tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49530092480222700452024-03-05T16:55:17.132+00:00You're a beautiful woman probably...Sometimes a <b>grumpy old man</b>, at others <b>middle-aged but not past it yet</b>. My blog title is a quote from a 1970s <i>Doctor Who</i> story - and, by the way, there is no pause before "probably"! That's the genius of Tom Baker's timing.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-36564207786938024782016-01-30T11:24:00.000+00:002017-07-21T20:43:25.051+01:00Buckets of blood<div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB" style="line-height: 130%;">Sadly, I think </span><span lang="en-GB" style="line-height: 130%;">a lack of imagination has meant a serious drop in standards and attitudes in "horror" films.</span></div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">I do love </span><span lang="en-GB">old horror/fantasy films (Terence Fisher's expression was “adult fairy tales”)</span><span lang="en-GB"> but want to be uplifted – film should be an emotional experience, </span><span lang="en-GB">but</span><span lang="en-GB"> not one that makes you want to slash your wrists. I don't think it's a coincidence that </span><span lang="en-GB">many</span><span lang="en-GB"> of the films covered and praised </span><span lang="en-GB">in </span><span lang="en-GB">podcast</span><span lang="en-GB">s and on line</span><span lang="en-GB"> (</span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Night of the Demon, The Devil Rides Out, The Wicker Man</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> etc) are </span><span lang="en-GB">retrospective, and </span><span lang="en-GB">more than thirty years old.</span></div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">Just to establish where I'm coming from, can I say that I really liked </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Witchfinder General, Hellraiser </i></span><span lang="en-GB">and </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Candyman</i></span><span lang="en-GB">, all of which were gruesome films. One of my favourite horror films is Brian DePalma's </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Carrie</i></span><span lang="en-GB">, because it's psychological horror. What distinguishes all of these from lesser films is character and plot. I actually read a review of </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Carrie</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> on IMDB where the (amateur) reviewer rubbished it because there wasn't enough gore or graphic deaths. He obviously completely missed the point that the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>horror</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> of the film was that Carrie's deranged mother turned out to be right. To my mind, that twist was much more chilling than any heads being chopped off or people being skewered. </span> </div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">I didn't enjoy </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Evil Dead</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> or </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>My Little Eye</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> because of this concentration on violence, I’ve completely avoided </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Hills Have Eyes, Hostel, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre </i></span><span lang="en-GB">and all those kind of “slasher” films, and I particularly dislike Quentin Tarantino because he seems to be trying to make violence seem "cool" – exactly the opposite of </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Witchfinder General</i></span><span lang="en-GB">, which showed how it could brutalise good men.</span></div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">A quick history. The slasher film probably started in the 1970s with </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Halloween</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> and DePalma’s </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Dressed to Kill</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> – both entertaining films, although you could write a whole book just about DePalma’s attitude to violence against women.</span></div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">It could well be that </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Friday 13th</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> in 1980 was inspired by </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Halloween</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> but, as often, the imagination was lacking. Not long after that we had </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Evil Dead</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> (1981) which, in my opinion, started a very unpleasant trend – asking us to laugh at characters being slashed up or mangled. The decline continued with </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>A Nightmare on Elm Street</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> in 1984. That one was </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>supernatural</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> horror that involved the mad murderer inhabiting dreams, so there was potential to exploit the "fear of the unknown" aspect that worked so well in older films. So the </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>idea</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> was potentially really scary, but Wes Craven took the easy option by concentrating on </span><span lang="en-GB">blood and guts</span><span lang="en-GB">, and the result was a film with not much atmosphere and no real scares. Unfortunately it led on to a whole series of exploitation films that went for </span><span lang="en-GB">gore</span><span lang="en-GB"> instead of fear. </span> </div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">I think we came to a point around 1980 where audiences, and some directors, stopped understanding the difference between violence and fear. I’ve heard the arguments about </span><span lang="en-GB">G</span><span lang="en-GB">rand </span><span lang="en-GB">G</span><span lang="en-GB">uignol being a strand of horror where you have to show what’s happening rather than just imply it, but surely everything should have limits. For me, any film, including horror films, has to be primarily about character and plot. If the director just uses it as an excuse for a series of gory d</span><span lang="en-GB">eaths then there’s plenty missing from the film.</span></div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">It's been pointed out</span><span lang="en-GB"> that the duo of Freddie Kruger and Michael Myers in their numerous films have become a bit of a joke, almost like Abbott and Costello, who ended up meeting all the Universal monsters in the old days. This is another problem with the modern films, that a lot of them </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>want </i></span><span lang="en-GB">to be funny, but combine this with gore and brutality. You can have comedy </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>suspense</i></span><span lang="en-GB">, like Bob Hope’s old film </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Cat and the Canary</i></span><span lang="en-GB">, but </span><span lang="en-GB">my feeling is that</span><span lang="en-GB"> comedy horror – where you’re being explicit about the horrible ways that people can die – is impossible. If you are asking audiences to laugh at people dying in gruesome ways, what does that say about film-makers and the audiences?</span><span lang="en-GB"> Harking back again, the concept was explored in Michael Powell’s clever </span><span lang="en-GB">and unsettling </span><span lang="en-GB">film </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Peeping Tom</i></span><span lang="en-GB">, and that got such a bad reception that it ended his career. </span> </div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">I wrote a review of </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Descent</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> on IMDB that I titled “Encapsulates everything wrong with the modern horror film”. I found it a particularly unpleasant film that started with a genuinely intriguing road accident but then rapidly descended into </span><span lang="en-GB">darkness and incoherent violence</span><span lang="en-GB">. At least the dim lighting meant we didn’t have to watch the characters being violently mutilated in close-up, but the plot stopped making sense about fifteen minutes in, and if there was any character development at all, </span><span lang="en-GB">then </span><span lang="en-GB">I missed it. Of course, we’ve now got “torture porn” in films like </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Saw </i></span><span lang="en-GB">and all its sequels</span><span lang="en-GB"><i>,</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> and there’s no limit to how far </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>some</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> film makers will go to shock and, I would say, revolt their audiences. I was starting to think that the trend was over and then I saw a film called <i>The Children </i>on late night TV. This was a virtually plotless saga of some unlikeable characters trapped in an environment where their children killed them in gruesome ways, with no coherent character development - again, apparently just an excuse to present extreme violence in the guise of entertainment.</span></div><div class="western" lang="en-GB" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;">I'm not proposing that we should ban or censor violent films, just asking film-makers to use a bit more imagination.</div><div class="western" style="line-height: 130%; margin-bottom: 0.21cm;"><span lang="en-GB">To end on a more positive note, can I say that I do see a way forward for horror films. There have been a few really good ones in recent years, </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Stir of Echoes </i></span><span lang="en-GB">and, in the same year, </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Final Destination</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> was quite inventive. Sam Raimi’s </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Gift</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> was surprisingly restrained, and very good for that. The best of the lot all seem to have been ghost stories: </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Others</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> was a nice little film</span><span lang="en-GB"><i>; The Sixth Sense</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> was the best I’d seen for years, a Spanish film called </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>The Orphanage </i></span><span lang="en-GB">was brilliantly creepy, as were the original </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Paranormal Activity </i></span><span lang="en-GB">and </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Sinister</i></span><span lang="en-GB">.</span><span lang="en-GB"> If the filmmakers can follow </span><span lang="en-GB">that </span><span lang="en-GB">direction </span><span lang="en-GB">without succumbing to the compulsion to make everything into a franchise (with endless repetition)</span><span lang="en-GB">, the future for “scary films” could be much brighter.</span></div>Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-53418301965582577882016-01-01T17:15:00.004+00:002017-07-21T20:47:59.434+01:00Who can do better (2015)Not since Tony Blair joined forces with George "Dubya" Bush have I been so disappointed in a person's misguided choices as I have since Steven Moffat took over the reins of Doctor Who.<br />
<br />
What happened to the genius who gave us the hilarious <i>Coupling,</i> and wrote Who stories like <i>The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances</i> and <i>Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead</i>? If you look back through this blog you'll see that <a href="http://saltwell.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/who-can-do-better.html">I've sung his praises</a>. By writing Who and Sherlock simultaneously, it seems he just bit off more than he could chew. Good storytelling is the bedrock of a programme like this and, for me, that has just not been there.<br />
<br />
This season (and, sadly, most stories since Mr Moffat took over) have fallen into two types:<br />
"edited highlights" (the plot escaped the writers, and the episode came over as a series of extracts - more like a trailer than a coherent story. Examples: <i>Before the Flood, The Woman Who Lived</i>) and Laboured centre pieces (instead of a plot. Examples: <i>The Witch's Familiar, Face the Raven</i>).<br />
<br />
My capsule reviews of the 2015 season:<br />
<br />
<i>The Magician's Apprentice</i> Witty but chaotic. Superficially entertaining but highly forgettable.<br />
<br />
<i>The Witch's Familiar</i> A let-down. Glib, with implausible story ideas coming out of nowhere. No progression, no sense of drama, just "What silly idea will he come up with next?". In this case, it was Clara in a Dalek.<br />
<br />
<i>Under the Lake</i> A spaceship within a spaceship; crew dying and being replaced by ghosts. Tedious.<br />
<br />
<i>Before the Flood</i> More of the "edited highlights" syndrome.<br />
<br />
<i>The Girl Who Died</i> Brought back to life "because I can...although I'm not supposed to". A retread of an idea that didn't work the first time (Russell T Davies' <i>The Waters of Mars</i>).<br />
<br />
<i>The Woman Who Lived</i>. Maisie Williams couldn't bring it to life. Her immortal character should have been fascinating and empathetic but, for me at least, simply wasn't.<br />
<br />
<i>The Zygon Invasion</i> Again, little story progression, just a plunge into something already in progress and a lot of rather clumsy parallels drawn between aliens and immigrants. The wisecracking character of the Doctor was annoying despite Peter Capaldi's still-excellent performance.<br />
<br />
<i>The Zygon Inversion</i> Too much emphasis on what Hitchcock called a McGuffin (the Osgood Box) which in no way justified the time spent on it. Sadly, the script again did Peter Capaldi's Doctor no favours, and it's hard to believe that the "big centrepiece" where he imitates an American game show host was the actor's idea.<br />
<br />
<i>Sleep No More</i> Very much an "edited highlights" type episode. Where was the plot? Neither Capaldi nor (also excellent) Reece Shearsmith was able to revive this one.<br />
<br />
<i>Face the Raven</i> A whole episode centred on Clara "dying", trailed ad nauseam in advance and maddeningly laboured, complete with "sad" music to hammer it home to us how tragic it all was. The idea was supported by a threadbare "story" full of holes - obviously there were numerous different ways to save Clara. The only way that killing off the character would have worked would be to have her die suddenly and unexpectedly and perhaps be lost in time simultaneously, so that there was no prospect of a return. Awful.<br />
<br />
<i>Heaven Sent</i> An ordeal of an episode, a long way from my idea of entertainment. Yes, Capaldi was great but it must have been almost as much of an effort for him to struggle with such a bleak and empty script as it was for the Doctor to "break through".<br />
<br />
<i>Hell Bent</i> An improvement on the thoroughly depressing <i>Heaven Sent</i> because it wasn't so extreme, but was still more annoying than entertaining for trying to outsmart the audience right through. Once again, Steven Moffat undermined his own history by reviving a character who supposedly could not be saved.<br />
<br />
The showrunner certainly seems to go for arbitrary titles - shouldn't the last two episode titles have been swapped?)<br />
<br />
So, a lot of moaning from me. In an effort to be constructive, I think the show still has potential to improve a lot. What I would like to see is<br />
<br />
<ol><li>A return to 25 minute episodes with 4 or 5 episodes per story. It was demonstrated very well back in the 1980s that the programme didn't really work in 50 minute chunks, so why not return to the tried and trusted structure? Plenty of successful and long-running programmes have episodes of 30 minutes - 25 when you subtract the ads on commercial channels.</li>
<li>10-15 minutes of coherent exposition in each episode, and a cliffhanger at the end of each</li>
<li>Consistency with the pseudo-science outlined in the programme. For example, the Tardis should not fly! William Hartnell said in the pilot episode "This doesn't roll along on wheels, you know" and it makes no sense for it to fly. The "science" in the programme tells us that the atoms of the ship are disassembled and then reassembled in the new time and location, so the flying makes about as much sense as telling us that an Airbus 380 can be speeded up by dematerialisation. Similarly, the inside is in a different dimension from the outside, so "turbulence" should have absolutely no effect on the interior.</li>
<li>A less self-obsessed (and, by extension, less self-important) Doctor and companions. The show at its best was about overcoming monsters and evil genuises, not endless introspection. Jon Pertwee's version was one of the more arrogant Doctors but this never (in my opinion) made him unlikeable. Only when the production team chose to deliberately emphasise this aspect (in the Colin Baker era) did audiences start switching off in disgust.</li>
<li>A new composer or two. The old series had a little variety and that is seriously needed here. No-one would have called Dudley Simpson's scores subtle at the time, but that's how they seem put alongside Murray Gold's plodding, obvious (and apparently non-stop) compositions.</li>
<li>No deus ex machinae! The story resolution should come out of something we've already been shown, not thin air.</li>
</ol><br />
I know things are unlikely to change radically while Steven Moffat is at the reins, but maybe when he moves on (in 2017?) we might get some of this.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-73099398542103352202014-03-24T19:26:00.000+00:002014-03-24T19:28:42.828+00:00Books<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4680779-the-confessions-of-a-society-photographer" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="The Confessions Of A Society Photographer" border="0" src="https://djgho45yw78yg.cloudfront.net/assets/nocover/111x148.png" /></a><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4680779-the-confessions-of-a-society-photographer">The Confessions Of A Society Photographer</a> by <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1948795.Allan_Warren">Allan Warren</a><br/>
My rating: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/890662333">2 of 5 stars</a><br /><br />
An "self portrait" so sketchy that it barely qualifies for the title. Maybe it's better described as a memoir than an autobiography. What we get is interesting but superficial, lacking in detail and background. We hear something of what (and, occasionally, who) Mr Warren did, but he is so reticent that the book comes over as little more than a "tease". It's not so much the lack of "gossip" as the fact that there isn't much in its place.<br><br>I first read this on borrowing it from the library in the 1970s, when it was originally published. Re-reading it this year when I got hold of a secondhand copy, my overwhelming impression was lack of substance - particularly after reading some in-depth biographies of more illustrious people in the media. The illustrations are nice, but I wanted more detail and a bit more depth - more of what Allan Warren himself is about.
<br/>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18104734-the-lie" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="The Lie" border="0" src="https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1373404684m/18104734.jpg" /></a><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18104734-the-lie">The Lie</a> by <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/41542.Helen_Dunmore">Helen Dunmore</a><br/>
My rating: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/890648663">3 of 5 stars</a><br /><br />
An intriguing novel with a poetic quality. Its extensive use of flashbacks and sometimes harrowing detail of life in the trenches (and its aftermath) means it's not an easy read, or a particularly pleasant one. However, it is convincing throughout and sometimes genuinely moving. Recommended for readers who like to be challenged and provoked, rather than people looking for a "light read".
<br/><br/>
<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/20242992-john-saltwell">View all my reviews on GoodReads</a>
Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-6391243240480312472014-02-02T18:41:00.001+00:002014-02-02T18:41:37.129+00:00PODcastsIt's amazing how many producers of these seem to forget the name. As <i>podcasts</i> are (by definition) for mobile devices and therefore meant to be listened to on the move, the likelihood is that there will be background noise from traffic, etc. For safety reasons, the volume shouldn't be turned up so loud that this is drowned out. If the listener is on a bus or train, things are often no quieter.
<p>For these reasons, it's essential that the volume of a podcast should be "normalised" (i.e. the peaks should be at the maximum allowed undistorted level) and its dynamic range should be severely curtailed - that is, there should be very little difference between the quiet and the loud bits.
<p>I probably have hearing that is just below average in efficiency and I've lost count of the number of times the podcast was so quiet that I couldn't hear most of it (even when turned up to full volume on my phone), or had a section with various speakers muttering inaudibly in the background, clearly not using a headset microphone. Even <i>Big Finish</i>, who you'd expect to know better, has been guilty of this. Podcast producers, please remember your audiences: if we can't hear it all, you might as well not bother.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-19961114093087911892014-02-02T18:31:00.000+00:002014-02-02T18:31:34.943+00:00PC's NameIncidentally, it's CapALdi, as in "Paypal", not "Capauldi" as in "Paul McCartney", as you often hear. In the 70s, Peter got irritated at people mispronouncing it; he's probably used to it by now!Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-78217858101251727192013-10-13T19:30:00.000+01:002013-10-13T19:30:43.573+01:00JP at Theatre Royal, 1975<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqnQjZ_0oXR5D70Df97Az6GfYZzQwa0LTq-AJahFnonMn118ZVb23Wa6LU05Eyhn-6DePSJjOnZZAoawx7y_V3WYT1tUBYbMuItVNnnb06Ji7EGRpMbL6ZXAYKaLP4h2Ex8dyBjqHWuVLX/s1600/IMG_0271.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqnQjZ_0oXR5D70Df97Az6GfYZzQwa0LTq-AJahFnonMn118ZVb23Wa6LU05Eyhn-6DePSJjOnZZAoawx7y_V3WYT1tUBYbMuItVNnnb06Ji7EGRpMbL6ZXAYKaLP4h2Ex8dyBjqHWuVLX/s320/IMG_0271.JPG" /></a></div>Another photo to accompany my bit from yesterday. Unfortunately I don't have <i>any</i> photos of these occasions where it doesn't look as if I'm about to vomit. Maybe it's not a bad thing, then, that the image quality is so poor...Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-22323933468297282922013-10-12T15:23:00.000+01:002013-10-13T18:38:48.931+01:00New Who<p>The name at the top of the bookmakers' lists this summer for the next <i>Doctor Who</i> was Peter Capaldi. I was interested to see the list but pooh-poohed this, as it seemed the production team were set on casting only young actors - I think it was even said at one point that only someone in their 20s could keep up with the pace of production. I was delighted to hear back in August that the rumours were, in fact, true. The choice pleased me for two reasons - firstly, as a long-term fan of the programme (except for the awful period in the 1980s when the production went badly astray) I wanted to see a Doctor with the authority that only an older man could have; secondly, I knew Peter back in the 1970s as a fellow fan - we're the same age and I've followed his career since the 1980s.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLnZvLJW-NFV_e2yQYGLl8EOg6mgYg1-DpORg8anSWkC5Y6FZ_aDSWa2EtJ4seGHqFraNNDKu9N7Z5x_1w0bu4_EsbCYwd149ipbP_a2Q_bsW_iCgwx9_-xq1IB2TLfB7RRBy9yhNouJZZ/s1600/Pertwee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLnZvLJW-NFV_e2yQYGLl8EOg6mgYg1-DpORg8anSWkC5Y6FZ_aDSWa2EtJ4seGHqFraNNDKu9N7Z5x_1w0bu4_EsbCYwd149ipbP_a2Q_bsW_iCgwx9_-xq1IB2TLfB7RRBy9yhNouJZZ/s320/Pertwee.jpg" /></a></div><p>I had met Jon Pertwee a couple of times, during the making of <i>Death to the Daleks</i> and <i>Planet of the spiders</i>, and got to know Peter through the <i>Jon Pertwee fan club</i> (started by an old school friend, Stuart Money) which we all helped to run. The history of the official <i>Doctor Who fan club</i> is well documented - Stuart and Peter both applied to run this as they felt they would make a better job of it than the original organiser, a gaffe that still seems to rankle with him. I have fond memories of visiting the good old BBC TV Centre in White City (recently sold off) with SM and PC. My diaries remind me that the first two visits were in December 1973 and 17 April 1974. As fans know, that was JP's last adventure as the Doctor - he left <i>Doctor Who</i> in 1974 but I kept in touch with him for a while via Stuart.
<p>I had exchanged letters and JPFC newsletter articles with Peter from 1974 (sharing our enthusiasm for Hammer Films and SF television) but first met him in 1975. By then, JP was touring in Monty Norman’s stage musical <i>So who needs marriage?</i> In June 1975 the tour reached the Theatre Royal in Newcastle. Stuart, Peter and I went to visit him at a farm at Lamesley Park where some of the actors (including JP) had their caravans parked. Fellow players included Eric Flynn and June Ritchie. In a style of the time, June Ritchie's hair was in a curly perm. Peter (perhaps lacking in tact) told June she looked like Tom Baker, which amused Stuart and me but, for some reason, not June. I had a few photos of this occasion but these have mysteriously (and frustratingly) disappeared.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0jVCzARZ9P4B4dODyMVY85o-YxSx17c1-OHp2gdb15jO2yLRNxQJEpZAyGLaTi-AwBB7i5IfqR4Er7lPGKaW-HWc1AVZitB4JCwvHQeEg3d_3LplUgTvPvHI4OalfxbjuLSkBCyWKNAbL/s1600/PC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0jVCzARZ9P4B4dODyMVY85o-YxSx17c1-OHp2gdb15jO2yLRNxQJEpZAyGLaTi-AwBB7i5IfqR4Er7lPGKaW-HWc1AVZitB4JCwvHQeEg3d_3LplUgTvPvHI4OalfxbjuLSkBCyWKNAbL/s320/PC.jpg" /></a></div><p>On 25 August 1975 we went to London with Peter to visit the TV centre again - this time, during the filming of <i>The android invasion</i>, with Lis Sladen and Tom Baker. I think Peter was only considering becoming an actor at the time, but I remember that his sense of humour and skill as a clown were in evidence. He had a routine where he would mime taking out his eyes, closing them, and then swapping around the eyeballs and opening them again to show that he was "cross eyed"; this had my fourteen year old sister in stitches. My only remaining photo of Peter is here - showing him by Westminster Bridge.
<p>The studio visit was an event for all of us, but not quite like previous ones. While Jon Pertwee always struck me as extremely sociable and would chat away to anyone (as would Lis S), we must have caught Tom Baker on a bad day. He greeted us with "Oh hello, so pleased to meet you." and then turned away to talk to someone else. He did have time to pose briefly for photos but, seemingly a minute or two later, he said "Goodbye. Do come again" and thus we were dismissed. TB still went on to become one of my favourite Doctors.
<p>Newcastle and Glasgow are 114 miles apart and, sadly, Stuart and I failed to keep in touch with Peter. I remember his talent and humour, even as a teenager, and wish him success now in his highest profile job!
<h3>More of my personal <i>Doctor Who</i> photos on Flickr <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/saltwell/sets/72157617954016130/">here</a></h3>
Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-69957283942550343602013-07-28T18:37:00.000+01:002013-07-28T18:40:31.208+01:00Battery recycling - could anyone give a ****?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgok2AZfDGcFMZa6LG50tPk20KEG6nrQSwrjnyplLdueo42rPiae33KOMcBMx63z4RHR47FN9nQq5bY0u0jwFsTHtnBnqVzYhWtp2WCfSE1JgKCJEfjLtHTH8sjpXWYjzia9djYDATbbufe/s1600/20130728_182911.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgok2AZfDGcFMZa6LG50tPk20KEG6nrQSwrjnyplLdueo42rPiae33KOMcBMx63z4RHR47FN9nQq5bY0u0jwFsTHtnBnqVzYhWtp2WCfSE1JgKCJEfjLtHTH8sjpXWYjzia9djYDATbbufe/s320/20130728_182911.jpg" /></a> Here in the UK at least, we're always being told not to put used batteries into the bin, because then they will be sent to landfill and pollute the environment. Because of this, I've been collecting mine. I used to take them to our local Asda supermarket - just down the road - where the recycling bin was conveniently in the entrance, until it disappeared about a year ago. I've asked about it there a couple of times: the first time I was told it had gone off to be emptied and not come back; the second time I was told it might have been stolen. This week I tried Tesco, where no bin was visible and the Customer Service desk could not tell me whether there was one, asking me to ring back in a few days' time. I also tried Home Bargains, Superdrug, Argos and Poundland. None of them had any visible recycling bin. Poundland even had a sign saying "Recycle your batteries here" - but no bin and no-one to ask about it. Finally I went into Boots. Again, no bin, but a member of staff was happy to take my batteries from me.
<p>Does anyone from these organisations realise that any retailer who sells more than a handful of batteries in a week has a <a href="http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/enforcement/battery-recycling.asp">statutory requirement</a> to recycle them? I'm certain that most people will not traipse around various shops as I did, trying to find their battery recycling facilities. They will just throw them in the bin - which is a minor scandal and, to say the least, frustrating. If retailers want us to think they have the <i>slightest</i> interest in green issues, then they need to promote recycling actively, <i>and</i> make sure staff maintain their facilities to recycle.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-49910414290675317132012-08-18T08:25:00.000+01:002012-08-18T18:02:16.676+01:00Benighted<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfkZFv7IJNvdDuIsNu3t7DqkW2hPO1Wxn5Kp6UY8AUql9rff7MsY7Z8GYoBcP6Z5JwGR5Si4sLAEN-NGSZ9Wgcu0dYO5vtuEGSAOjcM9m8rcdOS6lDd2BunJrjo5XOLGMqkqf_gjaEctgU/s1600/Temp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfkZFv7IJNvdDuIsNu3t7DqkW2hPO1Wxn5Kp6UY8AUql9rff7MsY7Z8GYoBcP6Z5JwGR5Si4sLAEN-NGSZ9Wgcu0dYO5vtuEGSAOjcM9m8rcdOS6lDd2BunJrjo5XOLGMqkqf_gjaEctgU/s320/Temp.jpg" /></a></div>
After listening to one of the fascinating <a href="http://1951downplace.com/?p=92">1951 Down Place</a> podcasts about <a href="http://www.hammerfilms.com">Hammer Films</a>, I managed to borrow J B Priestley's book from the library. This is the original source for the excellent 1932 James Whale film <i>The old dark house</i> and the frankly awful reimagining from Hammer, released in 1963. The podcast confirmed that it wasn't worth my rewatching the Hammer version and that, basically, it was much more of a William Castle film than a Hammer Film.
<p>The book itself (called <i>Benighted</I>) is a pleasantly old fashioned story (first published in 1927) that defines the mood and the plot of the earlier film very well. There are no ghosts or supernatural monsters here, or any implication that the book is that kind of story. The plot is fairly simple: a group of travellers is forced to seek refuge from a severe storm and flooding in an isolated country house, which turns out to be owned and populated by an eccentric family, some of whose members have "mental health problems". The characters muse about life and love and there are some interesting insights into the mores of the UK in the 1920s.
The James Whale film has a nice, quirky humour (as you might expect from Whale) and excellent performances by (amongst others) Charles Laughton, Ernest Thesiger and Boris Karloff. My memory of the Hammer film is that it doesn't touch the original in atmosphere, that Castle takes many more liberties than Whale did with the novel, and that Castle's attempts at humour and thrills both fall flat. As often, the original film is by far the best. Definitely an exception to the rule that Hammer remakes are as good as, if not better than, the Universal versions of the 1930s and 40s.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-72820353413706213022012-07-17T20:50:00.001+01:002012-07-17T20:59:07.031+01:00Sex and violenceI'm a huge fan of the HBO TV series <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_(TV_series)">Rome</a>, for its superb look, brilliant performances and compelling plots. I was thoroughly immersed in both series and was sadly disappointed when sheer expense brought an end to it after 22 episodes. Purely because of this and a few favourable reviews, I bought the Blu-ray of the initial series <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus:_Blood_and_Sand">Spartacus: blood and sand</a></i>. I don't subscribe to any cable or satellite channels, so hadn't seen it until I got the discs.
<p><i>Rome</i> it ain't. Yes, the plot becomes compelling after a while, but the scripts and performances are just not in the same league. Then there's the violence. <i>Rome</i> has some extremely violent scenes, but these almost always seem to grow out of the plot, and rarely seem gratuitous. The violence in <i>Spartacus: BAS</i> seems to be there almost for its own sake, and I'm disturbed that some people seem to like it for that reason alone.
<p>I used to be accused of being weird or sick for being a fan of horror films. To clarify, it's the ghost stories like <i>The haunting</i>, old Hammer horror films and their predecessors that I like - adult fairy tales that try to create an atmosphere, that often rely on scaring audiences rather than revolting them, and that (despite the criticism they got on initial release) are nowhere near as violent or gory as modern horrors. I've stopped watching horror films in general, certainly if they are anything like <i>The descent</i> - one that got rave reviews but, to me, showed just how it <i>shouldn't</i> be done: particularly disappointing since the same director's <i>Dog soldiers</i> wasn't bad.
<p>I digress. I do feel there's a place for violence in all genres and yes, the violence in <i>Spartacus</i> is sometimes so over-the-top that it loses its impact. Maybe we're meant to laugh at it but I can't, just as I saw nothing funny - or remotely watchable - in the OTT <i>The evil dead</i>. (Sam Raimi went on to make some much better films like <i>The gift</i>, but I'm digressing again.) I just don't like to watch violence for its own sake. At the risk of sounding like Mary Whitehouse, I can't help wondering if extreme violence in the media is really so harmless, as it clearly has the potential to desensitise audiences to that kind of material and might be difficult to handle for those with a tenuous grip on reality. It's ironic that the sex in <i>Spartacus</i> is always less explicit than the violence. I would like to see this turned the other way round! I'm certainly not in favour of censorship - just a little more taste and restraint.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-23303310106046007372012-02-22T18:48:00.007+00:002012-02-22T19:46:43.854+00:00Underappreciated masterpieceI recently watched Brian DePalma's <i>Carrie</i> again and dug out an old review I wrote of it way back in the 80s. I thought that I might have been looking back with rose-tinted specs but, to my pleasant surprise, I was as impressed with the film as I ever was. It's certainly "of its time", as the fashions and attitudes take us firmly back to 1976 - but that doesn't seem to hurt it at all and, in my opinion, it holds up vastly better than most other films of the same vintage, and better than any of DePalma's other films. <br />
<br />
I've left the following (naive as it is) largely unchanged from when I first wrote it in 1987. In passing I dared to criticise the sacred Stanley Kubrick, and my opinion of his Stephen King adaptation is unchanged. Warning: it <i>does</i> contain spoilers.<br />
<br />
<hr><br />
<p><b>They’re all gonna laugh at you</b><br />
<p>Brian DePalma’s Carrie examined by John H<br />
<p>An ugly duckling schoolgirl assailed by the jeers of her schoolmates and the cruel repression of her religious maniac mother emerges at her senior prom as a beautiful young woman. At the moment of her greatest joy, she is publicly humiliated and unleashes her telekinetic powers with devastating results for all.<br />
<p>Such a storyline might seem to be filled with horror genre clichés: however, Stephen King’s first published book soon proved to be a bestseller, and as the first of his works to be filmed, it also lays claim to being the most successful.<br />
<p>The origin of the film was around 1975, when director Brian DePalma, having read and liked the book, rang his agent to find out who owned the film rights. On being told that it had not yet been sold, he registered his interest, but nothing happened until six months or so later, when he sold his film <i>Phantom of the Paradise</i> to 20th Century Fox. He then found out that <i>Carrie</i> had been bought up for producer Paul Monash, who had a multi-film deal with Fox. Monash and DePalma met and DePalma talked about his ideas for the film. However, it transpired that Monash was initially not keen on having DePalma to direct, and had to be persuaded by the studio that he would be right for the film. <br />
<p>The casting of Sissy Spacek in the lead seems to have been largely due to luck. At the beginning, DePalma had a different actress in mind for the role of Carrie. Spacek auditioned for the role of Chris Hargensen (the “bitch” of the film) and had expected that this was the part she would get. However, she was asked to read for Carrie, and so she “got all frumpy” and went into the audition with Vaseline in her hair. DePalma reportedly never saw her as a “sex-pot”, and because of the Vaseline, came to see her more and more as Carrie: her eventual reading of Carrie’s part made everyone else look silly and so there was effectively no contest.<br />
<p>The music for Brian DePalma’s previous film, <i>Obsession</i>, had been written by Bernard Herrmann –acclaimed for his Alfred Hitchcock scores. However, Herrmann had recently died and in Pino Donaggio – who had already scored Nicholas Roeg’s <i>Don’t Look Now</i> – DePalma found someone who would follow in his footsteps. In his characteristic use of strings and percussion, Donaggio strongly resembled Herrmann. In <i>Carrie</i>, his score went even deeper than most of Herrmann’s, greatly enhancing the tension, pathos and even the humour of the film.<br />
<p>Monash and DePalma wisely chose not to jettison any of the book’s main elements. The only major changes were to the character of Margaret White – as detailed later – and the scale of Carrie’s final destructiveness: in the book she razes the whole town, in the film merely the school. This shows a sense of proportion even in such an extravagant film, and helps retain our vital sympathy for Carrie herself. One wishes that Stanley Kubrick had stopped to look at the strengths of Carrie as he planned his version of <i>The Shining</i>, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.<br />
<p>The casting of <i>Carrie</i> is frequently inspired, and never less than apt. Particularly outstanding are Sissy Spacek, who as Carrie is in turn pathetic, beautiful <i>and ugly</i> in a way you that few other actresses could be; John Travolta, unknown at the time of his casting, and whose coarsely physical Billy Nolan could have stepped straight out of the pages of the book; and – of course – Piper Laurie. The film can be said to be “over the top” and, indeed, this is the point – the characters have the same larger-than-life quality as King’s writing. DePalma shares King’s ability to leave the viewer gaping in amazement without quite tipping over into the comical. This feeling has free rein in Piper Laurie’s histrionic portrayal of Carrie’s mother, a role she personally claimed to have played as over the top as possible, mistakenly expecting DePalma to check her “overacting”. In the context of a King story, this works beautifully.<br />
<p>Two examples of the way the film “out-Kings” King himself are the transformation of the Margaret White of the book from a fat, middle-aged, ugly harridan into a young and physically attractive zealot, removing the cliché from the character; and Mrs White’s “crucifixion” when she utters 23 martyred death groans, that stop just before they become ludicrous. This scene contrasts with her relatively unspectacular death by heart failure in the book, and one feels that this is the way Stephen King would have written it if the book had undergone further revisions.<br />
<p>From its beginning and carries taunting by her schoolmates, through the preparations for the eagerly awaited senior prom, the film hardly puts a foot wrong. The opening scenes at the prom itself are sheer magic, the glamour of the occasion as seen from Carrie’s viewpoint beautifully captured. DePalma’s direction and Spacek’s performance are brilliantly underpinned by Donaggio’s music: Carrie’s own theme, used in variations throughout the film, forms the basis of a song I never thought that someone like you could love someone like me which is genuinely moving rather than merely sentimental. An inspired touch of the director has the camera orbit around Carrie and Tommy as they are dancing, so that the audience is literally “in a whirl” with her.<br />
<p>The following prize-giving scene, which leads up to the main climax of the film – Carrie’s drenching with a bucket of pig’s blood – is perhaps too long. The maximum tension is milked from the scene using slow motion, but it seems that audience attention wanders at this point. Several viewers have voiced confusion here, believing that Sue Snell was involved with the plot against Carrie, although repeat viewings of this section clearly show her trying to warn Miss Collins of the disaster to come. The use of split screen in the following scenes of destruction also tends to distract from what is going on. DePalma himself was reportedly unsure whether he made all the right choices in this section, although he felt it essential to use split screen because the only alternative would be repetitive cutting away from Carrie to the destruction.<br />
<p>After destroying the school, Carrie walks home in a semi-trance. On the way she encounters Chris Hargensen and Billy Nolan, the culprits in her humiliation – who now try to run her down. As their car races towards her, we see a subliminal flash of close-up of her eye. In a stunning piece of effects work, the car flips upside down just feet away from her, and bursts into flame. Carrie returns home to find the house decorated with hundreds of candles – turned into a huge altar by her mother, who has decided she must kill her. In another variation on his recurring theme, Donaggio’s music creates an ecclesiastical, almost funereal atmosphere. From here, Carrie’s final tragedy is inevitable.<br />
<p>The film’s shock ending – Sue Snell dreams of putting flowers on Carrie’s grave, and Carrie’s bloodstained hand shoots out of the earth with monstrous suddenness to grab her wrist – is very well judged, and even after films such as <i>The Exorcist</i>, has the power to make cinema audiences scream. However, seen logically, it undermines the impact of the whole film prior to this. Carrie is not a monster – the film has been at great pains to show us that she is a warm human being who just wants to live a normal life like any other young girl. The death and destruction happen because she is driven to breaking point: like the book, the film is a true tragedy. Similarly, the publishers of the book, New English Library, seemed at one point to have no idea of what it was really about. Some paperback editions bore the slogan “trust her and she will lead you into a nightmare”: the suggestion that Carrie was <i>untrustworthy</i> missed the point entirely.<br />
<p>The real horror of the film, and its lasting resonance, is in the fact that Carrie’s horrible mother was right when she said “they’re all gonna laugh at you”. After all she has had to endure, including death itself, there is no reassurance for Carrie. The implication is that churchmen preaching Fire and Brimstone may be right after all, another facet of the pessimism which seems to run through most of King’s work.<br />
<p>Many of DePalma’s genre films since have shown an equally impressive cinematic style, works such as <i>Dressed to Kill, Blowout</i> and <i>Body Double</i> being almost as cinematic and captivating as <i>Carrie</i>. Only in the <i>The Fury</i> did his direction seemed incoherent and pointlessly bloodthirsty – yet this was probably due to an over hectic plot and a script which did not quite hang together. He later made more non genre films, but evidence suggests that horror, fantasy and suspense are his real areas of talent, and we can only hope he returns to them.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-70364364445490340572011-08-06T17:02:00.000+01:002011-08-06T17:02:58.352+01:00Boléro<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8B590AbKGGzmJOms7a91R9pd2VC6OXhX9HbeF3VC2PPl1-zE6AI_gVB8u6NmASKc0TIFa4guuKv4cl9HiBl8VSODcbiKjuPMBMq6ItJKBkZLDVDsmrs8fXovRS0AOBgy-RKt5tgLqFnMs/s1600/Prom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8B590AbKGGzmJOms7a91R9pd2VC6OXhX9HbeF3VC2PPl1-zE6AI_gVB8u6NmASKc0TIFa4guuKv4cl9HiBl8VSODcbiKjuPMBMq6ItJKBkZLDVDsmrs8fXovRS0AOBgy-RKt5tgLqFnMs/s200/Prom.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Great to hear Ravel's <i>Boléro</i> (possibly the most famous classical music crescendo) <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/whats-on/2011/august-03/30">live at the Proms</a> the other night. This is one of those pieces that needs to be played correctly. I'd be the first to admit that it can be quite boring if not performed well. First of all, it has to be done reasonably quickly: most versions are under 15 minutes - Riccardo Muti's recording with the Philadelphia Orchestra runs for 17 minutes 9 seconds, which is much too slow. Ideally, it's around 14 minutes. Ravel himself said the tempo mustn't vary at all but, in my opinion, maintaining a steady tempo throughout means the piece just doesn't work. As someone once pointed out, if the conductor does this, the performance actually seem to get slower. For the maximum excitement, the tempo needs to be edged up a little towards the end. The orchestra needs to put energy into the piece and (although it must tax the brass players in particular) sustain all the notes throughout, not allowing them to die away. <br />
<br />
Although I haven't bought any CDs for a while, I've collected versions of <i>Boléro</i> since the pre-CD years and currently (at a rough count) have 20 different recordings, including a handful on cassette. Donald Runnicles gave a great performance conducting the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra - nice and fast at around 15 minutes, and edging the tempo appropriately. Unfortunately I can only rate it third amongst the recordings I've heard: I'd put <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bolero-Pictures-Sarabande-Riccardo-Chailly/dp/B0007WW2JI/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1312644618&sr=1-2">Riccardo Chailly's recording</a> with the Amsterdam Concertgebouw at the very top, mainly for the sheer energy and the way the sound seems to broaden out to a vast climax; and <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-music&field-keywords=bolero+martinon&x=0&y=0">Jean Martinon's with the Orchestre de Paris</a> second, for a wonderfully chaotic, slightly out-of-control rendition: this is one piece that <i>shouldn't</i> sound too controlled.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-18572611434897421842011-08-06T14:19:00.001+01:002011-08-06T14:21:00.751+01:00Science Museum needs to get its act togetherI mentioned some time ago paying a visit to London and <a href="http://saltwell.blogspot.com/2008/09/distribution-of-wealth.html">being amazed at the V & A Museum</a>. A flying visit on our recent trip confirms that it's not resting on its laurels and has an excellent new restaurant along with an air of efficiency and a feeling of abundance.<br />
<br />
In comparison, what a disappointment the <a href="http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/">Science Museum</a> is! Apart from the general lack of thematic cohesion (very few of its exhibits seem to have clearly marked beginnings or endings, any clear chronological sequence or a definite theme other than that they're about (say) aviation), several exhibits are woefully out of date. The "flight" display, for example, referred to Concorde as if it were still a commercial airliner when, in fact, it made its last flight in 2003. As if this weren't bad enough, we could find nothing in the display on computing later than the 1970s! For a major national museum to ignore a whole chunk of history in this way is a huge let-down. Even if there are problems with funding, surely someone could put together some text descriptions and create a display from donations on the vast changes in this area over the past thirty years?Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-4740797607089632502011-04-14T20:14:00.001+01:002011-04-14T20:15:57.470+01:00Bryant and MayNo, not a box of matches but (now) the names of a pair of elderly detectives in a series of excellent and eccentric murder mysteries by <a href="http://www.christopherfowler.co.uk/">Christopher Fowler</a>. While there's an undercurrent of gruesomeness in all the novels (Mr Fowler has also written horror stories), there's definitely a great affection for, and observation of, his characters. Perhaps the most enjoyable thing about the stories is the way they evoke the atmosphere of a mysterious and hidden London - uncovering things we didn't know about the capital and its often murky history: underground passages, buried rooms and convoluted crimes.<br />
<br />
I'm re-reading <i>The Victoria vanishes</i> at the moment and it's struck me again that these stories are so tailor-made for TV that it's amazing that they haven't already been done. The only potential issue I can see with a series is that elderly actors are apt to die, giving the makers recasting problems. Can I make one request to any TV producer that might happen to read this - please remember there are other elderly actors than David Jason! I can see that he might seem ideal casting to some as the cantankerous Arthur Bryant, but we see quite enough of him on TV already. A better candidate (depending on budget) might be Albert Finney or Bernard Cribbins, and perhaps Tom Courtenay or John Challis as Bryant's colleague, John May.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-68645457988434526292011-04-03T11:10:00.000+01:002011-04-03T11:10:42.184+01:00Desert Island DiscsJust heard <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/desert-island-discs">this</a> on the radio. Looks like a great site to visit for anyone interested in both people and music. Maybe this is more of a Twitter-type post - will see if I can squeeze it on there as well...Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-33238308050309098002011-04-03T09:06:00.002+01:002011-04-03T18:54:14.723+01:00Found the money down the back of the sofaThis week we had the sad event of around thirty people from our (local government) service leaving simultaneously on voluntary redundancy, with more to go by June. It seemed odd without some of them, but their loss will only be felt properly in the long term. We're told that similar cuts will have to be made next year and the year after - which will undoubtedly mean compulsory (rather than voluntary) redundancies.<br />
<br />
Those of us who work in local government know that the impact on services of the cuts is already being felt. We're told that, with good management, the impact of these on frontline services should be minimal; we're <i>not</i> told how we can provide services of a similar standard with (in the long term) a possible 30% reduction in our budgets.<br />
<br />
Anyone with half an eye or half a brain can see that Britain's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are controversial. Are either of those countries really better off now than they were before our armed forces went in? Are we succeeding in our long-term aim to foster democracy in those countries and - more to the point -<i> is it our job</i> to do that? As if completely blind to the lessons of the past, it now seems that our "prudent", financially careful government has decided that a "quick" and "limited" intervention in Libya could get rid of the Big Bad Gaddafi and allow democracy to take over there. Although it's vital to pay off our deficit, we could miraculously afford a new military venture that, we're told, is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/cost-libya-hundreds-millions-so-far-says-nato">costing "hundreds of millions of dollars"</a>. That was a couple of weeks ago but (surprise surprise) it hasn't worked! As I write, Gaddafi is still in power and the situation is looking murky...<br />
<br />
Good intentions are all very well, but isn't it time to recognise that the days of the British Empire are long past? If Britain is really broke to the extent that it can't afford to maintain public services, how can it possibly afford to get involved in yet another open-ended foreign war with no plans for the aftermath?Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-46346935240379045252011-02-21T20:52:00.001+00:002011-02-21T21:01:33.890+00:00Clock change: flogging a dead horse<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiC8-2MKIIdT8eqeRiIAMt1nlNPonmqyAg8gVcdk30WGS4-Qx2CvQe0wORtBvLD7BPBXKlUd1quwLeDfOBeBAn_8NO7y52Eob6gvzmAzGACByiM3qMgMZgHpSbu_3VlVuCbOoI1wpYhdTB/s1600/IMG_1547.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiC8-2MKIIdT8eqeRiIAMt1nlNPonmqyAg8gVcdk30WGS4-Qx2CvQe0wORtBvLD7BPBXKlUd1quwLeDfOBeBAn_8NO7y52Eob6gvzmAzGACByiM3qMgMZgHpSbu_3VlVuCbOoI1wpYhdTB/s200/IMG_1547.jpg" width="200" /></a>It seems only a few weeks ago that a slightly different flavour of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12517762">this idea</a> was mooted on "safety grounds", forgetting that the United Kingdom consists of more than London and the south east. Now it's dragged up again on the grounds that it would favour tourism. Do people avoid going to Greece and Turkey because their clocks are an hour different from France and Spain? Of course not. I seem to recall that the original idea was to stay on summer time throughout the year. As with the move to European time, this would make it darker in the morning and lighter in the evening. In London, sunrise in the dark days around Christmas would be postponed until 9.06am. In northern England, it wouldn't be until 9.30am and, in Aberdeen, not until 9.48! Understandably, people in the north don't want even darker mornings and wish the nation could be a <i>little</i> less London-centric...Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-36349835839398219562011-01-23T21:02:00.000+00:002011-01-23T21:02:30.870+00:00Hattie still an enigmaStephen Russell's TV play about the love life of Carry On and Sykes star <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattie_Jacques">Hattie Jacques</a> was beautifully acted but, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlin_Moran">Caitlin Moran</a> cogently pointed out in her column in yesterday's <i>Times</i>, the relationships didn't really make sense. <br />
<br />
The same issue was there in the source material, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hattie-Authorised-Biography-Jacques/dp/1845133625/ref=pd_ecc_rvi_cart_1">Andy Merriman's biography</a>, also called <i>Hattie</i>. We hear all about what happened, and that Hattie was a warm and loving woman, but this only makes the way she treated John Le Mesurier (and, by extension, her own children) all the more baffling. Maybe in future years someone else will come along and write another biography of Ms Jacques that throws more light on what, after 45 years, is still a mystery.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-30808625902342913182010-12-28T09:24:00.000+00:002010-12-28T09:24:35.061+00:00A Christmas CarolAt last - a really <i>good</i> Doctor Who Christmas special! While <a href="http://saltwell.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-can-do-better.html">a former Doctor Who writer</a> would have just thrown them all in at random, Steven Moffat here has the clichés of snow, Christmas presents and Victoriana all present, but now with a <i>plot</i> to support them - a clever reworking of Dickens. Some striking and original images include fish flying through the sky and a "Santa's sleigh" pulled by a shark! Matt Smith is as good as ever, and Karen Gillan and Arthur Darvill are fine in their short appearances. Michael Gambon here is so much better than in the Harry Potter films and the non-actress Katherine Jenkins is skilfully used in a story that handles its tragic elements with an impressive lightness of touch. Ten out of ten from me!Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-30461401782209834462010-12-05T12:20:00.001+00:002010-12-05T20:11:36.729+00:00"There is no downside to a proper winter"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2rZ7Gerw-S3ERekBPGrdAhr7ee3sOsCHXpC1hJcEgKx9kSO0P7_xe7wNaa2hJU6svCUx8lxeXqv-YHauT6WEkbj73VCRC0_8rPk3Er3P-d9jQPwEJD_K_4XswoB73VIEqqRkoAv9iybsY/s1600/snow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2rZ7Gerw-S3ERekBPGrdAhr7ee3sOsCHXpC1hJcEgKx9kSO0P7_xe7wNaa2hJU6svCUx8lxeXqv-YHauT6WEkbj73VCRC0_8rPk3Er3P-d9jQPwEJD_K_4XswoB73VIEqqRkoAv9iybsY/s200/snow.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>At the risk of increasing my reputation as a Scrooge, I have to say that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/26/weather-snow-christmas">this article in the Guardian</a> made my blood boil with the unbelievable phrase "there is no downside to a proper winter". <br />
<br />
This journalist says that weeks of snow and ice in the UK, even as early as this, are a good thing, basically because it looks pretty and children have fun! Evidently she's forgotten the frustration of people who have to try to get around in these conditions, the number of people who will end up with broken limbs after falling on the ice, the people who will lose their lives in road accidents as a direct result of awful driving conditions, or the many who will suffer because they can't afford to heat their homes properly - particularly the elderly. Even worse, her article contains the phrase "and yes...I work from home now"! Words fail me.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-72707196732122233742010-11-14T11:47:00.001+00:002011-01-23T20:33:20.564+00:00Blast from the pastA great blog that I've been reading recently is <a href="http://athrilleraday.blogspot.com/">A Thriller a day</a> covering not the 1970s UK TV series (which I also enjoyed) but the early 1960s US series hosted by Boris Karloff. There was a vast amount of "word of mouth" about this, including comments by Stephen King in his non-fiction book <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Danse-Macabre-Stephen-King/dp/0340899093/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1289734837&sr=1-1">Danse macabre</a> but, for many years, it wasn't available on legitimate DVD, only bootlegs. As soon as I saw the announcement that the whole series was being released, with extras, I knew I had to have it. In case I give the wrong impression, let's admit that this is an old series with highly variable standards and some boring episodes. However, the good ones make it worthwhile. So far I've probably watched about a fifth of those with good reputations, and have really enjoyed them. While I didn't quite "get" the supposedly classic <i>The cheaters</i> - yes, it's a clever idea, well worked out, but it's neither chilling nor emotionally involving, as it has no sympathetic characters - I've been impressed by others like <i>The hungry glass</i> (featuring the wonderfully histrionic William Shatner) and <i>Pigeons from hell</i> (creepy in a way you just wouldn't see on today's TV). I'm delighted to read that Peter Enfantino and John Scoleri, authors of <i>A Thriller a day</i>, are planning to cover another of my favourites, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Outer_Limits_%281963_TV_series%29">The outer limits</a> next.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-22014579843958423092010-10-18T19:44:00.001+01:002010-10-18T19:46:32.072+01:00Misguided Sales GimmickI must be one of the last handful of people in the World to watch James Cameron's <i>Avatar</i>. Finally saw it the other night and found it, as expected, visually spectacular, but lacking storywise and characterwise. The aliens' "philosophy" in particular seemed half-baked. Although they were supposed to revere life, they seemed to go into the battle scenes with gusto and, in the latter part of the film, wipe out humans without a twinge of regret. None of the characters was given any <i>light and shade</i> either, with Stephen Lang's baddie being particularly clichéd and lacking in background and motivation. Sam Worthington looks good but already seems to me an appropriate successor to Russell Crowe - and I'm <i>not</i> a Russell Crowe fan.<br />
<br />
Anyway, the real point of this posting is that The People Who Know keep saying that the film is vastly better in 3D. On hearing the recent hype about the new 3D process, I've groaned on more than one occasion. I'm sure it's fine in the cinema, but it really is the <i>last</i> thing we need or want on UK TV.<br />
<br />
Why? Putting aside the fact that everyone has been persuaded to buy new flat panel TVs over the past couple of years and, to watch in 3D, would have to buy <i>another</i> new set, the main issue is bandwidth. There just isn't enough of it. The BBC <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/11/points_of_view_and_hd_picture.html">has been widely criticised</a> for <a href="http://www.avforums.com/forums/hd-tv-programmes/720572-bbc-hd-not-up-required-standard.html">dropping both the bitrate and the picture quality on its "flagship" channel</a>, BBC HD, and any person with average vision can see that the average standard definition programme on digital TV, whether received by aerial or satellite dish, suffers badly from compression and "pixellation". <br />
<br />
Commercial concerns mean more and more pressure to pack more channels into the same space, and the systems we have in the UK at the moment simply won't support 3D TV at anything like the required quality unless there is a major reorganisation, and more bandwidth is somehow discovered. With the economic "squeeze" only set to tighten further over the next few years, that seems highly unlikely.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-50235829215318176722010-08-30T17:09:00.000+01:002010-08-30T17:09:41.638+01:00Service across the AtlanticWhen we recently went to the USA it was interesting to compare the standards of customer service in bars, restaurants etc in Massachusetts (Boston and Provincetown) with the ones in the UK. A very sociable American staying at the same guest house as us thought that the fact that staff in the USA are low paid and rely on tips means they've developed a more definite "service culture", leading to better service. <br />
<br />
I'm not sure about this. Certainly the service we got in the USA was in general more attentive, but I'm not sure that it was much more polite or, overall, any better. Yes, it's nice to be asked "How are you today?" when you arrive, but we never quite believed the asker was interested in the answer. <br />
<br />
In one establishment we stood at the counter for about three minutes while the person behind it carried on making some sandwiches, looking up at us occasionally but not acknowledging our presence. Finally she came and said "Hello. How are you today?" as if we had just that second arrived! On another occasion, I was amused by the waitress who served us water from a jug pouring lots of it down the front of her own apron on every occasion and appearing not to even notice. She was very polite but, unfortunately, disappeared completely after leaving us the bill. When about twenty minutes had passed with no-one near to service us, we had to go and find another member of staff to pay. Ironically, our friend from the guest house told us a story of the amazing rudeness he had experienced in a restaurant in Provincetown, so obviously the higher service standards he talked about are not universal. Overall, it seems to me that service in this part of the USA is just as variable as it is back at home.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-79270621803520980852010-06-17T19:18:00.001+01:002010-06-17T19:20:36.893+01:00BFI MediathequeOn a recent visit to London we discovered the excellent <a href="http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_southbank/mediatheque"><span class="caps">BFI</span> Mediatheque</a> where we watched films about the less-advertised recent history of London like <i>London in the raw</i>. The Mediatheque is described as a "digital jukebox" and you can spend up to two hours in a session there. A much better film that we also saw is <i>The London nobody knows</i>. This is a melancholy trawl around some of the ruins and forgotten bits of London in the late 1960s with James Mason. Unfortunately this one isn't available on <span class="caps">DVD</span> and, as far as I know, the only place to see it is at one of <a href="http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_southbank/mediatheque/bfi_mediatheques_around_the_uk">the four mediatheques around the country</a>. These are great free resources for anyone who is into film or television so, if you’re in London or one of the other three locations, have a look.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953009248022270045.post-52813649657676303342010-05-25T20:28:00.001+01:002010-05-25T20:29:02.849+01:00Filth!Watching the repeat of <i>Filth! The Mary Whitehouse story</i> on the BBC last night, I was again surprised that Julie Walters had agreed to appear in it. To me, Ms Walters seems a liberal-minded person, almost the opposite of Mrs Whitehouse, and she admitted in an interview when the play was first shown that she never agreed with Whitehouse's views. And yet, it seemed to me that the play was much too sympathetic to Whitehouse, portraying her as a bit misguided and sometimes comical, but basically a nice, "cuddly" sort of person. This was never my impression of her - many of her pronouncements showed her as vindictive and intolerant in the extreme. The play also seemed unfair on Sir Hugh Greene, ex Director-General of the BBC, portraying him as a boorish, closed-minded buffoon and apparently ignoring the good work he did in "opening out" TV drama in the 1960s.<br />
<br />
Trawling around for more information on the programme and the Whitehouse legacy (she died in 2001), I found <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1022334/My-mother-snob-says-Mary-Whitehouses-son.html">this very interesting article</a> about Whitehouse's relationship with her family.Jackemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03325206400674467305noreply@blogger.com0