Wednesday 19 May 2010
OMG
Some extremely clever people up north have managed to recreate a soldier's face using computer imagery. I think this sort of thing has been done before, but this one actually looks like a real person. I say crack open some royal graves and scan in old royalty - medieval paintings are just too awful to really give a genuine likeness. Or everyone was ugly 500 years ago.
Monday 17 May 2010
3:10 To Yuma (James Mangold, 2007)
Will contain spoilers (you're not missing much).
Despite initial promise - Christian Bale and Russel Crowe are two able leads - the formulaic and frequently cliché nature of 3:10 To Yuma stops it ever getting off the ground. You've heard it before: a hard-up rancher (Bale) is tempted into joining a rag-tag bunch in escorting dangerous criminal Ben Wade (Crowe) to the titular train, persued by his gang. Along the way trouble with the locals forces them to work together, and the criminal begins to question is motives and life choices. Will he turn good? Difficult one.
This is James Mangold's first foray into a straight-up actioner, and he handles the gun-fights adroitly, but there are too many slightly suspect moments that just make the film as a whole feel somewhat amateurish. For instance, a group of horseriders charge down a path and the extras, lined along the side, dash in front of the riders to create chaos, but it was far too obviously not how people would react. Shortly after, the well-meaning but timid doctor gets shot in a chase; in the aftermath he asks "Did we make it? Did we get away?" to which Bale replies "Yeah, Doc, we made it". There's enough ham in that line to feed a family of four for a week. Perhaps I'm being too picky, but I feel moments such as these are too common to let slide as isolated incidents. They do have a negative impact on the imersion, certainly.
There are positives. Crowe makes an excellent bad-guy, carrying himself with a sence of purpose and volatility, and Bale isn't bad either, his run-down rancher war-vet is interesting if a little trite. The relationship between Bale and his son is developed well also; I can imagine their relationship is one to which many fathers can relate, although their conclusion feels hollow.
5/10
Despite initial promise - Christian Bale and Russel Crowe are two able leads - the formulaic and frequently cliché nature of 3:10 To Yuma stops it ever getting off the ground. You've heard it before: a hard-up rancher (Bale) is tempted into joining a rag-tag bunch in escorting dangerous criminal Ben Wade (Crowe) to the titular train, persued by his gang. Along the way trouble with the locals forces them to work together, and the criminal begins to question is motives and life choices. Will he turn good? Difficult one.
This is James Mangold's first foray into a straight-up actioner, and he handles the gun-fights adroitly, but there are too many slightly suspect moments that just make the film as a whole feel somewhat amateurish. For instance, a group of horseriders charge down a path and the extras, lined along the side, dash in front of the riders to create chaos, but it was far too obviously not how people would react. Shortly after, the well-meaning but timid doctor gets shot in a chase; in the aftermath he asks "Did we make it? Did we get away?" to which Bale replies "Yeah, Doc, we made it". There's enough ham in that line to feed a family of four for a week. Perhaps I'm being too picky, but I feel moments such as these are too common to let slide as isolated incidents. They do have a negative impact on the imersion, certainly.
There are positives. Crowe makes an excellent bad-guy, carrying himself with a sence of purpose and volatility, and Bale isn't bad either, his run-down rancher war-vet is interesting if a little trite. The relationship between Bale and his son is developed well also; I can imagine their relationship is one to which many fathers can relate, although their conclusion feels hollow.
5/10
Tuesday 4 May 2010
Super Taranta!
- Super Taranta!I know what you're thinking. Five stars? Gogol Bordello? Really? Well, yes actually, hear me out.
Never have I heard an album that is as brimming with creativity and enthusiasm as this. Every song, from start to finish, is dynamic, with a surprising level of subtlety hidden under the chaotic exterior. Despite the minor-key nature of the gypsy music it strongly identifies with the songs are never downbeat, urged onwards by the off-beat rhythms and technical playing of the violinists and accordions.
Unsurprisingly for a band whose members hail from across the globe, Eugene Hutz sings about his roots and culture. American Wedding impales the - to Hutz at least - watered down nature of weddings in America: "Have you ever been to an American wedding?/Where's the vodka, where's the marinated herring?", or "I understand the cultures of a different kind/ But the word celebration just doesn't come to mind". Despite this rather glum outlook it never feels glum, with lyrics like "No one ever talks about my super theory of super everything!" injecting a touch of humour, giving the impression that he is chiding his abdoptive country rather than criticising it. Taking a similarly downbeat attitude to surburban America is Tribal Connections, in which he sings "No can do this/ No can do that/ Then what the hell can you do my friend/ In this place you call your town!"
There are also moments of brilliant fun, with the chorus of Harem In Tuscany being the best example. It blasts along at 100mph and has more twists and turns than Memento. I think it would be fair to say that if you don't enjoy this song you probably have no soul and you can Super Theory of Super Everthing and Forces Of Victory to the bunch too.
Buybuybuybuybuybuybuybuybuybuy!
Monday 3 May 2010
How To Solve A Problem Like Exams
Exam fatigue is already setting in, and they haven't even started yet. At least, round 5 hasn't started yet. Come July, I will have been through: Year 9 SATS, Year 10 Maths, Science and coursework galore, year 11 GCSEs, year 12 As levels and year 13 A2 levels. It has been an almost relentless procession of coursework, revision, examination, repeat, that absolutely heaps pressure on young shoulders, just so we can tackle rounds 6, 7, and 8 (although by all accounts round 6 is a all-round doss).
Examination results really can make or break our lives. Screwing up just one exam can cause people to miss out on their chosen university, or university altogether in general, and it is that fear that hangs over anything from middlingto high achievers for a very long time, forcing people to neglect their social lives and happiness just for some exams. It is awful that so much rides on just a few hours work. The big education bosses seem to have forgotten that we are only children once, and it is far to valuable period of time to be wasted stricken by the spectre of examinations. I recognise that does sounds a bit Helen Lovejoy, but it is a fact: people have massive - justified - worries about the exam period.
Stress isn't the only factor, however. Taking a wider perspective, we are not taught to think, we are taught to pass exams. I feel it has reached the point where sat-down examinations are no longer the best way to assess education. The blame for this lies largely with the introduction of the School League Tables, which dumped a whole load more pressure on schools to perform: good exam results equals more money, which in theory should lead to even better exam results. This spiral increased until schools are forced to only think about how well students do in exams rather than their general development, a result of which is a very narrow skills base.
Perhaps the best example is languages. I study Spanish, predicted B, and can converse reasonably well on important topics like immigrate, science, poverty and a novel and a film. I do not, however, feel confident that I would be able to fend for myself if I were to be dumped unceremoniously in the mean streets of Madrid, instructed to intergrate with other Spaniards. It is telling that the Speaking portion of the exam is the smallest of all, a paltry 20% in comparison the the 80% for Reading, Writing and Listening combined. Speaking is by far the most important and difficult aspect of learning a language, and I cannot understand why it is neglected to such an extent.
Another example is English. I have no gripe with the A level course - I feel it is sufficiently streching and rewarding - instead it is the GCSE course that worries me. So many of my peers leave school at the end of year 11 with basic literary abilities, absolutely basical abilites like grammar, language usage, letter writing etc, and yet we are made to analyse poetry. First off, almost nobody enjoys this, and is generally seen (correctly) as useless as algaebra (incorrectly, morons!). It is likely that 90% will never read, or have to understand, a poem ever again, so why teach it?
I think I have thought of a solution. It has no doubt been mooted before, but I don't care, it seems reasonable enough to me. Firstly, exams as we know them should be scrapped, although coursework should stay. I propose teachers assess pupils across an extended period of time, 3 months, say, during which performance during lessons will be scrutinised. This has several benefits. Exams are a one-off, during which pupils can underperform drastically for various reasons, none the least the immense pressure, but this system will ensure their average attainment can be found more accurately. Secondly, since it is class-time that is being used, students will have an incentive to try as hard as they can, which I think will improve the abilities of the students more than preparing for exams.
Of course there are flaws in this system. How do we ensure teachers don't show favouritism, or allow personal bias to affect their judgement? Would unruly pupils who have no intention of doing well screw up performace of class-mates? How do we ensure all schools follow the same method of marking? Indepentent moderation could be key. External observers will provide anchors across the whole country, assessing in turn the teachers' assessments of the pupils. Records of pieces of classwork will show a general level, as would coursework.
Other things could be taken into account too. Punctuality, for instance, is something that an amazing number of people suck horrendously at, so why not give some small mark for how good students are at that? Team working similarly could be taken into account, though I think it would be of secondary importance than academic ability.
The success of this system would depend on the abolition of Leage Tables. Keeping them would only result in the problems we are currently faced with all over again, though it would be potentially being even more damaging - imagine three months of relentless stress in every lesson and you can see where I'm coming from.
I hope I have gone some way to persuading you that the current system is flawed, and this proposal would solve the issue.
Examination results really can make or break our lives. Screwing up just one exam can cause people to miss out on their chosen university, or university altogether in general, and it is that fear that hangs over anything from middlingto high achievers for a very long time, forcing people to neglect their social lives and happiness just for some exams. It is awful that so much rides on just a few hours work. The big education bosses seem to have forgotten that we are only children once, and it is far to valuable period of time to be wasted stricken by the spectre of examinations. I recognise that does sounds a bit Helen Lovejoy, but it is a fact: people have massive - justified - worries about the exam period.
Stress isn't the only factor, however. Taking a wider perspective, we are not taught to think, we are taught to pass exams. I feel it has reached the point where sat-down examinations are no longer the best way to assess education. The blame for this lies largely with the introduction of the School League Tables, which dumped a whole load more pressure on schools to perform: good exam results equals more money, which in theory should lead to even better exam results. This spiral increased until schools are forced to only think about how well students do in exams rather than their general development, a result of which is a very narrow skills base.
Perhaps the best example is languages. I study Spanish, predicted B, and can converse reasonably well on important topics like immigrate, science, poverty and a novel and a film. I do not, however, feel confident that I would be able to fend for myself if I were to be dumped unceremoniously in the mean streets of Madrid, instructed to intergrate with other Spaniards. It is telling that the Speaking portion of the exam is the smallest of all, a paltry 20% in comparison the the 80% for Reading, Writing and Listening combined. Speaking is by far the most important and difficult aspect of learning a language, and I cannot understand why it is neglected to such an extent.
Another example is English. I have no gripe with the A level course - I feel it is sufficiently streching and rewarding - instead it is the GCSE course that worries me. So many of my peers leave school at the end of year 11 with basic literary abilities, absolutely basical abilites like grammar, language usage, letter writing etc, and yet we are made to analyse poetry. First off, almost nobody enjoys this, and is generally seen (correctly) as useless as algaebra (incorrectly, morons!). It is likely that 90% will never read, or have to understand, a poem ever again, so why teach it?
I think I have thought of a solution. It has no doubt been mooted before, but I don't care, it seems reasonable enough to me. Firstly, exams as we know them should be scrapped, although coursework should stay. I propose teachers assess pupils across an extended period of time, 3 months, say, during which performance during lessons will be scrutinised. This has several benefits. Exams are a one-off, during which pupils can underperform drastically for various reasons, none the least the immense pressure, but this system will ensure their average attainment can be found more accurately. Secondly, since it is class-time that is being used, students will have an incentive to try as hard as they can, which I think will improve the abilities of the students more than preparing for exams.
Of course there are flaws in this system. How do we ensure teachers don't show favouritism, or allow personal bias to affect their judgement? Would unruly pupils who have no intention of doing well screw up performace of class-mates? How do we ensure all schools follow the same method of marking? Indepentent moderation could be key. External observers will provide anchors across the whole country, assessing in turn the teachers' assessments of the pupils. Records of pieces of classwork will show a general level, as would coursework.
Other things could be taken into account too. Punctuality, for instance, is something that an amazing number of people suck horrendously at, so why not give some small mark for how good students are at that? Team working similarly could be taken into account, though I think it would be of secondary importance than academic ability.
The success of this system would depend on the abolition of Leage Tables. Keeping them would only result in the problems we are currently faced with all over again, though it would be potentially being even more damaging - imagine three months of relentless stress in every lesson and you can see where I'm coming from.
I hope I have gone some way to persuading you that the current system is flawed, and this proposal would solve the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)