So, I woke up about an hour ago from a dream involving it being the day after Christmas and having to fill out multiple choice screens on suspects in Agatha Christie novels.

Oddly enough, given that yesterday was one of those rare days that went as well as I could ever have hoped for; that I fell asleep with Miss Marple on the tv and the nature of much of my job, this actually makes complete sense.
Well, I saw this today and was very disappointed with it. It feels like it has been scripted by someone who once attended a Screenwriters 101 course and decided that the original story of the making of the film wouldn't hold an audience's interest. The story needs conflict, division and triumph over adversity, it seems.

Hence, we have Alma being tempted into a possible affair and Hitchcock being left bereft without her. He starts to hallucinate conversations with Ed Gein and helping him to commit his crimes. Eventually he's driven to collapse after almost stabbing Janet Leigh when he loses control filming the shower scene, but fortunately Alma takes over directing the film.

It's partially rescued by the cast - Helen Mirren is good value for money and as watchable as ever. Scarlet Johansson does well as Janet Leigh, while James Darcey is uncanny, but underused, as Anthony Perkins. Hopkins, though, is at the centre of the movie and, I'd say, loses out by comparison with Toby Jones. The only points where he feels like anything other than Anthony Hopkins in a fat suit come with the addresses to camera at the start and close of the film and the scene at the premiere of Psycho where he stands in the cinema foyer and conducts the sound of the audience's screams.

Despite a few nice performances and moments, I think travesty is the word here.
This is currently a topic on the British Horror Films forum.

Name your ten ideal horror films - one for each of these criteria - for a weekend's viewing.

1 Silent classic
Nosferatu. No contest.


2 Universal classic
Bride of Frankenstein. Spoilt for choice here - Bride wins by a close head from Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Old Dark House.

3 Val Lewton classic
The Body Snatcher. Runners up - I Walked with a Zombie and Cat People.

4 Hammer classic
The Devil Rides Out. Today. Another day it might be Plague of the Zombies. Or Dracula 1972.

5 Corman/Price/Poe classic
The Masque of the Red Death. Easy choice.

6 Amicus classic
The House that Dripped Magenta. By a short head from From Beyond the Grave.

7 Mega Budget classic
The Shining.

8 Non-English language classic
I tre volti della paura. aka Black Sabbath. Close run thing from Suspiria and the Herzog film of Nosferatu.

9 British classic
Frightmare. Beating An American Werewolf in London.

10 TV movie classic
A Warning to the Curious
The Wicker Man 2006.

Traumatised traffic cop with allergy to bee stings visits island famous for its honey, answering a call for help from his ex. Hilarity ensues.

Neil LaBute’s remake of The Wicker Man shows the extent to which so many films are dumbed down these days. In the original, Sergeant Howie arrives on the island and over the course of his stay works out – via oblique hints from the inhabitants – what is going on, being unknowingly led into the trap waiting for him. The audience is trusted to have the brains to follow him and to keep up with the revelations as they come. Here, Malus arrives on the island and is repeatedly told by his ex what is going on, that this is a strange society, that they are dangerous, etc, etc, etc. In short, we are not trusted to be able to follow the plot without getting regular summaries of the story so far. Oh, plus we get regular flashbacks to a car crash every ten minutes, just in case we forgot about it.

Edward Woodward’s character does everything that he does, placing himself in danger to find a girl he does not know, because, while he may be a humourless prig, he cares about his job and tries to do it to the best of his ability. Cage’s character does this because – well take your pick. He watched a little girl die in a car crash. His girlfriend asked him to. He finds Rowan is his daughter. Oh, plus we get regular flashbacks to the car crash every ten minutes, just in case we forgot about it. Actually on the subject of fatherhood – did anyone find this a surprise? Bar the character, of course. From the point that he received the letter and – hmm, let’s see now, so they were in love a carefully unspecified number of years ago and she’s got a young daughter. Gosh – do you think she could be his? Well that’d sure be an interesting twist to the story wouldn’t it? Actually, no. It wouldn’t. It does make you wonder what the filmmakers’ view of the audience is, doesn’t it? Presumably that they won’t accept someone risking his life to save a child unless he’s her father and in love with the mother and emotionally disturbed because of The One He Couldn’t Save. Nice. Clearly then, the character’s no longer a virgin, unlike Sgt Howie in the original. In fact we already knew this prior to release. LaBute had told us that there was no way he could make it credible that Nic Cage was a virgin. Sorry mate – you’re the director and the writer. It’s your job to make it credible. Although if you’re that biased in favour of leather-skinned, horse-faced Elvis impersonators… Oh, plus we get regular flashbacks to the car crash every ten minutes, just in case we forgot about it.

And while we’re on changes to the character of the policeman, whose idea was his tendency to Bruce Lee moments? To wit the scene where a woman literally half his size tries to scratch his face and he responds with a couple of flying kicks that knock her into the wall. So – was this scene actually sponsored by the American Friends of Chuck Norris Association? Who exactly thought it was a good idea for the hero to repeatedly kick a woman half his size in the head with a rousing cry of “Goddamn it!” And the entertaining thing about all this is LaBute’s comment that he found Woodward’s character in 1973 hard to like. Erm – sorry – wasn’t that at least partly the point? He’s unlikable but at least partly admirable – he cares about his job and remains firm in his beliefs in the face of provocation, temptation and death. And Edward Malus is likeable because - ? Any suggestions?

Plus of course a major theme of the original has vanished – the clash of religions. Back to the dumbing down theme. In 1973, we had a lengthy and thought-provoking discussion between Howie and Summerisle on rival religions and the history of the islands. In 2006, while Summersisle discusses suppression of femininity, the best Malus can manage is to rave about “all you wackos” and to ask why there are so many beekeepers on the island. Here’s a hint – it’s so they can look after the bees – you know, the bees that make the world-famous honey that was the reason you found out about the island. Oh, it’s all too painful. Oh, plus we get regular flashbacks to the car crash every ten minutes, just in case we forgot about it.

And so instead of the clash of religions, we get the clash of the sexes. All the men on the island are subjugated. Nic Cage kicks a woman in the head. He’s burnt to death by his own daughter – it’s a criticism of the family structure, dontcha know. Instead of “Summer is icumin in”, they all chant “The drone must die”. Yes, yes, they’re like bees. We get it. Which leads on to another point – LaBute has been quoted as saying that anyone who likes the original soundtrack, he’s not sure if he wants people like that to enjoy his film, because they clearly have very poor taste. I’m sorry – who thought it was a good idea to get this man as director? Oh, plus we get regular flashbacks to the car crash every ten minutes, just in case we forgot about it. And by now, those flashbacks are really getting annoying.

Plus there are points that just seem to make no sense at all. We’ve already dealt with the Real Kung-fu Action Nic Cage Action Figure, so we won’t go over that ground again. On the other hand, there’s the attempt to emulate the double-bluff dream sequence in American Werewolf – less said about that the better. Also, if he’s so important to them for the sacrifice – why does someone try to drown him in the crypt? Come to that, why does he fall through the floor in the barn? Was it just thought that nothing had happened for a while and they should liven it up? And one more comparison with the original. Edward Woodward in the wicker man gets to quote scripture, sing “The Lord’s My Shepherd” and pray for his soul. It's a horrific moment and also a deeply moving one - we're watching a man take comfort in his beliefs in the face of his agonising death. Nic Cage gets to shout “Don’t do that, honey!” sounding like he’s telling his daughter not to eat jam straight from the jar… Also, Nic Cage is playing a man lethally allergic to bee stings. So he rides his bike into a field full of beehives and crashes into one, because it hasn’t occurred to him to look where he’s going. Y’know – so he doesn’t crash into a bee hive and get stung to death.

It seems barely worth commenting on the names (losing the will to live here…), but aside from the obvious references – the cop is called Edward, the child is called Woodward – there is also the point that the cop’s surname is Malus – Latin for apple, the original export of Summerisle. On the other hand, it could just be because it’s pronounced as Male-us. Nic Cage's character represents all men? Not me, he doesn't.
Robin Hardy's 1973 film The Wicker Man is one of my favourite films and so it might see unfair to draw comparisons with it. On the other hand, The Wicker Tree is written and directed by Hardy and described on the back of the blu ray as a re-imagining of the original film, so I'd say it's asking for it.

The film comes across as cooked up from off-cuts from the earlier, vastly superior work - whether in plot terms (devout Christian meets nasty fate at hands of pagans), cast (Christopher Lee is wheeled out for a 90 second flashback in front of a bucolic background of a staggering lack of realism and yet conveys more presence, humour and character in those 90 seconds than are to be found in the remaining 90 minutes of the film) or even costume, given that Graham McTavish appears to be wearing one of Sir Lee's cast off jackets.

The changes made from the original are hackneyed and uninteresting. Edward Woodward's detailed and interesting "Christian copper" is replaced by a pair of off-the-peg evangelical Texan cutouts. She's Beth, an ex-Britney Spears-type singer who regrets her past and he's a cowboy who - actually, all you can say about him is he's a cowboy. A fact rammed home by the number of people who refer to him as "the cowboy" and the fact that he wears a Stetson in bed. He is a man so stupid that even when the entire village advanced menacingly on him while stripping naked and singing about the blood of the lamb, he's still struggling with the idea that he might be in trouble. It comes across as entirely credible that he only starts to suspect once sundry extras start to chow down on his sweetbreads.

Meanwhile, Christopher Lee's politely obstructive Lord of the Manor is replaced by Jacqueline Leonard and Graham McTavish as a couple who might as well wear placards reading "We're sinister, okay?". During an early concert by the two missionaries, McTavish and Leonard stand at the back of the church making ominous comments about "They're perfect" and generally coming across as a pair of second-tier Bond villains planning an evening's wife-swapping before getting back to the day job.

And then there's the comedy Scots butler, first seen bellowing in the broadest accent possible about being "up to my oxters in shite". Add in Lolly, solely characterised as "woman who likes sex" and the village policeman, solely characterised as "man who likes sex and is policeman in a village" and it appears Robin Hardy was not at home to detailed characterisation when writing this. It all rather rams home what we owe to Anthony Shaffer for his script for the original film.

Briefly the film does try to address contemporary matters, as it becomes clear that McTavish is head of the local nuclear power company - a fact made clear when he gives a press conference attended by three extras clutching notebooks in the vain hope of looking like journalists. All of which is followed by infodump heaven in a conversation which can be summed up with:

"As you know, we're all infertile because of the nuclear accident we had ten years ago."

"Yes, we are."

Anyway, as the film progresses with double entendres-a-gogo and reaches a no doubt intended to be thrilling climax with a scantily clad heroine running down the street, pursued by the butler, who's doing a funny walk because she's damaged his knackers, while up at the castle, everyone's stripping off for an orgy, it becomes clear that Hardy's decided the ideal style for a remake is '70's British sex comedy. Confessions in the Missionary Position, perhaps. Or Adventures of a Scots Laird. It's not often that I compare something to the oeuvre of Robin Askwith and find it lacking, but it happened today.

So, with the Unknown Cowboy not only dead, but also lunch, Beth is brought news of his death. "Steve's dead?" she quavers, with the air of someone wondering "How can they tell?", while surprising all of us with the fact that he had a name. She then escapes via a convenient small child who claims to know a secret way out. To say that anyone who remembers the climax of The Wicker Man will have a sense of deja vu here is a slight understatement. Sure enough, the conveniently placed child turns out to be part of the brilliant master plan. To be precise, he's there in case Beth doesn't drink the poisoned milk because the castle cat gets to it first and then breaks the glass in its death throes; after which, she uses the broken glass to slash the butler's knackers and finally lobs the Lord of the Manor onto a sacrifical bonfire, sets light to it and burns him alive. You might think that it'd be less complicated to put the milk in a plastic cup or perhaps have a bucket of water next to the bonfire in case of accidents. On the other hand, it's almost worth it for the scene where the Lady of the Manor comes to breakfast brandishing an awesomely fake cat corpse by its tail and then casually rams it into a waste paper basket, from which its tail protrudes for the rest of the scene.

The fact that this is a highlight of the film speaks for itself, rather.

FOr any gluttons for punishment, here's a link to my review of the 2006 Wicker Man remake. http://magister.dreamwidth.org/16319.html
So The Observer has posted a startlingly transphobic and hateful article by Julie Burchill.

As I suspect this has been done as linkbait, here's a link to a pdf of it.

http://www.birdofparadox.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Transsexuals-should-cut-it-out-_-Julie-Burchill-_-Comment-is-free-_-The-Observer.pdf

Sadly, it's something you have to read to appreciate the level of vitriol.

Anyway, comments on the article have yet to be opened. If after reading it, you feel like registering your shock that it was seen as worthy of posting, then can I suggest that you send an email to The Observer's reader's editor, Stephen Pritchard, at reader@observer.co.uk. On the other hand, if you want to register your support for Ms Burchill, then please fuck off.

This is what I sent.

Dear Mr Pritchard,

I'd like to complain about the article "Transexuals should cut it out" written by Julie Burchill and published on The Observer website on 13/01/13.

Julie Burchill states that the only experience she has of "the trans lobby" is via criticism of her friends. She also states that she has only recently discovered that, as a born woman, she falls into the social group referred to as "cis", which she decides to see as an insult. "Cis" does not only refer to women who were born female, but rather to any person who chooses to remain in his or her born gender - ie the vast majority of the population. None the less, she chooses to see this as an insult and to use it as an excuse to use a wide variety of offensive terms. The article describes trans women as "dicks in chicks' clothing" , "trannies", "shims", "shemales" "screaming mimis" and "bedwetters in bad wigs". It also compares them to The Black and White Minstrels, suggesting that trans women are an offensive parody of what Ms Burchill describes as "real" and "natural-born women".The idea that trans women are not real women is continued in the phrase "women - real and imagined" before Ms Burchill states what appears to be her true belief, that criticism from trans women is "men telling women not to talk".

I note that the Leveson Report states that "it is clear that there is a marked tendency in a section of the press to fail to treat members of the transgender and intersex communities with sufficient dignity and respect". I would have hoped that these words might have been taken into account before deciding whether to publish this article. I can only assume that either they were not or that treating a vulnerable section of the public with respect is not seen by the editorial team at The Observer to be important. Finally, I would ask - given her self-confessed level of ignorance of trans politics, why was Ms Burchill seen as a fit person to discuss the subject?

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely

James Brough
I've been doing Araucaria's crosswords for the best part of thirty years. Of all the crossword setters in The Guardian, he's the one I look forward to - the standard weekly ones and the special bank holiday ones. Doing the Guardian crossword with my father is one of my favourite parts of Christmas. Simply he does better crosswords than anyone else. The clues are wittier and often there's something special about the construction - the letters round the outsde of the grid spell out a message; there are two grids and the clues have been run together so that you have to decipher where one ends and another begins; clues are not numbered and you have to work out how to fit them into the grid.

Today's Guardian crossword started with the following message.

Araucaria has 18 of the 19 and is being treated with 13 15. The numbers refer to clues for the crossword.

If you solve them, the message reads: Araucaria has cancer of the oesophagous and is being treated with palliative care.

This may sound like an overreaction given that I've never met the man and until a few minutes ago I didn't know his name or even what he looked like, but I feel like I've just heard that a friend's going to die.

I really don't think I can write anything else, so here's an article about it all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crosswords/2013/jan/11/crossword-araucaria-reveals-dying-cancer?CMP=twt_fd
Can't decide the best way to describe Tim Farron. Was he:

a) created by Enid Blyton?
b) a character from The Beano?
c) Just William all growed up?
Things I learned from The Dark Knight Rises.

Being punched in the kidneys can cure a fractured spine.
Bane is not a terrifying force of nature. He is actually a short man in a body warmer who talks like Derek Nimmo if he got his head stuck in the biscuit tin looking for the last custard cream.
Amongst his weapons are such diverse elements as pretension and hitting people in the face.
Gotham City will turn against Commisioner Gordon because he lied to them years ago, not because he is Ned Flanders.
Having turned against him, they will follow a biscuit-thieving Derek Nimmo impersonator wearing a mask that looks like a distended anus.
Batman can turn off the sun.
Owen from Torchwood is always a wazzock.
The two fights between Batman and Bane are going to be some of the most exciting screen fights ever shown, with two masters of martial arts going mano a mano.
The two fights between Batman and Bane are actually two men in visually-impairing masks taking it in turns to throw haymakers at each other for several minutes while they remember whose turn it is to fall over.
Jon Pertwee's fights in Doctor Who were more entertaining. At least there was the fun of looking out for Terry Walsh in a wig.
Michael Caine owns this film.
Michael Caine is only in this film for 15 minutes
This leaves 150 minutes of the film to get through.
Guns are bad. Except when they save our hero's life.
Guns don't kill people.
But bloated overblown films can steal the will to live.
What's that? How did Bruce get from the oddly symbolic pit back into Gotham, which it is impossible to enter? Erm, um... Look! Batman's hitting people! Really slowly!
The moral of this film is not to invest too much in individuals. Gotham learned that when they were let down by Harvey Dent, Gordon and Bane.
Hey, let's put a statue up to Batman! He's some dude with a silly voice who never let us see his face and was suspected of murder for 8 years. What's that? We shouldn't invest in individuals? Nah, it'll be fine. I mean, it's not like he's just going to up and leave us, is it?
As long as the atomic bomb goes off just over there, we'll be fine.
Fallout? What's that?
So the cancer rate'll be a little high. It's fine. Have you seen our really neat statue?
Gordon's bidding an emotional farewell to Batman. "Bye diddly ho, Batman-erino."
So, just how long has Bruce been sitting in that cafe waiting to look meaningfully at Alfred?

And yet, somehow, an awful lot of critics think this is a genuinely great film. Don't see it, myself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

He's a doctor and he says that "evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell".

So, anyone else scared by this?
Not having a good day.

http://pervocracy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-worst-thing-in-world.html

So, let's see how long it is before I take this down in disgust at my own self pity.

The 6 Bonds

Sep. 6th, 2012 12:39 pm
As it's the 50th anniversary of the James Bond films, we have this, from Sky Movies. 6 Bonds in one car chase. Very nicely done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2FAWb5Lch8&feature=player_embedded