Many things in this post that I have wanted to express myself, and it is expressed here much more concisely and elegantly than I could have.
I love Susan Cain for telling me something that I always knew but was trying to deny myself because of society.
I am happy that she pointed this out to me, and she was only the first for me, the most concise in her TED talk. And now I see that I am not as alone as I thought I was.
View original post 1,201 more words
I have an idea for cycling. The idea probably isn’t original but I think it will be fun. The idea is based on the London Underground.
There are many ideas based on the London Underground, such as the Tube Challenge which is listed in the Guiness Book of World Records, and there is a smaller scale Tube challenge is based in solely in Zone 1. There are also people who walk the routes of the Underground takes ‘overground’ because the places the routes take are really interesting as well, but they’re generally missed due to them being on a train and not paying much attention. Also, the Tube has changed the development of London more than anyone can imagine. This can be illustrated by what happened to places where it didn’t go (a nice short documentary here about the never-built Northern Heights here on youtube Unfinished London) This is because a railway line, or any form of transport that has a ‘permanent way’ brings a guaranteed transport link; unlike buses, they can’t change routes.
Anyway, so my idea is that I want to cycle the routes on the Tube above ground. And here is what I intend to do. It’s nothing too ambitious:
I want to cycle from one end to the other of all the London Underground, Overground, and Docklands Light Railway lines. My route will be planned out in advanced and also GPS tracked whilst I ride and uploaded onto RunKeeper.
Each route shouldn’t take more than half a day. I’m doing the shorter routes first so hopefully by the time I get to the longer routes I’ll be a bit fitter and faster. The branch lines on the District, Northern, Metropolitan, and Central Lines will be done on separately, either on the same day if I’m feeling up to it, or on another day, possibly with others who want to join me as they’ll be much shorter.
To begin with, the easiest one to do (in my opinion) is the Circle Line. Journey time from Hammersmith to Edgware Road via Aldgate on the Circle Line is approximately 80 minutes.
Start point: Hammersmith
End point: Edgware Road via Aldgate (clockwise/Outer Rail)
A serious purpose to this is to see how easy or how hard it is for people to cycle to and from various different places instead of using the London Underground, especially for commuting. With Spring and Summer coming up this is the perfect time to get on a bicycle and get fit whilst getting from A to B.
I did a test run today round the Circle Line. The route I took was 17miles through rush hour traffic. I took two 10 minute breaks and with that included the whole journey took just over 2 hours.
It’s a bit like a morning workout before work.
If anyone wants to come with me then you’re more than welcome. I am doing all Tube lines in order of what I judge to be easiest to hardest, and then the Overground and Docklands Light Railway. Feel free to contact me if you’re interested.
Finally, I am not very fit at all and I am a very safe and considerate cyclist. Don’t think that I’ll be blitzing any of these routes. We’ll be going a nice leisurely pace and finding the quieter routes where possible.
I won’t be doing very many before June but I hope to do some as I’m very much looking forward to it, as demonstrated by going out today on a test run on a whim.
Cycle safe everyone!
Half of us won’t see or experience workplace bullying.
I have heard about it from others but not experienced it myself. But it does happen and it is shit.
In this video, the brilliant ‘QualiaSoup’ clearly explains, in ascending order of importance, what workplace bullying is, what it isn’t, what organisations and people shouldn’t do about it, and most importantly what organisations and people should or can do about it.
This makes me want to quit my job right now and leave my house to see the world until I am ready to return.
Prefix: These posts are about films and will contain spoilers of films that are mentioned. It also inevitably contains information on those films. So if you want to watch these films with a clean slate (which I suggest you do) then stop reading before it’s too late!
Films that are mentioned in this entry are as follows:
- Django Unchained
- Reservoir Dogs
- The Killer
- Kill Bill
- Jackie Brown
- Stranger Than Fiction
This is the first post in a series of entries where I shall try to convey my love of cinema and film by showing my appreciation for certain filmmakers that I love and have influenced not only my film tastes but also my life. The effects of cinema and film on my life are genuine and the filmmakers in this series are responsible for that whether they wanted to be or not. First up:
The problem I have with Tarantino films is that people don’t know how good they really are.
This is going to sound elitist but I don’t think a lot of people can really tell just how good his films are. I believe that a lot of people think his films are fantastic only because they are popular and different to the usual crap they watch. A lot of what disappoints me with Hollywood films is that they take the easy way out, they hedge their bets, and they don’t take the extra step necessary to be extraordinary.
I point to the example of, and allow me to talk about something non-Tarantino first – ‘Stranger Than Fiction’. The brave thing to do, and I would argue the more interesting, and even right, thing to do, would have been for Harold Crick (Will Ferrell) to be killed off, just like Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) always does with her leading characters. The film was interesting overall, but then to cop out like that to have a Crick survive at the end didn’t fit in with the rest of the film, and no amount or rationalising or appeal to Eiffel’s character development can justify it. The film itself, of course, is smart enough to know what it is doing: it knows it is disappointing, but then it also tries to actually turn it around, which only adds to my feeling of being cheated. Is that the feeling that they wanted to achieve? It’s the feeling that they got. Perhaps that would make them, Forster and Helm (dir. and wri. respectively), happy to hear that.
There are many other examples from mediocre films that could have been better had they taken the risk*. Was it the execs would told the creatives to refrain, for some reason of demographics? I don’t know, but I’m not trying to figure out who to blame. I’m just trying to, mostly in my own mind, clear up what I really think of films.
*(may do a series of entries where I attempt to explain how a film could have been improved)
So to Tarantino
Tarantino knows how to write and make films. He is sublime at it. He’s so good at it that I think he even knows when he’s gone too far himself. He has a distinct style, which couldn’t have gone unnoticed, that I think at one point he pushed a little too far. With ‘Django Unchained’ he held back and was less self-indulgent, the way I think he was with ‘Inglorious Basterds’, and he made a film that perhaps is over-the-top, but I feel is more honest than most where things are more sugar-coated (for totally legitimate reasons some of the time). And this is where I think Tarantino appeals to so many. His films are like a breath of fresh air to the usual Hollywood film. They’re more violent, sure, but they’re crafted with care and skill that is not often seen, and I think that comes through when watching his films. His knowledge of cinema and his love for it comes through in practically every frame. In ‘Inglorious Basterds’ the chapter set inside the cinema where Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) plots to burn down the cinema, what I saw was a beautiful appreciation for The Cinema, the shots of the lobby make it look magnificent and grand. There are call backs to and influences from films that many would not notice as some are obscure even to the most knowledgeable of cinephiles.
He knows how to tell a story, he knows how to create characters, he know how to make a film, and he sure knows how to write dialogue. But he also knows when to dial it down. The whole of ‘Death Proof’ and the dialogue in the last hour of ‘Kill Bill’ was self-indulgent, and the credits to ‘Kill Bill’ were just him mouthing the words ‘I’m fucking amazing’ and masturbating whilst watching his own ego being played out on screen. But ‘Django Unchained’ is fantastic. Dare I say it, lest it sounds cliché, that ‘Django Unchained’ shows maturity.
23 years after John Woo’s ‘The Killer’, and a scene in ‘Jackie Brown’ where Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) talks about the film, Tarantino has his ‘The Killer’ shootout – bad guys pouring into a building and our protagonist(s) killing them dead with a gun with super skillz – and it is as brilliant and well worthy of the original.
My favourite Tarantino film? It’s still ‘Reservoir Dogs’. It is him at his beginnings and his style was raw and his talent undeniable. In a critique of ‘Reservoir Dogs’ that I once read, but can’t remember where, so sorry for not being able to reference it here, it pointed out how Tarantino had an eye for creating characters:
- Mr. White – is the only one with the most experience and yet is the one that acts on emotion rather than experience.
- Mr. Pink – is the most loud and erratic and yet the most professional, doing what needs to be done.
- Mr. Blonde – is the calmest and collected one and yet is the most gratuitously violent and crazy one.
- Mr. Orange – is responsible for the deaths of almost all the characters by staying true to his job as a cop seemingly without conscience, but then exposes himself right at the end to clear it.
It is more subtle in later films and this is just one thing that makes his films so interesting.
Other things that make his films interesting, or perhaps controversial, could be the violence in his films. Are they gratuitous or are they justified? And also his use of the word ‘nigger’, usually written as ‘nigga’ in his screenplays, which even as I typed it just then doesn’t feel right as it is a word with such power and significance; it is not ‘just a word’. Some people, most famously Spike Lee, may hate him or dismiss his films because of these are two things that feature heavily in many of his films.
But I won’t have a discussion about that here right now.
Tarantino’s films are always eagerly anticipated and seem to constantly deliver and impress. He has been hugely influential and cannot be ignored in any conversation about cinema since the 1990’s. I’d recommend any or all of his films to anyone. They are all (and I guess this is true most, if not all, the writer/directors I’ll be talking about in this series) better than most. And if you can/want to, watch them in chronological order.
Having said all that, he isn’t much of an actor.
The answer to everything is ‘more science’.
Because it stops you acting on gut feelings. Because it regards eye witness testimony as the lowest form of evidence. Because it understands that we are fallible. Because it encourages questions. Because it doesn’t respect authority. Because it doesn’t take things personally. Because it insists that you rigorously check and re-check everything. Because it changes its mind upon the production of new evidence. Because it doesn’t have favourites. Because, although it is aloof and objective, it can give us insight into what really makes us happy or sad. Because it invites scrutiny and criticism. Because it doesn’t get offended. Because it isn’t patriotic. Because it isn’t sentimental. Because it’s neither good nor evil, just descriptive. Because although its weak, human practitioners make mistakes, the remedy is more science. Because it regulates itself. Because it’s full of doubts. Because it knows that it knows nothing for sure. Because it works.