Friday, 12 March 2010

Me - this morning

Although I see my face in the mirror several times a day it takes a mugshot to bring home how old one really looks. I made eight attempts this morning and this is the least unflattering one. It's a sobering thought knowing that one is not going to look any better in future - so that's my excuse for putting this on the record before I appear even more decrepit.

Saturday, 6 March 2010


Following my last blog, here is the other half of my 'dynamic duo', the ever-wary Noodles, with his long whiskers. Rrrrrrrr.

Thursday, 4 March 2010

My little furry, cuddly menace.

Here's my beloved Blackso who has come so very close to doing me a serious injury several times. Such as yesterday when he was snoozing in Noodles' own place (probably deliberately) I picked him up to place him back in his own usual 'territorial' spot on the settee. But when he's picked up awkwardly he lashes out with his long and very sharp-clawed paws at anything nearby, just to get hold of something and which, as on previous occasions, happened to be my face and neck. It was a close shave - almost literally - the resultant scratches thankfully being only superficial, but it could so easily have been disastrous - serious injury or, conceivably, even worse! Can't blame him, of course (bless his little cotton socks). It's my own forgetfulness in picking him up without forethought that creates the perilous situation. Normally, being much more affectionate than Noodles, he likes being held up to my face and he purrs loudly and rubs his head against my beard as I whisper sweet nothings to him. (He also snores like a mini-foghorn!) Noodles is much more circumspect, only getting lovey-dovey when he wants to eat and, unlike Blackso, will not stay in my lap nor sleep in my bed with me. But I do love them both like crazy. If only they didn't have those little lethal weapons in their paws they'd be....... purrfect!

Friday, 26 February 2010

Thoughts on treatment on film of historical personages

I've just completed reading Lytton Strachey's quite excellent biography 'Queen Victoria'. Such lucid, stylish and fluid writing - even presented me with half-a-dozen 'new' words with which I was unfamiliar, which I like in a book. But we all know this monarch from early photographs as the squat, po-faced, matriarchal figure in advanced age. However, apparently even as a child, she had unprepossessing looks, a rather short, dumpy figure with projecting upper teeth and weak chin. Now setting this against her representation in last year's film 'Young Victoria' where Emily Blunt looks as though the character would have graced a 'Miss World' line-up, then one gets some idea of the extent of historical 'accuracy' of this film in particular. But this is hardly something new. All films, from whichever country, have glamourised their past. There have been so many films featuring Queen Elizabeth I but, as far as I know, not one of them has even dared to hint that even in middle age she possessed hopelessly rotten teeth (the ones remaining in her head, that is), that she became almost totally bald, and that in order to cover up the pock-marks on her face she wore face-cream, reputedly, up to an inch thick - the latter being some exaggeration, one might think. (Would a film featuring George Washington have the guts to display a portrayal of him with wooden teeth?) I accept that the 'truth' can often work against the success of a historical film but on the other hand I do believe that a little more attempt at veracity has its own dramatic potential, though maybe not in the way most members of an audience would care to see, sanitisation being rather more palatable. I could go on further at some length but at least I've got it off my chest.

Wednesday, 24 February 2010

Once again, the Pope cries "Boo!" and this cowardly British government jumps to do his bidding.

As though the recent submission to allow religious institutions an opt-out in discriminatory laws, by allowing them to dismiss gays or refuse to appoint them solely on grounds of sexuality, wasn't enough, I'm seething all over again at yesterday's shenanigans in Parliament in which our so-called' socialist' Government itself amended its own proposal to forbid discrimination in the teaching of sex education in schools. Now so-called 'faith schools' will be permitted to teach their own religions' sexual 'morality' - as long as it also says that there may be other views, without having to explain what those other views are and why they might have greater validity than those of the religion they are teaching. Critics have accused the move as allowing religions to indoctrinate their pupils with homophobia - not to mention the disgraceful acquiescence in permitting Catholic schools to teach that the use of condoms, in all circumstances, is 'sinful'. The government denies that it has 'watered down' their original very commendable proposals in the face of considerable opposition, especially from Christian and Muslim groups. So why change it at all, then? Well the fact that the official response from the Roman Catholic Church is that it is 'happy' with the outcome says it all.
Of course this couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that we'll be having a General Election within 2 or 3 months, could it? If they had refused to accede to the demands of the religious right then it would have been a gift to the Conservative opposition - who supported the concession, of course. (During discussion, one Conservative M.P. asked the Government for assurance that schools will still be able to teach that 'homosexuality is wrong'! The response being a repetition that schools will be allowed to teach the 'morality' of their own religion - in other words, 'Yes'. )
So there we have it. After years during which Tony Blair, despite his considerable faults, fought tooth and nail to achieve legal parity for gays in virtually all respects, we now have his very same party actually creating further discrimination against us in order to appease the right-wing, to thereby avoid losing votes. The only possible positive note is that with Parliamentary time so tight before an election the legislation may fall through lack of time. But even after the election, do I think the Churches will give up? Somehow I doubt it.

Thursday, 18 February 2010

Film: 'Invictus' - impressive

Didn't expect to like this film as much as I did, having a dislike of films which feature any sport in a major way. Furthermore rugby, like cricket, leaves me cold and bored. (I still don't know what on earth they're trying to do in both sports, and have never had the inclination to find out.) But as it transpired, I thought 'Invictus' was a very good film. It would be churlish to complain that Morgan Freeman was only a visual approximation of the deservedly iconic Nelson Mandela, but he did get the voice uncannily close, I thought. Then there was also the beefed-up Matt Damon, someone whose looks haven't done much for me in the past, but in this film looking the best he ever has, at least in my opinion. The (very) rough-and-tumble of the rugby games was exceedingly well shot, even majestically, though that was helped by having sequences in slo-mo. Nevertheless it was certainly moving, my emotions having been kick-started by hearing the South African national anthem which, with the Russian and French, being the only such anthems that can bring tears to my eyes.
But our Clint does it again! I don't think he's ever made a duff film, certainly not as director. Even as actor he's always been a compelling presence. I remember seeing him as Rowdy Yates in the old black-and-white 'Rawhide' TV series long before he first he appeared on film in the 'man-with-no-name' trilogy. (We'll gloss over his almost wordless supporting-actor role in 'Where Eagles Dare' though at the time the film was a romping good boys-own adventure yarn. Btw. I only recently learned that it was Eastwood himself who suggested pruning his scripted dialogue in that role right back and to play his part mainly by facial expressions!) Then in the 70s came his first attempt at directing - and very accomplished it was too - for 'Play Misty For Me'. I've seen every one of his films on the big screen (with the sole exception of 'Million Dollar Baby' - Sport again!) and all of them can justifiably be described as 'significant' (rather like all Scorsese's film are too). I know that Eastwood can't be far off from retiring now, but whenever he does, for me it will still be too soon. But as for 'Invictus' - do see!

Monday, 15 February 2010

Film: 'A Single Man' - BIG Disappointment

Had been really looking forward to seeing this film - but what a let-down it was. Talk about being ponderous and leaden! (It grieves me to say this as the director, Tom Ford sporting a beard, is such a hottie!) Although there have been reservations with the critics here about the film itself, they have been unanimous in saying that Colin Firth, as the titular gay man who had lost his lover through a car accident some months earlier, gives the performance of his career. Indeed he is nominated as 'Best Actor, for both the BAFTAs in London and the ensuing Oscars. I'm not going to argue with that though I do wish this film had been a more worthy vehicle. Is it just me? On the IMDb site I see that over 75% of voters have awarded the film a mark of 8/10 or over, with nearly a quarter giving it a perfect 10. That's ridiculous. I've yet to see a film in my entire life worthy of a faultless maximum score. In fact in my books there just have been only a handful of 9s - ever. So I have, maybe over-generously, given 'A Single Man' a 5/10, as have a surprisingly mere 2% of others. I couldn't honestly recommend the film - but the emphasis is on the 'I'.
Btw. Maybe one day there'll be an out-gay actor who is nominated, or perhaps awarded, or even just known, for playing a hetero character? I say 'out-gay' just in case ;-) there could possibly be others who were closet-gay (leaving a certain R. Hudson aside). But that is so unlikely, right?