I have mentioned previously the lack of good TV available in the UAE, such that Michele and I often find ourselves watching Sky News to such an extent that you get caught in endless news-loops (you know, where the stories and reports start repeating themselves every 20-30 mins or so).
Guaranteed to inadvertently send you into a fit of desperate rage if you don't quickly escape the loop as soon as you realise you are caught in it, this feeling is intensified a thousand-fold when Sky News only want to cover one story. Endlessly. For days on end. Despite there being no material new developments (a kind of televisual Daily Mail if you will).
So a Russian spy died last week. The stuff of a Tom Clancy film no doubt, but you could have watched the whole of that film many times over by now and Sky News is still reporting the story as its "Top Story" under ever more frequent, bright red, "Breaking News" banners:
"Breaking News: Traces of polonium-210 found in just about everywhere the dead spy went recently".
Shock. Gasp. Really?? No kidding? Is that really news, or a statement of the obvious!
Is it dangerous to anyone?
Answer - no, not really.
SO WHY IS IT STILL NEWS THEN???!!!!!!
And notice how, somewhat predictably, when the media gets desperate for a new angle, the Government are suddenly brought into the equation. Seriously, whilst this was quite an interesting and unusual story when it first broke, this is not (and never was) something that requires a House of Commons statement. Like many things, notwithstanding the media's attempts to establish some kind of link, however tenuous, it has nothing to do with the Government.
And what of this "polonium-210"? Have you noticed how it is the new, never-really-heard-of-before-but-now-sounds-a-cool-word-to-use buzz-word that every newsreader on Sky cannot help but repeat at least once every 10 seconds? It is quickly becoming this year's "metatarsal".
Enough with the "top story" news coverage. One Russian, murdered in suspicious circumstances (and, admittedly, using unconventional means) does not warrant blanket coverage for what is now nearly 5 days. Come back to us with an "And finally..." if anything happens that is a material issue warranting public attention. If not, let it go. Surely something else must be happening in the world??
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
It's raining!!
Admittedly not a particularly exciting title, but something of an event here in the land of the eternal sunshine. Rained for about 30 mins today. Weird. Hasn't rained since (I believe) February. And twice in one year is almost unheard of. Was still enough to create some localised flooding.
None of the locals know quite what to make of rain. Everyone still drives at the same speed despite the fact that the roads, bedded down with so much ground in rubber and dirt, are like ice rinks when they become wet. So accidents aplenty.
And everyone starts driving with their hazard lights on, which obviously makes it impossible to tell when those in front of you intend to change lanes (not that it is any easier usually - indicators being treated by most as a somewhat unnecessary frill!).
Anyway, a little bit of rain might make the town that much cleaner. Which is no bad thing. It will probably make front page news tomorrow.
Actually makes you feel a bit homesick...
None of the locals know quite what to make of rain. Everyone still drives at the same speed despite the fact that the roads, bedded down with so much ground in rubber and dirt, are like ice rinks when they become wet. So accidents aplenty.
And everyone starts driving with their hazard lights on, which obviously makes it impossible to tell when those in front of you intend to change lanes (not that it is any easier usually - indicators being treated by most as a somewhat unnecessary frill!).
Anyway, a little bit of rain might make the town that much cleaner. Which is no bad thing. It will probably make front page news tomorrow.
Actually makes you feel a bit homesick...
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Casino Royale
Just how good is this movie? Saw it over the weekend and was seriously impressed. Not to say relieved that the Bond franchise has re-railed itself.
Realising of course that the general public are fickle when it comes to all things Bondian (just how many newspapers, magazines and websites are currently running the "Who was the best Bond ever" poll at present, all of which produce the same predictable results of Connery, followed by Brosnan, followed by Moore, followed by Dalton followed by Lazenby - the last two sometimes changing places, but generally on such low scores that no-one either notices or cares) I feel a little reckless in saying that Daniel Craig may just be rivalling Sean for the top spot. But I really thought he was excellent in the role. And (gasp) sooooooo much better than Pierce Brosnan.
To be honest, something seemed to go wrong with the Bond films from the moment that Licence to Kill failed to be the summer blockbuster of 1989 resulting in a 6 year hiatus on Bond movies (the longest gap between any 2 Bond films). By 1995, everyone had seemed to have forgotten what Bond films were all about and so, as a handy reminder, all of the cliches and double entendres were crammed into the first 15 minutes of Goldeneye. I genuinely thought (and said at the time) that Goldeneye was poor. The 3 that followed were much the same. Pierce Brosnan seemed to play the role as an amalgam of the Connery and Moore interpretations, and in so doing didn't make the role his own, but rather made the role just a blander version of both his main predecessors. Daniel Craig has, admittedly, benefitted from a radical overhaul of the structure of how the film is played out (at no time in the past has the main bad guy been killed off by someone other than Bond), the lack of Q (John Cleese is not suited to Bond at all) and a much more polished script.
And the lack of big name stars (excl. Judi Dench) is also a good thing. After all, how many of the bad guys and Bond girls in the 60s and 70s were big name actors renowned for other things before their Bond roles (Halle Berry, Denise Richards, Robert Carlyle, Sean Bean, etc).
And they even trashed an Aston Martin DBS (in impressive record-breaking style).
So overall, this Bond fan was seriously impressed. Roll on Bond 22....
Realising of course that the general public are fickle when it comes to all things Bondian (just how many newspapers, magazines and websites are currently running the "Who was the best Bond ever" poll at present, all of which produce the same predictable results of Connery, followed by Brosnan, followed by Moore, followed by Dalton followed by Lazenby - the last two sometimes changing places, but generally on such low scores that no-one either notices or cares) I feel a little reckless in saying that Daniel Craig may just be rivalling Sean for the top spot. But I really thought he was excellent in the role. And (gasp) sooooooo much better than Pierce Brosnan.
To be honest, something seemed to go wrong with the Bond films from the moment that Licence to Kill failed to be the summer blockbuster of 1989 resulting in a 6 year hiatus on Bond movies (the longest gap between any 2 Bond films). By 1995, everyone had seemed to have forgotten what Bond films were all about and so, as a handy reminder, all of the cliches and double entendres were crammed into the first 15 minutes of Goldeneye. I genuinely thought (and said at the time) that Goldeneye was poor. The 3 that followed were much the same. Pierce Brosnan seemed to play the role as an amalgam of the Connery and Moore interpretations, and in so doing didn't make the role his own, but rather made the role just a blander version of both his main predecessors. Daniel Craig has, admittedly, benefitted from a radical overhaul of the structure of how the film is played out (at no time in the past has the main bad guy been killed off by someone other than Bond), the lack of Q (John Cleese is not suited to Bond at all) and a much more polished script.
And the lack of big name stars (excl. Judi Dench) is also a good thing. After all, how many of the bad guys and Bond girls in the 60s and 70s were big name actors renowned for other things before their Bond roles (Halle Berry, Denise Richards, Robert Carlyle, Sean Bean, etc).
And they even trashed an Aston Martin DBS (in impressive record-breaking style).
So overall, this Bond fan was seriously impressed. Roll on Bond 22....
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
It's all gone potty!
This morning, Jack reached another little milestone in life's rich tapestry. He managed to, er, 'christen' his potty!
Admittedly, not a subject of great interest to the wider public but nevertheless something that I wanted to record for posterior-ty (ho ho)!
And I also wanted to record our relief that it wasn't our other recently purchased "rich tapestry" - an authentic and quite expensive Iranian silk rug with 900 knots per square inch that took one person 18 months to sew! - that Jack chose to... how can I put it?... de-faece.
Day 3 of the blog and already doing toilet humour gags!
Admittedly, not a subject of great interest to the wider public but nevertheless something that I wanted to record for posterior-ty (ho ho)!
And I also wanted to record our relief that it wasn't our other recently purchased "rich tapestry" - an authentic and quite expensive Iranian silk rug with 900 knots per square inch that took one person 18 months to sew! - that Jack chose to... how can I put it?... de-faece.
Day 3 of the blog and already doing toilet humour gags!
There's somebody at the door...
Last night, whilst Michele and I were spending yet another interesting evening in front of the TV, desperately seeking something worth watching on BBC Prime (a sort of amalgam of all that is terrible about daytime lifestyle shows on BBC1 from 3 or 4 years ago, assembled into an evening schedule that comprises the same programmes every night) and finding nothing, there was a sudden knock at the door.
A small Thai lady (could've been Philipino, Vietnamese, or even Chinese to be honest - my ability to tell the difference is clearly shameful) was clutching a small box and greeted me with the oft-heard phrase:
"Allo sir, you wan chip DVD?".
In 3 and a half years in Abu Dhabi, the trade of selling pirate DVDs has never come to our front door, but frequently comes knocking at the office. It's quite entertaining, especially when the ladies treat their goods as though they were illegal drugs. Of course the trade is illegal here, but like most things in Abu Dhabi (the best example being local Arabs propping up the local bars in full national dress, supping tankards of beer) a blind eye is turned.
Anyway, needless to say I wasn't tempted by any of her DVDs. Is it just me, or is it not incredibly infuriating to watch a film that isn't picture and sound perfect? I'll admit that £15 or more is perhaps more than some films are worth (Michele bought Legally Blonde once..... no comment needed), but I'd rather not watch a film at all than have to persevere with scratchy dialogue playing that is forever trying to catch up with the distorted green pictures that it is intended to synch with. You wouldn't buy a CD that you couldn't really hear, so why buy a film that you cannot really see?
A small Thai lady (could've been Philipino, Vietnamese, or even Chinese to be honest - my ability to tell the difference is clearly shameful) was clutching a small box and greeted me with the oft-heard phrase:
"Allo sir, you wan chip DVD?".
In 3 and a half years in Abu Dhabi, the trade of selling pirate DVDs has never come to our front door, but frequently comes knocking at the office. It's quite entertaining, especially when the ladies treat their goods as though they were illegal drugs. Of course the trade is illegal here, but like most things in Abu Dhabi (the best example being local Arabs propping up the local bars in full national dress, supping tankards of beer) a blind eye is turned.
Anyway, needless to say I wasn't tempted by any of her DVDs. Is it just me, or is it not incredibly infuriating to watch a film that isn't picture and sound perfect? I'll admit that £15 or more is perhaps more than some films are worth (Michele bought Legally Blonde once..... no comment needed), but I'd rather not watch a film at all than have to persevere with scratchy dialogue playing that is forever trying to catch up with the distorted green pictures that it is intended to synch with. You wouldn't buy a CD that you couldn't really hear, so why buy a film that you cannot really see?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Good Night, and Good Luck: A Good Evening Spent
It having been ages since I'd sat down and watched a good movie without interruption (ie without having one's time hi'Jack'ed if you will), I decided that yesterday evening was a good opportunity to watch one of the many DVDs I'd recently bought/received as birthday presents. Feeling somewhat in need of an intellect injection, I selected "Good Night and Good Luck". And was most impressed.
Not what you'd describe as action packed, this reasonably short (90 mins) film was still remarkable for its ability immediately to make you feel part of both the era, and the eerie paranoia, in which this true-story is set (post-war, but communism fearing, early 1950s America). The plot synopsis you can read elsewhere, but I was pleasantly surprised by this film – thinking it might be a little heavy-going (perhaps due to my usual scepticism of modern films being shot in black and white in an attempt to prove themselves "arty"), it was clear that the black and white nature of the film not only enabled archive footage to blend seamlessly with the main film, but also helped emphasise that this was a film about two sides (communist paranoia feeding legitimised "witch-hunt" persecution of anyone with suspected communist sympathies). Ultimately, the realisation of the injustice involved in the latter helped dilute the former.
Acting (particularly David Strathairn, Frank Langella, and even (I thought), Robert Downey Jr), cinematography and screenplay all excellent. Mr Sutton said that he knows that he's enjoyed a film if he is still thinking about it the next day. This is certainly true of me today. Strangely though, for me it isn't actually the storyline of 'broadcaster versus politician' that causes me to reflect, but rather the contextual background in which this all played out; an age when television was a relatively new invention and, perhaps as a result of arguments put forward by the likes of Edward Murrow, able to be steered away in the years that followed from what was otherwise becoming an apparent destiny to be solely an entertainment facility. In an age of 24 hour reality-obsessed 'car crash' telly, many of the ideas expressed in this film as to how, looking forward from the 1950s, television had the potential to inform and educate a mass audience, could benefit from being revisited. This film helps to do that.
Not what you'd describe as action packed, this reasonably short (90 mins) film was still remarkable for its ability immediately to make you feel part of both the era, and the eerie paranoia, in which this true-story is set (post-war, but communism fearing, early 1950s America). The plot synopsis you can read elsewhere, but I was pleasantly surprised by this film – thinking it might be a little heavy-going (perhaps due to my usual scepticism of modern films being shot in black and white in an attempt to prove themselves "arty"), it was clear that the black and white nature of the film not only enabled archive footage to blend seamlessly with the main film, but also helped emphasise that this was a film about two sides (communist paranoia feeding legitimised "witch-hunt" persecution of anyone with suspected communist sympathies). Ultimately, the realisation of the injustice involved in the latter helped dilute the former.
Acting (particularly David Strathairn, Frank Langella, and even (I thought), Robert Downey Jr), cinematography and screenplay all excellent. Mr Sutton said that he knows that he's enjoyed a film if he is still thinking about it the next day. This is certainly true of me today. Strangely though, for me it isn't actually the storyline of 'broadcaster versus politician' that causes me to reflect, but rather the contextual background in which this all played out; an age when television was a relatively new invention and, perhaps as a result of arguments put forward by the likes of Edward Murrow, able to be steered away in the years that followed from what was otherwise becoming an apparent destiny to be solely an entertainment facility. In an age of 24 hour reality-obsessed 'car crash' telly, many of the ideas expressed in this film as to how, looking forward from the 1950s, television had the potential to inform and educate a mass audience, could benefit from being revisited. This film helps to do that.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
So here it is...
Welcome all.
Have decided to join the 21st century and start sharing thoughts and messages with the world.
Actually, thought this may be a new way of imparting large amounts of news (as if we have any!) in one foul swoop. Email seems so.... last year.
In my eagerness to get writing, I haven't yet looked at the design of the blog layout. Thoughts welcome. The only criteria to date is that it had to be brown. Like the Desert. And Abu Dhabi after a sandstorm.
A quick word on the title "Not Enough Sand". 'tis the answer to the age-old question of "What have you got if your lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand." Seemed strangely appropriate.
Anyway, more ideas and commentary as it comes to me.
Must work out now how to link in Messrs Smith and Sutton...
Have decided to join the 21st century and start sharing thoughts and messages with the world.
Actually, thought this may be a new way of imparting large amounts of news (as if we have any!) in one foul swoop. Email seems so.... last year.
In my eagerness to get writing, I haven't yet looked at the design of the blog layout. Thoughts welcome. The only criteria to date is that it had to be brown. Like the Desert. And Abu Dhabi after a sandstorm.
A quick word on the title "Not Enough Sand". 'tis the answer to the age-old question of "What have you got if your lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand." Seemed strangely appropriate.
Anyway, more ideas and commentary as it comes to me.
Must work out now how to link in Messrs Smith and Sutton...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)