Archive for the 'art (insert question mark here)' Category


” m a n w i t h t h e w o r l d ‘ s l o n g e s t p u b i c h a i r , m e t t h e w o m a n w i t h t h e w o r l d ‘ s l o n g e s t f i n g e r n a i l s … “

“…they made the world’s worst fairy tale”

apparently plans are afoot for them to visit europe… quite,  q u i t e  excited.

in other news, a documentary is available concerning their first incarnation:


w o r s e r e r a n d w o r s e r e r . . .

saw tim burton‘s alice in wonderland. no i didn’t pay for my ticket. yes it was fucking rubbish.

vin·di·cate   /ˈvɪndɪˌkeɪt
–verb (used with object),-cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to clear, as from an accusation, imputation, suspicion, or the like: to vindicate someone’s honor.
2. to afford justification for; justify: subsequent events vindicated his policy.
3. to uphold or justify by argument or evidence: to vindicate a claim.
4. to assert, maintain, or defend (a right, cause, etc.) against opposition.

the acting was flat (even though i know the girl who plays alice is a great actress). the 3d was flat. the story was shit. virtually all of the feel of the original was ignored, none of the chaos, the moral ambiguity, unpredictability or nightmarish ambience remains. the 1951 disney version outstrips this on every level. burton’s is an utterly sterile, pointless, artless reworking.

stop this man making films  n o w .

i leave you with what promises to be a much more interesting  reimagining, trevor brown‘s alice:



s i l k e a r / s o w ‘ s p u r s e ?

is the road a good film? i’ve seen it but i’m not sure i know. critics certainly seem to think so and i have to say it looks fantastic and the acting is all present and correct from the worryingly gaunt mr. mortensen, but still i couldn’t tell you if it’s a good film. you see, i made what is clearly the schoolboy error of reading the book and loving it. silly me.

chances are the film is good, maybe even very good, it was directed after all by john hillcoat, who directed the proposition, which i thought was very good indeed, and which was penned by nick cave. but the trouble i’m having isn’t one of indecision or lack of critical faculty (fuck knows i can criticise to an olympic standard) no, the trouble i’m having is one of adaptation; that is, not of the competency or nature of the adaptation of the road, but of the nature of adaptation itself. i would argue that adaptation is almost as big a curse to the creative community as the dreaded remake. of course adaptation doesn’t harm the film making community by devaluing the previous incarnation of the film in the way that remakes tend to, but it does harm the original story, the book, the thing that is the guts of what they seek to put up on the screen.

the road by cormac mccarthy is a  great book. fucking loved it. and so i think a film, no matter how great, can never compete, and what would be the point in trying? the film is a very faithful adaptation but can only ever fall short of the book. and not only because a book describes more, tells us more, has more time with us to immerse us in its world. there is a saying that was much touted upon the release of zack snyder’s the watchmen: “a masterpiece has already found its perfect medium.” the watchmen was another fairly faithful adaptation, still the film fell short, and how could it not?

but, the argument goes, the very fact that a book and a film are such different mediums means that they cannot be compared. apples and oranges. but i would argue, the fact that they are such different mediums means that 9 times out of 10 you just shouldn’t cross breed em. most of the time an appange or an orpple tastes like shit. and even when they’re adapted in a way that stays close to the book, it can render them strangely bland to those who read the original. a manuscript is not a shooting script. i think if an adaptation is going to work it should, perhaps perversely, not be too faithful.

apocalypse now, for instance is not an argument for adaptation, it is not an adaptation of  conrad’s heart of darkness, it is instead, to use hollywood language, a ‘radical re-imagining‘ of it. likewise the film fight club took a book which to be honest fizzled out towards the end and gave it the courage of its convictions.  so perhaps change is the best way to make it work.

but then, as we all know, fear of the original stains studios exec’s sheets nightly: “the horror… the horror…”  but then the damage can work both ways. gore vidal once wrote, concerning his novel myra breckinridge: “this time a film was made. although i have never seen it, i do know that despite the iconic presences of raquel welch and mae west, the film was so bad that the book stopped selling for a decade.”

i read with genuine horror on imdb that an adaptation of mccarthy’s biblically violent and superb blood meridian is in production. call me a pessimist but i cannot conceive how they won’t fuck that up.

but i know i’m being churlish. and yet i think this is a genuine problem, if not perhaps the film community’s biggest. i can’t blame hillcoat for making the road, i’m guessing he read it, loved it and as a film maker thought he could do it justice. maybe he has. but should he have bothered? ask someone who hasn’t read the book.


¡ c o c k s h o c k !

cock shock

from the book elektroschutz in 132 bildern’, or 30 ways to die by electrocution.


y o u r s t a t u t o r y r i g h t s a r e n o t a f f e c t e d



f u n w i t h c r i m i n a l d a m a g e # 2

noisepollutionseen on the central line, west of shepherd’s bush, scratched into the paintwork of the doors:

unsuitable door noise”

surprisingly succinct.


w r i t i n g o n t h e w a l l