The Ephemeric

song of the week: "Tree By the River" by "Iron and Wine"


thing that makes me smile today: April fools day. The Guardian's live blog was awesome, but Virgin just about wins the day.

pic of the day
IN:
House of Commons
Deloitte
Andy Carroll

OUT:
House of Lords
PwC
Jermain Defoe

Directed by Jonathan Liebesman
Written by Christopher Bertolini
Starring Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 116 minutes

And so we have the first big flop of 2011. Battle: Los Angeles is an old school alien invasion movie that endeavours to blend the classic war movie and science fiction genres, but only manages to capture the worst elements of both.



Battle: Los Angeles was billed as an amalgamation of 2009's poignant District 9 with the cheesy jingoism of a Top Gun, but suffers from amateurish production and a script of pure cracker barrel chedder that would make Roland Emmerich blush.

When District 9 arrived in cinemas to critical acclaim many predicted that it would become something of a trend setter, spawning a new wave of intelligent sci-fi with a style of gritty realism. Those predictions appear to have been well founded, but I doubt anyone could have foreseen the precession of cynical imitators that have come and gone, each one convinced that sticking a shaky camera on any old drivel is enough to turn a film into a deep, thought-provoking masterpiece.

Well this film may be the worst culprit of this most obnoxious of conceit that I have yet encountered. Shaky cam is absolutely fine when it's in context and justified, but here it arbitrarily dominates every single scene: walking down the road? Shaky cam. Two marines playing golf? Shaky cam. Buying flowers at the supermarket? Oh you better believe there's shaky cam.

What's worse is that the technique isn't even well implemented, with the camera jumping about unnaturally like someone's having a seizure. Actually it rather makes me want to watch the behind the scenes footage just so I can see the cameraman wobbling all over the place like a jackass.

The effect in itself would already be fairly nauseating, but the death-metal music-video style of direction only compounds the problem. Every scene is is a mish mash of incoherently cut, split-second shots, shaking and awkwardly zooming (if you want a comparison, think Alien vs Predator 2). It makes for unpleasant, and frankly difficult watching. The intention was clearly to give the film a kinetic, action packed feel, it's just a shame they made such an uneven mess out of it.

Where the film stood an honest chance of redeeming itself was character. The focus is wisely placed on the marines rather than the conflict or the aliens, an idea that could have lent itself to some high quality Hurt Locker-esque war-time drama or even a commentary on real life events. As it happens, their time is mostly spent shouting hackneyed one liners back at each other and pulling their most "intense" face for the cameras. In fact after the opening twenty minutes I'm pretty sure there is only about a dozen or so lines of dialogue for the remainder of the film. Instead the "narrative" just ambles awkwardly from one incoherently shot action set piece to the next with little or no logical thread running between them.

The characters themselves are not badly acted. Aaron Eckhart is a decent enough actor, and I can honestly say that Michelle Rodriguez performs the standard "Michelle Rodriguez" role better than any other actor. The trouble is that there is nothing here for them to work with. The opening exposition segment of the film hints at some potential for development or interpersonal relationships, and then the script promptly seems to forget all about it when the action starts. Rodriguez in particular gets surprisingly little screen time... I think... With the way the film is shot it's often pretty hard to tell who exactly is on screen at any one time.

It seems odd for me to try and critique the narrative or setting after I've already mentioned that there isn't much of one in this film, but anyway. The title says "Battle: Los Angeles" and yet the chosen locale is sadly squandered, with very little sense of place. They could switch Los Angeles with any other city in the world and I don't think a single frame in the movie would have to be changed.

As for the aliens themselves, it doesn't bother me so much that nothing is ever explained about them. What is a problem, however, is just how faceless and unremarkable they are. There is none of the awe or menace that one gets from a film like Independence Day, and as a result it's hard to get caught up in the struggle or really care when the aliens eventually lose. There is one scene in particular where they capture and torture an alien until they find out how to kill him (surprisingly stabbing him a few dozen times seems to do the trick), and if anything I end up feeling more sorry for the alien. On the plus side at least he got to leave the film before I did.

At the very least one would expect that this genre could yield way to some entertainingly cheesy US Army (oo-rah) bravura that typically turns an otherwise bad movie into a decent popcorn stuffer. But they couldn't even get that right. The dialogue here tragically lands on the wrong side of too much and makes the likes of 2012 and Top Gun look like Dostoyevsky, cramming as many clichés as possible into each exchange. Some scenes honestly look like a Seth Macfarlane parody.

It could have been a good film, it could have at least been a fun film. It's neither.


"Loves":
Decent special effects
Opening sequence sets the scenes for some mindless fun

Hates:
That "fun" never materialises
Messy production
Poor script

It was a weekend of sensationalist headlines and propaganda as operation Odyssey Dawn got underway in Libya. The push for a no-fly zone had been spearheaded by Great Britain and France for weeks, but it was only once a successful UN vote eased the United States off the fence that the idea finally found some traction. No doubt over the coming days and weeks a common theme will be the question of whether this conflict is the new Iraq war, and particularly the ramifications that concept may hold for the Nobel Peace prize winning President Obama. But just how apt is this comparison?



First the similarities that early adopters have already begun to trumpet; both Iraq and Libya are run by cruel and brutal dictators and are in possession of great quantities of oil, both are muslim countries. However this is pretty much as far as it goes, and as you can see, so far so superficial.

The obvious concern is that the coalition of Western powers may be walking into yet another quagmire, one that will create massive deficits, cost lives, and further strain relations between them and the Muslim world. This is particularly an issue of concern for Obama who has made reaching out to these formally unfavourable nations a cornerstone of his foreign policy with marked success, one might worry that this single act will jeopardise all that progress.

But these comparisons are, as I said, superficial at best, and the worries are premature. There is a great deal of difference between this conflict and the Iraq war that plunged a decade of American foreign policy into ruin.

First and foremost there is the fact that technically speaking this is not even a war yet. There are no ground troops committed, and no offensive action permitted against Gaddafi. Right now the only aims of the operation are to defend the Libyan civilians by disabling Gaddafi's attack forces. Far from Iraq's full scale invasion, this operation merely oversees aerial support. In this regard the conflict has a good deal more in common with Bill Clinton's cautious brand of foreign policy from the 1990s, which saw him launch similar bombardments on Iraq, Yugoslavia, Sudan and others, while remaining hesitant to commit America to long term conflicts. Few people would compare those events with what we saw under the Bush administration, as they seem so quick to do with this most recent conflict.

Further more, the situation in the region could not be more different than that which was seen in Iraq eight years ago. Libya right now is in a state of open civil war, with thousands dead, and conflict raging. The situation has become so dire that the Libyan people have actually requested intervention from the west. As Gaddafi continues to move into Benghazi and beyond, there is the very real risk that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Libyan civilians could be killed. This threat, simply put, did not exist with Iraq. That nation was relatively stable, and there was no clear reason to go to war, as evidenced by the Bush administration's constant jumping jacks between different excuses (WMDs? Terrorists? Humanitarian crisis? Oil? Pick your flavour of the week).

Perhaps most important is the difference in implementation between conflicts. The proper channels have been pursued in approving this operation cleanly and legally through the United Nations, something which was deemed to be an unnecessary waste of time for the Iraq War. As a result, the conflict is progressing multilaterally with the support of the UN, the international community, and most crucially the Arab nations in the region. Contrast this with Bush's illegally waged, unilateral war where he struggled to scrounge together any form of coalition to support him and went into Iraq against the will of the muslim world. From day one it was a catastrophe and one which destabilised international relations, particularly western/Arab relations, for a decade. Indeed, this time the United States even seems to be marginalising its role in the conflict, allowing Great Britain and France to take charge.

This radically different approach makes all the difference. The support of muslim nations will make it harder for Gaddafi's propaganda machine to demonise the Western interlopers, and the multinational support will bear the brunt and culpability of the conflict together, rather than making this "America's war" as was the case with Iraq. Add to this the lack of committed ground forces, and it is clear that this is a very different kind of conflict to Iraq, and one which carries far less risk.

The perception of the Iraq war was that the Bush administration fully and unilaterally invaded the muslim world, with scant multinational support, no legal justification, and a shaky moral standing. By contrast operation Odyssey Dawn is legal, backed by the international community, and only features aerial support missions. The former set international relations back several decades, the latter seems to be appropriately working within them. I suspect that it has been so long since we've seen a US President pursuing rational foreign policy that the gut reaction may be to compare this conflict to Bush's wars, but in reality the operation has far more in common with Clintonian foreign policy. We would all do well to maintain some perspective.

Genre Alternative
Label Self-released
Producer Nigel Godrich
Release Date 28th March (iTunes and stores), Out Now (Radiohead website)



Thom Yorke and his cohorts have returned with their long awaited follow up to 2007's critically acclaimed In Rainbows, but anyone expecting more of the same will go away bitterly disappointed.

More Kid A than Ok Computer, this latest offering takes a very deliberate step away from some of the band's more radio friendly releases, and taps into the Radiohead propensity for dark and broody experimentation. As a result, fan reaction has been somewhat mixed; praised by some as their finest work to date, dismissed by others as impenetrable and self indulgent.

The final product is work of a much lower tone and intensity, free of the kind of balladry that typifies their biggest hits. But low-key though it is, there is nuance here to be appreciated if one attempts to do so. This is certainly an album that requires multiple listens before an informed opinion can be reached. Fortunately, repeated listening is an easy challenge, as running just barely half an hour long this is also Radiohead's shortest album to date.

While the quality varies, the standout track has to be Codex, a hauntingly beautiful and atmospheric piece that will linger long in the memory. Elsewhere Little by little sees Yorke at his most angsty, while Give up the Ghost is a lush acoustic sonnet. Beyond these songs however, it is hard to find much else of note, the pitfalls of releasing such a small LP.

Whichever way you choose to look at this album, Radiohead at their worst are rarely anything other than interesting. The issue I have is that the King of Limbs never achieves or even seems to reach for the level of greatness that we have come to expect from the band. Especially when you consider the four year gap between albums, one can't help but be a little disappointed that we only have 8 tracks here, perfectly decent songs, of which few are particularly memorable.


Must Listen
Codex


Give up the Ghost


Little by Little

Directed by Danny Boyle
Written by Nick Dear, Mary Shelley (novel)
Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Jonny Lee Miller
Theatre National Theatre



Needless to say, I was excited when I first heard that Danny Boyle, who has cemented a reputation as one of the best film makers of his generation, was returning to his roots in the theatre. At the same time this is a director whose films often shine through their clever use of technology and editing, techniques which are not available on the stage. I was looking forward to seeing how Boyle would cope with a much more traditional medium.

Joining Boyle is previous collaborator Jonny Lee Miller, as well as up and coming star Benedict Cumberbatch. The two stars alternate roles every night between Dr. Frankenstein and his creation, the Creature, with the former thespian bringing to life the more emotional and animalistic side of the two characters while Cumberbatch revels in the colder, intellectual aspects. Both are superb.

However, this is not Shelley's Frankenstein. Here the focus is much more on the Creature, and less on Frankenstein himself as most dramatisations of the literature tend to be. Thematically then there is a shift from a tale of hubris and callousness to one of sorrow and tragic irony. The focus is much more on the duality of the two central characters, as underlined by the nightly role reversal between the two actors.

My first impressions upon entering the theatre were positive. The set design was intricate and creative, and reached out into the audience with surfaces coated in a skin-like bandage, and a bell in the centre of the room from which a heavy rope hung down into the aisle to be pulled by audience members.

The production itself starts with panache, as Mary Shelley's classic creature bursts forth out of artificial womb stark naked, writhing in agony for several minutes as he learns to stand and walk. Boyle-esque flourishes fill the excellent first half of the evening, lending the proceedings a helping of the director's unmistakably unique brand of magic. Especially notable is a complex array of ceiling lights which fizzes to life in order to emphasise the action on stage, and the impressive mechanical representation of a train which spews steam and noise to startling effect.

The stylistic peak is reached in an early scene where the Creature explores the world around him for the first time, birds shoot out of tree trunks as the sunrise arcs across the back of the stage; the lighting and staging is absolutely divine. In addition, each scene is sublimely complemented by the fine musical work of electronic band underworld.

But this really is a play of two distinct halves. The first is simply a spectacular sensory feast for the audience, focusing entirely on the Creature as he finds his feet in the world. Later on when the focus shifts over to Dr. Frankenstein, the script starts to plod, and the innovative staging suddenly takes a turn for the more conventional. Indeed perhaps there is a narrative justification for this, as the more uplifting first half is about learning and enlightenment of a naive and innocent Creature who gradually sees the darkness in the world, while the frostier second half switches to a jaded and distant Dr. Frankenstein. For those in the audience who find themselves as blown away by the opening as I was, the later change in pace may come as a let down.

Despite this, I was not disappointed by my night out, and frankly the entire event is so finely produced, staged and acted (by the two stars anyway- the supporting cast is actually a bit weak) that I can't see how anyone will be. Danny Boyle's latest piece of brilliance is one of the best theatrical productions I've seen in a long time, and possibly the best you will see all year.

song of the week: "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots: Part 1" by "The Flaming Lips"


thing that makes me smile today: Waking up, sans hangover thanks to the 2-pint water trick.

pic of the day
IN:
Tower Hill
Champions League
Beady Eye

OUT:
Liverpool St
FA Cup
Oasis

This Sunday, Hollywood's famous Kodak Theatre will once again play host to the biggest day on the cinema calendar, the Oscars. People all over the world will tune in for that most tragically popular of pastimes, celebrity watching, followed by four hours of forced laughs and real tears. This year the hosts will be James Franco, who is himself up for a best actor nomination, and Anne Hathaway.

As always, my loyal readers, I present to you some predictions for the big night. Some of you may not have seen the big films this year, others may not be familiar with the latest hype tearing through tinseltown; consider the following a crib sheet for what lies ahead this weekend, and perhaps even a sneak peek at who might just be walking away with the big prize.



Best Picture

Nominations:

• 127 Hours
• Black Swan
• The Fighter
• Inception
• The Kids Are Alright
• The King's Speech
• The Social Network
• Toy Story 3
• True Grit
• Winter's Bone

Who Could Win:
Once again I will bemoan the recently changed format for this award which sees the number of nominations increased from 5 to 10; ostensibly intended to avoid offending film makers, all that it really accomplishes is the cheapening of a best picture nomination.
This year the race is essentially between two films. If you had asked me two months ago who would win, I would have told you the Social Network, hands down. The film's buzz was through the roof, receiving universal acclaim, and given its topical nature and fresh approach to filmmaking it was highly expected to win favor from an Academy that is eager to shake its fusty old image. In fact the film had already done so with the early awards, sweeping both the Los Angeles and New York film critics' awards. Meanwhile The King's Speech was suffering from severe image issues, and a smear campaign appeared to be afoot regarding the script's accuracy with regards to the Royal Monarchy's prewar views on Nazi Germany, an issue which carries a lot of weight in Hollywood of all places.
However this has all changed in recent weeks, following the King's Speech winning the Directors' Guild award, typically seen as a reliable barometer for the Oscars. All of a sudden the King's Speech has an air of inevitability about it, an unstoppable force that has to be considered the favorite going into this weekend.

Winner:
The King's Speech


Best Director

Nominations:

• Darren Aronofsky - Black Swan
• Ethan Coen and Joel Coen - True Grit
• David Fincher - The Social Network
• Tom Hooper - The King's Speech
• David O. Russell – The Fighter

Who Could Win:
Typically you will find that the best picture and best director awards go hand in hand. For this reason we have to consider Tom Hooper, though I would be surprised if he won it. In all honesty he's a bit green for such an honor and though the King's Speech is a fine movie, the direction itself is not what stands out. Personally I would love to see Darren Aronofsky pick up his first Academy Award, but I feel his movie Black Swan will be considered "too weird" to win. My pick for this year's prize has to be David Fincher. If Social Network wins best picture this will surely be a formality but even if it does not, Fincher has drawn enough kudos for his work to be considered a narrow favorite here.

Winner:
David Fincher


Best Actor

Nominations:

• Javier Bardem – Biutiful as Uxbal
• Jeff Bridges – True Grit as Rooster Cogburn
• Jesse Eisenberg – The Social Network as Mark Zuckerberg
• Colin Firth – The King's Speech as Prince Albert / King George VI
• James Franco – 127 Hours as Aron Ralston

Who Could Win:
Probably the easiest one to call, I don't think there is a single person in Hollywood who is in doubt over who will win this award. One must feel bad for James Franco, as his tour de force performance could so easily have won in another year, but this time around the prize will definitely go to Colin Firth. Having come so close last year only to lose out to Jeff Bridges, there has been something of a sense of inevitability about this one since long before anyone had even seen the King's Speech, and Firth did not disappoint, turning in a masterful performance that will almost certainly, and deservedly, win him the ultimate prize for acting at last.

Winner:
Colin Firth


Best Actress

Nominations:

• Annette Bening – The Kids Are All Right as Nic
• Nicole Kidman – Rabbit Hole as Becca Corbett
• Jennifer Lawrence – Winter's Bone as Ree Dolly
• Natalie Portman – Black Swan as Nina Sayers
• Michelle Williams – Blue Valentine as Cindy

Who Could Win:
While a lot of positive things have been said about Annette Bening, this one too has a pretty clear favorite. Natalie Portman has wowed audiences with her raw and disturbing portrayal of a ballerina who figuratively and emotionally loses herself in her work. Pretty much a sure thing.

Winner:
Natalie Portman.


Best Supporting Actor

Nominations:

• Christian Bale – The Fighter as Dicky Eklund
• John Hawkes – Winter's Bone as Teardrop
• Jeremy Renner – The Town as James "Gem" Coughlin
• Mark Ruffalo – The Kids Are All Right as Paul
• Geoffrey Rush – The King's Speech as Lionel Logue

Who Could Win:
Geoffrey Rush is an actor of the absolute highest quality, and in a year where the King's Speech could well sweep the Oscars it is a distinct possibility that he could ride this wave to his second Academy Award. My pick, though, has to be Christian Bale, whose performance as the washed up, drug addicted ex-boxer Eklund was absolutely unforgettable and pitch perfect from the very first scene.

Winner:
Christian Bale


Best Supporting Actress

Nominations:

• Amy Adams – The Fighter as Charlene Fleming
• Helena Bonham Carter – The King's Speech as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon / Queen Elizabeth
• Melissa Leo – The Fighter as Alice Ward
• Hailee Steinfeld – True Grit as Mattie Ross
• Jacki Weaver – Animal Kingdom as Janine "Smurf" Cody

Who Could Win:
Finally a contest that's a little more difficult to predict. There's a lot of hype surrounding 14 year old Hailee Steinfeld, but I suspect it is mostly wishful thinking, as often happens with Oscar nominated child actors. Helena Bonham Carter is another good shout, especially if the King's Speech has a good night, but my crystal ball is telling me that she will go home empty handed. Melissa Leo gets my pick, with the veteran actress in fine form in the Fighter.

Who Will Win:
Melissa Leo


Best Original Screenplay

Nominations:

• Another Year – Mike Leigh
• The Fighter – Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson
• Inception – Christopher Nolan
• The Kids Are All Right – Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg
• The King's Speech – David Seidler

Who Could Win:
Good marketing will win this one for the King's Speech, a film that has been pitched time and time again for years until eventually landing this year.

Winner:
The King's Speech


Best Adapted Screenplay

Nominations:

• 127 Hours – Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy from Between a Rock and a Hard Place by Aron Ralston
• The Social Network – Aaron Sorkin from The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich
• Toy Story 3 – Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Lee Unkrich; characters based on Toy Story and Toy Story 2
• True Grit – Ethan Coen and Joel Coen from True Grit by Charles Portis
• Winter's Bone – Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini from Winter's Bone by Daniel Woodrell

Who Could Win:
I would love to see 127 Hours win this one, a delightfully underrated film whose screenplay accomplishes the impressive task of taking two hours of one person talking to himself and turn it into something truly compelling. That being, said the clear winner here is the Social Network's excellent script by Aaron Sorkin. It is convenient that the Oscars' two big favorites have landed in different screenplay categories, and I would bet good money that they will both win, one serving as an indicator of a victorious wave to come, the other as consolation.

Winner:
The Social Network

Genre Rock
Label Beady Eye Records
Producer Steve Lillywhite
Release Date 28th February



Liam Gallagher is the first comeback kid of 2011. Best known for his work as the frontman of 90s brit-pop sensation Oasis, most fans will nevertheless tell you that sibling Noel was the brains behind the majority of the band's hits, while Liam's role was to provide the charisma.

That being the case it may come as a surprise that this debut album from Liam's new band is actually quite good. Sometimes it takes a shock to the system to revitalise an artist, and the unexpected collapse of Oasis in 2009 certainly seems to have done the trick here.

While the music here never hits the heights of early Oasis and the likes of Wonderwall or Don't Look Back in Anger, it far exceeds the stagnant plod of their recent work. At it's best, Different Gear, Still Speeding is fresh and creatively diverse, while exhibiting a far greater level of nuance than anything we've seen from Liam in the past ten years.

The music beats with the telltale influence of classic masters such as the Who, the Rolling Stones and of course Liam's favorite inspiration the Beatles. But perhaps what impresses most about this latest work is his willingness to break away from the archetypes of which Liam has come to be expected, sometimes to the point of outcry among his fans as was the case with the high tempo debut single Bring the Light, which seamlessly blends an unexpected jaunty fifties piano riff with more modern pop sensibilities.

We catch a peek of Liam's gentler side with the excellently chilled For Anyone. Serving as a bridge between the boisterous, hard-rocking first half of the album and the more melodic second, the song channels the instantly catchy and light-hearted pop of the Beatles with staccato acoustic chords, playful bass line and airy vocals.

Wigwam, meanwhile, is pure John Lennon. One of the more musically evocative songs Liam has written, this serves as a highlight of the album. The music builds gently during the first half of the track, but gives little hint of the cathartic climax which awaits as Liam seems to vent the sum of recent struggles and shows us a falsetto which I for one didn't know he had in him.

Three Ring Circus takes us once again in a completely different direction, with a bluesy number that oozes classic rock, the undoubted pinnacle of the album follows with The Beat Goes On. Another unashamedly Beatles-inspired track, by all accounts they may just have perfected the sound here. Certainly the best song on the album, probably the best to come from a Gallagher since Don't Look Back in Anger.

The album finishes with another strong number in The Morning Son, a soulful and epic track that begins with faint acoustic murmurs but slowly progresses into a full on psychedelic belter. A perfect closer.

If this first effort is anything to go by, Liam Gallagher is certainly back in the limelight of the music scene after many years in the dark. The varied talents on show here bode well for the future of this latest musical project, and certainly come together in one of the stronger albums yet released in 2011.


Must Listen
The Beat Goes On


Wigwam
No link yet.

Bring the Light


The Morning Son

song of the week: "Harvest Moon" by "Neil Young"


thing that makes me smile today: Working in the Houses of Parliament.

pic of the day
IN:
House of Commons
Neil Young
Gareth Bale

OUT:
House of Representatives
Ink Spots
Luka Modric

Directed by Jeremy Herrin
Written by Richard Bean
Starring Juliet Stevenson, James Fleet, Johnny Flynn
Theatre Royal Court Theatre



Few British playwrights are considered more provocative right now than Richard Bean, who has seemingly built a career on mingling adroit social comedy with slightly more tone deaf political sensationalism. I recently had the pleasure of attending one of the preview performances of his latest play the Heretic, his return to the Royal Court Theatre which has been billed as another "daring" thought provoker designed to make the audience question the accepted norm of contemporary science.

Juliet Stevenson plays an Earth Sciences professor at Yorkshire university where she is ostracized and ridiculed for her controversial stance on climate change, at odds with the established wisdom of anthropogenic mechanism. She paints herself as an intellectual agnostic, drawing contrasts between science and faith while dismissing her detractors as zealots who have more in common with those who once blindly believed in the "flat Earth" model while scoffing at the unconventional hypotheses of Galileo.

Her ideals eventually land her on the receiving end of death threats from environmental activists and a suspension from the university at the hands of her boss and former beau, played by James Fleet. Elsewhere Stevenson's estranged daughter falls in love with a new student, played by singer/songwriter Johnny Flynn, two characters whose thematic purpose in this play seems to be little more than to serve as caricatures of today's impressionable and impulsive youth.

While I don't think a theatre review is the place to discuss climate science, ultimately I don't think it will matter as this play is unlikely to stir up much debate or controversy despite its best efforts. It's pretty clear that in researching this project Bean has sadly emerged much more muddled than he began.

I may disagree with his politics, or find myself bemused by his tenuous historical parallels, but there is no doubt that his underlying message is an important one: the need for distinguishing between science and faith, and the pitfalls of blindly accepting convention as opposed to always asking questions. The problem is that his message here is simply not particularly well thought out.

His observations are often hollow and superficial, with the implication being that his character's climate denial hypothesis is somehow made more credible by the fact that it is considered outside the mainstream. Presumably that would put the likes of David Icke or the "hollow earth theory" on a similarly valid footing. Unfortunately this seems to be as far as Bean takes his premise; needless to say it is hardly compelling food for thought for the audience to mull over.

This is my only criticism of this production, but it is a pretty major one; it tries so hard to create controversy without putting much thought into its conceit. This play is desperate to be a caustic political commentary, and it sadly fails in this regard.

In other ways the play is more successful. The dialogue is sharp and often hilarious and the comedic delivery is pretty much pitch perfect from its talented cast. If nothing else, you will have a good laugh and an enjoyable two and a half hours.

Bean attempts to explore the relationships of his characters; the mother daughter relationship, Stevenson's fizzled romance with Fleet's character, and young love. Often comparisons are drawn between these relationships and the play's larger themes, for example a series of photos showing Stevenson's daughter growing up alongside a tree that represents the body of her prized research, the two of which almost share the same fate as the scenes progress.

By this fashion Bean links the story's various conflicts, academic, political and personal but never seems confident enough in any of them to explore much further than is superficially necessary. As far as satire goes, the end result is more Richard Curtis than Mark Twain.

Even though so far I have been mostly negative about this production I have to say I did enjoy it. It's never as sharp or as poignant as it so desperately wants to be, but it is a witty and enjoyable night out, well acted and produced. Of course, this being a preview showing there were clearly a few wrinkles still to iron out, but I suspect the final product will be a lot smoother by next week when doors open to the general public.

song of the week: "Time to Wander" by "Gypsy & the Cat"


thing that makes me smile today: Finding work to keep myself busy for a few months.

pic of the day
IN:
Fernando Torres
Parliament
Fair Play

OUT:
Andy Carroll
Congress
Playing Fair

Genre Indie electro-pop
Label RCA Sony
Producer Dave Fridmann
Release Date TBA (US)



Lately the Australasia music scene has become one of the hottest in the world, with bands like Empire of the Sun, Cut Copy and the Temper Trap achieving major worldwide success, and some of the hottest upcoming artists hailing from the region.

The newest and possibly one of the most promising examples is Gypsy & the Cat, a band from Melbourne consisting of DJs Xavier Bacash and Lionel Towers. Preaching a similar brand of energised electro-pop that has become so fashionable among their ilk, Gypsy has already achieved quite considerable recognition in their homeland in the past year and it is considered to be only a matter of time before they break through elsewhere.

While it does a disservice to try to describe a band's sound through simile, try to picture an amalgamation of the serene melodic stylings of the Temper Trap and the delirious euphoria of Passion Pit, with a twist of 80s as garnish. The result is an extremely strong debut effort, ethereal and refreshing to listen to and brimming with quality. It's easy to listen to and unlike much of the genre it's not at all on the nose, overbearing or in your face, it's just a really good listen. Meanwhile producer Dave Fridmann, who has previously worked with the likes of MGMT, Muse and Mogwai brings a level of polish and consistency that most debut albums find elusive.

The first song Time to Wander leaps out immediately with airy synth, dreamy Cocteau Twins-like vocals and a spacious hook. The dance drums and retro vibe are easily recognisable, easily infectious, and a top notch start to the album.

Any good band knows to take things up a notch with the album's second track, this album follows with Gypsy & the Cat's biggest single to date The Piper's Song. An uplifting wall of indie pop, replete with 70s harmonies. This isn't a lyrical masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination but it is a finely crafted pop song, the kind that is put together by artists who truly understand why a melody stays in your head. With a drumbeat and bass line in tandem with countermelodies of the chorus, and a catchy effervescence that's difficult not to dance to, there is little doubt that the song succeeds.

We continue with the funky and danceable Jona Vark which could easily pass for a lost Empire of the Sun track, followed by the album's namesakeGilgamesh which is a decent slice of 80s nostalgia.

Sight of a Tear takes the tone down a bit and rounds off a strong first half of the album with its smooth vocals and infectious groove. Synth piano and clever modulation between high and mid pitch vocals make the chorus of this song one of the musically strongest moments of the album.

A more pedestrian second half is highlighted nonetheless by catchy number Breakaway, downbeat and soulful tune Watching me, Watching you, and most significantly by the infectious Beach Boys-infused track Running Romeo. The album finishes with an acoustic/folk departure from the norm in A Perfect 2.

Gilgamesh might not be lyrically the best album you will hear this year, but the music and vocals are consistently excellent with some memorable songs and unusually tight production for a debut effort. In the end what we have here is the first must buy album of 2011, and an early serious contender for the best debut band of the year.


Must Listen
Time to Wander


The Piper's Song


Sight of a Tear


Gilgamesh
No link yet.

Following last week's preview of 2011 in music, it is now time to turn our attention to the cinema. What follows is a quick rundown of the most exciting films due to hit the big screen in the next year, from the big blockbusters to lesser known gems. It's time to start getting excited about 2011 in film.



We're still in the midst of the 2010/11 Oscar season, the peak of cinema for a given year. Nevertheless, while the likes of the Black Swan and King's Speech continue to draw in the crowds and receive acclaim, already some of us are looking forward to the big cinematic events in the coming year.

So behold, here is the top ten list of key films to keep an eye on in the coming year (trailers linked in the title where available), starting with number 10:



10. Source Code


To call director Duncan Jones' (also known as Zowie Bowie, David Bowie's son) debut film Moon an underrated piece of work would not be entirely accurate. After all it received unanimous critical acclaim and appreciation from film goers as the so called saviour of intelligent sci-fi, and yet as an indie production it never really reached the kind of mass audience that a film of that quality truly deserves.

Now Jones is back with the backing of a studio and an entirely unrelated project, despite much speculation that his follow up would be loosely linked to Moon. He brings with him the always charming Jake Gyllenhaal and a talented cast featuring the likes of Vera Farmiga and Michelle Monaghan.

However while I feature this on the list because of the strong pedigree involved and the quality of Jones's debut, I can't help but worry that lightning might not strike twice, especially in the wake of Inception which appears at first glance to bear many similar themes.

Release Date: April 1st 2011


9. Margin Call


This is a very interesting looking one. J. C. Chandor makes his debut as both the writer and director of this film, and has a fantastic cast to work with including the unparalleled Kevin Spacey, Demi Moore, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Irons, Zachary Quinto and Stanley Tucci.

Filmed in the Manhattan financial district, the film itself taks place over a 24 hour period at a large investment bank during the recent financial crisis and follows the actions of group of employees during the collapse.

Promising a raw and personal insight into one of the defining events of our generation, it's a great concept, based on a poignant subject and featuring a terrific cast, I think this one could be pretty special. It's a dream project for a debut director, one which if handled right could demand the attention of critics come awards season. My only note of caution would be that as a rule one should always be skeptical of films released in the Spring time.

Release Date: April 15th 2011


8. Battle: Los Angeles


Heavily influenced by District 9 and its penchant for shaky cam, gritty realism and tastefully low (relatively) budget special effects, Battle: Los Angeles is inspired by the real life Battle of Los Angeles of 1942 which turned out to be a false alarm.

This time set in present day Los Angeles, this film follows a group of marines and airmen during a global alien invasion and features a cast which includes Aaron Eckhart and Michelle Rodriguez. Meanwhile if you needed any more reason for a District 9 comparison, the director is none other than fellow Johannesburg native Jonathan Liebesman.

This is a film that promises action, I'd bet my house that at least one helicopter will explode in slow motion before the credits roll, but hopefully it will take more than just stylistic effects from the likes of District 9 and afford a modicum of lasting potential.

If it does, then this is definitely going to be one to see in the cinemas.

Release Date: March 11th 2011


7. A Dangerous Method

Little has been seen of this film yet, but what we do know is that it is an historical biopic based on the turbulent relationship between Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and the woman who comes between them.

So far this sounds mildly interesting, but the clincher is that this film is directed by seasoned pro David Cronenberg, written by academy award winning Chris Hampton and stars Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbender and Keira Knightley. This film would be even higher up my list had Christoph Waltz been cast as was originally intended, but Mortensen is hardly a poor substitute as anyone who ever saw Eastern Promises can attest.

Meanwhile this will be the third collaboration between Mortensen and Cronenberg.

Release Date: TBA 2011


6. Scream 4


Nowadays, being described as a "slasher film" is the ultimate insult for any peddler of the horror genre. But it is easy for us to forget that there was a reason why these types of movies became all the rage back in the 90s.

Scream was the film which brought the genre to the mainstream, and you might just be surprised to re-watch it and remember just how good it is. The secret, it turns out, is that there is more to succeeding with this type of movie than just gratuitous gore and people jumping out of closets and shouting "boo"; Scream was as much a comedy as a horror film, with irony, deft social commentary and a wry wit about it.

For this reason we should all be very excited that the masters are returning with the hopes of once again revitalizing the genre. Wes Craven returns, Neve Campbell returns (I know, I'm surprised that she's still alive too) and David Arquette returns along with Courteney Cox. I personally await this one with some anticipation, and I know I'm not the only one.

Release Date: April 15th 2011


5. War Horse


Alright top 5, now we're talking. Steven Spielberg is back and he brings with him rising stars Jeremy Irvine and Benedict Cumberbatch and seasoned actress Emily Watson.

The project is an adaption of the play of the book of the same name, which tells the story of a war horse during world war 1 and his owner who embarks on a dangerous journey to find him.

The book and play both received much critical acclaim, and the film adaption comes with a stage experience cast and one of the most legendary film makers of all time. Frankly there's no way this one will miss, definitely a film to keep an eye on come the awards season.

Release Date: December 28th 2011


4. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy


Another safe bet for success, the infallible Peter Morgan scribes this adaption of the classic Le Carré novel. Directing the project is one of the hottest properties in Hollywood right now, Tomas Alfredson, whose film "Let the Right One in" was an breakout success and earned him a BAFTA nomination. The cast is an equally all-star affair, with the likes of Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ralph Fiennes and Tom Hardy all attached to the project.

The story is well known by this point. In the bleak days of the Cold War, espionage veteran George Smiley is forced from semi-retirement to uncover a Soviet agent within MI6's echelons.

It remains to be seen how they'll be able to squeeze the narrative, which was adapted previously into a seven part television mini-series, into an appropriate running time for a film, but early word suggests the final script is excellent and with the talent involved it's hard to see how this could fail to be good. The only question that remains is can they meet deadlines to get the film released this year.

Release Date: TBA 2011


3. Super 8


JJ Abrams is at it again; the man who brought us Lost, Cloverfield and the acclaimed Star Trek reboot returns with yet another mysterious project and plenty of his famous viral marketing.

Little is known of this project so far aside from the teaser trailer above, but Abrams describes the film as a kind of tribute to the classic Spielberg sci-fi from the 70s and 80s like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, a claim that is lent credence by the fact that Steven Spielberg himself is attached as producer. Kyle Chandler and Elle Fanning star, but beyond that your guess is as good as mine. Abrams is keeping this one close to his chest, as he does with all his projects.

Nevertheless, Abrams has established himself as one of the hottest directors at the moment and a reliable draw for both box office success as well as critical approval. Seeing this one in the cinema promises to be a real experience.

Release Date: June 10th 2011


2. Hugo Cabret


An absolute sure thing for contention in the next awards season, Hugo Cabret is an adaption of the bestselling book by Brian Selznick and stars Asa Butterfield, Chloë Moretz, Ben Kingsley and Sacha Baron Cohen.

So it's a good cast, but the important thing here is that none other than Martin Scorsese is directing the project, marking a departure from his usual film genre and also his first foray into 3d film making.

The film tells the tale of an orphan boy living a secret life in the walls of a Paris train station. When Hugo encounters a broken automaton, an eccentric girl, and the cold, reserved man who runs the toy shop, he is caught up in a magical, mysterious adventure that could put all of his secrets in jeopardy.

Great director, great cast, and a great sounding, awards friendly, plot make this film one which is difficult to see not being a hit. Get ready for the hype train... in about 10 months time.

Release Date: December 9th 2011


1. The Tree of Life


Somewhat less of a known quantity than some of the other films mentioned, and less of a safe bet come awards season. Still, this film is in my mind the most exciting of the bunch.

Starring the formidable talents of two of Hollywood's finest actors in Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, little is known about the film yet except that it tells the tale of a Texan boy's journey from the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as a "lost soul in the modern world", and his quest to regain meaning in life. Throughout the story we follow a narrative which weaves in and out of the present day and the entire epoch of time on this planet.

It's all very ambitious sounding from writer/director Terrence Malick, and it carries more than a whiff of Aronofsky's great catastrophe the Fountain, but I like ambition, I like the talent involved, and frankly the trailer looks great. This film will either be a masterpiece or an absolute mess, but there's not a cinephile alive who isn't eager to find out which.

Release Date: May 27th 2011



So this is my top 10 selection, the real crème de la crème of 2011 cinema, but there are other films that will undoubtedly be huge and mostly worth watching. We have a new Pirates of the Caribbean movie (mercifully with no more Bloom or Knightley, and plenty of Geoffrey Rush), Daniel Craig's new crazy bit of fun Cowboys and Aliens which will probably be terrible, and Hugh Jackman's Real Steel (think The Fighter crossed with Robot Wars).

That'll about do it, if you want more films than that then you're an even bigger cinema addict than I am, but do feel free to ask or suggest, as always.

Directed by Tom Hooper
Written by David Seidler
Starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter
Release date(s) Out Now
Running time 118 minutes

The King's Speech tells the story of Australian therapist Lionel Logue who tries to help King George the VI conquer his stutter at a time when the country badly needs an inspiring leader. Colin Firth stars as the aforementioned king, while Geoffrey Rush takes on the role of Logue.



A typical Oscar movie on the surface, the King's Speech is at heart a buddy picture with a regal twist. Logue and George play the proverbial odd couple, a fastidious and repressed King intellectually jousting with a brash common person from "the colonies". The film also offers a nostalgic and patriotic look at Britain in war time, drawing parallels between the King's triumph against adversity and the nation's own stoicism during the war.

Indeed the overall production is slick and stylish throughout, with finely honed cinematography doing wonders to bring alive early 20th century Britain, and impressive work done on the set and costumes in order to create the appropriate sense of place.

The real selling point of this film, though, is the acting, particularly with the two stars of the film. Geoffrey Rush is always excellent to watch and seemingly never puts in a bad shift. He doesn't disappoint here and gives a memorably funny and enthusiastic performance here.

But of course the main billing goes to Colin Firth, who has produced something of a masterful performance here. This is a difficult role for any actor, internalizing the tension and angst whilst maintaing a stiff upper lip façcade, and Firth absolutely nails it. This is a personal and nuanced performance, and one which makes Firth a safe bet to finally collect his Oscar.

Special note deserves to be made for the rest of this impressive cast as well, which includes Helena Bonham Carter in her best performance to date as the Queen mother, as well as the likes of Derek Jacobi, Michael Gambon and Timothy Spall. It's a fine ensemble cast.

So it's a slick production, wonderfully acted and well scripted. Really there is little at all to fault with this film. But this is the problem; it's finely polished and honed and a perfected craft, but that's exactly what we expected. There is little here that is fresh or original or daring, it's just all so predictable. It's a small complaint to have, but it's clear that no one here has tried to reinvent the wheel, but rather just produce a very fine and polished wheel indeed.

From the first scene onwards, it's clear that the King's Speech is set to be a contender at this year's Oscars, but will it's lack of ambition mar what is otherwise a thoroughly entertaining and fine production?


Loves:
Picture perfect production
Top acting

Hates:
Somewhat predictable

song of the week: "Wild Thing" by "Noah and the Whale"


thing that makes me smile today: Finally getting around to watching season 3 of Fringe.

pic of the day
IN:
High neck sweaters
Brad Pitt
Chelsea youth

OUT:
Turtle neck sweaters
Johnny Depp
Arsenal youth