Category: General

Sex vs Gratuitous Violence

So last night one of our lovely below average current affairs items does another boring item on how video games are turning our children into serial killers. Now most people already know where they stand on this, I wasn’t really paying any attention.

Until the mummy who let her 7 yr old play GTA came on. She didn’t think there was anything wrong with this. Apparently she knows exactly what her darling child is thinking and he’s a good boy! Yet she seemed quite indignant when the reporter asked her if she would ever let her child watch porn.

Which got me thinking. Would I prefer my child to watch close ups of peoples genitals, or pretend to blow peoples brains out?

It’s kind of strange that there are people willing to let their children act out activities that they find completely abhorent in real life, yet they would completely lose it if they found them watching an activity that would be perfectly normal for them to partake in when they are older.

Personally I would confiscate any porn or violent games I found my child in possesion of, but I still find it unsettling that I would probably prefer it if they were pretending to be gun wielding LA gangsters.

More on the Guide Film

A few more things, mostly to do with MJ Simpson’s review of the film. It’s ten thousand words in length, so be warned.

Simpson is probably the world’s expert in all things Adams, and his review is not just condemning but powerfully so. I agree with a lot of it, yet…

I don’t hate the film; I merely find it extremely aggravating. It must have its moments because the audience I saw it with, including some close and respected friends, enjoyed it. The problem for me is that the version of the ‘…the Guide…’ I saw didn’t do the source material justice. That doesn’t make it bad, just vaguely worthless (depending on your aesthetic principles). MJ Simpson’s review does go overboard, often emoting where, perhaps, a little restraint could have been beneficial. Still, I appreciate his position. The film really is the weakest of all the versions of the story made thus far.

But I do like the song with the dolphins, even if it needed to be louder and brassier.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy Film Review

I was going to start this review with a paraphrased quote from the radio series or the book, preferably one that either had ‘…so good. You might think that Citizen Kane is a good film, but that’s peanuts to ‘The Hitchhiker’s…’ or, conversely, ‘…so bad. You might think that ‘Queen of the Damned’ was a bad film, but that’s peanuts to…’ et cetera.

I’m not though. Partially because one MJ Simpson has already done so but mostly because I really can’t be bothered. It’s not that I didn’t enjoy the film (although I didn’t) it’s that I can’t be bothered making it out to be a big thing either way.

‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ is probably, for those who have never heard the radio series (or LPs) or read the books, fun and frolicism. It contains much that is funny, even if only vaguely, and… Well, that’s about it. Compared to any other version of ‘…the Guide…’ it is remarkably tame, timid and more incoherent. Indeed, it seems to miss the point of the original plotline(s).

I’m trying hard to be diplomatic about this review. Really hard. You see, people are enjoying this film and that aggravates me. Not because the film isn’t enjoyable; it obviously is. It’s just that it is such a meagre version of Adam’s work that I don’t see the point of it.

The film diverges from the radio series (which I will, for no good reason, take as being ‘the’ canon in several remarkable ways. The Vogons do a lot more, we meet the presidential candidate who ran opposite Zaphod and, well, the legend of Magrathea is strangely altered. The whole ‘Life, the Universe, Everything!’ sideral plot of the radio becomes the main motivation for the crew of the Heart of Gold (no resembling a teapot rather than a sports shoe). None of the new material does anything for the story (which was rather flimsy in the first instance) vbut it does do a number of things against it. The radio series worked because it was fast paced, but all this new nonsense slows the story of the film down.

I could go on for pages about this, but I’m not going to. I didn’t particulary enjoy the film but appreciate that it might well bring some new fans in to the ‘real’ stuff. It’s about time that we had a campaign for ‘Real Humour.’

(And yes, that’s probably the worst written review of a film I’ve ever done; it’s the subject material, I tell you.)

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has this to say on the subject of its movie trailers…

It’s lucky that I have said remarkably little on the subject of the cinematic version of Hellblazer, ‘Constantine’ because I might have had to eat crow. Thoroughly enjoyed the film and really only had issue with two characters, acting wise, and neither was Keanu Reeves. I’d see it again, and if that was my first directorial effort I would be very pleased.

But enough about comicbook films; it’s back to the ‘…Guide…’

As well you know I was not entirely fond of the first proper trailer. I’ve now seen the other two trailers, which are both Guide entries on the subject of movie trailers, which is much more DNA in flavour. You get to hear Stephen Fry as the voice of the ‘Book’ and Alan Rickman as the voice of ‘Marvin.’ All in all, a far better experience and one that gives me more hope in re the film.

Not as much hope as I had expected to gain, though.

Alan Rickman as the voice of ‘Marvin’ will need time to grow on me; Stephen Moore’s voice is so iconic that any other will need to become an acquired taste. Stephen Fry sounds like Stephen Fry; a little to confident as the ‘Book’ I feel (Peter Jones always sounded as if he didn’t really feel conident in what he was talking about and thus made the ‘Book’ seem like it was the hastily-cobbled-together-by-vagrant-reporters text it was meant to be.

Still, I did hear a snippet of ‘Journey of the Sorcerer,’ which made me vaguely happy. All in all I don’t know that this marketting campaign will get the established fan-base rocking in their… towels? But I suspect that isn’t what they are looking for anyway. True fans are not new fans, and I shouldn’t complain. I converted to the ‘…Guide…’ via the TV series, oft thought to be the weakest of the various versions of the story.

Also, must start writing on subjects other than that of the ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.’ Really must.

The Seventh New Sermon of the Neo-Catholic Church

‘Oops, sorry Vicar!’

Funniest three consecutive words in the English language, closely followed by the four-parter ‘Oh, that’s my wife.’

Humour, they say, is the spice of life… Or is that danger? Whatever the case, those people who we consider to without a sense of humour are often thought of as rum chaps (or dolls), fit only for placing in the corner of a room when the potplant Aunt Edith bought you died.

Which is why it amazes me just how many humourless people exist, or just how boring conversations can be. What happened to the comedy?

We at the Neo-Catholic Church, if we believe in anything, believe in the power of narrative, the force that creates stories. Now you can argue all day long, if you so desire, as to whether narrative is an objective force, one that forces us into roles and creates situatons for us to react to, or whether narrative is subjective and thus is the result of humans placing a pattern upon the world… You know, I believe I once wrote a treatise on that kind of material. Selectivity… I’m sure it was really good stuff, but bugger if I can remember what the point of it was.

Believing, as we do in a thing called ‘Narrative’ we also believe that it is our divine, sometimes devilish, always corrupting, place to make the narrative as funny as possible.

Funny narratives don’t make the world entirely supercilious; you can have humour in tragedy and the fun can be introduced into romance (and no, not just by the eight-and-an-half amusing positions of the human sexing).

It (this task of humourising narrative) does, however, mean that taking the events of the world seriously is a fairly unusual task.

Take, for example, the middle-class. No, please, take the middle-class and launch it into the sun or something. But if we must keep those creatures then let us realise that far too often they look upon the world with a narrative of absolute seriousness, which they think to be, weirdly enough, the objective standard of narrative.

Seriousness is a terrible disease and I hope to fund a cure, using some of the monies Brother Morthos ‘obtained’ from the Reserve Bank last Wednesday (for those asking awkward questions I was on the Nile, supping with a Queen called Harold, at the time). It is broadly rigid and has not the flexiblility even a good pun has. It requires you to think it fairly straight lines and never experience the excitement of a sudden twist or a non-sequiter.

It, above all things, requires you to adopt a fairly straight forward account of terms and frames of reference, and once you adopt these they tend to force you to keep with them ad nauseam, forcing you further and further down the hole that is the serious pit of despair, anger and, finally, the joining of a right-wing political party and the anger that the young are wasting your tax dollar on ‘their shallow entertainments.’ Yes, ‘Procul Harum’ were a great act, but that does not mean that the young shouldn’t enjoy their ‘Boomkat.’

Of course, the best recurrent line of use is the rejoinder ‘And don’t they have it in the Navy,’ freely modified to suit the conversation.

Oh well, that’s me done, officier. Anything else you want to ask?

You’re watching Fox, where coming in third is a triumph!

Anyone who knows me knows that I love Jaye Tyler, ably played (to perfection) by Caroline Dhavernas, the major character in the series ‘Wonderfalls’ and that, despite the fact it ran thirteen episodes, is my favourite TV series in a very long time.

I am not here today to write a review of ‘Wonderfalls;’ it is good and I think you should pick up a copy of the complete series. No, today I am here to say a little on discontinued series.

In the UK an in-production sitcom will have between six and eight episodes per year, whilst in the States it is a solid twenty-two. A one hour drama in the States will also have twenty episodes whilst in the UK it can vary. Somtimes six episodes, sometimes thirteen or any, really, any old number. Thus, any show that only runs for thirteen episodes in the States can be deemed a failure on some level whilst in the UK that might make it a success.

Two different countries, two different economies of production.

Still, it makes me wonder.

‘Wonderfalls’ ran for thirteen episodes and its production was shut down due to low ratings (in the States they tend to make shows as they are being broadcast whilst in the UK they tend to wait until everything has been shot before they screen it) after only four episodes had been shown; shows now, apparently, need to rate well on the opening night or its doom and gloom time (no longer can American TV producers argue that you need to wait for the audience to grow and appreciate a show as advertising dollars are everything). Bryan Fuller and Todd Holland, the creators and producers of ‘Wonderfalls’ were aware that the show might not resonate with the viewing public and so they did their best to wrap most of the major questions of the storyline up in the thirteen episodes they produced. Thus ‘Wonderfalls’ does tell a complete story, and it turns out to be a fairly interesting one in that the overall arc of the story is not about the ‘gimmick’ but rather about the characters. This telling of a complete story is fairly novel in some ways; most shows that get canned mid-season over in the States tend to leave the viewer wanting (but never being able to get) more, and so I commend Messrs. Fuller and Holland in doing the right thing by their viewers (rabid fans that we are). I suspect that wise producers will be doing this more; many shows get enough funding for half a season and then are at the mercy of the fickle public… A little judicious planning and suddenly you could make a virtue of not going to a full or second season… Still, that’s neither here nor there.

I suppose what I am clumsily getting at is that, perhaps, we should look upon these half-seasons as mini-series. I would dearly love to see what a second season of ‘Wonderfalls’ might have been like. I imagine it could have been very good or that the gimmick might run out of steam and it would all break down. I am sad that the producers were not able to delight or disgust me with the continuing exploits of Jaye and her friends and family. But if I were a producer I would be thinking that thirteen episodes is a good run. That if this were a series in the UK I might not have been given even that number. That having a show run for seven years at twenty-two episodes per year might be an unrealistic expectation.

What I seem to be trying to say is that a story is a story is a story and that a writer (or writers) know that the medium can impose limits upon that story. If you are aware of those limits then it is quite possible to make virtues of them. And, sometimes, those imposed limits can do your story a lot of good. ‘Wonderfalls’ tells a story that I am going to return to again and again.

Pity that I won’t get to spend as much time doing it again and again as I would have liked to, though…