Posts from 22nd September 2005

22
Sep 05

Costume Design as Shopping

Do You SeePost a comment • 433 views

Apparently director Nick Love tirelessly traced down hundreds of items of 80’s casual gear for his film the Business. And the collection of windcheaters, tracksuits and the like are very impressive in The Business. Unfortunately this tale of 1980’s Costa Del Crime shenanigans misses on nearly every other level. An attempt to chart the rise and fall of Frankie, a shyish Peckham ne’erdowell it flounders by extracting all charisma or likeability out of its characters and leaving you hoping they all die. From the moment Danny Dyer’s Frankie batters his stepdads head in, til the bit where he shoots his girlfriend, you never really warm to him. And consider, he is supposed to be the nice one.

Love’s staggering collection of casual gear therefore is probably bound for his own wardrobe (except the ones used in the open sewer fight – nasty). What is worse, there is a vague feeling that the whole film is a set up for a very lame gag. Namely in the end titles, where we find out what happened to all the characters it claims, bare-facedly, that Frankie Went To Hollywood. Love probably won’t be for a while.

THE FT TOP 23 UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA: 21: Automatic Writing

Blog 7Post a comment • 297 views

In our say and age its called dyslexia, or piss-poor typing. In the Victorian age it was known as automatic writing. Perhaps the two things are not exactly the same, but consider the idea behind automatic writing and then consider the way I wrtie a Freakytrigge rpiece.

The spiritualist version of automatic writing involves the medium going into a trance and then chanelling some spirit, via the medium of the the wrist and pen/ Said medium has no idea what they are writing until revivied and – shock – there is a form of communictaion, often incomprehensible there on teh page.

Now consider a standerd FT piece from me. I have an idea, I quickly go straight to blogger and write it up AS IF IN A TRANCE. All the more, I may well be on a brief break at work which can aslo induce a TRANCELIKESTAte in me. Therefore what comes out is often gibberish, poorly spellchecked and punctuated. Actually i am usually correcting as I go, but the magnitude of the errors is such that they rearly all get sifted out. Tehre are meny readers who find this intencsely annoying, to whom I am aopologetic: but hold. Perhaps these are not slips of clumsiness, poor typing and a slipshod attitude.

PERHAPS MY TYPOS ARE THE SPITIR WORLD RTRYING TO BREAK THROUGH. Think upon that…

(This post has not been editied in any way to show exactly how much the spirit world is trying to break free: Paul is ded.)

WHO BUILT THE MOON WATCH: Chapter 1 & Introduction

Proven By SciencePost a comment • 814 views

For my birthday I got a copy of the bestselling science book Who Built The Moon, a book that once and for all claims to solve the age old mystery of Who Built The Moon. As I read it I shall keep FT readers up to date with the GROUNDBREAKING SCIENCE FACT that this book has to offer.

Introduction: Unfortunately they do not reveal Who Built The Moon. Even worse, it appears that rather than definitively telling us Who Built The Moon they are going to give us three options. Luckily one of these options appears to be increasingly likely. It is a short introduction (2pages) which already points out that lots of people already believe things that cannot be scientifically proven (92% of Americans believe in the existence of God). This does not bode well for the science in the book.

Chapter 1: The Dawn Of Awareness: Still not revelation on Who Built The Moon. Rather this chapter mooches about when humans first noticed the moon. Its the big white thing in the skies dummies. However Chapter 1 makes clear a number of startling coincidences:
a) The Moon is 400 times closer to the Earth than the sun. It is also 400 times smaller in radius. Therefore they fit perfectly for an eclipse.
b) The plane the moon orbits on is in complete synch with the sun to cause such eclipses.
c) The moons cycle is 29.53 days and the women’s menstrual cycle is on average 28 days.

This last item is not a very astounding coincidence until authors Chris Knight and Alan Butler point out that just because the menstrual cycle is ON AVERAGE 28 days, it does not stop lots of women having one which is exactly 29.53!!!! Surely these coincidences are too much to be coincidences – it points to some other agency yes?

Well, no, but that is not going to stop me reading on as I am keen to find out Who Built The Moon.