Thursday, October 14, 2004
The Guardian are running this cunning series on "How to vote in America". Or possibly, "how to piss off people in Ohio" (but heck, it's only Ohio).
Hands up if you know where Clark County is on a map. Hands up if you know where Ohio is on a map. (It's the one just there, by that lake. Clark is a couple of counties east of Columbus, the capital, on the I70 [I looked on a map]).
I like the way the Guardian urges its readers to cajole their American friends into voting (and voting the right way). In my case, and of the Americans I've been in most recent contact with, there's an aunt. Who has lived out of America so long, I'm not sure she'd get a vote. No idea how she'd vote though. But given that's she's Texan, pretty right wing, and from a family who are rich up to the level of having all sorts of intricate tax "arrangements", I'm guessing she'd vote Republican [unless my uncle's liberalism has worn off on her].
Then there's the staunchly non-British Baltimorean [if that's the right word], who, er, came over on an exchange for a year, married one of my friends a year later, and is now living in Gloucestershire (she famously proclaimed, when talking about her ancestors, that "I have never had one drop of English in me". Which wasn't entirely true, depending on one's viewpoint). Given she spent her childhood in the south, is ridiculously gun-totting, and has some dubious thoughts on capital punishment, she could very well be another Republican. And I can't hope that her husband might moderate her, as he can be pretty "What's wrong with reading the Daily Mail?" [although he found the Sun more interesting].
The third American. The Alabamarite. She of signed-up-for-Peace-Corps, arrested-whilst-protesting-with-Martin-Sheen, liberal-arts-college. I'm guessing she could be a Democrat. So maybe I'll contact her - and she is currently living in Ohio. I will, I'll urge her to vote.
Except, the latest postcard from her [in keeping with our tradition, the picture side is gloriously bad, although I might be able to trump it, having found a museum selling a stash of hideousness, some of which appear to have been printed sometime in the sixties, and which have failed to sell in the intervening decades], details various parts of her life. Including the fact that she is out trying to get people to vote. That, and describing her country as "morally bankrupt".
I'm guessing there's not much need for me to act.
On the postcard thing, I'm glad it's not just me who notices random details, such as the postcard from Nashville [booted couple tangoing, crossed guitar and banjo, funky jukebox, very seventies children's book rainbow], being printed in Milan.
Onto to other stuff.
How to appear mysterious and intriguing
Carry a big camera. Take a long time to take a photograph [because I'm not very good]. Get hit on. Twice. In two different churchyards. One male, one female. I'm not sure which is more unsettling. Even people who are just walking past make eye contact and smile [except for the tweeded bugroffs, but they take an aversion to anyone under 45].
God knows what would have happened had I nicked the television camera from the camera crew having problems with the hill outside Vision Express. Probably all the corpses would start popping up to stroke my arm.
But having a camera with me, does mean I see a lot more than I usually would do. Like the sundial over Superdrug, or the strangely signless Gap beneath the facade proclaiming "Montague Burton" to be "The Tailor of Taste". Or how badly bent, and partially restraightened, the hands on the town clock have been. Or the sun catching the damp tyre tracks over the cobbles. Or the centuriesworth of bodged drainpipes. Or the alternating tracery patterns in the windows down one side of a church.
But it was low sun after rain, which I invariably like, in part for its ability to make one see things that never normally show. Or maybe carrying a camera allows me to just stand, and peer down alleys and through gateways, and see where things go [usually a cluster of accountancy and law offices, or the back of some shop].
And because I was wandering round Notacity yesterday, I happened to find myself in HMV. Again. And I happened to start buying DVDs. Which I really didn't need to do. Especially as I was dubious about buying the loss-leader, and then came out with several more than just the loss-leader. And I'm not even sure if the loss-leader was a loss-leader. It was Brief Encounter for £2.99.
Once again, the powers of "I haven't seen it, but is supposed to be good, and it is only X" kicked in. So I bought it. And have now watched it (yesterday, after discovering the joys of supposedly post rush hour traffic on the road between Tweeton and Notacity. At least I know my clutch works. And I do need to be doing more exercise). And unsurprisingly, my conclusion is yes, it's a good film. Superbly scripted, pretty well acted. Obviously not quite the same as a more modern film, but quite capable of resisting poor comparisons. Of course, there is a tinge of a childish response to all the uses of "turbly" and "rarely", but that's just being childish. There is also a confusing bit where Boots acts a library (but it's Boots, complete with toothbrushes), but these are minor niggles of an unthinking modern mind. In conclusion: for £2.99, buy it.
The rest of the buys are all films I've seen, and think are good enough to buy on cheapish DVD.
Local Hero ["We have an injured rabbit also", with, quoting from the dodgy cover, "Denis Awson", who, with an l, is Ewan MacGregor's uncle. The cover, like many of those of this set of DVDs, quotes one of the extras as "Interactive menus"].
Lost Highway. David Lynch. I'm waiting till Mulholland Drive gets cheaper.
Pushing Tin. Nice sane Americans.
Shallow Grave. Well, if they'd tried Loot...
The Shining. Nice saner Americans. Otherwise known as the Tricycle of Doom.
And is it me, or is every one of the frontpage reviews on IMDB negative? And each comments section seems to carry parts that suggest whichever film was a rip-off of a later film [I know it's wrong to expect more from the internet, but still...]. As for the person who reviews Brief Encounter, where to begin? If you've seen the film read Peter Hayes's review for sheer gofig value. It's full of the most basic errors. For example, he seems think that the two lead characters describing their respective spouses means that only one of them is married. Some of his comments make me wonder whether he has seen the whole film (and whether he was sober at the time). But with 214 reviews accredited to him, life in York must be extraordinarily dull.
Having scanned a few of his reviews (which largely read as "I don't get it"), including the one for The Office, in which he petulantly declares that (Slough is in the Midlands and not near London as some reviewers believe.), I can only conclude that the man is taking the piss.
Especially coupled with the first line of the first Google result [slough.gov.uk] reading Located in the South East of England, Slough is close to West London. There's such a thing as fighting the Londoncentrics and then there's just worrying.
Anyway, I'd better stop now, as not bothering to fully Fisk someone isn't all that fun [and fully Fisking him would change me into someone I wouldn't wish to be].
BTW, does anywhere know where the phrase "at this price lunacy" comes from? I'm sure it's some comedy show, but Google is steadfastly refusing to yield anything.
Anyhoo,
