Hand-held Cameras

I suppose filming with hand-held cameras can be interesting - especially for documentary films where it might not be conducive to set up a camera on its tripod or whatever it is on these days; or when the film-maker wants a close-up that would be particularly difficult using normal techniques. But usually, hand-held cameras moving around the place can make one dizzy.
In the film "End of Watch" it's hand-held camera for the whole film. The reason, I think, is that the director wanted to give the audience the feeling that they were close if not actually in on the action. It did the reverse. It made me so conscious of the camera that I just couldn't get interested in the story. Not that there was much a story to tell. Two LAPD coppers on their beat. Two close friends who jabbered a lot to show us hop close they were to each other. Two decent fellows who did they're jobs well, caught crooks, weren't corrupt, had pleasant wife/girl friend. Normal guys, regular guys who did their duty, got to arrest some real nasty bits of work until they upset a cartel whose boss ordered some of his gang to kill them. Which is when the real action began. Up until then it had been a sort of documentary type of film - "lives of the policemen in the LAPD" sort of thing.
But what a tedious journey it was with all that hand-held camera stuff to put up with.
Sometimes the technique is used effectively so that you don't realise the camera is hand held - it's done so smoothly. "24" for instance. But usually you are so aware that you are watching a film that it all seems contrived and false.
The director should take a good long look at a film by the Japanese director Ozu who hardly moves his camera at all.

Cooking

Cooking they say is the new rock and roll. That means, I suppose, that TV food programmes are "with it". Well I'm not "with it", nor a rock and roll fan; nor a food programme watcher. Any more. Once they seemed attractive: seeing all those colourful food ingredients the magicians of the kitchen displayed; and once they seemed so knowledgeable about food recipes. Now, to coin a phrase, I'm fed up with them. Jamie Oliver gives me a pain in the neck with his recipes that, he maintains, can be served up in 15 minutes. Can't be done. Pull the other one Jamie. I once thought Nigel Whatsisname was in a category above the others but to try to produce one of his "suppers" inside two hours would be impossible. As for the woman, the bird, the dark haired beauty - I find her painfully unwatchable now: it's not cooking, it's showing off her contours.
What's wrong with Supermarket jars of sauces? They are surely made by experts who can produce a better sauce that I could with limited ingredients (Nigel Whatsisname's pantry is full from floor to ceiling with herbs and spices). And what's wrong with pastry from the shop when I know that trying to make it would not only take me, and probably most people, hours to produce? And what's wrong with pies from Gregg's? Their sausage rolls are great.
No, cookery programmes and cookery books are a new fad. Not only that but they take up so much valuable time when, for example, one could be reading "War and Peace" or listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony or writing a play or short story.
I suppose "the new rock and roll" sums it up rather well: it's low-rate stuff posing as quality.
I have just read that The Times is, this weekend, going to present to the public the 40 best cookbooks for Christmas. Forty!!!! That means that there are probably another one hundred and forty also published.
Mmm! May publish one myself: "How to cook without cooking" maybe i.e. lists of food available from supermarkets e.g. Sainsbury's tin of Beef Mince and Onions (excellent, topped with mashed potatoe, easier than cottage pie from scratch).