‘One Day’ tells the story, ‘Sleepless in Seattle’ style, of two characters, boy and girl, who over the years go through many ups and downs, good and bad relationships, career highs and lows, who we know will end up getting together by the end. Despite its predictability, we engage in the story as the characters are likeable and well-rounded, and the trials that come their way throughout their lives relate to our own, and are told with humour, perception and intelligence. The structure is quite appealing, in that we are brought back to the two main characters, Dexter and Emma, on the same day every year over the course of twenty years.
Dexter, handsome, wealthy, middle class and arrogant, is a rather volatile character who doesn’t display too much of substance when it comes to true character. In fact, he succumbs to alcohol and drug abuse which plague him for much of his life, and his often despicable behaviour, while adding drama and comedy, isn’t as believable as it could be. His self-centredness come to light when he fails to show love to his immediate family, and also when he fails to truly see or hear Emma, as she tries to counsel him or simply be a friend to him. In fact, I often found myself wondering what Emma could possibly see in him. However, as readers, we know that it is the fate of these two characters to get together, so I found myself, against my better judgement, wishing for this outcome, and hoping that his character would somehow redeem itself.
Emma was a great character-not immediately noticeable to men, but funny, intelligent and loyal to a fault, as was put to the test by Dexter’s often despicable behaviour. She was always a good friend, and calls us to question the qualities of such…she often told him directly if he needed to mend his ways. A teacher of drama, her true passion is writing, and she struggles with this in the evenings, chiding herself often if she’s struggling with writer’s block-she “wonders if what she believes to be a love of the written word is really just a fetish for stationery.” While she’s certainly more grounded than Dexter, she’s not afraid of change, and is by no means boring. She has several relationships with unlikely partners, she takes on big theatrical projects in school and she leaves a secure career when she’s fed up with it. She’s from a working class background, and as such, understands what ‘work’ is and the value of money, unlike Dexter, who takes these things for granted and drifts along.
The setting of the story over twenty years, and in various locations is well done by Nicholls, who brings in elements from the culture of the time to make it believable. The prose is very accessible, but this is not a criticism-rather it is authentic in its simplicity, making the story more realistic, Much dialogue is used, which is not surprising for such a novel, and the third-person voice works well: we know then that we are ‘being told’ a story, and relax into a certain secure ’happy-ending’ expectation. Also, Nicholl’s descriptions are sharp and fresh, drawing us into the scenarios played out by these characters, showing his skill and talent as a writer.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Kids are All Right
Directed by Lisa Cholodenko, 'The Kids are All Right' offers a close-up encounter with an unconventional family unit in California (lesbian parents of a fifteen-year-old boy, Laser, and his eighteen-year-old sister, Joni). The plot involves a quest by the kids to meet their biological father, Paul, and the chaos that will inevitably ensue for the family.
Though unconventional in structure, the family behaves like any other family, handling problems in ways that are no more creative than any 'conventional' family. The 'moms' are both failing to influence Laser to terminate his friendship with someone they deem unsuitable, and end up rowing, shouting, etc. etc...not the cool, hip and wise approach that they no doubt want to portray of themselves. In fact, it is not until the appearance of their biological father, played by the charming Mark Ruffalo, that some of the problems rise to the surface, and actually get resolved. There is an implicit suggestion that the influence of an outsider can bring a 'freshness', or change of dynamic to a 'stuffy' family, where, as Jules points out, all the crap that people are dealing with gets projected onto each other. Despite the family's obvious desire to be all open, new-age and tolerant, this family too grapples with the pedestrian problems of feeling trapped, misunderstood and burdened with a vague feeling of stagnation.
Joni forms an immediate bond with Paul, and admires him in a slightly uncomfortable, 'flirty' way. She becomes a stronger person by the end of the summer, standing up to the strict, antsy mom, Nic (Annette Benning). However, Jules, the ditsy, dreamy lesbian mom also forms a bond with him-an impulsive sexual encounter that closes her consultation on landscaping his garden.
What ensues is the heavy, judging mindset of Nic being played out in the way she deals with such betrayal. She cannot, it seems accept any responsibility for the crisis that is erupting around her, a crisis that was clearly gathering force already, and that perhaps prompted Jules' 'fling'. She mopes about, hardened and bitter, aimlessly watching T.V. and disengaging with her family. What arises is some real communication, initiated by Jules, and that marks a new beginning, a 'clearing of the air' for the family. (This is her speech about relationships being hard work, and projections...) As Nic's tears silently flow, we know that something has shifted, they're going to be ok.
The film ends with the family driving Joni to college and bidding her goodbye. We get a sense of the shy Joni feeling a sense of relief at being able to explore things for herself, removed from the influences of home. As the moms tearfully drive back, comforting one another and floundering with this new feeling of loss, unsure of what the next stage of their life will bring, we wonder if they, in fact, are the 'kids' in this story.
Overall, it's a good film, one that moves slowly, and perhaps doesn't leave much of an immediate impression, but certainly one that gives a very real look at the 'stuffiness' and heaviness that can often dwell in families, if they are not willing to look honestly at what is going on inside themselves and gloss over the truth by focusing narrowly on petty issues, more often involving the 'kids' than the parents.
Though unconventional in structure, the family behaves like any other family, handling problems in ways that are no more creative than any 'conventional' family. The 'moms' are both failing to influence Laser to terminate his friendship with someone they deem unsuitable, and end up rowing, shouting, etc. etc...not the cool, hip and wise approach that they no doubt want to portray of themselves. In fact, it is not until the appearance of their biological father, played by the charming Mark Ruffalo, that some of the problems rise to the surface, and actually get resolved. There is an implicit suggestion that the influence of an outsider can bring a 'freshness', or change of dynamic to a 'stuffy' family, where, as Jules points out, all the crap that people are dealing with gets projected onto each other. Despite the family's obvious desire to be all open, new-age and tolerant, this family too grapples with the pedestrian problems of feeling trapped, misunderstood and burdened with a vague feeling of stagnation.
Joni forms an immediate bond with Paul, and admires him in a slightly uncomfortable, 'flirty' way. She becomes a stronger person by the end of the summer, standing up to the strict, antsy mom, Nic (Annette Benning). However, Jules, the ditsy, dreamy lesbian mom also forms a bond with him-an impulsive sexual encounter that closes her consultation on landscaping his garden.
What ensues is the heavy, judging mindset of Nic being played out in the way she deals with such betrayal. She cannot, it seems accept any responsibility for the crisis that is erupting around her, a crisis that was clearly gathering force already, and that perhaps prompted Jules' 'fling'. She mopes about, hardened and bitter, aimlessly watching T.V. and disengaging with her family. What arises is some real communication, initiated by Jules, and that marks a new beginning, a 'clearing of the air' for the family. (This is her speech about relationships being hard work, and projections...) As Nic's tears silently flow, we know that something has shifted, they're going to be ok.
The film ends with the family driving Joni to college and bidding her goodbye. We get a sense of the shy Joni feeling a sense of relief at being able to explore things for herself, removed from the influences of home. As the moms tearfully drive back, comforting one another and floundering with this new feeling of loss, unsure of what the next stage of their life will bring, we wonder if they, in fact, are the 'kids' in this story.
Overall, it's a good film, one that moves slowly, and perhaps doesn't leave much of an immediate impression, but certainly one that gives a very real look at the 'stuffiness' and heaviness that can often dwell in families, if they are not willing to look honestly at what is going on inside themselves and gloss over the truth by focusing narrowly on petty issues, more often involving the 'kids' than the parents.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Social Network
The Social Network,” directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin, is a quick-paced, in depth account of the inception of facebook, the social network. A melancholy paradox lies at the heart of this entertaining and emotionally gripping movie: in 2003, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), a nineteen-year-old Harvard sophomore, invents Facebook and eventually creates a five-hundred-million-strong network of “friends,” but Zuckerberg is so egotistical and work-obsessed that he can’t stay close to anyone. He ends up by losing his only real friend, Eduardo (Andrew Garfield), a fellow Jewish student at Harvard, who helps him launch the site, and who eventually sues Zuckerberg for the raw deal he was given as a business partner.
The movie opens with a scene between Zuckerberg and Erica, his date, and we are drawn into their intense stacatto conversation, whereby Erica fails to steer Zuckerberg away from his own obsessions, and engage in normal, more open conversation. Erica, as it happens, is the only female character presented in an intelligent, self-contained way. This was a great opening scene, as it gives us an insight into Zuckerberg's character but also sets the story in motion, when Zuckerberg, just dumped by Erica, blogs cheap lies about her, which spread through college in very little time. We learn how brilliant Zuckerberg is with computers, and through another programme he sets up, hacking into the Harvard database to rank female students in terms of their 'hotness', he comes up with the idea of 'facebook'. However, he is hired by a group of upper-class rowers, who have a similar idea, but who's snobbishness and derisiveness piss Zuckerberg off, to the degree that he blows them off, and proceeds with the work himself, taking financial help on occasion from Eduardo. He later becomes enthralled with the founder of Napster, Sean Parker, (played very convincingly by Justin Timberlake), who comes on board the business departure, leading to the betrayal of Eduardo.
The film is told through a series of flash-backs and forwards between the present courtroom drama (he's being sued by the Winklevoss twins and by former friend Eduardo), and the past events as they occurred. The pace at which 'facebook' became established is evident in the film, as we are rushed from scene to scene, back and forth in the mesmerising computer-savvy world that these characters occupy.
I was left wondering how accurately this film recounts the story as it happened, and why Zuckerberg would agree to being so exposed, as he seemed to be in this film. Certainly he's the world's youngest billionaire, with a very brilliant mind to boot, but there are gaping flaws to his character, not least, his inability to engage with society, which were laid bare in the film.
The closing scene effectively returns to Erica, whom we met at the beginning and only briefly in the middle, whereby Zuckerberg, all alone, requests her as a friend on facebook, and stares at the screen, in vain hope of a reply.
The movie opens with a scene between Zuckerberg and Erica, his date, and we are drawn into their intense stacatto conversation, whereby Erica fails to steer Zuckerberg away from his own obsessions, and engage in normal, more open conversation. Erica, as it happens, is the only female character presented in an intelligent, self-contained way. This was a great opening scene, as it gives us an insight into Zuckerberg's character but also sets the story in motion, when Zuckerberg, just dumped by Erica, blogs cheap lies about her, which spread through college in very little time. We learn how brilliant Zuckerberg is with computers, and through another programme he sets up, hacking into the Harvard database to rank female students in terms of their 'hotness', he comes up with the idea of 'facebook'. However, he is hired by a group of upper-class rowers, who have a similar idea, but who's snobbishness and derisiveness piss Zuckerberg off, to the degree that he blows them off, and proceeds with the work himself, taking financial help on occasion from Eduardo. He later becomes enthralled with the founder of Napster, Sean Parker, (played very convincingly by Justin Timberlake), who comes on board the business departure, leading to the betrayal of Eduardo.
The film is told through a series of flash-backs and forwards between the present courtroom drama (he's being sued by the Winklevoss twins and by former friend Eduardo), and the past events as they occurred. The pace at which 'facebook' became established is evident in the film, as we are rushed from scene to scene, back and forth in the mesmerising computer-savvy world that these characters occupy.
I was left wondering how accurately this film recounts the story as it happened, and why Zuckerberg would agree to being so exposed, as he seemed to be in this film. Certainly he's the world's youngest billionaire, with a very brilliant mind to boot, but there are gaping flaws to his character, not least, his inability to engage with society, which were laid bare in the film.
The closing scene effectively returns to Erica, whom we met at the beginning and only briefly in the middle, whereby Zuckerberg, all alone, requests her as a friend on facebook, and stares at the screen, in vain hope of a reply.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Silver Tassie
Sean O Casey's post-war play, originally rejected by the Abbey, for its avant-garde European influence, was taken on board by director Garry Hynes of Druid, who with her cast of some 15 characters, achieved a very striking production of the intelligent play.
Opening in the kitchen of a working class Dublin tenement, we are introduced to a tight-knit community of family and friends, and get a sense of the lack of personal space by the noise from the upstairs flat and the ensuing involvement of all around, in witnessing the 'domestic', and comforting the distraught wife. This scene involves Teddy as the cruel and angry husband, who has a rather important role to play later on. We are made aware of the change that the next day will bring, when all the young men will be off to 'the Front' in France. But first, we watch their jubilation as they return with 'The Silver Tassie', having won the football league 3rd year in a row. Here we meet Harry, the protaganist, for the first time, oozing with the power and vim of youth and love. He is in love with the pretty, but rather slippery Jessie, and is admired and rather awed by all.
The second scene shows a war tank, and the stage landscape really deserves a mention...the tank takes up most of the space, and we get a sense of its magnitiude and are drawn straight into the scene. The lighting is dark and smoky and we see a large cross of the body of Jesus on stage-right. Here the comrades chant and sing the lines, with accordion, guitar or eukalele accompaniment...this gives almost an operatic feel, but I'm not sure the style of music delivered the pathos of the scene effectively. Much of it was jaunty and upbeat, and sometimes the 'ump-ah' accordion bass drowned out the actual words.
For the third scene, we are returned to Dublin to a hospital scene, and then, for the final scene to a dance hall, for a post-war party. These two scenes come across as somewhat flat in comparison to the second scene. Harry is left wheelchair-bound without the use of his legs, and Teddy is blind. We see the resentment and bubbling anger of Harry as he wheels up and down incessently in scene 3, and his desperation for Jessie, who has left him for his former best friend, who saved him from the Front. The final scene shows a mellowing of both men, Harry and Teddy, as they poetically and prayer-like, dialogue about their present conditions and their bleak futures, which they come to profess they will face 'like men'. Prior to this, Harry, in his anger hammers the once cherished 'Silver Tassie' out of all shape, which poignantly reflects his battered body, and sense of separation from the rest of his community and family.
All in all, the play was enjoyable. The casting was good, Eamon Morissey, and John Olohan comprising an effective double-act, as the elders of the community. The hospital scene was Beckett-like in its absurdity, and presented a sharp comment on the futility of war. Harry's character was very well played also, as was the pious nurse Susie. Much of the writing and turns-of-phrase were comedic but needed to be brought to life by the actors, which they achieved admirably. If I had a qualm, it was the length of time that it took to change from one scene to the next. Each break took at least ten minutes, which did disrupt the fluidity of the play. While this is all part of the theatrical experience, I feel these transitions ought to be quicker. But all in all, a commendable performance, which called to question the validity of faith and human weakness, ambitious themes by Sean O'Casey, but universal and timeless.
Opening in the kitchen of a working class Dublin tenement, we are introduced to a tight-knit community of family and friends, and get a sense of the lack of personal space by the noise from the upstairs flat and the ensuing involvement of all around, in witnessing the 'domestic', and comforting the distraught wife. This scene involves Teddy as the cruel and angry husband, who has a rather important role to play later on. We are made aware of the change that the next day will bring, when all the young men will be off to 'the Front' in France. But first, we watch their jubilation as they return with 'The Silver Tassie', having won the football league 3rd year in a row. Here we meet Harry, the protaganist, for the first time, oozing with the power and vim of youth and love. He is in love with the pretty, but rather slippery Jessie, and is admired and rather awed by all.
The second scene shows a war tank, and the stage landscape really deserves a mention...the tank takes up most of the space, and we get a sense of its magnitiude and are drawn straight into the scene. The lighting is dark and smoky and we see a large cross of the body of Jesus on stage-right. Here the comrades chant and sing the lines, with accordion, guitar or eukalele accompaniment...this gives almost an operatic feel, but I'm not sure the style of music delivered the pathos of the scene effectively. Much of it was jaunty and upbeat, and sometimes the 'ump-ah' accordion bass drowned out the actual words.
For the third scene, we are returned to Dublin to a hospital scene, and then, for the final scene to a dance hall, for a post-war party. These two scenes come across as somewhat flat in comparison to the second scene. Harry is left wheelchair-bound without the use of his legs, and Teddy is blind. We see the resentment and bubbling anger of Harry as he wheels up and down incessently in scene 3, and his desperation for Jessie, who has left him for his former best friend, who saved him from the Front. The final scene shows a mellowing of both men, Harry and Teddy, as they poetically and prayer-like, dialogue about their present conditions and their bleak futures, which they come to profess they will face 'like men'. Prior to this, Harry, in his anger hammers the once cherished 'Silver Tassie' out of all shape, which poignantly reflects his battered body, and sense of separation from the rest of his community and family.
All in all, the play was enjoyable. The casting was good, Eamon Morissey, and John Olohan comprising an effective double-act, as the elders of the community. The hospital scene was Beckett-like in its absurdity, and presented a sharp comment on the futility of war. Harry's character was very well played also, as was the pious nurse Susie. Much of the writing and turns-of-phrase were comedic but needed to be brought to life by the actors, which they achieved admirably. If I had a qualm, it was the length of time that it took to change from one scene to the next. Each break took at least ten minutes, which did disrupt the fluidity of the play. While this is all part of the theatrical experience, I feel these transitions ought to be quicker. But all in all, a commendable performance, which called to question the validity of faith and human weakness, ambitious themes by Sean O'Casey, but universal and timeless.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Town
'The Town', directed by Ben Affleck, is set in the Boston town of Charlestown, which, as we are informed at the start, is the town with the highest number of bank robberies in the States. We are quickly drawn into the setting, as the opening scene shows a group of ghoulishly-masked robbers violently breaking into a bank, bagging millions of dollars, and taking the bank manager, Claire (Rebecca Hall) hostage. One of the gang seems more human than the rest, and this predictably unfolds to a relationship forming between Doug (Affleck) and Claire.
In the relationship, he finds himself entangled in a delicate web of deceit, and yearns for a Way out of the life he was born into, a life lived with pride, (again from a quote at the start) by most of the criminals. Classy Claire, known as a 'toonie', acts as a foil for the low-down life he is trapped in...his fellow criminal friend, Jim, determined not to let him get away, and who has a hold over him from a prison sentence he served on Doug‘s behalf, the florist owner, the leader of the gang, played by an Irish actor, Pete Postlethwaite, with a really bad Northern accent, Jim’s sister, a messed-up junkie mother, who he sleeps with out of habit than anything else, and his father (Chris Cooper), who is serving life in jail, and who’s brief appearance shows what a poor role model he is. Doug, we see as quite a deep character, one who wants to change, and one who is kind and gentle at heart…he attends AA meetings, and reveals his vulnerability to Claire, when he talks of his estranged mother, who left when he was a young child, and whom he thought he could find, by putting up posters, like when their dog went missing.
The scenes of robbery are very well-executed, very believable, showing their experience very effectively, and the scenes of the car chases are dramatic and convincing.
However, there were a few scenes that I found rather too contrived to fit with the story. When Doug was in the laundromat, Claire ‘just happened’ to ask him for change, then she ‘just happened’ to burst into tears, giving Doug the opportunity that he was seeking to ask her out for a drink. Then, just as they were going for the drink, Claire ‘just happened’ to feel the need to get her recent experience of being taken hostage off her chest.
There is of course, one last robbery that must be undertaken before Doug can hope to become free, and it is on this final heist, in Fenway Park, home to the Red Sox, that his freedom and future ultimately lie. This is a very good device to add to the tension, and inevitably things don’t go as expected. I think this was probably the best possible outcome for the film, if it were to deliver any moral message on the futility and distructivness of crime.
The scene that most stands out for me is that where the gang are dressed up as nuns, whose humorous appearance somehow makes them even more scary. A van-load of armed nuns are stopped just beside an on looking boy, stupefied and understandably aghast. This same gang get the shock, when they think they have ‘got away with it’, and alight the van, only to be left facing a policeman, who in turn is perturbed by such a vision. This playful back-and-forth of unexpected ‘fright’ moments, is very clever in adding to the tension, and also in revealing the extent to which armed robbers (be they disguised as nuns) has become a way of life, and is almost familiar for residents of Charlestown.
In the relationship, he finds himself entangled in a delicate web of deceit, and yearns for a Way out of the life he was born into, a life lived with pride, (again from a quote at the start) by most of the criminals. Classy Claire, known as a 'toonie', acts as a foil for the low-down life he is trapped in...his fellow criminal friend, Jim, determined not to let him get away, and who has a hold over him from a prison sentence he served on Doug‘s behalf, the florist owner, the leader of the gang, played by an Irish actor, Pete Postlethwaite, with a really bad Northern accent, Jim’s sister, a messed-up junkie mother, who he sleeps with out of habit than anything else, and his father (Chris Cooper), who is serving life in jail, and who’s brief appearance shows what a poor role model he is. Doug, we see as quite a deep character, one who wants to change, and one who is kind and gentle at heart…he attends AA meetings, and reveals his vulnerability to Claire, when he talks of his estranged mother, who left when he was a young child, and whom he thought he could find, by putting up posters, like when their dog went missing.
The scenes of robbery are very well-executed, very believable, showing their experience very effectively, and the scenes of the car chases are dramatic and convincing.
However, there were a few scenes that I found rather too contrived to fit with the story. When Doug was in the laundromat, Claire ‘just happened’ to ask him for change, then she ‘just happened’ to burst into tears, giving Doug the opportunity that he was seeking to ask her out for a drink. Then, just as they were going for the drink, Claire ‘just happened’ to feel the need to get her recent experience of being taken hostage off her chest.
There is of course, one last robbery that must be undertaken before Doug can hope to become free, and it is on this final heist, in Fenway Park, home to the Red Sox, that his freedom and future ultimately lie. This is a very good device to add to the tension, and inevitably things don’t go as expected. I think this was probably the best possible outcome for the film, if it were to deliver any moral message on the futility and distructivness of crime.
The scene that most stands out for me is that where the gang are dressed up as nuns, whose humorous appearance somehow makes them even more scary. A van-load of armed nuns are stopped just beside an on looking boy, stupefied and understandably aghast. This same gang get the shock, when they think they have ‘got away with it’, and alight the van, only to be left facing a policeman, who in turn is perturbed by such a vision. This playful back-and-forth of unexpected ‘fright’ moments, is very clever in adding to the tension, and also in revealing the extent to which armed robbers (be they disguised as nuns) has become a way of life, and is almost familiar for residents of Charlestown.
Bill Bailey in the O2
Bill Bailey, best known to me as the hapless, though eccentrically intelligent bookshop employee in ‘Black Books’, took to the stage in the O2 in Dublin last week, for 2 nights. We went on the Friday night, 1st October.
He was so relaxed on stage, a considerable feat in itself, when he was tasked with making some 10,000 people laugh. His ease on stage made him a pleasure to watch, and his ability to improvise was apparent, as he took audience heckles and worked them seamlessly into his routine. However, the general outline of the show was intact, as seen by the preparation of video footage, and sound bytes that were used intermittently. Music too played a large part in the show, and his talent and obvious interest in quirky instruments was highlighted and used to effect. In fact, the ‘oud’, became part of an audience chant, which Bailey encouraged and took advantage of, and it was the most effective encore call, as he came back on stage at least 4 times.
The general theme of the show was difficult to pinpoint, but uncertainty seemed to crop up frequently, with a whole section devoted to an exposé of pictures by famous artists depicting the ‘doubting Thomas’. Each of these were shamelessly derided, but to great comic effect. Knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite to building comedy around it, and here Bailey’s intelligence was evident.
Like any good comedian, he makes observations of daily life, things accepted without question by the normal ‘Joe Soap’, and highlights their ridiculousness, eg that joggers are always the ones to find bodies (curious!), but Bailey goes further and follows through on his most bizarre imaginings, from glimpses of pixie-like people with loudspeakers inside Tesco’s self-service checkouts, calling up “Please remove this item from the bagging area”, to eating a packet of Revels from a bucket, to provide a greater challenge in identifying the type of Revel you are eating!! He also focuses a lot on stereotypes, poking fun at the difference between dealing with French and German electricity supply companies, the lassitude of the French (being put on hold to ‘Non, je ne regretted rien’), to the stinginess of the Germans, (as he feigned pathetically begging for electricity, for “die kinders”, which provoked the decisive response ’Nein’, with a stamp of the foot, for effect). He also takes apart the Australian phrase ‘too easy’, and wittily on how this can come across as insulting to the unwitting Englishman, requesting a simple favour.
His own honesty was very charming, and he spoke of his son, and how he would shuffle him along to school, disorganised as anything, with disapproving looks from the ‘Oh so perfect’ parents with all their books covered, pencils sharpened and healthy foil-packed lunches.
His use of lighting was very original, and this artistic leaning was also seen in his piecing together of internet and computer signs and symbols to make a song, commentating on the computer as the means of modern-day communication. (^_^) lol. Plus transport got a mention more than once, from bikes made out of wagon wheels and chocolate fingers, to Gary Numan cars with French musical horns.
All in all, a very inventive show!! First time in the O2 also, and it was a good venue, the use of screens providing quite a good view to those further back.
He was so relaxed on stage, a considerable feat in itself, when he was tasked with making some 10,000 people laugh. His ease on stage made him a pleasure to watch, and his ability to improvise was apparent, as he took audience heckles and worked them seamlessly into his routine. However, the general outline of the show was intact, as seen by the preparation of video footage, and sound bytes that were used intermittently. Music too played a large part in the show, and his talent and obvious interest in quirky instruments was highlighted and used to effect. In fact, the ‘oud’, became part of an audience chant, which Bailey encouraged and took advantage of, and it was the most effective encore call, as he came back on stage at least 4 times.
The general theme of the show was difficult to pinpoint, but uncertainty seemed to crop up frequently, with a whole section devoted to an exposé of pictures by famous artists depicting the ‘doubting Thomas’. Each of these were shamelessly derided, but to great comic effect. Knowledge of the subject is a prerequisite to building comedy around it, and here Bailey’s intelligence was evident.
Like any good comedian, he makes observations of daily life, things accepted without question by the normal ‘Joe Soap’, and highlights their ridiculousness, eg that joggers are always the ones to find bodies (curious!), but Bailey goes further and follows through on his most bizarre imaginings, from glimpses of pixie-like people with loudspeakers inside Tesco’s self-service checkouts, calling up “Please remove this item from the bagging area”, to eating a packet of Revels from a bucket, to provide a greater challenge in identifying the type of Revel you are eating!! He also focuses a lot on stereotypes, poking fun at the difference between dealing with French and German electricity supply companies, the lassitude of the French (being put on hold to ‘Non, je ne regretted rien’), to the stinginess of the Germans, (as he feigned pathetically begging for electricity, for “die kinders”, which provoked the decisive response ’Nein’, with a stamp of the foot, for effect). He also takes apart the Australian phrase ‘too easy’, and wittily on how this can come across as insulting to the unwitting Englishman, requesting a simple favour.
His own honesty was very charming, and he spoke of his son, and how he would shuffle him along to school, disorganised as anything, with disapproving looks from the ‘Oh so perfect’ parents with all their books covered, pencils sharpened and healthy foil-packed lunches.
His use of lighting was very original, and this artistic leaning was also seen in his piecing together of internet and computer signs and symbols to make a song, commentating on the computer as the means of modern-day communication. (^_^) lol. Plus transport got a mention more than once, from bikes made out of wagon wheels and chocolate fingers, to Gary Numan cars with French musical horns.
All in all, a very inventive show!! First time in the O2 also, and it was a good venue, the use of screens providing quite a good view to those further back.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The Other Guys
This comedy, starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg as a pair of unlikely cop partners, tells the story of their rise to glory, all amid a stream of jokes and improvised silliness. Identified from the start as 'The Other Guys', compared to a pair of macho, god-like figures in the cop world, (Samuel Jackson cameo-ing as one), who soon jump to their death (?) leaving a vacancy for them to fill.
The dynamic between this mis-matched pair is quite funny, where 'tough-as-nails' Terry, is often taken at his literal word by nerdy, paperwork fiend, Allen. Everything about Allen annoys Terry: his humming as he works, his car, a Prius, which he terms 'vagina', and his unlikely ability to attract very beautiful women, his current partner played by Eva Mendes.
They end up pursuing a British financial operator, Ershon, involved in stealing billions from the public, which doesn't offer much hope of the glorious conquest they were seeking. Yet as predicted, by the end, all's well that ends well, leaving the credits to show a series of graphs, and stats, apparently detailing the ratio of CEO to employee salaries. So there you go: this film is really built on the noble cause of raging against the white-collar machine! Could have fooled me!
While I wasn't blown away by any manner or means by the film, some scenes were funny. The narrative was weak and didn't seem to gel with many of the comic scenes, which were superfluous, but probably more enjoyable than the actual story, which was too long! The improvisatory nature of the comedy was well done, Allen's spiel about a tuna overcoming a lion, setting the tone for many more such meanderings. Ferrell was definately the stronger of the two characters, his deadpan gait coming across very well.
The dynamic between this mis-matched pair is quite funny, where 'tough-as-nails' Terry, is often taken at his literal word by nerdy, paperwork fiend, Allen. Everything about Allen annoys Terry: his humming as he works, his car, a Prius, which he terms 'vagina', and his unlikely ability to attract very beautiful women, his current partner played by Eva Mendes.
They end up pursuing a British financial operator, Ershon, involved in stealing billions from the public, which doesn't offer much hope of the glorious conquest they were seeking. Yet as predicted, by the end, all's well that ends well, leaving the credits to show a series of graphs, and stats, apparently detailing the ratio of CEO to employee salaries. So there you go: this film is really built on the noble cause of raging against the white-collar machine! Could have fooled me!
While I wasn't blown away by any manner or means by the film, some scenes were funny. The narrative was weak and didn't seem to gel with many of the comic scenes, which were superfluous, but probably more enjoyable than the actual story, which was too long! The improvisatory nature of the comedy was well done, Allen's spiel about a tuna overcoming a lion, setting the tone for many more such meanderings. Ferrell was definately the stronger of the two characters, his deadpan gait coming across very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)