Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's always been Munter's missus, Casey, that has set my teeth on edge. They never figured out what to do with her, and as a result she's constantly shrill.
I've actually enjoyed this series more than a lot of people, it seems. Sure, it's been a slow-burner, but there's been something almost comforting about the way certain actors have really settled in their roles, and the family dynamic has been fascinating- Prebble, Starr and Torrance have been particularly nuanced this time around, while it's interesting how they've managed to make Aaron Spiller seem (almost) sympathetic. He's such a dead-on archetype that I'm amazed he hasn't been written before- I mean, we all know someone similar to him, right?
-
I know it's been bad for the Democrats, but you have got to love the weird bit of history-repeating that is Jerry Brown being elected as Governor of California. Say what you will about the guy, but this campaign spot is priceless.
I do believe Meg Whitman has just been damned by her own words... -
Is there any point in noting that my homegirl Olympia Snowe (with reservations) supported Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act? She's actually got more fiscal conservative street cred than most of her party, because she voted again the Bush tax cuts in 2003 because the maths of cutting taxes while massively increasing federal spending didn't add up to her.
All true, but I do think Olympia Snowe deserves significant criticism for the fact she eventually decided to toe the Republican Party line and fillibuster against the Senate Healthcare legislation- despite the fact she was part of the Group of Six which helped draft it. I could never understand the decision, even allowing for the fact she has received hundreds of thousands of $$$ in campaign contributions from the health care industry. That's a clear black mark against her name.
-
Just as an aside, hasn't the "fourth channel" had a bit of a weird cyclical history of branding and re-branding (even allowing for change of owners, etc)?
At the start, it was TV4, and mainly used as a clearing house for hip British comedies (e.g. Shooting Stars, I'm Allan Partridge, Mrs Mehrton) finally making it to free-to-air NZ screens (sometimes shortly after its inception, sometimes two or three years after the fact). Oh, and South Park, and a real mixed bag of Sunday-night flicks that ranged from the cult to the truly dodgy. At the time, MTVNZ seemed to be its main competition for the "yoof" market, but that folded after a couple of years.
Then in 2003, TV4 became C4, which, for a period of time, was almost entirely dedicated to music videos (and South Park), and then over the years, it became less and less focused on music videos and more on "flagship" programmes and some godawful reality television (and South Park)...now it's back to pretty much its original format (albeit with less British programming) and called Channel Four. Very strange indeed.
-
It is wrong of me to have found this photograph somewhat, er ... compelling, though?
Why, I have no idea what you mean.
Unless you mean you think she's gorgeous. In which case, yeah that's fine.
What is it about the New Zealand women's hockey team? Without wanting to sound crass, there have been some stunningly gorgeous women to play for that side (including Dan Carter's fiancee).
The Harrison sisters are stars though, two of the most talented young players we've seen since the days of Mandy Smith. I think this side has got the makings of a strong and quite combative team come the Olympics. They really should have won that final, they had the edge over the Aussies for all of the second half as well as the extra time.
As for that game, why it was something else? I can't remember one as nerve-shreddingly tense, although the 2003 final came damn close. It had everything, pretty much.
-
The band also got the thumbs-up from The Guardian this week, although the story's claim that 'Young Blood' "recently became the first song by a Kiwi band to reach No 1 in their home country for 20 years" is hilariously wrong
That's inexcusably wrong. Where on earth would they have got that idea?
-
I have nothing to add to this discussion except to say that was a very well written column, Jolisa. And funny, too.
-
This whole thing is making me think that Malcolm Gladwell is completely wrong about twitter/facebook and social activism. The lunch counter sit-ins worked precisely because they grew out of social networks; if the participants had had electronic media to augment their communications, they'd have used them without a second thought.
I'm hardly a fan of Gladwell- in fact I find a lot of his work incredibly glib and prone to manufacturing arguments by cherry-picking examples that fit and leaving out the rest...but I think this sort of was his point. Facebook, Twitter, et al are tools for networking, they're a means, rather than a means to an end, which is why he feels that as a method for continued activism (of any sort), they would have to be bolstered by something else, because their structure is anti-heirachical. Which as he says, is a strength in certain situations, but less so when you want to establish something continuous. I mean when he says this:
There are many things, though, that networks don’t do well. Car companies sensibly use a network to organize their hundreds of suppliers, but not to design their cars. No one believes that the articulation of a coherent design philosophy is best handled by a sprawling, leaderless organizational system. Because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?
He's right, if you assume the group's only tool for continued activism and organisation is through Facebook or Twitter or whatever. He's wrong, if they're merely using that as one extra tool. Greenpeace, for instance, has a very committed social media platform. But that's not all they have. Likewise, I kinda think those reports on Obama marshalling the social network bely the fact that he also hand the savviest and most talented campaign team since Clinton in 1992.
They're a continuation of what already existed, rather than a totally new paradigm. And that's great. We shouldn't get worked up and worry and fret if it's not totally new. We should be pleased that it gets used and can continue.
(Btw, sorry about this word-wank, your response got me thinking is all. I should have just said that Gladwell is sorta right and sorta wrong and been done with it).
(Here's the piece we're all referring to, btw: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all)
Anyway, back to Paul Henry...
-
Well that was a fascinating episode, arguably the bleakest season opener the series has produced yet- which means, as strong as it was, it does raise slight concerns- I always felt season four trailed off near the end because the range of emotions became a tad too monotone, too much focusing on the double-crossing, not a lot on the frivolous and keenly observed.
Season Five got the balance right, largely because even at its most menacing, there was something instrincally hilarious about Van's thwarted efforts at being an informant- which soon, of course, went to custard in the worst way.
Is it wrong that the episode made me want to hot-wire a community constable vehicle, though? That whole sequence was superbly directed and played, right down to the puncline of Van getting offended at being called a Pig, and then realising why he was called that.
All told, a pretty striking opening gambit, with a twist that was brilliantly managed. The challenge for them now is making sure the pacing is absolutely right as they get closer to the finishing line.
As an aside, I remember re-watching a couple of the season one episodes on DVD the other day, and what struck me is how ropey the production values were to subsequent seasons. You could actually see the joints at times, the digital video was wobbly, as was the sound. And I'm pretty sure the performances seemed more hesitant too. They really shot up after the second season, and it seemed to coincide with the moment where they got the characters figured out as well.
-
No off side rule seems to work in hockey-a game similar to football in a lot of ways.
I think it works better partly because (speaking as someone who used to play it) the sheer speed of the game on the turf means that by the time the ball is fired down one end it will soon find itself at the other before you've got time to catch your breath.
Like Gio says, I think the offside rule in football is necessary, they do need to find out some way to incorporate the video ref for goal decisions though.
That said, the disallowed goal shouldn't brush over the fact that simply, Germany were hungrier and more ruthless for all but about 20 minutes of the match. If you look at the stats for possession, shots at goal, corners, etc, you'll see the two sides were pretty even, but for some reason England seemed to freeze and not have their defensive house in order.