Batman Begins to Take Over My Life

Before I begin this one, I feel a couple warnings are necessary.

1. I am full of fever, which has impacted my vision and thinking in subtle yet profound ways. This means I can't type for shit right now and my always-convoluted thought-processes have become extra-twisty. So apologies for any spelling/grammar/punctuation errors and further apologies if style is somewhat lacking (I don't have Word on this laptop, so can't cheat my way with Spell-Check).
2. This is a straight-up geek-fest of a post. If you're not into that, I'd go read something else if I were you. If, however, you have any right and natural appreciation for Batman and are willing to forgive/overlook the problems listed in point 1, then please, pull up a pew and continue on...

Boyfriend and I have recently spent quite a bit of time discussing Batman* and we've been mulling over the problem of Batman's treatment of criminals: namely, that he throws them (sometimes literally) into Arkham Asylum. On the surface this is the only thing Batman can do: Batman, afterall, does not kill**, so how else can the criminals and super-villians he defeats be brought to justice and kept off the streets? Ordinary jail is obviously unsuitable and Gotham's police are pretty useless, after all.

Take more than a second to think about it, however, and it all starts to fall apart. Arkham is, very obviously, designed more for (ineffectual) containment and punishment, rather than rehabilitation. Probably a hangover from the 1930s origin of Batman, Arkham is more Victorian nightmare-factory than modern centre for the treatment of those with psychiatric disturbances.

This is how a moden mental health facility looks:

Aaaand this is just one version of Arkham:

Can you spot the difference? It's subtle, I know, but if you pay close attention to the landscaping you'll notice that the modern facility favours light wood panelling and shrubbery, whilst Arkham is more screaming insanity-fest.


Nothing about Arkham suggests treatment: super-villians who end up there don't get better, don't undergo years of medical and psychanalytical treatment that will one day enable them to re-enter Gotham society as productive and valued citizens. In fact, far from the super-villians getting well, it's the doctors who get sick.

Take Harley Quinn:

Harley was, originally, Doctor Harleen Fances Quinzel and started life in the D.C. Universe as a psychiatrist. She attempted to treat the Joker, ended up falling for him, became obsessed with him, and the rest is comicland history. Arkham is such an ineffectual centre for the treatment of the criminally insane that, instead of the criminally insane becoming, well, sane, the doctors
become insane.

Aside from that issue (and the much more complex consideration about just how you define "sane" and "insane" and who gets to differentiate between the two) there's the fact I hinted at earlier: Arkham just isn't very good at keeping its inmates in. I was going to list here all the inamtes who have escaped; but as surmrised by Chris Sims, the internet's foremost Batmanoligist: "Everyone. Everyone has escaped."

Clearly, Arkham's primary function is captivity not recuperation, and it doesn't do a very good job of either.

So why, you may ask, does Batman keep putting villains in there? And I'm glad you would ask that, because much like Giles, I've got a theory.

Batman doesn't want his enemies to get better. Oh sure, if you asked him outright he'd probably say that he's working towards a safer Gotham, but if that was really what he wanted then, as Bruce Wayne, he could just invest millions of dollars into improving Gotham's police force and working with Commissioner Gordon and some hand-picked politicians to try and tackle Gotham's endemic corruption problems. If all that failed, then Wayne could simply invest money into building a better Arkham. Either one that actually treated its patients, or one with much thicker walls. And tighter security.

Instead, Batman/Wayne needs his enemies: without supervillains, after all, he cannot really be a superhero. If there were no more criminals to tackle that Gotham's police force couldn't handle, then Batman would have to give up the night-job and stick to his day-job.

True, his day-job is being a playboy billionaire, but still. It's clearly an unfulfilling role for Wayne, hence his persistant need to be Batman.

If he wanted to make Gotham a safer place, then Batman/Wayne should be helping build mental health facilities that actually help those with mental health problems; supporting and developing Gotham's police and government into reliable, trustworthy and efficient forces (within reason); and then probably seeking out some mental health treatment of his own, to deal with his ongoing vengeance/abandonment issues following the murder of his parents.
Instead Batman locks the super-villains away for a little while, so he can take on someone new (and get in some all-important playboy billionaire action) before facing up to defeat his original foes all over again. He needs the cycle of violence and retribution to continue in order to continue being Batman; and Batman has become his primary identity. His defeat of his enemies is a validation of himself; he is good because they are bad. Without this dichotomy, the "Bruce Wayne" identity just isn't enough for him.

...Or the writers just need some easy way around the whole "Batman doesn't kill/fans want favourite villains back" issue. Whatever you prefer.






*Yes, I have considered the possibility that our mutual love of Batman is a building-block in our love for each other.

** If I have to explain Batman's moral code to you, then you probably shouldn't be reading this post. But just in case (or just because) you should probably read this, because Chris Sims knows a frightening perfectly normal amount about Batman.

The Trouble with Being Human

No, not in a deep, existential kind of way – I mean, as a review of problems I have with the BBC Three series Being Human. For the uninitiated, it’s a comedy-drama about a house-share of twenty-somethings, who happen to be a vampire, a couple of werewolves and a ghost.

There are many, many spoilers up to episode 6 of series 3 in this blog, so if you don’t want to know what happens look away now.

If you do want to read this but haven’t been following the show, check out the episode guides.

Still with me? Good.

I watched the pilot of this show about four years ago, joined in the internet campaign to get it picked up as a series, and was suitably delighted when it was chosen to air on BBC Three. I’ve been a fan since day one, in other words, and although I’m still watching now it’s in its third series, I have to say – my love is faltering. There are just some serious, gaping flaws with the script and the show as a whole this series that I can’t ignore.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve never had the kind of slavish devotion to it that’s meant I haven’t had problems before: the nature of ghosts and vampires and blood being two major issues for me.

Annie the ghost is a particular bugbear and has been from the beginning. It’s her physicality that bothers me. Annie can make tea; move things around; in the first series non-supernaturals could see her; she walks places most of the time instead of popping in and out; there are never any fancy fade-in/out “ghostly” special effects*… There is no way of actually telling the character is a ghost unless she a) mentions it, or b) does one of the very rare sudden appearances. Hell, in the first series there was an episode in which Annie was out in the rain, with her hood up and hair wet** and all I could think was, seriously? A ghost is being affected by the real-world elements? It stretched credulity a bit far – and my credulity is elastic enough for me to enjoy watching True Blood, just to give that some perspective.

This series, though, it’s even worse. Annie’s able to touch, hug and kiss people; her outfit keeps changing (in small ways, yes, but surely the point of ghosts is they don’t change?!); and she not only makes tea but she was able to help a zombie (I’ll get to that later) get dressed and style her hair and make-up. In short, apart from no humans being able to see her, Annie’s pretty much a ghost in name only now. This frustrates me – but it is pretty internally consistent.

The creator, Toby Whitehouse, said during series 1:
“Regarding her clothes, we wanted to show how her death has, in a way, frozen her in time. And keeping her in the same clothes (although you'll notice how they change slightly, depending on her mood) as that was a good visual way of expressing that. I always imagined her like Miss Havisham in Great Expectations, still in her wedding dress from decades before. Annie is trapped, she can't move on, she can't complete her journey. Everything about her, including her clothes, is stuck.” - Source

So how do we go from having Annie “stuck” wearing the same clothes, then having them change much more significantly in the third series? Is it supposed to represent how, having crossed over and come back, she’s not “trapped” or “stuck” to the same extent she was before..?

Then there’s Mitchell. Ahh, Mitchell.

He’s the vampire of the set. The rules for vampires in the Being Human world are:
a) They can’t be seen in things which involve silver, so no mirrors, no showing up on CCTV, and they can’t be seen in photos or on camera;
b) They’re immortal and don’t age beyond the day they were “recruited”;
c) They don’t appear to have any extraordinary strength, but do have a heightened sense of smell – at least, they can smell if someone’s a werewolf or not;
d) Sunlight bothers them – they prefer to avoid it, but they don’t catch fire or anything dramatic;
e) They have fangs, which appear when they want to feed – their eyes also turn solid black at this point, which is a neat and creepy effect;
And f) the blood has to be straight from the vein, bagged blood doesn’t work to satisfy their hunger.

Now, the urge for blood in vampires is played in this series as more of an addiction; vampires get lost in their thirst, get withdrawal symptoms when they stop feeding, the usual. As Whitehouse describes it:
“The analogy we use for blood in Being Human is drugs. We're saying the hunger […] for blood is psychological. Mitchell will discuss it further in ep 6 [of series 1], but essentially the craving is something he could in theory overcome. I always thought this was an interesting way of approaching it, as it meant Mitchell could renounce blood without starving to death, but it allowed enough struggle to make the battle interesting.” – Source

This actually works pretty well – except for one detail that’s always bothered me. Our Mitchell is “on the wagon” and, apart from a few plot-significant slip-ups, he’s not drinking human blood. Okay so far. What I think has never worked is the fact that, once the initial “withdrawal” period is over, there appear to be no physical effects whatsoever on the abstaining vampire. So, we’ve got a type of vampire that’s supernatural enough to be immortal, doesn’t age, and can’t be seen in mirrors – why wouldn’t there be more to the whole blood-drinking thing than just the desire? If it were me writing this show, I would’ve had vampires as slightly-more-than-human strong and fast; and when a vampire stops drinking blood this speed and strength stops as well, whilst the vampire also starts ageing again. For me, it should be the blood that keeps them immortal, helps them heal and gives them the edge over humans; take this away and the abilities should go too. I would also make vampires more sensitive to sunlight if they stop feeding on humans, as they’re less strong and less resilient over all due to the consequences of stopping feeding. Having zero changes just seems like a cheat to me somehow, always has.

Moving on to the third series and the vampire/blood thing has suddenly become pretty inconsistent. In episode two we meet Adam, the teenaged-vampire.

As an aside the casting was just awful here: no offence to the chap personally, but Craig Roberts’ acting is …. not good. He had zero timing, was apparently unable to emote either vocally or physically and overall his performance just grated. Then there were Mark Lewis Jones and Melanie Walters. They were clearly hamming it up and whilst I’m sure this was a very enjoyable time for them, their over-the-top, scenery-chewing style made the episode feel like a bad joke. In terms of the characters, Adam was so lightly done, an absolute non-event. He’s meant to be in his forties, forever trapped in the body of a teenager, and yet the best way this complexity could best be demonstrated through the show, apparently, was to have Adam say to George “you’re just a kid”. Wow. Great writing there, huh?

Now, go and watch Interview with the Vampire. See Kirsten Dunst’s performance***? See how excellent that was? Makes you really appreciate the frustration of an adult mind in a childish body and the way this frustration changes to rage and warps the personality, doesn’t it? Now compare it to the character of Adam. Clearly the writers of Being Human thought, “Cool, we’ll have a teen vampire and give him an on-line spin-off show in a school to tap into the Skins market and it’ll be awesome! What’s that? Character development and considering the effects of a developing mind trapped in a teenaged body, you say? Naah, we’ll just have him obsessed with tits and sex and stuff and it’ll be hilarious. Yeah!” The character of Adam felt utterly trite and the episode as a whole felt infantile as a result.

Back to the blood thing. Adam’s been feeding on his parents for his whole existence as a vampire – but his mum has already died and in the course of the episode his father dies, leaving Adam without guidance and without a food supply. Annie, George and Nina take him in to try to help him; Adam starts going through withdrawal; the gang ask Mitchell what to do and Mitchell tells them, in no uncertain terms, that Adam needs to feed. Needs to. Mitchell also refuses to help and won’t have him in the house as he can’t have another “addict” around mucking up his own recovery – which is an epically jerk move, because after all Mitchell had help from another vampire with getting “clean” and in the first series he tries to help Lauren, the girl he made into a vampire. So apparently the message here is, Mitchell’s not interested in giving someone a hand unless they’re sexually attractive to him.

The episode meanders on, with everyone and his dog insisting that Adam needs to drink blood or there will be consequences; yet once Adam chooses not to live with other vampires and instead to try and stay “clean”, he’s apparently fine. Uhh, what? What happened to the withdrawal symptoms? If it’s as easy as that, what does that imply about Mitchell’s difficulty with staying off blood? Why was the lack of blood making Adam weak and sick one minute, then he’s fine the next? Where is the damned sense?! Anyway, by the end of the episode Adam’s sodding off to internet spin-off land and we don’t need to trouble ourselves with him again.

Back to Mitchell.


Last series, for reasons to do with vengeance against all humanity in ways that didn’t make a lot of sense at the time and make even less sense now I come to reconsider them but hey, it looked cool and added drama, Mitchell was involved in the killing of an entire train carriage of people****. This is a heavy influence on the plot of series 3; Mitchell ended up meeting a fan (we’ll get to that later, too) who had a book full of press clippings to do with this multiple murder. Mitchell ended up killing fanboy – and, for some baffling reason, kept the Big Book of Incriminating Evidence and hid it in the house he shares with Annie, George and Nina.

So, to review, a vampire living with people who know he is a vampire is hiding a book full of clippings that refer to a very bloody mass homicide and keeps sneaking up to the attic, when his housemates can hear him going there, to look at the book on a pretty regular basis. Now in your common-or-garden household, finding out your housemate had a book of cuttings to do with a grisly and violent murder would be creepy enough. If, however, your housemate is a vampire, and you know this for a fact, then is it just me or is that pretty much a flashing neon sign saying “I did this! Me! It was me!!”..? Naturally enough, this book is found and used against Mitchell by Herrick (yep, I’ll get to him, too), his enemy from series 1 who happens to be currently crazy and living in their attic, in a kind of upside-down version of the time Spike was nuts and living in the school basement. Herrick gives this book to Nina, who now hates Mitchell for some reason. Nina makes the obvious connection and calls the police, leaving an anonymous message on the train-massacre hotline. A police officer turns up to investigate the tip (do they really send police officers to investigate every anonymous tip they get on these hotlines?) and comes inside to chat to Mitchell. Whilst there, the officer runs into Herrick upstairs; Herrick shows the investigating officer the book; the officer tries to take it and is caught by Mitchell, who takes it back. Whilst having such a book is not illegal, it is pretty damn suspicious.

So, why would someone who’s lasted more than a century as a vampire be stupid enough to leave evidence like that around?! Mitchell finally gets around to burning it after the police officer has seen it – which, really, just makes it all the more dubious. I mean, you tell the suspicious police officer that there’s no crime in having the book of cuttings, then you dispose of the evidence as soon as she’s gone…It doesn’t add up to “innocent”, really, does it?

Now. The zombie.

At the end of series 2, Annie goes to purgatory – at the start of series 3, Mitchell manages to get there and get her back. It was pretty well done and a nice dramatic touch, but I have an issue with that, too: namely, that Annie is being essentially tortured and is suffering. She wasn’t a bad person, she’s done nothing especially wrong, and yet it seems like she’s being punished and will be sent to hell. Then, at the end of the episode Annie is told that she was in the “wrong” purgatory for her: as she went through someone else’s door, she ended up in someone else’s afterlife. Okay, that makes sense. However, when Mitchell goes through someone else’s door in order to get into the afterlife to find Annie, he ends up in his purgatory. So how does that work? Unless we’re meant to interpret it as those in the afterlife wanted to make Annie suffer so she’d ask her friends for help and so Mitchell would come to find her and they could give him the message/threat about him being killed by a werewolf. Except, as we saw in series 1 and 2, those in the afterlife can communicate with those in the living world through televisions and radios. So there’s no obvious reason to gamble on the fact Mitchell might risk the afterlife to try and get Annie back. It’s just senseless.

Anyhoo, Mitchell gets Annie back and they both cross over into the living world again. In episode 3 we meet the “zombie”: one of a few people who died at the time Annie and Mitchell were leaving the afterlife. Apparently, as Annie and Mitchell were crossing back it’s supposed to have blocked the souls of the dead from moving on, which somehow made them zombies (except they don’t want brains and still have their living personality, but their bodies are rotting). This is seriously problematic: hundreds if not thousands of people must have died at the same time; why is it that only a small handful in Barry ended up becoming zombies? If it’s a proximity thing that makes a kind of sense – Mitchell crossed over in the hospital. However, suggesting that the “other side” is tied to physical locations with such precision seems…odd. Like obvious lazy storytelling.

Then we hit one of this series’ hallmarks: wild inconsistencies. When we first see Sasha, the zombie, her speech is slurred and so bad that she can barely be understood – I think we’re meant to laugh at this, because it turns out she was drunk (how?) and her diction is fine once she’s sober in the morning. But we’re not talking drunk-slurred, we’re talking full-on, near-incomprehensible, has-to-use-gestures-as-well-as-words-to-be-understood, mouth-rotting type of speech. The difference is too exaggerated – to be fair, that could be down to yet another terrible actor, it’s hard to tell. Either way, although I’m guessing the intention was to play with people’s expectations of a zombie and to reveal “ha ha, just kidding, she was drunk all along”, it doesn’t really work.

There’s also the issue of the other people who became zombies, who were experimented on (read “tortured”) until they were eventually burned.
By hospital workers.
In the UK.
Last time I checked, we weren’t actually living in Hitler’s Fascist Fun-Time Playhouse and, should people come back from the dead, torturing a screaming, pleading person to the point of breakdown is probably not what your average surgeon or nurse would do. Just sayin’. They probably weed those types out in the interview process.

The plot gets worse when Annie decides to take Sasha on a girls’ night out with her and Nina. I know that Sasha’s “make-over” appearance is supposed to be bad, but it isn’t funny it just feels like an over-played hand; and there’s no way in hell someone looking like that could walk down the street and get into a club without comment. Sasha then has a snog with some guy; he’s kissing her for a bet because she looks such a mess. However, there’s bets, and then there’s someone looking and smelling like the rotting corpse they are. I just don’t buy her on a night out without people screaming and calling an ambulance, possibly the army.

Sasha’s body then gets rotten enough that she can’t walk around anymore and eventually her door appears and she can cross over. But how does a zombie, which is already dead, “die” enough for the door to appear? Why would her body just go all at once and start breaking? Shouldn’t pieces have started dropping off her first? Again, lack of sense. I’m guessing that the writers just thought it would be fun to play with common expectations of a zombie and couldn’t be bothered putting in the donkey-work of actually writing a script that made sense in the rules of their universe.

Speaking of which: Herrick. At the end of series 1, George, in wolf form, ends up tearing Herrick apart, thus killing him. At the end of series 2 we see two vampires, one of whom Herrick recruited, using their blood to resurrect Herrick. Which is just…yeah. I mean for a start, physically how?! His body was torn to pieces and probably a bit eaten by a werewolf. What’s left to resurrect?! One of the original motifs of this show was that it was a bit more “real”: it wasn’t your True Blood with vampires with super-speed and super-strength, burning in sunlight and able to fly if they were powerful enough; it wasn’t like Buffy, with demons and gods and monsters-of-the-week; the creator, Toby Whitehouse, wanted a show that was closer to physics as we know it. Toby said, “One thing I've always insisted on with this show is that it's taking place in our world.” - Source
The resurrection of Herrick was the first sign of this ethos completely derailing, and the use of zombies pushed it over the edge.

So now Herrick’s back and living in the same house as the protagonists and has amnesia for some reason and is refusing to drink blood. He is still pretty evil, though, and saying really close-to-the-mark things as well as having the sense to show the Big Book of Murder Victims to Nina, so you have to wonder if he’s faking the amnesia. As Mitchell says that even Herrick would’ve slipped up and shown a crack in the façade if he was faking it, though, I honestly don’t know if it’s just sloppy writing; if it’s meant to show that Herrick has always been a nasty piece of work and the vampire thing is just incidental; or if it’s intended as Herrick just being that good at faking it and manipulating people.

Sticking with the vampires for one last point, there’s Graham. A total fanboy who shows up dressed as Mitchell (how did he know what Mitchell would be wearing that day? Mitch has a style, sure, but it’s not like he’s Batman with one set outfit), he says he’s visiting all the big-name vamps and Mitchell is on his list. Basically, it’s uncomfortably derivative of that so-so episode of Supernatural where Sam and Dean find themselves at a Supernatural convention.






Graham’s entire character seems to have been drafted in about five minutes and his script written by drunks who just wanted to wrap things up and get back to the pub. His apparent entire raison d’etre in terms of the show was to provide the plot-prop Big Book of Incriminating Evidence, so Mitchell could keep it and have it used against him by Herrick. Again, lazy, lazy storytelling.

Now for George. In episode 6, Mitchell is obsessively flicking through a paper for mentions of the train massacre – maybe he wants to replace the book of cuttings he burned, who knows. Annie catches him and thinks he’s freaked out because he’s found a death notice for George Sands Senior, our George’s father.

Wait, what? Local papers only carry notices for local deaths. As George ran away from his family to hide the fact he’s a werewolf, why is he living in the same area as his family? In the pilot episode, George runs into his ex-fiancé at the hospital where he works in Bristol. The location just seems jarring – despite reading about his father’s death just that morning, George has enough time to get dressed and make the funeral, so his family have to be living close to Barry.

Is it just me, or if you were trying to hide from your loved ones would you not move just a little bit further away than the same freaking town?! That also undermines why George was in Bristol – just the other side of the Bristol Channel doesn’t seem far enough away for George to have fled in the first instance.

It gets worse. From the moment we first meet George and Mitchell they have a clear bond that’s got a foundation in months if not years of friendship. There’s trust and mutual reliance there, that needs to have been built up over time.

Yet now characters are saying that George has been a werewolf for three years and ran away from his family three years ago. So with the show being in its third year, surely that means George would’ve become a werewolf shortly before the timeline of the pilot episode – so when did he and Mitchell find time to become such good buddies? The timing just seems off to me.

Then we have George’s dad, who it seems is a ghost – but it later turns out that he’d actually faked his death and was still alive. It’s a telling indicator of how ghosts are represented in this series, that you cannot tell if someone is alive or dead unless they let you know themselves. Shoddy, shoddy writing. By the end of the episode, George Senior is back with George’s mum, who was dating an absolute prick of a man for no discernable reason but left him when George Senior punched him. Because that’s what we all want, right ladies? A man who punches his way out of trouble. Also, despite faking his death and lying to officials in a way that involved a police officer, there are no legal ramifications for George Senior admitting he’s actually still alive. Presumably Prick Guy, despite having all the motive in the world, isn’t going to turn them in and no one gets in trouble.

Also they presume George Junior left because he developed a mental illness, which is actually well done and really worked in the context of the show.

Now, to be fair episode 7 was amazing and fantastic viewing. It’s pretty clear the writers had some great ideas for the series, but they’ve got padded out with loads of filler. Overall, I am not impressed with this series. Bad form, Being Human. Bad form.

*Yes, I know this will have been influenced by the budget, but still.

**Budget again, right?

***Yeah, I wonder why she stopped bothering to act, too.

****One carriage, that’s right. No, I’ve never seen a train with just one carriage, either.

ADDENDUM:

Following the (brilliant) finale, I have a couple further points. Now I loved the finale and yes, I cried; but I still have to take issue with it. Or more precisely, the hook they put in for series 4 (which has been given the go-ahead). If you haven't seen the finale and don't want me to ruin an element of it for you, stop reading.

For those of you still with me, my problem is thus:
We're introduced to Wyndham (played by an actor you may remember from an episode of Spaced - clever boy) who is 1,000 years old and clearly someone to be reckoned with - Mitchell's terrified of him and Wyndham certainly talks the talk. He outlines his plan for vampire world-domination and George tells him, "You've got a fight on your hands". It makes for a great ending and a strong visual, nicely staged. However, I can't help but think, if Wyndham is 1,000 years old, able to enter a house without invitation, issues threats about crucifying people that fellow vampires seem assured he can deliver on - then you know what should happen immediately after George issues this threat? Let me tell you how it should go.

Wyndham should casually step forward, rip out George's heart, do something to banish or confine Annie, then call his heavies in so they can all cart Nina off. Wyndham expressed an interest in what, exactly, the off-spring of two werewolves would turn out to be, so it makes sense for him to take her and keep her alive until after the birth. The others he'd kill.

I mean seriously, now, a 1,000 year old vampire and he's going to be threatened by a werewolf in his twenties?! As if! Wyndham shouldn't be issuing threats or anything, either - why leave your enemies alive to plot against you?

Alas, I know this isn't how series 4 will play out. Instead, Wyndham will make dire warnings, give visceral descriptions of the things he could do, but isn't actually doing, and then leave, setting up the series for the housemates planning how to deal with the increasing threat from vampires. ARGH. This is such a repeated motif in movies/books/television shows dealing with vampires - they didn't get to a great age by pussy-footing around their enemies, they got there by killing people. Lots of people. In really nasty ways.

Man up, BBC Three. I say, open series 4 with the brutal murder of George, then have the remaining episodes dealing with Annie trying to find a way to rescue Nina from the vampires before Nina gives birth. That, my friends, would be great and original drama. Call me, Whitehouse. We can script this.

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.

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!

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: 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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Two: I see something, strictly speaking over my budget, which I really, really want.
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.

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.

Sometimes it’s something big that I really shouldn’t be spending my money on.

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!

This 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.

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.

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.