By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

  • Not So Great

    Yesterday evening I went to see The Great Gatsby at one of the cinemas in town.  Because of the timing, it was the 3D version (with audio description of you wanted it).

    I am not a great fan of this departure into 3D films - there seems to be an over-emphasis on a few special effects and a sense more of a slightly out of focus decoupage than seeing something three-dimensional.  Floating one image in front of another (superimposing in the 2D version I assume) adds little or nothing to the story and has the feel of someone who has just learned how to do animations in PowerPoint... 'ooh look I can make this image do that'.

    I have not yet read the book, but I am hoping when I do for something with more depth than I observed in the film. I was left wondering whether some of the acting was bad, or whether I was missing the point that it was meant to be bad.

    This must have been a big budget film, the scale and complexity of scenes must have been very demanding to achieve, and the cast must have been huge.  I'm just not so sure it was all that great.

    Of course, given the subject(s) it explored maybe that is actually the subtlest measure of its success... a triumph of style over content, outer bling disguising inner poverty, the impossible, unattainable dream that ends in mediocrity and disappointment.  If such an impression was deliberately engineered it would be very clever indeed; I suspect it was not.

    Nonetheless, a relaxing and pleasant evening's entertainment on a sunny spring/summer evening

  • When is a Bedroom not a Bedroom?

    I was amused and impressed today when I read of several councils finding legitimate and legal means of getting around the so-called 'bedroom tax' by redefining rooms as 'box rooms' (if they are very small and/or clearly used for that purpose) and/or non-specific (e.g. if they happen to be ground (lower) floor of a two storey dwelling).  It seems pretty reasonable to me, not least as what often passes for a third bedroom in private properties is barely big enough to contain a cot, let alone a bed.

    I am certainly not advocating tax-evasion or tax-avoidance, but I do think there is something unjust about penalising people for liviing on the houses that are available to them just because they happen to be technically under-occupied... The cost of moving to smaller properties, even assuming they exist and are available should not be underestimated, to say nothing of the stress such moves, especially if unchosen, could create.

    But then maybe I would say that as a rent-free under-occupier of a wonderful three-bedroomed property...

  • Sort of Interesting...

    Came across a reference to this short story by Rudyard Kipling when I was doing some sermon research today.  Linguistically very dated, but some interesting ideas even if a bit twee in places.  Vaguely useful as background reading on the context of the letter to Galatia.