Saturday, 12 March 2011

Past Times

Idly scanning through the Empire Online Forums last night, I stumbled across a very old posting of mine - from way back in the mists of time, practically before recorded history began. I wrote it in May 2006. Original post as follows:-


"Just a quick thought: Are there any films that if your new boy/girlfriend didn't like, you'd seriously reconsider your attraction to them..? I'd have to really, really think about a guy who hated The Lost Boys. Largely because I like to watch it so often that, if potential new boyfriend didn't like it, we'd never be able to live together harmoniously. Also The Usual Suspects. Anyone who can't see how fantastic a film that is just isn't for me! And Leon. Love me, love my films about vaguely paedophilic assassins."

I've been with the Boyfriend now for over a year (15 and a bit months for those who favour precision. ...Okay, that's me) and I find it amusing to read that post now, because not only have I not watched any of those films with Boyfriend, but I've not actually watched any of them in the last two years. Don't misinterpret, I still love those films (The Usual Suspects is, was and always will be one of the greatest films of all time in my geeky opinion). I've just not revisited those classics in a good long while.

Boyfriend has actually expressed his hatred for The Lost Boys, and not only have I not dumped him because of it, it has not affected my life at all. I feel like I've mellowed in my old age and this has, in turn, let down my younger, geekier, past self. Future Winskillfull is a serious disappointment to Past Winskillfull.

Movies are still very much a massive part of my life - and I am gradually acclimatising Boyfriend to the idea of wanting to go to the cinema, then seeing what's showing, and picking the film you want to see most out of what's on offer. Boyfriend is a traditionalist: he waits until cinemas are screening a film he's already heard of and wants to see. Phillistine. But he's currently watching every single episode of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer with me, in order, so swings and roundabouts.

It just made me reflect on how much more willing to compromise I am: which you may doubt, if you've only known me in the last couple years. But seriously: mellowed.

Sunday, 6 February 2011

The Flat Stanley Project

Welcome, one and all, to my interactive Flat Stanley post!

The granddaughter of a family friend, K., is doing a school project about Flat Stanley and we need YOU to help with it!

Schools across America are working on the FlatStanley Project and we're helping out K.'s part in it. She lives in Illinois and her grandparents sent Flat Stanley to Mum and I. Here's the blurb we got from her:-

"In school I just finished reading a book called Flat Stanley, by Jeff Brown. It is a funny story about a boy named Stanley Lambchop who becomes flat when a bulletin board falls on him. Life turns out to be very interesting for Stanley. He gets rolled up, mailed and flown like a kite. He even gets to stop crime. He's flat, but he's a hero!

I mailed a Flat Stanley to you! He had a long journey to your house. Please do the following things with him:

1. Decorate Flat Stanley any way you like.

2. Have someone take your picture holding Flat Stanley.

3. Send Flat Stanley back to me, telling me what you did with him. Did you take him to the movies? Where did he sleep?

My class is going to see where all the Flat Stanley's travelled to aound the world. Thank you for helping me with this school project. Please try to send him back with your picture as soon as you can."

Now here's where you can help:

1. Download the following picture of Flat Stanley -
2.Print out and colour in Stanley, any way you like.

3. Take a photo of yourself with Stanley, ideally in front of some local landmark, like thus:

4. Email the photos and details of your first name, where you went and what you did with Flat Stanley to: flatstanleyproject@hotmail.co.uk

I will then vet your photos for their appropriateness (this is for a child's school project!). Provided they're suitable for kids, I'll print out the stories and photos and post them off to Illinois!

If I get a lot of entertaining images of Stanley in risqué situations, then I'll post a 'Stanley After Dark' blog on here - but only kid-friendly stuff will make its way to K.!

Please post this link on your Twitter:- http://tinyurl.com/4qmr5os

And please share this link on your Facebook! Your contribution to this project will be greatly appreciated - I'll post a follow-up blog to let you all know how it went.

We've got until the end of April 2011 to get some great shots and stories, so please join in! I want K. to have Stanleys from further afield than anyone else! ....Because I am so competitive that even when I am not directly involved in any way, I apparently become consumed by the urge to "win" something that isn't even a competition in the first place. Go me.

Thanks!

Saturday, 15 January 2011

And Then There Was The Time I Lost A Bet And Had To Watch 'Santa Paws'.

As you may have just about figured out from my blog thus far, I am ever-so-slightly competitive. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to you that I am engaged in ongoing contests with online friends, with forfeits to the loser of each individual game. After a close-run defeat at Internet Scrabble recently, I had the misfortune to lose a game where the forfeit was for the loser to watch Santa Paws. Or, to give it its full, weighty title, The Search for Santa Paws. I think the IMDB blurb sums it up beautifully: "Magic dogs and an elf team up with two children to rescue Santa who has lost his memory".

This is a (poor) artist’s rendering of my feelings upon learning I had to watch this movie: The horror. The horror. Now, strictly speaking the actual wording of the forfeit I proposed (yes, I was very much hoist by my own petard on this one) was, “If you Friend lose this game [which would be a second loss in a row], then you have to watch Santa Paws.” However, generous to a fault (ahem) I decided not to quibble over semantics and to step up, watch the film, and take some notes for your amusement.

Firstly I prepared myself thus: Be prepared.
Then I attempted to take notes on my reactions to the film, whilst simultaneously numbing the pain with alcohol. I also roped in my friend D. to endure share this experience with me. Note, our DVD player is pretty old and doesn’t show time, therefore I can’t give you time notes for my comments; they’re just in consecutive order.

For ease of understanding, my notes are in this font and explanations of the plot are in this font.

It begins….

Credits and opening number:
We’re introduced to the location and characters who live at the North Pole through some cheesy exposition-heavy song that has mercifully been erased from my memory.

My first reaction was disappointment that they didn’t have a paw-print as one of the letters in the title; c’mon, Disney, that’s basic stuff right there.

I also see that in order to save on costs they’ve stolen the set from Santa Clause: the Movie.

We see our first talking dog: a Jack Russell terrier dressed in an elf outfit.

The terrier we see looks abused; I mean he is straight up looking out through the camera with a desperate plea for rescue/the sweet release of death in his eyes. Should we be calling the RSCPA…?

And here are Mr and Mrs Claus!

First shot of Santa: and it’s horrific. He is possibly the scariest Father Christmas I have seen in my life.
Ho ho ho! I will haunt your nightmares!
Thoughts so far: “I wish I wasn’t doing this.”

Act One:
It’s apparently Santa’s birthday and all the elves (including Talking Terrier) are gathering to celebrate and give him gifts. One of the gifts is from a Mr Hucklebuckle – who has just died, as the head elf informs everyone. There’s even a note from Mr Hucklebuckle, in which he says that he hopes to live long enough to see Santa open his present – but he doesn’t. He’s died. And the gift is a plush toy dog.

The effects are poor; like really, truly shoddy. I could do a better job of CGI-ing that terrier’s mouth moving.

And woah, abrupt change in tone! Opening this kind of cutesy movie with news of a death seems like an odd touch for Disney. Still, gotta drive the plot forward somehow, I guess.

Cut to New York City, where Mr Hucklebuckle had his toy shop. His grandson and the grandson’s wife are let into the shop to claim their inheritance. They live in Los Angeles but a condition of Mr Hucklbuckle’s will is that in order to be able to legally own and then sell the toy shop, his inheritors must keep the toy shop open, and profitable, through one Christmas season. It’s revealed that the grandson has changed his name to “Huckle” (and who can blame him? I would’ve gone with “Smith”) and that the couple can’t have children, but desperately want them. I smell a plot device…Anyhoo, the couple are then left to look around the toy shop; which, despite being covered with dust sheets, Mrs Huckle can apparently tell is quaint and adorable. They find a “Santa Chair”.

Sidenote: this all looks shot in green-screen, like anywhere outside of the Santa Claus set they’ve stolen they just couldn’t afford to film in. New York City was certainly way out of their filming budget.

Wait, does everyone know about “Santa Chairs”? Is this some cultural gap? Do all Americans know what these are?

Heavy-Handed Plot Point: They are poignantly childless.
-->D.’s thought: “Get a dog.”

New scene, in which we’re introduced to ... Y'know, I have genuinely erased her name. We'll call her Generic Orphan. So Generic Orphan, a quiet little girl, is just being handed over to an orphanage. [There is some geunine poingancy about the way she describes her parent's death by saying, "They didn't make it", something the writers clearly intended her to have picked up from adults trying to explain the situation to her. It's one of the few things in the film that actually works.]

The lady running the orphanage is obviously Stock Disney Villain number 2: the secretly heartless money-grabber who uses the kids as unpaid labour. How the lady from the social services, there to hand Generic Orphan over, manages to miss this when it's laid on thick enough for young children to pick up on, is somewhat beyond me.

Cue token Evil Bitch who will either be redeemed at the end; or defeated by the magic talking dogs.

Next we meet Wilhelmina, the “rebellious” older orphan (whose name I wrote down hence I remember it), looking with longing at the red bike in the window of Hucklebuckle Toys. Which store, by the by, now has stock in its window and is open for business. Lord knows how much time is supposed to have elapsed since Mr and Mrs Huckle took on the store. Mrs Huckle is putting a sign up in the shop window, sees Wilhelmina and waves to her – at which point Will runs like hell.

That’s why the couple don’t have kids; they scare ’em off.

Sidenote: baaaaaad acting. Painfully bad. So bad it’s like an insult to the profession.

Now we meet the rest of the orphans and learn about the true horrors of Evil Bitch’s merciless regime: she doesn’t like singing; she doesn’t let them have toys; and she hates Christmas. What a monster.

Heavy-Handed Plot Point: I’m guessing one or all of these kids are gonna get adopted by the Tragically Childless Couple.

Villain with hatred of Christmas? Check. Cutesy child actor with saccharine lisp? Check. Am I ready to die? Check.

Back to the North Pole! Where Santa is inconsolably miserable after the death of his friend – so miserable that Head Elf decides that there's only one way to cheer him up: they’ll turn the toy dog from Mr Hucklebuckle into a real dog! They take the toy to a cave, wherein hangs a giant stalactite/crystal/freakishly phallic icicle. The icicle/Freudian symbol glows then shoots (or ejaculates, if you will) a stream of light into the toy dog, and the toy morphs (badly) into an admittedly adorable fluffy Golden Retriever puppy.

I figure the effects in this film cost three, four hundred dollars at least. I wonder how much of the budget was spent on this rather phallic “magical icicle”? Is this supposed to be a visual metaphor for the sexual act that brings most mammalian life into being..?

Montage time! Santa names the dog “Paws” (nice; real imaginative) and then we get a series of scenes of Santa and Paws doing what this film would probably refer to as “bonding” but which seems to me to be a succession of scenes in which they torment the poor puppy and seriously trespass on a dog’s naturally forgiving and loving nature. There was, however, one montage-scene where Mrs Claus had made some cookies and candy-canes and leaves them to cool down on the table; then Paws takes one and Santa sits up, shoves his face into the plate and gobbles them all up while making “nom nom nom” noises and it was so surreal and vaguely frightening (due to Santa’s alarmingly inhuman behaviour) that I laughed and laughed and laughed.

And now they dress him. I’m witnessing animal abuse again, aren’t I? Should this film be reported to the FDA? That dog’s eyes scream desperation when he’s so clearly trapped in that box; and the mocking laughter of the human actors just makes his suffering all the more tragic. The worst part is that they make Paws complicit in this, giving the illusion that he’s choosing his own outfit; like a dog would choose to wear clothes and the only reason they generally don’t in real life is because we don’t understand them.
Witness animal-abuse.

Back in Fake New York City, Lil’ Orphan Annie Generic Orphan is singing about the tragic situation she now finds herself in, what with her parents being dead and all. She has a ceramic angel, a Christmas tree decoration, that is the last thing she has of her mother’s. Will warns her that if Evil Bitch sees it, Generic Orphan will lose it. Evil Bitch arrives on cue – Geneic Orphan manages to hide her angel behind her back oh-so-subtly, whilst another, less fortunate orphan makes shoddy work of attempting to hide a teddy under her pillow. Evil Bitch reminds her about the “no toys” rule and takes the teddy down to the basement. Where she has an incinerator that she burns the toy in.

Oooh, and now it’s time for Generic Orphan ‘Please Love Me’ number – with weird CGI background. What, they couldn’t afford to film in an alley?!

Sidenote: tenner says that angel gets smashed or stolen. …And who the hell has a toy-burning furnace in their basement? Okay, seriously, do orphanages like this even exist in the West anymore? Is this orphanage a wormhole into 1930s Stock Stereotype Number 4? But hey, that furnace looks happy to be burning the toys! ...Alas, I don't own the film so can't get a screen cap and a Google search hasn't turned up any photos of the incinerator: but basically it's got two holes and a grill in the front that pretty much ensures it looks like a smiling face.

Act Two:
Back in the North Pole, Santa is gearing up for a trip to New York – where, after Mr Hucklebuckle’s death, levels of Christmas cheer are dangerously low. What’s so dangerous about this is left ambiguous; the film also fails to resolve the horror inherent in the thought that, if this is NYC with levels of Christmas cheer, what would it be like with none?! Anyway, Mrs Claus packs him off with his “special North Pole pin” (that’s a badge to UK readers) and tells Santa and Paws to take good care of each other. Because of course Paws is going, he’s Santa’s best friend.

Santa tells Mrs Claus that he loves her; at which point D. interjected the following:
“No, she doesn’t love you, she’s f-ing the elves.”

Santa and Paws land in Central Park and tell the reindeer (who also talk) to wait for them as they won’t be too long. Santa takes a big bag containing his Santa outfit (he’s wearing a marginally different kind of suit at this point) and is, naturally, spotted by a mugger. Who looks straight out at the camera and tells us that bag looks promising to rob.

Who was the mugger talking to?! Don’t break the fourth wall!!

It was at this point that my sanity really began to feel the strain. Meanwhile, the "plot" shambles on and Santa and Paws are exploring New York City. I kind of forget why they go and how their visit is supposed to rectify the "low Christmas cheer" problem. Santa warns Paws that only people who believe in Christmas or something can understand North Pole animals talking, so not everyone will be able to understand Paws.

As they walk along they're followed by the mugger (who is literally hiding behind lampposts as he stalks them) who has his eyes on Santa's sack (ha ha) and the magic crystals that Santa and Paws are wearing. Santa and Paws then literally bump into Evil Bitch, who can't understand Paws (see? Because she hates Christmas!) and she reveals the depths of her moral bankruptcy by swearing at Santa. Of course this is still a Disney film, so when I say "swearing" I mean she says "heck" a couple times.

Love Disney’s representation of Evil Bitch swearing: “heck”, yes, language like that’ll show the audience just how rude she is!

Disaster strikes! Evil Bitch's hat gets blown into the road and Paws runs out into traffic to get it back, hindered by the fact that no one can understand him. Santa tries to stop him and also steps into the road, at which point, with numbing inevitability, Santa gets hit by a car, temporarily knocked out, and when he wakes up moments later he's lost his memory. The mugger seizes his chance and, telling onlookers that he's a doctor (which they all believe, despite him being dressed as a wino and looking dodgy as hell), he pretends to assume care for Santa whilst actually robbing him and taking the magic crystal. The police arrive on scene and the mugger makes a hasty exit; Santa stands up and wanders off, confused. He makes his way to a subway station where he stops a young boy to ask where he is.

How long before Santa would get arrested for paedophilia out in the real world? That kid looks deeply suspicious, at least.

Paws is lost, too; Santa's not there when he returns with Evil Bitch's hat (and neither is Evil Bitch; clearly the hat didn't mean that much to her) and he can't get anyone to help him because all the people around him hear is a dog barking. At one point Paws sees a little person and thinks he's an elf, which is kind of uncomfortable viewing in a lot of ways, and Paws follows the guy into the subway; when the guy freaks out because he's getting pestered by a dog, Paws runs away.


Cut to Hucklebuckle Toy Shop - which is now all lit-up, decorated for Christmas and full of toys. The Huckles decide they need a store Santa to make their Christmas season complete.

Wow, that store sure cleans up good in two freaking days, huh? The unfolding plot hurts me with its contrivances.

Santa, naturally, finds himself outside the store and, after spending a night sleeping at a bus stop, he decides to go in the store because something about the name seems familiar.

How did Santa even get there? He had no money! How did he pay for the subway?!

Santa goes into Hucklebuckle Toys in the morning and meets the Huckles, who immediately decide he's from the agency they called earlier and that he'd make the perfect store Santa; despite the fact Santa clealy can't remember his own name and tells them to call him "Bud".

Tips For Store-Owners Hiring Those Who Will be Working With Children, no.7: Anyone who hesitates over their own name is not on the up-and-up.

Back at Bleak Stereotype Orphanage, Evil Bitch is out for a date with her boyfriend - leaving the orphans unattended for the day.

Aaand Evil Bitch’s love-interest is a dog-catcher. Quelle surprise.

Paws, meanwhile, has been sleeping under parked cars and is all alone and lost in the city.
-->Bam. From nowhere, this is the point at which D. suddenly and unexpectedly becomes emotionally involved in the film and starts to care what happens.

Back at Hucklebuckle Toys, Santa/Bud is settling in well, loving the job (because he's the real Santa, you see?) and getting on great with the Huckles.

I can see that Santa’s beard is stuck on. I mean full-on see the glue and the weave where the hair is sewn together.

Generic Tragic Orphan is taken by will to see the shiny bike; Generic Orphan sees that Santa's in store and goes to sit on his lap. Santa asks what she wants for Christmas...

Oh Christ, this is heavy-handed. Asking for a puppy, give me strength…

Mrs Huckle then asks Generic Orphan where her parents are; when Generic Orphan replies, "They didn't make it" Mrs Huckle presumes she means "didn't make it to the store" and think Will is Generic Orphan's older sister. This naturally means Will has to drag them both out of there and run off again.

Back to Paws and he's just spotted an Oliver and Company stylee gang of three dogs: an American Bulldog type, a West Highland White terrier and a black Komondor. Which is a dog that appears to have dreadlocks, for those not in the know. Paws follows these dogs to ask them if they've seen Santa or can help him look; and the dogs street-talk back at him. Disney style. Which means the bulldog (called T-Money and I am not even making this up) talks like he's from L.A. (despite being in New York); the Westie has a Scottish accent (again, still in New York; and I really mean bad American impression of a Scottish accent); and the Komondor....The Komondor has a bad fake Caribbean accent. Still not making this up.

Oooh, and the black dog with dreadlocks is voiced in a bad Jamaican accent. Did … did this film just get racist? I mean, more so than the 90% white casting?

The dogs refuse to help Paws, even though he knows their names and tells them they're already on the Naughty List and helping find Santa could get them off it. The gang won't listen; and then surprise, surprise, they get captured by Evil Bitch's dog-catcher boyfriend. With one big net for all of them - obviously the best way to catch dogs. Paws uses his magic crystal to escape and then goes back to help the other dogs; who then believe that he's really a friend of Santa and decide to help try and find him.


In orphan-land, Will and Generic Orphan race back to the orphanage - but not before Evil Bitch finds they've been out all day and decides to punish Will (as the ringleader) by sending her to spend the night down in the basement.


Hmm, spend the night next to the warm, obviously happy incinerator – what’s the problem here?

Also, sidebar – why are dog wardens always evil in films? They’re villainised as badly as the English! The dog wardens I’ve met have all be friendly, animal-loving people who want to get strays off the streets, ensure they have proper food, vetinary treatment and shelter, and hope to get them re-homed as soon as possible. What does Disney have against this?
-->The more I think about it, the more I think this film was originally supposed to be set in the 1930s (the nasty orphanage, the evil dog-catcher, the childless couple who, despite their apparent wealth, apparently can’t afford fertility treatments) but due to the obvious budgetary constraints it had to be set in the present day. But with no re-writes; they couldn’t afford those, either.

Paws then heads into the alley near the orphanage and is found by Generic Orphan who takes him in and hides him in a cupboard. Naturally. She also hides with him.

The restrictions of the cheap speech effects on the dog clearly mean they have to use a static image to manipulate. Quality.

Back at Hucklebuckle stores, business is booming. Like, line out of the door booming.

How did they get all this business? Where did all the stock come from?! When did they even get the power turned back on?!

Paws tells Generic Orphan that "this place needs some Christmas cheer" and promptly uses his magic crystal to decorate the place. Decorate it with low-budget store-bought Christmas lights, that is.

That is “Christmas cheer”? Cheap-ass decorations? Rubbish.

There's some mention of Mr Hucklebuckle having been an "Ambassador for the Santa Cause" here, but to my relief a combination of rum and time has helped erase sections of the plot.

“Ambassador for the Santa Cause” - great way to work in the wider conceit and add extra levels to the terrible puns based around “Claus”. Just when I think this film's hit rock-bottom...

At Huckle Central, Santa/"Bud" says that he's not feeling great and Mrs Huckle shows concern, chastising her husband who seems more immediately concerned with who will be the "store Santa" if Bud's too sick to work. Santa/Bud insists he's fine and goes to get ready to start work. Oh, and he's been staying with the Huckles, apparently, because that's obviously normal, just what regular employees do. And he has red and white themed pajamas on.

Why does he have Santa-themed pajamas? At a place that is not his home?! Santa was mugged and his bag stolen, where the hell did this outfit even come from?!!

Act Three:
North Pole time! Mrs Claus and Head Elf are getting worried about Santa and Paws; they said they were only going to be in New York for a bit and they've been days. Head Elf says that they can use Santa and Paw's magic crystals to track them (but remember, Santa's crystal got stolen by the mugger) so Head Elf and Talking Terrier (who I keep wanting to call
Eddie) decide they'd better go to NYC to try and find them. This obviously necessitates turning the Santamobile (because now it turns out they have a car as well as the sleigh - again, Santa Claus: the Movie) into a yellow New York taxicab - and the Head Elf and the Talking Terrier dressing up as cabbies.

My personal favourite note:- That poor terrier can’t even walk in those fucking shoes; jesus, this is awful.

Orphan-time now, and Generic Orphan introduces the group to Paws. They can all hear him talk, except for Will, who thanks to callous reasons like the death of her parents and her being stranded in this hellish orphanage, doesn't "believe" in Christmas. Paws uses his magic crystal to decorate the place (a bit better than he did with the cupboard), put a Christmas tree in there, get toys, and put the girls in matching pretty dresses. After all this Will starts to believe and can then hear Paws talk. The girls all join in a song that, alas, I do remember, and dance around the room singing "I believe in Christmas".

Of course! This is Lil’ Orphan Annie’s All-Singing Musical Orphanage, where all the orphans have had training in singing and dance! …Not great training, obviously; but that explains their poor acting, their parents died before they could finish paying for the course.

Pretty sure Evil Bitch will hear all this singing.
-->At this point, I had to wipe up spilled rum off my notes.

When did the orphans learn and rehearse this impromptu number?
D.: “I think it’s a bit staged, myself.”

Naturally, Evil Bitch comes in, finds them, blames Will for some reason, freaks out that there's a dog in there and steals the crystal from around Paws's neck.

Where the puppy came from would not be my biggest concern at this point. Where all the dresses and Christmas decorations came from and how the hell the girls decorated the place in under 5 minutes would be a little higher up my list.

Evil Bitch then throws Will and Paws into the basement with the incinerator.

Happy furnace feeds on your pain!

Shock horror, Evil Bitch finds the Christmas angel that Generic Orphan was trying to hide from her, and throws it into the incinerator to burn in the morning.

Bam. As predicted, the Christmas decoration/last physical memento of her dead mother is stolen.

Cut to Hucklebuckle Toys, and Santa/Bud collapses and is rushed to hospital. There's a news report shown and this story "spreading all across the globe".

Err, why would that be a story “spreading all across the globe”? I mean seriously, world-wide?! A random store Santa getting sick? Global news?! I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Head Elf and Eddie Talking Terrier have found Santa's crystal on the mugger - who now has a real beard, apparently because they magic crystal has "Santafied" him. When the mugger hears Talking Terrier talking, he naturally immediately believes they're from Santa, changes his ways instantly for some reason, and agrees to help find Santa and Paws.

Oh that’s a bad miss. Only people who believe in the magic of Christmas can hear North Pole animals talking. So how the frick does a mugger hear the dog talk?

Head Elf and Talking Terrier, with the mugger's help, find the sleigh and reindeer. The reindeer are starving because they feed on sugar plum pudding and candy canes and Christmassey things like that, so the mugger heads off to find some food for them.

Let me get this straight: eight magic talking reindeer and a sleigh have just stayed there, in Central Park, unhidden, without getting stolen, graffiti’ed, or in any way vandalised – for days? How?!

Musical Orphanage time, and Will wakes up to find that Paws has turned back into a stuffed toy overnight. Evil Bitch gets angry that the puppy has vanished and blames Will, again; she then throws Paws onto the conveyor belt that leads into the furnace and switches it on, despite Will and Generic Orphan's cries.

Yaaaay! Happy Furnace!

Head Elf and Talking Terrier find the orphanage; Generic Orphan crawls onto the conveyor belt and manages to get Paws back before he burns; they get the crystal back from Evil Bitch and put the crystal back on Paws, just in time - if he'd been without his crystal for too long, he wouldn't be able to come to life again. They find out that Santa's in hospital, because without his crystal he's turned mortal and will be aging.

Why did it take days for Santa to get ill without his magic crystal, yet Paws turned back into a toy overnight?

Boy Scout Child, part of a tertiary plot I've not been arsed to go into, helps them find Santa and wrap up the plot and is then sent off home. Alone. At night.

And why do they let a young child run off home, alone, at night, in New York City?

Mr Huckle and Mrs Huckle meet everyone, find out it really was Santa, helps them get Santa out of the hospital and get his crystal back on him. They show no concern or surprise at any of this.

Why is he happily talking to dogs?!

Head Elf places a call to Social Services, who come to investigate Evil Bitch. The woman from the start of the film is at the orphanage and finds Evil Bitch coming home drunk with Dog Catcher; woman from the social services tells Evil Bitch that her license has been revoked and that she needs to leave. Yay, the orphans are saved.

I’m pretty sure kicking someone out of their home and taking away their license to care for children would at least take days, not under an hour.

Wait, how have I not thought of this before: Why is Santa’s best friend a stuffed dog?! Why not, say, the head elf or his lady wife?

Despite having his crystal back, Santa's been without it for so long that he's not getting better. Paws says to put his crystal with Santa's, despite the risk that Paws might not come back from stuffed-toy-dom again, because that's what best friends do for each other; and besides, they can't imagine a world without Santa!

Yes, yes I can imagine a world without Santa.

Mr Huckle looks like the illegitimate love-Muppet-child of Ryan Reynolds and Miss Piggy.


Reyiggy? Pigryan?

The combination of crystals eventually manages to "heal" Santa and help him wake up; but Paws has turned back to a toy. The North Pole lot rush off back to the North Pole - so they're done with the New York lot now and completely cut them off.

Santa and Mrs Claus take Paws to the giant magic icicle/phallus, but its magic doesn't work and Paws is still a toy. Santa starts to cry because he's lost his best friend - but wait! What's this? Santa's magic tears have magically healed Paws and he's turned back into a living dog!

...But now he's a fully grown retriver for some reason. And he says, "Now I can really be your best friend forever!" Which makes no sense; what, as a puppy his friendship would've had to be terminated? Anyhoo, the end is in sight now.

Santa’s tears conquer death. So if we just make Santa cry enough, all world illnesses will be cured.

Surprise surprise, the Huckles end up adopting Will and Generic Orphan.

Apparently, adoption is piss-­easy. No wonder Madonna does it so often.

The three "gang" dogs have hitched a lift on the sleigh and are now in the North Pole too, where they join in with the elves. And also get clothes.

Oh. My. GOD – and the racism extends to the dog’s outfits. Black Dog has a Rasta hat and the Westie has a kilt. Nice.

The Huckles decide to keep the toy shop and they've somehow ended up making a profit of just 1 cent; I think they maybe give some money away to the orphanage, too, but the plot details blur together at this point. Oh and they also change their name back to "Hucklebuckle".

And they even changed their f--ing name back. F-- you.


The End.



I survived. I feel like D. and I have been through ’Nam together or something.

Surprise extra at the end – all I can say is, WTF? Did I dream this?! I don't have the heart to go into detail, but it involves some teen pop sensation's music video for a "rawked up" MTV version of 'Deck the Halls', and a short film narrated by one of Paw's puppy-sisters about the adventures of T-Money and the Racial Stereotype Gang learning to integrate with the North Pole crew. Gods willing, one day I won't be able to remember any of this.

I hope you're happy.

Thursday, 16 December 2010

5 Stages of Financial Incompetence

It was pay day yesterday, so naturally I did some online banking* and checked my balance. I discovered that, if I don't want to go into my overdraft, I have about £100 to last me until January 15th, after bills and travel costs. I still have to buy food out of this fund, but fingers crossed I can take inspiration from snakes over Christmas and just stuff myself so full of food that I don't need to eat until again until around January 10th. Here's hoping.

Now, you may be wondering if this is my normal monthly allowance: it isn't. Well, what happened? You may be asking yourself. Here's what happened: essentially, I am some kind of infant who should not really be in charge of all areas of my life. I should be judged unfit for independence and assigned some kind of accountant and/or care-worker to help me live my life. My life works on some kind of Indepence Failure Cycle - let me explain...

Stage One:
Am In Charge of My Life Like A Boss.

During this stage of the cycle, I am organised. I am efficient. I am sensible. I check my accounts online on a regular basis, monitor my spending and know exactly how much I have left of my self-issued allowance after every purchase. I consider said purchases carefully: when grocery shopping I find the cheapest items available; I shop around for prices on toiletries or other essential purchases; I think about how much I have left to spend before buying luxury items or treats for myself. I am, in other words, THE KING OF MONEY. At this stage in the cycle I reach the end of the financial month with money left over; I put money into my savings; and I get another step closer to paying off my overdraft. I feel like a proper, sensible grown-up – except I feel a sense of smug self-satisfaction about my achievement, which I think sensible grown-ups don’t actually feel.

Stage Two:
Only-Child Syndrome.

Stage Two begins innocently enough. I’ve had a phase, sometimes several months long, during which I have been in rigid control of my spending. Stage Two then begins in one of two ways:-

One: the Shoulder Devil begins to speak up in my mind.


Lead me not into temptation - I can find it myself Two: I see something, strictly speaking over my budget, which I really, really want.
Finally you'll attain the status you desire and gain love and universal acceptance!Sometimes I don’t immediately crumble. Sometimes I resist the urge to go over my budget – but ironically, this just empowers Stage Two. The more I resist spending, the more I feel I deserve to buy myself a treat as a reward for not spending.

I’m pretty sure Stage Two has its roots in the fact that not only am I an only child, but I was the only grandchild until I was about nine. I am still the only grandchild on Mum’s side of the family, which means that “spoiled” seems like kind of an understatement for my childhood. I mean, I actually had an actual pony. :-D

As a result, although I’ve been relying on largely my own earnings since I got my first part-time job aged sixteen, I’ve never emotionally come to terms with the fact that I cannot have everything I want, as soon as I want it. Logically, I know that some pleasures have to be delayed and that I cannot afford to buy a life-size My Little Pony Dream Castle in which I can build a cinema room and I will have cushions made of silk and an all-Alessi-products kitchen and I will ride a unicorn that is also made of gold and can fly and my friends will die, actually die of jealousy. I know this. However, the petulant, whiny, over-indulged five-year-old that still lives in the back of my psyche does not know this; or rather, refuses to acknowledge that we need to accept our financial limitations. Thus the irresistible power of Stage Two.

Stage Three:
The Extravagant Purchase.

Sometimes it’s something relatively small, but it’s bought at the end of my financial month so just pushes me over budget.

All you need is Young Sherlock Holmes and you'll finally feel you've achieved something!Sometimes it’s something big that I really shouldn’t be spending my money on.


Come FLY with me, let's FLY let's FLY away
Either way, I make a purchase that breaks my budget. From then on, something snaps in my mind and I lose all remaining traces of my Stage One control.

Stage Four:
YAAAAY! BUYING THINGS!!


I’ve already blown my budget, right? Screw it, I may as well buy all the things!


Turns out British money is HARD to draw in PaintThis stage is similar to people who have trouble dieting because, should they have so much as one biscuit, they figure they’ve “ruined” their calorie intake for the day so they may as well enjoy it, go nuts and eat everything in the house. And then go out and buy cake.

Once I’ve made that one over-budget purchase the Shoulder Devil takes over completely and the rest of my mind gives a mental “oh well” shrug and just goes along with things.

During this time I do not check my balance online; I don’t look at my balance at the ATM; and I press a firm “no” at the “Do you want an advice slip?” stage. Obviously the advice is “put the money back in the bank” – but I’ve sailed past the point of no return in the SS Wilful Ignorance and there’s no listening to reason now.

Stage Five:
Shame and Guilt.

At some point, usually after the subsequent pay-day, I work up the nerve to check my bank balance. I then consider how much damage I’ve wreaked on my former careful-savings-plan.
D-:
I then swing and forth between intense guilt and shame for my over-spending, and sheer, outright panic and despair over the implications on my budget for the next few months. As the guilt/panic eases, I realise that I must live to an even stricter budget for awhile in order to compensate for the damage done to my savings/overdraft during Stage Four. This, naturally, leads back into Stage One.

Clearly, I need some kind of grown-up assistant (or possibly a helper monkey/thinking-brain dog) to supervise me. They can either act as a Voice of Reason during Stage Two, thus hopefully averting Stage Three altogether; or they can act as damage limitation once Stage Three has been reached, thus preventing Stage Four. Until the day I am assigned such help by the state, the wheels turns ever onwards….


*Not rhyming slang.


Wednesday, 15 December 2010

Don't Call Me "Baby"

A few recent (very grown-up) conversations and blog-readings have caused me to ponder the issue of my own biological imperative, or lack thereof. I've been wondering about the whole thorny Children Issue and have come up with a handy questionnaire to determine if I do want children and if I'm ready for them. Try it yourself!

QUESTIONS

1. When you see a baby, do you:
a) Coo over it/its picture, filled with feelings of love and warmth;
b) Admire it/its picture politely, but feel only a small measure of warmth;
c) Feel nothing;
d) Become aroused.

2. You're with a friend/relative and their baby. The baby soils its nappy - do you:
a) Immediately begin helping change the baby with little or no cringing;
b) Feel some revulsion, but offer to help;
c) Get the hell away - it stinks;
d) Become aroused.

3. What do you think a baby should be fed on?
a) Ideally breast milk, weaned onto formula/baby food or totally fed by formula if breast milk is not a possibility;
b) Umm, some kind of powdered milk;
c) Chips;
d) A different bodily fluid...

4. When you hear a baby cry, do you:
a) Want to help soothe it any way you can, whilst feeling waves of total sympathy for its suffering;
b) Want to help soothe it to shut it up;
c) Get away from that racket;
d) Become aroused.

5. Where do you think a baby should sleep?
a) In its own crib/cot in your room, so you can immediately tend to it should it wake in the night; b) In its own room, with a baby monitor;
c) In a different house;
d) In your bed.

6. When a baby starts laughing, do you:
a) Start laughing and smiling too, thrilled at sharing this experience;
b) Smile vaguely, wondering if you're the butt of some kind of baby-joke;
c) Cringe away from that hateful racket;
d) Become aroused.

7. Where do babies come from?
a) Well, when a mummy and a daddy (or mummy and mummy/daddy and daddy and doctor...) love each other very much...;
b) Sex, a fertility clinic or adoption centre;
c) ...The pound?;
d) Snatched from playgrounds.

8. You're asked to babysit a friend's/relative's infant. Do you:
a) Leap at the chance! You've already got your own changing mat, cot, baby toys, formula...;
b) Consider the idea, but it really depends on how long for, if you've already got plans, and if there will be any one else around to help you;
c) Laugh for about twenty minutes;
d) Become aroused.

9. You find a child alone in the street. Do you:
a) Comfort it, take it by the hand to try and find its parents, then head to the nearest police station if the child doesn't know where they might be;
b) Search around for anyone else who can help, whilst also trying to help the child spot its parents;
c) Just leave it. Those things spread disease;
d) Become aroused.

10. While caring for a baby, do you:
a) Rigidly follow the instructions its parents left you with, to ensure you give consistent care and don't undermine any routines they're trying to establish;
b) Follow advice left you, whilst turning to whoever else is helping you and also being willing to do anything [non-harmful] to shut the baby up should it start crying;
c) Leave it in the house whilst you head out to a movie - how much trouble can it get into in three hours, right?;
d) Become aroused.

ANSWERS

Mostly As
You are perfect parent material! In fact, you're probably a little baby-crazy and desperate for a sprog of your own. I suggest you find a mate or willing donor and start breeding fast!

Mostly Bs
Uncertain of your potential parenthood. Try spending time with the babies and/or children of friends and relatives, see if they grow on you and see how well you cope as a care-giver.

Mostly Cs
Parenting isn't your thing; why not get a fish? Or a Nintendog. Something that, if and when you kill it, Social Services won't care.

Mostly Ds
The police have been informed. Your name is being added to a register as you read this.

Friday, 12 November 2010

Girls & Boys

This is a subject that's always been near and dear to my heart, but following recent reads, recent blogs of mine and recent discussions, it's very much at the forefront of my mind.

I do not believe there is any real, significant, fundamental difference between girls and boys based on their gender.

Let me elaborate: I've been an owner of animals since I got my first cat aged four; I've had pets of both sexes and been around animals of different sexes pretty much all my life, and I can state with confidence that I have never noticed any significant difference in personality (and believe me, animals have their own personality, but that's a blog for another day) based on their gender. Sure, male dogs with hump things, male peacocks will flash their colourful tails, male cats spray their territory while females physically cannot...I don't deny their are clear differences physically between the genders, and I am sure that these physical differences can have an impact on behaviour - the influence of hormones is not something I am inclined to argue against.

However, when it comes to personality traits like having a temper, liking this or that, being kind, having a gentle nature, wanting things clean, preferring things messy - I'm pretty sure it's bollocks to say this is in any way related to gender (beyond social influences, which I'll get to) and to state that "men and women are different" is reductive and insulting. To both sexes.

I love violent video games and paintballing and the toy I wanted most as a kid was
Scalextric (and one day I will damned well own one); I like playing Grand Theft Auto and taking the stolen pixilated cars on a rampage through the make-believe city; I mostly wear trousers and trainers and I'm partial to a pint in the pub while watching football or rugby on the big screen.

I also enjoy horse-riding, like wearing make-up, enjoy baking and cooking, melt into a puddle of gooey emotion around cats, especially kittens, cry like a baby when someone dies in a film (yep, I even cry at
Titanic, god help me) and dream of owning an Alessi-stocked kitchen.

I don't like any of these things because I'm a girl. I like them because I'm me, the product of my DNA, my family background, and the people I choose to be friends with. A combination of nature and nurture, in which I'm sure having double-X chromosomes does play a part - but that double-X doesn't tell the whole story, and frankly presuming it does is an insult to me.

If I said, "Bill likes x because he's gay", that would be homophobic. If I said, "Kate likes x because she's black", that would be racist.

So why isn't it sexist, and therefore just as offensive, to say "Julie likes x because she's a girl"? Why isn't sexism socially perceived to be just as bad as racism or homophobia?

Yes, society plays a huge part in how we turn out, and currently, most of Western society seems to think that people will behave in certain set ways based on their gender: boys like blue and football and astronauts; girls like pink and ponies and fairies (with pink fairy ponies obviously being the zenith of female desire). Yet by presuming that girls and boys are fundamentally different, we're perpetuating this misconception and taking an active part in continuing to support this fantasy gender-division.

If everyone around you expects you to like pink and hate football because you're a girl, then there is enormous
peer pressure on you to conform, to live up to expectations; it's a rare person who is strong enough to defy expectations, especially when you're a teenager. If your family, friends, role-models, TV and film characters, people in magazines and characters in books are all sending the same message ("You're a girl so you like x and hate y; you're a boy so you like y and hate x") then it begins to be seen as "normal"; and if you're not "normal", you're different; and different is bad.

What this attitude fails to take into account is everyone's own, individual, idiosyncratic personality. Kate likes x because she's Kate, not because she's gay/straight, female/male, Caucasian/Asian etc. Sure, ethnicity, race, religion, gender and sexuality all play a part in making you, you, but each individual aspect doesn't tell the whole story, and to say otherwise is, frankly, both old-fashioned and reductive, not to mention pretty offensive.

I often feel like I'm taking crazy pills when this issue comes up: most people think that there's true gender equality in British society at the moment (
there isn't) so what am I getting so riled up about; or they'll take offence that I am "insulting" them by presuming they are furthering the gender gap through their own actions and/or opinions; or they'll turn the issue into a joke, which is offensive to me in and of itself, as their facetious attitude implies my opinions are invalid and the issues at hand comical; or they'll just think I'm wrong, that there is a real difference between boys and girls, and to say otherwise makes me stupid (the patronising bastards).

I'm not the
only one to feel this way; but sometimes it sure as hell can feel like it. The worst thing is when this issue arises with someone I'm close to, and I suddenly realise that not only am I talking to a sexist; but I'm talking to a sexist who thinks I am in the wrong for challenging their beliefs on the gender divide.

What I also find very personally upsetting and distressing is the results of this socially-created gender divide: there's still a huge pay gap; it's presumed women will do the majority of the work raising children; women are seen to be the ones who should do the cooking and cleaning; women have to battle against preconceived, often contrary, notions of how they should behave in the workplace; women can have difficulty getting, or keeping, the same jobs as men; and most distressingly of all, women are much more likely to be perceived as sex-objects and therefore are more likely to be subject to sexual attack, either verbally, physically, or both.

Violence against women is a huge issue, and not one I'm going to get into here; pertinent information can be found at sites like End Violence Against Women and Womankind Worldwide.

What I will say is that, from my own personal experience, I have experienced sexual abuse because I'm female. I've been returning from the bar in a pub, hands full of drinks for me and my friends, and had a man grope my breasts and laugh at the shock on my face; I've been returning home on the train after a day's work and had my backside and breasts groped by strangers because they're drunk, returning from the football/rugby and felt entitled to do that to me; I've had offensive terms yelled at me in the street, and believe me I'm hardly dressed as or looking like "Page Three" material at the time, and I've worked in places where men have made sexist jokes, followed me around the warehouse floor so they can stare at me while I work, and speculated about my sex-life.

I find it hard to separate these issues in my mind: if you think men and women are fundamentally different, then you probably think one sex is better than the other; if you think one sex is better than the other, then you think one sex has the right to discriminate against the other; and if you think one sex has the right to discriminate against the other, you probably think one sex has the right to verbally and/or physically abuse the other - "look at the way she was dressed, she was asking for it"; "she came home with me, she was asking for it"; "she passed out drunk in public, she was asking for it". And no, I don't think sexual abuse is committed by men against women, but statistically that is what mostly happens.

Maybe I am prejudiced for making these associations, for thinking that because someone acknowledges and either plays along with, or panders to, these largely false gender divisions, they might end up discriminating against me, or another woman. But that's my problem - and to be honest, I'm yet to be convinced that I am wrong to make that association.

I don't think that just because someone I'm close to displays an old-fashioned or sexist attitude, they will end up committing sexual violence against me; but I do think their attitude contributes to perpetuating sexual discrimination which could lead other men to commit sexual violence. Perhaps that's reductive of me; but it's still what I fear is the consequence of their attitude.

So, is it just me, or is any one else railing against the prejudice around them and determined to try and change things for the future...?



Sunday, 8 August 2010

Inception

First and foremost, this is a lengthy discussion of Inception that focuses on its plot and themes and involves huge, huge spoilers. So, if you haven’t seen the film and don’t want me to ruin it for you, look away now.

Everybody sitting comfortably? Good. Then I’ll begin.

Right, seeing as I’ve only seen the film once I won’t be breaking it down in order of events in the movie, nor by actual or perceived timelines within the film. I’ll just be going through things as they occur to me and as they naturally lead on to each other. Also, I’m presuming that you’ve seen the film so I won’t be giving a plot summary or detailed character descriptions – if you want to re-familiarise yourself before reading this, then check this site.

First things first: that masterfully suspenseful ending, where Cobb is reunited with his children and sets his/Mal’s totem spinning to test whether he’s still dreaming or not – and we never get to see if it falls. I totally think he’s still dreaming, that we’ve been inside Cobb’s subconscious for the whole of the film; dreams within dreams within dreams within dreams. Everything that happens in the film and everyone we encounter is a dream, all in Cobb’s mind. Let me explain why I think so.

To start at the end: Cobb’s children haven’t aged. He has been living in exile long enough to find a regular crew of people he works with, long enough to establish a reputation as a master-extractor, long enough for his father-in-law to be warning him that a few toys and gifts won’t help Cobb’s kids remember him. Yet not only are they not apparently a day older than when Cobb left, but they’re wearing the exact same outfits as they are in Cobb’s last memory of them. Hell, they’re even in the same place and taking part in the same activity, playing in the garden in the sunshine.

Then there’s the father-in-law; when we first meet him, he’s working in Paris – which is where Cobb sets up his base of operations and where they practice the stages of the Inception. However, Miles is there, ready to meet Cobb at LAX when he lands after the successful Inception. How did he get from Paris to LA faster than them? How did Miles know the job would be successful and that he should therefore be waiting at LAX?

Also consider how Saito manages to eradicate the charges and allegations against Cobb with just a single phone-call: no matter how rich and powerful you are, getting in touch with the right people in the right places takes time. They’ve already used up most of the flight-time from Sydney to LAX with the Inception itself; there wouldn’t be much time left to get charges of murder dropped.

Speaking of which charges, although Cobb mentions while in Paris that the extradition laws between America and France are complex and mean that it’s unlikely he’ll run into trouble because of being in France, nothing is said about extradition while he’s in Australia. Yet Australia have clear and definite extradition agreements with the US (see this site for full legal details). How did Cobb get into the country to be on the Sydney-LAX flight? How did he even get through customs and the restrictions at Sydney airport?

While talking to Ariadne, Cobb asks her, “How did you get here?” and reveals to her that you can tell whether you’re in a dream or not by the fact that, in a dream, you don’t remember how you got to your starting location. The first apparently-real-world location in the film is on the train in Japanwho ; how did Cobb and his team get there? What are they doing there? What they’re supposed to steal from Saito is never explained, never discussed.

On to Ariadne: a name from Greek myth, in legend it was Ariadne who gave Theseus a “clew”/ball of thread to help him find his way out of the labyrinth (check this page for a full analysis of Ariadne in myth and legend). She’s also been referred to as the “Mistress of the Labyrinth”. Not only is the Ariadne of Inception the Architect, the literal creator of the “closed systems” (read: labyrinths) that the characters use; it’s Ariadne who helps Cobb to realise that his memory of Mal is not real. Ariadne helps lead Cobb out of his own subconscious labyrinth. Also, the bridge she creates in the first dream-world Cobb takes her in to, is a bridge that is familiar to Cobb from his own memory. All the places they visit, the worlds they create, are places Cobb has been to before – every location in the film is Cobb’s memory. Ariadne helps Cobb to escape from his own limbo by aiding him in realising that Mal/his guilt has power over him, and how to get past this – she gives Cobb the tools to escape his labyrinth. He listens to Ariadne and trusts her, despite just having met her, because she (like every other character in the film) is a projection, a side of Cobb’s own subconscious. Cobb says early in the film that one of the ways extraction can work is through talking to projections, as they can tell you truths about the mind they inhabit – Ariadne’s role is Cobb’s own subconscious trying to help him escape from the dream-state. She can only lead him so far out, however, because she is, after all, trapped within the dream-world herself.

There are also broader clues: Mal herself (another projection of Cobb’s subconscious) points out how he doubts his reality, being pursued around the globe by nameless assailants (to paraphrase the film). Also, scenes where Cobb is being chased through the “real world” by his nameless employers are very reminiscent of the scenes where the mind-defences of subjects like Fischer chase down those invading the host-mind. Saito’s motives are also a wee bit idealistic: wanting to get Fischer to break up his father’s business empire so the company don’t have global dominance over energy resources. It just seems a bit too sugary-sweet, too unrealistic. It would be much more real to have a corporate rival want Fischer to break up the empire so Saito’s company can get ahead and make more profit.

Well, that’d my reasoning! If any of you interpret things differently, please post your thoughts!