Shakespeare at the BBC:
A Viewing Order For The Best Bottoms In The Land.
TV Or potential viewing order. Tonight each BBC One's regional opt-out will simultaneously broadcast a documentary about amateur actors playing the mechanicals in a local version of the RSC touring production of A Midsummer Night's Dream.
This will all have been recorded at different times as the tour has continued throughout the country which presumably means if you watch them in that venue order you'll be seeing a version of the history of the production.
Based on this list of venues, this should be the viewing order. I've left in the dates of production. The episode numbers on the iPlayer are in brackets:
Shakespeare's Dream in the Black Country (7)
ROYAL SHAKESPEARE THEATRE - STRATFORD UPON AVON
February 17, 2016 - March 5, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in County Durham (5)
NORTHERN STAGE - NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
March 16, 2016 - March 22, 2016
CITIZENS THEATRE - GLASGOW
March 29, 2016 - April 2, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in Blackpool (6)
BLACKPOOL GRAND THEATRE - BLACKPOOL
April 5, 2016 - April 9, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in Bradford (3)
ALHAMBRA THEATRE - BRADFORD
April 12, 2016 - April 16, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in Canterbury (8)
MARLOWE THEATRE - CANTERBURY
April 19, 2016 - April 23, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in Norwich (1)
THEATRE ROYAL NORWICH - NORWICH
April 26, 2016 - April 30, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in Hucknall (2)
THEATRE ROYAL NOTTINGHAM - NOTTINGHAM
May 3, 2016 - May 7, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in Cornwall (9)
HALL FOR CORNWALL - TRURO
May 10, 2016 - May 14, 2016
Shakespeare's Dream in London (4)
BARBICAN - LONDON
May 17, 2016 - May 21, 2016
NEW THEATRE - CARDIFF
May 24, 2016 - May 28, 2016
GRAND OPERA HOUSE - BELFAST
May 31, 2016 - June 4, 2016
Although there were and will be productions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Island, tonight they have their own programmes.
Hopefully at some point a recording of the whole production will be made available.
On Being Curious.
Plus! Culture website The Double Negative has a book out. Here's the press release:
On Being Curious:
New Critical Writing on Contemporary Art
From the North-West of England
Edited by Laura Robertson
Published by The Double Negative on behalf of Contemporary
Visual Arts Network North-West (CVAN NW)
10 new articles on contemporary art from 10 emerging writers: On Being Curious is a book telling the story of the North-West’s contemporary visual art scene, yet contributes to national and international debates around what it means to make powerful, arresting and effective arts practice.
The first book edited and published in house by The Double Negative magazine, On Being Curious has been commissioned by the Contemporary Visual Arts Network North-West (CVAN NW), as part of their successful Critical Writing Bursary & Workshop Programme (2014-16). It is funded by Arts Council England, Lancashire County Council, University of Salford, Manchester School of Art and arts organisations across the North-West.
The writers’ chosen topics include award-winning artists, projects, exhibitions, art schools, agencies and artist-led venues, and provide a rich snapshot of the contemporary art scene in the region from the last 18 months.Message ends.
On Being Curious editor Laura Robertson said: “On Being Curious just goes to show what can be achieved by providing emerging writers with clear and constructive editorial support; editorial contacts at publications; networking and skills-building; and critical writing bursaries. I feel very honoured to have been part of this book and the wider CVAN NW Critical Writing Bursary & Workshop Programme.”
On Being Curious has been praised by frieze magazine’s Jennifer Higgie, a-n’s Chris Sharratt, and ArtReview’s Oliver Basciano – who commented: “This book provides 10 smacks in the face to the idea that art criticism is dead. Art needs to be interrogated, artists’ ideas stretched and pummelled, loved and lauded: the writers contained within these pages do all this and more, with verve and humour, hitting points and making targets with scary panache.”
On Being Curious will be available in a selection of public and university libraries across the North-West and the UK, including at the British Library.
Read more and download the FREE e-book version on The Double Negative
here:
http://www.thedoublenegative.co.uk/2016/05/on-being-curious-ourfirst-in-house-book-on-contemporary-arts-criticism/
"devastating"
Health Joe Gatt plays 0718 in the new Star Trek films (in the comics the character is revealed to be a humanoid manifestation of the Enterprise ala Idris in The Doctor's Wife in Doctor Who) and is an alopecia sufferer. On the franchise's official website he writes about how he's lived with the disorder and how people treated him:
"As most of you – especially my Star Trek fans -- know, I have alopecia, an autoimmune disorder that causes the body to attack its own hair follicles, thus preventing hair growth. It doesn't affect the body in any other way and is not contagious. This happened to me when I was about 11 years old, initially, with some patchy hair loss, and then at 14 all of my hair fell out. By the time I was 14 1/2 I was totally hairless... and have been pretty much that way ever since. As you can imagine, this is a pretty devastating thing to happen to a kid. The teasing, the bullying, the ignorant comments, the discrimination, the judgements… I didn't see a way forward. I didn't leave the house. If I did it was always with a cap on. My friends deserted me, all except one."
37 Christopher Plummer
Hamlet played by Christopher Plummer.
Directed by Philip Saville.
Woosh. Ever since seeing a clip of Plummer's Hamlet narrating the players as part of the Playing The Dane documentary broadcast during the Bard on the Box season in 1994, I've been more than intrigued by Hamlet at Elsinore in which BBC and Danish Radio co-produced an outside broadcast recording of the play at Kronborg Castle in actual Elsinore. This has only increased across the years as innumerable documentaries have included shots of its primary curiosity, Michael Caine in his single classical role playing Horatio. Now, finally, this morning, well, here we are.
The BFI's still invaluable ScreenOnline section has a short explanatory piece about the making of Hamlet at Elsinore. As they explain, this was a milestone in television history as the first drama recorded entirely on location outside of the studio, the result of the Danish company having originated the idea but eventually bringing in the BBC to produce, the former supplying sets (obviously) and background cast with the latter providing crew and the primary cast. Given everything they had to work with, bulk cameras and lighting rigs and appalling weather it's impressive that it even exists at all.
That it exists and is also of such high quality is a miracle. At just over three and a quarter hours and containing most of the play, this is an entirely "cinematic" interpretation which also somehow doesn't deny its theatrical origins. There are noirish moments which stand alongside both the Olivier and Kozintsev film versions and at only a few points do its televisual origins show. Although there are certainly moments when Saville experiments but doesn't quite achieve what he set out to do, Hamlet at Elsinore is clearly in the vanguard of great productions.
Saville and the team fully utilise the location with what must be every room in Kronburg appearing, with the chapel even used as a backdrop for the nunnery scene and the expansive central courtyard being the perfect setting for the arrival of the players and for Hamlet to hail, from a window, the arrival of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. There are shots of the modern interior here but nothing much as change in the past fifty-odd years, even the paintings are in the same positions, which in the show are presumably supposed to depict Hamlet's ancestors.
The key directorial choice here is ceilings - in almost every scene there'll be a shot framed from below across an actors chin, up their nose and towards the ceiling of a room as if to increase the apparent headroom of each location. Given the technology available, the number of close-ups is startling, especially for Plummer's Hamlet who is introduced in isolation, the viewer unable to quite grasp his position in the throne room at mother and step-father interact with him until everyone leaves and he has the space to himself.
Keeping the action mainly within the walls of the castle necessarily guides the cuts. Laertes's challenge following his father's murder isn't shown at all and the opening battlements scenes are staccato, even losing the opening line of the play in favour of some dread and mystery as to what the soldiers are encountering, flailing about in the darkness. For all that, a truncated Fortinbras is present bolstered by an impressive army of extras within what must be the woods at the edge of the castle (doubling as much further away).
Cutting "Who's there" and all aids Michael Caine's introduction as we hang on his every word as Horatio describes to Hamlet the emergence of the Ghost which in the full text usually puts Hamlet's reaction as the focus as a scene which we've already been privy to is described to him. Caine's militaristic, almost clipped but matter of fact delivery is extraordinary, as though he's the first person to say these words, reveal this uncanny visitor. So subtle is his work, it almost derails Plummer's performance which at this early stage is far more expressive.
There are deep, deep undercurrents of feeling behind Caine's mesmerising eyes. Coolly spoken for much of the play, waterfalls of emotion flow from him when Hamlet dies as he's finally able to release the pent up feelings he had for his friend. According to his autobiography, he'd been told by a producer on Zulu that "I know you're not, but you gotta face the fact that you look like a queer on screen." so he worked it to his advantage here and "decided that if my on-screen appearance was going to be an issue, then I would use it to bring out all Horatio's ambiguous sexuality."
Plummer's Hamlet is less convincing. The mad scenes oscillate between half-hearted and pantomime and the character never quite makes sense even when he's supposed to be sober in decision. The actor's natural charisma just about masks this indecision but my mind often wandered to questions about production choices while he was on screen which is a strange place to be. We're never quite able to grasp his inner turmoil, never quite convinced that he's not simply just saying these words because they're in the text rather than because he believes them.
In fairness he's not aided by some of the directorial experiments. Plummer doesn't deliver his soliloquies to camera, which isn't unusual in filmed productions, apart from a single glance during To Be Or Not To Be. Except in the desperation to do something different with the famous speech, its delivered as a montage against open spaces within the castle or close-ups on Hamlet, but the necessarily for the time haphazard editing makes the result disjointed and difficult to follow in terms of the emotional thread.
The fourth wall is instead broken when Hamlet addresses his father's spirit and the audience is placed in the point of view of the ghost, the camera hovering above Plummer. Like To Be, it seems to be a decision born of diversity and then has the added problem of trying to coherently provide a voice at this key moment in the play. The solution is a disembodied intonement, but the actor then spends half the speech whisper-rasping like one of Doctor Who's Ice Warriors so that half of the necessary exposition is lost as is the connection between the two characters which is usually so meaningful.
Fortunately the production is stronger elsewhere. Jo Maxwell Muller's Ophelia is initially estranged from her father and has an obvious affection for Hamlet. There's a Brief Encounter moment at the docks as he sees her brother off as her expression becomes cold and disappointed when Polonius arrives and steals their final precious moments together with his endless advice, almost drawing on a smile when she has to turn and acknowledge her Dad. Later she's unaware of her father and the new King eavesdropping on the nunnery scene, running away in disgust.
It's a strong cast, almost inadvertently. Peter Luke the producer had decided not to fill out his production with big names so as not to distract from the story. So he chose Caine, Plummer, Robert Shaw as Claudius and yes, Donald Sutherland as Fortinbras (at a time when he was still playing Hotel Clerk and Tall Man in Nightclub) which means that a retrospective viewing doesn't have that effect at all. Even Roy Kinnear shows up as the single Gravedigger years before he became a key player in comedic acting.
Despite my reservations about Plummer, which I'll admit might not be the same for someone who hasn't seen thirty-six actors play the character already, Hamlet at Elsinore is an incredible piece of work. The text is rendered lucidly and there are still moment when it's almost like hearing the words for the first time. If I've drawn anything from it, it's that Michael Caine's self-esteem issues have denied what might have been a career peppered with some excellent Shakespearean turns amid everything else. Is it too late for him to give us his Lear?
Ella Kruglyanskaya at Tate Liverpool.
Art "Oh hello you."
This lunch time, Tate Liverpool were once again kind enough to invite me to the press view for their three new shows, Maria Lassnig, Francis Bacon: Invisible Rooms (the paid exhibitions) and Ella Kruglyanskaya (which will be the free exhibition on the ground floor). All three shows are well curated, the objects thoughtfully chosen and with a keen sense, as has been the case in recent years, of finding ways in which they thematically and materially overlap, in idea, composition and motif.
Unfortunately for me, I've never, not exactly not been a fan of Francis Bacon, or more specifically not feeling anything about his work. From being taken to an exhibition at school and in the years since, often in visits to Tate Liverpool, I've tried my best with it, built an understanding of his thought processes, even bought a postcard of his famous triptych, Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944) (which is on display). But there's nothing here for me and now that I'm in my forties I've made my peace with that.
After the disappointment of not having the kind of revelation which occurred during the Warhol exhibition (see here), I wandered disconsolately to the ground floor space (well got the lift) and into the Ella Kruglyanskaya exhibition and smiled. And smiled some more, and smiled again. The first image through the doors is Fruit Picnic (2011), an image of two figures lolling across a multicoloured mat, one winking at us, the other fast asleep, wearing a belt with a buckle in the shape of a mouth. What could I say but:
"Oh hello you."
Ella Kruglyanskaya is a New York based painter (originally from Latvia) and this is her first dedicated museum exhibition (although she's had plenty of shows in commercial galleries). There's some explanatory text on Tate's website about how this is a retrospective of her work from the past ten years, and the first appearance of paintings made in 2016, some completed just a few weeks ago apparently. It pays homage to the history of art, in her use of egg temora and a medium and embracing "a wide range of influences from German expressionism to film and popular culture of the 1950s and 1960s."
On reflection, I understand my own taste enough to realise exactly why I had this reaction. In the same way that Spotify Discover or Netflix attempt to fathom what your tastes are and present you with other things you might like, Ella Kruglyanskaya's work strokes my art appreciation algorithm almost obscenely. It doesn't tick all of the boxes, there aren't any depictions of Shakespeare and none of them were painted in the Victorian era, obviously, but in terms of wanting to buy half the exhibition as postcards and t-shirts, this is pretty close.
Here's why:
There's a strong feminist undercurrent. The artist also chooses to depict women and pairs of women interacting, not for our visual pleasure in the Laura Mulvey sense, but happy in each others company or in the case of the small, graphic Primary Colors (2006) and Girls and Guns (2006), in a state of all out war, acknowledging the panoply of ways in which women have been depicted across visual culture. When voyeurism is implied, as per the images of bathers, the composition makes the viewer feel slightly uncomfortable as though we're invading a private space.
Many of the paintings are not as they first appear. The newly completed Girls With Drinks With Paper Cuts (2016) and Bather with Paper Cuts (2016), look from a distance like pencil drawing and collage glued to a canvas, but look closer and they're actually photorealistic paintings of same (the artist offering a clear influence from Matisse who occupied this same space up until a couple of weeks ago). Sideways Face (Paper Ruin) (2016) attempts a similar trick by sculpturally implying three dimensions on a two dimensional plain.
Kruglyanskaya also embraces post-modernity, the messy interplay of elements from a range of different cultural influences. Girl With Sunglasses (2008) noirishly utilises the frames of a woman's shades to reflect a beach scene. The aforementioned Paper Cuts pieces are graphically similar to the kinds of artwork typified by the the day-glo 80s and you could well imagine them being used on anything from a music compilation to advertising an alcoholic tipple. This isn't a criticism by the way, I love their complex simplicity.
Which means they're also very web-friendly images, of the kind you might imagine cropping up in social media feeds. Primary Colors (2006) and Girls and Guns (2006) show two frames of an abstract action and although we're meant to imagine what we're seeing, they're not unlike animated gifs. PBS Ideas Channel has a strong piece about how images are now being used to imply, depict or replace emotion online and there are plenty of this artists paintings which could be utilised for this purpose. Especially Gossip Girls (2010).
This is only a small exhibition but it offers a good enough sense of Kruglyanskaya's work for me to want to see more. An online image search for her name presents dozens of others, some variations of paintings in the Tate's exhibition, some even more graphic and on the nose in their symbolism. This makes sense of the bananas on the pullover in Lips and Lemons, for example. As the artist says in this interview: “Even when they’re offering themselves up to be looked at, there’s a sense of resistance. Consuming their voluptuousness feels a bit risky.” I happily take that risk.
My Favourite Film of 1946.
Film For a good long while It's A Wonderful Life was in the "necessary five", my favourite films of all time, but has subsequently been nudged out by In The Bleak Midwinter as the Christmas film of choice (the other four on the list are When Harry Met Sally, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, The Seventh Seal and Star Wars (although having seen Whip It and Frozen again recently that coveted Ferris slot look a bit shaky). Why the change? Well, quite simply because it's so, so depressing and to such an extent it's become very difficult to watch. One of the key elements of that list is that I'd be happy watch any of those films right now and the idea of seeing Life in that context doesn't exist.
For a while it also had special status. With annual appearances at cinemas, I decided that I would never own a copy of my own and would only be able to see it in auditoria, so it is the film which I've seen most on the big screen, at the ABC on Lime Street, the Cornerhouse in Manchester a couple of times, the Odeon on London Road and FACT Liverpool (which I hope I haven't jinxed based on that track record). Initially these were 35mm prints which looked like they'd seen many festive seasons but eventually they were replaced with restored digital copies. For over ten years, it was as much a part of the tradition of Christmas for me as visiting the continental market in Manchester.
The only occasion my vehemence about seeing the film in cinemas became a problem was when asked during my film studies course to write an essay about Frank Capra's film and the extent to which the climaxes of his films with their apparent dip towards tragedy before a last minute restitution was a result of his auteurism as a director or his writers, especially his early collaborator Robert Riskin. Life is a key example of this and so would require me to watch it closely, yet I decided to write about it from memory anyway which is just how film studies historians worked anyway before the emergence of VHS, unless their university happened to have a print themselves.
Then Mum bought me the blu-ray for Christmas and that was that. Not because owning the film would necessarily negate seeing it projected, but watching the events unfold alone in my room, isolated, somehow put a new perspective on what happens in the film, George's sacrifices and what now looked like a false catharsis at the end which seems like it has the potential to last until the horrors of dealing with New Year's Eve filled me with dread for reasons to emotionally lengthy to put into words here, but suffice to say it meant I was done with It's A Wonderful Life as a favourite film, or indeed something I could just watch whenever. But we'll reconvene at some point I'm sure.
The Eurovision Semis: What you missed.
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):
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)