Tom Cruise indoctrination video

The Tom Cruise indoctrination video that Scientologists don’t want you to see.

It’s nearly ten minutes long and about three of his sentences make an actual point. The rest is just rambling about what he knows…

My oh my!

My questions to you, Tom:

You know what  exactly?

And what is this it you keep talking about?

Watch it before it disappears again!

DNA. It could happen to you.

Now, I enjoy Stephen Colbert as much as the next person, but I do find him very inappropriate at times. Yes, I understand that it’s satire – and I do love me some satire – but there are some issues around us today which are not to be laughed at.

This week, one of the shows on The Colbert Report was called: “DNA. It could happen to you.” That’s not an offensive title by any means, and he was humourous about the science of DNA etc., but I object to the segment he did with a former prisoner who had recently been released when contrary DNA evidence was presented in his case. Colbert’s interview with the man – who was by no means as articulate or quick as Colbert – was based on the assertion that Colbert, as a ‘law and order man’, believed this chap’s conviction should not be overturned with DNA evidence.

It was all said in jest of course, and we weren’t supposed to be taking Colbert seriously, but I find making fun of such a serious issue objectionable. Innocent people have been executed because there’s been a lack of DNA evidence to clear their names; and now that such evidence is obtainable, I think it’s irresponsible to mock its use.

I’ll always laugh at Colbert’s reports on trivial matters, but when he starts to get derisory about crime and justice issues in a prison- and death-penalty-friendly country like America, it becomes unacceptable.

Spider-man 3

We went to see Spider-man 3 the other weekend. Now, I wouldn’t be a cinema-going-Spider-man-person if it wasn’t for Himself, although I’ll happily watch it on DVD. He’ll not like reading this, I’m sure, but he’ll know what I mean: I like Spider-Man as much as the next person, but it wouldn’t be the first film I’d pay a fiver to see in the pictures if the decision were down to me. Anyway, I’m not sure I’ll be so quick to pay it for Spidey 4 when it comes around.

Spider-Man three was all manner of adventurous with its three baddies and Spider-Man himself going all eviiiiilllll in the middle of it, but it was a shame that it went on for an hour longer than I could be bothered, and that two of the baddies were mediocre at best. Peter was funny and cute when he was being bad, and Harry was funny and cute when he was being good, so that kept me happy for the most part but it stopped there. [In fact, if they make a film of just those two things, I'll happily throw down my fiver on opening night.] MJ was a one-trick-pony as usual, but I’m not a huge Dunst fan anyway. (It’s the eyes, people! Her eyes are dead – they don’t light up, they don’t smile, they don’t look sad, they don’t look angry – they just sit there in her head like they need an electric shock to make them express. She has vacuous eyes.) Even Aunt May and the flashback clips of Uncle Ben couldn’t get my emotions running, this time. It was a bit of a non-starter in that way.

Meh and bleh, all told. Shame. There’ll be no excitement in this house for Spider-Man 4.

Paris Hilton thinks she’s above the law (in so far as she can ‘think’ at all)

I’m just going to quote FordPrefect because he said it so well here:

Paris Hilton is a stupid selfish whore. Oh, be as rude about her as you like! She’s famous for having sex on video, taking drugs on video and being racist on video so she can’t accuse other people of lowering the tone.

Paris Hilton is going to jail. Probably. Her counsel went with the I-forgot-I-was-banned-from-driving-when-I-drove defence because it’s vacuous enough to be true, but she got 45 days of glorious incarceration anyway. Try showing a paparazzo your coochie from in there. You can’t, can you? Where’s your rat-dog now?

But Paris Hilton thinks she deserves special treatment and has petitioned Gov. Schwarzenegger to intervene. People who think celebrities (and I use the term loosely, like I called her a “woman”) should not be above the law are counter-petitioning. Please, Lord, give us this one thing.

She really is a vile and despicable human being. I’m a-signing…

Spider-man 2; Stranger than Fiction; The Illusionist

Two posts in one day? ‘God save us and bless us’, as me mammy would say!

–

I’ve seen a lot of films recently, I think. I can’t actually remember what half of them were.

I do remember Spider-Man 2 though. Yes, I enjoyed it – it was good. Shut-up! You know who you are!

Then there was Stranger Than Fiction, which was very enjoyable although I have to confess that I wasn’t in the mood for it at all. Will Ferrell is very, very funny and plays an excellent straight man, and I think this is the first film I’ve seen with Maggie Gyllenhaal where I haven’t wanted to punch the screen. The premise is simple (I think): a tax man (or whatever his correct title would be), Ferrell, wakes up one morning to find that his life is being ‘narrated’ as if he were part of a novel. As it turns out, he is part of a novel and his life becomes something of a race to make sure that he’s not killed; in both the novel and one assumes, reality. The viewer develops an unexpected affection for the tax man, and it all gets rather emotional and intense towards the end (French and I were a little teary, I’m not ashamed to admit). I suppose this film’s all about personal change and growth, how we adapt ourselves unwittingly and often unselfishly for other people, and how happiness and fulfilment can come in very unpredictable forms. Recommendation: great Sunday afternoon viewing provided you’re not feeling too teary already.

Oh, and there was also The Illusionist starring the wonderful Ed Norton, who never fails to please. Nothing is what it seems, the tagline said, and right it was until half way through when Scottish figured out what was happening and then all was very much as it seemed. The illusionist son of a carpenter, Norton, falls in love with an aristocratic duchess, Biel, and she with him, before they’re forbidden to ever see each other again. They meet by chance later on in life, and rekindle their affair. Yes, love will conquer all or summinck, and a little bit of magic goes a very long way indeed. It’s certainly not Norton’s best work, and there were a few disappointing inconsistencies at the end, but I enjoyed my viewing for the most part. I’d quite like to see Rufus Sewell in a role where he’s not the horrible bad guy (even if he does play one very well) but sure it’s no matter. Recommendation: wait for the DVD. Better still, do a sneaky download.

I’ve still not seen Hot Fuzz. Disgraceful, I know.

A Scanner Darkly; Spider-Man; Superman Returns

I watched two films last weekend: one I’ve been dying to see for ages, and the second I swore I’d never see.

The first was A Scanner Darkly, which is an adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s book of the same name. What made this film stand out, for me, is the way it was put together. It was filmed as normal and then ‘animated over‘. I don’t understand what that means, of course, but the effect was quite remarkable. (The effect for me was that it was more visually engaging than a regular film and less abstract to watch than a lot of animation.) A Scanner Darkly also sports a rather famous cast, and it’s worth watching for Robert Downey Jr alone. Keanu Reeves was predictably wooden (thank the Gods they ‘animated over’ to disguise how awful he is if nothing else), Winona Ryder was a bland as I always find her, but Downey Jr made up for both of them by being a rather adorable lunatic. In any case, if conspiratorial, paranoid and often close-to-the-bone hedonism is your thing, then you should watch this film as soon as you can. You won’t regret it. If nothing else, you’ll be chuckling about Barris (Downey Jr) for days. Also, if you get a chance, read up about Philip K. Dick’s life. He was a fascinating, if very unhinged, guy.

The second was Spider-Man. I’ve never seen this film, mainly because I don’t really like this sort of thing (and I don’t spend enough time seeing the sort of thing I do like) but I was convinced to try it at the weekend. (I should add that I’ve generally managed to avoid that nondescript drink-of-water Tobey Maguire, and that other nondescript squeaker Kirsten Dunst, until now and I’ve been pretty happy about that, but I seem to have broken that run now.) But I watched it, and I didn’t sneer, and I have to admit here and now for all the world to see that I really liked it. I didn’t love it, but I didn’t want to turn it off either. Maguire and Dunst turned in acceptable performances, but aside from that, it was just a darned good action film with swinging around the place, and baddies, and silliness, and plenty of tension. I was pleased to see William Dafoe in the leading cast, even if his character was completely naff, and Aunt May was just wonderful. I can’t quite believe it myself (and don’t tell anyone, ok?) but I’m looking forward to seeing Spider-Man 2 now. Shhh!

Oh, and I must tell you how much Scottish and I laughed when we watched Superman Returns recently! Superman seems to have become a big camp mannequin in his time away, and Lois has turned into an even punier (and more annoying) version of herself. It was truly hilarious! Kevin Spacey, though, is nothing short of God-like. Seriously! You heard it here first…

January downloads

Here follows a list of albums to download (for my own use, really):

The Good, The Bad and The Queen – Self-titled. I wasn’t very impressed with their previous three-song release – Herculean – but I’m generally a fan of Damon Albarn’s work. They’re worth a second shot.

Norah Jones – Not too Late. I’m not a huge fan of Jones, but downloading is freeness and therefore I’m in. She’s good to read to, I’ve found.

The Hold Steady – Boys and Girls in America. I’m never sure how to describe the Hold Steady apart from to note that they’re good and honest rock and roll. And I suppose that’s as good a reason as any to give their third album a good listen.

The View – Hats of to the Buskers. The last thing the Pod needs, frankly, is another Young Generic Indie Guitar Band, but I can’t resist the temptation (again, see freeness). I think I’ve heard two tracks from this crowd on Jo - I Love Everyone and Think Every Single Song in the World is Magic and Brilliant - Wiley’s Radio 1 show and I didn’t like either of them, but at least I’ll know for sure when I’ve listened to the album in full. The ‘Libertines-inspired’ comment in Q isn’t the best recommendation they could have, though, I’m sure.

That’s it for now, I think. It’s a slow month, I dare say.

– — – — –

I skivved off the office today. I really do have the best ‘job’ in the world. I worked at home, though. Honest, guv!

Poor work BBC; very poor work

I’m rather shocked about this. A ‘private’ interview with Tom Stephens (the prime suspect in the recent Ipswich murders) was transmitted to the general public yesterday. The BBC justified this decision as follows:

We felt there was a compelling public interest in letting the public hear what he had to say. He knew all five of the murdered women, two of them well. He had much to say about the world of drug dealers and financial pressures in which they lived. On balance it seemed to us to be wrong to deny people the opportunity to hear his thoughts on the events of the past few weeks.

Of course, we reflected long and hard about the legal and ethical issues this interview raised. We are confident that nothing we have broadcast could prejudice any future trial. We also reached the conclusion that nothing we broadcast could reasonably be expected to impede the ongoing police investigation. A full copy of the interview had been made available to the police.

Ultimately our judgement was based on what we felt would be right for our audiences – should there be an opportunity to hear the interview or did it remain inappropriate to broadcast something recorded six days earlier on a different basis? In the very rare circumstances of this case, we took the decision to share Tom Stephens’ account.

Ultimately, this man has not been found guilty of any crime (the police haven’t even finished interviewing him) and the fact that he knew all five victims is still only circumstantial. In the UK we seem to pride ourselves on having an informed and ethical criminal justice system, but surely that must be questioned when we see actions like this being taken. Why did the BBC decide that the general public needed to hear what this man said about the world these women lived in? And why does such an opinion apply to this case and not others? Why don’t we hear the interviews of other suspects in other cases? And what exactly constitutes an ‘exceptional change in circumstances’ and why does this matter?

Might the BBC’s decision be more around the newsworthy nature of this interview (and case) and might their broadcasting it for all to hear be because it’s a juicy and sensational story that’s good for viewer ratings (everyone loves a good story), and nothing at all to do with what they seem to be calling an obligation to the public? I just hope if it’s found that Stevens is not connected with these murders, the BBC hasn’t jeopardised a further investigation into these crimes. And I don’t for a second believe that this decision will have no effect at all on a forthcoming trial. The whole point of the media is to inform the public (albeit in a biased manner, normally) and to encourage debate and discourse. I can’t help but think that this particular case should be kept as classified as possible until a resolution is reached.

Hannibal 4eva

Silence of the Lambs was one of my favourite films back in the day. When I read the book later, I appreciated it for what it was: a well written and engaging thriller. I never did read Red Dragon (which is about Lector during his pre-Lambs days, I think) but I believe the film was passable if you’d nothing better to do of an evening. I was intrigued, however, when I heard about Hannibal (Lector in his post-Lambs days) and I decided that I would give it a go. I’d even been told by a few people that they’d finished all 576 pages of it in a week! I think someone I know polished it off in four days! To say that it was the worst book I’ve ever read (second only to the The Da Vinci Crap) doesn’t do the awfulness of this book enough justice. I battled through it for six whole months, determined to reach the end of it, and read countless other books in the meantime. It was simply dreadful, and I’ve made a point since of telling that to anyone who’ll listen. So, you can imagine my delight when I read this review in the Guardian of Hannibal Rising (Lector as a kid I think, although surely they’ve run out of decades by now!) which contained such gems as:

The fall, as the French don’t call autumn, was late that year as Lady Murasaki nursed Hannibal back to speech. First, a farting flubber sound; then fully formed words.

Notice how the text switches to italics and the present tense. Recognise the hand of a master storyteller with no editor.

“We have reached that random point in the plot where I need to introduce some looted art treasures,” said Popil. “So I need your help tracking down your family’s long-lost Leonardos and Titians.”

“Ah, good,” laughed Hannibal. “I expect the looters are the same people who killed my family. That will give me an excuse to go to Lithuania and kill a few of them in graphic detail.”

Hannibal smiled. He had got away with his greatest crime to date. A bestselling thriller with no thrills at all.

It’s been a while since I’ve read such a disparaging book review, and although I will never, ever turn a page in the book, I’m absolutely certain that none of it’s unfair.

2,000 BFFs

At what point is it just not personal anymore, I asked myself this afternoon as I deleted someone from my journal who has almost 2,000 friends listed.c

Realistically, when is he ever going to say, ‘tenderhooligan, I saw this on your journal recently and I …’ or similar when he’s supposedly reading 2,000 people? And I wondered where the cut-off is between keeping a friends list because you’re actually interested in the people you have there, and keeping it just for the sake of popularity. No one could possibly keep up with 2,000 journals and expect to remember the detail in any of them, so what is the motivation for listing that many people? Now, I’m not the best journal friend in the world I’m sure, but I know from reading today that L had a terrible hangover on Saturday, that J and C were in Glos for the weekend, that F is still wittering on about Pop Idol, that G sleeps in matching flannel pyjamas, and that T walked a mile and a half home this morning having put away his share of four bottles of wine and numerous cans of beer. (You’re a braver man than I.) None of this information is life-saving (or life-threatening), of course, but if you call the people on your friends list your friends, it’s surely because you like to read these little things about them and their lives. That’s what it’s all about, if you ask me (which you didn’t), and not just adding person after person so that everyone thinks you’re the most popular person in all blogland.

I’ve deleted him now anyway – I wonder if he’ll notice. See, I would notice!

And here, in keeping with the theme, have some useless information about me today: I’ve just eaten the bitterest Granny Smith apple I’ve ever had. It actually brought tears to my eyes. So, there you go.

(I actually got rather annoyed writing that post, as it happens. It seems that I’m very easily irritated about the things that matter least these days. And not nearly passionate enough at all about the things that matter most, alas: namely finishing of a thesis.)