Movie review - "Cromwell" (1970) **

It's Richard Harris vs Alec Guinness and Guiness wins by a knock out. The English Civil War has always been problematic in the movies - because Parliament was obviously the right side, but they were dull Puritans with funny hats who hated sex and theatre, whereas the Royalists were dashing and romantic but at heart violent dictators.

Cromwell was a fascinating man, a sort of suburban Rotary Club manager who due to history discovered a genius for military and political leadership. Harris is not only miscast he is extremely irritating - every time the camera goes on him he goes "Great! I get to act!" and sets about yelling and chewing the furniture. You are enjoying the film then they cut to him and its like "oh shut up". Contrast with Guiness' Charles I - Chuckie was an amiable idiot, a lousy king and despot but Guiness gives him shades and dimensions and you feel sorry for him having his head chopped off even if it was the right thing to do. 

Some decent enough supporting performances. The direction is OK and it covers the Civil War basics but it is a bit dull.

Opening of MIFF

I went to this last week - the opening night film was 2:37. They kept everyone in suspense, didn't let us know til the last minute what the actual film was. I thought it went down pretty well. It was the last festival for the director James Hewison who seems to have inspired genuine respect and affection. Geoffrey Rush gave a lovely speech - what elocution.

The film was a bit full on, incest and the like - I mean the Premier was there - but to shy away from that and you wind up with Royal Film Command Performance stuff. Afterwards the director gave a lovely speech, took a photo of the crowd (nice touch). Went to the after party, though not really dressed for it. Saw various celebs: Bud Tingwell. several former Love My Way-ers and Secret Life of Us-ers, Mr Rush, and so on.

Book review - "Open Wide"

A fascinating and depressing book about modern marketing in Hollywood, especially the blockbuster films. It follows the marketing path of three films that opened over the same weekend in 2003, all shockers - Terminator 3, Legally Blonde 2 and Sinbad. Yuck! But this is kind of good since the films were all made without passion, just to make money, so you can concentrate on the business side of things. The two writers, both for Variety, have done their work. They put things in a historical perspective, paying tribute to the work of men like Joe Levine and Billy Laughlin. The numbers stuff is fascinating - Hollywood loves certainty, but can still never quite achieve it.

Book review - "Loyalists" by Peter Taylor

As a protestant I admit I felt a kinship for protestants in Northern Ireland - the Catholic Irish got a lot of sympathy and good press over the recent decade, often through Hollywood, where the battle is often portrayed as "oppressive English - poor Catholics". The problems and fears of protestant Irish never seemed to get a decent look in.

But reading this book one thing becomes clear - they are all nutters.

Actually that's not fair - only some of them are nutters. But enough to have caused unneccessary destruction and misery for 25 years.

And the Catholics are nutters, too.

From this book which is written by a journo with experience of over 20 yrs in that troublesome part of the world it seems it went like this: protestants planted in Northern Ireland fiercely attached themselves to England, had a justifiable fear of Catholics which has never gone away. They had success cutting out their slice of the world in the 1910s under the indomitable Edward Carson - another successful "siege" to follow the siege of Derry. This perhaps unduly encouraged them to "hold out". So when in the 1960s civil rights workers and Catholics justifiably complained about the gerrymander and inherent legal persecutions against Catholics, the Proddies dug their heels in, viciously and even to the point of violence. So in a way the Proddies started it (or at least accelerated it first) - but when the IRA and co got going they really got going and overtook it. Then the Proddies started up their own terrorist groups, the UDA and UVF, who never really got the PR of the IRA probably because they concentrated on Northern Ireland whereas the IRA went off shore and blew up things in England and killed people in Europe.

They were nutters - they were all nutters. Horrible thing was in the 70s the IRA would kill some innocent person, then to get revenge the Proddie nutters would go kill a Catholic - not an IRA person just any Catholic they could get their hands on. Then to geet revenge the IRA would kill any proddie they could get their hands on. They were lazy. That's why it was so horrible, many people just wanted to go along their own way but couldn't because of lazy terrorists. By the late 80s and early 90s the info of the terrorists improved (the IRA claimed British intelligence were leaking stuff to the proddies to help wipe out the IRA and it seems the proddies regained the upper hand in the first bit of the 90s) but innocent people are still being killed. Finally they seem to have calmed down.

How could it have been avoided? Knowing less about history would have helped - Ireland is a terrific example for those who think history shouldn't be taught in schools. You could force mixing. Certainly marches that inflame clashes could have been stopped. People get so hot and bothered. They all needed to take a cold shower.

I always thought the best thing to do would be have a federated Ireland, with all the rights of both parties constitutionally protected. This was floated in the 70s and 80s but was knocked back.

I can't believe they allowed all those terrorist prisoners to be kept up like prisoners of war (on both sides) AND let them out of gaol - what happened to the rule of law? But if that's what it took to get peace done, then, well... It also seems silly to go on about disarmament. The British government seems to have been justified to treat the whole damn place like a pack of children in the 70s.

Because the protestant side often doesn't get much of a guernsey here but is very much the root of the problem this is an endlessly fascinating book. Well researched, it seems to be fair, so accordingly is frustrating and heartbreaking to read. So many people didn't want peace - there wasn't an urgency for violence, it wasn't a matter of survival. So many of the killers convinced themselves they'd be normal if they didn't live there in that time - wasn't anyone teaching them that there were other ways? So pointless. Such a waste.

Book review - "Winner Takes All" by Michael Winner

Memoirs of the British director Michael Winner who was loathed as few directors have been in his home country. Looking back on his career you wonder why - probably too many crappy action films in the 70s many with Charles Bronson. I say crappy while admitting I haven't seen too many - the first Death Wish which he directed was very good. Winner was a lively precious person, the sort of person who would be annoying, but he was productive, very pro active and has done very well for himself. Nowadays he keeps busy from ads and his journalism.

His 70s Hollywood films seem to have lost him the strong critical reception he obtained in the 60s with his London films (none of which I've seen - this made me want to check them out). His first feature was a nudie, then he made a Billy Fury rock and roll film, then a kitchen sink drama, then some swinging London films. He was attached to the big budget epic William the Conqueror which was never made (Oliver Reed would have been terrific in the lead - Rod Taylor was attached to it for a while). 

He then made his 70s films which appear to have been variable - he finds positive crits to say about all of them but for his Big Sleep remake he has to resort to crappy radio critics. He seems touchingly keen to re-address his critical reputation, and includes a chapter of quotes about him - most of the quotes from movie stars need to be taken with a grain of salt because they are taken during production of the film on which they work with Winner (Michael Caine says some nice things from 2001 - but he does own restaurants and Winner is a restaurant critic). Nonetheless he made several films with Reed, Lancaster and Bronson, and Brando did genuinely like him so he must have something. The lucky bastard also enjoyed a six year affair with Jenny Seagrove, so...

Winner writes with a bright entertaining style and tells some wonderful stories - his mother ("mumsy") is a terrific character, and the vignettes about Marlon Brando and Burt Lancaster are wonderful, ditto OJ, Sophia Loren and the rest. He even throws in some philosophy about life and his life towards the end. I enjoyed the book very much.

Movie review - "2:37: (2006) ***1/2

Incredibly impressive debut film from some South Australian filmmakers - it has been dubbed Baby Elephant - I haven't seen Elephant but Gus Van Sant is thanked in the credits. If it is based on it then it at least makes the genius behind the film a little more comprehensive. Regardless, this is a powerful and moving film. Around an hour or so in I was going 'yeah oh, Larry Clark lite ' - it had two twists which were OK. But it had a final ace in the hole which was breathtaking - couldn't pick it was knocked out by it. Superb.

Book review - "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great"

Alexander the Great seems to have this great reputation - a hundred years ago or so it was mainly because he was a white guy who conquered a lot of Asians, Arabs and Indians and because he was a military genius and edcuated and died young. He still seems to have street cred today because he was probably bisexual and he died young. But reading this book it seems he was a sulky bloodthirsty tyrant who was responsible for the death of millions just because he wanted it. He felt like taking over the world so fought battle after battle... and for what. The author makes some claim how he changed the course of history and promoted cross cultural fertilisation. You could make the same argument for Stalin. There are other ways to promote intercultural exchange apart from invasion. A horrible person who when he didn't get his own way would go and massacre someone then go on a drinking binge. So he was respectful of a few local gods, so he had a philosopher teaching him, so what? He didn't make the world a better place he made it worse. He was a dictator and he can get stuffed. That's why films about his life will always flop. This book follows Alexander's destructive path; it was enjoyable although I was always wishing I could watch the tv show to see the places - written descriptions weren't as evocative.