I was just thinking about the state of consumerism today. Anyone who knows me will know that I hate the fact that nothing is built to last any more, it's built to lead the buyer back to buying. Case in point: a scene in the Brit film 'Kinky Boots' where protagonist Charlie goes to a shoe retailer to try an offload an excess of high quality men's shoes. The conversation goes something like this:
Retail manager: "See these? Imports from Slovakia. Cheap."
Charlie Price: "But a Price shoe will last a man a lifetime. A pair of those will have customers coming back in 10 months."
Retail manager: "Exactly."
And then news today that some genetically modified crops were being engineered to not produce seeds so that the farmer has to buy seeds every year from the 'manufacturer'. Ridiculous. RIDICULOUS.
So what I was thinking was this: we need a brilliant designer to come up with a base product that can be modified to incorporate new technological developments. For example, a washing machine. There's not really much you can do with a washing machine other than wash clothes. The technology comes from efficiency in use of water and energy and other things like noise reduction or being able to schedule your wash with a timer or (gratefully) the "hand wash" function where the machine treats your delicate laundry as if you'd hand washed it yourself. So this washing machine should be built to last at least 20 years. Ideally it will be made of recyclable or biodegradable material and have the capacity to have new technology installed as it becomes available.
The product may be more expensive than others but will pay back dividends from its efficent use of resources and the fact that it is upgradable. Plus, it'll save the owners time if they don't have to look for a new one every 5 years. AND, most importantly, whichever company is brave enough to sell this product should also have an accredited repair system in place so that owners will look to the repairman rather than a whitegoods store if it breaks down.
My parents' microwave is about 20 years old and still works fine. It cooks things a bit slower than most modern microwaves but it's still safe and effective. I'm afraid that I'm never going to find that kind of product in my lifetime. I hope my idea isn't considered idealistic because 'built to last' was once the only way and we really should be aiming for that kind of brand commitment again.
18 March, 2006
08 March, 2006
Spelling 101
Now I get to exercise the image-friendly nature of this blog technology. Today's lesson is about spelling. Everyone makes mistakes. Yes, even me. Being a journalist by trade, it's annoying when I discover my own spelling mistakes and I can only imagine that anyone who works in the media or in teaching has the same level of anxiety about spelling and grammar.
While I have my moments of typo-mania, there are some people who should be extra extra extra careful, such as signwriters. On the right is an example I saw today, poached from the Hoyts website advertising travel deals for Student Flights. Now, I don't know where in Australia Kadaku is but it looks like a good deal to me... This follows hot on the heels of yesterday's Daily Telegraph sub-heading about "Reece Witherspoon" (sic) who won the Best Actress Oscar. Strangely the rest of the article spelt her name correctly (Reese) so it was just the person who did the sub-heading who lacked the popular knowledge required of someone who works in a large media organisation like News Ltd.
Once upon a time I wanted to roam the streets of Sydney armed with a black marker, correcting the spelling and grammar of the city's worst offenders. Popular misspellings are fairly common words like 'calender' instead of 'calendar', 'stationary' instead of 'stationery' (the former means 'not moving' the latter represents pens and paper supplies etc). Then there's a raft of apostrophes that just shouldn't exist, like 'mango's'. The plural of 'mango' is 'mangoes'. Apostrophes should only be used to express possession e.g. 'Dr Witmol's Blog' or instead of a missing letter like contractions such as 'isn't' (is not) or 'o'clock' (of [the] clock).
We often laugh at weird phrasing that has been translated from another language into English (I wish I'd had my black marker for some of the menus I saw overseas) but when an English speaking country can't even understand basic spelling and grammar rules, we can hardly point the finger. It isn't like I'm trying to stop split infinitives from taking over the world - I just want people to know how to spell basic words (and if in doubt, consult someone who knows!) and know how to use an apostrophe. Learning the difference between 'your' and 'you're', 'to', 'too' and 'two' would be nice as well.
I could blame the proliferation of SMS and the internet for this dearth in spelling/grammar but the sad fact is that we need to grasp the initial concept before we can use and abuse it. Personally, I was never taught grammar at school and I believe this is a dying art due to bureaucracy and people putting it in the 'too hard' basket. What has happened is there are now teachers who don't know anything about grammar, teaching in a system that is slowly falling apart in the literacy stakes. Anecdotally I heard that some children in high school can't even indentify a noun in a sentence. In fact, I would say that children in non-English speaking countries get a better grammar education. Ironically, I learnt more about English grammar from French class than English (which I enjoyed but was geared towards analysing text). Perhaps this is why it seems more difficult for English speakers to pick up other languages; lack of their own (convoluted) grammar makes it harder to understand the concept of other languages' grammar.
Why is spelling and grammar so important? Simply, verbal communication represents meaning; spelling and grammar are like the laws of that meaning that can be manipulated according to the user's whim. When you misspell words or say something in a grammatically incorrect manner, it doesn't mean that you'll never be understood but rather that there is a greater possibility of being misunderstood. You'll give off a better impression and represent yourself and your views in a better light the clearer you communicate. How many times have you sent an email only to realise, after a terse reply, that what you wrote was ambiguous and taken wrongly by the recipient?
Which brings me to playing with language. I have no problem with people playing with language, be it pun-filled headlines, advertising or a witty joke. (Or not a witty joke like this one I made up that fails because it doesn't have a punchline or any real context - "Toilet bowls and W.C. Fields"). But what has to happen first is the establishment of an educated population who will be able to distinguish chartered language from played-with language. That way we can ask those pesky professions using jargon to undo us (law and politics are two that spring to mind) to speak in plain English and actually understand what they mean.
01 March, 2006
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (book)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2005)
By J.K. Rowling (Bloomsbury)
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
This much anticipated addition to the Harry Potter series joins an army of fantasy books that have an annoying habit of ending with cliffhangers that lead into the next instalment. Although I was one of the first members of the public to touch a copy of the book (I was a volunteer on the Gleebooks 'Gleewarts' train on the release day) I hadn't a chance to read it until recently. And although I knew of the 'surprises' - Dumbledore dies, Snape is the half-blood Prince, Harry and Ginny get together, as do Ron and Hermione - I still found this sixth book a page-turner.
While the first three books in the series can be read on their own, each as a complete story, it is harder to understand 'Half-Blood Prince' without at least reading 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' (book five) because much of what occurs in 'Half-Blood Prince' relates to five's events, including the death of Harry's godfather Sirius Black.
Fans will already know of Harry Potter's arch enemy, Lord Voldemort, whose power is a growing threat to the wizarding community. Voldemort has ordered Draco Malfoy, Harry's school enemy, to kill Dumbledore to alleviate his displeasure with Draco's father Lucius. Severus Snape, former Potions master now Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, plays the double agent by retaining Dumbledore's trust while acting for the dark side ('Deatheaters'). He undertakes an oath to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy is unable to do so.
Harry returns to Hogwarts where a borrowed potions textbook with helpful amendments by the 'Half-Blood Prince' sees Harry excel at Potions, also helped by the fact that genial, social-climber Professor Slughorn replaces snarling Snape as Potions teacher. Though Hermione warns him to be cautious about using the book, Harry ignores her.
He also learns more about Tom Riddle, the man who was to become Voldemort, his family, his orphan upbringing and his tutelage at Hogwarts. Harry and Dumbledore endeavour to recover Voldemort's horcrux, an artefact containing a seventh of Voldemort's soul, in one of the more tense passages of the book only for Snape to kill Dumbledore when Malfoy hesitates upon Dumbledore's return to the school from the mission. Harry discovers that another wizard has already found the horcrux, replacing it with a fake.
In between all this, Rowling fills the pages with teen angst, adolescent romance and a dash of schoolyard rivalry including aforementioned coupling of main characters.
Got it so far? I don't usually give such extensive synopses in book reviews but needed to give a brief outline of the plot in order to share my experience of the book. While it's a killer plot and a page-turning read, I think Rowling has lost her grip on her characters. My ex-editor-in-chief once told me that the role of a writer was to invent characters that could live their own lives; 'Half-Blood Prince' reads too much like Rowling is forcing her characters to do or say things that she thinks conform to the "character" she wants them to be, rather than the ones we read and understand them as. Most obvious is Harry's insolence, which used to be justified assertion. While I don't expect him to be a paragon of exemplary behaviour, some of his retorts seemed contrived, like Rowling was forcing his behaviour to be worse than it probably is, maybe to emphasise the teen angst that partly underpins the novel.
The hormonal charge is not as obvious as negative publicity made it out to be. In fact, while there's some snogging going on there's really nothing more explicit than the crush that Harry realises he has on Ginny. Essentially most of the character development relates to Harry's growing loneliness. In the first few books he worked in a team with Ron and/or Hermione and with the Order of the Phoenix in the fifth book. Now, even though his friends are still by his side, his quest is to destroy Voldemort, a task he regards as his own in Dumbledore's absence. I can't predict where Rowling is going with this but I hope she isn't going to abandon some of the main characters in favour of somehow glorifying Harry's individual achievement even while acknowledging others' contributions. Harry isn't a particularly interesting character but as part of an ensemble he becomes more believable, more real.
Despite its size (607 pages in hardback) the book is well paced with Rowling showing an aptitude for tension and release, as throughout the school year Harry is plagued by two things - finding out what Malfoy is up to and gathering more information about Voldemort's past. Then there's the author's clumsy use of unconvincing reasoning such as Harry's repeated claims that Malfoy and Snape are up to no good (and the Order of the Phoenix's reasoning that he can't prove malevolence in Malfoy's deeds and that Snape is a double agent working for their side). The 'Harry claims, someone denies' situation gets a bit repetitive and you'd think that by now, after five previous books of Harry being right, that someone would listen to the boy.
All right, so I'm annoyed that I don't get to find out more about Voldemort's horcruxes and that the book ends on such a cliffhanger. Still worth a read if you've picked up the others, not that I'd need to tell you that - it's almost like preaching to the converted.
*** 1/2 - addictive plot handled competently but without absolute conviction
By J.K. Rowling (Bloomsbury)
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
This much anticipated addition to the Harry Potter series joins an army of fantasy books that have an annoying habit of ending with cliffhangers that lead into the next instalment. Although I was one of the first members of the public to touch a copy of the book (I was a volunteer on the Gleebooks 'Gleewarts' train on the release day) I hadn't a chance to read it until recently. And although I knew of the 'surprises' - Dumbledore dies, Snape is the half-blood Prince, Harry and Ginny get together, as do Ron and Hermione - I still found this sixth book a page-turner.
While the first three books in the series can be read on their own, each as a complete story, it is harder to understand 'Half-Blood Prince' without at least reading 'Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix' (book five) because much of what occurs in 'Half-Blood Prince' relates to five's events, including the death of Harry's godfather Sirius Black.
Fans will already know of Harry Potter's arch enemy, Lord Voldemort, whose power is a growing threat to the wizarding community. Voldemort has ordered Draco Malfoy, Harry's school enemy, to kill Dumbledore to alleviate his displeasure with Draco's father Lucius. Severus Snape, former Potions master now Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher, plays the double agent by retaining Dumbledore's trust while acting for the dark side ('Deatheaters'). He undertakes an oath to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy is unable to do so.
Harry returns to Hogwarts where a borrowed potions textbook with helpful amendments by the 'Half-Blood Prince' sees Harry excel at Potions, also helped by the fact that genial, social-climber Professor Slughorn replaces snarling Snape as Potions teacher. Though Hermione warns him to be cautious about using the book, Harry ignores her.
He also learns more about Tom Riddle, the man who was to become Voldemort, his family, his orphan upbringing and his tutelage at Hogwarts. Harry and Dumbledore endeavour to recover Voldemort's horcrux, an artefact containing a seventh of Voldemort's soul, in one of the more tense passages of the book only for Snape to kill Dumbledore when Malfoy hesitates upon Dumbledore's return to the school from the mission. Harry discovers that another wizard has already found the horcrux, replacing it with a fake.
In between all this, Rowling fills the pages with teen angst, adolescent romance and a dash of schoolyard rivalry including aforementioned coupling of main characters.
Got it so far? I don't usually give such extensive synopses in book reviews but needed to give a brief outline of the plot in order to share my experience of the book. While it's a killer plot and a page-turning read, I think Rowling has lost her grip on her characters. My ex-editor-in-chief once told me that the role of a writer was to invent characters that could live their own lives; 'Half-Blood Prince' reads too much like Rowling is forcing her characters to do or say things that she thinks conform to the "character" she wants them to be, rather than the ones we read and understand them as. Most obvious is Harry's insolence, which used to be justified assertion. While I don't expect him to be a paragon of exemplary behaviour, some of his retorts seemed contrived, like Rowling was forcing his behaviour to be worse than it probably is, maybe to emphasise the teen angst that partly underpins the novel.
The hormonal charge is not as obvious as negative publicity made it out to be. In fact, while there's some snogging going on there's really nothing more explicit than the crush that Harry realises he has on Ginny. Essentially most of the character development relates to Harry's growing loneliness. In the first few books he worked in a team with Ron and/or Hermione and with the Order of the Phoenix in the fifth book. Now, even though his friends are still by his side, his quest is to destroy Voldemort, a task he regards as his own in Dumbledore's absence. I can't predict where Rowling is going with this but I hope she isn't going to abandon some of the main characters in favour of somehow glorifying Harry's individual achievement even while acknowledging others' contributions. Harry isn't a particularly interesting character but as part of an ensemble he becomes more believable, more real.
Despite its size (607 pages in hardback) the book is well paced with Rowling showing an aptitude for tension and release, as throughout the school year Harry is plagued by two things - finding out what Malfoy is up to and gathering more information about Voldemort's past. Then there's the author's clumsy use of unconvincing reasoning such as Harry's repeated claims that Malfoy and Snape are up to no good (and the Order of the Phoenix's reasoning that he can't prove malevolence in Malfoy's deeds and that Snape is a double agent working for their side). The 'Harry claims, someone denies' situation gets a bit repetitive and you'd think that by now, after five previous books of Harry being right, that someone would listen to the boy.
All right, so I'm annoyed that I don't get to find out more about Voldemort's horcruxes and that the book ends on such a cliffhanger. Still worth a read if you've picked up the others, not that I'd need to tell you that - it's almost like preaching to the converted.
*** 1/2 - addictive plot handled competently but without absolute conviction
Jarhead (film)
Hot on the heels of Jake Gyllenhall's performance in Brokeback Mountain is another lead role in boy-heavy movie Jarhead. Based on a book written by ex-Marine Anthony Swofford (played by Gyllenhall), the film encompasses the time before and during the Gulf War from a US Marine's perspective.
Rather than the shoot 'em up action you might expect from a war movie, Jarhead is about the frustrations of war, the lack of combat encountered by the marines. Instead of guns and enemies, the troops' main concern is dealing with infidelity from afar and coping with the sand covered environment. There are no real deaths in the film (save a few from 'friendly fire') and it is the omission of gunfire conflict that makes the film all the more interesting.
While the story arc follows Swofford's entry into the Marines and ends a few years after, his time in the desert is clearly marked as a turning point. Swofford is 20 years old at the time and the film plays more or less in the 'coming of age' genre with military bits thrown in to emphasise discipline and routine hardship. The team aspect also works well, though the interaction is fairly predictable - there are always people you get along with and people you don't. It helps that the operation is catalyst to life-changing moments such as when Swoff threatens Fergus after his Christmas party goes wrong and when Swoff's sniper partner is prevented from completing a shot, the only kill shot available to their unit in the whole film.
Fortunately the lack of action is made up for by peaks of humour and exceptional cinematography, especially their excursion into the desert where they see charred bodies and burning oil wells. One particularly touching scene involves a lost horse covered in oil that Swoff cannot help. The following quote by Swoff quite neatly sums up the film in general:
"Suggested techniques for the marine to use in the avoidance of boredom and loneliness. Masturbation. Re-reading of letters from unfaithful wives and girlfriends. Cleaning your rifle. Further masturbation. Re-wiring Walkman. Arguing about religion and meaning of life. Discussing in detail, every women the marine has ever fucked. Debating differences, such as Cuban versus Mexican, Harleys versus Hondas, left versus right-handed masturbation. Further cleaning of rifle. Studying the mail order bride catalogue. Further masturbation. Planning a marine's first meal on return home. Imagining what a marine's girlfriend and her man Joey are doing in the alley or in a hotel bed."
All the components that make a good film get a start but sadly its the lack of any real conflict that prevents the film from achieving greatness. Then again, it achieves what it sets out to do - give an unglorified account of the marine corps.
*** - lack of action goes where no war film has gone before
Rather than the shoot 'em up action you might expect from a war movie, Jarhead is about the frustrations of war, the lack of combat encountered by the marines. Instead of guns and enemies, the troops' main concern is dealing with infidelity from afar and coping with the sand covered environment. There are no real deaths in the film (save a few from 'friendly fire') and it is the omission of gunfire conflict that makes the film all the more interesting.
While the story arc follows Swofford's entry into the Marines and ends a few years after, his time in the desert is clearly marked as a turning point. Swofford is 20 years old at the time and the film plays more or less in the 'coming of age' genre with military bits thrown in to emphasise discipline and routine hardship. The team aspect also works well, though the interaction is fairly predictable - there are always people you get along with and people you don't. It helps that the operation is catalyst to life-changing moments such as when Swoff threatens Fergus after his Christmas party goes wrong and when Swoff's sniper partner is prevented from completing a shot, the only kill shot available to their unit in the whole film.
Fortunately the lack of action is made up for by peaks of humour and exceptional cinematography, especially their excursion into the desert where they see charred bodies and burning oil wells. One particularly touching scene involves a lost horse covered in oil that Swoff cannot help. The following quote by Swoff quite neatly sums up the film in general:
"Suggested techniques for the marine to use in the avoidance of boredom and loneliness. Masturbation. Re-reading of letters from unfaithful wives and girlfriends. Cleaning your rifle. Further masturbation. Re-wiring Walkman. Arguing about religion and meaning of life. Discussing in detail, every women the marine has ever fucked. Debating differences, such as Cuban versus Mexican, Harleys versus Hondas, left versus right-handed masturbation. Further cleaning of rifle. Studying the mail order bride catalogue. Further masturbation. Planning a marine's first meal on return home. Imagining what a marine's girlfriend and her man Joey are doing in the alley or in a hotel bed."
All the components that make a good film get a start but sadly its the lack of any real conflict that prevents the film from achieving greatness. Then again, it achieves what it sets out to do - give an unglorified account of the marine corps.
*** - lack of action goes where no war film has gone before
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)