Film Review: School For Scoundrels

For me, the fact that this film stars Terry-Thomas makes it worth watching. Throw in the wonderful talents of Alistair Sim and Ian Carmichael and you have three of the biggest stars from Britain’s golden age of cinema. Terry-Thomas has always fascinated me, even when I was a child. Whether he was oozing villainous charm dressed and manicured as a perfect cad while fawning over some young lovely or blustering dastardliness as his suave persona fell apart when events turned against him he was and still is wonderfully entertaining. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the definition of the word “Dastardly” in any reputable dictionary said something about a Terry-Thomas character being up to his neck in some plan or other. In fact, the cartoon character Dick Dastardly from the Wacky Races kids TV show was essentially a caricature of Terry-Thomas.

The plot of the film is fairly simple. Ian Carmichael plays Henry Palfrey, a mild-mannered young man and ineffectual businessman who considers himself a failure. Everyone from his employees to his tennis club pals seem to take little notice of him and so he enrols in the “School of Lifemanship” run by Dr. Potter (Alistair Sim) who explains to his class of new students that “Lifemanship is the science of being one up on your opponents at all times. It is the art of making him feel that somewhere, somehow he has become less than you – less desirable, less worthy, less blessed.”

After the good doctor surmises that a woman must be involved when interviewing Palfrey, we see Palfrey recount in flashback how he came to meet the lovely April Smith (Janette Scott) by bumping into her getting off a bus and how his carefully planned dinner date was ruined by Raymond Delauney (Terry-Thomas). There’s a wonderful scene where Palfrey arrives with his charming date at the restaurant only to be refused entry by the maître d’ (a brilliantly snobbish turn by the marvellous John Le Mesurier) because of some mix up with the name of the booking. Unfortunately for Palfrey, before he acts on April’s advice that they go elsewhere to eat, Delauney saunters into the restaurant and, being a casual acquaintance of Palfrey through the tennis club, invites him and (more importantly) his date to join him at his table. Delauney then proceeds to spend the entire evening seducing April and in a perfect example of one-upmanship, reduces Palfrey’s fragile ego even further by getting him to foot the bill. Palfrey then makes several further puny attempts to impress his new girlfriend, including buying a car and trying to prove his tennis prowess against Delauney but fails on both accounts miserably.

Then the flashback ends and we concentrate on Palfrey’s time at the school and how quickly he picks up the art of gaining the upper hand in any given situation. The film then follows him using his newly-acquired skills as he gets his own back on pretty much everyone who had looked down on him earlier. Hilarity ensues as we see how easily he trumps Delauney’s caddish behaviour by becoming an even bigger and more skilful cad himself. However, it’s not all plain sailing for him and…at which point I’ll say no more.

School for Scoundrels is definitely worth checking out as it’s one of those charming black and white comedies that Britain made so well in the ’50s and ’60s. There’s also a wonderful sense of nostalgia to be enjoyed when seeing parts of London as they were half a century ago, when roads were clearer, trees were more abundant and social etiquette was still bordering on formal. That and three of the finest comic talents from the era. Absolutely one to be enjoyed. One final word of caution though: don’t suppose for a minute that the 2006 Hollywood remake starring Billy Bob Thornton will be in the same league.

 

New York has more reason than ever to be proud

The fact is, if my house was the planet’s butthole, than New York would be its mind. Innovative, creative, exciting and more or less the place where it all happens. Don’t get me wrong, cities like London, Dusseldorf, Tokyo and Seoul have in most respects just as much to give to the world’s cultural mixing bowl as the great NY, but none of them quite beat New York.

New Yorkers have always been on the edge of things, if it wasn’t too preoccupied with creating Hip Hop, it was coming up with something else – salsa, punk rock and disco anyone? In the 1990s, revolutionary albums like Nas’s ‘Illmatic’  & Notorious B.I.G.’s ‘Ready to Die’ blew up not only the American east coast, but the entire world; creating a city fixed up for the 21st Century whose genius would bring the world Immortal Technique, Mos Def and Jay-Z. That’s one hell of a resume for any city.

But one single reason why New York natives have more than ever something to shake about, it’s the one and only Azealia Banks. After receiving the blessing of NME in the shape of ‘2011′s Coolest Person of the Year’ (despite having little reason to do so) the young rapunzel has seen her momentum snowball ever since. Framing her hype around her centerpiece club-pleaser ’212′ – a track anchored by its memorising accelerated rhymes – she’s managed to fuse her classically trained performing arts past with a distinct fiesty attitude that only a New York girl would have. Tracks like ‘Liquorice’ , ‘L8R’ and ‘Van Vogue’ cement her flow and choice of beats as one of the catchiest and rawest around right now. Despite being only 21, her content is a cut above the rest in terms of maturity; managing to steer away from the playground bitchin’ of Minaj’s ‘Stupid Hoe’, here’s a girl who’s fun not laughable, dead serious but not classroom boring.

But essentially, it’s the almost absurdity of the fact that despite going viral across the Atlantic in the UK and Europe, in contrast, the Harlem rapstress has gone commercially unnoticed in her native US. It’s this, I think, that the city of NY should hold its head up highest about. The ability to produce a varied experimental sound – and export it. You guys might not like it, but you’re willing to share. Cheers guys.

Planet Earth LIVE – not quite so ‘LIVE’ though

It’s been two weeks since we were able to see the final Planet Earth Live on our television screens. We had Top Gear legend Richard Hammond presenting live from Kenya throughout the programme with updates from Julia Bradbury based in North America. It was billed as a truly epic piece of television, and one that would be talked about for years and years as a pioneer of wildlife television. I found it fascinating. It was truly a beautiful series, but it wasn’t all that innovative.In fact, the only live parts of it were from Hammond and Bradbury during their pieces to camera. The rest? Well, that was all pre-recorded.

The most important aspect of a series like this is the animals. Wild animals in their surroundings, allowing us to see just how stunning animals across the globe really are. Whilst we were able to witness said animals in their natural environment, it wasn’t live, as many people thought it would and should have been. In fact, we saw the animals throughout various clips that had been edited for time purposes and to show only the best parts – some may argue this is good as it cuts out the boring parts, while others, myself included, think that is what makes it so unique. Seeing the animals interacting in such a way, during a live piece of television really would have captivated my imagination and made me want to see more.

Instead, what we got was two presenters, simply interjecting between some stunning videography. To be fair, the presenters were there to stitch the story together, and I understand that. But to have the best part of the programme pre-recorded, and the less important part filmed live seems to really baffle me – the animals should have been the stars, not the presenters.

I’m not stupid, and I do understand that to perhaps capture the important moments in the world of these animals is time-consuming and the camera operators would need to be extremely patient. This goes some way to explaining lack of live action we got to see as viewers. Many viewers took to social networking site Twitter to air their disappointment with Planet Earth Live. A selection of these tweets can be found below:

Lauren Grandidge@LaurenisGrand – ‘Really trying to give #planetearthlive a second go but find it less informative and more patronising. And wish RH would stop with the hands!’

Danny Brooke@DaRkDaN89 – ‘This Planet Earth Live is pointless. It’s not ‘live’ it’s presented ‘live’ the content is all pre-recorded :/’

Jordan Harkness@_jordanharkness – ‘That Planet Earth Live is a farce. 70% of it is in fact, not live.’

Simon@MrFlibble81 – ‘This Planet Earth Live show is not very “live” is it, I’ve seen about 30 seconds of live footage so far, & that’s all been Hammond talking!!’

Twitter is an important tool for media, and this shows why. Producers can really sense audience reaction to their products. In this case, I think it’s important to note that if Planet Earth Live is commissioned for a second series, then it needs to really live up to its tag of being ‘live’; featuring more animals in their environment during live shots, and capturing  some truly stunning aspects on live television. That way, viewers could really enjoy the programme a lot more, and really become immersed in the magic of the beautiful environments featured throughout.

It’s important to flip this argument though; does it really matter that it isn’t live? Surely, if we have access to the stunning footage we do, then why should it matter? Some users on Twitter also tweeted their reactions to the show.

Khalid A Shah@KShah_K – ‘BBC’s #PlanetEarthLive is truly a great show. Don’t know why the presenters try dramatise it, the animals manage that all on their own.’

Hadleigh@hadleigh_x – ‘Despite 95% of the programme not actually being live, Planet Earth Live is rather entertaining’

Dave Peat@davepeat86 – ‘Planet Earth Live is not a bad watch, seriously lacking David Attenborough though! #legend

It’s obvious to see that some viewers feel that the sheer beauty of the animals, surroundings and the unprecedented access to such beautiful animals around the world is all that matters, not whether it is live or not. I just wonder why the BBC pushed for the live aspect so much, if they weren’t truly going to honour what viewers would have wanted.