of 1948.
Film A quick aside. Working through 1001 film list, partly through library dvds, partly through streaming apps, I've been struck by just how awful some of the transfers have been, even major studio releases. For all Scorsese et al's efforts in restoring the likes of The Red Shoes, there are dozens of titles around which exist in barely watchable versions either because the dvd company has simply utilised some old transfer prepared for television or even a VHS release because it's not been thought to be cost effective to produce a better version for something likely only to attract a small audience at a budget price.
But it's also true that blu-ray and boutique releases and indeed the ravishing work done on titles like The Red Shoes, the premium material, has rather spoilt our tastes. For the decade before dvd, most of us were quite comfortable watching films in panned and scanned VHS releases and simply happy to have the miracle of a film in the home which we could watch whenever, no matter that it had been butchered and was very far from what the director originally intended or indeed had their vision compromised because of the needs to shoot the thing in order to ease its transition into the home market by protecting the frame.
Even dvd wasn't initially the panacea. Although some titles were undoubtedly well turned out, the original release of All The President's Men was at such a low bit-rate, the quality was barely better than a VHS recording from the original line of Freeview boxes and The Red Shoes utilised the very yellowed print that you see in the restoration documentary to demonstrate the amount of work which was done in order to make the colours pop. Again, because that was all that was available, we still marvelled. Now, as we can stream these films in HD quality, we shake our heads at that legacy, boggling at how we could possibly accept such poor quality.
But sometimes it's still possible to simply be grateful to see a film, however the quality. A few weeks ago I discovered Peter Hall's filmed version of A Midsummer Night's Dream and found a streamable copy on Amazon Prime. The transfer is awful, the sound pitched far too high and muffled, the dialogue sometimes muffled. The print used is completely unrestored with frame dropouts where it's been repaired, noticeable shudders between reels and dust and hairs and well, you get the idea. It's probably in a worse state than the Blade Runner print I talked about the other months.
Except, I was very pleased to have seen it. The film has been highly out of circulation in the UK - I don't think it's even received a VHS release. There is a region one disc from MGM's archive collection, but that's a bit expensive for me at the moment (apparently that transfer is much better). When a film is this rare, you make do, you enjoy what's been put in front of you. It was a reminder of those times past but also of how we have to look after and promote this legacy. How is it that a film starring Judi Dench, Helen Mirren and Diana Rigg, in Shakespeare, at the height of their powers could be treated this poorly?
We Need To Talk About Steve Rogers (again).
Film Let's get the obvious out of the way first. Captain America: Civil War is awesome. That cultural barometer Rotten Tomatoes currently suggests a reviewer average of 93% and that's exactly about right. We'll get to the bat shaped elephant with an S on his chest more clearly in a minute but if you want a demonstration of how the RT algorithm largely works compare that to the other big comic book clash of the year which has now dropped to 27% to see how if something is of quality it will be rewarded with the reviews to match (unless you're of the mind that the entire critical corpus are all on the take from MARVEL to give positive reviews to their films and damn DC in which case this will simply confirm your worst fears).
Needless to say there will be spoilers in this listicle shaped discussion and it is one of those films which works best without any foreknowledge. There's at least one moment I wish I hadn't known about beforehand which is still amazing, but not quite as much first time as it might have been if it had come as the surprise it was meant to be. But genre websites have to attract the clicks and so it was they decided to include this moment in the headline of the article and so the content of a tweet. But unlike Bus Dodge where its best moments were the film, CA:CW is so rich in moments that there were about a hundred other things and incidents and stuff that are equally terrific. Make no mistake, this is the film Age of Ultron should have been (and I was less critical of Joss's nightmare than most people).
Structure.
One of the fears that I think most of us had going into this was that it seemed like it was going to be The Avengers 2.5 and there is an argument that this is certainly the case. But it's also quite coherently Iron Man 4 and yet it still also manages to keep Cap as the focus character in his own film providing a coherent conclusion to his trilogy, paying off bits of story set in motion back in The First Avenger whilst also setting the scene for the upcoming phase of MARVEL films. If Age of Ultron felt like just another episode in the series, this is more like the mid-season finale as it also simultaneously pays off events from numerous other films along the way. You probably couldn't watch the three Cap films and feel like you've seen a coherent story but none of the MARVEL films function that way.
Notice how the Russos somehow manage to give each of their characters a "moment of charm" for want of a better description or at least a story beat which furthers their narrative within the MCU whilst also justifying their appearance in the film. None of the superhero characters at least feel like cameos with the possible exception of Ant-Man although even his gigantor scene and subsequent incarceration will have potential implications for his sequel. There's no especial reason why Vision and Scarlet Witch should have a bit of romance here, but it provides each of them some motivation going forward, not least Vis whose character arc is surely going to mirror TNG's Data as his artificial intelligence slowly absorbs humanity and investigates what it is to be a sentient being. Including wearing their clothes.
But the ballsiness of the finale in which it seems as though in the expected MARVEL way bygones will be bygones and then everything's turned around and we're given the fight we all turned up to see. Compare this to Bus Dodge in which the expected fight squibbles after two hours of build up. In this, they fight, they fight and then they fight some more as MARVEL fearlessly trashes friendships and the status quo of its universe because that's what the story is about. I was reminded of the anti-regeneration gun in Doctor Who's The Last of the Time Lords. The shift between the expectations as to what was going to be the ending and would have been in the hands of lesser film makers and what occurs is the Hollywood blockbuster equivalent of Martha's giggle.
Sides.
If there's a problem and this is the 7%, it's that although the film portrays this as both Iron Man and Cap having valid arguments for being on both sides of the Sarcovia accord, given the death and destruction, Iron Man's is the correct end of the argument. There has to be oversight. Even in imperfect systems you can't have vigilantism. It's not perfect and the people making the decisions won't always get it wrong, but as is established, it's not about the superbeings becoming America's police force but the UN's. Which isn't to say there isn't nuance but what's interesting about the script is that it doesn't take sides on the issue so it's entirely possible that someone else would come away from the film with Cap's freedom argument. In the end I'm siding with Romanov.
Notice how the discussion is roughly similar to that in Bus Dodge. But whereas Batman's solution was to annihilate Superman, here it's about control. Superheroes begat death and destruction and arguably more supervillains so something has to happen. The SHIELD comic had a pretty good solution for this, making Coulson an expert in superheroes and having him decide who to deploy and where to the best of their abilities. Perhaps in the first Infinity War film we'll see a version of this as Tony deploys whatever team he's managed to construct from people willing to sign the accord (whilst simultaneously demonstrating there's life in the mega team idea once he and the rest of this lot have retired).
Agent Carter.
"Oh Peg." I said quietly as Cap received the news. Arguably having Agent Carter die off camera is a bit undignified, but despite what the Russos say about the television sections of the franchise, there has to have been a certain element of not wanting to dampen whatever might be happening with the television series. But historical dramas are often about dead people and Howard Stark was already established as having gone even before he wandered into that series. My next thought was whether Jarvis was still about and of course he is in spirit. Meanwhile are we suppose to assume Bucky dated or at least tried to date Dottie Underwood? Is that one of the reasons he ended up in the Winter Soldier programme. It's all connect isn't it?
Iron Man 4
One of the key threads of the Iron Man films was Tony's relationship with his father and his unresolved issues with people an arms manufacturer who flies around in a humanoid tank. The darkness of Iron Man 3 is finding further fruition here. Some might question why Pepper is kept off screen again, but the producers have realised that their relationship breeds light screwball comedy and tonally the Captain America films, at least the latter two, don't lend themselves to that. We need to see darkly brooding Tony, grey Tony, morally certain Tony and having him spar with Miss Potts would not have felt right. Plus it's difficult to hire Paltrow and then not give her a story to service especially in the film where one of the rules seems to be "no cameos".
Spider-Man
Just right. Unless Homecoming is a complete mess, I think this is probably going to be the big screen portrayal of Spider-man which will finally nail it. The Raimi films did the spectacle whilst getting Peter completely wrong and fucking up the structure of the first film. Andrew Garfield was near perfect in the role but was ill served by the films his performance was housed in as Sony misguidedly attempted to spin their own cinematic universe around him. Spidey has always been at his best when he's had other superhumans to but up against, trade notes and so it proves here. Say what you like about producing yet another screen version of the character when TAS2 hasn't even finished its initial streaming cycle, but his appearance in CA:CW more than justifies it.
Notice the economy with which he's introduced, in a long conversation with Tony which hints towards his origin story, Peter keeping something back, the radio active spider bite (we assume) having occurred six months before. But the details which hint towards the future, the retro technology in his room fished out of dumpsters expressing his poverty, no parents, May bringing him up (isn't Marissa Tomei fabulous?) alone having also lost her husband. Part of that is an adaptation from the comics, but Feige has said that John Hughes will be a key influence on the Spider-Man films and they're already laying the ground work here, as we find a set up not too dissimilar in mood to Pretty in Pink or Some Kind of Wonderful.
There's also his personality which is arguably "young Deadpool" but that just shows how closely they're following what can be found in the comics and in the television cartoons. Plus it's not just he's cracking jokes, he's funny and overawed about meeting all of these heroes and even getting to fight them. This is just how such encounters were portrayed in the comics. We'll see how much of the rest of the comics will be transferred to the screen. As the Garfield films found and Bus Dodge, having had a different adaptation pilfer all the good bits, it's a big ask for the audience to so quickly sit through an alternative version. I'd be quite happy for the Daily Bugle to not even appear in his films, although they will come up against the problem of natural aging. He can't stay in school for the next ten years (or however long his trilogy takes).
Agents of SHIELD.
The Russos have made it perfectly clear they don't give a toss about SHIELD and yet SHIELD does have to give a toss about Civil War. Channel 4 are a bit behind the US in screenings so lord knows what effect all of this business will have on their affairs though it'll probably be less than The Winter Soldier which arguably changed the premise of the series. Presumably the expectation for the Secret Warriors to register will intensify so it's possibly that Daisy et al will decide to break away from SHIELD and go their own way. But the walled gardens between the various bits of the franchise are interesting. How does this registration business effect Daredevil? Or Jessica Jones? Or the rest of The Defenders? One of the ambiguities of the film is the extent to which the accord affects just The Avengers or all superpowered beings as per the comics.
Where do we go from here?
Unlike Age of Ultron, this was mostly about closing off Cap's story for the most part and setting up Spider-Man and Black Panther (and notice how his film doesn't have to be an origin story either now). Vision mentions his jewel so that's still bubbling under but unlike AoU with Thor's bath et al, there's nothing especially new added to those storylines. Looking at the slate it looks like stand alone films will alternate with films setting up the Infinity War, notably Guardians and Thor (although not really since Strange, Spidey and Panther are sure to participate). It's interesting that The Inhumans has been postponed. My guess is there's some hedge betting going on for post Avengers 3.2. Any of these projects could be failures and the backlash could start against these films. The box office on Civil War is going to be very interesting to watch.
Needless to say there will be spoilers in this listicle shaped discussion and it is one of those films which works best without any foreknowledge. There's at least one moment I wish I hadn't known about beforehand which is still amazing, but not quite as much first time as it might have been if it had come as the surprise it was meant to be. But genre websites have to attract the clicks and so it was they decided to include this moment in the headline of the article and so the content of a tweet. But unlike Bus Dodge where its best moments were the film, CA:CW is so rich in moments that there were about a hundred other things and incidents and stuff that are equally terrific. Make no mistake, this is the film Age of Ultron should have been (and I was less critical of Joss's nightmare than most people).
Structure.
One of the fears that I think most of us had going into this was that it seemed like it was going to be The Avengers 2.5 and there is an argument that this is certainly the case. But it's also quite coherently Iron Man 4 and yet it still also manages to keep Cap as the focus character in his own film providing a coherent conclusion to his trilogy, paying off bits of story set in motion back in The First Avenger whilst also setting the scene for the upcoming phase of MARVEL films. If Age of Ultron felt like just another episode in the series, this is more like the mid-season finale as it also simultaneously pays off events from numerous other films along the way. You probably couldn't watch the three Cap films and feel like you've seen a coherent story but none of the MARVEL films function that way.
Notice how the Russos somehow manage to give each of their characters a "moment of charm" for want of a better description or at least a story beat which furthers their narrative within the MCU whilst also justifying their appearance in the film. None of the superhero characters at least feel like cameos with the possible exception of Ant-Man although even his gigantor scene and subsequent incarceration will have potential implications for his sequel. There's no especial reason why Vision and Scarlet Witch should have a bit of romance here, but it provides each of them some motivation going forward, not least Vis whose character arc is surely going to mirror TNG's Data as his artificial intelligence slowly absorbs humanity and investigates what it is to be a sentient being. Including wearing their clothes.
But the ballsiness of the finale in which it seems as though in the expected MARVEL way bygones will be bygones and then everything's turned around and we're given the fight we all turned up to see. Compare this to Bus Dodge in which the expected fight squibbles after two hours of build up. In this, they fight, they fight and then they fight some more as MARVEL fearlessly trashes friendships and the status quo of its universe because that's what the story is about. I was reminded of the anti-regeneration gun in Doctor Who's The Last of the Time Lords. The shift between the expectations as to what was going to be the ending and would have been in the hands of lesser film makers and what occurs is the Hollywood blockbuster equivalent of Martha's giggle.
Sides.
If there's a problem and this is the 7%, it's that although the film portrays this as both Iron Man and Cap having valid arguments for being on both sides of the Sarcovia accord, given the death and destruction, Iron Man's is the correct end of the argument. There has to be oversight. Even in imperfect systems you can't have vigilantism. It's not perfect and the people making the decisions won't always get it wrong, but as is established, it's not about the superbeings becoming America's police force but the UN's. Which isn't to say there isn't nuance but what's interesting about the script is that it doesn't take sides on the issue so it's entirely possible that someone else would come away from the film with Cap's freedom argument. In the end I'm siding with Romanov.
Notice how the discussion is roughly similar to that in Bus Dodge. But whereas Batman's solution was to annihilate Superman, here it's about control. Superheroes begat death and destruction and arguably more supervillains so something has to happen. The SHIELD comic had a pretty good solution for this, making Coulson an expert in superheroes and having him decide who to deploy and where to the best of their abilities. Perhaps in the first Infinity War film we'll see a version of this as Tony deploys whatever team he's managed to construct from people willing to sign the accord (whilst simultaneously demonstrating there's life in the mega team idea once he and the rest of this lot have retired).
Agent Carter.
"Oh Peg." I said quietly as Cap received the news. Arguably having Agent Carter die off camera is a bit undignified, but despite what the Russos say about the television sections of the franchise, there has to have been a certain element of not wanting to dampen whatever might be happening with the television series. But historical dramas are often about dead people and Howard Stark was already established as having gone even before he wandered into that series. My next thought was whether Jarvis was still about and of course he is in spirit. Meanwhile are we suppose to assume Bucky dated or at least tried to date Dottie Underwood? Is that one of the reasons he ended up in the Winter Soldier programme. It's all connect isn't it?
Iron Man 4
One of the key threads of the Iron Man films was Tony's relationship with his father and his unresolved issues with people an arms manufacturer who flies around in a humanoid tank. The darkness of Iron Man 3 is finding further fruition here. Some might question why Pepper is kept off screen again, but the producers have realised that their relationship breeds light screwball comedy and tonally the Captain America films, at least the latter two, don't lend themselves to that. We need to see darkly brooding Tony, grey Tony, morally certain Tony and having him spar with Miss Potts would not have felt right. Plus it's difficult to hire Paltrow and then not give her a story to service especially in the film where one of the rules seems to be "no cameos".
Spider-Man
Just right. Unless Homecoming is a complete mess, I think this is probably going to be the big screen portrayal of Spider-man which will finally nail it. The Raimi films did the spectacle whilst getting Peter completely wrong and fucking up the structure of the first film. Andrew Garfield was near perfect in the role but was ill served by the films his performance was housed in as Sony misguidedly attempted to spin their own cinematic universe around him. Spidey has always been at his best when he's had other superhumans to but up against, trade notes and so it proves here. Say what you like about producing yet another screen version of the character when TAS2 hasn't even finished its initial streaming cycle, but his appearance in CA:CW more than justifies it.
Notice the economy with which he's introduced, in a long conversation with Tony which hints towards his origin story, Peter keeping something back, the radio active spider bite (we assume) having occurred six months before. But the details which hint towards the future, the retro technology in his room fished out of dumpsters expressing his poverty, no parents, May bringing him up (isn't Marissa Tomei fabulous?) alone having also lost her husband. Part of that is an adaptation from the comics, but Feige has said that John Hughes will be a key influence on the Spider-Man films and they're already laying the ground work here, as we find a set up not too dissimilar in mood to Pretty in Pink or Some Kind of Wonderful.
There's also his personality which is arguably "young Deadpool" but that just shows how closely they're following what can be found in the comics and in the television cartoons. Plus it's not just he's cracking jokes, he's funny and overawed about meeting all of these heroes and even getting to fight them. This is just how such encounters were portrayed in the comics. We'll see how much of the rest of the comics will be transferred to the screen. As the Garfield films found and Bus Dodge, having had a different adaptation pilfer all the good bits, it's a big ask for the audience to so quickly sit through an alternative version. I'd be quite happy for the Daily Bugle to not even appear in his films, although they will come up against the problem of natural aging. He can't stay in school for the next ten years (or however long his trilogy takes).
Agents of SHIELD.
The Russos have made it perfectly clear they don't give a toss about SHIELD and yet SHIELD does have to give a toss about Civil War. Channel 4 are a bit behind the US in screenings so lord knows what effect all of this business will have on their affairs though it'll probably be less than The Winter Soldier which arguably changed the premise of the series. Presumably the expectation for the Secret Warriors to register will intensify so it's possibly that Daisy et al will decide to break away from SHIELD and go their own way. But the walled gardens between the various bits of the franchise are interesting. How does this registration business effect Daredevil? Or Jessica Jones? Or the rest of The Defenders? One of the ambiguities of the film is the extent to which the accord affects just The Avengers or all superpowered beings as per the comics.
Where do we go from here?
Unlike Age of Ultron, this was mostly about closing off Cap's story for the most part and setting up Spider-Man and Black Panther (and notice how his film doesn't have to be an origin story either now). Vision mentions his jewel so that's still bubbling under but unlike AoU with Thor's bath et al, there's nothing especially new added to those storylines. Looking at the slate it looks like stand alone films will alternate with films setting up the Infinity War, notably Guardians and Thor (although not really since Strange, Spidey and Panther are sure to participate). It's interesting that The Inhumans has been postponed. My guess is there's some hedge betting going on for post Avengers 3.2. Any of these projects could be failures and the backlash could start against these films. The box office on Civil War is going to be very interesting to watch.
"If you read me, we're going to attempt time travel."
Art The biannual press conference announcing the content of the Liverpool Biennial was held yesterday but I couldn't attend due to a work commitment in Manchester and a talk at the Centre for Chinese Contemporary Art about contemporary Hong Kong artwork inspired by the umbrella revolution.
They were good enough to send me a length press release which I've skimmed so as not to have too much of an idea of what to expect until it begins in July so here's the brilliant Vanessa Wheeler at The Double Negative with an excellent survey of what's to come:
They were good enough to send me a length press release which I've skimmed so as not to have too much of an idea of what to expect until it begins in July so here's the brilliant Vanessa Wheeler at The Double Negative with an excellent survey of what's to come:
"This Biennial will be based on the theme of Time Travel and be split into six episodes: Ancient Greece, Chinatown, Children, Monuments of the Future, Flashback, and Software. Each episode, said festival director Sally Tallant at press conferences in Liverpool and London, is a like a fictional genre: confined within itself, but still overlapping with other works to create a mesh of cross-disciplinary art in locations throughout the city. Visitors to the biannual 14-week festival can look forward to a wide-ranging and sometimes bizarre mix of ancient and futuristic sculpture, performance art inspired by medical marvels, a look into the art of smuggling, and an abundance of fantastic fringe events."Which all sounds a bit more coherent and interesting than the last Biennial which I think you probably detected at the time I was rather disappointed with. This edition feels more spread out and within the city in a similar way to Biennials of old when there was an excitement to discovering exhibitions and public art works in unusual spaces.
Soup Safari #64:
Thai Chicken Soup at British Home Stores.
Late Lunch. £3.95. British Home Stores, Manchester Arndale Shopping Centre, 57 Market St, Manchester M1 1WN. Phone: 0161 834 1151. Website.
The Truth.
Life Usually the route of my walk to work just bypasses St George's Hall, but I made a special detour so that I could walk across the plateau on this historic day for the city. As you will have seen from the television pictures, ninety-six lanterns have been placed at the bottom of the steps, each representing someone who died at the Hillsborough disaster. As passed by, a cherry picker was replacing banners hung from the top of the columns at the front of the building, which this morning simply listed the names of the victims, yes, the victims, and now have those important words, "truth" and "justice".
A big screen has also been erected, tuned to the BBC, because the rival news channel covering the event would beyond the pale in a moment like this. Ben Brown, outside the court in Warrington read the names of those victims with their revised times of death, far longer than the 3:15 cut-off arbitrarily applied at the first inquest. I noticed someone weeping, but otherwise an eerie calm, except for the traffic on St John's Lane and the tramping shoes of the media rushing to the scene, perhaps to ready correspondents for the lunchtime news.
But this isn't the end, these things don't end. Those people will never return. Their families who've suffered further through media and political smears, the cover-ups of officials, the fight to be heard, to have this inquest and its verdict will have taken its toll. It arguably killed someone of them, the tragedy compounded by those who've died since, because it's taken so long, no knowing that the battle wasn't in vain, that vindication would come. Now it has.
* * * * *
Back in 2012 when the Hillsborough report was published I wrote the following and since it covers most of my other feelings it seems appropriate to repeat it here. I hope you don't mind:
Originally posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I wasn’t at Hillsborough. I was still something of a football fan so was watching on television. Even though I was in my early teens, my memory of the day is sketchy. I remember watching the disaster unfold in the famous footage which has reappeared on news reports in the intervening years including those related to today’s release of documents. I remember listening to the local radio stations which were the main source of news as the day went on, their schedules dumped in favour of poignant music and public service statements. I remember crying through the memorial service at the cathedral which was also broadcast live.
It wasn’t until I reached university that I realised the inaccurate perception of the disaster held amongst some people outside of Liverpool. It was in my first year, in halls, 1994. A group of us were in the room of a friend from the Birmingham area at around the time of that year’s fifth anniversary in April. I think I’d noticed that he’d bought The Sun and commented on Liverpool’s decade long boycott of the paper, how some newsagents refused to stock it or at least put it on display because of that notorious headline and the lies ironically hidden beneath. There were few chairs in the room, I remember. I was sitting on the floor, him on a computer chair.
“The Sun’s report was accurate,” he said to just the wrong person to say it to on just the wrong day. “I know it was because I know people who were there and they saw it happen.” I was too shocked to be angry, but a couple of decades later I can still remember the feeling of not knowing quite what to say. It’s worth noting this wasn’t some friendship breaking conversation. I knew he was an ignorant person from other things he’d said previously, things he’d done. But he was part of the group and so he was a friend. Sometimes “friend” can have many meanings. Nevertheless, I was surprised that he could be of this opinion.
Of course I tried to give the opposing argument, of course I did. Under questioning, I think it was the case the people he knew who were there turned out to be friends of friends of friends, not a direct conversation so indeed he had no proof in what he said. But he was vociferous in that way he could be, parroting out the allegations from The Sun’s original story to the point that it could only be that the source of his belief was the paper’s report passed along from ear to ear until it became “The Truth” in the minds of the people hearing and speaking about it. I understood then just how widely this version of “The Truth” was believed.
Watching the Prime Minister’s statement on the report and subsequent apology in parliament about an hour ago, I wondered if my friend was also watching. As David Cameron offered the shocking synopsis of the report’s findings and how little truth there was in The Sun’s story I wondered if my friend and all of the people like him would finally face up to the fact that everything they thought was wrong. I wondered if they understood the hurt those beliefs caused and that in perpetuating them, they increased the hurt of the families and the people of Liverpool. I’m also pleased that the actual truth can now be understood.
A big screen has also been erected, tuned to the BBC, because the rival news channel covering the event would beyond the pale in a moment like this. Ben Brown, outside the court in Warrington read the names of those victims with their revised times of death, far longer than the 3:15 cut-off arbitrarily applied at the first inquest. I noticed someone weeping, but otherwise an eerie calm, except for the traffic on St John's Lane and the tramping shoes of the media rushing to the scene, perhaps to ready correspondents for the lunchtime news.
But this isn't the end, these things don't end. Those people will never return. Their families who've suffered further through media and political smears, the cover-ups of officials, the fight to be heard, to have this inquest and its verdict will have taken its toll. It arguably killed someone of them, the tragedy compounded by those who've died since, because it's taken so long, no knowing that the battle wasn't in vain, that vindication would come. Now it has.
Back in 2012 when the Hillsborough report was published I wrote the following and since it covers most of my other feelings it seems appropriate to repeat it here. I hope you don't mind:
Originally posted: Wednesday, September 12, 2012
I wasn’t at Hillsborough. I was still something of a football fan so was watching on television. Even though I was in my early teens, my memory of the day is sketchy. I remember watching the disaster unfold in the famous footage which has reappeared on news reports in the intervening years including those related to today’s release of documents. I remember listening to the local radio stations which were the main source of news as the day went on, their schedules dumped in favour of poignant music and public service statements. I remember crying through the memorial service at the cathedral which was also broadcast live.
It wasn’t until I reached university that I realised the inaccurate perception of the disaster held amongst some people outside of Liverpool. It was in my first year, in halls, 1994. A group of us were in the room of a friend from the Birmingham area at around the time of that year’s fifth anniversary in April. I think I’d noticed that he’d bought The Sun and commented on Liverpool’s decade long boycott of the paper, how some newsagents refused to stock it or at least put it on display because of that notorious headline and the lies ironically hidden beneath. There were few chairs in the room, I remember. I was sitting on the floor, him on a computer chair.
“The Sun’s report was accurate,” he said to just the wrong person to say it to on just the wrong day. “I know it was because I know people who were there and they saw it happen.” I was too shocked to be angry, but a couple of decades later I can still remember the feeling of not knowing quite what to say. It’s worth noting this wasn’t some friendship breaking conversation. I knew he was an ignorant person from other things he’d said previously, things he’d done. But he was part of the group and so he was a friend. Sometimes “friend” can have many meanings. Nevertheless, I was surprised that he could be of this opinion.
Of course I tried to give the opposing argument, of course I did. Under questioning, I think it was the case the people he knew who were there turned out to be friends of friends of friends, not a direct conversation so indeed he had no proof in what he said. But he was vociferous in that way he could be, parroting out the allegations from The Sun’s original story to the point that it could only be that the source of his belief was the paper’s report passed along from ear to ear until it became “The Truth” in the minds of the people hearing and speaking about it. I understood then just how widely this version of “The Truth” was believed.
Watching the Prime Minister’s statement on the report and subsequent apology in parliament about an hour ago, I wondered if my friend was also watching. As David Cameron offered the shocking synopsis of the report’s findings and how little truth there was in The Sun’s story I wondered if my friend and all of the people like him would finally face up to the fact that everything they thought was wrong. I wondered if they understood the hurt those beliefs caused and that in perpetuating them, they increased the hurt of the families and the people of Liverpool. I’m also pleased that the actual truth can now be understood.
My Favourite Film of 1949.
Film James Cooray Smith has been kind enough to write a guest post about my favourite film of 1949:
The Third Viewing
The first time I saw The Third Man was on television, and the very ending shocked me. When she walks past him on the path out of the graveyard. Because films didn’t end like that. Or at least the films seen by my pre-teen self on weekend afternoons didn’t.
The second time I saw The Third Man was at the cinema, and the very beginning shocked me. When a voice gives you an idea of what to expect. Because the BFI, bless them, showed both versions of the opening narration, both the one for the US market, voiced by Joseph Cotten in character as Holly Martins, and the odder, more omniscient one read by director Carol Reed, that played in the rest of the world.
I had never quite realised, despite attempts by Alex Cox in his Moviedrome introductions to educate me as to this point, that films, even big films, can and usually do have a textual history, like editions of a book do and that in film as in print, no text is purely correct, or indeed correct or pure.
The third time I saw The Third Man, I wrote an undergraduate essay about it. I don’t remember what I wrote. I remember I got what we’d all then self-flatteringly call a ‘High 2:1’. I no longer have a copy, and no one to ask for one, or about it’s content, because the tutor for whom I wrote it, the wonderful Michael Mason, has sadly gone on to the large SCR in the sky.
What might I have written about? The manufactured controversy over whether Welles’ directed any of it? (He didn’t.) Or the more interesting one over whether Graham Greene’s prose narrative of his script, written in preparation for writing the latter, but revised after the film was made, counts as a novelisation or not? (I think it does.) It might have been about whether it’s a British or American film. (It’s the former, by any sensible criteria, despite the AFI’s claims to contrary.) I may have dealt with its status as perhaps the first big feature film to be able to treat the Cold War as ongoing and contemporary.
I could have written about Welles’ dialogue on the wheel, and whether the inaccuracy of its claims (the Swiss did not invent the Cookoo clock, which is German and at the time of the Borgias had a vast and feared European army) are the unintended results of improvisation or a deliberate characterisation. Lime is, after all, a con man, and like his name, corrosive or preservative, depending on how you treat him.
Perhaps I bound them all together and wondered whether Greene or Welles or Carol Reed was the film’s “author”. Probably not. I’ve never had much time for auteur theory, but I honestly can’t remember.
But that’s the thing, isn’t it? There are so many things to say about The Third Man, on a third or a thirtieth viewing. A magnificent, haunting work of art achieved, like all truly great cinema, through collaboration and accident, improvisation and alchemy rather than a single concrete ‘vision’. It’s also a film that casts a long shadow (yes, I know what I did there), with its radio adaptations and spin offs (with Orson Welles!) and television series sequel (without Orson Welles) and how it is endlessly parodied, borrowed from and copied.
Forty years after The Third Man was shot, its sound editor, John Glen, went back to that square, with its wheel still in situ, to shoot a peculiarly straight sort of homage to that scene, in his capacity as the director of The Living Daylights, the last James Bond film to be set in the Cold War, and perhaps the last big feature film to be able to treat that war as ongoing and contemporary.
I never got to know Vienna, the old Vienna of the Cold War, I didn’t go there until this century, to visit my sister who was working as a translator. It was the 22nd of March 2004 and I was walking back to her flat, I think I’d been sent out to buy food, and I was mostly looking down at my phone as I walked. It had been announced that Christopher Eccleston was to play the new Doctor Who, and I was mostly exchanging texts with friends about what an extraordinary piece of casting this was. I was going down some steps, and I slightly stumbled. I looked up to correct my course and there it was. The square. The one in which Welles disappears down a manhole during the film’s. The circular advertising hoarding was still there. It was absolutely unmistakeable, at least partially because I’d accidentally more or less created Reed’s camera angle on that moment with my stumbling entrance to the square. I gasped.
Alchemy, chemistry, accident. Perfect moment. Life imitating art.
Friend from the Future.
TV Bill? Well it is Shakespeare's birthday I suppose. Evening, and there we are, new companion Bill played by Pearl Mackie. Isn't she good? More in the Ace/Sam/Izzy/Lucie/Rose mould character wise so far, with the 90s revival costume and entire lack of fuck-giving in relation to the deadliest foe in the galaxy. We'll talk some more about this in a mo. Here's the BBC's press release.
The approach to revealing companions has become increasingly sophisticated across the years with midnight press releases giving way to broken embargos on press releases to appearances on The One Show and now we have an actual mini-episode broadcast during Match of the Day of all things, or as has been indicated on the BBC website, "an exclusive scene from a future episode of Doctor Who" so it might not be the Christmas special.
Waiting for its emergence was of course torture for those of us whose interest in the beautiful game wouldn't stretch to even calling it the beautiful game despite Gary Lineker making us feel welcome with some Delgado cosplay. After some typical stoppage time we had to endure seemingly unending analysis of the kind that it's probably quite ironic of us to criticise given our behavior in the run up to the reveal.
Then it was time. Except, no it wasn't because at the moment when it seemed like discussion was ending and the fun was beginning, Gary segwayed into a clip of Graham Taylor discussing his time at Watford and his friendship with Elton John. Taylor probably hasn't been less welcome since he was manager of England. No, I can't do football jokes either.
Then, after narrating some maddeningly detailed fixture television scheduling information, Gary finally affected the ill at ease tone he previously adopted during London 2012 when forced to introduce those drama trailers, "And there's something else coming up on BBC One in the not too distant future, the Doctor has a new companion..."
And we're off and running because Doctor Who has to have lots of running. And Daleks, not forgetting the Daleks. Initially I thought these were shots repurposed from Into The Dalek or some other episode, but as the publicity shots indicate there was at least one on set for Capaldi to point over the head of.
The surprise was obviously spoiled by Radio Times writing about her yesterday after noticing a spike in the betting. If there was a leak, judging by his Twitter, it wasn't the RT writer it went to, he was simply reporting. Apparently Pearl just started following Billie and Freema on Twitter so that must have been an indication. Let's see how long she continues tweeting.
It's a bit of a strange place to commenting on a companion based on two minutes of screen time and she's being played by an actor who's completely unknown outside of the theatre. Most of the commentary is on the fact that she's a POC which is fine and worth noting, but let's not make that her defining characteristic shall we?
We simply don't know enough yet. She's funny. She has the capacity to turn on a dime and there's some obvious chemistry with Capaldi which is super important. The timing is all there. The script which was probably one of her audition pieces doesn't give much scope beyond screwball comedy, and although I didn't cheer at the end, when has Andy Pryor got this wrong?
She's another cockney, that's worth commenting on but in fairness we've not had someone from London since the RTD era (depending on what Clara's accent was doing that week) (or indeed which Clara). Like I said the vibe isn't very 2016 at all from, like last, like, decade or the one before or the one before that. Especially that t-shirt which looks like something Ace would wear. See below.
Wild speculation: is she a historical companion? It would be a bold move to have a character from the Wilderness years for example, the kind who might just as easily have travelled with the Eighth Doctor in the novels or comic strip. What is Bill short for? Is it short for anything? It's unusual. I've just googled "women called Bill" and now know a lot about presidential scandals.
Pearl's probably the least known new companion since the show came back. Karen had some background on The Kevin Bishop show and Jenna had spent years on Emmerdale. Pearl's IMDb indicates a bit part in an episode of Doctors from 2014 and a background artist on the John Hardwick's film Svengali from 2013.
Quick sidebar on Svengali's availability because we'll all be wanting to watch it now. It's on Netflix. Findable lists other sources where you can buy a stream though given it's mostly the same price as a month's subscription to Netflix, you might as well get Netflix and finally see Freema in Sense8 because she's brilliant and Sense8 is brilliant. Or Svengali is £3.99 on dvd.
In all the excitement, Capaldi will probably be taken for granted but his performance in the above is extraordinary, his Doctor having apparently divested himself of his demons. He's a bit crabby, but only with a Tenth facing down The Runaway Bride vibe, certainly the most Doctorish he's been yet. If anything it's him which actually makes me excited to see the next series. As it should be.
So nice to have an amuse-bouche in during this year of fasting and nice that there's nothing in here which is going to trouble us about the direction of the programme in 2017 at least. After that? Fuck knows. But I've already said my peace about that. Did Chibbers had any say in this selection? Will she continue on into his era?
Two other things. Two coincidences:
That t-shirt. It looked familiar. I tweeted and sure enough James pointed me towards this tweet:
When was this shot? Given that it's a proper piece of drama with grading, special effects sequences and editing, it wasn't going to be in the last couple of days, not least because it would have been signed off my BBC management. Graham Kibble-White was on the case:So it appears @Pearlie_mack is wearing a Prince tshirt in that announcement scene! LOVELY touch! pic.twitter.com/aMLIvnf5QH— Gareth (@gabundy) April 23, 2016
Then this from Ed Russell:@grahamkw I'm not entirely sure when it was shot but definitely before the Prince news. Crazy co-incidence.— Reetu Kabra (@ReetuKabra) April 23, 2016
Somehow Doctor Who managed to pay homage to someone they didn't know we'd be losing before he was gone.@SteveMaggs @GavinWorby complete coincidence. We shot that on 13th— Edward Russell (@edwardrussell) April 23, 2016
Next. Rachel Stott is the artist on Titan's Twelfth Doctor comic:
I CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. She looks exactly like the fill in companion for issue #2.5 O_o #NewCompanion pic.twitter.com/QuSBg87ThF— Rachael Stott (@RachaelAtWork) April 23, 2016
I said to my sister this morning 'It won't be Pearl because the BBC would've got me to change it' 😂😂— Rachael Stott (@RachaelAtWork) April 23, 2016
Well. I have spooked myself.— Rachael Stott (@RachaelAtWork) April 23, 2016
I tweeted this like a month ago O_o pic.twitter.com/D3J3vEDr8A— Rachael Stott (@RachaelAtWork) April 23, 2016
.@JustPlainTweets Nope! @robbiegmorrison invented a character because Clara left the comics, and I just made up her appearence O_o— Rachael Stott (@RachaelAtWork) April 23, 2016
Oh my. There we have it, anyway, a Doctor Who companion announced on Shakespeare's birthday. What a day.Okay, so I guess now I just carry on doing whatever, with one more crazy story under my belt.— Rachael Stott (@RachaelAtWork) April 23, 2016
Updated 24/04/2016 Here's an interview with Pearl.
Shakespeare at the BFI.
Theatre The BFI now has a YouTube playlist of thirty odd Shakespeare related videos including the above essay about Shakespeare adaptations across the years. Also included are various examples of silent Shakespeare (as featured in the recent BBC radio documentary), Q&As from recent screenings at the South Bank and documentary clips of Stratford Upon Avon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)