TV Eight or nine years ago I got a phone call from Tris. He asked me if I'd been watching this american sitcom because he'd been sitting around with his family trying to work out the lyrics. We sat on the phone and sang our way through as best we could but there was one which made no sense to either of us.
'You're job's a joke, yer broke, your love life's na na ne ...'
There were letters but it didn't make sense. So I got off the phone got a video out. Fast forwarded through the teaser and ...
'You're job's a joke, yer broke, your love life's Deeeooowaa...'
I rang him back.
'They sing deeeooowaaa.'
'What's deeeooowaaa. Oh DOA'
' "You're love life's DOA" Dead on arrival? That still doesn't make any sense. And it doesn't sound very nice.'
'But at least we can understand it now.' He said goodbye and hung up.
An hour ago Fani rang. We talked through a few problems we were both having and I reminded her that the last episode of the same show was on tonight. I don't think she was ever a fan -- just something on in the background when she was getting ready to go out. But I managed talk her into watching. The phone calls at opposite ends of a decade with people who think of the programme in different ways. Both with Friends.

It's actually a shock to think that it's finally over. Of course the final episode (written by the creators) was exactly what it should be. Within the forty-five or so minutes all of the plotlines and character arcs which have developed over the past ten years came to fruition. I love that Ross and Rachel ... y'know. That Monica got to win again and made a mess doing it. That Chandler was able to square being a dufus with being in a good strong marriage. That Joey came to terms with the changes (although were will the new chick and duck go when he heads off to spin-off land). And that Phoebe found the man you loved her kookiness. But more than that it was a celebration of everything we've loved about the show. Hell, Gunther even had his moment finally telling Rachel he loved her screwing up Ross's chance to do the same in all its first seasoness. About the only things missing were a monkey, an ugly naked guy, a flashback and a final visit to Central Perk for Joey to say something stupid. And more importantly it didn't try to be anything but an episode of the same show. It didn't throw out the formula which had made it popular for years or try and make some big statement. It made just made us laugh. And that's always been the point.

[I wanted to write something longer and more insightful but Lucy Mangan and David Aaronovitch got there before me. So read what they said instead. Mangan's experience is frighteningly similar to mine.]

Film Watching the Clooney / Kidman explosion-fest The Peacemaker in the middle of my malaise the other night it occured to me that this was the first time I'd watched anything panned & scanned in months. With the fact that Sky Movies are showing everything in the correct ratio and I only seem to watch dvds it's not surprising. Now it seems Blockbuster in the US are catching up as well. Now if only terrestrial broadcasters would follow. Even on BBC4, if a film is in anything thinner that 16:9 its blown up to fit the widescreen. Shame.

Scene Unseen: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: Harry and Hagrid

Film I never caught the crest of the Harry Potter wave. I don't read a lot of fiction and I've found the films to be a bit meandering, lacking strong plotting, which is fine for kids but as an adult I was a bit fidgety both times. Which is why I was amazed to find what is a really strong deleted scene on the dvd for The Philosopher's Stone. Once you've fought your way through the utterly incomprehensible game which passes for the menu system and seems designed to stop anybody from seeing them.

Something which both films do really well is the conflict between reality and magic. This is an old fashioned boarding school with all the petty rivalries and discipline but they teach wizardry. What I would have liked to have seen more of is the places in which the real world and this magic realm interact. Like the moment when Potter household fills up with letters from Hogwarts or when Harry argues with the station clerk about the existence of Platform 9 3/4.

So it's utterly surprising to find this deleted moment in which Harry and Hagrid sit hunched in a standard London Tube on their way to the station. Hagrid looks utterly incongruous in the space and including it would have underlined how different this place Potter is going to will be. It's an appealing image and one I would have like to have seen more of. We'll see what happens in the new film out this weekend -- it is directed by T Tu Mama Tambien's Alfonso Curzon -- which is a really appealing prospect.

[other photos from the deleted scenes can be found here]

TV After watching the first show tonight (which featured at least one moment which should be in the best bits at the end) I can only assume the production meeting at Big Brother this year took place at the local pub after many beers ...

Producer #1: You know what I'm sick of.
Producer #2: Woh?
Producer #1: The press. They keep slating us every year for picking boring housemates.
Producer #2: Yeah. Bastards.
Producer #1: I mean look at Tickle. He was funny wasn't he?
Producer #2: Yeah.
Producer #1: And Jade Goody.
Producer #2: Yeah.
Producer #1: All they seem to want is sex and violence.
Producer #2: Vio - viol -- fightin'
Producer #1: You know what we should do this year?
Producer #2: Woh?
Producer #1: Give them what they want.
Producer #2: Yeah!
Producer #1: We'll ditch the twelve we've already got. Apart from the art student.
Producer #4: Will you stop going on about Shell. What kind of a name is that?
Producer #3: You fancy her la la la ...
Producer #1: Shut up and go back to sleep.
Producer #3: Got any nuts?
Producer #1: No. What was I saying.
Producer #4: Ditching eleven.
Producer #1: Right. And keeping Shell. Anway, the idea is ... we'll pick people who've spent their whole life trying to avoid each other. Like that one Marco -- the one who was madder than Dowling. The screamer. We'll stick him in with ... Ahmed.
Producer #4: The self confessed homophobe! But aren't they both lawyers. Oooh interesting. (rubs hands together) This is good. Pass me a napkin and pen so I can write them down. Thanks.
Producer #1: Who next, oh hold what about ... what was his name .... "the shagger from the shire".
Producer #4: Not the hobbit that came in?
Producer #1: No. Jason.
Producer #3: No.
Producer #1: Yes.
Producer #2: Yes. Err....
Producer #4: Yes.
Producer #1: He's in. Didn't seem like too much of an exhibitionist. So we need someone to add contrast .. erm ...
Producer #4: What about Daniel ...
Producer #1: Who was? Oh the hairdresser. Who likes seducing straight men. But isn't that two Gay men?
Producer #4: Yes. Well. Yes. But put them next to Ahmed.
Producer #1: Nightmare. Now we're getting somewhere. How many is that so far?
Producer #3: One ... two ... Three!
Producer #1: Four. Something about four though. Four A-Levels ... Stuart. He said he was intelligent. So he must be. So we'll have to have him in the house. (finishes pint. Thinks for a moment. Looks at glass.) We need more beer.
Producer #5: (incredulous) It's your round.
Producer #1: I'm thinking. I do all my best thinking when I'm pissed ....
Producer #5: It's a wonder you can be so coherent.
Producer #5 slopes off towards the bar.
Producer #1: What special interest groups haven't we covered. The black political type.
Producer #4: Victor.
Producer #1: Victor! Now there is something missing.
Producer #3: Girls ... ha ha ha ha ha
Producer #2: Ha ha ha ha
Producer #1: We've got Shell. What else do we need?
Producer #4: Five more.
Producer #1: Ok ... ok ... well my girl will need someone to talk to. An equal. Someone who could almost be her sister. How about ... Vanessa?
Producer #4: Why her?
Producer #1: Oh any random blonde will do. Plus she was born in South Africa so there is that international element.
Producer #4: But won't people get confused between her and Shell?
Producer #1: Their accents are different. See. That works. Write it down.
Producer #5 returns from bar with beers.
Producer #3: Did they have any nuts?
Producer #5: You didn't ask for any.
Producer #3: Please, ple-ple-please.
Producer #5: Uhhh. (storms back towards bar) Isn't it funny how I'm not drinking and I'm the one buying all the beer?
Producer #1: Remember we had that bet were we said we couldn't find anyone in the auditions who could be outwitted by Helen from BB Two?
Producer #4: No. Oh you mean the bet I WON!
Producer #1: Yes. Well how about we put Emma in with this lot.
Producer #4: That's evil.
Producer #1: Yes! But we've got to make sure we edit her interview footage so that she looks particularly stupid otherwise people aren't going to buy it. Now I don't want Shell to be lonely and I know we've already put Vanessa in but how about we put that really cute weblogger in. The one who works in web design and spends lots of time in coffee houses -- the one has lots of cats. They can have girly chats.
Producer #4: Kitten.
Producer #1: Kitten. She was really nice. The public are really going to like her. But make sure we don't pick the wrong one.
Producer #4: No. Grrr. I hate that girl. She was mean to me.
Producer #1: Me too. She made signs. With her fingers. How many slots have we got left?
Producer #4: Two. Now I don't really want to bring it up because you know I don't want you to think that it's because I'm a lesbian. But I think that since you've got Marco and Daniel that there should be some equality. Even up the numbers.
Producer #1: But we tried all that in BB One.
Producer #4: Yes but ...
Producer #1: How about a bi? Someone with a boyfriend but likes flirting with girls. Michelle?
Producer #4: (steaming) You're only picking her because her name is Michelle as well.
Producer #1: Is it? So it is. But she did say she wanted to be glamour model.
Producer #4: (relaxing). Oh. Oh yeah. Erm .... the tabloids are going to love her.
Producer #1: How many is that.
Producer #5: They didn't have any nuts. I bought you some Pork Scratchings. Hello. Hello?
Producer #4: He's asleep again.
Producer #5 (sitting down): What have I missed?
Producer #4: We're up to eleven.
Producer #1: I'm stuck. Pass us a scratching.
Producer #5: Who have you got. The napkin? (reads) Right. Right.... that should be good. I hope that's the Kitten I'm thinking of ... That's create some arguments.
Producer #1: So you like it.
Producer #5: Should be some sex and violence going on in there.
Producer #1: That's what we thought. So who do you think is missing?
Producer #5: You're actually asking my opinion for a change?
Producer #1: Yes. My head ...
Producer #5: OK. Nadia...
Producer #1: Nadia?
Producer #4: Which?
Producer #5: Well what you've got here are a series of degrees ... sexual orientation, political belief, some would say attractiveness. I'm sober and I couldn't have picked better list. But what you need is someone in the middle who crosses all the boundaries and covers all the basis. Nadia is your girl.
Producer #4: Nadia ....
Producer #1: The Portugese virgin. The international thing like Vanessa. She's perfect. Well done! Pass us the napkin and I'll phone Davina and tell 'er ....
Producer #4: Doesn't he know she's a ...
Producer #5: It'll be funnier if we don't tell him ...
Producer #4: Look I've got a few concerns. I just went along with him because he's pissed. Won't the press just say that we're pandering to them in order to get coverage. And aren't fans going to say that we're just trying to create pressure cooker and throwing out the idea that this is all an experiment. And aren't the public going to hate us anyway because there isn't anyone to like in there. Couldn't it all go horribly wrong?
Producer #5: Yes, but then he'll get fired and we'll get to do it our way, Early night?

Life I'll be blogging again when my pc gets better and the cold which is keeping me off work goes away.

Who Yes, yes, Billie Piper is the new Doctor Who companion. Oh look it could have been a lot, lot worse. She's a name and apart from anything else Russell T Davies isn't stupid. Out of the hundreds of actresses going after the part if she's perfect, that's fine by me (plus it might mean I'll be able sell off the copy of her first single which I somehow procured when it was released to a mad Whovian on Ebay finally. Look it wasn't may fault ... oh ... err ....)

Site News Atom feed. Joints hurting. Groggy. Thing I may be getting a cold ...

Scene Unseen: Broadcast News: Time Off

"I'll meet you at the place near the thing where we went that time."

Film  When was the last time you watched a film and as well as thinking 'Great dialogue' you thought 'And that's how human beings talk'. It's an exceedingly difficult tightrope, because for most of us, the things that we say are generally rather banal -- its the message which is interesting not the way that its presented. In a film, both need to be serviced otherwise the audience will become a bit twitchy by the second act. So the writer and director are generally left with a choice -- produce something hyper-stylised (see Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino) or so called hyper-real (think Dogme 95 or Mike Leigh) or something in between (see everything else). The trouble with both approaches is that no one talks like that and those of us who do generally get stared at.

Broadcast News is one of a handful of films which I've come across which somehow manages to have interesting dialogue and sound like real people talking. This quote is one of many in James L Brooks' script which is something we might say every day. How often have you asked a friend, 'Do you want to go for a coffee later?' and both known when and where that engagement will take place? The real magic here is that the information being passed isn't about location it's about character. In other words, the easy option might have been "Do you want to meet at the Starbucks on Fifth Avenue' or whatever. Instead we don't really find out where the place is, what the thing was or when it happened. What we get instead is another titbit about the friendship or relationship which has developed between these two characters. But it also gets the people together for an important conversation.

But the film as a whole is littered with moments which feel utterly real, a startling thought in story which concerns itself with the packaging of news for a local station in the US. When Holly Hunter finally goes out on a date with William Hurt she breaks off for a while to go and visit her best friend Albert Brooks at home to find out how his first shot at reading the weekend news went. Now we might do this in the toilet on a mobile phone, but it still feels like something that might happen in the real world -- if only because no dates ever go perfectly. There is a great moment in that same scene when Holly and Albert have a row then after a few seconds become quite reasonable so that they can discuss something else. This is something I've seen happen with my parents quite a lot -- and me if I'm being honest. You'll be arguing about something but break off briefly to decide what to have for tea. In another film, Julia Roberts would have walked out on Hugh Grant and the tension would have gone unresolved. But real life isn't like that. Or is it?

Music Oh. Um. Pfff. Here we are at album four (barring live albums and offcuts) in the Alanis Morissette odyssey. In the liner notes to So Called Chaos she thanks "The people who come to my shows and listen to my music with such open hearts - thank you for seeing in yourself what you see in me." Well thanks to you for the thought but somewhere along the line I stopped seeing myself in your songs. The universality you brought to such personal themes in Jagged Little Pill became something which is simply personal. I feel as though you're saying things and I want to care but without some kind of context, something you've never felt the need to rely on before, I'm lost. Considering that in interviewers you've been promoting this as having a lighter tone than previous albums because you're in a happy relationship, in places the piece actually feels a bit sinister. Whether intentionally the empowerment of previous records has been submerged. At time the lyrics are just painful or confused. More than ever I feel like your therapist. Do you have one?

Where are we musically? For all the soul searching this is certainly the poppiest of the four (even more than Under Rug Swept). It's co-produced by John Shanks who has in the past worked with Melissa Etheridge and Stevie Nicks and more recently Celine Dion (?), Sheryl Crow and Michelle Branch. Obviously its not clear how much of his sensibility was brought to the material but in places it feels (and god I hate typing this) repetitive and bland. For example, the portentiously titled Doth I Protest Too Much seems to last forever and in fact its only four minutes long. Sonically, in terms of the sounds being used the variety we've come to expect is available. But too many times you feel as though you've heard certain tracks before -- its a construction issue -- as though though each ends in the same way.

I really hadn't expected to write this negative review. But too many things irritate and I'm being harsh because I've come expect so much. The princess of the literate lyric goes even further here. The Grudge begins with '14 years 30 minutes 15 seconds I've held this grudge / 11 songs 4 full journals thoughts of punishment I've expended' which is fine and interesting but hardly the stuff of lighters aloft in a stadium. In Out Is Through she works the five syllable nightmare 'understandable' in and what's only one beat under 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' Six of the ten songs are lists. That's not funny. But I think my biggest problem is that most of them sounds absolutely fine in isolation. I raved Everything on its release as a single. Out Is Through will be the next one and might do quite well (good chorus). But overall I feel like I'm being harassed by an actress shouted random passages of Elizabethan verse with a pub band warming up in the background. Oh. Um. Pfff. Then again, parts of Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie grew on me eventually, so anything is possible.

Life Oh um errr ... or ten things which have led me to give a definite pause in the past two days:

(1) The man ahead of me in the queue at Starbucks yesterday who was asked what he wanted and simply said: "A coffee."
(2) In the credits to the Steven Soderbergh film Full Frontal Brad Pitt is given as playing 'Brad Pitt / Himself'
(3) The Carla Bruni album quelqu'un m'a dit. If ever I go mad and I'm hearing voices can hers be the only one I hear?
(4) The summer and its ongoing commitment to making my brain malfunction. Time and again I keep missing really important things.
(5) BlogLines -- I've been searching for a great News Reader and there it was all along. Thanks radio Suw!
(6) Why can't a find a decent backpack under twenty pounds? I don't want big rubber labels, bright colours and two shoulders straps. And I don't really need all that space.
(7) This
(8) The ongoing reverence of that Footballer's Wives character popping up in Bad Girls as though tv crossovers have never happened before (I heard someone call it a 'unique' television event). What about Star Trek, the Buffyverse and Clive Mantel appearing in Holby City. Look at the late lamented Caroline in the City -- one series featured both Chandler from Friends and Daphne and Niles from Frasier.
(9) Finding out the new Harry Potter film might be quite good and realising I'll have to sit through the first two again so that I'll know what the hell is going on.
(10) Work stuff. Long story.

Film Not having seen the Universal films referenced within except for in glimpses from other film and homage I came to Van Helsing without the main images from those films in my head ready to be destroyed. I still came away with a vague sense of disappointment, because for all the exciting set pieces, the deftly realised monsters and the weaving cinematography, the central characterisation and our way into this world is extraordinarily two dimensional and so much like the recent Underworld in moments when we are supposed to care so that the upcoming peril has greater meaning. By the end you want to care more for the overall storyline but you haven't been given enough tools or understanding for that to happen.

Perhaps we've been spoilt. The Joss Whedonverse has created an expectation that even the most extraordinary supernatural narrative can also include a medition on some great theme and moments of heartbreak. This is also true of the film versions of The Lord of the Rings (which this film stylistically mirrors). But both of those allow the heroes time to breath -- whether its Buffy in a graveyeard or Frodo on the road to Mordor, there are moments in which they literally sit down and talk about the impending doom. It also gives the viewer / audience a breather to think about that doom themselves. In Van Helsing that hardly happens, and when it does the dialogue is often of such plodding banality, first draft place holders rendered in celluloid, that its entirely up to the charisma of the actors to carry it off.

And so the dicotomy because for much of the time it is entertaining for that very reason. Hugh Jackman carries over the charisma of Wolverine (and characterisation -- this too is man without a past) and exhibits some of the vulnerabilty of an early Eighties Harrison Ford (although in places I kept picturing him in a Clint Eastwood bio-pic some day). That Kate Beckinsale can be the all action hero is just a matter of proving again her flexibility -- I thought her a bit wooden and uncomfortable in Underworld but here, even in that velvet corset, flashes of her romantic comedy persona come and go. David (Faramir) Wenham is also good fun in the typical sidekick exposition role working out what to do next when the increasingly convoluted (yet strangely repetative plot) stalls. If there is a weak link its Richard Roxburgh -- not because he doesn't try his hardest but because this version of Dracula lacks a depth and he simply isn't given enough to do. In the moments when he could be at his most terrifying he's turned into a giant special effect.

Which is rather the overall problem with Stephen Sommers film. At key moments characters walk through an environment being stalked by some invisible evil -- the imagination runs wild trying to picture what kind of menace might befall the 'victim' and then it appears and time and again you're left with the impression of 'oh its a special effect' or sometimes 'oh its a great special effect' -- pulled out of the action the tension disipating as the meanie jumps out of a window. Also a couple of the action sequences go on too long without ratcheting upwards -- and in one case a battle ends then begins again repeating everything much as it happened before in a slightly different order. But for all this, there are still enough entertaining moments to be worthwhile. Too many ideas then but not enough time given for talking about them.

Elsewhere The Shakespeare Weblog has recieved one hit so far today. So someone is reading it. Little acorns etc.

Referrer Logs I'm surprised I haven't had any hate mail. Many hits today from that search. But please. Don't get me started again.

Life think today was the actual first of the summer days. It had all of the conditions. Massively bright environs, light refreshing breeze, that kind of wierd darkness which decends in the time between being outside and inside. I notoriously don't get on well with the Sun. We had a discussion in my teen years about whether it wanted me to get too hot to think at important moments and I lost so I tend to stay indoors when there are important decisions to be made. I didn't have any of those today, so perhaps that's why we could come to some kind of inderstanding.

Bumped into the afformention Joseph in the street (told you I would). Congratulated him on the book (after chewing my way through a mouthful of crisps which I'd popped in my mouth moments before hand) and I think he was happy to hear that I'd bought two copies and I was talking the thing up on the weblog. Another old work colleague, Sandra, who I hadn't seen for a while was with him. She looked happy.

I'm off to Manchester for the day tomorrow for my usual cd buying / film binging day. I think I may end up seeing Van Helsing if only because it sounds loud flash and annoying and I'm in that kind of mood.

TV The new bumber issue of TV Cream-Up is around and as well as an onsite report from the Play School reunion ...

"Fred Harris claiming that he learnt everything he knew about presenting from Julie (Stevens). He told the story of how she once did a make in complete silence, and when the director came down to ask why she'd not read out the script, she said she'd spotted there as no microphone on her so she just carried on, saving them a retake."

... there is also an 'expose' of failed magazines or the ones that got away. I somehow managed to buy an odd number of these and wallow nostalgically about the three issues of The Box I have stashed somewhere. I also have the issue of Cult TV they mention with the picture of Friends on the cover ...

Shakespeare didn't write any of his plays as we see them now. This isn't as controversial a statement as it might at first seem. When we go to the theatre now to see Romeo & Juliet or Hamlet are 'edited' versions of the plays, cobbled together by contemporary editors from a number of sources which we know are mostly acurate. Mostly. I was amazed when I read about all this while studying for my A-Levels. There are many versions of the plays and roughly fall into two camps, the Quartos and the Folios. Now at the time, bootlegging was rife and so these printings were often from not entirely trustworthy sources -- we have the editing together of the recollection of actors; a written copy of the script sold afterwards by a minor actor looking for some fast cash to supplement their pitiful actors earnings (the issue with this being that this not be Shakespeares final version of the play); a stage hand's version full of directions; a non-contemporary version of the play which has appeared a hundred years after Shakespeare's death. Different camps will argue endlessly about which can stake the greater claim for accuracy. This article tracks the history of the First Folio, one of the original collected works, now considered to well -- not too good really, and how a cult has developed around it's inception.

Shakespeare Will in concert: "I've always loved Shakespeare," said Paul Dorgan, the Salt Lake City pianist who devised the concert's program. "He's such a musical poet. And there are references to music all through the plays. A lot of them use music, too -- some of it quite elaborate." ... Decker's recitations in the concert include Caliban's speech from "The Tempest" -- describing the sounds of a mystic island; Sonnets 8 and 128; a speech from "The Merchant of Venice" beginning "I am never merry when I hear sweet music . . ."; and "If music be the food of love, play on . . . etc" from "Twelfth Night."

Shakespeare The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film is a string of essays describing the problems involved in adapting what is essentially a thearical form to cinema. It's an academic work and so the writing is quite dry at times and because we have essays we have repetition - how many times you can write about Olivier's 'Richard III'?

There are three essays of note. 'Videos and its paradoxes' looks at the use of video as a study aid, and how the prouctions on show can colour the student's view of the play - so Anthony Hopkins characterisation of Othello in the BBC production is wildly different to Lawrence Fishburne's in the recent film - neither is necessarily correct, but the student might not make that connection.

'Filming Shakespeare;s history: three films of Richard III' offers the best and most honest review of Paccino's 'Looking for Richard' I've read, treating the film on its own merits and not as a version of the actual play. Finally, 'Flambiyant realist: Kenneth Branagh' again tries to re-dress the critical mauling his films have been subjected to - there really isn't anything like the four hour 'Hamlet'. The one disappointment is 'Shakespeare's cinematic offshoots' which looks at adaptations which are re-imaginings of the text. It's cursary, anodine and misses out 'In The Bleak Midwinter' and 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead'. Why?

Shakespeare Fascinating interview with Kevin Klein regarding his Tony nominated performance as Falstaff.

Shakespeare Macbeth test silly, say irate teachers: "The 14-year-olds taking the compulsory exam on the Bard were asked in the paper on Macbeth to write as if they were agony aunts for a teenage magazine. The question, in the paper devised by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, told the pupils: "In Macbeth, Banquo warns Macbeth about the witches' influence. You give advice in a magazine for young people. "You receive this request: 'Please advise me. I have recently moved school and made some new friends. I like spending time with them but my form tutor thinks my work is suffering. What should I do? Sam.' "Write your advice to be published in the magazine."