Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cracker: What Would Charlotte Do?, in reply to Hebe,
The official online channels like Stuff couldn't touch Twitter - and probably Facebook if you were attuned to it already -- and talkback radio
Although, to be fair, a lot of the best people to follow on Twitter are actual journalists. The NOTW saga was a classic case in point, Nick Davies, who had spent close to seven years on the story, was suddenly aware that the dam was starting to break, and there was almost a spiky energy in his updates. Similarly, the better work on the London Riots was done by reporters in the field.
Ironically, I think a lot of the best twitter users are those who point you to longer-form pieces (such as articles etc), as well as engage in the short form conversations. -
Hard News: Flying Again, in reply to Bruce Wurr,
My wish is definitely for the reissues........early headless chickens, early bailter space, maybe early everything!
Indeed! If they sort out the contracts issues, I'd like to see reissues of Able Tasmans, Birds Nest Roys, Snapper and the Skeptics. And in CD or LP form, if possible.
(I know I really should accept good digital versions, but for some reason, I still like stuff I can hold and put on the stereo too.)
I hope the semi-partnership with Arch Hill works out, it sounds like it's probably the best option for getting more stuff out there. And like Grant, I really hope that new Street Chant arrives soon. Been hanging out for that for ages- along with the Transistors' upcoming LP.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Russell Brown,
There is a great piece on the finger pointing of both parties later in show that shows people’s willingness to spout the party line blindly.
Yeah. It's telling. Almost hard to watch.
And the way Jason Jones and John Oliver just let it speak for itself (to the point where they were cross-cutting to both Dem and GOP delegates accusing each other of literally the same things) was acutely handled.
I think the Daily Show is at its best when it lets its team of "correspondents" make hay. Stewart might be the front-man, but he's been blessed with some of the sharpest comic actors around- some of which- such as Steve Carrell or Ed Helms- have gone onto big screen success subsequently. Aasif Mandvi has long been a favourite of mine. Such good timing. They're also lucky to have guys like Hodgman, Lewis Black and Larry Wilmore in reserve.
It helps too, that they have very good writers- including many former (and present) Onion staffers.
But that Stewart clip was something else, he's usually not that furious in his own turf. But he's right- it's astonishing how Roger Ailes's message-machine almost went it meltdown and somehow came out the other side completely contradicting itself without batting an eyelid. The cognitive dissonance is quite jaw-dropping, really.
-
Hard News: Tired and emotional, for reals, in reply to Russell Brown,
I subscribe to two magazines: Vanity Fair and the New Yorker. I find American newspapers fairly pompous, but their best magazines are just … the best magazines. Granted, there is the odd disappointing issue of VF.
I first read The New Yorker when I was minding my ex-girlfriend’s flat in Paris in 1987. Reading its vast two-part story on the New York art scene was a revelation with respect to what magazines could do and be.
Vanity Fair__’s journalism in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis has been superb. Bethany McLean and Michael Lewis aren’t just great journalists (McLean’s first coup was breaking the Enron scandal while everyone else was still cheer-leading for them), they’re also great __stylists. They take what could be very dry topics and find all these fascinating, flawed and occasionally foolhardy characters that get caught up in them. But somehow it’s never at the expense of the nitty-gritty. You can tell that they’ve done their homework, but they’ve also figured out how to tell the human stories.
(Cards on the table: Bethany McLean is a personal hero of mine. And she’s also a fox.)
True, you have to take it as read that “cover” article for each issue of Vanity Fair will almost always be a fawning celebrity profile (or yet another piece on the Kennedys. Or Marilyn Munroe) , but the actual long-form journalism inside is frequently vivid, well-researched, spell-binding stuff. It’s no surprise that some of their best articles have inspired some excellent films– e.g. The Man Who Knew Too Much, which provided the basis for the Russell Crowe-starring “big tobacco” conspiracy thriller The Insider (still his best performance, for what it’s worth).
The US version of Esquire can still do a pretty good low-rent version of Vanity Fair these days too. Their political coverage is pretty sharp. Hell, even that noxious corporate irrelevancy that is Rolling Stone employs guys like Matt Taibbi, whose pieces are often so savage, well-thought-out and hilarious that I just have to stand back and admire their chutzpah.
Oddly, I can only do The New Yorker for its arts reviews, humour writing and cartoons these days. Something about their house style for feature writing doesn’t quite sit with me–too self-involved, perhaps? (I know, pot calling kettle black, etc).
Anyway, sorry about the digression, but here’s time for another one- everyone should pick up a copy of the latest Listener for Rebecca Macfie’s feature on the State of Our Water. A robust and timely piece.(Sorry about this Russell, as you can tell, I’m a fan of good feature writing, so I like to plug)
-
Hard News: Before Lust, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
If you get the chance, catch the recent Michelle William’s film Take This Waltz for the shower scene featuring female bodies of all kinds of shape. So rare in movies.
Yes, I wonder whether the fact the film was directed by a young woman ( the excellent Sarah Polley) had something to do with that. I found the film's relaxed and frank attitude to female nudity quite refreshing, actually- particularly in the sense that most of it was shown in "domestic" and decidedly non-sexual settings. I guess it heightens the fact that most of the sexual tension in the film is implied, rather than acted upon (until near the end of the film, where it does, briefly, get sexually explicit). The film relies a lot on the power of suggestion, and for once, it implies that nudity in and of itself isn't always suggestive. I mean, in other American films, it would be a really big deal that the lead actress appears "full frontal" in more than one scene. In this one, the inference is yes, people are sometimes naked around the house.
But I won't lie- Michelle Williams looks amazing naked (and fully clothed- I like her array of pretty dresses).
-
Hard News: The question of Afghanistan…, in reply to Sacha,
Grant Duncan is great talent - an academic who tells it like it is. More. And I admire how fair and respectful Nicky Hager is on this topic.
Yes, two very worthwhile segments, as was Tracy Watkins talking about polling- which I suppose will become more important for me to get to grips with eventually, despite my aversion to them.
A good episode indeed. It's just a shame it's on so early, but hey, there's always TV3OD
-
Danny Boyle's opening ceremony was heartwarming and mad
There's probably little more that can be written about the opening ceremony, which inspired some great commentary-- Roger Ebert's being one of the most perceptive about its artistry and appeal for "foreigners"-- but it really did set the tone for the rest of the games, didn't it? Most of the time, I don't put much, or any store, into the opening ceremonies for these things, which are often run the gamut from crass ( e.g. Atlanta 1996 and Sydney 2000) to downright sinister (there was something oddly joyously queasily authoritarian about Beijing 2008's ceremony).
But London's was something different. Not all of it worked, but what I loved most was the way it openly celebrated music- I mean, the Specials, Sex Pistols and Dizzee Rascall among the usual suspects? Count me in. And bringing in Tim Berners-Lee was a very canny stroke indeed, in some ways just as oddly significant as the NHS ballet.
In contrast, the closing ceremony was everything I kinda feared the opening ceremony would be- garish, clumsy and shamelessly tacky. Even the better music in it sounded awful in context.
Anyway did anyone else get a weird sense of Olympic withdrawal syndrome over the last week. I've even mostly finished with the NZIFF, having seen the bulk of the stuff down in Dunedin leg. There's only a few things in ChCh I'll see next week and I'm done. Back to the real world again. Sigh...
Anyway, to round this off on a music tip, Frank Ocean's proper debut may lack the surprise and consistency of last year's mix-tape- it's poorly sequenced, and 15-20 minutes too long- but the best stuff really bounces. I love the casual sway of "Super Rich Kids".
And to bring it back to the Olympics, the most surprising track "dropped" into the London 2012 opening ceremony was this dark, swirling, cinematic piece from David Holmes.
-
Not really related to the discussion, but a couple of asides (once every four years, I kinda surrender to the Olympics, although if you drew up a list of reasons why I shouldn't, I'd probably agree with most of them).
First of all, did anyone else see that press conference with Usain Bolt the other day? That man's got swagger. He reminds me of those great West Indian cricketers of the 1980s and 1990s who just knew they were the best and didn't have to hide it, although none of them were as relaxed as he seems to be about (Viv Richards was all about his imperious authority, it seems, at least in interviews). You don't get that very often these days, even the reigning champions seem to genuflect to their opposition (I'm reminded of the mid-noughties when Federer was just crushing his opponents and yet couldn't be more complimentary of them).
Also, how comprehensive was that opening race from Bond and Murray. It wasn't just the time, it was the sheer control of their race. It was amazing viewing?
And go the women's Black Sticks, there are many reasons to like this time, but the way they guttsed it out against the Australians suggested they're definitely a medal chance if they keep it up.
-
Lovely tribute Craig, well done.
It was an absolute pleasure interviewing her back in 2006. Although we only had about 30 minutes (it was inbetween her reading to children at the Dunedin Public Library, yes, she was wearing one of her famous coloured wigs), she touched on so many different aspects of storytelling- everything from how storywriters "exploit" their characters to how the surrounding landscape can "become ghosts".I can't think many writers who evoked the pleasure and importance of reading as well as her. And I can't think of many who were so willing to share their gift. Her work belongs to all of us.
RIP to a wonderful lady.
-
I hate to excerpt such a small bit from such an excellent interview, but Chip Matthews' comments that:
Sitting in the room as DLT and Che listened to ‘Chains’, I had no idea that this song was gonna blow up so huge.
...really made me smile, because, for this guy, who was barely 13 at the time, the release of "Chains" (yes, I'm a lot younger than many on this forum) was an absolute revelation. I guess it's easier when you're young and you haven't been exposed to much in the way of different music, but it just sounded like something I'd never think of hearing before. These days, it's the rough minimalism and the strange, almost scratchy yet reggae vibe of the beat, the way Che Fu's voice switches between somewhat hesitant rapping to utterly elastic crooning, and the great lyrics, (it's like a funnier, more pointed update of "French Letter"). But at the time, god, I didn't know what I was hearing. I just knew the chorus was damn catchy.
Both Che Fu's 2BSPacific (great title!) and King Kapisi's Savage Thoughts were big deals for me at the time, and I don't think either artist got within a yard of them ever again, either in terms of their intent or sheer freshness.
Anyway, great interview, and nice Metro piece too, btw, Russell,