Tim Elliott is Not Cool.

I am a blogger. I love being able to express myself through this forum. Someday I would like to work in the mainstream media. Not because I think there is something inherently better about traditional media forms, but because through that forum I would be able to make a living by doing the writing that I so love. But every so often, something is published that makes me question that aim. Something of such inexplicably poor quality and stupidity that it makes me wonder if I would like to work in the mainstream media. I present Exhibit A from today’s Sydney Morning Herald: 'Eating their Words' by Tim Elliott.

As you may, or may not know, I am a vegan. Veganism is a small but important part of what makes up who I am as a man, just like the fact I am a film blogger, I am an (amateur) athlete, a public servant, a music lover and a boyfriend to a woman I love very much. Elliott’s article “Eating their words” is subtitled “Tim Elliott meets the people who are defined by what they will – and won’t eat.” The article starts off mentioning that the author received an invite to the launch of the book Vegans are Cool. So maybe this is where Elliott meets the aforementioned people. But the article is so poorly written that it is unclear whether or not he attended the launch. I suspect he just launches into in ill-advised diatribe based on the title of the book. Essentially his target is not just vegans, but essentially anyone who subscribes to a diet that in any way restricts what they eat, for whatever reason. My diatribe in response is borne out of the fact that he is attacking something I hold dear. My response would be the same if he was writing this rubbish about film bloggers or any other facet of my being.

In the small part of Elliott’s article that he devotes to writing about the book (or its title at least) he states, “perhaps strangest of all is the assumption that anyone cares enough about vegans to bother finding out why they might be cool, uncool or roughly room temperature”. Besides the lame-beyond-belief attempt at punnery at the end, this statement is also wrong. Pretty much, without exception when I tell people I am vegan they take an interest. They may wish to convince me how wrong my choice is. They may want to challenge me with a hypothetical about a sheep and a desert island. They may simply be intrigued as to my choice, the reasons that I have made it and that question that has befuddled mankind for all time – where do I get my protein? Whatever their question, they are pretty much always interested. Elliott’s next task in enlightening his many readers is to engage in the type of stereotyping that I thought we were done and dusted with a decade ago (and even that was way overdue). Apparently the only people who have what the author refers to as “a special food-limited diet” are those “with a cardigan and a crocheted beanie”. Because in Tim Elliott land homosexual men all wear tight shirts, and blue collar workers all wear Bonds singlets and drink Bundy Rum. I’ve got a wicked crocheted beanie, but no cardigan. Can I still be vegan?

Elliott smugly writes that “notable fruitarians have included ... Ben Klassen – the white supremacist and author of The White Man’s Bible – and Ugandan megalomaniac Idi Amin. But don’t let that put you off.” Oh Tim Elliott, you’re so clever, witty and funny. But what exactly is your point? Josef Stalin, Ivan Milat and George W. Bush were all meat eaters. What’s my point? I don’t have one. People do evil shit. Horrible things to their fellow man. These choices are not intrinsically connected to one’s choice of diet. Klassen may eat his fruit and go punch a black man. George W. Bush may eat his steak and go bomb an Iraqi school. Tim Elliott may eat whatever it is he eats and then go out and write a shit article. I just ate some hommus on Rivitas, and now I’m going to go and buy my girlfriend a Christmas present. Are these things connected? No.

Elliott writes that there is a “small, isolate tribe of grain eaters known as hegans – men who refuse to eat meat and animal products, yet somehow manage to hold on to their masculinity.” And please tell us, Mr Elliott, what your definition of masculinity is? Apparently it is intimately tied up with red meat. So perhaps it also involves traditional values you may be into like being able to beat people up and lift huge amounts of weight. Somehow vegans such as Mac Danzig, a UFC fighter, and Nick Diaz, the number one welterweight contender in the UFC, retain their ability to be ‘masculine’ despite their veganism. Diaz also talks a huge amount of smack, is this another of your measures of masculinity? Diaz, I suspect, doesn’t give a shit about posturing about saving the whales or wearing a crocheted hat. All he cares about is being the best athlete, finely tuned at beating up another man, and he has chosen a vegan diet solely for that reason. Pfft, what a pussy aye Elliott? And meet my friend Vegan Tank. The dude’s a tank. But hey, pretty unmasculine with all that animal activism work and caring for his animals. Would you prefer he punch a puppy rather than cuddle them? And then there is me. I have been vegan for approximately six months, but I have never really subscribed to, or cared about ‘masculinity’. I just care about being the best person and man I can. But even though I am vegan Mr Elliott I still “somehow manage to hold on to [my] masculinity” enough to grow a beard and make love to my girlfriend every so often. How do I do it?

You yourself may be wondering why people choose veganism. Don’t worry, our illuminating guide Tim Elliott can answer that too. It’s because this choice has “enabled thousands of inner-west arts students to send a powerful message that they, too, shop at Alfalfa house.” That’s it, thanks for reminding me. I had gotten so caught and brainwashed since I became vegan, that here I was thinking my personal choice was something to do with loving animals and believing it is wrong to kill them for food when I do not need to (a view that is mine alone and one that I don’t push onto anyone). But I’m in luck, because this choice also “enables the person to believe they are making a difference/reversing global warming/saving whales when all they are doing is eating a salad sandwich”. Could it not be possible that they are doing both? 

Elliott finishes off his masterpiece with this: “And vegans are definitely not cool.” To make a blanket assumption of the worth of a group of people that they are not cool because of one facet of their being is stupid and hatemongering. Who else is fundamentally not cool? Cricket fans? Italians? Christians? I know many vegans who are cool. I know some who are not. I know many meat eaters who are cool. And hey, funnily enough, I know some who are not. But you, Tim Elliott are not cool based on the evidence before me. It’s not because you do not like veganism or vegans. That is your choice. It is because you are a narrow minded twat who gets published in one of our country’s biggest newspapers, and makes me question if I want to do the same. I think that in our country we should demand more than this garbage filling our sources of news and entertainment.

Also, SMH, if this is the quality of writing that gets a gig in your Saturday edition, surely you can hook me up with a job?

Terry's World

Terry Gilliam has probably as warped a take on the contemporary world as any director. This truly original filmmaker started off running in the Monty Python crew and has made films such as The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988) and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998). One of the clear inspirations upon the worldview Gilliam conveys in his films is Chris Marker. Gilliam essentially remade one of Marker’s shorts into his film Twelve Monkeys (1995). So let’s check out the short, and also an example of Gilliam’s own strange, strange view of things.

The film that so inspired Gilliam he remade it is Chris Marker’s avant-garde sci-fi short La Jetee (1961). The film is set in the future, in the immediate aftermath of WWIII. The surviving humans appear to be eking out a subterranean existence. In this subterranean environment, those with the power (and the Nazi overtones) are conducting time travel experiments on prisoners of war. The film’s protagonist is one of these POWs and eventually it is his turn to be experimented upon. Through these terrifying experiments, we learn that the only hope for humanity is the mastery of time travel. Our ‘hero’ (I’m pretty sure we never get his name) is forced to seek out an image from his past. As the waves of time begin to wash over him, the boundaries between the present & the past; and between dreams & reality begin to blur. Here, in the past, our hero through the stark comparison of the future world he finds himself in, can plainly see the affluence and unnecessariness of the contemporary world (contemporary being early 60s, but really this point still holds today). Narratively speaking this is also a romance of sorts, the strangest romance you’ve ever seen as the hero begins to build up a strange relationship with a beautiful woman he repeatedly meets in the past. The whole thing utilises such strong imagery, and the story builds to the truly shocking twist that it ends with. Twists are generally so contrived these days, but this one blew me away.

For a film that only runs about 25 minutes, this is a thematically dense one. The film investigates memory, and the “scars” of memory. What happens when a memory is broken, can it repair itself? There is also an examination of the manner in which humans use their memories to protect themselves. Unsurprisingly, given the horrifying post-war apocalyptic setting and atmosphere, the futility of war is also a core concern here. This is also unsurprising given that the film was made 15 years after the end of WWII, during the Cold War and in this way serves as a warning of nuclear war. As the voiceover states, perfectly encapsulating the futility of war that clearly reigned then (and I think reigns now), “The outcome [of the war] was a disappointment for some – death for others. For others, madness.” And really what can hoped to be gained from war besides those three things. There is a note of optimism when our hero, having mastered the past, travels forward in time to the future to attain a power source. Here he is welcomed, a brief respite from his exploitation in the situation he finds himself in. There is a distinct correlation between the experiments rendered upon him, and today’s animal testing that Marker makes plain. There is also a distinct suggestion that, hopefully, people in the future will be kinder.

This film in many ways requires the viewer to reconsider what constitutes a film. Can a film be solely made up of still images? Well this one is. Marker manages to infuse the images with movement by panning across them and also through his use of the soundtrack. The measure of Marker’s brilliance here is that after a very short time, your brain ceases to realise that what you are seeing are stills. It flows like a normal film. The aforementioned camera movement, and the editing trick your brain. The fact that you don’t notice the stills, makes this I think the most brilliant utilisation of editing I have ever seen in a film. In order to make this work the selection of stills also needed to be astute. The images selected are arresting, even more so when put alongside each other like Marker does. There are horrific images of wartime, and scenes of citywide destruction which I assume are genuine WWII shots. 

This is a cracking, brilliant film that blew me away, as I have little doubt it will blow you away. In every way this it is a triumph of originality and a truly unmissable film experience, no matter what kind of films you generally are drawn to. Watch it. In fact, watch it below, right now. 

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Gilliam’s feature Brazil (1984) was made in that most Orwellian of years, and it definitely shows. The film takes place “somewhere in the 20^th Century”, presumably somewhere futuristic. The environment is a dystopia, but in some ways it is a gentle one. The authoritarian overlords are at times almost comedic in their bumbling rather than overtly malevolent. Like a lot of sci-fi, this film is extremely topical, exploring notions around the use of surveillance by the government and limits that should be put on it. This aspect of the film is so well rendered, it got me to wondering if George W. Bush had maybe watched it before instigating the controversial Patriot Act.

Whilst it is not a remake of Marker’s short in the same way the Twelve Monkeys is, the influence of La Jetee is plain to see in this film. Just like that film, the mundanity of everyday life and obsession with physical appearance is a thematic concern here. The mundanity is shattered almost immediately though when a terrorist attack rips through the city. Perhaps the predominant thematic concern of this film though is the exploration of the minutiae of beaurocracy, the cold unfeelingness of it and above all its sheer unimportance and inefficiency. In many ways this is the ultimate Canberra film. If you live in a public service town and you have not seen this film, you are doing yourself a great disservice. It will make you cringe at the recognition that this absurdist, science-fiction film is scarily close to reality when it comes to the inner workings of the public service. The film is especially adept at hilariously skewering inane public service speak.

For some reason, the range of influences on this film kept cropping up for me. Which is not to say it is not original – it is incredibly so. Rather, it just incorporates various concepts and ‘feels’ from other sources, and adapts them wonderfully to this new tale. The obvious one is La Jetee, and with that film it shares the concern regarding the future, and specifically whether it will actually be better. There was for a long time the assumption that the future, driven by continued technological advance, would obviously be better than the present. We see that simplistic notion begin to unravel in the film, as to some degree it continues to do in contemporary life. Just like La Jettee, Brazil is also a love story of the strangest kind. Another clear influence on this film (and perhaps every late 20^th Century sci-fi film) is the work of Philip K. Dick. There is a lot of focus on the use of electronics and also forms of escapism in this dystopian future. Also, the ‘everyman’ character at the centre of this film could almost have been lifted straight out of a Dick novel. 

The characters in the film have an obsession with old movies. I get it. They have rigged up the computer system at their mundane workplace so that when the boss is not looking they can watch old black and white classics. I wish I could do the same in my office. I can’t even get onto Youtube. This is a very clever film that generically fits, somewhat surprisingly, into the comedy genre. It is definitely not your standard comedic picture though. It is a black comedy that is more focused upon ramping up the intrigue rather than the slapstick. The performances are all ace. Jonathan Pryce, who is best known to me as the villain in the Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), is wonderful in the protagonist role. He manages to perfectly balance the character’s numerous both strengths and weaknesses. Robert De Niro is truly magnificent in a small, slightly comedic role. In fact even though it is a small role in terms of screen time, it reminds you why he is considered one of the best actors in history. And his performance is enhanced by being able to play off Bob Hoskins who with this nice turn goes some way toward redeeming himself for ever having been in the Mario Bros (1993) movie. The look of the film is also very interesting. The visual aesthetic is brilliant. It is futuristic, but not showy and distracting, choosing to value set design over special effects. And this is coupled with an extremely clever soundtrack which assists in creating this all encompassing world for the viewer to lose themself in. 

This film scores high on both the intrigue and originality fronts. It does confront a problem that is a non-entity in a short film such as La Jetee in that it does dither quite badly for some of its running time, before rising to a conclusion that becomes more and more oblique. But in the end this warped, funny vision of the future is one you are going to want to check out. 

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Progress: 46/1001

Worth Watching November 2011

Worth Watching:

• Super 8 (2011), J. J. Abrams – A fantastic 80s throwback exploring what kids get up to during their summer holidays... with aliens. Awesome film references and snappy dialogue abound. And it is great to see such great performances from the young cast members, who are actually acting not just being themselves. A cracking old school monster flick with a genuine sense of intrigue.

• The Tempest (2010), Julie Taymor – For me, any Shakespeare on the big screen is a good thing. Taymor has refined her bold visual style since her earlier work, and this is so original to look at with great use of set design and special effects. Helen Mirren excels as the tired, weary Prospera and Russel Brand’s gimmicky casting actually comes off. Ben Whishaw is excellent as Ariel, in a role that can sometimes trip actors up.

• Cars 2 (2011), John Lasseter – A lot of people, idiots, didn’t like the first Cars. The spy parody that makes up the bulk of this sequel is genius. Michael Caine as the elder, Aston Martin spy car is inspired. This is one of the funniest films of the year supported by really sharp animation. And there is so much beautiful nuance in this alternate reality.

• Get Low (2009), Aaron Schneider – There is a great ‘Western’ style aesthetic to this with wonderful cinematography and perhaps the year’s best script. Robert Duvall is such a great actor and throw in Sissy Spacek and Bill Murray and you cannot go wrong. A really nice, simple film that is perhaps a little slow, but definitely worth taking the time to sit through.

• Sucker Punch (2011), Zack Snyder – This is duking it out with The Tree of Life for the most divisive film of the year. Style over substance? Yes, but what style over substance! The awesome bastard child of a film, a music video and a video game. The episodic narrative brilliantly blurs the lines between dreams and reality in a video game quest to collect objects. One thing that cannot be argued about this film, is that it is one of the years most original releases. I loved it. You may hate it.

• Warrior (2011), Gavin O’Connor – One big cliché of a sports film. But with a couple of things really going for it. First the respect shown and research into the fledgling sport of MMA. Secondly some really great performances from Frank Grillo, Nick Nolte and especially Tom Hardy who delivers one of the year’s very best turns.

• The Decameron (1971), Pier Paolo Pasolini – Pasolini brings a real folk tale feel to this film, beautifully enhanced by the crisp cinematography. An exploration of greed and sexual repression, but delivered in a light and funny way. A cool hammy acting style pervades the performances. An intriguing film that intelligently engages with the notions of the church and religion but manages to maintain its comedic edge.

• In Bruges (2008), Martin McDonagh – Easy to see why this has become a cult classic with the profanity laden hilarious dialogue. As far as comedy goes, it is as black as it comes and it is these heavier moments, including the thoughtful romance and a martyrdom which provide the lasting impact.

Not Worth Watching:

• Dorian Gray (2009), Oliver Parker – Ben Barnes is hammy as the doe-eyed, newcomer to London Dorian and is matched up against Colin Firth. Not even the latter, excellent actor can rise above the average here. This is an annoyingly shit movie. It is tackily shot and captures none of the incredible zest of the book’s dialogue. Barnes’ Dorian just comes off as a shallow twat, with none of the conflicted depth the character should have.

• The Scarlet Letter (1995), Roland Joffe – Abysmal. That could be my review right there. This is one of the most ill-judged and worst movies ever. An unauthentic period piece where accents jar, Robert Duvall puts up a strong contender for worst movie wig in history and Demi Moore’s sheer inability to act leads to a film that is plain awkward. A po-faced butchering of the classic book. If I’m going to be subjected to Gary Oldman penis and arse, I expect the film to be approximately 800,000 times better than this. “Freely adapted”, more like shamefully rooted.

• The Sentinel (2006), Clark Johnson – We were all hoping for Jack Bauer hunts rogue CIA agent. Instead you get something a whole lot more tepid than you thought possible with Kiefer Sutherland and Michael Douglas involved. Forgets that for a thriller to be worthwhile it needs a cracking villain. However this just slaps one on almost as an afterthought.

If you only have time to watch one Sucker Punch

Avoid at all costs The Scarlet Letter

Ipod...cast

The newest podcast is up folks. The technical difficulties of posting it on iTunes has now been solved. So you can now access the podcast through iTunes which makes it easier to put on your ipod and all other kinds of fancy jazz I don't really understand how to do.

In this one we discuss Julie Taymor's somewhat forgotten adaptation of The Tempest, agree on our love of the James Bond riffing Cars 2, Jon delivers is opinion on Melancholia and his germaphobe view on Contagion and there is a strange interlude where Arbie my pet rabbit makes an appearance which is a little strange without visuals, but hey it works. Following that we move on to more shared love as we discuss Super 8 and discuss our hopes for our immediate movie-going futures. Take a listen right here: http://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/thefilmbrief/id483524532. As always, would love to hear your feedback.

With the podcasts now appearing on iTunes I will no longer be bothering with these short posts about each cast. Instead I will just be mentioning when a new podcast is available on my facebook page, so if you haven't already, make sure you like it here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Not-now-Im-Drinking-a-Beer-and-Watching-a-Movie/129686773759767. Or I am pretty sure that you can subscribe to the casts through iTunes.

And here is the token, podcast related trailer (worst trailer ever? Discuss):

Podcast: A short history of the horror film.

This was recorded a couple of weeks ago on Halloween eve. As such we take a look at a bunch of horror films, both classic and more contemporary. This is a pretty short and sweet one, but we cover a fair bit of ground - Paranormal Activity, the Saw franchise, Halloween, Dan O'Bannon (WHO?!?), Nosferatu x2 and Werner Herzog voiceovers. And shockingly I run out of beer which causes massive technical difficulties. Listen to all the fun here: http://www.thefilmbrief.com/2011/10/halloween-special.html

Also take a look at the trailer for Take Shelter which is a recent sorta horror film, which is one of the more exceptional films released this year.

Worth Watching October 2011

Worth Watching:

• Mulan (1998), Tony Bancroft & Barry Cook – Disney’s animation is wonderfully updated to ancient China. The characters aren’t though, with Disney’s standard templates reigning here. Cracking songs and good use of interesting themes such as filial piety and familial responsibility engage. This is a great tale of female empowerment, and just empowerment in general. A nice new rendering of classic Disney themes.

• Your Highness (2011), David Gordon Green – This medieval set comedy is quite the 80s throwback. This is crass, but delightfully so. James Franco is fabulous as Prince Fabious, really looking and sounding the part. Danny McBride has written a great piss-take script that plays a little like a long skit in a sketch show with some cool comedic action scenes. Luckily, just when things begin to drag a little, Natalie Portman picks things up.

• Persuasion (2007), Adrian Shergold – This is an excellent modern adaptation of the Jane Austen novel. The soundtrack is great, and it is filmed in a dynamic and modern manner. Sally Hawkins really looks the part in the main role of Anne Elliot. Manages to trim unnecessary dross, yet maintain the period trimmings. And finishes things off with an emotionally brilliantly rendered conclusion.

• Hereafter (2010), Clint Eastwood – A film essentially about death which remains engaging and very human throughout. This quite original film examines death in all its forms – commercial, spiritual, physical & the emotional toll on those who remain. The storyline, split into three, works really well, and only falters toward the end when an admirable attempt to reconcile all three falls short. Awesome film.

• Horrible Bosses (2011), Seth Gordon – Not the funniest movie you will ever see, but the script gets funnier as it goes along. Having Jason Bateman, Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Aniston, Donald Sutherland & Colin Farrell (the last 2 a father and son which I would have loved to see get more screen time) helps a lot. As does breakout star Charlie Day who is hilarious. The funniest bit was my girlfriend being frightened by a cat running on screen which caused her to leap out of her seat and send the entire cinema into hysterics.

• The Girl Who Played with Fire (2009), Daniel Alfredson – I hated the highly regarded first in this series and this started with more of the same. About half an hour in it threatens to take a more interesting murder mystery path with Rapace’s Lisbeth framed for murder. This generic switch engages and sucks youi in as Blomkvist (exquisitely played by Michael Nyqvist) turns Sherlock. Well scripted and sharply filmed with nice action elements and hints of spy thriller.

• Rhythmus 21 (1921), Hans Richter – Title translates as ‘Film is Rhythm’ which is a perfect summary. The black and white shapes move in a way that almost has you tapping your foot to their rhythm. Simple yet intriguing, a brilliant avant-garde piece from cinema’s early days. Check it:
  

• The Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest (2009), Daniel Alfredson – Nyqvist as Blomkvist really is the moral centre of these films. The intriguing start widens the net of conspiracy. The villain who is meant to be arch-menacing just falls flat as the actor just is not up to it. Great support by Annika Hallin and Lena Endre, as well as the best performance by Rapace in the series helps massively. It does get a little silly, with some of the thriller elements coming off like Bourne-lite and the connection between Nykvist and Lisbeth weakening a lot. But there is still enough here to enjoy.

• The Hunter (2011), Daniel Nettheim – Tassie looks dashing, and Sam Neil, Francis O’Connor & especially Willem Dafoe bring the acting chops. This is slow and meandering, at times lacking a strong narrative sense as it follows a quest you suspect will never be resolved. But it cleverly dichotomises the logger vs greenie divide in the island state and is ultimately intriguing enough to check out.

• Contagion (2011), Steven Soderbergh – It is a rare treat for a mainstream film to be this ambitious and clever. Soderbergh has weaved a broad tapestry which masterfully contrasts the societal and personal impacts of an epidemic. A couple of subplots jar with the realist whole, but the rest is so rich you won’t care.

• Take Shelter (2011), Jeff Nichols – A portrait of a man’s descent into mental illness, with his nightmarish visions rendered in visually spectacular fashion. So good to see special effects used in this intelligent way. Michael Shannon gives a powerhouse performance despite his character being a little infuriating while Jessica Chastain wows as the suffering wife. One of the year’s best.

• Shutter (2004), Banjong Pisanthanakun & Parkpoom Wongpoom – Thai horror film that has been remade in the states, invariably shitter. Hell of a creepy flick which is wonderfully made. Just the right mix of BOO! moments, without being silly or over the top. A nicely layered story which bothers to construct the motivation of its characters. Masterfully engenders tension and fear out of everyday situations.

• Midnight in Paris (2011), Woody Allen - This is a wonderful piece of whimsy. Allen has written a script that is full of clever, witty dialogue. Owen Wilson is towering in the central role, giving his finest performance. Michael Sheen is the pick of a support cast that is excellent, and they all have a lot to work with. Rachel McAdams' character is a blight on this film though. A women so unlikeable that it is unfathomable Wilson's laidback charmer could fall for her. A literary time travel film like no other.
  

Not Worth Watching:

• The Portrait of a Lady (1996), Jane Campion – Henry James’ novel is a dense piece of high lit, which doesn’t exactly lend itself to adaptation. The film does away with much of the exposition, and coupled with confusing accents, makes this hard to grasp totally. What we are left with is all the events, but none of the motivation. Nicole Kidman is very fine, and a young Christian Bale is breathtaking. Unfortunately John Malkovich is in annoying scene-stealing mode. A fair attempt, but it drags too much and is far too oblique.

• Le Vampire (1945), Jean Painleve – My mind literally exploded upon seeing the start of this. A nature film like nothing you’ve ever seen before, which comments on the intersection between humanity and nature’s creatures. However then there was a scene which genuinely upset me. Shows a guinea pig being attacked by a vampire bat which is a test of my Vego Film manifesto. The sequence sickened me frankly, and I do not fathom how someone could do that for a cool shot; unflinchingly filming while a fellow creature had the life sucked out of it. Here's a link to the film on Youtube so you can make up your own mind:

• Nang Nak (1999), Nonzee Nimibutr – Thai horror film concerning a woman who dies in childbirth whilst her husband is off at war. This really struggles to get going and short scenes really disjoint the narrative. Intira Jaroenpura is fantastic as Nak and the film is nicely shrouded in tradition, ritual and religion. The main issue though is that it is too oblique and boring – the one thing a horror film should not be.

• Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), Francis Ford Coppola – Coppola has a huge ego and it shows here. His Dracula is a lovesick renouncer of God. But something about the entire aesthetic of this film is a little off. I’m not as down on Keanu’s acting as most, but he sucks overwhelmingly in this. It’s like Coppola only just discovered superimposition as he uses the technique interminably. There are many great adaptations of Stoker’s novel, but this unsubtle film ain’t one of them. Anthony Hopkins is the only decent thing in this self indulgent film that is one of the crappier movies ever made.

• The Fog of War (2003), Errol Morris – This doco offers a unique glimpse into the upper echelons of U.S. strategic thinking. The subject Robert McNamara is really self-important. Film does a good job of dehumanising war as it is in reality. Ultimately though this is too slow, and perhaps too U.S specific.

• Conviction (2010), Tony Goldwyn – The plot reads like midday movie schmaltz. A sister puts herself through law school to clear her bro’s name. An annoying and uninspired flashbacky structure only adds to the sense of the mundane. The story is an affecting one, and the performances by Hilary Swank and especially Minnie Driver and Sam Rockwell are really wonderful. But it is all just a bit tame, and has been done so much better before.

• Flower in the Pocket (2007), Liew Seng Tat – Pretty bloody boring quite frankly. Kids hanging out, getting into minor trouble. The broad humour is mildly amusing at times, and there are some comments on ethnical tensions in Malaysia but a lot of it is just a bunch of kids playing.

If you only have time to watch one Rhythmus 21

Avoid at all costs Le Vampire

Halloween Special ... Halloween

Halloween is a distinctly American holiday, but one that is gaining an ever increasing following here in Australia. I have no particular fondness for the holiday, but any excuse for a blog will do. I thought that for pretty obvious reasons John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) was an appropriate film for this special 1001 post. I think I have stated before that horror is not my favourite genre. I am not sure why. I think I always presume that I will get scared, but I am not sure if I have ever been truly traumatised by a horror film. Nevertheless, I was not taking any chances. I watched this early on a bright sunny day, with the curtains open. This film was voted the second scariest film of all time in a recent Empire Magazine poll though, so maybe this would be the first to really affect me. The DVD menu was ominous; I was scared shitless just playing that, due to the incredible music playing over the top of it.

My fear continued unabated once the film started, as the same piece of music opens the movie. It is an incredible piece, made even more amazing by the fact that the music was composed by Carpenter himself (given he directed and co-wrote as well, that makes this quite the auteur piece). This leads into one of the best opening halves in film history. The tension throughout is astounding and unrelenting. The opening credits are surely some of the best ever, establishing this tension I am talking about and featuring one creepy fucking Jack O’ Lantern. Check them out:



From here we jump into an opening scene where the soundtrack makes it nigh on unwatchable. First person, point of view shooting seems like such a tacky cliché these days and it is rarely used well. In the hands of most directors it seems like a ‘wow, see this fancy shot I am doing here hint hint nudge nudge’ gesture, instead of being employed for a reason. Here it is used to devastating effect. This first scene really is sheer genius. Big SPOILER alert – the shot comes from the murderer’s point of view. So the audience’s view is restricted to only what he can see as he climbs the stairs. Then in a masterstroke, the view is further obscured when the killer puts on a mask. You will find yourself straining to see things just outside the killer’s vision. For a moment after the first person murder all you can hear is the heavy breathing. And then comes the big reveal as the mask is removed, and the camera wheels around to reveal just how young the murderer is. Really stunning stuff, and a reminder to me just why I love watching film and watching films outside the kind I would usually be attracted to.

After this opening sequence the plot jumps forward 15 years. The killer Michael has been locked up for that entire time, and has not spoken a word. He returns to the town he grew up on a Halloween evening, and is intent on wreaking more havoc. This film is all about control, the control that Carpenter as director wields over his audience. In addition to the mask already mentioned in the opening scene, various camera angles and things such as car windshields and even just darkness are used to control the frame and only allow the audience to see what he wants us to. It is such a simple technique, but one that works so very well. The director perfectly controls how much of the villain he wants us to see at any particular time. Sometimes his body just impinges on the frame slightly, just to remind us that he is there. The audience is repeatedly toyed with as Carpenter refuses to show all of the villain. Also key to Carpenter’s control is the incredible use of soundtrack. I really can’t emphasise enough how brilliantly this is done. It may be the best use of soundtrack I’ve ever witnessed, no exaggeration. There is the recurring piece of music that I have already mentioned which is used to herald the villain’s presence. Which sounds like it would give too much away, but instead enhances the malevolent nature of him. As well as music there are also a couple of audio motifs employed, such as the villain’s heavy breathing which is chilling as it emanates from behind closed doors and the like. It is strange how even though you are aware that the music and the breathing mean the bad guy is around, it can still elicit such tension from the situations rather than breed familiarity. The use of all the music and audio cues is also so beautifully measured, when it could have so easily been overblown.

This film “introduces” Jamie Lee Curtis (of course her mother Janet Leigh starred in Psycho (1960) a film Halloween has often been compared to), and you have to thank it for that. She has such a nice, clever screen presence which is evident, even from this early age. In fact all the young female actors who inhabit this film are quite good. Considering the type of films that Halloween is accused of inspiring, it is almost a surprise that there only about four or so murders in the whole film, and they are not that graphically shot given today’s standards. Much of the body of the film is Michael in the car, driving around, stalking his would be victims as his creepyarse music plays. It is a slow, suspenseful build that creates a fantastically intimidating atmosphere. This is created in what is meant to be a slice of typical American suburbia. But it also comments upon the coldness of modern society. There is a harrowing scene where a distraught teen screams her lungs out for help, but her neighbours simply ignore her, some going actively out of their way to avoid assisting. It could be argued that this build goes on a little too long, but I think I would prefer that to an alternative of mindless killing with no explanatory build-up. And in a strange way, once the killing starts the film actually gets somewhat less scary rather than more. That is not to say there is not still the odd fright, including the biggest of the entire film. The second half is not as satisfying as the first. This is partly because it is slightly inferior, but also happily because the first stanza is absolutely phenomenal.

If you know anyone silly enough to believe that the auteur and genre are mutually exclusive, show them this film and show them how wrong they are. I highly recommend watching this on Halloween night if you are keen for a horror flick. You’ll probably be scared at some stage, but even if not you will be treated to incredibly high class filmmaking.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Progress: 44/1001

Hitch just wants to have fun

After letting slip with my secret confession that I had not seen Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest (1959) in a recent podcast, I thought it was high time I right this wrong. Here we go.

The film stars a classic Hollywood star Cary Grant, in a classic mistaken identity plot. The film starts out by perfectly evoking the rush and crush of city life. The Hitch cameo comes early, and it helps evoke this atmosphere as the director races for, but ultimately fails to catch, a bus. And it is in this environment that Grant’s Roger O. Thornhill thrives as a high powered advertising executive. He is soon dislocated from his domain though as he is mysteriously kidnapped by thugs who mistake him for someone else. The film eventually morphs into a transamerican chase film, at which point Grant is paired up with Eva Marie Saint who plays an interesting variation on the Hitchcock blonde. She is a complex love interest who mysteriously helps a fugitive for no real reason and is heavily involved in one of the film’s great twists. The whole film is driven by an absolutely cracking script which manages to be funny, mysterious and clever. The director harnesses the script to put us in the protagonist’s shoes, and just as he has little idea what is unfolding, we too are left in the dark. The effect is that the film builds a wonderful sense of mystery as we the audience, and Thornhill, try to establish exactly who his kidnappers are, and what they want with him.

Hitchcock’s penchant for clever shots that make film nerds everywhere swoon is also on display throughout the film. As Thornhill flees following the murder at the U.N, Hitch delivers what is surely one of the great high angle shots of all time. It is shot from a towering, dizzying height as Grant’s character races out of the building through a courtyard. There is also a cracker of a POV shot towards the end of the film which makes the audience cop a punch to the head. The script also delivers some rather forward dialogue, dripping with flirting and sexual innuendo. This film features probably the dirtiest conversation ever held on a train. The conclusion of the film wraps up incredibly quickly, as mentioned by Jon in the podcast. Actually it is unfathomably quick; I had to re-watch it just to establish what had happened. The last 10 or so minutes of the film features twist upon twist, most of which are satisfying ones.

I coined the rather silly title for this piece before I actually watched the film. I thought of it because for some reason, I thought this was going to be a more light-hearted film from Hitchcock. And whilst it is a little slighter than some of his films, it is definitely not a defining marker of the movie. Even so, I think the title is still apt because the film is highlighted by a number of massive set-pieces in which the director is clearly having a lot of fun, revelling in being delightfully over the top. The first of these comes early in the film, where an attempt to take Thornhill’s life results in his car dangling over a cliff, which is followed by a drunken car chase. This sort of sums up Hitch’s brilliance in this film. A car chase is a stock element, but he reimagines it, making it slow paced as Thornhill tries to overcome his inebriation to escape. And Cary Grant makes a fantastic drunk. Hitch follows this pattern with set piece after set piece: the murder at the U.N, the fantastic finale atop Mount Rushmore and of course the piece de resistance of set pieces – the crop duster scene. This sequence is magnificently constructed with shots of the empty countryside increasing the sense of isolation, and car after car raising Thornhill’s hopes that the man he is waiting for will arrive. Despite not being exactly logical, surely there are easier ways to kill a man than with a crop duster, the scene is ultra exciting. And eat your heart out Michael Bay, it ends with a frickin plane flying into a frickin petrol tanker. Drawing attention to the fact that the film is essentially a few big set pieces linked together, would be a criticism of most films. But the great thing about all of these set pieces is that they are reimagined brilliantly in a way that you suspect only Hitchcock could pull off. They are just all so good. Speaking of the director’s ability for reimagination and originality, the whole film is a genre flick, a spy thriller, as reimagined by Hitch. A spy thriller full of government espionage that simply does not focus on the spy at all, rather examining the outer reaches of the web and the everyman caught up in it.

This is a wonderful romp which features one of the absolute best scripts of all time. Like every Hitchcock film there is so much here worth seeing, he truly is a master director and there has never been another like him. Do I prefer it to Rear Window (1954)? Not quite, but it is a very different film and both are true classics.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Progress: 43/1001

Podcast: A little bit heavy

Here is another podcast I helped out the Film Brief with recently. We go in depth on the Pantheon, a list of classic films compiled by Jon of the Film Brief and another film maestro Rollie. So we chat about that, and I try and get Jon to rubbish some of Rollie's choices. Discussion then moves into rather more controversial waters. Firstly we discuss Lars Von Trier's infamous Cannes rant, from slightly different viewpoints. We then move onto the touchy issue of censorship, especially in relation to the ultra controversial A Serbian Film (2010). Hopefully we keep it not too heavy and a little interesting. Of course we botch our patented sign off as well. Listen to it all here: http://www.thefilmbrief.com/2011/10/podcast-theres-strange-person-lurking.html

And I mispronounce the title of this classic film (mind you Jon really struggles with the word controversy):

An elephant, two mice and a puppet walk into a bar...

The current cinematic and DVD re-release of The Lion King has classic Disney films back in the public consciousness a bit more (not that they are ever that far from it). And a recent rampage through a DVD store by my partner have Disney DVDs weighing down the shelf at home. Well at least with those currently available (seriously what the hell is the deal with Disney’s DVD release strategy? Do they withhold titles from release so they become more ‘sought after’ or is it something more nuanced than that?). I digress. These purchases gave me the perfect chance to relive a couple of old school Disney classics, and bring you my thoughts on them.

First up is Dumbo (1941), the tale of the baby circus elephant with ginourmous ears. The film opens with a great opening sequence showing storks making deliveries to the zoo. This sets up nicely the vein of humour that runs through the film (best exemplified a little later on by the circus train), along with establishing the family values that are such a key part of it. The images of the mothers connecting with their adorable new babies are ... adorable. The plot of the film concerns Dumbo, the baby elephant who is teased for the size of his ears, but eventually learns to harness the power of them for his own benefit. It also explores his relationship with the other circus animals, and the human players of the travelling big top as well. Despite some lashings of mean spiritedness and some definite heart wrenching turns - both necessary to give the plot at least some impetus - Dumbo proves that you do not have to create something overflowing with darkness to create something brilliant. The film contains a number of scenes of the simplest beauty which are just so fulfilling to watch. The one where Timothy Q. Mouse sits atop a bar of soap and scrubs Dumbo with a toothbrush, whilst giving him a pep talk, as the young elephant gently weeps springs to mind. Then of course there is the ‘Pink Elephants’ sequence, which is definitely not what I would call simple. Wow. I hated this bit when I was a kid. The scene is essentially a drunken hallucination, featuring pink elephants dancing and much more strangeness. Good luck getting this into a family film these days. Despite the fact that it does not exactly fit with the rest of the film, the sequence is unabashed brilliance and the artistic highpoint of the film. Weird as shit though.

Even in this day and age of incredible film technological advance, there is still little more visually arresting than classic Disney animation. The film is beautifully rendered and so much care has gone into the look of the film. The depictions of the animals perfectly capture the spirit of the real things, and the baby animals are cute beyond belief. Along with the film’s striking animation, its other technical strength is undoubtedly the soundtrack. This is not like many other Disney films which are musicals in the sense that they build to a number of big musical numbers, delivered by main characters at key points in the film. Rather, the music in this is for the most part what you would consider a more traditional soundtrack. I think this is better in some ways, and is unsurprising that this aspect of the film was lauded, with it winning the Academy Award for ‘scoring of a motion picture.’ The film is very short by today’s standards, which is a good thing. It clocks in at a shade over an hour, and this actually works in the film’s favour. It leaves you wishing there was more, rather than most contemporary films which leave you wishing they finished half an hour ago. There is something to be said for knowing exactly how much is the right amount of a good thing.

Animal circuses are a bit of a taboo in contemporary society, and something that personally I definitely do not agree with. And I think that in its own small way the film deals with these issues. There are a number of scenes of abject cruelty toward animals that are a little hard to swallow, but are put in there because these sort of things do occur. There is also a nice, humorous touch on the unnaturalness of animals in the circus. During the circus parade, a gorilla is hamming it up for the audience, bellowing and rattling the bars. When he finally breaks a bar, he does not know what to do with it and meekly puts it back in its place.

Thematically, this story filled with all kinds of wonderful animals, expresses itself through two very human relationships – that of a mother and son, and that of friendship. The first half or so of the film is a tale of a mother’s love for her child. From the first moment she sets eyes on the baby Dumbo, Mrs Jumbo is taken totally with her new child. She defends him against the taunts of the other elephants about his oversized ears. This defence also leads to the film’s emotional highpoint. In an exhilarating scene, when Dumbo is mercilessly teased by a gang of buck-toothed youths, Mrs Jumbo springs into action. And this really is an action piece as she flings aside circus workers who try to contain her rage as she defends her son to the last. The result of this is that when she is finally brought under control, Mrs Jumbo is placed in a small caravan plastered with signs reading ‘Mad Elephant’. The downcast Dumbo sheds a forlorn tear as he mourns being separated from his mother. After these events Dumbo is cast out by the other elephants which leads directly to the films other great relationship, the one between our elephant protagonist and Timothy Q. Mouse. Timothy immediately goes out of his way to help Dumbo. It is one of the purest depictions of friendship put to film I think. The mouse has nothing to gain from creating and maintaining a friendship with Dumbo, but he in an instant becomes his greatest advocate. Just a bloke, helping out another bloke through the goodness of his heart. The appearance of Timothy Q. Mouse brings with it the film’s greatest vocal performance by Edward Brophy who is intensely endearing. In fact the voice acting is all really good, pleasantly lacking the grandstanding celebrities which plague contemporary releases.

In many ways this film is close to perfect. I don’t know that it was my favourite Disney film growing up, but it has rocketed to the top of that list now. And it has really inspired me to go back and watch all of the Disney films, including the ones I have missed. If I can find anything close to this in terms of emotive and technically astute filmmaking I will be happy. This is a film for everyone.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Preceding Dumbo by just a year, Pinocchio (1940) belongs to that distinctly Disney rare breed, a ‘kids’ film based on a classic piece of literature which is far removed from its source. A tale of a wooden puppet with a lonely, single male creator. The puppet is given life, and told essentially that if he proves himself to be brave and true, he will be imbued with real life.

There is so much to love in the wondrous design of all of these old Disney films, and it starts from the opening credits. They are simply and elegantly designed but immediately tell you that you are watching a Disney film, and are in for a treat. The sound design in the film reminds me of these opening credits as well, such good, beautiful work. And such effort is taken with the details, like all the various clocks in Geppetto’s workshop which go off in synch, dazzling with their variety. The backgrounds are stunning in this film, looking like masterful paintings, perfectly complementing the sharply focused action going on in front. A technological breakthrough allowed sweeping pans and shifts of camera to be made over these delightful backdrops, meaning action was not restricted to a single frame. Just as the film starts with some of this wondrous design I am referring to, it also finishes up with it too. The whale that dominates the last section of the film is beautifully and awesomely animated, showing the size and power of the animal. The whale and the water look almost hand painted such is the beauty. For me, I don’t think the animation of water (such a difficult thing to render in an interesting way) would be done better til Finding Nemo (2003) some 60+ years later.

The very sweet story in some ways feels like three or four short films joined together. The second one following Pinocchio’s creation sees him abducted by the villainous Stromboli so he can be used in show business. Stromboli is a wonderfully terrible and horrifying presence, separating Pinocchio from Geppetto and threatening to turn the young puppet into firewood. This mean streak is perfectly rendered in his physicality, a giant of a man with a massive black beard. This sequence of events leaves Geppetto heartbroken at the loss of his son that he has only just received. The old man toils in the pouring rain searching forlornly for his son. The next subplot concerningly involves the kidnapping of young boys and taking them to a place called “Pleasure Island”. This is a place where the kids are encouraged to smoke cigars and wantonly destroy property. In the end though it is all a front for an operation that turns kids into donkeys – of course. This sequence sees one of the most intense scenes where Pinocchio’s new young friend graphically turns into a donkey. The episodic narrative comes through tonally with the film being pretty uneven throughout. But the last section is the most assured. It shows Pinocchio in a traditional, heroic light as he bravely hunts down the whale that has swallowed his father Geppetto. It also benefits from having all the major characters on screen for most of the time, which makes the interactions more interesting.

Character wise Jiminy Cricket is one of Disney’s most iconic, and he certainly has an incredibly iconic look with his smooth green head and snazzy getup that he is so proud of. In some ways the cricket is an extremely human character. In his role as conscience he tries his best to keep his young charge on the straight and narrow. Despite numerous setbacks and at times a lack of encouragement from Pinocchio, he never gives up, always coming back again and again to help him out. Pinocchio’s father Geppetto is also a really original character. It is beautiful to see a single father figure such as him contain not one semblance of a mean streak. He is a simple, lonely man. Early on in the film he dances with the toys he makes, and his only meaningful relationships are with his cat and fish. His one true heartfelt yearning is to have a son to call his own.

The film is exceptionally rich from a thematic perspective, in some ways overburdened with themes, making it difficult to engage with the story stuck below. From the moment he is given life, Pinocchio is told that he can have true life, if he proves himself. This is a moral tale, showing the trials that one must pass on the journey to manhood. Showing what it takes to be a “real boy”. And it renders this journey in a very conventional way. There is a clear focus on resisting temptations and listening to your (always faltering) conscience. These themes are clearly aimed at children – the physical manifestation of lying in Pinocchio’s nose growing for example. There is also a focus on the pressures on a child to satisfy their parents. In many ways the one true fear that the young Pinocchio has is that his father will be disappointed in him. And this is hard to reconcile with the fact that we all make mistakes, especially the youthful. It is also about innocence being led astray. It seems like this is turning into a long list of pretty heavy themes, and it can feel like that at times as more and more life lessons are thrown into the mix. There is such a thing as being too laden with ideas and teachings

I think for me, in some ways, this film suffered because I watched it so soon after watching Dumbo, and I think it is slower, and not as enjoyable or iconic as that film. But that is not to disparage the film. It is a wondrous achievement, and the core message of what it takes to be a real boy (girl/man/woman) is a timeless one.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs

Progress: 42/1001

The Road to Rio #4: The Malaysia and Oman Revelation

The Socceroos played two more games over the past week on their road to the 2014 World Cup. These games were far from being glamour matchups, the first being a friendly against Malaysia, the second a qualifier against Oman. Despite the relatively low level of hype surrounding the games, the manner in which the Socceroos performed gave fans reason to be excited. Here are some thoughts on both games.

The Socceroos played Malaysia here in Canberra last Friday night. I was lucky enough to be at the game live, and for me there is nothing like seeing the Socceroos live, no matter the opposition. Unfortunately only a little over 10,000 Canberrans felt the same way as me, meaning the Socceroos played in front of one of their smaller crowds of recent times. I have read some criticism over the small crowd which I think is fair enough. Plenty of places would love Socceroos games, and I thought more would show. It is a bit of a Catch-22 situation though. Many people would have turned their noses up at the opposition. But if you can’t generate a good crowd for this game, then bigger name teams are not going to be brought. I think that if you consider that Sydney, a city of 4 million people could only manage 24,000 or so for the game that followed, an actual qualifier, then all of a sudden the Canberra figure does not seem so shabby.

Anyway, enough of that, onto the game. Put simply, the Aussies dominated. The first half was the most dominant performance that I have seen them put on in a long time, and we led 4-0 after 45 minutes. The brilliant thing that Holger Osieck is doing with this squad is bringing through the second tier of players. Rhys Williams played at right back and excelled. Williams playing in that position allowed the usual right back Luke Wilkshire to push up into the right midfield role where he was a constant threat. Alex Brosque was a bit of a revelation for me playing up front. I have never been sold on his quality at this level, but Holger has given this guy a new lease on life. He ran his guts out, both tracking back in defence and making incisive leads in attack. His work off the ball actually was phenomenal. And most importantly for an out and out striker he found himself with golden opportunity after golden opportunity. Brosque scored two goals, and were it not for a couple of shanked finishes, he really should have had four. But for me, the player of the match was undoubtedly Josh Kennedy. I write about Josh a lot, but that is because he is in my view one of our key players. It was great to see him bang in another two goals to add to his burgeoning Socceroos goal tally. But the most pleasing thing was his incredible work with his feet. I have always rated Kennedy’s ability to hold the ball up at the front. However his incisive passing was, here’s that word again, a revelation. A few of the through balls he through threw were frankly fantastic and the few knockers of Kennedy out there should watch this over and see if they still have complaints.

In the second half the intensity really fell away. The Socceroos were only able to add one more goal to their half time tally as Osieck rang the changes. The Malaysians managed to get a bit more of the ball, but were in reality a bit lacklustre throughout. The game really did peter out, but that is not to take away from the performance of the Socceroos who delivered one of the better performances of recent times. It is great to see the Aussies dominate a team, even if they were outclassed totally. I don’t care who you are playing, at the international level, if you put 5 goals away, you have done well.

The more important game of the two was Tuesday night’s World Cup qualifier against Oman. A win in this game would put the Australians on the brink of going through to the final round of Asian qualifying. Osieck deployed his strongest possible side. After the experiment in Canberra on Friday, Rhys Williams again started behind Luke Wilkshire. Brett Holman was recalled, and started alongside Josh Kennedy in attack. Perhaps the only surprise was that Matthew Spiranovic was preferred to Sasa Ognenovski in the centre of defence. I am not sure the reasoning behind this, but it appears that Osieck considers the youngster a genuine first choice option. Spiranovic, much like Brosque, is beginning to fulfil his massive potential under the tutelage of the German. For me, it was also excellent to see Adam Federici play a full, important game in goals. Whilst he did not have a whole lot to do, everything he did do was assured and safe. Throw in one first class save off a free kick, and we are in save hands whenever Schwarzer is not available.

The first half was an interesting one. The opposition was of a higher quality than the Malaysians on Friday night, so they Aussies were not able to run totally rampant. But in truth they totally controlled proceedings. They held and moved the ball well. Strange though was the very small amount of chances the Aussies were able to craft. I believe that we had only 4 shots on goal through the first 45 minutes, which is really not enough when you have the kind of dominance that we did. It was also only 1-0 at half time, with the goal coming more from calamitous Omani defending than anything else. One very pleasing aspect of the game though was the Australian defence. Thailand really exposed us on the counter in the first qualifier and Oman was trying to do the same. But Spiranovic and Neil were not having a bar of it. Spira was using his height to cut out any attempted crosses proficiently, while the captain was having one of his stronger games of recent times.

For all their slick ball movement and control of the game, the Aussies only had a single goal buffer at the break. Anyone will tell you that is not a comfortable position to be in. All credit to the team then for coming out and killing the game in the second half. But they achieved it through what they had been working on all game. It was pleasing to see them not revert to long ball tactics or anything like that in order to get the all important second goal. Kennedy scored yet another goal (after providing an uber-clever step over in the build up which evidenced his blossoming under Holger Osieck better than any other incident), and Mile Jedinak finished off the scoring with a nice reflex finish from a free kick.

So where are we sitting on our Road to Rio? Still a fair way off, but things are looking very good. This round of qualifying is essentially done and dusted. We need one point from the final three matches, and whilst nothing in life or sport is a sure thing, it would take a meltdown of French national team proportions for us not to get it. But like I say, we are still a long way off. The final round of qualifying will be exceedingly tough, and all these great performances will count for nothing at that point. Except for the great playing style and team unity that Holger Osieck is building of course.

Podcast: Jane Eyre starring Mike Wazowski

Once again I helped out The Film Brief with the podcast this week (I’m not sure if I am still helping out, or if I am the podcast now). Jon from The Film Brief and I are now situated in opposite hemispheres meaning this one was done on Skype, so excuse the couple of on-air technical difficulties. We cover a fair bit of ground in this one, catching up on recent release films. Jon gives the low down on Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I rave about Pina and we both rave a bit about X-Men First Class. We also give our thoughts on the growing trend towards re-releasing films on the big screen. And lastly Jon cuts off my patented sign-off after I don’t shut up. Have a listen to the podcast right here: http://www.thefilmbrief.com/2011/10/podcast-jane-eyre-starring-mike.html.

We also discuss the relative merits of these two films from a director you may have heard of: