Asterix and the stereotyping of nations.

Something that amuses me sometimes is parts in films where a character is clearly meant to be a jokey stereotype of a nation. (take Buzz Lightyear when he turns Spanish in toy story 3 and becomes a passionate dancer, or the frogs in Flushed Away who when told it is time for action reply "WE SURRENDER") i always wonder how is that joke going to go down in that country? Will they be offended? Will the find it super funny? Do they even get the joke?

So i remembered this comic book called Asterix and Obelix, which is a French comic set in the Roman Empire about the last village to stand against romans thanks to a magic potion. It’s a comedy and often they go abroad to take the mickey out of the country they go to.

I wondered if they ever came to Britain.

They did.

and they said that "Julius Caesar has invaded Britain and succeeded in his conquest, mainly because the British soldiers under Cassivelaunos stop fighting every day to drink hot water (with a drop of milk) and they refuse to fight over the weekend. Caesar, using his military genius, decides only to fight when they stop to drink hot water and on the weekends. “That our version of Asterix was called "Anti-climax" and that our pubs stored warm beer.

I have concluded that i am amused by this definition of us, though i don’t know where the warm beer thing came from. At least they didn’t go after our teeth. So i think some of the comedy of it has been lost on me.

Death Trap

Saturday was a busy day for me. after a kerfuffle over missing my train, 3 hours on the rails, I arrived in London to visit my friend Diana. I had come to see a play with her, starring one of our favourite stars of TV's Glee, Jonathan Groff.

Death Trap is an amazing play. its incredibly clever, super funny and also really dark. In it a down-on-his-luck thriller play-write receives in the post the manuscript of the perfect play, called Death trap, written by an old student of his (played by Groff). He jokes with his wife about murdering him for it, and when Clifford, the student, is invited to the remote country house to discuss the play, we begin to suspect that he wasn't joking after all. From that point on anything said about the plot is a spoiler, but a for play, featuring 5 actors one set and 2 acts in 3 parts, about a play, featuring 5 actors one set and 2 acts in 3 parts, it is ingenious and captivating. Its genuinely terrifying, and as every part of the old house is covered in decorative weapons, every move every character makes is one towards a weapon, which turns your nerves into shreds by the time plot begins to twist and turn so often it puts roller coasters to shame.

the acting is great in it too, i would say the only let down is the ending which, after all the suspense and surprise plot points, is somewhat predictable and a bit silly.

do you know what we need? more stuff written about HPATDHP1

I went to see harry potter and the deathly hallows part 1 only yesterday (with my friend Diana who lives in laaandaaan) and i really feel the need to write about it. So I’m going to. You could call this my review if you like.

The problem with reviewing a film like this is, well actually there are a few. Firstly you have to decide what perspective you will take. You can review it as a film, a standalone movie as some people (though few) will be seeing this as their first harry potter film. You could write about it in terms of the film franchise, how well it continues on from the last 6. Or you can write about it from the view of a fan of the books.

As a fan of the books, i loved it, and enjoyed it immensely. It’s probably my favourite of all of them so far. I’ve always felt that since the forth book the films seemed more like a condensed clip show of bits from a filmed version of the book completely, it had all the story points in place, butsences, characters and themes were missing. Hermione’s charity for house elves, the fact that everyone thinks Harry is being paranoid about Draco in half blood prince, Rita Skeeter's wider involvement are all things that’s get lost in translation. This time round i feel like very little gets missed out. One change i did notice was Dobby's involvement with Kreacher's hunt for Mundungus, and of course Kreacher’s happy little house elf phase. i can see why they did this, i think it’s dead clever, many people would have forgotten about Dobby, so bringing him back now makes it less confusing when he appears later and two overly happy to serve house elves would have seemed too much, and made house elves seem two dimensional.

As a film however, it’s not a very good one. I can appreciate from an objective view that it is all build up and no conclusion. For any other film i would have found that quite frustrating. Also I’m not entirely sure i would fully understand the plot, with its 11 different magical artefacts, i don’t feel like it is properly explained what horocruxes are. From the film alone you don’t get as much of an intimate idea of what sort of thing they are looking for, or where they are likely to find them. Ginny and Harrys relationship doesn’t work on film either.

Before i end I’d like to make a quick note about (SPOILERS FROM HERE ON) Dobby's death. I’m glad to say that they did this perfectly. Even those who have never read the books (so only know dobby from film 2) should find that moment very sad and very touching. The only thing that stopped me from crying was my marvelling at how different and more realistic Dobby looks now. More of a fault of my own than that of the film makers.

(SPOILERS END HERE)

So to concluded, HPATDHP1 is great for fans, but not as a film. Hopefully the final part will be done in just the same way.

formspring.me

Ask me anything http://formspring.me/Tonythenerd