The Oscars are imminent! And my vote is in. My hypothetical vote, that is. Do you know how the voting for best picture works this time? The Academy is using instant run-off voting, which means that every voter writes down a list of the nominated films in their order of preference, all the number one [...]
Anything But Avatar
When I heard that Nicolas Chartier had been banned from attending the 82nd annual Academy Awards for negative campaigning in order to promote the film “The Hurt Locker” (which he co-produced), I was outraged. I cannot stand unfairness and corruption. You may then ask why I would choose to live in South Africa, but that [...]
Egoli Ends
Egoli – Place of Gold has been around for as long as I can remember which, excepting a few pre-washing-the-blood-off-my-hands gaps, is about 1992. It’s gone now. (I’ve already seen a tearfully produced YouTube video, complete with nostalgic music and whatisname’s hilarious suicide scene.) It ended with execs whimpering about future ratings and Franz Marx [...]
An Overrated Movie for an Overrated Day
Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to act like a complete cliché and watch Valentine’s Day… on Valentine’s Day…with my boyfriend (poor thing). In hindsight, I should have realised that this was a mistake. The couples (ok, women) sitting around me were incessantly ooh-ing and ah-ing at the screen, and the movie just wasn’t [...]
Eli the Cryptic Update Echidna
Considering the rampant rise in cryptic status updates on Facebook, I have created a little mascot called Eli the Cryptic Status Echidna.
You can either post a link to this blog post as a comment on their status update or you can copy the picture of Eli and edit the text above him and post it [...]
The Oscars are imminent! And my vote is in. My hypothetical vote, that is. Do you know how the voting for best picture works this time? The Academy is using instant run-off voting, which means that every voter writes down a list of the nominated films in their order of preference, all the number one slots are compared, and the worst loser gets eliminated from the running. All the ballots with the worst loser at number one then have to run with their second favourite choice, and the first movie to get a clear majority wins. So here’s my vote:
1. Inglorious Basterds – A true work of art. Every scene is a child of the cinematographic titans.
2. Up in the Air – Depressing and sprinkled with dark humour, it’s one I’ll remember.
3. District 9 – I love good satire and a fun story, if it hadn’t been quite so computer-gamey at the finish it would’ve grabbed my second place.
4. The Hurt Locker – Haven’t seen yet but as Centrebet’s favourite to win over Avatar with 1.75 to 2 odds, it gets my support right after the movies I have an emotional attachment to.
5. The Blind Side – Just know Sandra Bullock’s in it.
6. Up – A friend assures me that Finding Nemo was better.
7. A Serious Man – Meh.
8. An Education – Didn’t enjoy the write-up so I watched Crazy Heart instead last Saturday.
9. Precious – I didn’t like the poster.
10. Avatar – My strategic vote. I enjoyed watching it in 3D for the effects, but after someone told me it was the best movie they’d seen all year I reacted violently and haven’t cooled since.
I’d also vote Jeff Bridges in for Best Actor (with Clooney as my second-favourite) but since the Dude is tipped to win, and there’s no more run-off voting, I can leave it at that.
When I heard that Nicolas Chartier had been banned from attending the 82nd annual Academy Awards for negative campaigning in order to promote the film “The Hurt Locker” (which he co-produced), I was outraged. I cannot stand unfairness and corruption. You may then ask why I would choose to live in South Africa, but that is neither here nor there. The point is, when I discovered the nature of Chartier’s unfair promotion, I found myself saluting him on the inside and I now hope that The Hurt Locker takes home the coveted Best Picture Oscar, despite the fact that I haven’t seen it. Why the sudden change of heart? Turns out he was emailing people on the decision committee and dogging another movie. He made a completely unambiguous reference to a “500 million dollar film”… Avatar.
Now, there is a 90% chance that you, the reader, thought that Avatar was the most wonderful film that you have ever seen. If you form part of the 10% that actually have a brain, then you may agree with me. Don’t get me wrong, Avatar was enjoyable. A fun watch. Great effects. But that’s where it ends. The acting was atrocious. The storyline was abysmal. And please don’t get me started on the script. “I see you”. Gag. Surely the “Best Picture” of 2009 should be a combination of superb storyline, acting and script? Surely the special effects should be secondary to the true substance of the film? I feel as though Avatar puts audiences into a sort-of trance. It’s as though most human beings (with the exception of the few who are immune) become so spellbound by the beautiful images on-screen, that they forget to be even remotely critical of the aspects that make a movie truly spectacular.
So I am left feeling remarkably pro-Chartier, despite the fact that he has probably ruined his movie’s chances of taking home the Oscar. People will probably vote against him purely on principal. But it would be a nice slap in the face if James Cameron’s ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow, who directed The Hurt Locker, could squeeze in front of him and take home Best Director. As for Best Picture, I will be behind… well, I don’t care. As Scottish football fans support “Anyone But England”, I think I’m going to start an “Anything But Avatar” campaign for tomorrow night.
Egoli – Place of Gold has been around for as long as I can remember which, excepting a few pre-washing-the-blood-off-my-hands gaps, is about 1992. It’s gone now. (I’ve already seen a tearfully produced YouTube video, complete with nostalgic music and whatisname’s hilarious suicide scene.) It ended with execs whimpering about future ratings and Franz Marx saying he needs a holiday, despite the best efforts of a poorly-attended (and misplaced) petition to save it. My view: all good things – and, in Egoli’s case, mediocre things on an ever-steeper decline – must come to an end.
But don’t think I’m being unfair! Or, if I’m being unfair, don’t think I do so without adequate Egoli-exposure. I’ve seen many more episodes than the average tween and if you’ll step into the home life of young Kyle for a moment, you’ll find out why…
Supper is at 6pm and because Gran cooks it’s regular as clockwork. Food’s finished by 6.30 when the funnies come on, like The Simpsons, and this is enough to keep young, chubby Kyle firmly rooted in his beanbag all the way through SA’s favourite Open Time soapie. Everybody watches even though only one person falls into the “women of all nationalities between the ages of 25 and 45, with middle or upper incomes” core audience. As the boy grew in height and shrunk in girth, the family’s viewing patterns slowly evolved from watching every single bloody episode to every second one, to eventually replacing it with Binnelanders entirely when the slots swapped last year. So I – yes I – somehow enjoined with the most ardent fans, remember when Stephen was originally a druggy, when Rex became a baron, and when Jane was trampled by a horse and required plastic surgery to change her from Catriona Andrew to Corine du Toit.
“OH Thank the Gods for cancelling that fracking show!” – I agree with this post on MyBroadband because, for all the suppers Egoli and I have shared, Darryl Desmarais (Stephen Edwards) is still the worst actor I have ever seen, Egoli’s conflict scenes still always finish in mid air; and because they’ve never had hot actresses, and because I love The Simpsons and a comedy timeslot must be freed, and because Binnelanders has the genuinely evil At Koster, and…! Yes, thank the Gods for cancelling that fracking show.
Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to act like a complete cliché and watch Valentine’s Day… on Valentine’s Day…with my boyfriend (poor thing). In hindsight, I should have realised that this was a mistake. The couples (ok, women) sitting around me were incessantly ooh-ing and ah-ing at the screen, and the movie just wasn’t very good.
I was a little disappointed because I’m a big fan of all-star ensemble-cast movies like Love Actually and He’s Just Not That Into You (which I happened to watch last Valentine’s Day. What is wrong with me?). And Valentine’s Day includes a lot of big names: Jessica Biel, Ashton Kutcher, Jennifer Garner, Queen Latifa, Anne Hathaway, Topher Grace, Jamie Foxx, Julia Roberts, Patrick Dempsey (a true A-list celebrity), Bradley Cooper, Taylor Swift, that hideous guy from Twilight that Twilight fans seem to want to jizz all over for some reason, and many more that I can’t remember because their performances were just not that memorable.
So, what exactly was wrong with the movie? For starters, there wasn’t any character development, so I wasn’t really all that concerned about how things would turn out. I honestly couldn’t have cared less if someone had killed Ashton Kutcher with a chainsaw as he arrived at the airport to stop Jennifer Garner from leaving. It might have improved the storyline somewhat if they had. And the director, Garry Marshall of “The Other Sister” fame (I say this because it is literally the only other movie on his IMDb page that I recognise) tried, and failed, to create even the slightest bit of chemistry between Jessica Biel and Jamie Fox. It felt unbelievably contrived and awkward. When they finally kissed I felt my popcorn/Slush Puppy mix coming back up. And surprisingly, the only true chemistry that I felt throughout the entire movie was between Julia Roberts and Bradley Cooper, whose character turned out to be gay… with Mc Steamy.
Now I’m not going to be completely negative. Taylor Swift’s ditsy airhead character was pretty darn funny.
So, now that I’ve given you a list of the pros and cons, you can decide for yourself whether the movie’s worth watching.
Considering the rampant rise in cryptic status updates on Facebook, I have created a little mascot called Eli the Cryptic Status Echidna.
You can either post a link to this blog post as a comment on their status update or you can copy the picture of Eli and edit the text above him and post it to their wall.
Yes, I know, not the most cryptic of titles, but nevertheless a true story. As a friend of mine bit into her fifth slice (alas!) of Roman’s pizza last night, she discovered this little critter nestled inside the doughy pizza base. A delicious, protein-rich topping for Bear Grylls perhaps, but outright disgusting for regular humans. We did what any sane people would do- declined the manager’s offer to make us another pizza and got a full refund. So things worked out pretty well considering I had already eaten most of mine. Anything for a free meal.
1 Blog
Good condition- hardly ever used
Included in price: 3 witty writers who will make up to 1 post every 6 months; 2 regular readers
Price: Negotiable
The business of public car-guarding is about as legitimate as any protection racket. A recent comment on one of our articles prompted me to illustrate by means of a thought experiment: a sentry service for pedestrians.
So I start a voluntary association (like a gang) and people with any credentials can sign up. The purpose of my association is to have unarmed watchmen stand sentry on street corners to enhance neighbourhood security. The watchmen pick any spot, and can come and go as they please. Their incentive to stay is that they will ask for tips from passing pedestrians (“I keep this here pavement safe, ma’am.”) and thereby maybe score some coinage.
How do the watchmen fare? Some will fight crime admirably, most will be a neutral presence, and some will exacerbate crime by performing criminal acts under their guise of legitimacy.
What does the world look like? There are people asking for money at most corners (like glorified beggars), some areas with a high watchmen-concentration are intolerable to walk through, and some areas will be safer.
Why the mixed results? Well, systems all have sticks and carrots, but not all stick-and-carrot sacks are created equal. My local watchman wants to earn the trust of those in my neighbourhood because he has regular, recognisable clientele. If he alienates anyone, the value of his real-estate goes down – permanently. But high-traffic sidewalks attract more watchmen, and they begin to compete for tips. One says “take this route”, the other says “my pavement’s best!” and yet another goes “you got here safely so I deserve a tip. What? No tip?! Then fuck off and die!” Point is: increased competition leads to increased solicitation. Since the watchmen are obviously on prime ground and pedestrians are frequent, they don’t need to establish or preserve relationships. You can’t avoid this particular pavement easily – or at least not without a cost, like going round the block or driving – and their next fish is already swimming down the cement way, so there’s also no incentive to remain polite towards an individual after they choose not to tip.
Considering I like my local watchman but my feelings about the rest range from mild annoyance to outright hatred, how might I improve the pedestrian sentry service? Tipping should definitely be an individual’s free choice; contrariwise, placing an obligation (moral or otherwise) on someone to pay for a service which they have not elected to receive will only skew delivery. Plus perhaps a few separate complaints should result in cops clearing the street. Or maybe the local government should step in and license a few select watchmen. Or, better yet, street-side property owners should be willing to receive complaints and warn particular watchmen to watch out, and if they persist then local authorities should jump to shoo them away.
So what’s the problem with this protection racket? You don’t choose to get into it, but you’re obliged to cough up; it’s ubiquitous, so you can’t escape it even though the streets should be free; and, when things get unpleasant, you have no recourse whatsoever to correct petty offences against you. …Now just pretend I’ve been talking about car guards.
I’m not quite sure how the topic came up, but a few days ago I had a discussion with my friends and I came to a startling realisation: the giant panda is the worst-designed animal on the planet. Now you might be shocked by this statement. How could I possibly conclude that this delightful, furry creature is anything but perfect? For crying out loud, it’s so darn irresistible that they even put it on the logo for the World Wildlife Fund! But for an animal to appear on the WWF logo, it also has to be endangered. So the logical question is, why is the giant panda the second most threatened species in the world? Why are there barely 1000 pandas living in the wild? Why should we put so much time and effort into saving the panda when it won’t even take a crack at saving itself? You may think that I’m being a little harsh, but I’ve got the facts to back me up.
The panda was actually designed to be a carnivore, but it was so pathetic at being a carnivore that it became a vegetarian. Any animal that chooses to be a vegetarian even though it is designed to eat meat is a disgrace to its species. This is not my opinion, it is science. And because the panda is not designed to be a vegetarian, it is unable to digest cellulose… one of the main ingredients in the panda’s favourite dish: bamboo. So the panda spends up to 16 hours a day eating, because it is only able to digest about 20% of what it eats. And what does it do during its eight hours of free time? Does it make passionate love to its panda-lover, thereby ensuring survival of the species? Does it live up to its adorable reputation by being adorable? Au contraire. It sleeps.
Now here’s my favourite newly-acquired panda fact: the panda excretes up to 40kg of waste a day. You heard me. Forty. That is almost as much as I weigh. Wouldn’t it just make the most wonderful pet? I’m thinking quite seriously about trading my dog in for one. Apparently there is even talk of using panda poo to make paper, due to the large quantity of undigested cellulose that it contains. Mmm…
When it comes to ensuring survival of the species, pandas aren’t really doing a bang-up job (excuse the pun). They breed once a year and the female is only fertile for 24-36 hours, which one might call a very small window of opportunity. If, by some miracle, the female conceives, litters of one to two cubs are born. Now you are probably thinking, “Have I ever seen a panda with two cubs?” The answer you are looking for is a resounding, “No.” You see, if (again, by some miracle) two cubs are actually born, the mother abandons the weaker cub and leaves it to die. Ah, nature. Isn’t she amazing?
Although death by abandonment is common, cubs are also susceptible to illness and other predators, besides their own mothers. Cubs are born blind and remain so for 45 days. Wow. Talk about adapted for survival. During this vulnerable time, mothers sometimes leave the den for three to four hours to feed (due to their poorly adapted digestive systems). Great. So imagine for a second a blind, hairless, rat-like, baby panda which weighs approximately 100g. Now imagine that panda alone in a clearing for four hours. Now imagine that you are a leopard…
You might be thinking that breeding pandas in captivity should eliminate some of the dangers that cubs face in the wild. The first problem with this statement is that it assumes that pandas know how to breed. Many males in captivity appear uninterested in mating or do not even seem to know how to do so. Apparently Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, the first pair of pandas to live in the USA, tried to mate (without success) for nearly 10 years. When they finally got it right they had five cubs, none of which survived to adulthood.
My final panda-fact for the day: Female pandas may show signs of fake pregnancy, which is impossible to distinguish from real pregnancy because vets can seldom locate a foetus via ultrasound. Scientists call this pseudopregnancy, but I prefer to think that the females fake pregnancy deliberately because it is the closest they’re ever going to get to having a real baby.
The Tshwane Metro Council is thinking of lowering speed limits in selected areas in order to reduce pedestrian deaths. Will it work? Probably. Would it be my first choice in policy? No – I drive a car to be able to move faster than pede-pleebs (“pede” as in pedestrian, not pederasty). 30 km/h doesn’t cut it.
Let’s idealise and say that traffic law is perfect. All pedestrian deaths must therefore result from an accidental or deliberate contravention of the law. The table below sets out all the violations I can think of…
I’ll run through what I see as being accidental. “Zoning-out” is when someone unintentionally steps into the road, which apparently became quite a phenomenon when the iPod first arrived. “Unattended minors” refers to any time you’re taking something with diminished capacity like a child, dog, cat, or ‘tard for a walk and they get off their leash. “Loss of control” – sudden brake failure; and “crash avoidance” – swerving away from a dove and smashing a biker.
I think the main aim of policy should be to move the majority of pedestrian deaths into the “accidental” column. My impression is that the single largest cause of deaths during pedantry is jaywalking. For instance, Sunnyside is a candidate for speed limit reduction – and every time I drive through there at night I think I’m going to kill someone because people materialise in the centre of its busy roads. Would I stand less chance of killing someone if I were travelling in 2nd gear? Yep. So obviously speeding and drunkenness aggravate contravention of the law either by making it more probable (a drunk is more likely to leave his retarded brother unattended) or more severe (bump vs smoosh a Sunnyside jaywalker), but both already have enforceable limits. My first choice of public policy would be to improve enforcement: fines for jaywalkers and more cameras on robot corners.
Instead this strikes me as the easy way out, a way out in which the actual problem isn’t solved but a status quo is created where the harms might be avoided. When people decide to jaywalk, or speed, or skip a light, it’s because there are no consequences (other than convenience) for their actions. I just believe consequences should be directed to change bad habits, not to limit my freedom to get through town when I’m not a traffic offender.
PS And Hells, as a regular pedestrian, I would love to see some fines for cars ignoring zebra crossings. I have right-of-way, assholes! Though if I used it, I’d end up as stawberry jam.
