wendy house

The imaginarium of Dr Parnassus  is a wonderful modern faerie tale.  It mixes classic structures and characters (Old Nick) with modern settings, language, and characters. 

review ratings explained

Plot:  Very good.  A classic style of storytelling,  a new story.  A bet with the devil.  Souls to be won or lost.  The classic framework provides the structure that makes the plot easy to follow.  Easy to follow but not overly predictable.  Cunning plans and twists.  There is uncertainty about the virtue and honesty of some characters.  Who is working with, for, Nick?  The film holds a cheeky mirror to modern values as it portrays our dreams.   

Gilliam does not write his female characterisations in as much depth as his male characters. There is only one noteable female character in the film.  Her contribution is central to the plot while the role is hardly touched and seems superficial.  Lets call her a token women.  A pretty girl that needs rescuing. Sigh. A blot on an otherwise wonderful film. 

A related disappointment was the pedestrian ending to the main storyline.  The final scenes felt a bit anemic.  The scenes tied-up the damsel’s storyline quickly and neatly.  This felt forced and out-of-keeping with the plucky playing in the other, mainly male, storylines.  There are many wonderful ways that Terry could have ended the film.  I suspect Gilliam’s creative freedom was somehow compromised. 

Cast: Excellent.  Performances that had the kind of depth that comes from allowing talented actors to develop, improvise and extend their characters.  Apparently Heath Ledger’s last line before he died was ‘Don’t shoot the Messenger’ and Jonny Depp improvised the same line when playing Ledger’s character in the imaginarium. 

Sets. Excellent.  Physical locations included some of my favourite places, such as Ledenhall market in London and the Public Library in Vancouver BC.  The contrast between the architecture in these two locations was used well as a visual clue to different tones, temperaments, stages of the plot.

The animated sets were breath taking.  Apparantly breathtaking animated sets are the norm for widely distributed films by famous directors with excellent casts.  Jolly good. Thoroughly enjoyable.  Lots of ooOOOooooze and aaAAARRRRSSSssse.

Within the imaginarium these fantasy sets had the beauty, unpredictability and the ominousness of real dreams.  

Audience:  one thing that interferred with my total immersion in this fabulous film was the audience.  Specifically,  the lady sat next to me.  She insisted on sniffing loudly at 1spm (1 sniff per minute).  Every few minutes there was a cough, sneeze, or other substantial air movement in her facial regions.  She did have some props for this activity, tissues, but the noise and potential infection kept drawing me out of the film into an unpleasant reality.  Ick. 

I will be watching this film again.

an autobiographical Novel of Teri Hien’s early life in Eastern Washington State that I picked up at the Spokane Museum shop on an excellent weekend vacation

Recommended for people that interested in US social and political history from personal, first hand stories. 

3 smiles:  Ratings explained

Atomic?  The proximity to the Hanford, former nuclear, site that supplied the plutonium for the Manahattan project.  The most radio-active contaminated site in the US.  An American hero of WW2 and the villain.

Right? Stories of the countryside,   pioneer farmers settling and farming the rich lands of Eastern Washington with horses and tractors,  Stories of community and local Native Americans.  Funny and poignant

The wrong place? Downwind of Hanford, the downwinders.  The building of the plant, the management of waste and information about that waste, the cancers experienced by family and neighbours,  the deaths.  Sad and disturbing.

The service,  food and experience as provided by the supper rooms was outstanding,  the customers sat near to me were not typical of the softly spoken guests at other nearby tables and I have to say they were perhaps a little below par for such a well tailored experience.

A selection of quotes from the most verbose fellow at the next table,  overheard inbetween the sombre aubergine ceiling, loud floral-print wallpaper, dizzying geometric pink diamond-design carpet,  and flamboyant floral chandeliers In Colleys supper rooms. 

the journey was crap… …Lynne can’t come because she has a hangover…

Tottenham have a brilliant mid-fielder from Barcelona…

tuck your nape in…

we don’t know what they are (to the waiter about the starter list)

You’ll be alright if you keep your mouth shut,  Lynne doesn’t think I’ll be able to keep my mouth shut…

I’d never go to Moscow again,  its crazy,  its not like Spain or Greece,  its crazy,  all the words are like squares the only things I understood was Macdonalds and even that was squares. (about a trip to watch a football match)

An excellent evening with Barry Norman.

Ratings explained

Barry recently spoke at Reading Concert Hall supplying interesting trivia about four classic films,  Casablanca,  Gone with the Wind, The Adventures of Robin Hood and Dirty Harry.  Trivia included casting preferances for key roles,  why directors and screen writers were changed and cast members reflections.  The ending of Casablanca was written while it was being filmed, writer and cast did not know how the film would end.  The Atlanta burning scene in Gone with the wind was made by burning all the old sets on the studio lot.  The Adventures of Robin Hood was filmed in California,  the lush greeness of the grass in the film was a special effect, painting the film. 

After an interlude Barry answered questions from the crowded concert hall audience.  Two charming silver haired ladies mustered all their deft to pass microphones amongst the audience. 

Barry’s answers to questions of the form ‘name your favourite [e.g. actress, director, film...  ]‘ and ‘I know a lot about obscure film trivia[e.g. what the most expensive never-finished film]‘  produced a recognisable, normally unarticulated,  analysis of recent cinematic trends including:

• praising the decade of the 1970’s as the last decade that produced a substantial proportion of films aimed more at a thinking audience,  Easy Rider as an example, rahter than at the mass audience of cinema attendess,  18-25yrs, that seek light entertainment.  
• mentioning that the 6 main film distributers that supply the UK are US distributers that naturally prefer to promote their own, US, products.   The distributer for Cyrano De Bergerac called him to thank him for repeatedly mentioning the quality of this French language film because it helped get distribution in the UK.
• TV programs that review films are prone presenting available celebrity interviews, current film promotions, at the expense of balanced critical analysis.

By Mark Haddon. 

Highly recommended to anyone who gains pleasure from social dynamics or is an Anglophile.

review ratings explained

Lots of positive reviews of the book available on metacritic.   The Daily Telegraph provides a succinct summary that maps to my experience. 

“A spot of bother” is a phrase that I understand as being used to play-down the severity of a problem.  It’s like saying,  “yes there is a nasty problem but really you shouldn’t worry because we’ve got it all under control, lets not pay it any more attention“.  It’s not a phrase or technique for managing conversational distance that I’ve encountered in the US.

The story is of family dynamics across generations situated around an impending Wedding.  Everyone has an opinion on whether the wedding should happen and why,  and different ways of expressing their opinions,  or not.   The book touches on themes such as prefering silence to talking,  social intelligence versus academic intelligence and the bounds of realism and paranoia.  Some reviews talk about it as a black comedy or farce.  My impression is that it is something other than either genre,  neither funny nor melancholic despite the topics and events. 

Thoroughly enjoyable, I felt right at home.

The film ‘Colour me Kublic’ is a light entertainment comedy treasure.  Recommended for John Malkovitch fans,  Stanley Kubric fans,  Carry-on film fans and British TV/film fans.

Ratings explained

The film follows the last few years in the life of Alan Conway who managed to maintain his lifestyle by pretending to be Stanley Kubrick in Britain while knowing relatively little about Stanley.  The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are very varied.

some strengths:

• Ludwig Van,  plus:  the sound-track is a cleverly constructed pastiche of sound tracks from Kubrick films.  People familiar with the soundtracks use in the original film will spot visual references to the films,  often comically played.  The quality of this visual and musical treatment is probably attributable to the Director,  Brian Cook, was Kubricks first assistant director for 25yrs and writer Anthony Frewin’s long time working relationship with Kubrick. 
• Cult quality cast:  John Malkovich as lead and some fabulous bit and cameo parts by actors who,  arguably, are already cult figures int heir own right.  These are some of the obvious people,  I suspect there were a few more uncredited special appearances:  Honor Blackman,  Leslie Phillips,  Robert Powell,  Richard E. Grant, Peter Sallis, Jim Davidson,  Lynda Barron
•  Humour:  3 main styles,  Carry-on,  Farce and self-referential.  The Carry-on humour is immediate,  the farce is immediate,  the self-referential often requires knowledge of Kubrick’s films or British culture.  At one point Malkovitch as Conway, as Kubrick, talks about casting Malkovich in his film.  This kind of toying with self-referentialism really tickles my fancy.  The humour also pays homage to Carry-on films by littering the dialog with naughty inuendos.  The Carry-on film reference is explicitly mentioned by Lynda Barron who then fabulously goes on to call “Kubrick” “Cuteprick”. 
• Voice of Wallis:  Peter Sallis is most well known outside Britian for plaing the voice of Wallace (Wallace and Grommit).  Peter has one line in the film: “I am Stanley Kubrick“.  The line is in a chair-collapsingly hilarious scene that references a scene in Spartacus.  
• Jim Davidson:  plays an aging North England working-class, gay, comedian.  There are times when type casting with some built in irony (gay) is shere genious.

some areas for improvement 

• today I am too pathetic to envision any way of improving this.   Check out the Rotten Tomatoes reviews they suggest things like exploring the role of celebrity in society and focussing on character development.  For me,  the film worked fine without these things.

 If you appreciate good dialog,  good acting in the storytelling of social-political change based on real events that can produce heated post-viewing discussion then you will thoroughly enjoy this film; “Amazing Grace“. 

Ratings explained

The film is part of the UK celebration of 200 years, 25th March,  since the Abolition of the slave trade (slavery was still legal) in the British Empire.  America was no longer a part of the British Empire at this stage and continued to trade in Slaves as did European powers such as France, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.  The film follows the lead abolitionist’s,  William Wilberforce’s, efforts.  The title comes from a song whose original lyrics are attributed to John Newton a repentant master of slave trading ships and influential adult in William Wilberforce’s life.  For me the film compares favourably to, can be classed with, the classic play ”A man for all seasons“.  

Strengths:

• Story.  This is a story worthy of being made into a film.  It stands without explosions,  sex-scandals,  profanity,  nudity.  So few films nowadays are sufficiently brave to leave these components out of the screenplay.  What does it include?  Horror,  suspense, tension, pathos, wit, conversation as an art-form and fabulous scenery (parliament buildings, big wooden sailing ships etc).
• Cast.  For shere breadth of talent including Michael Gambon, Albert Finney, Ioan Gruffudd, Ciarán Hinds, Rufus Sewell, Benedict Cumberbatch, Bill Paterson, Sylvestra Le Touzel, Jeremy Swift, Youssou N’Dour.  The talent is doubley worth mentioning for their lack of conformity to the current Hollywood standard of ‘beautiful’.  If you need a dosage of current-standard pretty boys and this is not the film for you.  Hoorah!
• Scene details.  For example the unusual card-tables for the parliamentary card-clubs,  the kitchen crockery and utensils in the background of the kitchen scenes.  Ioan looked wonderfully sickly and ill in many of the shots where he is supposed to be so, no holidng back on under-eye darkness,  sweat,  and unsightly body contortions. 
• rhetoric.  The parliamentary rhetoric was wondertful, pressumably this was taken from original transcripts of parliamentary sessions.  The jibes are typically cheeky,  sarcastic,  cutting and yet the serve to reveal the weaknesses of the recipients position beautifully.  The rhetoric is not constrained to witty come-backs it includes some,  by no means all, of the arguments for Britian continuing to engage in the slave trade.  The less positive reviews of the film on Rotten Tomatoes describe this tendancy as ‘Speechifying’ and ‘Talky’.  I like Speechifying when it isn’t lengthy dull monolouges and I didn’t notice any lengthy dull monologues in this film. 

Areas for improvement:

• slavery arguments: given the film focus I was slightly suprised by the low-profile given to some of the topical arguments for slavery.  For example,  if evolutionary theory was mentioned in the debate I missed-it.  The notion common in Britain that people were born to a natural status,  aristocracy,  working-class,  black (US = People of color) divined by God was not mentioned.  This seemed odd,  I would have liked at least some passing reference to these beliefe systems more clearly evident within the film.  The nearest reference to the notion that every person is born to a position in life was the reaction of the opposition to a petition of the people,  why should they take notice of a petition of the people?  The portrayal simply makes them look arrogant,  evil,  as viewers we are not lead to understand that it was a common belief that people were born with different capabilities,  different values to society.  I would have valued a little more clarification of the depth of impact of the American Independance and French revolution on the priorities of parliament.  Though I suspect this would have made the film even longer and more ’speechifying’ which would have irritated more viewers that aren’t me.
• slave trade is not slavery:  The film does not make it clear to the viewer that Slavery was still legal in the British Empire for a further 30 years.  This blog article by Louis Proyect points this out and provides an informative persepctive on a worthy storyline not tackled within this film.  The blog article includes details of  people portrayed in the film and cites a poem written by William Wordsworth dedicated to one of them.   Louis makes a convincing point that William Wilberforce being portrayed as the lead role was perhaps not a good choice:

Every other abolitionist figure is subordinate to him, which is of course detrimental to the film since they are far more interesting than this bible-thumping prig.

• shift girl focus from love interest:  Barbara Wilberforce (Romola Garai) wearing pink lipstick and lip gloss just didn’t ‘feel’ right though I realise the ladies of the day did have access to powders and creams that they used to change their lip colour.  Her wig was also suspicously perfect and an unusual colour (redhead).  She sported the modern fashion for a voluptious top lip,  though not Scarlett Johansen proportions.  It was challenging to discern her talent from the odd accessories.  Hannah More is present in some scenes and even has some lines,  I was disappointed that her role was not more significant.  The cynic in me thinks the small contribution her role in the film might be because she was not young,  beautiful and married.   I visited Hannah’s birthplace while in Bristol last week:

“the only mystery I never solved was why my heart couldn’t let go of you“

This film is highly recommended for people who enjoy a stylistically conveyed, strong period-set script of a clever mystery drama including a love story.  This film successfully fits into all these genres with an additional unique angle that fits none and takes it beyond any specific genre.  Not a good film for people who like giggles, fast action with explosions, blood and gore, or plots handed to you on a silver platter.  The rotten tomatoes reviews generally align well with my experience. 

 ratings explained

Description without plot-spoiler

• The illusionist official website.
• Cast:  Rufus Sewell, Edward Norton; Jessica Beil; Paul Giamatti; Eddie Marsan.  Well acted. Edward Norton uses his talent for inscrutability very effectively in the role of the illusionist,  you can read into his behaviour that which you expect.
• Genre:  period costume drama, mystery, social commentary, love story.  The plot is not a standard Hollywood format unravelling in a pleasingly unpredictable path.
• Sets:  outstanding European venues including steam trains, theatres, palaces, country parks, mountain ranges.
• Music:  Philip Glass.  the modern music, referencing period genres works extremely well with the nature of the film, period with novel storyline detail.
• Female roles: only one notable role for a female.  The love lead,  now there’s a surprise.  Jessica Beil’s character is written with the standard ‘modern’ perspective on a period female-character expressing her control in a modern manner yet still managing to be a victim of the patriarchy.  The character is poorly written.
• chic flick?:  possibly,  not being a chic it’s difficult for me to tell.  It’s not a puke-inducing pinky film of dominantly girl-cast with bland males seeking them out.
• Photography: captivating, stylistic yet not intrusive camera work with a strong tendancy to using high contract sepia tones and fuzzy-edged backlighting.  Expertly interwoven visual effects including animations.

Recommended for reflection on what it means to be in love, to be part of a modern family, to come of age in America.  It is a tragic love story:  love of country;  love of familiy; romantic love.  The film gets a bad deal from Rotten tomatoes.   The mood of the film reminded me of a cross between Wim Wenders film Paris Texas and The Badlands.  Laughter is light on the ground.  The film’s humour is mainly situational and very subtle.  Not recommended for people who want to have their films explicitly detail the key points or fast action,  this film ferments well with thought and gently touches on modern life indirectly.  For me this was a journey worth taking.

ratings explained

The scenes capture how I see much of North America.  The suburbs,  Freeways,  colours, donuts, diners, telegraph poles, guns, power lines, paranoia, friendliness, loneliness, cynicism and optimism against an ever present sense of neglect, decay and madness. The sound track is provided by a single acoustic guitar and gentle male, or, female voice.  It’s slow,  like the pace of the film. The tune and singer fade in and out setting some peaceful, happy and sad moments.

Edward Norton’s character, Harlan,  has short, clear, answers to every question. His uncomplicated answers have a romantic dream-like quality,  you want to believe them,  you want to believe he believes them.  He’s straight-forward polite, respectful of others yet somehow niaive.  He’s easy to love.  He say’s he’s skilled in ranching.  Was Harlan ever a cowboy?  Is he pretending?  Does it matter?  He appears to be unemployable in any other skilled job.  Harlen’s way of thinking and dialog is a treat throughout.  One moment shot me.  During his first swim in the Pacific Ocean he looks out towards the horizon: 

that’s about as close to forever as I can imagine.

Sometimes its not clear if he lives in the real world or an idealistic fantasy, if he’s lost a grasp on reality,  if he ever really had one. 

Outstanding moments included:

• the conversation in the bath because of the innovative approach to filming, the dialog and set.  
• Harlan’s visit to his parent’s home.  No music.  No speaking. The silence heightened the impact on me.  
• Reflexism.  Using a film set of western ‘My Darling Clementine’ to playfully create a western story within this western story.  This provided temporary, subtle, light relief as the tension builds.   

An extremely well constructed film in every technical level, acting, camera-work, lighting, script, direction etc.  A classic, not popularist, film.

Movie Monday!

Spivs is highly recommended for people who enjoy action films that tackle topical and socially unacceptable issues in direct ways.  It has some subtle humour and emotional swings built in,  This is not a film that drives smiles.  It does capture, and move, your emotions with subtle and powerful effect. The online reviews I found were more harsh than my experience, they may more adequately reflect your experience.  Here’s the BBC review.

ratings explained

A London based film, Spiv has the mood of a classic London based Gangster, or wide-boy,  films such as ‘The long good friday‘, Layer Cake,  Lock Stock and two smoking barrels.  It tackles fundamental, international, human rights issues.  There is a reasonable review posted on “Eye for film’.  The review doesn’t adequately acknowledge the disturbing topic matter of the film: humans, children as a commodity for trade in Western capitalistic culture.  Life and sex as something that has monetary, tradeable value. 

Beautiful lighting and attention to photographic details.  For example,  during the opening credits we see the Spiv dressing.  Smart 3-piece suit, classic style with the last button of the waistcoat undone.  Inbetween the calm attention of his dressing we see and hear loud scenes from racecourse. We swiftly move to the spinning a yarn.  We watch the Spiv talk in one screen frame while simultaneously viewing the story he is recounting in an inset.  This technique of multiple frames is used sparingly,  to good effect.  The ending is clever and leaves enough to feed your imagination.  It’s more of a turning point in a story than a ‘wrap up all major themes’ ending.

For Anglophiles there are some excellent scenes of London,  Docklands,  Victorian red-brick terraced streets, slummy high-rise flats, gray skies, the London underground.  Jack Dee plays a significant bit part as a builder called ‘Nige’ with impressively powerful perception and subtlety.  Summary?  This is half way between a well constructed art film and a socially conscious film.  It doesn’t hit the heights of either,  it does meld the experiences well.  It is worth watching if either genre moves you.

Ever wondered what Wendy review ratings really mean?  You need wonder no more.  Rating system explained:

Don’t touch this,  lest it be contagious or induce severe fits followed by sudden brain death

No.  It’s just wrong,  so wrong.  Turn around an walk away before anything valuable like sanity or toothbrush gets broken

Thow the phone down.   Icky, icky, icky,  could prompt a minor tantrum involving some small hand-held household item hitting the floor with a little more speed then naturally supplied by gravity  

Wince making.  What were they thinking?  Walk away now 

Why?  Even lashings of tea and biscuits couldn’t make this work 

Mining required.  Get your spade out,  if you are prepared to put the effort into digging for it you’ll find some virtue buried somewhere in this 

Darn good.  Like a pint of well kept real Ale from a cask in good company,  or a Sunday morning reading a broadsheet in bed with the fluff-balls snoring nearby  

Lovelly.  Simply world class talent.  Easily recommended and probably even remembered,  which given my scattiness is a major achievement   

Gorgeous.  Oh!  that was good for me.  Expect this review to include a bit of gushing because the work has genius potential   

Hero Worship.   Realised genius, lets do it again,  and again,  and again.  There’s a stong risk that Wendy’s planning a proposal.

the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. Mark Haddon.  This is an outstanding first novel.  Recommended 

3 smiles:  ratings explained

Reviewed by charlotte Morre in the Guardian.  The numerous reviews I’ve read are full of praise for this novel.

Christopher, 15yrs, is writing a murder mystery novel.  This is Christopher’s Novel.  Christopher’s presentation is a carefully contructed stream of consciousness.  He provides details about each character,  something interesting or different, to describe the character.  What Christopher finds interesting or different does not follow common patterns of describing a person.  The jacket cover descirbes Christopher as being autistic,  this is an artistic construction of the writer,  the contents should not be taken as representative of Autism. 

goodness discovered:

• Christopher as author:  works exceedingly well to carry the reader through seeing the world through the authors eyes and allowing the reader to have a privileged view of dramatic irony. As reader we can see the impact of Christophers behaviours and understand these behaviours in a different value-set from Christophers. 
• Christopher describes and demonstrates his values.  Clearly,  entertainingly.  Christopher attributes values and priorities to events in a different way than is generally socially acceptable.  I found some of his reasoning clearly descibed,  easy to follow,  consistently applied thoughout the story.  For example the meaning of specific groups of different car colours. 
• innovative illustrations.  The book is illustrated,  not with ‘pictures’ provided by an illustrator, with pictures from Christophers perspective.  As pictures per-se they provide little extra information.  As choices of important information selected by Christopher they are powerful story enhancers.

not so goodness

• lack of empathy with other characters.  This is a by-product of working with having Christopher as the protagonist.   There is insufficient detail to build empathy with any other character.  I suspect this was an explicit decision made by the author.  I would have valued the opportunity for a deeper understanding of some of the peripheral characters.  It’s not clear how the author could have achieved this connection within the books clearly implemented perspective.
• Inconsistency.  I found it difficult to follow why Christopher made some, plot-critical, decisions and did not become distressed by events that had already been established as distressing to him. For example, it is established early in the book that he does not like people shouting.  Later he witnesses shouting without any documented personal reaction.  As if the author temporarily forgot his protagonist in favour of placing plot manipulating events. 

Aside:

• There are plausible rumours that people who exhibit symptoms of Aspergers syndrome and Autism experience successful application of their strengths in the software industry.  A quick search of the internet finds no real evidence,  just plausible arguments.  Software developers are able to procreate and this ’syndrome’ is genetically conveyed to offspring.  Evidently,  in December 2000 ““Microsoft became the first major US corporation to offer its employees insurance benefits to cover the cost of behavioral training for their autistic children.”  (Wired Magazine).  This could easily just reflect the excellent pro-active healthcare provision by Microsoft as a company.  As a Seattle local,  this Wendy wonders….

A disturbing and bleak look at sexual, emotional, relationships within modern American college life 

 :-)

ratings explained

I don’t know any Americans that would enjoy this movie.  I could be wrong.

It gets three smiles on the uncalibrated, unstable, Wendy scale because I found it starkley, morbidly, fascinating with some realistic themes.  A brave piece of work by the director because arguably it didn’t include a character sthat you, as the audience, were meant to build an affection or affinity with.  A risky strategy that was one of many reasons the Movie gets a panning on Rotten Tomatoes. The themes that I noticed were:

• unrequited attraction.  The film’s title is appropriate because it would be difficult to describe the story lines as being either love,  lust or obsessions,  but they were ‘attractions’.
• emotional and physical abuse directed at self (suicide, degrading behaviors) and others (rape, physical violence).  It seemed so ‘accepted’ by characters within the film as the way things are.  I suspect this may be realistic.
• fantasy. several characters in the film appear to build attractions to others based on a constructed, fantasy, understanding of what those people are like not based on what we as the audience see and hear they are like.   
• loneliness.  This was intertwined with the fantasy thread.  Lonely people using their imaginations to develop relationships into something ‘more’ than they are.  Some of the characters in the film were being drawn into, or seeking, a fulfilling intimate relationship.  Two characters towards the end of the film expressed this with the simple phrase “you don’t know me“. 

The film completely lacked humour, it did include character development.  Unusually,  the direction of the development was not aligned with an ideal or telling a moral story.  This was powerful.  We see the impact of ‘bad’ experiences tainting people,  we see unrequited ‘attraction’.  We never get really close to any of the characters.  Some characters I didn’t like at the beginning of the film and I still didn’t like them at the end of the film.  That’s realistic. 

The rape scene was profoundly disturbing,  not least because the victim appeared to accept it as if this was to be expected.  For that one message the film is worth watching.  I know too many girl’s (and boys) who have that attitude.  They blame themselves for not being ’sensible’ (e.g. I should not have got drunk) and remove any blame from the perpertrator because ‘he thought it was alright’.  Somehow they justify thier role as victims of sexual abuse, rape.  That makes me extremely angry.  This film has value for portraying what I see as a moral and legal crime without having any cumeuppance for the offender or any real recognition of the crime by the victim. 

Unfortunately that’s real.

Wikepedia describes Morcheeba as a British band that mixes influences of Hip Hop, Blues and Pop. Morcheeba’s official UK website adds ‘Soul’, ‘country’ and ‘electronic’ to the influences. I recently watched them play at the Showbox. Near the downtown public markets:

Mellow music to relax, sing and dance in

I thoroughly enjoyed myself

Worth the entry-charge

GORGEOUS

Were they good? Yes

Morcheeba performed as you would expect professional performers. Good quality. Morcheeba have recently changed their lead singer to Jody Sternberg. Changing singers can often change the whole impact a band makes. Jody has a wonderful voice and is lively and charismatic on stage. She plays flute and saxophone and co-wrote some of the bands earlier songs.

Did they play a broad range of material? Yes

The set included songs from the new Album (Antidote) including ‘everybody loves a loser’ and classic songs from several older albums including ‘Rome wasnt built in a day’, ‘part of the process’, ‘Sea’. I was sceptical about Jody effectively conveying the older songs. Thankfully my scepticism was unwarranted. The ‘hip-hop’ and ‘rapping’ influence was not evident in their set. For me this was a positive shift in their musical direction.

Were there memorable moments? Yes

Ross Godfrey gave gave the audience stories about the inspirations for specific songs. For example, ‘Blindfold‘ was written about a friend going into a mental assylum for 3 months then staying there for 10 years. I love to hear type of story at a concert. His guitar playing was impressive; as was his ability to smoke a cigarette for the whole duration of a song while playing continually and not noticeably dropping any ash on himself.

The back-up artist provided some ‘memorable’ moments. An asian lady wearing a green long-hair wig, pink bunny-earmuffs, red-velvet dress. Her singing was squeaky and heavily accented. It reminded my companion of ‘Tiny Tim’ and me of a 1980’s Lena Lovich. Despite this bizarreness she was a very talented lady. She played Ukulele, Sitar, accordian, Keyboards and probably more!

W bop-bop-bop-PING!

For me the book contained 4 main strands woven tightly together into a book that I certainly wouldn’t describe as ‘ropey’     The strands were:

love story

This has all the power of McEwans well established ability to raise emotions,  cross social boundaries,  fill you with anticipation.  I couldn’t work out which scenes actually included sexual intercourse.  I found this uncertainty rather fun,  to be left to infer,  guessing by descirptions of position,  demeanor, sounds and feelings.   Keep this up

crime story

An unusual bent on a traditional fictional genre,  no detectives.  Just the witnesses and victims and the impact of the legal and social crimes as time unfolds.  The character’s role in the crime was well laid out in the first part.  As with being unclear about the sexual intercourse,  I was also unclear about whether a legal crime occured.  Certainly moral crimes occurred.  I would rather have found out more about the immediate aftermath in the second part.  Instead  we skip to 3 years later.  I was left with some major questions left unanswered about  the roles played by some of the key players in the first part.  Adjust this. 

war story

Uh.  I got bored and started skim reading wondering how the peripheral characters introduced in this storyline related to either the Love story,  the crime story, or the story about stories.  Either I missed something or they didn’t.  This storyline seemed superfluous.  Well written,  but it just didn’t entertain or significantly move the plot forward for me.  Cut this.

story about stories (postmodern)

UK Vacation 5

I highly recommended this book.  I suspect the reviewer cited in my March 9th entry has a problem seeing the trees (story details) for the wood (prior knowledge of Ben’s political beliefs).  The review misses Ben’s keen observation of the familiar and ability to smoothly transform this into the plausibly bizarre.  An example of a non-political observation that doesn’t give away part of the plot:

“From Newton to Einstein there has been much fascinating discussion on the various factors that affect time.  These include speed, mass, weight distance and strange phrases like ‘quantum mechanics’ which scientists make up in order to sound important and convince the rest of us that we are thick.  However, for some inexplicable reason, despite all this racking of the brain,  no serious research has been done into the commonest form and most radical ‘time bender’ of them all,  which is,  of course, exercise.”

The plot has many characteristics of a classical western.  Clearly identified good guys and bad guys.  The good guys are revealed as people with strengths and weaknesses and the bad guys are evil, powerful and sometimes just stupid.  Think about westerns where the good guys own the small farms and the bad guys are the big cattle or oil companies whose plans for mass production are radically changing the lives of the farmers.  Think of Star Wars,  the rebels against the Federation.  It’s a classic format that Ben spins with very clever twists. 

The strongest impact for me was in the introduction and description of the heros. opening scenes are fabulous because of the way Ben lets your assumptions fill in gaps about the people he is describing, then he gradually introduces fundamental challenges to those assumptions.

It has an excellent ‘chase’ scene which easily rivals Bullitt.  The key characters are distinctive and richly described, as you would expect from the writer of the Black Adder series.

My main complaints are petty.  For example he describes a character as being  “Farty” this is not a descriptor that I recognise.  The closing scene was rather a sensible close,  and consequently I found it a little disappointing.  I was hoping for something a little more comically fulfilling.   That aside,  this is the 3rd Ben Elton book I have read and I plan to read all the rest.

Good reading,  Wendy