Just finished MI-5 (aka "Spooks") – what next?

Via Netflix, I’ve been working my way through every episode in the first four series of the British TV series “MI-5“. (That’s the US title; in Britain it’s called “Spooks”.) The DVDs for series 5 will be released in the UK in September, but there’s no date yet for the US release.
Putting aside my curiosity about how the cliff-hanger at the end of series 4 is resolved, I’m now wondering which TV series I should go for next. Andromeda, perhaps? I like a cynical twist to my escapism, but I already own Firefly, and I can only take Red Dwarf in small doses. (It’s too concentrated.)

Notes On A Scandal

Today I went to see Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett (and the wonderful Bill Nighy) in Notes On A Scandal. (Warning: that link probably opens on a page that will start audio pouring out of your speakers. I wish web browsers had a “mute” button – some blasted advert started blaring as I was trying to Skype with my mother yesterday.) Judi Dench’s character is a delightfully ghastly piece of work, and (unlike some reviewers) I thought Blanchett’s fey ambivalence worked out well.
However the thing that struck me was the gasp.
A few weeks ago I went to see Pan’s Labyrinth with Jon and Laura. (You may remember that an earlier attempt had been fortuitously thwarted.) One of the most striking things about this account of fascist Spain in the 1940s was the juxtaposition of delicate, whimsical fantasy and callous brutality. At one point, the fascist officer performed a sudden and unexpected act of pure violence that was so shocking that the entire audience gasped in horrified disbelief. And in retrospect, it seemed an entirely appropriate reaction.
Today there was another collective gasp from most of the audience, when a 15-year old school boy said that he’d been “dreaming about your hot, sweet c*** all morning.”. [Asterisked to avoid nanny-filters.] The thing that struck me was that this was a peculiarly American reaction; in England, where the film is set, George Carlin’s seven words are so unexceptional that they are routinely printed in newspapers (without asterisks). Yet here in Seattle the “c” word produced the same reaction as a brutal murder. How strange….
Anyway, back to the film. It’s quite good, especially Judi Dench’s performance, and the school scenes are particularly effective. It doesn’t have the magic of, say, Venus or The History Boys, but it’s still well worth seeing. Psychologists and teachers may want to give it a miss, though: it might be something of a busman’s holiday for them.

V

Just finished watching V for Vendetta (my first NetFlix DVD, actually). I remember reading the original graphic novel years ago, set in a post-Thatcherite world. Updated for the 21st century, it’s even more disturbing. “Terrorist as hero”. Hmm. As John Hurt said in the “making of” documentary, all forms of war are awful – but why did we decide to say that one particular form of war was “not on”. (The answer, of course, is that it’s the form “our” enemies use, but that’s a lousy basis for an ethical judgement.)
Anyway, I’m glad I finally saw it (even with all the gore). Recommended.

The History Boys

Most of the population of Seattle seems to have been glued to their TVs for some (American) football game or other; I decided to go to see The History Boys. It was wonderful. Yes, of course it was produced and directed like a play rather than a film: when you’ve got one of the best contemporary plays to work with, why not? It was smart, intelligent, poignant, funny… and you’d better be ready to drag your dimly-remembered school French out of the furthest recesses of your brain, because there are no subtitles!
Three wonderful English films in succession: “The Queen”, “Casino Royale”, and now “The History Boys”. I think my next two films will be “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “Venus”

Two terribly English films

Two weekends, two films.
Last Saturday I went to see “The Queen” up on Capitol Hill. When I told my mother about it the next day, she was incredulous: how could Helen Mirren play Liz? She looks nothing like her! Well, all I can say is that it worked. Helen Mirren was wonderful, and after a few minutes I was quite happy to accept that she was the character she was playing. The key was that she absolutely nailed the voice and a few obvious physical mannerisms; the rest just followed. (I imagine experimental psychologists could explain this in terms of the various and complex ways in which hominids actually recognize one another.) Even the guy playing Tony Blair was convincing, and once again it was mostly based on the voice.
Overall it was a very enjoyable and satisfying movie. I’m not sure why some American critics are gushing over it: it was good, but not great, and I can’t see it garnering any Oscars. (“The History Boys” looks much more like Oscar material; after seeing the trailer, I’m really looking forward to the film.)
Then today I read the review of the new “Casino Royale” in the New Yorker magazine, and decided that I wanted to see it. I think it was because the reviewer emphasized that this Bond was relatively true to the book, in both plot and characterization. I first read Ian Fleming around 1963-1965, when I was in my early teens. He was one of a number of authors, most notably Len Deighton and John LeCarre, who introduced me to the genre of spy fiction with a deeply flawed protagonist. (It’s become a cliche, but back then it was a gritty revelation.) The sex was a factor, of course: this was only a few years after the “Lady Chatterley” court case. And then there was the card-playing: Bond played cards, including bridge, and I was an avid bridge player.
I enjoyed the first couple of Bond movies with Sean Connery, but the later films (and, indeed, the later books) were just silly, and I didn’t bother with them. As several writers have pointed out, when directors like Tarantino upped the ante in violence, the Bond franchise simply turned into a campy parody of itself.
So this afternoon I saw the movie at the AMC downtown. And I have to report that the new Bond works for me. Yes, it’s too long: a couple of the chases should have been trimmed, and the poker game meanders a bit. But it feels like the Bond I remember from the second-hand paperbacks with the lurid covers. Daniel Craig is an excellent 007: much more convincing than Moore or Brosnan. Vesper is played by the erotically enigmatic Eva Green; if you saw her in Bertolucci’s “The Dreamers”, you’ll know what I mean. And she’s definitely not a classic Bond girl.
Both films: highly recommended.

Finally! "Oh! What a Lovely War" on DVD

I was actually planning to go to bed early tonight… and then while scanning the TV listings I saw that Joan Littlewood’s “Oh! What a Lovely War” was being shown at 10:20. I’m not sure why, but this film has always been extraordinarily important to me. It’s hard to refer to it as a “favourite” when it evokes such a mixture of emotions, but I always watch it whenever I can… which has been rarely. For some reason it was never released on VHS or DVD, and so I had to catch it whenever I could, usually in the middle of the night.
So I stayed up and watched it, singing along quietly with some of the songs, smiling with anticipation at “They were only playing leapfrog…”, grimacing with rage at the callous stupidity of Haig, spotting celebrities (the cast list is amazing), and unashamedly weeping at the finale.
As I watched, I noticed that the film seemed brighter and crisper than I remembered, and there were a couple of scenes that felt longer. I wondered if someone had finally got around to replacing the tired prints from 1969(!) with a newly restored (and uncut) version. I guess they must have, because I just checked at Amazon.com and the DVD is being released next Tuesday! Hallelujah!!
Now if only someone would give a copy of the DVD to Bush and Rumsfeld. Unfortunately I suspect that they’d fail to see the connection. (The BBC already did a short piece entitled “Oh! What a Lovely Blair!”, skewering the Prime Minister over Iraq.) But never mind: get yourself a copy of one of the best anti-war satires ever produced. You may not enjoy all of it (the poison gas, for instance), but you’ll certainly be glad you did.

Quick music plug: Procol Harum "Live at the Union Chapel"

A few days ago I bought the DVD+CD release of Live at the Union Chapel, recorded by Procol Harum in December, 2003. I listened repeatedly to the CD in my car (and on my iPod), but it wasn’t until tonight that I sat down to watch the whole 139 minute concert video.
Brilliant. Just wonderful.
Gary Brooker’s voice sounds just the way it did back in 1966, and Matthew Fisher’s Hammond organ playing is as magical as ever. As Gary described in the “bonus interview”, the programme tends to be 40% new material (promoting the latest album), 40% of the songs that they have to play, and 20% of whatever takes his fancy. Highlights for me were “Shine On Brightly”, “An Old English Dream”, “Wall Street Blues”, “A Salty Dog” (boy, that one takes me back!), “Whiskey Train” with a stunning drum solo (remember those?), and “A Whiter Shade Of Pale” with the rarely-performed third verse.
Emphatically recommended.
(I only saw them once in concert – High Wycombe Town Hall, 1969, I think. What a strange venue that was! It’s been over 3 years since they last played in the USA….)

Sun memorabilia

Herewith three items of Sun memorabilia: two photos, and a video clip. The photos were scanned at 600 dpi from prints; you can click through to get the full-res images. The video clip is a 25MB MPEG4.
The first is a group shot taken at a country club somewhere in the Greater Boston area, with Scott McNealy and a bunch of long-time East Coast Sun folks. I can’t remember the occasion – 10th anniversary of ECD, perhaps? (That would make it 1995.)
sun group
The second is much earlier: a shot of the ECD staff including the larger-than-life Barry James Folsom. It must date from about 1987….
sun group
The final item is the video clip that was prepared for Phil Rosenzweig’s memorial, after 9/11. (I doubt that grommit will serve this fast enough for glitch-free viewing; you might want to right-click on the link and save the file before playing it.)
If you can supply precise dates and times, please leave a comment. (And of course I’ve been gazing at these photos, scratching my head and saying, repeatedly, “Dammit, I know that face, but I can’t put a name to it!!!”)

An Inconvenient Truth

On the hottest day of the year so far in the Boston area (over 94 in Waltham, MA), the fellowship went to see Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Our verdict: four enthusiastic thumbs up. The critics are right, this is an outstanding movie. As Roger Ebert put it:

When I said I was going to a press screening of “An Inconvenient Truth,” a friend said, “Al Gore talking about the environment! Bor…ing!” This is not a boring film. The director, Davis Guggenheim, uses words, images and Gore’s concise litany of facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless. In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.

If you haven’t seen the film, please do so. If you can’t, consider buying the book, or borrowing it from your local public library.

(And yes, after watching this movie I deeply regret that I didn’t buy the Prius. Oh, well. I hope my future choices will be wiser.)

United 93

I had lunch with Josh in Burlington today, and afterwards I decided to go and see United 93.
Yes, I had reservations. And yes, it’s hard to watch at times. Nevertheless, I’m really glad that I did. And I’m glad that the film was made, and that it was made now, and that it was done so well.
[I’ve been struggling for the last 15 minutes to find the words to describe why I feel this way, and I’ve given up. If you want to read reviews, you can see over 150 of them at RottenTomatoes.]
One thought: Other people can make 9/11-related films (about NYC firefighters or stuff like that), but I wish that this could be the only film about the hijackings themselves. We don’t need more than one. Yes, I know that this is about one particular flight, but it stands for all of them. And (selfishly) I’d rather not see an actor playing Phil on board American Flight 11.
Update: For a pilot’s perspective, check out the comments of Salon’s Patrick Smith. Like him, I noticed a few minor technical bloopers, but they didn’t spoil the film for me. And he found words where I failed:

“Tasteful” is the word being spun by critics and pundits. Of course, there are different ways of being tasteful, not all of which are acceptable to everyone. If you ask me, Paul Greengrass’ re-creation of the events aboard the skyjacked United Airlines 757, shot with a low-budget cast of nobody actors, including real-life pilots, flight attendants, military officers and air traffic controllers, is nothing if not triumphantly unpretentious. The skeletonized dialogue and jittery, claustrophobic camerawork create an atmosphere that is realistic almost to a fault. As a viewer, you feel as if you’re peering into the cabin of the actual doomed airplane — as though you’ve been sucked into the black box recorders and forced to bear witness to the horror as it unfolds, the theater itself wallowing aloft in the same unthinkable predicament.