Review: Dredd (2012)

dredd-credit-lionsgate

I asked He Judges to watch something I’d seen already so I wouldn’t feel obliged to write *another* post this week, but he remembered Dredd very fondly himself and was determined to rewatch it. I was only half paying attention, was tired and full of cold virus and beer, so honestly, no this time, really, this is going to be a short post.

What he remembered most fondly was Karl Urban’s grumpy-faced eloquence and the dry humour of the script, and I can now vouch for both of these things being points in Dredd‘s favour. Sometimes I felt like Urban’s expressively downturned mouth was a parody of James Purefoy playing evil (I love James Purefoy but…you’ll know what I mean if you know. He can be something of a ham…), but it had a surprising number of quirks so that the character’s responses were clear enough even between his blunt words. I’m not sure if I think Urban’s voice was as good a fit for the role as his chin, as he’s actually got quite a soft voice, but that’s not much of a complaint. Alongside him, Olivia Thirlby was a good foil, watchful and nowhere near as fragile as her small frame implied. As Anderson, she reminded me of a young Claudia Black, and despite some inconsistencies in the portrayal of her telepathic abilities, Anderson generally held her own in amongst the destruction.

Dredd really has the look of a comic book movie, in that way that things based specifically on a particular trade paperback do. The way certain shots are framed — Anderson standing above the man she’s just dismantled by telepathy, the splatter of a head on a hard surface, the imagined (unimaginative) scenes of what one villain would do to Anderson if he got his hands on her — all look like they’ve been lifted directly from the pages of the comics this is based on. I’m not really invested enough to check whether they were or not, and the feeling wasn’t quite consistent enough for me to be certain either way, but I’m not much of a fan of the technique. The film was stylised enough and had its own visual identity without needing to aim for that kind of framework, but I guess ymmv. I did enjoy the blissed-out, burned-out colours and slo-mo that represented the experience of taking the drug ravaging Mega City 1, and the design of the rest of it, but still found the overly-composed ‘comic’ shots annoying.

As the pusher of said drug, and the boss villain sought by Dredd and Anderson at the top of the Peach Trees tower, Lena Headey had a lot of fun. It was what I’d hoped for from her in Pride & Prejudice and Zombies: all wry lip-twists and laconic glares, confident in her untouchable authority. The plot was fairly thin though, and this isn’t really a movie where it’s worth longing for any kind of characterisation, as that’s not what we’re here for. The action didn’t hold my attention particularly, unfortunately, and the spatter-gore of the comic-book violence left me as unimpressed as it does in comics themselves. That I couldn’t raise much interest may be a feature of having known the ending in advance, so it wouldn’t stop me from watching a sequel. For the very small amount of character work to be done, Urban and Thirlby were great, and when it was confident enough to stick to its own style, the film had a distinctive, sleek look about it. I’ll probably be intrigued enough to watch any other outings in the ‘verse, but it’s not got enough in the way of contextualising and characterisation to become my favourite superhero movie any time soon.

Advertisements

Review: The Running Foxes (Joyce Stranger)

joyces
Illustration by David Rook

This was part of last year’s Christmas acquisitions, I think. Picked up by my Mum in a sale in some Donegal library, probably because it reminded her of my childhood obsession with Colin Daan and Tom McCaughren. Unlike them, Joyce Stranger is as interested by the human society within and around which her animals must find their place, and chooses a neutral, pastoral tone rather than the uncompromisingly pro-animal narratives of the others. It was quite lucky that I happened to be doing some reference checking for someone way outside my field when reading this actually, so that I encountered William Empson’s theorisation of the pastoral, with its kinship to proletarian literature. The Running Foxes would probably fit quite nicely into his framework for these things, where harmonies can be found among controversies by the use of a double plot.

The book tells the story of one year in a Cumberland valley in the 1960s. The two strands are: the rural life of a small community, centred on the men who hunt foxes on foot with their fell hounds, and the wild lives of two fox cubs born to a wily vixen, whose territory overlaps with that of the hunt. I compare it to Empson’s pastoral because of the nobility of the poor hunt that is portrayed: in Cumbria their dogs are rougher and tougher than the usual foxhounds, and they’re contrasted with the rich hunts that go about on horseback in their pinks. The huntsman is a retiree, leading the pack for the love of it, whilst each man raises and cares for his own dog, often sacrificing his own dinner for the sake of the dog’s comfort. If you’re going to write a ‘neutral’ take on fox hunting and rural life in twentieth century Britain, you want your human characters to have that shine of the simple life, people who are proud and stoic in the face of the changes around them, the ‘deserving poor’ in essence, who work hard and never ask for a handout, but represent the salt-of-the-earth, half-imagined pastoral pre-history of our own society.

I grew up in the countryside, and my first best friend, the only primary school friend I still have any meaningful contact with, is from a great hunting family. My Mum’s family were once the same; a great aunt’s hunt-wedding was covered by Pathé news. But whist I loved horse-riding, I was a sanctimonious little child who had no time for those who gained pleasure from killing wild animals. I’m still inclined that way, but eventually my uncompromising views softened for all the usual reasons, and although I’m glad we have the ban now, I’m also — with reservations — pleased the communities built around hunting can survive as drag-hunting groups (providing that is indeed all they are). They’re not large communities anymore, and the landscape fondly remembered by older generations doesn’t exist anymore, nor do the networks of local alliances between landholders work in the same way. But there is something to be said for the way the meet functions in rural society, and for the great affection the people involved have for their dogs and their horses, and for the joy of riding in a group, over land that you know well. There’s a combination of hardness and pragmatism with a soft-hearted irrationality in it that rings true to me from Stranger’s book.

Joyce Stranger, despite choosing an easily sympathetic community to portray, does also love her animals. She has a keen eye for the details of changing seasons and for the ecosystems she describes, writing scenery with breadth and depth, linking the movement of the foxes across the land to all other watchers with twitching whiskers or watering eyes. She also strikes just the right tone when depicting the actions of animals, both domesticated and wild, never sliding too far into mawkish or sentimental anthropomorphism. The vixen’s bewilderment at her injury, the thoughtless gamboling of the escaped dogs, and the instincts of the aged terrier all hit home emotionally without her ever ascribing human emotion to an animal: it’s the lack of conditions attached to them that make us respond so willingly to an animal’s apparent affection or its needs, and Stranger understands that intimately.

There’s a similar unconditional nature to her people that can be effective in bursts, but is part of the picture of idealised poverty presented. The old man, Jasper, on whom the perspective so often settles, is a human reminder of the progress that marches on around the valley. He’s a leftover from the nineteenth century who makes the young men as uneasy as thoughts of future council estates, or the prices Americans are willing to pay for old farmhouse tat. Yet despite the changes and tensions in their world, and one inevitable incident aside, Stranger is kind to her characters: there’s peril here and there, but surprisingly little of it has lasting consequences. Life goes on inexorably and good luck comes to people through accident and coincidence, so that they come to associate the two wild foxes with a surprisingly prosperous outcome to an otherwise dire winter.

Bad people aren’t really to be found in Stranger’s community either. The ones who abuse their dogs are away a few villages over; the chap sent to jail, leaving behind a homeless hound, is never encountered; the trappers are never shown setting their traps. Indeed, even the foxes in this valley are better than others — over the way, those foxes were lazy and stupid and stole from the farmers coops. Now if only foxes could be smart like the two in Stranger’s book, and if people could be decent and respectful of them, like the people in the book, then we’d never have any controversy about the subject at all! Hm. Unlikely. But despite the idealised view of things, the book’s still full of gorgeous nature writing, and the relationships — both cultivated and natural — between people, animals, land and seasons, are lovingly described. It’s a bit of a never-was world, but it sees the best in what was real, and maybe offers a level of nuance that’s more surprising to those previously unaware of the motivations of one side or the other.

Review: The Death of Stalin (cinema)

deathofstalin

Three nights out in a row on work nights, and my ability to describe and process any sort of story is starting to fade…(cue undergrad me sneering over her grammar books in the pub) so though I enjoyed this movie a lot, I’m not sure I’ve got too much to say about it.

The main thing that I keep coming back to is that I don’t feel this is a story I should have been taking sides in. There’s no one I should have been rooting for involved in these events. And yet. In this week of completely unsurprising headlines about various political figures and Hollywood names who struggle to keep their wandering hands in check (and far worse), Simon Russel Beale’s smug Beria made such a potent villain that I would have cheered on any other scumbag willing to set him on fire. And so I did. Steve Buscemi’s Khrushchev was a man constantly on the back-foot, seemingly unable to keep pace with the scheming around him, but who doesn’t love an underdog? And then there was Michael Palin’s cuddly Molotov, who missed his wife, narrowly missed his own execution, and remained cringingly loyal to the cause throughout. By the time Jason Isaacs strode up as Zhukov, Yorkshire accent booming, I just wanted someone competent to catch up to Beria and stop him. Since seeing the movie, He Judges has been refreshing his already prodigious historical knowledge by reading up on the various plotters’ Wikipedia pages. I can’t quite bring myself to, but he assures me that what I suspect is true: no one involved was squeaky clean, and none of them were worth rooting for. Still, as he puts it, only Beria would have made a second Stalin. It’s the least worst outcome that you can get behind in this film.

Whilst I’m very much of the opinion that mocking the self-important is a great way to undermine them, The Death of Stalin manages to do this whilst retaining an air of menace. The main characters are all utterly absurd in their own ways, but the cumulative effect of the council is still there, and the incompetent jockeying for power results in a fair amount tragedy, though perhaps not as much as anything more calculated might have done. Besides, their incompetence is nicely set off and contextualised by the alcohol-soaked conspiracy theories of Vasily Stalin, who really is ineffectual when viewed alongside the councillors.

I kept thinking of Santa Evita, too, and the worship of dead tyrants by those who gained little enough under their rule. The Death of Stalin isn’t much interested in the wider implications of the scheming and posturing of its main characters, but the working folk supposedly represented by them get a brief look-in when Khrushchev forces the reopening of the trains and lets the mourners flood into Moscow. Thousands are shot by twitchy members of the NKVD, but it’s even more depersonalised than the accident of timing that saves some from the purges, whilst others are shot even as the order to cease arrives. A few scenes remain to bring the consequences home, such as the father who was given away by his son returning for an awkward family reunion, but this isn’t a movie where you’re encouraged to get too close to anyone at all; they’re either dreadful or likely to be short-lived, or both.

However, expanded from her historical role in events, Olga Kurylenko’s serene, disdainful Maria Yudina was a highlight (the one person whose Wikipedia page I was minded to look up). Projecting fearlessness when all around her seemed unable to contain their own panic, provoking anyone who she came into contact with, she felt like a truly wild card in amongst the others. Presumably that was why the graphic novel on which the film is based gave her a more prominent role in the scheming, as a catalyst to allow events to be told in a far shorter time frame than reality allowed.

Alright, this no doubt seems a terribly po-faced response to what was a genuinely funny film, but I’ve not got the energy to figure out how the council is meant to stand in for Theresa May’s cabinet of creeps and Brexiteers, and I’m often uneasy describing this kind of story that takes the essence of historical events and prods them into caricature. Perhaps it was all a bit above my head. Perhaps I can’t plot and run at the same time. Still, I’m more than happy to take the simple satisfaction of seeing Beria’s carefully-laid plans crumble into nothing (nothing that will benefit him, at least); his reliance on fear and threats to keep everyone in line ultimately undermined when people realise they’ve no need to be grateful for his small mercies if they just unite against him. Even if said unity is something of an illusion.

Review: The Furrow Collective (The Junction, Cambridge)

IMG_20171030_220100.jpg
Yup, my own shoddy photo…

Next, we have a murder ballad for you, says the band. Hooray, the audience responds. The band is delighted. This is folk music, and even a  polite, below capacity Cambridge crowd knows to cheer for a murder ballad. Even outside the folk club we can muster a bit of a sing along when there’s local ale and Lucy Farrell’s firm cajoling.

The Furrow Collective are sort of a folk supergroup, with a pair of Scots (Alasdair Roberts and Rachel Newton) and a pair of English musicians (Emily Portman and Lucy Farrell): four strong, distinctive voices and hands accomplished enough to cover electric guitar, saw, banjo, harp, squeeze-box, viola and a trusty shaken-egg. They’re the perfect band for this time of year too, taking traditional songs about death and secrets and ghosts and Skye waulking (not, they stress, Skywalking, though that would of course be some sort of dream crossover for me) from all over the place and giving them a distinctive re-tuning to suit their four harmonised voices.

It’s also something of an open secret that most of the audience has probably heard only one of their songs in advance , and probably associates it heavily with Chris Cornwell’s lanky, bug-eyed beasties and their eerie world. Like the video above for Wild Hog in the Woods, the band on the surface seems quite mellow and sweet, but they’re soon revealed to be a coiled spring of the precision unheimlich. Am I overstating this because of the Cambridge crowd? Maybe. (It’s quite likely, isn’t it?) But what first attracted me to folk music was not, as I then assumed, Seth Lakeman’s power chord fiddle playing, stadium folk with the emotions turned up to twelve, but the sheer existential horror of stories of forgotten, violently silenced women like Kitty Jay and Josie. The Furrow Collective know how to sell that dread in a subtler way, and it’s so much more effective for it.

I suppose what I’m getting at is that they could have made an awful lot more noise than they did, but they chose not to, and it gave their songs an eerie tension. This is true of songs I was less familiar with, and with their fearless takes on classics made popular by Martin Carthy, whether solo or with Steeleye Span. The rocking banjo version of King Henry and the hypnotic Polly Vaughan showed their confidence in taking these well known songs on and giving them yet another twist, freshening them and pushing their narratives to the foreground. The repeated lines and circling choruses of their songs were polished storytelling devices, making sure the audience kept the thread of the song, and only rarely sliding into a background of plinky-plonk toe tapping (and indeed, still the best sort of plinky-plonk toe tapping!).

There’s a natural sort of irony to a lot of the songs sung from the perspective of a sentenced criminal, or any other public figure whose point of view was adopted by a troubadour at some point . Whether you’re making your local outlaw into some sort of Robin Hood, Hobsbawmian bandit by claiming he’d have gotten away with it if not for that pesky Eve-archetype of a woman, or simply imagining your Royal OT3 in an awkward situation, your story is a lot more palatable, at least to a modern audience, if there’s a bit of a knowing wink to it. The Furrow Collective seem to have that down pat, and to know just how seriously some of these stories should be taken: tell them with a straight face, but let it be known there’s a twinkle in your eye. It doesn’t mean sacrificing the genuine emotion that’s helped preserve a lot of this stuff, whether it comes from men’s grievances against disloyal wives or from women’s regrets about the men they’ve married.

The four very different voices of the group members, and the variety of instruments they can play between them, keep the set lively and interesting, and keep the stories absorbing; even simple ditties about tending sheep and old nags. The way in which they offer each other the foreground in songs is effective but never forced or over-mannered, so that while a female voice may ‘tell’ the story, and Alasdair Roberts may sing lines spoken by a man, or vice-versa, the consideration is above all that it sounds good, rather than that it’s turned into a script to be adhered to. Folk music survives because it can adapt: universality must combine with contemporaneity, and The Furrow Collective understand that well, and implement it better than many. I’m somewhat ashamed that Wild Hog in the Woods was the first track of theirs I’d heard given that it was from their second album, and I’ll gladly seek them out again, both live and on recordings.

Review: Thor: Ragnarok (cinema)

null

Geyr nú Garmr mjök
fyr Gnípahelli;
festr man slitna,
en freki renna.

This passage from the Old Norse mythological poem Völuspá roughly translates to: ‘aieeeeeeeaaaaaaahhh we come from the land of the ice and snow…’* it perfectly encapsulates the anticipation of the epic drama of the gods’ last stand… and yeah, it’s about bloody time a Thor movie made use of Led Zeppelin. With just the right amount of slo-mo, with just enough of a neon-tinged, synth-backed hat-tipping to the ’80s, woven around the orchestral grandeur of the earlier Thor soundtracks and the Old Norse world as seen through the eyes of nineteenth-century nationalist romantic painters, this sequel managed to convincingly bridge the universes of Guardians of the Galaxy and the early, pre-‘magic’ MCU outings like Iron Man.

The first Thor movie was my unrivalled favourite in the MCU until The Winter Soldier, and it’s still up there, though I don’t remember much about The Dark World and always seem to confuse scenes from it with the far better Hellboy II (both have dark elves, right?). Conversely, Norse mythology is not my favourite part of Norse literature, and perhaps this is why I can’t bring myself to care one bit about whether Loki’s actually Sleipnir’s father in the movies or not, why Sif isn’t blonde, and whether Thor happens to be a woman or a frog in the comics. But nevertheless I’ve always felt that Chris Hemsworth’s Thor and Tom Hiddleston’s Loki have been more accurate representations of their mythological counterparts than the heroes of most Beowulf movies have been (Grendel Grendel Grendel aside). No change there in Ragnarok, it’s just that now Taika Waititi gets to put his own deadpan New Zealand twist on the jokes whilst gleefully undermining all the glory of the Asgard we’ve seen previously in the MCU.

I’d like to see it again before proclaiming it my new favourite in the MCU, but even though all the killer lines were in the trailer they remained funny in the film. The best shots were there too, though cunningly devoid of some crucial bits of CGI (lightning, fireworks, injuries…) which is a trick I’m very happy for blockbusters to play in their marketing campaigns if it derails some of the endless ott plot speculation that even the most minimal 30 second teaser can now inspire. OK, it’s also true that if you have even the vaguest idea of Norse mythology you’ll know precisely how the ending on Asgard is going to go from one of the trailer shots. But it’s no problem when watching the movie: it’s much more about the journey. And the one-liners.

I love Taika Waititi’s humour. It’s dry and often awkward and embarrassing and surreal, and Hunt for the Wilderpeople has the perfect tone for me in its balance of these things with an absurd yet somewhat  grim, bureaucratic reality. Being honest though, I did occasionally find it a bit jarring in Thor: Ragnarok, not least because Waititi’s voice work as Korg and Rachel House, the actress who plays Topaz, are just so heavily associated with Hunt for the Wilderpeople for me. But you can get used to these things, and it’s only a tiny note of reservation in an otherwise excellent script that has room for all the quips we’ve come to expect from the MCU as well as a decent chunk of character development. And while the lion’s share of that development obviously goes to the Lord of Thunder himself, there’s enough shared round — Loki, Skurge, Valkyrie, Banner and Hulk — that it doesn’t feel like anyone’s been left out. Sure, though I’m sure the essays on every twitch if Hiddleston’s lips are being prepared as I type, I did particularly appreciate the fact that this time the brothers really seemed like brothers, but also that Thor seemed finally to have learnt a trick or two himself when it comes to dealing with the God of Mischief…

I don’t want to make this too spoilery a review, but in general it has to be said that Waititi makes a superhero move that isn’t just great fun but it also smart and self-aware. It doesn’t take much:  non-white faces in all the crowds, women wielding swords in the front lines of the refugees taking their last stand, prominent, meaty roles for Valkyrie and Heimdall (‘hey I Enthuse, isn’t he meant to be the “whitest of God’s”?’ I literally couldn’t give a shit. He’s not even in enough Norse mythology to have anything resembling a personality. Once, he’s a seal. Tbh I’m disappointed when I see fanart of Norse gods and he’s not Idris Elba. Why? Because if he could be Idris Elba why wouldn’t he be?). Mainly though, it’s about a society built on violent conquest and imperial colonialism recognising its past. Hela wants to take it back to what she views as its heyday: she’s unapologetic about celebrating the fact that its wealth came from empire-building and slavery. Thor and Loki are more shocked to learn about their father’s youthful warmongering, despite Odin’s Marcus Aurelius-esque renunciation of this past, and there’s a joyous irony in the way the movie leaves Asgard at the end, a society built on conquest that has been completely turned on its head.

Also effortless in Waititi’s hands, and something I feel a bit bad even having to draw attention to, is the handling of Valkyrie. This is how you do a supporting female character. This is how you do a female badass. She’s not a love-interest or a victim, she’s got her own backstory and her own motivation. She was the main surprise for me, having enjoyed her in the trailer but not realised what a hot mess the character was: when she appeared, swigging from a bottle, and stumbled sideways off her landing ramp, I knew I was in love. She’s a brittle, semi-functioning alcoholic with a tragic past, she’s capable of subduing Loki and is bffs with Hulk. Thor wanted to be a Valkyrie when he was a child, not realising that it was an élite female fighting force. He’s not mocked for this, and he’s proud enough of the fact to tell her about it. He and Valkyrie deal with the spaceships pursuing them by leaping from one to the next, ripping out essential components with their bare hands in a scene that reminded me of the long-shot in Avengers which follows the team as they fight the flying alien troop-carrier beasties. At the end of their efforts, they each leap back into the hold of their own craft and look each other up and down with an impressed smirk. Then they get on with the business of saving Asgard. This stuff shouldn’t feel revolutionary, but too often it still does. I just hope so much that Valkyrie will be returning to the MCU and that she will continue to be written by capable, thoughtful hands.

Hela was great fun as a villain too, with Cate Blanchett on full ham, and Karl Urban brought a by-now familiar level of nuance to Skurge’s array of scowls and pouts. The film did a lovely job of showing how Thor and Banner initially had less of a relationship than Thor and Hulk, but, using the same enthusiasm that initially brought Thor and Jane together, they were able to bond over shared interests, whether gained through 7 PhDs or the fact of being educated as a prince in a technologically advanced society… And there were plenty of moments where I had pause to wonder whether someone involved in the script had in fact brushed up on their Norse mythology: the way in which Dr Strange magically refills Thor’s glass, like the Utgarða-Loki episode; Thor, alone, fighting Surtur’s demons, in Sutur’s hall, the way he so often ends up fighting giants in the Eddic material, and I had to do a double-take as Hela emerged from the sea at one point, thinking for a minute she was riding the Miðgarðsormr. But perhaps he’s being saved for future films.

Finally getting to see Thor: Ragnarok was like unwrapping the Christmas present I’d asked for, longed for, waited patiently for. I knew how awesome it was: I’d asked for it. Maybe I’d accidentally opened a drawer and caught a glimpse of it, shutting it quickly to preserve the suspense. But in essence, I knew what I was getting and I couldn’t wait to get it. My point is: many of the best lines in Thor: Ragnarok are in the trailer, and if you’ve a passing knowledge of Norse mythology and how superhero movies work you can guess from very early on in the movie exactly how things are going to go down. But it’s still awesome.


*It doesn’t. It means something more like ‘Now Garmr howls loudly before Gnípahellir; the wolf will break his bonds and run loose’. And Led Zeppelin wrote the song about themselves going to Iceland for a tour as much as about the Norse discovery of the island. But let’s gloss over that: the riff makes a great hero’s theme.

Review: Blade Runner 2049 (cinema)

br2049

I wasn’t going to go. I haven’t forgiven Ridley Scott for Prometheus. I’ve been baffled by the idea of this sequel ever since I first heard about it, especially when Harrison Ford was brought on board. And although I went through a phase at around 14 or so of living, breathing, drawing fanart for Blade Runner and reading all the K.W. Jeter books, I’m damned if I can remember a thing about them. The trailer didn’t help, I have to say. But then the reviews started coming out: one major fear was allayed by the news that Jared Leto’s role was pretty small. There were impressed murmurings about Harrison Ford, too, and surprise at Hans Zimmer’s range. Also the healthy reminder that this is Denis Villeneuve’s movie now, not Ridley’s. And I like to think that Denis Villeneuve is less interested in either big questions or big answers than Ridley Scott is these days; he’s instead happy to dwell on the complicated human response to the questions.

Mild spoilers below.

So yeah, I kinda loved this. It’s not perfect, I do have a few complaints, but for the most part I barely noticed the three hours fly by. I suspect that, a little like Arrival, which I also really enjoyed, if you focus too closely on any aspect it might start to come apart, but enough was cohesive and coherent enough that I don’t feel the need to dwell on things that weren’t. My main gripe was with Luv’s arc, and it could have been solved by having even less — i.e. no — Jared Leto. Luv is Wallace’s number two at his replicant-making corporation, and she is stronger and more ruthless than any other replicant we’ve seen. She also seems initially to be far more complex than an obedient second-in-command, though sadly this never goes anywhere. Wallace is the kind of boring misogynist god-complex psychopath that it was completely unnecessary to show or give any dialogue to (we all know the type…), whereas for the first two-thirds of the movie I thought Luv had an agenda that was separate from his: she was very aware of how humans saw replicants and she was capable of exploiting it. She also seemed to have a fairly complicated emotional response to some of those aspects of humanity that humans also struggle to come to terms with: love, reproduction and death. Unfortunately, this was swept away and she became all brawn with very little below the surface by the end of it, and it’s my biggest disappointment in the movie.

By giving Luv’s agency and motivation a bit more prominence, and perhaps by showing a little more of the institutional hierarchy that Madam (a steely Robin Wright) fitted into, the movie would have given its depiction of women more depth. In this dystopian hellscape of a future, women are everywhere as sexualised images; in one scene we even have the perfect blending of the Virgin and the Whore, though it feels pretty hollow for the fulfillment of such a popular fantasy. Other grim realities seem to persist: women are seen as disposable vessels by some, whilst for others they’re elusive objects of reverence and mourning. However, I don’t think the film glamourised any of this. It showed a lonely world, full of lonely people, isolated from one another for their own protection. And when you do let someone in in this world, are you always just hearing what you want to hear? Deckard and K seem to have different responses to this, and the fact that the movie doesn’t attempt to resolve differences like this is something I appreciate about it. It could have done better by offering a female perspective in more detail, and Luv would have been the perfect opportunity for that.

Still, the sound and visuals were impeccable (and if I could enjoy Sicario for those things even when the last half-hour infuriated me, then this was ten times better). Blade Runner 2049 is deliberately disorienting throughout: the soundtrack is an incredible, thrumming thing, where the sound of a police drone’s engine merges with the bubbling of water on a stove; battering synths sound in time with over-worked windscreen wipers; is a piano played off-screen being played by someone we can’t see, or is it part of the soundtrack? And in moments of high emotion, where revelations are had, memories are dredged up and heartstrings are plucked, the camera frequently denies you the opportunity to read the actors’ faces. Instead we see K’s hands, or the tense silhouettes of characters in conversation. We think we know what we’re filling in, but how do we know we’re reading the situation correctly when we don’t have all the usual cues?

And yes, those reviews praising Harrison Ford were right: Villeneuve wrings an astonishing array of emotions from him, but it’s understated and unassuming, whilst still conveying Deckard’s grim, hopeless trudge of survival. Plus, having never really quite grasped Ryan Gosling mania, I did think he was an excellent lead in this. His performance reminded me on a number of occasions of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, not because it was of a similar standard, but because it seemed to convey so much of the confusion and longing at the heart of that film so much more effectively. He was a scared child, a tightly wound ball of confusion and hurt and betrayal, and a man used to observing and responding to orders who suddenly found himself reconsidering these things. Yes, it’s a bit rich having him play a representative of a marginalised group as a handsome white guy, and yes, while we’re at it, the universe still needs to sort out its response to Asian representation. But I can’t fault Gosling’s performance.

The ‘twist’ for K was one that I felt confident was coming for much of the film: words are chosen carefully, the sense of disorientation mounts, but in the end, I let myself believe for a few scenes along with K. The effect of the revelation on him was all the more profound for having finally caught me up in it, and the unfairness of his ending was, to my mind, another of those contradictory presentations of human nature that Villeneuve seems to enjoy so much. It made it clear that K is less the inheritor of Deckard’s story than of Batty’s story. I’m not normally that engaged by Asimov’s troubles, or the line between human and machine, but damnit, Blade Runner 2049 actually made me care about this. Very glad I did go in the end.

(you’re still not forgiven for Prometheus though, Ridley)

Review: Flatliners (cinema)

flatliners-2017-after-credits-hq

Well, if you’ve read the first post here, or the ‘about’ section…finally, this is what I claimed this blog would be all about! Me watching terrible movies/movies I’d otherwise never watch because there’s an actor in them whose imdb page I feel compelled to go through in detail. The thing is, I’ve realised that there are a lot of people more dedicated to doing that than I am these days. And also, whilst I have copies of Milk and Elysium, I’ve not felt like I’ve really had the surplus of time required to make myself watch them. But I’m still paying Cineworld, and I missed my chance to see The Limehouse Golem, so off I went to see this shirtless Diego Luna scene I’ve been hearing so much about.

I’m not a fan of horror movies as a rule; my exceptions could probably be counted on one hand and might still stretch the definition of horror. Examples: An American Werewolf in LondonShadow of the Vampire, Get Out and Let the Right One In. Luckily, this is not quite what I’d call a horror film: there’s an underlying point to the shocks in a way you don’t always seem to get. Possibly its lack of commitment to being a simple horror is what hampers it, but I’m going to go with the problem being its lack of commitment to not being a horror film. I mean, look at that naff advertising above, with the exaggerated CGI ghost-figures. Diego Luna’s character doesn’t even flatline! And though on a meta level you might argue that what they unleash by flatlining is just a darker version of their own selves, it’s certainly not in the demonic way the ad people went with. So yeah, I’m not saying there was a particularly subtle or effective point to the horror, but it was there. Expect spoilers below — and a total ignorance of the original Flatliners. I meant to watch it beforehand, but ran out of time for that too.

On the whole, this movie was a bit better than I was expecting, and considerably more entertaining, even if in hindsight there are a LOT of holes. Ellen Page gave a good performance with very slim material to work on. She plays Dr Courtney Holmes, a medical student obsessed with finding out what happens to our brains after the moment of death. There’s a bit of an abrupt start to the film that makes it hard to engage with any of the characters much, but it’s obvious enough that Courtney is racked with guilt and grief about causing the death of her young sister in a driving accident. To be honest, I expected them to go with the idea that she’d already had a near-death experience in the crash, and hence wanted to learn more, but that might have involved a bit more plotting that the film seemed willing to do… Instead we have to figure out how heavily this still weighs on her by Ellen Page’s hunched shoulders and glassy stare.

As Courtney assembles her two assistants for the procedure she wants to perform — stopping her heart and then restarting it a minute later, whilst scanning for ongoing brain activity — we get only the mildest hints of the group dynamic. This isn’t Grey’s Anatomy where, despite the competition, anxiety and depression, the student doctors all ultimately (well, sort of) support each other and look out for one another. At the beginning of the movie competitiveness wins out over all else. So we meet the struggling Sophia, worried about her grades and the money her Mom spent on getting her into Med School, and the cocky, jockish Jamie, who’s on the lookout for the kind of research that will send him up the ladder to success as swiftly as possible. The two of them panic and bungle Courtney’s revival, so they call in Ray, the competent one (who is presumably meant to be a little older and wiser after his six years in the Fire Service, and who seems to have just as much of an issue with the entitled rich kids as Sophia initially does). Ray’s rush through the hospital turns the head of Marlo, who’s been trading barbs with him over patients in some unsubtly tropey behaviour (gosh, do you think they like each other secretly?), and Marlo joins the group too.

The opening third is the weakest because the film doesn’t really allow the characters any breathing space before the experiment. Although Courtney’s motives can be guessed at, there’s a lot of scenes where the others talk about her, within earshot, while she looks a bit dazed. We’re told that she and Sophia used to be close, but seemingly not close enough that Sophia knew about her sister’s death. Courtney as a character does not exist beyond her grief for her sister and her drive to find out about the afterlife. We’re only allowed into her mind at the very last minute.

At least Jamie makes enough sense as the one to follow her into the afterlife: he’s reckless and willing to try any narcotic he can get his hands on. Ray’s refusal to take part never waivers, and I’m glad of that, but Sophia’s involvement never quite rings true. Her relationship with her mother could have been better explored — her guilt about sharing nudes of her classmate is completely justified, but what’s happened to the guilt she feels in the first scene we see her in, pressured into a role that she struggles with because of her mother’s expectations? She wants to fit in, and Marlo is seemingly the most competitive of the characters, but when so much of this has to be inferred from only one or two lines of dialogue, and the relationships are not really established beforehand, none of it really sticks.

Even Ray, who I’m delighted to say survives the movie,(1) isn’t given any depth; he’s the voice of reason, and his background is intriguing, but so much is left unsaid/unused. At one point, when I feared they might still have him flatline with the others, it occurred to me how awful his guilt-ghosts might be after his time in the Fire Service, but as they never had him do so, we don’t know whether he had any comparable guilt, or how he managed it. Not even a reference to it when he tried to talk Marlo into admitting what she’d done. Other backstories, like Jamie’s failure to help a girl he’d knocked up see her abortion through, were somewhat unimaginative and lazily handled.

Science (I mean, “science”) is also largely abandoned as soon as the effects of the flatlining begin to take hold. There’s initial excitement about the activity they see in different parts of the brain after Courtney has died, but no one thinks to return to this when they’re suffering the bad trip that comes later. Why should the last viable brain activity they can detect leave the person in a state of guilt and rage? Is this a roundabout Dylan Thomas reference? We’re all just raging against the dying of the light, right up to the last minute? Or is it a religious point? This is when our worst sins come back to haunt us, and it may as well be Hell as a product of our own subconscious? But (asks the arts student), is this actually something absorbed into the subconscious by living in a society founded on a religion that allocates punishment in the afterlife because of our failings in life? Who knows! The film doesn’t give a crap. Look at the creepy abandoned city, folks. Look at the pretty lights — now see them go out. Oh look! Here’s a sad-eyed blonde woman. She was probably wronged in some way. And now the surroundings are exploding into a dust cloud?

So essentially, the film isn’t interested in explanations beyond those you’d get in a horror movie, but the payoff doesn’t quite come with horror movie catharsis. Once all the flatliners have encountered a vision of their own guilt that haunts them most, we’re in straight-up horror territory, with fairly standard things like lights going out and radios re-tuning themselves (is this because of the electrical activity in the brain? Is it just because this is what happens in horror movies?). But there’s no fearsome Last Girl to vanquish the demon, not least because the demon is still, probably, in their own minds (Jamie’s stabbed hand muddies the waters here, unhelpfully). Instead, there’s a rather trite lesson about admitting your sins, owning up to your mistakes and then learning to forgive yourself. Um, great? Lucky the girl whose photos Sophia spread around was so forgiving. Lucky we could just cut away from Jamie’s reconciliation with the woman he knocked up — ‘hey Bobby, your Daddy loves you, but only because he fucked up his brain in a stupid medical experiment and he’s worried that if he doesn’t love you enough then a guilt-demon version of your Mom will come and kill him.’ Great basis for a constructive relationship.

Marlo’s a bit more resistant: like Courtney, she can’t ask for forgiveness from the man she accidentally killed on the job. Plus, owning up to what she did would mean disciplinary action. She seems to think that admitting what she did to Ray (who offers forgiveness through hot sex — but still holds her to account for altering autopsy records) ought to be enough, but she’s got that wild-eyed look that Izzie Stevens gets when she knows she’s going to do something rash, like cut Denny’s LVAD wire. So Marlo nearly buys it — she seems to think that by dying again, she can ‘speak’ to the man she killed and ask his forgiveness. The imagery of the scary dead black man whose death she caused repeatedly trying to strangler her is … not the most edifying part of the movie.

Incidentally, at this point I very much felt that Ray was right. Marlo should not be a doctor. But also Ray ~needs~ her to come back, and like every other flatline, Ray revives her. It’s honestly a bit of an ask to invest much in their relationship, but Diego Luna tries very hard to sell it, and he has an impressive array of concerned-disappointed frowns.

Damn, I was meant to be relatively enthusiastic about this movie. When I came out of the cinema I felt it had been far more enjoyable than I expected. And I suppose it was, despite all the problems and loose threads and plot holes picked at above. But it was quite short, and a cursory Google seems to indicate that quite a bit was changed and/or cut during the later stages of production. There were a lot of missed opportunities, and it was a movie that didn’t quite know what it wanted to be. I’m more curious than I was about the original now. Watch this space, I may get round to watching it eventually. Ooh, but The Bad Batch is on Netflix…


(1) Look, Contraband was my last effort at watching a Diego Luna movie I’d otherwise not have watched. He doesn’t come off so well there. Maybe someday I’ll write up my thoughts on the first forty minutes of that film. I have a lot of them. Few are good.

Review: Han Solo’s Revenge (Brian Daley)

0bac206efce255b863-0

All I remember about Splinter of the Mind’s Eye, the only Star Wars EU book to precede the Han Solo trilogy by Brian Daley, is that it taught me the word ‘querulous’ and there was a very misty forest with some crystals and Darth Vader in it. But I think I enjoyed it well enough, even if it was clear that the characters were still somewhat underdone. I didn’t get that feeling from Brian Daley’s Han and Chewie though: for the most part, the odd dated aside um, aside, these felt like the characters I recognised from the movies and the so-called Legends books. I say that as someone who has always enjoyed Han’s adventures, but who has avowedly been one of those Luke Skywalker nerds since my very first viewing of A New Hope. Sorry Han, you were just never my favourite, though I like you well enough.

No need to have read the first in Daley’s trilogy before plunging into this (which He Judges unearthed in a second-hand bookshop in Haworth … Brontë quality it ain’t, no matter how much better it is than Chuck Wendig’s work). It’s a slight tale, in which very little takes place, set pieces feel rather forced, and description takes priority over plot. In a year in which I wrote my first long-form fanfic I find all this to be incredibly reassuring, at least. The level of description, whilst not making for stellar writing, is fun and a lot more imaginative than the more recent EU novels seem to have been able to be. There’s a lot more variety in the alien species and a lot more inventiveness when it comes to the technology; sure it may not work well within a larger, coherent franchise, but on the other hand I didn’t feel like there was a box somewhere that needed to be ticked, reading ‘must include at least one Togruta’.

The story begins when Han proves himself to be somewhat lacking as both linguist and anthropologist, having accidentally started a cult on a backwater planet. He’s broke, the Falcon is running on outdated fluidic controls, and he has to take a mystery job in the Corporate Sector in order to make ends meet. This turns out to involve a shipment of slaves, and naturally our hero is appalled and soon manages to contrive a way to turn on the slavers and free the captives; only to remain out of pocket by ten thousand credits. The rest of the book is Han’s ongoing search for the credits, which sees him fall in with Fiolla, an ambitious Authority employee looking to expose her own peoples’ involvement in the slave-trade. The Empire doesn’t feature at all in this setting.

Fiolla’s an interesting one. She’s black, and in Brian Daley’s EU, her people lived under slavery on her home planet for years, learning incredible skills of mimicry and people-reading as they survived however they could. It’s all a bit essentialist, and is meant to show why Fiolla cares so much about catching the slavers, although for the most part that reason fades into the background and it’s her ambition that’s emphasised. Similarly her competence wavers in that familiar way you get from a certain tropey take on ‘Strong [minority] Character’: at times Fiolla seems to have a handle on things, but at several crucial moments she goes all naïve and indecisive, allowing Han to grab her hand, leap in and save the day. It is his story, after all…

Daley just doesn’t seem comfortable writing Fiolla’s voice, and though Han and Chewie are the main POV characters, he manages well enough with their droid friends. This is one aspect that I miss about Wendig’s writing: when it’s going well, and when he’s writing his original characters, he has no problem writing man, woman, alien or unaffiliated. Other supporting characters in Han Solo’s Revenge are handled with confidence and are given voices of varying distinctiveness — the alien bureaucrat Spray is excellent fun, even if Zollux and Blue Max are essentially 3PO are Artoo without the camp. The technology is never overly handwavy or all-powerful either: in fact, dog-fights are almost too tense, the shields almost too weak after one or two shots. This is not a world where Han Solo would ever contemplate coming out of hyperspace within a planet’s atmosphere… But it’s still a world where Han’s real skill is in piloting, where his love for his ship and his affection for his co-pilot are strong, and his ability to make money is somewhat wanting. Many before me have pointed out that OT-Han lacks a lot of chill: he’s not some suave lady killer, but a dork who’s just winging it. That Han already existed when Brian Daley released this in 1980, he’s no figment of fangirls’ imaginations.

Thinking again about the book’s title it becomes clear how thin the plot is. Han’s revenge? I’m not sure what he wants revenge for. He did agree to transport an unidentified cargo, and though the unfortunately named ‘Zlarb’ (but can you imagine that said in Harrison Ford’s drawl, with dripping disdain for the material he’s forced to read? Excuse me a moment) intends to turn on him, the book doesn’t really get the message across that Han wants the credits as ‘revenge’ for an attempt on his life. Perhaps it’s one of the pitfalls of writing a character we know survives perfectly well: it’s hard to get worked up about any apparent danger to his life. There are also a lot of reveals right at the end, which don’t have all that much impact, as they’d not really been telegraphed much in advance. It’s all tied up relatively neatly, but key moments happen off-scene and are narrated by characters to one another, which rarely makes for the most satisfying dénouement. Also, whilst some scene-setting felt distinctive and original, the honour-based society of Ammuud seemed a bit of a cop-out to this medievalist. Nevertheless, there was some fun stuff in this and it wasn’t as cringe-inducing as it might have been; obviously I’d rather have Fiolla with her somewhat thin characterisation than not have her, and it’s another reminder that Star Wars has indeed featured POC since way before TFA.

Review: The Dears (Oslo, Hackney)

IMG_20171007_210601.jpgMy photo.

Of the three gigs in the one week (I am so behind on writing things up!) this was the one I was looking forward to most. Yep, the somewhat niche Canadian indie band, not the folk legends or the superstar singer-songwriter. It didn’t disappoint, thought I find it hard to articulate why I love their music quite so much; as with Maxïmo Park I just can’t figure out why more people don’t love them. Well, Hackney certainly loved them at least, in that somewhat too intense middle-aged hipster way, but it was still quite nice to be part of, at least until the shoving and the guys lining up in the front row for the encore, blocking the view of all behind them… but this is a review of the music, not the crowd.

The Dears were a kind of recent re-discovery for me. I think I was vaguely familiar with No Cities Left and Gang of Losers at the time of release (back when I bought the NME), but never owned copies. I remembered Murray Lightfield talking about Blur’s influence on him, though from Wikipedia it seems he eventually got a bit fed up with the Damon Albarn and Morrissey comparisons. Quite right too: he’s got a stunning voice of his own, with a broader skill set than Albarn or Morrissey’s vocals. Happily, He Judges has good taste in these matters, and owned both of those Dears albums, which I’ve had on my regular playlists for a few years now. A few months back we came across Degeneration Street, which is also an excellent album, and discovered that they would be in the UK this autumn, having released two albums since Degeneration Street.

Oslo consists of a club space above a bar/kitchen, and the whole thing is really very Hackney. Happily, it’s not quite as expensive as the city it’s named after, and it was a great little venue to see a band we knew this well in; I imagine that it’s like seeing British indie bands who I became familiar with at the same time on tour in North America, where they still play smaller rooms with low stages and no barriers. And here we got two very different support acts too, each with a decent length set.

The first was Lou Canon, another Canadian, who played Björk-esque dubsteb beats from her keyboard, projected creepy blinking eyes behind her, and sang in powerful, lilting cascades. Phildel is the closest comparison I can think of. Considering how small the audience was at that stage of the night she inhabited the space well, keeping up a consistent barrage of fairly catchy tracks that I’m looking forward to finding online and recommending to all my synth-lady-loving friends. Following her was Fabrizio Cammarata, a rather intense Italian with an acoustic guitar. I liked the Spanish-language track he ended on, and his percussive guitar-playing, but most of it was rather too po-faced and over-wrought for me, all too highly-strung and trying terribly hard. I might get suckered in by an album of it, but it wouldn’t be something I’d normally seek out to see live.

After the two support acts’ sets, The Dears themselves had well over an hour in what was by then a very warm, very crowded room. The only members from The Dears of those albums I’d first heard over a decade ago are the now married duo Murray Lightfield and Natalia Yanchack, whose vocals and interweaving keyboards and guitar define the sound of the band. Although their music wanders through a number of genres it’s the sound of Natalia’s light, sweet vocals (well yes, quite like Amy Millan of Stars, though The Dears did form first) and Murray’s rich, versatile range that keeps it all consistent. Whether more synth-heavy, more soul-inspired, or driven by the rhythm section, the material in their set — spanning their twenty years together — flowed together seamlessly. There were a lot more tracks from No Cities Left and Gang of Losers than I expected, and these tracks still definitely went down best with the audience, despite the high quality of the more recent albums. Well, if I get to see them again I’ll cheer just as loudly for tracks from Times Infinity, which we bought on the way out…

Still, it was fantastic to hear so many tracks from Gang of Losers (though no ‘Ballad of Human Kindness’!). And the irony of hearing ‘Whites Only Party’ in a largely white crowd of Hackney hipsters was heavy, but we all danced anyway — it’s irresistible when you hear the rhythmic opening. Throughout the set Murray said very little, hidden behind a pair of sunglasses and presumably sweltering in a black jacket and turtle-neck as he dashed from guitar to guitar to keyboards. He was more playful when he came out for the encore though, a smug grin on his face as he hefted his acoustic guitar and told an audience shouting out various requests: “I’m gonna play what I wanna play!” before giving us a lovely acoustic version of ‘Ticket to Immortality’.

I’ve found it quite hard to have much to say about this gig, just because it was all something of a blur of enjoyment — a really substantial set, excellent sound and performances, tight and professional and full of familiar favourites as well as great new tracks. I’d love to see them again, I’m really enjoying listening to Times Infinity parts one and two, and it was a great way to round off a very busy week. I’ll not let them slip off my radar again.

From El Greco to Goya (The Wallace Collection)

IMG_20171007_155905.jpgPortrait of Juan Antonio Meléndez Valdés by Francisco Goya (my wonky photo).

Oopsie — should have read that review in a bit more detail, rather than just going “El Greco?! Goya?! COUNT ME IN!” Then I might have realised beforehand that the exhibition at The Wallace Collection contains only one work by the former, and two by the latter; the other room is made up of a mixed bag of contemporary Spanish art also collected by the Bowes family. Still, it’s very much worth a visit just for the headliners, not least as entry to the Wallace is free (and while you’re there you can see one of the most impressive collections of medieval armour in the country…and a load of stuff looted from Lahore that probably shouldn’t be in this country…).

I love El Greco’s strange, lanky people and the deep, dramatic black shadows he uses. The example in this exhibition, a version of a scene he painted a number of times, is not my favourite, and looks somewhat like Terry Jones in a way I just can’t shake, but it was still a treat to see it close up. St Peter’s big, wet eyes are proto-Manga, exaggerated orbs that deny the viewer’s gaze with determination; I imagine that when hung higher up, the perspective works very effectively, but at eye-level it’s a bit disorienting. It’s still interesting to see, a detail that changes depending on where you stand in relation to the painting.

The background, also seen closer than the artist maybe intended, is a gorgeous expressionistic swirl over Peter’s right shoulder. Cloud-shapes nudge up against the landscape in matching greys and blues, and a hunched figure floats in front, face obscured. The green of grass in the background and ivy in the foreground brackets St Peter along the same diagonal as the dark outcrop of rock under which he prays, emphasising the pale line of his arms, which cut across on the horizontal. His arms are where the detail lies, as well as all the tension in St Peter’s body: veins bulge and forearm muscles swell as Peter’s clasped hands press against one another. A lot of it’s a bit odd if you focus too closely only on one area, but as a coherent whole it’s a masterful composition, bringing together colour, shape and line to draw the viewer’s eyes precisely how the artist intends.

The Goyas opposite are less imposing: one is a small, sepia study of prisoners, the other a portrait of the artist’s friend, a man who sought the reform of Spanish prisons: Juan Antonio Meléndez Valdés. This is my favourite in the small exhibition. The sitter looks distracted, ready to sit up and leave the painting at any time, but momentarily arrested by some question from the artist. There’s a phrase on his lips and a frown of concentration lingers; his upper lip could do with a closer shave; his eyes seem to be caught on their journey from middle-distance to meet ours. To borrow from Garrow’s Law, he appears to have the rouged fury of righteousness in his cheeks. Around all that humanity in the face, his hair wisps away into grey smudges, his collar is a perfunctory, structural scrawl, and the red of his jacket simply offsets the colour in his cheeks. Portraiture at its finest.

Next to him are the prisoners whose conditions he campaigned to improve. This unassuming little piece is meant to look like a causal study, but it works in opposition to Meléndez Valdéz or St Peter: where the detail of those catches your eye first, and the sketchiness of some areas is only noticed later, the painting of the prisoners soon reveals itself to be very un-sketch-like indeed. The composition is meticulous, with the gathering of shackled men framed in the prison tunnels by a blazing white arch of light. Up close you can see that much of this white was painted on last, thick and dry, ensuring it dominates your first impressions. From it, your eye drops to the men: casually placed in the haze of the background, but more carefully posed at the front, down to one man who lies with his feet up on a set of stocks, a shackle at his neck and ankles, and a scrap of cloth artfully draped over his crotch. It’s as awkward a posture as the others hold: if he positioned himself like that for comfort, it can’t have been comfortable for very long. Another leans against a wall; one bends forward slightly, both caught in positions you wouldn’t want to hold; but the central figure twists in the most uncomfortable way, depicted mid-hobble, his balance in doubt as he tries to move his tightly bound feet.

IMG_20171007_155928.jpg
Interior of a Prison, 1793–4 by Francisco Goya (also my wonky photo).

I’d never normally describe myself as a fan of brown paintings, but Goya’s browns are rich and warm, earthy and alive. You can see the layers of his working and the very conscious way he chooses to portray his subjects. Like Meléndez Valdéz’s gaze, caught mid-rove, or the prisoners in their stress positions, Goya’s paintings made me feel stuck between accepting the accuracy of what he showed, and double-guessing the expert manipulation of scene and light that he uses. Reality and realism hand in hand.

After those three, the rest didn’t do as much for me. It was like going into Dublin’s Caravaggio room in reverse; there you can build up to the masterpiece, nodding at various bold pretenders until you get to the genius itself (The Taking of the Christ is one of my favourite paintings, and all Caravaggios I’ve seen have been unearthly in person — though I’ve not been to the National Gallery in Dublin for a few years now) [honest, really I’m usually much more of a fan of fin de siècle stuff with colours and personal angst, but I do make exceptions]. In this case, after the show-stoppers, there were a couple of, to my eye, fairly perfunctory fruit bowls. There was a documentary on the history of still-life that convinced me of the merit of the genre, and reminded me of the few examples I do like, but generally, while I admire the skill involved, I don’t want to spend much time looking at them. The same was true here, plus there was something about the perspective of the bowls and baskets that made me feel queasy, as though the artist was trying to have his cake fruit and eat it.

In the next room there were a couple of good fits with the El Greco and Goyas: I liked the surreally levitating St Anthony and the mysterious monk with convent in hand (though something about his shoulder seemed awry under his heavy hood). I didn’t much care for the vast dollop of pink, cheruby gauze that was someone’s idea of the Immaculate Conception, and the best thing about the show’s other large painting was learning that archangels sometimes go on road-trips and advise people to cure blindness with fish. Apparently it’s from the Apocrypha; no wonder it sounds so much fun. The death of St Andrew fitted artistically with the idea of El Greco, with its sinewy, stretched body and dramatic lights and darks, but there’s little secular pleasure to be had in the image of Andrew’s crucifixion, unlike St Peter’s tearful repentance. A nice surprise in this room was, however, a portrait of St Eustochium: a woman who helped Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin, and whose portrait used to hang in a monastery (not a convent). I don’t remember much about the painting itself, but I was impressed by its size and original place of hanging, almost enough to forget my bitterness at never having heard of this woman who played a key role in the Church’s history. To be fair though, even through ten+ years of medieval studies, I have always fiercely resisted learning anything about the Church, so it may not be the misogynistic sweeping-under-a-rug of female history I’d automatically assume…