Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Simon Morris is just great. I love that he is willing to say that he enjoys movies like transformers as pure entertainment, and that he doesn't think every film has to be 'art', something Jonathan Dennis I don't think could do.
I don't think it's quite as clearcut as that- he spent most of last year bemoaning films like Transformers (in fact that seems to be a pet peeve of him, he's often brought up that pic as representative of everything bad about Hollywood), but I think he's willing to give 'blockbuster' pics a bit more slack if they actually chance their arm and make a few more interesting choices, even if he concedes they mightn't necessarily be for him. It's a crucial difference to merely reverting to the lazy "it's not art so don't expect it be good" criticism that too many fall into.
Huh, good point about film criticism, Craig- Pauline Kael was someone whose anthologies of criticism I coveted when growing up, even though you can find yourself laughing along and nodding your head while disagreeing thoroughly! She was dogmatic as hell, but- and here's the difference- it wasn't quite sure what her dogmas were. And when she loved something, it was awe-inspiring. Some of the best film writing ever.
I've actually got the anthology you mention-mostly great stuff there, but also, as you say, stuff that gives pseuds a bad name.
But that's a bit off the point, isn' it?
Actually, do some listeners feel that Geoff sometimes manages to get better replies and reveals than Sean from his slightly less...erm...combative approach? Not that he merely sits back- he's a pretty dogged interviewer at the best of times- but I get the impression he's more one to test the waters before diving right in.
-
I like NatRad, but that smugness is there and its possibly bringing on a rightward swing in me ...
I know what you mean. Laidlaw and guests are the worst for it. There's too much "Well, of course everyone knows that such-and-such is a bad thing ..."
It's like people mouthing cliches about George Bush. It's just not interesting any more.
OTOH, the equally cliched small-minded Tory drone that emanates from The Panel at least a couple of days every week provides some wretched sort of balance ...
That is something that bugs me about Laidlaw's show, I just couldn't put my finger on it. That and the fact that as an interviewer, sometimes it's apparent Laidlaw hasn't done his research and tries to wing it. I mean, we've all been there (well, I have), but on radio it's patently obvious when it happens in a way that can't be disguised later on as you can with print.
Usually you can tell when Laidlaw hasn't done his homework when instead of letting the subject speak, he interrupts and overtalks them all the time. There was a pretty obvious example when he interview the Ombudsman Bev Wakem a while back. Which was pretty poor considering her prior experience in Radio!
That said, when it works, it can be illimunating.
-
I rather miss Jonathan Dennis, who -- when the material on offer was just too existentially angst-making for words -- would go off and make a show that ran down the by-ways of New Zealand's film history.
I don't know, I can't think of a single film critic who was more inclined to lay down a verbose, overwrought sledgehammer to a particularly pesky ant than Jon Dennis (RIP). He certainly had a keener knowledge of film's history, particularly in regards to NZ film, and when he found something worse enthusing about, it was a treat, but the main problem is that so much of the time he sounded like it was actually a chore to be doing the show.
And as such, too often, it wasn't very enjoyable to listen to him. Look, this is an avid Sight & Sound reader here, but his pompousness could be suffocating. He may have covered (at times) slightly more leftfield fare than Morris's usual mix (though I think he does pretty good with that), and it was a delight on the occasion that a film surprised or enchanted him, etc, but I just couldn't connect.
Essentially, for all his talent, I don't think he always wrote good "radio reviews"- the language was better suited to the page.
Morris's show is more entertaining, but it's also more direct and generous- it's imbued with the some enthusiasm and cross-media appeal he used to have in his music specials back in the day. And I enjoy it when he lays into a film because of his array of means of attack.
But that's all by the by.
Anyway, I'm a regular listener of NatRad too, especially considering I can't get the opportunity to switch my dial to Radio 1 anymore (RDU just isn't as good). Agree with most of the reservations and plaudits for Morning Report, which is more than just an institution, it's a barometer, the afternoon stuff is hit-and-miss, Ryan's programme definitely fits in with Craig's wonderful "meringue" analogy and Kim Hil's Nine to Noon always brings up something worthwhile- usually the best slot tends to be playing favourites, and her strength tends to be with the arts. Only god could've read as many books as she has.
Sounds Historical meanwhile, is auditory valium. How could one show be more boring? It's almost surreally narcoleptic, I remember my dad having it on in the background when he ironed, but he admitted he never actually listened to it, he was just too lazy to turn the thing off!
Bryan Crump is an enjoyable guide, but hit and miss, while Lynn Freeman is great- I just like the way the show seems to cover so much ground.
Mind you, more young voices on NatRad would always be good, I was disappointed when Radio 1's Aaron Hawkins didn't throw his hat into the ring for Music 101, it would be great to get people like him on the show. And a wider range of music dealt with outside of Nick Bollinger's the Sampler.
Overall, Ralston is an eejit, with only a faint semblance of a point.
-
As for the Listener, I will say that I still really enjoy the writing of Witchel, Fioana Rae, Clifton, Nippert and Fisher (along with Chris Slane's cartoons)- it would just be nice, if the magazine had more, well, guts at times. And actually tackled things head on, particularly in regards to politics and social issues, but also even in the arts section, too, as these are/were the magazine's bread and butter. Sometimes, it's very difficult to tell who the magazine's intended audience actually is, which was the crux of the Critic piece.
-
The current freelance rates sound crazy, and pretty ominous for up-and-coming types like myself.
Then again the sheer rate of foreign ownership and how they've outsourced important roles like subediting is pretty interesting, in a horrible way. Is there any truth to the rumour that the NZ Herald has "outsourced" some of its subeditoring duties to India? Even if it's not, I wouldn't put it past them...
It's certainly worth writing an article about, ironically, it's something you'd have to do as a freelancer too. On low pay.
-
“It's just wonderful how people embrace the magazine. There is this whole community of brilliant people who all read it and often communicate through talking about the magazine … it's why we will always have a reporter based in the South Island.”
I'm afraid this is what she said, word for word. I must say, she was lovely to talk to, until you realise the frequency she uses marketing-speak as a crux. I think what she was trying to get accross was the fact the South Island is very committed to the Listener and they so have to keep loyal to it.
Thanks for the kind words, all. It's always nice when something gets greater readership than the Critic crowd, and I spent more time on this than any other piece than my epic one of John Key. And I was bloody paid for that (okay, minimum wage in the esteemed role of "features reporter" but still, it all counts right.)
I would like to thank editor Dave Large for being so patient with me about it, it was basically written in whatever spare time I had between duties at the Canterbury journalism school and/or writing stories for community newspapers about club rugby and irrigation
(CPW is a goldmine of ridiculous stuff, I'm telling you, those guys are pirates. If litigation weren't so torturous to read, people would be on their back more than they are now. But I digress).
If David Large doesn't win at the ASPAs this year, it'll be a disgrace, but regardless, I'll make sure to drink enough for him not to like I did last time. Good times.
I would say more about the Listener, and how I held back a bit in that piece for the greater good of "balance." But that's for another time.And well done to Russell Brown for so many wonderful, artful and savvy columns over the years. Have you got any other gigs lined up at the moment?
-
Wow, I just realised that I used pretty pretentious language to dismiss Tool there! Talk about Pot, Kettle Black and all that.
Anyway, although they're anything but my cup of tea I would have to say that their fans have to be THE most dogged I've witnessed at a BDO so far- even more so than Metallica back in 04, which just tended to be an accross-the-board thing. (But of course, I saw the Flaming Lips instead...)
-
Nice overview, RB, I'd have to say that I agree with your assesment in regards to all the acts, but there is something genuinely punchable about the Killers' Brandon Flowers that's just inescapable.
This is my fifth BDO in succession and it says a lot that out of all of them, I spent the least time amidst the main stage and in the Boiler Room, whose lineup proved comparatively eclectic and refreshing, not least due to a greatly improved performance from Mike Skinner/The Streets, and cute, sassy stuff from Lily Allen (I saw her wondering round backstage just before the set and she looked stunning. Tiny, though).
The Veils put on a good set, but there's a "Stars in your Eyes" quality about Finn Andrews performance that renders it somewhat hollow- depending on the song, he's channeling Nick Cave, Jeff (or Tim) Buckley and maybe even his dad's old band XTC (some of Finn's mannerisms are vaguely Andy Partridge-esque).
The talent's clearly there, but the parts are so transparent in their echoes of what came before. Still, he definitely had stage presence and it's nice to see that he's employed a leggy female bassist- always a good move to boost your band's visual appeal.
Incidentally, the lead singer from Hot Chip looked so authentically nerdy that he was at one point mistaken for a member of the lighting crew!
Nice to see some antipathy towards Tool- much like Russel Brown, I find their whole aesthetic distinctly unappealing and not as forward-thinking or "groundbreaking" as it'd like to be.
I'd write more, but I see this thread has gone off into a digression about flags and such, so I don't want to distract people too much.