Beview: 2014

Happy 100th!

Sunday, December 28, 2014
0 Comments

Film Review - The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Last Friday, The Hobbit saw it's final outing in the form of The Battle of the Five Armies (which I will affectionately shorten to "Five Armies" for obvious reasons). It's been touted as "the defining chapter" and sees Peter Jackson's 6-films-2-trilogies-Many-hours saga finally come to a close; my Hobbit reviews have become an annual thing so I'm sad this will be my last one. Amazingly, the film is the shortest of them all, and picked up where Desolation of Smaug finished, with Smaug wreaking havoc across Laketown. How does it fare compared to the other 5? Did they save the best for last? Was it worth splitting one children's book into 3 epic length films? Keep reading - or stop reading if you haven't already seen it.

After a spontaneous cinema trip on Sunday, I've since had time to digest all 141 minutes. (Bear in mind I've never read Tolkein's The Hobbit, too.) There's much to digest and think about. The Hobbit is the closing chapter, with the character Thorin Oakenshield (a brilliant Richard Armitage) risking war thanks to his growing greed. He begins to go crazy searching for the Arkenstone - so much so that you half-expect him to start growling, "my precioussss". Pair this with a surprisingly sensible burglar hobbit, and you get some very sincere cinematic scenes.

As promised, you also get battles. From five armies, to be exact. Everyone's fighting over the riches under the mountain, and the spectacular battle scenes between dwarf/elf/man and orc offer something we didn't get to see in the first two Hobbit films. You're treated to more kiwi-Middle Earth stunning scenery and moments of humour, and of love. The Legolas-Tauriel-Kili triangle made me cringe at times, and I'm still not sure what die-hard Tolkein fans will make of this (and two characters) being completely invented for the films but it does add that extra element to the film. These films are all about the numerous stories intertwining seamlessly, and to be fair, Five Armies does do it well.

What is particularly great for Lord of the Rings fans is the sneak peek into Jackson filling the gaps and setting the scene for Fellowship of the Ring. How does Legolas meet Aragorn? Why is Galadriel in the woods? What happened to Saruman? There are special moments to make your inner fangirl/boy want to watch the original trilogy all over again. (I have the movies ready on a NowTV tab as I type...)

You get the action, you get closure, and you get a beautifully-told story along the way. However, Five Armies is not perfect. I had several problems with the script, which I tried ignoring until I burst out in a fit of giggles at a scene that was definitely not designed for laughter. I also found that I still had no clue who half the dwarves were, and that the character development was nowhere near the level in LOTR. The actual storyline is less memorable than previous films, but I wonder if this goes back to the fact that The Hobbit has been split into three and not two, or even one. (One seems out of the question unless you want to watch a 6 hour film, however two is a valid argument...)

However, despite all this, Jackson still presents a good, satisfying film and end to a good trilogy. It was an entertaining film, and I personally don't think any other director would have accomplished such a fine job. I also disagree with the friend I went to see it with whose first response was "that was...rubbish" (sorry Josh!). The general consensus and "room for improvement" feedback I've heard so far goes back to the actual plot of Tolkein's The Hobbit, and in some cases, lack of plot. But there's no point debating whether or not it should have been a duology and not a trilogy. Whether we like it or not, we have three films - all to a high standard. I for one can't complain about that!

Wednesday, December 17, 2014
0 Comments

Sam Smith - Gig Review

in the lonely hour

The past 24 months have been very good to Sam Smith. After shooting onto the music scene with Latch (with Disclosure) and Naughty Boy's La La La, he has since gone on to become our favourite British male singer-songwriter with an insanely smoooooth voice. Like silk and honey and velvet and kittens and other nice things we can compare his voice to. I went along to his London gig at the Eventim Apollo earlier this month (shout-out to Paul who is cool and bought tickets long before "OMG I lurve Sam Smith!" became a thing.) and it was mesmerising.

First up was American singer Tori Kelly as the support act who delivered her entire set by herself with a guitar. She has a crazy range and is definitely one of my ones-to-watch in the near future. (Dare I say she reminded me of an early Taylor Swift. Boy I'm starting to sound a bit like Louis Walsh on X Factor.) You might not have heard of Tori yet, but she first made her name on YouTube and has featured on Professor Green's Lullaby. Her voice sounds pure and distinctive with hair-raising potential - watch this space.

Not long after, the audience (mostly comprised of screaming girls and a few parents who seemed pretty chuffed to be there too) started screaming which could only mean Sam Smith had taken to the stage - he did it in style with a cloud of smoke. The staging was relatively simple, with the band on tiered levels behind him, and bright lights changing colours throughout the evening. No wild dancers, weird special effects or props - so "Sam Smith". This meant you could comfortably enjoy the vocal spectacle from even the very back of the room. No pushing and shoving to get to the front, and no mad dad dancing (which I surprisingly experienced at a Nick Mulvey concert not long ago). All in all, a superb start.

Sam hit the high notes flawlessly and effortlessly whilst sharing a few personal anecdotes along the way (Make It To Me is a love letter to his future love). Seeing as he's a storyteller through the songs he writes, it was definitely a nice window into his world and the sometimes heartbreaking inspiration behind his songs.

Pretty much all the album tracks were covered, including a stripped down Latch and very warmly-received Money On My Mind. Soul vibes and bluesy chords - thanks to the band -packed a very big punch, and by the last ten minutes I was wishing Sam was my best friend so he could sing to me all the time. The emotion and raw power in his voice is undeniable. I won't draw any Adele comparisons, but I will say that Sam is an artist where his voice is the only thing needed to do the talking. Finally, the big finale was an incredible Stay With Me - complete with phone light swaying and all.

Considering Sam Smith is a Big Deal and one of Britain's greatest musical exports, I wouldn't be surprised if he soon embarks on an arena tour. The Apollo is a large-ish venue, but the intimacy of the songs and the way he performed them meant that we all shared in a personal retelling of his stories. His vocals are more impressive live than on the album - which is an impressive feat in itself. Sam Smith, thank you for a lovely evening.

Monday, November 24, 2014
0 Comments

Film Premiere and Review - Interstellar

anne hathaway

Interstellar. I'm really not quite sure how to begin. Christopher Nolan's latest effort took 169 minutes to blow my mind, minute by minute. Never before has my brain been so challenged from the comfort of my cinema seat (yup, even more so than Inception and Shutter Island). But it is, by far, the most epic film I have seen in a long time.

I attended the European Premiere of Interstellar at the BFI IMAX, which meant rubbing shoulders with Stephen Hawking. There was also a very impressive model of the featured spaceship. Walking through the doors, I didn't know what to expect. I avoided reading detailed reviews beforehand but knew three things:

It happens in space
It's a long film
Ratings are currently through the roof (9.5 on IMDB as I write this)

So, off to a good start! (Before you really start, however, do not read on if you know you want to watch Interstellar with blank expectations.)

It's easiest to introduce the characters first. Matthew McConaughey gives a stellar performance as Cooper, a father who's thrown in the deep end when he has a tough decision to make (understatement of the century) between leaving behind his two children, and attempting to save the world quite literally. He's an explorer deep down but a father too, and that's where the emotion begins to fill the core of the film. I've noticed other reviewers have commented heavily on the familial element, and for me, Matthew does a fantastic job of carrying it. Another key character is Murph (named after Murphy's law; you'll see the relevance), the smart daughter who is much more than the cute onscreen token child (played by the highly capable Mackenzie Foy and later Jessica Chastain). The rest of the ensemble cast are utterly convincing, with a few surprise cameos and familiar Nolan Faces such as Michael Caine (well we couldn't have one without him!?) and Anne Hathaway, whose character is cool albeit slightly annoying.

The film takes place in a kind-of-dystopian planet Earth, though not too far in the future. In a world that resembles the inhabitable environment of Wall-E, we find NASA's final attempt at locating another home for the human race by using a wormhole. So it goes from natural disaster film to space epic. With the characters' stories on Earth running in tense parallel. The thing that differs is that it's not a fantasy space film like Star Wars - it's meant to be our world as we know it (kind of), and it invites you to use all the logic in your brain. The wormhole can connect widely separated regions of spacetime. Enter all the sciencey stuff...

For someone who is not the most scientific of the bunch - even if I do have an A* in GCSE Physics - concepts are explained so don't panic. With paper diagrams too, no less. The film explores relativity of time; add that to the family complex and you've got a desperate race against time. But not just any "time" - it's the kind where my inner Doctor Who fan says "timey wimey stuff" at me until I pretend to understand. But you've definitely got enough time to get your head around it! Interstellar was made with Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicist acting as scientific advisor. Sure, there are moments where I thought, "really!?" but there's enough to make you accept things as they are and accept new "knowledge" as they discover it.

The film is thought-provoking and ambitious. Original. Personal. Bold and visually stunning. The script is subtle and it slips in little snippets of humour but you learn to appreciate it's not there to make you laugh. Granted, I cried a bit/a lot, but that's another story. It's grand, too. Another universe? No problem. The CGI is splendid and seamless, and some of the space views remind you of last year's Gravity, and then some. The spine-tingling music, juxtaposed with shock silence, was a success thanks to Hans Zimmer (who else did you expect?). Basically, it's not really rocket science to gather that I was more than impressed by the film. And of course, it's a Christopher Nolan film so you can expect that things aren't always straightforward; he's the master of the unexpected and I absolutely will not go into further detail. Watch. The. Film.

Like Inception, it's a film you have to watch from start to finish to fully understand what on earth's going on - if you pardon the pun. For me, what made it what it was, were the intelligent spacetime elements combined with an ultimately simple but heartfelt story - a father separated from his family. Sure, the script isn't perfect, and it's a tad cheesy and there may or may not be scientific objections, but it's fiction. Nolan and co. grab you in from the start and don't let go until long after the film when you've analysed it and reanalysed it over and over again.

The bottom line is: watch it.

(It's out of this world. Too far?)

Thursday, October 30, 2014
0 Comments

Greek Adventures: Photos from Crete

crete

Saturday, October 11, 2014
0 Comments

Film Premiere and Review - What We Did On Our Holiday

ben miller

What We Did On Our Holiday was billed as British comedy at its best, and I watched this creation from the Outnumbered creators with high expectations. What We Did... definitely did not disappoint. Why? Well, let's dig in.

I attended the world premiere in Leicester Square, and sharing the cinema screen with screen legends like Billy Connolly and Clive Anderson was a bit daunting to begin with. My inner fangirl will tell you that me and David Tennant shared many a moment of lingering eye contact (he was my childhood crush after all), but in reality it was more awkward eye contact with the now-very-tall Daniel Roche, aka Ben from Outnumbered, and accidentally obstructing Ben Miller on the red carpet. Inside the cinema, it was great having a full cinema of laughter (the unashamed laughter of screen greats and screen enthusiasts like myself!)

as it is a very, very, very funny film.

Laughter is not all you can expect, however. I am very cautious not to give away too much about What We Did..., for reasons you will surely find out upon watching the film yourself. It follows the story of Doug and Abi McLeod and their three children travelling to the beautiful Scottish Highlands. The story of a dysfunctional family is explored within the first five minutes of screen time and as time goes on, you discover more and more secrets and lies and troubles and rivalries that many families may be able to identify with. Yes, there are clever quips and hilarious scenes which will make you cry (yes, cry) with laughter, but there's also a lot of serious issues. The underlying theme, I found, is the questioning of the idea that 'grown-ups' are the sensible ones and the kids are the silly ones. What if the roles were reversed? What if it all changes with a holiday?

David Tennant and Rosamund Pike do a great job as the parents - the woman of the moment is definitely Pike, who is making headlines with her upcoming performance in Gone Girl. Billy Connolly is also hilarious as the kooky grandfather with his inner child and the cheeky spark in his eye. Ben Miller and Celia Imrie play their characters well; look out for a particular YouTube viral moment courtesy of Imrie... However, many critics will agree that the stars of the show are the kids, who reminded me so strongly of young Karen from Outnumbered. (Speaking of whom, a very grown-up looking Ramona Marquez was in my row sporting a funky black and blonde hair-do. I digress...) Although they are slightly, dare I say it, annoying at times, they are truly great performers with a raw honesty you simply cannot find with all child actors.

What We Did... is not only clever in script, but also in the way it deals with everything it deals with. Sure, it is definitely not perfect and I still struggle to sum up the "gist" of the film, and there are many elements that would make strong TV and therefore feels somewhat experimental in a 90-odd minute film...but it could not possibly take away from the fact that it was a very enjoyable film. It's crazy and insane and a brainturner (if that is a word), and predictable at times. Yet it still manages to deal with real family issues in a different way which will make you simultaneously chuckle whilst internally yelling "what on earth!?". Things are frank and surprisingly dark, but then again, life is frank. Families are not perfect - even if David Tennant is your father. I mentioned at the start that it has been billed as a comedy, but it also has many elements of a drama. It'll make you think, rethink, laugh, cry, cry of laughter and every bizarre emotion inbetween. Which makes it kinda great, if you think about it.

A few snaps from the premiere...

Friday, October 03, 2014
0 Comments

Film Review - Pride

film review. mark ashton

Monday, September 15, 2014
0 Comments

Let's hear it for new music!

ariana grande

Tuesday, August 12, 2014
0 Comments

Film Premiere and Review - Supermensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon

alice cooper

I've never actually watched a documentary film at the cinema, but when I heard about Mike Myer's directorial debut in the form of Supermensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon, I was intrigued. 1) Who on earth is Shep Gordon? and 2) What sort of storytelling takes 90 minutes? I attended the premiere at the BFI, and went along to the fancy champagne reception beforehand with the "legend" Mr Gordon himself. He seems like a friendly chap, and he is very tanned.

But back to 1) Who on earth is Shep Gordon? Well, Wikipedia will tell you that he is an American talent manager. Quite frankly, his page does not do him justice in the slightest. After the first 5 minutes, I realised why 2) requires 90 minutes. To put it simply, Supermensch is Shep Gordon telling stories. "Storytelling!?" I hear you cry. And yes, stories telling how Shep invented the whole "celebrity chef" thing. And how he was behind the weird antics of Alice Cooper. And how the only reason he became a manager is because of a chance encounter with Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. Over the course of his impressive (and incredibly accidental) career, he managed Luther Vandross and even Pink Floyd. Oh, and he is buddies with The Dalai Lama. Basically, it soon becomes apparent that Shep can fit more than enough Hollywood anecdotes before the closing credits.

Aided by interviews with stars like Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone and Anne Murray, the life and times of Shep Gordon are illustrated by compelling archive footage. Myers cleverly kinda-matches the footage with vaguely-corresponding narration. Of course, not all the right footage exists, but you become so entranced by the story itself that you overlook the re-enactments. The whole film is a weird combination, but it works.

Shep's story is a personal one too, speaking honestly about his desire to have a family. You soon realise that the glamorous world of Hollywood is a lonely one, and even though this is a guy whose main job is to make headlines through the wackiest experimental methods, acknowledges that he does not actually like fame. Ooer. His laidback approach has a friendliness about it, in a world that can be notoriously cutthroat.

I'll admit that I'm not used to watching films like this one...there is no action stand-off or character breakdown or massive plot twist to keep me on the edge of my seat. So yep, my attention dithered at times but that may just be me and my uh, lack of attention. And I was admittedly a bit out of my depth during the 70s music biz stuff. Moving on...

The film is well made, and will attract the die-hard fans of Hollywood legends and music buffs alike. It's not my usual film choice, but I'm glad I had the pleasure of sharing in the story. Questions 1) and 2) were quickly answered too.

Oh, and also, the film is very, very funny.

Shep Gordon at the premiere's Q&A. Amazingly still managed to share hilarious anecdotes that weren't featured in the film.

Thursday, July 24, 2014
0 Comments

Film Premiere and Review - Pudsey the Dog: The Movie

amanda holden

Woof woof, there's a new star in tinseltown and it's a dancing dog! The adorable Pudsey shot to fame in series 6 of Britain's Got Talent in 2012, and straight into the nation's dog-loving hearts. I mean, who could resist a dog that cute!? Not forgetting his (human) owner/trainer Ashleigh too, who is Pudsey's other half but is slightly less cute... Anyway, Pudsey is now back in the spotlight with his very own movie. Produced by Simon Cowell (who else?), it sees Pudsey causing mischief and mayhem in the countryside as he helps save the village and save the day. A tried and tested formula for a classic family movie - and it can't hurt by adding a cute dog to the mix. The movie Wikipedia page is looking a bit bare at the moment, so I'll do my best to fill you in...

I had the pleasure of attending the premiere, which was executed to the theme extremely well. Kudos to the PR people for that. A "be the star of the poster" photoshoot, kids getting their caricature done, free bone-shaped biscuits and much more. For the first time in a while, I felt like a kid again. Hell, I ran straight for the biscuits! Anyway, Leicester Square had a healthy buzz of fans waving Pudsey flags (kudos again), and saw the return of other BGT faces like this year's winners Collabro. Funny story, whilst picking up my tickets in the hotel lobby, I was actually standing around with said winners without realising. Unfortunately, they're more difficult to recognise when they're not all standing together side by side and singing Les Mis songs. I digress; back to the review...

I won't paint you a picture of perfection. Pudsey: The Movie, when you strip it down, is a basic film - but then again, what did you expect? The formerly stray dog are taken in by a family who have packed up and moved to the fictional rural Chuffington. There's the mum (Jessica Hynes), teenage daughter Molly (Izzy Meikle-Small) and sons George and Tommy. And of course, the latest troublemaking family member Pudsey, voiced by a very enthusiastic David Walliams. You have to applaud the cast for creating a vaguely believable family, and bringing a voiceless dog to life. Logically, Pudsey vocalises his thoughts only - I don't think the world is quite ready for a dancing and talking animal just yet. Having said that, I found his voice very distracting at times. It's quintessentially Walliams. It's funny, but not necessarily in the way the producers intended... You have to appreciate the whole BGTness, if anything. Although I have to strongly add that even though Amanda Holden is strongly billed across all the trailers and bus posters, she is the voice of a dog for about... 3 lines?

The film is filled with sweet moments, even if they don't always actually make sense. The importance of family love, friendship and loyalty. But I don't think a film like Pudsey is looking to go that deep. There are breakdancing dogs, dogs running wild around London, massively exaggerated villains (so exaggerated, they may as well have added the mandatory prosthetic nose with the warts), communicating animals including a pig who thinks he's a hen... The kids in the cinema giggled uncontrollably at the childish jokes, so I think the crude quips and poo jokes went down well with the target audience. The adults can quietly chuckle whilst counting the number of dog-related puns the producers managed to fit in, and the ode to Babe and other animal in-jokes. And one very questionable innuendo. Moving on...

Many critics seem to have been very quick to universally pan this Hollywoof film. I can't completely agree, because I did enjoy myself and I did enjoy the film. It made me laugh and it made me smile, and I didn't go into the cinema expecting 90%+ on Rotten Tomatoes or anything. It's a feel-good family film and I think it ticks enough boxes to do just that. As soon as you accept that this is a silly harmless film aimed at kids, you realise it's not necessarily a film you should tear apart with your paws and claws and all. Sure, the storyline is predictable, but I can appreciate the Pudsey camera tricks, and a fun 90- minute adventure which manages to utilise the dog's dance abilities. Also, credit to Ashleigh who is out of the spotlight but is equally as important. (And truthfully I did leave the cinema slightly biased thanks to the free fruit bowls.) I'm not sure if you're still feeling the "OMG IT'S A DANCING DOG" hype, but if you have kids, take them along and they'll have a blast. If not, I hear Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is out now!?

Friday, July 18, 2014
0 Comments

Film review: The Fault in our Stars

ansel elgort

I write this review fresh from the cinema, tear-stained face, red eyes and all. The thing is, The Fault in our Stars is one of those films where you walk into the light of the real world beyond the screen, still filled with emotion and breathlessness. This is something I'm excited to write about, with the film still very raw in my recent memory. I mean, for ages we've all heard critics raving about how wonderful the book is, but seeing how that is translated onto the big screen is a whole other story. (I've tried to keep this as spoiler-free as possible, but if you're reading this and debating whether or not to see the film, go see that first then come back soon!)

The Fault in our Stars is a film adaptation of John Green's bestselling novel, all about living and dying, and the love story of 16 year old Hazel Grace Lancaster and Augustus Waters. She's a thyroid cancer patient who recognises that her time is limited, and he's now cancer-free following a leg amputation. I read TFIOS only several weeks ago, and this was after months and months of repeatedly being recommended it but still putting it off. I guess you could say I am part of the target audience of this book/film, and you'd be absolutely right. I felt all the emotions the author John Green (subtly) poured into the soul of the book and their protagonists Hazel and Augustus. The characters, despite their tragic experiences with cancer, offer a refreshing view to such an often-taboo subject. He's a leather jacket sporting guy, whose refusal to light a cigarette is poignant. Written as a confident, good-looking and optimistic teenager, he lifts the main character, Hazel Grace Lancaster, into a place filled with metaphors and wisdom beyond their years.

Ansel Elgort was not how I initially imagined Augustus after reading the book, but I was completely won over by his performance in the film. It's so easy to believe that he is crazy in love with Hazel; an Ansel smile and those puppy dog eyes are all it takes (am I being a little biased here?). The film revolves around the two individuals, as well as their relationship, and Augustus is so much more than a pretty-faced love interest. Ansel captures the likeable essence of Gus, from the intelligent humour and take on life, to the vulnerabilities. And of course there's the incredible performance from Shailene Woodley in yet another remarkable role. Again, writing from a fan-of-the-book perspective, I couldn't have thought up a better translation from script to screen. From a critical point of view too, she's spot on. From the quips, the stand-off with "douche-pants" Peter van Houten, the "little infinities" speech (which had me in hysterics) to the tears which never give away fabrication of any sort. The chemistry between the two is more than believable. In a world where films about teenage romance are literally everywhere, this is an example of where teenage romance is so genuine, and you're rooting for them not just because the director wants you to. Both actors arguably have their stars on the rise. They're like a rollercoaster that keeps going up....

Hazel's narratives in the film work well to include Hazel's musings in the book. They're littered here and there but not powerful enough to detract from what's going on, plus there's something awfully honest in Woodley's voice alone. For example, "I fell in love the way you fall asleep: slowly, and then all at once." What a bloomin' good metaphor. Readers of TFIOS will recognise passages word-for-word, and then realise that the film is actually (unlike many others) very faithful to the original material. It works; it's complete, like putting a face to a name. There are minor changes I observed (namely the ex-girlfriend, a few minor characters, and a slight technicality with the ending), but nothing too extreme or controversial. The supporting characters, particularly Isaac and Hazel's parents, are also well cast with the flawed mother-daughter relationship being surprisingly human and real.

I can't complete this review without a brief comment on the soundtrack. This includes a nice accreditation for Vivaldi, and other more-popularised tracks such as Charli XCX's Boom Clap, Kodaline's All I Want (which has me on the edge of tears when I hear it on a happy day), and obviously the credits song All of the Stars by Ed Sheeran. They all offer an emotion, whether joy or heartbreak, in perfect harmony with the film.

I won't go on about the emotional side to it. It's a film about cancer, it's a well-known tearjerker, and most people go in with an inkling (or full knowledge) of what's going to happen. Yet there's still something about the combination of everything (the simplicity of the filmmaking, the music, the acting) which delivers the punch harder than you're expecting it.

Of course I can't comment on the perspective of those watching without having read the book, which I expect would have been many. Since I like the novel, and made references to it in order to fill in any gaps, I was able to let things slide - like the way Gus is so into her before they've even met, with the whole eye contract across the room thing, and so idealistically upfront about it. Is that realistic, or is that just my hopeless romantic side wishing wistfully? Ok, making out in the Anne Frank House is not a clever idea (but the readings of the diary in the background make it make sense), and the Peter van Houten/An Imperial Affliction part is probably not explained well enough to those who have no idea who Anna is.

TFIOS is by no means a perfect film, but I do think the essence of the book was captured well, the acting brought the characters to life, and I was more than satisfied as a reader watching a film adaptation of a good book. Ok, so the "girl meets boy and they fall in love story but there's a twist" is a little predictable and I understand if viewers find it all a bit cheesy. But if you can see past that, you can witness a beautifully-told celebration of defying the things that threaten you, the fragility of living and more importantly, the magic and honesty of falling in love for the first time, and living in the face of dying.

Tuesday, July 01, 2014
0 Comments

(More) ones to watch!

days of future past

Sunday, May 11, 2014
0 Comments

New label alert: VLabel London

fashion

Tuesday, April 22, 2014
0 Comments

Wanting what you can't have

wanting what you can't have

I recently gave up two loves of my life for Lent: chocolate, and crisps. And even more recently, we were reunited. Over the 40 days, I would kick myself for giving up both, and count down the days to crisps. Chocolate was slightly easier, as I'd completely innocently bent the rules for "The Rules" to exclude Nutella and hot chocolate, so I was never really totally deprived of chocolate... But still, it was a tough 40 days. Now it's over, I've abused the ability to have chocolate a tad too much, but I'm not really bothered by crisps. A classic case of wanting what you can't have (and in the crisp case, not wanting what you can have when you can have it!).

Is this why we play hard to get? Or why "unrequited" is an actual word? The game's all in the chase - for some, anyway. If someone's not interested, it makes it more interesting, because now it's some sort of mission for your inner savvy agent and there's the fixation that won't go away until you have it (which will be never). The idea of making the impossible (aka "can't have"), possible (aka "have"). When you're single, you miss being in a relationship. When you're in a relationship, you miss being single. You secretly want to be famous, but once everyone's screaming your name, there's suddenly nothing more desirable than "a normal life". Obviously this isn't the case for everyone, but it does happen. Fortunately, my only real experience of this is Le Lent Crisp situation. Totally the same thing....

It's plain to see in some cases. Everyone knows that Channing Tatum is happily (and incredibly adorably) married, but it doesn't stop you pining over those Magic Mike abs, does it?

When I had a pretty serious jaw operation several years ago (with a 6 month recovery period), I couldn't eat solids properly for 2 months. Besides baby food and soup, I wanted good ol' junk food (think choc n' crisps) but physically couldn't eat. The solution? Crush some chocolate up and make a milkshake, and having what I couldn't have. The conclusion? Wanting what you can't have is a real thing. A quick Google search will tell you all about extrinsic motivators and driving satisfaction through the need for dopamine and all that.

It's not all doom and gloom though. I can't have an all-expenses trip around the world with 5* yachts and personal chefs and champagne around the clock, but then again I don't particularly want it. There are plenty of people I can't "have", but that doesn't mean I "want" them. Let's face it: David and Victoria are meant to be together. Just because wanting what you can't have exists, doesn't mean it's a common occurrence and will - or should - particularly affect you. There's always been the whole grass is greener psychology, but the truth is, there's so much to enjoy from what you already have. There is a simple, admirable beauty of being satisfied with what you have, no matter how great or small that is.

There are loads and loads of needs and wants out there, but the state of not having something shouldn't have to be the most important reason to want to have it.

(If that makes sense? If not, think crisps. Everything is clearer with crisps.)

PS. Who said you can't have it anyway? As Will Smith in The Pursuit of Happyness once said...Don't ever let somebody tell you... You can't do something... You got a dream... You gotta protect it. People can't do somethin' themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it. If you want somethin', go get it. Period.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014
0 Comments

#SELFIE (more selfie stuff)

#selfie

Wednesday, March 12, 2014
0 Comments

To selfie or not to selfie?

facebook

Selfies.

This is a big topic. Selfies are kind of "so 2013" with the whole Oxford Dictionary shebang and all, fuelled by the Snapchat revolution. We've had this love affair with good-angle-good-light self-portraits for some time, but last year really cemented it for good. Now celebrity selfies are frequently making the showbiz headlines, and it has become a daily occurrence to see Girl On Bus pulling ridiculous faces in front of her phone. In fact, it's hilarious sitting behind someone and not seeing their face, but instead being able to see the phone screen and the funny photo in all it's 5-second glory. For the record, Girl On Bus has never been me. I'm always the stifled laughter you hear two rows back.

Anyway, selfies are an unsurprising "thing" now. They're so common, the Obamas and the Oprahs are doing it. Selfie with a cat (done that), selfie with a filter (current profile pic, I'm afraid), selfie with a celeb (my personal fave is the David Tennant one)... Nina Nesbitt even wrote a song about taking pictures of yourself. And she named it, uh, "Selfies". However, despite the tongue-in-cheek music video, she has a very valid point acknowledging that selfies display the life we want to show you. That sunshine selfie is basically saying, "hey look at me, the weather here is great"; the sunglasses and sunbeam in the background juxtaposes with the horribly gloomy grey clouds outside your own window. That post-gym selfie is the evidence they were actually at the gym and they want everyone to know it, up for all to see when you yourself are at home munching on a doughnut. Cue guilt. And so on and so forth...

But we live in a Facebook generation where it is so easy to untag yourselves from those unflattering photos so that only the ones where you look fab are next to your name. Instagram have filters that are pretty much guaranteed to make any photo look fantastic. That applies to selfies too - why would we upload a photo if we know we look bad in it anyway? What I'm trying to say is that if you are comparing your life to the glamorous lives posted in people's photos, you'll only make yourself paranoid and upset. It sounds like common sense but it's so easy for the your-life-looks-so-much-better-than-mine mindset to slip through without realising it's actually happening. It's what we were all warned about with the models in the glossy magazines, except now the subjects of attention are our own friends. That applies to general posts and statuses too. You're only seeing the highlights of someone's life: the good hair days, the holidays, the nice cheery smiles where you're not blinking... You never see the whole picture. You're seeing what they want you to see. (Of course, we know this already because it works both ways.)

At the same time, I'm not ridiculing the sharing of selfies because I do it all the time myself. I think there's nothing to be ashamed about. It's great that we no longer need to splash out on a day in a photography studio to produce a photo that we're proud to share. A multifunctional phone does the trick perfectly these days. I think Snapchat is a crazy but very cool idea, and I love that we have become fearless at sharing photos with our friends where we look (albeit intentionally) dreadful. That sunshine selfie? Guilty as charged, but it'll be one of my favourite photos where I can remember how lovely that holiday was. Selfie with a celeb? These things were meant for sharing! The good hair days? Celebrate them with a photo, because let's face it: not every day is a good hair day. I've never done a post-gym selfie, but I can imagine they'll keep you well-motivated so I may have to resort to starting a collection...

Selfies can make you bold and brave and confident. They have the ability to capture a perfect moment in time. Whether we like them or loathe them, they really are here to stay. Heck, even my dad has become a fan of them (although he doesn't know what they're called. And let's keep it that way, because it would be too weird if he started using the phrase, "I'm just taking a cheeky selfie.") At the same time, there is such a thing as oversharing (like, I really don't want to see x100000 cute pics of you and your other half, no matter how cute you are together). Equally, selfies are just a light-hearted, one-sided representation of life which are by no means the full picture. Ever; they've most likely been cropped anyway!

In celebration of selfies... here are some of my own!

The filtered selfie:

The cat selfie:

The David Tennant selfie:

And as for the 5.30am selfie? Or the "I'm freezing and wearing 10 layers" selfie? Or the one where I'm blinking in the bright light of the flash? Nothing to show here; I wonder why....

Tuesday, February 25, 2014
0 Comments

Pages