What happened, America?

That's today's question. And America, I hope you're paying attention, because I'm going to need answers.

Today I watched a film on Netflix, called Just One of The Guys. I'm not proud of this, you understand, because, oh my LIFE, it was a ghastly film. A cast of unknowns who remained unknown because not one of them could convincingly act their way out of a wet paper bag. Genuinely, I don't think I've seen such wooden acting since Thunderbirds.

But there was something about it. As you can see from the IMDB link, this was a 1985 film, and it's classified as a 15. And, more importantly, it's got boobies. Not "more importantly" because I particularly like boobies (although...), but more importantly because the film had a fair amount of nudity, and the world didn't actually implode because of it. Tellingly, however, there wasn't much in the way of violence, apart from the usual High School crap - it seems high schools in America are unable to function without having at least one muscle-bound jock stomping round the school, bullying the nerds and, apparently, getting the prettiest girl. I do wonder just how clichéd this old chestnut actually is, but that's beside the point right now.

The point is that, and I really can't emphasise this sufficiently - THERE WERE BOOBIES!!

So, America, back to my question - what the hell happened between 1985 and 2013 (probably earlier, remembering that whole "nipplegate" thing) to make you all so damn prudish?

I'm not saying, for one pico-second, that every film in existence should have boobies, but I question your easy acceptance of anything remotely (and often graphically) violent, and your (sometimes violent) rejection of anything vaguely naked. My brother has often said that he'd rather his children be exposed to sex than violence, because, at some point in their lives, he hopes, they'll actually get to experience sex - at NO point in their lives does he want them to experience violence. And I feel exactly the same way.

I'll write another post about my feelings towards the "porn filters" being set up by various ISPs, but I'll summarise by saying I'm not completely against them. I just wonder whether they're going to filter the all-too-prevalent, all-too-graphic violence too. Just sayin'.

And when, America, did you slip into the aforementioned, easy acceptance of all things violent? SO damn often we have "moms" banging on the "won't someone think of the CHILDREN" drum, because, Oh My God - a kid could see a NIPPLE!

America - answer me this. How, exactly, is the sight of a nipple, or even a whole bosom, going to harm a child? Do these same "moms" (and I'm sorry for the quotes, but I spell it mum) feel the need to "protect" their children from any of the violence to which they're exposed?

I'm sorry, America, I got carried away with questions, but I'm really quite curious now.

Oh, and I'm sorry/delighted to say that the film's only available on Netflix until tomorrow!

Prince Caspian

I went to see Prince Caspian at the cinema on Sunday morning, and although there are a few niggles (and you know me and my niggles!), there was much to be enjoyed, too.

OK - yes, I've read the book, and there's usually a great sense of disappointment when a well loved book is turned into a film, because it's unusual for the director to have experienced the same sense of awe that I did when reading the book. If, indeed, he (or she) read the book at all.

I remember the feeling of pleasure I got when watching the very first Harry Potter film, because the whole of Diagon Alley had been described in such great detail in the book, and in a short pan down the alley, one could see much of what had been described. This was a truly exciting moment for me, because the words had been moved to the screen, and while it'd taken me minutes to read the description, there it all was, without being laboured - perhaps 5 glorious seconds of perfect description. I haven't phrased that well, so I may come back to it.

In contrast, the third film had none of the colourful page to screen translation I'd enjoyed in the previous two films, and while the critics proudly trumpeted the "darker" feel of the film, I was outraged by the addition (addition? what are they thinking, there's plenty of very funny material in the book they'd had to cut) of a ridiculous shrunken head in the Knight Bus. In addition to which, the only darkness I could find was that there was virtually no colour to be seen, and someone seemed to have forgotten to turn on any of the lights.

So, it's possible that you can see that the look of the film is quite important to me. I want to feel that I've been transported to that place in my imagination I created when reading the book. This is sometimes a bit of an unrealistic expectation, because New Zealand doesn't look a lot like Narnia, in my imagination, anyway! Actually, to be perfectly honest, Narnia always reminded me of an English woodland, with widely spaced beech trees, a scattering of silver birch, and some crusty old oaks. The pictures in the books could have been drawn from any one of the places I played in as a child, from the woods at the back of my friends house in Blackwater, to the streams chuckling through the New Forest.

However, there are other images which have been captured well. As you probably know, had you read any of the books as a child, there are a number of charming little illustrations dotted throughout each book. Perhaps it was really these which gave me the images I've so carefully cherished all these years. It was, therefore, a pleasure to see some of these images included in the film. I remember being charmed by the bulgy bears, especially the one who would always suck his paws - and there, for just a second, was the picture - a bulgy bear, sucking his paw. The picture of Reepicheep, surrounded by his mousy followers, all getting ready to cut off their own tails after his is lost during the battle. The little underground home in which Caspian recovered after falling off his horse.

I fully expected some plot changes, especially after the mad chase in "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe". I'm sure I didn't expect a full on assault of Miraz' castle in the middle of the film, but perhaps this was better than the drawn out mini-scuffles depicted in the book. The jury's still out on this one.

I didn't even mind that there was a little romance between Susan and Caspian - I realise that this was not what C.S. Lewis had in mind, over 50 years ago, but the age of the actors suggest that there would at least be some interested glances exchanged. This may have been a children's book, but the film is aiming for a wider audience.

I think what did bug me most was the silly plot device (again with Susan) where she tried to put off the boy from another school at the beginning, and then looked at him with more interest AFTER she'd met Prince C. Come on, you're straining my credibility with this one. She's just realised that she's met this gorgeous young man, a real warrior, but sadly they can't see how it would pan out, so she's making nice-eyes at the geek-boy? Not going to happen!

Still, all in all, it was a better film than the first adventure into Narnia. I'm looking forward to the next one!