Fate

As far as I know, only two bombs fell on Ladbroke Grove during the whole of the war. One of 'em completely demolished a house, the plot the ruins were cleared from, remains a vacant patch of incongruous green to this day, I wonder if anyone knows this piece of estate is up for grabs? I mention it, because who should've been residing opposite, but my mother. She would occasionally recall the incident that left her ears ringing, deaf to the cries of my brother, bawling amid the broken glass in his cot. 'Not a scratch on him!' she'd say, 'not a scratch'. It's odd to think that if the gust of wind picked up in the wrong the direction or that bomb hit a pigeon on the way down, I wouldn't be here to relay the miracle of the uninjured baby retrieved from a pile of shattered glass and the patch of green on Ladbroke Grove, would be the other side of the road.

Perspective drawing

A while ago, quite a while ago, I started a linear perspective instructional work for artists. Progress faltered as the difficulty in explaining a rather simple subject struck home. Yes that right, simple, because that's the truth, there are however certain details that need to be grasped with adequate understanding for any instruction to be useful. This together with the fact that my attention began to wander from the purpose of instruction as I became distracted by the details and implications of the subject, meant that the results where far from satisfactory.

So, I sort of gave up on the topic but recently I've come across a few examples of instruction on the subject that were so bad, that I decided I just had to grasp the nettle. So the following is a very basic explanation of the linear perspective technique for constructing drawings.

Figure. 1

There you go, that's how it's done, using the most basic example of a cube. Of course some explanation might be of help here, so let's explain what the elements of the drawing represent.

The square at the bottom and to the left of the drawing represent views of the subject, a cube. The bottom one is the view from the top (plan view), the one on the left, the view from the side.

The points where the radiating lines converge, also at the bottom and the left, represent the view origin and the pink lines the view direction. Where those pink lines intersect is the centre of the view, analogous to the location a viewer would be looking.

Those grey lines, or rays if you like, plot the location of various points on for each view and project them onto a plane, represented by the green lines. Those points where the rays intersect the plane, are then extended onto the drawing. Where an extended line intersects with a corresponding line, ie one that is plotted from the same point on the corresponding view, is the location of that point projected into linear perspective.

Voila he said in faux froggese, linear perspective in one easy step. As simple as this example is, that's really all you need to know. Of course that's not really very satisfactory because for useful instruction, certain implications need to be spelled out explicitly. For instance where are the vanishing points and the terminator lines? Do I really have to draw everything out in plan and side view to construct a perspective drawing?

Fear not for there's a reasonable chance that the answer to those questions will be appearing soon, if I get round to writing the next instalment that is.

Trouble

Finally managed to log in, by utilizing some jiggery pokery, Blogger has decided to let me log in but not use any navigation or features, so I can't even see the reading list. I just like to take a moment to thank Google and wish them all the best with those cars that drive themselves, off a cliff as seems likely at the moment. Well at least they wont be cheating emissions testing, well not for long anyway.

Not sure why this problem should arise, my browser is a little outdated, maybe a year or so behind, because I can't be bothered to install the new version or maybe someone at Google really likes Rio Lobo and took offense, who knows?

The decline of the western genre (part 2)

Now where were we, ah yes those three Howard Hawks films that mark the decline of the western genre. It might not be a surprise to a student of the genre that they're the films that comprise the Spanish trilogy, so called because the titles are in Spanish. They are: Rio Bravo (1959), El Dorado (1966) and Rio Lobo (1970). The two latter films have been called remakes of the first and while there is a case for that assertion with El Dorado, it's just not the case with Rio Lobo, yes it is derivative but it's structure is much more meandering and the features that make Rio Bravo so memorable, are mostly non existent or maybe they were just executed so badly, as to be totally ineffectual.

Rio Bravo is so good, it's probably one of the best American films ever and it succeeds because it combines the mythical elements of the western genre with tightly observed characterisation and performances from the lead roles. Remember I'm making a case for the western as a fantasy genre and fantasy works best when it imposes its own limitations. Those limitations are what became the conventions of the western narrative form. Conventions that had little foundation in reality, every gun slinger is armed with an 1873 colt revolver, is an accomplished horseman, can shoot the eye out of sparrow at thirty paces and take a punch that would fell a tree with no shattered bones and only the occasional loose tooth. There are, however, rules that limit the extent of possibility in this fictional world and reel in the suspension of disbelief from an audience. That's where Rio Bravo succeeds it paints fallible characters, struggling with the consequences of their circumstance, faltering and even failing on occasion but perusing their personal narrative to its conclusion.

The role that most personifies this, is that of Dude played by Dean Martin. Dude's character utilises a rarely seen device within narrative, he's not the protagonist but he's the character whose journey is rendered most completely. Chance, Waynes character and the protagonist, undergoes a somewhat more subtle transformation, that  serves in part as counterpoint to Dude. The other two prominent male characters are also interesting, Colorado, played by Ricky Nelson, is the inverse of a his stereotype, a young male subordinate character who is neither petulant nor unnecessarily aggressive but deliberate and possessed of insight beyond the scope expected of his age. Stumpy, Walther Brennan, is the character that most closely follows his type but he's not relegated to the usual purpose of light relief. The antagonist of the plot Nathan Burdette, is rarely seen, instead his malevolence is conveyed nebulously by the actions and the fate of his subordinates and by the serenade of El Deguello, that he orders played throughout the internment of his brother and his captors in the town jail. Of course there is a romantic interest in the narrative, it's required because heroes like Chance can't be driven by self interest there needs to be something else at stake. Feathers is played by Angie Dickenson and embodies what Chance places risk through his actions, the promise of their life together beyond the immediate narrative.

The narrative concludes with an action sequence, a shoot out at a warehouse which inverts the circumstances of the main characters earlier in the narrative. The bad guys still outnumber our heroes but now it's the them who're isolated in a building with a hostage.

I went into a bit more detail about Rio Bravo than is really required, but hey this just a blog post, so there's no editor to placate. So the clock runs forward to 1966 and El Dorado hits the screens, a lot of things have changed in seven years. The space race is on and the 60's are swinging with free love, we're not quite into flower power yet but there is a discernible difference in the way that El Dorado reflects its contemporary origin. Despite an excellent performance from Robert Mitchum it's a pale film in comparison to Rio Bravo. There are some lapses in on screen continuity that betray problems with Wayne's health in production and it can be speculated that the injury his character acquires is something written into the script. The physicality that made Wayne such an effective protagonist and potent on screen presence, is much reduced. This is the moment in his career where he starts to fall back on his sissy walk and similar such mannerisms to evoke the memory of his former glory. If you watched only films made after El Dorado to assess Wayne's career, you'd wonder what the fuss was about and it's probably the lingering aspect of his career that damaged the reputation of one of the finest on screen actors in the eyes of younger audiences. It's this reliance on past achievement that epitomises the flaws in El Dorado, it's not a particularly bad film. it's just not that great and the cheese is starting to outweigh the beef. El Dorado also suffers from some mismanaged attempts to update the genre, make it relevant to a younger audience and it's this trend that will play a significant role in the next film.


Then we get to Rio Lobo, well if a lot happened between 59 and 66 then the world must've turned on it's head in the next four years because what Rio Lobo is, is a pile of poop. The attempts to appeal to a younger audience is so clawing and ill conceived that there's a character portrayed with a sixties mop top. There's also much studio interference evident, extraneous prominent female roles just pop up with no rhyme or reason, the fact that one of the actress became a prominent executive within the film industry, might offer a clue as to why. If El Dorado rode on the back of fond memories then Rio Lobo casts them to wind in a desperate search for a new audience. Trying to appeal to a new audience is not a sin in itself, to be sure it's the life blood of cinema or any entertainment but those who were trying to achieve this, were so remote from that audience, that their attempts are laughable. Rio Lobo's worst failure though is that the fantasy of the wild west is extinct within its narrative, they tried so hard to be trendy that what they ended up with was so preoccupied with relevance to its intended audience they forgot what the genre was about. What that would be, is the western fantasy, complete with core conventions intact, what we get instead with Rio Lobo, is a series a tableaux,  constructed for the convenience of character types inserted into the narrative, it's all very depressing and totally ineffectual as drama.

When  you get a chance, make a comparison between Rio Lobo and the contemporary spaghetti western scene. Sure the spaghetti westerns are not all great, some of 'em are not even watchable and they are a little iconoclastic in regard to some extraneous conventions of the western genre but they what they do well, when the succeed, is convey small narratives on a large stage. That's essentially what a genre work does, encapsulate the nuance and triviality of real life and project into a fantasy context. That's why the western and the science fiction/fantasy genre are essentially equivalent.

The decline of the western genre (part 1)

Back in about, ooh 1980 something ish, probably 83, although it could possibly've been earlier, I was sitting in some offices on The Charing Cross Road, which is a fairly rare distinction, because most offices in that locale were just off Charing Cross Road. It didn't go well and I was flung out on the street within about twenty minutes of entering the building, which time would include, negotiating reception, trying to chat up the girl there and the wait in the ante room. I think my time there might've even been shorter, if it weren't for the agent taking the extra care to point out, in meticulous detail, exactly how useless I was. The interview was concluded in the ante room, I didn't even get past the coffee rings and wire frame chairs. As a parting shot the agent proffered some advice, you see as a youngster, I'd indulged my own predilection for science fiction and fantasy and built a portfolio which featured those genres, not exactly heavily, but with some prominence. 'Science fiction is a fad,' he said with sagacious assurance, the implication being that next year no one will be interested.

Well that was 1980 something and we're in the 2000 and teens and the fad of science fiction and fantasy seems to be lingering a little, I wonder why that should be? My answer to that question, is simple, it's because it's not a fad the idiom encompassed by science fiction and fantasy has always been here, it's been the chief focus of fictional literature and drama since their inception. The clue is in the concept of fiction, it's made up, events that never occurred, conjured from the conceit of imagination, so why would you fetter that imagination within the restrictions of the prosaic world you live in? You wouldn't and nobody of any notability ever did, for example: historical drama, well the past is a foreign land, and if it's far enough away to be remote from living memory, then it's a land conceived only through rumour, speculation and lies.

One of those foreign lands would be the one embodied by the western genre but that genre is as old as the past that it now references. People were reading of the fictionalised exploits of notable western figures almost concurrently. The mythology and fantasy that grew up was encouraged by notions of the wild west a place remote from reality and its strictures, populated by beasts, savages, ventured by the brave and the lawless. The institutions that optimise this mythologisation are things like, Buffalo Bill's Wild West; the show that toured the world with attractions like Annie Oakley, Sitting Bull and Bill himself, the man who could bring down a glass ball flying through the air with a single bullet, while astride a cantering horse. I dunno about you but that seems like science fiction to me, give Bill a light sabre and you've got a Jedi.

The western genre suffered a decline in late 60's the preoccupations of adventure seeking juveniles shifted to rocket ships and ray guns to exercise their imaginations. There was a brief interruption in the decline, the spaghetti westerns and those influenced by the vigour of that sub-genre and it's rebellion against the conventions that had grown to stifle expression within the broader genre. It is that creative stagnation that is the cause of the decline the western genre and it can be empitomised with three films by the same director, Howard Hawks.

Part two, tomorrow or when it's finished.

Frazetta: Frazetta Auction Update

From fritzfrazetta.blogspot:  okay so the items in the auction are likely to be beyond your purchasing power but that catalogue might be nice.



Frazetta: Frazetta Auction Update: Please check the PROFILES IN HISTORY web site for current details about ordering catalogs The auction will be held on December 11. There ...

Party tricks, again

It's not really a trick, you can't demonstrate the solution but the other blog entries under this label have been a bit tenuous too. Anyway it goes like this: you have a gun and you aim it at a target, that you're standing some distance away from, you pull the trigger and hit your target. Great the gun works as expected but what would you expect to happen if you weren't standing on the ground but on a flatbed rail carriage, on a railway line exactly parallel to the barrel of the gun you're aiming. That carrage is accelerated in exact synchronisation with the bullet when you pull the trigger. Of course that acceleration would be equivielent to about 60g or 70g so you'd be pureed into a gooey mess in the real world but lets suppose you're immune to that effect, what would happen to the bullet you fired, once it left the barrel?

If you answered that the bullet would just fall to the ground, congratulations you've won and this poser probably seems a bit nonsensical to you, until that is, you see how many people get it wrong, I was alarmed, it's easily the majority of people you ask the question of. The general consensus is that the bullet will hang in the air for a period, while it's "flying" and then fall to the ground. The fact that bullets don't fly, they're just objects in ballistic free fall, doesn't really seem to impact on that assumption, even if you use words of one syllable and pretty pictures to explain that fact. Now I confess, If I didn't know the answer and I was a little bit squiffy, like is generally the case at parties, I would probably have to think about it for few seconds, then there would be an, oh yeah of course, moment once I had it explained to me. You can divide the responses to the question, into several categories, which are:-

1. Smarty: no problem, what a dumb question
2. Slow but solid: works it out, eventually
3. Dim: quick but with the wrong answer, accepts the correct answer readily
4. Slow and stupid: wrong answer, may be reluctant to accept correct answer
5. Intransigent idiot: quick or slow, will not accept the correct answer, even when everyone else in laughing
6. Nutter: got it wrong, wont accept the correct answer, actively seeks to subvert the case for the correct answer, with coercion or social pressure, may succeed depending on their level of charisma or social status.

Party tricks

You know those questions that pose hypothetical situations to which the answer seems obvious but the question has been constructed in a deceptive form, so that the obvious answer reveals some subtle aspect of perception? Some of those questions seem painfully contrived, like: A man driving on a twisty country road, hits a deer and his headlights are smashed. Ten minutes later he's phoning his wife, after diving to a town (obviously he doesn't have a mobile). How did he drive to the town with no headlights?

I answered with, 'He just drove there,' I think I was supposed to infer a night time incident from the context but it didn't work. The person asking got a bit mift at this point, she was never the brightest light on the Xmas tree,  not dim exactly, she just put too much faith in rote, one of those folk with predicable thought processes who accepted answers depending on the status of their source. Anyway I tried out the question myself, for curiosity's sake, guess what, it didn't work then either. She must've been asked the question herself at one point, for her to be as impressed by its implications as she seemed. So I started to wonder, was the question posed to her with a more effective wording or did she fail it deliberately? By deliberately I mean, appear to make the assumption of a night time context in the question, for the sake of social acquiescence, then use self deception to convince herself that her assumption was genuine. That might seem a little tenuous but the nature of her reaction, when I failed to make the elicited assumption, was something akin to that which follows from a break in social etiquette, it was if I was being rude.

A much better question of this ilk is: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? Yeah that question, this one went so far over my head that I always dismissed it as some zen type thought mangling, that needed sufficient drug induced cerebral hindrance to be effective. It wasn't until it was pointed out, that the word sound, a bit like the word colour, can be, and is often interpreted as reference to a sensory phenomena, that the penny dropped for me.

So here's another question, that falls somewhere between the forest question and the equivocal wording of the car hits deer question. Here it goes: there are three people travelling together, each of them has just applied for a job as a bus driver. The first person is a good driver and got the job. The second person is a fair driver and didn't get the job, the third person can't drive. Who wins?

Some Raven fun

Richard Corben is quite a special comic artist, he's one of very few, who moved the medium into a transcendent form, a form that wouldn't be out of place dangling on the walls of Mayfair. As far as I know that actually hasn't happened, the people running those establishments being the possessors of rather numbed aesthetic sensibilities. Corben is able to achieve this elevated state of accomplishment through a rare collection of wide ranging skills. He's an artist who can convincingly model rounded figures, with a vivid colour range and convey drama in scenes through lighting, without obscuring detail. Let me tell you, that's a neat trick, no matter what insight into his techniques you may have accrued.

For me, his best work was accomplished while he was being published in the Warren, magazine format, horror genre comics. He's still worth a gander at as a contributor to Heavy Metal magazine but that publication was a bit esoteric for me and it's self consciously arty purpose eroded some of the sharpness of it's contributors. Anyway that's enough waffle, lets have a look at another one of those excellent Youtube meldings of art and music, as we appreciate the man's talent set to the warblings of the Alan Parsons Project, through a tune inspired by Poe's, The Raven.

Daredevil (series)

Have you seen it yet? Lets assume you haven't, so we'll keep this as free from spoilers as feasible.

Look a picture, happy now?

There's a lot of positive feedback for this series, from some judiciously selected luminaries and quite possibly that positive reception is justified. Speaking personally though, while I did enjoy the series, it's some distance from how I envision the Daredevil mythos. Dark, that's how it is, yes lets get a flow of adjectives going; gritty, sombre, earthy, morally ambiguous, does that give an indication of the territory we're in?

Daredevil's fictional world is populated by corrupt officials and perfidious authority, just like the real one, and dealing with such issues places demands that test the inviolable morality of the heroic stereotype. So we can expect some of the post code era, angst driven bouts of self doubt and questioning can't we? Er no not really, here Matt Murdoch/Daredevil takes his cues from a different iteration of popular literature, that of the pulp detective/vigilante genre, as practised my Hammett and Spillane. That is, if literature is the source of such influence, it could be it comes from television dramas like, The Sopranos and True Detective.

The comparison between Mike Hammer and Murdoch/Daredevil is compelling, he uses the same indicators to delineate his morality. Everyone is metered with same brutal treatment, unless they happen to be a female or child and this aspect is alluded to quite self consciously at a few points in the script. So we're not subjected to some naive fictional construct where the boundaries of good and evil are coincident with our hero's prejudice. The moral ambiguity goes further though, Murdoch isn't just a diamond in the rough, he's pretty much a complete, fully rounded psychopath, only just outdone in the atrocities he commits, by his nemesis Wilson Fisk.

The Fisk/Murdoch dichotomy is the meat of the drama that Daredevil concerns itself with. It's where it both excels and where its weaknesses lie. I quite like Wilson, in fact it's hard not get behind him and cheer him on, in a few places. There is one particular instance, close to the end of the series where there is an encounter with one the sympathetic characters, that leaves him with a certain justification, albeit contrasted with his overreaction and its consequences. This is where the drama fails to an extent, Murdoch gets away pretty much unscathed from any examination of the consequences of his behaviour, whereas Fisk is continually put under the glare of exposition.

There are occasions where the pace of the drama gets a bit slow in the series and there are a couple of episodes where it seems nothing much gets done except for a few plot points. The fight scenes have come in for some praise and while they're quite good and it starts off well, it gets to a point where it seems a bit predicable and there were a few moments where it seemed it was a case of: cut to punch up. I want to conclude on positive note because it was a pretty good watch but if you haven't seen it yet and you decide to give it a spin, you might want to go through a few episodes back to back, where a particular episode drags a bit.

Oh wow!

Just found this web resource here, Robert E Howard's Conan, it's spendirificous. Howard's prose is just out there, refreshingly untutored, dense and viceral. Flippin' 'eck get yourself a marvellous freebie now.

Thought for the day.

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.

Robert Jay Lifton 

Liberty

An important milestone was passed today, one I that think is worth noting, routine exit checks been have introduced at UK borders. Fine -- that would be the kind of thing we used hold up as an example of autocracy and routine affront to liberty in the erstwhile USSR and its satellites, cue a Robbie Coltrane jokey Russian accent '...and what is your reason for wanting to leave the glorious motherland, when will you be returning?'. The advent of exit checks implies a power to deny the privilege to cross the border, If that were a general rule it would be a severe infringement of civil liberties and a breach of treaty commitments. Of course there's always a way round these technicalities, probably a suspicion that a person refused passage was liable to commit illegal acts abroad would be cited as justification. We have had a few people travelling abroad recently whose journey has made an impact on the media, I suspect those instances will be cited as justification for this move. So we can expect these measures to be temporary, only extant until the current crisis has abated, can't we? yeah like that's gonna happen. No, I think those checks are here to stay, meanwhile if you wanna wallow in nostalgia for a while, why not look up an old seventies speculative TV drama, 1990 with Edward Woodward. 1990 portrays a near future Britain (near future in 1970 something) where people are smuggled out of the country. One of the reasons for those people wanting to leave is to get treatment for health problems untreatable by a health system in distress, ring any bells?

Politics

You know, I find politics hard to reconcile, you have a bunch of folk that, lets face it, we all know are dishonest and self serving, slagging each other off in an effort to prove there's a meaningful distinction between them. It's a kind of pantomime, except that half the audience are shouting, he's behind you! the other half are yelling, get him! All politicians are dishonest, although not all of 'em are completely without any integrity but that dubious honour is ubiquitous amongst the ascendancy of their number. What makes politics and politicians so intrinsically perfidious? That's a tricky one but I think I have a clue, it's because of their collective identity and the need to distinguish that identity from competing ones. You can witness this in action, when politicians and those members of the public who express a partisan preference, take sides on issues. They always tow the party line, well almost always, there's a degree of fluctuation but their adherence is related to the fervency with they align themselves. Witnessing what seems for some, to be the magic that can turn black into white, night into day, failure into success, can be quite spectacular but raises disturbing questions about the nature of the human condition. I'm just wondering, if there is any way out of this insanity, because as the divisions between the political factions have become less and less profound, the intransigence with which the faithful deny reality has become more and more rigorous.

I'm pondering this subject, not just because of the election looming here but I read a post on a blog recently, where the author saw fit to offer up an apologia for living in a particular location with a prevalent political affiliation. What? I mean what? yeah I suppose that might be understandable if you were living in a town where they shoot grandma for fun but it seems a mite queer, not to say presumptuous, to do that over the largely inconsequential standard political divisions. It kinda implies that he holds the notion, that anyone who votes a certain way is evil. Yeah I'm sure that's true for some of 'em but the rest, they're just ordinary people, like you, me even him. So how do people get like that, is that what he really thinks or does the apologetic tone suggest he said it just to cosset his readers' prejudices? Now just imagine what might happen if I called him out, pointed out the not inconspicuous fact, that this attitude was completely barmy, do you suppose he would make the assumption I was acting through political impetus?  I think there's a good chance there would be, do you see how that works to instil division where previously none existed? What I think that demonstrates is the exponential nature, of the expansion of needless divisiveness, it just needs one teeny particle of contention for affiliations to coalesce around, then it grows like a snowball, pretty soon you've got an avalanche thundering down the mountain.

I said all politicians are dishonest, that may not be true because I have spied the occasional member (very occasional) of that fraternity make a stand in the face of the broader consensus. The broader consensus isn't always the product of cabalistic intercession into democratic process, it's just that we're in a place in history where that has become a dominant factor. No that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, it just that means policy is generally not formulated in the democratic forums that were intended for that purpose. Instead it's agreed through Institutions like the G7/8, The EU, Nato even the UN and other supernational institutions, then implemented through treaty or a lesser commitment. The point is, that these arrangements circumvent democratic process, or at least they do when such decisions are expedited by democratic institutions with no meaningful discussion. That case would the prevalent condition in this country although it's not always true for every nation, the more powerful ones get to form or modify the agendas imposed though these supernational processes and generally ignore any decisions they find inconvenient. What's interesting about the supernational processes is that the tribalism of domestic political division has become reflected in analogous divisions throughout the supernational forum. This, unfortunately, is where things start to get dangerous, indeed in one particular instance, fostering needless division has become very, very dangerous. Not only has this placed us in very real peril, it has destroyed a valuable accord between two erstwhile foes, rewinding the clock a couple of decades.

If that particular snowball were to become an avalanche, we would all be in very serious trouble, heading for the new stone age I would imagine. This would be one of the reasons, I'm not at all keen on people stoking trivial and meaningless division with inflammatory or pejorative rhetoric, like the guy going on about those terrible people in the place he lived, who voted a certain way. In certain contexts the awareness has arisen that divisiveness has a negative impact, it's even become antisocial to express divisive ideas pertaining to those contexts. Good, but does the concept that meaningless division is wrong have to remain discreet to these contexts? Very few people seem to be able to make the leap of generalising that principle. That's nothing new, most of us can't grasp the universality of concepts like mutual respect, rights/liberties and equitable treatment either, so what's the surprise? Quite a while ago, I wrote a not particularly good short story that tackled this subject, so this issue must've been playing on my mind for some while, I wonder how many other people ponder the issue?

Top Gear

So have you sent your CV to the BBC yet? The best job in the country is up for grabs and carpe diem is the appropriate motto for such occasions, so if you haven't already done so, do it now and good luck. However, competition should be fierce and I reckon I've spotted the ideal candidate: Brian Sewell, yep that's right, the art critic. Sewell's a national treasure, even more inclined to let the truth off the lead to chase off hypocrisy and correctness with his candour than Clarkson, he's drawn more than the occasional bought of censorial attention. On one notable occasion, a cadre of the benighted had cause to draft an open letter accusing him of homophobia, er yeah, nice one you miops, what do you do for an encore, tie your own shoelaces? Anyway gotta rush, gotta catch the post with this CV.

Culture shock

I quite like pancakes, because flour is cheap and it makes eggs go a long way, so during the summer I will often knock some pancakes together, from whatever is available. The batter benefits from some fortification, the easiest way to accomplish this, is to make it with milk, if that's not to hand some other fat: butter, dripping, lard or at pinch, vegetable oil will do. It's easier with milk because there's no trouble with lumps, which saves some effort, you can make 'em without any fat, they'll just be a little rubbery that's all. In my naivety I thought My ad hoc approach to the preparation and consumption of these morsels was consistent with the broader approach but I've since found that, for those for who pancakes are more occasional fare, it's more common for precise recipes to be employed. Which is fair enough I suppose, if you're just eating 'em, once yearly on Shrove Tuesday. However I later encountered a conception of pancake preparation that I found far harder to reconcile. Speaking to a friend on the phone, the subject of pancakes came up, perhaps because I prepared some earlier that day. This friend was from the US, so keen to learn the differences between pancakes here and there, I asked for  details of how she prepared them. I was surprised to be told that something called Pancake Mix was available through normal retail outlets and the method employing that ingredient was the most ubiquitous technique. So I expressed my admiration at the advent of such a labour saving commodity, after all think of the convenience, no need to buy eggs or milk. It was at this juncture that the aspect of the commonly employed method of pancake preparation in the US became something of a mystery, because I was more than a little startled to be informed, that you still needed to include eggs, milk or fat additionally, to this so convenient Pancake Mix that you bought in the shop. "So this Pancake Mix, it's just flour then?" I asked, rather tentatively. There was something of pause in the conversation here and maybe the faint tinkle of one or two pennies hitting the floor.

"I don't know," was the answer that came back, I'm still not sure what exactly is in Pancake Mix, perhaps some powdered glucose, included to boost the calories is the justification for the existence of this comestible, who knows?

I'll never forget Whats'isname (Michael Ripper)

Michael Ripper is an interesting case, he was as ubiquitous as Kensington Gore in Hammer productions and did quite a bit of TV work too. His roles were generally brief, sometimes not much more than bit parts but his range as a character was quite wide, taking on the roles of grumbling inn keepers, merchant sailors aboard distressed vessels, kindly geezers and belligerent heavies in his stride. He did get a quite a meaty role in Freewheelers, a children's TV drama series from the sixties and seventies. Freewheelers aired during the early evening slot, where children's TV tended to predominate, before the early evening news bulletin. I recall it being a little naff, something of the Saturday morning serial about its production standards but it did make efforts to keep the action rolling, speedboats and other marine vessels being quite prominant, probably because the production was based in Southampton.

Hell's Angels

I found an interesting site the other day: archive.org, they've got loads of public domain resources there, one of 'em is the excellent Hell's Angels, directed and produced by Howard Hughes. It's a rather special film because it was made during what's referred to as: the pre-code era. The code in question was the Hays Code and under its auspices, cinematic expression was quite severely restricted for several decades. As such I found watching the film, although entertaining, a somewhat sombre experience when considering the inferior melodrama that became prevalent under the code. Hell's Angles is a lively flick, its characters full of vitality and exuberance which is epitomised by the role played by Jean Harlow, who here is devastatingly alluring. Unfortunately, for me, her allure didn't survive the application of the code, weird eyebrows and the plaster manikin make up are poor proxies for the sensual grace she displays in Hell's Angels, just wait till you see her in that dress.

James Whale has a credit for staging which I infer is equivalent to sound stage director, meaning he directed the dialogue scenes. It's interesting to note that several dialogue scenes feature quite evident pauses, something that serves to underline dramatic tension. Overall the film is rather less stylised than is typical for the era and the interaction between the cast is quite subtle and full of detail. There's also plenty of high action in the film, most of which is rendered with real aircraft. So here it is, give it a go if you're interested.

I'll never forget Whats'isname (George Murcell)

You know those character actors whose name may have known but it escapes when you're trying to recall and you resort to referring to the person in question by a role or character type you associate them with, "You know the guy who played oily villains on The Saint and The Adventures of Robin Hood..."? That's happening to me all the time, so I've decided to record such notables on this blog, the first being George Murcell.

George Murcell

That capture is from an episode of The Champions apparently, not sure which one but Mr. Murcell seems to be in a slightly atypical role. A rather more congenial character than the surly protagonists leering with a lascivious menace at some heroine, that I remember him for.

A story behind the news.

After many decades since the publication of her only published novel to date, it's been announced that Harper Lee is to have a new novel published. A story which I'm sure you're familiar with but you might be scratching your head over a certain controversy surrounding this event A peculiar narrative has coalesced around the comments of some notable figures, that is: she's being taken advantage of by unscrupulous publishers. Kind of odd notion that isn't it but it's gained a certain currency amid the media coverage. I wonder why that should be, you might ask, if you're of a mind to ponder anomalous media output. Well allow me to explain, what's not being mentioned in the media, is a rumour that has been common currency in the literary world for many years. To put it baldly, this rumour concerns the speculation that To Kill A Mockingbird isn't entirely Lee's own work, rather it was written, or at least heavily edited by her friend, Truman Capote. You see, now things are starting to make sense aren't they? Indeed since it seems that the new novel is going to be based on Lee's original, recently rediscovered, draft for the work, you might be forgiven for entertaining the notion that the game is up, if  you're of a mind to believe rumours that is.

Personally I'm have nothing invested in the veracity or otherwise of this rumour but it's always interesting to note the sophistry of those who are invested in such questions. Although Capote publicly denied the rumour, attacks on his personal integrity figure prominently, today we can't have recourse to crude allusions to his sexual proclivities, rather he's referenced as a person with an enormous ego and gift for self promotion, cos those are absolutely despicable attributes aren't they? I enjoy reading when the author utilises written word to offer an insight themselves or shed light on their own view of the world. The analysis of the prose in question, often presents a marvellous example of such insight: the voice is wrong for Capote, blah blah blah, yeah have these people done much actually reading, cos that seems incredibly naive? Such apparent naivety isn't born through inexperience though, it's the inevitable consequence that arises through attempting to impose a rounded narrative on events that are the subject of speculation rather than fact. Anyway I'm sure this story will rumble on to its deeply equivocal conclusion in the press.

Kirby, in the act of drawing

I've only just bumped into this video a couple of days ago and I've just watched through it the once. Jack "King" Kirby is seen executing a now quite well known character drawing, that of Doctor Doom behind the mask. It's interesting for a number of reasons, the weight of line he achieves while ,I believe, not pausing to hone his pencil, probably because he's using a clutch pencil and the scale at which he's working. He's also got a mobile arm but that I mean he doesn't tilt the paper much to orientate his line work, that's something pros pick up after a lot of practice. Clutch pencils are a boon to the pro, I myself didn't cotton on to them for a while, once I did, my productivity increased by about a 1/3 so it's no surprise that's what Kirby should be using.

There's a still of an ink rendering of this drawing at the end of this video, it's quite a small image but it does seem a nice job, even so, it's possible to discern some quite noticeable differences between Mike Royer's sublime ink job of the same drawing, a nice illustration of the importance of inking.