HELP! - The Beatles (1965/2007)

So this is the famous Help! eh?

The Beatles’ second film was never going to be able to follow the same formula as the first.  This time, a story (of sorts) was needed and was actually confected around all the places the Beatles wanted to visit for locations.  So what we have is Clang, the leader of an eastern death cult about to perform a human sacrifice when it is pointed out to him that the victim is not wearing the sacrificial ring.  The ring – wouldn’t you know it – is on Ringo’s right hand.  Somehow, the cult knows this and tracks him down to find that the ring isn’t coming off.  The Beatles’ own efforts to remove the ring lead them to a mad scientist who decides, for no reason other than that he’s mad, that the ring will allow him to rule the world.  His own attempts to obtain the ring clash with Clang’s and mayhem, as was the fashion, ensues.  Meanwhile, Clang’s offsider Ahme turns good and tries to help the Beatles escape both sets of pursuers. 

The big problem is that underpinning this whole premise is a big dollop of casual racism and it would be drawing a pretty long bow to suggest that the film is satirising such attitudes.  The best you can say is that things were different back then, but it’s not saying much.

Then again, it was as a result of filming Help! that George was introduced to Indian music, which became a lifelong passion. His work to promote it led to international recognition and greater understanding so the film probably did far more good than harm.  It’s a paradox of cultural sensitivity. 

The musical numbers have even less relevance to the film than they did in A Hard Day’s Night, but it scarcely matters.  In fact, they all make great video clips.  Richard Lester directs again and as with A Hard Day’s Night, the film is peppered with clever camera angles and slightly subversive humour.  The wonderful Leo McKern is wasted on the one-dimensional character of Clang, but he plays it with such gusto that it raises the part above its cartoon nature.  Indeed, it’s the great performances from the supporting cast, which also includes Eleanor Bron, Victor Spinetti and Roy Kinnear, that saves the film from just being unutterably silly.  The natural humour of the Beatles themselves is a given but on the whole, Help! the film is inessential. 

The DVD looks and sounds great.  You will need a DTS decoder if you want the surround mix because they haven’t included a Dolby stream.  The second disc has an hour of short documentaries and interviews about the making of the film and the painstaking restoration, as well as some trailers.  There are radio ads hidden in the menus of both discs. 

Highlight:  You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away

Feature:  * * *

Extras:  * * *

Audio:  LPCM Stereo, DTS 5.1

The Rules: Merry Christmas

If you ever say “Merry Christmas” as an act of belligerence, and not a message of good cheer, then you don’t get Christmas.

   

  

 

An open letter to Paul McCartney

Dear Paul,

You have been a hero to me since I was 13 and I love you like an uncle.  I've defended your honour and your importance on numerous occasions, but dear God, man!

There is a time and a place to express the kind of sentiments contained (however ironically or not) in your song Live and Let Die, and a concert to benefit survivors of a disaster and the families of those who didn't survive IS. NOT. IT!!!

You've beaten the Rolling Stones for the tin-ear award after they sang about crossfire hurricanes.  If you absolutely have to let off fireworks (not the most sensitive thing you can do in such a show either, but still not the most insensitive), then the climax of Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five would have done nicely.

Yeah, I know.  Everyone's a critic, but do you have to make it so bloody easy for them and so hard for us?

Love,
Bill
 
 

A HARD DAY'S NIGHT – The Beatles (1964/2002)

The first really good thing about A Hard Day's Night is there mere fact that it isn't horrendously bad. The Beatles may have been streets ahead of their contemporaries musically, but there was no guarantee that it would translate into film where they would have far less control over how they were presented. And from Summer Holiday to Fun in Acapulco, from Spiceworld to Glitter, pop-star exploitation movies are generally pretty awful. And it would have been so easy for the studio to dull the Beatles' sharp wit so A Hard Day's Night scores highly just for not being that awful.

The Beatles were smart enough to get people who understood and shared their sense of humour. Director Richard Lester was chosen mainly because of his work with the Goons. It's easy to forget that Milligan,Sellers and Secombe were just as important in influencing the Beatles as Presley, Berry or Holly were. Alun Owen's screenplay is also very sympathetic to the Beatles' own style, and even includes a sequence where they reprise some of their best interview moments, like John's “Turn left at Greenland,” quip. For the most part, they just let the Beatles be the Beatles, which is the best thing they could have done.

The plot is a simple day-in-the-life scenario which allows for plenty of adventures and bursts into song without ever appearing too contrived. The running joke of Paul's grandfather (Wilfred Brambell) being a very “clean” old man is probably a reference to his most famous character, Albert Steptoe, who is regularly chided by son Harold for being a “dirty, dirty man.” It could also be to try and distract from the fact he's playing roughly the same character – someone trying to spoil it all for everyone else.

A Hard Day's Night takes what has always been a banal form and raises it to what it really ought to be – a great bit of afternoon entertainment, even for non-Beatles fans, and throws in some quite creative camera work too.

The audio is listed as stereo but when you put it in your player, it will read as 5.1. They have placed all the film dialogue in the centre channel, as per the original mono, but all the songs are in stereo. I can see the sense in that, but the transition from one to the other can be annoying at times.

As far as extras go, too much of a good thing. There is the standard documentary/retrospective on disc one, but disc two gives us interviews with almost every living person involved with the film and it's far more than necessary, especially when we already heard the most important parts in the doco.

Highlight: If I Fell

Feature: * * * * *

Extras: * * ½

Audio: Dolby 5.1 (sort of)

LIVE KISSES - Paul McCartney (2012)

Let’s get a couple of things out of the way first:  If you’re the kind of music fan who would prefer Paul McCartney to just keep belting out Get Back and Band on the Run for the rest of his life, then keep walking - there’s nothing for you here.  Likewise, if you don’t think it ever got better than Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra, then you’re going to find little to love in this show.  If your tastes allow for some exploration, then read on.

Doing and album and/or show of old standards has become almost as much a rock cliché as stint in rehab.  Over the years, the quality of such albums has ranged from the sublime (Harry Nilsson’s A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night) to the ridiculous (Robbie Williams’ Swing When You’re Winning).  The fact is that any idiot can buy a hat, hire a decent arranger and sing into a microphone once used by Sinatra.  So why should we follow Macca down this well-worn path?

Well, there are a few good reasons.  Firstly, McCartney is old enough to remember some of these songs when they were current, and to have sung them around the family Joanna so his interest in these tunes has not been confected from a lot of received wisdom.  He has also revealed an ongoing fondness for the style since the early days of the Beatles, from covers of ’Til There Was You and A Taste of Honey, through When I’m Sixty Four and Honey Pie to Warm and Beautiful and Baby’s Request with Wings, he’s already done plenty of dabbling in the genre.  Thirdly, as one of the people who made Abbey Road “da place,” he has no need for the reflected glory of working at Capitol Studios in Hollywood.

He’s also well aware of how many artists have done this before and has taken pains to set this collection apart from them by choosing lesser known songs and going for quiet, subtle versions of the songs where many before him - including some of the originals – preferred to go for bombast.  It’s this approach that makes Kisses on the Bottom and this companion DVD more than just the obligatory standards album. 

The film intersperses the songs with interviews discussing the making of the album and the show.  On a regular concert film this would be a pain but on this one it works fine.  This is mainly because Live Kisses isn’t so much a concert as a live run through of some songs.  As always with a McCartney show, he shares a great camaraderie with the band, led by Diana Krall and featuring Joe Walsh sitting in on Eric Clapton’s parts.  This is another departure from similar albums, where there could be a bit of a master/servant relationship between singer and players.

What really makes this a unique McCartney performance is that for once, it’s entirely about Paul the singer.  Although everyone knows he has one of the greatest voices of the last half-century, that fact has always been parallel to his talents as songwriter, composer, multi-instrumentalist and producer.  And with every song, you can tell he’s chosen it because part of it speaks to him.  This is not a case of the singer putting on an act.  He does present his own interpretations of the songs but never do they deviate from the song’s original meaning.  It’s been said that Paul’s voice is not what it used to be.  Two points on that topic: Firstly, duh!  The man is 70 years old.  You should sound as good at that age.  Secondly, while his voice is considerably weaker than it was in 1967, it does lend itself very well to his intention of bringing out the vulnerability in the songs.  This is not an album he could have made when he was 30.  

The arrangements occasionally veer a little too close to hotel lobby music but for the most part, they are tasteful and understated, neither being too reverential to the originals, nor interpreting them within an inch of their lives.  The one place it doesn’t quite work is on Bye Bye Blackbird which almost becomes a dirge.  They do, however, almost manage to redeem The Glory of Love for me after Beaches pretty well ruined it. 

Most of the film is presented in black and white with a slightly harsh contrast that is less 1940s film and more like early 1960s television.  It suits the music very well though.  One rather annoying aspect is lots of jump cuts early in the piece.  In a show like this, a shot should last for at least one bar of music. 

There’s no denying this DVD has a pretty limited market.  You couldn’t even call it a fans-only release because there will be thousands of fans who will hate him for not making a proper rock album, whatever that means.  There will be others who laud it purely for being McCartney with no other reason.  This show can only be judged for what it is and McCartney, Diana Krall and producer Tommy LiPuma have managed to create a set that strikes the right balance of familiarity and originality, authenticity and playfulness.  If you don’t like it, then you don’t like it, but it’s better than you think.

Highlight: More I Cannot Wish You

Feature:  * * * *

For anyone who is confused…

The so-called ‘fiscal cliff’ is all about self-awareness and motivation.

Simply put, some people who cannot work together responsibly have recognised the fact that they can’t work together responsibly and have therefore agreed to do something quite irresponsible if they haven’t managed to work together responsibly by a certain arbitrary date.

Shut up!  It makes perfect sense!
 

And in the end…

Yes, I know this is late. I could have written most of this quite a few weeks ago.  I didn’t because, to be honest, I was worried.  I was fairly confident Obama would scrape through, but I did think it would be more of a scrape than it eventually was.

I’ve taken an interest in US politics and the political system for over twenty years now and have been arguing about it on the internet for just on twelve.  In that time, things have pretty well come full circle.

It’s easy to say now, but I always saw the 2012 election as a rerun of the 2004 election.  There were many – myself included – who felt that anyone would have been better than Bush in 2004.  John Kerry was anyone and as far as people who aren’t George W Bush go, John Kerry was certainly one of them.  But, as I said on message boards in 2004, it was going to take more than simply not being Bush to make people vote for you.  I saw the same thing happening this year.

After four years of whipping up hatred for Obama, the Republican party thought they could win simply by not being Obama.  They were so confident of this, that they figured that their base would even vote for a rich, boring, French-speaking, flip-flopping Massachusetts moderate who created the model for universal public health cover before he was against it, just because he wasn’t Obama, and that those who voted for Obama in 2008 and were disappointed would come out for Romney too.  It’s not that Romney was the wrong choice for the Republicans.  Of all those who ran in the primary, Romney was clearly the least crazy choice.  The problem was that he changed his policies by the day and sometimes by the hour.

As I wrote during the primaries, anyone can change, anyone can adapt, and changing your mind according to new information or prevailing conditions should be seen as a strength, not a weakness.  It’s just that Romney changed positions according to who he was talking to at the time.  He might as well have just quoted Groucho Marx and said, “These are my principles and if you don’t like them, I have others.”  That’s going to lead even those who want to support you to view you with mistrust.  I consider myself reasonably adept at reading between the lines of political rhetoric and spotting coded messages.  But in all honesty, I have absolutely no idea what Romney would have done had he won.  No matter what he might have done in office, his supporters would be able to point to a time when he said he would and his opponents would be able to point to a time when he said he wouldn’t.  He became a policy Kama Sutra.

As with 2004, the losing side is pointing out that the popular vote was tighter than the electoral college result might indicate.  These are the same people who say that the popular vote is irrelevant when the college goes their way.  The right wing’s abandonment of all they hold dear so long as it works for them was neatly summarised in a tweet from Donald Trump:

For once, he’s right.  The electoral college is a gross distortion of the actual vote.  And there’s no need to lecture me on why the electoral college is the way it is.  That made sense in its day but not any more.  It’s not for me to say, but what the founders originally designed does not need to be set in stone.  The founders were very modern thinking people.  It’s not unreasonable to theorise that Thomas Jefferson would be horrified that in the age of cable television, 24-hour news cycles and high speed internet that fits in your pocket, America still clings to an electoral system that was designed for a time when information travelled at the speed of a healthy horse.

And as with 2004, this election is seen as a vindication for the incumbent.  I remember the hubris of Republicans following Bush’s re-election and in the spirit that they set eight years ago, I struggle to find a good reason why people shouldn’t say to the teabaggers, the birthers, the conspiracy theorists, the super-PACs and naturally Fox News, “SUCK IT, LOSERS!”
The only reason I can think of is that we are supposed to be raising the tone, but when setting a good example doesn’t work – and it clearly hasn’t – I find a nice big dose of their own medicine is at least cathartic and might even teach them something.

It’s really hard not to laugh, especially at the party of personal responsibility looking for someone to blame.  Most people on all sides agree that Hurricane Sandy was a turning point in the campaign, although they differ on why it was so, and my theory is different to most of them.

Just as an aside before we go on: I don’t like to seem like I’m trivialising something that affected millions of people, but a “superstorm” is not a thing, okay?  We already have words to describe the magnitude and impact of storms.  It’s not something different just because it happened to New York.

People say that Sandy stole the momentum of the Romney campaign as the news turned to aftermath of the storm and that he never had a chance to get it back.  I disagree.  I think the storm gave people pause to consider what Republican doctrine would really mean in such an event.  The Obama campaign quickly highlighted Romney’s comment that disaster relief should be left to the states and ideally, handled by the private sector.  As Mugsy wrote at Crooks and Liars, Hurricane Sandy was a golden opportunity for Republicans and their backers to show how well the private sector could take care of things.  But did you see Halliburton or Bain Capital swinging into action to help survivors and restore order?  Did you fuck!  Instead, we saw a Romney campaign event collecting canned food.  And even that may have been faked depending on who you believe.  But fake or not, it again showed what a tin ear Romney and his campaign had for the way real people live.  They decided they had to do something and so they picked something and did it without any regard for whether it might have been any use to people.  Every disaster is different.  Sometimes people need food.  Sometimes they need toothbrushes and clean underwear.  Sometimes they need reading glasses.  Sometimes they need to be able to do their laundry and Tide Loads of Hope is an excellent example of private philanthropy doing something useful and needed in areas affected by disasters.  If the Romney campaign were smart, they could have used this as an example, but they’re not and they didn’t.  As it turned out, in New York, what people really needed was somewhere to recharge their smart-phones.  This may well be the epitome of first world problems, but it was what people needed at the time.

It’s folly to say that every state should have its own separate disaster management system when it would be such a wasteful duplication of processes.  FEMA has its flaws, but they have seen it all.  As I alluded to earlier, the storm that hit the north-east US may have been a freak occurrence in that particular area but it’s something that people between Florida and Texas go through every year.  It makes sense to use their experience and expertise.

When I was watching news about the approach of Tropical Storm Isaac with my dearest in August, veteran New Orleans weathercaster Bob Breck had this to say about evacuation (and I am quoting from memory): “My wife has evacuated because we’re both getting on a bit and she doesn’t like to be without air conditioning.  But if you’re young and fit and you don’t mind being without power for a few days, then just stock up on supplies and enjoy the adventure.”
That’s the kind of cool headed experience New York could have used and that everyone needs when they’re scared and unsure of what to do.  Likewise, in the unlikely event that an earthquake hit the gulf coast, they could deal with it all locally, or they could get on the ’phone to California and say, “You know about this kind of stuff, what do you recommend?”

Do we really think anyone on the Jersey shore gave a toss about states’ rights or federal overreach in the aftermath of the storm?  I suspect their thoughts were more along the lines of “screw Reagan, what we really need is someone to come and say, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”  I think a lot of other people across the US had similar thoughts about what the stated positions of Republicans would really mean in such an event and mercifully, those thoughts were still fresh in their minds when they voted.  Those who choose to see storms as messages from God should ponder this.