Fabulously British?

Brits, stand up for your country! We are losing our national identity and losing our class. With the onset of a modern, muticultural, overly-politically correct Britain, we are fast forgetting the values that made these islands what they were. Fight back guys, be PROUD to be British (a rarity, since most Brits almost seem apologetic about it all), keep the old traditions alive. Welcome the new of course, but do not forget the old! Here's how.

Drink
But not too much. Us Brits have got a knack for binge drinking into all sorts of trouble, while the rest of Europe/the world looks on appalled. There is nothing wrong with drinking, but take it easy, and above all drink proper drinks. No alcopops. No cheap wine. No Jack Daniels and coke (if anyone tells you it's whisky, point the fool in the direction of Scotland). Any true Brit will drink Port, Whisky, Sloe gin, gin and tonic in the winter, and (proper) cider, real ale and Pimm's in the summer.

The Royal Family
Being a royalist has gone distinctly out of fashion, but the royal family are something we ought to be hanging on to dearly. The royal family and aristocracy link us back in time, and remember our heritage is one of the best things about Britain, so do not dismiss the monarchy on the basis of fairness. Yes, it's unfair that the Queen is so rich, and you are not. Deal with it, getting rid of the monarchy will not change that. At least the Queen draws in thousands of tourists (and their money). What about the Big Brother contestants? Or Pete Docherty? Or Posh Spice? What use are they? Why on earth are we so willing to hand these worthless idiots money then, but not the Queen? If you're going to complain about taxes and how we pay too much, don't blame royalty. Blame VAT. Blame that bloody NHS money blackhole. Blame the ailing state schools. Blame the fact that we are on an island and separated from Europe. It's not all down to the Queen.

The Pound
True Brits do not denounce their national currency, especially one that has been around in various forms for over a millenium. The Euro is for traitors.

Wear Tweed
Nothing says British like tweed. Wear it. Oh and on the subject of tweed....

...Dress properly!
London is a world fashion centre, we are one of only a few countries host to international fashion shows. Our fashion identity is entwined with our cultural identity. This is why we cannot hope to compete with the Italians or New Yorkers for sophistication, nor the French for chic style. In fact, our fashion identity sets us completely apart from the rest of the world, and that's why it's such a winner. Other countries can't understand quite what we do, which is nifty because nor do we- eclectic is our look, fabulously put together but without all the priss and hous of planning that other countries go for. Our look is almost accidental style, something we just "put together", even if we didn't. I am not talking about average Joes wearing tracksuits down the high street, or northern lasses wearing the shortest of dresses in the coldest of weather. I'm talking about Lily Allen teaming ball gowns with trainers. Kate Moss (yes I said it) making ladies waistcoats fashionable. British fashion breaks the rules, often teaming old and new together, and it's not just for celebrities, everyone can do it. Try wearing an old Barbour wax jacket with a pair of skinny jeans. Instant festival cool. Here is my breakdown of the key British brands:

Barbour. Duh.

Sadly, this has become fashionable with the Wall St. types in NY, especially the Berwick Tweed (the Queen's favourite) which I think is a shame. Shooting jackets were meant to hold cartridges and keep off the driving weather, not look cool over a 3 piece suit.

Mulberry

Forget Louis Vuitton. It's crass. It's common (despite the price). It's footballer's wife-y, and no longer synonymous with wealth, but with a lack of taste. Instead, go for Mulberry. Understated, classy, and you will be handing these luggage bags down to your children. Timeless British classics.

Burberry

Sadly this brand has had to fight hard to keep customers, after their signature plaid pattern became a method for identifying "chavs". Happily, you can still enjoy this brand, as it was meant to be, without aligning yourself with these stereotypes- the easiest way is to own one of their trenchcoats. This is considered a staple for many people, and there is no hint of that pattern except for a slight flash on the inside brand tag. Most people will never know what you are wearing. So what's the point then...? That IS the whole point, and exactly what I am driving at. Brits should not be showing off how rich they are. That is the fastest way to look poor and desperate. It screams new money, lack of money, "look I just got some money and I want eveyone to know about it!". So keep the logos simple please.

Jack Wills

This divides people like Marmite, but one thing you can be sure of is that public/private school kids will want it. This brand has become THE thing to wear at university, automatically disguishing you as "a certain type". Some people wear it for exactly that reason. Some people hate it for that reason. Who knew clothes had such power? Most people just wear it because they're very nice clothes. I know I would much rather buy one shirt that will last me a few years and has quirky attention to detail (just take a look at the washing instructions! Or if you buy a pair of jeans, reach into the pockets... Oh my god someone left me a note!) than several cheap versions from Next. But there are some who take the Jack Wills thing too far, so tone it down to avoid looking like one of them...

The launch of Aubin and Wills...

At first I was really excited about this. Finally, a more grown-up version of the sloppy, loungey style that is Jack Wills. I was excited as I scrolled through the collections on the website. I was excited when the website informed me that the range was aimed at post-university 25-35 year olds. I was less excited when I saw the prices. Most of these items are virtually the same as Jack Wills clothes, yet they are more expensive?! Ok, even I will admit that Jack Wills is overpriced (but mostly I will happily pay it), but this is getting silly. Really silly. £29 for candles? £89 for a scarf? £300 for a blanket? No. I am not going to pay that much just to satisfy my urge to have something with the fox and top hat logo on it. No.

Though I will be looking for a part time job at Aubin and Wills when the flagship store opens in October. 40% discount anyone?

Lost in Translation

Oh god I love this film. Why has it taken me 5 years to discover it? Not only did I LOVE it, but apparently it's a hit with reviewers, since on Rotten Tomatoes it scores 95% making it the second most highly rated of my favourite films behind Citizen Kane (which, needless to say, scored 100%).

I don't have the time or energy to dissect this film as much as I would like at the moment, so I'll just post two photos that sum it all up for me (and shows Bill's acting talent perfectly):

1) He may be smiling and posing for a photo, but just look at his eyes- his heart is breaking :(. Just by raising the inside of his eyebrows slightly, he conveys this immense sadness. I never really appreciated what a great actor he is, but with the tiniest of facial expressions he manages to express something that words just can't.
2) To me, the funniest part of the film, for pure comedic timing and absurdity:

After watching Bob trying to have an impossible conversation with a frail man who doesn't speak English, we cut to Charlotte being diagnosed by a Japanese doctor who also does not speak English, then we cut back; Bob is suddenly sitting in the frail man's seat, holding this redonkulous owl, with no explanation. Perfect directing and dead-pan delivery (also, I want that owl).

Of course, I mustn't fail to mention the inaudible whisper at the end of the film, shared only between the two actors and the director. There are plenty of sites claiming to know what was said after various sound reworkings, but they are missing the point. It's open ended. What Bob says is for us to work out and differs for everyone. In this way, the film is personalised to each viewer, depending ultimately on how much we identify with either of the two characters. This is also reflected in the polarised reception of the film, dividing people into Bobs/Charlottes (who can empathise with the characters, become enthralled by the story and feel overwhelming emotion at the final hug) and... other people (who don't get it, who find the "missing dialogue" off putting, and think it's boring).

Throughout most of the film, despite their developing relationship, Bob and Charlotte behave quite asexually towards each other. They behave like best friends, soulmates, people with a deeper connection, who appear to be desparately avoiding physical intimacy despite both obviously wanting it. And it's not because they don't care for each other, but it's because they do, and the effect that would have on their marriages. For the same reason that Bob cheats on his wife with the singer, but cannot sleep with Charlotte- the singer is meaningless to him so it doesn't impact on his marriage. When they finally break that physical boundary and hug at the end... It's very powerful. For me, I see the whispered ending as an inevitable goodbye, a reluctant return to the mundane, unsatisfied, married lives that connected them in the first place. So based on that, I doubt Bob whispered anything like "leave your husband" or "see you soon" etc. It was probably more along the lines of "I had a great time", "I love you", something specific to them and their relationship; something conveying a lot of emotion associated with their connection and love, but simultaneously a farewell acknowledging it was over.

Actor of the day: Timothy Olyphant

Apparently I'm the only one who likes Die Hard 4. I'm not a huge fan of 2 or 3 (why watch them, when you could just watch the first one again?), but 4 was great. Not only for the awesome action scenes (parcour in the cooling tower? Fire hydrant vs a helicopter?? Bruce Willis vs an F-35????) but the bad guy was half way decent. And hot ;). I recognised him as the murderer in Scream 2, but I haven't seen him in anything else... He's very different in Die Hard 4. Still a bad guy, but less annoying. In Scream 2 he was quite camp and OTT, I was quite glad when he was bumped off to be honest... In Die Hard, he's slick and scary. I IMDBed him, he's 40?!?! How did that happen? Meh, anyway, obviously ageing is doing this guy a favour. How does that work? How is it that men tend to look better with age, but women don't (exception to this rule- Marlon Brando)? Back on topic, the only other film I know he's in is Hitman, and I'm not watching that. I had the game and that was bad enough. Let me give you an idea- there are two ways to complete the game 1) painstakingly creep around unnoticed, taking people out by stealth usually with sniper rifles or 2) killing absolutely every single person in sight and earshot so that no witnesses survive. I think the film went with the latter approach... Add to that the film only scores 15% on Rotten Tomatoes... No amount of fangirly obsession will make me watch something something so crappy*. I tried to find a decent photo of the guy to put up here, but it's hard to find any, or at least any of what I'm talking about. Virtually nil stills from LFODH. I wanted to show his scary eyes though, which is what makes his character so creepy in Die Hard, and so apart from his Scream 2 days. So this photo is a publicity shot for Hitman. See the scary eyes? Eeep.

*Unless it involves Ed Norton, Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Ryan Reynolds or Brad Pitt. But of course, nothing they are in would ever score that low.

Birdy bliss is...

...a tickle under the chin :).

If you met David Bowie and...

...he did this you would be destroyed!

Absolutely hilarious moment in Extras! Haha oh poor guy....

Get thee to a vet... STAT!

Just a quick post for any parrot owners. Parrots are quite hardy, they don't generally show that they are unwell. The reason for this is pretty clear- a sick looking bird in the wild is going to be an obvious target for a predator. So generally you won't have any idea that your bird is feeling unwell except for slight grumpiness or reluctance to leave the cage.

But if you start noticing any symptoms, start worrying. Not only does this suggest something might be seriously wrong, but after the onset of initial symptoms your bird can go downhill very fast. The sooner you act, the better your chances of saving them. Take my recent experience. My parrotlet Coco was acting strangely for a few days. He would frighten easily and fly into the walls and windows. He also seemed a bit wobbly and unsteady at times. Other than that his appetite and attitude were fine so I just kept an eye on it. Then in the space of a few hours on Monday, he went dramatically downhill. He couldn't perch on one leg without falling forwards. He was reluctant to fly to my finger because he couldn't get his balance and would fall. He couldn't walk properly along his perch or ontop of his cage, and instead took to sitting, legs splayed, lethargically. I saw this and wondered whether he had hit his head or had a fall, but he didn't snap out of it. I also noticed that his body felt cold and lighter than usual, and after weighing him noticed he had lost 2grams (which is lot on his usually 30g frame).

Cue me desperately searching online for a local avian vet (if you need one, look here). Now, I'm quite lucky. Living in the capital city of Scotland means I had a number of options. In the end I rushed him immediately to the exotic animal unit at the small animal hopsital in Roslin. This proved to be a good decision, as they had the experience and facilities to care for him. In the space of hour between noticing his symptoms and arriving at the vets, he had become noticeably weaker. His eyes kept closing and he slumped against the side of his carry box. He also didn't try to fly out when I opened the lid (highly unusual given that he hates it), and gave no resistance to having his mouth and wings checked (again, highly unusual, normally this results in getting bitten). They admitted him immediately and started treatment to get his strength back. He was in the equivalent of human intensive care. They put him in an incubator to keep his body temperature up, and also increased his oxygen and humidity. Then they administered saline injections into his legs, and liquidised food with calcium supplements directly into his crop (via gavage).

At this stage, they had no idea what was wrong. We ruled out the possiblity of any infectious disease (I have no other pets, and he is otherwise apparently healthy), and decided it was a neurological problem causing ataxia and general weakness, but we don't know the cause. Several things can cause this in birds: metal poisoning, general poisoning, liver failure, kindey failure, and tumours. At this point he was too weak to have a blood test, and I certainly wasn't going to risk anaesthetising him for an x-ray (to look for tumours and metal). That was 2 days ago. At the moment his is still at the hospital in an incubator, though he is much improved. His ataxia is better and almost gone, he has his energy back and he's eating well. Yesterday he seemed to crash again, losing all energy and alertness, so much so that the vet rang me and said I should prepare for the worst. 30 minutes later we was ok again. He's by no means out of the woods yet. They are going to try and turn off the oxygen this afternoon and see whether he can cope. If he does, and he's ok overnight, then I can bring him home tomorrow. As for what caused this- I hope it's something random that he ate or inhaled, and it's out of his system. Of course if it's liver disease or a tumour, it's likely this will all happen again and there will be no cure for him. But fingers crossed that isn't the case.

Moral of this story- get your parrot to a specialist avian vet immediately if they appear ill, even if you have doubts about whether or not they are ill. You might think that keeping them at home and nursing them will be the better option, but it isn't if your bird is genuinely ill. If they need antibiotics, they need them immediately. The saline injections and food supplements are essential for keeping your bird alive, and if they are weak like my Coco, they cannot feed and hydrate themselves. The injections and gavage feeding are also vastly superior to mouth syringing that you could do at home (since the bird can spit this out or regurgitate it quite easily). Additional medicine might be needed too, such as calcium or vitamins. Phone the vet and ask whether they have a small animal incubator, as this is lifesaving. Also aim to get your bird to an animal hospital, where there are lots of staff and people to check on him, even overnight. A smaller surgery may not be able to do this, and if your bird goes downhill overnight it might be too late by morning.

When you hand your sick pet over to someone else...

... it feels like the wrong thing to do. Even though they are avian vets, and will watch him every hour even overnight, and he will get the best supplements, and saline injections, and liquidised food straight into his crop. Even though he is being kept in an incubator like the one above which keeps him warm (his body temp is low and he has lost weight) and gives him extra oxygen. Even though he's in the best possible hands at the moment, it feels wrong. Because I know him best, and I want him home with me. If he goes downhill and dies, I can't stand the thought that he would be on his own away from me for that. I miss him :(.

The contradictions of Derren Brown

I'm sure you know who he is by now, and if you don't, go Google.

First, let me just say that I am a big fan and think his work is great. Though I think my appreciation of his work has "matured" over the years. At first, I was quite naive and readily enjoyed his "psychological magic". Then I started to notice certain things... Things that didn't fit.... Things that were repeated... Recurrences of mannerisms and phrases.... And I wondered which aspects of his work were psychology, and which were sleight of hand... Where does the magic and trickery end and the real psychology begin?

The reality

To explain what I'm getting at let me put it another way: it occurred to me out of the blue, when I watched one of my favourite "tricks" of his from an old series that seemed to show incredible skills of mind manipulation, that there was a simple method of doing it. No psychology, no mind control, no in depth knowledge of human thoughts (at least not in the sense he was stating), instead it was a simple trick. An example of this, which he revealed, was the trick in which he plays chess simultaneously with 9 people, which at first seems incredible, when in truth, the trick is very logical and straightforward. At first I was disappointed. The part of me that enjoyed his work for its implications in day to day human thoughts was lost. Partly. Mainly because I realised he has lied about his work. That's his prerogative of course, as a magician, but it's still an uncomfortable realisation. Then it started to get more interesting. Once you know that everything he does may be a trick and none of the psychology might be real, that he may not be doing what he says he is doing, you work harder and question more, to figure it out. I think this is what he wants.

Now we reach the contradictions. On the one hand, Derren seems to revel in revealing some of his tricks. As though by showing us how it's done, he is getting us to open our minds. If you have read his book, you will also see that he is very keen on encouraging people not to accept his work at face value. In his book, he goes from discussing psychology and methodology, to ranting about scientific thinking and rejecting irrational faith. The second half of his book is essentially all about how people should think and question more, and Brown's obvious frustration with people who don't. He is deliberately shady about whether his work is psychology or magic or both, and I think that in part he wants us to try and work it out. But therein lies the contradiction: he needs us not to work it out. His work, and the efficacy of his "tricks", relies on people taking what he says at face value. I won't go so far as to say his subjects are stupid... but he needs them to just follow his lead and essentially do as he says, otherwise it wouldn't work. Time and time again on stage, he seemed to get volunteers who accepted what he said. Who not only weren't previously aware of the trick (people were unfamiliar with well known tricks such as table spinning, even though they had been featured on his TV series), but weren't aware that he was lying to them to yield a particular result (such as fabricating an elaborate story about a "dead person" that they would then divine details about). Perhaps he can spot these people easily. On the flip side, perhaps he can spot the ones who are suspicious of his truthfulness too. Perhaps these are the people he sends back to their seats with a shake of the hand and a "sorry, this won't work with you". Or maybe he just does that for showmanship. Who knows but him and Andy (Nyman).

With the luxury of DVDs, figuring out his tricks gets easier with repeated viewings. This is because magicians use misdirection. They look at their left hand, you look at their left hand, meanwhile their right hand is palming the coin. So the first time you view the trick, you don't see it. So if you watch it a few times, you get past that, in theory. After watching his stuff and getting familiar with his work, you reach the limit of what you can garner from the DVDs, because they are edited. In the end, the clues you're looking for may have been cut out and you'll never work it out that way. So what better way to assess this man's skill than see him live? Surely it should be easier to figure out, if there's no editing or camera-trickery, and he's right there in front of you? Hmm... Nope.

The Showman

If you do decide to see him live, and I thoroughly recommend that you do, make sure you sit in the stalls. You are wasting your money if you sit anywhere else. I think you're wasting money if you're more than 10 rows back, actually. Although you might be lucky enough to get picked to go up on stage, no matter where you're sitting (though for the upper circle this is really unlikely). I have watched him from the front row, and there is nothing like it. You can see everything. You can lean forward and look up behind the stage curtain... As a suggestion. ;) When he lay down on some broken glass and got a man to stand on his head, he was staring straight at me with the most horrendous look on his face (though that might just be because he took an aversion to my face, heh), then when he got up I could see the blood on his cheek. That was seriously intense, and you miss it if you sit anywhere else (though if you're squeamish, perhaps that's what you'd prefer). Another bonus of sitting at the front is you get to be involved, even if it's only on a small scale. Derren often asks people in the front row for help (not as volunteers in his tricks, they are chosen randomly, but more general help). The downside of this is that you will not be able to relax throughout the show. You will be sitting there, and if you're anything like me, you'll be nervous that he is going to ask you to do something. Of course, if he does that's great! But he is intimidating on stage. He is very different to how he appears on TV, on stage he is manic, scarily sharp and dominates the entire auditorium. If you try to embarrass him he will cut you down! So don't even try to heckle him (a memorable moment from his show- a man behind me yelled out "Do you cheat??", to which Derren laughed and replied "Of course I do. What cheek, I could have you wetting the bed for the rest of your life if I so choose").

So how does he do it?

Now- on to the real question- can you figure out his tricks from the show? Yes and no. Some of them are rehashed versions of tricks from his TV series. So if you've already figured those out, then you're away (and you'll also be a bit disappointed by the show...). Some of them are simple psychology that we have seen before. But.. others are so incredibly impressive, and apparently complex, it was impossible for me to begin to work them out. With his tricks, I usually think "what would I do, to get that effect?", but he is very good at undoing that line of thinking on stage. He is a master of hiding what is really happening, and making you forget the actual events that have unfolded. In short, he is a very good magician. An added complication, which might melt your brain, is that at least with TV you can reassure yourself that he filmed the trick multiple times, and only aired the one where it worked. So how do you explain the fact that everything in the stage show works? Oh, it's simple. It's because, er, erm, he just, er... *sounds of brain melting*. One thing that I frequently wonder is whether or not Derren is offering us hints to his tricks all the time. For instance, showing us that he spent an afternoon flipping a coin to get a take of 5 heads in a row. Is that a hint that lots of his TV tricks are based on statistics? When he showed us how he beat chess grandmasters, is that a nod to how he deceives us with his other tricks? When he described memory techniques in his book (he has mentioned them throughout his career and certainly seems keen on them), is that a whopper of a hint I wonder? How about when he pickpocketed a man in plain sight, relieving him of his wallet, phone, keys and even his tie? Is that an allusion to how he tells people the contents of their wallets? I don't know at all. But sometimes I do wonder whether he is playing a game with us, and smugly revelling in the fact that the answers are right in front of our eyes.

Pants on fire

There is one thing that I noticed on stage. I have watched Derren from the beginning. I have seen all of his work (excluding the Devil's Picturebook, which is before he became famous), I have seen him live 3 times now and met him twice. After all this, you start to notice when the man is lying. Which is frequently. Derren professes to be an expert lie-detector, but when it comes down to it he is not so brilliant at hiding his own fibs. Of course, one should expect some level of fictionality in a stage show, and his are certainly no different. But after a long time of watching his work, it gets easier to see through some of his bull. I can't explain it, but it's as though a switch flicked in my head, and I realised he was lying. Of course, I don't always spot it, but it's great when I do. :) To spot the easy lies, just refuse to believe anything he says :P. That's a good start. If he is telling a story, he is lying. If he starts telling you about a book he read or a famous magician from years ago, he is lying. If he claims his act is dangerous and he might hurt himself or die, he is lying. If he claims you might hurt yourself or die, he is lying, though it's probably best not to try and disprove him at this point- just think back to the trick where he put large needles through Robbie Williams' arms- in that situation, you could try to prove it was a trick (i.e. a stuck on layer of synthetic skin) , despite the apparent pain and blood, by ripping the needles out, but if you're wrong you're in for some stitches. He might go to great lengths to show you he is telling the truth. But he is lying.

Anyone who disputes that, or who thinks that his work is purely psychological, needs to familiarise themselves with his past. His background is magic, particularly card magic. There is a reason why this man is banned from every casino in the UK! Then you have to remember that he gave that up, he left card magic behind, to do what he currently does.

A trick you can try at home

One thing I would like to say here, is that I tried his memory techniques from his book. I used them to get through my finals at university. They were a safety net, so I knew I had methods of retrieving the information, in case of exam-induced blank-mindedness. I absorbed an incredible amount of information in just a few days, and I can still remember it. That is more than a little intriguing to me. When I met Derren shortly afterwards, I thanked him for it. We had a very funny and charming conversation about... monkeys and sausages, during which, I kid you not, he giggled like a little girl. But that's another story. I never would have used those techniques to such a powerful extent had he not summarised them in his book. So, after my exams, I also decided to play with the techniques for fun. I memorised the order of a deck of cards. That itself is not a trick, not really (to learn how, check out his book). The trick is to get someone to pick a card, then multiple cards, and tell them what they are. The way to make that impressive a la Derren Brown is to make people think you couldn't possibly have learned the order of all the cards (they shouldn't even consider that as a possibility, if they do you're stuck), instead they are left with the impression that you divined the identity of the card from their mind. You can use showmanship to build on this. Get them to form a mental picture of the card in front of them (when you first start out, get them to put the card in their pocket so you can't see it, then ask them to close their eyes and form the picture, you can use this time to unknowingly look at the card below theirs in the deck ;) ). When they look up and left, gasp a little, pretend to notice something, say "I think.... it must be a red card!", and they nod. Do it again, pretend you're working really hard to notice some detail in their face or eyes. Once you're confident at this part, and at recalling the cards (which, under pressure, can be hard), throw in a little misdirection: ask the person to shuffle the deck. This can backfire, but you need to control the shuffle. Don't go handing the deck to a card connoisseur, who will proceed to riffle the order into oblivion and screw your trick. Certainly don't let them use a table. Keep your hands outstretched infront of them so that they only shuffle the deck a little, then take it back from them. This leaves the order intact for the most part, but there is now a possibility of your trick going wrong. Don't forget to say "now you know they're shuffled and in no particular order". For an added touch appear to shuffle the cards absentmindedly yourself a few times. This puts what is really happening out if their minds and leaves them with two options 1) you can read their minds/faces and 2) the cards are marked. One further point is that as you proceed with the trick and repeat it over and over, you need to keep track of the cards that have come and gone. This is because they are now missing from their correct places in the deck, so you will need to skip to the next card in the order. This is just down to memory in the end, but don't get caught out by it.

Now, I'm certainly no expert at magic, what I know about it is from watching lots of tricks, doing lots of reading, and trying various things out on my housemate. Heh. So of course plenty of his tricks are lost on me. But I really do love to work them out. His recent TV series have taken a different tangent recently. Although there still is the aspect of magic on some level, he explores psychology a little more. Of course, there is a lot of psychology behind magic, and that in itself makes fascinating reading/thinking, but what I mean here that he now openly uses NLP and suggestion to show their effects.

Who watches Derren Brown?

Finally then, Derren's popularity is as divided as Marmite. Some people think he's great, others
cannot stand him. True, he comes across as eccentric, "posh" (hate that word), smart and smug; qualities that a lot of people dislike. I think though, he is popular with two groups of people. Those who take his work at face value (despite his pleas for them not to) and enjoy his TV shows as entertaining fodder. And those who think outside the box and really question what he is actually doing, at every level. Which group you fall into depends on why you like his shows. Which do you enjoy more, being fooled by the magic, or understanding the trick?

To finish, one of my favourite "tricks" of his, along with an explanation. Works to spectacular effect:

Music of the day: a mixed bunch

Today I'll share some of my favourites that I saved to my youtube account.

More from Philip Glass first of all:



Sigh. Need to buy this soundtrack.

Secondly, one I've already mentioned- Where is my mind by The Pixies. Only listen to it in a happy mood though.



Finally- Milburn, What will you do?



Enjoy!

How to survive a Ph.D.

So far I have found my Ph.D. to be far more stressful, and weirdly, personal than I expected. I imagined it would be intellectually challenging, but I never expected the degree to which I would come to question myself, not just academically but every aspect of my life. Everyone warned me that Ph.D.s are very lonely, and I'm starting to see what they meant. This project is mine. The responsibility for my success, and therefore part of the success of my supervisor, is solely in my hands. If I mess up an experiment, I have failed myself. If two or three experiments go wrong, I start to wonder if I'm thick. After a year of pottering about and with no results to show for it, it's very hard not to question whether you're doing the right thing. This is normal, apparently, for a first year. But still, it's very trying at times.

To keep myself sane through what has been my first (and least stressful...) year, I found the following essential:

-iPod. No questions, you need one. Chances are you have a Mac, but if not any MP3/4 player will do. But you DO need it. If you're doing a science research based doctorate like me, you will need something to listen to. You may spend hours by yourself. Late at night, early in the morning. Saturdays and Sundays. I have different playlists for different activities and moods. Rock/pop for times alone in the lab, electronic and chilled for dissections, pop and classical for de-stressing before presentations.
-Non-academic friends. After spending every waking minute thinking about experiments, papers, presentations and what not, you need to detach. So make sure you have friends doing something completely separate. I have a whole group of friends separate from my uni friends, who have jobs and keep me in touch with the "real world".

-A pet. When you've been yelled at by your supervisor and get home late after an exhausting day, you need something cute and cuddly to cheer you up. Somehow housemates don't do this too well. Get a pet.

-Keep in touch with other interests. Take time to go to the gym, learn languages, go to plays and concerts. Anything. What I found odd is that this is generally not encouraged at uni, at least where I work. My supervisor expects me to dedicate ALL of my time to my Ph.D.. Other people in the lab often seem astounded that there are other sides to me than being a scientist, that I could possibly be good at art or sports. I am not a scientist. I DO research, I STUDY science, but it's not what I am.

-Keep an eye on prospective careers. Everyone I know who is doing a Ph.D., bar none (worryingly), has not planned what they will do afterwards. Of course it's easy to say they should have planned, when in fact the final year of a Ph.D. is all consuming and it's very hard to think about anything else. But still. Keep an eye out for opportunities, have something to look forward to at the end of the tunnel!

-You might need to give up dating... Shocker I know. I was told this when I first started, and I laughed. I was told that Ph.D.s and boyfriends are mutually exclusive, and I didn't believe it. Now, a year in, I think there is definite truth to it. My priorities have shifted. It takes all of my energy to get through the week. I spend all day and then some at the lab. I bring home papers and try to read them, but usually in the evenings I just want food and bed. The weekends are my time to catch up on sleep, go clubbing/get drunk and let my hair down, and oh yes go back to the lab and do more reading and work. There is always SO much to be done, no matter how hard I work I don't get through it. The last thing I want on top of this is a guy and all those associated feelings messing things up. I need to concentrate all of the time! I actually don't think I have the time or capacity to have any kind of emotional relationship at the moment. Be warned though, this does tend to strain your relationships with your male friends (if you're female) for various reasons. Just something to be mindful of.

-You do not have to conform to the t-shirt and jeans look. The quintessential academic outfit. As you get steadily sadder the t-shirt may even be one from a conference. Don't do it. You do not have to let your wardrobe decline just because you work in a lab. Just because you're not in a normal office setting, and you're not technically employed, does not mean you should dress like a student. You've been an undergraduate, now you're actually a professional adult, so dress like one. Especially when a lot of the other post-graduates are not English and have their own distinct cultural styles and backgrounds. Sod it, sod them, dress properly. Don't bat an eyelid when they ask why you're wearing tweed. ;)

-Don't just go out to the pub. This is where having non-academic friends can help. Going to the pub with your friends is fine, and a great thing to do, but sometimes you need to do more, and your lab friends might not understand that. For me, I desperately needed to dress up and hit the high-end bars and clubs. If you're British, you might relate to this. In the lab, you don't meet many "like-minded" people, as you may well be the only Brit there, especially if you're middle class. Suddenly you're the minority. Having multicultural friends is a great thing, but sometimes you need to be around fellow Englishmen/Scotsmen whatever.

-Date outside of your field. If you have time ;). For some people, dating fellow researchers works out really well, and I'm glad for them. But for me, the idea of dating a fellow scientist is... quite repugnant. Not least because I need to get away from science once in a while. Talking to other women in my situation turns up similar (and quite familiar, feminine) sentiments- we want a dependable husband. Translation- wealthy, stable, employed, successful etc etc. You are never going to find a wealthy, or even comfortably-off, man in a lab, unless he's a professor or head of department- in which case you will have to compete for his affections with the real love of his life- science. Wealthy men may start in a lab, but go beyond it. This depends of course on what you want from life, and maybe for you this isn't a big concern, in which case that's great. You also might have these worries, but fall in love with a researcher, in which case that's also great. But let's face it, you're doing a Ph.D. in research, so your future financial situation is completely unknown. You might get a job. You might discover a new drug. You might get nowhere and drop out. So when picking a partner, you need someone in a far better financial state than you. Otherwise how will you pay for emergency medical expenses? Cars? School fees? Even "luxuries" like holidays? Having said that, you might find a fellow scientist is the only person who understands the strain you are under, and the extent to which you are obsessed with your work. So in the end it all comes down to the individuals.

-Chemicals... Adopting chemical dependencies, assuming you haven't already done that during your undergraduate degree, is sadly virtually a given during your Ph.D.. Try to make them relatively healthy. Drinking lots of coffee and drinking G&Ts with a few cigarettes at the weekends is the extent to which most people go. But some go further. Don't lose perspective here. Once again, you're not an undergrad anymore, you're an adult.

-Friends in your lab. When choosing your lab, make sure there will be plenty of other people about! My lab is nice and large, so even though a few have left and others are on holiday, there are still people about.Your lab becomes your family. These people are more than your friends. You are united against your supervisor if he's being a tosser. They will defend you. They will share important papers with you. They will lend you reagents, time slots on various machines, and advice. These people are invaluable! Just make sure you remember to pay them back similarly and be there for them too. It's very easy, when you're under serious pressure, to curl up into yourself and panic. Don't- go and spend time with your labmates. They've been there, they will calm you down. This is absolutely essential for surviving your Ph.D..

Fin.

Profiles

I set up this blog as a way of just spilling my guts about the various things I come across and think about during my day. Nothing more to it than that. So when I registered and started blogging, I was quite surprised when I next visited YouTube. A message at the top of the screen said "We notice you have a Google account, would you like to link it to your youtube account?".

Huh?

Link my blog and youtube? I am already debating whether or not to link my blog to facebook. I keep youtube and facebook separate. I've also debated this month whether to link my eBay shop to facebook via a new application to increase sales. Where is all this going to end? All of these sites are merging into one. All of them politely remind me to update my profile. With Facebook, the point is pretty obvious. There are photos of myself, lists of interests and favourite books to share with my friends. But what is the point of a youtube or ebay profile? To what extend is my personality now spread over various websites on the net? Is it a bad thing to have so many profiles?

Profiles that I have-
-YouTube (over 200 favourite videos, 10 subscriptions and 5 uploaded)
-Facebook
-eBay (a sellers profile, with a theme and photo, and "motivations for selling"...)
-Blogger
-Yahoo
-Flickr
-deviantART

Yep, even my bl**dy email account has a profile page, with a little cartoon of me that I can edit to "express myself". On YouTube I can add friends and message people. I can modify the background of my profile and play music, similar to MySpace. With Facebook at least I can control who sees my information, so I can make it as personal as I like. But youtube, ebay, blogger, I like to be anonymous. Sometimes not just anonymous I guess, but someone else. The me in my eBay profile is the me that I need to be to sell things at the highest price. So I need to appear a certain way. Would that be compromised if these people could also see drunk photos of me on facebook? Or if they knew what videos I watched on youtube?

So at the moment I'm keeping most of my profiles un-updated, and separate. I don't want my school friends to know what items I'm selling from my wardrobe. I don't want my colleagues at work knowing what videos I watch on youtube. For now. While I'm not comfortable being exposed online, I think to an extent this trend is inevitable. Something to be embraced in the future?

The first of many magic-related posts

If you haven't already subscribed to MadV on youtube, do it.



What started out as a few neat magic tricks from an anonymous guy with great taste in music has turned into an online phenomenon regarding freedom, tolerance and what it means to be human. Kudos!

Are you excited yet?

I am!!



Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Can't wait for November!

Music of the day: Max Richter

Definitely the sort of thing you should listen to if you're in a reflective mood. My favourite piece by him is actually Arboretum from his album The Blue Notebooks. It features a passage read by Tilda Swinton and is absolutely mesmerising. This isn't just classical music (although his album Memory House is), it's a blend with electronic. It's arty. I love.

Hollywood has no class anymore

So what does it take to become an actor these days?

I think about this a lot, especially given my doubts over my own career choices. I worry about whether I can continue along my current path and be successful. Make money. Be happy.

So this brings me on to careers an success, and making money, and what it all means and whether it actually matters. I see people across the pond (although there is a certain aspect of that culture over here as well- Big Brother for example) become famous overnight. They are photographed everywhere. They are wearing designer outfits. They are invited to events and given free gifts. Why? Some of them are famous for publishing sex tapes online. Others are siblings of people famous for lacking in talent and struggling with drug dependencies. How on Earth has society come to regard these people as celebrities? How can anyone think they are worthy of such attention and fortune? How can these people, with no training or talent, become popular actors? Have we forgotten the likes of Oscar Wilde, Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn? Where has the class gone?

There seems to be a big divide between the sexes here too, which is perhaps worthy of a separate post. It seems that in Hollywood, one doesn't need talent. One just needs to be female, thin, pretty and shameless. It also helps if you feel entitled, crave attention in the worst way, and are not particularly bright. It saddens me that these talentless show-offs are the ones making money, yet the people with brains and consideration are often ignored. Before you shout me down as jealous, I will happily admit to it. Yes I'm jealous. I'm jealous that so far I have been in education for 9 years, followed by 8 years at uni, to get on my career path. And I will never earn as much as they do (assuming, of course, that I continue along that path, which is unlikely, and also topic for another post).

An Ode to Edward Norton

So onto something a little more positive. A celebration of a merger of the two worlds- cerebral and Hollywood. A man, who is sometimes referred to as a Hollywood god, but he would never admit it. He commands nearly $10 million a film, or more now. A man, surely, at the centre of all this glitz and glamour over the last decade. Yet, he's a man many people haven't heard of. They've seen him of course. Everyone knows his work. But his name is unfamiliar. His face and name is unfamiliar outside of his films. That's because he possesses a rare quality in Hollywood. Class. He doesn't broadcast his success to the world in the form of fast cars, LV bags (shudder) and arriving at flashy parties. He doesn't court the paparazzi, desperate to get himself seen in magazines. We have no idea who he is dating, or has dated, because he keeps schtum. He keeps more than schtum, he keeps himself out of the spotlight, any spotlight, at all times. Please, the rest of Hollywood, take note. This is how it's done. Edward Norton. Who is he? Check out this clip and you will reminded of some of the incredible roles he has done. He has gone from redneck to office bum, magician to drug-dealer, neo-nazi to insane to a man nearly eaten by Hannibal Lecter. His trademark is disturbed characters, often either with split personalities or who undergo significant redemption or turmoil.


Seen him in Fight Club? Didn't think he stood out that much? Perhaps he paled when paired with Brad Pitt (and don't mean this in terms of looks, Brad is actually a great actor in my opinion and dominates the screen purely with his presence)? Well, that was the idea. His character in Fight Club is essentially the everyman. A loser. A nobody that everyone relates to because his failings are ours. He lost weight for that role, so he would look scrawny and pale. Brad, in comparison, is the manifestation of what he (and we) wants to be- bold, bright, muscular and attractive. I might do another post about Fight Club because I adore that film and it intrigues me even after repeated viewings (I am still noticing new quirks after the fifth time, which puts this on a parallel with Donnie Darko in my book). The soundtrack is quite interesting too, if you're into that kind of thing. If only for this FANTASTIC song (coupled with a Fight Club video, as an extra bonus). The song that plays right at the end of the film as the buildings collapse:


Why it's cult and not mainstream, and how it slipped passed the original audience and reviewers is beyond me. This is possibly my favourite scene, so so funny:



Anyway, back to Ed. It doesn't end with his acting, he also writes screenplays, directs and produces. He's a Yale history graduate.
Sooo, if you want to see this actor shine you need to see his other films (there aren't actually that many, sadly :( hurry up and make more please). Let me talk you through the goodies.

1. The film that made his career: Primal Fear

A great film this, if a little dated to look at (sorry Richard Gere I'm talking to you). If you haven't seen it, just watch it without reading anything about it. Avoid the spoilers. This film is worth it to see his incredible talent, and his trademark portrayal of a divided character. I wanted to find a video to show his acting, but I can't find any that don't have spoilers. Bear in mind he plays a 19 year old in this film, when he was in fact 27. Baby face!

2. Two films that work well in parallel: American History X and 25th Hour

Both are tough to watch, but very rewarding. The former showcases Norton's acting to perfection, and shows that he can change his body as well as his his character to suit the roles. The innocent babyface from Primal Fear is gone. 25th hour seems to constantly reference AHX, the films mirror each other wonderfully with their themes of redemption. This scene from 25th hour directly refers to the racism of AMX and the discussion about the slave trade. It's also one of the most powerful scenes of the film (there are two others, towards the end, which I won't post because they are spoilers, but they left me speechless and in tears). Take a look:

3. Something a bit different: The Illusionist, Red Dragon

Two films I would definitely recommend you see. Now. Not least because Ed looks rather fine as the man who put Hannibal Lecter in prison. Spoilers beware! Don't watch unless you've already seen the film.




Bring on Motherless Brooklyn!

(None of these videos are mine, I am just embedding them from youtube).

I was less than impressed by The Dark Knight

Yes you heard me. Apparently it's tantamount to heresy, admitting such a thing, but I did not think the Dark Knight was particularly good.

I would even go one step further and say... *gasp* it was a BAD film. Why? You are probably shaking your head and cursing my stupidity from your chair/desk/bed, not entirely unlike all of my friends who similarly thought I was delusional for disliking this film.

Plot spoilers ahead. You have been warned.

Beginning. Middle. End.

This film was boring. For an action film, it was slow and dry. And not, as many people seem to be suggesting, because it was developing characters or, heaven forbid, developing an in-depth storyline (I worry for those who consider this a "deep" film, and would suggest they watch Citizen Kane before using such an adjective for something derived from Hollywood). There was no suspense, we the audience just sat and were hustled through 2.5 hours of meandering plotless events, which rendered many things that happened meaningless and forgettable. Haven't these people heard that the basis to a good story is.. er a good story?! With a beginning, middle and end? Not a vague start, an hour of pointless plot contrivances that we could easily have done without (the Chinese businessman?), a few jumbled clashes with the joker and a anticlimactic ending that was long overdue.

Yes, it was dark. Deliciously dark. I LOVE dark. I go out of my way to seek out dark and challenging films. I like to be rattled and I like films that fire the imagination. I like to think over a film for days or weeks after I saw it. All the rave reviews suggested that Dark Knight was exactly this sort of film, so I decided to see it. I couldn't miss it of course. Nor could millions of other people around the world. We're not all Batman fans. Most of us aren't, really. The reason why this film is making absurd sums of money, the reason why everyone I know has seen it already (some more than once), the reason why we had to see a later showing because the cinema was full already, is Heath.

Oh Heath...

He makes this film. I'll go even further than that- Heath saves this film. Quite honestly his performance and presence on screen is so captivating, so engrossing, so horribly unsettling, I am not surprised by all the calls for a posthumous Oscar. While watching the Joker, I was blown away just like everyone else in the cinema. I laughed when he made the pencil disappear. I laughed when he fiddled with the bomb detonator outside the hospital. I sat open-mouthed when the lorry (truck, for any Americans) flipped over with the Joker in the front seat (I was surprised by this, given that it was shown in the trailer and we all had seen it before- but knowing that the Joker was in the cab made it altogether more dramatic). I sat, eyes open and completely silent, when he confronted Harvey in the hospital. In fact, on reflection I realise that during the whole film I was thoroughly disinterested in Batman, I was bored by Harvey (at least for the first half when I didn't realise what was happening to him). I sat, like everyone around me waiting for the Joker to come back onscreen and relieve us. The interesting thing, and just about the only satisfaction I got from this film, is that the appearance of the Joker did not relieve me. Instead of feeling glad he was in that scene, I felt nervous. I shifted uncomfortably in my seat wondering what he would do or say next. This frightful character who murders people at the drop of a hat. Who holds lives and fates in his hands, and only cares for anarchy. It was exhausting to watch. The Joker could be funny, even hilarious, and he could be dangerous. All the while, we watch the Joker circle death, play with death, even hand a gun to a man who fully intends to kill him. We see him get beaten to a pulp by Batman, laughing the whole time. We watch in horror at his apparent disregard for his own life. We watch, and we are drawn to it, and we cannot look away, because of course this all comes down to the parallel between the Joker and the man behind him. We are so drawn to the joker because he, like Heath, spiralled towards self-destruction.

That's why everyone is raving about this film. That is why this film is "so good". Had Heath not died, the Joker would not have held such an ominous presence onscreen. Yes, he acted well, yes the Joker was convincing, but I have seen better performances that slid by without Oscars or even nominations. I do not think so many people would by crying Oscar had Heath not died. This is demonstrated most poignantly in the scene when the Joker (though not actualy dead) is brought into a room in a body bag and we see a close-up of his face. The cinema went silent. I looked away from the screen. I noticed other people turning their heads or gasping in horror. That scene hit the nail on the head.

Wasted talent, and not just Heath's

Gary Oldman was shamefully wasted in this film. But he must be used to that after Harry Potter. What else? I was surprised by how upset I was that Rachel was blown to bits. I hadn't really expected that (although I suspected the joker had lied about the locations, I assumed on some level that someone would save her). I suppose that added something to the film, another level of nastiness. Which was definitely necessary, because this is not a film about a hero. It's a film about a man doing what needs to be done for the greater good. So yes, he f*cks up, he gets hurt, he crosses moral and legal lines, people hate him, but he, Batman, has to.

While I'm at it I may as well point out that Bale and Eckhart also get short changed here, and unfairly. This is 100% the Joker's film, but there were plenty of parts we could have done without. I thought the "sonar mobile phones", especially how they were used at the end in the fight scene, was insultingly silly and needless. This film was trying to be a more mature take on the comic book series, so why introduce silly technology and digress from the interesting plot? I'm sure there was another way they could have created a moral conflict between Batman and Fox. It was important for the plot to create something which Batman would have to do for the good of Gotham which went against decent morals. Other blogs have explored this plenty, so I shall move on. I do feel somewhat sorry for Bale, who is not only outshone in the script (Batman is to all intents and purposes a secondary character), but now after Heath's death he has lost the film to him completely. What a turnaround after the first film... Poor guy. He has no choice but to stand back and politely agree that Heath's death was a tragedy and this film was Heath's final masterpiece. No wonder he looked so p*ssed off and sallow at the premier.

The only other good thing about this film is Harvey Dent, played to perfection by Eckhart. I mentioned that I liked dark films- well, I really enjoy watching the darkness within everyday characters, watching "good" characters become dark. I like to see the bad side of our supposed heroes. This was superficially explored with Batman, of course in many ways that was the whole point of the film... The "Dark Knight"... But beating the Joker up in a police room, and throwing a man off a fire-escape so that he breaks his legs is not enough. Especially when Batman keeps talking in that ridiculous voice. OTT. Why didn't they fix that after the first film? With Harvey at least the storyline was developed a little more... The Joker, who "doesn't plan", has meticulously orchestrated from the start (although we, like Batman and everyone else, do not realise until it is too late) the steady downfall and descent into madness of the hero of Gotham... How quintessentially evil. How absolutely awful for Harvey and how fantastic to watch as our new Hero (a real man, fighting crime face to face in the courts, a decent guy with a family and normal life) falls and loses everything. How much more they could have developed this tragic storyline, possibly the most interesting part of the story (at least for me), in favour of however long we wasted jumping out of windows in China.

One final point. I enjoyed the finale with the two ships. I am a sucker for Derren Brown (don't fret, I will be making a post about him soon). I am completely intrigued by psychology. While I think the social experiment at the end was a little naïve and simplified (let's be honest, people would be beating sh*t out of each other to get the detonator or hysterically jumping overboard, or at the very least all talking to their families on their mobiles or capturing the drama with cameraphones), I couldn't help but think that this was the kind of thing Derren would be doing. If he were insane, that is. What a fantastic climax (although handled incorrectly in this film, so that somehow it just flops without suspense). I was sad in a way, to see the Joker proved wrong for once, but that is the curse of the "bad guy" I suppose. But what a wicked idea! What vastly superior fodder this was, compared to the usual offerings from Hollywood, especially in this genre (Spiderman 3 anyone?).

All things considered though, this film did not live up to its potential. Even the score, which is fantastic, missed the mark (some very dramatic scenes had no music at all, which in some places worked and other almost seemed like a mistake). It could have been so much more, and I was hoping for much more, and in the end I realise my expectations were probably too high for what is, in the end, yet another Hollywood comic book adaptation created purely to generate profit.

Oooh poor choice of words!

So that I don't go out on a total downer, I thought I would post one of my favourite lines in the film (followed by inexplicable lack of death on the part of Rachel, it seems everyone falls off skyscrapers in films these days and survives!). Enjoy!

To Heath.

Music of the day: Philip Glass

If you have iTunes, do a search in the store and listen to some of his stuff.

This is possibly his most famous piece of work, which, depending on your age, you may or may not have heard of.

Anyone who saw the film The Illusionist starring Edward Norton will be familiar with his skill at creating powerful movie scores. I'm desperate to get my mits on the soundtrack, but it's not for sale in the UK iTunes store, and I haven't seen it in ANY shops, so I'll have to buy it online at some point. Harumph.

Anyway, enjoy.

So... A little introduction is in order

Introduction to follow. All that needs to be said at the moment is that I'm a Ph.D. student studying stem cell research, who regularly wonders whether this was the correct career decision. I wonder what might of been had I followed my interest in art and creative writing... would I be happier?