Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Wednesday, 6 November 2013

Tattoo Culture

OneLifeLiveItI sat down intended to write ‘half a mile’ but then I thought I better check my facts on Google Earth. The radius of the circle I drew was 86 metres. That’s 718 metres short of half a mile. 718 metres of being plain wrong.

The 86 metres is the distance between a succession of local shops that have opened in the past couple of years. Would it surprise you to know that in this small working class town, population not much more than 20,000 people, there are no fewer than five tattoo parlours, all contained within that circle drawn with an 86 metre radius? We don’t have that many doctors, dentists, or vets. We have no bookshops (Tesco’s bestsellers don’t count), no stationers, and now we no longer even have a further education college which was recently demolished along with three quarters of our library (now just one room mainly devoted to romantic thrillers). We used to have two bicycle shops but they both closed down as did our specialty sweet shop. We've had a succession of We once had a jewellers but that disappeared about five years ago. A long time ago we had a general hardware store where you could buy nails and wood but not any longer. Blockbusters closed this year, so there’s now no video store. We once had a cinema but that closed its doors back in the 1970s and was later destroyed by fire. Local rumours hint at arson. The cinema had stood derelict for a decade or more, some kind of preservation order on the old façade which was of historical significance stopping the site from being redeveloped into ‘luxury’ apartments. But like I said, that’s just local rumour.

On our high street, it’s impossible to buy books, treacle toffee, lengths of wood, a watch or necklace, or leads for a mechanical pencil. Yet the same town can support five independent tattooists, all no more than 172 metres of one another.

The fact they have become so ubiquitous is an interesting modern phenomenon which probably says something deeply revealing about our culture. Perhaps they are symbolic of a culture that no longer values the spiritual or the intellectual and instead has embraced materialism and a totemic obsession with the body. Perhaps they have something to do with our false illusions of individuality.

I think that begins in school. Schools are supposedly about educating us but I’m sure they’ve always really been about breaking youthful spirits. Riding past a junior school yesterday, I saw the kids peering out though the railings. It’s probably a clichéd observation but it’s one I hadn’t made before but I realised how those railings don’t so much protect the children from the world as protect the world from the children. The iron fences keep the kids inside as if the world can’t operate normally with youth running around. School teaches us to stop being youthful and to conform to certain lifestyle patterns: the nine to five routine, our place in a hierarchy, the repression of ambitions, dreams, and foolish joy.

Of course, life after your school years has changed. Perhaps it’s no wonder that people do choose to adorn themselves with tattoos when the world is increasingly alienating, where there are fewer ways to be unique and individual.

I was in Wilko yesterday and a guy in front of me was covered in various names and mottos. He was also bald and on the back of his head he had a big tattoo written in the usual flowing script. ‘One Life’ it said and beneath that ‘Live it’. I immediately thought: live it with a tattoo on the back of your head? Live it doing something as extraordinary as shopping in Wilko wearing a vest, tracksuit bottoms, and lots of gold chains?

But I guess it’s easy to mock these ridiculous aphorisms and note that most expressions of individuality can be found in the standard tattooist’s sourcebook, available from Amazon. Yet what other opportunities do many of these people really have for expressing themselves? They are defined by family, football, and celebrity: all of which feature prominently in tattoos. Some also have God or, in God’s place, some esoteric wisdom, reduced to a cryptogram written down a forearm. Beyond that, what else is there?

Not many years ago, there was a time when people engaged in hobbies. A person would learn to play a musical instrument or learn a foreign language even if they didn’t have a reason or particular desire to travel to that country. A person would make things in a shed or take up drawing or ballet or join a rock and roll band. I guess these things still happen but I suspect they’re increasingly rare, especially in working class England where music shops have closed, libraries disappeared, colleges turned into flats, theatres demolished. Life is increasingly dictated by the strip of American style fast food operations that line the main routes between our towns. Cinemas have moved into retail parks, impossible to get to without a car, prohibitively expensive even if you can drive. Between Thatcher and Murdoch we now have sport available to only those who can pay for it. Movies and culture too are for those with the means to buy them. The BBC News reported just a few nights ago that culture spending in the UK is £69 per person in London, £4.60 for the rest of us. Given that the majority of my £4.60 will go to art in regional cities like Manchester and Liverpool, what is the actual cultural budget around here? I suspect it’s pence and that definitely shows.

So instead of hobbies and culture, we have Twitter: the constant babble of people wishing to sound significant. And that, perhaps, is the key similarity. Perhaps tattoos aren’t such a surprise. Perhaps like Twitter, they’re a collective scream, part of some deep nihilistic urge to sanctify the self and to give us all meaning. They are the affirmation of lives increasingly devoid of any significance. Perhaps tattoos are to individuals what blogging is to cowards: a way of writing something meaningful for a world of individual spirits increasingly deaf, distracted or simply defeated.

 

Saturday, 2 November 2013

Looking For Good Bad Comedies

Lately I’ve been in the mood for lowbrow movie comedies, the kind of comedies you might not admit to watching if you want to sound sophisticated in polite company. In fact, I suppose I’m writing this in the vague hope that somebody reading this might have some suggestions. The Hangover is on my list but it’s currently a very short list.

So far, I’ve revisited films that for some reason didn’t connect with me in the past, which meant beginning with Will Ferrell, a guy whose definition of comedy is so broad that he makes Jim Carrey look like Bob Newhart. I began by rewatching Anchorman which previously hadn’t clicked but I have now come to love enough to have seen it three or four times. I watched Step Brothers and found it enjoyably loud and vulgar but perhaps not quite as good. The Campaign was better than both yet terribly underrated as a savage political satire. Then I moved beyond Farrell to other films in the genre. Get Smart is loveable fun. Horrible Bosses I’d seen before but I watched again and really enjoyed. I even went to the trouble of seeing the very recent We’re the Millers which was surprisingly good in its totally brash and vulgar way.

Last night, however, it was the turn of 21 Jump Street and this morning I’m wondering how the hell I managed to make it through to the close. Had I not been drawing cartoons as I watched it, I might have turned it off because it was a real struggle. Apparently it’s a remake of an American TV show I’ve never seen but is famous for being an early vehicle for Johnny Depp. I doubt if the show was anything like the movie.

I’d seen Jonah Hill in the brilliant Moneyball and apparently he was in Evan Almighty though I don’t remember it enough to say if he was good.  I haven’t seen Superbad, which is apparently the film to see if you want to become a Jonah Hill fan but, after last night, I can definitely say that’s the last thing I want to become. I enjoy purile humour. I enjoy offensive humour. I even enjoy downright bad humour if done the right way. Tonight I intend to tackle the modern Three Stooges just to see Larry David dressed as a nun. Even if it’s bad, I hope it’s bad in a good Farrelly brothers way. The only criticism I’ve ever had about the Farrelly brothers is that they try to rationalise their sick humour with sentimentality and a tendency to preach about the very issues they mock.

None of which explains 21 Jump Street which currently has a 7.1 score on the IMDB. I’m clearly in the minority who really hated this film and that just confuses me. Are there that many people in the world who enjoy the Roy Chubby Brown approach to comedy? It’s that comedy which substitutes wit for vulgarity. ‘Why did the chicken cross the road? Obviously to get to the f***ing other side you c***!’

21 Jump Street set up situations in which a half decent comedy writer could inject plenty of good one liners. Yet facing down some bikers, the two rookie cops enter into a typical exchange:
Jenko: Hey! You want me to beat your dick off?
Domingo: You want to beat my dick off?
Jenko: I'll beat your dick off with both hands. What's up? Let's go.
One-Percenter #1: That's weird, man!
Schmidt: I think what he was trying to say was, he's gonna punch you so many times round the genital area that...that your dick's just gonna fall off.

I suppose it takes all sorts to make the world and I should just move on, except that's hardly edifying, especially when I also note that whilst 22 Jump Street is due out next year, there’s still no word on a sequel to the best horror comedy of the past decade, Tucker & Dale vs Evil, the best science fiction film, Dredd, or the best thriller, Steven Soderbergh brilliantly subdued Haywire.

Thursday, 20 June 2013

The Good Bad Guy

James Gandolfini has died. I heard the news when my elbow gave me enough pain to wake me at 5AM. I got up, had tablets, checked the BBC... I couldn’t believe it. When I woke up properly, hours later, I thought it must have been a horrible dream.

I enjoyed ‘The Sopranos’ but for some reason I never watched beyond the second series, so that’s not how I best remember Gandolfini.

Gandolfini was that rare kind of movie actor, like Alan Arkin, John Goodman, or even Geoffrey Rush, who never top the billing but are usually better than the rest of the cast combined. It always pleasantly surprises me when I see their names listed in a cast. Films were never sold on the back of Gandolfini’s name but he often made films. I saw him most recently in ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ where he gave real presence to the small role of the CIA Director (with a strong resemblance to George Tenet) but he was in many great films in even better roles. He was one of the best things in the remake of ‘The Taking of Pelham 123’ and he stole the underrated film ‘The Last Castle’ from Robert Redford. Yet, for me, his best performance was in Armando Iannucci's ‘In The Loop’ where he played Lt. Gen. George Miller, the commander who didn’t want to go to war. The final scene between him and Peter Capaldi was not just the best thing in the movie but the best thing in many movies.

The reason Gandolfini was so memorable in all these roles was that he was always convincingly real. It wasn’t nepotism or connections that made him a success. It was talent, charisma and that ineffable likability with which some people are naturally born. Even playing a bad guy, you always knew there was a good guy deep down. That, I guess, was the magic ingredient in The Sopranos but it was something Gandolfini brought to every role.

I can’t help but feel that the good guys have just lost one of their best bad guys.