I admit that I was not giving this film my full attention, but then it never demanded it. The film revolves around an assassination attempt of the US president in Salamanca, Spain. It's an interesting concept revolving around vieiwng the event from the perspective of several different people. The concept itself is nothing new, but it always makes for an interesting whodunnit. But whodonewhat? The individual stories each tell a certain part of the story, however this is never fully exploited, we rarely see alternate angles revealing something previously unknown or assumed, timelines seem staggered and the story really just unfolds in a linear fashion. This is nothing like the sublimity of Christopher Nolan's Memento. So, that's the primary selling point out of the way, what else is there? Well, unfortunately, very little. The film plays like an episode of 24, or Lost or Prison Break. It has that same feel, only you know you aren't in it for the long run and you don't really care, so tension is never built (except the car chase, which was pretty good.) And when characters are in an unfortunate situation, you don't really care. In fact I wanted it to end like The Departed, with Forest Whitaker in shoe covers instead of Marky Mark. Whilst I'm talking about characters I should really mention that this film has none. The film was so much about this vantage point concept that all (and I mean all) characters are flat, uninteresting and lacking in context, and their personalities are revealed only fleetingly. That, coupled with the simple plot, issues of believablility and cut and paste character traits, make this film one to miss.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Film Review: Vantage Point (2008)
Director: Pete Travis
I admit that I was not giving this film my full attention, but then it never demanded it. The film revolves around an assassination attempt of the US president in Salamanca, Spain. It's an interesting concept revolving around vieiwng the event from the perspective of several different people. The concept itself is nothing new, but it always makes for an interesting whodunnit. But whodonewhat? The individual stories each tell a certain part of the story, however this is never fully exploited, we rarely see alternate angles revealing something previously unknown or assumed, timelines seem staggered and the story really just unfolds in a linear fashion. This is nothing like the sublimity of Christopher Nolan's Memento. So, that's the primary selling point out of the way, what else is there? Well, unfortunately, very little. The film plays like an episode of 24, or Lost or Prison Break. It has that same feel, only you know you aren't in it for the long run and you don't really care, so tension is never built (except the car chase, which was pretty good.) And when characters are in an unfortunate situation, you don't really care. In fact I wanted it to end like The Departed, with Forest Whitaker in shoe covers instead of Marky Mark. Whilst I'm talking about characters I should really mention that this film has none. The film was so much about this vantage point concept that all (and I mean all) characters are flat, uninteresting and lacking in context, and their personalities are revealed only fleetingly. That, coupled with the simple plot, issues of believablility and cut and paste character traits, make this film one to miss.
I admit that I was not giving this film my full attention, but then it never demanded it. The film revolves around an assassination attempt of the US president in Salamanca, Spain. It's an interesting concept revolving around vieiwng the event from the perspective of several different people. The concept itself is nothing new, but it always makes for an interesting whodunnit. But whodonewhat? The individual stories each tell a certain part of the story, however this is never fully exploited, we rarely see alternate angles revealing something previously unknown or assumed, timelines seem staggered and the story really just unfolds in a linear fashion. This is nothing like the sublimity of Christopher Nolan's Memento. So, that's the primary selling point out of the way, what else is there? Well, unfortunately, very little. The film plays like an episode of 24, or Lost or Prison Break. It has that same feel, only you know you aren't in it for the long run and you don't really care, so tension is never built (except the car chase, which was pretty good.) And when characters are in an unfortunate situation, you don't really care. In fact I wanted it to end like The Departed, with Forest Whitaker in shoe covers instead of Marky Mark. Whilst I'm talking about characters I should really mention that this film has none. The film was so much about this vantage point concept that all (and I mean all) characters are flat, uninteresting and lacking in context, and their personalities are revealed only fleetingly. That, coupled with the simple plot, issues of believablility and cut and paste character traits, make this film one to miss.
Words: Chimerical
chimerical [ki-mer-i-kuhl, -meer-, kahy-]
–adjective
1. unreal; imaginary; visionary: a chimerical terrestrial paradise.
2. wildly fanciful; highly unrealistic: a chimerical plan.
Also, chimeric.
Origin:
1630–40; chimer(a) + -ical
Related forms:
chimerically, adverb
Synonyms:
1. illusory, fantastic.
Antonyms:
1. real.
–adjective
1. unreal; imaginary; visionary: a chimerical terrestrial paradise.
2. wildly fanciful; highly unrealistic: a chimerical plan.
Also, chimeric.
Origin:
1630–40; chimer(a) + -ical
Related forms:
chimerically, adverb
Synonyms:
1. illusory, fantastic.
Antonyms:
1. real.
Monday, April 27, 2009
In My Head
As a child, it was always nursery rhymes. And then it was pop music, for a short time it was rock. Then, as I moved from my teens, it was jazz, with a slow tendency toward classical, and ever so briefly opera. Now I find myself back once more with nursery rhymes in my head.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Children's First Edition Collection
Excellent collection here of collectible children's books. This is by far the best collection of children's books I have ever seen.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Words: Dilettante
[dil-i-tahnt, dil-i-tahnt, -tahn-tey, -tan-tee] noun, plural -tantes, -tanti
[-tahn-tee] adjective
–noun
1. a person who takes up an art, activity, or subject merely for amusement, esp. in a desultory or superficial way; dabbler.
2. a lover of an art or science, esp. of a fine art.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to dilettantes.
Origin:
1725–35; < It, n. use of prp. of dilettare < L dēlectāre to delight
Related forms:
dilettantish, dilettanteish, adjective
Synonyms:
1. amateur.
[-tahn-tee] adjective
–noun
1. a person who takes up an art, activity, or subject merely for amusement, esp. in a desultory or superficial way; dabbler.
2. a lover of an art or science, esp. of a fine art.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to dilettantes.
Origin:
1725–35; < It, n. use of prp. of dilettare < L dēlectāre to delight
Related forms:
dilettantish, dilettanteish, adjective
Synonyms:
1. amateur.
Books: Reif Larsen: The Selected Works of T. S. Spivet
This book has been receiving a fair bit of media attention at the moment. It is published next month and the hype is mounting. The book is about a 12-year-old genius with a penchant for cartography and I'm sure the story must be a good one as it sold for over $1m US at auction. From the view of a collector, this looks like an interesting item and possibly a good investment. I'm told that the book, much like Steven Hall's Raw Shark Texts is illustrated throughout, but not in the usual manner, rather it has margin illustrations and other unusual diagrammatica. There is a limited edition appearing in the UK, in one of the major chains.
Film Review: Belleville Rendez-vous
This French film (directed by Sylvain Chomet) has always roused my curiosity. The animation style reminded me of the kind of art work that was always on late night Channel Four programs in the early nineties (I seem to remember an program called Animation Now). It was different, exaggerated and comic. There were even some ventures into an entirely different style for the occasional interstice. This widely-respected film, however, didn't quite sit well with me. There were parts of it that disgusted me on some level, the buttock-like calf muscles that made me grimace each time I looked, the disgusting meal the characters ate consisting of stewed frogs, the excessively obese pet dog - all grotesque. I think it's perhaps just me looking subjectively, rather than with a critic's eye, but occasionally animation makes me feel ill (Fritz the cat did similar). It may be some deep-seated psychological issue I have with abstraction of human physiology, but it's not something I'm interested in exploring; I'd rather just turn a blind eye. So I cut this film short, partly for the above reason, or perhaps instigated by the above, but also because it was boring. I'm no expert in animation, but I'm not sure what was so great about this - the exaggeration of physical characteristics? But isn't that what most art does. In conclusion, I cannot recommend this film, however iconic the scenes of the protagonists climbing a near-vertical hill may be.
Book Review: Jonathan Barnes: The Somnambulist
I'm not entirely sure what drew me to this book or even if I'd heard of it before I bought it, but I'm sure it was probably the cover and the title. And the cover reeked of Victoriana - it was in the guise of a poster for a magic show and outlined how bereft of literary merit the book was. It was a promising start.
Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is an outstanding book, it's a tome, a work of epic proportions delicately planned and intricately detailed. Anything set in Victorian times will remind me vaguely of that. That and Mr Dickens. The somnambulist had a lot to live upto, and Jonathan Barnes, a first-class honours student from Cambridge in English Literature makes a good attempt.
The book has all that you would expect of this genre, interesting characters and scenarios, the dark, grimness of 19th Century London, unsavoury characters and a perpetual influx of beautifully crafted sentences. But it never really quite makes it. The characters are intentionally unlikeable, written with bizarre physical characteristics and odd penchants. And though interesting and varied, I just don't like them, and don't really care if they win or lose. Another obvious comparison would be with Sherlock Holmes who on occasion was an absolute bugger to Watson, but I still liked him, and I liked Watson, and there was always that element of respect to be garnered. The Somnambulist himself is somewhat of an enigma, but also an entirely unnecessary addition, he plays no significant part specific to his character traits and certainly is not the worthy eponym of the novel. Looking from the character arc angle, most are colourful but irrelevant, interesting but fleeting, perhaps needfully so and I do welcome the variety, but I feel that perhaps these could have been fleshed out a little and perhaps had a longer, more useful part in the novel rather than just a series of brief appearences; often they had the air of a new idea that just had to be added to the manuscript, as though the novel grew organically without much redrafting.
Onto the plot. I like the plot, but that is again because of the variety and colour that Barnes has painted it with. There so much to keep you interested. But events and the characters therein are tenuously related, there are a number of loose threads and dead ends that really could've been tied up. The mystery element to the story were never fully realised because the plot moved at such a pace that it never seems to give you that moment to think "what's going on?" or "ahh, that explains that." There were very few mysteries in the first chapters that were tied up in the later chapters and so on. There were some interesting twists, but these were primarily a post-modern angle wherein one was reminded of the fact that this was a story and a patchwork of ideas.
To summarise, I think Mr Barnes is an exceptional wordsmith. His vocabulary is better than most writers and he can build such vivid imagery that I've rarely seen elsewhere. The imaginative aspects of the book are excellent and had this been a 600-page epic I think it would've been a masterpiece. I'd like to draw a comparison to a Victorian freakshow, as that's what this book reminded me off, somewhat fantastical but segmented and non-contiguous, jumping from one colourful scene to the next without that current underlying it; a series of junkie highs. I had the same problem with the recent Danny Boyle film, Slumdog Millionaire, it was an excellent film with a great story but was poorly bound together and paced like a set of long steps puncuated by bland flat landings. I liked The Somnambulist, I found it very readable and enjoyable and criticise it only because there is so much potential. Jonathan Barnes will, I'm sure, mature into an exceptional writer and I will watch his career closely.
Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell is an outstanding book, it's a tome, a work of epic proportions delicately planned and intricately detailed. Anything set in Victorian times will remind me vaguely of that. That and Mr Dickens. The somnambulist had a lot to live upto, and Jonathan Barnes, a first-class honours student from Cambridge in English Literature makes a good attempt.
The book has all that you would expect of this genre, interesting characters and scenarios, the dark, grimness of 19th Century London, unsavoury characters and a perpetual influx of beautifully crafted sentences. But it never really quite makes it. The characters are intentionally unlikeable, written with bizarre physical characteristics and odd penchants. And though interesting and varied, I just don't like them, and don't really care if they win or lose. Another obvious comparison would be with Sherlock Holmes who on occasion was an absolute bugger to Watson, but I still liked him, and I liked Watson, and there was always that element of respect to be garnered. The Somnambulist himself is somewhat of an enigma, but also an entirely unnecessary addition, he plays no significant part specific to his character traits and certainly is not the worthy eponym of the novel. Looking from the character arc angle, most are colourful but irrelevant, interesting but fleeting, perhaps needfully so and I do welcome the variety, but I feel that perhaps these could have been fleshed out a little and perhaps had a longer, more useful part in the novel rather than just a series of brief appearences; often they had the air of a new idea that just had to be added to the manuscript, as though the novel grew organically without much redrafting.
Onto the plot. I like the plot, but that is again because of the variety and colour that Barnes has painted it with. There so much to keep you interested. But events and the characters therein are tenuously related, there are a number of loose threads and dead ends that really could've been tied up. The mystery element to the story were never fully realised because the plot moved at such a pace that it never seems to give you that moment to think "what's going on?" or "ahh, that explains that." There were very few mysteries in the first chapters that were tied up in the later chapters and so on. There were some interesting twists, but these were primarily a post-modern angle wherein one was reminded of the fact that this was a story and a patchwork of ideas.
To summarise, I think Mr Barnes is an exceptional wordsmith. His vocabulary is better than most writers and he can build such vivid imagery that I've rarely seen elsewhere. The imaginative aspects of the book are excellent and had this been a 600-page epic I think it would've been a masterpiece. I'd like to draw a comparison to a Victorian freakshow, as that's what this book reminded me off, somewhat fantastical but segmented and non-contiguous, jumping from one colourful scene to the next without that current underlying it; a series of junkie highs. I had the same problem with the recent Danny Boyle film, Slumdog Millionaire, it was an excellent film with a great story but was poorly bound together and paced like a set of long steps puncuated by bland flat landings. I liked The Somnambulist, I found it very readable and enjoyable and criticise it only because there is so much potential. Jonathan Barnes will, I'm sure, mature into an exceptional writer and I will watch his career closely.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Film Review: Ringu (1998)
Director: Hideo Nakata
I was drawn to this film from the moment I saw the US film adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel, wondering how that further abstraction from my milieu (i.e. Japanese Culture vs Western Culture) would affect the trope and artistic merit of this film. Surely the parent from whom 'The Ring' was born had as much, if not more, to offer in the way of bizarreness and terror-inducing visuals. Unfortunately, it was not good. Those elements of The Ring that, for me, made it terrifying, entertaining and actually a very good film were all missing. The strange video (tame, boring and uninspired in comparison to The Ring's almost art house visual), the desaturated landscapes, the crazy, inexplicable events (the horse, the photos), even the creepy house under which our emoesque antagonist spluttered away her final breathes and chipped a nail was about as creepy as Butlins.
But perhaps I'm being unfair, I'm making a comparison and could never see Ringu for what it is. It has elements that I think are very respectable, especially the cut-frames and the emergence from the television reminding us that we're watching a horror movie but not actually in it - they impressed me and worked quite well. Remakes are almost always bad, a fair and oft-chanted mantra, but occasionally it works the other way too.
I was drawn to this film from the moment I saw the US film adaptation of the Koji Suzuki novel, wondering how that further abstraction from my milieu (i.e. Japanese Culture vs Western Culture) would affect the trope and artistic merit of this film. Surely the parent from whom 'The Ring' was born had as much, if not more, to offer in the way of bizarreness and terror-inducing visuals. Unfortunately, it was not good. Those elements of The Ring that, for me, made it terrifying, entertaining and actually a very good film were all missing. The strange video (tame, boring and uninspired in comparison to The Ring's almost art house visual), the desaturated landscapes, the crazy, inexplicable events (the horse, the photos), even the creepy house under which our emoesque antagonist spluttered away her final breathes and chipped a nail was about as creepy as Butlins.
But perhaps I'm being unfair, I'm making a comparison and could never see Ringu for what it is. It has elements that I think are very respectable, especially the cut-frames and the emergence from the television reminding us that we're watching a horror movie but not actually in it - they impressed me and worked quite well. Remakes are almost always bad, a fair and oft-chanted mantra, but occasionally it works the other way too.
Words: Lurid
This is the first post from a list of words I've been compiling, that I like (some of which I don't know the meaning). Most definitions courtesy of dictionary.com
lurid
[loor-id]
–adjective
1. gruesome; horrible; revolting: the lurid details of an accident.
2. glaringly vivid or sensational; shocking: the lurid tales of pulp magazines.
3. terrible in intensity, fierce passion, or unrestraint: lurid crimes.
4. lighted or shining with an unnatural, fiery glow; wildly or garishly red: a lurid sunset.
5. wan, pallid, or ghastly in hue; livid.
Origin:
1650–60; lūridus sallow, ghastly
Related forms:
luridly, adverb
luridness, noun
Synonyms:
dismal, pale, murky.
lurid
[loor-id]
–adjective
1. gruesome; horrible; revolting: the lurid details of an accident.
2. glaringly vivid or sensational; shocking: the lurid tales of pulp magazines.
3. terrible in intensity, fierce passion, or unrestraint: lurid crimes.
4. lighted or shining with an unnatural, fiery glow; wildly or garishly red: a lurid sunset.
5. wan, pallid, or ghastly in hue; livid.
Origin:
1650–60; lūridus sallow, ghastly
Related forms:
luridly, adverb
luridness, noun
Synonyms:
dismal, pale, murky.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Books Read in 2009
Obama, Barack: Dreams From My Father
Barnes, Johnathan: The Somnambulist
Ellison, Ralph: Invisible Man
Palahniuk, Chuck: Non-Fiction
Hesse, Hermann: The Steppenwolf
McCarthy, Cormac: The Road
Ellis, Bret Easton: American Psycho
Barnes, Johnathan: The Somnambulist
Ellison, Ralph: Invisible Man
Palahniuk, Chuck: Non-Fiction
Hesse, Hermann: The Steppenwolf
McCarthy, Cormac: The Road
Ellis, Bret Easton: American Psycho
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)