Tag: entertainment

My Expectations of ‘Skyfall’

Right, so tomorrow I am going to see the new James Bond movie, directed by Sam Mendes and starring Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judy Dench and Ben Wishaw. It has garnished very good reviews so far but I have not read any of them. With this movie, I am not leaving anything to chance! I need to go in clear-minded and as neutral as I can be. I have read some interviews here and there but for some reason, I had no desire to know more than the snippets of information I got from the trailer and the few words exchanged by Mendes and Empire magazine. The story goes thus: Bond is accidentally shot by Naomi Harris on the roof of a train, he fakes his death to drink a lot and play with scorpions and Judy Dench has to write his eulogy. Then out of the blue, MI6 is compromised, bombed and sensitive information on all agents is leaked on YouTube. The man who did so is called Silva and has a major grudge against M, something Bond does not like so he returns to England to save the day. However he really looks old and weak. Is he a match for the evil Silva and is he brainwashed by M? What’s Skyfall? Who is Silva? Why is Q using realistic technology? Hmmmm…the questions seem to multiply as I type.

So what are my expectations on this movie? What Bond movie do I expect from this day and age? What things am I hoping they improved after Quantum of Solace?

I have a confession to make. I was never a Daniel Craig fan until very recently. When I saw he would take the mantle from a very confusing Pierce ‘Bond’ Brosnan (remember Die Another Day), I was very sceptical. Actually who the hell am I kidding? I hated the idea! I was absolutely repulsed at the guy. He was not handsome like Connery, he looked too old and too noticeable (in that he was built like a house). All that muscle seemed to somehow make his brain smaller by each passing frame. My mom used to describe the great Hercules as ‘All muscles and a brain like a sesame seed’. I am afraid my mind only screamed that saying when I saw Craig in the first shot of Casino Royale. And yes, I was one of those people that had something against the blonde hair! Yes, I, like a lot of people, am a creature of habit at times and when that habit is broken I start complaining. Like you can sit here, reading this, and tell me that never happened to you. Plus, I can say that the concept of a prequel depicting how Bond got his 00 status was not that intriguing to me. I was born and bred on Connery and Moore, already seasoned spies that have been in the fucking and killing business for a long time. Why would I want to see a character that had started so high in his career go down 10 levels and be a rube again? But then again, I pride myself in giving a second chance to anything that I feel I might have not understood or had disapproved of, from the start. I also pride myself in this particular case to have made the right decision. If not I would not be sitting here writing about Skyfall.

My Bond has always been Sean Connery. Primitive, smooth but not very discreet, resourceful, witty (but not as much as Moore) and seemingly motivated by selfish reasons. If you look at his missions they all seem to end up on a beach most of the time, kick-started by a girl or a photo of one (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Thunderball) and not once has he shown any sign of actual patriotism. He did this for the fun of it and the kicks (chicks) he got out of it. His look defined a generation of spies. The tuxedo, the signature drink, the cigarette at the end of his lips as he utters his name, like it’s a gift from God (not him, just his name). He had the fighting skills to beat up his enemies, had the talent to land a falling plane safely (although Timothy Dalton took the whole plane stunt to a whole different level in The Living Daylights), attach himself to a harness and grab the girl before flying away thanks to a taxi-plane, had the luck to be let out of an incinerator just in time, and had a Nemesis in Ernst Stavro Blofeld, SPECTRE mastermind and bad guy to the bone! Not many Bond nemeses would come along later on that would be as amazing as this man. Meddling in Cold War relations, NATO nuclear missiles, the diamond business, stealing whole spaceships with another spaceship that is hidden in a fake volcano. The dedication alone is just beautiful. Shame he had to leave the stage so early on and in a less than adequate way for his persona(For Your Eyes Only).

After Connery, the forgotten and underrated George Lazenby took over, however I will be completely honest, he has not left any particular trademark as Bond. I was very young when I saw On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and was very sad that Bond got married, until the obvious little glitch on the way to the honeymoon. Lazenby was not a big part of my idea of Bond and realistically neither was Roger Moore. Something just did not sit right with me and his Safari suits, his little one liners and his weird missions. However, Moore had the immense privilege to be in films where the focus was put on the villains. Yep, all sorts of villains and megalomaniacs but hell, they were the pinnacle of sneaky, malicious, crazy, napoleonic figures  and had the best henchmen. Don’t believe me? Let’s tally: Kananga and Baron Samedi (Live and Let Die), Fransisco Scaramanga and Nick Nack (The Man with the Golden Gun), Carl Stromberg and Jaws (The Spy who Loved Me), Hugo Drax and The Cat (Moonraker), Aristotle Kristatos and Locque (For your Eyes Only), Kamal Kahn and Gobinda (Octopussy) and finally Max Zorin and May Day (A View to A Kill). I remember all of them as clear as day; Hugo Drax setting the dogs on Corine Dufour, Jaws chewing some cable car wire in Rio, Nick Nack loyal to his master till the end, Gobinda crushing dice in his fist, reducing them to powder in front of a very worried Moore. If the Connery era defined the spy, the Moore era defined the villain.

Who combined both? My close favorite and the Bond I found the most gritty till Craig came along, Timothy Dalton. It took two movies and one Colombian drug lord to show that Dalton knew how to deal with trash. He fed rotten CIA agent Killifer to a great white shark and ignited Franz Sanchez to the sky to avenge his best friend. There was not that much dedication to avenging his dead wife was there? That’s probably because in the 80s there was no room for tact within a spy’s lifestyle. This was a time of violence and Timothy Dalton was the violent Bond. The one that looked like a remorseless killer, the darkest side of Bond yet. Brosnan took the darkness to the next level but his movies suffered from scripts that could not cope very well in the post-Cold War era. The last great Bond in my opinion can only be Tomorrow Never Dies because it contained a realistic Bond and an extremely plausible villain in Elliot Carver (read Rupert Murdoch. Huh? Who said that?). The death of Paris Carver shocked me when I first watched it, as well as the frigging monster of a man that killed her! It was also surprisingly the first Bond I ever saw in English because all the VHS copies we had at home were all dubbed in French. To this day I can quote you From Russia with Love in both English and French. Funny how that turned out!

Then came Craig. Following my six years of objecting, complaining and turning down all positive reviews about the actor’s portrayal, I looked at him differently. I scrapped all the Bonds from my mind and looked at a man, a spy, a borderline sociopath working for an organization that does not approve of him but believes in him (God bless you M) and battling the enemies of the country that trained him and made him a ghost for the rest of his life. Craig played just that. He played the man all of the previous Bonds could not play because of time, place and context. For every era comes a different hero and Daniel Craig successfully embodies this generation’s anti-hero with a heroic purpose.

For Skyfall my expectations are simple. Craig’s Bond almost lost credibility with the latest outing but through no fault of his acting. Surrounding issues such as script, villain and Bond girl made this 007 chapter bearable but I expect Skyfall to take Casino Royale and transpose the major characteristics of the other movies. So far, the villain looks properly old-school and it helps that Bardem, like a lot of kids, grew up with Bond. If his villain reaches the charisma the previous ones had (namely Emilio Largo, Max Zorin, Franz Sanchez and Elliot Carver) then that would culminate to an unforgettable character like Ledger’s Joker in the latest Batman franchise. The arrival of a new Q deserves attention as well, since that means that this shit is about to get technological, something Craig’s movies have not explored yet. From the trailer, I am thinking Big Brother surveillance and tracking to get to Silva. M and MI6 look like they have a lot more secrets than a regular secretive agency and they all look human, prone the error (only their errors seem to have graver consequences than the regular Joe). This humanity culminates with Bond. I want to see him suffer, confused, double-crossed and run down, not for any other reason than to see him rise up from the ashes and stand, proud and angry. I do not hold much hope for the Bond girls. This seems to be a man’s adventure with little around him to distract him long enough from his ultimate goal. Finally, I expect from Mendes to turn this film into a thriller, fast-paced, structured, respectful of its genre and a film that you would want to see like you would want to see Dr.No, again and again. But this time Craig has to face real an present evil that would terrify you, me and the whole audience. I want a Bond you hate to love, a Bond that will laugh at his enemy because he does not care whether he lives or dies so long as he gets the last word! A Bond that represents this era of confusion, violence and fear, that he vanquishes through fire and blood, because in the end, it is the only way this current world deals with its evils.

Book Review: Damaged Goods by Alexandra Allred

Just because this book opens with a disgruntled wife forcing a bloody tampon into the hand of her husband, does not necessarily mean it is a book just for women, although some might be put off by the opening. Damaged Goods follows the life of Joanna Lucas, a well-spoken divorcee who moves to Marcus, Texas to begin a life she can finally be proud of. Unfortunately for her, this town full of possibilities is actually home to the worst case of pollution in the US and a whole host of other issues that are set to make life hard for her, including rape, arson, and a beer-guzzling emu named Eduardo. Amongst this mess she finds herself adopted by a group of outspoken and eternally youthful women who bring out the true feistiness of her nature.
This is not a book to gloss over topical issues in favour of a happy ending, but neither is it didactic in tone. All too often if an author chooses to tackle complex issues you find yourself feeling sometimes enlightened, but rarely entertained and quite often bored. Allred combines her clever narrative techniques with continually evolving conflicts that keep the reader turning each page. Behind all the plot twists, one-legged Lion lovers and the beer-seeking emu there are some very real lessons. Allred makes you face up to the fact that if you want to see change then you have to do something about it. Sitting back and pretending nothing is happening makes you just as guilty as those causing the damage. She also shows the power of female friendship, without painting all male characters in a bad light, which is refreshing.
At times you are given a lot of information about new characters, and that can be a little hard to retain, but this is only at the start. Overall this is a complex story about friendship, politics and free-thinking that will keep you hanging on long after you’ve read the final page.

Film Review: Out of the Past

While it may be true that for some of us, Mamma Mia! or There’s Something About Mary is the best film of all time (Are you sure?), it’s likely that any film aficionado with an eye for quality will draw up a reasonably predictable list of movies that has a certain resemblance to another’s. Of course, there may be the odd obscure title included in there somewhere on account of some personally preferred artistic or inventive merit but generally the same titles will crop up again and again. These lists, and there are countless of them online, are a great way to create a ‘watch-list’.

It wasn’t one of these lists that brought me to watch Out of the Past but rather a moment of web surfing that brought to my laptop screen a poster of Robert Mitchum nonchalantly lighting a cigarette while a demure Jane Greer inspects his ears for wax. The truth is, I’d never heard of this film before but having enjoyed noir-ish revelations with The Killers and Double Indemnity, both of which I watched for the first time a couple of months ago, I felt confident that I was about to view another classic. It came as no surprise to subsequently see all three of these films feature in high positions on numerous lists of best ‘noir’ films ever.

Robert Mitchum plays Jeff Bailey, owner of a gas station in a small out-of-the-way Californian town. His romancing local girl Ann Miller (Virginia Huston) is not viewed well by her parents who are mistrustful of him and sure enough, when a tough guy turns up at his gas station, it becomes apparent that Jeff has a past. This henchman, Joe Stephanos (Paul Valentine) informs Jeff that his boss, Whit Sterling (Kirk Douglas) wants to see him and after some glorious dialogue, Jeff reluctantly agrees to the meeting. That night, after picking Ann up for the drive to Whit’s lakeside retreat, he tells her all about his past.

The next section of the film is told in flashback with Jeff narrating the story of his mysterious past as a private investigator. Together with his partner Jack Fisher (Steve Brodie), he was hired by Whit to find his girlfriend Kathie Moffat (Jane Greer) whom he claimed had shot him and run off with $40,000 of his dough. Using his investigative talents, Jeff traced Kathie to Acapulco but on meeting her, fell for her charms and her pleads of innocence and decided not to hand her over to Whit, who would likely have punished her for something she claimed she didn’t do. Instead, the two headed north to San Francisco where they attempted to live together as inconspicuously as possible, out of sight and reach of Whit and his henchman. But (isn’t there always a but?), one day they were spotted by Jeff’s old partner, Fisher, who demanded a heavy payoff for his silence. A fight broke out between the two men, which Kathie brought to a sudden end when she shot Fisher dead. She then drove away, leaving poor old Jeff to cover up her crime. In doing so, he came across her bankbook which had an entry for a $40,000 deposit.

Back now to the present where Jeff and Ann arrive at Whit’s home. Before turning the car around to drive back to town, Ann forgives Jeff for his past and hopes he will return safely to her once his meeting with Whit is over. Jeff is surprised to see that Kathie is back together with Whit, who for his part, displays genuine delight in seeing Jeff again and wants to hire him for one more job in order to make things even between them. The job entails breaking into Whit’s lawyer’s office to steal documents that include income tax records proving Whit guilty of tax fraud, a fraud which his lawyer is using to blackmail him. Jeff refuses the job, suspecting a set-up, but Whit insists and so after trying to warn the lawyer, Jeff returns to the man’s office to find him dead. Now Jeff’s job is to locate the documents, which also include an affidavit from Kathie swearing Jeff was the one who killed Fisher, as well as to prove that he is innocent of the killing of the lawyer but with a henchman on his tail and a femme fatale who switches allegiance more times than Lady Gaga changes outfits, he needs to use all his street-smarts to stay alive. It’s all mildly convoluted, as the best crime dramas are, but well worth paying attention to.

Released in 1947, Out of the Past was directed by Jacques Tourneur, a man perhaps better known for low-budget horror films such as Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie, rather than hard boiled crime films but he had a great team around him, many of whom had already worked together for RKO on numerous pictures. The film was adapted by Daniel Mainwaring (under the pseudonym Geoffrey Homes) from his novel Build My Gallows High with uncredited revisions by Frank Fenton and James M. Cain. This point is clearly evident from the superb dialogue so typical of the genre but here somehow a little less contrived and more natural. Don’t forget, James M. Cain was the genius behind, among others, Double Indemnity.

The role of gumshoe fitted Mitchum as comfortably as the raincoat and fedora he wore much of the time and it’s easy to see why he would later go on to portray Philip Marlowe. He breezes through this film with a cool self-assurance and a likability that make you (almost) overlook his potential for violence. Jane Greer’s femme fatale, with her baby face and deceitful eyes, smoulders, like the best of them and Kirk Douglas plays the gangster with controlled intensity – sure, he seems charming enough but you wouldn’t want to be around when he looses his temper.

For a film noir, the locations are worth noting too. Yes, we get the usual nighttime cityscapes and atmospherically lit bar rooms and office interiors, trademarks of the genre, but we also get out into the wide open Californian countryside as well as sunny Acapulco. The way cameraman Nicholas Musuraca captures this variety of locations lifts the film well and truly out of the murky pool where a high number of the genre languor.

In 1991, the film was included in the US National Film Registry as being deemed, “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant”. Also, it will doubtless come as no surprise to learn that it features highly in many of the American Film Institute’s 100 Years of cinema lists. For me, it’s a recent discovery I’m very thankful for and yet another reminder that the ’40s was an awesome decade for movies. It’s one that has aged extremely well and one that will encourage me to continue scanning the Internet and the lists of films people consider the best ever made.

 

 

 

 

 

An Interview With Bridie Jackson

<!–
google_ad_client = “ca-pub-6469969007044671”;
/* Anne Iredale */
google_ad_slot = “4931800784”;
google_ad_width = 728;
google_ad_height = 90;
//–>

Bridie Jackson is the full package. A gifted writer of melody and lyrics and an accomplished musician and vocalist, her image would not look out of place in a Pre-Raphaelite painting. Following a recent period of extensive touring, the rest of Britain is discovering what her native North East already knew – that she is an original talent, both in the recording studio and in live performance.

Her band, known as The Arbour, is no mere backing band.

They supply excellent musical accompaniment and delicious harmonies and it really is a group enterprise. The band’s use of bell plates has entered local folklore. They look like something you’d use to scrape the frost off your windscreen, but they make the most wonderful sound.

Bridie is the very opposite of a precious diva. She likes to kick off her shoes when on stage and draw the audience in. I met up with her to pose some questions and shoot the breeze…

Bridie, it’s great to have this chat. I was in the audience on the night your album, Bitter Lullabies, was launched at The Sage in Gateshead and there was a lot of love in the room for you. How has the album been received since then?

It’s been going rather well. We’ve had some great reviews, quite a bit of radio play and the opportunity to gig a lot around the UK, which has been great. We really enjoy performing to new audiences, as it’s a clearer reflection of what people make of you than if the venue is full of people who know you and are going to be nice regardless!

Music journalists like to categorize new artists that come along. For example, ‘Chamber Folk’ seems to be the buzz genre right now. Do you welcome a label or do you dislike it and how would you describe your music?

I think labels are fine, as they generally come from people trying to fathom something out and through a desire to explain it to others. I’m not sure we fit into any label very comfortably though, which must be a bit frustrating I suppose. As for how we describe our own music, I still don’t have the faintest idea. Free album to whoever can come up with something that covers it!

You’ve been compared to Fleet Foxes and Joanna Newsom. Are you flattered by comparisons or do they irritate you?

It depends on the comparison! I know some artists think comparisons are a result of lazy journalism, which I suppose it can be, but I think if done accurately, they can make your music more accessible, which can only be a good thing.

You’ve been doing a lot of gigs, Bridie. With all the travelling and performing, do you find it difficult to find time to write?

In some ways, touring is a really good space to write, as generally there are large chunks in the day when you’re not that busy, so you can really focus on getting things done.

I’m interested in your writing process. Do you have a routine approach or does it depend on your mood and circumstances at the time?

The only proper routine is making sure the ideas get ‘caught’ and archived properly when I have them. The actual creation is rather erratic and it can take months, even years to complete anything. It can often feel like the song isn’t all that much to do with me sometimes. I just have to wait for enough ideas to plop out so that I can actually write the whole thing. However, I’m always working on something and tend to be fairly dogged until it’s completed. Also, even if I have no inspiration whatsoever, I’ll still write most days, even if it’s just daft songs about dual carriageways and stuff… just to keep in the discipline of doing it I suppose.

Would it excite you to write with other people or do you prefer to write alone?

I generally write alone although I’m currently involved in a project called Riverrruns, which involves collaborating with other writers, mostly poets, and it’s been wonderful – a complete revelation, so I would definitely consider doing it again, for specific projects.

Some songwriters find writing lyrics a cathartic exercise. Do you share this feeling and do they serve to document your life?

Sometimes the songs document life events and they are frequently cathartic. The great thing about a song is you get to whinge on and it takes longer for people to tire of hearing it, which is handy.

It’s easier than ever to distribute songs and engage with fans. Do you think today’s artists have the best deal or do you hanker back to being an artist in the simpler days of the 1960s and 1970s?

It definitely assists the grassroots movement and allows artists to operate more independently, which is a very positive thing, so mostly, I’m in favour.

You and the band are certainly in harmony when on stage. What’s the dynamic like when you’re all hurtling down the motorway on a cold, wet morning after a few hours’ sleep?

I think bands on tour sometimes develop a bit of a ‘family on holiday’ dynamic, complete with ensuing social dysfunction, but we get on really rather well. I think in the last few months we’ve got very good at knowing when one or the other of us needs a bit of space, or support, etc., and as a result, it’s very harmonious. No gossip there. Boring I suppose…

Okay, Bridie, to wrap up, this is one of those job interview questions, but where do you see yourself in five years’ time?

On Desert Island Discs please! Or maybe that’s more a ten-year aim….

If this interesting insight into the life of a musician has whetted your appetite, check out Bridie Jackson & The Arbour’s album. Kick your shoes off, turn the lights down and see what happens…

For more information on Bridie Jackson, check out the Tumblr page.

Book Review: Kiss the Sky – DC Gallin

Kiss the Sky is the story of three beautiful young women learning to be true to themselves in the drug-infused haze of London in the 90s. Claudia, the heroine of the book, is an impulsive artist determined to carve her own path in life using anything and everything to inspire her painting. She is joined by Paloma and Q and together the three women learn to embrace the London buzz through their creative instincts and sexual freedom.

Gallin’s novel is more of an experience than a bedtime read and with each twist of fate that Claudia faces you are drawn further in. Written in the first person from Claudia’s perspective, there is something very honest and real about the narrative. Kiss the Sky is the perfect insight into the creative mind with no detail spared. We are given everything from beauty regimes to the birthing experience and it is all linked back into her art.

Many reviews have suggested that Gallin has the marvellous ability of transporting people right back to this time of hidden raves and psychedelics, but for a child of the 90s such as myself who has grown up in a very different world, Gallin creates a vision that I can just as easily relate to and be inspired by. The sex is raw and free and yet the consequences are painfully real. It can work as both an inspiration and a lesson learned.

This is a story that goes beyond portraying the wild parties, copious drugs and sex with strangers and Gallin portrays the true conversation of the 90s. Everyone is desperate to make a difference and the dole is ‘today’s patron of the arts’.  This is a novel that is greatly needed in today’s society as it teaches the reader of a world without money, where happiness is still accessible and creativity is more satisfying than a year of one night stands. In the words of Claudia’s father: ‘Why so much luggage for a journey so short?’

The drugs are enlightening, the sex is arousing and the friendships are ever-lasting. I’m really keen to read her next novel, set in India, and that alone is the sign of a good writer.

Get your copy from Amazon at the following link: