MOVIE : Raging Bull

This is the story of a world class boxer, his rise and fall, and the brutality of his personality. It had a ponderous feel, and some quite violent scenes, and was ultimately a darn good film.
Another Scorsese and DeNiro film, this was an excellent parallel for the younger, more immature 'Mean Streets' that I saw a month ago. A similar theme really - looking at a man who is self destructive, trying to fathom why he is so. While I wasn't that big a fan of the earlir film, this one made a lot more sense to me; I wasn't just spending the whole film yelling at the character 'get it together!'
La Motta, who was an actual, real life boxer from NYC, is a violent man who gets lucky; an amazing wife, becomes world champ for a while, but through stupidity, jealousy and self-destructive behaviour throws it all away. Normally you hate this kind of character, but somehow I didn't, even when he was doing some vicious, stupid things. Fine acting from Robert DeNiro.
Raging Bull is a great name; it implies ungainly, 'in a china shop', huge (he gets fatter and fatter as the film progresses), unstoppable, stuborn and stupid. All characteristics of the main character.
La Motta's wife is played by Cathy Moriarty, who has to be one of the sexiest women I've seen on screen, from her amazing looks to her husky voice she is amazing. She did some decent acting, but was one of the more guilty in the mouthing of words sin (for some reason there was a lot of words being mouthed, not said).

BOOKS : Cloud Atlas

I haven't reviewed a 'real' book before, but for that matter I haven't read that many either. Cloud Atlas, by David Mitchell, was short listed for the Booker prize last year, which was pretty much its only qualification for my reading it.
The book is a bit like the Theatre Sports game 'spacejump'; each section of the book is set in a time period following the previous section with a few bits of commonality between them (specifically the hinted at reincarnation of the central character) until we reach the middle of the book when we start moving back to finish off the 'earlier' sections in reverse order. My god that was badly explained, but maybe if you can remember space jump you'll understand.
The theme of the book seemed to be civilization, the role of the individual in civilization and the corruption of short-sightedness. At the beginning of the downward path of the book one of the characters defines civilization as 'making decisions bearing in mind the long term, rather than short term gain'. As you then read the concluding sections through the rest of the book you realise that that is what it is all about; comparing the levels of civilization and honesty of beliefs/pain through different time periods.
Anyway, a quick note about each section

• Chapham Islands sea voyage, just after colonization of NZ
  Lots of pain, and missionary stuff, questioning whether the imposition of Christianity is the work of god or guns
• Failed composer in Belgium, 1930s
  Great fun, bisexual composer copying down a 'mentor's' work for him, very witty and colourful. I guess used to show how creative, beautiful life and humans can be (and vindictive etc)
  
• Journalist versus Nuke power corporation, 1970s
  Quite exciting, even if the woman is annoying at points (get it together, stop being so silly!). Ooooh almost gave something away :)
• Aged Book Editor caught in nursing home hell, 1980s
  Great fun! And somewhat poignant considering my gran's position
• Engineered human becomes enlightened, far future
  Interesting, if a little dry at first. Starts asking some curly questions about humanity, friendship, generosity, motivations etc. Very dark, corporate future
  
• 'barbarian' boy shelters one of the few remaining 'civilized' humans, apocalyptic future
  Middle of the book , so this one felt it was a little long, but the major thesis of the book was highlighted here.

He loves to play with language, trying to mimic the era he is writing in. And I feel he does it well, the first and last sections each have quite hard to understand 'colloquial' language, which can get tiring, but the rest is just plain fun.
I would highly recommend this book as an interesting and enjoyable read. I think more literary types might be able to get more out of it (it had a feeling of more layers than I picked up) but even so it's worth the time.
My next books are

• Collapse, by Jared Diamond
  Only my 2nd favorite pop sci. author - talking about his thesis for the collapse of civilizations
• The Plot Against America, by some big wig american author
  It seemed for a while that every book review I read in the Guardian would say 'this book is good, but not as good as Plot Against America' so I thought I should get a copy
• Saturday, by Ian McEwan
  This was one fo the books compared to The Plot Against America, and sounded interesting. A bit Ulysses like in that it all happens in one 24 hour period, but more of a thriller like his other book Enduring Love (which I chose this over)
  
  

MOVIES : mini-reviews

Mainly cos I am a bit slack and saw all these last week, so have forgotten them quite a bit

• Shawn of the Dead
  This is a shlock horror, comedy, zombie flick. Quite fun with some surprisingly poignant bits. Definitely worth catching on video if you like that sort of thing, though it doesn't even scratch Braindead by Peter 'of the Rings' Jackson. My fellows at work thought it was hilarious, so it might be quite a british humour...
• Creep
  This is a serious english horror flick set in the tube with the girl from Run Lola, Run starring. I found it frightening, sickening, disturbing and I left with a real sense of unease. The guys next to me thought it was OK, that the bady was revealed too early, and demonstrated that they have been totally desensitized. There was a bit of a lull when the lead character is stuck in a cage in water, and some people did some stupid and unlikely things, but the pace is so relentless that I couldn't fault it.
  The worst thing about these sorts of film is that they always involve obscenly violent things being done to women. Men typically just get killed in some gruesome way, but women are tortured. While there are many reasons for this, I find it a disturbing trend.
  
• Sideways
  This is a 'comedy' about a wine-tasting loser taking his actor frat buddy for a final week of enjoyment before the frat boy gets married. I think that I was in the wrong mood for this as it was about a subject that can sometimes get me depressed; nerdy losers who can't get laid (well, getting laid isn't that important, but you know what I mean). And I don't really like wine so I couldn't relate to that either... suffice to say, all my friends thought it was great, and funny, and I thought it was a bit dull and predictable.
  
• Dog Day Afternoon
  If it weren't for Al Pacino, this would have been a dog of a film :) He does a magnificent job of playing a gay bank robber when everything goes wrong. He displays an amazing range of emotions, and believable moves from one to the next, even within the one shot. The other thing to remind oneself is that it was probably the 'first of it's kind' AND it was about a gay guy - made in the 70's that's a bit extraordinary in itself.
  

COMPUTING : Ruby, SmallTalk and Patterns

There is a really interesting interview at ACM with Alan Kay, the inventor of Smalltalk. He bemoans the lack of _real_ advances in computing since the late seventies - he hoped that Smalltalk would be superceded in around 1984, but so far nothing has turned up. (Personally I think GUIs advanced quite a bit up to System 7 of the Mac, and everything has gone backwards since then)
Also, have written a simple 'site traverser' in Ruby, just to check it out really. Quite easy, though I don't understand why methods can't access 'global' variables. I don't think I've done it very Ruby, but I did do a quick little refactor after Tam pointed out I was missing some stuff, and took advantage of the lack of Typing to make those changes more easily than in a Java program.
And it was only 190 lines long, rather than an entire project in Java.
Finally, there is a new pattern repository set up by M$. I haven't checked it out yet, but I love patterns :) so I hope it is useful. (BTW, all those people who are 'sick of patterns', get over it. They are a very useful tool for coming up to speed when thinking about meta problems, ie when not worrying where that missing semicolon is (which you don't have to worry about with Ruby:) )

MOVIES : Future Shorts

What a great idea! This was a series of short films shown at the Gate (as in Notting Hill Gate) cinema at 11:30 on Friday night. The event happens once a month and showcases short films around the globe. The great bit about it is it is produced in concert with similar monthly screenings in some 20 other countries, and all the various groups swap their short films so you always get new, entertaining stuff, and the film makers get a chance to show off their films to a larger audience than just competition judges.
The stuff we saw was, in the main, great. The highlight being Salvador Dali's short film, which I am going to have to see again. It is a bit like what I want modern dance to be; a series of patterns made out of body movements that allow your mind to play with the shapes and ideas for its own enjoyment.
Other good stuff too, like a cute little story about a blob looking for love, a great piece about a troupe of percussionists breaking into someone's house and playing it like a big persuccion instrument, and a 'documentary' with a guy and his camera sitting in the lift of a big apartment block in london for a few weeks.
I will attend the next one too.

MOVIES : Closer

This was a fantastic film. As I said to Jo when we emerged from it; "that film is why I go to the theatre". It was originally a play, one that was performed at La Boite when Mum was still there though I must have missed it.
It is a simple 4 hander, 2 boys and 2 girls, about love. Their paths cross, their loves cross, and eventually some end up happy, and some not. The great thing about this script is its combination of complexity, subtlty and terseness; as with all great plays the text is 'just enough'.
I don't really want to say much more for those people who might see it, but I guess I can say that the acting is excellent all round; don't be put off by any of the 'stars' as I was. Jo dragged me along as I didn't really want to see it because I can't bare Julia Roberts, but this is the second thing I've seen her in that I've liked (Notting Hill being the other) so I am going to have to give her some credit now :) Natalie Portman shows why she is lauded by so many, and the boys both have fine performances as well - though they get the best bits of script to work with so it's probably a bit easier for them ;)

PLAYS : King Lear

OK ok, I know I've seen a little to many plays in the last few weeks, but I really wanted to see this; I've never seen a production of King Lear that I liked (they've all been too avant garde, which might be ok if you already appreciate the story) so when I heard that RSC had done one I leapt at the opportunity.
And what a rewarding leap that was. While RSC can be accused of being unimaginative and conservative, sometimes resulting in boring pap only fit for school groups to study, this was a good, clear production. The language was excellent - I always understood what people were saying and what was going on.
Excellent performances all round, the transformation of Old Tom into his sane demeanour a highlight of the production (I didn't even know - a great surprise!). Lear (played by Corin Redgrave) was suitably manic, and sympathetic in later parts of the play. Gloucester was likable too; his pain and sorrow showing in his every move. Kent was an excellent King's man, though I have to admit to not being convinced he was needed for the production. Edmund was sexy and evil, and utterly convincing - no wonder the sisters fall for him! All the sisters were a little 2 dimensional, and Cordelia's whinney voice annoyed me, but somewhere at the end Lear mentions it so I guess it has to be that way.
And what a play! So much irony, so many layers, no wonder academics love it. I wouldn't say it's the best play ever from an enjoyment point of view; in this production at least, I wasn't moved by the final tragic moments (King Lear drags Cordelia in, which made her more 'corpse' like than human) and the very difficult premise of Cordelia being thrown out was also not pulled off.
I loved the main ideas (as I identified them and can remember, I'm sure there are more); the relationship between parents an children, the complex issue of going mad (from senility or other reasons), the cycle of fate (as in bastards end up at the bottom, and royalty at the top) and another one I can't think of at the moment!!
Anyway, a good, effective production of an excellent play. I am thrilled to have seen it.

PLAY : Macbeth

Saw this at the Almeida in Angel, on the recommendation of The Guardian (don't all my recommendations come from there?). It was very popular, and completely sold out in the last week, so I had to hope that I might get a standby, and, fortunately for this review, I did. Means I got a crappy seat, though the theatre (which is like a semicircle) doesn't particularly have 'bad seats', and that the ticket only cost £12!!
What I really got from this production was an appreciation of the script, it has some wonderfully lyrical sections (excessively in some bits, and I love the 'portentious' happenings that all look to point Macbeth in one direction; when alternatives are availble he is blinded by these augers. Some bits were a bit naff, like the scene with Lady Macbeth and the spots, being looked over by the physician and nurse (played by a Sister).
The communication of the text was up and down, I really struggled with some bits, but found other parts hard. They made good use of body language to aid the understanding of the words, and many of the actors did a good job of emphasising the important, summarizing bits (it's great to have a playwrite who summarizes for us plebs!)
I have to admit though that, having heard of all the amazing feats of Macbeth at the beginning of the play, when he walks on stage and is short and fat with bugging eyes, I am not too impressed. He is surrounded by more imposing (and less earnest) characters, and while I guess this was a choice of the director, I also think it was a chance to give this guy a go at the role, you know, cos he's so good :)
I thought that lady Macbeth was excellent, she was so decisive in her logic when emploring Macbeth to do the deed, and then so horrified at the insanity growing in her husband, an insanity she knows is largely her fault. It was nice to have her quite young against the rather old Macbeth; something that would come as no surprise in the situation, but doesn't get done that often in plays.
The Wyrd Sisters really annoyed me, they were on way to much, and couldn't even keep in time when 'speaking as one,' just felt unprofessional. And there were so many kids! about 5 I think, used for various parts (cousins, voice of the Sisters etc) at various times, some times they would all run over the stage as waifs (I mean wraiths, but that's funny) or something. That all really shat me when everyone else was working so hard.
As for the feel of the production it can be summarized in one word : cold. Lots of blue lighting, swirly blue painted walls (they had a few chairs at one ponit or another, but most of the time they just stood rooted to the spot), a constant soundtrack of blowing wind, and large, high status, pauses between words (especially for bug eyed MacBeth). There was a real sense of soullesness, which I guess is what they were going for, but maybe a little contrast, at least with the 'goodies' might have broken the monotony a bit.
My favorite bit? The opening scene of the second half was McDuff's reception of the news of his wife/kids destruction. This scene was fun (the silly prince saying how naughty he is; no king of Scotland!) and then very moving (He doesn't have kids, McDuff dismisses the prince with a wave) and the real highlight of the whole play for me. The rest of the second half was just getting it all over with really :)

BTW, while I was there I saw the marvelous actor Geoffrey Palmer in the audience, from the TV series 'As Time Goes By' with Dame Judy Dench (I am sure he's done other stuff, even stuff I've seen, but I can't think what it is now). He's looking pretty good, but I'll admit I didn't go and bug him, just admired from afar.

MOVIES : Badlands

With Martin Sheen (looking like James Dean, on purpose) and Sissy Spacek.
This film really caught my attention, in a very different way to what I expected. I am really enjoying these surprises that I see at the NFT, walking in with 90's/00's expectations, and walking out having experienced a whole other thing entirely.
This film is one of subtleties and contrasts. For example, throughout the movie Sissy gives a monotone voice over, and yet she is often talking about very emotional things. She is also often talking about things that we don't see on screen, specifically the 'caring' side of Martin's character - and so it is only through these monologues that we can understand her love for him at all.
Martin is a 'rebel with a cause', and ends up deciding that, after shotting Sissy's father in a bit of a fit (very nice scene - the most emotional that Martin gets is when his mind is telling his conciousness that he has to shoot this man in front of him, but drops it as soon as the deed is done), he might as well take advantage of it and get his 5 minutes in the sun.
So they go on a road trip, with Martin shooting lots of people for no good reason, with no emotion at all, until he's fullfill's his infamy fantasy. All the time Sissy tags along, not really having any will to do anything; run, stay, love, hate. In the end it's almost boredom that drives her away.
I really liked this film (can you tell) in an ambiance kind of way, certainly hasn't changed the world or made me think about anything except the film itself, but that was enough in this case.

MOVIES : Meet the Fockers

Comedy or Rebuke of the current crack down on american liberties?
This is a sequel to the 'Meet the Parents', a comedy with Ben Stiller I have never seen (maybe that's because it's got Ben Stiller in it...). In the original Ben is trying to woo the parents of his girlfriend, I guess so they can marry, but the Father is a recently retired CIA boy and spends the movie checking out Stiller, and determining if he should be included in his 'circle of trust'.
Obviously Stiller manages to enter this coveted circle, because in the second film it is a few months before their marriage and the parents of both families are meeting for the first time; Ben's parents are liberal jews.
Oh we laughed! That clash of cultures; jewish and christian, liberal and conservative, makes for such fun. Well, maybe not, certainly I didn't laugh all that much, but I did laugh, and I did enjoy myself.
The question I ask though is this : was this movie actually a hidden story about the erosion of american liberties in the face of terrorism, versus the liberal, free thinking intelligencia? Kind of like The Castle was actually about aboriginal land rights.
Here we have an Arsehole of a father (as we are informed by his grandson - the first word he learns (oh I laughed!)) who spies on his future son in law, can't relate to his wife, and trains his grandson like this 1 year old is in military camp. The whole movie revolves around everyone else trying to pretend that things aren't happening so he doesn't get angry, and the climax (spoiler warning!!!) starts when the father discovers that every one has been lying to him, and so HEs the one outside of the circle of trust. This is followed by his total transformation and assimilation into the (necesarily perfect and correct) liberal jewish culture.
(As an aside, I am sure that if you have read any other of my entries in my blogs that you will realise that I subscribe the the liberal jewish side of things - though I'm not jewish :)
So the circle of trust is america, and the Father is the government (big brother) spying on all its citizens to make sure they are being good little boys and girls, and the Fockers are Hollywood/New York etc with their melting pots of culture.
Or maybe i am just reading too much into this very successful 'comedy'.
You tell me.

(Oh, I just read someone else's review which reminded me that there are other things than politics to admire in this piece. Barbra Striesand does a magnificent job as the mother, I really liked her and thought the costume designer did a great job of making an older, not light woman look sexy. The movie also had Dustin Hoffman as the liberal father and Robert De Niro returning as arsehole dad. Neither of their performances were remarkable, except i would have liked Robert to communicate (physically) his transformation at the end more)

PLAYS : The Plough and the Stars

I went and saw this at the Barbican, and the first thing that struck me was the voluptuous set; criminally expensive - I mean they only used the centre, and I wouldn't be surprised if it cost as much as the actor's wages. The set for Head/Case was really good, very simple with simply a door, a sofa and a bed. The blue wash walls were used to good effect with some ephemeral visions appearing on them - very creepy.
'nuff of that.
This play is written by an Irishman about the attempted Irish revolution back in 1916, at the time of the first world war when a lot of Irishman were dying for England. It starts by introducing many of the characters back in 1915 as the call is going out for volunteers to go to the war.
And what a lot of (annoying) characters there are! There are the two old bastards and their old woman friend (who goes on about death, in beautifully vivid language), the young revolutionary who's read one book and has memorised some big words, the witch next door and, most importantly, the central couple. If only the central couple was important! They disappear into the background as the other players do their stuff, removing much of the bite of the production (Oh, there's also a prostitute and a girl with consumption who, surprise surprise, dies).
I think the play is about a man who chooses his country, and honour in his friends eyes, over his loving wife and child, leading to their destruction. The script clouds this message with funny characters, unemotional deaths, distracting twists and bouts of insanity.
I just felt the play was out of date, written for an audience looking for a bit of fun, with maybe a little light drama to get my eyes tearing... but I can watch TV for that.
Some things I did like, in the pub scene there is a vitriolic call to arms being yelled outside - this is the 'blood will cleanse us' speech that called men to arms in WW1 - and the actor who is yelling it is invisible except for his shadow, projected 15 meters high onto the back wall of the pub. Looked great, especially as the actor struck poses reminiscent of propaganda posters of Germany, England and especially Russia.
It was educational though, teaching me about many events of the time, it helped that I had a programme to warm me up, and while I couldn't tell you know, ask me some questions and I can probably answer with a half-correct reply.