The Dark Knight highlights falling standards

I went to see The Dark Knight last night. It was very good, go and see it. But this isn’t a review – this is a blog about the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC), sparked by seeing the film last night.
The Dark Knight was classified as a 12A (more on the existence of the 12A rating itself in a moment). According to the BBFC’s website, the 12A rating includes the following (italics mine):

“Violence must not dwell on detail. There should be no emphasis on injuries or blood. Sexual violence may only be implied or briefly and discreetly indicated.”

Anyone who has seen The Dark Knight will know that it clearly contravenes this rule – there is blatant emphasis on the facial burns sustained by Harvey Dent, one of the main characters.

The website also says, on violence:

“In making decisions our concerns, especially at the lower categories, include
• portrayal of violence as a normal solution to problems
• heroes who inflict pain and injury
• callousness towards victims
• encouraging aggressive attitudes
• taking pleasure in pain or humiliation”

I’m pretty shocked at this, because The Dark Knight arguably contains every single one of these. As Gotham City descends into anarchy, violence is the only solution considered, both by the police and by Batman. Batman and Dent, the heroes, both inflict pain and injury. The Joker and Two-Face are both very callous towards victims. Batman’s and the Joker’s actions encourage aggressive attitudes. And the Joker takes much pleasure in the anarchy and intimidation he is causing.

There’s more; check this out:

“Dangerous techniques (eg combat techniques, hanging, suicide and self-harming) should not dwell on imitable detail or appear pain or harm free.” (from BBFC’s description of a 12A)

“in one of the stronger scenes, Batman repeatedly beats the Joker during an interrogation. The blows however are all masked from the camera and despite both their weight and force; the Joker shows no sign of injury” (from BBFC’s justification of classifying the film as a 12A”)

Contradiction anyone?

Also: “sadistic violence or terrorisation” is one of the BBFC’s taboo themes, which is of “particular concern” to them. Usual action is “intervention such as making cuts” or “refusing classification altogether”.

However The Dark Knight’s villain The Joker indulges in both sadistic violence and terrorisation. Now I’m not saying this should cause it to be refused classification, but it should really be a higher rating than 12A, because one of the BBFC’s 3 golden considerations is “is the material, at the age group concerned, likely to be harmful?”, and I really think it could be for children.

There is no conceivable way that The Dark Knight should be a 12A. It’s easily a 15. Based on the BBFC’s own rules, it is a lot worse that The Matrix (rated 15). The inconsistency is highlighted by the fact that the original cartoony Batman films from the early 90s were rated as 12s, a higher rating than the darker recent films.

Now, about that 12A classification. It was introduced in 2002 as a replacement for the 12 certificate at cinemas. The meaning of 12A is that it allows under-12s to see the film at the cinema if they are accompanied by an adult. The information isn’t explicit but as far as I can tell, ‘adult’ can be any ‘responsible adult’ over 12, including a sibling, and “cinema staff are required to use their discretion” to decide on admittance. In terms of who is allowed to see a film, this is almost the same as a Uc, U or PG – except that all an under-12 needs to see a 12A is a 13 year old sibling. Not difficult. The old 12 classification worked well – it prevented under-12s from seeing inappropriate material, just like the 15 and 18 rating do. The cynic in me is very interested that the 12A rating was given the go-ahead just before the first Harry Potter film came out – a franchise which would include films which would really have to be classified at 12s but would be immensely popular with under-12s.
Maybe I’m just conservative, but I think it’s clear for anyone to see that film classification standards are falling. Films that would have been a 15 a decade ago are now 12s, and 18s are becoming 15s (did anyone see The Last King of Scotland? Never should have been a 15). I’m just worried that if this trend continues, in 20 years time films that would have been 18s when I was growing up will be PGs.

Prince Caspian – The Good and the Bad

I’ve seen the latest Narnia film twice now. I often have to watch films twice before working out what I think of them, especially films which I care about a lot, such as those adapted from books of which I am a fan. Here is what I thought of the film, divided into the good and the bad.

The Good

1. It’s a good story. The book is good, and the filmmakers adapted it well. The major plot change from the book was the assault on Miraz’s castle, and I thought it worked well. It was an excellent action set-piece and also fleshed out Peter’s and Caspian’s characters a lot.

2. The visuals were excellent. Obviously it was filmed in New Zealand so the scenery is quite spectacular, but I thought the CGI was also very good, where it hadn’t been in places in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. There was a large variety of creatures, which all looked good, and sets such as Aslan’s How and Miraz’s castle look awesome.

3. As an action film, it really delivers. Two big set-piece battles are both well thought out and original. There is even one tactic I doubt anyone has even thought of before!

4. It didn’t try to be LOTR. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked similar to a lot of things in Rings, but it’s most definitely different. Obviously there are parallels, both being fantasy novels written by two best friends. But Caspian is very much its own film and doesn’t try to live up to LOTR. I feel this is critical, to distance itself from such an epic.

5. The religious themes and analogies are not avoided, and there are quite a lot of interesting ideas in the script. It’s been over a decade since I read the books so I’m not sure how much of this was original to the film and how much is from CS Lewis, but either way, it gives the film a nice theological edge.

6. The acting (in general) was good. Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, Anna Popplewell and Ben Barnes all do a good job (though restricted by the script – see below), and the adult cast are all very competent in their roles.

7. The ending song (The Call, by Regina Spektor) is as good an ending song as I’ve heard apart from LOTR. It fits perfectly with the knowledge that Peter and Susan won’t be returning, and contributes a great deal to reason 8…

8. The sense of loss at the end of the film is very poignant. It is built up from the very beginning with the Pevensies, developing what they go through in living the double life between England and Narnia, and concludes in the final scene as they return to England, the older two for the final time. I found I could really empathise with them. I can't remember the last film that made me feel like that.

The Bad

1. William Moseley is often not convincing as Peter. It’s hard to know how much is due to him and how much to the director, but he just seems to be taking himself to seriously. I know this is part of Peter’s character, but it’s just not convincingly done.

2. The infamous romance between Caspian and Susan is a little silly to be honest. It’s added in to try to give extra interest, but it’s really not needed and doesn’t really work. It looks like it’s just there to keep the little girls happy (which, to be blunt, it probably is).

3. The script is inconsistent in its quality. Bits are good, but bits are very poor. It feels like they ran out of time and interest in the writing stage. This makes it difficult for the actors at times.

4. The filmmakers tried to cram in too much comic relief. The banter between the Pevensies is good and works well, but many lines from the Narnians just aren’t funny if you’re any older than 8, and some of them are just stupid.

Many of the downsides to the film are a consequence of it being a family film, but I really do think the silly one-liners and romance could be removed and the film still be appealing to kids. But overall, the film was good. I thought it was more exciting and convincing than the first one, and I was significantly moved by it. The plot was great, the pace was fine, the action was exciting. Bring on The Dawn Treader!

P.S. This film had an ‘epilogue’ section nearly as long as that at the end of Return of the King…I wonder if anyone will be complaining about this one? (see earlier post from May 14^th)

P.P.S. Interesting trivia: Actor Warwick Davies (Nikabrik) portrayed the characters Reepicheep and Glimfeather in the BBC productions of Prince Caspian and The Voyage of The Dawn Treader (1989) and The Silver Chair (1990).

12 objections to the Harry Potter films

This is a big rant. Bit of a hobby-horse for me. But here goes...twelve reasons that I object to the Harry Potter films - a combination of points about poor adaptation and just poor film-making.

Firstly, it is absolutely ludicrous to start filming a story to which you don’t know the end. When the first film was released, half the series hadn’t been written yet. Even by film five they didn’t know how it all ended! Can you imagine them filming the first half of Shawshank Redemption (or whatever) without having decided how it will end? Or starting to film David Beckham’s life story now, when he’s only 33?! It’s insane!!

Secondly, mathematically it can’t be done. Take ‘The Lord of the Rings’: 1000 pages into 12 hours, and they cut a fair amount of stuff. Harry Potter, in its entirety, is about 3500 pages – 3.5 times as long as LOTR. In addition, much of LOTR is description, which can be put on film in about a second, or bits that aren’t integral to the plot or characters (e.g. Tom Bombadil, who was cut from the film; these things arise because of the way the book is written). In contrast, Harry Potter has no, or very few, such elements, and is much more heavily weighted in favour of dialogue and action, which take a lot longer to film. So all in all, there is probably at least seven times as much material to film in Harry Potter than in LOTR. Even given seven films, this still makes each film on average TWELVE HOURS LONG! This cannot be done!

Thirdly, while some people will watch these films and enjoy them and that will inspire them to read the books, many more people will decide NOT to read the books, but instead to watch the films. As a huge fan of the book, this is tragic. People are missing out on the great experience of reading the books, because of the films. In addition, these people will think that because the films are lame this means the books are lame. Nothing could be further from the truth! And those that do go on to the books having watched the films will have had their imaginations corrupted.

Fourthly, changing the directors (and script writers, and score writers) for every film is so stupid! How can they expect continuity? They can’t, but of course, that doesn’t matter as long as the films make money. How shallow is that? The books, and the fans, deserve better.

Fifthly, the casting. Why restrict it to British actors only? It rules out huge amounts of non-British acting talent. But instead they just go for the big names – Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Gary Oldman, Robbie Coltrane, Imelda Staunton – all massive names in British acting, but that doesn’t make them right for the roles! And the argument that foreign actors couldn’t put on English accents is crazy – check out Elijah Wood et al in Lord of the Rings.

Sixthly, the ‘look’ of the films is all wrong. Hardly anything in the films looks like it is described in the books. Hogwarts just doesn’t look right! Filming in real locations is stupid, because people who have been to the locations will notice when they appear in the films. For example, I live in Durham, so when the courtyard appears in the films, I don’t think Hogwarts, I think ‘oh, it’s Durham Cathedral!’ So, so annoying! And, possibly the most annoying error is the presence of uniform (shirts, ties etc.) – there is no need for this, and it’s not canon!

Seventhly, plot changes. I can understand that adaptations need to be made to convert any book to the screen, especially with such long books. But there are serious mistakes made, such as the omission of SPEW and Rita etc. The adaptation just is not good enough. And this is partly because of point 1 – without knowing how the story ends, and therefore what’s important and what isn’t, the writers will have no clue as to what to cut and what to leave in. JKR had to step in at the last moment to prevent the omission of Kreacher from film 5!

Eighthly, there are a vast number of small, unnecessary changes. Things like Hagrid’s hut being round, Harry’s eyes being blue, Hermione’s Yule Ball dress being pink, ‘Lumos’ changing to ‘Lumos Solarum’, Moody’s magic eye being strap-on, and Parvati’s boggart being a snake. There is no need for these changes. They’re just wrong! (The uniform issue could be mentioned here too).

Ninthly, the special effects are, in a word, awful. This is the 21^st century for goodness sake! If Peter Jackson can make Gollum, Oliphaunts, and an army of 200,000 orcs look real, then the makers of these films should at least be able to make a half-convincing werewolf!

Tenthly, if you are going to make these books into films, it is essential that the trio are acted well. Of course, all the characters must be well-acted, but especially the trio. While Radcliffe and Watson might be ok actors now (and nothing more than ok), at the start they were not. Radcliffe even said in an interview that when he started making the films he didn’t know how to act. And Rupert Grint? He’s the worst actor I’ve ever seen. I’m sorry but he just can’t act. He only has one expression! Without the trio being convincing on screen, the rest of the film falls apart. On top of that, the rest of the acting isn’t exactly top-quality! Ok, Alan Rickman is quite good, but the rest are average at best, and Coltrane and Gambon, who act arguably the two most important adult characters, are frankly appalling!

Eleventhly, it is not possible to film the books faithfully and keep the films at PG rating. Certain scenes in the books, such as the graveyard in book 4, the Department of Mysteries battle in book 5 and the cave scene in book 6 contain images far too graphic and disturbing to do justice to, without making the films at least 12s and probably 15s. Plus other things that you don’t think of that are actually really freaky and sinister, like Voldemort coming out of the back of Quirrell’s head, the baby-headed death eater, and mandrakes!

Twelfthly, even JK Rowling has said that while she likes the films, if she had the choice again she wouldn’t sell the filming rights. The films have turned her amazing story into a money-making capitalist scam, and this is shown in the approach to the films, such as changing directors every time. And all the merchandise (action figures, sticker books etc) is horrible, and just puts pictures of scenes and actors from the films everywhere, which as I said above, aren’t what the real places and people look like in the books! And now a theme park. And a musical!?!

Rant over. I really hate these films. If anyone has got this far and is wondering what JKR's world does look like, take a trip to www.artdungeon.net - awesome HP fanart. Yes, she's a big R/H shipper, but the art is fantastic.

God's will is a playground

Plagiarised from Ruth Perrin, June 2008

Some people think of God's will, the plan God has for them, as a tightrope. You have to be really careful to stay on, otherwise it's a disaster.
I think God's will is like a playground. It has a fence, and there are limits. Outside the fence it's dangerous as you could get hit by a car. Inside, there's slides, roundabouts, see-saws, swings - you can play on what you want. Sometimes God might say 'that's enough sliding for now, have a go on the swings'. You might enjoy some bits more than others, but you can have a go at different things. As long as you stay inside the fence, you're safe. But you don't have to walk a tightrope.

The ending of The Lord of the Rings

As most people know, LOTR is by far my favourite film. Many other people seem to like it a lot too, but come up with one consistent criticism: ‘it has too many endings’. Here I attempt to explain the need for these ‘endings’ and prove that there are not too many. I believe that if a viewer thinks there are too many, he or she has missed the point. I will be looking at the epilogue from a cinematic point of view, rather than as a fan of the book.

I assume that this ‘epilogue’ begins when Frodo and Sam have run out from the Crack of Doom, having destroyed the ring, and Barad-Dur has fallen, and there is a fade to black just after Frodo says “the end of all things”.

After this climax, several things happen in sequence.

1. Gandalf and the eagles come to collect the hobbits.
2. Frodo awakes and is reunited with the Fellowship.
3. Aragorn is crowned King of Gondor, is reunited with Arwen, and publicly honours the four hobbits.

4. A short, 20 second-or-so sequence showing the hobbits arriving back in the Shire.
5. The hobbits have drinks in The Green Dragon.
6. Sam marries Rosie.
7. Frodo finishes writing the book.
8. Gandalf, Frodo, Bilbo and the other hobbits make the journey to the Grey Havens.
9. Frodo and Gandalf farewell Sam, Merry and Pippin, and depart.
10. Sam returns home to his family.

These scenes can be summarised as Reunion (1-2), Coronation (3), Return (4-7) and Farewell (8-10). In total, they take almost exactly 22 minutes. This is at the end of a 12-hour film, so the final section is about 1/40^th of the total film time. That’s the equivalent of a 3 minute epilogue on the end of a standard 2 hour film. Not really ‘too long’, is it? Mathematically, the epilogue is clearly not overly long. The issue must therefore be that viewers expect the film to end right after the Crack of Doom climax, and are frustrated at having to wait another 22 minutes with a full bladder. There are 2 problems with this viewpoint: one is logical, the other is story-based.

Consider the alternative to the epilogue: the film ends with the fade to black after the climax. What would you think? Surely someone who has watched the films attentively would have questions such as ‘So did Frodo and Sam die?’, ‘Does Frodo ever meet Gandalf again?’, ‘What happens to the Elves?’, ‘Do Faramir and Eowyn get married?’, ‘Are Aragorn and Arwen reunited?’ If the films stops at the climax, many questions are left unanswered, and the viewer would be left unsatisfied and also, I expect, a little stunned by the abruptness: 12 hours of drama just stops. No runoff or anything. It would be like The Return of the Jedi finishing with the Emperor’s death, and no scene between Luke and Vader or celebration afterwards. Or Shawshank finishing with Red’s release and without his reunion with Andy. Some sort of epilogue is needed to let you down gently, as it were.
That’s the logical part: looking at the alternative, we see that an epilogue is needed to let us down gently and tie up the loose ends of the story.

The obvious counter-argument here is ‘ok, but why so many endings?’ Well, with such a long and complex story, there are simply a lot of loose ends to tie up. This is the story-based part.
The Reunion section is very standard – the hero meets up with his mates. Of course, in this story, there is the added moment between Gandalf and Frodo (who still thinks Gandalf is dead). They need this moment, as do Aragorn, Merry, Pippin et al. This scene brings closure on the relationships that have developed within the Fellowship and for this reason is necessary.
The Coronation is vital. It ties up Aragorn’s lost-heir story, reunites him with Arwen (who he believes has left him), and also gives a beautiful moment between him and the hobbits. It is not possible to argue against the inclusion of this scene. It finishes off so many storylines.
Many would have the film end there. But they would be forgetting that this is essentially a story about Frodo. Yes, Sam, Gollum, Aragorn and Gandalf are crucial, but Frodo is the central character. It’s his story, and it needs more closure. He cannot finish in Gondor, hundreds of miles from the home he loves and set out to save. The Green Dragon scene brings out one of Tolkein’s themes – that only those who have seen war can really appreciate what it was like. The other hobbits are oblivious to what has happened outside their borders. This scene also leads the viewer to expect a complete happy ending, which is a crucial setup for what is to come. The scene in Bag End then shows the real cost to Frodo. As Galadriel predicted, the quest does, in the end, cost him his life. Not his physical life (yet), but he loses everything that makes life worth living. That is why he leaves on the boat – he cannot live in Hobbiton any more because the Ring has had too much affect on him. LOTR is essentially about the effect of evil on the world, and that’s the effect it had on Frodo. So the Return section brings us back to Frodo, and the Shire.
Given that Frodo can’t live in Hobbiton anymore, the Farewell section is also necessary. It also happens to be possibly the most intense, bittersweet scene I have ever seen on film. The Grey Havens scene is the true climax of LOTR.

I think many people don’t completely understand what is going on in the Return and Farewell sections of the epilogue, which is why I have spent some time explaining them a bit here, though I’m sure there’s stuff in there I don’t understand either. I believe that if people understood what was happening to Frodo, they would enjoy these scenes more.

I haven’t yet mentioned Sam’s wedding or return to his family. Strictly speaking, they are not necessary as they are not part of Frodo’s personal story. However, as Sam played such a big role in the previous 12 hours, I think it’s entirely appropriate to show his eventual marriage to Rosie, especially after it becomes clear in Mordor that he thinks he will never return home. It’s good to see him happy in the end.
Personally, I would have skipped the final scene, and finished with the fade to white after the boat leaves. That way, the final emphasis is on Frodo. The filmmakers added in Sam’s return fro a desire to finish like the book, the last line of which is “Well, I’m back”. That’s their decision, and while I disagree with it, this is not a reason to say there are too many endings. It takes about 30 seconds, and reminds us that the good side did win, albeit at a cost.

So, mathematically, logically, and story-wise, I don’t think there are too many endings. Mathematically, the epilogue to LOTR is the equivalent of 3 minutes at the end of a 2 hour film – entirely reasonable. Logically, not having the epilogue would be too abrupt and would leave too many loose ends. Story-wise, the Reunion and Coronation are needed for closure and too tie up loose ends, and the Return and Farewell are actually the real end of Frodo’s story.

ManU/Chelsea hate list

I'm trying to decide who to support in the Champion's League final. It comes down to how many people I dislike from each team. Currently, my 'ManU/Chelsea hate list' is thus (most hated first): Alex Ferguson (bully, arrogant), John Terry (bully, cheat, thug), Didier Drogba (diver, whiner, cheat), Cristiano Ronaldo (diver, arrogant), Ricardo Carvalho (cheat), Michael Essien (thug), Wayne Rooney (thug, bully) Michael Ballack (cheat). There are other people I dislike, but these are the ones that really annoy me. There are more Chelsea people on the list, but the Ferguson factor is huge. I really don't know who I want to win. It'll probably be whoever doesn't win the Premier League - I don't think I could cope with either doing the double!

The problem with the Premier League

I'm watching Match Of The Day - most enjoyable. The relegation battle is still open, other than for Derby who are way down. But of Fulham, Bolton, Birmingham and Reading, it's hard to know who deserves to stay up, because in a way, they all do.
Looking at the Championship, only really West Brom show any signs of being good enough to be promoted. It seems that other than Derby, the Premier League really does have the best 20 teams in the country at the moment. The Championship is therefore weak.
Unfortunately, 3 teams swap position, not 1, so next year the Premier League will be of slightly lower quality, and I think West Brom will be the only promoted team with any chance of staying up.
This is all fairly irrelevant to life in general, but I thought I'd mention it.

Review: Delirious – Kingdom of Comfort

This is my review of the new album by Delirious, entitled Kingdom of Comfort.

Two tracks from the album (God is Smiling and We Give You Praise) had already been made available for download from the band’s website, so I’d had a bit of a taster already. The band were saying that this album was another step for them, was the hardest things they’d done, and was all about the hypocrisy of how we preach love but live in the comfort of wealth. I’d only been gripped by one of the two pre-released tracks, and had heard that the new stuff was ‘ok’ (said by a big Delirious fan). So to be honest I was a bit worried that the new album would be full of pretentious preaching, which I don’t think Delirious would do very well.

When the CD arrived, it came in a vacuum-sealed plastic case which will be rubbish for storage. I’ve no idea why they did this, it seems very silly. However, it did come with a little book which included the lyrics, some artwork, and some writing about some of the themes of the album. This was very cool, and said some things that Christians need to hear.

I’ll take the songs one at a time. The marks out of ten are with respect to this album, so 10/10 is the best this album has to offer, 1/10 makes me wonder why they included it. However, overall it’s a really good album, so 1/10 doesn’t mean it’s a bad song, nor does it mean it’s only a tenth as good as the best one! Overall, it's a good album. Not their best, but I think it's better than at least Audio Lessonover and Mission Bell. I couple of weak tracks (generally the slower ones), but also some absolute crackers.

Kingdom of Comfort – 6/10

The album opens with this mostly chilled song with an unusual sound. It was an unexpected sound that I wasn’t sure about to start with, but it grew on me quickly. The song it a simple prayer “Save me, save me, from the kingdom of comfort where I am king” – this is the heart of what they claim the album is about. It’s possibly their most alternative song yet, with a slightly eerie feel. It starts with just vocals and guitar, but after a couple of minutes the bass and drums kick in, creating a very cool sound. A solid opening to the album.

God Is Smiling – 9/10

This song begins with a very catchy riff, and it is easy to see why it was a pre-release download. It has a very positive message – “God is smiling over us”, “where hearts are broken love unites”, “our love can be the revolution that sees your kingdom come”. The challenge is to take God’s love and values to the world, but it doesn’t get overly preachy because it’s a song of such hope. Sound-wise, God is Smiling essentially belongs on World Service. Each of the first 5 Delirious studio albums seem to have its own sound – The Mezzanine Floor just sounds like a Mezzamorphis song, Sanctify just sounds like it’s off King of Fools etc. And this song sounds like World Service! Very like Rain Down, God in Heaven, With You, with soaring lead guitars which build to crescendos. A quality song.

Give What You’ve Got – 5/10

If I didn’t know better, I’d think this song was by Oasis. Rocky guitars, driving rhythms, even the sound of Martin’s voice. It’s not quite catchy enough though – it sounds like average Oasis rather than Don’t Look Back in Anger or Slide Away. It really doesn’t sound like Delirious! It has a simple message – give what you’ve got, do what you can, keep going, don’t get discouraged. It’s a decent song, but nothing extraordinary.

Love Will Find a Way – 9/10

Many people say this is the highlight of Kingdom of Comfort. It continues the more mysterious, alternative sound of the album (God Is Smiling being the exception so far). This song has an awesome message - love beats everything. The chorus is catchy without being anthemic which is nice and interesting from Delirious. It sounds most like The Mission Bell, especially in the verses. The bridge and chorus is where the new sound is. There’s a really good use of keys – they dominate more than usual, with the guitars being more rhythmical. It’s another outward looking song about spreading God’s love. A really good song, one of the highlights of the album.

Eagle Rider – 7/10

This song is chilled but not ballady. Think of Follow. It has a really cool ‘groove’, you can’t help nodding your head! It’s directed more to God than outward – it’s about God lifting us up, with some Isaiah 40 imagery. In the context of album, it’s probably about how we have to live in God’s power and strength, recognising that we need him. A very unusual song for Delirious, but a good one.

We Give You Praise – 4/10

The was the other pre-release track, about how life is tough but we still praise God. Piano-driven again, and ballady. The verses are good, but the chorus is a bit dirgey – there’s not enough going on in the background, just chords and vocals – it needs more interesting guitars and/or keys. The lyrics are good, but Delirious’ slower, quieter stuff tends to be weaker sounding (Mountains High being the main exception). Not a bad song at all, but they have a high standard!

How sweet the name – 1/10

Another slow, piano driven song. It sounds a bit like Mountains High or Every Little Thing, but weaker than both, especially in the melody department. It reminds me of Hands of Kindness – nothing wrong with it, but very forgettable. Nothing happens in this song for over four minutes. The most interesting thing is a cello. It does kick in with drums and bass towards the end, but too late to save it, especially as the guitars sound pretty poor and Martin starts whining. Lyrically it’s fine, if nothing special, but musically it’s boring. Weakest song on the album.

Wonder – 10/10

One thing Delirious are experts at is big catchy choruses, and here’s another. Great music, great lyrics, probably the best song on the album. The verses and bridges are simple, then the chorus explodes in a love song to God. This could be in the top 10 Delirious songs of all time. It’s fast and upbeat, and great to listen to – you can tell they had fun writing it, and it would be huge live. I expect it to become a classic.

Break the Silence – 7/10

A call to evangelism, this song sounds like a cross between World Service and The Mission Bell. Like God Is Smiling, it is a positive song of hope. Another big chorus with really good guitars, it sounds quite like Now Is The Time. Unfortunately it is too similar to Wonder, and not as good, so it becomes a bit forgettable due to its place on the album, straight after the best track.

Stare The Monster Down – 6/10

This song sounds similar to the last two and suffers for the same reason as Break the Silence – it’s not as good as Wonder. It’s standard Delirious – guitar driven with a good tune – and sounds very like U2. It’s about messing things up, but God being big enough to cope. A fairly good song.

All God’s Children – 3/10

This song is looking to the future, to when God is going to come. It has really good verses with cool synth work, a bit reminiscent of Audio Lessonover. The chorus melody is like the other ballads over the years – a bit droney (though not as bad as some). But again, not enough happens, for me. It builds in the second half as drums and guitars swell, producing a really good sound, but the middle eight is not defined enough so it’s easy to miss, and this 6 minute song seems to drag to 9 or 10. To be brutally honest, the kid’s choir gets annoying!

My Soul Sings – 6/10

This has a really cool guitar intro, really nice melody and keys in verse, and quality lyrics. There are decent sounds in chorus too, but the backing vocals sound like wailing. It’s a blatant worship song which finishes off the main album nicely. It’s a slow song and stretches to 7 minutes – it moves into an instrumental after 4 minutes which is cool but it doesn’t build enough, but just stays at one level. This makes it a bit long for me.

Hallelujah (bonus track) – 8/10

An awesome intro involving all the instruments – the sound is very good and continues into verse and chorus. The keys in the chorus are amazing – reminiscent of the genius of Matt Redman’s early work. An incredibly catchy song which just makes you smile! Another love song to God. In terms of just having a great sound, it starts as one of their very best songs. The lyrics are simple and honest, no problems there. The middle eight is not brilliant – it could have been cut, but it does lead back into the chorus well. The chorus has two halves which work well but it’s the first part which is catchy – so it would have been good to get a few repetitions of that to finish instead of the middle eight.

Mothers of the Night (bonus track) – 7/10

Another quite alternative sound, in a minor key. Very haunting music and lyrics. This is a slow song that has the melody to carry it and interesting background music, so even though it never builds, it never needs to, the song is good enough as it is. Musically it might fit on Mezzamorphis, but lyrically it fits well on this album and it’s hard to know why it wasn’t on the main CD.

Football

I have just spend an enjoyable couple of hours in the pub watching the Arsenal v Liverpool Champion's League quarter final first leg. I have a few things to say off the back of this.

1. The stories in the papers will focus on two goals, scored from poor defending, and on a turned-down penalty appeal from Arsenal in the 2nd half. The commentators called it 'stonewall' (a clear penalty, for anyone not in with the footy lingo). Rubbish. There was contact, and I've seen them given before, but it was not enough to send the player to the ground. Had it happened outside the box Arsenal wouldn't have even appealed. Liverpool could have claimed for a similar incident at the other end about 20 minutes later. So if you hear any Arsenal fans claiming they should have won, they're wrong. Football fans, players and referees seem to have an entirely different set of rules when the action is inside the penalty area, and it's beginning to annoy me.

2. Having said that, Arsenal easily had the majority of the possession and chances. Liverpool, again, did not keep the ball well. We tried to defend for an entire 45 minutes! One the one hand, it was a well fought European tie from the Reds, and a well-earned draw. On the other hand, it was insanely naive. Arsenal came very close to scoring a second on several occasions. And the goal. Oh my word. It came from a free header from a corner, but it wasn't just one unmarked player, but four attacking players between Liverpool's centre backs. This is the downfall of zonal marking - if the opposition flood one zone, you're in big trouble. And the opposition frequently do.

3. I thought the ref had a very good game, and both sides played in good spirits. Although players were clearly disappointed at certain decisions against them, there was no backchat or yelling in the refs face. Had it been Man Utd and Chelsea, represented by Wayne Rooney and John Terry, I expect we would have seen quite a bit more disgusting behaviour towards the officials. This has been a hot topic in recent weeks, with refs asked to clamp down on dissent. It has again been suggested that only captains should be allowed to talk to the referee, like in rugby. This idea has its merits, but the reason it works in rugby is because the officials get their decisions right, time and time again. In football, officials get decisions wrong time and time, which is why player tend to approach the referee to point out his error. The two main problems here are the relatively poor standards of refereeing, and the total lack of respect some players and managers (i.e. Alex Ferguson) have for the officials.

4. While I'm on the subject, if John Terry regains the permanent England captaincy I shall start supporting Mexico.

The Passion

During the week leading up to Easter, the BBC screened a four-part drama about the last week of Jesus' life. I watched it, and thought it was very good. It was quite unlike other 'Jesus films' I've seen, I think partly because it focused on Jesus humanity more than the others do. It seems to me that most portrayals of Jesus have him quite aloof and detached from what is going on around him, whereas in this version, we see him crying and laughing, telling jokes, and just being human! Joseph Rawle, who plays Jesus, said that a major inspiration for how to play the role was Philip Yacey's 'The Jesus I Never Knew', especially a single line: 'God didn't cheat' i.e. he felt everything a man could feel. Very interesting.

Also, the whole setting seemed more 'real'. The mania of passover and the politics between the priests, the Romans and the people was shown very clearly. And the filmmakers also managed to show almost everyone in a good light. We see the motives behind the actions of Judas, Pilate and Caiphas, and sympathise with them. It just seems to be showing a much more realistic story of what must have been going on.

As the drama moved closer to the crucifixion, the flow was lost a little, I think because the filmmakers were concerned to include as much as possible of what happened, whereas earlier they had been more liberal. This made the third and fourth parts seem a bit disjointed, as though they had got a selection of scenes and just stuck them one after another. But other than this minor point, it was a really good piece of TV. Watch it if you get a chance.

A little rant about Easter

Just a short rant here.
This year Easter Sunday is the 23rd of March. This is relatively very early. This has caused havoc for education authorities in this country who have had to decide whether to have their 2 weeks 'Easter' break starting that weekend, or a few weeks later. Almost always, the school break encompasses the Easter weekend, but to do that this year would make the Spring term stupidly short and the Summer term stupidly long, so many areas are taking the bank holiday weekend off, then going back to school for just 9 days, and then having the 2 weeks holiday. Bit of a joke really.
The Christian festival Spring Harvest, which normally takes place over 3 weeks, has had to spread itself over 5 weeks to encompass the school holidays across the country.
On a more personal note, the halls of residence in which I live are closed for the bank holiday Easter weekend, as they always are. Fair enough. But this year, I need to stay there over the weekend because I'm still on teaching practice until the 4th of April (Durham having chosen the later option for the 2 week holiday). Therefore I'm having to go home for 4 days before rocketing back up to Durham for 9.
I said that March 23rd is very early for Easter. It's actually only physically able to be one day earlier - it can fall on any Sunday between March 22nd and April 25th according to Wikipedia. And you know how they decide? "Easter is observed on the Sunday after the first full moon on or after the day of the vernal equinox". So they find the Spring equinox, then find the first full moon after it, and make the next Sunday Easter.
Is it just me, or is this at least in the top 3 most stupid things in the world? Just fix it and save everyone the trouble! Easter should be the first Sunday in April (or whatever), and stay there. Then it'll shift by about 4 days, rather than over a month.
Someone make me king of the world and I'll sort it out.

Wizard Rock

The Harry Potter books have had a bit influence on British culture, but one of the most bizzare and unexpected outcomes has been the development of the musical genre Wizard Rock. Dozens of band draw inspiration from the series (and the series alone, they only sing about the Harry Potter world) and perform in bookshops, libraries and all sorts of fan conventions.

I haven't heard much of the genre, but of what I have heard, the music isn't bad. Shame about the lyrics: "We've got to save Ginny Weasley from the basilisk, we’ve got to save the school from the unseen horror" (Save Ginny Weasley by Harry and the Potters). The band names are equally lame - others include Draco and the Malfoys, Remus and the Lupins, and The Moaning Myrtles.

Having said that, it's harmless stuff, though I think any music with only one inspirational source is incredibly limited, but if people enjoy it then fair enough. But today I saw the results of the Wizard Rock People’s Choice Awards. Awards included 'Best band fronted by a magical creature' (awarded to the Whomping Willows, even though plants don't count as creatures in Rowling's writing), 'Best evil wizard rock band (Draco and the Malfoys, even though Draco isn't evil in the end), 'Best music produced from beyond the grave' (The Moaning Myrtles) and 'Best holiday song' (Christmas with the Weasley's by The Remus Lupins). Is it just me, or are they trying to give every single Wizrock band in existence an award?

The biggest sham though is the Lifetime Achievement Award, which went to the Whomping Willows, who have been in existence for all of two and a half years. Lifetime Achievement?! What a joke.

Favourite films? Or just the best?

I know what my favourite ten films are. But over the last couple of days I have been very geeky and have given several films I like scores in various categories, weighted the categories, and ranked the films quantitatively. I was surprised that some films performed much better or worse than I expected. For example, one of my top 10 finished in 15th and a film I expected to be mid-teens came 7th.
It is clear that this method I used, while designed to examine each film critically, does not give an entirely accurate picture of my personal favourites (though the top 5 at least are pretty spot on).

I scored the films out of 10 in nine categories: plot, characters, themes, script, acting, mood, visual, audio and re-watchability. I weighted each section to give a final score out of 200, and the results of the 26 films scored so far are below. However this is not exactly a rank of my personal favourites, but rather an attempt to objectively decide what I think are the best films I have seen. Obviously I have seen more than 26 films, so there may be films I have not scored yet that will enter this top 26.

Rank	Film	Score
1	The Lord Of The Rings	197
2	Gladiator	176
3	The Matrix	170
4	The Green Mile	167
5	Stardust	166
6	Shrek	161
7	Shrek 2	159
8	Fight Club	158
9	Minority Report	158
10	The Man In The Iron Mask	157
11	Good Will Hunting	157
12	The Shawshank Redemption	156
13	A Beautiful Mind	155
14	Chariots of Fire	154
15	Notting Hill	152
16	Moulin Rouge	148
17	Cool Runnings	147
18	Equilibrium	145
19	Forrest Gump	143
20	Usual Suspects	143
21	X-men trilogy	142
22	Monsters Inc	139
23	The Rock	138
24	Toy Story 2	137
25	Finding Nemo	134
26	Toy Story	129

Clearly I am quite a harsh marker. Only 7 films got over 80%. According to the star rating, thats only 7 5-star films. Luckily I think the star system is a sham and don't use it. But I don't deny I am hard to please when it comes to films. They're all measured against a ludicrously high benchmark (see film #1!).
For now this system will suffice, but I don't really like marking out of 10 because I often get split between two numbers. So sometime I'll probably redo it scoring each category out of 20. Good times.

The weight of the world

Lyrics to 'The Weight of the World', by Editors, from their 2nd album, An End Has A Start:


Keep a light on those you love,
They will be there when you die.
Baby there's no need to fear,
Baby there's no need to cry

Every little piece in your life
Will add up to one
Every little piece in your life
Will mean something to someone

You fuse my broken bones
Back together again
Lift the weight of the world
From my shoulders again

Every little piece in your life
Will add up to one
Every little piece in your life
Will mean something to someone

You touch my face,
God whispers in my ear
There are tears in my eyes:
Love replaces...
You touch my face,
God whispers in my ears
There are tears in my eyes:
Love replaces fear

Every little piece in your life
Will add up to one
Every little piece in your life
Will mean something to someone


Not a religious band, but this is so 1 John 4:18..."There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear"...Love replaces fear. This is so true. And I love the idea that God speaks to him through the touch of another person, and through this, love replaces fear.

My favourite songs

My favourite songs at the moment are:

British Sea Power – Carrion
Delirious – My Glorious
Enya – Wild Child
Idlewild – American English
Jars of Clay – Worlds Apart
Lifehouse – Quasimodo
Mew – Am I Wry? No
Sabio – Mother
Stellastarr* - Lost in Time

Other honourable mentions should go to:

British Sea Power – Please Stand Up, Waving Flags
Casting Crowns – Stained Glass Masquerade
Coldplay – Yellow
DC Talk – Jesus Freak, What Have We Become?
Delirious – Heaven, Investigate, Obsession, Deeper
Editors – Weight Of The World
Easyworld – Junkies And Whores, This Is Where I Stand, Stain To Never Fade, Demons
Enya – I Want Tomorrow, Flora’s Secret, One By One
Feeder – Morning Life
Idlewild – You Held The World In Your Arms, Let Me Sleep
The Kissaway Trail – Smother + Evil = Hurt
Lifehouse – Hanging By A Moment, Sick Cycle Carousel, Simon
Mew – 156, She Came Home For Christmas
Muse – Time Is Running Out, Citizen Erased, Micro Cuts
Oasis – Slide Away
Rock’n’Roll Worship Circus – Loving You
Sixpence None The Richer – Melody Of You
Strangeday - Fogpilot
U2 – Beautiful Day