At this time of year, when we celebrate everything from unfettered greed to family love, it's important to remember the people who make the time and effort to make Christmas the awesome occasion it is, from the host, to the cook, to the person who earns the money to pay for all this ridiculous unnecessary awesomeness. Without them, this would just be a cold, dark, midwinter day.
And of course, there's the guy who's never more than two steps from snapping under the pressure and KILLING US ALL...
___________________________________________________
To My Aunt Gill, you've been an amazing host this year, and I love you.
With that said, if you tell me how to take a turkey out of the oven mid-lift again, you're going to see something a lil' bit special.
Saturday, 25 December 2010
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Thank You
Long day at work, tired, you know the drill.
And then I saw this:
http://www.twitter.com/ukhomeoffice: "Contribute your views to our consultation into how we can best reduce the number of students who come to the UK. http://tinyurl.com/3x2lzdz"
At first, I thought they must just be expressing themselves badly.
I mean, foreign students pay a fortune in fees, get relatively few subsidies compared to UK students, and tend to bring as much if not more prestige to their universities, because they tend to appreciate being here more and work harder, at least on the average.
If nothing else, people who go to a university within driving distance have slightly less to lose by being thrown out than people who've flown halfway round the world to get here.
But no, apparently what they said is exactly what they meant.
Deep. Breath.
WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID YOU THINK THEY WERE GOING TO UNIVERSITY HERE? IT'S RUBBISH HERE!
...
Yes, that was about it.
During the first terms of university, Britain is cold, dark and miserable. And during the other terms, any university student with even the slightest regard for the value of their degree is either working harder than hell, or descending into a panicky manic-depression over how much they suck. Most likely, both. I tended to switch between the two on a weekly basis.
And over the holidays, any international student is normally either hunting down a way to pay their fees for the next year, interning, or heading home to be with their families.
The sole advantage of doing a degree in the UK as opposed to India, is that most Western businesses don't know whether a particular non-Western University is good or not. Could be a challenging academic institution, could be a guy with a printing press and a phone line who'll take £2,000 and make you sound like Einstein crossed with Oscar Wilde when they ask for your references. And with stuff like MEDICINE, they can't take a punt and see how you do. People WOULD die.
Seriously, do you really believe that a degree from Dibley Community College means so much more to an international student than a degree from the Blotski College of Southern Syldavia that they'd be willing to travel hundreds of miles to a foreign country to do it if it WASN'T for the fact that we produce degrees that are respected/understood by Western Businesses?
How many friends do I personally have who are paying a fortune in tax and working harder than hell, to receive this slap in the face from a hypocrite who's main reason for having his cushy job may well be that he was unfairly arrested for slipping secrets to the Daily Mail, and who now talks about restricting other people's rights with a smug pride?
How many people's lives will be made just that little bit harder in the next five years because of this short-sighted, borderline-racist policy?
So. Already in the wrong mood.
And then I read the survey; "in many ways the most important part of our programme of bringing immigration down to sustainable levels".
Here's an anecdote that's somewhat relevant to what comes next.
My sister is currently studying for a PhD in Biochemistry. One of her international colleagues came to her and asked her for help, because her English wasn't good enough to allow her to decipher what the Visa Forms wanted from her. And my sister, one of the smartest, most literate people I know, looked at the documentation and said "Worryingly, neither's MINE."
This survey is LITERALLY unintelligible to the average reader. It refers to documents that aren't described properly, standards that aren't accessible, and uses words that would never be encountered outside of a legal or academic institution, such as "the system as a whole has been allowed to operate in a manner which is not sustainable".
In some cases, if you're not capable of filtering out which words matter and which don't at a very high level, it's perfectly possible to believe that it's asking the opposite question to the one it's actually asking.
SO. As a native English speaker with 4 A-Levels, a degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and who's read more in the last week than the average person has in the last month, I am going to attempt to translate every page of this blasted legalese into its raw meaning.
As an example: "Vote as your conscience dictates." means "Select the choice you agree with, but think about what it means first."
Shall we begin? Follow along at home.
For quick reference:
Overall, immigration has been good to us in the past. However, it's so hard to control at the moment that we're worried that people who don't deserve to get in are getting in anyway. We'd like to make the process simpler. We need to keep the good students, and reject the others.
It's not just universities, but any educational institution that can offer a Visa.
We also want to make sure that the people coming in on a Student Visa don't want to stay in Britain afterwards.
Some people aren't following the rules, and we want to be able to catch them more easily.
We plan to:
If you want to read more complicated stuff, we have a link. Which leads to more links. You can only open those if you have Adobe Acrobat software installed on your computer.
PAGE 2:
Right now, students can stay in the UK as long as they're on a good enough course. We're not going to explain here how good those courses are. You can look them up on Wikipedia. Turns out it's about A-Level standard.
We've had to guess at how many students are here and not following the correct procedures. These figures vary so wildly that out figures are higher than somebody else's. They think it's about 1 in every 50. It's harder to tell with ours, because we split it up by where they're studying.
International students over the age of 16 (possibly higher) tend to be educated privately below degree level.
We've found that people who pay more seem to be trying to just get any degree that will let them stay here, and don't know much about what they're studying.
We want to make it easier to stop people from offering courses just to allow them to legally sell visas.
We want to make the existing protection apply to university level degrees rather than just A-levels, so only people we trust can offer them. We also want to stop people from coming over here to study at A-level, as it's too easy to get on an A-level course.
We want to know how to make it easy for people to do this.
Our idea is to make only "highly trusted sponsors" (not clear who these are) able to offer visas for A-Level students. There'd be another way in for other colleges, but it's not as good.
Q1: Do you think that only allowing this would make the process simpler and the places that offer this more important? (Y/N)
Q2: Do you think that only "highly trusted sponsors" should be permitted to offer study below degree level. (Yes, just them/No, nobody should be allowed to offer it via the standard method/No, nobody should be allowed to offer it at all)
Q3: Do you think we should do all/any of what's on page 2? (Y/N)
PAGE 3:
Q4: How long should we take before we can say that every school should be up to date with the new rules? (Under a year, 2 years, 3 years, Longer)
PAGE 4:
Q5: We think private schools that teach kids deserve special treatment because they've been mostly trustworthy in the past. Do you think this is right? (Y/N)
PAGE 5:
For the past 4 months, if students have wanted to study here at A-Level or below, they've had to be able to speak English reasonably well. This should be trivial for a university student, otherwise they couldn't get onto the course.
If most people in your country speak English, or you've studied over here, or you've got a degree from a country like that, you don't have to take the test. (can't tell if their proposal would change this, wording isn't clear)
If you want to learn English, you'd have to take an easier test.
We'll allow you to study for this test before you take it.
We want to make it so everybody has to prove that they've passed the easier test.
Q6: Should we? (Y/N)
Q7: Who should be exempt from any change? Select as many as you like: (People from countries where most people speak English, People with degrees from those countries, People who just finished going to school here, Nobody) (Yes, you can select some groups to be exempt and also select "No Groups Should Be Exempt" (and "Don't Know"))
PAGE 6:
Currently, if we can't force University student's to leave the UK as long as they're studying. We want to make it so we can stop them moving to another course at the end, unless their sponsor tells us that it's a course for a higher degree (e.g. from A-Level to Uni Degree, from Uni Degree to ???).
We wanted to limit it to 3 years, but it was pointed out that lots of courses are 4 years long.
We've also thought about making you go home before you can re-apply. We basically want to make people realise that a student visa doesn't allow you to stay here for very long.
Q8: Should we make people prove that their next course is at a higher level? (Y/N)
Q9: Should we make students fly back to their home country rather than stay here to re-apply? (Y/N)
PAGE 7:
Students with a degree can look for work here for two years if they get permission. In 2009, enough people got permission to half-fill Wembley Stadium, if they brought their wives and kids with them.
If you already have a job to go to, you're fine. If you don't get permission, you can stay for 4 months to look for work after you graduate. We've made it easier for business to employ international students without filling in paperwork.
We want to refuse permission to everybody. If we can't refuse it, we're going to make it much harder to get it.
Q10: What do you want us to do? (Refuse permission/Make it harder to get permission)
PAGE 8:
Q11: How long should it take for us to do whatever you said on page 7? (Under a year, 2 years, 3 years, Longer)
PAGE 9 (halfway there):
Q12: Do you want us to make it harder to get permission (basically Q10 again)? (Y/N)
PAGE 10:
Depending on the course, students can only work so much during the term-time, because they should be studying. 10 hours each week for A-Level, 20 hours otherwise. This is too complicated for employers and border police.
About a third to a half of students claim that they're working more than this many hours. Some of this may be for the University, which shouldn't count. We're not saying how much.
We want to stop students working off-campus at all except on weekends, and we want to make sure university holidays aren't designed to allow them to work full-time for long periods.
Q13: Should we do something like this? (Y/N)
Q14: Should we stop employers from letting students work except for at certain times of the day? (Y/N)
PAGE 11:
Students currently can't spend more than half of their time on work-placement while on a course, the other half has to be studying. We want to make this a third instead, except for the ones where it's illegal for it to as little as a third, for example teaching courses.
Q15: Should we? (Y/N)
PAGE 12:
We don't like the way they worked out who students could bring over.
Currently they can bring their partner and kids over as long as they're here for 6 months, but they can't work unless they're at least doing a degree level course that'll take longer than a year.
Some people may be coming over here to study so that their kids can get free healthcare and education.
We want to stop people from bringing their families over unless they're here for at least a year. We also want to stop their families working unless they've already got a job here or have skills we need.
Q16: Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to bring their partners and children over? (Y/N)
Q17: Should we stop their families working? (Y/N)
PAGE 13:
It's a pain for people who we trust to have to provide the same documents as people we don't trust. We want to make it easier for the people we trust.
We're going to profile people by how trustworthy their countrymen are, especially regarding how much money they have. That's not the only way we're going to profile them.
We're also thinking about profiling them by sponsor.
Basically, if we trust you, you can send us a photocopy rather than originals.
Q18: Should we treat different types of students differently? (Y/N)
Q19: Should we focus on forged documents as the way of treating them differently? (Y/N)
Q20: Should we also consider how trustworthy their sponsor is?
PAGE 14:
Private schools for adults tend to break the rules more. We want to make it harder for them.
Q21: Should we? (Y/N)
Q22: How do you think these changes will affect you? (Free text)
PAGE 15:
Q23: Who are you speaking for? (Just Yourself/A Group)
PAGE 16:
Q24: Who are you? (Student/Teacher/Other)
Q25: What kind of organisation do you work for/with? (University/Public College/Private College/Independent School/English Language School/Public Sector/Non-Education Business)
Q26: What's its name? (Free Text)
Q27: How many students? (0-25,000+)
Q28: How many non-European overseas students? (0-50%+)
I hope I've cleared that up.
That was one of the most miserable experiences of my life.
I had to use Google for every single technical term, and I will guarantee that no-one who isn't a university-level English speaker would be able to work out whether Yes or No would get them kicked out of the country next year. They'd probably give up halfway down page 1.
It's not even complete. For half the changes, it's not clear if it applies to EEA students, or just to non-Europeans. Whatever side you come down on, would you trust the person who wrote the survey to draft clear and fair laws? Would you trust him to draft a MENU? And don't those of you who think it's a "good idea" feel grateful that you're British and don't have to go through this process?
In case you're wondering, the "correct" answers are to reduce the documentation required for busy, stressed students so that's it's easier for them and the government to tell if they're non-compliant, and to enforce the existing laws better. And no, that's not an option on any page.
The worst part is the implicit assumption that to cut down on the amount of rule-breaking, we need to make the laws harsher. As if that's not going to mean MORE rule-breaking and more work. If a person or an organisation is currently breaking the law, they don't care if you make more laws. They'll break those too. They probably won't even notice.
Actually, the worst part is, I am enough of a natural bastard to suspect this:
One of the Tories' pledges was to bring down immigration.
And now they've looked at the real numbers and realised that from a business perspective, the immigration cap is harmful because it increases labour costs and makes it more inconvenient for genuinely talented individuals to work here, so they use their genuine talent to get a job somewhere else.
And they've looked at the illegal immigration numbers and realised that the amount of time and energy it would take to track down illegal immigrants is totally disproportionate to the cost of the actual illegal immigration going on.
So they've picked a group that are easy to find, easy to victimise, and who don't have powerful interests protecting them. Adolescents. People about 20-25, who like the look of this country and want to move here, and who are willing to do something to make that happen.
God knows we don't need any more of those here. We've got Wayne Rooney and Cheryl Cole, man. They'll solve the recession. Wayne probably owns a boat.
Sometimes, I hope that when I'm older I'll learn wisdom. I'll be able to look at situations like this and go "Way of the World".
I. AM. NOT. THERE. YET.
You selfish, arrogant, wasteful clowns. How dare you squander your talents like this.
How dare you, How dare you stack the deck so thoroughly against people who've made more sacrifices and worked harder in the last month than you have in your entire life, and then when you still can't win, attempt to trick a bunch of credulous idiots into bloodying their hands at arms' length.
How dare you subject your citizens to untested, questionable policies, and then try to victimise innocent people as a distraction.
How dare you act like you have a god-given mandate to cure the country, while pursuing policies that demonstrate how desperate you are to maintain your feeble grip on power.
But on a personal note; thank you.
For almost a month now, I've been obsessed with my own issues. Slight health worries, a lack of self-control over my finances, my love-life, the feeling that I might have compromised what few principles I ever respected; the whole "Mid-Twenties" extravanganza.
So thank you. Thank you for reminding me how good I really have it, and for burning all of that woolly, nebulous misery away in a blast of white-hot rage.
Merry Christmas.
_____________________________________________________
"Because you see I am accountable. I am accountable for the continuous, crashing, undeniable amateurism that you people drag into this hospital day in and day out. And believe you me when I tell you that the next time one of you perpetual disappointments doesn't even have the common decency to try and do better at something you supposedly do, I will go ahead and toss your sorry ass outa here in about ten seconds and then I will forget you forever in the next five." - Dr Perry Cox, Scrubs
And then I saw this:
http://www.twitter.com/ukhomeoffice: "Contribute your views to our consultation into how we can best reduce the number of students who come to the UK. http://tinyurl.com/3x2lzdz"
At first, I thought they must just be expressing themselves badly.
I mean, foreign students pay a fortune in fees, get relatively few subsidies compared to UK students, and tend to bring as much if not more prestige to their universities, because they tend to appreciate being here more and work harder, at least on the average.
If nothing else, people who go to a university within driving distance have slightly less to lose by being thrown out than people who've flown halfway round the world to get here.
But no, apparently what they said is exactly what they meant.
'People imagine students to be those who come here for a few years to study at university and then go home - that is not always the case. Too many students coming to study at below degree level have been coming here with a view to living and working, rather than studying. We need to stop this abuse.' - Immigration Minister Damian Green.How to describe my instinctive response to that...
Deep. Breath.
WHY IN GOD'S NAME DID YOU THINK THEY WERE GOING TO UNIVERSITY HERE? IT'S RUBBISH HERE!
...
Yes, that was about it.
During the first terms of university, Britain is cold, dark and miserable. And during the other terms, any university student with even the slightest regard for the value of their degree is either working harder than hell, or descending into a panicky manic-depression over how much they suck. Most likely, both. I tended to switch between the two on a weekly basis.
And over the holidays, any international student is normally either hunting down a way to pay their fees for the next year, interning, or heading home to be with their families.
The sole advantage of doing a degree in the UK as opposed to India, is that most Western businesses don't know whether a particular non-Western University is good or not. Could be a challenging academic institution, could be a guy with a printing press and a phone line who'll take £2,000 and make you sound like Einstein crossed with Oscar Wilde when they ask for your references. And with stuff like MEDICINE, they can't take a punt and see how you do. People WOULD die.
Seriously, do you really believe that a degree from Dibley Community College means so much more to an international student than a degree from the Blotski College of Southern Syldavia that they'd be willing to travel hundreds of miles to a foreign country to do it if it WASN'T for the fact that we produce degrees that are respected/understood by Western Businesses?
How many friends do I personally have who are paying a fortune in tax and working harder than hell, to receive this slap in the face from a hypocrite who's main reason for having his cushy job may well be that he was unfairly arrested for slipping secrets to the Daily Mail, and who now talks about restricting other people's rights with a smug pride?
How many people's lives will be made just that little bit harder in the next five years because of this short-sighted, borderline-racist policy?
So. Already in the wrong mood.
And then I read the survey; "in many ways the most important part of our programme of bringing immigration down to sustainable levels".
Here's an anecdote that's somewhat relevant to what comes next.
My sister is currently studying for a PhD in Biochemistry. One of her international colleagues came to her and asked her for help, because her English wasn't good enough to allow her to decipher what the Visa Forms wanted from her. And my sister, one of the smartest, most literate people I know, looked at the documentation and said "Worryingly, neither's MINE."
This survey is LITERALLY unintelligible to the average reader. It refers to documents that aren't described properly, standards that aren't accessible, and uses words that would never be encountered outside of a legal or academic institution, such as "the system as a whole has been allowed to operate in a manner which is not sustainable".
In some cases, if you're not capable of filtering out which words matter and which don't at a very high level, it's perfectly possible to believe that it's asking the opposite question to the one it's actually asking.
SO. As a native English speaker with 4 A-Levels, a degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and who's read more in the last week than the average person has in the last month, I am going to attempt to translate every page of this blasted legalese into its raw meaning.
As an example: "Vote as your conscience dictates." means "Select the choice you agree with, but think about what it means first."
Shall we begin? Follow along at home.
For quick reference:
- NQF3 is about AS-Level, SCQF3 is the Scottish Highers
- The EEA is probably the European Economic Area, which is the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
- Highly Trusted Sponsors - Could be all major universities, could be just Oxbridge, could be the Reg Vardy school of Creationism. There'll be a list somewhere.
- "Don't Know" will be ignored in any report, so it's basically meaningless.
Overall, immigration has been good to us in the past. However, it's so hard to control at the moment that we're worried that people who don't deserve to get in are getting in anyway. We'd like to make the process simpler. We need to keep the good students, and reject the others.
It's not just universities, but any educational institution that can offer a Visa.
We also want to make sure that the people coming in on a Student Visa don't want to stay in Britain afterwards.
Some people aren't following the rules, and we want to be able to catch them more easily.
We plan to:
- Make sure that any course that takes adults is up to a standard where they couldn't pass it without really trying.
- Make it harder for non-child students, which either means students under 21, or under 18, or under some age (we're not telling you what it is) to study here.
- Send students somewhere else (we're not telling you where) once they're no longer studying.
- Stop people from bringing so many family members or boy/girlfriends over.
- Make it easier for the people who obviously aren't trying to cheat the system to come over.
- Make it harder for private schools to grant Visas to anyone.
If you want to read more complicated stuff, we have a link. Which leads to more links. You can only open those if you have Adobe Acrobat software installed on your computer.
PAGE 2:
Right now, students can stay in the UK as long as they're on a good enough course. We're not going to explain here how good those courses are. You can look them up on Wikipedia. Turns out it's about A-Level standard.
We've had to guess at how many students are here and not following the correct procedures. These figures vary so wildly that out figures are higher than somebody else's. They think it's about 1 in every 50. It's harder to tell with ours, because we split it up by where they're studying.
International students over the age of 16 (possibly higher) tend to be educated privately below degree level.
We've found that people who pay more seem to be trying to just get any degree that will let them stay here, and don't know much about what they're studying.
We want to make it easier to stop people from offering courses just to allow them to legally sell visas.
We want to make the existing protection apply to university level degrees rather than just A-levels, so only people we trust can offer them. We also want to stop people from coming over here to study at A-level, as it's too easy to get on an A-level course.
We want to know how to make it easy for people to do this.
Our idea is to make only "highly trusted sponsors" (not clear who these are) able to offer visas for A-Level students. There'd be another way in for other colleges, but it's not as good.
Q1: Do you think that only allowing this would make the process simpler and the places that offer this more important? (Y/N)
Q2: Do you think that only "highly trusted sponsors" should be permitted to offer study below degree level. (Yes, just them/No, nobody should be allowed to offer it via the standard method/No, nobody should be allowed to offer it at all)
Q3: Do you think we should do all/any of what's on page 2? (Y/N)
PAGE 3:
Q4: How long should we take before we can say that every school should be up to date with the new rules? (Under a year, 2 years, 3 years, Longer)
PAGE 4:
Q5: We think private schools that teach kids deserve special treatment because they've been mostly trustworthy in the past. Do you think this is right? (Y/N)
PAGE 5:
For the past 4 months, if students have wanted to study here at A-Level or below, they've had to be able to speak English reasonably well. This should be trivial for a university student, otherwise they couldn't get onto the course.
If most people in your country speak English, or you've studied over here, or you've got a degree from a country like that, you don't have to take the test. (can't tell if their proposal would change this, wording isn't clear)
If you want to learn English, you'd have to take an easier test.
We'll allow you to study for this test before you take it.
We want to make it so everybody has to prove that they've passed the easier test.
Q6: Should we? (Y/N)
Q7: Who should be exempt from any change? Select as many as you like: (People from countries where most people speak English, People with degrees from those countries, People who just finished going to school here, Nobody) (Yes, you can select some groups to be exempt and also select "No Groups Should Be Exempt" (and "Don't Know"))
PAGE 6:
Currently, if we can't force University student's to leave the UK as long as they're studying. We want to make it so we can stop them moving to another course at the end, unless their sponsor tells us that it's a course for a higher degree (e.g. from A-Level to Uni Degree, from Uni Degree to ???).
We wanted to limit it to 3 years, but it was pointed out that lots of courses are 4 years long.
We've also thought about making you go home before you can re-apply. We basically want to make people realise that a student visa doesn't allow you to stay here for very long.
Q8: Should we make people prove that their next course is at a higher level? (Y/N)
Q9: Should we make students fly back to their home country rather than stay here to re-apply? (Y/N)
PAGE 7:
Students with a degree can look for work here for two years if they get permission. In 2009, enough people got permission to half-fill Wembley Stadium, if they brought their wives and kids with them.
If you already have a job to go to, you're fine. If you don't get permission, you can stay for 4 months to look for work after you graduate. We've made it easier for business to employ international students without filling in paperwork.
We want to refuse permission to everybody. If we can't refuse it, we're going to make it much harder to get it.
Q10: What do you want us to do? (Refuse permission/Make it harder to get permission)
PAGE 8:
Q11: How long should it take for us to do whatever you said on page 7? (Under a year, 2 years, 3 years, Longer)
PAGE 9 (halfway there):
Q12: Do you want us to make it harder to get permission (basically Q10 again)? (Y/N)
PAGE 10:
Depending on the course, students can only work so much during the term-time, because they should be studying. 10 hours each week for A-Level, 20 hours otherwise. This is too complicated for employers and border police.
About a third to a half of students claim that they're working more than this many hours. Some of this may be for the University, which shouldn't count. We're not saying how much.
We want to stop students working off-campus at all except on weekends, and we want to make sure university holidays aren't designed to allow them to work full-time for long periods.
Q13: Should we do something like this? (Y/N)
Q14: Should we stop employers from letting students work except for at certain times of the day? (Y/N)
PAGE 11:
Students currently can't spend more than half of their time on work-placement while on a course, the other half has to be studying. We want to make this a third instead, except for the ones where it's illegal for it to as little as a third, for example teaching courses.
Q15: Should we? (Y/N)
PAGE 12:
We don't like the way they worked out who students could bring over.
Currently they can bring their partner and kids over as long as they're here for 6 months, but they can't work unless they're at least doing a degree level course that'll take longer than a year.
Some people may be coming over here to study so that their kids can get free healthcare and education.
We want to stop people from bringing their families over unless they're here for at least a year. We also want to stop their families working unless they've already got a job here or have skills we need.
Q16: Do you think they shouldn't be allowed to bring their partners and children over? (Y/N)
Q17: Should we stop their families working? (Y/N)
PAGE 13:
It's a pain for people who we trust to have to provide the same documents as people we don't trust. We want to make it easier for the people we trust.
We're going to profile people by how trustworthy their countrymen are, especially regarding how much money they have. That's not the only way we're going to profile them.
We're also thinking about profiling them by sponsor.
Basically, if we trust you, you can send us a photocopy rather than originals.
Q18: Should we treat different types of students differently? (Y/N)
Q19: Should we focus on forged documents as the way of treating them differently? (Y/N)
Q20: Should we also consider how trustworthy their sponsor is?
PAGE 14:
Private schools for adults tend to break the rules more. We want to make it harder for them.
Q21: Should we? (Y/N)
Q22: How do you think these changes will affect you? (Free text)
PAGE 15:
Q23: Who are you speaking for? (Just Yourself/A Group)
PAGE 16:
Q24: Who are you? (Student/Teacher/Other)
Q25: What kind of organisation do you work for/with? (University/Public College/Private College/Independent School/English Language School/Public Sector/Non-Education Business)
Q26: What's its name? (Free Text)
Q27: How many students? (0-25,000+)
Q28: How many non-European overseas students? (0-50%+)
I hope I've cleared that up.
That was one of the most miserable experiences of my life.
I had to use Google for every single technical term, and I will guarantee that no-one who isn't a university-level English speaker would be able to work out whether Yes or No would get them kicked out of the country next year. They'd probably give up halfway down page 1.
It's not even complete. For half the changes, it's not clear if it applies to EEA students, or just to non-Europeans. Whatever side you come down on, would you trust the person who wrote the survey to draft clear and fair laws? Would you trust him to draft a MENU? And don't those of you who think it's a "good idea" feel grateful that you're British and don't have to go through this process?
In case you're wondering, the "correct" answers are to reduce the documentation required for busy, stressed students so that's it's easier for them and the government to tell if they're non-compliant, and to enforce the existing laws better. And no, that's not an option on any page.
The worst part is the implicit assumption that to cut down on the amount of rule-breaking, we need to make the laws harsher. As if that's not going to mean MORE rule-breaking and more work. If a person or an organisation is currently breaking the law, they don't care if you make more laws. They'll break those too. They probably won't even notice.
Actually, the worst part is, I am enough of a natural bastard to suspect this:
One of the Tories' pledges was to bring down immigration.
And now they've looked at the real numbers and realised that from a business perspective, the immigration cap is harmful because it increases labour costs and makes it more inconvenient for genuinely talented individuals to work here, so they use their genuine talent to get a job somewhere else.
And they've looked at the illegal immigration numbers and realised that the amount of time and energy it would take to track down illegal immigrants is totally disproportionate to the cost of the actual illegal immigration going on.
So they've picked a group that are easy to find, easy to victimise, and who don't have powerful interests protecting them. Adolescents. People about 20-25, who like the look of this country and want to move here, and who are willing to do something to make that happen.
God knows we don't need any more of those here. We've got Wayne Rooney and Cheryl Cole, man. They'll solve the recession. Wayne probably owns a boat.
Sometimes, I hope that when I'm older I'll learn wisdom. I'll be able to look at situations like this and go "Way of the World".
I. AM. NOT. THERE. YET.
You selfish, arrogant, wasteful clowns. How dare you squander your talents like this.
How dare you, How dare you stack the deck so thoroughly against people who've made more sacrifices and worked harder in the last month than you have in your entire life, and then when you still can't win, attempt to trick a bunch of credulous idiots into bloodying their hands at arms' length.
How dare you subject your citizens to untested, questionable policies, and then try to victimise innocent people as a distraction.
How dare you act like you have a god-given mandate to cure the country, while pursuing policies that demonstrate how desperate you are to maintain your feeble grip on power.
But on a personal note; thank you.
For almost a month now, I've been obsessed with my own issues. Slight health worries, a lack of self-control over my finances, my love-life, the feeling that I might have compromised what few principles I ever respected; the whole "Mid-Twenties" extravanganza.
So thank you. Thank you for reminding me how good I really have it, and for burning all of that woolly, nebulous misery away in a blast of white-hot rage.
Merry Christmas.
_____________________________________________________
"Because you see I am accountable. I am accountable for the continuous, crashing, undeniable amateurism that you people drag into this hospital day in and day out. And believe you me when I tell you that the next time one of you perpetual disappointments doesn't even have the common decency to try and do better at something you supposedly do, I will go ahead and toss your sorry ass outa here in about ten seconds and then I will forget you forever in the next five." - Dr Perry Cox, Scrubs
Thursday, 9 September 2010
10 years of Superhero Movies, not one Female Lead
I seem to be reading a lot of stuff about gender politics at the moment, and, as it's me we're talking about, getting into a lot of gender politics arguments as a result. The best thing was the fantastic Radio 4 programme Fry's English Delight, which this week discussed differences in the way men and women use English. The worst was this article, which I frankly found anti-convincing. Also, http://www.compsciwoman.com/, fantastic site, heartily recommended.
Now I could go deep into this one, talk about how you need to treat people as individuals first, and as groups only when absolutely necessary to counter-act existing prejudices. But that post ran to 4,000 words and is in drastic need of an editor with a blowtorch and thumbscrews, and in the course of which I becomeslightly snide. Quite snide. Very snide. a bit of a tool. a tool. a complete toolbox with hammer, chisel, adjustable wrenches, electric drill, and those little fiddly things you can't identify but don't dare throw away.
So instead, while I'm committing the inadvisable act of getting my thoughts straight and then publishing them, I was contemplating one "gender issue" even before somebody on twitter went and reaped the whirlwind; the one area where sexism is so blatant and pervasive that I can stands no more.
Spider-Man.
Iron Man.
The Incredible Hulk.
Wolverine.
Superman.
Batman.
Green Lantern.
Ant-Man.
Ant-Man.
Ant-Man.
Ant.
Man.
F**KING ANT-MAN gets his movie before Wonder Woman, Power Girl, Zatanna, Ms. Marvel, the Black Cat, She-Hulk, Storm and/or Giant-Girl.
Now I know, there are reasons.
But COME ON. Currently, the female lineup of women superheroes on film reads: Hit-Girl, Silk Spectre, the Invisible Woman, Batgirl and the women of the X-Men. Good characters all, but not a one of them actually the title character, and most of them given the task of "declaim exposition while the men get to work bein' awesome".
Firstly, technically neither super, nor a hero.
Secondly, all the other reasons.
It's not like there's a lack of brilliant, funny, beloved, fantastically talented women performers who would be willing to take the roles, and bring their built-in fanbases with them. Hell, you could cast the best writer and a potential lead actress for the Zatanna movie from the same household.
Seriously. Marvel. DC. In a world where Sex and the City 2 (a film that displays an attitude towards class not seen since about ten minutes before the French Revolution) can make enough money to ensure that Sex and the City 3 is a tragic inevitability, if you can't make money out of your female characters, you don't deserve to be in the money-making business.
Especially DC. You have Gail Simone on your staff and Wonder Woman in your Intellectual Property. Can we get it done before Marvel has time to rebrand Ms. Marvel into a vaguely filmable character?
And Marvel, one word. Trousers. Your characters require some.
Alternatively, you could make the film that's currently taken up residence in my brain and won't leave or pay rent.
Meet the Flash.
Now, the Flash is a character who has been stuck in development limbo longer than Green Lantern, mostly because DC seem to be obsessed with trying to get the comic book character into position.
This is unnecessary leg-work for a character that the Justice League cartoon proved could be summed up in a few paragraphs. Observe.
The best part about Justice League Unlimited was that, while obviously the DC characters are pretty stereotypical (because they're the models for the stereotype), they managed to give each character a stereotype that set them apart from the others. Superman is Good, Batman is Dark, Hawkgirl is Angry, Wonder Woman is Serious, Green Lantern is Gruff. And the Flash?
The Flash is FUN.
From about 3:00 in:
Lines rejected from The Dark Knight: "You're a standup guy, Bats. Don't let anybody call you a crazy loner."
The Flash taps into the essential nature of the superhero that occasionally gets overlooked; Having Superpowers Would Be AWESOME.
He's not torn up by responsibility, he's not isolated from humanity, he's not hated and feared. He's just this guy who runs fast and saves people.
Here's his origin. "Lightning Strike. Chemicals. BOOM. Super-speed. Superhero."
The problem that seems to obsess DC is how to write a story about a character who has little to no trauma. Because obviously, EVERY SUPERHERO MUST BE BATMAN. The problem that seems to possess the entire industry is how to write a story about a female character that doesn't end up being deeply, deeply exploitative and downright nasty.
(I'd show the Catwoman picture again, but frankly, it depresses me)
Why not make a film about a woman who has super-powers, suits up, and goes and be's a hero. Not because her father figure died, not because she's a Christ figure, not to compensate for her alcoholism and weapons profiteering. But because being a superhero is FUN. She wears a costume, she beats up people and drags them off to jail, and then she goes to her day job.
Because it's what she wants to do with her powers.
Notice that nothing above suggests that there's something special about changing the Flash character to a woman. This is because there's nothing special about changing the Flash character into a woman. There's nothing inherently masculine about the concept, the suit, or even the character of Wally West. I literally just changed the pronouns and it works fine.
You can save the issues that are specific to women, which is the main reason that Wonder Woman's been running around in circles for years, for the sequel.
It doesn't have to be a deep masterpiece, Lord knows Iron Man wasn't.
It doesn't have to "respect the character" because the current Flash in the comics is Barry Allen, who died when I was one, and whom nobody under 40 knows or cares anything about, so the damage is done there.
It just has to be a fun film made by people who are having fun making it and are proud of the end product.
See how easy! You've already done it once!
But Hollywood, can we PLEASE get a film about a superhero who isn't an emotional train-wreck, and can we please get a superhero film with a female lead?
And if they can be the same film, that would in fact be something of step forward for the genre.
_______________________________________________________________
The author of this blog would like it to be known that he would merrily suffer spiders, snakes, minor burns, the wrath of multiple dieties and family members and another goddamn bike-theft if it meant that a Jewel Staite superhero film came out in 2011.
I am comforted in these dark times by reminding myself that nobody is making a Rise of Arsenal film, which would be literally the exact opposite of the superhero film I would like to see.
Now I could go deep into this one, talk about how you need to treat people as individuals first, and as groups only when absolutely necessary to counter-act existing prejudices. But that post ran to 4,000 words and is in drastic need of an editor with a blowtorch and thumbscrews, and in the course of which I become
So instead, while I'm committing the inadvisable act of getting my thoughts straight and then publishing them, I was contemplating one "gender issue" even before somebody on twitter went and reaped the whirlwind; the one area where sexism is so blatant and pervasive that I can stands no more.
Spider-Man.
Iron Man.
The Incredible Hulk.
Wolverine.
Superman.
Batman.
Green Lantern.
Ant-Man.
Ant-Man.
Ant-Man.
Ant.
Man.
F**KING ANT-MAN gets his movie before Wonder Woman, Power Girl, Zatanna, Ms. Marvel, the Black Cat, She-Hulk, Storm and/or Giant-Girl.
Now I know, there are reasons.
 |
| I really wish I was exaggerating |
- Due to issues with the way it takes 20 years to make a character "real" to comics fans, the number of 1st and 2nd-tier female superheroes per company can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand. (see the above list)
- There are obviously issues with taking the superhero costumes of Wonder Woman, Power Girl, Ms. Marvel or She-Hulk and making a movie that is anything other than the cinematic equivalent of an Exercise video. (see right) It's a known issue.
- Oh, I don't know. The standard target audience of 14-year old boys don't want to see an attractive woman kick ass. Women won't go and see films with female leads. Everybody hates women. Something like that, anyway.
But COME ON. Currently, the female lineup of women superheroes on film reads: Hit-Girl, Silk Spectre, the Invisible Woman, Batgirl and the women of the X-Men. Good characters all, but not a one of them actually the title character, and most of them given the task of "declaim exposition while the men get to work bein' awesome".
Firstly, technically neither super, nor a hero.
Secondly, all the other reasons.
It's not like there's a lack of brilliant, funny, beloved, fantastically talented women performers who would be willing to take the roles, and bring their built-in fanbases with them. Hell, you could cast the best writer and a potential lead actress for the Zatanna movie from the same household.
Seriously. Marvel. DC. In a world where Sex and the City 2 (a film that displays an attitude towards class not seen since about ten minutes before the French Revolution) can make enough money to ensure that Sex and the City 3 is a tragic inevitability, if you can't make money out of your female characters, you don't deserve to be in the money-making business.
Especially DC. You have Gail Simone on your staff and Wonder Woman in your Intellectual Property. Can we get it done before Marvel has time to rebrand Ms. Marvel into a vaguely filmable character?
And Marvel, one word. Trousers. Your characters require some.
Alternatively, you could make the film that's currently taken up residence in my brain and won't leave or pay rent.
Meet the Flash.
Now, the Flash is a character who has been stuck in development limbo longer than Green Lantern, mostly because DC seem to be obsessed with trying to get the comic book character into position.
This is unnecessary leg-work for a character that the Justice League cartoon proved could be summed up in a few paragraphs. Observe.
The best part about Justice League Unlimited was that, while obviously the DC characters are pretty stereotypical (because they're the models for the stereotype), they managed to give each character a stereotype that set them apart from the others. Superman is Good, Batman is Dark, Hawkgirl is Angry, Wonder Woman is Serious, Green Lantern is Gruff. And the Flash?
The Flash is FUN.
From about 3:00 in:
Lines rejected from The Dark Knight: "You're a standup guy, Bats. Don't let anybody call you a crazy loner."
The Flash taps into the essential nature of the superhero that occasionally gets overlooked; Having Superpowers Would Be AWESOME.
He's not torn up by responsibility, he's not isolated from humanity, he's not hated and feared. He's just this guy who runs fast and saves people.
Here's his origin. "Lightning Strike. Chemicals. BOOM. Super-speed. Superhero."
The problem that seems to obsess DC is how to write a story about a character who has little to no trauma. Because obviously, EVERY SUPERHERO MUST BE BATMAN. The problem that seems to possess the entire industry is how to write a story about a female character that doesn't end up being deeply, deeply exploitative and downright nasty.
(I'd show the Catwoman picture again, but frankly, it depresses me)
Why not make a film about a woman who has super-powers, suits up, and goes and be's a hero. Not because her father figure died, not because she's a Christ figure, not to compensate for her alcoholism and weapons profiteering. But because being a superhero is FUN. She wears a costume, she beats up people and drags them off to jail, and then she goes to her day job.
Because it's what she wants to do with her powers.
Notice that nothing above suggests that there's something special about changing the Flash character to a woman. This is because there's nothing special about changing the Flash character into a woman. There's nothing inherently masculine about the concept, the suit, or even the character of Wally West. I literally just changed the pronouns and it works fine.
You can save the issues that are specific to women, which is the main reason that Wonder Woman's been running around in circles for years, for the sequel.
It doesn't have to be a deep masterpiece, Lord knows Iron Man wasn't.
It doesn't have to "respect the character" because the current Flash in the comics is Barry Allen, who died when I was one, and whom nobody under 40 knows or cares anything about, so the damage is done there.
It just has to be a fun film made by people who are having fun making it and are proud of the end product.
See how easy! You've already done it once!
But Hollywood, can we PLEASE get a film about a superhero who isn't an emotional train-wreck, and can we please get a superhero film with a female lead?
And if they can be the same film, that would in fact be something of step forward for the genre.
_______________________________________________________________
The author of this blog would like it to be known that he would merrily suffer spiders, snakes, minor burns, the wrath of multiple dieties and family members and another goddamn bike-theft if it meant that a Jewel Staite superhero film came out in 2011.
I am comforted in these dark times by reminding myself that nobody is making a Rise of Arsenal film, which would be literally the exact opposite of the superhero film I would like to see.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Concert for CARE 2010 - 18th October
Famous films, nearly unidentifiable composers. A week before my birthday. Money goes to African children.
Going alone to a concert a week before my birthday would be depressing as hell.
However, I'll do exactly that if push comes to shove.
http://www.royalalberthall.com/
http://www.concertforcare.com/category/latest/
Going alone to a concert a week before my birthday would be depressing as hell.
However, I'll do exactly that if push comes to shove.
http://www.royalalberthall.com/
http://www.concertforcare.com/category/latest/
Saturday, 13 March 2010
Anime - What. The. Hellsing?
I absolutely support the idea that anime is brilliant... in theory. The blending of Eastern and Western drawing and animation styles produces staggeringly beautiful and expressive artwork, and takes advantage of the limitless nature of a drawn image to do things that would be impossible in real life.
Unless you're Guillermo Del Toro.
Certainly, it's noticeable that all modern comic-books and animation have drawn heavily from anime, which is part of the reason that I'm still willing to pay about £2-3 for sets of 15 coloured pieces of A4 paper every week. And everything I've seen come out of Studio Ghibli has been, if nothing else, staggeringly beautiful.
Unless you're Guillermo Del Toro.
Certainly, it's noticeable that all modern comic-books and animation have drawn heavily from anime, which is part of the reason that I'm still willing to pay about £2-3 for sets of 15 coloured pieces of A4 paper every week. And everything I've seen come out of Studio Ghibli has been, if nothing else, staggeringly beautiful.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
The iTablet: What I think they are thinking
To start with, it's not an iPad. That's just going to get confusing when you're dealing with foreign accents. To me, it's an iTablet, and that's what I'm sticking with.
Now, obviously, this whole thing has been argued to death over the last few days. But as the title originally said, this is a place for the Mangled Remains of Other People's Thoughts. Spending two days arguing about it before coming up with a response is very much in keeping with this blog's mission statement.
Now, obviously, this whole thing has been argued to death over the last few days. But as the title originally said, this is a place for the Mangled Remains of Other People's Thoughts. Spending two days arguing about it before coming up with a response is very much in keeping with this blog's mission statement.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Edward Cullen vs Angel
"But I wanted to. I can walk like a man, but I'm not one. I wanted to kill you tonight."
"I so very nearly took you then. There was only one other frail human there — so easily dealt with."
_________________________________________________
One of my favourite sports is "scurvekano-baiting". This is where you take one of my best friends from high-school, say something that provokes a response, and see how long you can keep going till one or the other of you gets bored or so offended that you feel sorry. Following both of us on Twitter must make people weep for humanity.
Recently, I hit the motherload. I commited an heretical and treasonous act. I implied that Joss Whedon's cult favourite, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, shared a lot of the qualities that Twilight, enrager of nerds, gets attacked for. I was asked to justify that statement.
"I so very nearly took you then. There was only one other frail human there — so easily dealt with."
_________________________________________________
One of my favourite sports is "scurvekano-baiting". This is where you take one of my best friends from high-school, say something that provokes a response, and see how long you can keep going till one or the other of you gets bored or so offended that you feel sorry. Following both of us on Twitter must make people weep for humanity.
Recently, I hit the motherload. I commited an heretical and treasonous act. I implied that Joss Whedon's cult favourite, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, shared a lot of the qualities that Twilight, enrager of nerds, gets attacked for. I was asked to justify that statement.
Friday, 1 January 2010
.....
Let's be clear.I love the modern Doctor Who. I love everything about it, from the daft ridiculous plots, to the joyous acting, to the terrible dei ex machinae. I've watched every episode over and over again, I've watched all the confidentials.
And when I say that that was everything I could want from the ending of Doctor Who, and among the best episodes of the entire series, I'm not kidding. I loved it. It's everything I could have asked for.
Thanks, Mr Davies, Mr Collinson, Ms. Gardner, Mr Tennant and Mr Eccleston. And all the amazing rest of the cast and crew.
Good luck, Steven. Good luck, Matt.
And when I say that that was everything I could want from the ending of Doctor Who, and among the best episodes of the entire series, I'm not kidding. I loved it. It's everything I could have asked for.
Thanks, Mr Davies, Mr Collinson, Ms. Gardner, Mr Tennant and Mr Eccleston. And all the amazing rest of the cast and crew.
Good luck, Steven. Good luck, Matt.
It's been a mite snowy up here...
I'm dyyying from a White Christmas
Just like the ones I used to know...
Where treetops glisten,
And children go missing,
Because they're playing in deep snow.
I'm dying, from a White Christmas
With every breath for which i fight...
May your (remaining) days be merry and bright,
And may all your perishing be white.
Just like the ones I used to know...
Where treetops glisten,
And children go missing,
Because they're playing in deep snow.
I'm dying, from a White Christmas
With every breath for which i fight...
May your (remaining) days be merry and bright,
And may all your perishing be white.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Twilight: New Moon - Actually Very Good
Well, that was unexpected.
______________________________
I took my little sister to see the original Twilight film. Then I read the book to see if the film had, as claimed, deviated too far from the source material. And I've pretty much been making "emo" jokes since then.
To be fair, I'm using emo where "teenage angst" would be more appropriate, but... well, let's review:
...
Which is sort of the point. I mean, this is how the Brontës' work became classics. Yes, it's bordering on self-parody, but that's what Melodrama is. And if there's one defining quality to the original Twiglet novels, it's melodrama. I mean, it's not my cup of tea, but it's harmless enough. It's certainly not as bad as that damn period where people would keep trying to convince me that The Da Vinci Code was gospel.
______________________________
But teenagers taking themselves seriously is always inherently amusing. So when I went into New Moon, I wasn't expecting to enjoy it, so much as tolerate and mock it. Everybody I know has either loathed or derided this film. Most have refused to go see it, which is why I went alone. I just wanted to give it a fair shot before I went back to making jokes about it.
Here's the short version. It's one of the best treatments of teenage angst on film I have ever seen. It's got a subtle sense of its own ridiculousness, something the first film really lacked, and this gives it a warmth it desperately needs to counteract the angst, without compromising the overall mood of tormented teenagerhood.
Kristen Stewart seems to have finally found a way to make Bella into a reasonably likeable character, while still maintaining the awkwardness and lack of confidence that made her inexpressibly annoying in the first film. Even in the period where she's just been dumped and is sulking, there's a certain sense of stubborness, a sort of "No. I'm not 'going on with my life'. You abandoned me, you broke my heart, and there's no way I can find you to get back together and/or have you beaten up. The only thing I can do to get back at you is to waste my life sulking. So sulk I shall."
Mark Kermode described it as "Heroic Moping", and I actually can see what he means. There's a lovely scene where the camera's revolving around Bella as she sulks her way through 3 months. It's all done through the images outside the window as she never moves, and it definitely works, especially when contrasted with her agonised screaming during her sleep.
These scenes could descend into farce, but they manage to make it work by switching the focus to Bella's Dad. You find yourself watching a man having to deal with his daughter's pain, and being totally unable to find a way to help, except by just being there, puts the audience in just the right place to care about Bella, because her dad does, and we like him.
Another supporting character who needs his due is that poor, dumb loser whose name I can't be bothered to remember. You know, the guy at the film whose only role is to make Jacob look cooler. Where's his team? Seriously, dude. Time to head down to the nuclear lab and start hunting for bugs, because god knows you're not beating Pecs O'Puppydog and Broody McSuicide with your super chronic stomach disorder abilities.
And then there's Pecs himself. This should be the most dislikeable role in all of recorded writing. "We're going to need you to look like a Greek God, be good with your hands, be sweet and tolerant about the female lead's deep-seated emotional problems, except when you're in a ferocious temper, in which case you'll just be all man, baby."
What saves Taylor Lautner from joining the Wesley Crusher hall of fame is the fact that his scenes are the first time we see Bella actually happy. Let's face it, Edward and Bella might be "irrevocably in love", but they're not friends. They have next to nothing in common, and they spend all their time together brooding or soliquising. But Bella and Jacob actually seem to get along as people. They do fun stuff together, they kid each other around, she starts smiling. I'm not sure we saw Kristen Stewart smile in the entire of the original Twilight film.
Of course, then the werewolf thing kicks in, and it all goes to hell. It's actually quite a nice touch, which must be in the original book, that just as she finds a new guy, she gets exactly the same damn experience. "I need to be away from you, it's too dangerous, I can't explain, sorry, bye".
And when they finally do work through that, guess who's baaaack! Seriously, Jacob and Bella spend most of the film getting thiiiis close, to the point where I'm stone-cold certain that there's an outtake where they just go for it.
There are two vampires worth mentioning in this film, and neither of them are Robert Pattinson. Firstly, Alice is awesome. Bubbly and pixey-like, she seems to be fine with what she is, and makes a brilliant counterpoint to Edward's tormentedness. Her scenes with Jacob are simply hilarious. Plus she's got mad car-stealing skills.
And then there's Michael Sheen's ridiculously fun turn as the King of the Vampires, placing him in the unique position of having played a Werewolf, a Vampire, a sitting British Prime Minister, and Brian Clough. Now THAT'S a CV. His scenes are going to turn up on Youtube, and if you like campy horror, you must see them.
It's not without its flaws. Yes, there's some appallingly bad dialogue between Bella and Edward. But as they're supposed to be teenagers in love, that's hardly inappropriate. And it's balanced by my favourite line of the film "It would be nice not to want to kill you all the time."
And yes, Edward seems to spend most of his time looking tormented and pained and Twiglety.
But it's countered by the section when he gets into a knock-down fight with 3 super-powered vampires. (Incidentally, here's an interesting aside. He loses, and yet gets everything he truly wants, not despite losing, but because of it. You could probably write a decent literary thesis based around that particular concept. Not to mention the fact that it looks pretty cool when he smashes the guy into the marble stairs.)
And the wolves don't look quite right. Bit too CGI. But they're still cool CGI, and you get the right feel of massive bear-like strength and size, which is what's actually important.
______________________________
So, that's my review. Now, what I can't figure out is why the geek crowd has taken so against these completely harmless books and the above average movies based on them.
Well, here's the obvious answer: because they're sheep, desperately trying to fit in with their own particular crowd, doing the exact kind of weak-ass crap that makes school such an appalling trial for every last human being to pass through the hallowed doors of education. But let's be generous, and assume that maybe 10% of them actually have some functioning originality or self-insight, and of those 10%, at least some of them saw the damn film. I have to assume that it touched off some communal nerve or some political point that caused them to take against it. But for the life of me, I don't know what it is.
It's even as if it's overly Hollywoodised. Hell, this is a mass-mass-market film, where at one point the Volturi are "delivered" a tourist party, including little kids. We hear their screams, while our heroes have to simply keep walking away because doing anything would get them all killed. I don't know of any film that wouldn't play that up as a big deal, with lots of "keep moving" "but can't we...?" "we can't risk it..." type dialogue. But here, it's all done through looks and body language, and it's creepy as all hell because we're expected to understand that that's what would happen. That's some damn impressive scripting, direction and respect for the audience's intelligence.
There's also a rather nice scene where we get to see that Edward's issues with "turning" Bella mostly stem from his religious beliefs, whereas Bella's response is effectively "yeah, I don't believe in any of that, you go right ahead and 'damn' me, I'll be fine with it". For all the talk of Mormonism and the religious messages, the fact that the main heroine's completely atheistic seems to have been overlooked.
Bottom line? If you want to watch a film about teenagers in love, which treats their pain as something other than a running joke, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better film in that field than New Moon.
If you don't, there'll be another comedy about geeks trying to get laid soon enough. Chris Weitz may have moved on, but Judd Apatow can't live off his savings forever.
______________________________
I took my little sister to see the original Twilight film. Then I read the book to see if the film had, as claimed, deviated too far from the source material. And I've pretty much been making "emo" jokes since then.
To be fair, I'm using emo where "teenage angst" would be more appropriate, but... well, let's review:
- Bella seems to be wanted by every single guy at the school,
- Being this popular seems to irritate her intensely,
- Edward's tortured by his own inner demons,
- They can't be together because of his animal impulses,
- Neither of them will shut up about this stuff,
- "I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him." QUOTED FROM ORIGINAL TEXT.
...
Which is sort of the point. I mean, this is how the Brontës' work became classics. Yes, it's bordering on self-parody, but that's what Melodrama is. And if there's one defining quality to the original Twiglet novels, it's melodrama. I mean, it's not my cup of tea, but it's harmless enough. It's certainly not as bad as that damn period where people would keep trying to convince me that The Da Vinci Code was gospel.
______________________________
But teenagers taking themselves seriously is always inherently amusing. So when I went into New Moon, I wasn't expecting to enjoy it, so much as tolerate and mock it. Everybody I know has either loathed or derided this film. Most have refused to go see it, which is why I went alone. I just wanted to give it a fair shot before I went back to making jokes about it.
Here's the short version. It's one of the best treatments of teenage angst on film I have ever seen. It's got a subtle sense of its own ridiculousness, something the first film really lacked, and this gives it a warmth it desperately needs to counteract the angst, without compromising the overall mood of tormented teenagerhood.
Kristen Stewart seems to have finally found a way to make Bella into a reasonably likeable character, while still maintaining the awkwardness and lack of confidence that made her inexpressibly annoying in the first film. Even in the period where she's just been dumped and is sulking, there's a certain sense of stubborness, a sort of "No. I'm not 'going on with my life'. You abandoned me, you broke my heart, and there's no way I can find you to get back together and/or have you beaten up. The only thing I can do to get back at you is to waste my life sulking. So sulk I shall."
Mark Kermode described it as "Heroic Moping", and I actually can see what he means. There's a lovely scene where the camera's revolving around Bella as she sulks her way through 3 months. It's all done through the images outside the window as she never moves, and it definitely works, especially when contrasted with her agonised screaming during her sleep.
These scenes could descend into farce, but they manage to make it work by switching the focus to Bella's Dad. You find yourself watching a man having to deal with his daughter's pain, and being totally unable to find a way to help, except by just being there, puts the audience in just the right place to care about Bella, because her dad does, and we like him.
Another supporting character who needs his due is that poor, dumb loser whose name I can't be bothered to remember. You know, the guy at the film whose only role is to make Jacob look cooler. Where's his team? Seriously, dude. Time to head down to the nuclear lab and start hunting for bugs, because god knows you're not beating Pecs O'Puppydog and Broody McSuicide with your super chronic stomach disorder abilities.
And then there's Pecs himself. This should be the most dislikeable role in all of recorded writing. "We're going to need you to look like a Greek God, be good with your hands, be sweet and tolerant about the female lead's deep-seated emotional problems, except when you're in a ferocious temper, in which case you'll just be all man, baby."
What saves Taylor Lautner from joining the Wesley Crusher hall of fame is the fact that his scenes are the first time we see Bella actually happy. Let's face it, Edward and Bella might be "irrevocably in love", but they're not friends. They have next to nothing in common, and they spend all their time together brooding or soliquising. But Bella and Jacob actually seem to get along as people. They do fun stuff together, they kid each other around, she starts smiling. I'm not sure we saw Kristen Stewart smile in the entire of the original Twilight film.
Of course, then the werewolf thing kicks in, and it all goes to hell. It's actually quite a nice touch, which must be in the original book, that just as she finds a new guy, she gets exactly the same damn experience. "I need to be away from you, it's too dangerous, I can't explain, sorry, bye".
And when they finally do work through that, guess who's baaaack! Seriously, Jacob and Bella spend most of the film getting thiiiis close, to the point where I'm stone-cold certain that there's an outtake where they just go for it.
There are two vampires worth mentioning in this film, and neither of them are Robert Pattinson. Firstly, Alice is awesome. Bubbly and pixey-like, she seems to be fine with what she is, and makes a brilliant counterpoint to Edward's tormentedness. Her scenes with Jacob are simply hilarious. Plus she's got mad car-stealing skills.
And then there's Michael Sheen's ridiculously fun turn as the King of the Vampires, placing him in the unique position of having played a Werewolf, a Vampire, a sitting British Prime Minister, and Brian Clough. Now THAT'S a CV. His scenes are going to turn up on Youtube, and if you like campy horror, you must see them.
It's not without its flaws. Yes, there's some appallingly bad dialogue between Bella and Edward. But as they're supposed to be teenagers in love, that's hardly inappropriate. And it's balanced by my favourite line of the film "It would be nice not to want to kill you all the time."
And yes, Edward seems to spend most of his time looking tormented and pained and Twiglety.
But it's countered by the section when he gets into a knock-down fight with 3 super-powered vampires. (Incidentally, here's an interesting aside. He loses, and yet gets everything he truly wants, not despite losing, but because of it. You could probably write a decent literary thesis based around that particular concept. Not to mention the fact that it looks pretty cool when he smashes the guy into the marble stairs.)
And the wolves don't look quite right. Bit too CGI. But they're still cool CGI, and you get the right feel of massive bear-like strength and size, which is what's actually important.
______________________________
So, that's my review. Now, what I can't figure out is why the geek crowd has taken so against these completely harmless books and the above average movies based on them.
Well, here's the obvious answer: because they're sheep, desperately trying to fit in with their own particular crowd, doing the exact kind of weak-ass crap that makes school such an appalling trial for every last human being to pass through the hallowed doors of education. But let's be generous, and assume that maybe 10% of them actually have some functioning originality or self-insight, and of those 10%, at least some of them saw the damn film. I have to assume that it touched off some communal nerve or some political point that caused them to take against it. But for the life of me, I don't know what it is.
It's even as if it's overly Hollywoodised. Hell, this is a mass-mass-market film, where at one point the Volturi are "delivered" a tourist party, including little kids. We hear their screams, while our heroes have to simply keep walking away because doing anything would get them all killed. I don't know of any film that wouldn't play that up as a big deal, with lots of "keep moving" "but can't we...?" "we can't risk it..." type dialogue. But here, it's all done through looks and body language, and it's creepy as all hell because we're expected to understand that that's what would happen. That's some damn impressive scripting, direction and respect for the audience's intelligence.
There's also a rather nice scene where we get to see that Edward's issues with "turning" Bella mostly stem from his religious beliefs, whereas Bella's response is effectively "yeah, I don't believe in any of that, you go right ahead and 'damn' me, I'll be fine with it". For all the talk of Mormonism and the religious messages, the fact that the main heroine's completely atheistic seems to have been overlooked.
Bottom line? If you want to watch a film about teenagers in love, which treats their pain as something other than a running joke, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better film in that field than New Moon.
If you don't, there'll be another comedy about geeks trying to get laid soon enough. Chris Weitz may have moved on, but Judd Apatow can't live off his savings forever.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Playing Munchkin with the munchkins
Munchkin - The Card Game named after a D&D In-Joke named after a Politically Incorrect Aspect of a Film based on a Book about a Kansas Girl's Psychotic Episode. I think it's safe to say your mother has NEVER heard of this, and might well judge you for playing it. "Munchkin? Well, it's this... card... you know what, Mum? It's when you snort coke lines from the corpses of hookers."
But I'd heard really good things about it from generally reliable sources, so when I saw a box at the Thought Bubble Convention in Leeds, I decided to pick it up. When I'd get to play it was another matter though. With my scattered group of friends, I don't get a vast number of chances to play actual physical board-games apart from Christmas. And it's always Monopoly. I have a 2-year old copy of Carcassone that has been opened once, and never played.
Anyway, I was round at my cousins' home in Devon, we'd had a fairly intense day, for reasons which I won't be writing about here, and so I figured this might be a good way of getting our minds off things. So my sister, my two cousins and I sat down to test it out.
Of course, there was the inevitable "working out the rules" stage, the "arguing about the meaning of the rules" stage, the "realising you've got the rules wrong" stage and the "I'm losing to my little sister" stage, a necessary but painful stage that every big brother must learn to accept, at least if you want the game to continue past 5 minutes. But pretty soon we were hooked on the combination of ridiculous puns and devious machinations.
My favourite moment was when Felicity got brought down 2 levels by a concerted effort from our entire group to prevent her from winning. We got the full Shakespearean melodrama, the threatening that "if you're all against me, I'm not playing", and then the gradual talk-down after I pointed out that half the point of the game is to gang up on the strongest. Finally, I got to hear this classic line, "I'll play, if you don't treat me like I'm five... [pause] and I won't act like I'm five." And within 5 minutes, we were all laughing along again.
Another awesome moment was when Jo was cursed to wear a chicken on her head, and decided not to dispel it, because she liked the way it "looked". As her character was something along the lines of an elf-dwarf fighter-wizard wearing flaming armour, carrying a big rock, and accompanied by a singing and dancing sword, the chicken did add some much needed gravitas.
In the end, Alice, who'd been trailing the whole game, ended up with a character more powerful than the gods themselves, and annihilated the critter facing her, boosting her to level 10, and winning the game. And there was much rejoicing.
Here's what I like most about Munchkin. It's one of the few games which actively resists taking it seriously. You're building up a truly ridiculous looking character with phenomenal cosmic powers, and fighting enemies that range from D&D in-jokes to absolutely appalling puns. It's basically just there to make you laugh, argue and spend time with each other. And it did the job brilliantly.
And geeky or not, isn't that what games are for?
_______________________________________
"Hartley said that nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. Almost right. Actually, you reveal yourselves best in the way you play them" - Q, Star Trek: TNG
P.S. I literally spent 5 minutes thinking about what the title could be before realising what an obvious opportunity had presented it.
But I'd heard really good things about it from generally reliable sources, so when I saw a box at the Thought Bubble Convention in Leeds, I decided to pick it up. When I'd get to play it was another matter though. With my scattered group of friends, I don't get a vast number of chances to play actual physical board-games apart from Christmas. And it's always Monopoly. I have a 2-year old copy of Carcassone that has been opened once, and never played.
Anyway, I was round at my cousins' home in Devon, we'd had a fairly intense day, for reasons which I won't be writing about here, and so I figured this might be a good way of getting our minds off things. So my sister, my two cousins and I sat down to test it out.
Of course, there was the inevitable "working out the rules" stage, the "arguing about the meaning of the rules" stage, the "realising you've got the rules wrong" stage and the "I'm losing to my little sister" stage, a necessary but painful stage that every big brother must learn to accept, at least if you want the game to continue past 5 minutes. But pretty soon we were hooked on the combination of ridiculous puns and devious machinations.
My favourite moment was when Felicity got brought down 2 levels by a concerted effort from our entire group to prevent her from winning. We got the full Shakespearean melodrama, the threatening that "if you're all against me, I'm not playing", and then the gradual talk-down after I pointed out that half the point of the game is to gang up on the strongest. Finally, I got to hear this classic line, "I'll play, if you don't treat me like I'm five... [pause] and I won't act like I'm five." And within 5 minutes, we were all laughing along again.
Another awesome moment was when Jo was cursed to wear a chicken on her head, and decided not to dispel it, because she liked the way it "looked". As her character was something along the lines of an elf-dwarf fighter-wizard wearing flaming armour, carrying a big rock, and accompanied by a singing and dancing sword, the chicken did add some much needed gravitas.
In the end, Alice, who'd been trailing the whole game, ended up with a character more powerful than the gods themselves, and annihilated the critter facing her, boosting her to level 10, and winning the game. And there was much rejoicing.
Here's what I like most about Munchkin. It's one of the few games which actively resists taking it seriously. You're building up a truly ridiculous looking character with phenomenal cosmic powers, and fighting enemies that range from D&D in-jokes to absolutely appalling puns. It's basically just there to make you laugh, argue and spend time with each other. And it did the job brilliantly.
And geeky or not, isn't that what games are for?
_______________________________________
"Hartley said that nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. Almost right. Actually, you reveal yourselves best in the way you play them" - Q, Star Trek: TNG
P.S. I literally spent 5 minutes thinking about what the title could be before realising what an obvious opportunity had presented it.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Yes, well, I said I might not get round to it...
But wow... that was an impressive amount of nothing I just wrote, huh?
Okay, let's try this again, but first I'm 25 and...
STILL ALIVE
Okay, let's try this again, but first I'm 25 and...
STILL ALIVE
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Okay Kids, Here's How This Is Going to WORK.
Right.
So, I've thought this more and more as I use Facebook Notes. "Man, if only I had some form of blog. Maybe I should make one." And I never get around to it. It's getting more annoying now that I barely use Facebook at all, mind you.
Now, I am absolutely certain that I could roll my own blog. The problem is that I have stuff I want to say "content", but by the time. Also, I get frustrated, distracted, start playing Armageddon Empires... I'm an ENTP procrastinator. So, it's time to set myself some achievable goals and a plan to acheive them.
Step 1: Create some actual content that interests me and publish via Blogger.
Step 2: Start messing around with web languages to make my own custom tool to meet my needs and practice my tech skills, so I am not as dependent on Google's imperialistic domination of what is admittedly now "the GoogleWeb".
Step 3: Work out a way to create a useful technical product that makes me millions.
Step 4: Publish this for those who wish to follow in my august footsteps.
Step 5: Go directly to Jail. Possibly even Gaol.
Now, I'm aware that (blogging!=coding). And I'm fully aware that I may not get around to this. But here's my statement of intent. At least two blog posts a week. At least one about web tech. Starting today.
So, I've thought this more and more as I use Facebook Notes. "Man, if only I had some form of blog. Maybe I should make one." And I never get around to it. It's getting more annoying now that I barely use Facebook at all, mind you.
Now, I am absolutely certain that I could roll my own blog. The problem is that I have stuff I want to say "content", but by the time. Also, I get frustrated, distracted, start playing Armageddon Empires... I'm an ENTP procrastinator. So, it's time to set myself some achievable goals and a plan to acheive them.
Step 1: Create some actual content that interests me and publish via Blogger.
Step 2: Start messing around with web languages to make my own custom tool to meet my needs and practice my tech skills, so I am not as dependent on Google's imperialistic domination of what is admittedly now "the GoogleWeb".
Step 3: Work out a way to create a useful technical product that makes me millions.
Step 4: Publish this for those who wish to follow in my august footsteps.
Step 5: Go directly to Jail. Possibly even Gaol.
Now, I'm aware that (blogging!=coding). And I'm fully aware that I may not get around to this. But here's my statement of intent. At least two blog posts a week. At least one about web tech. Starting today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)