Ignore the smug

What can you do but ignore the smug? Everyone, including me, feels smug from time to time, but some people it seems just have to continually express their smugness by criticising others and making out that they are superior. Best not to engage in any conversation with such smug gits, lest you lose it and end up having a pointless row. 

Prometheus

Prometheus – there’s a lot of debate surrounding Ridley Scott’s prequel to Alien, mostly about the myriad of unanswered questions raised in film. Personally I found the film a bit of a disappointment. I didn’t read any reviews before going to see it and went purely on the strength of the trailers and memory of really enjoying Alien. I expected the film to be visually good – and it was. We went to see it in Imax and 3D at the BFI. It was stunning – a bit too stunning in our seats! My disappointment came in the storyline and lack of characterisation.

What some have seen as unanswered questions, I saw as plot holes and as for the characters and their motives (or lack thereof), well I didn’t care much for any of them. Also the editing and continuity in places was very poor. I expected more from Ridley Scott, as the director of one of my all-time favourite films, Blade Runner.

So what’s it all about? In a nutshell 2 archaeologists, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) & her husband, Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), discover a series of depictions of what they have interpreted as a star map inviting us to meet an alien species they call the Engineers, who Shaw believes are our creators. The fact that they are archaeologists is enough to put me off of them to start and as the film went on I liked them even less. why archaeologists make me annoyed

With apparently no other evidence, only Shaw’s belief, mega-rich Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) funds an expedition. His motive is clear – he’s dying and is looking to extend his life. As for the rest of the team and crew, as they appear to have no idea why they are going or what they will find when they get there, I guess they are just being very well paid.


beware of androids

So they arrive and start to explore. And very soon things go wrong. In part due to the android, David (Michael Fassbender), who has been alone on the ship for over 2 years while everyone else has been in stasis, watching Lawrence of Arabia, spying on the human’s dreams and possibly going ever so slightly bonkers. David is responsible for Holloway’s demise (no loss there) and the introduction of an alien parasite to Shaw’s barren womb. The latter giving rise to a very unpleasant scene which made me wonder at the 15 certification.

Well things go from bad to worse and all but 2 characters are dead by the end. Although our annihilation by those that Shaw believed created us has been prevented by 3 characters sacrificing themselves for no apparent reason than they believe what Shaw tells them!

Shaw is the most annoying character; a bad scientist and worst of all, a female lead who’s no Ripley. I just couldn’t take her seriously and in no way could believe in her as a saviour. I wanted her to kick some alien ass. Shaw couldn’t kick her way out of a wet paper bag. Now Vickers (Charlize Theron), icy cold and at one point accused of being a robot by Janek (the under-used Idris Elba), you could imagine kicking ass. It would have been a better film to make the Vickers character step up.



that's the way to do it

And as for all the debates about who the Engineers were, why they did what they did, why they planned to go whatever it was that they were going to – well David supplied the best answer in conversation with Holloway about the engineer’s motive for creating us; have we considered they did it just because they can.

I think that’s why Ridley Scott made the film, just because he could.

Class War #3

Most London councils try to move people outside borough

And so it goes on. The story told by the resident of Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea is only to be expected of a borough that thinks if you can't afford to buy your home there or pay for private education for your child, you shouldn't be living there and should send your child to another borough's schools. Nearly 170,000 people live there, a quarter in council or housing association housing yet there are only 5 state secondary schools in the borough, 3 of which are church schools. Not much choice and I guess once they cleanse the borough of so-called 'social housing' tenants they'll probably be even less.

The 70s

BBC2 has been running a 1970s season. This has meant the airing of some classic 70s cinema; One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest; Mean Streets and Cabaret, but also the documentary series by Dominic Sandbrook called 'The 70s'. 

 

As I grew up in the 70s I thought I'd give this 4 part series a go, if just for the nostalgia. There was that aplenty in the soundtrack but other than that it was a deeply unsatisfying in format and content. Made up entirely of archive clips and Sandbrook's voice over and to camera commentary, it gave a broad sweep of the decade under the premise that the 1970s shaped the world we live in today. Well duh! You could say that about any past decade. Society is not static and is forever changing; old traditions and ways of life fall away and new ones take their place. There was certainly some significant shifts in British society in the 70s. 

Consensus politics were on the way out, global economics began to bite, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976 were to start to change the lives of millions (though sexism and racism are still with us). Yet there were no interviews with the people involved or affected. The whole series was just Sandbrook's personal view - a view which seemed to come from the middle-class right and say 'no wonder Thatcher came to power in the end'. And that was about the sum of it.

In contrast 'The Lost World of the Seventies' presented by Michael Cockerell, an hour long programme which focused on 4 'characters' of the 1970s, was far more satisfying. Using archive footage and interviews with people involved at the time, these snapshots gave a far more interesting perspective of the times and in a way was more convincing about the changes the 70s made. 

 

Starting with General Walter Walker, who sought to protect Britain from 'the enemy within', the archive interviews show a man with genuine fear of the 'Red Menace' and who was trying to gather around him like-minded individuals that would, if necessary, take over Britain to save us from Marxists. There were many who did fear such a thing. In the end though even the Telegraph undermined him and the old general with his paper army faded away. In Britain we don't go in for coups. 

Next up was Lord Longford aka Lord Porn and notorious visitor of Myra Hindley. Longford headed a campaign against pornography after the Obscene Publications Act had been amended to allow more salacious material to be published. An old school moral campaigner his investigation and report was ignored by government. 

Next was Jimmy Goldsmith, billionaire financier and tycoon, who's business dealings were subject to scrutiny and criticism by the BBC's Money Programme and by Private Eye. Goldsmith went on to try and use the criminal libel law against Private Eye, which though in the end only cost the magazine a full page add apologising and retracting its allegation that Goldsmith had helped old friend Lord Lucan flee after the murder of his children's nanny, all Goldsmith actually achieved was dislike and increasing the sales of Private Eye. 



Last up was Robert Mark, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police from 1972 to 1977, who came to fight corruption in the CID. Corruption, was rife especially in the Flying Squad and Obscene Publications Squad and Mark was determined to root it out. Several high profile arrests followed. Mark in the end resigned though when government sought to make an independent police complaints authority. He had kept his investigations 'in-house'.

 

The world has changed since these characters were in  the news. You can't image some old general now talking about the need to fight any kind of menace if government fails nor some old lord campaigning on such controversial issues. No, too campaign now and be listened to means you have be a celebrate chef and/or have lots of followers on Twitter and Facebook. Goldsmith's story though perhaps does have more of a parallel today; no doubt now he'd have taken out a super-injunction. Big business men still don't like to be criticised - look at Murdoch. As for Mark's crusade against police corruption, it was long over due and still with us - Murdoch again - though not so rife as failure to make timely investigations (see this)

This post has kind of got away from me a bit but I guess the point of the comparison is that when it come to making programmes about recent history it's the documentary maker not the historian who wins hand down. 

Thanks John

Last night as I was adding my latest post I noticed there was a comment on my Chronicle film review post. This is what it says:

‘You're an idiot... The movie was horrible. Your article is a contrived tribute to your "I think I'm a good writer" wanna be persona. However, looking past the fact that you can't string together letters to form coherent sentences, I still find your article to be a hot heaping mess of, well, mess... Have fun blocking this so others can't see truth... ‘

It was left by someone calling himself John Titor. Obviously John did not enjoy Chronicle and apparently according to John anyone who likes something he doesn’t is an idiot. Well everyone’s entitled to their opinion and it would be a boring world if we all liked the same things. As for the criticism of my writing, well I don’t claim to be a professional writer or a good one. John doesn’t care for the way I write and again that’s his opinion. I’m not complaining. After all anyone who posts anything on the internet is open to criticism. I often add remarks to other people’s posts, although my comments tend to be either to agree or disagree with what has been written and rather less personal.

John got me thinking though about why I blog at all. I can’t even remember why I decided to blog. Must have had a reason at the time and as my earlier posts are generally moaning about the petty inconveniences of life and things that annoy me I guess I began just to have a vent for my own frustrations. Then for ages I didn’t blog at all until I did one post in 2010 about a couple of TV programmes I’d watched. An even longer gap followed and at the end of 2011 I did a film review post and decided to carry on blogging mainly about TV and film because I like TV and film.

This doesn’t really answer the question though of why I, or anyone else for that matter, blogs if you’re just a nobody. I mean I never assumed that anyone outside my friends and family would ever look at my blog. I think, in the end, I write my blog because I enjoy writing about things that interest me.

So thanks John for giving me another subject to write about.

BTW I have left John’s comment up and invited him to say what he didn’t like about Chronicle but I guess as he loathes my writing so much he won’t be viewing my blog again.

Avengers Assemble

Mate of mine went to see Avengers Assemble this weekend after reading good reviews, and my recommendation. She enjoyed it but said the film had been over-hyped. I said that's why I don't really take too much notice of reviews. Thing is as individuals we pretty much know what kind of films we'll enjoy and unless we hear something very bad about a film our own judgement is usually pretty sound.

So what made me go and see Avengers Assemble then? Well firstly I really enjoyed Iron Man and like Robert Downey Jr.and then when I read that Joss Whedon, creator of one of my all-time favourite TV series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, was the director and wrote the script I was hopeful that the film would be great entertainment. And it is.

I saw it in 3D, a format I still think is over-rated, and in my opinion it didn't add the visual effects, which were very good. Like all good comic-book adaptations the visuals and stunts are excellent. But it's the characters and the brilliant dialogue that raises Avengers Assemble above the majority of such films. Of course it could be said that the film benefits from the familiarity of  the main characters. Iron Man (aka Tony Stark played by Robert Downey Jr), Captain America (aka Steve Rogers played by Chris Evans), Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) and The Incredible Hulk (aka Bruce Banner played for the first time by Mark Ruffalo) have all had previous screen time yet this is not necessarily a good thing. Ensemble pieces do not always work and if the viewer is not familiar with the characters it can be difficult to relate. This is overcome in Avengers Assemble; enough back story is given to make the story line make sense.

The story is basic - The Earth is in danger from Loki (Thor's adopted brother, excellently played by Tom Hiddleston, in the perfect villain blend of sinister and camp) who plans to open a vortex and lead an army to subjugate the human race. Desperate to save the world, especially as he is in part to blame for Loki's being able to pose this danger, Nick Fury of SHIELD (played by Samuel L. Jackson), gathers together a force to take on the threat.

As well as the characters already mentioned there are 2 additional members of the Avengers Initiative; Agent Natasha Romanoff aka The Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson), a former assassin with a dark past, and  Agent Clint Barton aka Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner and is not on screen nearly enough for my liking!). As you would expect from Joss Whedon, Agent Romanoff is more than just eye-candy for the boys - she is smart and kicks ass as good as the next man.

The Avengers big egos as well as alter-egos and this gives for tension in the ranks and snappy dialogue.  Get a taste of the dialogue here There are also questions of honesty to overcome. In the end though through the death of another character (no spoilers here) the Avengers come together to fight the good fight. And no doubt line up for a sequel.



My Hero

Class War #2

'Social cleansing' housing benefit cap row
And so it goes on.
Already in the school where I work a student has had to leave after her family's private landlord in Westminster told them as the new housing benefit cap wouldn't cover the rent they would have to leave - Westminster Council moved the family to Uxbridge, 17 miles away from the school.