The death of the book?

Two things on the Guardian website today make interesting reading: first it's Angela Merkel decrying Google's attempts to put every book everever online so they can be searchable. She is, it seems to me, rightly worried about the implications for copyright protection.

The second is one writer's negative experience negative of the new Kindle.

In its own defence, Google has apparently said it wants to put all these books online in order to make out of print and rare books accessible. That's as maybe, but unless there's some sort of system that stops you from being able to view the whole book in one hit, it does seem to be just mass copyright theft.

Google styles itself as a champion of information freely accessible to all, yet it restricts search engines in China, in order to get in in the first place, and while they are providing other people's information for free, they are making a killing. You can understand why people like Rupert Murdoch (quoted in the Guardian article) are getting a little pissed off with this.

It has been argued that music piracy doesn't kill music, because people who actually like the music make a point of buying it after having perhaps sampled it illegally. With technology like Kindle it does seem that this is already possible for books but, and admittedly this is anecdotal, is doesn't seem that the technology is quite there.

The writer of the Guardian piece doesn't like the screen because it's grey. This is to avoid backlighting, which is hard on the eyes after a long time, apparently. And the Kindle itself is a bit like iTunes used to be before it got rid of its DRM (and is a bit like Apple generally in that it only works with its own software and formats). By the sound of it, the Sony Reader is a much better designed e-book and can handle a multiplicity of formats. And if you've got an iPhone or iPod touch, you can read Kindle books on those because, I suspect, it's economically prudent, for Amazon to allow it.

If I ever buy an e-book, it's not going to be for a while. What I want from my all purpose device for books, music, internet, phone, computing and TV is just not there yet. Lack of backlight is certainly an attractive proposition. But, unsurprisingly, this makes it difficult to read in the dark. But why can't everything be like that? If they can invent electronic paper without a glare, why isn't someone working on an equivalent for the internet? With the option of lighting if required. I wrote three years ago now about what sort of multimedia device I wanted, and there's still nothing that fits that description. Come on techgeeks, get those thinking caps on.

I think digital is the future. But as for the argument that something like Kindle is better for the environment, I am sceptical. I have a friend who works in environmental engineering. I asked him once if the digital adverts they have up the sides of some escalators in the tube were better for the environment than all the stick-up ads. He said it was highly unlikely given how much power they used. Ok, Kindle is a different type of screen, but it would be good if someone did a proper study into it.

Fundamentally, I like the feel of a book in my hand. I like the way they get slightly battered the more and more I read them. I like the sense of accomplishment I feel as I survey the many tomes I have ploughed my way through. And I'm also a compulsive hoarder. I like the cover illustrations and the fact that you don't have to plug them in or charge them up, they are just there. And they're more tangible. Along with letters, newspapers and now books, the evidence of our society and our way of life is disappearing. Maybe we don't necessarily need to leave a record of ourselves for future generations, but we always have up to now and it's provided us with a fascinating insight into how humanity and our culture has evolved. What are we going to do, set up some archive system that prints a set number of things just so we copies? It could be the Time Capsule Institute or something.

For all these reasons, I shall be sad when/if books disappear for good.

Twenty five things I've learned in twenty five years

Bit of a cop out entry, but as it's my birthday today I haven't spent a huge amount of time either on my laptop or thinking about blog posts. So, here's my list...


1. Do all the reading you can before you begin your career. Once that's started, books become ornamental rather than things you actually read.

2. The fact that there are always more CDs you can add to your collection does not necessarily guarantee that you'll always have something that you want to listen to.

3. The older you get, the less you care about what other people think and the more you care about what you think.

4. No matter how much you think you and your cat have a loving, trusting relationship, he will always at some point scratch the living hell out of part of your body for no apparent reason.

5. Robbie Williams was, is, and always will be, shit.

6. You will always call (or think of) your own school teachers as "sir" and "miss", even when you have become a teacher yourself.

7. No matter how much cutting down, trimming, culling and simplifying you do, you can never quite bring yourself to entirely delete your Facebook account once you have one.

8. Spam email will eventually find your new email address.

9. American English will never find a more irritating nonsensical idiom than "I could care less".

10. Even if you know in your heart of hearts that reality TV is complete cack, you will end up getting drawn into the voyeurism of it if it is playing on a screen in the vicinity of your vision.

11. The more you stare at it, the more you believe the word "from" shouldn't be a real word.

12. Nothing has a more worthwhile price-to-fun ratio than putting Mentos in cheap bottles of diet cola.

13. If there are no significant advances in telecommunications, eventually the letters F and S will be replaced with one new member of the alphabet.

14. The word "awesome" will never be able to fully regain its original connotations thanks to '90s youth culture.

15. Sequels are rarely better than the original film, but those sequels that manage it are some of the best films ever made.

16. Once you've watched The West Wing, you'll compare every other TV drama series to it.

17. Few words in the English language hold more influence when placed together than these four: "All you can eat".

18. Farts are, and always will be, hilarious (whether you are honest enough to admit it or not).

19. Finding something that you and someone you have just met can both quote from copiously and with ease is one of the quickest ways to break the ice and make friends.

20. Some of the best words in English really are the four letter ones.

21. Even though they are all exactly the same amount of time apart, some ages sound a lot older than the one before them.

22. Dinosaurs were, are, and always will be, awesome.

23. You will always have mornings where, in the first five minutes of being awake, you imagine all the feasible ways you could get out of going to work, before succumbing to reality and getting on with your morning routine with five minutes less than you should have.

24. Fast food is bad. But you will still always have times that you crave it (anyone who claims that they don't has either never tried it or is a compulsive liar).

25. No matter how settled into the idea of being perpetually single you ever become, you will never be able to predict how much more wonderful meeting the person who you fall in love with will be.

Pointlessly visual.

You may well already have seen it, but if you like David Mitchell, you should definitely check out David Mitchell's soapbox - a weekly 5-minute monologue where he talks about whatever issue particularly appeals to him, released in the form of a video podcast. The topics range from man flu to flowers to eliminating waste, and Mitchell brings his usual mix of quiet, erudite slightly-naive-upper-middle-class-British-liberal ranting and interesting and insightful connections and opinions that anyone who reads his guardian column/blog will be used to. The segments are short enough that there's no time for him to run out of ideas, and so it's generally five minutes of very enjoyable comedy.

The only problem I have with it is its format. I don't really see why it needs to be a video, when the whole thing is David sitting in front of a greenscreen talking. Topical imagery floats along aimiably behind him, and occasionally he ends up as part of the picture himself, but the video aspect really adds nothing to the shows. I can't necessarily guarentee that, because I stopped watching them after a few episodes and just started listening. It's just as funny coming through your ears only, with the added advantage that you can do something else with your eyes.

I'm not sure whether it was a desire to be groundbreaking and go beyond mere podcasting, or whether it was felt that his spiel would be more affecting coming out of a visible mouth, or perhaps his publicist feels that his appearance is a vital element of his comedy. Whatever the reason, I disagree. I love the 'casts, and I hope he does more of them. Preferably in audio form, though, so that they don't take quite so much time to download.

If they were longer and more frequent, I certainly wouldn't be complaining either, but I'll settle for just more of them. And if you haven't seen any, go find them now - they're on iTunes and online, here.

Review: "Inglourious Basterds"

Let me add a disclaimer to this review before I get going. Anyone who knows me knows I'm a huge fan of Quentin Tarantino and his work. That said, when reviewing a film, I do my utmost to remain unbiased and evaluate what I'm watching from an objective viewpoint. So I am being entirely honest when I state that Inglourious Basterds is a mesmerising and astounding piece of cinema.

Brad Pitt is flawless as Aldo Raine, bringing the perfect balance of humour and menace to his character. Raine is the leader of the eponymous crew, and from his first appearance on screen Pitt owns the role in a unique delivery, simultaneously hilarious and disturbing. The supporting players do so admirably, and Tarantino's choice of largely unknown actors (not within European cinema, but certainly to me and presumably the vast majority of IB's audience) adds a feel of authenticity. Whilst a small part of the cast, who may or may not be Eli Roth, feel like they've been cast simply because they're mates with QT, this takes nothing away from the film. There isn't an actor or actress who doesn't give a great turn throughout the film, but within this cornucopio of solid performances - ranging from a short but powerful turn by Michael Fassbender to a cheeky but worthwhile cameo by Mike Myers - it is Christoph Waltz who gives the standout performance, stealing every scene he's in and out-acting even the heavyweight Pitt. Waltz's performance is masterful, captivating and indescribable, and the character he creates - the toe-curlingly uncomfortable "Jew Hunter" Colonel Hans Landa, who drips smarm from every pore - is one of cinema's unforgettable villains, and one of Tarantino's finest creations.

The plot takes a little while to take hold, reflecting the frenetic journey this film has taken to the screen in the first couple of chapters. However, once things get going they don't let up for a second. From the first scene, in which the tension is unbearably tangible from the opening lines, to the literally awesome finale, the film runs the gamut of emotions, styles, genres and homages without missing a beat and nailing each and every one. Tarantino has created a truly brilliant film which sets the bar high for what it aims to achieve. In a less skilled pair of hands, and borne from a less masterful mind, this film could have been a two-and-a-half hour mess. Instead, Tarantino has created a fantastic cinematic masterpiece. Watch this film.

10/10

Don't hold the front page

One of the amusing aspects of my job is the number of e-mails we get at work telling us how to enlarge our penises or where to buy cheap viagra. Given that both me and my fellow journalist at arms are female, it usually gives us a chuckle or two, especially when the author appears to be only semi-literate in English.

Take this example, the subject line was "Never bone-off!"
Swallow one doze and tell your girl to get down on all fours! Tonight your bedroom will be a hotter place than sun surface! Enter the universe of amorous might and endurance! Try this mix! You will make love like you only did in fantasies! Try today! Continue taking her until the night will be over! This mix will burn you from inside, creating mighty wave of desire! More than 100000 of men worldwide trust their carnal well-being to our products! Easy method to make you a Super Man with ladies! Your lovegun can't be feeble with our supplements! Arousal is fast and mighty with our vigor-pilules.

What's a pilule? A cross between a pill and pustule? Call me crazy, but I don't want to be burned from the inside by a small capsule of pus that can be taken internally. Although entering the universe of amorous might and endurance doesn't sound too bad.

Then there's the press releases masquerading as news. They're often surveys carried out by private companies with some sort of angle to push, and hey, in the instance, it's going to have worked -at least in publicity terms - because here I am writing about it.

According to a survey for Confused.com more people in Britain are confused as to why Cheryl Cole stays with Ashley Cole than they are by credit card interest rates. What the hell does this have to do with Confused, which is after all a comparison site? Bugger all as far as I can see, but if anyone prints it, it helps insert them into people's consciousness. Because anyone writing it would have to say where the information came from, otherwise the story would be somewhat thin.

Apparently they surveyed 4,979 people between the ages of 16 and 65 living the length and breadth of the country. But they don't tell you which country, they refer to "Brits" but nothing specific is said. Does this mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Were the population of Eire canvassed as to what they were confused about? We don't know.

This press release tells us precisely nothing of use, except maybe for a lazy generalisation that those who answered the survey should perhaps start worrying about more important things.

For your information, the top 50 most confusing things according to this survey were:
1. Foreign call centres - are they actually confusing? It's fairly obvious why we have them, it's cheaper. Don't people just find them inconvenient?
2. Algebra - Without current maths lessons, I am with them on this one.
3. What women see in Russell Brand - it's the androgyny, and it's a generally accepted urban myth women are more likely to be bisexual than men.
4. Why Cheryl Cole is still with Ashley - because she's an idiot/has low self-esteem/doesn't care that he's a cheating scumbag? None of the above? Why do you even care?
5. Credit card interest rates
6. Buying a house
7. Politics
8. The laws of cricket - "Laws of cricket" What? Is cricket some sort of universal physical maxim now?
9. Insurance policies
10. Loan interest rates
11. Football's offside rule - It's perfectly simple, all it says is that there must be at least one player of the opposing team between a striker and the goalie when the striker has entered the scoring area. Or when I knew what it meant, that's what it meant, Unless it's changed recently? But you see, I'm not confused, I'm just potentially ignorant.
12. Religion
13. Converting currency
14. Languages
15. Filling out insurance forms
16. Setting up wireless networks
17. Men
18. Stephen Hawking's theories
19. Figuring out nutritional information on food labels
20. Kerry Katona - I'm confused, why is she on this list?
21. All the different lottery draws
22. Fixing printers
23. Predictive text
24. Poker
25. Twitter
26. Small print - Well d'uh. That's the whole POINT of small print.
27. Automated phone systems
28. Why and how Stonehenge was built - This isn't confusing, it's just unknown.
29. Women
30. Donnie Darko - Fair point.
31. Filling out passport forms
32. Reverse parallel parking - I don't get confused by this, I know exactly where I go wrong, I'm just not very good at it.
33. Clocks going back / forward - Really? Really really?
34. Packaging on kids toys - You're shitting me, aren't you?
35. Crop Circles - Urm, it's a circular pattern, in some crops. Which bit of this is confusing you?
36. Computers
37. Birmingham's Spaghetti Junction
38. Train fares
39. Fruit machines
40. People who crack their knuckles - How is that confusing? They're just people who like making freaky noises with their hands.
41. Reading a map
42. Re-tuning the TV
43. The M25
44. Train timetables
45. Setting an alarm on a cooker/oven
46. In the Night Garden
47. Reading a train timetable
48. Magic Roundabout in Swindon
49. The tube - Hah, lies.
50. Fax machines

And lastly, in our round-up of not news, we have: The BRUGO mug.

"Are you looking for that perfect gift that looks cool and has a real wow factor? Look no further that the Innovative and unique BRUGO Travel Mug.
The BRUGO travel mug is an innovative solution designed with tea and coffee-lovers in mind. Spero Pavlos reached the end of his tether one morning while trying to drink a fresh cup of coffee. Sitting in his car, he removed the lid to cool it slightly... the cup slipped. Coffee spilled and spattered all over his clothes and his new car. Spero then embarked on a mission to find a solution that plagued every tea and coffee drinker on the go. BRUGO was born."

So he set out to invent a product that made it easier for you to drive dangerously? Ok, I'll admit this press release doesn't explicitly mention the car being driven, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I read it. Anyone driving and drinking coffee and being upset when they spill it over themselves just seems a little stupid to me.

It continues: "Until now, tea and coffee lovers faced a compromise - either by blowing on it, adding ice, waiting patiently or burning your mouths but no more. With Brugo you can drink your tea or coffee immediately, yes! no more waiting 20 minutes! It's so simple to use, just Tip & Cool or Sip."

Ok, so I know I don't drink tea or coffee, but I've never known anyone who did put ice in it to cool it down...

"Brugo is the evolution of thermal travel mugs and is the only one to have the Innovative Perfect Temperature Zone technology.
The Brugo Travel Mug has 3 lid settings:
Tip & Cool: Tip your 450ml BRUGO away from you and then swill in a circular motion, this reduces the temperature of one mouthful whilst the remaining beverage stays hot.
Lock: the Mug is locked and spill proof.
Sip: Drink directly from the central chamber."

If it works, it's neat, but it still seems an awful lot of effort to go to. And what are you going to do in a coffee house? Hand it over and say "What ho barista! I demand you furnish me with hot beverage of choice in my own receptacle!"?

"With BRUGO by your side, you will never again have to wait before you can drink your tea and coffee! And in its own gift box it is the perfect cool present this Christmas especially in the current fiscal climate."

Yes, in these straitened times, this delightful coffee-drinking contraption will set you back a mere £14.99. From www.brugomug.co.uk.


Snort. Yes. Well. Laters.

My week in superlatives

This post may be a little bit of cop-out. I'm away over the weekend at a Warhammer tournament, so not only have I got to come up with three posts today, but a lot of my free time has been spent preparing for that, rather than thinking up interesting blog topics. Without further ado, then:

The creepiest thing I experienced this week: Turning a corner in Tooting at night to find twenty workmen in fluorescent jackets standing completely still and completely silent, staring at me...

The funniest thing I experienced this week: Being at the counter in a post office when it started to rain, and turning round to find the neat queue behind me that had stretched outside when I began my transaction had turned into a silent mass of damp people crammed into the small room and all staring at me.

The most frustrating thing I experienced this week: Having to get up early to get to the post office before work three times to retrieve two parcels. The second time, I got there ten minutes after they opened, and was waiting for 50 minutes. The third time I got there before they opened, and was still 15th in the queue.

The most disgusting thing I experienced this week: Tasting "Deep Heat". The deep-clensing muscle feeling does not translate well to the tongue.

The most embarrassing thing I experienced this week: Coding a bug which caused potentially sensitive patient data to be sent to random people in the NHS.

The most satisfying thing I experienced this week: Spending six hours slowly tracking down the cause of an incredibly frustrating problem in the software, only to be able to fix it by changing 8 characters in a source file.

The most fun I experienced this week: Playing 5-a-side football on a rutted pitch that was essentially ploughed and then dried to a rock hard finish. Added to this, half the pitch was a steep slope down which chasing the ball was an exercise in futility and the other half was full of knee-high stalks poking out of the ground that would stop the ball dead when they hit it. Fortunately (somehow) no one broke an ankle while playing. Then we went back at night and played again in pitch darkness.

Most my blogathon score has been this week: 9

I have somewhere to live

Hurrah

But first a bit of back-story:

About 5 months ago we were coming to the end of our 12-month tenancy agreement and agreed with our landlady on a one month revolving contract whereby either of us could give one months notice and then the other party would either have to find new tenants or leave the flat.

Ha hah we thought, our landlady lives in America and seems a few bills away from complete bankruptcy so we can happily and lazily look for somewhere we might like to live whilst she relies on our tenancy as one the only things providing her with food and water. Then when we've found a suitable, ground floor, large-roomed, quiet-streeted, train-accessible flat we can simply up sticks.

But it turns out our landlady was not as debt-riddled as we thought and also not as in-America as we thought and one month ago she phoned to say she would very much like to move back into her flat and so could we please vacate the premises within one month. Suddenly our search for a property took on a severe sense of urgency which was not helped by estate agent incompetence (see earlier blog). Anyway we've now found somewhere and whilst not perfect it fits all the criteria above and crucially didn't have people moving into it the next day (as was true of one property we were shown - yes, really).

So the moral of the story is first making agreements that you think only help you can sometimes come and bite you in the arse and also estate agents are useless (bit of a recurring moral there but I feel it needs reiterating).

You have been responded to

Aha - cleverly, rather than responding to Bambi's post with a comment, I'll make a post out of it, and thus fill my quota for the day.

As has been mentioned, I'm a real fan of Charlie Brooker - I feel he is unabashedly honest and straightforward in his views and appearance, and as well as having the quick-wittedness and sense of humour to back up his comedic leanings, he never believes his own hype, and is marked through and through with sarcastic cynicism combined with good old fashioned British pessimistic self-abasement.

So, You Have Been Watching. A panel show with a difference. Or... not, really. Just a panel show. A panel show which seems confused about whether it is a platform for Brooker's acerbic analysis, or a more general exercise in poking fun at TV. Brooker gets so much screen time that his guests often seem insignificant onlookers - occasionally with a point to make, but regularly one not as funny or relevant as the ones that Brooker makes.

I take issue with the idea that Bambi put forward that the show "uses the panel show format fairly loosely and rips it apart at the same time." I saw no evidence of the "ripping apart" of the panel show format in the programme (though admittedly I didn't see all of the episodes, so maybe it turned up later on), simply a panel show that was... just being a panel show. Maybe all of the very clever elements of the show that undermine the done-to-death strategy of assigning arbitrary points to professional-panel-show-guests passed me by, but I really didn't see anything of the sort. I would love to see Brooker given free reign to produce a really subversive panel show, and I believe that he would produce something groundbreaking and ingenious, but this is certainly not it.

Bambi also says "If nothing else, it's used so that Brooker doesn't have to explain why he and three other people are sitting there talking about TV programmes each week". I don't really understand why Charlie should have to explain this. I want to do a post about panel shows in the future, so I won't labour it too much, but what is the point? Why should we have this structure imposed on the Screenwipe idea, when all it does is dilute the things that can be done, and add in people who aren't as funny as the presenter, and overlay a totally unecessary studio audience? There's just no way that this is better than Screenwipe. We get less analysis, lower production values, fewer insights and less invention, all for the gain of a few cheap jokes from people who are seen so regularly behind desks with point scores on them that they might not actually possess legs.

A programme in which Charlie presents his analysis of television would be hilarious, and indeed is, in the form of Screenwipe and Newswipe. A programme in which Charlie discusses TV with other funny people in some sort of inventive format that allows for free debate and banter would be excellent too. A programme in which these concepts are forced into the straightjacket of the marketable-panel-show feels odd and awkward, with some guests seeming not entirely sure they want to be there.

I've repeated myself a bit there, so I shall try and summerise: Brooker is intelligent and insightful enough, especially in the realm of television, to make really groundbreaking programming, and this felt safe, flat and very very easy for him. It felt like the kind of programme that he would ridicule, if not for the content, which genuinely approached the heights of his previous work at times, then for the needlessly bland structure and the lack of any sort of invention in the process.

I certainly wouldn't describe it as unwatchable, just very disappointing.

Charlie Brook-err?

This post is something of a call out to Telf to satisfy my curiosity and because I like arguing. Mr. Telford has on more than one occasion expressed his dislike/disdain for You Have Been Watching, a TV panel show/pseudo-panel show/postmodernist satire of TV panel shows. As a fan of the show, I was surprised to hear this as I know Telf to be a fan of the show's host, Charlie Brooker, as evidenced by several of his entries on this blog, most recently his post about another Brooker show, Gameswipe. Essentially, Telf has never explained exactly why he dislikes You Have Been Watching so much. So, I want him to do just that.

To keep things even, here's why I do like the show. For a start, I'm also a fan of Brooker, regularly reading his Guardian column and having watched bits and pieces of TV series he's done before. I find his sense of humour unashamedly honest, envelope pushing and very funny. Whilst I may not always agree 100% with his opinion, I can always respect his feelings towards anything he decides to turn his attention to, and usually end up with a wry grin or a wicked laugh at the end of any acid-tipped point.

Secondly, I like panel shows. Not all panel shows by any stretch, but when done well (Have I Got News For You and 8 Out Of 10 Cats spring to mind as two examples) they serve as a good showcase for some very funny people to riff on whatever the chosen topic might be. YHBW's format essentially uses the panel show format fairly loosely and rips it apart at the same time. If nothing else, it's used so that Brooker doesn't have to explain why he and three other people are sitting there talking about TV programmes each week.

Thirdly, the guests. Some of them I didn't care for (Frank Skinner was never funny, and now that he's trying to get back on TV, he still isn't). But most of them I found to fit in well with the show's premise. Reece Shearsmith and Richard Herring are inspired choices, and whilst Frankie Boyle is a fairly obvious pick for this kind of TV, he is regularly hilarious.

Finally, the subject matter. The mix of the familiar and mainstream with the obscure and bizarre, all roundly cut down to size by Brooker and his cronies, kept me interested for the whole series, with only a couple of the shows featured seeming like slightly bland choices for discussion.

Essentially, compared to a lot of the dross that is churned out on TV today, I found YHBW to be, if not entirely original, then a fresh and funny spin on a familiar format, elevated further by Brooker's sense of humour. In all honesty, Telf isn't the only Brooker fan who has expressed their dislike for (or at least disappointment towards) You Have Been Watching. So I'm curious as to why this is, and I hope that Telf chooses to respond.

Your view on the kindle

The kindle is an electonic book or rather a viewer to read lots of books from. Anyway I've been thinking they look pretty cool and like just the amount technology I can handle; buying things to download, having some sort of harddrive where all my e-books are stored, but nothing too complicated. Also I always like having something to read on the train and getting hold of books I want to read can be a pain (to find something in the library) or expensive if I have to buy them. Obviously the kindle is pretty expensive as a one-off and it also takes away the option of filling up a bookshelf or lending books I've found and like to others. Overall I'm torn between thinking it's cool and thinking it's a waste of money.

What do you guys think, waste of money or useful device? Also, if I should get one what books should I put on it?

Review: (500) Days of Summer

I'm a massive fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, even though I haven't seen him in all that many films (Mysterious skin and Brick before this). He's a very subtle screen presence, and eminently likeable and relatable, even when playing a less sympathetic character. Hence I was all too happy to go and see him in non-rom-com (500) Days of Summer.

The film charts the ups and downs of his character's relationship with "Summer", a girl he meets through his job at a greeting cards company, and I found it pretty enjoyable. Gordon-Levitt is great as Tom, and Zoey Deschanel is very solid as his love interest, with ample comedic support provided by a slew of secondary characters.

There is certainly an effort to make the film stand out with quirky diologue, and experimental presentation, and to an extent it works - the experience never feels tired, and there are some genuinely impressive moments of invention in the way the story is told. The slightly off-beat feel about the film in general fits well with the script, which wobbles the full gamut between abstract comedy and more subtle emotional stuff. However, the decision to take such daring editing and directing decisions also weighs against the film - there is a loss of consinstancy and coherence when events are presented differently from scene to scene, and there is some loss of character development in the snappy diologue.

There is also the presence of an annoying and entirely unecessary voiceover, which provides no insight or information, and makes the segments over which it runs feel like they've been picked out of a seventies sit-com. It betrays a lack of confidence in the actors and the script to have an explanatory monologue, especially one which clashes with the style and pace of the film so badly - the lines read are devoid of humour or style in what is otherwise a genuinely funny and stylish film - and it is an element that noticeably detracts from the quality of the experience.

In general, then, I enjoyed (500) days of summer - it was light and funny, while taking enough risks to feel much more than a run-of-the-mill rom-com. It doesn't all stick together, and the characters didn't feel as fully developed as they might have done, but the story skips past pleasingly, and I'd certainly recommend it to anyone interested in a new take on an old story.

Verdict: 7/10

Good scenes in not-so-good films

Okay, so not all these films are what I'd call "bad" per se, but certainly none of them are classics. Here's my offerings, although I'm sure there's plenty more that I could mention.


You Don't Mess With The Zohan - opening chase scene



Zohan by and large is a stinker. Misfire after misfire at political and ethnic satire, crude sex jokes that are about as subtle as a baseball bat to the scrotum, and Rob Schneider as a "foreign" cab driver. It sits firmly in the Adam Sandler pile labeled "ones to miss". But watching the first ten minutes, you would be mistaken (as I was) to think that maybe the film is a well-observed action/secret agent film parody. The chemistry between Turturro and Sandler is excellent, and the jokes by and large mainly hit the mark fairly well. Not perfect, but a very funny scene. Shame the rest of the film is such a steaming pile of Schneider.


Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story - The Beatles scene



Walk Hard is not a bad film. It's actually a fairly good film in many ways. But it's also a film that suffers from having long sections that are distinctly average, jokes that either don't go far enough or are done to death, and some parts that you really wish were funnier. The standout scene for me was definitely the fantastic Beatles parody provided through cameos from Paul Rudd, Jason Schwartzman, Justin Long and Jack Black. The Liverpudlian accents range from poor to almost unrecognisable, but that just makes it all the more funny. The reference to Yellow Submarine works well. But it's the interaction between the four "Beatles" that just cracks me up every time. "I've got a song about an octopus!".


Matrix Revolutions - The final battle between Neo and Smith



Towards the end of the third and final Matrix film, after all the needlessly drawn out stuff about giant mechanoid fighting machines and all the religious imagery, the Wachowskis remembered what a lot of people went to see The Matrix to watch: kick ass kung fu fighting scenes with ace choreography. And whilst it's not flawless, the final fight between Keanu Reeves and Hugo Weaving under a raging thunderstorm whilst an infinite number of Weavings watching this shit go down, is simply great.


Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End - Jack in Purgatory



Much like the third Matrix film, the third Pirates film suffers from simply being too long and overindulgent, giving us overlong sea battles, a huge amount of confused pirate mythology and folklore and generally not a great deal to care about. This scene is one of the film's few saving graces, being as it is gloriously surreal and very well executed, so much so that it doesn't really feel like part of the same film. Johnny Depp is on top form, giving us a truly classic Jack Sparrow moment that rivals any other from all three of the Pirates films so far. It's a shame that for the majority of the film Depp's character takes a backseat to the long list of other characters and scenes such as Geoffrey Rush marrying Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley during a pirate battle, with Rush in full Captain Birdseye/Sea-Captain-from-The-Simpsons mode.


I'll leave the list there for now, but there are a few more that are coming to mind even as I type this, so I may do a second installment of something along these lines. Essentially, the way I've presented these clips - by the power of YouTube - shows that having one standout scene in a film isn't necessarily a hindrance to the film these days. The internet, and even DVD scene selection, means you can enjoy the ten minutes worth watching out of a two hour film full of mediocrity with relative ease. Then move on to the next bitesize piece of entertainment, I guess. Good or bad, it's the age in which we live.

I can't do this

Dear all,

Well I mean to say, wow. Look at you all, blogging away like there's no tomorrow. How very proud of you I am. I'm aware that this challenge was open to all, and much as I would love to accept, I really can't. That's not to say I'm resigning from contributing, far from it. I would love to contribute far more than I already do and have several ideas.

What I lack, is time. I moved on to a daily paper five months ago. While I still lived an hour away from work in the car, this was problematic in itself. Last week I moved house and now seem to be working an insane amount of nights, though I do now have internet after 10 days without.

Currently, my inspiration is job-related and I can't say anything because I'm covering a murder trial and have to be careful not to write anything, anywhere, that would create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to that trial, as defined by the Contempt of Court Act. That's not to say that I would, either here or in print, but I think I'll feel more relaxed generally, if I know there's nothing written outside of work that's going to leave me with cause for concern by its mere existence.

But mostly, my problem is that because I write for a living, it's not something I'm hugely fond of doing as a leisure activity. After making words line up in a coherent, and hopefully interesting, order all day, it's not really what I like to do with my free time. And I find that while I plan blog posts in my head during the day, I get home and they've drifted out of my brain and I can never quite recapture the same elegant turns of phrase I had so carefully thought up earlier.

So I'm afraid I shall have to decline the challenge, Thanks, but no thanks. I shall certainly try and contribute more in future, but I'm wary of setting any yardstick because my job is rather unpredictable and I would almost inevitably fail to meet it. Which would make me sad and demoralised. And no one wants that.

And to anyone who may accuse me of wussing out, I will extend a middle digit in their general direction with this imperative attached: "Swivel."

I have a whole day of shorthand to transcribe. I thank you.

Guilty or Not Guilty

Two very different stories with very different outcomes:

The first involves two very religious parents who rather than take their diabetic child to hospital instead prayed for her as she died. Article here (BBC). Punishment - 6 months for each parent to be taken as one month per year for six years. The judge wants them to "think about Kara and what God wants you to learn from this".

The second involves a texan man who was convicted of killing his three daughters by arson and executed in 2004. It has since turned out that the key evidence used to convict him had no basis in modern fire science and that he was probably innocent. Long article here (New Yorker) but well worth reading.

I don't think that these cases are comparable but both highlight the danger in not using science over folklore. The differing sentences say something about the US justice system and how it deals with religion and also how the poor can (or can't) defend themselves.

There's obviously also a huge amount more to be said about either case but I have to get back to work.

It's close to mi-i-i-idnight...

So, I've been at school for over twelve hours because of open evening, hence the need for a relatively uncomplicated post here as I'm fairly knackered. The death of Michael Jackson is something that I haven't mentioned here since it happened a little over three months ago, although I've come close to doing an entry about Jackson on more than one occasion. I was a Jackson fan (not one of the huge devotees, but I have a genuine appreciation of his music and own several of his albums) and admit to feeling somewhat strange upon hearing the news one morning in late June this year. I was sad, but not entirely surprised. The man left the world in the fashion in which he'd lived in for a large part of his life - amidst spectacle, speculation and a mixture of devotion and hate from the public. To my mind, he clearly had serious problems for the last few years of his life (at least). But his music was consistently of a high quality. Even Invincible, his last studio album, which received a lukewarm reception, contained examples of R'n'B, hip hop and pop superior to those in the charts at the time. Jackson's influence is undeniable, and not just because that's what all the tribute shows and tabloid articles have told us is the case. It is evident throughout pop culture. Jackson seems to have been remembered for his music rather than the controversy and media circus that surrounded his life during the 21st Century, and for that I am glad.

So, with MJ in mind, here's some of the bollocks that has swept the internet since his passing. First of all, The Telegraph handily rounds up some of the most outlandish conspiracy theories to come about surrounding Jackson's death, with my favourite being that he was assassinated by Ahmadinejad to deflect attention away from the Iranian election.

Of course there are those who believe the King of Pop is still with us as a ghost at the Neverland Ranch. This claim is backed up even further by Jackson's appearance at Neverland again behind his brother during an interview. But hold on. How can Jackson be at Neverland when he's clearly moved to Stafford to enjoy his afterlife?

And just to finish off, my favourite of Weird Al's Michael Jackson parodies, complete with video that pays remarkable attention to detail. Hee hee.

TODO: Some sort of pun on "hair"

I went for a haircut last night - a stressful experience for someone who up until recently got his hair cut at the very reasonably priced barbershop-of-the-parents.

Having picked a place based on it being on my way home from work (a glowing recommendation, I'm sure anyone would agree) and on having no queue (in retrospect, possibly a bad sign), I scored the odd-hairdresser-out. Where his four fellow barbers were mid-twenties and black-clad, with modern spiked hair, he was white-shirted, red-faced and looked to be nearing retirement age. I thought I'd be getting the experienced option, but in fact, I might have ended up with a gentleman trying out a second career. If this were the case, picking a career that required steady hands might have been a mistake, and though I escaped without injury, more than once I felt the smooth glide of blade on ear.

"What do you want?" is a difficult question. What I really want is to have a thinner face, or at least a face which can sport a short haircut without looking like someone has carelessly left a doormat improbably balanced on top of a flesh hot-air balloon. This, though, is not something barbers can provide, in my experience so far. Hence, I normally mumble something about fringes and then let them get one with it.

Get on with it, however, this one did not. He kept re-evaluating the length and asking for my opinion: "This long?", "How about this long?". I just said yes every time, though I wanted to say "I have no earthly idea what would look good - please just make it a bit shorter and not look like total crap. That's all I want". I didn't, because that might have been construed as rude, and I was at something of a disadvantage, having my arms pinned at my sides, while he had several pairs of scissors and a straight razor.

In the end he stopped asking me, and just combed my hair back and forth, occasionally cutting at random strands, while remarking "..is very long..." and "...is very strange..." under his breath. At some arbitrary point he declared himself done, and I escaped with a new do which perfectly matched my internal request of not being total crap. Satisfied with the result if not totally with the experience, I'm unsure as to whether to venture within again, in case I'm not so lucky next time round.

Seriously, though - do people actually know what to ask for in barbers? I have no idea how to describe what I want it to look like, except for "like it is now, except a bit shorter all over". Does anyone ever actually take in pictures, or point at the ones on the wall?

nicely-trimmed blogathon score: 6

Whilst I wasn't posting

. . . at the weekend I was enjoying a wine tasting. Well, not all weekend, but it certainly hung around (or should that be over) into Sunday morning. Anyway, it was great fun and I recommend it to all (not Telf). Wine tasting / appreciation is one of those things I always think it would be quite cool to be good at, which probably handily sums up my view of what's cool. Being able to distinguish quality wine and really match it to food / atmosphere and being able to pick it out in a shop would be a pretty nice skill.

Anyway, the tasting itself involved 10 wines over about an hour and a half or so; 5 whites and 5 reds and was presided over by a friend's dad who certainly seemed very knowledeable. In between glasses he told us about matching wine to food, where to buy wine and other wine related trivia and we also chatted with those around us. Or at least other people socialised readily, I've never been that good at that (and was about 30 years younger than everyone else in the room). The wines varied greatly and some were extremely nice and made me feel maybe it would be worth spending a bit more per bottle than I normally would. That said I wouldn't know what to look for yet so it could just be a waste of money.

Overall I didn't have much to say today and not much time to say it in so that'll have to do. Wine good, good wine better.

Five cover versions I've enjoyed recently

1. Born Slippy by Barefoot (original by Underworld)
2. Freak On A Leash by Richard Cheese (original by Korn)
3. Jump Around by Moonbootica (original by House Of Pain)
4. Yellow Submarine by Roots Manuva (original by The Beatles)
5. Roses by Hayseed Dixie (original by Outkast)

I've mentioned cover versions on the blog before (only in one or two posts from what I can remember), but they are an area of music that I'm very interested in. I "collect" interesting covers, either mentally or by trying to get hold of them in some form. Some are good, some are average, some you really can't see the point of the cover being released as it's so similar to the original. But some just work so well they stick, occasionally even replacing the original. I don't know if any of the above five have replaced the originals for me yet (in the case of number 2 I heard the cover first anyway, and I'm not a huge fan of Korn and love Richard Cheese, so that one kind of had a head start), but they all bring something to the song that makes it the artist's own. And yet in each of them there is a faithfulness to, or at least appreciation of, the original. Whether the purpose is comedy or originality, or both, each of these cover versions has a spark of the original version in there, whilst creating an incredibly worthwhile alternative version.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy them at least some of the amount that I do.

Blogathon score: 5

11 things I have learned from living in a flat like a grown up

Housework has the ability to expand to fill all available free time. No matter how long is spent on it, the flat always looks "slightly in need of a clean".

Changing bedclothes on a double bed takes less time than you think it will. Washing up takes far, far more.

Other people do tiny bits of easy washing up in secret so that it's always your turn when there's a huge pile to clean.

Washing up is the punishment for enjoying a delicious meal, and can therefore be made more depressing if you're washing up old stuff from a night when you weren't even there. And the person who was cooking somehow made something using three roasting tins and an egg whisk.

Doing a set of washing is a chore, but doing all the washing in the flat and hanging it up to dry on every available hook, rail and prong in the flat is awesome and makes you feel like you're living in a 19th century industrial laundry.

Leaving the fridge open overnight is a terribly frustrating thing to do. Leaving it open twice in a week is something that can cause serious rifts in the household.

It is possible to intend to eat the same thing every day for a month and fail because you forgot to take it out of the freezer, leading to emergency trips to the local supermarket/takeaway for a suitable replacement every day.

You can buy food magazines, find delicious ideas, cut out recipes and stick them to the fridge all you like, but when push comes to shove, it always seems to be bolognese or baked potato for dinner.

The sooner all the house-cleaning robots arrive the better. After a days work, I'd take a chance of being-overthrown-by-our-creations in order to relax rather than do any cleaning.

While you're cleaning something, everything else in the flat gets a little bit dirtier just to spite you.

Fantasies about winning the lottery and owning a mansion become fantasies about hiring a maid.

super-polished blogathon score: 5

The Peter Principle

Nope, nothing to do with Family Guy (sorry guys) but instead the prinicple of promotion to incompetence. Wikipedia here. I guess it could fit Family Guy's Peter quite well although I don't know where he would be promoted from.

Anyway this was inspired by both an interesting (if light) FT comment piece on diversification to incompetence and its role in the current crisis (article here) and by an experience at an estate agents this weekend.

I had arranged on Thursday to view two properties with said estate agent on Saturday. The agent (lets call him Jason, it is his name) phoned me on Saturday morning about two hours before the viewing to say he couldn't show us one property as the keys were with another estate agent and he hadn't been able to get them. Possibly excusable although surely if you're acting as an agent for a landlord you would get your own f-ing keys. Surely that's a basic recquirement for acting as agent. Surely you don't rely on your competitors providing you with access. Anyway I accepted his apologies and agreed to see the other property anyway, we arrived to see Jason. He seemed happy to see us, got ready to head off and then . . . couldn't find the other f-ing keys! Apparently the plumber had them. Now why, when you've just not been able to get one set of keys would you not go and look for the other set and make sure you had them?

Anyway suffice to say we left with the understanding that when Jason came accross the keys we would still be happy to see the flats. Incompetence is not exactly uncommon amongst estate agents and so you can't just cut out those who are.

T is for "Torture"

So, at the beginning of the year, T-Mobile began a new advertising campaign with this:



The first time I saw this advert, I loved it. A simple idea executed well, incorporating a contemporary phenomenon (the flashmob) with neither audacity and claims of innovation, nor seeming to be desperately jumping on a bandwagon. I had no problem with T-Mobile at this point.

They then followed up with this advert:



I'm not quite sure how they've managed it, but T-Mobile have made me want to kill every single person who was in Trafalgar Square when these adverts were made. Whereas the dance flashmob was charming and came across without ego, the Trafalgar Square karaoke is to me almost the complete opposite. Everyone they show seems like a really annoying self-centred prick. And it doesn't help that none of the people are any good at singing. I know that's not necessarily an issue when it comes to karaoke (I have first hand experience of that), but if I'm at a karaoke night in a pub or a bar and the singing irritates me, I can leave. T-Mobile are shoving these obnoxious music-killers in my face via my very own television. Unfortunately, I can't find a clip of my least favourite of these adverts, which features a load of tossers yelling "Total Eclipse Of The Heart" as if Satan himself were poking a tender area of their bodies with a particularly sharp pitchfork to make sure they continue. Every time this version of the Trafalgar karaoke comes on, I hope with every fibre of my being that they show a special extended cut, where the Square is napalmed from above at the end, scorching each obnoxious twat into oblivion, before T-Mobile's jolly piano jingle rounds things off.

And then, most recently, T-Mobile gave us these adverts:





Again, I can't find a video clip of the TV version of this campaign, but hopefully if you haven't seen it you get the idea from these images. I can't decide if these grate on me more than the Trafalgar karaoke or not. The people in them are either incredibly dull, incredibly stupid or incredibly irritating. If the best thing you can think of to do with free texts for life is to have a really long argument with someone, then you either have serious problems or need to get out more. The girl who claims the idea is mind-boggling is equally irritating, as she's either incredibly easily impressed or incredibly thick. And the guy who says he'd start a revolution can just piss off.

So there you have it, a beginner's guide to how T-Mobile went from seriously impressing me to driving me to mass homicide in less than a year. Their next set of adverts could be pivotal in the direction my life follows.

Blogathon score: 4

Review: Gameswipe (TV)

Charlie Brooker seems to be carving out TV shows like they're going out of fashion at the moment. Hot on the heels of You Have Been Watching (a show about which I have Opinions, and about which I wish I had written here when it was more topical) comes Gameswipe (available briefly on iPlayer here).

Gameswipe tries to do for (video) games what Screenwipe and Newswipe did for TV shows and news programs respectively, which is to say, analyse, mock and explain them from an insider's point of view. His previous two "-wipe" products were also influenced by topical issues, and generally analysed recent examples of the areas that they were focusing on, so it seems likely that newly released games will get some coverage too.

I have been waiting expectantly for a mainstream game-review programme to emerge, and one fronted by Charlie Brooker is more than I could have hoped for (since I've now followed him full circle since his days writing for gaming magazine PC Zone). Having watched the first episode, I'm pretty happy with the way things have started out, albeit with a few reservations.

The programme probably suffers from the fact that whereas television and the news are two things that have a mass appeal, and probably pretty equal interest from most age and gender groups, video gaming is only just becoming an area of widespread interest to many people, and even then in some areas far more than others. Hence a programme focused on mass-appeal casual games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero, will risk being too basic for more hardcore gamers, while one with too much emphasis placed on more introverted genres such as MMORPGs and FPSes, would be likely to instantly alienate casual viewers.

The first episode treads this line fairly well, with introductions to basic gaming genres, and examples of how these genres have developed over the years, interposed with celebrity rants about aspects of the industry, but it will be interesting to see how this balance is maintained in future episodes, and whether both ends of the spectrum can be kept interested at once.

One real niggle with the program was that the coverage of violent or objectionable video games - certainly one of the biggest issues faced by the industry at the moment - seemed unfocused and haphazard. There was some mocking of the media coverage, but not enough, in my opinion, of a well-constructed counter-argument. The issue is one which deserves fuller coverage and analysis, and I would have hoped that it would have an episode devoted to it.

Another problem was with the discussion of storytelling in games (again something [from the point of view of a fairly experienced gamer] only touched on very briefly), in which Graham Linehan bemoans the fact that the story-telling in games is never given enough attention by the industry, where minutes before, Brooker had been describing his boredom at the plot-development aspects of a game. Both are different sides of an argument, but I felt the presentation was contradictory rather than balanced.

As a whole, though, it's good to see Charlie Brooker on TV, and it's good to see modern gaming-centric programmes, so despite any negatives, I will certainly be looking forward to the remaining episodes.

Blogathon hi-score: 4

Derren Frown

Attention: potential spoilers lie herein if you haven't watched last night's episode of The Events.




















So, my prediction/hope for last night's episode of The Events didn't happen. Instead of some huge Derren Brown twist or revelation, we saw Brown "fail" at his attempt to predict the outcome of a roulette wheel spin, thereby not winning a member of the public £175,000. But did he fail? Was it all planned? Did he get it one out on purpose? Did he succumb to the pressure from people who said he shouldn't have made it look like he got all six lottery numbers correct, as five would have been amazing enough and "more believeable"? Or did he genuinely miscalculate things in his brain so that he was one number out on the wheel? I don't know. But no doubt these and many other questions will circulate the internet in the coming days, along with the diatribes of disillusioned Brown fans and those who like to let people know they are superior to anyone who tries something a little boundary-pushing and doesn't quite manage it.

I don't know why Brown ended his series the way he did, or even if it genuinely didn't go quite to plan or Brown intended that to be the ending all along. But I have to admit that even I, who has staunchly stuck with the "events of misdirection" angle on the series, am now feeling pretty deflated by the series. It wasn't awful. In many ways it was very very good. But it felt very disparate, with the prerecorded segments, the on-location experiments and the live parts of each show not really feeling convincingly linked together. Essentially, compared to pretty much all of Brown's previous work it felt distinctly average.

I'm still living in hope that Brown is going to pull one more trick out of the bag and show what the series was "really all about". I'm not nearly as confident of this happening as I was before watching last night's Event, but Brown's message after the end of last night's show came up on his website remarkably quickly and felt a bit too clean-cut to be written by Brown after having just finished his most hyped up series on what can only be described as an anticlimax. I might be wrong, but I hope I'm not. I'm still a big fan of his. And, after all, with Derren Brown you really can't predict where the next piece of misdirection is going to come from.

Blogathon score: 3

Don't get him wet!

Hallowe'en approaches, the nights grow cold and darkness begins to cloak the land. I get tempted to watch Gremlins again (I know it's set at Christmas, but it always felt like more of a Hallowe'en film to me). And what better Hallowe'en/Gremlins crossover can there be than lovable Gizmo carved into the side of a pumpkin? I am seriously tempted to try this - despite not having carved a pumpkin since I was about twelve and being very doubtful that my abilities will have improved in the intervening years!

And, as if that weren't enough, there's a whole website filled with hundreds of pumpkin carving designs! The obscure niches of the internet never fail to amaze me.

Blogathon score: N/A - I fell at the first hurdle. Still, I've doubled my personal post count, which must count for something. Right?

Stag dos vs. Christmas.

Nothing does well when compared to Christmas. Christmas is the ideal time of fun and relaxation, family bliss and contentment, good food and good cheer. And yet, of course, Christmas is not perfect for anyone, and not even fun for lots of people. The imagined role of Christmas as a sacred, untouchable time of year (heaven forbid anyone is accused of "ruining Christmas") becomes its downfall, as it is inevitably unreachable. Weddings present a similar problem, as does the humble "stag do".

The whole point of the stag do seems to be lost sometimes in the percieved desirability of excess. A stag do without strippers is a second rate night. The very idea of a stag do without alcohol is unthinkable. And yet, the point of the occasion is not simply to live up to tradition, surely. The idea is to give the groom one last night of freedom before the chains of marriage lock around him, but the point, it seems to me, is to counterbalance the future life with his chosen partner by reminding him of all the things he should not forget about his other friends. As with Christmas, weddings, and, indeed, all other experiences in life, getting caught up in what tradition tells us things "should" be like is likely to end in disappointment, whereas looking for the experience we want to have, and choosing the best route to it, seems to me far more rewarding and fulfulling.

That was pretty rambly, and I apologise - I'm writing it late at night because I'll not be around on Saturday. I'll have no internet, because I'll be on a stag do, with no strippers, no clubbing and no debauchery: just a group of friends having a day together and celebrating as one of their number takes the next step forward in their life, and hoping to remind him that getting married does not mean the end of all other relationships.

Vegas strippers posted: 4

Daring Brown?

For my second blogathon entry, I'd like to put down my feelings towards the latest series of programmes by Mr. Derren Brown, which have already generated a considerable amount of discussion in the media and with Brown's fans. First off, I'm a fan of Derren Brown and have been for a while, having enjoyed pretty much everything I've watched that he's done in the past.

So far, on the surface, I've been slightly underwhelmed by the series as a whole. I've enjoyed watching the programmes as they've gone out, but they feel slightly less tight overall than what I've seen Brown do in the past. Apparently many others have had this feeling to various degrees, with the media questioning the quality of Brown's series and the internet bubbling with everything from mild disappointment to furious outcry declaring that Brown has broken the bond of trust with his fans. I'm closer to the mild disappointment end, although having said that I've still enjoyed watching the series despite hoping for something slightly more throughout.

Brown's final Event, where he plans to correctly predict the outcome of a roulette wheel's spin and apparently win some money for a member of the public through doing this, is to be broadcast later this evening. At the end of tonight's Event, one of two things will happen. Either it will simply be the end of the series and I'll feel somewhat crestfallen and unsatisfied by the series. Or, another thing will happen, that I'm really hoping (and, at this moment, fairly confident) is going to be the case.

Let me explain. The main bone of contention people seem to have with this series is that Brown in some way hasn't delivered what he's promised or has used methods which cheapen the whole experience. He said he would show us how we can predict the National Lottery, and because he didn't give people a foolproof way of doing it during the show, the audience feels cheated. As I said before, the programme didn't sit quite right with me, but I didn't feel cheated in any way. His explanations during the series have felt somewhat flimsy compared to his previous track record. But every time I think that I come back to the same thought, and that thought involves the adverts that ran on Channel 4 before the series began.

Brown described these shows as "events of misdirection". So, by definition, that means that anything you think you're seeing him do, you actually aren't. He's controlling the whole thing to make the audience think one thing's happening when it's actually something quite different. The "explanations" he's given for these events are purposefully put together building towards Brown's intended outcome. So, back to the "other thing" I'm hoping is going to happen. Brown has pulled off an immense, month-long misdirection of everyone who's watched the series. All of the frustration and slating and denouncing him as a cheat, he's wanted all of that to happen. He's misdirected the whole time. And at the end of tonight's final Event, he's going for the big reveal. Or not. Either way, he's going to tie things up, restore the faith of all those nay-sayers, and prove to me that I was right to stick with him all along.

The final Event starts in about five minutes, so don't be surprised if my entry tomorrow reflects on what I've said in this post.

Blogathon score: 2

Crossing over

I have a road-based dilemma that I face almost every day. Near where I work, there's a junction with a slightly unusual light-change sequence that stops the traffic on one side of the road, while letting the traffic on the other move freely. The upshot of this is that the cars will be standing at a red light, next to a pedestrian crossing with a red man showing - very frustrating for the busy commuter or office worker who needs to be somewhere. Therefore, those of us who know the system can pick our time, based on the traffic on the side of the road that is still moving, and cross safely even without the help of a green man.

The problem, with this otherwise excellent strategy for road-crossing is that people with less knowledge of the road will often blindly follow our lead without looking for cars. In the last few days this has nearly led to accidents twice, as I crossed safely and without incident, but people who assumed that there was no need to check were nearly hit.

So, the dilemma: Do I have a responsibility to wait at the side of the road for the green man, if there is the possibility that other people blindly and blithely following me might be hurt, or should I trust that these people are adults, and should be able to use the roads themselves without needing my attention and supervision? If I walk into the road and someone else gets hit by a car because they followed me without looking, am I partly responsible?

What do y'all think?

For the moment I'm avoiding the issue by crossing at a much more dangerous place further up the road, where there's less chance people will follow me...

Blogathon score: 2

Day 2

Day 2 and we're already two players down; in your face Hannah and Andy!

In the spirit of competition and with the Olympics being decided I thought I'd dredge up an old arguament I remember having about why some sports were better than others. The basic theory was as follows:

In last place - sports played on your own against yourself
running, swimming, jumping (in fact most of the Olympics), darts, golf and the blogpocalypse. The problem with these sports is that there's no real need for anyone else to be there. You could hold the open over the course of a year with players turning up as and when, hitting a few holes and then heading off for a fine wine at the club house with whoever else turned up that day. If someone beats you at darts it's not because of team tactics or because his play disrupted your game, he just threw more accurately at the board than you did.

In even more last place - sports with arbitrarily decided winners
dancing, diving, to some extent boxing and come dine with me. These are also often done by yourself, though obviously boxing rises slightly above the rest by dint of the rule above. The problem with these sports is that watching them you think "ooh, that was quite impressive" about all of the competitors but have no sense of tension because at the level it's done it all feels pretty arbitrary. In fact this sport is only generally enjoyable when it goes so wrong you can laugh at the competitors a la australian serving raw potatoes on come dine with me.

Somewhat higher up - sports played on your own against your opponents
tennis, snooker, hitting a baseball and gladiatorial combat. Ahh, sports where you have to react to your opponents moves and where your actions can hinder your opponent. A far truer test of skill; you can't be a gladiator and expect to just repeatedly make the same high-points sword stroke.

Normally on a slightly lower level - sports played in teams against yourselves
rowing, relay races, tour de france (apparently) and scrapheap challenge. The team aspect certainly improves these over the basic "I will do as well as I can" sports, however the whole group is really let down by the tour de france which is really dull and the fact that the guy who crosses the finish gets all the glory (who here knows any of Lance Armstrong's team-mates?). Anyway these two lead neatly (and totaly obviously since the first level) to . . .

The best sports - played in teams against other teams, wooo
football, cricket, charades and medieval warfare. Playing with other people against a team of others trying to disrupt your play, the ultimate test of ability and skill. Here are contained the creme de la creme of the sporting world, except for chess which unfortunately got held up in the whole team issue. Never mind, exchange chess can still carry the torch.

Obviously there are some sports that try and sneak their way up the scale despite being rubbish; American Football - you're bigger than me and when you ran into me I fell over whoopdefrickingdo, F1 - technically a team sport but so so dull you're watching hoping for a life threatening collission and then when one does happen it turns out to have been faked anyway.

Conclusion (and the real purpose for this post) the X Factor is rubbish

Trailer Mash

And so comes my time to enter into the Blogathon Of Destiny. I considered a few things to write my inaugural post on, and whilst what I settled on may be a slightly softer option than a few of the things I've decided to put off for another day, I still think it's worthy enough to be entry number one.

I read Empire's website fairly regularly, and find the lists they put up there, if not entirely original, enjoyable to read the vast majority of the time. Their most recent list is The 50 Best YouTube Move Trailer Mashups, a genre of internet videos that has featured on this blog in the past. Not entirely impressed with every trailer mashup I've watched so far on the list, but most of them have been entertaining. Some of them are truly inspired however, with personal favourites including numbers 43, 27, 13, 10, 9, 7, 4, 3 and 1, with 2 being my overall favourite (although all of the top four are masterful).

Even though the more obviously entertaining ones are those that take the images from one film and the sound from another, and when these match up well it's wonderful to watch, the most well-crafted and authentic mashup trailers are by far those that simply take clips from just one film and use them in a new way. The power of suggestion is truly a mighty weapon, and (apart from one or two tiny additions here and there) the top four of Empire's fifty use just that to take one film and turn it against itself to fit it into an entirely different genre. That's why number 2 is my overall fave: I don't think I've ever seen it done better than in that short video.

Anyway, maybe something a little weightier for tomorrow's entry, but I just couldn't resist the English teacher geekery available in writing about this list.

Entries towards Destiny: 1

Droplets of eve.

A good opening gambit, there, James. I respond with a couple of supermarket stories, number one:

I approach the cashier in Sainsburys at lunchtime. I'm buying my usual bottles of diet coke and tubs of mass-produced super-sweet rice pudding. She rings them up, I pay with a note, so far, so good. She opens the cash drawer to get me my change, and sits staring at it for a few seconds. Then she picks up a little plastic bag full of coins from the back of the drawer and tries to open it. She scrabbles at it with her nails and tries to pick open the corner. Finally, noticing, perhaps that I am getting restless, she takes the top into her mouth, closes her teeth on it, locks eyes with me and pulls the bag downwards. The bag stretches for ever, as she leans her head back, sticks out her lower jaw and gurns it open. At last the plastic tears, and she pours the fifty pence pieces into the till, before handing me my thirty-six pence of change.

"Sorry that took so long", she says, cheerfully. Indeed.

And number two:

I'm in the home-maintenence aisle, looking for black refuse sacks, when two girls approach from the opposite direction:

"Here we are - bin liners", says one.
"No, no, those are bin liners, we want rubbish bags", responds the other.
They argue about the various merits of each, and decide to get both.
"Ok, bin liners and rubbish bags - will these be big enough?", says the first
"Actually - do we even know which night our bins go out?"
"I don't know..."
They contemplate for a second, then the girl who has just spoken continues:
"Actually, do we even have a bin?"
"I don't know - I haven't seen one"

After giving a few moments more personal contemplation to this technical hiccup in their plan, they give up on bins and wander on to look at the bleach shelf.

Hope that was good enough, and expect future mundanities in the future if I feel uninspired.

Super-happy-blogathon score: 1

An inauspicious start

So the start of The Challenge has been heralded by earthquakes and tsunamis, are we sure we're not meddling with forces beyond our control? I guess there's only one way to find out and that's for us all to keep (start) posting. Onwards to the blogpocalypse (god I hope that doesn't become a word).

Not sure if that's really enough for a first post (especially as it doesn't really say anything). Maybe there should be some opinion (beyond hoping what I've written doesn't make it into the dictionary)

I think earthquakes suck, big time. There we go, that should be fairly non-inflammatory.

A little challenge

So - it's been a while. Almost two months since my last post, and several months since I posted anything like regularly. I apologise. After a couple of years of blogging semi-regularly without trouble, I was struck down with momentous ennui. A state from which I wish to emerge.

The cure, I hope, will be a gimmick. A forced march back into the fetid marshlands of bloggery, with all the unnecessarily florid prose which that entails. The rules of this effort are as follows:

> At least one post per day. No limit on the maximum number of posts.
> No link posts. The post can centre around a link, but must contain original analysis, opinion or commentary.
> Posts should be at least a short paragraph or so in length. No one's going to be counting words, but try to keep it from looking like Twitter.
> Posts should be readable. If we're only requiring a few sentences a day, then getting most of the grammar and spelling right shouldn't be too hard.
> In the event that a day will be missed (due to holiday, absence from internet, etc) the post can be written ahead of time and assigned as "for" a date in the future, or a suitable substitute poster may be nominated.
> Rules are subject to change
> First person to miss a day is a big smelly loser.

Any and all are welcome to participate alongside Bambi and myself - simply start posting on the 1st of October, and don't stop...

N.B. Feel free to request rule changes as we go - it's all pretty fluid. Scoring systems may be implemented too...

The arrogance of Piers Morgan

wow

choice quotes:

"As Muhammad Ali said, it’s hard to be humble when you are as great as I am,”

"I think it’s time the talent fall back and go, ‘hang on a second, without us, you don’t have networks'."

"I am looking to at least double it (his salary of £2m). I’ve got no problem if they take it away from somebody else who feels guilty about this type of thing, because I have absolutely no guilt issues about my salary whatsoever. I think I’m worth every penny."

Anyway, that's what's been annoying / amazing me this morning.

Badverts 2

A second installment of the TV ads that have got on the wrong side of me recently for one reason or another.


Kellogg's Rice Krispies Squares

Not a bad advert in many ways. A simple idea - puffed rice community lives on chocolate volcano - executed well enough with CGI krispies and volcano, obviously aimed at the kiddies to make them pester mum and dad whilst doing the weekly slog round Tesco. What I take issue with here is the accent of the narrator. He's supposed to be from the Caribbean or somewhere in that region. That's what I just about get from the way he mangles the opening sentence anyway. But after that ignorant piece of rice plucks a seemingly innocent flower from the cocoa crater he calls home, the narrator seriously loses the plot. Where the hell is that accent meant to be from? Somerset, perhaps? Maybe Wales? Or somewhere that doesn't actually exist? I'm going to go with box number three please, Noel. I mean if they wanted a Caribbean accent, instead of hiring someone who really really can't do one, why didn't they just go for the much easier and obvious option of, oh, I don't know, hiring a voiceover guy who comes from the Caribbean? But they didn't, and so we get this embarrassing, chewed up, offensive-to-your-ears-whether-you're-from-the-Caribbean-or-Crewe monstrosity of an impersonation. I'm guessing I'm not the only one of this opinion, as the advert has since been changed and now runs with a different voiceover who's supposed to sound like David Attenborough on a nature programme. He doesn't. It's still shit. Not quite as bad, nor as offensive, but still shit.

Mikado

An advert that lies (for me, at least) on that fine line between a campaign that's quite brilliant and one that's just plain wrong. But in so many ways it lands firmly in Wrongville. The advert has almost nothing to do with the product, reducing the snack being advertised to little more than a prop in the story it's telling. This is not a problem in itself, as any self-respecting drum-playing gorilla will tell you. But that means the company, having shunned the more traditional "buy our product because it's great" route, now has no choice but to promote the values associated with their product to make people want to buy it as it fits in with "who they are" and "what they're all about". And what values does Mikado have, according to the advert? Well, that it's "a bit cheeky". A young woman working in an office accidentally sets off the photocopier whilst kneeling on it trying to reach a Mikado stick. Oooh, cheeky.

But it's not. It's really, really not. This isn't Barbara Windsor giggling whilst clasping her boobies in a Carry On film. It's not even a rebellious teenager pulling his already-halfway-to-his-ankles trousers down and xeroxing his clammy posterior. The woman in the advert is wearing a short skirt and straddling the copier, meaning that she's either making copies of her knickers or her, ahem, "front bottom". See why it's not so cheeky any more? But it doesn't stop there. The male co-worker who had previously exited the copying room now re-enters, and is clearly somewehat surprised by what he sees Little Miss Knickers doing. At this point, the makers of the advert make sure that their advert cannot be rescued in any way, shape or form by slapping on the most inappropriate slogan for the scene which we are now gazing upon: "More than a little bit tempting". Fair enough with regards to the woman wanting a Mikado stick, but genuinely alarming when considering its alternative focus. Apparently the values that Mikado stands for are centred around office rape. If that's who you are and what you're all about, what the fuck is wrong with you?


Diet Coke



This one doesn't really need a huge amount of analysis. Annoying vacuous chart pop music. Annoying slogan that's trying to be oh so hip. So, a good start then. We then get a montage of women being, to put it bluntly, twats. Ruining wedding photos, trying to starting fights in bars, pissing around during a coworker's office presentation. And thinking they're hilarious whilst doing it. I could go on and on about how vomit-inducingly irritating all the women in this advert are, but that would be to waste far too much energy on them. Essentially, Coca Cola are saying if you're a woman and you drink Diet Coke, you'll become a complete dickhead. Great ad, guys.


ITV1



So, I'm at the cinema, awaiting the start of whichever film I've chosen to see. The advert starts, and this one comes on. I've not seen it before. So I begin taking it in. As it unfolds before me, I start to consider what it could be for. A new drama series, maybe? Perhaps a charity? I keep watching, still unable to put my finger on it. The advert continues. The kids are walking on a beach, there are homeless people living on the beach - could be about conservation at a fair stretch? Then the kids start doing the whole "throwing stones at the sky to break up the clouds" bollocks. At this point I've given up trying to work out what the hell this advert is for, because I've run out of things that could possibly fit with the colossal amount of pretentious wank that is being played out before me. This advert pretty much ticks all the boxes for being everything I hate. Child actors being annoying - yep, there they are; token foreign-looking kid in a half-arsed, last-minute attempt at diversity and political-correctness - most certainly; lashings of oversentimentality - oh yes sir, plenty of that. And still, I'm none the wiser as to what is being advertised to me.

As the children dance in the sunlight, which they have apparently never experienced before, playing whimsically with a damaged umbrella without a care for the used nappies and hypodermic needles that have likely come into contact with it, Patrick Stewart puts me out of my desperation and reveals that this heartstring-tugging tale is in fact an advert for ITV1. My jaw drops. ITV1? The "brighter side"? Really?! So, the channel that brings us The X-Factor, Tonight (which might as well be named The Daily Mail: TV Edition) and The Jeremy Kyle Show, turning on this channel is like, and I quote, "being able to make the sun shine whenever you want"? This advertising campaign is so ill-judged and egotistical, it's laughable. I can't think of many things that deserve such overwhelming and histrionic praise, let alone self-praise. But ITV1 is somewhere near the bottom of the list. I could go on and on about the things that this advert does wrong, but I'd be here for a long, long time.


That wraps it up for this second entry. Chances for a third installment? Well, that all depends on whether companies and advertising agencies continue to make terrible adverts. So, quite likely then. As always, if there are any ads that have caught your attention and/or got your goat recently, please let me know.

In the dollhouse

Last week, I watched Dollhouse. (Don't read too far down, spoilers there be) WHICH HAS TOTALLY EATEN MY BRAIN. Normally I daydream about sex, or my unfulfilled career as a stunt double/stand-up comic.

But at the moment, I'm daydreaming about Dollhouse and wanting the next series now. One night, I actually fell asleep thinking about it and woke up still thinking about it. The received wisdom seems to be that the first episodes weren't that good, but I actually enjoyed them and found everything compelling. Admittedly, things do pick up dramatically at episode 6, but to me it felt like a natural build up.

I don't really feel the need to empathise with the central character, who has her personality re-formatted at the end of each episode, because there are a lot of interesting side-acts to keep me hooked. It may be because it's such a welcome distraction from the rest of my life that I've found this show so compulsive, but I got through all 13 episodes in less than a week and I'm currently doing the re-watch with commentaries thing and working my way through most of the special features. I'm not sure what I'll do when I get to the end. Meep.

When I was younger, I quite liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I recently managed to get round to watching seasons 6 and 7. They were diverting, at times entertaining. Watching them needed doing, I needed to finish the saga. But they were as morphine to the heroin that is Dollhouse. Or Firefly. Maybe I've matured (fingers crossed), maybe Joss Whedon has matured. Maybe Firefly and Dollhouse are just more to my taste. Maybe they haven't been going long enough to get crap (Firefly certainly hasn't). But I think they are both streets ahead of Buffy. And Dollhouse is getting a second series. Woo!

To anyone interested in Whedon's work, I would definitely recommend you check this out. I didn't really have any preconceptions about it and just loved it.