Audience of One

Hamlet

In keeping with the “new me” who has recently rediscovered the joys of culture as a good gift from God and not something inherently “unspiritual”, I went to see Hamlet last night. I’ve never seen a live Shakespeare tragedy, so it was something I was looking forward to greatly (particularly as the Tobacco Factory do great Shakespeare). I was going with a friend who’d not ever seen Hamlet, but was a fan of Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (based on arguably pointless characters in Hamlet). So we were both quite excited, though wondering if we were just going to be thoroughly depressed by Hamlet moping for three hours. (Major plot points mentioned in the next paragraph – just in case someone cares.)

Turns out he was a very excitable and – though depressed – lively and almost comic character, so not a stereotypical Hamlet in any way, but brilliant none the less. An incredibly young-looking Ophelia was suitably melancholic; Polonius, (“brevity is the soul of wit”) wonderfully long-winded; and Claudius and Gertrude suitably guilt-ridden, schmaltzy and scheming as the situation demanded. You’re left guessing as to what’s going on in Hamlet’s head, and it makes Ophelia’s death and Hamlet’s reaction all the more poignant when up until then it had seemed that his desire for revenge had made him forget his love for her.

On Sunday we’d been discussing how Christians should engage with art that portrays immoral acts – is it okay to enjoy watching a tragedy like this, where none of the main characters (excepting Ophelia) seem to be those you can sympathise with? Is portrayal of sin outside of the oft-quoted Philippians verse: “whatever is noble and praiseworthy, think about such things”? Maybe I’ll come back to that another time. I did enjoy it, despite the tragic ending – almost because of the tragic ending! The play shows a world tainted by sin, and its consequences. It’s not enjoyable because I’m delighting in the sin shown, but as an act of creative genius that shows us our own natures. God in his grace has restrained human sinfulness in many ways, because if he hadn’t, many more stories would end up like Hamlet’s. If reading or watching such things was wrong, then we couldn’t read much of Old Testament history!

More and more I’m seeing the wonders of God’s gift of creativity. I pray that I won’t now go to the extreme and put art in the place of God (exchanging the giver for the gift). Art was made by God, and points to God: may I never lose sight of that.

Matthew @ 10:49, April 29, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code in film form is an excellent adaptation of the book – which if you’ve read the book, isn’t saying much. Like the book, I found it to be a gripping story. Also like the book, I didn’t particularly like it, even though it gripped me.

Most of the film’s faults seemed to lie in the plot and the acting, with a couple of exceptions. Tom Hanks was probably planning to look slightly dazed throughout the film, as it is rather a confusing plot for the characters themselves to go through. However, looking dazed (or occasionally scared when in enclosed spaces) for the whole film got a little irritating. He’s done some good work, but this isn’t among it. Audrey Tautou wasn’t bad, but she wasn’t anything special either.

The plot, of course, is legend. A secret society called the Priory of Sion have been keeping the secret of the Holy Grail safe from the Catholic Church, who want to destroy it, as the Grail would rock the whole Christian faith to the core. What is the Grail? That Jesus, far from being the Son of God, was a normal bloke who got married to Mary Magdalene and had a child. This child was the first of the royal bloodline, whose existence is protected by the Priory of Sion. The code of the title is the clues that Leonardo da Vinci left in his work to this truth, as well as the series of clues left for Tom Hanks’ character to trace the location of Mary Magdalene’s last resting place.

What the film (nor indeed the book) never explains is why, if Jesus isn’t the Son of God, this is such a big issue. So there’s someone alive who’s descended from a man executed by the Romans two thousand years ago. If Jesus isn’t who Christians believe he is, what does this matter? Sure, the revelation would shock the church to its core, but it doesn’t make the descendants anything special, nor Mary Magdalene herself. However, right at the end of the film we find Tom Hanks kneeling, seemingly in prayer, at the grave of Mary Magdalene. This doesn’t seem to make any sense.

So parts of the film don’t make sense. Other parts, like in the book, are just lies. Part of the book’s controversy arose from Dan Brown’s introduction, in which he claims that most of the book is based on fact. The film also presents particular things as fact. For example, the council of Nicea voted on what books to put in the Bible and what not to put in. This much we know. The film/book claims that they chose the books that confirmed what they wanted to put out – that Jesus was the Son of God. As a result, they got rid of all the books which contradicted this.

What the film doesn’t tell you is that not only is it all the earliest writings that talk of Jesus’ divinity, the canon of the New Testament was pretty much agreed apon by (if my memory serves me) the middle of the second century, two hundred years before Nicea. The Gnostic gospels mentioned in the film (the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Philip) were written about a hundred years later.

So that’s just one example. There are many other inaccuracies, but as I’m not an expert I’d read one of the many books on the subject if you’re interested. There are far too many “facts” assumed that have almost no historical basis. It was the same with the book of course.

What else to say? Well, for a film full of historical inaccuracies, illogical events and ridiculous co-incidences, it was reasonably enjoyable, but so bad that I felt guilty for enjoying it. It’s one of those things which I don’t regret having seen, but if given the choice again I’d have seen something else. There were some brilliant moments though. When Langdon (Hanks) and Neveu (Tautou) take refuge from the police with Sir Leigh (Ian McKellen), they neglect to tell him of their pursuers. When he discovers the police arriving at his door, his out-of-the-blue response is along the lines of “not to worry, we can fly my jet to Switzerland”. Or later, with Langdon beating himself up over an obvious clue: “Of course, why didn’t I see it?! A pope doesn’t mean ‘a pope’, it means Alexander Pope! How stupid was I!” Or the albino monk Silas speaking Latin into a mobile phone. So, not all bad then. Ridiculous on so many levels, sometimes funny, mainly not.

Matthew @ 14:04, May 22, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (and another film)

Last night I saw the new Narnia film for the first time. I’d wanted to see it in the cinema, but for some reason never managed it. The night I could have gone with my family, I had a gig that clashed. They had come home and raved about it, so I wanted to see it more, but still couldn’t manage it. The DVD was released just before I came to Japan, and I was too busy to rent it. Luckily, Bethany (eldest daughter of my hosts) had borrowed it and wanted to watch it, so we set up the church projector and my laptop and watched it on Sunday evening. (As a result, my laptop is currently set to Region 1. Any ways to get round regional encoding on a DVD would be very useful…)

The film is generally very good. The acting is all very good, though some of the CGI animation left a bit to be desired, I felt. Aslan, for example, looked definitely computer animated rather than a real lion. Still, that was me being critical – it doesn’t matter so much because it’s still reasonable.

The film seemed to have a good balance of the serious and amusing moments. The action scenes not featured in the book worked very well, and didn’t feel like taking a liberty with the original. I also liked the costumes and a lot of the different creatures. Some of them just looked awkward and badly animated though. (Actually, “badly” is too strong a word. Not brillianty animated, then.)

It was probably about as good as I thought it would be, neither exceeding expectations nor disappointing. What did exceed my expectations though was the film “Sky High”, which was far better than I expected of a Disney family comedy. In a different way to the Incredibles, Sky High managed to distort superhero conventions to create a different take on the whole concept, and did it well. It’s also a pretty good take on American high schools. It’s not as good as the Incredibles at first viewing, but I get the feeling there were lots of little jokes that I missed (as I remember some little unobvious jokes that I managed to catch, and there must be more).

I was surprised to enjoy it so much, and while it won’t win any awards it’s by no means a waste of time. I’d say it’s definitely worth seeing, and I will probably see it again.

It’s our plan to see the Da Vinci Code on Monday with some Japanese friends, which shall be interesting. I will post a report if we do.

Matthew @ 11:50, May 18, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (4)

Things I've seen recently

Elizabethtown

Cute but predictable, with some funny moments. Not as bad as people make out, but not as good as the few fans might argue.

Hustle (series 3)

Started off well, but after a couple of episodes almost felt like it was running out of ideas. This was solved by the next week though, and the finale was suitably impossible and slick.

Persuasion (1995 film)

Possibly I should have read the book first, but the film is well acted and well put together and (apparently) faithful to the original. I really enjoyed this film, but don’t have much to say on it. It was just really well done and well worth seeing.

Doctor Who (new series)

The first episode wasn’t quite as spectacular as some would have it, but was nonetheless a good start. I will miss most of the new series by being in Japan, but will have far more interesting things on my mind to care. A new series of Spooks on the other hand would be a sore trial – thank goodness that’s not until autumn. (What if others don’t want to watch it at uni though?)

Matthew @ 12:19, April 17, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (10)

Awesome God (a somewhat tardy review)

Awesome God is a CD from Sovereign Grace Ministries (for those who know about these kind of things, that’s C.J. Mahaney’s organisation) aimed at 7-12 year-old kids. I help out with the 9-11s at my church, and have also helped with the 7-9s (and have a seven-year-old cousin) so this seemed like something I could review.

I’d been getting increasingly frustrated with some of the kids’ songs we’d been singing in church. A lot of them seemed to be of the “Jesus, you’re my best friend” tradition, with nothing in them about why he should be and what else he should be (salvation and Lord respectively). (One of the songs is in fact called “Jesus, you’re my best friend” and is actually very difficult to sing.) There’s nothing wrong with singing about Jesus being your best friend, but songs are to “teach and admonish” (Collosians 3:16) also. It’s all very well singing “Jesus, you are my best friend; you will always be; and nothing will ever change that”, but when faced at school with non-Christians challenging your faith, unless you’re remembering why he’s your best friend you’re not going to be particularly encouraged. I like having good Christian songs and hymns stuck on my brain because it helps me remember what God is like and what he’s done. Songs like the above do not help.

So, to Awesome God. Well, immediately the lyrics attracted me. This is sound doctrine and catchy tunes which had me singing along and singing after the CD had finished. So far so good. However, I’m not sure all of these songs will work so well in a congregational setting. They’re almost too pop-song-like for their own good – catchy, but with confusing pauses designed to embarrass those who don’t know the song too well. Some would actually be quite tricky for your average kid to sing – I’m musical, so have almost no problem, but the best congregational songs are singable by the majority and I’m not sure these ones always will be. (Then again, I’d criticise the majority of songs we currently sing in our church along the same lines. I guess I’m just hard to please in this area.)

As to the album as something for kids to listen to (in the car etc.) I found myself feeling far more critical than I wanted to be. I wanted to really like this CD. I wanted to write a glowing review, but instead I found myself finding it slightly irritating after a bit. The reason is that it sounds, to my British-indie-rock-loving ear, too American. I hate using American in a bad way, but there’s just some typically American music that I don’t like. Production decisions on this album were very much American. This isn’t a bad thing for some people – for me, I found it very hard to recommend this recording, though I would probably recommend the songs.

All in all, kudos to Bob Kauflin and the team for wanting to do something like this. I like almost all of the lyrics (but I’m slightly fed up with church songs going on and on and on and on so Forever God’s chorus grated slightly), I think the songs are good for the musical and have no idea how an average church congregation (especially one full of kids) would cope, and I guess I’m just not a fan of the American pop-rock production though I can appreciate it’s well done.

To people chosing kids’ songs, either get hold of the album, or download the lead sheets and try them out on a piano. I’ll probably send the CD onto Richard Simpkin (music director at St Helen’s) for him to review next – he is the person whose opinion I value most on matters of music in church. To be honest, I’m not really qualified to write this review, but if Richard ever writes a review I’ll be sure to mention it here.

(There. Finally, I’ve got around to writing this review. It’s been far too long. Apologies to you all.)

Currently listening to: Sovereign One – Sovereign Grace Music

Matthew @ 16:20, March 25, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Films this holiday

I’m coming to the end of two weeks’ holiday. During the holiday I have watched rather a lot of films. Some of them have been good, and some of them not so good. Here’s a roundup:

Mission Impossible 2

Nowhere near as good as the first one, but an adequate way to waste a couple of hours. Unlike the first one, you figure out the plot twists half an hour before, not half an hour after they happen.

The Mighty Boosh, series one

Not a film, but far superior to anything else I’ve watched this holiday. I’m attempting to get tickets for the stage show.

The Third Man

A classic film that perhaps I was expecting too much of. I enjoyed it, but kept on thinking there would be another twist somewhere. Has the immortal line about cuckoo clocks which, according to Wikipedia, isn’t even accurate. Recommended, but not as strongly as it was recommended to me. The music is excellent.

The Talented Mr Ripley

A film about guilt, and it portrays it well. It’s a very interesting film, partly in that you’re not sure whether you want Ripley to get away with what he’s doing or not. The choice to give Ripley more of a conscience compared to the book makes it much more interesting.

Madagascar

A kids’ animation that fails to be interesting for adults, with a few exceptions. There’s a brilliant gag about half way through about Planet of the Apes, which was the funniest joke of the film. On the whole, it’s slapstick vegetarian propaganda.

I, Robot

Pretty reasonable sci-fi thriller, in that it has a twist. Note to film directors: sci-fi is just showing off special effects without some kind of twist or surprise. That said, it wasn’t that much of a revelation. Will Smith is better than usual (not that he’s ever really bad). Oh, and it claims to be based on Isaac Asimov, but isn’t.

Four Weddings and a Funeral

Not as good as Notting Hill, but Rowan Atkinson’s vicar is memorable (in a good way).

Charade

Superior sixties thriller. I’ve always wanted to say “Superior” in a review. Anyway, it’s very good, and even though I’d seen it before couldn’t remember what happened.

High Society

Musical comedy featuring Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby and Louis Armstrong. A classic definitely worth watching.

Currently listening to Switchfoot – Happy is a Yuppie Word

Matthew @ 11:14, February 9, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (4)

The Goblet of Fire

Of my predictions for this film, I feel I have been vindicated (again). This was the first Harry Potter film that I didn’t come away from thinking of the cheesy bits that annoyed me; I came away thinking of the good bits which I enjoyed. A definite improvement. I predicted a Lord of the Rings feel, which didn’t really emerge, but never mind.

So, to the film. Now, of course bits were missed out as they couldn’t hope to fit the whole book in – but some things were also changed completely. Sometimes this was good, sometimes it was bad. (If you haven’t seen the film yet, you might want to stop reading now.)

An example of a good change would be Rita Skeeter appearing in the champions tent before the first task just as Hermione hugs Harry. That was quite a clever way of introducing Hermione’s dislike of Skeeter, and made for an amusing scene. However they’d cut out Hermione’s revenge completely, making the whole character of Skeeter seem a bit pointless, or at least added on to the plot and not quite fitting in.

Crouch Junior also featured in Harry’s dream of the Riddle House at the beginning, meaning that he recognised him in the Pensieve. Of course, this leads to a much simpler denouement, but I felt it lacked power as it was abbreviated so much.

Daniel Radcliffe was improved from the last film, though not as improved as Rupert Grint (who was excellent). Emma Watson also improved, but as of the third film she was the strongest of the three anyway. I’m not sure I like Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore so much, but the other teachers have always been very good. The best actors in the entire film though were, of course, Jonny Greenwood and Phil Selway of Radiohead as members of the Weird Sisters. David Tennant was very good as Crouch Junior, however I couldn’t help but think of Doctor Who.

After thinking about it a bit, I felt that what they chose to include and get rid of was, on the whole, wise – however I would have preferred to have Crouch Junior not present in the dream. The whole mystery over who Voldemort’s servant at Hogwarts is wasn’t developed at all (we hear about Karkaroff from Sirius but he’s not mentioned again really) and the ending did seem a bit weak. (Also, I’m not sure whether Harry being left in the wilderness at the World Cup worked, but it’s not so much an issue.)

All in all (what a terrible phrase – forgive me) it was a very enjoyable film, the best Harry Potter film yet, though not without its flaws – but then they are to be expected in any adaptation of a book. If you understand the Potter universe (whether or not you’re a fan) it’s a good film and worth seeing.

Matthew @ 20:47, November 20, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (5)

Transatlanticism

“You should really listen to some Death Cab for Cutie, Matthew.” I think my initial reaction to this advice was “What was that band name again?” Death Cab for Cutie is apparantly a name of a song by the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, but is also used as the name of an indie rock band recently signed to Atlantic Records. I wasn’t encouraged by their name, it has to be said. Still, I decided to take the advice, and rented a couple of their albums from the library.

Transatlanticism is quite hard to describe. It’s also an excellent album, lyrically and musically. Maybe you’ve had the same experience I’ve had – listening to a song and not having the first idea what they’re going on about. “Title and Registration” was one such song for me:

The glove compartment is inaccurately named
And everybody knows it
So I’m proposing a swift orderly change,
‘Cause behind its door there’s nothing to keep my fingers warm
And all I find are souvenirs from better times

It confused me at first. This was a song about regret:

There’s no blame for how our love did slowly fade
And now that it’s gone it’s like it wasn’t there at all
And here I rest where disappointment and regret collide
Lying awake at night

What did the glove compartment have to do with anything? Then I realised exactly what it was on about, realised that I could empathise completely with the sentiments and it was, in fact, incredibly clever. It’s quite a nice feeling that, so I’ll leave you to figure it out yourselves, if you haven’t got it already.

So, lyrically I could understand the sentiments (for once) – and musically it was fantastic as well. I have a particular penchant for glockenspiel solos, so perhaps I’m biased. The instrumentation, riffs, hooks and tunes all combine to leave the songs on my brain for hours and days after listening to them – and for once, I don’t mind having them stuck there.

If you watch the O.C., apparently songs from this album have featured on the soundtrack. Having never seen it myself, this was my first experience of Death Cab for Cutie, and it’s left me wanting to find more.

Currently listening to Here Comes The Sun – The Beatles

Matthew @ 11:10, November 6, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Wallace and Gromit

I was going to be all critical and cutting, and say how much more critical and cutting the film could have been, and how they’d not been quite a strong satirically as they could have been… but I relented when I realised I was perfectly happy with it how it was. Sure, some of the jokes were a bit beneath me (kids would love it) but as a whole it was a really good film – charming without being sickly.

Er, that’s it. To be honest, there’s not much more to say that hasn’t been said already. The incredibly critical reviewer of the Independent (who hasn’t liked any film I’ve seen and enjoyed in the past two years) gave it five out of five stars. Then again, he’s possibly becoming less critical – Sky High got three (“good”).

Anyway, I enjoyed it a lot. However not quite enough to make me want to see it again quite yet. I’ll give it four stars for now, and when the DVD comes out that may well go up.

Matthew @ 13:54, October 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Pride and Prejudice

First off, read the book. I don’t care who you are, just read it if you haven’t already (or even if you have). Actually, don’t if you’re a bloke and under around fourteen/fifteen years old, as you’ll probably hate it. I know I would have.

Okay, now that’s done I’ll get started by talking about the BBC adaptation. It’s very well done, and is incredibly faithful to the book. Both Lizzy and Darcy are well portrayed, Mr Bennet is as sarcastic as he should be, and the only thing that grated slightly was the character of Mary. I saw this version for the first time about four days ago. It was a brilliant drama.

Last night I saw the new film, which is a lot shorter and so by necessity doesn’t include all of the nuances. However, I found myself enjoying it even more than the BBC adaptation in places, though I was very disappointed with Mr Bennet. Mary was much more believable, Lizzy was even more vivacious than in the BBC version and Darcy just slightly more human, I felt. They’d changed scenery around (so instead of a conversation being in the morning out in a garden, it takes place after midnight in a candle-lit drawing room) and adapted some of the speeches slightly, but a lot of the dialogue was straight out of the book (as in the BBC version). There were lots of little things they’d changed which I felt made the film work better as a whole. As a faithful adaptation of the book, it was reasonably good, but nowhere near as accurate as the BBC version. That said, I felt I liked it as a film in its own right. The BBC version put into pictures the book exactly. This version told the story in its own way and was all the better for it. You couldn’t have been completely faithful in two hours, so they didn’t try to be; they did however keep every essential aspect, and filled out the rest to make the film better as a whole. It worked superbly.

These are my initial feelings about the film, which will no doubt change (if only slightly) once I see it again. Has anyone else seen it, and if so what did you think?

Matthew @ 13:53, September 18, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (6)

The Importance of Being Earnest

According to the Wikipedia entry, The Importance of Being Earnest is “regarded by many critics and scholars as being the wittiest play in the English Langauge”. To be completely honest, I’ve only ever seen serious plays with occasional comedic touches (Rhinoceros, Streetcar) so I’m not qualified to say on that matter.

It was a very amusing play, though. I’d been wanting to read/see something by Oscar Wilde for some time – this was a good opportunity, and I came out very impressed with both the script and the acting. The characters are all brilliantly portrayed through their lines, but the actors seemed to have personified the personalities perfectly. The set was well designed, with the switch between acts two and three just rotating the props by a hundred and eighty degrees around the centre of the stage. Algernon and Cecily were particularly good, in fact it almost seemed like Algernon was the main character, not Jack.

As I said when seeing A Streetcar Named Desire, seeing plays makes me want to act. It’s quite worrying – if I see any more plays I’m sure I’ll end up acting in something at uni, and that could end badly. I guess I’ve got the safety net of knowing no director in their right mind would give me any kind of leading role.

Do yourselves a favour and take any opportunity you have to see this play. I don’t know if it’s the wittiest English-language play, but it must be up there.

Currently listening to If I Didn’t Have You – Randy Newman

Matthew @ 12:19, August 29, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Batman Begins

It was one of those names that whenever I heard it, I thought “cliched slapstick rubbish for kids”. Just the very concept of Batman was ludicrous. Superman I could understand. Spiderman I thought was a bit odd, but could live with. Other comic book heroes did nothing for me. Batman was the most ridiculous though – I watched one of the original TV shows and never watched them again.

The Spiderman films started to eat down my reserve. They were good – much better than I thought they could be based on such implausible characters (though it has to be said, the second one was a lot better). I began to think that films based on comic books wouldn’t all be bad. Still, Batman?

I was surprised recently to learn that the original two Batman films had been directed by my favourite director, Tim Burton, and that they were dark. Not camp, as the TV show had been, but actually Burton-style Gothic films described by one reviewer as “nightmare”. I’m not a fan of horror generally, but when a film uses horror elements in a non-horror plot (especially without the supernatural being involved) I think it adds to the film enormously (and that’s what Tim Burton is best at). So, I thought perhaps they’d be worth watching.

Then Batman Begins came along. A friend was eager to see it, and I was sceptical. I’d probably end up seeing it after the Burton-directed ones, but I didn’t know enough about Christopher Nolan to know how good he’d be at directing it. I shouldn’t have worried. Last night, my parents spontaneously decided that if we all wanted, we’d go and see a film. Batman Begins was the only one on that we all didn’t mind seeing and hadn’t seen already.

It begins in a confusing way, but gradually the back-story is added to and by the end it all makes perfect sense. The mood is kept quite tense throughout, with action scenes being supported by engrossing dialogue and humourous touches. The acting was all excellent, including the children playing the young Bruce Wayne and his friend Rachel.

One thing I hadn’t realised is that Batman in fact has no super powers – it’s all based around martial arts and technology, all spun up in mysticism. I felt this was much better than the spider powers of Spiderman, or the Krypton back-story of Superman, and added to the realism of the film.

The film, as in all comic book hero films, raised a lot of ethical questions about good and evil. Here there was a more subtle point raised as well – that of judgement. Without wanting to give away too much of the plot, there was raised an issue of judgement and destruction (“Gotham can’t be saved from its sin”) and redemption and justice (“Gotham can be brought out of the sin it’s stuck in”). Gotham almost appeared to be a microcosm of the world.

The ending leads into the original Batman film by introducing the calling card of the Joker (Jack Nicholson’s famous villian), but isn’t billed as a prequel, rather ” a complete restart of the Batman series which follows the original comics more closely and promises a more reality-based Batman” according to Wikipedia. So, are they going to remake Burton’s classic? It doesn’t look like it but then why are they saying it’s a complete restart?

Queries over past or future sequels aside, the film was very satisfying and enjoyable. It was far better than I’d expected even from my most optimistic moments. Highly recommended. Oh, and the whole bat thing? It actually makes sense.

Matthew @ 11:29, June 18, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (6)

Revenge of the Sith

Before seeing this film I predicted that it’d be worth seeing, that everyone would be acting a lot better and the script would, on the whole, sound natural. The first time I saw the film, that was pretty much the case. There were a few niggling things about it, but on the whole it was a much better film than the previous ones. I looked forward to going back and just enjoying it, not having to critically analyse it to see if George Lucas had wrecked it. He hadn’t. This is the film that Star Wars fans were hoping for, almost without flaw. (As I said before, the first films had flaws as well so that’s not a problem.)

If you haven’t seen the film yet, I’d advise you to stop reading now and go see it – firstly because it’s an excellent film, secondly because you won’t understand what I’m on about, and thirdly because I’ll give away the entire plot to you.

Christensen can act. Anakin Skywalker is excellent, and his fall will be used by Star Wars savvy youth leaders as a visual aid for decades to come. Critics weren’t sure that his “lean face forward and stare angrily over the top of your non-existant glasses” look was “Dark Side” enough – to me it showed that the fall to evil was all inside. (Hey, just like sin – you can see what I mean about a visual aid…) Portman as Padmé was also very good – it’s just unfortunate that she had to die of a broken heart (I mean, does any otherwise healthy twenty-something ever die of a broken heart?). The hair style hinting at Leia was quite interesting, if unexplainable (I’m pretty sure style isn’t genetic) and her clothes finally stopped changing as much (and became more sensible). R2D2 rocks, and C3PO has just enough lines to keep his fans happy and just few enough not to annoy me. Jar Jar Binks had one line that I noticed – he apologised after treading on someone’s foot. Luckily it happened so quickly I only just noticed it on the second viewing – not perfect, but it’ll do.

Dialogue which appeared cheesy the first time round seemed much less so on the second viewing – in fact, I didn’t feel the script was let down by that at all. In fact, having seen it a second time I find it hard to think of anything particularly bad about it. The lightsaber fights were incredible – no surprises there. I think it ranks up with the original trilogy, as Return of the Jedi, while good, was let down far more by the Ewoks than any of the tiny niggles from this film (what is the point of having a robot fly past in the middle of the final duel, just as if to distract you?). The Ewoks are like the Wookiees done wrong – cute, tiny and annoying. Fitting in Chewbacca to this film was good, as was the mention of Captain Antilles. I’m guessing it’s his son we meet in the original trilogy.

So, thank goodness for that. Lucas has redeemed himself. And hey! it’s study leave next week – we can watch the DVDs of the original trilogy! Sweet.

Matthew @ 15:13, May 22, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (8)

Rhinoceros

A local theatre group recently put on a performance of the play Rhinoceros, which looked highly amusing when I read about it a few months ago so I decided to go and see it. Then I forgot about it because of the pressure of coursework, until I discovered two weeks ago that Xanna was in it. By this time I almost didn’t have the money, so while I emerged broke from the performance, I didn’t mind.

The play is about a town where, as the story progresses, more and more people develop ‘rhinoceritis’ and turn into rhinoceroses. The first time I said this to someone, they thought this was some kind of ridiculous kids’ play. Far from it. One reading of the play (the most obvious I’d think) is that rhinoceritis symbolises conformity – as more and more people become rhinos, the greater the urge is for others to follow and conform. The main character, Beringer, resists until the end, and in the production I saw it’s left ambiguous whether he turns into a rhino himself or not. It’s a very clever metaphor though.

One of the things I loved about this production was that the actors playing particular roles swapped throughout the play. For example, the four people it turned out I knew in the production (another SAYGO friend Jo as well as two others I recognised) played Beringer at some point, as well as quite a few other characters. The costumes they all wore made this work perfectly, and there was only one point when I was confused as to who was who (and figured it out as soon as this particular Beringer spoke). The rhino costumes were also great, and you had an opportunity to enter a draw to win a set of rhino horns, feet and tail. (I’d have so entered if I’d had a pen…)

Another thing I loved about this production was the way that, even before people turned into rhinoceroses there was a clear sense of them being part of a crowd, with no individuality. The whole cast would get together on stage as a rhinoceros passed by (portrayed by grunting and snorting through the speakers) and point – as a group – at it running past. They’d then immediately (as the lights changed) come together and become a single rhinoceros themselves, drawing parallels between the group and the conformity of the rhinoceros.

Recently I’ve been noticing more and more things in films and TV programmes that could be used as visual aids in talks. It’s a pity they didn’t film it – I’d have bought a copy and used it in the future :)

Matthew @ 10:21, March 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)

A Streetcar Named Desire

Last week for my dad’s birthday our family went out for a meal, before going onto see a play.

It was a slight surprise for me, seeing as we’d already been to see a show very recently and we never go to see stuff as a family. It was also a slight surprise for me because I’d read about the exact same play we were going to see in the newspaper the day before. It was an Oxford University students’ production of the Tennessee Williams play, A Streetcar Named Desire, whose director had been sacked as drama editor of the student newspaper due to running a review of the play. (The whole editorial team resigned in support of him – I have no idea what happened after that.)

The play is a fantastic one, and this production was also. The actors were incredibly good, to the extent that when they came back on for the second curtain call at the end some of them were still very much in character. My one problem is that I’d seen a Springfield musical version of it on The Simpsons and so when Blanche approached the paper boy to kiss him I was singing to myself in Apu’s voice “Will this bewitching floozy // Seduce this humble newsy?”. I was impressed that Marge Simpson actually had some of Blanche’s real lines from the play.

Maybe it’s an expense thing, but going to the cinema is now so commonplace – and of course once you’ve seen a film there, you can rent it again later. Going to see a play is more expensive. Is it more fun? Possibly. It’s certainly more of an “experience”, whatever that means. Maybe it’s because the people are real and standing there in front of you instead of just being pictures on a screen. (Of course film actors are real too. You get the point though.)

Seeing plays makes me want to act. Seeing films makes me want to direct. Seeing (in my mind) the results of both of these in a public performance make me want to shiver – I’m thinking I should just stick to music.

Matthew @ 11:47, March 12, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2)

iPod Shuffle

I recently bought an iPod Shuffle for many reasons, but mainly because my CD player had broken and I wanted a way of listening to music while away from the house. My memory stick had also broken (or rather, it doesn’t work at school so it might as well be – I still haven’t tested it elsewhere) and I wanted a replacement. When the iPod Shuffle was announced, I realised I could kill two birds with one stone – so I did.

The Shuffle is everything Apple advertises it as. It’s small and lightweight, and its battery life is actually quite impressive (I still haven’t had to charge mine a second time and I’ve been using it for almost three weeks constantly). It doubles as a memory stick that works perfectly, and of course it interfaces with iTunes, the discerning user’s media player.

There isn’t much to be said that hasn’t been said elsewhere other than it almost perfectly fits my needs. The Shuffle doesn’t have a screen, something which would have been quite useful, but for the most part I don’t need one. The only issue is when you have ten or so albums stored on it and you want to find a particular song… you have to do a lot of skipping, especially if you can’t remember which order your albums are in.

Current iPod owners might be interested in having it as a flash-memory alternative (for use while at the gym or something, where a hard-disk-based player might not be ideal) as it will use their current music library. If you use iTunes and AAC compression then you probably won’t find much better. If you don’t use AAC though, there are many other portable players which will probably do you just as well.

The iPod and iPod mini are both examples of innovative technology; but while the iPod Shuffle looks stylish, the innovation is slightly lacking.

Matthew @ 16:05, March 8, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (4)

“The most comfortable sock in the world”?

The Men’s Total Comfort Sock is the latest in the range of high performance footwear from popular high street retailer Marks & Spencer. The packaging talks of a a “cushioned sole” and a “comfort toe seam to reduce abrasion”, as well as mentioned “soft gripping Lycra fabric that moulds to the contours of the leg”. This is, apparently, a sock for comfort lovers – and not only that, durable. Are these claims reliable, however? Is this a sock that you should be spending your cash on? Does it live up to the high standards it sets for itself? I put the socks through a series of tests to answer these questions.

Comfort

Firstly, was the sock “the most comfortable sock in the world”, as claimed by a sticker on the packaging? As trying on every single sock in the world to answer this question would be a stretch of my limited resources, I decided to content myself with an average. Spending the best part of Saturday trying on different socks, I ranked each type on three factors:

• Cushioning
• Stretch
• The ‘tingle factor’

As the sock connoisseurs among you no doubt know, cushioning is the defining factor in your sock experience, yet by itself cannot provide the whole experience. I felt my foot to be excellently cushioned by the majority of socks I tried on, including the Total Comfort Sock. On then, to stretch.

The ability of a sock to stretch is measured by the following formula:

where x is equal to foot size (European measurement), k is the decimal value of the sock colour using standard RGB notation, w is the weight in kilograms the sock can hold inside before breaking, and y is the value of stretch ability in Newtons. This test knocked out the majority of socks tested (who broke after a mere five kilograms), but the TCS achieved a record value of 23.4N – truly remarkable.

The final factor is, of course, the ‘tingle factor’, and here the TCS really showed its colours (though only coming in shades of grey). When first sliding the socks on, I couldn’t feel my feet. Then tiny sensations started trickling up my legs, like melting ice trickling down your neck – only pleasant. It was a magical experience, and couldn’t be mimicked by any of the others (even the fantastic Homer Simpson Christmas socks from three years ago – maybe the gaping hole from the stretch test gave them a disadvantage).

After these tests, there was no doubt that the TCSs were as they claimed to be with regards to comfort.

Durability

The modern sock has to put up with many things, from being chewed by toddlers to being stuffed with presents by Father Christmas (stockings are so twentieth century…), so I put the top three ranked socks through the three vital tests.

Lactose/Citrus Resistance

As any normal five year old will tell you, bottles are there to have things stuffed in. My first job, then, was to test how well the socks resisted the effects of orange squash and milk (though not, fortunately, at the same time – five year olds aren’t that disgusting). I left a sock in each of the respective containers for a set amount of time (the average time between a distracted parent seeing the sock in the bottle and retrieving it), soaked it in water for five minutes, then smelt the sock to detect any remaining liquid.

It appears that, the comfier the sock, the most absorbant the fabric is. The TCS scored lowest on this test – in fact, the smell of the liquids stayed around for so long with the TCS that the orange-soaked sock smelt like milk. An abject failure, then, for durability in this area.

Marathon Run

As I write this, two friends of mine have just come in through the door, carrying a former friend between them. They have just run a marathon with no shoes to test their socks. The former friend in the middle collapsed after twenty miles when his TCSs finally wore through. The two other types of sock were fine, and their wearers carried my bloody-footed volunteer for the remaining six. Again, a complete failure for the TCS brand, and a loss of a friend for me. The things I do for an objective and complete review.

The Labour Party Speech

The final test is to see whether the socks on trial can last through a speech by a member of the Labour party (the higher up, the better). Luckily, the Oxford Town Hall had a Labour delegation this morning, and I turned up, kitted out in three pairs of socks.

Upon waking up in the uncomfortabe seat to find the speeches over and everyone gone home, I checked my footwear, only to discover that, left open to the air, all three pairs of socks had deteriorated under the hot air from the orators. No better nor worse than each other, then.

Summary

The Total Comfort Sock aspires to be the sock for the discerning modern man. Under careful scrutiny, I have found that, while extremely comfortable, the durability of this sock leaves something to be desired. I give the TCS a 7 out of 10.

Currently listening to He Woke Me Up Again – Sufjan Stevens

Matthew @ 14:53, February 27, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (4)