"...I'm as blank as a fart..."

It's funny the things that come in to your mind as you're sat in front of an empty screen with a cursor blinking at you. And, then, what it can spark. Typing the quote above instantly draws me to Twin Peaks, but I think I should hold off on the Peaks stuff for the time being as there'll be lots of that later in the year, once we get to Feb 24th, and the subsequent Blu release a few weeks later. With FWWM deleted scenes. 

Trouble is with these blog posts, I know all the things I should say... but it's so hard and I'm not sure I want to, anyway. 

On a different day...

...which, of course, links back to yesterday; when, I was mad. And quite prepared to give up everything. Which is an intriguing notion; to give up everything. We accumulate so much stuff in our lifetime, but of how much worth is it? The things we build up just act to constrain us, when we should be able to just not worry. Does it matter that so much money has been sunk in to the piles of DVDs, Blus, books, etc? Heck; in terms of books I've already bought more than I'll ever get around to reading on my Kindle, and that's so beautifully compact. After all, it's the content that matters, not the pieces of dead tree...

...but imagine if one of those pieces of dead tree happened to be a first edition, first printing of Catcher in the Rye? One of the ones that had the picture on the back, before JDS got it removed. That would be worth having. Especially if signed. But... I've not got one of those, and to buy one would be such silly money it's not worth thinking about. 

You could buy me one, if you like... 

"...a number on a list..."

So, I was having a play with the site stats, and apparently the all time most viewed post of all time is this one;

http://fatsosblog.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/does-somebody-come-around-in-truck.html

And it's not the most viewed by a small amount, it's got just over triple the views of the second placed post. It's also the post which has the least waffling by me in it... but I must remember what Mr Eko said... :)

Oh, and to follow up on the last post; still waiting, Pixies, for something even half as good as Bam Thwok... 

"...I liked him best in the play..."

The regular reader of this blog will recall a good while back a review of a production of Hamlet with a unique twist, fusing said Shakespeare play with the stylings of The Catcher in the Rye. Well, the director of this production of Hamlet, Gavin Leigh, has been at it again, only this time the twist was Naked Shakespeare...

...actually, it wasn't; but I figure the more I mention that idea, the sooner someone will run with the ball. And in the case of the Shakespeare play produced this time, given that it contained the line "My naked weapon is out" it would have fitted entirely with the play. But, I digress... (what else would you expect?!?)

The production this time was Romeo and Juliet fused with Alice in Wonderland, and the conceit here worked very well indeed. Here we have a Juliet, blooming in to womanhood where she enters this wonder land of love and romance as she meets her White Knight, Romeo. Everything is strange, and new, and it's such a joy to experience it all. Thus, the performance must get over this sense of wonder, and I have to say that Eleanor Massam managed to capture this just so... wonderfully. I really believed in this Juliet, that she was so in awe of the new things she was experiencing, as she drew closer to her Romeo. The scene where they first met was spellbinding, as they exchanged looks, and slowly edged together... I was never anything other than completely entranced by her performance. 

Matt Young's Romeo played off her with just the right note of heroic stoicism. There wasn't as much of a sense of wonder from him, but then there probably shouldn't be (as the notion of Alice is that it's her experiencing the wonder, whereas to all else it's normal). The performances  complemented each other very well. 

And I have to mention the balcony scene, probably the most iconic scene in the play... it was a very brave directorial decision to do the scene, erm, without a balcony, but it worked really well. The pair of them were in each other's arms, sharing a tender moment, and it just felt right. 

However, when it comes to Romeo and Juliet, I'm in agreement with Holden Caulfield...

Mercutio, ah, Mercutio... he was styled as the Mad Hatter, and very appropriate this was indeed. We got here an exuberant performance from Ant Henson, which was so full of life. He strutted his way across the stage, stealing scenes all over the place place when he wasn't the focus, and owning the stage when he was (oh, the Queen Mab speech...). Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know, but I got a real sense of the Ford Prefect (TV version) from his performance; the guy who'd rather go to a party than save the universe... 

So, when he does die it's all the more sad... he was so suave he even put his hat back on head after it fell off... 

I think the one real criticism I'd have of the production is that its aims were possibly a bit over ambitious for the budget available. There was the occasional character who I couldn't work out what the Alice in Wonderland equivalent was, as some outfits were a little generic. But, really, this is small potatoes.

The play was edited down quite a bit, which didn't have any negative impact on the play at all. Shakespeare fiddled with his plays all the time, so there's no reason why a contemporary performance shouldn't follow suit. 

The only time any of the cast are out of Alice garb is at the end of the play, when Romeo buys poison from the apothecary. Here he's in an ordinary suit. We're about to get to the end of the story, wonderland will be left behind, and we plummet closer to the tragic ending. 

There's a whole host of other things I could say; I could list all the cast and say how great they were, but that could get a bit boring (although I have to give a quick nod here to Jack Wilson's performance as the Prince; such great regal nonchalance), and it would be more shopping list than review. I don't recall a singe duff performance. 

I understand that the director's next production will be King Lear fused with the TellyTubbies... the scene where Tinky Winky has his eye gouged out will be a sight to behold. Well, it's either that or Naked Shakespeare...! :)

"...the play's the thing..."

(I know this is not exactly the most original title for a review of a production of Hamlet; this is somewhat ironic given that the production this review is about was a highly original production. And it's rather late.)

But, first, some background; every year, the Reading University Drama Society puts on a Shakespeare play or two in the open air. This year, one of the plays was Hamlet. However, this was a Hamlet with a twist. Shakespeare with a twist is not an unusual thing, there are all sorts of contemporarily set plays, or transposed locations, or even naked Shakespeare... but I can’t think of another time when Hamlet has been mashed up with The Catcher in the Rye...

Now you may think this is a crazy notion as the two source texts are so very different from each other, but think about it; for example, one of things Holden rallies against are phonies. What could be more phony than the “grief” of Claudius for his brother’s death; murdered at his own hands? Hamlet sees this phoniness, and endeavours to expose it. And once you start looking, you can find all sorts of little examples.

So. Hamlet, with Catcher in the Rye stylings. Does it work? Well. There’s really only one answer, and it’s a three-lettered one beginning with a “y”.

Now, I’m sure it’s not escaped your knowledge, but I am somewhat of a fan of The Catcher in the Rye. It’s my favourite book. I have no idea how many times I have read it. Often when I finish reading it, I’ll flip straight back to the start and begin again. If I’m carrying a bag there’s about a 97.8% chance there’s one of my four copies of Catcher in there. Look to the top right of this blog to see where its title comes from. I’m sure you’re getting the picture, yes? But then there is also something I’m quite militant about and that’s my loathing of the idea of adapting The Catcher in the Rye in to any other medium. Take a look at the post “...don’t ever tell anybody anything...” dated March 9th 2010 for more on why a Catcher movie would be a bad idea; the same really applies to any other medium. Including the theatre. Now. The thing this production got right was that the Hamlet here is still clearly Hamlet. Although there are stylings of The Catcher in the Rye, and influences, at no point did it feel Hamlet was trying to be Holden. It was enough that the world this Hamlet inhabits is a similar one to Holden. It didn’t need Hamlet to actually become Holden.

And the Catcher touches were all over the place. From the Little Shirley Beans record that Ophelia gives back to Hamlet, to the red hunting hat Hamlet wears occasionally, to the fencing, to the whole prep school look of several of the characters, to the game of chequers that Hamlet and Horatio play; with Horatio even shedding a tear on to the board. Although I did actually miss her doing that...

...yes. You did read that bit right. In this version, Horatio was female; she was the Jane Gallagher to Holden’s Hamlet. You remember; in the book, she’s the one who keeps all her kings in the back row. Actually, this led to one of the few prop errors in the production; when they were playing chequers, the kings were facing Horatio, when they should have been facing Hamlet. Having said that, though, chances are I was the only one in the audience that noticed this.

Having Horatio as a female changed the dynamic of the play a little; especially heightening the way how Ophelia acts. Her desire for Hamlet, and his rejection of her (“Get thee to a nunnery” etc) makes her gradual decline looks as if jealousy of Hamlet’s relationship with Horatio plays a part in it. Does this Ophelia see Horatio as a rival, perhaps?

Both roles were brilliantly played. The brilliantly cast. Katie Gunning’s performance as the reliable Horatio (one of the few truly honest, and stable, characters in the characters in the play) was spot on; I remember seeing her in a production of Closer (the Patrick Marber play) last year playing the Natalie Portman role, and in the intervening months she’s clearly improved her acting skillls. It’s not that she was bad in Closer, she was okay; but in Hamlet she shifted up a couple of gears to give a compelling performance, both when acting and reacting.
In any case, Marber is no Shakespeare; the only way his play scores over Hamlet is the gratuitous lapdancing scene. As far as I am aware, no production of Hamlet has yet found a a way to work a lapdancing in to the narrative... but I digress...

The flip side of the coin was the unstable Ophelia. It’s always a tricky thing to get Ophelia’s descent in to madness correct; it’s very easy to go a little too over the top, so that it seems hammy. This was not the case here; the performance was a believable one.

But at the core of every performance of Hamlet is one performance that will make or break the entire production. Clearly, I should not need to tell you which role this is... and luckily the titular role here was cast perfectly. The sheer energy of Ant Henson's performance just left you breathless. When Hamlet staggered, drunk, on stage, bottle in hand, splurging out “to be or not to be...” shivers went up the spine. It was that good. It felt fresh.

Now, I’ve seen three productions of Hamlet, and if you were to ask me about Rosencratz and Guildestern in the first two... well, I’d have to Google them to find out who played them, and really I can’t remember a thing about their performances. That’s not something that will happen with this performance; Matthew Clark and Lee Anderson came close to stealing the show every time they were on stage with their performances as the toadying little pair. The sheer physicality of their performance oozed lackiness to such a degree that Waylon Smithers would have felt confident in bossing them around. They were just brilliant. Even now, as I type this, I’m chuckling at the memory of their performances.

Ah... I could mention so many other performances... from one of the gravediggers and his Matt-Smith-esque attire (at one point he pinged his bow tie as if saying “It’s a bow tie. I wear a bow tie now. Bow ties are cool.”), to Alexander Wilson’s Stradlater styled performance as Claudius, and Fiona McIntyre’s very regal Gertrude... so much to praise.

There was some real talent on that stage. I don’t know how many of them will end up pursuing acting as a career option, or just dabbling with amateur theatre occasionally, but there are certainly a handful up there who really should think about doing a lot more acting, as they were so damn good; and were I to hear that they have not acted further, I'll track them down and slap them round the chops with a wet fish. Maybe a bream, or a brill.

In closing, I’ll just leave you with this one comment; I went to see the last of the three performances of this production. In hindsight, this was a mistake. I should have gone to the first. Then I could have seen it twice more...

"...don't ever tell anybody anything..."

I think there is a certain irony in the fact that the front cover of the 2010 UK paperback edition of The Catcher in the Rye, if looked at right, resembles a £ symbol. Salinger had been dead less than a month when it appeared in the shops, an almost indecent haste with him barely cold before these new editions showed up. On top of that, it looks rubbish too. Now I know there are all sorts of restrictions on what new editions of covers of JDS's books can have on them (no pictures, no plot summary, no author biog, no author photo etc), but this new covers shows a supreme lack of imagination. It is almost as if it was polished off in five minutes in order to get the edition out quicker. It's massively inferior to the old, red, edition; that had class and style, and there was a uniformity of design across the yellow (Seymour), blue (Esme), and green (F&Z) books. Oh, and whilst they've re-done Catcher, they didn't bother with the other three books... ho-hum.

I had intentionally not posted on Salinger's death until now, as really I needed time to reflect. I remember finding out about his death upon reading a flippant comment on an message board (which seems to be the method du jour of findind out these things), and doing a double take. First things I did was to head to the BBC site for corroboration (best news site out there, and thought that it might be neutered by stupid people makes me sick; but that's for another time), and there it was. He'd died. Only three weeks after his 91st birthday. Now, I know it's a cliche to say that it was a shock, but it genuinely was. He was 91, so it's not like it shouldn't have been unexpected, but it did sadden me immensely.

His uncompromising nature was legendary; if things were not done his way, they didn't get done. He had such clout, despite his not publishing anything new since 1965, that he could make the demands as mentioned above about his covers. His steadfast refusal to submit any more material for publication would have got many lesser authors struck off from their publishers, their books allowed to slide out of print. But, I guess when you have a title that still shifted (apparently) circa 250,000 copies a year that must have counted for something.

The thing I most admired about him, though, was his refusal to allow his work to be adapted in to other media. There was no Catcher in the Rye move, stage play, TV show or anything; I really do agree with him on this point. The trouble with, for example, movies of books is that whether bad or good they affect the book. A bad movie can taint the book on which it is based; it will be supposed by many that as the adaptation was bad, the source novel will be also.

A great movie of a book can also be bad for the book in that it will supplant the original text in the minds of the public, so that the only thing people think of is the movie. Now, this is one of those areas where I often say contradictorary things; for example, I love the movie A Clockwork Orange, but I am aware that when I think of Alex, what he looks like, what he's wearing, his swagger, the image in my head is the one designed by Kubrick, and Alex is Malcolm McDowell. Even when I read the book, I picture Alex in his white outfit, with the bowler hat on; even though Anthony Burgess tells me that Alex looks completely different, and his Droog outfit is completely different. I just can't help it. Ditto with Trainspotting; Renton is Ewan McGregor, Begbie is Robert Carlye, and so on.

Now, when I read The Catcher in the Rye, there is a picture in my head of Holden. There is a rhythm to how he speaks. I imagine him narrating the book at a frantic pace, with words tumbling out of his mouth; almost fighting to get out. He's yammering, he's got to get it all out, he's digressing all over the place, he's fast.

Ten years ago, the BBC did a list of best books, and in one programme they did Catcher, and in this they had someone reading the book. But they read it in a really slow drawl, that almost sounded like the K-Billy DJ in Reservoir Dogs... That wasn't how Holden should sound... but clearly someone thought that was how he spoke.

So, should they make a Catcher movie, it will be the director's Holden. They'll get it wrong. Anyone doing it would get it wrong. I'd get it wrong.

And, within days of Salinger's death, there were talks that there may now be a movie... it would all depend on his will. There was talk that a couple of decades ago he made a comment that once he was dead it was up to his estate if his unpublished work was published, and if movies were made; and that he was just glad he wouldn't be around to see it.

I'll tell you this; I don't want to see it. It could be the best movie ever, but I don't want someone else's version of Holden to interfere with mine. I've read that book a million times, and I'll read it a million times more, but I want to read it my way, unpolluted by actors and directors.

There'll be more books by him published in due course, and I'll devour each new one as it arrives. Chances are, most (if not all) will be about people called "Glass", but we shall see.

There's a bit in Catcher where Holden talks of reading a book and wishing that the author was a really great friend of yours you could call up at any time and shoot the breeze with; I always got that feeling every time I'd read Catcher. I would have loved to have called Jerry up and shot the breeze about anything and everything.

He loved the movies, apparently...

"...random shoes..."

It's been a while since I updated this ol' blog, and this in some ways is normal for me, but in other ways, not so. Especially since there's been so much I really need to be writing about. So, this post will cover most of the things I wanted to cover. And probably in a much briefer manner than I really should. There's one thing that I really want to cover in much more detail, and that will be the subject of another post, entitled "...you start missing everybody..." If you can't work out what it's going to be about, please hang your head in shame.

Okay. So. Things.

Heroes

So, Season 4 of Heroes is now ended, and it's been almost a return to form. It was a much better season than 2 and 3, and whilst not reaching the heights of season 1, it's certainly been damn good. There have been patchy moments, and I'm unsure with the direction they're taking Sylar in... but, I do hope that there's a season 5. I'll not say what the end of season cliffhanger is, as it's not aired in the UK yet, but it offers up intriguing possibilities.

Oh, and there's a scene in the finale which, if it does not make a tear flow from your eye... well, you have no soul. It's beautiful.

Lost

We're in the home straight now. 15 to go, and the ending approaches. The parallel timeline is most intriguing. It is obvious that this is not a mere frippery; a "what if?", but rather something integral to the plot. How it is integral is another matter... it'll be interesting to see how.

I'll blog properly on each new episode from now on. But here's some comments I posted elsewhere on the latest episode;

The whole business with Sayid potentially being "claimed", like Jack's sister... that does raise some interesting possibilities. I do not think it was any coincidence that when we see Claire in the woods at the end of the episode, her pose and manner is very much that of Rousseau... Think back to the last time we saw Claire even pick up a gun, let alone shoot one, let alone as expertly as this...

Imagine if, for example, the "sickness" that Rousseau described in prior seasons wasn't in her colleagues, but in her? And that it was some kind of "possession"/"claiming"... And with Rousseau's obvious death, it had to find another consciousness to inhabit... and found Claire.

'Cos there was something not right with Claire since the attack on Dharmaville in The Shape of Things to Come. Even if the entity that "claimed" them could reanimate the dead, it would probably be too conspicuous to bring Rousseau back to life. But Claire... trapped under the debris, not see to be dead. Well, there's an obvious candidate. I dunno, it may be a mile off of what's really the case...

The "not-crash" timeline is getting more and more intriguing; the sudden thought of the name "Aaron" is interesting. There's talk that there's some bleed through in the time lines, and this is one of those occasions. Also, remember that there's no way this "not-crash" timeline is a mere interesting diversion. It's fundamentally important to the story is some way that's yet to be revealed.

Fanzines

I will have something interesting to say about fanzines soon. Both about the old, and the new... Two hints;

1 - it makes me want to shout.

2 - September's not so far away.

Ah... cryptic. : )

Anyhow, must get back to playing Desktop Defender. I tell you, it's like crack...

"...if you really want to hear about it..."

Okay. Some people have crazy ideas. It happens. But there can be fewer crazier ideas than that of a certain "JD California" (not his real name!). His bright idea was to write a sequel to The Catcher in the Rye...

Now, call me Picky McPicky, the Pickiest Person in Pickyland, winner of the Gold Medal in the Olympics for Pickiness, but if I were ever to be interested in reading a Catcher in the Rye sequel, really, there's only one person I'd want to have written it, and that's JD Salinger. The characters contained within the book are his to do as he pleases. No-one else. 

So, this "JD California's" sequel, entitled "60 Years Later; Coming Through the Rye" again sees Holden Caulfield on the run, only this time it's not from his school. It's from his retirement home, where the setpugenarian Caulfield lives. And there also appears to me some element of meta-fiction in the book, as Salinger appears as a character within it, deciding whether or not to revive Holden's story. Hmm.

The question you have to ask about this book is a very simple, brief one; why? I mean, what is the point of it? Just because he got a publisher for it, what's really the difference between this book and any number of fan fiction Caulfield stories? None at all. As mentioned previously, there's only one person I'd be interested in seeing a Catcher sequel from...

It would appear that I'm in good company in not liking the idea of this book. A certain JD Salinger dislikes the idea also, and has taken legal steps to prevent its publication. I hope he wins. This chancer is standing on the shoulder of a giant; he knows there will be a certain number of people who will buy the book out of sheer curiousity as to what happened to Holden next. But whatever suggestions he posits on the book are irrelevant, and are no more important than my ideas, or your ideas, or anyone else but Salinger's. 

There is talk that Salinger may not be able to block the publication of the book, citing the case of the unauthorised sequel to Gone With the Wind which had a similar lawsuit taken out to prevent its publication by Margaret Mitchell's estate. This lawsuit failed, and the book was published (though, the estate got a cut of royalties). It strikes me that the main difference here is that Salinger is still alive, and therefore could argue that the publication of an unauthorised sequel could harm the market for any sequel he might desire to write. Though, of course, chances of such a sequel are slim.

However, surely the most salient point is that Holden Caulfield is Salinger's character; he owns the copyright in him (and indeed on all of the characters within the book). For someone to be allowed to take characters which belong to someone else, and exploit them in a way that their creator does not intend is clearly wrong. Now, as mentioned earlier fan fiction does exist; but this is small potatoes in comparison. Fan fiction is shared freely between fan communities, and no attempt is made to gain financially. It's a very niche section of any fandom, as there will always be plenty of fans who do not care for it at all. Indeed, I count myself among their number. The release, however, of a published book takes things to a different, higher, level. 

There are some very real issues at stake at the heart of this lawsuit; that of the right of the creator of a work to be able to control how it is exploited. If Salinger loses this case, this is a fundamental blow to the rights of creators of works of art. 

"...I like it when somebody digresses..."

Okay. So I now have a proper title for this place. Whilst I did like Jibber Jabber, it really didn't seem right. "Digression", on the other hand, is perfect as it's not only something I do all the blimmin' time, it's also a rather neat Catcher in the Rye reference (see quote to right).

I rather like it...

...and I hope you will, too.

That's if anyone ever actually comes here and reads this...

"...does somebody come around in a truck..."

The Lagoon.

In Central Park.

In winter.

' Nuff said.