Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaking of the "n" word debate. Here's two ( NSFW ) sketches from Chris Rock and Richard Pryor, who have their own take on that word.
The Richard Pryor is particularly revealing as it acknowledges hos own, rather conflicted, attempts to reclaim the word, none more so in the legandarily bitter Bicentennial N****er LP.
-
We have a telepathic kid and a ghostly barman -- I wouldn't say Kubrick removed the supernatural element entirely.
True, but the latter seems to be merely a figment of Torrence's mind (the scenes which feature him are also my favourites in the film btw).
And the Hitchcock comparison is apposite, but Kubrick seems to be more about detachment, rather than the more visceral involvement, of say, Hitchcock's Pyscho. Although you're right that the effect it has on the audience is the same.Two other things worth pointing out on the film.
Kubrick shot roughly 50 takes per scene (some in excess of 100), and deliberately picked the most extreme ones for the final sequences so as to exaggerate the mania.
We never never know exactly how long they're in the Motel. The title screens are really ambiguous ("Monday"- sure but which Monday? "midday"- on what day, etc?)For what it's worth, I think, formally speaking, at least, it's just about perfect.
-
Great as the Shining undeniably is, it's also rigged. Kubrick does this by merely removing the supernatural element entirely, which gives the Torrence character nothing to redeem himself against and little to work towards in the way of a character arc.
One thing that's so striking is how he essentially treats the audience and the characters like machines. Think about the fact that whereas most horror films set in "haunted houses" (for want of a better term) go out of their way to highlight the claustrophobia, in the Shining, Kubrick emphasises how huge and labyrinth the hotel is, with all those long, glacial tracking shots.
He really messes around with the perspective, as the camera seems to follow all of the characters, and we're never really given an idea as to not only how long they're in the hotel, but how big the place is.
I think the film folds back onitself, too, well before the final shot of the photo hanging on the wall- in fact, even the opening interview is kinda bizarre (think of the way the grissly history of the hotel is laid out in the most impossibly banal detail, or the fact that Jack seems just a little too twitchy).
But really, one thing that makes this such a strange horror film is how deliberately detached it feels, even at its most visceral moments- and it's telling that there are very few scenes set in the dark, and yet the whole thing has this feeling over a rather feverish, lucid dream. Is it all just a ruse?
Like most of Kubrick's films, it seems to be as much about the set design as it does about the characters, or maybe the characters are the set design!
Well that's my two cents anyway.
-
I can't believe the cool head that Ryder has on the field. I think I would have physically assaulted O'Brien just then.
For what it's worth, in his latest blog, Ian O'Brien calls the incident "the dumbest thing I've ever done on a cricket field".
I scored eight while I was out there, trying my hardest to not get out. Runs didn’t matter, it was about getting Jesse through to his ton, and I couldn’t do it, in fact I did about the dumbest thing I’ve ever done on a cricket field, and I’ve done some dumb things. I walked past one from Harbhajan, my foot got stuck and I couldn’t make it back to my crease.
Embarrassing, yes? I was trying to get to the pitch of the ball and push a single, get Jesse on strike and watch him score the last couple of runs he needed to tick over the ton. I felt so sick heading back to the changing room knowing that I had made such a bad mistake, I felt like throwing up while watching Tommy face out the five balls left in the over. I still feel bad about it now, but there is one positive side, Jesse made it and Tommy saved me from one of the worst feelings in the game. I owe Tommy a couple of red for that!
-
Sorry, anything *less than* 500 is not enough. I'm serious, too. The Indian top order is going to gorge on this pitch.
-
I can't believe the cool head that Ryder has on the field. I think I would have physically assaulted O'Brien just then.
He brought his century with a 4, and then was caught out on the boundary. Mind you, with Martin at the other end, he really only had one option, which was to go for it.
Still, a fine innings. That said 279 all out is not enough. Mind you, against this Indian side, anything less than 500 is enough...
-
Still, that was some partnership between the two of them. Yet it only proves how docile the pitch was in the first place.
The typical catch 22 assessment of the New Zealand cricket fan :-)
Ha! What is it about being a NZ cricket fan where even a lot of the small victories feel like defeats? There could a doctorate pyschology thesis in that....
-
Bloody hell. Vettori and Ryder take New Zealand from 61/6 to 246/6. And then two wickets fall in two balls. Still, that was some partnership between the two of them. Yet it only proves how docile the pitch was in the first place.
At least Ryder's still in at the moment.
-
Fourth consecutive test fifty. If NZC stops handing him bottles of champagne at the end of games, he might kick the habit and become one of the greats.
Absolutely. His batting this season, particularly his last few innings against India, has been just wonderful to watch. His sheer power and timing is freakish, but what's even more encouraging is that he looks like he has the ability to tone things down for test cricket when required, something McCullum hasn't quite been able to.
Indeed, it's not as if our test top order doesn't lack for talent in Guptil, Taylor, Ryder and McCullum. Daniel Flynn and McIntosh look like they could be solid accumulators, too. Maybe it's (relative) youth and inexperience, but I can't help but feel there's the makings of a decent test side in the current squad.
If only they didn't collapse with such monotonous regularity.
-
Great to see that Vettori is leading a fairly streaky recovery effort this afternoon. We like him as a captain.
I've just been following it, jeez, you watch him bat and wonder how he can make any runs, but then you realise just so how freakishly effective his technique is because he hits it into places that are hard to protect. And he works so damn hard, too.
I've just looked up his stats on Cricinfo. In his 17 tests as captain (so far), he already has 57 wickets at 28 and more than 800 runs at close to 40. That's incredible, considering the poor fortunes of the rest of his team.
And I don't want to tempt fate, but Ryder is batting very solidly at the moment. So much talent. If he's able to keep the rest of his life in control, he could become one of New Zealand's finest. Guptil, notwitstanding today's lazy dismissal , also looks the goods too. I mean, both are only 23 years old.