These are linked to the direct files so should be working better than the last lot.
ADH's Radio show whittled down to a 45 min podcast with all their songs included.
ENJOY
PART 1
PART 2
PART 3
Saturday 30 October 2010
Tuesday 5 October 2010
Buried...and why I wish cinema audiences were
By James Cox
"Buried"
As far as Jungian, collective fears are concerned, being buried alive is a banker.
It is a perfect mix of innately terrifying elements: darkness, claustrophobia, restriction, isolation.
The act of burial, of course, is so deeply rooted in our social consciousness as being the final stanza of a funeral that the fear is positively theological. You are being buried, descending to hell, beneath a ton of earth where no one will hear your last breath.
In "Buried" director Rodrigo Cortés, shows us, with a vivid lack of mercy, just how horrific an experience that lonely hell would be.
Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) wakes up in a wooden coffin beneath Iraqi soil.
He is a contract truck driver whose convoy was ambushed by put-upon insurgents hell bent on teaching the West a lesson.
The main selling point of this film is the narrative decision not to leave the coffin, at all.
It is the ultimate single-location, situation concept.
The specially designed "set" allows Cortés the ability to make frenetic use of his limited space.
I would applaud the tight composition that heightens the claustrophobia and tethers you to Conroy as his temperament waivers between calm acceptance to frenzied panic, but it's difficult to see how you could fail to apply a cramped feel when you've opted to shoot an entire 94 minute movie in a box.
And it's in this decision that it really earns it's stripes for commitment to a premise.
It pips "Phone booth", which despite it's limitations still allows itself a ten minute, free roaming prologue around New York before settling into the call box.
It even outdoes Hitchcock's masterful "Rope", which never leaves the studio apartment in which it's based, but which feels positively brimming with activity considering its half dozen party guests and city-view balcony.
For an hour an a half Reynolds lays in a box, and we lay with him.
The miracle here is that it never gets dull.
As the air supply gets low and the gentle trickle of top soil begins to fill the coffin, I found myself captivated by the stark helplessness of the situation.
And just as in Reynold's core dilemma, time becomes irrelevant when you're buried underground.
Much has been made of his performance and he deserves the plaudits.
Fast carving himself a respectable body of work, Ryan Reynolds is a sympathetic and charming every man, comfortable in his role as the narrative fulcrum.
He even manages a little of the Van Wilder cheekiness to break the unbearable tension with a few, close to comedic phone retorts.
Unfortunately the film isn't a complete success.
Strangely, it is only when the script tries to inject narrative urgency, peripheral to the immediate threat of suffocation, that it falls flat.
Paul has a mobile phone, and it is through this that the details of his imprisonment are revealed.
The phone brings a lot of bonus points to the production with the ever decreasing battery life and fading signal, it is a tool of annoyance that ratchets up the tension at crucial moments.
But it also relegates the supporting cast to voice acts, and here it fails miserably.
Quickly we are introduced to a game of cultural stereotypes as we purvey a myriad of global accents each a little over eager to paint us a picture.
It is detrimental to the political message, that appears to have been shoe horned into the background, that the Middle Eastern antagonist sounds like an Aladdin henchman.
There is a bizarrely misjudged critique on American bureaucracy that has Ned Ryerson from Groundhog Day (incidentally a strong voice actor with a poor role) delivering an indictement of red-tape America which verges on embarrassing.
That the film manages to break free of it's sodden confines and deliver any succinct plot is a triumph.
But ultimately the film is at its best when forcing us to face the terror of the central premise.
Everything else is window dressing for an impressive Hitchcockian set piece.
Reynolds may just have earned his "serious" credentials and if Cortés can be this captivating in a box, imagine what he can achieve above ground.
ADDITIONAL:
"Buried" relies on a very personal empathy to create the lonely, claustrophobic atmosphere that heightens this conceptual nightmare.
It is purposefully restricted to a 3 x 6 ft wooden box, and although director Cortés manages to milk every twist and turn out of that narrow crate, and deliver impressive light trickery, it is not a picture with mainstream appeal on it's mind.
It's not that this film is intellectually or culturally challenging. It's a suspense thriller and Panic Room sold well enough, right? But it will test the patience of "pop-corn" audiences who demand thrills, spills, and (almost forgivably) more than one character.
Having said this, "Buried" for all it's positives, was one of the most trying cinema experiences of my life. And I do not refer to the purpose built claustrophobia.
Instead a young audience who failed to connect to the subject matter, and thus failed to commit to a challenging premise, got restless and chatty.
They became uncomfortable with the unusual cinematic cues, because they haven't learnt how to react to five minutes of darkness at the movies before.
This is not a critique of them as people, it's a challenge to the entire cinema system, to change it's policy to protect movie experience for seasoned film fans who view going to the pictures as more than a recreational pass-time, but as (arguably sadly) a genuine interest. An interest in the way I suppose book fans enjoy reading groups, or art fans peruse a gallery.
That this experience must be shared by a populist cross section of the general public who are intolerant of challenging cinema and have formed the opinon that it is socially acceptable to fraternise mid-movie is not just a mild irritant to me, but the central thesis of my next blog post!
Let the ranting commence...
Friday 3 September 2010
TV show cast negative light over criminal scheme
A TV programme that criticised a community jobs scheme for convicts has been described as “fear-mongering” by a councillor using the initiative.
The ITV1 Tonight programme, screened on Thursday, said the Community Payback scheme was too easy on criminals.
It showed secretly filmed participants smoking cannabis, relaxing in the sunshine and complaining of little work.
Martyn Donn, Ramsey and Parkeston councillor and qualified Payback chaperone, is a major supporter of the initiative and was left angered by the negative programme.
“I had eight offenders over the Welfare Park on Wednesday, working like Trojans,” he said.
“Some of them don’t like it, but recognise that it’s a punishment. I never ask what they’ve done or why they were arrested, but a couple have actually told me that because of the scheme they will not offend again.
“I was annoyed at the program and the way they kept calling them criminals. Most of them have committed nothing more than motoring offences. People go on about jails being over crowded and they are giving back to the community.
“They have done some very important work in and around our area. Levelling the ground and clearing brambles.
“This tv programme was clearly just fear-mongering made to sell. It creates animosity towards the offender and puts people off using the scheme.
“It’s already worried about potential financial cut backs and this will not help its cause.”
Louise Casey, one of the architects of the scheme, turned objector, said: “Some of those people have committed serious offences, including violent offences, yet they're on a kind of a version of a holiday camp.
“I mean, it's a bit of a joke really. The punishment as it is at the moment isn't punishment.”
Writers note: The actual work I have seen conducted through this scheme has been incredibly beneficial to the community. Specifically in cases where small parish councils struggle to raise funds to satisfy public demands.
The Payback Scheme offers a cheap alternative to drawn out, expensive, district contracts and everyone involved has given the work glowing reviews.
Interestingly there have been no submitted reports of violence, or even dissidence, among the participants, with testimonials from the offenders themselves that the scheme was a personally rewarding experience.
On watching the ITV documentary on Thursday I felt compelled to write something as I thought it was lazy, biased and genuinely damaging journalism that threw a good scheme to the right-wing wolves.
If only I had a bigger platform than the Harwich and Manningtree Standard and a blog read by six people.
The ITV1 Tonight programme, screened on Thursday, said the Community Payback scheme was too easy on criminals.
It showed secretly filmed participants smoking cannabis, relaxing in the sunshine and complaining of little work.
Martyn Donn, Ramsey and Parkeston councillor and qualified Payback chaperone, is a major supporter of the initiative and was left angered by the negative programme.
“I had eight offenders over the Welfare Park on Wednesday, working like Trojans,” he said.
“Some of them don’t like it, but recognise that it’s a punishment. I never ask what they’ve done or why they were arrested, but a couple have actually told me that because of the scheme they will not offend again.
“I was annoyed at the program and the way they kept calling them criminals. Most of them have committed nothing more than motoring offences. People go on about jails being over crowded and they are giving back to the community.
“They have done some very important work in and around our area. Levelling the ground and clearing brambles.
“This tv programme was clearly just fear-mongering made to sell. It creates animosity towards the offender and puts people off using the scheme.
“It’s already worried about potential financial cut backs and this will not help its cause.”
Louise Casey, one of the architects of the scheme, turned objector, said: “Some of those people have committed serious offences, including violent offences, yet they're on a kind of a version of a holiday camp.
“I mean, it's a bit of a joke really. The punishment as it is at the moment isn't punishment.”
Writers note: The actual work I have seen conducted through this scheme has been incredibly beneficial to the community. Specifically in cases where small parish councils struggle to raise funds to satisfy public demands.
The Payback Scheme offers a cheap alternative to drawn out, expensive, district contracts and everyone involved has given the work glowing reviews.
Interestingly there have been no submitted reports of violence, or even dissidence, among the participants, with testimonials from the offenders themselves that the scheme was a personally rewarding experience.
On watching the ITV documentary on Thursday I felt compelled to write something as I thought it was lazy, biased and genuinely damaging journalism that threw a good scheme to the right-wing wolves.
If only I had a bigger platform than the Harwich and Manningtree Standard and a blog read by six people.
Monday 12 July 2010
Sunday 13 June 2010
W.B.YEATS "Her Anxiety"
I have to confess I had never read anything by the great Irish poet William Butler Yeats until this week, but I'm glad I came across him.
He reminds me of Arthur Rimbaud - but much more pessimistic.
I'm quite ignorant when it comes to poetry (and I think most people are, although claim not to be - but that's a post for another, more vitriolic time).
Amongst his collection I found this 1929 poem.
Her Anxiety
Earth in beauty dressed
Awaits returning spring.
All true love must die,
Alter at the best
Into some lesser thing.
Prove that I lie.
Such body lovers have,
Such exacting breath,
That they touch or sigh.
Every touch they give,
Love is nearer death.
Prove that I lie.
William Butler Yeats
He reminds me of Arthur Rimbaud - but much more pessimistic.
I'm quite ignorant when it comes to poetry (and I think most people are, although claim not to be - but that's a post for another, more vitriolic time).
Amongst his collection I found this 1929 poem.
Her Anxiety
Earth in beauty dressed
Awaits returning spring.
All true love must die,
Alter at the best
Into some lesser thing.
Prove that I lie.
Such body lovers have,
Such exacting breath,
That they touch or sigh.
Every touch they give,
Love is nearer death.
Prove that I lie.
William Butler Yeats
Sunday 6 June 2010
Daisy Roxwell & The Humdingers
Saw a fantastic gig at the Boars Head in Braintree last night.
The band were called Daisy Roxwell & The Humdingers, a funky little three piece, playing original songs at their first ever show.
I know drummer Kat from her days playing with Paul Gronland (singer from my old band Pulse) in popular college band Oliver's Remains.
What I didn't know was she is an amazing vocalist as well as a drummer.
Look our for the name: Daisy Roxwell & The Humdingers.
The band were called Daisy Roxwell & The Humdingers, a funky little three piece, playing original songs at their first ever show.
I know drummer Kat from her days playing with Paul Gronland (singer from my old band Pulse) in popular college band Oliver's Remains.
What I didn't know was she is an amazing vocalist as well as a drummer.
Look our for the name: Daisy Roxwell & The Humdingers.
Friday 28 May 2010
"Inferno" artwork
Inferno is an upcoming drama/biopic film that revolves around the late American porn star, Linda Lovelace. Lovelace gained fame for starring in the most successful porn film, Deep Throat, in 1972.
I'm not sure that the film will be any good as it's directed by Matthew Wilder, who is famous for THIS. Ahem.
But judgements aside, the artwork is fantastic.
I am looking forward to more posters being released by the end of the year.
Photography and poster design is by the amazing Tyler Shields, who is by far my favourite portraitist, and fast becoming my favourite contemporary photographer.
I'm not sure that the film will be any good as it's directed by Matthew Wilder, who is famous for THIS. Ahem.
But judgements aside, the artwork is fantastic.
I am looking forward to more posters being released by the end of the year.
Photography and poster design is by the amazing Tyler Shields, who is by far my favourite portraitist, and fast becoming my favourite contemporary photographer.
Sunday 23 May 2010
Confessions of a LOST geek
The six year marathon series Lost comes to an end tonight with a two and a half hour finale.
Blogs and forums have gone berserk in pursuit of answers to the puzzling series and it’s expanse of unanswered questions and intricate mythology.
For the first time in my life I understand the fanboy allegiance to a show.
I started watching Lost six years ago via noisy internet streams and thought it was a well produced, excellently written episodic drama with great characters and Stephen King like appreciation for cliffhangers, suspense and riddles.
Before I was even aware, I was hooked.
The show transformed before my eyes, dragging me along with it, desperate for answers.
First it was a survival drama about a group of seemingly unconnected crash survivors establishing a group dynamic and unravelling a cosmic connection portrayed through their delicately introduced back-stories.
Jack was the handsome leader, Sawyer the roguish loner. Hurley was the chubby comedic relief and Kate the sexy enigma with a criminal past.
Then came polar bears, supply air drops, the Dharma initiative, underground bunkers, monsters made of mechanical sounding black smoke, ghosts, whispers on the breeze, those damn numbers, electro-magnetic fields, TIME TRAVEL, flashbacks, flash forwards, flash sideways, millennia old island dwellers who never age, a mysterious power source connecting all living things, healing properties, gang wars, giant green talking birds, psychic kids, the inability to commit suicide…
If you have never seen Lost, then I can’t even begin to explain how we have got to here from where we begun.
Eventually, the show that enthralled me and impressed me, began to piss me off.
Every answer offered threw up seven more questions, and now on the precipice of the ending, the mythology has expanded and ballooned into monster more terrifying than the black smoke itself.
Going into the last episode *SPOILER* we know that at the heart of the island is a mysterious light that has been guarded by Jacob and his twin brother (who we now know is the smoke monster).
What we don’t know is….everything else.
I delighted in series one and two (even beyond their frustrating refusal to tie up mysteries). I persevered with the terrible third season (ten episodes in and the main characters were still in a cage) and I played along with the whimsical introduction of time travelling and parallel universes beyond it.
With the arrival of the 6th and final season, I was sure every episode would be required to stitch together all of the loose ends.
First and foremost I have to say the sixth series has been brilliant. The writers and producers have created something special in terms of action, plot development and character – but I must admit, I am worried.
I’ve enjoyed Lost, but when I tune in tomorrow night, it will be for closure on six years of belief and trust, that the makers were going to deliver a satisfying conclusion.
But the penultimate episode (which veered away from the main character and their on island shenanigans) made no hint that a narrative full stop was anywhere near.
Two and a half hours stand between the ever expanding mythology and the relieved sighs of the fanboys who need answers.
What IS the island?
That’s the crux of it.
“Every question you ask will just lead to another question” said Jacobs adoptive mother before she delivered the island keepers and bludgeoned their confused natural mother to death.
Enough with the questions.
We want answers.
A finale report will appear here shortly after the finale.
(For the best internet resource on the web of mysteries surrounding the Lost universe, visit: www.lostpedia.com).
Saturday 22 May 2010
Aloclair model wanted for drawing winning raffle tickets - A tribute to Lee Blowers
As we were browsing a mouth ulcer treatment website we found a picture of this model and thought it’d be funny to email them from Lee, asking about the model.
We wrote:
Name: Lee Blowers
Email: leeblower@vcg-kestrel.com
Subject: Model enquiry
Query: Dear sir/madam,
I have contacted you previously, but to no avail.
I am looking for details of the model agency you used for your website design, specifically the model used in the "contact us" section.
She perfectly fits our remit for models required for my own campaign and cannot find any photography / agency references on your site.
A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.
Regards
Mr Lee Blowers
Thinking they wouldn’t respond we told Lee what we had done, and asked him to look out for a reply.
A month later (after we had forgotten about the prank) the company replied to Lee:
From: Rob Callum [mailto:RobCallum@dexcelpharma.co.uk]
Sent: Fri 5/21/2010 8:31 AM
To: Lee Blowers
Subject: RE: Model enquiry
I'm afraid that the agency who created the website for us is no longer trading, and we have no details of the agency used.
Kind Regards
Aloclair Marketing Team
Lee, off his own back, sent these replies, one after the other:
From: Lee Blowers
Sent: Fri 5/21/2010 8:38 AM
To: Rob Callum
Subject: RE: Model enquiry
thanks for nothing u waste of space, have a good day!
Then:
Hi Rob,
I apologize for my previous email i sent you, i'm under a lot of stress at the moment. U need to help me out, as the model that I inquired about is no longer available, I need a very similar looking one at the very least. I have arranged a fund raiser and was planning to use her as the face of the whole operation. I have told all my friends and family that she is coming and have also arranged a raffle where she will be pulling out the winning tickets. A lot of very important people from the local council and surrounding businesses will be there and the local media will be covering this event. I really need you to pull together with me on this Rob as the fund raiser is tomorrow and none of my female friends look nothing like the girl i'm looking for.
I look forward to hearing from you
Lee Blowers
Cue me dying with laughter.
The thought of a whole fete resting on the attendance of an unknown girl from a mouth ulcer treatment website and everyone being there waiting, and Lee stressing about delivering his promise.
“i'm under a lot of stress at the moment”.
I'm going to make Lee the next Karl Pilkington
Sunday 25 April 2010
Mr Lamb-orine Man
To dispel the tedium of working ALL weekend I text into George Lamb's BBC 6Music show today and he liked my pun enough to not only read it out, but credit it with a pan pipe of approval.
Some free publicity for VCG-Kestrel...wish Id put my name on it now
Some free publicity for VCG-Kestrel...wish Id put my name on it now
Friday 23 April 2010
Cemetry Junction : A review by James Cox
Cemetery Junction is the first cinematic offering for the Gervais/Merchant team that has spawned television gold (that requires no name check), a record breaking podcast and introduced us to Karl Pilkington’s own brand of idiotic genius.
The title is taken from a real town near Gervais’s Reading origins and encapsulates perfectly the apathetic stagnation of a working class community, and in particular, three friends who, having graced the threshold of adulthood, must decide where their future lies.
It is to Gervais and Merchant’s credit (and the film’s) that the protagonists Freddie, Bruce and Snork aren’t played by the A-listers they could have so easily called upon with their star studded connections and comedic prestige.
Instead the young debutants take centre stage, and our lack of familiarity with them as actors allows us to bond with their genuine dynamic a lot sooner, and a lot closer.
If they are guilty of anything, it’s perhaps being too handsome for working class losers, but their allegiance to the chubby, down-trodden Snork, (a young Nick Frost look-a-like, sound-a-like and walk-a-like), is authentic and never gimmicky.
In their first major roles Christian Cooke, Tom Hughes and Jack Doolan relegate the established screen names to brilliant, but peripheral characters, off which the friends bounce like pinballs, their individual insecurities bundled and bound by the collective dilemma of their impending adulthood.
Freddie (Cooke) has made his mind up. He refuses to end up like his factory working father (Gervais) who despite a life of labour and honest hard work, is anchored in the 70’s working class; complete with nagging mother-in-law, casual retro-racism and a humdrum disregard for any ambitions beyond their hometown.
In his small screen time, Gervais manages, among his trademark quips, to summon a pang of recognition in the acceptance of his station.
Freddie blags a job with a wealthy Insurance Company, owned by a brilliantly ruthless Ralph Fiennes, and decides to make a go of success, much to the amusement of his friends.
Bruce (Hughes) and Snork (Doolan) are less emphatic in their desire to progress and relish in the japes, bar brawls and scrapes with the law that have defined their teen years.
These characters could so easily have been hackneyed devices, comedic foils and rebellious devils on the shoulder of Cooke’s sensible and focused Freddie. But the script veers cleverly away from the obvious flanking manoeuvre, adding naïve charm to Snork’s court jester, and a dark homelife subplot that fuels Bruce’s anger and failure to commit to his promise of leaving Cemetery Junction for better things.
Freddie’s attempts to succeed in the insurance sales business are hindered by his empathy with the customers (his salesman mentor bats away a naïve couples saving for a quick sale, much to his dismay) and his re-acquaintance with childhood friend, the beautiful and creative Julie (Felicity Jones), who just happens to be his bosses daughter and his mentor’s fiancé.
Julie harbours dreams of her own to become a travel photographer, and her desire to explore and experience life outside of Reading infects Freddie and ignites feelings for her that threaten his own plans, and position within his new job.
Amazingly, considering the creative team behind Cemetery Junction, this is far from the sharp comedy I was expecting, but instead, we get an intelligent, funny, thoughtful and genuinely moving portrayal of a town full of losers, and a man’s desire to escape the same fate.
The three main performances are pitch perfect, and precocious in their confidence. The carefully assembled supporting cast, Fiennes, Julia Davis, Steve Speirs and Emily Watson (fantastic as Julie’s mother, the “ghost” of a woman who once had a life, now a prophetic template for her daughters inevitable descent into house-ridden monotony), are used sparingly to excellent affect, both dramatically and comedically.
Speirs, recognisable as the over friendly Welshman from Extras, provides a revelatory performance anchoring the comedy to the drama and setting up one of the many tug-on-the-heartstring moments.
I’ve also got to mention Francis Magee as Bruce’s father, who in just minutes of screen time and barely any dialogue portraits a lifetime of hurt and a man at the mercy of bad luck.
We’ve always known Merchant and Gervias were writers at their core.
They proved with The Office that they can create quotable dialogue parallel with acute observations, and it’s their ability to recognise people, and write that recognition into their scripts, that is so successful in this film.
Every time a scene is played for laughs, a flash of dour observation is moments behind, and every time a musical set piece or chase montage ups the tempo, we are brought back to our kipper-tied reality by sparkles of pathos that brought audible sobs from the audience.
The main criticisms have been towards the lack of laughs (which are a lot more sparse than a conventional sitcom, which, of course, this never claimed to be) and its light hearted temperament, which I personally cannot understand.
The direction shows an unintrusive, mature quality that I didn’t expect, helped along by the authentic set design and establishment of the small town working class community.
The soundtrack plays it safe most of the way (although opting for the David Bowie original of “All the Young Dudes” rather than the popular Mott The Hoople version was a master stroke) but the allusion to pop culture is authentic in a way that seems autobiographical. In fact much of this film suggests Gervais may be developing a Polaroid of his own 70’s childhood; from the Ziggy posters to his mothers shocked retort to his ambition to travel “there are parts of Reading you haven’t seen yet”. This dialogue will be familiar to podcast fans as a genuine soundbite from his real life mother.
As a Gervais/Merchant fan, I was concerned about this movie, well aware that anything deemed less successful than their two monster sitcoms would receive barbed criticism. I am also aware that the subject matter and British made 1970’s context may alienate some of his more subversive fans who like Gervais for his shock humour and child like energy we are accustomed to from his stand up and radio shows.
Cemetery Junction is, however, a thoughtful and often funny melodrama in the mould of “Saturday Night And Sunday Morning”, that pulls on your emotions and crystallises the fading light on a town full of broken dreams, and the youthful exuberance of creative minds that need to escape.
A truly enjoyable film that could be as important for the British film industry as it could for the directorial duo’s big screen aspirations.
Footnote: Karl’s very minor cameo made me choke on my coke with laughter.
The title is taken from a real town near Gervais’s Reading origins and encapsulates perfectly the apathetic stagnation of a working class community, and in particular, three friends who, having graced the threshold of adulthood, must decide where their future lies.
It is to Gervais and Merchant’s credit (and the film’s) that the protagonists Freddie, Bruce and Snork aren’t played by the A-listers they could have so easily called upon with their star studded connections and comedic prestige.
Instead the young debutants take centre stage, and our lack of familiarity with them as actors allows us to bond with their genuine dynamic a lot sooner, and a lot closer.
If they are guilty of anything, it’s perhaps being too handsome for working class losers, but their allegiance to the chubby, down-trodden Snork, (a young Nick Frost look-a-like, sound-a-like and walk-a-like), is authentic and never gimmicky.
In their first major roles Christian Cooke, Tom Hughes and Jack Doolan relegate the established screen names to brilliant, but peripheral characters, off which the friends bounce like pinballs, their individual insecurities bundled and bound by the collective dilemma of their impending adulthood.
Freddie (Cooke) has made his mind up. He refuses to end up like his factory working father (Gervais) who despite a life of labour and honest hard work, is anchored in the 70’s working class; complete with nagging mother-in-law, casual retro-racism and a humdrum disregard for any ambitions beyond their hometown.
In his small screen time, Gervais manages, among his trademark quips, to summon a pang of recognition in the acceptance of his station.
Freddie blags a job with a wealthy Insurance Company, owned by a brilliantly ruthless Ralph Fiennes, and decides to make a go of success, much to the amusement of his friends.
Bruce (Hughes) and Snork (Doolan) are less emphatic in their desire to progress and relish in the japes, bar brawls and scrapes with the law that have defined their teen years.
These characters could so easily have been hackneyed devices, comedic foils and rebellious devils on the shoulder of Cooke’s sensible and focused Freddie. But the script veers cleverly away from the obvious flanking manoeuvre, adding naïve charm to Snork’s court jester, and a dark homelife subplot that fuels Bruce’s anger and failure to commit to his promise of leaving Cemetery Junction for better things.
Freddie’s attempts to succeed in the insurance sales business are hindered by his empathy with the customers (his salesman mentor bats away a naïve couples saving for a quick sale, much to his dismay) and his re-acquaintance with childhood friend, the beautiful and creative Julie (Felicity Jones), who just happens to be his bosses daughter and his mentor’s fiancé.
Julie harbours dreams of her own to become a travel photographer, and her desire to explore and experience life outside of Reading infects Freddie and ignites feelings for her that threaten his own plans, and position within his new job.
Amazingly, considering the creative team behind Cemetery Junction, this is far from the sharp comedy I was expecting, but instead, we get an intelligent, funny, thoughtful and genuinely moving portrayal of a town full of losers, and a man’s desire to escape the same fate.
The three main performances are pitch perfect, and precocious in their confidence. The carefully assembled supporting cast, Fiennes, Julia Davis, Steve Speirs and Emily Watson (fantastic as Julie’s mother, the “ghost” of a woman who once had a life, now a prophetic template for her daughters inevitable descent into house-ridden monotony), are used sparingly to excellent affect, both dramatically and comedically.
Speirs, recognisable as the over friendly Welshman from Extras, provides a revelatory performance anchoring the comedy to the drama and setting up one of the many tug-on-the-heartstring moments.
I’ve also got to mention Francis Magee as Bruce’s father, who in just minutes of screen time and barely any dialogue portraits a lifetime of hurt and a man at the mercy of bad luck.
We’ve always known Merchant and Gervias were writers at their core.
They proved with The Office that they can create quotable dialogue parallel with acute observations, and it’s their ability to recognise people, and write that recognition into their scripts, that is so successful in this film.
Every time a scene is played for laughs, a flash of dour observation is moments behind, and every time a musical set piece or chase montage ups the tempo, we are brought back to our kipper-tied reality by sparkles of pathos that brought audible sobs from the audience.
The main criticisms have been towards the lack of laughs (which are a lot more sparse than a conventional sitcom, which, of course, this never claimed to be) and its light hearted temperament, which I personally cannot understand.
The direction shows an unintrusive, mature quality that I didn’t expect, helped along by the authentic set design and establishment of the small town working class community.
The soundtrack plays it safe most of the way (although opting for the David Bowie original of “All the Young Dudes” rather than the popular Mott The Hoople version was a master stroke) but the allusion to pop culture is authentic in a way that seems autobiographical. In fact much of this film suggests Gervais may be developing a Polaroid of his own 70’s childhood; from the Ziggy posters to his mothers shocked retort to his ambition to travel “there are parts of Reading you haven’t seen yet”. This dialogue will be familiar to podcast fans as a genuine soundbite from his real life mother.
As a Gervais/Merchant fan, I was concerned about this movie, well aware that anything deemed less successful than their two monster sitcoms would receive barbed criticism. I am also aware that the subject matter and British made 1970’s context may alienate some of his more subversive fans who like Gervais for his shock humour and child like energy we are accustomed to from his stand up and radio shows.
Cemetery Junction is, however, a thoughtful and often funny melodrama in the mould of “Saturday Night And Sunday Morning”, that pulls on your emotions and crystallises the fading light on a town full of broken dreams, and the youthful exuberance of creative minds that need to escape.
A truly enjoyable film that could be as important for the British film industry as it could for the directorial duo’s big screen aspirations.
Footnote: Karl’s very minor cameo made me choke on my coke with laughter.
Sunday 11 April 2010
A letter from God to Man (from the track by Dan Le Sac vs Scroobius Pip)
Hey There, how, how’s it going?
Long time no see.
I know I haven’t been around much lately
But…it didn’t seem like you wanted me to be
The last time I sent down a message you nailed it to the cross
So I figured I’d just leave you to it, let you be your own boss
But I’ve been keeping an eye on you, I have, and it’s amazing how you’ve grown.
With your technological advances and the problems you’ve overthrown,
And all the beautiful art you’ve created with such grace and such finesse,
But I admit there are a few things I’m afraid have impressed me less.
So I’m writing to apologise for all the horrors committed in my name,
Although that was never what I intended, I feel I should take my share of the blame.
All the good I tried to do was corrupted when all the religion got into full swing,
What I thought were quite clear messages were taken to unusual extremes.
My teachings taken out of context to meet the agendas of others,
Interpretations taken to many different ways and hidden meanings discovered
Religion became a tool, for the weak to control the strong
With all these new morals and ethics, survival of the fittest was gone
No longer could the biggest man simply take whatever he needed
‘cause damnation was the price if certain rules were not heeded
Some of the deeds committed in my name just made me wonder were I went wrong.
Back at the start when I created this, the foundation seemed so strong.
See all the elements were already here, long before I began, I just kind of put it all together
I didn’t really think out a long-term plan.
I made the sun an appropriate distance and laid the stars across the sky
So you could navigate the globe or simply watch the sun rise
I covered the earth with plants and fruits,
Some for sustenance and some for beauty
I made the sun shine and the clouds rain so their maintenance wasn’t your duty
I tried to give each creature its own attributes without making them enveloped
I gave you all your own space to grow and in your own way, space to develop
I didn’t know such development would cause rifts and jealousy
Cause you to war against each other and leave marks on this planet indelibly
You see, I wasn’t really the creator, I was just the curator of nature
I want to get something straight with homosexuals right now: I don’t hate ya
I was a simple being that happened to be the first to wield such powers
I just laid the ground, it was You that built the towers
It was You that invented bombs, and the fear that comes with them
And it was You that invented money, and the corrupt economic systems
You invented terms like just-war and terms like friendly fire
And it was You that didn’t know when to stop digging deeper, when to stop building higher
It was You that exhausted the resources I carefully laid out on this earth,
And it was You that even saw these problems coming but accredited them little worth
It was You that used my teachings for your own personal gain
And it was You that committed such tragedies, even though they were in my name
So I apologise for any mistakes I made, and when my words misconstrued
But this apology’s to mother nature, cause I created you.
Long time no see.
I know I haven’t been around much lately
But…it didn’t seem like you wanted me to be
The last time I sent down a message you nailed it to the cross
So I figured I’d just leave you to it, let you be your own boss
But I’ve been keeping an eye on you, I have, and it’s amazing how you’ve grown.
With your technological advances and the problems you’ve overthrown,
And all the beautiful art you’ve created with such grace and such finesse,
But I admit there are a few things I’m afraid have impressed me less.
So I’m writing to apologise for all the horrors committed in my name,
Although that was never what I intended, I feel I should take my share of the blame.
All the good I tried to do was corrupted when all the religion got into full swing,
What I thought were quite clear messages were taken to unusual extremes.
My teachings taken out of context to meet the agendas of others,
Interpretations taken to many different ways and hidden meanings discovered
Religion became a tool, for the weak to control the strong
With all these new morals and ethics, survival of the fittest was gone
No longer could the biggest man simply take whatever he needed
‘cause damnation was the price if certain rules were not heeded
Some of the deeds committed in my name just made me wonder were I went wrong.
Back at the start when I created this, the foundation seemed so strong.
See all the elements were already here, long before I began, I just kind of put it all together
I didn’t really think out a long-term plan.
I made the sun an appropriate distance and laid the stars across the sky
So you could navigate the globe or simply watch the sun rise
I covered the earth with plants and fruits,
Some for sustenance and some for beauty
I made the sun shine and the clouds rain so their maintenance wasn’t your duty
I tried to give each creature its own attributes without making them enveloped
I gave you all your own space to grow and in your own way, space to develop
I didn’t know such development would cause rifts and jealousy
Cause you to war against each other and leave marks on this planet indelibly
You see, I wasn’t really the creator, I was just the curator of nature
I want to get something straight with homosexuals right now: I don’t hate ya
I was a simple being that happened to be the first to wield such powers
I just laid the ground, it was You that built the towers
It was You that invented bombs, and the fear that comes with them
And it was You that invented money, and the corrupt economic systems
You invented terms like just-war and terms like friendly fire
And it was You that didn’t know when to stop digging deeper, when to stop building higher
It was You that exhausted the resources I carefully laid out on this earth,
And it was You that even saw these problems coming but accredited them little worth
It was You that used my teachings for your own personal gain
And it was You that committed such tragedies, even though they were in my name
So I apologise for any mistakes I made, and when my words misconstrued
But this apology’s to mother nature, cause I created you.
Tuesday 30 March 2010
Don't vote Conservative: This week: Homophobia
By James Cox
The dawning of a general election campaign and we all have difficult decisions to make if we wish to exercise our legal right to vote for the party who will govern us for up to five years, until we have to do it all again.
For some, it will be a selection based on parental guidance (which is as illogical as the social perpetuation of localised religion, and a damn sight more important than which football team to follow), for a few it will be based on the physical interpretation of political promises and key issues, and for others it will be based on the candidates haircut and tie.
I’d like to appeal to those who, like me, are disenchanted by the political system; By the “us and them” mentality coursing through the veins of BOTH majority parties.
We live in an age where Labour fail to represent the working Left, undermining the entire principle of their existence. New Labour and the Tories seem remarkably interchangeable, in this age of media savvy Government and after 13 years of bloody war, privatisation and assaults on workers’ living standards, some say they will never vote Labour again. Already the Labour vote has slumped by four million between 1997 and 2005.
But there is an important difference between Labour and the Tories.
Basically it comes down to class and the reactionary nature of the “right” we have come to openly abhor in publications such as the Daily Mail : a nasty, fear mongering daily that wears it’s preservative, colonial, prejudices on its cuff linked sleeve.
Labour still retains a link with the organised working class through its union affiliations. And workers vote far more heavily for Labour than any other party.
Around 50 to 60 percent of workers vote Labour at general elections, three or four times more than any other party.
The Labour Party came into being to represent trade union leaders in parliament. The unions are still important to the party, although the union leaders are remarkably reluctant to use their power inside it in any meaningful way.
The Labour Party is based on the idea that workers can collectively change society while operating within the existing capitalist system.
It is a break from the idea that everything is best left to our “betters”. But it is still imprisoned by the severe limitations of a modern capitalist democracy that dictates votes are won and lost in televised debates and by vocal celebrity endorsement.
There are MANY reasons I will never vote for a Conservative Government and I think HOMOPHOBIA may be as good a reason as any.
In 1988 the Conservative Government instigated the controversial SECTION 28.
The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.
Conservative MP Jill Knight, who introduced Section 28, 1999 speech:
I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this.
They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that.
(Note: She obviously never read Roger Red Hat).
In 1983 the Daily Mail, reported that a copy of a book entitled Jenny lives with Eric and Martin – portraying a little girl who lives with her father and his gay partner – was provided in a school library run by the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority.
This is the same newspaper that not only supports and compliments Conservative policies but also published a very recent editorial condemning late popstar Stephen Gately for his lifestyle choice: “the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see” – Jan Moir 16/11/09, Daily Mail.
In 1999 Conservative leader William Hague controversially sacked frontbencher Shaun Woodward for refusing to support the party line that Section 28 should not be repealed.
2000 saw prominent gay Conservative Ivan Massow defect to the Labour Party in response to the Conservative Party's continued support of Section 28.[15]
In May, 2000 the Christian Institute unsuccessfully took Glasgow City Council to court for funding an AIDS support charity which the Institute alleged promoted homosexuality. It had done so under the Conservative endorsed legislation of Section 28.
CONSERVATIVE LEADER, POLITICAL CANDIDATE AND POTENTIAL LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY DAVID CAMERON repeatedly attacked the Labour government's plans to abolish Section 28, publicly criticising then-Prime Minister Tony Blair as being "anti-family" and accused him of wanting the "promotion of homosexuality in schools"; At that time an unelected Conservative party member.
In 2003, once Cameron had been elected as Conservative MP for Witney, he continued to support Section 28. As the Labour government were determined to remove Section 28 from law, Cameron voted in favour of a Conservative amendment that retained certain aspects of the clause, which gay rights campaigners described as "Section 28 by the back door".
This was unsuccessful, and Section 28 was repealed by the Labour government without concession (Cameron was absent for the vote on its eventual repeal). However, in June 2009, Cameron - now the leader of the Conservative party - and campaigning to be the next Prime Minister (hmmmm)- formally apologised for his party introducing the law, stating that it was a mistake and had been offensive to gay people. (Don’t worry about it).
He restated this belief in January 2010 and proposed to alter the policy of the Conservative Party to reflect his belief that equality should be taught in British schools. (He’s a modern guy!)
It is of course up to you to decide if “former” homophobia is a good enough reason not to vote for the elitist, anti-union, Christian-right Conservatives.
It certainly is ONE of the decisive factors for me.
Labour may not offer the solutions we are after, and I feel that impotent dichotomy more than others, but voting for them can stop five years of Conservative rule.
Next week: Conservative rascism.
The dawning of a general election campaign and we all have difficult decisions to make if we wish to exercise our legal right to vote for the party who will govern us for up to five years, until we have to do it all again.
For some, it will be a selection based on parental guidance (which is as illogical as the social perpetuation of localised religion, and a damn sight more important than which football team to follow), for a few it will be based on the physical interpretation of political promises and key issues, and for others it will be based on the candidates haircut and tie.
I’d like to appeal to those who, like me, are disenchanted by the political system; By the “us and them” mentality coursing through the veins of BOTH majority parties.
We live in an age where Labour fail to represent the working Left, undermining the entire principle of their existence. New Labour and the Tories seem remarkably interchangeable, in this age of media savvy Government and after 13 years of bloody war, privatisation and assaults on workers’ living standards, some say they will never vote Labour again. Already the Labour vote has slumped by four million between 1997 and 2005.
But there is an important difference between Labour and the Tories.
Basically it comes down to class and the reactionary nature of the “right” we have come to openly abhor in publications such as the Daily Mail : a nasty, fear mongering daily that wears it’s preservative, colonial, prejudices on its cuff linked sleeve.
Labour still retains a link with the organised working class through its union affiliations. And workers vote far more heavily for Labour than any other party.
Around 50 to 60 percent of workers vote Labour at general elections, three or four times more than any other party.
The Labour Party came into being to represent trade union leaders in parliament. The unions are still important to the party, although the union leaders are remarkably reluctant to use their power inside it in any meaningful way.
The Labour Party is based on the idea that workers can collectively change society while operating within the existing capitalist system.
It is a break from the idea that everything is best left to our “betters”. But it is still imprisoned by the severe limitations of a modern capitalist democracy that dictates votes are won and lost in televised debates and by vocal celebrity endorsement.
There are MANY reasons I will never vote for a Conservative Government and I think HOMOPHOBIA may be as good a reason as any.
In 1988 the Conservative Government instigated the controversial SECTION 28.
The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.
Conservative MP Jill Knight, who introduced Section 28, 1999 speech:
I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this.
They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that.
(Note: She obviously never read Roger Red Hat).
In 1983 the Daily Mail, reported that a copy of a book entitled Jenny lives with Eric and Martin – portraying a little girl who lives with her father and his gay partner – was provided in a school library run by the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority.
This is the same newspaper that not only supports and compliments Conservative policies but also published a very recent editorial condemning late popstar Stephen Gately for his lifestyle choice: “the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see” – Jan Moir 16/11/09, Daily Mail.
In 1999 Conservative leader William Hague controversially sacked frontbencher Shaun Woodward for refusing to support the party line that Section 28 should not be repealed.
2000 saw prominent gay Conservative Ivan Massow defect to the Labour Party in response to the Conservative Party's continued support of Section 28.[15]
In May, 2000 the Christian Institute unsuccessfully took Glasgow City Council to court for funding an AIDS support charity which the Institute alleged promoted homosexuality. It had done so under the Conservative endorsed legislation of Section 28.
CONSERVATIVE LEADER, POLITICAL CANDIDATE AND POTENTIAL LEADER OF OUR COUNTRY DAVID CAMERON repeatedly attacked the Labour government's plans to abolish Section 28, publicly criticising then-Prime Minister Tony Blair as being "anti-family" and accused him of wanting the "promotion of homosexuality in schools"; At that time an unelected Conservative party member.
In 2003, once Cameron had been elected as Conservative MP for Witney, he continued to support Section 28. As the Labour government were determined to remove Section 28 from law, Cameron voted in favour of a Conservative amendment that retained certain aspects of the clause, which gay rights campaigners described as "Section 28 by the back door".
This was unsuccessful, and Section 28 was repealed by the Labour government without concession (Cameron was absent for the vote on its eventual repeal). However, in June 2009, Cameron - now the leader of the Conservative party - and campaigning to be the next Prime Minister (hmmmm)- formally apologised for his party introducing the law, stating that it was a mistake and had been offensive to gay people. (Don’t worry about it).
He restated this belief in January 2010 and proposed to alter the policy of the Conservative Party to reflect his belief that equality should be taught in British schools. (He’s a modern guy!)
It is of course up to you to decide if “former” homophobia is a good enough reason not to vote for the elitist, anti-union, Christian-right Conservatives.
It certainly is ONE of the decisive factors for me.
Labour may not offer the solutions we are after, and I feel that impotent dichotomy more than others, but voting for them can stop five years of Conservative rule.
Next week: Conservative rascism.
Monday 22 March 2010
Gay couple denied room at Bn'B : The Religious Right persecutes minorities based on its archaic interpretation of "the rules"
A homosexual couple have contacted police after being refused a room because they are gay.
Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56, were refused custom after explaining they intended to share the double room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast, in Cookham, Berkshire.
Far from exercising the religious principles of inclusion, compassion and humanitarianism, Susanne Wilkinson explained: "It goes against my convictions to have two men sharing.
"We turned them away because we have a Christian faith and for us to allow people to engage in homosexual activity within our house would go against our faith."
Thames Valley Police have been notified but the matter is likely to be a civil dispute, rather than criminal.
In light of this prejudicial selection policy I have contacted the owners with the following letter:
Hi Susanne,
I am writing to say that in spite of your allegiance to your faith, the denial of hospitality to two homosexual gentlemen, as reported in the media is nothing short of a disgrace.
It shocks me to realise that such a blinkered and archaic view can still be held in a modern society where people have fought, diplomatically, theologically and scientifically to be accepted on the basis of their biological birth right. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
Perhaps a little of your Christian hospitality to paying guests wouldn't go amiss?
I assume you are also anti sodomy, or sex before marriage? Would you turn a straight couple who wished to engage in such acts away? Or were you merely exercising your iota of power over a heavily persecuted minority who are still considered to be alien in their own country because of narrow minded fear-mongering spread by the religious right, who's notion of preserving a sacred moral code that has never existed, is prioritised above compassion for our fellow man, regardless of race or sexuality.
My only hope is that your antiquated views and prejudices die out with your ignorant generation and that Christianity can find its way to operating within the wonderfully diverse and tolerant society we have become, in spite of the establishment being cut from the same cloth as yourself.
Shame on you.
Mr James Cox
jamesarpc@hotmail.com
26 years old, STRAIGHT, male.
The B n B's website can be found at: http://www.swissbedandbreakfast.co.uk/ if you wish to voice your opinions on the owners peculiar need to enforce medieval prejudices on their customers.
I would ask that you refrain from intimidating them or being overly defamatory and I am not responsible for your actions.
I doubt very much that I will receive a reply, but I shall post it here if I do.
- Original story sourced from http://uk.news.yahoo.com
(http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100322/tuk-can-t-stay-if-you-re-gay-b-b-tells-c-45dbed5.html)
Michael Black, 62, and John Morgan, 56, were refused custom after explaining they intended to share the double room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast, in Cookham, Berkshire.
Far from exercising the religious principles of inclusion, compassion and humanitarianism, Susanne Wilkinson explained: "It goes against my convictions to have two men sharing.
"We turned them away because we have a Christian faith and for us to allow people to engage in homosexual activity within our house would go against our faith."
Thames Valley Police have been notified but the matter is likely to be a civil dispute, rather than criminal.
In light of this prejudicial selection policy I have contacted the owners with the following letter:
Hi Susanne,
I am writing to say that in spite of your allegiance to your faith, the denial of hospitality to two homosexual gentlemen, as reported in the media is nothing short of a disgrace.
It shocks me to realise that such a blinkered and archaic view can still be held in a modern society where people have fought, diplomatically, theologically and scientifically to be accepted on the basis of their biological birth right. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
Perhaps a little of your Christian hospitality to paying guests wouldn't go amiss?
I assume you are also anti sodomy, or sex before marriage? Would you turn a straight couple who wished to engage in such acts away? Or were you merely exercising your iota of power over a heavily persecuted minority who are still considered to be alien in their own country because of narrow minded fear-mongering spread by the religious right, who's notion of preserving a sacred moral code that has never existed, is prioritised above compassion for our fellow man, regardless of race or sexuality.
My only hope is that your antiquated views and prejudices die out with your ignorant generation and that Christianity can find its way to operating within the wonderfully diverse and tolerant society we have become, in spite of the establishment being cut from the same cloth as yourself.
Shame on you.
Mr James Cox
jamesarpc@hotmail.com
26 years old, STRAIGHT, male.
The B n B's website can be found at: http://www.swissbedandbreakfast.co.uk/ if you wish to voice your opinions on the owners peculiar need to enforce medieval prejudices on their customers.
I would ask that you refrain from intimidating them or being overly defamatory and I am not responsible for your actions.
I doubt very much that I will receive a reply, but I shall post it here if I do.
- Original story sourced from http://uk.news.yahoo.com
(http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100322/tuk-can-t-stay-if-you-re-gay-b-b-tells-c-45dbed5.html)
Tuesday 16 February 2010
Pancake Day
Pancake day straddles a horse of vague theology, and good old tradition, and basically allows us to quaff fried batter deserts guilt free.
In the health crazed, Government controlled nutrition vacuum we live in, it is unusual to have the blessing of state and church in pursuit of cholesterol.
The average pancake contains a surprisingly low 86 calories but also consists of 5% of your daily fat amount, and that's before you drizzle maple syrup, heaped spoonfuls of caster sugar and ice cream over them.
It is a calculated risk, baring in mind the thousands of variations in pancake preparation, but with the weight of good old British tradition, and the blessing of the big man, who are we to argue?
Below is a recipe for classic English pancakes.
Just remember to give them up for lent.
Ingredients
For the pancake mixture:
110g/4oz plain flour, sifted
pinch of salt
2 eggs
200ml/7fl oz milk mixed with 75ml/3fl oz water
50g/2oz butter
To serve:
caster sugar
lemon juice
lemon wedges
Method
Sift the flour and salt into a large mixing bowl with a sieve held high above the bowl so the flour gets a airing. Now make a well in the centre of the flour and break the eggs into it. Then begin whisking the eggs - any sort of whisk or even a fork will do - incorporating any bits of flour from around the edge of the bowl as you do so.
Next gradually add small quantities of the milk and water mixture, still whisking (don't worry about any lumps as they will eventually disappear as you whisk). When all the liquid has been added, use a rubber spatula to scrape any elusive bits of flour from around the edge into the centre, then whisk once more until the batter is smooth, with the consistency of thin cream. Now melt the 50g/2oz of butter in a pan. Spoon 2 tbsp of it into the batter and whisk it in, then pour the rest into a bowl and use it to lubricate the pan, using a wodge of kitchen paper to smear it round before you make each pancake.
Now get the pan really hot, then turn the heat down to medium and, to start with, do a test pancake to see if you're using the correct amount of batter. I find 2 tbsp is about right for an 18cm/7in pan. It's also helpful if you spoon the batter into a ladle so it can be poured into the hot pan in one go. As soon as the batter hits the hot pan, tip it around from side to side to get the base evenly coated with batter. It should take only half a minute or so to cook; you can lift the edge with a palette knife to see if it's tinged gold as it should be. Flip the pancake over with a pan slice or palette knife - the other side will need a few seconds only - then simply slide it out of the pan onto a plate.
Stack the pancakes as you make them between sheets of greaseproof paper on a plate fitted over simmering water, to keep them warm while you make the rest.
To serve, sprinkle each pancake with freshly squeezed lemon juice and caster sugar, fold in half, then in half again to form triangles, or else simply roll them up. Serve sprinkled with a little more sugar and lemon juice and extra sections of lemon.
Happy Shrove Tuesday
In the health crazed, Government controlled nutrition vacuum we live in, it is unusual to have the blessing of state and church in pursuit of cholesterol.
The average pancake contains a surprisingly low 86 calories but also consists of 5% of your daily fat amount, and that's before you drizzle maple syrup, heaped spoonfuls of caster sugar and ice cream over them.
It is a calculated risk, baring in mind the thousands of variations in pancake preparation, but with the weight of good old British tradition, and the blessing of the big man, who are we to argue?
Below is a recipe for classic English pancakes.
Just remember to give them up for lent.
Ingredients
For the pancake mixture:
110g/4oz plain flour, sifted
pinch of salt
2 eggs
200ml/7fl oz milk mixed with 75ml/3fl oz water
50g/2oz butter
To serve:
caster sugar
lemon juice
lemon wedges
Method
Sift the flour and salt into a large mixing bowl with a sieve held high above the bowl so the flour gets a airing. Now make a well in the centre of the flour and break the eggs into it. Then begin whisking the eggs - any sort of whisk or even a fork will do - incorporating any bits of flour from around the edge of the bowl as you do so.
Next gradually add small quantities of the milk and water mixture, still whisking (don't worry about any lumps as they will eventually disappear as you whisk). When all the liquid has been added, use a rubber spatula to scrape any elusive bits of flour from around the edge into the centre, then whisk once more until the batter is smooth, with the consistency of thin cream. Now melt the 50g/2oz of butter in a pan. Spoon 2 tbsp of it into the batter and whisk it in, then pour the rest into a bowl and use it to lubricate the pan, using a wodge of kitchen paper to smear it round before you make each pancake.
Now get the pan really hot, then turn the heat down to medium and, to start with, do a test pancake to see if you're using the correct amount of batter. I find 2 tbsp is about right for an 18cm/7in pan. It's also helpful if you spoon the batter into a ladle so it can be poured into the hot pan in one go. As soon as the batter hits the hot pan, tip it around from side to side to get the base evenly coated with batter. It should take only half a minute or so to cook; you can lift the edge with a palette knife to see if it's tinged gold as it should be. Flip the pancake over with a pan slice or palette knife - the other side will need a few seconds only - then simply slide it out of the pan onto a plate.
Stack the pancakes as you make them between sheets of greaseproof paper on a plate fitted over simmering water, to keep them warm while you make the rest.
To serve, sprinkle each pancake with freshly squeezed lemon juice and caster sugar, fold in half, then in half again to form triangles, or else simply roll them up. Serve sprinkled with a little more sugar and lemon juice and extra sections of lemon.
Happy Shrove Tuesday
Sunday 10 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
