Just Cause 2: Nationalisation in action

I'm afraid that I haven't been a very good blogger recently, owing to exams, work etc, but now that my college education is over I have ample time to blow on videogames. The game I returned to in particular was Just Cause 2, which, to those uninitiated into the world of videogames is a title in which you run around and largely destroy a fictional Pacific country called Panau in an attempt to overthrow its dictator, whose cult of personality is not dissimilar to that of Mao or Kim Jong-il.

US foreign policy at its finest.

The game generally tasks you with destroying government equipment and infrastructure such as oil pipelines, water towers, petrol stations and missile sites, all of which are tagged with the national flag of Panau. It was during one of these acts of sabotage that it dawned on me how much of a villain the game's American spy protagonist actually is. Here we have a prosperous and rapidly developing (albeit repressive) country, which has managed to build oil pipelines, water supplies, petrol stations and missile sites, being completely torn apart by the covert arm of US imperialism. Going back to my A-level Modern History lessons, the protagonist's actions in the game are almost identical to those of the CIA during Operation Mongoose, which aimed to bring down Cuba's communist government through thousands of acts of sabotage and assassination. In fact, the game's opening involves a conversation about how Panau is no longer friendly to "Uncle Sam".

Heathrow doesn't even look this good.

Just Cause 2's hero should really be President Pandak Panay, who, despite perhaps running his security forces a bit dictatorially seems to have brought about the economic miracle of the 21st century. And despite the fact that he's no longer US friendly, Panay hasn't merely just turned to another sugar-daddy like Russia or China. Indeed, the game ends with him (SPOILER ALERT) launching nuclear missiles against countries like the US and Russia in order to break the chains of superpower oppression. Sure, he could have just done that by taking over the country's sugar industry (A-LEVEL HISTORY REFERENCE!), yet if you just put his mildly murderous ambitions to one side, he is clearly one of the greatest statesman of our time. The roads are well maintained and alive with modern cars, and thanks to an overly keen military police force, crime is at an all time low!

Clement Attlee eat your heart out you lightweight wannabe nationaliser.

In conclusion, Just Cause 2 is a game released in 2010 by the British Communist Party to highlight the benefits of wholesale nationalisation and benevolent dictators. It cleverly aims to satirise the dangerous talons of US imperialism by allowing players to enjoy destroying countless items of nationalised property while even earning money and "Chaos" points for doing so. By making the game so fun, the developers ingeniously left players to contemplate their actions after they finished playing, which ultimately leads most of them to realise the hollowness of US foreign policy and the benefits of nationalisation for even the poorest developing country.

Vote BCP!

   

“Free schools”: Basingstoke’s salvation?

Find this article here:

http://thebasingstokebale.wordpress.com/

New Blog!

Dear readers (or possibly reader), I have recently started a new blog at http://thebasingstokebale.wordpress.com/  and would love it if you would take a look and maybe even subscribe. I'm hoping to delve into some deeper issues, and take a closer look at how politics affects my local area. I will try to carry on contributing to Observations of an Amateur Pop Culture Critic, but plan on focusing my attention on the new wordpress.

Many thanks

Jack Irwin

Notes from two continents

This February I was fortunate enough to spend five days in Istanbul, and unsurprisingly, I made a few observations. Rather than explain my activities and thoughts in tedious chronological order, (“20^th February, 9 AM I woke up and went down for breakfast like I do every other day of the bloody year”) I will simply describe the features of the world’s bridge between Europe and Asia that I found interesting which I hope that you do to.

CATS! EVERYWHERE! This may be one of the first things you notice upon taking your first walk down a street in Istanbul, and true cat lovers will undoubtedly multiply their journey times by stopping to pet members of the city’s inexplicably large feline population. These aren't just filthy alley cats too. The majority have beautifully clean fur and seem surprisingly well fed for members of the city’s largest vagrant group, so Istanbul is presumably home to thousands of generous cat loving old ladies. Yet with the exception of several shop owners, I rarely saw any Istanbulites feeding or showing any sort of affection for felines. No one attempts to shoo cats away, rather they are virtually permitted anywhere, a freedom which has instilled in them the confidence to clamber through some of the world’s most beautiful landmarks. Frankly, I’m slightly jealous, and if I were not a human then I would surely ask for the life of an Istanbulite cat.

Joking aside, I still hadn't worked out why there were so many cats when I got back, so I turned to the greatest teacher of all, Google. According to the wisdom of the internet, cats are respected in Muslim countries as one is believed to have thwarted a poisonous snake that was approaching the prophet Muhammad. In modern Istanbul I may not have seen anyone handing food to cats directly, but I later heard that many people have containers outside their houses where they leave meals for their local feline friends. If you place yourself in the dog camp then don’t worry, there are plenty of strays in Istanbul (on second thoughts that’s not a good thing), although they find themselves severely outnumbered by their polar opposites.   

Take a walk along any street in the central Sultanahmet district, or explore an alley of the Grand Bazaar and you’ll likely become the target of the city’s most effective predator, the deadly carpet dealer. One morning we popped into a carpet shop near our hotel, and were greeted seconds after entering by the slickest, most charming salesman I have ever met. Dressed in a smart brown jacket with leather loafers, he spoke almost perfect English and quickly struck up a detailed conversation with my dad about Richmond’s ancient theatre, which, thanks to his Yorkshire-born wife, he knew to be the second oldest in England.

As is the case with many predators, we were soon led down into the basement. There, the dealer extravagantly unravelled countless beautiful carpets, some the size of a bathmat and others large enough to cover my living room floor (which is larger than a bathmat by the way). I was astonished to discover that some pieces the size of prayer mats required six months of work and cost around £2000. Unfortunately for the dealer, we had neither the room nor desire for a carpet and were lucky enough to escape in around 20 minutes, although not before his assistant tried to serve us the curved glasses of red tea that we frequently saw across the city.

In the most frequently visited areas of Istanbul one is constantly pestered by restaurant promoters, whose particularly pushy demeanour is relatively rare in other European holiday hotspots. One time, I was walking on the bank of the Golden Horn by the Galata Bridge when a wide eyed promoter stepped out in front of me, pointed upwards to his left, and ordered me “upstairs!”. After an awkward pause he finished his sentence with “for pizza, chicken, fresh fish”. Under the Galata Bridge itself promoters were particularly forceful, going as far as to walk backwards in front of us to tempt us into entering deserted restaurants.

However, the presence of these advertisers does not equal a bad eatery, and whether we ate in restaurants frequented by foreigners, such as Mozaik, or went to local joints like Ciya, the food was fantastic. I eventually came to the conclusion that Turkish food is fundamentally likeable. It has the perfect balance of fresh vegetables, meat and seafood, and is not overly spicy if one prefers gentler flavours. Furthermore, the service is possibly the best I’ve ever experienced. Waiters, almost always male, were dressed in jumpers and ties or even full suits. They were friendly without feeling forced, attentive without getting irritating and formal without seeming stuffy. Waiters obviously work for tips, yet they seemed genuinely welcoming nonetheless.  

The overwhelming number of male waiters led me to ask myself one interesting question; is this city sexist? Discrimination on grounds of gender is present in any society, yet the general lack of women in many jobs was particularly noticeable. Istanbul seemed like a very relaxed and westernised city. Some women wore Burkas, others had headscarves and many walked with uncovered hair. I noticed no obvious discrimination in behaviour, and both genders seemed to speak to each other as we would here. I am a firm believer that employment equals equality though, and I think that perhaps women are still largely seen as homemakers, even in a modern part of Turkey like Istanbul.    

Warning: Some readers may find this post monumentally nerdy

Please Forgive Me Batman

It’s quite possible that what I’m about to write may result in my subsequent stoning by Caped Crusader loving teenaged boys, but I’m going to make my point anyway. The Dark Knight Rises was ultimately one of the most underwhelming films of 2012. Please put your stones down for one moment and allow me to explain.

Yes, the film provided a satisfying sense of closure to Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, and rumors surrounding Joseph Gordon Levitt’s role as Batman in the Justice League film will only serve to re-enforce that success. However, The Dark Knight Rises also presented a paradox that had remained previously unseen in cinema; never had a film given the impression that it was both too long and could also have done with a greater running time.  You see, the film’s beefy length made it hard for me to enjoy it twice, even in the cinema, while one can also clearly see that massive swathes of potential scenes had to be cut in order to reduce the film to an enjoyable size. How does either Bruce Wayne or Bane get back into Gotham for example? Even worse are the numerous illogical plot developments which litter the film. Most memorable is the fact that Blake discovers Batman’s true identity based on a “look” of orphanistic (I made that word up) anger that Wayne gave him as a child, something which Levitt’s character understood because he too is an orphan. Surely that means that every orphan in Gotham should know who Batman is?

Another aspect of The Dark Knight Rises that disappointed me was its general silliness. Why did the police department think that it would be a good idea to send every man they had into a cramped sewer? For what reason did Bane keep them alive down there for five months (and also supply them with razors judging by their clean cut look following their escape). To top it off, which brilliant tactician decided that running in a huddle straight at Bane’s gun toting goons would be a good idea? Much of what happens in The Dark Knight Rises feels like it has been done to streamline the plot. These discrepancies are easily accepted in any other blockbuster, but become much more noticeable in the more grounded depiction of a superhero that Nolan’s trilogy attempts to give.

Heath Ledger’s unfortunate death left the series’ final installment in a critical position. Deprived of both a brilliant actor and ultimate villain, it is understandable that The Dark Knight Rises would not be able to provide an enemy that lived up to the legacy of its predecessor.  However, there are many other characters that should have been considered before resorting to Bane, who, to be brutally honest, is just a strong man with an indie alternative to the balaclava. Surely the Riddler, Zsasz, Hugo Strange or almost any other nemesis would have been a far more interesting character. To make matters worse, the film barely even made the best of Bane, choosing instead to destroy any sense of influence that the character might exert by making him a mere subordinate of Talia. Played by Marion Cotillard, Talia was equally ill-suited to the film thanks to the actress’ obvious lack of experience in an action heavy role.

Now here’s the part where I save some of my own skin by contradicting half of what I just said. Despite its flaws The Dark Knight Rises is still a fitting conclusion to Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, and was thankfully graced by stellar performances from Christian Bale, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Gary Oldman, and last but certainly not least, Anne Hathaway. Furthermore, the film still encapsulated the trilogy’s gritty atmosphere, slick style, and was host to several brilliant action sequences. If you pressed me for a star rating, I would probably come up with three and a half.

After all the criticisms I made I think it’s important to remember something. Why do we fall? So that we might learn to pick ourselves up. With Alfred Pennyworth’s words in mind, perhaps the Justice League film will do exactly that and surpass The Dark Knight Rises.

Django Unchained: Is it good? Is it actually racist?

Of all the genres previously left untouched by Quentin Tarantino, the Spaghetti Western was always the most suited to the director’s unique brand of excessive violence, pedantic dialogue and satire. Following the mixed reception of Inglorious Basterds, Tarantino’s latest film was undoubtedly under severe pressure to deliver, especially considering the film’s sensitive theme of slavery. However, Django Unchained surpasses all expectations and is not only one of the best Tarantino films of all time, but also one of the best Westerns to date.

Django Unchained opens with the rescue of the film’s eponymous hero by Dr King Schultz, a dentist turned bounty hunter currently pursuing the fugitive Brittle brothers, who Django can identify. In exchange for his help, Schultz offers Django his freedom, but instead the pair decides to continue hunting targets together and eventually begin searching for Django’s estranged wife, Broomhilda.

Despite the film’s obvious focus on slavery, Django Unchained is a Western through and through. The costumes are inspired by a range of other westerns; the soundtrack perfectly blends Ennio Morricone with a twist of Rick Ross, while original Django star Franco Nero even graces the screen with a cameo. Oh, and then there’s the shootouts. In 1969 The Wild Bunch set the standard for violence in Westerns. More than 40 years later, Django Unchained has created a new benchmark for gunfights in any genre. Single bullets produce buckets full of blood and send henchmen flying across rooms, and all in wonderful slow motion. But don’t worry; you are unlikely to have any sympathy for the slavers who meet their deserved fate in this film.

Jamie Foxx plays what is perhaps one of the most likeable movie heroes of late, thanks to an impressive degree of character development. Starting as an illiterate and oppressed slave, Django manages to become the fastest and most accurate gun in the west, a deadly gunslinger capable of seeking revenge against those who harmed him most. Equally captivating is Christoph Waltz, who delivers a performance charismatic enough to rival his previous success in Inglorious Basterds. Intelligent, daring and frequently humorous, Waltz may quite easily win this years “Best Supporting Actor Award”, but I would also like to see him be equally proficient as a lead in the near future. The bounty hunters are rivaled by Calvin Candie, a brutal plantation owner played by Leonardo DiCaprio who adds a sense of dangerous uncertainty to every scene. Able to treat his property (mostly slaves) in any way he wants, Candie is both unstable and sickening, making him a terrifying villain. However, his naivety and short sightedness is highlighted by Samuel L. Jackson’s Stephen, a trusted slave whose wisdom and unique perspective over the plantation perhaps make him an even more proficient enemy than Candie himself. Some scenes will even leave you wondering whether Stephen is the one really pulling the strings in Candieland (I’m not joking that’s what the plantation is actually called).  

Any film which tackles the incredibly sensitive subject of slavery is bound to attract criticism and controversy, but some have suggested that Tarantino’s style of filmmaking trivializes the issue altogether. I know that Django Unchained barely restrains itself from showing scenes of violence concerning slaves and makes the N word as common as “the”. However, it would be more wrong to downplay the suffering of African Americans, and furthermore, Tarantino’s trademark aestheticization of violence is only visible during scenes in which whites are the ones being killed. Contrastingly, segments in which slaves suffer at the hands of their owners are unflinchingly brutal and completely serious. The best argument against any critic must surely be Django himself. Although he starts of as the protégée to a white bounty hunter, by the end of the film he has the confidence to act independently and punish the obviously evil slave owners who contribute to what was then known as “the business”. Honestly, I think that if the Black Panthers were still around today, they would claim Django to be a symbol of black power in a second.

If you are undecided about whether to see Django Unchained or not you merely have to ask yourself one question; do I like Quentin Tarantino? If the answer is yes, then Django Unchained is a brilliant take on the Spaghetti Western which showcases the director at his genre hopping best, and is also, in my opinion, his second greatest film after Pulp Fiction. That alone says a hell of a lot.   

“Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do”

Following the recent murder of 26 schoolchildren in Newton, Connecticut, one of countless mass shootings in the US, the above phrase has almost become a slogan for gun lovers. To some extent its right, as people technically USE guns to kill other people, so it is the owners of the weapons who are to blame. On top of this, any gun loving American could also point out that I could try and kill my own postman with a LEGO brick, which, in this case would become a weapon in the eyes of the law. However, besides being painful to step on, LEGO was not designed to harm others, unlike firearms, which are used by the armies of the world because they do just that. In addition, it takes a lot less strength and skill for an assailant to pull a trigger than use close quarter weapons; in fact, part of the reason why guns succeeded the humble bow is that the former were just so easy to use by comparison. A different argument made by pro-gun groups is that banning firearms would simply take them out of the hands of peaceful enthusiasts, without reducing the number of illegal weapons used by criminals. Are we living in some cartoonish world where criminals wear black and white striped tops and carry bags printed with dollar signs? Anyone can become a criminal, even if they bought their gun legally.

In another attempt to pass the buck, the NRA recently blamed videogames for recent killings, even hitching onto the fact that that some mass-murderers had been known to enjoy them in their free time. Whether videogames and films make children violent or not is almost irrelevant, as they should not be playing titles with adult content. That’s why we have a rigid certification system, active censorship boards, and store employees who ask for ID every time I try to buy a 12. Even if certain games encourage aggressive tendencies, it’s not children who buy them; it’s their parents, which leaves the responsibility for their son/daughter’s mental wellbeing in their own hands. All parents have to do is say no.

The American constitution is the most fiercely guarded document in the world, and thanks to its 1791 amendment giving citizens the right to bear arms, has been a rallying point for pro-gun campaigns. However, like any other political document, it seems obvious to me that the second amendment should be open to adjustment. Look at it this way; what were firearms like back in 1791? The answer is that they had a range of about my garden to door to the shed and took the best part of a minute to reload. I hardly think that the founding fathers had automatic assault rifles that can fire dozens of rounds a minute in mind. Seriously, do you know what you can legally own in the US? Flamethrowers, industrial explosives and rifles can all be bought without a license. Oh, and if you have almost half a million dollars, you can even buy your mum the Mini-gun she always wanted, you know, the one that you may have seen clamped to a helicopter in Apocalypse now.

Despite my distaste for firearms, I’m not naïve, and I don’t expect a ban to result in every gun enthusiast in the US handing in their collective 310 million weapons and choosing to take up railway modeling. Therefore, change must come slowly. Guns, like any other product, break, get thrown away and become obsolete, so will not remain in circulation forever. Therefore, efforts must be made to limit the supply of weapons in the first place, which will then obviously reduce the overall volume of firearms. This needs to be followed up by tighter border controls to reduce gun smuggling, while a better mental health system must be put in place to address those with violent tendencies.

Fortunately, progress is in site, as in mid-January President Obama launched 23 executive orders aimed at limiting the supply of guns and stopping them from getting into unstable hands. Although the same guns can still be bought, let’s hope that this is just one in a series of measures to save some of the 30,000 people murdered with firearms each year in the US.

Les Misérables Review

Before I start I must admit two important things. Firstly, I loathe the "sung through" nature of  musicals like Les Misérables, which I personally believe sound disjointed and erratic. Secondly, I have neither seen the musical live nor read the 19th century novel on which it is based. While my first admission obviously makes me a tad biased, the latter is somewhat advantageous. In my opinion, a film must be able to survive as a stand alone product, even if it is based on something that everyone and their mum has already read/seen/listened to. Les Misérables succeeds in being a complete entity, if not necessarily being a great film.

Les Misérables can best be defined as a story of two parts. The first entail's Jean Valjean's escape from lawman Javert, his rise to wealth, and later adoption of Fantine's child Cosette. The second tells the romantic tale of Cosette and Marius' love affair against the backdrop of the  anti monarchist revolution. Unfortunately it is here that we spot our first flaw. The running time stolen by the former part prevents the latter's characters from becoming familiar to the audience, thereby making many of their own plot lines and developments seem like an afterthought rather than an epic finale. The film's aforementioned length is in itself an issue, coming in at a beefy total of 158 minutes, much of which I spent picking away at my seat and cup-holder in an effort to entertain myself.

My boredom can best be explained by the film's dull visuals, a series of dark grey backdrops which would have been a crushing blow if it wasn't for, you know, the whole "musical side". Throughout Les Misérables, I felt like the film was just meant to be listened to, and any moviegoer with the audacity to pay attention to the images only had themselves to blame for their sense of tedium. To make matters worse, each scene focused solely on it's singer, rather than the interesting decor or set piece that should have accompanied them. This may partly be to advertise the fact that, yes, the singing was actually done live on-camera, but do we really care? Would you rather have enjoyed a better performance or have had the knowledge that they did it live? I would go for the former any day of the week.

However, the one exception to that last paragraph is Anne Hathaway's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream". The intense anguish of a mother forced to lower herself to prostitution to provide for her daughter was obvious during Hathaway's brilliant performance which will surely see her as a serious contender for Best supporting actress at this year's academy awards. Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Banks all stand out as fantastic singers, although it's a shame that they're saved until the film's second half. Jackman competently performs as Valjean, while Crowe's more grounded vocals are that of the honest and humble lawman that his character should really be. Despite this, their performances are merely satisfactory, not reach for the tissues worthy, and it's obvious that singing does not come naturally to either of them.

As a work of cinema, Les Misérables is an uninspired and overly long adaptation which is thankfully saved by a rousing soundtrack and a handful of potentially Oscar worthy performances which will keep many audience members in tears long after the credits have rolled. Testament to the film's emotional punch is the fact that complaints have been lodged against audience members who were powerless to resist the temptation to sing along.

Me: I don't sit in while you're running it down. I don't carry a gun. I write about films, games, books, music, politics or whatever else catches my rapidly wavering attention. But to be honest I mostly write about films because they're short (Did you hear that "The Dark Knight Rises"?).

Cook: You look like you're hard to work with.

Me: True, most people find me rather irritating.

If you're the kind of nerdy, obsessive, pretentious, uptight cynical member of the public that enjoyed the above reference to popular art house action flick "Drive", then you may also appreciate the series of posts that I will definitely, most certainly, without a doubt, fingers crossed be religiously writing in the near future.

Many thanks

Jack Irwin