BOOK REVIEW: STONEMOUTH by IAIN BANKS (2012)

Despite being a life-long fan of science fiction (albeit less so in the last few years), I've never been able to get away with the works of Iain M. Banks. Contemporary novelist Iain Banks, however, is another matter. That Banks has written some of my favourite mainstream novels of the last 25 years -Espedair Street, The Crow Road, and The Steep Approach To Garbadale. He's written several others which I've enjoyed but these are my favourites. These are his specifically Scottish novels and share a similar approach which I like a great deal and Stonemouth is his latest in this vein. 

They tend to deal with the theme of estrangement and reconciliation. Each focuses on an individual and is written in the first person and involve the narrator returning to his roots and how he reacts to what he finds there. The full picture is only gradually revealed through present encounters and through flashbacks. Stonemouth fits this pattern to a T.

Stewart, a young man in his mid-twenties, returns to Stonemouth, a small coastal town run moderately benignly by two gangs, for the funeral of one of the gang-lords. Five years earlier he committed an indiscretion which resulted in him fleeing for his life. He returns with the promise of safe conduct so long as he leaves immediately after the funeral.

Banks is incapable of writing a dull sentence and the opening couple of pages evocatively describe being alone in the middle of a suspension bridge shrouded in mist above an estuary where the narrator shortly has an encounter with a local hard man. And after that you just don't want to stop reading as Banks gradually unfolds the story and reveals the mysteries surrounding Stewart and his past.

This is the weakest of the Scottish quartet -certainly it lacks the density of The Crow Road- but that doesn't mean it's a poor book by any means; it just isn't Banks at his very best. The protagonist's sin, when revealed, proves to be little more than a MacGuffin, an is-that-all? moment. 

Nevertheless, I read it in about a day and enjoyed it a lot. It certainly won't disappoint fans of Banks' writing. Well, maybe just a little.

CINEMA: THE AVENGERS (3D)

Point of note.  

I refuse to call this film by the British title  Marvel Avengers Assemble which was used because the studio decided that British audiences are so stupid that they might confuse this highly publicised film with the acclaimed British TV series which was later turned into a rubbish film with Sean Connery.

Preamble.

My third visit to the cinema in ten days. I can't remember the last time I went that often in a year never mind a week and half. Still, Tuesday was The Hunger Games of which I'd read and loved the book (see previous post). The week before that was The Cabin In The Woods co-written, produced, second unit directed by Joss Whedon a cult hero who not entirely coincidentally wrote and directed The Avengers.

Avid admirers of Whedon are referred to as Whedonites, people who dote religiously on everything he does and says. He is their god. He is not mine. I have not and nor have I ever been a Whedonite. Whedonites should also not be confused with Deadites (referred to briefly in Cabin). I am not nor have I ever been a Deadite who are white-eyed sadistic demons. Equally, Deadites should not be confused with Deadheads. Deadheads worship at the shrine of Jerry Garcia and in front of the altar of legendary jam band The Grateful Dead. Deadheads await the 113th 4-CD live box set, this one of of the legendary (they are all leg-en-dary!) complete set at the Dopeheads Palace, Limabean, Cal., 11/31/78) and who will go into spasms of ecstasy if they hear two notes played completely differently from any other of the 34 versions of Sugaree they own. I am not nor.. Oh hell, I admit it, I'm in recovery. I'm also prone to bouts of Whedonitis which is less harmful than being a Whedonite.

There. Glad we got that straight.

The Review.

I suppose you won't settle for: the best super-hero movie ever! 

Thought not. 

Incidentally, that is not synonymous with best ever movie based on a comic/graphic novel. Comics are a medium just like cinema and novels. Comics/graphic novels can contain all the range of any story-telling medium but in its own unique way. Just this morning I read a graphic novel which blended autobiography with the story of James Joyce's daughter Lucia. (Expect a review here soon.)

Unlike most directors for whom a super-hero movie is just another job of work, Whedon knows super-hero comics. He is a fan. He wrote the best ever limited series of X-men (see previous posts) so he can not only talk the talk, he can walk the walk. He knows what fans want to see and he knows how to deliver it but in a way that will also sucker in a general audience. And this is how he does it.

Open with a set-piece, segue into character bits, have another set piece, more character/plot development stuff before building to a massive climax. Anyone going to see this film will like as not be familiar with the Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor movies so their characters have been established but they've never met. Whedon gets things going by having IM wind up Thor and Cap. Then he gives the fanboys what they want -Iron Man versus Thor. There are several setpieces like this which I won't mention except to say the special effects really are special. This is real super-hero battles from the comics come to life. Whedon also answers the perennial fanboy question: who's stronger, Thor or Hulk? Whedon's version of Hulk is the best yet and the Hulk gets in two visual gags and one verbal which had the entire audience laughing loudly when I saw it. (Okay, there were only seven of us and it did start at 10.30 in the morning). He introduces new and relatively new characters of the Black Widow and Hawkeye, both ably played by Scarlet Johansen and Jeremy Renner. The actor who plays Bruce Banner is also good.

The time flies by as Whedon builds to an enormous climax when Loki and the alien Chitauri invade New York. This really is spectacular, breathtaking and every other cliche you can think of.

This is not just the best super-hero movie ever it's a perfect super-hero movie. Whedon does everything right by giving the audience what they'd find in a good mainstream super-hero comic and making it real. Except for romance. There isn't time for any of that but it would only get in the way.

Lastly: 3-D or not 3-D? I'm glad I saw it that way but it didn't add a great deal, something, yes, but not that the film wouldn't be just as good without it.

And Whedon, with The Avengers which is deservedly going to be a massive worldwide success, he's firmly in the big time where he belongs.

CINEMA: THE HUNGER GAMES

And that's all you need to know really, but...

Trying to be as objective as I can without relating it to the book, this is a very good, very well made Science Fiction movie. And don't let anyone tell you different. There's only one problem with it really and that's when Jennifer Laurence is onscreen (which is almost all the time) it's difficult to look at anyone else. She conveys the intensity of the character of Katniss Everdene to perfection and puts everyone else, even actors like Woody Harrelson and John Turturro in the shade. It also doesn't help that the two young male actors who play important parts in her life are charisma free zones. This is Jennifer Laurence's movie and she is just an enormous talent.

The film itself is well-paced. The design of the futuristic settings are imaginative and follow the book very well. The contrasts between the often grotesque inhabitants of the Capitol and Katniss's subsistence level home are well visualised. 

There really is nothing significantly wrong with the film. Except when you compare it to the book and having read it so recently I couldn't separate one from the other. Objectively it's a good and relatively faithful adaptation which hews closely to the spirit of the book. But the devil is in the details. In the book we know exactly what Katniss is thinking because she's the narrator. This doesn't happen in the film so we miss the ambivalence of her feelings towards Peeta, the young male lead and much else besides. Her past, explored in detail in the book, is shown by brief flashbacks in the film. The violence is very much toned down in order to get the rating the studio required and the UK version was still trimmed by a few seconds and electronic fudging applied to some brief images. Sometimes it changes a scene's intent as in the death of Rue. In the book, Rue is dangling in a net and an another contestant throws a spear through her. Katniss deliberately kills him. In the film, Katniss has freed Rue but fires the arrow instinctively when she sees the other contestant at the same time as he throws the spear. In other words, for the sake of the young audience, Katniss is not shown to be consciously causing a death but reacting instinctively. Also one key scene is added which reveals the result outside the Games of what Katniss does next.

I could go on but I won't. If you haven't read the book, go and see the film, you'll enjoy it. If you have, expect some disappointments.

Post Script.

This is nothing to do with the film per se but an experience I had in the cinema forced me to reconsider a certain attitude I hold. I do have a hearing aid but, as I consider myself on slightly suffering from deafness I only wear it on occasion. (Actually I have two, one for each ear.) I didn't wear them to either this film or The Cabin in the Woods last week. On both occasions I had to strain to follow the dialogue and wasn't always successful either. I had assumed that the sheer volume would compensate for my inability to properly hear certain pitches. I often don't hear the beginning of a word thereby missing out on the context which would enable me to guess the word being spoken.

These two trips to the cinema have forced me to acknowledge that I am more seriously deaf than I like to admit and that I should wear my hearing aids whenever it is practical. In other words except when I'm involved with water, wearing headphones, or asleep. I can't pretend to myself any more about the relative severity of my hearing loss.

Damn.

DVD/TV: DOWNTON ABBEY SERIES 1, SERIES 2, CHRISTMAS AT DOWNTON

Me? Watch Downton Abbey? You're joking of course. I'm way too cool to watch some sentimental jingoist nostalgia-trip claptrap.

Regular readers of this blog (hi, you two) know my taste in film and TV: a large helping of cult movies, usually horror ( From Beyond, Evil Dead, Reanimator, Slime City Massacre, and their ilk), science fiction and fantasy taking up the rest: for TV you can add cult borderline-SF series like Chuck and Eureka; okay, I admit to like Rizzoli and Isles but that has a massive lesbian subtext and everyone knows what it's really about; then there's Castle which stars the legendary Nathan Fillion, a cult actor on the same level as Bruce Campbell; I admit to watching The Voice but that's just to keep my wife company -I have to spend some time with her- and at the weekend there were the two knockout shows where Susan and I said which one we thought should go through and found ourselves in agreement almost all the time which means she's either hipper than I realised or I'm not as... 

No, that isn't possible. Let's not go there. (Aside: Reading readers comments on a  piece about the show at a daily newspaper website -all right, it was the Daily Mail, usually a good site to arouse my socialist ire- where some of the readers were calling the judges useless because they didn't pick their favourites. Listen, idiots (that's them not you), these judges know a massive amount about singing and songs than the average punter does which is why they are the judges and you aren't and they can pick up on things, especially after having worked with the singers for hours, that the average punter can't. They may get it wrong, but it'll be for a good reason.) But anyway...

I must have been at a loose end, just not in the mood for any of the backlog of DVDs I have to watch; not even the X-Files Complete Box Set (but for the second movie) where I was up to Season 6 appealed; and lots of people and even respectable critics (i.e. not those who wrote for the tabloids) were saying how good it was and it was cheap and I could always sell it on, so...

I'd got up the the penultimate episode and had come to the conclusion that it was perfectly competent mainstream entertainment when something just clicked and, like Paul on the Road to Damascus and just as powerfully I'm sure, received the revelation that it was brilliant compelling television and one of the best things that ITV has shown in years. I knew then that I'd be ordering Series 2 and after that the Christmas special and indeed I did just that and now I'm counting the days (how long, lord, how long) until Series 3 graces our screens.

It's well made with the attention to detail being impressive. The various storylines are interesting. The magnificent cast create believable involving characters about whom you want to know what happens. Maggie Smith's Dowager gets the best lines and relishes every syllable to come out of her mouth. Joanne Froggat, as the lady's maid involved in a May-September romance with the dignified Valet who has secrets, confirms what I've thought for a while that she has the potential to be a character actress as good as Leslie Sharp and that's impressive.

It would be very easy to talk about the various subplots and the characters and go on and on but I'd rather take a broader view. While talking about the show with my brother in law yesterday, we agreed that one thing which was good about was that it portrayed the attitudes of the time accurately but without overlaying them with a patronising 21st century morality as, apparently, BBC revival of Upstairs Downstairs did (and badly as it's just been cancelled). It plays it as it was which is how it should be. We also agreed, as the discussion widened, that to do otherwise is as pointless as left-wing historians critiquing the British Empire for all its many sins. It was of its time and, for all the brutalities it committed, it was certainly better than the other European colonial powers -France, Holland, Spain, and Portugal. I was reminded of a question posed in Life of Brian: what have the Romans done for us? Apart from roads, aqueducts, etc came the answer. The British killed far less than the various indigenous inhabitants would have done to each other; abolished slavery; provided an industrial base, in particular railways which revolutionised India; established bureaucracy and a judicial system, etc. But I digress, again.

The timeline of the series is cleverly worked out by writer/creator Julian Fellowes, starting in 1912 with the aftermath of the Titanic sinking, here a harbinger of change, the First World War (Series 2), and the aftermath up to 1920. It's a period of great change in which people reassess their lives and their values, some voluntarily, others having it forced upon them. Two daughters of the house represent a paradigm of this. The eldest, unwisely, has sex with a charming handsome Turk, son of a diplomat, who has a heart attack in her bed and carried back to his own. A venal servant spreads the word which threatens her reputation and the secret must be protect at all costs. In other words, Victorian values of a world which is about to be changed. The middle daughter, meanwhile, trains as a nurse in order to perform a useful role in the Great War and falls in love with socialist and Irish chauffeur. Still scandalous but emblematic of the new order that is about to dawn.

There is much more besides. Yes, it is often overly sentimental and romantic and some of the characters tend toward caricature. But the series possesses a great charm and warmth, the result of a skilful script and fine acting. This is popular British drama at its best and I'm not too cool to say so.

 

CINEMA: CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)

In the previous post I mentioned that I'd be going to see The Hunger Games very soon. However what I omitted to mention was that this particular movie took priority and I just got back from watching it 45 minutes ago.

I mean, come on, man, I'm a big horror movie fan and I'm also a big fan of Joss Whedon who produced and co-wrote the screenplay. Okay so it was directed and co-scripted by his buddy Drew Goddard but as far as I'm concerned it's as much a Joss Whedon movie as Buffy was a Joss Whedon TV series. As far as I'm concerned Whedon can do no wrong and if he does it was the fault of other people. Whedon created Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly and its superb movie spinoff Serenity (wrote and directed), he wrote the best X-Men series ever (admittedly helped by superb art by John Cassady), and lots lots more. His highly anticipated written/directed comic book movie The Avengers (Avengers Assemble in the UK in case we think it's the return of John Steed) opens shortly and of course I'll be there.

Despite only being released in the last few days, it was made three years ago but sat on the shelf, not because it was bad which is the usual reason, but because of studio financial problems. The reviews, while not unanimous, have generally been pretty good for a horror movie and now having sat through it I can see why. I certainly enjoyed it but it didn't knock my socks off.

The two photos above give you a pretty good idea of what it's about -creepy cabin, five young people- which means its either demons or slashers, Evil Dead or Friday 13th. The poster, however, suggests something else and the trailer almost gives everything away. Our gang is going into a controlled and monitored environment where something vile is going to happen to them. This isn't a spoiler as the very first scene is set in a high tech lab as are numerous others. The big questions are: who are these people and why are they doing it? And that is what I'm not going to tell you. Or the name of the super special guest star who appears in the last scene. No, it's not Bill Murray or Sarah Michelle Gellar and it isn't listed in the IMDB credits.

Okay, it's well made, the dialogue is good as you'd expect, the characters are interesting and intelligent unlike the usual kids you find in a Friday 13th movie where they're dumb as dumbshit. It is scary, though no-one in the audience screamed at the showing I attended and I think I had a mild jump at one fake-out shock. It is gory but not in the torture porn type of way. The cast are fine -Chris Hemsworth made this before his blockbuster star-making role in Thor, Frank Kranz, a Whedon favourite appears as the dope-smoking member of the gang. In a variety of supporting roles and cameos are other Whedon regulars like Tom Lenk and Amy Acker. It's well paced with a slow but not dull build-up to terror in the cabin and climaxes with a... No, I'm not going there except to say 'but the kitchen sink'.

It's a neat send up of and homage to horror movies and buffs like me will probably want to see it again to catch all the references. But apart from the actual premise and the sheer skill of film-making on display, it's just a good enjoyable horror movie. It doesn't reinvent the genre, it doesn't bring anything new to it and my socks remained resolutely on my feet. In other words, it isn't a new Buffy or Firefly, which I was hoping for, and thus counts as a mild disappointment.

BOOKS: THE HUNGER GAMES TRILOGY by SUZANNE COLLINS (2008-10)

I picked up the first one for less than half price and on a whim at Asda on a Monday. By Wednesday I'd finished it and went back for the other two and I read all three in almost exactly a week.

I suppose there may be some of you who don't know what the books are about -which these days is like not knowing who Harry Potter is- so I'll do a brief summary.

An unknown number of centuries in the future, North America is known as Panem. The 12 Districts of Panem are ruled by the Capitol. 75 years before the start of the first book, the Districts rebelled against the Capitol. They lost, the 13th District was obliterated, and to celebrate their defeat, The Hunger Games were started. Each of the District send one male and one female, aged between 12-18 and chosen by lottery, to the games where they until only one is left alive. The Districts are ranked, roughly on descending order of affluence, though none approach anywhere near the wealth of the Capitol. District 12, the home of Katniss Everdene our narrator, is at subsistence level and starvation is common. Technology ranges, very approximately, from that of the mid-1800s (District 12) to a century or more in advance of our own (the Capitol). Katniss wins the game and inadvertently becomes a symbol of rebellion against the Capitol. The second and third books explore in detail what happens as a result.

Excuse me while I pat myself on the back because I think that's a pretty good synopsis/introduction that doesn't manage to spoil anything. And, let's face it, you know Katniss is going to win because there are two more books to go so that isn't a spoiler. What follows are my impressions of the series.

First of all, I obviously think it's pretty good and certainly better than the Twilight series -I have read the first of them and that was enough. It's a thoughtful trilogy which actually contains ideas and poses questions about relationships, about responsibility, and about society. This is not your average teenage fluff.It's also one of those piece where your own views dictate what you see in it. Is it an allegory about the America Revolution -13 states/districts rebelling against Britain/the Capitol? Or maybe the number is a coincidence. I seem to see certain right-wing libertarian underpinnings but I could be completely wrong about that. It's entirely possible a right-wing libertarian might find underpinnings of libertarian socialism. This ambiguity is part of what makes the books interesting.

The real success of the books depend, however, on convincing and interesting the author makes the narrator (16 at the beginning of the story). In some ways, Katniss is a curious choice as she is very much a passive character in many ways, someone who reacts rather than acts, her choices depending on the actions of others. She is kind and caring but also diffident. She has a long standing friendship with Gale who taught her how to hunt but he isn't her boyfriend. Peeta, the other person from District 12 to enter the Games with her, declares his love for her on national television and she has to play along with it for several reasons, but her feelings for him, which constantly shift, are mixed. In a way, the choices she makes are often forced on her by others and by circumstance which may be the author making the point that this is not necessarily a good thing. Further, she isn't the most perceptive narrator. Our views of other characters and the interpretation of events are determined by Katniss's perceptions and these are not always accurate; which, of course, actually makes it more interesting. It also poses a question to the reader: how much are you like her?

The more I think about it, however, the more I'm decided that is what the trilogy is about: making choices. It's about finding yourself and growing up. As I said above, what you bring to it just might dictate what you find. Whatever, there is a depth here that you don't usually find in many bestsellers. While I find it flawed in some ways it is still an impressive achievement and deserves its reputation.

Now I'm going to try and catch the movie while it's still showing.

(Slightly revised, 17/04/12)

DVD: PRINCE OF PERSIA-THE SANDS OF TIME (2010)/ THE SORCEROR'S APPRENTICE (2010)

I was in Sainsburys on Friday afternoon with Susan picking up stuff for Easter Sunday's family tea and at the beginning of the the checkout was a display of compilation Sainsburys-only DVDs for £5.00 which included -you've guessed, haven't you. So it was an impulse buy.

Displaying bravery in the souk in front of the king, a young boy is adopted and made a prince who grows up to be Prince Jake Gyllenhall (who makes an excellent action hero) the bold warrior. On a mission with his two brothers, one of them the heir, they are conned into attacking a holy city where Priestess Gemma Arterton guards The Magic Dagger Which Turns Back Time. Framed for the killing of Noble King Ronald Pickup by -look away now because you'd never guess otherwise- Evil Uncle Ben Kingsley who couldn't look more evil if he was twirling a waxed moustache and sneering, Prince Jake runs off with Feisty Priestess Gemma with whom he has lots of fights both verbal and physical as they fall in love and have lots of adventures while trying to keep out of the clutches of Evil Uncle Ben and the two Misguided Brothers.

To be truthful I had fairly modest expectations of this movie which I am happy to say were exceeded. Gemma Arterton demonstrates that she fits the action heroine role as well as a BBC drama and really is the next Keira Knightly only without the flat chest and more talent. Alfred Molina has a great supporting role as a roguish gambling-mad sheik who sounds like he comes from the East End of London which is really very funny. Actually, as far as I can tell, all the cast bar Prince Jake are British and he has such a good English accent I thought at first that his voice was dubbed. Respect, mon! There are plenty of action scenes which are violent enough, though bloodless, to justify the 12 rating (think PG-13 for any US readers), some nice touches of humour (often courtesy of Sheik Alfred), and the soppy stuff is kept to a minimum. 

If my expectations for Prince were modest, for this one they were lower. 

For a start the back story is a pain to summarise but here goes. Merlin has three apprentices, the good, the beautiful, and the bad -Nic Cage, Monica Belluci, and Alfred (hi again!) Molina. Alfred betrays Merlin to Morgan Le Fay who kills him. Monica traps the witch in her body. Nic puts them both in the smallest Russian Doll, adding other evil magicians to the next size doll up (including Bad Apprentice Alfred) in the course of 1300 years spent looking for the child who'll be Merlin's successor. Said (10 year old) child finally turns up in Nic's magic shop in New York following a note blown on the wind which will tell him if a classmate he has a crush on wants to be his friend or (giggle) his girlfriend. In the course of their encounter, Bad Alfred gets loose and he and Good Nic get trapped in a jar for ten years.

And that's just the opening. Ten years later our young hero has become a physics nerd and he meets the girl of his childhood crush at a physics lecture at the university he attends. At the same time, Nic and Alf get loose and the film gets going with a brisk blend of action and special effects. Nic is trying to train his young apprentice and keep his mind off romance while Alfred is busy trying to kill them both, free Morgan Le Fay and end the world. It all moves along very nicely and kept me happy for the duration. There's even a nice reworking of the rampaging broom sequence from Fantasia.

Minor quibble, the two juvenile leads are completely outshone by Nic Cage, even when underplaying by his standards, and Alfred Molina, sneeringly ruthless in manner and impeccably dapper in dress. Molina is brilliant in everything he does which is just about everything except maybe playing a romantic leading man.

All in all, I got three and a half hours (not counting the extras on the DVDs) of solid entertainment for a fiver so I consider I got my money's worth. If you haven't seen either of these films, then the next time you're in Sainsburys...

DVD: I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010) -7 DAYS OF HORROR, DAY 7

If you haven't read the previous post about why I wasn't going to review this DVD, check it before continuing or it could be confusing.

 

Basically I talked myself into changing my mind.

Now the problem with remakes is that they are inevitably going to be compared to the original unless they go off in their own direction. Perfect example: The Thing From Another World and James Cameron's The Thing. Or it can be considered as a homage (not hommage) to the original. Peter Jackson's version of King Kong is steeped in love for the original and is an honourable film in its own right without ever supplanting the magic of the original. More likely it's made because the original movie made money so there's a good chance a remake will.I'm not saying that this remake is the third alternative but it isn't really the other two either.

Surprisingly, I quite enjoyed it.  Okay, don't jump to conclusions. I haven't turned into a sexist pig. It's quite similar to the original. We have the setup which introduces the main characters, the brutalising and rape of the heroine, the revenge. One way in how it differs from the original is that it is technically well-made in all departments including acting, cinematography, editing, etc. And that is its downfall. for all the horror of the extended rape sequences, it never sucks you in emotionally in a way that the far cruder Meir Zarchi's original did. You never forget that you're watching a movie. So while I didn't enjoy watching the rape it didn't get to me so much as remind me that those committing it were going to get their just desserts.

What I did enjoy was the final part, the revenge, which is far better than the original, though I'm no more convinced by it than Zarchi's. It's just better done. After jumping into the river moments before she'd be shot, our heroine disappears for weeks only to re-emerge as unstoppable a savage killer as any villain from a slasher movie. Because the killings are deserved, they serve as a cathartic release and the viewer can revel in the various killings which all echo the way the various victims originally assaulted the woman. Slasher movie fans will love this part of the film. Except, as with the original, the killing of the guilt-ridden retard -sorry, I'm not feeling very PC at the moment- which is tragic.

So, after all my examining of why, in the previous post, I couldn't watch this film I come to the question that, having done so, was it worth it? It's worth noting that in the prominent in the opening credits are these words: Based on Meir Zarchi's original movie The Day Of The Woman. It honours the subtler original title than the one which made it infamous. Zarchi, listed as one of the producers, is said to think highly of it. Well, if it had to be remade, it could have been a lot worse. While perhaps more exploitative than the original, I do believe that both are ultimately moral films.

Point of information: even in these more liberal times, Zarchi's original remains cut by three minutes by The British Board of Film Classification. This one loses or has technically fudged a total of 17 seconds. Like I said...