Posted in August 2009

Weekend roundup

In the last week on Paperhouse: not much, blogwise. A Venue review of Tom Craine’s stand-up show and a short interview; a long and loving review of Alasdair Gray’s last novel originally published in the ORB; my first feature for the New Statesman, on government funding and support for the games industry; one original Paperhouse piece, noting Peter Hitchens’ idiosyncratic approach to evidence; and a CiF entry on the abuses of evolutionary psychology by headline writers.

The top five most-read posts on Paperhouse were, unsurprisingly, mostly old:

  1. Conserving ignorance
  2. About Sarah
  3. Mirror’s Edge: Seeing Is Believing
  4. The stripped-down documentary
  5. Film reviewing the Christopher Hart way

And my hackery has been powered this week by Fugazi. See you after the weekend/tomorrow!

Tagged

[Comment is Free] Men and women? Both from Earth

I have a new post up at the Guardian’s Comment is Free section. Why is evolutionary psychology so popular with headline writers?

Evolutionary psychology promises big answers – and best of all for headline-writers, the big answers all have to do with sex. In its academic form, it’s an effort to interpret human behaviour in the light of our genetic heritage – data from psychological and behavioural studies, archaeological and anthropological data can all be thrown into the big narrative of how humans bred their way out of the caves and into the cities. The information it draws on is, or should be, empirically established observations. The stories evolutionary psychology tells with that information are speculative.

For more about why the Telegraph thinks you need to keep your eye on your big-chinned lady, and why this misrepresentation depresses me so utterly, read the rest of the article…

Tagged , , , ,

Conserving ignorance

Is it ever worth responding to a Peter Hitchens piece? The New Statesman invited him to provide the counterpoint to Medhi Hassan’s “actually, the BBC is right-wing” argument. Hassan’s feature is – I think – a tightly argued piece of journalism, drawing on verifiable details about the careers of high-profile BBC personnel and analysis of the corporation’s new content. It strongly makes the case that the BBC has no case to answer in terms of left-wing bias.

How does Hitchens reply? By saying that party bias is not the issue (even though the Hassan piece focused more on policy bias) and arguing cultural bias instead. Quantifiable cultural bias, no less – although Hitchens, as ever, has trouble telling the difference between something that is capable of being quantified, and something that already has been:

Were I a multibillionaire, I could commission the proper research into nuance, tone of voice, who gets the last word, presenters’ backgrounds, running order, drama, soap operas and cultural coverage, that would demonstrate beyond any doubt that the BBC is on the side of the cultural and social revolution that I and many other licence-fee payers oppose with all our hearts.

New Statesman, “They hoped I’d be pro-torture”

Actually, you don’t have to be a multibillionaire to commission this sort of study. You could be jobbing journalist like Nick Davies, or even (at the time) a jobbing comedian like Al Franken, and recruit a group of research students to your project. Hitchens could access the sort of information he is hoping for, but his interest in knowledge ends long before it could have any influence over his opinions – his feelings about the BBC (like his feelings about drugs, families and the monarchy) come from his gut, and he emits them with the same thoughtfulness you’d give to any other stomach contents.

Related:
Abort the antichrist! (BBC drama does pro-life)
They’re coming to stick pins in your children (more of P Hitchens failing with numbers)

© Sarah Ditum, 2009

Tagged , , , ,

[New Statesman] OK computer

What role can the government play in supporting the creative industries? I started wondering about this when I read games developer David Braben’s interview with Alex Wiltshire for Edge, and the result is this feature for the New Statesman:

The recession has hit the creative industries, for years an important element of New Labour’s vision for a post-industrial economy, and hit hard. Its effect on established areas such as television and print media has been particularly brutal. Yet video games have quietly gone from strength
to strength. Last year, worldwide retail sales of games rose to $32bn (overtaking those of DVD and Blu-ray), with many of the most exciting titles coming out of UK studios.

For the full story on what video games can bring to the economy, how universities are struggling to turn out the sort of graduates the creative industries want, and what the government and opposition are proposing to do about it, read the rest of the article…

© Sarah Ditum, 2009

Tagged , , ,

Features update: [Book review] Still Learning

The features page is filling out. I’ve just added my review of Alasdair Gray’s Old Men In Love, originally published in the Oxonian Review Of Books:

From most novelists, a title like Old Men in Love would be an unappealing prospect. It contains intimations of one of the more distressing sub-genres of fiction — the dirty novel by the aging writer, unaware that there are few things as unpleasant as an old man taking an interest in the sex lives of young women.

Read the rest of the review here.

Tagged , , , ,

[Comedy review] Tom Craine

Tom Craine, Comfort Blanket at the Ustinov Theatre, Bath (30 July 2009)

Tom Craine person

Sweetly anxious nonsense sets up dark flashes of brilliance in Tom Caine’s giddily self-conscious show. Loosely wrapped around the theme of worries and consolations, Caine’s crowd-embracing question “Does anyone else here do that?” tends to get a response of surprised agreement – he skips past the normal pound-shop observations and into a raw and funny world of exaggerated confessional. “It’s all true,” he promises, then adds: “Well, except for that bit.”

With a nervy, head-scratching, hand-twisting stage presence, Caine comes off as a likeably unthreatening neurotic – which means there’s even more comic force when a black punchline, such as becoming an accidental sex-offender through predictive text, punctures the act. 

stars copy

After the jump: [Paperhouse extra] Tom Craine interview Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Weekend roundup

This week on Paperhouse: how I tried and failed to be a junior capitalist, and learned that maybe I’d be more successful as a tree; my friend Chris shared the state of his soul after eight months of watching (and writing about) a movie a day; Adam and Joe found the lyrical side of the glossy tabloid; and I went to see a play, and the play was very good. In boring typographic news, I also discovered the uses of the square bracket in titles. More ecstatically punctuated fun will surely follow.

The top-five most viewed posts for this week were:

  1. Mirror’s Edge: Seeing Is Believing
  2. The Liz Jones theory of just war
  3. [Guest post] One man against the movies
  4. Grows on trees
  5. About Sarah

And, as I’ve had a birthday this week, here’s a song that’s nearly as old as me and incalculably more perfect. See you after the weekend!

[Theatre review] How The Other Half Loves

How The Other Half Loves, at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, Scarborough

How The Other Half Loves

It would barely be an insult to say that the cast of Alan Ayckbourn’s ingenious farce is out-acted by the set. It wouldn’t be true – every one of the six parts is sharply delivered by the actors, whose acute sense of timing makes ever punchline a fresh surprise and every character something more than a cog in the comic machinery. But, when the stage design is this good, it couldn’t be considered a slight on anyone’s skill.  

Performed in the round, this extraordinarily funny play demands that two different domestic sets – one immaculate upper-middle class, one untidy lower-middle – can be created from the same props in the same scene. On the half-lit stage, furniture is dismantled and recombined in strange cut-and-shut shapes with an easy audacity that matches the outrageous (yet precisely designed) separations and attachments that take place (or are assumed to take place) between the three married couples.

For a farce, the problem is to push the characters embarrassment to the point where it’s excruciating for the audience, but never so far that things can’t be put back to how they were for the end of the final act. Here, it’s a well-crafted magic trick – the audience never quite knows where things are going, but Ayckbourn has every angle covered. 

The ecstatic laughter comes, not just from the characters’ sly and increasingly frantic evasions, but also from the play’s daring escape from every seeming impasse of the plot. (The slapstick gag that ends the first half and unites the two onstage rooms is a perfectly-executed example.) How The Other Half Loves plays its audience hard, but never cheats – or, if it does, the rippling pleasure of the constant laughter it gives you is enough to make you embrace it anyway.

*****

Text © Sarah Ditum, 2009

Tagged , , , , ,

“Who is wearing what, and why!”

Grazia magazine, you have brought me many joys. You savagely upended the market for both women’s tabloid mags and the fashion glossy. You have taught me the ways of “treggings” and “jeggings”, and in what instances these items should be tucked into my gladiator sandals. And, all too briefly, you provided a venue for Liz Jones’ marital squabbling.

Cheryl-Cole-Grazia-Front-CoverFor most magazines, those would be achievements enough. But Grazia has given so much more, because Grazia has also inspired Adam and Joe to create these magnificent musical settings of one issue for a Song Wars outing. Confessional journalism in a calypso style, and the existential confusion of reading the contents page – let’s go!

Too Beautiful For A Cranky Old Bag Like Me (Adam)

This Week In Grazia (Joe)

Download the Adam and Joe Song Wars Classics podcast.

Text © Sarah Ditum, 2009

Tagged , ,

[Guest post] One man against the movies

Chris – of Vs Cinema fame – set himself the target of watching one film for every day of this year and writing about it. This is what it’s done to him…

I’m trying to watch and review one film for every day of the year. I go through a weary routine, once a day, of deciding what to watch. It’s usually late, and I scrape through the ever-growing stack of DVDs to find the one nearest 90 minutes in length (less if I’m lucky) that I haven’t watched. As a result there’s a group of historical epics that are taunting me from the corner, but that’s a lot of Sunday afternoon material to wade through.
 
I’m not complaining: this has been a revelation for me. At the start of the year I faced another 365-day stretch of my twenties wandering through a life brimming with potential I had no intention of ever tapping. A sudden decision on 1 January to watch a string of films I’d had knocking around became a nascent idea. The idea, with some help from a few friends, became a set of rules, and then a website (with an AWESOME banner from artist Ed Clews). All of which follows gently in the tradition of Dave Gorman and Danny Wallace, but with less booze.
 
I’m forcing myself to write constantly as a result. I’ve always fancied earning some money through writing – it seems like a wheeze, right? The Vs Cinema idea has given me something I haven’t had before: structure. It’s given me a focus on writing and I couldn’t be more pleased about that. It’s also forced me to admit one thing I may have taken for granted at the outset – I’m not actually that good at writing. I’m working on, it but I’m certainly not happy with what I produce yet. There are moments, but they aren’t common enough to be called form.
 
There been some other huge benefits from this. Initially I asked around for some help on gathering some of the classics but it wasn’t long until the requests started. People in my office brought me DVDs unsolicited and asked for a review; some arrived by post wanting my input and my opinion on the blog. It’s a fantastic feeling, such a boost to an ailing ego, to have even the tiniest interest from anyone else – even if you do end up giving their film a kicking.
 
Then there’s the downside. Watching the endless stream of disappointing, turgid dross that some people actually like. At times I feel like cinema’s own self-appointed Simon Cowell watching one entry after another, with deeply average results. Except I don’t get millions of pounds for it: I don’t get a penny. So far, my one attempt at pitching an article to a publication resulted in one of the most disappointing brush-off emails I’ve ever read. But I’ll have another crack at it.
 
This year hasn’t turned out to be the quiet 365 I expected. Firstly, I’m due an addition to the family in a month or so. I hope he likes historical epics. Second, I start training to be an English teacher around the same time. Some pretty big changes that suggest I’m not going to hit the target. Nowhere near at a guess. But I’m not too bothered – I’m enjoying it too much.
 
I’m pretty certain that I’ll be Vs Cinema for a while now, perhaps not as prolific, perhaps with a touch more quality control and probably with a quick change to that banner too. But still battling on through the stacks.

© Chris Warrington, 2009

Tagged , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,132 other followers