Dear Damian, I am so very sorry

Wednesday 24 April, 2013

Have you ever been in the situation where you find out many years down the line you’ve been calling someone by the wrong name? Or referring to a famous landmark by some erroneous descriptor instead of it’s real name?

Or just straight up saying something that makes no sense, grammatically speaking?

Think of the scene in Sports Night when Dan is telling Casey about his meeting with Hillary Clinton (off screen) and it emerges that he accidentally said that he was opposed to public funding to secular schools when he meant non-secular Yes, that is basically the same situation you see in The West Wing when Sam possibly said Kurdistand when he meant Kazakhstan when speaking to a reporter.

Are we all clear as to the situation I am asking you to imagine right now? Good!

Because I have something to share with you all, and it affects this here blog and I’d like you to all imagine where I’m coming from. From the get go, the title of this blog was in reference to the popular film title I was a teenage warewolf, despite actually never seeing it (it’s on my LoveFilm list!) and it’s only now dawned on me that “I once was a twenty-something journalism student” makes very little sense. I mean, alright, I once went to university to study journalism. I have actually only done that once, and I was twenty-something. So far, my word for word literal skills are working pretty well, there.

But here’s the thing, it actually makes more sense to say “I was once a twenty-something journalism student”, and not only does it make more sense, it actually rolls off the tongue better. Loads better, in fact, which is why almost every production with a similar name has it that way.

So, just to let anyone who reads this know, in case they’re wondering, I will be re-wording the above title to the latter. So if you notice the change in the next few weeks, let it alarm you not!

As for Damian, I can only apologies for all those years I wrongly called him Damian, as it only came to my knowledge after he left that college that his name was actually Dave. And that he did correct me once or twice, but it never stuck in, so in the end he went along with me calling him Damian.

Sorry Dave.

-AJF-


Classic Movie Quest: Some Like It Hot

Monday 22 April, 2013

This is really another film that I went into blindly, and that hasn’t worked out well for me so far, if I’m honest. And of all the people I mentioned this film to, only one person had both seen it and liked it.

Well, maybe that’s the key, because I can honestly say that of all the films I’ve watched so far for the Classic Movie Quest, I enjoyed watching this one the most! I actually properly laughed at the bits people are meant to laugh at. That hardly ever happens with me!

It’s very loosely based on a French “drag comedy” called La Cage aux Folles, a film which has a closer American remake in the form of a film called The Birdcage, starring Robin Williams and Hank Azaria. That’s another film which never fails to make me laugh every time, for the record.

And alright, it’s not the most politically correct of films in this day and age. If two men dressed up as women and successfully infiltrated a woman’s band in order to escape the mafia after accidentally witnessing a mass execution – talk about being in the wrong place at the wrong time – in real life, it’d be, quite frankly, very weird and worrying, especially for the women involved.

But it would still have the air of so surreal, you have to laugh to it, if you disregard the seriousness of the Saint Valentines Day Massacre… And built on that, you have this comedy.

It stars Tony Curtis (Joe), Jack Lemmon (Jerry) and Marilyn Monroe (Sugar Kane). Like I said, it’s about two men, both talented musicians, who accidentally witness the Saint Valentines Day Massacre and have to go on the run to avoid being killed by said Mafia. They dress up in drag, join a women’s band, one catches the eye of a womanising millionaire with a yacht, and hilarity ensues.

Some parts do come off as skeezy, which is unavoidable. Both Jerry and Joe compete to gain the affections of talented ukulele player and solo singer, Sugar, and, Jerry more than Joe, struggle to remember that doing so would put their disguises at risk. Which is why Joe takes up yet another disguise as a millionaire with a yacht, taking advantage of the fact that a real millionaire with a yacht named Osgood Fielding III has not only docked at the beach, but is vying for Jerry-in-drag’s attention.

This film is nothing more than a farce, it is meant to be seen as nothing more than a comedy, but for the time it was done and set, it’s actually quite a “modern” story. I mean this in the most positive way, but it borders on Carry-On-Film territory for most of the film. And for a farce, it makes for a good example of the social conventions that are only being questioned today.

Of course, all good films have to go wrong before they end on a happy note. The Mafia make another appearance, there is a chase which is just as funny as it is life-threatening, and poor Sugar is left chasing their tails as they end up on Osgood’s boat, safe from the Mafia once again.

Luckily, she can jump really well, but unfortunately for the now less-than enthusiastic Jerry, Osgood still wants to marry him despite knowing he’s a man. Talk about modern!

I really did like this film. It is dated, but there’s no getting around that fact, considering it’s a black and white film from 1958 based in 1929. It is not for anyone a part of the Social Justice Warriors or take Political Correctness to the extreme, but I would recommend it to those who know a good laugh when they see it, and I definitely would watch it again.

8/10


The Other Boleyn Girl: After The Re-watch

Sunday 14 April, 2013

So, five years after the first viewing and I’ve finally filled in some of those gaps.

Just to re-iterate, I first watched this film whilst at university. I watched it as part of my Natalie Portman Cataloguing, and that is apparently all I took away from the film after that first watch.

I’m ashamed at myself for not remembering that Anne’s sister was called Mary. That is probably one of the many Tudor-related facts I learnt at school, and even forgetting that specific one, the era itself is one big clue and I could have made an educated guess had I really thought about it. Women and young girls were either called Anne, Mary, Margaret, Jane or Catherine/Katherine were the most popular names of the time.

But forgetting a name is just the start of my problems.

Henry Percy? Forgot about him completely. I don’t remember learning about him in school and I certainly didn’t remember that whole subplot in the film.

Another person I blanked out on was the character of William Carey, Mary’s husband, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. I think I can safely say that this is the worst thing to forget of the whole film, because the true story starts when Mary and William get married, and it spirals on from there. There was a bit of a possible error, or maybe it was poetic license, but in the film they make Mary out to be the younger sister who, un-traditionally,is the first of the two girls (three children) to get married, which is something Anne comments on more than once.

In real life, Mary was the eldest of the three, so being married first was expected. But if this was poetic license, admittedly it did allow an increased conflict between the sisters more than the historical accuracy would have allowed.

Back to William Carey. In the film, he is a man of modest means, which is probably what drives him to jump at the chance to be in the king’s court when Mary gets chosen to be the “queen’s newest lady in waiting” against the wishes of Mary herself.  Everybody involved of course knew that by “Queen’s newest lady in waiting”, they meant “King’s latest mistress”. And although he didn’t seem all that keen to have his wife play prostitute to the king, he didn’t seem to put up much argument against it.

I suppose you could argue that it was skirting the line of treason, arguing with the king’s wishes, but I highly doubt that had anything to do with William Carey’s lack of opposition.

Now, I admittedly still had to fast forward through a few scenes, but I remembered having to fast forward through scenes so I should have remembered the scenes outside of fast-forwarding, but I think it’s clear I didn’t take in about 85% of the film in first viewing.

I mentioned yesterday that I remembered a miscarriage. Now after re-watching, I actually mis-remembered the scene where Mary had a mid-way bleed and combined it with the scene where Anne loses her baby.

Just two things related to that which I can’t really go without commenting on.

1) Whilst Mary was “lying-in” with King Henry’s baby, she is still married to William Carey, so why the hell didn’t he visit her? It’s clear why Henry didn’t, but William? Surely he understood the position his wife was in (oh god no pun intended) and if he’d have cared about her at all, he should have visited. Obviously I’m saying this about an account given by a film, I’ve no idea whether this is how it really happened or not. But if it is how it happened, then shame on him in real life, and if it wasn’t how it really happened, just how they chose to show it in the film, then why? Are we meant to just forget about him and focus on the soap opera-esque two timing King Henry’s got going on?

And 2) Anne losing her baby and chosing incest instead of telling King Henry that she lost the baby for fear of losing her position in the court (cough his bed cough)… I forgot that whole entire story line of the film and I don’t even have to guess why.
But from what I know about Anne Boleyn, there’s no actual evidence she committed incest with her brother, and more reasons to believe that the claims were made to purposefully tarnish her name.

And talking of her brother, I spent this viewing reading him as gay. Not sure whether that was intentional or even historically accurate, but there was something there not quite between the lines that suggested “homosexual”.

And then there was the whole bit with Catherine of Aragon. Making Mary sing, not giving up her marriage to Henry or her crown without a fight, the whole trial. I should have remembered that, but with almost everything else, that never stuck in my mind either.

And last but not least, the farmer. What can I say about the farmer? With the white shirt that didn’t seem quite the right clothing for a farmer…

Well, I can ask where the hell was he! Did my mind make him up!? Was he some figment of my imagination that dug his heels into my brain because I apparently found the film too boring to commit it to memory?

Either I have watched another film at the same time, with a farmer in it that fits my description, or I watched an extended version of the film and there is actually a farmer that fits that description, or I’ve gone stark raving bonkers. Because I was so sure I saw a farmer in the film, and even worse, I’m sure I mentioned it to my friend, about how strange I found it that a farmer, of all trades, was wearing those kind of clothes, and my friend agreed with me. Unless she was humouring me, which is possible.

And the rest of the film, the parts and historical figures I’ve not mentioned or singled out, just show how appalling our history is. Which is something that we need to learn about, and to remember, so that we improve our society in the future so that we never repeat those days. Maybe from more historically accurate sources than this Hollywood film, though.

All in all, i’m glad I re-watched the film, so that I could satisfy my need to fill in the blanks. But as a film, it’s nothing more than a sensationalised period drama that dragged out embellished historical accuracy with beautiful scenery and beautiful people in wonderful period costume.

There are a lot better Tudor-based films out there that tell near enough the same story.


The Other Boleyn Girl: Before The Re-watch

Saturday 13 April, 2013

They say a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and if there’s one thing I pride myself on, it’s my good memory that my mind possesses  As in the actual ability to memorise things, not a specific memory, just to make myself clear as to which one I’m talking about.

Add that to my life long love of films, there’s not many films out there that I have watched that I don’t remember in reasonable detail, and the ones that I don’t remember much of, were ones that I watched when very sick with the flu.

So, to watch a film when I wasn’t sick with the flu to then go on to forget 99.9% of what happened in it, it’s not just worrying, it’s annoying, and I have to rectify it.

Which is why I’m about to re-watch The Other Boleyn Girl starring Natalie Portman, courtesy of LoveFilm.

I first watched The Other Boleyn Girl when I was in university, when one of my flatmates leant me the DVD, and I’d have to say it was one of those films were I was glad I watched it, but it wasn’t really my sort of film. That might be why I’ve forgotten 99.9% of it, I tend to block certain plot devices and scenes from my memory if I don’t like them, without even realising it, but I usually remember the general plot for disliking the rest. This is the opposite of total recall, this is next to nil recall, which is very much against my norm.

So, before re-watching it, I’m going to sum up what I do remember, and then come back to see how much of it was right or just my imagination filling in the blanks.

All right, so, Eric Bana plays The infamous King Henry The 8th, Natalie Portman plays Anne Boleyn <strike>who kept a tin which all her hopes and dreams were in<strike> and Scarlett Johansson, plays her sister whose name I can’t remember.

King Henry, infamous for his six wives and the way he treated them, had affairs with both sisters, both of them becoming The Other Boleyn Girl – seemingly a play on the phrase “The Other Woman” – at various times throughout the film, the title reflecting how they felt about King Henry’s attention wavering between the both of them. There were some scenes I fast forwarded through, Anne either had a baby who sadly died or lost a baby through miscarriage, more scenes I fast forwarded through (Jesus, the Tudors had a lot of sex!), a good looking farmer who I remember thinking had a very nice shirt on but i’ll be damned if I remember what he had to do with anything, but his shirt was memorable because it was a bit on the ruffly side. Then there was more about Scarlet Johanson’s character and then Anne Boleyn’s head got chopped off.

I did think for a while that that was all there was to that film but after a conversation with a friend of mine, the same one who’d lent me the DVD in the first place, in fact! Where she talked about various scenes that I don’t remember happening, I have to admit there must be more to that film than my brain took note of.

And that’s my mission for this weekend. I will watch the film and report back on my findings tomorrow.