Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Monday, September 22, 2008

Buchan Forth...

John Buchan was in bed, suffering from a duodenal ulcer when he wrote the book that changed my life. And he later described it as a “shocker”. Not in the sense that we take that to mean, but Buchan used “shocker” to refer to works that contained events that were very unlikely to really happen – and that readers were only just able to believe in.

And The 39 Steps, as this work became, along with its hero, Richard Hannay, was a success and has influenced many a film adaptation (to date, 3, with one more in the pipeline), as well as a spin-off drama series on ITV in the late 1980s.

I need to nail my colours to the mast here. I don’t like the 1935 Hitchcock version very much. As a film, its well-constructed, and well made – but its not the story Buchan wrote and I fell in love with.

The Hitchcock film was re-made in colour in 1959, starring Kenneth More, and was an upgrade of the original, but essentially the same, with the same altered story.

The 1979 film starring Robert Powell was far more to my taste, but I still can’t stand the ridiculous dangling-off-of-Big-Ben ending that has become so famous.

I discovered the novel at the age of 14. We’d been forced to move house to an area I didn’t like and away from all my friends – my bus ride to school was now two buses and was long and torturous. The Christmas coming up didn’t seem to be too promising to me then. And when I wandered into a little bookshop in Orpington (which has long since gone), I had no idea what would happen when I picked up a small book from the Wordsworth Classics display. I’d only looked at that because they were all just £1 each, too.

On Christmas day, we travelled to my nan and grandad’s house near Croydon. I had the book with me – not because I didn’t get anything nice for Christmas, or because I was expecting to be bored. But I had it because for once, I’d read something that intrigued me from the start. That first chapter – read in slight desperation because I wanted to go to sleep on Christmas Eve – had had my mind whirring ever since I’d woken up. But until that car journey, there’d been too much going on to read – there’d been church, and then a visit to my other nan and granddad’s… But now I could see how it would continue.


I read the rest of the book between then and the end of the evening. I’ve not read many books within 24 hours, and this was the first. I read it again over the next week. I was enthralled. This was escapism as it was intended. I didn’t care one jot what was going on elsewhere – I was in a world of espionage and treason, where you couldn’t trust anyone completely. Brilliant. Just what I needed.

So that’s basically why I don’t like the Hitchcock film – because its nothing like the book. I was so excited when I managed to get hold of a copy of the film… and so disappointed when I watched it. The ending of the book is so Holmesian in its reasoning, so suspenseful – and its totally changed.

It’s a very good film, I concede, but its not the film I want it to be – the whole plot is altered substantially when The 39 Steps are changed to be the name of an organisation rather than what the book says it is. And even more when a love interest is introduced. The importance of the Memory Man character to the film is very clever, and well-worked, but it all seemed rather less than only just believable to me.

I only really mention this stuff because I read these articles today:

BBC to remake Buchan classic

Austen? Buchan? It's time for more unusual adaptations

I’ve been waiting for the BBC to do this. It’s been my dream for roughly 15 years to write a new version, and I am obviously only hurt because the BBC didn’t ask me to do it… But Rupert Penry-Jones is a great casting choice for Richard Hannay. Its being written by Lizzie Mickery too (who, amongst other things, co-wrote the marvellous The State Within), and the BBC have been at pains to say that although it’s an adventure first written and set in the first years of the twentieth century, it will be worthy of a Bond of a Bourne story.

I’m in two minds about that. On the one hand, it’s a brilliant idea. But on the other, I’m nervous of the implication that it could be somewhat more, shall we say, modern. When trying to play up to the Hollywood standard, TV adaptations generally simply put in more CGI and explosions. I hope this won’t happen here. It looks promising, but I’ll have to keep my fingers crossed!

Thursday, February 21, 2008

God bless you, Mr President

During 1999 and the first half of 2000, I reckon I spent, on average, about 15-20 hours a week in a cinema, usually in the company of Jon Monkhouse. We'd roll up to the cinema at roughly 11 or 12 (an achievement for a pair of students...) clutching our unlimited passes and then spend the rest of the day watching films, routinely seeing three or four a day. And we saw some brilliant films in that time. We also saw some stunningly awful films (Down To You – I can picture Jon’s expression just at the mention of the title - and Frequency to name just two). When Nikki and I started working in London (in 2004), we took out unlimited passes again. This time, it was just for 1 or 2 films a week, but we picked our films, and saw some really good ones, with the occasional disappointment. Obviously, since Luke’s birth, our movie-going habits have been somewhat… restricted. I have no complaints – as I would far rather see Luke’s little face every day than any film, and I have yet to hear of a film to change my mind (no, not even Batman Begins changed my mind…), so I happily recline in my ignorance.

I am, along with any other potential signs of geekdom, completely unable to commit to being a film fan. And yet, that is what I am. But I don’t much care at the moment. I love films, I really do. But I have finally (and very, very belatedly) discovered The West Wing



Can TV get any better than this show? I’ve never seen something that had me hooked within minutes, caring about the characters enough to want to know more by the end of episode 1 and when I saw the season climax I was beside myself!

I suppose it does help that I have an interest in US politics, and that I like this kind of drama – something that is simultaneously unafraid to address proper, heavyweight issues (the first episode has a potential scandal with a White House staffer and a call girl, and within a few episodes a drug scandal breaks) use humour, and make sure we all understand that these are normal, everyday people going through something extreme every day.

It probably also helps that I’d love to do the job. I’d love to be one of the actors, obviously, but there’s a part of me that aspires to be that essential to the running of the country, and be under that kind of pressure. But its not my priority to get there – there are far, far more important than work, or a career (just as well, the way mine has stalled).

But as far as I am aware, The West Wing isn’t repeated on terrestrial TV… Channel 4, who originally broadcast the series, constantly and tediously repeat Friends and ER (and magnificently, Frasier) during the day, so why not this? The only way I have seen what I’ve seen is through begging and borrowing other people’s copies – downloading, in case you’re wondering, takes far far far too long on my humble little creaky laptop (donations gratefully received). I’d love it if Channel 4 starts repeating it other than on a digital channel that not everyone can receive… And if they’d start showing the Daily Show on the regular channel – shunting it to More4 is a waste and an insult – its better than anything we have on tv at the moment over here in terms of satire.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

RIP Heath Ledger - and why I hate the British public

I'm shocked that Heath Ledger's dead.

OK, there are many many more things in life to be more bothered about for me, and sure - he wasn't the greatest actor the world has ever seen... But he wasn't a bad one, and he was certainly someone I enjoyed watching in films.

I recently saw "Two Hands" - one of the films that pushed him into Hollywood stardom. It's an Australian mobster film about a guy who gets the chance to do a little job for a local gangster (take $10,000 across town to someone). It goes wrong and the money is stolen. The rest of the film is about how he tries to get the money back to save his life, while evading the gangsters and getting the girl. There's a good sub-plot about the theives who got the original money, a moment during a bank job scene that made me snort with laughter and have to wipe drink off my computer screen, and an unexpected ending. Oh, and its got Rose Byrne as the lead female character (she can currently be seen in Damages on BBC1).

I was excited that he was playing the joker in the new Batman film, The Dark Knight - being a Batman fan, I was always going to be excited about the film, but there's something about the choice of Heath Ledger that seemed right - he was unexpected, possibly an inspired choice for it.

What makes me more sad is not just that I'd only just started to like him as an actor and really appreciate his work, but the kinds of comments that are being left on all the message boards I've seen in response to his death make me feel sick. The BBC's infamous "Have Your Say" one is awful, and makes me really ashamed to be from this country. There are, obviously, some people who go over the top with their messages about missing him, and not quite believing that they'll never see him in a film again. Other than that, it's full of cynical or jealous people, complaining about the fuss being made over someone who is, after all, “only an actor”. There are people suggesting that the fact that the majority of people commenting are women proves that he will be more missed for his looks than his talent (Oh, come on, we're not talking about Keanu Reeves, for god's sake, Ledger could act), that his death was a selfish act because it *could* have been suicide (nothing is sure yet)... But then there's this jewel of unmistakable wisdom:

"Like many others I had never heard of him and thought him to be Keith Ledger rather than Heath. So he played a gay cowboy in a recent film and was a passable actor. Now he is dead and some people will miss him. Quite why he has generated so much interest in death is something of a mystery."

Well why bother commenting on this then? If you know nothing about them, why even chance your arm by saying something so ignorant that it looks intentionally offensive?

But whether you think this is all pathetic or not, films, actors, novels, writers, characters, stories, plays, theatres, cinemas... they all mean an awful lot to a lot of people. Some of these things have mattered to people for centuries. They're escapism, fantasy, ambitions, comforts. All things to all men.

Heath Ledger was a good actor. He was also a rare thing these days - an film star who didn't particularly like all the limelight and the pressures of fame, and managed to keep himself out of the news for being drunk and punching photographers, or swearing at autograph hunters, or drink-driving. Or throwing phones at hotel staff.

People who dismiss the grief of fans are every bit as pathetic as they think the fans are. If not more. You try losing something that's comforted you while you're upset, made you laugh when you wanted to cry or made you believe in love again. I'm sure you'd greive too.

Until you get some compassion, you're all twats. With big mouths.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Superbad... Super bad?

I haven’t seen Superbad. I’ve heard a bit about it, and I want to have a look, but I’ve heard more bad comments than good, so I’m reluctant to spend any money to see it…

Two things more than anything worry me.

1, Total Film gave it 4/5 stars.

2, Adverts for the DVD release say that Empire magazine described it as the “funniest teen movie since American Pie”.

First reaction is, good Lord, is it really as lazy a comedy as American Pie? Don’t get me wrong, AP made me laugh throughout, but it did it by playing to the cheapest laughs they could find. That they spun that out for more movies neither surprised, shocked, or even interested me. It certainly caught something of the mood of the time, but let’s get this straight, it’s no Airplane or Blazing Saddles, is it? It broke no new ground, and said nothing new about anything. Except the sexual side of apple pies (How many chavs were admitted to hospital for burns treatment after trying to reproduce that scene with an apple pie from MacDonalds… I think we should all be told).

I know some of my friends are a lot better up on movies than me – so I’m appealing for some help! Is Superbad worth a watch? Or is it worth avoiding at all costs?

All opinions welcome!