It's that -OTY time of year again: today, it's Pantone's Color of the Year for 2010, which has been unveiled. They have chosen turquoise, which is my favourite colour and so I am pleased that wearing it next year will mean I am fashionable (not that I ever lose any sleep over this kind of thing). According to the press release:
Whether envisioned as a tranquil ocean surrounding a tropical island or a protective stone warding off evil spirits, Turquoise is a color that most people respond to positively. It is universally flattering, has appeal for men and women, and translates easily to fashion and interiors.
Universally flattering as it may be, as a bright spring with light blue eyes, turquoise is also one of my best colours and although I'm not interested in its anti-evil properties, the thought of warm, crystal clear, turquoise oceans and a land far, far away, as modelled by Monsieur E on our holiday to Cuba, is definitely an appealing one. Of course, even the gorgeous blue waters of Cayo Levisa, in which I swam, scuba dived and drank milk from coconuts, had their flaws but then jamais n'est parfait.
Double Skinny Macchiato contains affiliate links and is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. If you click and make a purchase using these links, I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. See my Privacy Policy for more information. Thank you for supporting my blog!
09 December 2009
05 December 2009
Island Fling — Cracks Review
I've been wanting to see the film Cracks ever since it was shown at the London Film Festival at the same time as the disappointment that was the Secret Film. Afterwards, I wished I'd gone to see Cracks instead but I hadn't heard anything about it, and obviously hadn't read its entry in the LoFiFest programme because a film set in a girls' boarding school in the 1930s with Eva Green as the unconventional teacher sounds right up my street.
The film went on general release this weekend and although I was somewhat discouraged by the one-star rating from Time Out (I try not to read any reviews before I see a film in case it puts me off or biases me; if Mark Kermode reviewed it this week, I'm sure he hated it), I convinced my South-of-the-River friend to join me in Haymarket, lest my cold be worsened by the Balham air.
The girls' boarding school in question is set on a remote island which is, by turns, splendid and sinister. Eva Green plays Miss G, a glamorous teacher and a former pupil of the school, who has a special group of favourite pupils who form the diving team (a team that has never competed in any competitions), all of whom display their special status by wearing red sashes. Di Radfield is team captain, Miss G's favourite and all-around queen bee. Her dives are the best and the other girls in the team suck up to her and give in to her bitchy demands. She also has a crush on Miss G and will do anything to please her teacher — woe betide anyone who tries to steal Miss G's attention from her.
Enter Fiamma, a Spanish princess, who has been exiled by her father because she fell in love with a commoner. Error. Fiamma doesn't care that she doesn't fit in and that the girls bully her mercilessly because knows she will only be at the school for a term — but then, most of the other girls thought that too and they are still there, years later. She is also beautiful and generous and does the most stunning dives the team or Miss G have ever seen. Miss G is entranced and Di furious with jealousy. Fiamma has destroyed the balance and hierarchy that existed among the girls and shifted the tentative balance of power.
As the film develops, girls will, it seems, be girls, which on this occasion means that they will be bitchy and selfish and cruel, but as they get to know Fiamma, Miss G herself begins to unravel and Di slowly begins to realise that her beloved teacher may not be the perfect, worldly woman she once thought.
By highlighting the island setting, director Jordan Scott (Ridley Scott Jr.) adds a slightly unsettling sense of isolation as well as an almost fairy-tale-like, other-worldly mood and much is made of the contrasts between the the dark, dramatic woods in winter and the glorious summer mornings when the diving team leap from the diving board into the shimmering lake (sea?), their twisting, somersaulting bodies captured in slow-motion.
The film went on general release this weekend and although I was somewhat discouraged by the one-star rating from Time Out (I try not to read any reviews before I see a film in case it puts me off or biases me; if Mark Kermode reviewed it this week, I'm sure he hated it), I convinced my South-of-the-River friend to join me in Haymarket, lest my cold be worsened by the Balham air.
The girls' boarding school in question is set on a remote island which is, by turns, splendid and sinister. Eva Green plays Miss G, a glamorous teacher and a former pupil of the school, who has a special group of favourite pupils who form the diving team (a team that has never competed in any competitions), all of whom display their special status by wearing red sashes. Di Radfield is team captain, Miss G's favourite and all-around queen bee. Her dives are the best and the other girls in the team suck up to her and give in to her bitchy demands. She also has a crush on Miss G and will do anything to please her teacher — woe betide anyone who tries to steal Miss G's attention from her.
Enter Fiamma, a Spanish princess, who has been exiled by her father because she fell in love with a commoner. Error. Fiamma doesn't care that she doesn't fit in and that the girls bully her mercilessly because knows she will only be at the school for a term — but then, most of the other girls thought that too and they are still there, years later. She is also beautiful and generous and does the most stunning dives the team or Miss G have ever seen. Miss G is entranced and Di furious with jealousy. Fiamma has destroyed the balance and hierarchy that existed among the girls and shifted the tentative balance of power.
As the film develops, girls will, it seems, be girls, which on this occasion means that they will be bitchy and selfish and cruel, but as they get to know Fiamma, Miss G herself begins to unravel and Di slowly begins to realise that her beloved teacher may not be the perfect, worldly woman she once thought.
By highlighting the island setting, director Jordan Scott (Ridley Scott Jr.) adds a slightly unsettling sense of isolation as well as an almost fairy-tale-like, other-worldly mood and much is made of the contrasts between the the dark, dramatic woods in winter and the glorious summer mornings when the diving team leap from the diving board into the shimmering lake (sea?), their twisting, somersaulting bodies captured in slow-motion.
The relationships between the girls and between the girls and their teacher are intriguing and Green does do a good job of playing the beautiful, glamorous teacher with hints of a troubled past and a troubled mind. Juno Temple (Di Radfield) plays an older version of her character in Atonement and a younger version of her character from Glorious 39 so it's no surprise that she has got the attention-seeking bossy-boots character down to a T. Yet, this little island fling didn't quite come together enough for me; it wasn't Kingdom of Heaven, but it certainly wasn't Blade Runner either.
04 December 2009
Listless in London
I'm in a list-making frame of mind but although it's too early to start compiling my favourite books, movies and songs of the year, it isn't too early to round-up my top 100 films of the decade (at least, Time Out have already done it). I worked this out by taking all of the films I've given 8/10 or higher on IMDb and removing any made before the Noughties. Of these, four were awarded 10/10, 16 got 9/10 and the rest 8/10. This gave me a list of about 120 films so I removed my 20 least favourites.
Some caveats:
Some caveats:
- Most films get 7 or 8/10 when I first see them. The reasons for this are explained here. I do update ratings over time and if I end up buying the DVD or downloading an 8/10 film and watching it often enough, it might get promoted to 9/10. Similarly, once my post-cinematic euphoria has worn off, I may decide that the film wasn't worthy of a 7/10 rating and demote it accordingly. However, I don't scour my IMDb ratings page very often and so most films have inaccurate ratings, especially the newest ones (2008 and 2009).
- I haven't seen enough films this decade to really have a worthwhile Top 100. I only had to take 20 films off my original list, which didn't require much deliberation or any agonising decisions — a sign of good list-making.
- I only got the cinema bug in 2008. Although I went to the cinema quite often as a student (2002-2006), I didn't see very many films in 2000-2002 and 2006-2008; the former cinematic drought is compensated for to some extent because these films are now quite often on TV or quite cheap to buy on DVD.
- Yes, I am a geek.
10/10
- Closer (2004/I)
- Mulholland Dr. (2001)
- The Dreamers (2003)
- The History Boys (2006)
9/10
- 21 Grams (2003)
- An Education (2009)
- Atonement (2007)
- Before Sunset (2004)
- Gran Torino (2008)
- Juno (2007)
- L'ennemi public n°1 (2008)
- Le scaphandre et le papillon (2007)
- Mean Creek (2004)
- Ocean's Eleven (2001)
- Sin City (2005)
- Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
- The Dark Knight (2008)
- The Departed (2006)
- The Pianist (2002)
- The Prestige (2006)
8/10
- 2 Days in Paris (2007)
- A Cock and Bull Story (2005)
- A Scanner Darkly (2006)
- Almost Famous (2000)
- American Psycho (2000)
- Away We Go (2009)
- Babel (2006)
- Bandits (2001)
- Bright Star (2009)
- Brokeback Mountain (2005)
- Burn After Reading (2008)
- Catch Me If You Can (2002)
- Changeling (2008)
- Children of Men (2006)
- Cidade de Deus (2002)
- Crash (2004/I)
- Easy Virtue (2008)
- El maquinista (2004)
- Entre les murs (2008)
- Far from Heaven (2002)
- Final Destination (2000)
- Frost/Nixon (2008)
- Gangs of New York (2002)
- Genova (2008)
- Ghost World (2001)
- Gladiator (2000)
- Glorious 39 (2009)
- Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)
- Gosford Park (2001)
- Hotel Rwanda (2004)
- Igby Goes Down (2002)
- In Search of a Midnight Kiss (2007)
- Jeux d'enfants (2003)
- Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
- L'instinct de mort (2008)
- L'ultimo bacio (2001)
- Les chansons d'amour (2007)
- Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
- Lost in Translation (2003)
- Mean Girls (2004)
- Memento (2000)
- Milk (2008/I)
- Million Dollar Baby (2004)
- Moon (2009)
- Mystic River (2003)
- Ne le dis à personne (2006)
- Paris, je t'aime (2006)
- Pour elle (2008)
- Public Enemies (2009)
- Revolutionary Road (2008)
- Saved! (2004)
- Scary Movie (2000)
- Se, jie (2007)
- Shrek (2001)
- Sideways (2004)
- Sounds Like Teen Spirit (2008)
- Spellbound (2002/I)
- Star Trek (2009)
- State and Main (2000)
- State of Play (2009)
- Sunshine Cleaning (2008)
- Super Size Me (2004)
- Swimming Pool (2003)
- Team America: World Police (2004)
- Thank You for Smoking (2005)
- The Beach (2000/I)
- The Boys Are Back (2009)
- The Hole (2001)
- The Hurt Locker (2008)
- The Informant! (2009)
- The Notebook (2004)
- The Reader (2008)
- The Rules of Attraction (2002)
- The Ten (2007)
- The Visitor (2007/I)
- There Will Be Blood (2007)
- Un secret (2007)
- V for Vendetta (2005)
- Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
- Watchmen (2009)
As this Top 100 wasn't as satisfying as I'd hoped, I decided to make a Top 10 as well. This wasn't too difficult either because the films had to consist of all of those I rated 10/10 and six of the 9/10 films — otherwise, it would make a mockery of my whole rating system. To avoid such a shocking inconsistency, I only looked at the 10/10 and 9/10 films and the Top 10 is thus:
- Mulholland Dr.
- Closer
- The Dreamers
- The History Boys
- Before Sunset
- Juno
- Gran Torino
- L'ennemi public n°1
- Le scaphandre et le papillon
- Ocean's Eleven
With as many as three comedies and two French films (both with Mathieu Amalric; coincidence? Je crois pas) and only one film starring Clive Owen, I don't feel this Top 10 accurately represents my favourite films of the decade. As this still wasn't enough analysis and as I can now include vlookup in my Magicke Excell Skillz, I decided to compare my list with Time Out's Top 101 and:
- 16 of my choices appear on Time Out's list
- In addition to this, I've watch 19 other films from the list (37 in total)
- Of those 37, I hated three (Dancer in the Dark, Amélie, and Punch-Drunk Love),
- Four would have made my Top 150 (Zodiac, In the Loop, Best in Show, and In Bruges) and
- I felt two were too repetitive: when you only have 101 films to play with, why not pick just one Haneke film and one instalment of Lord of the Rings (because they'd already signed up Peter Jackson to comment, perhaps?)
Thankfully, perhaps, this is no easy way for me to compile my Top 100 books of the decade...so I shall refrain.
29 November 2009
A Far from Black and White Film — The White Ribbon Review
As predicted, the weather was so awful today that my run ended up being more reminiscent of boot camp: I was soaked through within minutes and then spent the next eighty minutes falling into puddles, jumping over bike gates to avoid puddles, slipping on piles of sodden leaves, slipping on mud and, more rarely, being splashed by cars. I felt much better after a hot shower but understandably, this experience didn't really leave me pining for the great outdoors — or even for leaving the flat at all.
However, I had booked a ticket for The White Ribbon, somewhat à contrecœur, and in what has been a rather budget-stretched month, I was loath to waste £7 so I dutifully trekked (or, rather, Tubed) down to the BFI to endure Michael Haneke's latest cinematic experience.
However, I had booked a ticket for The White Ribbon, somewhat à contrecœur, and in what has been a rather budget-stretched month, I was loath to waste £7 so I dutifully trekked (or, rather, Tubed) down to the BFI to endure Michael Haneke's latest cinematic experience.
I say "somewhat à contrecœur" because the other two Haneke films I've seen — Funny Games US and Caché — were immensely frustrating. Haneke spends both films carefully and methodically building up a fascinating mystery and then just leaves the viewers in the lurch at the end. I was really enjoying watching both of these films but the ending, or lack thereof, ruined it for me. I don't absolutely require for all loose ends to be tied up at the end of a film but without at least some explanation for the bizarre events of the film, I came away feeling immensely unsatisfied--anticipation was not the purest form of pleasure on this occasion.
I was expecting more of the same from The White Band, which is set a few months before the outbreak of World War One in a small German village where strange things (tragic "accidents", barn burnings, cabbage mutilation, child torture, and so on) have started to happen. Haneke almost had me at the credits because I was feeling very tired and the opening credits were rolled on one at a time in small, white letters on a black background with no music or sounds at all — I almost fell asleep.
I was expecting more of the same from The White Band, which is set a few months before the outbreak of World War One in a small German village where strange things (tragic "accidents", barn burnings, cabbage mutilation, child torture, and so on) have started to happen. Haneke almost had me at the credits because I was feeling very tired and the opening credits were rolled on one at a time in small, white letters on a black background with no music or sounds at all — I almost fell asleep.
Luckily, I soon woke up when the black started to fade away into the stark white backdrop of a man riding on a horse in the countryside — not the only time when the startlingly white background caused me to rub my eyes during the film, which is shot entirely in black and white. The villagers — particularly the children — are mostly Aryan, with their blonde hair looking almost white on film; some always dress entirely in black, some have white aprons, some are made to wear the titular white ribbon to remind them of purity and innocence when their behaviour suggests that they might be in need of a reminder.
The film is narrated by the school teacher (or, given the voice, a much older version of him) in the German village and opens with the village doctor's horse tripping over a wire that has been hung between two trees. The doctor falls and badly hurts himself and is taken to the hospital in a nearby town.
The film is narrated by the school teacher (or, given the voice, a much older version of him) in the German village and opens with the village doctor's horse tripping over a wire that has been hung between two trees. The doctor falls and badly hurts himself and is taken to the hospital in a nearby town.
Following this, more strange accidents and incidents start occurring and the school teacher tries to get to the bottom of them, while also trying to win the heart — and the hand — of the nanny of the baronial family who employ about half of the village. The children are, for the most part, unsettling — usually, they are Stepford-like with their, "yes, father; no, father" responses and the way they seem to be completely emotionless. Other times, they become very angry and violent. Many of the parents are no better and as the film progresses, we learn more about their true nature.
To some extent, The White Ribbon is more satisfying than Funny Games and Caché, in that while there is a certain amount of open-endedness and ambiguity, we learn enough about the villagers to be able put together some of the pieces and to explain what just happened and why.
To some extent, The White Ribbon is more satisfying than Funny Games and Caché, in that while there is a certain amount of open-endedness and ambiguity, we learn enough about the villagers to be able put together some of the pieces and to explain what just happened and why.
I still found it a little frustrating because I'd just sat through 2h30 worth of film (and only looked at the time once!) and so I felt I'd earned a little more in the way of resolution. With Haneke, though, this is likely as good as it gets. The movie was gripping throughout with the suspense and the intrigue being upped painstakingly slowly, although I felt that the few humorous or more light-hearted moments in the last hour verged on bathos. The acting was great too, particularly the creepy children. All in all, The White Ribbon was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting.
18 November 2009
A Sentimental Education
I've read 164 books so far this year, with just six weeks of reading time remaining. I haven't gone through the full list in detail yet but I have been highlighting a small selection of books as I go, picking out books either for a top-five-of-the-year blog post or to add to my worth-buying-and-adding-to-the-permanent-collection list. Almost all of the highlighted books made me cry--as with movies, I usually prefer my books to be sad and tender rather than flighty and funny.
The next chapter flashes 30 years into the future where Margaret is dying of a cancer that invaded her bladder and then the rest of her. The realisation that this young, beautiful nymph has become middle-aged and very ill, though still dry and brave, is a shocking one. With alternating chapters set in the present and then flashing back to tell chronologically the story of their relationship, Yglesias depicts a marriage that is far from perfect and that has its problems as with all others but that, ultimately, is a very happy marriage. The clever structure means that the novel is both building up and winding down the relationship at the same time and it's only at the very end of the book that Margaret and Enrique have sex (structurally though not, of course, chronologically), as though their relationship is so deep and so intense and so all-consuming that readers could only hope to understand the power of this consummation after knowing their full story and how it ends.
It's interesting how even a few months of hindsight is long enough for me to change my mind. When I read The Age of Innocence in March or April, it got added to the shortlist but now, while I still like the book a lot, when compared to other books I've read since then, I'm not sure it will still make the final cut. Sometimes my opinion of a book will be tarnished by my disliking of another one of the author's works. I really enjoyed Iain M Banks's Matter when I read it in May or June but having now read Banks's Transition and The Wasp Factory (the latter being by Banks without the M, while the former goes both with the scifi of the with-M alias and the non-scifi non-M alias), my opinion of Matter has now been devalued, simply because I didn't enjoy the two books I read later.
I was somewhat hesitant to take reading suggestions from an economist but Tyler Cowen has good taste in many things so when he recommended a book called A Happy Marriage by Rafael Yglesias on Marginal Revolution back in July, I decided to give it a whirl, based on Cowen's summary:
I devoured this book eagerly on a plane flight and I recommend it highly to those who are married, have been married, will be married, should be married, and should not be married.
I must have stopped reading there because I don't remember reading his next paragraphs about the appearances of bloggers and economists or about the fact that not many other novels contain a tongue-in-cheek explanation of the difference between micro- and macroeconomics.
Of course, the book hasn't been published yet in England and after repeated searches of my library catalogue, all in vain, I gave in and decided to just buy it while I was in the US--a rare occurrence these days for me when a) I read a lot of books, b) I don't necessarily want to own very many of them once I've read them, c) I don't have a lot of money and d) Westminster Libraries have a big enough collection that I can usually satisfy my reading needs with a 50p reservation fee.
At $26 it wasn't cheap either but I think it was a good investment--I will definitely read it again and the cover--leafy trees curving into a sort-of heart shape outside a New York apartment building--is pretty too. As it clocks in at under 400 pages, the book doesn't take up more than its fair share of shelf space either. As for the novel itself, it is a loosely fictionalised account of the author's almost 30-year marriage to Margaret Jostow. The author's name and the name of his sons change in the book, but otherwise many of the details are real. The raw, sensual, tender emotions that fill every word of the text are certainly very real.
The novel opens when Enri que (as Yglesias's alter ego is called) is introduced to Margaret by his friend Bernard. Enrique dropped out of school at 16 to write novels and enjoyed initial success but following his break-up with his much older girlfriend, he is suffering from a big loss of confidence. Margaret is a 24-year-old Cornell graduate and artist. She's beautiful with her big blue eyes and is somewhat socially awkward, which Enrique finds endearing. It's New York City in the early '70s and they are falling in love.
The next chapter flashes 30 years into the future where Margaret is dying of a cancer that invaded her bladder and then the rest of her. The realisation that this young, beautiful nymph has become middle-aged and very ill, though still dry and brave, is a shocking one. With alternating chapters set in the present and then flashing back to tell chronologically the story of their relationship, Yglesias depicts a marriage that is far from perfect and that has its problems as with all others but that, ultimately, is a very happy marriage. The clever structure means that the novel is both building up and winding down the relationship at the same time and it's only at the very end of the book that Margaret and Enrique have sex (structurally though not, of course, chronologically), as though their relationship is so deep and so intense and so all-consuming that readers could only hope to understand the power of this consummation after knowing their full story and how it ends.
As present-day Margaret begins to say her goodbyes to friends and family, the present-day chapters become harder and harder to read. While Margaret's impending death is very sad, it is the knowledge that Enrique will soon have to deal with the death of the love of his life that is particularly devastating. And yes, I did cry, although not until the final chapter, even though you have been well primed to expect the things that happen in the last chapter all along. Yet, the ending is still emotional and tense, suspenseful and lyrical, and is a fitting end for a beautiful book.
Superficially, A Happy Marriage is similar to Lynn Barber's An Education--both, ultimately, have the strong, life-long marriage of the protagonist at their centre, even if both deviate onto other topics such as their career, their upbringing and their past loves. Of course, the brusque, sharply witty irony of Barber's prose is a world away from the languorous poetry of Yglesias's writing. I read An Education but A Happy Marriage slipped over me, sucking me in and demanding my attention until it was finished.
It's perhaps unfair for me to add A Happy Marriage to my shortlist of the year when there are only six weeks for me to go off it, but I can't imagine it will enter my chart below number two.
16 November 2009
For He Is in Dede Mervelously Frended
Yes, it's that time of year again — the time for WOTYs or should that be Ws OTY or WOTies? Last year, I was singularly unimpressed with the New Oxford American Dictionary's Word of the Year, hypermiling, which I'd never even heard before it was announced. This year's choice, unfriend, pleases me more because a) I know what it means and b) I've heard people using it, even though I'm neither enough of a Facebook power user nor enough of an unfriending bitch to use it much myself. My example sentence would be, "J unfriended me in 2006 and has blocked me on Facebook ever since."
Actually, though, although I wouldn't use the word often myself, instinctively, I find myself drawn more to defriend, which has about half as many Google hits as its more popular synonym unfriend. Linguistically speaking, unfriend is more correct because it combines the Germanic root friend with a Germanic prefix un-, whereas defriend adds the Latinate prefix de- with the Germanic root. Historically, this affix mixing is very rare: Germanic happy takes Germanic un-, whereas Latinate satisfied takes Latinate dis-. There are some exceptions, of course, and when new words enter the language, there isn't always an obvious affix for them to take--or, indeed, a universal affix for them to take, as evidenced by de-/unfriend.
My second objection was to the use of friend as a verb. "OMG, my dad tried to friend me at the weekend; ewww." Again, though, my gripe is unfounded because the OED records texts using friend as a verb as early as the 13th century. A later example comes from Robert Dudley, my favourite historical character, in 1585, "Yf the man be as he now semeth, hit were petty to loose him, for he is in dede mervelously frended."
Thirdly, if I'm going to accept friend as a verb, I prefer the prefix de- because it makes it clear that defriend is a verb, given that de- is only applied to verbs and their derivatives. Un-, meanwhile, can negate, reverse or counter-balance many parts of speech: unexciting (adj), undo (v), unease (n), unkissed (compound adj., a favourite of Mr Hector's) and so on. Unfriend could theoretically mean "remove from your social network" or something like "an enemy," albeit only in some sort of Orwellian world where Newspeak is the official language.
In conclusion, I can't find any serious objection to defriend, other than an instinctive dislike of its form, so I'll concede it is at least a better WOTY than many of its predecessors. Perhaps I'm just jealous that ToCoRo and NoMaRo still haven't got quite as much pick-up as they deserve...
15 November 2009
In Search of the Perfect Silver Screen
I really do try to patronise independent cinemas wherever possible. The experience is far more pleasurable than the awful, over-sized multiplexes even if the tickets are more expensive. In theory, at least. Recently, though, my indie cinema trips have tended to have little irritations that have if not ruined the film then distracted me from enjoying it as much as I would have otherwise.
Perhaps I've been spoiled by going to the BFI so much, which is always great because everyone — staff and the audience — loves films. Perhaps I just go to the cinema more often and so start to notice little quirks that might not have caught my attention otherwise, just like the way at least one train journey I make per week, now that I commute, will have some annoyance — the electric doors between the first class carriage and pleb class might open and shut every five seconds for the whole journey, for example.
On Friday, for example, a middle-aged, European couple were sitting next to me. Every two minutes or so the man would let out a series of grunts, often with an associated hand gesture, while his wife would then chatter away quickly though more quietly. I assume he was asking what had happened in a scene and she was trying to explain but then sometimes, his grunts seemed to be more critical as though he were questioning why a character had said a certain line or done something a certain way.
I was too English to say anything but the Aussie girls in the row in front turned round, about halfway through, and asked them to be quiet. They did. For about five minutes and then the muttering started again. The Aussies tried again a couple of times and then gave up but did shout at the couple when leaving telling them to watch a DVD next time so they didn't spoil the film for others although the couple pretended not to understand. It made me feel a bit better though.
Of course, this isn't the cinema's fault and Baker Street does have a large international population but perhaps the Screen could put up a multilingual sign explaining that people come to the cinema here to watch a film and not to chat.
2. Bright Lights, Big City. When allowing customers to book tickets online, cinemas should really include information about any major obstructions of the screen and potential interference from "emergency lighting" when making the screen plans available. The Screen on Baker Street failed again on this recently. As I visit fairly often, I have my favourite seats and favourite rows in each screen. Sadly, as I was booking late a few weeks ago, most of the good seats were taken. "Please note that you are not able to leave a single seat gap between your seats and the end of the row or seats already sold," the website advised. For some reason, though, someone else's booking had left a lone seat at the end of the row and I was getting an error message coming up when I tried to book it. Fail.
This meant I had to sit in the row behind, which would have been OK had it not been for the horribly bright emergency light that was inserted into the seat across the aisle, which was very unpleasant for someone who gets migraines or who isn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. After the trailers, when the ice cream guys (see below) came round, they asked if anyone else wanted anything and I asked if they could turn the light off but of course they can't.
This isn't the only cinema where poorly placed emergency lighting has detracted from my cinematic experience. I'm not saying they shouldn't have emergency lights, but cinema owners should actually test out potential lighting positions by sitting in each of the seats to test for distracting and painful glare before fixing the lights permanently.
3. I Scream. You rush to get to the cinema on time because you know the Grumpy Peeps will tut at you if you dare to ask if you can squeeze past them after the adverts have begun (unsurprisingly, the GP sitting next to me on Friday was pretty late herself and had to squeeze past everyone and then made a huge fuss when the chatty foreign couple needed to get in a couple of minutes later). Then you endure ten minutes of adverts and five of trailers (which aren't so bad) as well as whichever tired, old Orange commerciadvisory reminding you to switch your phone off. Finally, you think, it's time for the film. But then the lights come on and for a few minutes nothing happened.
The first time this happened, I assumed it was due to a technical glitch, like at the Finchley Road Odeon, but then a couple of minutes later, two ushers came in asking if anyone wanted to buy ice cream. At first, I thought they were filling in the time until the film was actually ready to go but it's happened every time since at the Screen on Baker Street.
Of course, cinemas make far more money from the food and drinks they sell than from ticket sales and while the Screen has nice, posh snacks, I rarely buy them because they are expensive. The post-trailer but pre-film ice cream sales trick is a good one because the audience is then sitting down comfortably rather than rushing in to get to their seat on time and are more likely to be susceptible to impulse buys (incidentally, in my experience, more women than men go for the last-minute ice cream).
Clearly, it's worth it for the cinema — usually six or seven people will buy an ice cream and while I'm not sure what the margins are, it's probably a good boost. For most of the audience, though, it's a pain in the arse--more time spent hanging around waiting for the film.
For all of the above reasons, I don't mind too much that it will cost me £25 to renew my BFI membership (with £10 discount for being an existing member and £5 discount for paying by direct debit). The BFI is a place for cinema lovers who have come to watch a film and doesn't have poorly placed emergency lighting or ice cream breaks (in fact, they don't allow any food in the auditoria, which means no rustling of sweetie wrappers).
The tickets are reasonably priced, especially for members, and there's a really nice bar and restaurant on site, which makes it easy to have a great night out there. The only trouble, though, is that they don't show all new releases and so finding another independent cinema that will screen the new films I want to see but which allows me to do so in pleasant conditions. Now there's a mission...
