There is a problem with that question that is encountered immediately upon having asked it. There is no hit in Google for that. 'Why can't Americans read subtitles?' appears to be a valid question. This is a problem. If we go around thinking that the reason why fantastic 'foreign' films get subjected to Hollywood remakes is because Americans can't read subtitles, then it becomes wrong to harrass them over it. It becomes akin to berating a man with no legs for being unable to walk. Even I know, that is wrong.
But wait, this is all nonsense. This is not a shared disability that we're talking about. This is not legtimate. My question stands. The problem is irrelevant. So, I ask again. Why won't Americans read subtitles? If the Washington Post was to be believed, we could easily shorten that to 'why won't Americans read? But again. I think we're some way off the target here.
That a poll revealled in 2007 that more than a quarter of Americans hadn't read a book the entire previous year, and a quick extrapolation suggests that's almost ninety million people. But these numbers are baffling. And worse, they blind us to the key issues at hand. Perhaps nowhere else in the world has the corporate media machine so cynically deployed the perceived stupidity of its own audience and they have in America. And when I say 'stupidity' you can read racism, sexism, homophobia, communist paranoia and good old fashioned fear. And why? There are clear political ends that have been used to rationalise the often troubling means. The links between Fox News and the Republican Party are well documented.
So, we can address the issue of Hollywood remakes having taken out of the equation the idea that, if left to their own devices, most Americans would gladly watch subtitled films. This leaves us with one, far more appealing (or should that be appalling?) conclusion. It's the stars of these films that are the problem. They're just not box office. What Hollywood needs is a star name (or in terms of generating interest before shooting begins, at least three names) to whom a project can be attached. Witness the usual names (Clooney, Pitt, Depp) who were in the running for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The role eventually went to Daniel Craig. Or let's look at Let Me In. Chloe Moretz got the lead in that. Moretz is clearly, post Kick-Ass, a name on the rise and is perfect for a project such as this. She's being branded as the 'out-there', 'left-field' choice for a child actor and consequently makes a lot of sense for this role. Which brings me back to cynicism and, ultimately, to money. I pity the actors (not that much given the scale of their paychecks) who must suffer their own delusions of artistry in the name of sleeping at night knowing that they're very much part of the problem. I pity the American people who are being used as excuses for this whole abominable process. I pity the makers of the original films who have to stand by and witness the Hollywood machine eat up and shit out their original work. But most of all, I feel no pity, only revulsion at the vapid idea-vacuum that is Hollywood and at its life's work: the total homogenisation of culture, the extension to its hideous conclusion of the lowest possible common denominator and at its unswerving devotion to its own advancement in the world.
P.S. If you're reading this over there at Universal, I have a script and I think that Brad Pitt would be ideal for the leading man. Call me. My number is 1-800-FUCK OFF!
Sunday 28 November 2010
Wednesday 24 November 2010
Jeremy Kyle Morning Surgery Rethink
I saw this advertised on ITV and felt quite ill. Shortly afterwards I recovered from feeling actually physically sick at the thought of yet more Jeremy Kyle pseudo-therapy and began thinking, instead, that in addition to this program being an assault on the human species, it was a huge missed opportunity.
So, here's my idea for Jeremy Kyle's Morning Surgery.
You start by contacting previous 'guests' on Kyle's show who feel, shall we say, aggrieved by their treatment. You whittle down the thousands of people until you have five unadulterated psychopaths who have been driven to the deepest level of hellish torment and you make a proposition. For five days in a row, they will all, one by one, get to perform surgery of their choice on Jeremy Kyle, the agent of their misery. Kyle would not have the benefit of advanced warning, or access to anaesthetic. The surgery would be performed in his studio and broadcast live on pay-per-view. The instruments would be of the surgeon's choosing. There would be no post-op care. By the end of the week, Jeremy Kyle would be taken to a disused bunker somewhere and left to die of his accumulated injuries with only a webcam broadcasting his demise for company.
That would be the end of that.
And to those who would tell me that it's all well and good removing an agent of pure evil from the world, but how would you replace him? Well, how about this? Instead of paying a morally reprehensible vacuum of human sentiment to psychologically torture weaker members of society, you hire a reasonable, educated, well-trained mental health professional and actually help people. Is that good enough?
So, here's my idea for Jeremy Kyle's Morning Surgery.
You start by contacting previous 'guests' on Kyle's show who feel, shall we say, aggrieved by their treatment. You whittle down the thousands of people until you have five unadulterated psychopaths who have been driven to the deepest level of hellish torment and you make a proposition. For five days in a row, they will all, one by one, get to perform surgery of their choice on Jeremy Kyle, the agent of their misery. Kyle would not have the benefit of advanced warning, or access to anaesthetic. The surgery would be performed in his studio and broadcast live on pay-per-view. The instruments would be of the surgeon's choosing. There would be no post-op care. By the end of the week, Jeremy Kyle would be taken to a disused bunker somewhere and left to die of his accumulated injuries with only a webcam broadcasting his demise for company.
That would be the end of that.
And to those who would tell me that it's all well and good removing an agent of pure evil from the world, but how would you replace him? Well, how about this? Instead of paying a morally reprehensible vacuum of human sentiment to psychologically torture weaker members of society, you hire a reasonable, educated, well-trained mental health professional and actually help people. Is that good enough?
Tuesday 23 November 2010
Lord Young Beatdown
Allow me to start by acknowledging that I, while sensitive to many of the human factors that are involved in our continuing struggle to stay alive and sane in this most stressful of worlds, have no contribution to make in the daily life of the sea otter. Or the mongoose. Or a potted houseplant. It's fair to say that outside of my realm of experience I feel utterly unqualified to dispense advice, let alone to make decisions on behalf of these mysterious actors with whom I cannot feel even the most basic sympathy, much less the necessary empathy that ought to be a requirement.
Which brings me on to Lord "never had it so good" Young. What was most shocking about his statement was not his assertion that the vast majority of people in Britain have never had it so good. In many ways, that's a difficult statement to conclusively prove wrong. No. What was most shocking was the "since this recession - this so-called recession - started" part. And yes he's resigned. And yes Dave has apologised to the millions of people who were no doubt offended by these statements. But really, is that enough? Does an apology from David Cameron really mean anything? Is a suggestion that we aren't really in a proper recession any worse than calling the cutting of 100,000 public service jobs 'streamlining'? We'll all feel the benefit, I'm sure. Because we're all in it together. Right? Wrong!
Were he not so comfortable with lying through his pearly whites I suspect that apology would have been tough for David "call me Dave" Cameron. Surely Lord Young was speaking to a shared experience. Did his words not ring true for many of our 'elected' officials? Was he not just saying what they were all thinking? "How dare they call this a recession? Where do they get off protesting against education cuts and a three-fold increase in tuition fees? Those ungrateful little bastards!" Maybe. Maybe.
But here's the rub. I can't blame them. I cannot hold against them their beliefs. If you're not aware that it's raining, how would you explain a man with an umbrella? "He's clearly insane!" you would say. "What a moron!" "Does he not know that the sun is shining?" "Is he not aware that since this so-called climate change started that there have been more sunny days?" Oh what a life it must be to never suffer the indignity of hard work. Never to endure the soul-destroying monotony of a call centre. Not once to have seen the desperation that papers the walls of a job centre. Oh what a life to not be weighed down with worry about fees, bills, rent, tax, health. To be free. To have been born free. What a life that must be, but how, then, do you expect to understand the lives of those who were not born free? And what mandate could you conceive of to govern their indentured, miserable, short lives? None whatsoever. You're a different fucking species Mr Prime Minister. And all of you, all of your kind, you ought to be fucking exterminated.
Which brings me on to Lord "never had it so good" Young. What was most shocking about his statement was not his assertion that the vast majority of people in Britain have never had it so good. In many ways, that's a difficult statement to conclusively prove wrong. No. What was most shocking was the "since this recession - this so-called recession - started" part. And yes he's resigned. And yes Dave has apologised to the millions of people who were no doubt offended by these statements. But really, is that enough? Does an apology from David Cameron really mean anything? Is a suggestion that we aren't really in a proper recession any worse than calling the cutting of 100,000 public service jobs 'streamlining'? We'll all feel the benefit, I'm sure. Because we're all in it together. Right? Wrong!
Were he not so comfortable with lying through his pearly whites I suspect that apology would have been tough for David "call me Dave" Cameron. Surely Lord Young was speaking to a shared experience. Did his words not ring true for many of our 'elected' officials? Was he not just saying what they were all thinking? "How dare they call this a recession? Where do they get off protesting against education cuts and a three-fold increase in tuition fees? Those ungrateful little bastards!" Maybe. Maybe.
But here's the rub. I can't blame them. I cannot hold against them their beliefs. If you're not aware that it's raining, how would you explain a man with an umbrella? "He's clearly insane!" you would say. "What a moron!" "Does he not know that the sun is shining?" "Is he not aware that since this so-called climate change started that there have been more sunny days?" Oh what a life it must be to never suffer the indignity of hard work. Never to endure the soul-destroying monotony of a call centre. Not once to have seen the desperation that papers the walls of a job centre. Oh what a life to not be weighed down with worry about fees, bills, rent, tax, health. To be free. To have been born free. What a life that must be, but how, then, do you expect to understand the lives of those who were not born free? And what mandate could you conceive of to govern their indentured, miserable, short lives? None whatsoever. You're a different fucking species Mr Prime Minister. And all of you, all of your kind, you ought to be fucking exterminated.
Friday 19 November 2010
Royal Wedding Rethink
Ok, seriously I think we should give these people an ultimatum. Call it off. Reschedule it. Put the whole sickening display of obscene wealth on hold for a few years. Wait until the poor have all starved to death or been placed under indentured servitude or, you know, been granted asylum in a more moderate country like, say, Iran. I personally couldn't care less if they want to get married. Just don't rub our faces in it is all.
But I know that it's not going to be put on hold as we all wait in vain for the economic crisis to abate. They're going to go ahead with it, parades and gold and front pages of all the newspapers; taking our attention away from the vast inequalities of our time by showcasing them in a manner so vulgar and gratuitously pompous as to make the whole thing seem like a ridiculous dream.
We do have options though. As far as I can see it, they fall into two distinct avenues of thought. Firstly, we let them have their 'do' but we make them have in a style that is befitting of our austere period. Or, secondly, we force them to submit to a full reality TV-style humbling, Japanese style.
So, let us explore the first option.
1) Venue
St Paul's Cathedral? No. Local registry office? Yes. Yes, that's more like it.
2) Attendees
Royalty from various nations, A-list celebrities, politicians, general top-level scum of all varieties? No. Bride, groom, humanist minister and two witnesses.
3) Attire
Saville Row Tailored for him, ludicrous designer number for her? No. For him, charity shop make-do. For her, I see Primark's finest. Or maybe we'll allow her to rummage throught the racks at TKMaxx. Maybe she can still find a nice dress. But we'll have to roll her in some filth and have a homeless junkie vomit on her before the ceremony just to even things out.
4) Honeymoon
Somewhere nice? No. Blackpool? Good shout, but it's a bit...nice. How about Swansea? Or Hull? Oh yes. There are so many places close to home that they can choose from. Why indeed would anyone want to go to St Tropez when they have Bognor Regis on their very doorstep? Why indeed?
So. That's option the First. Take note.
Option the Second is a little more holistic. I'm thinking how great it would be to have the whole thing live on national television with opportunities for the public to vote on tasks or challenges that the happy couple have to endure in order to progress with their marriage. I can just hear now as Will struggles to annunciate "I do" with a mouth full of termites. We could even liven things up a bit by introducing other people into the mix. Some D-through-Z-listers to tempt them apart. I'm thinking Kerry Katona. I'm thinking Ann Widdecombe. Oh the fun we could have. And if we air it on commercial TV it won't cost the taxpayer a penny. With the cash from the phone votes it'll pay for itself ten times over. We could even run it as a charitable trust.
But we are kidding ourselves. None of this is going to happen. Instead, London will be cleaned up (all the homeless people will be deported to the North) and we'll be bathed in coverage of what can only be interpretted as a big 'fuck you'. And the best part? There's nothing we can do about it.
But I know that it's not going to be put on hold as we all wait in vain for the economic crisis to abate. They're going to go ahead with it, parades and gold and front pages of all the newspapers; taking our attention away from the vast inequalities of our time by showcasing them in a manner so vulgar and gratuitously pompous as to make the whole thing seem like a ridiculous dream.
We do have options though. As far as I can see it, they fall into two distinct avenues of thought. Firstly, we let them have their 'do' but we make them have in a style that is befitting of our austere period. Or, secondly, we force them to submit to a full reality TV-style humbling, Japanese style.
So, let us explore the first option.
1) Venue
St Paul's Cathedral? No. Local registry office? Yes. Yes, that's more like it.
2) Attendees
Royalty from various nations, A-list celebrities, politicians, general top-level scum of all varieties? No. Bride, groom, humanist minister and two witnesses.
3) Attire
Saville Row Tailored for him, ludicrous designer number for her? No. For him, charity shop make-do. For her, I see Primark's finest. Or maybe we'll allow her to rummage throught the racks at TKMaxx. Maybe she can still find a nice dress. But we'll have to roll her in some filth and have a homeless junkie vomit on her before the ceremony just to even things out.
4) Honeymoon
Somewhere nice? No. Blackpool? Good shout, but it's a bit...nice. How about Swansea? Or Hull? Oh yes. There are so many places close to home that they can choose from. Why indeed would anyone want to go to St Tropez when they have Bognor Regis on their very doorstep? Why indeed?
So. That's option the First. Take note.
Option the Second is a little more holistic. I'm thinking how great it would be to have the whole thing live on national television with opportunities for the public to vote on tasks or challenges that the happy couple have to endure in order to progress with their marriage. I can just hear now as Will struggles to annunciate "I do" with a mouth full of termites. We could even liven things up a bit by introducing other people into the mix. Some D-through-Z-listers to tempt them apart. I'm thinking Kerry Katona. I'm thinking Ann Widdecombe. Oh the fun we could have. And if we air it on commercial TV it won't cost the taxpayer a penny. With the cash from the phone votes it'll pay for itself ten times over. We could even run it as a charitable trust.
But we are kidding ourselves. None of this is going to happen. Instead, London will be cleaned up (all the homeless people will be deported to the North) and we'll be bathed in coverage of what can only be interpretted as a big 'fuck you'. And the best part? There's nothing we can do about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)