How to Hide Bitstrips from Facebook Feed

Are you sick of bitstrips, the (seemingly pointless) Facebook app that lets users create and share comic-strip cartoons of themselves? Evidently it wasn’t annoying enough to just tell people you’re sitting on the train, so now you can show them instead – by utilising a cartoon with more than a liberal amount of poetic licence applied to one’s appearance.

Bitstrips in action
Bitstrips in action

Life may be treating you well enough that currently the bitstrip invasion hasn’t hit your Facebook timeline yet, but rest assured, the time will come. If you’re one of the many that has been affected already, and you want to go back to a simpler time, here are the simple steps to remove bitstrips from your newsfeed entirely.

There are two ways to hide bitstrips from your Facebook page.

1) When you see a cartoon on your feed, click the small arrow in the top right corner of the post and you will get a drop-down list of options, one of which is ‘Hide all from Bitstrips’. Click that, and they will automatically be filtered from your display.

2) The alternative to the above is to visit the Bitstrips app page and on the right-hand side ‘Block’ can be seen:

Screen Shot 2013-10-31 at 12.17.55

 

Click it and the following box will appear

Screen Shot 2013-10-31 at 12.18.51

 

Click ‘Confirm’ and ‘Block’ will change to inform you Bitstrips has been blocked:

Screen Shot 2013-10-31 at 12.19.34

 

Just like that, in a few simple steps, the abomination will be rid from your feed. If, however, you would like to unblock it, click the Settings icon in the top right of your Facebook screen, select Account Settings, then Blocking in the left sidebar, and you can select ‘unblock’ from beside Bitstrips.

Screen Shot 2013-10-31 at 12.21.41

Film Review: Grand Prix

The recent buzz surrounding Ron Howard’s new film “Rush” got me thinking about motorsport in movies and in particular, Formula One. Films with a sporting theme at their core are always a little iffy with audiences and often don’t mirror the success in box office receipts as the sports themselves do with fans however, there have been a few exceptions over the years. Boxing and baseball seem to be the safest bet in Hollywood for studio bosses and yet, considering F1’s global popularity it’s cinematic outings are somewhat rare.

Arguably the most famous racing movie to date is Steve McQueen’s “Le Mans” from 1971 and love it or loathe it, you have to concede that it is a bonafide racing spectacle. But it’s not F1. It’s an annual 24 hour endurance race. And if we discount Asif Kapadia’s excellent “Senna” that came out in 2010 on the basis that it’s a documentary rather than a dramatised biopic or adaptation, we have to go back to 1966 to find a film based on Formula One.

John Frankenheimer, who helmed “Grand Prix” began his directing career in television shows like “Playhouse 90” for CBS but after making the transition to movies he found critical and commercial acclaim in the early ’60s with a string of hits including “Birdman of Alcatraz”, “The Manchurian Candidate”, “Seven Days in May” and “The Train” – four cracking films that share nine Oscar nominations between them. “Grand Prix” was his most ambitious project to date and oddly enough, it would also be his first shot in colour. Which of course helped capture the splendour and spectacle that was (and still is, for some) Formula One.

The film boasts an international all-star cast headed by James Garner and Eva Marie Saint as well as virtually all the racing drivers you care to mention from the era. And what an era it was! With beautiful cars unspoiled by sponsorship logos and downforce addendum, circuits that were little more than country lanes in places with no corner markers or kerbing to aid the drivers, it was a great deal more exciting than the regulation-strangled sport of today is. But then it was also far more deadly and according to IMDB, five of the real-life drivers who participated in the film died in racing accidents in the next two years and another five in the following ten years. It’s no wonder things had to change.

The film puts us right down there on the starting grid from the get-go with a highly charged opening sequence designed by the legendary Saul Bass – the man who gave us perhaps some of the most iconic opening titles in the history of cinema (“The Man with the Golden Arm” and “North by Northwest” to name but two). We can almost smell the gasoline and the hot engines of the racing cars as the 70mm Super Panavision film captures close-up images of spark plugs being tightened by mechanics, rev counter needles flicking towards redlines, tyres, exhaust pipes, the expectant crowd waiting for the Monaco Grand Prix to start. All these images overlaid with the soundtrack of a race about to thrill us. It’s gobsmacking.

The same goes for all the racing sequences throughout the film as we behold several of the world’s greatest circuits in their earlier days, Spa and Monza (complete with the infamous banking section) being of particular interest for the way they have now changed. For F1 fans, especially those that find interest in its history, this movie is a must-see!

The plot away from the racing leans a little towards soap-opera melodrama but it injects a dose of glamour and gives the actors something else to do other than race. (Apparently James Garner was so competent behind the wheel that real F1 drivers Graham Hill and Jack Brabham told him he could have been a successful driver had he not gone into acting). The film follows the fates of four drivers through a fictionalised version of the 1966 season, their ups and downs and the women who love them and try to deal with this most dangerous of lifestyles. On the whole, the acting is faultless.

The main character of “Grand Prix” though is the racing itself and Frankenheimer, who had always been a bit experimental with camera angles, was adamant to never cheat his audience with back projections or speeded up film. With cameras mounted onto the racing cars, (sometimes even swivelling from an ahead shot of the track round to the driver!) and on a following or trailing Ford GT40 camera car driven by Phil Hill (the only American-born driver to win a F1 Drivers’ Championship) he really nails the action. Add this to real footage of the 1966 season and there’s very little else like it other than watching a current race. And if you’ve ever seen his 1998 thriller “Ronin”, you’ll remember the car chase and you’ll know how good Mr Frankenheimer is at capturing excitement via speeding cars. The film won 3 Oscars at the ’67 Academy Awards – Best Sound, Best Film Editing and Best Effects/ Sound Effects and it’s not hard to see why.

Ron Howard’s new film is rightly garnering the attention at the moment and it may even go some way to improving Formula One’s image in the United States however, it was undoubtably Frankenheimer’s “Grand Prix” that laid the cornerstone 47 years ago. If you’ve never seen it and you love racing, I urge you to do so. It’s a rush!

COMRADE FOX: Low-living in Revolutionary Russia (The Life and Times of Archibald Brinsley Fox) by Stewart Hennessey

“I never gave a monkeys for Marxism or Monarchism or Liberalism or Conservatism or Socialism or any ism. I’ve always been leery of anyone brandishing an ism – an excuse to howl at the moon if you ask me. And they’re all moralists too, always got it in for someone else, usually someone like me.” – Archibald Brinsley Fox.
Written in the style of a diary, ‘Low-Living in Revolutionary Russia’ is Archie Fox’s story of his time spent in Revolutionary Russia. He spent his time cosying up to Lenin, trying to seduce his mistress and hunting for a Faberge egg, but all that is just the surface level of this book. He marks the difference between bolsheviks and Mensheviks, describes the call to arms in Petrograd and even prisoners of war going on strike. With a large collection of well researched endnotes adding to the story, this is one for those with an interest in The October Revolution and those with a liking for adventure and intrigue.

Personally, I’ve never been a huge fan of historical novels, although I always feel like I should be, but Archie Fox’s adventures are genuinely captivating; so much so that I found myself reaching for the endnotes to learn more. Archie is headstrong, with loose morals and yet you can’t help but like him. You might not want to spend any time in his company, but as a character in a book he offers the perfect balance of intrigue and despicable behaviour. Simply put, it’s a love-hate scenario.

The writing style is what really makes this novel captivating, as it has an upbeat rhythm which ensures that you can’t stop reading. Combine that with Fox’s escapades and you very quickly become swept along with the story and forget that it is rooted in historical accuracy; until the name Lenin pops up. Hearing about a man trying to seduce Lenin’s mistress catches your interest like nothing else. It simply isn’t the type of thing you learn at school or college and for anyone who doesn’t have a firm knowledge of revolutionary Russia, this is one of the most effective ways of learning about it.

I imagine that this could be a book to divide the audience, as those who are particularly sensitive to political correctness might not see the humour in it, but in my experience anything that doesn’t beg to be accepted by the masses is usually worth a read and a little controversy never did anyone any harm.

Film Review: The Stranger

Isn’t YouTube a marvellous resource? As a video library to delve into for few moments of pleasure it’s practically a bottomless pit of entertainment. The choices of things to watch are virtually limitless. But it should come with a warning just to remind you that it’s all too easy to end up spending hours rather than minutes of your spare time engrossed as you segue from one upload to the next. The suggestions that pop up at the end of each video do a fine job of enticing continued viewing.

But aside from the cute videos of pets and babies and the millions of other “caught on camera” moments, YouTube is for me, a great film library. Thanks to a copyright lapse in many old classic films, there are a plethora of great movies available and just one click away. I found one such film this morning. The Stranger from 1946 starring Edward G. Robinson, Loretta Young and Orson Welles (who also directed) is a superbly put together drama that, thanks to its style, is also a fine example of film noir. Robinson is always good to watch and with great support from Welles and Young, the hour and a half that this film runs for, simply flies by.

Edward G. Robinson plays Mr Wilson – a “detective, of sorts” for the United Nations War Crimes Commission – who is hunting down a Nazi fugitive called Franz Kindler (Orson Welles). Kindler, having carefully erased all evidence of his former life and assumed a new identity – Charles Rankin – is now a prep school teacher in small town U.S.A. On the day we meet him, he marries Mary Longstreet (Loretta Young) who happens to be the daughter of the local Supreme Court Justice. In short, he’s managed to transform himself from a Nazi war criminal into a pillar of an American community.

Wilson releases Kindler’s former right-hand man Meinike (Konstantin Shayne) from prison in the hope that he will lead him to Kindler which of course, he does. All the way to the pretty town of Harper, Connecticut. But he loses him before he makes contact with Kindler. When Meinike (now a religious convert) and Kindler do meet, he begs his former superior to repent and to confess his sins. However, Kindler, afraid of being exposed by his former associate, strangles him instead.

The story unravels in a gripping, almost claustrophobic way as the determined hound chases down the wily fox. Wilson is pretty sure Rankin and Kindler are one and the same but without having witnessed Meinike meeting with him, he had no proof. So it’s left to Father Time and Kindler’s own fear at being exposed, a fear that will force him to make a paranoiac mistake – to betray his true identity to his pursuers.

As a screenplay, it’s a wonderfully taut piece of writing (Oscar nominated too) with very good dialogue – particularly from the authoritative figure of Wilson. Edward G. Robinson plays this to perfection and he lends his character an intelligent doggedness that is simply believable. Welles is also excellent at conveying a man desperately trying to hide something while Loretta Young is convincing as the new wife who refuses to accept that she fell in love with the wrong man. The town is dotted with other great characters too, in particular, Mr Potter the town clerk and proprietor of the local store/diner. He’s a hoot whenever he’s on screen.

Apart from the opening few minutes, all of the action takes place in Harper – a pretty little town where “there’s nothing to be afraid of” as quoted by Mary Longstreet. For a fugitive, it seems an ideal refuge but of course, for a local it seems like the last place on earth where something like that would occur. Welles’s direction confines us within the town, never giving us any long shot vistas of space and scenery, helping to create the sense of suffocation that Kindler must be feeling as his past captures up with him and his world closes in. Welles’ camera moves beautifully too on cranes and dollies and there are a few reminders of his Citizen Kane brilliance with emotive use of light and shadow in some of the interior shots as well as a lovely reflection in a camera lens. The film builds beautifully to a highly charged climax of which the set piece brings to mind Hitchcock’s Vertigo.

Curiously, The Stranger was the only film made by Welles that had any impact at the box office upon its original release. Hard to believe considering how highly some of his work is now regarded. Coming out shortly after the Second World War perhaps its anti-Nazi theme and the fact that war criminal fugitives really did exist, caught the public’s imagination. It contains, supposedly for the first time in a feature film, actual footage of concentration camps and although what we see is brief, together with Edward G. Robinson’s dialogue, it’s enough to horrify.

Overall then, The Stranger is a great waste of an hour and a half.

Woeful and Roses by M.K. Aston: A Review

Collections of short stories are a difficult thing to get right without coming across as pretentious and trying to bridge the gap between poetry and novels, but I’m happy to say that M. K. Aston has certainly cured my usual aversion to them. Each story offers a different take on the ‘twist’, which is a style that I have always loved although, once again, they are difficult to get right. As a reader it is like a form of abuse, eagerly awaiting the twist and knowing that it is going to shock and appall you, but wanting it anyway; Aston delivers this beautifully.

Each story is quite different and some even feel like they are written by a completely different author, but what they all have in common is that final twist and the subtle study of human nature. This is a subject that I could read an unlimited amount of books on, because it is so varied and so captivating and through the different styles of writing Aston really taps into this, offering a very realistic collection of stories.

Woeful and Roses opens with a story that sweeps you off your feet and into your imagination from the word go. Written through the eyes of an elderly man who we can all relate to – although we might not admit to it – End of the Line offers a realistic portrayal of the inner workings of the mind and the final, jaw-dropping twist at the end prepares readers for this style of writing. Simply put, don’t take the narrative for granted; all is not what it seems.

As with any short story collection there are always some I love and some I could take or leave. Portrait of an Angel is definitely the former and utterly heartbreaking. Although there were some seemingly unnecessary details that didn’t really add anything to the story, ultimately it all adds to the build-up and this is a very difficult thing to create. There were also some moments in other stories where the style didn’t match the rest of the story, but these were such small details that they don’t affect the overall telling of the story. I couldn’t pinpoint my absolute favourite story as they all offer so much, but Finders Weepers, Déjà Clue and Greetings from Saint Christopher were the three that truly resonated with me because they tapped into realistic fears and were told in such a personable manner.

The overall style of the book is difficult to pin down as some stories, such as Queasy Like Sunday Morning are quite different to the others, but this story in particular offered a nice break from the more serious or heartbreaking narratives and that is really needed in this type of collection. It is always difficult to review this type of book without giving away too much and ruining it for future readers. Suffice to say: it is well worth a read, but prepare for some wide-eyed-hand-over-mouth moments!

Here, There, Gone: An Interview with Sir Nicholas Hytner

Nicholas Hytner’s Othello was so good I saw it twice.  It’s not the first time Sir Nick has wowed the critics.  And I somehow doubt it will be the last.  I perch comfortably outside his office, staring at black-and-white action shots of hit after hit: Adrian Lester in Henry V, Simon Russell Beale in Much Ado About Nothing, James Corden in One Man, Two Guv’nors.  If there’s such thing as a grammar of theatre, Hytner is fluent in it.

These days, he needs little introduction: the Cambridge alumnus who arrived at the National Theatre in 1990 has become one of Britain’s most well-respected directors.  One bookshelf in his office hosts a glass poster for One Man, Two Guv’nors; another holds mugs commemorating the first night of each Shakespeare play he’s directed.  The Othello mug sits atop an unfingered script on the glass coffee table that separates us.

“None of these texts exists in isolation,” Hytner says, as if he’s noticed me looking at the mugs that sit side by side on the shelf.  “You kind of take [their] temperature;” he tells me, “every time you put them on, probably every time you read them, the temperature will change.”  Indeed, Hytner is well known for his modern adaptations (Othello takes place at a military base that recalls recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), and that fact underpins much of his philosophy: “what it says about our world is as much to do with our world as it is to do with the text.”

The air conditioning shuts off.  Hytner apologises, gets up, fiddles with the machine.  It’s the first time I’ve looked outside since I entered the room.  Late afternoon, and the view must be one of the best in London.  The last sunbeams dance on buildings that spear the sky—Blackfriars Bridge, St Paul’s, the Gherkin beyond—each mingling with each.  It feels as though the current of the Thames is driving daylight away, pushing it inch by inch towards the margins of evening.  It’s not long before he returns to his seat, clears his throat, and resumes: “If you’re performing Shakespeare, you’re only ever going to take a snapshot of it.  There’s always next time.”

It’s difficult not to be drawn in by the wonderful mildness of Hytner’s voice, and the diagonal smile that flashes across his face whenever he stumbles upon the mot juste.  I ask which Shakespeare character he identifies with most.  For a moment, he sits forward in his black leather chair like a kid forced to pick between his favourite toys.  “Benedick I like enormously,” he concludes.  What attracts him so much to the protagonist of Much Ado About Nothing (aside from the actor he cast to play him, Simon Russell Beale) is his willingness to do “something suicidally brave for Beatrice,” his adversary-cum-lover, when he challenges his former best friend Claudio to a duel he has little chance of winning.  Hytner doesn’t even think “you’d want to hang out with Hamlet as much as you’d like to hang out with Benedick.”

On Hytner’s watch, Shakespeare has become a vital force in the National’s bloodstream.  In fact, an awful lot has changed since his first days in the job way back in April 2003.  He settles a jeaned leg lightly on the coffee table, before reminiscing: “I do look back on 2003 and think that almost every one of the big decisions could have gone the other way.”  Fortunately, they didn’t.  Jerry Springer the Opera turned out better than expected (“and the people it offended it was good news to offend,” he adds); new plays in the intimate Cottesloe Theatre saw success; and His Dark Materials took the plaudits.  “They all worked—every single one.”  His relief and disbelief, even ten years on, is palpable.

“I wonder what I would say,” comes his inquisitive reply when I ask what advice he’d give to his former self if he could rewind a decade.  He pauses for a while.  I’ve got used to his way of sending his words across to me like chess pieces, each move contemplated and considered: “I think I would say, ‘you will never regret being wild and bold, and turning down the tasteful option in favour of the rough, provocative one.’  That’s what I’d say,” he reaffirms, this time with certainty.  “Ticking over” isn’t the Hytner way.  “I’ve never regretted having messy things,” he says, “but I’ve regretted having boring things.  I’ve hated that.”

What people think of his work barely registers.  “I don’t care really.  I don’t care,” he reiterates firmly.  He seems more genuine than blasé: “I’m very happy to get from day to day, and year to year.”  His chair rotates slightly, and leans his chin gently against finger and thumb.  Theatre is demanding at the best of times, but it hasn’t jaded him.  “To a very large degree,” he continues, “if I get to my last day here without the place sliding down the pan; if I can feel that for 12 years, it has deserved its title and it was as good as it needed to be, I’ll be very happy.”

And his legacy?  Hytner’s not too bothered about that, either.  He draws a parallel, hands moving in sync with voice, between theatre and film: “movie directors very much build up a legacy: it’s there, it’s immovable.  They spend their retirement going from retrospective to retrospective and festival to festival being lauded and honoured,” he laughs.  But the beauty of theatre lies in its ephemerality; night after night, season after season: “it’s here, it’s there, it’s gone.”

Soon enough, that will be the fate of Sir Nicholas’ tenure at the National.  But, characteristically, he won’t make a point of his departure: “I don’t think I want to do a big farewell spectacular,” he tells me.  “I’ve got 18 months more, I’m just finishing off the planning for next year, and I think I should just try and do the same as I’ve always tried to do.”  He shifts in his chair and his voice sinks low, as if he doesn’t want to presume too far: “at some point, I guess I’ll want to do what everybody else has done—sit down and try to write about what I’ve found out so far.  But I’d much prefer just to go on and work.”

The National will be a strange place when Hytner steps down from his post in 2015.  I, for one, am too young to remember what it was like before he took the helm.  One thing is certain, though: his successor has the mother of all boots to fill.  We stand, exchange thanks, and he opens the door.  I take a last look out of the window, before exiting, stage left.