Pretending they're essentially alive
Feb. 8th, 2005 11:08 amI know it's a truism that hangovers get worse as one ages, but my problem is that I only get them after not drinking. In connection with which, according to last night's news the Office of Fair Trading has issued guidance on minimum drinks prices. Funny - I always thought the OFT was meant to break up cartels, rather than found them. Oh, and that suggested Labour poster which shows Michael Howard as a hypnotist? Apparently it shows him as a "Shylock figure". It reminded me more of Kenny Craig.
As I recall, Whatever Happened To Harold Smith? was marketed as one of those loveably eccentric English retro comedies. I was expecting something a bit like East is East (except hopefully less sh1t, because this had Stephen Fry in it). But it was so much more than that. This was Scanners played for whimsy, or Oedipus at Colonus sponsored by Hovis. Too few films, even superhero films, deal with apotheosis; this one managed to deal with that, and the tensions between disco and punk, and a boy becoming a man, all in about 90 minutes. Plus it had a cameo by Keith Chegwin. And Stephen Fry's sanctimonious, tiny-c0cked lecturer character is called Peter Robinson, which should amuse some people I know.
(I taped it from ITV, and one of the ad breaks contained only trailers for other ITV shows. Is that normal these days?)
As I rewound the tape, Channel 4 were showing something about women with difficulty achieving org@sm, and a scientist who hoped to treat them by installing some kind of electrode arrangement under the skin at the base of the spine. At no stage in the 10 minutes or so that I watched was the term 'sexborg' used. What a missed opportunity.
[Poll #433402]
I suspect today will be much less interesting than last Mardi Gras.
edit: Could all the deviants voting for twenty-oh-five please explain themselves?
As I recall, Whatever Happened To Harold Smith? was marketed as one of those loveably eccentric English retro comedies. I was expecting something a bit like East is East (except hopefully less sh1t, because this had Stephen Fry in it). But it was so much more than that. This was Scanners played for whimsy, or Oedipus at Colonus sponsored by Hovis. Too few films, even superhero films, deal with apotheosis; this one managed to deal with that, and the tensions between disco and punk, and a boy becoming a man, all in about 90 minutes. Plus it had a cameo by Keith Chegwin. And Stephen Fry's sanctimonious, tiny-c0cked lecturer character is called Peter Robinson, which should amuse some people I know.
(I taped it from ITV, and one of the ad breaks contained only trailers for other ITV shows. Is that normal these days?)
As I rewound the tape, Channel 4 were showing something about women with difficulty achieving org@sm, and a scientist who hoped to treat them by installing some kind of electrode arrangement under the skin at the base of the spine. At no stage in the 10 minutes or so that I watched was the term 'sexborg' used. What a missed opportunity.
[Poll #433402]
I suspect today will be much less interesting than last Mardi Gras.
edit: Could all the deviants voting for twenty-oh-five please explain themselves?
tiny-cOcked Peter Robinson
Date: 2005-02-08 11:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:23 am (UTC)What is this?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 12:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 12:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:49 am (UTC)i have copied my cafflick zine for you, btw.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:47 am (UTC)Also, this whole "sex cure" sham get sme angry because it makes women feel like they're abnormal if they don't have multiple orgasms at the drop of a hat.
*mutters*
no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 11:51 am (UTC)You could see with the test subjects that some of them were really chuffed with the procedure, while others were feeling absolutely wretched because they *still* hadn't managed it. I suspect he should perhaps have screened his patients more thoroughly.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:The therapist eez een...
From:Re: The therapist eez een...
From:Re: The therapist eez een...
From:Re: The therapist eez een...
From:Re: The therapist eez een...
From:Re: The therapist eez een...
From:Re: The therapist eez een...
From:Re: The therapist eez een...
From:from a self confessed ice maiden...
Date: 2005-02-08 11:51 am (UTC)Re: from a self confessed ice maiden...
From:Re: from a self confessed ice maiden...
From:Re: from a self confessed ice maiden...
From:Re: from a self confessed ice maiden...
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 12:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 01:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 01:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 02:13 pm (UTC)Consistency, why on earth suddenly change the rules for the sake of a decade or so? It's been 2 digit number - 2 digit number since before Harold got one in the eye...why get all precious because of a Kubrick film? It's not 'In the year Two thousand five hundred and twenty-five' and we're not the French - it takes them half an hour to say 1999. Dix neuf cent quatre-vingt dix neuf, I ask you. 'Twenty oh-five' sounds ridiculous, I'll admit but this decade was always going to be troublesome. We still haven't officially named it and we're halfway through it.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 02:17 pm (UTC)And yes, it does need a reason to change the rules - but 2000AD is reason enough. Anyway, I've admitted that it'll be different next decade - would you really say ten-oh-five rather than one thousand and five?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-08 04:32 pm (UTC)