So, I'm watching Young, Dumb and Living off Mum on the BBC iPlayer. The program is about 6 or so completely spoilt 16-25-year-olds put in a house together, with no one to cook for them, or clean, or pay their rent.

In the first episode, they're put to their first real day of work. It's gone dreadfully.

One of them is the heir to a prosperous nightclub business. Never had a job, parents pay for everything. First day, he's meant to be cleaning a hotel room, with another spoilt brat. He fails to stock up certain things, such as toilet paper, biscuits, whatever, because he believes they're out of them.

The hotel manager, who's come in to inspect the room, asks if they asked the housekeeper, their immediate boss. They say yes, he offers to call her, and they suddenly realise the people they've been calling 'housekeepers' are chambermaids. It's a simple misunderstanding, not even their fault. If the other chambermaids say they're out, then they believe it. They didn't know to check, they can fix it. But, no, he chooses to throw a tantrum instead. He starts screaming at the manager, telling him not to raise his voice, that his parents would never hire him, and blahblahblahblah. Then, in a clip afterwards, he claims that the manager doesn't deserve his job, and that he, the nightclub heir, will be far more successful and make more of himself than "that asian" (I'm pretty sure the guy was Italian, actually).

It reminded me a little of some customers I had once. Seventeen-year-olds, at that stage in their life where they truly believe they're special and untouchable. Old enough to be out alone, but young enough to have mummy tucking them in every night and teling them how great they are. This kid told me that, by the time he was eighteen, he'd be earning far more than me (highly doubtful in this economy, since I'm on quite a bit more than minimum wage, and nowhere else is hiring). The kid also claimed that franchises didn't exist, at all, and that anyone who believed otherwise was an idiot who needed to go back to school.

So, I really feel for that manager. I hope the BBC compensated him well. Who is this self-centred, spoilt little brat who dares to look down on him, a man who works hard and does the best he can? Does that idiot really believe he'll ever get a decent job that's not bought for him, with that work ethic?

I hope his parents are proud of themselves, and realise they've raised a son that they wouldn't employ. I hope they have the balls to ream him out for his behaviour. But, then, they've let him get to this stage, so maybe not.

That might be a bit unfair though. The impression I have is that his parents are hard-working people, who probably didn't come from wealthy families, and so wanted to give their child the childhood they wished they could have had. Sad, really.

Then there's the 25-year-old who says her mum is her best friend - and yet, she complains about the things her mother is kind enough to cook for her, reckons her job is getting money out of her mother, and generally treats her like a slave. That's not friendship. She claims she doesn't work because it makes her stressed and tired. She seems to think this is somehow unusual.

I think what really gets me is that some of these people come from quite wealthy families. They don't have to work their way up from the bottom - they could go to school and study whatever they wanted at their leisure, and then grease their way into a job they really want, while I have to struggle my way through a job with no respect to pay for my degree, and then work even harder to get a low paying job as a teacher. It really isn't fair.

You know, when I was a kid, it was considered a bad thing to let tv raise your children.

Bugsy Malone and Heathers

The original ending of Heathers was quite different from the one it was released with. But perhaps I should backtrack a little, and explain the basic plot of Heathers. Or, at least, just enough to be relevant without being spoileriffic.

The original ending of Heathers involved everyone dying, and having a party in heaven. Here, they all got along, and different cliques were happy to talk to one another.

Bugsy Malone is a child-friendly gangster film. The actors are all around twelve-years-old, and all gun violence is portrayed with cream pies. And then splurge guns. Every character hit by cream is removed from the film, the other characters reacting as if they're dead, without ever actually stating that.

Now, more spoilers.

At the end of the film, absolutely everyone is creamed. After a few discussions, they start singing together, everyone getting along. Previously splurged characters return for this final, happy reunion.

Now, is that really so different from Heathers? It seems to me that it's a perfectly valid interpretation of Bugsy Malone, to assume that everyone died at the end and got along better in heaven.

Bartelmy; making child-friendly films mildly disturbing since 1988.

Brady Life vs The Republic of Gilead

So, recently, I've been watching the first season of The Brady Bunch, from the beginning. I'm enjoying it, which surprised me a little. It's more interesting than I expected.

One thing that does shock me about it is the blatant sexism. It's more a sign of the times than the show itself, but viewed today, forty years later, it's stunning.

There's one episode where all the girls are united in their desire for a sewing machine, while the boys want a rowboat. Then there's the one where they go camping. All the girls - including Alice, who must have been camping with the Brady boys in previous years - are jumpy, nervous and very, very girly. To be fair, that could be due to the fact that they've never (except Alice) been camping before. However, in yet another episode (and all of these were within the first fifteen aired, since that's how many I've watched), the girls want a clubhouse to match the boys. The boys refuse to share, so Carol (the mother) suggests that the girls build one of their own. One of the daughters protests "But mother! We'll do it terribly!" to which their mother replies that that's the point.

So, the Brady girls start building a clubhouse, and do so terribly. The boys and their father pitch in to help, just as the girls had planned.

Thinking about this, I started thinking of feminist literature in general, but specifically The Handmaid's Tale. Written a few decades after The Brady Bunch, in 1985, The Handmaid's Tale is about a dystopian future society, where women have all rights taken away. Their jobs are lost, and their bank accounts given to their next of kin. Several of the lower class men also lost rights, so it's not purely about men diminishing women - it's about a few strong men seizing power.

In the Republic of Gilead, the society described in The Handmaid's Tale women weren't permitted to do a lot of things, or think a lot of things. But, no one claimed they were incapable of it. The Brady girls truly believe they can't do things that the boys can.

Is it better not to be allowed to do something, or to not even realise that you can? To actively deny it, in fact, and use that to your advantage?

On reflection, it may be better to be a Brady than a Gilean. At least you're in a position to change your way of thinking, and therefore, your life. Whatever a Gilean woman thought, she still had to do the same things.

How very strange that there was once a time when people truly believed that women couldn't hammer nails.

New Movies!

So, it's finally happened. The film of The Time Traveler's Wife is finished, and has a release date. Two days after my birthday - Friday the 14th of August.

Watching the trailer, it seems they've stayed relatively faithful to the book. Neither Rachel McAdams nor Eric Bana look exactly like I pictured Claire or Henry, but they are both very good actors, and the film seems to have kept the major plot points. I'm looking forward to seeing it. The trailer can be viewed here.

Another book-to-film being released soon is My Sister's Keeper based on the book by Jodi Picolt. The trailer for that, again, seems quite faithful to the novel. I'm hoping it can revive my original love of the book, especially with Cameron Diaz and Abigail Breslin - who appeared in Definitly, Maybe - in two of the lead roles. It's interesting to see Cameron Diaz playing a character who's entire point is that she's a mother, but she seems to pull it off. That's out this Friday, and the trailer can be viewed here.

Finally, I'm afraid to say that I've cancelled my Unlimited Card. As anyone who reads this blog might have noticed, I'm no longer able to spend as much time in the cinema as I was before. I hope to get it back once I'm a little further through my degree.

Dreams to Dream

There's a scene, An American Tail: Fievel Goes West which may be the most hauntingly beautiful and sad thing I've seen in animation.

This one.

That cat, Cat R. Waul has tricked a large group of mice into coming out west so he can take first their money, and then their lives.

The American Tails series is essentially a metaphor for several conditions faced by immigrants to America. The first film was set in 1885, and Tanya and Fievel's family are Russian Jews, who are continually victimised by the cats, which tend to represent any corrupt power they need to. They come to America believing that there are no cats there, and the streets are paved with cheese. They quickly find this isn't the case, and are forced to pay the cats not to eat them. They beat them, of course, but then there was this sequel.

So, Cat R. Waul. A dreadful piece of work. If this wasn't meant to be a kid's film, I've no doubt he'd shoot and/or torture his associates occasionally, just so none of them got any ideas about disrespecting him (incidentally, that worked very well for Captain Hook in the original book of Peter Pan).

But, when he hears this young mouse singing, he's enchanted. He doesn't notice, in that scene or later, that the other cats wonder what's got into him, or that they're making fun of him. Considering that Miss Kitty, the other cat in the scene, doesn't seem to notice, the fragile bond between Cat R. Waul and Tanya seems entirely personal.

This doesn't change Cat R. Waul as a person. He's still perfectly willing to kill all the other mice, only panicking when "the Diva" seems about to be caught in the trap. Since he and Tanya have no contact with each other other than this (and she never really mentions him), he's never forced to confront this hypocrisy. At the end he suffers a symbolic death, and is, of course, never seen again, until another villian is needed for one of the spin offs.

I guess I can't really sum up why that scene touched me.

Incidentally, An American Tail, released in 1986, was the first Don Bluth film to beat out a Disney film at the box office, grossing more than Basil, the Great Mouse Detective (also a very good film about mice). All Dogs Go to Heaven, which I've also discussed here, another Don Bluth film, was later released opposite The Little Mermaid. An American Tail: Fievel Goes West was not directed by Don Bluth, and went up against Beauty and the Beast.

You can see why they tend to be cult films.

Don Bluth against Disney, in some ways, mirrors the development of Sacnoth against Squaresoft. Don Bluth originally worked for Disney, as the creators of Koudelka were refugees from Square. Interesting bit of trivia.

Why I Won't Be Watching X-Factor in 2009

I admit, this post has been a long time coming.

I'm not the nicest person in the world - I admit that. I watch Britain's Next Top Model and listen to the girls worry about their weight while eating ice-cream. I usually watch the X-Factor auditions just for the bad ones.

However, in 2008 the X-Factor crossed a line. It came out that the auditionees, both good and bad, go through several interviews before getting near the cameras. And, with the bad ones, it is Cowell's own team that are telling them that they're good, that they're bound to get through, before Cowell, his lapdog Louis and that-bitch-Cheryl-Cole tear them down (I won't say Dannii doesn't (or didn't) join in, but they seem to have turned on her recently).

See, when it's the person's own arrogance that is causing them to be turned down, and it's an overbearing, unpleasant ego being taken down a peg, that's one thing. But when it's a young teenage girl - and honestly, we all have those dreams - whose been massaged through those auditions merely to face public humiliation, or an old grandfather being made fun of for being on the wrong show, then it's not the same.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, when one could believe the contestants had it coming, that was one thing - but when the producers of the show has purposefully engineered their public humiliation, based upon their own hope - that's pretty damn low. That's how con artists work, preying on those with dreams in order to take their money - only, on the X-Factor, it's pride and dignity that's taken, and exchanged for ratings.

In 2007, Rachel (from Wales) did seem to be a very unpleasant girl. She was arrogant, conceited, and generally, yes, it was a pleasure to see her taken down a peg and cast as a witch. But, contrast that with Ariel Burdett in 2008.

Ariel, a holistic vocal coach, has a degree based around music and singing. The peice she performed was a four line composition, with each line in a different style - from pop, to jazz, to metal to stage musical.

In both cases, Cowell claimed that they couldn't sing. This was untrue. What he meant was that he didn't like them, and didn't want them going through - both were perfectly passable singers with pleasant voices. Cowell's criticisms have gone from being cruel to be kind, to being cruel to be a bitch.

In Ariel's case, she was cast as the witch because she liked metal and alternative music. Yes, she came across as slightly arrogant when it seemed she was actually going for confident and in control of the situation (on the advice of the x-factor employees she'd met before the actual televised bit). Still, she had a very powerful voice, and knew how to use it skilfully.

The X-Factor judges claimed that they'd never heard of Bullet For My Valentine - and these people claim to work in the music industry? Cowell also appeared to have a low opinion of holistic vocal coaching.

Holistic teaching involves tuning into the person's mind, body and energy - in other words, making sure they're thinking about what they're singing, using their body well, and that they're, for want of a better word, pacing themselves properly (yes, this is a very simplified version). All of those are things that Cowell has criticised auditionees for not doing well.

Ariel's audition was heavily edited - like all of them - and she was generally abused by the panel. Even on the edited version, the bouncer seemed to be following her merely to make her look like someone who needed to be escorted off the premises.

Across the internet, there seem to be two main views on Ariel - the reasonable one, who watched the clip and thought about it, and the "omg, scary metal roary witch" version that started on the X-Factor.

Basically, I'm going to be boycotting the x-factor this year because it's become a circus of human cruelty, carefully planned and staged by those who work on the show. It's dishonest, and it's cruel, and that isn't entertainment - it's closer to brainwashing.

The changes of judges over recent years hasn't helped either. Louis has always been Cowell's pet, but in Cheryl Cole, he seems to have found a very powerful ally. Both skilfully play their parts in humiliating the contestants. Cowell by being the big-I-am, and that-bitch-Cheryl-Cole by pretending to be stupidly honest, rather than just an out-and-out bitch.

I'd wonder how they sleep at night, but of course, we all already know. On a big pile of money.

That was a great line to finish on, but I do have a little more to add. One thing that everyone has lost sight of is the fact that the X-Factor is essentially a job interview. And to those who claim that this is their one big chance, and that they need it...please, don't humiliate yourselves more than the judges already have. If you're really serious, then there's a secret to success.

Want to hear it?

Go out and buy a copy of The Stage. You probably won't find it in every newsagent. Maybe you'll need to go to one of the larger branches of WHSmith, or even subscribe to it online. Or just check the listings there.

The Stage lists many, many auditions that are being held for new recording artists, among others. If you are really, really serious, then the X-Factor is not your only chance. Yes, you will get a head start, since most of the country will know your name before your first record is ever recorded, but it is not the only way. If you wanted it that badly, you'd be attending all the auditions possible, not just the one that gets you on TV. Not just the easy one. And yes, for all its faults, the X-Factor is one of the easier routes to fame.

If you wanted it that badly, you'd go to as many auditions as you qualified for. Or you'd record your own demo CDs, and pester studios until they listened to them. If you wanted it, you'd work for it - and getting on your knees for Simon Cowell isn't the only option you should consider.

Finally - and this really is finally - I'd like to end with a quote from Jimmy Carr.

"I heard that Simon Cowell spends over £500k on his personal security every year.

Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper if he tried to be a little bit less of a cunt?"

Trailers (a few thoughts)

I like trailers.

The Young Victoria - Royalty is very popular these days. The Other Boleyn Girl started it, and now it's just snowballed.

Valkyrie - it doesn't look like what I'd think of as my kind of film - but I kind of want to see it anyway.

Confessions of a Shopaholic - I love the books, but, honestly, this looks like a cheap knock-off, along the lines of Angus, Thongs and the Butchered Title. They've completely changed the books, changed key roles, and just made it into something completely different. That said, I'll probably see it anyway. And Isla Fisher does look kind of how I'd always pictured Rebecca.