And finally- harder than the others because my ability to think about paintings is so limited in comparison so my thoughts are going to be far more limited.
First impressions are that I'm not sure I like Turner as much as I thought I did. There were some beautiful paintings such as Dido at Carthage which really are magnificent. But, and perhaps this is a point of the curation, looking at his work next to a variety of different painters I became quickly bored with his colour schemes. They attribute his sun light to Claude Lorrain and he uses it with greater skill, I feel then Claude. But it appears so often you grow a bit weary of it. When used adroitly it's quite staggeringly beautiful- but it's always a relief when he tries something different.
Often this is when he is trying to ape Rembrandt- the one master he doesn't seem to get near, although he arguably mimics his style far more than the others. I realise now I need to look more at Rembrandt. There's a painting of the Holy Family which is technically extraordinary in the way the light spreads from a lamp at the centre of the painting. The anachronism of the painting upset me though.
I tried hard to see where things were being copied but I often found it quite difficult to see, particularly in terms of style. Turner's colours are always honeyer, often I feel to the detriment of it. His paintings are also, and excuse my total ignorance on technical issues, deeper. They stretch far further back, giving everything a far grander scale and making the characters at the front seem smaller and more pawns in the scheme of the world. I think that's why I found his painting of trafalgar so effective. It just seems to go on and on, with huge boats and fighting and sails and so the bloodied floating corpses in the foreground seem ever smaller. Certainly compared to a lot of the other work I noticed how three dimensional the images were. So many others felt a bit like those childrens books where you stick on pictures onto a background.
The other thing that struck me is that he did a rather nice painting of another painter (Watteau I think) which had a sort of shambolic intimacy I'd never seen before and I hope there is more of his stuff out there. It is in some ways quite a large tableau, with paintings and easels and models and sketches but without his legendary sky it loses all sense of the epic but is none the worse for it.
Finally my favourite painting of the day belonged to someone I'd never heard of called Francis Danby. It is a giant angel, head above the clouds in sun and legs below in a dark, red ominous sunset. I can't even remember what the Turner it was being compared to but that was certainly one he lost (I put every two up in head to head. Turner won many but less then I thought he would).
I have to say though, as someone uneducated in art it was a real pleasure to have such an exhibition which really helped to try and look at art. My big regret was being a tightwad and not getting the headphones as I'm sure I'd have learnt lots more. So my new vow is to always take along either someone who know about art or the headset. Here endeth the lesson.
Monday 4 January 2010
Avatar
Given this is on everyone's lips I feel I should have lots to say on this but I have substantially less but here goes.
It is literally jaw dropping. The world they have created is utterly beautiful- particularly in the night scenes. The floating mountains, tree cities, insane creatures and luminescent night forest are so beautifully realised that you just want to give them rounds of applause at points. There are more shots of true unnatural beauty in that film then anything I've seen before. It has been lovingly crafted and visualised and the people who did it cannot get enough awards. They legitimise making the film and they make me recommend it to everyone.
I know a lot of people who are unkeen to see it. Because it's a stupid plot with evil capitalist, trigger happy marines, nice scientists and natives at one with nature who need a white guy to lead them to salvation. Mostly fair but (with the partial exception to the Dances with Wolves syndrome which I'll come back to) totally irrelevant. The vistas in Hidden are pretty uninspiring. The make-up in United 93 doesn't do it for me. The special effects in Slumdog Millionaire are average. It doesn't matter because it's not what those films are about. Likewise dialogue and to a certain extent plot.
I actually think both are serviceable. It's undeniably a bit trite all this at one with nature business when we're talking about a state of the art, budget blowing film. But it's not a terrible message and it wears it fairly lightly. It would much rather show you a cool plant in the forest or have a chase with 100 stone hammerhead rhinoceros then preach about anything. The last act drags a bit with too much fighting (but the fact that I often find battle sequences boring I'm fairly sure puts me in a minority) but the second act is just the most wonderful adventure. Unlike King Kong which definitely felt like it clearly had two monsters too many, I didn't really want to leave the second act.
Also I'd like to say how absolutely seamless it worked with humans. That was what really struck me. You really couldn't tell they were acting up against a blue screen- the two worlds meshed so much more seamlessly then anything I've seen before. I don't know if that was an IMAX effect (and if you're going to see it- see it in IMAX) but it really worked.
So yes, worth every penny. It doesn't want to make you think- it wants to make you go wow. And boy did it.
On the Dances with Wolves syndrome- it's legitimate. But I think it's unrealistic to expect audiences to be up for a story where humans are the bad guys full stop. Why it has to be a white guy while all the Na'avi are played by 'actors of colour' is a different question. I reckon the world's ready for whites to be the bad guys full stop. In the movies.
It is literally jaw dropping. The world they have created is utterly beautiful- particularly in the night scenes. The floating mountains, tree cities, insane creatures and luminescent night forest are so beautifully realised that you just want to give them rounds of applause at points. There are more shots of true unnatural beauty in that film then anything I've seen before. It has been lovingly crafted and visualised and the people who did it cannot get enough awards. They legitimise making the film and they make me recommend it to everyone.
I know a lot of people who are unkeen to see it. Because it's a stupid plot with evil capitalist, trigger happy marines, nice scientists and natives at one with nature who need a white guy to lead them to salvation. Mostly fair but (with the partial exception to the Dances with Wolves syndrome which I'll come back to) totally irrelevant. The vistas in Hidden are pretty uninspiring. The make-up in United 93 doesn't do it for me. The special effects in Slumdog Millionaire are average. It doesn't matter because it's not what those films are about. Likewise dialogue and to a certain extent plot.
I actually think both are serviceable. It's undeniably a bit trite all this at one with nature business when we're talking about a state of the art, budget blowing film. But it's not a terrible message and it wears it fairly lightly. It would much rather show you a cool plant in the forest or have a chase with 100 stone hammerhead rhinoceros then preach about anything. The last act drags a bit with too much fighting (but the fact that I often find battle sequences boring I'm fairly sure puts me in a minority) but the second act is just the most wonderful adventure. Unlike King Kong which definitely felt like it clearly had two monsters too many, I didn't really want to leave the second act.
Also I'd like to say how absolutely seamless it worked with humans. That was what really struck me. You really couldn't tell they were acting up against a blue screen- the two worlds meshed so much more seamlessly then anything I've seen before. I don't know if that was an IMAX effect (and if you're going to see it- see it in IMAX) but it really worked.
So yes, worth every penny. It doesn't want to make you think- it wants to make you go wow. And boy did it.
On the Dances with Wolves syndrome- it's legitimate. But I think it's unrealistic to expect audiences to be up for a story where humans are the bad guys full stop. Why it has to be a white guy while all the Na'avi are played by 'actors of colour' is a different question. I reckon the world's ready for whites to be the bad guys full stop. In the movies.
Aladdin
This really will be a short one. But technically it's the first piece of theatre I've seen this year so here goes.
Sadly Pamela Anderson had gone by the time we got tickets so we were left with Anita Dobson as the genie who I don't really remember from EastEnders so didn't mean much to me and although she gave it a good old go I have to admit it was annoying knowing that two days later we'd have seen Paul O'Grady. Now there's a performer made for Panto.
The other performer of note was Brian Blessed who is clearly insane. His voice is perfect for it and he's pretty good at getting the boos going as the baddy but then he'll riff, mumble a bit and then say I think that deserves a round of applause- which you always get in panto whether you deserve it or not. He was less involved in the second half and I think that's why it was so much stronger then. I had a feeling he had a tendency to adlib which is why it didn't quite fit- there was one moment where he called Widow Twankey a he and while Twankey was quick on the draw he clearly lost his place.
And that was actually what I took most from it. Widow Twankey was cracking- huge, saucy humour with good timing, sings competently and moves exceptionally well in those heels. And Wishy-washy was also clearly a panto pro, and very good at the end when they brought some kids on. And there was a policeman who was a great unicyclist and juggler and to me that is what panto is. It's music hall (or what I imagine music hall was like) and almost circus. And yet so much time was spent with two bland as can be leads poorly singing ballads and dancers who (for someone who's been watching a lot of Glee) seemed to be out of sync with each other. The little kids seemed more together.
It has however made me want to direct kids' pantos. I think the reason why they work is because they don't have to hang together particularly. No one minds if a character suddenly appears and juggles- because who doesn't want to see some juggling. Or some dancing or singing or freestyle rapping or crazy football skills. You can use it to cram all sorts into a show- and it did, it has to be said have the most fantastic set. So there's a part of me which love to write a panto for a school each year where I could pick up every little skillful and creative thing the kids have done and stuff it all into a dubious plot- put in a couple inneundos and lot it roll. Almost feels like an exercise worth trying.
Sadly Pamela Anderson had gone by the time we got tickets so we were left with Anita Dobson as the genie who I don't really remember from EastEnders so didn't mean much to me and although she gave it a good old go I have to admit it was annoying knowing that two days later we'd have seen Paul O'Grady. Now there's a performer made for Panto.
The other performer of note was Brian Blessed who is clearly insane. His voice is perfect for it and he's pretty good at getting the boos going as the baddy but then he'll riff, mumble a bit and then say I think that deserves a round of applause- which you always get in panto whether you deserve it or not. He was less involved in the second half and I think that's why it was so much stronger then. I had a feeling he had a tendency to adlib which is why it didn't quite fit- there was one moment where he called Widow Twankey a he and while Twankey was quick on the draw he clearly lost his place.
And that was actually what I took most from it. Widow Twankey was cracking- huge, saucy humour with good timing, sings competently and moves exceptionally well in those heels. And Wishy-washy was also clearly a panto pro, and very good at the end when they brought some kids on. And there was a policeman who was a great unicyclist and juggler and to me that is what panto is. It's music hall (or what I imagine music hall was like) and almost circus. And yet so much time was spent with two bland as can be leads poorly singing ballads and dancers who (for someone who's been watching a lot of Glee) seemed to be out of sync with each other. The little kids seemed more together.
It has however made me want to direct kids' pantos. I think the reason why they work is because they don't have to hang together particularly. No one minds if a character suddenly appears and juggles- because who doesn't want to see some juggling. Or some dancing or singing or freestyle rapping or crazy football skills. You can use it to cram all sorts into a show- and it did, it has to be said have the most fantastic set. So there's a part of me which love to write a panto for a school each year where I could pick up every little skillful and creative thing the kids have done and stuff it all into a dubious plot- put in a couple inneundos and lot it roll. Almost feels like an exercise worth trying.
Glee
So,
My new year's resolution (or one of them at least) is to write reviews of all the cultural things I do this year- films I see, TV shows I watch (as in a whole series, not planning to review every episode of QI), exhibitions, new albums, concerts etc. etc. They're not going to be long- few paragraphs unless I've really got a bee in my bonnet but just forcing me to reflect and see what I gained from it.
And because I'm so classy I'm starting with a show I've seen the first half of just now (second half coming out in states in April)- Glee.
Glee is every cliche you could want from the teen drama book. There's a camp kid who's bullied, a big fat black girl, a scheming blond head cheerleader who dates the quarterback who's a bit dumb but has a big heart, an unpopular girl who's desperately keen and annoying but underneath it all has a big heart, big bullies who always go round in their Football uniforms and a wholesome young teacher who just wants the best for these kids.
So why did I devour all 13 episodes in five days? Because it's such damned good fun. It's plots are willfully ridiculous including faked pregnancies and a pantomine villain in the ruthless cheerleading coach who will stop at nothing to make sure Glee fails. And more importantly approximately a quarter of each 40 minutes is taken up by songs- sometimes these are performances (including some pretty unlikely mash-ups), sometimes these are Chicago style imaginary musical numbers which express what's going on in their troubled teenage lives.
It doesn't take itself seriously but not in an overly ironic, knowing way. It's very unashamed to be right on, whether it's singing with deaf kids or getitng everyone to do a wheelchair number. But it's based on a simple proposition- singing and dancing is fun. It's fun for the kids, though they don't always admit it and it's fun for the audience, who are more than happy to admit it. It's not claiming deep truth, that's why it has archetypal characters. But it does let them be reasonably complicated human beings- it has no problem with the same character being selfish and sweet. The love stories are quickly set up and flit back and forth but not in some desperate Ross and Rachael situation- they're teenagers. They change their feelings regularly so there's no pretending we're talking love for the ages. So basically it's freshness is in it's lack of originality- funny scripts about kids breaking free and expressing themselves equals smiles, no dressing it up.
Its pantomine villain isn't quite as good as she could be. I can't quite figure out if it's the script or her. Certainly the chemistry with the head and the right on teacher isn't quite right. And the teacher better keep on dancing otherwise he's going to become a right drip. But basically it adds nothing to the history of TV except a recognition of why Pop Idol etc. is so popular. It might even make me watch it.
My new year's resolution (or one of them at least) is to write reviews of all the cultural things I do this year- films I see, TV shows I watch (as in a whole series, not planning to review every episode of QI), exhibitions, new albums, concerts etc. etc. They're not going to be long- few paragraphs unless I've really got a bee in my bonnet but just forcing me to reflect and see what I gained from it.
And because I'm so classy I'm starting with a show I've seen the first half of just now (second half coming out in states in April)- Glee.
Glee is every cliche you could want from the teen drama book. There's a camp kid who's bullied, a big fat black girl, a scheming blond head cheerleader who dates the quarterback who's a bit dumb but has a big heart, an unpopular girl who's desperately keen and annoying but underneath it all has a big heart, big bullies who always go round in their Football uniforms and a wholesome young teacher who just wants the best for these kids.
So why did I devour all 13 episodes in five days? Because it's such damned good fun. It's plots are willfully ridiculous including faked pregnancies and a pantomine villain in the ruthless cheerleading coach who will stop at nothing to make sure Glee fails. And more importantly approximately a quarter of each 40 minutes is taken up by songs- sometimes these are performances (including some pretty unlikely mash-ups), sometimes these are Chicago style imaginary musical numbers which express what's going on in their troubled teenage lives.
It doesn't take itself seriously but not in an overly ironic, knowing way. It's very unashamed to be right on, whether it's singing with deaf kids or getitng everyone to do a wheelchair number. But it's based on a simple proposition- singing and dancing is fun. It's fun for the kids, though they don't always admit it and it's fun for the audience, who are more than happy to admit it. It's not claiming deep truth, that's why it has archetypal characters. But it does let them be reasonably complicated human beings- it has no problem with the same character being selfish and sweet. The love stories are quickly set up and flit back and forth but not in some desperate Ross and Rachael situation- they're teenagers. They change their feelings regularly so there's no pretending we're talking love for the ages. So basically it's freshness is in it's lack of originality- funny scripts about kids breaking free and expressing themselves equals smiles, no dressing it up.
Its pantomine villain isn't quite as good as she could be. I can't quite figure out if it's the script or her. Certainly the chemistry with the head and the right on teacher isn't quite right. And the teacher better keep on dancing otherwise he's going to become a right drip. But basically it adds nothing to the history of TV except a recognition of why Pop Idol etc. is so popular. It might even make me watch it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)