World's Beginning!

Rings Of Fire

The Olympic Opening Ceremony - there's no getting around it, it's probably been the biggest telly event of the year, seen by more people than the Jubilee (I believe it was estimated to be 1bn viewers worldwide), and probably of more interest to many than the events themselves... by 'many' I mean me, obviously. I don't feel the right to comment on the events themselves because I've had a life-long indifference-bordering-on-hatred of athletics meaning that I should rightly be ignored when it comes to the subject. The opening ceremony is likely to be the only part of London 2012 that I will engage with on any level. So I made the effort to engage with it whole-heartedly.

But first, predictably, let's get all the bitchy gossipy stuff covered. It's caused a little bit of political contoversy that I (perhaps naively) hadn't expected; people claimed the ceremony was some kind of leftist propaganda. I'm talking, of course, about the man Twitter loves to hate this week, Adrian Burley. But then again, it's not just him. He's been the person who has been singled out most for his ignorant views, but he's far from the only one. Toby Young's piece in today's Sun for instance also seems shockingly backward.

For those who haven't seen them, here are the tweets wot Adrian Burley did that caused all the controversy:

"The most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen - more than Beijing, the capital of a communist state! Welfare tribute next?"

"Thank God the athletes have arrived! Now we can move on from leftie multi-cultural crap. Bring back red arrows, Shakespeare and the Stones!"

This is is ignorant nonsense from a man previously best known for attending parties dressed as a Nazi, and in that context are actually not remarkable. (And perhaps he missed the fact that the whole thing started with Ken Branagh quoting from The Tempest?) He probably figured he's got nothing to lose by ttolling the world, because people will mention him again (and he certainly scored a few radio interviews out of it).

Where did this idea come from that multi-culturalism is somehow a party political thing, something that only appeals to Labour voters? And that aside - frankly, what do you expect from an Olympic event? You know, something where every single culture in the world is there? Some people have argued more convincingly that the event wasn't multi-cultural enough, which although I don't actually agree with, I can appreciate the viewpoint more.

And before we move on, YES "the welfare tribute next." YES. Because, apart from universal sufferage, it's about the biggest thing that has been beneficial to every single person living in Britain since Britain was made up in a room somewhere. More than fancy planes flying and globally-renowned poets (and people who can run very fast for that matter).  It's one of the few things that Britain can boast about without it feeling like it's rolling in the mud of its own history.

Toby Young bemoans the lack of millitary history represented in the ceremony. Let's just think this through. A slightly dense child could tell you that a millitary force exists to fight other countries. When you've got all the countries in the world there, is it really a good idea to say, 'Hey Germany, France, India, Argentinia and a bunch of other people who talk all different to what we do, this is what we used to dress like when we killed your ancestors; didn't we look cool?' It's embarrassing enough having a reputation as a country that can't stop thinking about WWII, to the point where we look like we yearn for the good old days of being able to shoot at foreingers and claim moral authority. I dont't think having Spitfires swooping over the audience to the tune of the Dambusters would have had much appeal to anyone apart from a relative minority of Brits.

So, basically when Young says there should have been more for Tories to enjoy, what did he want? He wanted us to have Wellington and and Nelson and more references to WWII. Well. I'm not sure that's a 'Tory Thing', it's a 'People Of A Certain Age Thing'; most people below 45 appreciate these people at best as important figures from Britain’s history, but not representative of what it means to be British today. This was not intended to be 'The Ladybird Guide to Great Britons... Live!' but a chance to show the world that Britain is colourful and has a distinctive voice in the world.  Our main asset is our diversity and our pride in our mongrel heritage, and this is what I thought was being celebrated.

Of course what Young really wants to do is rile social-lefties like me into writing earnest blogs like this one, so fair enough Mr Young - mission accomplished.

So enough of what right-wing politicians and journalists thought of the opening ceremony; what did I think? Well, I really enjoyed it, up until the part where all the various countries of the world walked past. Pro-multicultralism as I am, I went to bed, because it took about 20 minutes of watching smiling athletes strolling past at a leisurely pace and we were still on Austria.  Before then though, I thought there were lots of clever sequences, and I especially liked the blending of film and theatre (although I thought the much-lauded 'Queen-arriving-via-helicopter' bit didn't quite hold together, continuity-wise; how did the Duke of Edinbugh arrive next to her? Perhaps he arrived via a different helicopter.  With Steed at the controls). Rowan Atkinson proved that he still can be funny and although I didn't actually see Macca, it was kind of a given that Paul McCartney would be there somewhere.  He's always invited to these things, because John Lennon continues to be unavailable.

I think the best summary of what the whole thing 'meant' came from my good friend @MrDougelaars. I paraphrase, but he summed it up as :

"It was just Lord of the Rings, really, wasn't it? We started in the green and pleasant land of the Shire, then Isengard kind of grew around it, we saw burning rings in the sky, and there was at least an hour of people walking and walking until everyone was bored."  Tolkien was British and wrote a story beloved by millions of people worldwide; not such a bad way of celebrating British culture at all!

Long-Distance Lovin' (and why, if you squint, it's not all bad)

This is a self-indulgent post; but then it is a blog, so it's exactly the right home for it. 

Anyway:

Is there anything to be said for long distance relationships? 

The Long Distance Lovemobile

Well - is there?  There must be something in it, or I wouldn't still be doing it after a year and a half, and my girlfriend (who for the purposes of this blog we will call 'Stef') definitely wouldn't be.  There are the obvious downsides.  Sex, for instance isn't just not spontaneous but is more or less planned weeks in advance.  Not literally - the calender doesn't have 'SHAGGING' written over every weekend.  No.  Some weekends,  I can't afford the train fare.  The point is, the physical side of a relationship is very obviously restrained by not living in the same place.

There's the other, less obvious but perhaps more important downsides as well.  Not being able to go home to someone and chat to them about their day, but having to have phone conversations down noisy streets on the way back from work - it's nice, but it's not the same as being able to see someones face and their expressions.  Likewise, there's no opportunity to just curl up and watch crap telly together; all you can do is talk on the phone, and sometimes people just aren't in the mood for engaging their brains enough to talk; the just want to cuddle and point say how crap the people on the Million Pound Drop are.

But still; me and Stef do it and we're certainly not the only people who manage it; plenty of people do long-distance relationships and, although maybe not perfectly happy, they're happy enough to know that it's worth doing.  We're hoping to end the long-distance thing by the end of the Summer, but the fact that we can be planning to move in together means that something about long distance has worked.  Hopefully long distance won't be the only reason why we've worked together well so far, or we're screwed.

So let's have a look at some of the positive aspects to seeing your loved one only every now and then:

1.    Restaurants

Before all this love commuting happened, I averaged one restaurant visit every couple of years, if that.  Now, I'm an experienced connoisseur of restaurants all over the country.  Every time we've met up, we've pretty much almost gone for a meal, mainly because if you've travelled a long way, you're probably going to arrive late and no one's going to be arsed to do cooking.  Takeaways are also frequent, and I hardly had them as often either.  We have cooked together a few times, but frankly when you're trying to pack so many things into 2 days, boiling things isn't always a priority.  It feels like I'm making up for lost restaurant time.  It's quite addictive really; the fact that I'm almost always perpetually broke but still manage to find the time to go to restaurants says it all really.

2.    Hotels

Basically, this is the same point as restaurants, but with beds instead of food.  Never used to go to them - now go to them all the time.  It beats staying with each other's parents or with nosy housemates pottering about.  Although a maid has burst in on me in the almost-nuddy when I was on the phone.  Bit off-topic, that.


3.    Mini-Breaks

I say mini-breaks, but actually some of these holidays have been other peoples' weddings.  But basically, going away to different cities and staying overnight in hotels is quite exciting.  The upside of not being able to just crash out on the sofa with each other is that when you do manage to get together you make a big plan out of it and really go to town (or, if you're me, play it by ear and trust that it'll work out.  Normally, it actually does).  These little holidays may be mini, and the locations might not have been spectacularly exotic, but we've stayed at least one night in most of the important places in the UK (sorry, Kent) which is more than a lot of people get to do in their first year together.

4.    Music

We don't often agree on music tastes. Actually, that's rubbish, there's a lot of crossover; but to be more specific, she doesn't like some of the music I love and to be even more specific, she really fucking hates it.  At the moment, I can listen to the Pixies very loudly whenever I want, but I am aware that this will come to an end soon.  This is why I've been listening to an obscene amount of the Fall, PiL, 6 Music and yes, the Pixies; because when we live together I'm only going to get a chance to do it when she's out the house (doing womany things like shopping and taking things to the laundrette no doubt).  I'm not complaining, but it's one of the bits of bachelordom I'm going to miss.  Sharing the stereo sounds a bit too much like not being in absolute control of the music to me....

5.    TV

This point is more or less the same as 4, only we both like more or less the same things.  The only thing I fear for is my beloved Doctor Who...  Will 'Stef' share my love for a 50 year-old science-fiction programme?  I doubt it.  I know that The Thick Of It is not a favourite - she was distinctly underwhelmed by it when I showed it to her saying it was my favourite sitcom ever.

6.    It's Obviously Serious

If nothing else, both of you know that you're completely serious about each other.  If you weren't you wouldn't go to all the effort of travelling hours at a time to do what some couples can't be bothered to do even if there's only 30 minutes between them.  Smugness of the most phyrric variety.

7.    A Great Understanding Of  British Public Transport

Ask me a question about train times, and i can bore you to death like THAT.

Point 7 there is obviously clutching at straws.  The fact is, if you're in a long-distance relationship, it's hard.  If you're with the right person it's do-able, but only if you think that you will be able to stop doing it at some point in the future.  Hopefully for us we'll be able to find somewhere together before the end of the year, and the era of the Long Distance relationship will be over (and the era of the Long Distance Commute can begin...)  As it stands though, I can keep listening to the Pixies as loud as I like and leave the house without making the bed (should I make that 8.  Not Having To Make The Bed?) and I'll keep looking on the bright side until I don't have to anymore.

There's Some Round These Parts That Care Nowt For Strangers...

It's weird up North...

Inbred is a new horror comedy film from director Alex Chandon - probably best known for work he did with Cradle of Filth - which is due out in Autumn. It was recently premiered at the Electric in Birmingham - Britain's oldest cinema, and where the film's sound was mixed.

Mention comedy horror and the first film that springs to mind is Shaun of the Dead, a film which it turns out Inbred doesn't bear much relation to (geddit?) at all. Shaun of the Dead is comedy with horror elements and is at heart a rom-com; Inbred is a horror with comedy elements, and comes more from the direction of Peter Jackson's early work (like Derek from Bad Taste). The thing it does share with Shaun of the Dead is it's referencing of lots of different films and shows, but the gore is realistic and un-nerving.

Inbred is very much its own beast, and its humour comes more from the more disturbing elements of Monty Python (especially Gilliam) and the League of Gentleman than the relative gentleness of Shaun of the Dead. It is a film that absolutely blurs the line between horror and comedy, which feels disorientating. There are belly laughs, but more often than not the laughter comes because you're not really sure how else you should react.

The plot revolves around a group of 4 'problem' teenagers being taken on a team-building holiday to Thirsk by their careworkers. It's the same Scooby Doo-meets-Deliverance set-up as many horrors have, especially American ones.  Or to put it another way, it's like dropping the Misfits characters into the Horror genre instead of the Superhero one.  The first half an hour of the film takes time in setting up the main characters; it's character comedy and laughing at the hilarious cartoony local yokels, complete with crooked teeth and deformities. The scenes in the run-down cottage are almost from Withnail and I, and it's comedy coming from putting City people in Rural settings. If one of the teens said "I demand to have some booze!" it wouldn't really feel out of place.

The next chapter is where things get interesting. When the characters get caught by the locals (which isn't really a spoiler), they're killed off one by one, as you always knew they would be. But they're killed in a barn/-come-theatre with an audience - Grand Guignol in a stable yard. This is where I found it hard to know how to respond, and kind of opted for laughter for the want of anything more appropriate. This response is highlighted at the very beginning, with a Lady Chatterly's Lover scene that ends in a bloodbath; it turns out to be a clip being watched on a smartphone, with some teenage lads giggling at it. Not only is this a clever way of integrating a short film into a main feature, but it means that from the start the theme of who the audience of horror actually is, and what their motives are. The scenes in the barn shows people after a Roman Circus style entertainment, and who have to make do with creating it in a DIY low budget style. Rather like people such as Chandon and Jackson making low-budget films before getting their hands on more money.

In the local show for local people there is a Papa Lazourou style ring-master; there are even more Python references (a nude organist, a Mr Creosote-like demise); there's a man in Alex DeLarge's mask, revelling in violence quite jovially; but it's not actually played for laughs, meaning that whilst you're not encouraged to join in with the yokel audience, you're put in their position anyway and forced to deal with it. This could be intended to be a comment on the event-telly culture of laughing at people being shite on Britain's Got Talent, or it could just be intended to make you squirm a lot. It's more likely to be both. It's certainly the most interesting part of the film - there is extreme torture in a non-pornographic way, because it actually has a purpose (though admittedly, not a very nice purpose...)

The last chapter of the film shows the rest of the characters trying to escape and failing, and this for me went on for too long; after the extreme theatrics, it's not that disimilar to the ends of most horror films that involve victims being persued. There's more humour, but it's a bit repetitive, and makes the pacing seem sloightly out of kilter. It's not boring, and the characters take you through it just about, but plot-wise it is going through the motions. Padding basically, something that most genre films tend to suffer from.

Alex Chandon in conversation with some Brummie (picture by David '@Modulor_Man' King)

The acting of the main characters is pitched well; played absolutely straight, meaning that there is genuine tension. James Burrows in particular is very well acted, and reminded me a lot of Christopher Eccleston in Shallow Grave (the 'quiet one' who actually turns out to be quite hardcore) The villagers are then able to be played as extreme grotesques, to a man. Fear of disabilty and 'otherness' is played upon a lot (most obviously in the scene with a thalydomide sufferer struggling to use a hammer to pin someone down). Seamus O'Neil as the Landlord/Village Chief, is menacing and jovial by turns. A lot of the actors seem to have come out of Nottingham (huzzah!), and although Chandon is a Londoner the film feels refreshingly provincial. Even the City the group come from is Milton Keynes rather than a more 'glamourous' area. Another special mention goes to the excellent use of animal actors, especially the loveable ferret.

The effects are on the whole very convincing, especially some of the prosthetics. I could only think of one which was too cartoonish for me. There wasn't much that broke the suspension of disbelief, another reason why the Gilliamesque opening sequence is deceptively crucial; by being so OTT, it makes the rest of the gore in the film seem more realistic. There was apparently a problem with the sound at one point, but I couldn't tell that anything was wrong (although the sound of glass being pulled out of someone's face sounded too much like me messily eating the lolly I'd had earlier as an unsuccessful hangover cure).

In terms of 'making a point', it looks at where entertainment comes from, but doesn't make enough of a direct comment for it to be something that' intellectually driven, and I doubt that's how it was intended to be anyway. It's a visual experience, and actually has some beautiful cinematography, especially the shots of Yorkshire and a train graveyard. The opening shots of shadows crossing across sunny, wheaty, flowery fields is quite pretty, and if it wasn't for the foreboding music could be some kind of tourist board ad for camping in the North.

It's basically horrorshow entertainment that amuses and disgusts in more or less equal measures, and as I'm not generally a fan of the horror genre, I think I'd say it's a cut above the rest. It will probably divide opinion when it comes, out, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't get some attention, at least on a cult level.