The Case for Swedish Mums

Well, I didn’t get to the pictures (love that “old school” phrase), but a wee while ago, the BananaBoat showed me her DVD of film version Bjorn and Benny’s stage show, Mama Mia.

I had initially been dubious about seeing this film. I am a huge fan of the music of ABBA, but seeing the songs repackaged amongst a fragile framework of flimsy plot did not really appeal. More to the point, part of my joy of ABBA were the fantastic singing voices of Frida and Agnetha, so to hear the same songs performed by the likes of Julie Walters and Pierce Brosnan seemed underwhelming. Nonetheless, provided with DVD before me and the Bananaboat’s enthusiasm to guide me, I embarked on a quest to the Greek Islands.

Of course, these Greek islands are populated by lots of English speakers. In fact, the Greeks only really provided backup singers, and provided nothing to the tale. But the idea of having a Greek Chorus and everyone dressed up in garishly bright summer clothes obviously appealed.

The story… well, I won’t dilly dally here. The story is rubbish. Plot twists are more gentle bends sign-posted way in advance, and getting everyone together and then breaking them apart (for a wee while anyway) is completely contrived.

But the film redeems itself totally in my eyes by putting the divine Christine Baranski in the position of fending off the aggressive advances of a young, semi-clad black man with the suggestive lyrics of "Does your mother know?". That performance alone made the whole film worthwhile.

The rest is light escapism, every actor appearing to have a ball with the songs despite the dearth of development. The singing ability ranges from adequate to great (though not to the hallowed heights of the As in ABBA), but the whole thing is infectiously fun so it doesn’t really matter.

Verdict: This is the time when being the Judge is hardest. I have to come down on the side of reviewing law rather than sentimental attachment. So I will admit, Mama Mia is deeply flawed and will do nothing for those who are not ABBA fans. But my thanks to the BananaBoat for sharing the music with me. An A and half a B out of ABBA.

The Case for Helping Hands

I was not really intending to go to a film this week, but when I saw there was a local movie that got relatively good news and, most importantly, starred the fantabulous Melanie Lynsky, I had to go.

Show of Hands is based in New Plymouth, and a win a car competition. Based on a true story, the film follows contestants in a competition to win a Land Rover by keeping their hands on the car the longest. Quite where the true story is abandoned for the whimsy of fantasy is unclear, but it seems fairly early on as a whole bundle of cliched characters takes the stage. Not that this is a bad thing - the characters are all entertaining and it is great seeing Kiwi actors up on screen, and catching up on what some of the old Shortland Street alumni are up to these days.

Unfortunately, the film doesn't really know where to end, and, after establishing the lead characters quite strongly in the first part, the film seems to take the easy way out. And then it kind of just... ends.

So it's fairly easy to sum up this film. It is nice, well done, fairly Nu Zild, but ultimately a bit half baked, stumbling at the final hurdle and failing to deliver a satisfying conclusion. But Melanie Lynsky is there, and she is awesome (though the dress at the end... something else I didn't quite get), and the rest of the cast are great as well. It's just a pity the material doesn't quite live up to the performances.

Verdict: Show of Hands presented some fairly decent actors in some fairly predictable material with an unfortunately unsatisfying ending. 5 fingers out of 10.

The Case for Crack Ups

My last entry brought about the wonderful topic of "matters of perspective". My thanks to those who took the time to show me the R18 perspective - I may not agree, but at least I will (begin to) understand.

Along similar lines, a relatively recent article on Stuff about the humour of the BBC TV show Little Britain caught my eye.

Little Britain, as I am sure you know, is a very offensive television show, poking fun at some English stereotypes by presenting them in the most extreme light possible. This, according to the article, promotes hatred by inviting us all to laugh at groups of society.

What really struck me about the article though was this: isn't that really what a lot of humour is all about? Jokes about Irishmen, Scots, the French; pratfalls and farce; misunderstandings and double entendre - aren't they all, in one way or another laughing at people, and ourselves, as well? Does this mean these types of humour promote hatred of other nationalities; clumsy people; and the slow or stupid?

From my perspective, I cannot imagine a person who hated the Vicky Pollards or the Daffyds of the world watching a show that is all about them. Does that mean those that do watch these shows, such as myself, are slowly (or quickly) developing a hatred for those stereotypes I am invited to laugh at?

The surveys on which these kind of articles are based are beginning to annoy me. Of course these types of shows are offensive. Of course they "push the envelope". But isn't bringing the obscure into the mainstream also a way of destigmatising them, of showing the behaviours as either harmless or harmful rather than just "unknown"? I would choose to see this kind of show as forcing us to look at our own perceptions of things, of reassessing the prejudices and judgements we make about groups of people we may know nothing about, rather than actually forcing a point of view upon us. I choose to laugh at my ignorance of those different from myself, and hopefully learn something about the things that we share in common.

Verdict. I am up on my pulpit looking down on the masses, pointing my judgemental finger at those who try to crush humour in a misguided attempt at curbing hatred. One snort of derision out of a belly laugh.

The Case for Herr Heimlich

It’s been a while since I went to see an R18 film, and Choke, while earning an this rating, was no worse than watching a Badabing-based episode of The Sopranos. If trailer for the film gives the impression of a fairly tame film laced with lots of references to the “wild thing”, it is doing a very good job, as that is more or less what you get, with an impressive number of boobies and lots of “discretely done dirty deeds”.

I quite like Sam Rockwell, finding his usual amiable loser persona quite entertaining, if not necessarily lead character material. But in this film, his Victor gets to interact with a bevy of strange and unusual characters, and if ever attention wanes on his performance, the others are more than capable of picking up the slack. In particular, the divine Anjelica Huston gets one of the more interesting roles I have seen her in for a long time, and the flashbacks to her in her trashy glory are remarkable (I would love to know how much (if any) CGI went in to making her look “young”).

The story itself is fun, the dialogue amusing, with no major histrionics (except at important times) and some developments that appear to happen outside the scope of the film but which push things along quite nicely and aren’t too jarring. It is all played for laughs, and despite the rating, the laughs are fairly easy.

Overall, I enjoyed this film and the performances in particular. The one question I came away with though was, considering what passes for entertainment on the telly these days, why was Choke rated R18? I have seen episodes of Outrageous Fortune that were explicit and violent and used harsher language than this film. But then perhaps I have become jaded with age…

Verdict: A pleasant, entertaining film with humour of the naughty kind, Choke was fun, and a lot more accessible than the censorship rating may have indicated. An R13 out of R18.

The Case for Pineapple Lumps

I think it was in keeping with the Pineapple Express that, coming out of the film, I had a short spell of trouble with my depth perception. It was an odd sensation, keeping not only with the stoner ethos of the film, but also the fairly two dimensional characters within it.

Now, I went to this film because of Seth Rogan. He has a slobbish, roguish charisma about him that I find hilarious, and in this film he is the charming person I find him to be. Considering he helped write the film, the fact his character plays on Seth Rogan’s strengths is not that surprising. Considering the film was probably written while all the writers were high, one can understand the path the film takes.

From a fairly routine, entertaining beginning, with encounters with people from all walks of life, the Pineapple Express starts off fairly amiably. We eventually meet ex Freaks and Geeks alumnus James Franco as the Dealer, and then the movie swings into a buddy movie with the two leads mixed up in crazy drug cartel shenanigans.

Which is really (for me) where the fun faded. Gone were most attempts at witty banter, abandoned in favour of physical comedy with a splash of violence and lots of guns. Character tones shift and change (humourous to deadly serious; shifty to comic relief to “pull through in the end”) and the budlove of the main characters rings hollow.

Perhaps the ultra-long running time jaded my enjoyment of the film. Which, to be fair, I did enjoy. But, this movie about a “slacker” had the feel of a film written by slackers, so the promise of the concept and of the leads is wasted, with the resulting film likeable but forgettable.

Verdict: I am sure, had I been stoned at the screening, would have improved my overall impression of the film. As it was, I enjoyed the Pineapple Express, but that was about it. Six reefers out of ten.

The Case for Book Burning

I think a cast as big as one sees in the film Burn After Reading, the latest Coen brothers offering, is referred to as an “ensemble”, meaning a gathering together of lots of actors whose characters are about level pegging screen-time wise and plot wise.

Odd then that I find the main character, Linda, played by Frances McDormand as a Jane Sixpack (in the drink sense) is the one I most strongly remember, and seems the centre of the film. True, John Malkovich’s foul-mouthed analyst is the main figure early on, but he fades into the background quickly thereafter, popping up every so often to explode with obscenities and then goes away for a bit again.

So, back to Linda. Actually, sidestepping Lilly, we find Brad Pitt in a role he must have loved as an airheaded gym boy bunny fitness instructor Chad, who has a heart of gold and a mind of mush. For me, Chad was the most enjoyable and likable character in the film: Tilda Swinton played the anally retentive Brit to an obnoxious degree; George Clooney’s cavalier charmer was a bit of everything, alternating between suave and awkward, and so it was hard to like him; J. K. Simmons was his usual loud bluster (he played calm people on TV once, I am sure); and the other characters were all… well, less memorable.

And the film was all about the characters, as the story itself was quite silly. To sum it up, Burn After Reading is a wee bit of madcap action by and through a whole bunch of dysfunctional characters. The problem for me lies in that the characters themselves are all fairly unlikeable. For a movie like No Country for Old Men, this is not a problem as the story itself is compelling, but in a film like this… well, let’s just say the comparison is not favourable.

There were things to enjoy about this film and I did find myself smiling occasionally (scenes that make me laughing out loud are rare, though many such moments were packed into 40 Year Old Virgin, hence the reason I bought that the instant it was on DVD). On the other hand, I felt no sympathy or empathy for any of the characters in the film (except perhaps Chad), so I wasn’t captivated by what happened on screen.

Verdict: An entertaining movie, yet ultimately easily forgettable, Burn After Reading gets 6 books out of 10.

Oh, and as an aside, I take back some of the things I said about Clare Danes and the demise of My So Called Life. The "making of" documentary on the DVD has opened my eyes to the tortured development of the show, and the apparent lack of confidence it had from the network screening it. I apologise...

The Case for Elections 1

Odd to think that once again it is time to take part in a process to elect a government to rule for over us for three years. Labour, under the firm leadership of Ms Helen Clark, is making another bid to be the party in charge, but National, under the more malleable command of Mr John Key, seems to be in the lead. It could be people want a change; it could be that people are unhappy with Labour; it could be that National is speaking sense. It could be lots of things. But could it be the campaigns?

I thought I would take a quick look at some of the campaign slogans thus far, and in my particular style, rate their effectiveness.

1. Labour

The first purely because they are the ruling government, they seem to be going with the “All about Trust” tack. While I would love to hear Ms Clark actually define New Zealandness, the appeal to trust is an interesting notion, especially considering that politicians always tend to end up as the most untrustworthy occupation in polls on that topic. If the New Zealand Nurses Organisation ran for government on that slogan, they would be a shoo-in.

Verdict: Labour – sounds nice, but one should only think about it in the context of other parties, rather than other polls. Three seats out of five.

2. National

“Choose a Brighter Future”. One so bright, one has to wear shades? Is this a sly indication of their pro-global warming stance? I do like the emphasis on the “choice” though, as rather than “trust” the party to do the right think (like Labour), the Nats want to put the power (if not necessarily the assets) back in the hands of the people.

Verdict: National – definitely deserve kudos for empowering the voter, though how that would pan out post election will (may?) be interesting to see. Four seats out of five.

3. Greens

Whoever thought up the “Vote for me” campaign is a genius. Who could argue with the influence on the viewer of the image of the planet, children and animals with those words boring into ones brain, forcing responsibility and the emphasising the individual’s ability to make change? Well those who hate kids, cuddly animals or the planet in general would probably be immune. And how many of those are there out there?

Verdict: Greens – brilliant idea, well executed. Or perhaps not executed. More… circulated. Executed does not really sound like a Green term. Five seats out of five.

4. The Māori Party

Actually, I can’t seem to find a slogan for this party. They probably don’t need one; their name says it all. Some of their recent policy announcements have made me look twice at a party that, on the face of it, is not really designed for my non-Māori-ness, but fact they don’t need a slogan indicates to me that they are a party confident in what they are and what they stand for.

Verdict: Māori Party – no apparent slogan, but there is no need really. We know what they stand for.

5. New Zealand First

I can’t find a slogan for this party either, but considering New Zealand First tends to be a one-man band anyway, perhaps that should be too surprising. If anything, “Winston Peters” is this party’s slogan (check out the website) . And… that’s all I have to say about that.

Verdict: New Zealand First – this party’s slogan is and always has been “Winston First”, even if that is not on the billboards.

6. ACT

I like this one: “Be the Difference”. For some reason, this one strikes me as empowering in a very red pill / blue pill way. It’s another one of those slogans that are wildly open to interpretation (is it secretly designed to bolster the Green “save the planet” vote, perhaps?), though one has to admire its positivity.

Verdict: ACT – I kind of wish I didn’t, but I do like this one, perhaps because it does convince me to vote for a third party. The only problem; it might not be ACT. Three votes out of five.

7. Progressive Party

The final party on my round up is the Progressives, who have “The strength to care”. This one strikes me in a very evangelical way, as if perhaps this were the political wing of the Salvation Army or a newly reformed Destiny Party. Again, a mixed message for me, not really appealing to my “vote here” button.

Verdict: Progressives – a warm and fluffy message, but does the party really have the strength to do anything besides care? Two votes out of five.

Now only one question remains - which party (and candidate; so perhaps there are really two questions) to actually vote for?