Strap in for this confusing revenge flick about a stripper who goes on a homicidal rampage of vengeance when her boyfriend is murdered in front of her sending her into a fugue state, á la Walter White. There was a caveat before the film that had to explain what a fugue state was and I feel the need to do the same. When someone experiences a traumatic event it can make that person forget who they are, their psyche forces them to choose a personality that can best deal with the trauma. However, when they return to their ‘normal state’ they have no memory of their actions. Luckily for us film-goers she adopts the characteristics of a gun-toting, psycho bad ass that seeks to track down those responsible in a Memento, non-linear style until only the big boss remains.
The film stars Katherine Isabelle as mousey, ‘girl next door’ type, Gwen and her alter ego Flamingo, a sultry assassin hunting her bf’s killers. The film is given a whiff of credibility with seasoned pros such as Christopher Lloyd who plays a gang boss with psychotic tendencies (like every movie gang boss) and Total Recall bad guy, Mike Ironside, who portrays a small town cop caught up in Flamingo’s lust for revenge as he chases down the femme fatal. It’s like Pulp Fiction meets Kill Bill but without the sharp dialogue and stunning soundtrack. The story jumps from one timeline to the other as we see flashbacks of Gwen’s happy life, her murderous Flamingo side, and then a confused Gwen who doesn’t know why the cops are after her.
The writers have tried to give us a strong female lead, however, they have fallen for the trap of turning her from a weak willed, ineffectual and hysterical women, into a crazy, psycho bitch from hell – going from one end of the patronising spectrum to the other and back in one fluid motion. It could be interpreted as an analogy for ‘that time of the month’ because once she snaps out of her irrational craziness; she immediately forgets that she had acted in such a destructive manner.
I left the GFT thinking that the cleverness of the film’s set-up was let down badly by its ending. The surprise twist was hinted at throughout the film, which made it less surprising than the ending of Titanic. The writers seemed compelled to hold the audience’s hand far too much, particularly when jumping from one timeline to the other. The viewer would get a little re-cap of the previous scene so that they could follow the story, but this meant that nothing was left to the imagination and the ending was so obvious that I heard several people in room say how it was going to end ten minutes before the big reveal.
A good idea that was well acted but in the end it was poorly executed.
My working knowledge of Shakespeare is scant at best. I did very little of Shakespeare at school, and what I do remember has probably been mixed up with film and TV productions. So imagine my trepidation when my girlfriend surprised me with tickets to Filter’s Macbeth, a Shakespearian play production which relies more on driving synth than on a clear coherent narrative. I usually find Shakespeare to be a rather dry subject, even when told on the big screen. However, I did enjoy Filter’s production of the “Scottish Play”, this was despite the at times difficult to follow narrative. I was aware of the curse which is said to follow Macbeth productions but I do not believe in such backward things. Curses are usually self-fulfilling, similar to the prophecy foretold to Macbeth by the three witches at the very beginning. The seed of power gets planted and Macbeth sees the opportunity to make it so, driven on by Lady Macbeth.
I was thoroughly impressed with the score which did well to keep up with the energetic performances of the six actors who danced, stalked and ran around the stage. Ferdy Roberts plays the ever maddening Macbeth whose journey from would be king to regicidal maniac is both full of explosive prose and domineering stage presence. The musical composition became the narrative with dark and often foreboding melodies that punctuated the traditional Macbeth story.
Image courtesy of the Citizen’s Theatre, Glasgow.
The minimal stage dressing, which consisted of a mess of wires sitting under two wooden tables, atop, sat a range of musical instruments. A Theremin, electro-chimes, a synth violin and synth keyboard set the tone of each scene. The tables became the focal point for the genesis and culmination of each scene. Everything goes through the music, the actual words just coming along for the ride.
What I enjoyed best about Filter’s production was the modern twist. Some of the exposition was told through radio broadcasts, which informed us of the major plot points. This gave the production a distinctly twentieth century feel that entertained a non-Shakespeare fan like me. However, I am sure that some purists would not enjoy this twist.
Having seen Filter’s production of Macbeth, I would definitely be more inclined to see more Shakespearian plays told in a similar fashion.
“This is the Zodiac speaking…” Travel through this David Fincher directed portrayal of a real life murder mystery and modern Jack the Ripper story that has never officially been solved. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal as San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist, Robert Graysmith, who becomes obsessed with the police investigation and press reports. His obsession with finding the killer drives away his wife and kids as he is swallowed up by his search for the truth. Robert Downy Jr supports Gyllenhaal’s lead as crime reporter, Paul Avery, who is targeted by the Zodiac killer after calling him a “latent homosexual” in one of his reports. This leads him down the rabbit hole of paranoia as he drinks himself to death. Mark Ruffalo’s turn as officious, yet eccentric, San Francisco Police Inspector David Toschi, provides the factual reality to Graysmith’s unsubstantiated theories. A story based largely on the police reports from San Francisco, Vallejo and Napa County in California, which made up the Zodiac killer’s hunting ground, as well as the critically acclaimed novel Zodiac, written by Robert Graysmith. Fincher vividly tells the tale in a procedural format, similar to how the police carried out their investigations.
The film starts on July 4, 1969 with the shooting of a couple on a lover’s lane. The killer then reports his crime to the police, taking credit for the double murder and describing the type of ammo and gun he used to verify his story. One month later the killer sends a letter, calling himself “The Zodiac”, and a cryptic puzzle to the editors of San Francisco’s major newspapers and police. Then, in September 27. 1969 in Napa County, he attacks a couple picnicking, tying them up and stabbing both in the back and torso, again taking credit by calling 911 and reporting his crime. Two weeks later he kills a cab driver in San Francisco and mails pieces of the dead man’s shirt to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The film reflects the bureaucracy, red tape and miscommunication which exist in police investigations that cover different jurisdictions. This is one of the driving narratives used by Fincher and arguably, one of the main reasons that the killer was never caught. Graysmith does the job of tying together all the reports and evidence from the different investigations and organisations. The feeling of frustration at how close the police come to catching their man but never doing so is shared by the characters on-screen which gives you the feeling of being part of the journey. What seems like solid evidence and good suspects dissolves under the weight of “due process” and ethical policing. After watching this film I became obsessed with who the killer was, and no matter how much evidence there is for one suspect, you will find evidence which contradicts your suspicions.
Marc Wahlberg stars as a gambler in The Gambler, a man who doesn’t know how to walk-away when he is winning. Ante up for this rollercoaster of a film, but one of those rollercoasters with no twists or turns, one that chugs along at a consistent pace…wait, I’m thinking about trains. Yes, strap in for this boring train ride of a film, a train that has had to slow down because there’s a dead cow on the tracks. If you wanted you could even catch some Zzzz’s and not miss anything. ***Warning*** spoilers ahead. (not really)
When English literature professor Jim Bennett, played by the emotionless Mark Wahlberg, gets himself into debt with gangsters he turns to a loan shark, Frank, who is menacingly portrayed by John Goodman, and then his mother for help, bankrupting her in the process. Played convincingly by Jessica Lange, who is afforded very little screen time despite her prominent billing. Her acting talent outshines the usually reliable Wahlberg and it was such a shame that her character was underdeveloped.
After blowing the money given to him by his mother, he turns to another loan shark to bail him out. He then gambles that money too and along the way convinces one of his students, and future basketball star, to win a game by no more than seven points for an illegal gambling racket. Jim is also sleeping with one of his students, Amy, played by Brie Larson as an unconvincing “geeky girl”. Seriously though, Hollywood needs to do more than just put a pair of Austin Power style glasses on an attractive girl in an effort to make them look intelligent.
The gambler is given several chances to sort his problems out. Instead he gets deeper and deeper into debt and closer to danger. A destructive personality is usually good but not when the character is such an overriding douchebag with absolutely zero redeeming qualities.
The films ends as boring as it began, Jim makes everything good with his debtors and “gets the girl”, a girl who happens to be one of his students. You see, even when it is supposed to be a happy ending, he is still an immoral and unethical dick that has taken his mother’s money, is sleeping with someone in his care, and corrupts a young athlete.
There is a general “moral of the story” which is spoonfed in an unimaginative way to the audience. Jim finally learns to walk away when he is level and owes nothing. He realises that happiness was in front of him the entire time, in the form of Amy, and I guess they live happily-ever-after, until their relationship is discovered and he quits his job in disgrace. I would have ended the film in an ambiguous fashion, leaving it up to the audience whether or not things work out in the end.
The tagline is the only way out is all in. However, Jim is given several opportunities to get out throughout the film.
I don’t know about you, but before the attack on the French satirical magazine, I had never heard about them. Nor had I seen any of their “offensive” depictions of the Islamic prophet Mohammed. Since the attack, in which twelve people were murdered, images of Charlie Hebdo illustrations have been shared around the world at a lightening pace. If you didn’t know about Charlie Hebdo before, you certainly do now. That includes vulnerable, angry young Muslim men. You see the aim of terrorism is not to take as many lives as possible. Terrorism is a political tool that can be used to highlight your organisations goals and motives. The purpose of a terrorist act is to achieve media attention, to draw supporters to your cause. With this in mind, it is my firm belief that the attackers knew, and planned for the international response, particularly on social media.
Courtesy of the AFP
The act of defiance against this attack has been to share “offensive” images of Mohammed, something which will no doubt anger the Islamic community. The Brothers who carried out this attack, Cherif and Said Kouachi, have achieved their goal. They have gained international recognition for their cause, they have become martyrs to aspire to, and the images they found so offensive have now been seen by young impressionable Muslims, which has only served to draw attention to Charlie Hebdo and others who satirise their religion.
To some, the BBC provides a wonderful range of quality television, radio and online content. Indeed many are happy to pay for their TV licence as it funds this long standing institution. The current licence fee is £145.50 a year and goes towards the cost of programming and the high salaried TV stars that light up our living rooms. You can pay for your licence upfront in one no fuss, no hassle fee, or if you choose, you can spread the cost by paying in monthly instalments. The BBC, a private company, employs another private company in the form the TV Licensing who, on the BBC’s behalf, arrange for collection of payment and visit unlicensed addresses to make sure that the “current occupier” is obeying the law.
Do you need a TV licence? The TV Licensing Company state that “You need to be covered by a valid TV licence if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone, or DVD/video recorder”. If you do not have a television capable of receiving a live broadcast, then you are not required to get a TV licence. However, simply informing TV Licensing of this is not enough. This private company will insist on entering your property to see for themselves. A point to be remembered is that you have no obligation to allow them access to your property, nor are you obliged to tell them your name or whether or not your are the occupier of the property. The company then has three choices, they can either accept that you do not require a TV licence and leave you alone, continue to send you harassing letters with warnings and threats, or if that fails, they will apply to a judge to obtain a warrant to enter your premises to ascertain whether or not you require a TV licence. The third option is their last resort.
I spoke with a TV Licensing representative on their customer service helpline to ask what evidence would satisfy a judge that the occupier was watching or capable of receiving live television. I was advised that:
“They could obtain any evidence to send out a warrant so that’s information they have received from service providers, even by the signals if the signals have been checked or if someone has reported yourself”.
I asked if he meant the internet service provider:
“It could be from your television service provider.”
What if you do not have a television service provider? This question seemed to cause him some consternation and he advised that he would get the customer specialist unit to call me back to answer my questions but they never did. I was intrigued by his claim that television service providers give the TV Licensing company such sensitive information. I contacted Sky, BT and Virgin but thus far only Virgin have responded.
A Virgin Media Spokeswomen had this to say:
“We’ve looked into this and can confirm we do not share customer information with TV licensing authorities. Sometimes we may release information to public authorities but only to assist with an investigation or via a court order.”
It is entirely possible that the TV Licensing representative was mistaken so I will not hold what he said to be an actual practice of the TV Licensing, although I am still awaiting a response from BskyB and BT. In the meantime, I decided to contacted the TV Licensing press office to ask what evidence a judge requires to grant a warrant to enter a premises.
A TV Licensing spokesperson said:
“We only apply for a search warrant as a last resort and we state this on our website. Each application is considered scrupulously before it is submitted, and a warrant cannot be granted by the court unless there are reasonable grounds for the application.”
In addition to the official comment the spokesperson also advised that:
“TV Licensing apply to a magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) for a search warrant when there is reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the premises and entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced. We’re open about the fact we only apply for a search warrant as a last resort. We don’t give out specific examples of the type of evidence we might use to support a search warrant application, because this information might be useful to people looking to avoid paying the fee.”
Below is a cleverly edited video showing how the TV Licensing company work.
Evidence is likely to be found on the premises. Just remember that statement and remember that a TV Licensing agent has no authority to enter your premises. This means that by giving an agent no details, as to your identity, and refusing them access to your property, then they are unable to gather any evidence that they might present to a judge. I have asked for further clarification on what other evidence they might use, however, as you can see they are unwilling to let that information be known. I have, as a result of this response, made an FOI (Freedom of Information) request to ascertain exactly how many warrants the TV Licensing people apply for and how many are successful. Additionally, I have requested “what other evidence” might be used in order gain entry to your property. I will also be writing to the Sheriff officer for Glasgow to get their side of it, their processes, and how they evaluate the evidence presented by the TV Licensing company. I will keep you updated once I have received another response from my FOI request and I have spoken to the Sheriff Officer.
In May 2014, UKIP’s David Coburn was elected as Scotland’s Member of European Parliament (MEP). An Ipsos MORI poll conducted in October found that fifty-six per cent of Britons would vote to remain in the EU and sixty per cent of Scots felt the same. Furthermore, a YouGov poll from November found that seventy-two per cent of Scots would vote to remain in the EU. However, when I quoted these polls to Mr Coburn, he described them as ‘utter tosh’, a seemingly flippant disregard for the polling process. In an interview conducted by the EU Reporter, shortly after he was elected, Mr Coburn was asked how he would represent the electorate that had voted for him. He replied ‘my objective, by coming here, is to make myself redundant as soon as possible. My objective is to get Scotland and England out of the European community.’ That was six months ago and in that time Mr Coburn has attended the European Parliament a total of four times according to his European Parliamentary activity. MEP’s receive a standard monthly payment of €7,957 (£6.537), almost £40,000 of the UK taxpayer’s money in six months.
When I asked him about his activities he seemed far keener in talking about the SNP, he even went on a tirade describing SNP supporters as ‘crusties, extremists, (and without a single iota of irony) fascists and against democracy.’ Despite my best efforts to find out exactly what he does for Scotland, everything came back to how separatist Salmond, and now Nicola Sturgeon, were doing their best to ensure that more laws were taken out of Scottish hands and passed to the EU. He stated further, ‘I take a very active role in defending Scottish fishermen, unlike the SNP who have been fighting to defend the EU.’ Mr Coburn continued…’I am part of the fisheries committee and the energy committee; I have put forward several important questions on Scotland’s EU membership during the independence referendum.’ An SNP spokesperson refuted these claims by stating ‘the SNP has been working tirelessly to improve Scotland’s standing within the European community and we have been campaigning to get the best deal for Scotland’s citizens.’
UKIP Press Conference in Glasgow
I also asked Mr Coburn how he was representing the majority of Scots in the EU. He replied ‘I am highlighting any problems that face the Scottish people and I am highlighting how these unelected people of the EU are trying to destroy Scotland’s interests’. Mr Coburn felt that he had fully answered my questions; however, I felt that he took the opportunity to lambast the SNP rather than talk about his own and UKIP’s achievements.
Good things come in small packages. The old cliché seems rather apt when describing the two short plays wonderfully produced by Cardboard Fox, an emerging Glasgow-based company, who focus on bringing lesser known and under-performed work to Scotland. Directed by Helen Cuinn, the double bill at Rose & Grant’s Café on the Trongate is part of the Glasgay Festival 20 Oct – 15 Nov 2014, a celebration of LGBT culture. If you would like to see what’s on during the festival, click here.
Mr & Mrs Laughton
Michael-Alan Read’s subtle performance as troubled genius, Charles Laughton, opens up the window into Laughton’s most secret of lives. Providing the anchor to Laughton’s wayward life is his long suffering wife Elsa Lanchester brought to life through a strong, yet eloquent performance by Angela Cassidy. We find ourselves in the 1930’s with Elsa telling the tale of the relationship with Charles from her point of view. Charles, as always, is more interested in his research for the many roles he has come to play than Elsa. The crippling self-doubt that overcomes Charles is balanced out by the devoted support and reassurance from Elsa. After two years of courting they are married.
Underneath the mask of a happy marriage lay the real tale. The ethos that you have to be yourself to be happy is never truer when the secret lives of Charles and Elsa are examined. And it is a message which will resonate with many today by those struggling with their identity.
Elsa is the real victim with Charles’ inner demons taking her along for the ride. Her love for him is never reciprocated. She misses out on the love that only a lover can provide. She was the rock to his pathetic genius, constantly running and hiding from problems. Elsa was the mother and Charles was the child.
The direction of the play expertly captures and emotes the feeling of pretence. Charles is tormented by having to hide his sexuality in an oppressive era and Elsa’s need to fulfil her alternative bohemian lifestyle makes for a jarring juxtaposition, which really stands out against the backdrop of a seemingly traditional marriage. While it is clear that she adores Charles, perhaps it is safe to say that he was an unconventional choice for a life mate. Both parts are acted brilliantly, with Cassidy providing the context to Read’s moody, childish outbursts.
The fluent dialogue of the here and now of the play is punctuated by flashbacks to events in the life of the pair. From their first meeting, the films and plays they shared, through to the death of Charles the central theme of the story emerges. An account of self-loathing and struggling with identity which is interwoven with clever, witty humour in the 1930’s vernacular.
The Madness of Lady Bright
Continuing the theme of self-loathing is Lanford Wilson’s “The Madness of Lady Bright”, a story revolving around one man’s descent into madness. Michael-Alan Read returns for the second show of the night as Leslie, an over the hill, cross-dressing homosexual living in a New York apartment. Playing Leslie’s personalities are the adaptable Martin McBride as “Boy” and Lynette Holmes as “Girl”, both of whom represent the feminine and masculine side of Leslie as well as complimenting the anxious performance from Read.
At the heart of the play is a sad story about a lost love being searched for but never replaced. The pursuit of happiness for this drag queen has twists and turns that leads us down the rabbit hole with unrelenting realism. It is an examination of the psyche of a soul tormented by his inability to be fully at peace with his own identity.
Not lost on the audience was the subtle use of music which coincided with a bout of sanity for Leslie, however, as the music came to an end his mania re-emerges out of the shadow. This is further punctuated by being full of confidence in himself before descending to become a self-hating critic.
From the start of the play you get the feeling that you are in a mad house, confronted with Leslie’s split personality. The mad scribbling on the walls of his rooms are the signatures of his lovers. His memories of days past, the folly of youth and of happier times represent the thin line between madness and sanity.
I was thoroughly impressed by Read’s performance, the dexterity with which he traversed the moods of Leslie were seamless. His ability to shift from one emotion to the other so violently was the driving force of the play. It ultimately leaves you examining your own life, your own decisions and your own demons. Leslie could not face up to his and it drove him mad, hoping that one day his lost love would return.
On October 20 2014, legislation from the Scottish Government will come into effect meaning that retailers across Scotland must charge a minimum of 5p for single use carrier bags. It is hoped that this scheme will curb the amount of single use bags used in Scotland. Many of which appear on waste sites and landfills around the country. It is also hoped that the charge will encourage more of us to re-use our plastic and plant-based organic bags, and recycle the ones which have seen better days.
The charge is to be applied when a customer requires a new bag to carry purchased items from the store or shop; the charge also applies to online deliveries. The bag can be made from paper or some plant based materials. Your local newsagent or convenience store will be obliged to charge for plastic bags. However, businesses which employ less than ten members of staff are not required to record the amount of bags sold or monies received for the charge.
“This charge is not a tax but will see retailers donating the proceeds to charity and has the potential to raise millions of pounds for good causes, including environmental projects. The Scottish Government and delivery body Zero Waste Scotland have been working closely with retailers at all stages of the process and will continue to do so in the run up to October 20 and beyond.”
However, this statement is contrary to the Zero Waste Scotland website:
“The Regulations do not impose any obligation on how the net proceeds of the charge should be used; the decision on how to use this money is one for individual businesses to make. The Scottish Government is encouraging retailers to donate the net proceeds of the charge to good causes in Scotland, particularly ones that benefit the environment and to publish information on donations.”
You can find more information on the introduction of legislation which affects retailers by clicking here.
It is expected that the introduction of the charge will see a fall in the number of plastic bags used by UK supermarkets. Nonetheless, charging 5p per bag will still bring in a hefty sum for retailers. At the moment, it is up to the individual companies on what to do with any monies received from sales of the single use bags.
Outlining the motives behind the legislation, a Scottish Government Spokesperson stated:
“The Scottish Government has introduced the Regulations to further the litter and waste prevention programme and in fulfilment of a commitment in the 2011 manifesto. Extensive consultation was carried out on the proposals, including two public consultations and discussions with stakeholders including retailers. The proposals received a great deal of support from across a range of stakeholders and the public.”
The aim of the scheme is admirable; however, what is required is a more ruthless approach to cutting our carbon footprint. It is similar to putting a plaster on a deep stab wound. The damage has been done already and we need drastic action. Instead of enforcing this charge on the public, more money should be given to those that produce 100 per cent biodegradable bags. At the very least, most, if not all, of the profit made by the big retailers should be spent on such research. Companies which produce plastic bags, will, as a result of this legislation, manufacture less and less. This may lead to redundancies and people being put out of work. Instead these companies which produce plastic bags should get help from the government to convert their factories into making more earth friendly bags. Hopefully we will see a move away from plastic altogether with more money being invested in research to manufacture greener receptacles.
James Owens 