How many times have I recently read favourable reviews of films only to find that they are not very good. How is it that the film "Beginners" has been advertised as having had good reviews from many critics, mostly with four stars, when on seeing it it turns out to be pretty awful? OK, that's just my point of view. But it's happened so often in the past year. I have seen at least four films that have bored me almost to death.
"Beginners" had, I imagined, the basic idea for a splendid film: a man of seventy-five tells his thirty odd year old son that he is gay. Hah, I thought, we'll see him going through the agonies of his confession and the son's reaction will, of course, be shock and awe. Not a bit of it. Christopher Plummer as the father tells his son, Ewan Mcgregor, of his secret as though he's telling him he's given up going to the corner shop for bread and is now going to the supermarket instead. And, instead of the son reacting like a man who's just experienced a life-altering moment, all he does is smile, look a trifle put out and carries on living his usual heterosexual way.
This part of the story is not a slow development: it's told us in the first two minutes, so the rest of the film is, really, padding because the strong story line has gone and we are left with a sort of long summing up.
It is an utterly boring film. Before I went I thought "here's a film with a strong story line with two of the finest actors in films - can't fail".
I cannot understand how it came to be distributed at the popular cinema outlets; it's film for art houses; its a gay film, it's art. Well, I think that's what the director (and writer) imagined it would be - art. It brought back to mind some of those French films I used to see: faces looking into space; philosophy of the cracker-barrel variety; lots of useless talk; crises in the lives of middle-class adults etc.
I am always wary now of a film which has been advertised as "Critically acclaimed". Art, in other words. There are very few films which are works of art; I can count them on the fingers of one hand; they are mostly Swedish or French or Japanese, raraly American. And they are all, in my experience boring, utterly boring.
Friday 29 July 2011
Sunday 24 July 2011
Dictionaries
Kingslay Amis , in his book "The King's English" (the King here being Kingsley not the one Fowler meant), he writes about the word "Dictionary": "It used to be said, probably with much truth, that every literate household possessed a Bible and a copy of "The Pilgrim's Progress. During the 19th century, the works of William Shakespeare and of Dickens would have added themselves to these and, towards the end, an English dictionary, one of the smaller ones. Nowadays, the shelf where these volumes would once have stood has been replaced by a longer one bearing video recordings. In particular, the habit of owning and often consulting a dictionary has largely died out among the general public."
I have a dictionary in most rooms of my house (and an encyclopaedia in two - though they are being used less and less as more an more use is made of the internet). I look up words in the dictionaries every day; one trouble is that I find myself looking up words which I have already looked up days - or even hours - before. This is partly due to my getting old with a memory that is slowly failing but more to do with the fact that there are certain words that, even after looking them up many times, I still cannot remember their meaning. This probably has to do with the fact that they do not fit in my vocabulary, they are never used, don't need them, don't like them, don't want them. "Solicitude" is one. "Solipsism" is another. "Trenchant" another. There are many others.
When I was doing my year of teacher training I was first put in a junior school with a middle-aged woman who was a good teacher but did not take a liking to me; I had the feeling I was an intruder. Luckily, the headmistress did like me so I knew I'd get a good report at the end of my two week session.
One day the teacher asked the children to look up a word in their dictionaries; they vigorously started turning pages, haphazardly I could see, looking for the word. This took some time because, to my amazement, they didn't know the alphabet.
This was, evidently, a perfect demonstration of that ridiculous idea that took flight then in theoretical educational circles that "discovering things for themselves" was the best method of learning. Kingsley would have been red-faced with the disgust if he had witnessed it.
I have a dictionary in most rooms of my house (and an encyclopaedia in two - though they are being used less and less as more an more use is made of the internet). I look up words in the dictionaries every day; one trouble is that I find myself looking up words which I have already looked up days - or even hours - before. This is partly due to my getting old with a memory that is slowly failing but more to do with the fact that there are certain words that, even after looking them up many times, I still cannot remember their meaning. This probably has to do with the fact that they do not fit in my vocabulary, they are never used, don't need them, don't like them, don't want them. "Solicitude" is one. "Solipsism" is another. "Trenchant" another. There are many others.
When I was doing my year of teacher training I was first put in a junior school with a middle-aged woman who was a good teacher but did not take a liking to me; I had the feeling I was an intruder. Luckily, the headmistress did like me so I knew I'd get a good report at the end of my two week session.
One day the teacher asked the children to look up a word in their dictionaries; they vigorously started turning pages, haphazardly I could see, looking for the word. This took some time because, to my amazement, they didn't know the alphabet.
This was, evidently, a perfect demonstration of that ridiculous idea that took flight then in theoretical educational circles that "discovering things for themselves" was the best method of learning. Kingsley would have been red-faced with the disgust if he had witnessed it.
Friday 22 July 2011
Chess
I was never much of a chess player; I prefered trying to solve chess problems in newspapers and magazines. I was reasonably good at that. I was never good enough at playing chess to enter competitions with teams of players. But I have known a few people who have played competitively, my father for one when he was a young man. He had studied the game and told me he used some of the methods great chess players use. The name Kappa Blanca (not sure of the spelling) comes to mind. "I did a Kappa Blanca opening on him," he'd say. He used to play with my brother, a couple of years older than me. I can't remember who won those games. My father told me of a game he played against a man who ate nuts throughout, crunching them between his front teeth; probably done to annnoy his opponents.
A man I knew for a while some years ago was a schizophrenic - he had been hospitalised some years before I knew him. He was sort of recovered but I was wary of him; I knew him to be awkward if riled. I was told that when he was learning to drive one day, the driving instructor shouted at him and received in return a punch to the jaw. End of driving lesson.
He played chess in tournaments. He told me of a game in which he played when, he averred, his opponent cheated. He complained to the official and the incident was investigated. I'm afraid I never heard the result.
Went to see the film "Bobby Fischer against the World", a documentary which told the life of Bobby Fischer in some film and most still photos; there were filling scenes of people who knew him, played against him, helped him etc. It's been a highly rated film but I didn't like it much. It didn't tell me anything new about him - correction:I didn't know that he had won the American title of best player at the age of 14. It didn't have any chess in it - not surprising I suppose because the makers wouldn't have wanted to put people off who don't play the game. But it suffered from being not so much about a genius and more about an eccentric. It was hard to watch towards the end when Fischer went into decline. Strangely he was an anti-semite and an anti-American yet he was Jewish and American.
Here's my pschological analysis of Bobby Fischer: he got to hate himself because he could never satisfy his longings (maybe sexual) so he hated what he was - a Jew and an American.
I rest my case.
A man I knew for a while some years ago was a schizophrenic - he had been hospitalised some years before I knew him. He was sort of recovered but I was wary of him; I knew him to be awkward if riled. I was told that when he was learning to drive one day, the driving instructor shouted at him and received in return a punch to the jaw. End of driving lesson.
He played chess in tournaments. He told me of a game in which he played when, he averred, his opponent cheated. He complained to the official and the incident was investigated. I'm afraid I never heard the result.
Went to see the film "Bobby Fischer against the World", a documentary which told the life of Bobby Fischer in some film and most still photos; there were filling scenes of people who knew him, played against him, helped him etc. It's been a highly rated film but I didn't like it much. It didn't tell me anything new about him - correction:I didn't know that he had won the American title of best player at the age of 14. It didn't have any chess in it - not surprising I suppose because the makers wouldn't have wanted to put people off who don't play the game. But it suffered from being not so much about a genius and more about an eccentric. It was hard to watch towards the end when Fischer went into decline. Strangely he was an anti-semite and an anti-American yet he was Jewish and American.
Here's my pschological analysis of Bobby Fischer: he got to hate himself because he could never satisfy his longings (maybe sexual) so he hated what he was - a Jew and an American.
I rest my case.
Sunday 17 July 2011
The Apprentice
Some of my friends don't watch The Apprentice. Most of them wouldn't watch it unless they were strapped to a chair and had their eyes prised open. To them Lord Alan Sugar is a capitalist of the worst kind: one who makes money for the sake of making money. Capitalists of a certain kind enjoy making money: it's their 'raison detr', their purpose of living.
I'm growing to like him. He is possibly the ugliest man on TV, maybe the ugliest in the country, but I can't hold that against him since I once read, and enjoyed, an essay by Chesterton titled "In Praise of Ugliness" and so have always had a soft spot for uglyiness: without ugliness there would be nothing to compare beauty with after all.
Who is going to win this year's game? That's what it is, a game. Though there is a serious element this time in that the winner will have £250 000 to play with - or rather, to start a business with. But who cares if a business is started or not; all we fans care about is who wins.
My money is on Tom because he is the only one with an inventive streak. While he doesn't know much history - "Columbus was English wasn't he?" (To which Hazel replied "Yes"). Then, didn't Tom say he was going to be greater than Dyson? I think he believed it. And I think Sugar.... sorry, Lord Sugar..... may believe it too.
Jim shot himself in the foot last week and the week before with his "Caracas" restaurant - Crackers might have been better. And he talks too much. He'd annoy Sugar so much - yeah Sugar - he'd be dropped at the first hurdle.
Hazel is too good to be true. She's perfect. But she's never run a company like the other one, the Chinese-looking girl whose name escapes me. The panel of "The Apprentice - You're Fired" picked her last week. Never. She'd drive me up the wall in two days - no, two minutes.
We shall see.
I'm growing to like him. He is possibly the ugliest man on TV, maybe the ugliest in the country, but I can't hold that against him since I once read, and enjoyed, an essay by Chesterton titled "In Praise of Ugliness" and so have always had a soft spot for uglyiness: without ugliness there would be nothing to compare beauty with after all.
Who is going to win this year's game? That's what it is, a game. Though there is a serious element this time in that the winner will have £250 000 to play with - or rather, to start a business with. But who cares if a business is started or not; all we fans care about is who wins.
My money is on Tom because he is the only one with an inventive streak. While he doesn't know much history - "Columbus was English wasn't he?" (To which Hazel replied "Yes"). Then, didn't Tom say he was going to be greater than Dyson? I think he believed it. And I think Sugar.... sorry, Lord Sugar..... may believe it too.
Jim shot himself in the foot last week and the week before with his "Caracas" restaurant - Crackers might have been better. And he talks too much. He'd annoy Sugar so much - yeah Sugar - he'd be dropped at the first hurdle.
Hazel is too good to be true. She's perfect. But she's never run a company like the other one, the Chinese-looking girl whose name escapes me. The panel of "The Apprentice - You're Fired" picked her last week. Never. She'd drive me up the wall in two days - no, two minutes.
We shall see.
Tuesday 12 July 2011
Guessing games
A young man on "Deal or no Deal" turned down an offer of £24000 and decided to guess instead. He had two boxes, one with £5 in it, the other with about £50000 in it. Guess what: he picked the wrong-un and went home with £5. Did he cry or try to throttle Noel Edmunds? No he did not. He said those immortal words that are said every week, if not every day, on "Deal or no Deal", "Well, I'm only here once".
I'm only here once to demonstrate that I am a complete idiot by guessing which box had £50000 in it and failing to find it.
So why did he guess instead of pocketing the £24000? Because he thought he was "on a role". He had just got rid of three blue numbers (all low in £'s) and thought he must be on a role and therefore the next box he picked would bound to be the big one.
You can't be on a role in a guessing game. You can be on a role in a game where you're using your brain to calculate how things will be.
Another TV game show that is often entertaining is "4 Rooms" where four dealers (in antiques, art.... everything that is saleable) make people, who come there with something to sell, an offer. Sometimes you wonder if the things brought in are of any value at all and then they turn out to be worth a lot: a stuffed tortoise brought a bit of cash for someone, a picture of Marilyn Monroe, drawn by Marilyn Monroe brought a bit of dough from one of the dealers. A stuffed polar bear came too and the four dealers stood beneath it and wondered at the size of the thing.
You wonder sometimes how some of these articles are brought to the studio. In a lorry? Part of a wall with Banksy's graffitee on it.
A guy turned up with 7000 photos of famous stars of old: film stars mostly I think. It's not as if they were by a particularly well-known photographer which might have given them some value - but just a pile of old photos?? So I was amazed when one of the dealers bought them for about £45000. I wasn't the only one who was surprised: the other three dealers would have offered, they said, £500, £600, £700 for them.
Perhaps he thought "well I'm only here once". But I think he saw something special amoung them because there was glint in his eyes, that dealer's glint you've always got to look out for when you're buying or selling something. The glint that says: "I know something that you don't know". As Raymond Chandler put it about a crook: "he had the innocent eyes of a used car salesman".
I'm only here once to demonstrate that I am a complete idiot by guessing which box had £50000 in it and failing to find it.
So why did he guess instead of pocketing the £24000? Because he thought he was "on a role". He had just got rid of three blue numbers (all low in £'s) and thought he must be on a role and therefore the next box he picked would bound to be the big one.
You can't be on a role in a guessing game. You can be on a role in a game where you're using your brain to calculate how things will be.
Another TV game show that is often entertaining is "4 Rooms" where four dealers (in antiques, art.... everything that is saleable) make people, who come there with something to sell, an offer. Sometimes you wonder if the things brought in are of any value at all and then they turn out to be worth a lot: a stuffed tortoise brought a bit of cash for someone, a picture of Marilyn Monroe, drawn by Marilyn Monroe brought a bit of dough from one of the dealers. A stuffed polar bear came too and the four dealers stood beneath it and wondered at the size of the thing.
You wonder sometimes how some of these articles are brought to the studio. In a lorry? Part of a wall with Banksy's graffitee on it.
A guy turned up with 7000 photos of famous stars of old: film stars mostly I think. It's not as if they were by a particularly well-known photographer which might have given them some value - but just a pile of old photos?? So I was amazed when one of the dealers bought them for about £45000. I wasn't the only one who was surprised: the other three dealers would have offered, they said, £500, £600, £700 for them.
Perhaps he thought "well I'm only here once". But I think he saw something special amoung them because there was glint in his eyes, that dealer's glint you've always got to look out for when you're buying or selling something. The glint that says: "I know something that you don't know". As Raymond Chandler put it about a crook: "he had the innocent eyes of a used car salesman".
Friday 8 July 2011
Music
No more Shostakovic for me thanks. His 5th Symphony was probably, for some, the highlight of the concert I went to a few weeks ago but the highlight for me was the Grieg Piano Concerto. I can hear some of my college friends of many years ago saying "O no!" Yes, Grieg. I recall someone in the interval of a concert saying to his partner "Liked the Mozart but hated the Grieg." The Grieg happened to be his Holberg Suite which is a wonderful work, Grieg at his best.
I recall reading something about Walter Legg the great impresario: he had discovered a young pianist, Dinu Lipatti, and wanted the famous and then ageing Arthur Schnabel to hear a record of the young man. "I'll play you the Grieg Piano Concerto," he told Schnabel. "O no, not that, anything but that," said Schnabel. "Just the cadenza then?" Schnabel agreed and was swept away by the man's playing (Lipatti didn't have long to live after that and hurried to record a great deal of piano music before dying). But that was all, he didn't want to hear the rest.
Michael White, writing in The Telegraph, says that music critics like him can't "unquestionly adhore every piece of serious music". Even they have their favourites and composers they positively dislike.
I dislike Shostakovic (apart from his 2nd Piano Concerto), Mahler, Bruckner, Schonberg, Berg and most modern composers. I love Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Brahms (some of it), Stravinski (some), Bach, Haydn - which is enough to go with. O yes, and Grieg.
I recall reading something about Walter Legg the great impresario: he had discovered a young pianist, Dinu Lipatti, and wanted the famous and then ageing Arthur Schnabel to hear a record of the young man. "I'll play you the Grieg Piano Concerto," he told Schnabel. "O no, not that, anything but that," said Schnabel. "Just the cadenza then?" Schnabel agreed and was swept away by the man's playing (Lipatti didn't have long to live after that and hurried to record a great deal of piano music before dying). But that was all, he didn't want to hear the rest.
Michael White, writing in The Telegraph, says that music critics like him can't "unquestionly adhore every piece of serious music". Even they have their favourites and composers they positively dislike.
I dislike Shostakovic (apart from his 2nd Piano Concerto), Mahler, Bruckner, Schonberg, Berg and most modern composers. I love Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Brahms (some of it), Stravinski (some), Bach, Haydn - which is enough to go with. O yes, and Grieg.
Monday 4 July 2011
Westerns music
If I were asked for my favourite music on a Desert Island Discs programme I think one of my choices would be the music from one of my favourite Westerns. This would take me back to long ago when they made good Westerns in Hollywood. I suppose when we think of Hollywood we think usually of three kinds of film: Westerns, Musicals and Thrillers. I do anyway.
The three in contention would be Elmer Bernstein's score for"The Mgnificent Seven", Jerome Moross's "The Big Country" and Victor Young's "Shane". It would be a diffuicult choice because I like them all.
OK, here goes: it would have to be "The Magnificent Seven". It is one of the most excciting pieces of film music I've heard though Star Wars and Psycho run it close seconds.
I put the three pieces of Westerns music on Youtube and they're all good but 7 is the best.
At the end of 7 there are a few comments sent in by members of the general public. One of them was "This song makes me wanna find six of my best friends and take on an army."
Yeah, I know how he feels.
The three in contention would be Elmer Bernstein's score for"The Mgnificent Seven", Jerome Moross's "The Big Country" and Victor Young's "Shane". It would be a diffuicult choice because I like them all.
OK, here goes: it would have to be "The Magnificent Seven". It is one of the most excciting pieces of film music I've heard though Star Wars and Psycho run it close seconds.
I put the three pieces of Westerns music on Youtube and they're all good but 7 is the best.
At the end of 7 there are a few comments sent in by members of the general public. One of them was "This song makes me wanna find six of my best friends and take on an army."
Yeah, I know how he feels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)