The Baffling Case of Videogame Nostalgia.

"We drank dandelion wine and we reminisced

About the moment when we first met that day.

(I'm trying to watch TV)
Then we reminisced about how we first reminisced
(Oh yeah? Sounds a bit gay)" 

Brett McKenzie, Rambling Through the Avenues of Time

Us humans love a good, regular dose of nostalgia. Remembering the good times brings us closer, whether you're a few old pals re-living wild parties before the knee, backs and livers gave way, or if you're that boring kid clinging desperately onto that one time when they were actually involved in something worth remembering ("see, I am funny!"). 

This classic 'rose-tinted glasses' syndrome applies not just to memories, but to more or less anything that we like - literature, films, music, wars even - and for the most part this is fine. Nostaglia comes in two forms, however: critical nostalgia and popular nostalgia. Popular is entirely harmless; it's my generation getting excited by Blink-182 - they were great when we were 14 but looking back they're basically shit (complaints in the comments section please) - but there is no arrogance around it, no air of superiority nor snooty intellectualising. No, these traits are found instead in critical nostalgia. They see classic cultural touchstones through blinkers, and while there will always be revisionist thinkers if something is perceived as great it will take a huge amount of re-evaluation to knock it off its perch.

Sense and Sensibility is unspeakably boring; Citizen Kane is far from the great character-study film that it is seen to be; the Beach Boys are excessively annoying (Good Vibrations aside). All these would presumably get five-star reviews, when one, three and three respectively, would be more appropriate. I get the impression that a large part of this nostalgia comes from the youth - or at least the critics of the future - having it drummed into them that things such as these are 'great'. 

Nevertheless, the three mainstream cultural schools can be evaluated, rightly or wrongly, in the same way today as when they were released - that is the tools with which they were made haven't changed much in the intervening years. The English language of today is much the same as when Sense and Sensibility was published in 1811; the classic cinema techniques of shot-selection, editing etc. used now were established before Citizen Kane was filmed; musicanship hasn't improved since Pet Sounds. There is one nostalgic trend that I've yet to mention, and that is of videogame nostalgia.

Videogame nostalgia toes the line between cultural and popular nostalgia. People now approaching middle-age can look back with affection, but there are videogame critics who think Space Invaders and its ilk are genuinely good games. That the hardware on which it was developed was pathetic compared to the behemoths of today doesn't change the fact that it is bad. As adorable as they are, baby steps are still less assured that an adult's stride. Like Kane et al, Space Invaders was good upon first release, but unlike Kane it can't defend itself against the test of time - the rules have utterly changed in the 32 years since. 

Bafflingly, developers are still trying to emulate that 8-bit style. Dark Void Zero, released this year, is a nominee for Gamespot.com's Platformer of the Year award, despite being shite. It runs entirely on the fumes of nostalgia: the soundtrack is made of those 8-bit bloops and blops that only the Mario theme can get away with these days, the graphics are deliberately pixellated ( read: made worse) - and the gameplay is creaky at best. 1980s emulation can be done well: 3D Dot Game Heroes is a great modernised pastiche of early Zelda titles, but it is very much the exception. When complex and challenging games like Heavy Rain and Shadow of the Colossus are being made, 8-bit gaming is just a candle in the wind.

The Day We Caught The Train

At the end of the '90s, after the Brit-pop hubbub had calmed down, it was Oasis who reigned supreme over the decade. Their two monster albums, What's the Story (Morning Glory) and Definitely Maybe spawned equally monsterous hits, and were as well recieved by the public as the critical press. Then in the mid '00s, revisionist music critics realised that it wasn't Oasis, or Blur, or Radiohead, or Suede that had made the best album and written the best song, but in fact, Pulp. I'm not saying Common People wasn't loved immediately and intensely after it came out, because it was, but critical appreciation for it seems to have increased over the years. Perhaps this is because it remains as relevant today as during the 90s, in contrast to Oasis and Blur who now feel slightly dated.

However, not even Common People was the best Brit-pop song. No, this title goes to Ocean Colour Scene's The Day We Caught The Train. OCS are decidedly second tier as far as 90s bands go - their best album, 1996's Mosely Shoals has two brilliant songs (The Riverboat Song being the other), and the rest are just fine. Common People and TDWCTT (what a shit acronym) are distinctly different: one is smart, witty and observant while the other is punchier and catchier. Common People may actually be the better song, but TDWCTT (for God's sake, there's not even a key word I can use like Oranges in the last blog) captures the hazy optimism that I associate with the 90s, where England could still play football, summer holidays always seemed to be hot and the economy was in rude health; in other words, its message is diametrically opposite to that of Common People.

TDWCTT is just a perfect pop song. It clocks in at just over three minutes, but in that time it manages to cram in a whole load of great melodies, none more so than the glorious outro, 'When you find that things are getting wild / Don't you want days like these?' It's sing-along perfection, but the sort of thing that other bands would have stretched out over five minutes such is the strength of it (see: Hey Jude), but Ocean Colour Scene keep it tidy. The reference to The Beatles is no mere coincidence, TDWCTT could easily be one of theirs; indeed, before I knew who the band was The Beatles was my first guess.

It's a camp-fire song, an escapist song, a song for the good times right up there with the very best.

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit

I've got no idea where this blog might go so it could we be a load of shite. I await the result as eagerly as you. (Looking back, I should probably say spoilers ahead)

Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit (Jeanette Winterson, 1986) is the sort of book that made me want to study literature. Forget Sense and Sensibility, Mary Barton, even Jane Eyre - Oranges, for me, is what literature should be about.

First of all, it's funny. Not just funny, but hilarious at times - one of the funniest books I've ever read, in fact. I can't remember who said it, but to paraphrase, they said all great literature should have comedy: life is funny, and what is literature if not a reflection of life? The aforementioned Sense and Sensibility is supposed to be funny, but let's get this straight - it's not. Not even close. There does seem to be a dearth of wit amongst the mid-19th century. Maybe the period just wasn't particularly funny; in all walks of culture there are celebrated artists from that period, except comedy. Had it even been invented? Who knows. I digress.

The star of Oranges, at least in comedic terms, is undoubtedly Jeanette's Mother. It's not just her puzzling religious beliefs that are funny (she at one point declares Jeanette's sudden deafness to be aresult of Jeanette being 'full of Spirit' and leaves it at that), but she is also clearly batshit crazy. Jeanette returns home once to find a letter from her mother that reads: "Dear Jeanette, we have gone to the hospital to pray for Aunt Bessie. Her leg is very loose. Love, Mother". What in God's name is a 'loose leg'?! Of course, she becomes less funny once she exiles Jeanette for being a lesbian, bitch.

While other study books this semester deal with themes in a broad way, for example the comment on the educated middle-class male in Jekyll and Hyde, Oranges is very much more focused. It took me a while to understand what the title related to, but once I had done it was very staisfying.

"Oranges are not the only fruit?" said my friend. "That's a pretty obvious statment isn't it?"
"No", I should have replied, "It may be obvious to us, but for someone that's been raised in a household where orange is the only fruit, where God is the only way of thinking and heterosexuality is the only possible sexuality, then the realisation that orange is not, in fact, the only fruit, is a powerful one". However I didn't say that because I suck at thinking on the spot.

One thing I didn't expect was the mother's realisation that orange is not the only fruit. Eventually she welcomes allows Jeanette back into the house, and uses an enormous amount of tinned pineapples as the primary foodstuff for a mission to an un-named place where coloured people live in the blind assumption that black people must like pineapples. It's a start, at least.

 

Today is a Good News Day

For some reason, a really high number of cool things have happened, or been reported, today. I'm talking really cool things, like immortality and alien life. Not even kidding. Take a look.

Did NASA Discover Life on One of Saturn's Moons?


Ageing has been reversed in mice, now for humans? 
           Over-blown video about it here


Growing a windpipe from stem-cells has been described as 'embarrasingly simple', the speed with which it was inserted was limited by London traffic rather than the time it took to make.

Then, not so cool but something that feels important and is slightly disturbing:

FIFA is an extremely corrupt organisation. This makes me sad.

Lastly, more football, sorry, but Barcelona 5-0 Real Madrid was pretty cool too.


Science is awesome; humans are awesome

And once more the brilliance of the sport of football is almost overshadowed by the god-awful mess that goes on off the pitch. Wankers at every level.

Why Spurs Are The Best Team To Support

It occurred to me recently that Spurs are best team in the country to support. I'm not saying they're the best, far from it, but just the most bloody entertaining, certainly in the last four years or so. Dad picked the right team. Here's why:

1) We don't do boring. Thanks to our habit of buying excellent attackers (Berbatov (he's gone but for the purpose for this blog he counts), Defoe, Pavlyuchenko, Bale, Crouch etc. etc. etc.) and good but eternally injured defenders (King, Woodgate) we concede a lot and score even more. Things have calmed down a little bit compared with 2007/8 where 4-4 draws were not uncommon - Arsenal Villa and Chelsea spring to mind - but we just don't do bore-draws. It's not easy on the nerves but it's great fun at the end of the day. 4-4 is always more fun than 1-0.

2) We're a thoroughly English club (relatively speaking). Daniel Levy is one of the few English chairmen in the Premier League, and certainly the richest of the lot. Not only is he liberal with his cash, but he also runs the club like a business, which, while it may sound dry, means we have among the best financial structure in the league. There are no £400m pound debts here. Furthermore, he's a very smart man: the £8m capture of Rafael Van Der Vaart was a stunning piece of business: the man is superb. Our team is also far more English (or British at least) than perhaps any other club in the top division. Unencumbered by injuries, our first team would include 8 British players (King, Woodgate/Dawson, Hutton, Lennon, Huddlestone, Bale, Crouch, Defoe), which is none too shabby.

3) Defeat makes victory all the sweeter. There are few other clubs that can say they have lost to Wigan and Bolton either side of thrashing Inter Milan (or something similar, obviously). Losing is annoying but it keeps our feet on the ground. Whilst we continue to slip up the club and its fans won't gain the arrogant sense of entitlement that others do (ahem, Arsenal and United), and won't sack the manager if even just a few such slip ups occur (ahem, Man City and Chelsea).

4) Heroes emerge from the unlikeliest places. In dire moments a strangely large number of players will step their game up and do something unexpected. Look to Alan Hutton, a largely ignored player, against Stoke (I think) a few weeks back where he scored one and won a penalty; Danny Rose scoring an absolute pearler against Arsenal in one of the crucial final few league matches of the season that helped secure a Champions League berth; Gareth Bale coming from almost nowhere to be the hottest property in Europe; a rare Huddlestone howitzer: there really are a lot of them.

5) We don't seem to have any twats at the club. 'Arry may occasionally show questionable morals, but on the other hand he is refreshingly candid and bullshit free. There are no Drogba or Ronaldo characters who dive at any opportunity and throw tantrums when decisions go against them. Of course I don't know them personally, but there is a distinct lack of egotism.

6) There are several under-appreciated players. No one seems to have realised that Huddlestone is without doubt the best player of long balls in the whole world. A drastic statement I think you'll agree, but hear me out. There are better passers - Xabi, Alonso, Iniesta, Fabregas etc. - but none of them could hit this. I hate the phrase but describing him as the team's "quarterback" is a pretty good description. His ability to predict an attacker's run and drive a ball with frankly unbelievable accuracy is astonishing; even more astonishing is that hardly anyone has picked up on this. Perhaps it's because he has been lumbered with a (fair) slow and cumbersome tag, but in the last year he has become an excellent shield for the back-four and a solid base from which to launch attacks. Liverpool were foolish not to place a bid when Alonso left, he would have filled the void more ably than nearly anyone.

Gomes is another under-appreciated gem. Just like Spurs itself, he makes just enough errors for the wider football-watching public to think he's crap, when in actual fact at his best he's in the top three in the league. I think it's fair to say his run of appalling form from the tail-end of the Juande Ramos era and the first few months of Redknapp's managership and the reputation that came with it has benefited both him and the club. No bids have come in that could unsettle him, and no one wants to buy him. His game isn't perfect but we wouldn't have won a place in Europe without his saves against Arsenal and Chelsea.

7) Gareth Bale. Holy Hell, this guy is amazing. No other player has generated so many column inches based purely on his footballing ability since, well, no one that I can remember - not even Ronaldo was hyped to this extent. The Fourth Estate has been singing his praises from the rooftops. His playing style is very similar to Ronaldo's, but whereas CR7 was critisised for going missing during big games, the opposite is true for Bale. He tends to falter against your lower-ranked teams but steps up and humbles the big boys. I've already mentioned consecutive defeats of Arsenal and Chelsea, but he's done it to Inter in spectacular fashion, Arsenal again, and several others that escape me for the time being.

Student Protest pondering

I was at the student protest in London this past Wednesday. It was not only did it stir up some passion within me about education, but it was also a brilliantly fun day, despite the ludicrous amount of time it took to get back to Southampton.

Talking to other students, reading journalism and getting into squabbles on the Guardian's comment sections has been revealing, and even though I was right there at the foot of 30 Millbank I wasn't fully convinced that the raise in tuition fees was entirely unjustified - yes, people should have the right to be able to study what they want regardless of cost, but on the other hand cuts have to happen, and no one seems to be able to offer any other valid suggestions.

However, something crossed my mind (or at least I think so; it might have been someone else's point) which is this: the tuition fee rise is a result of the recession, the government needs a quick buck so let's make the students pay. Fair? Maybe, but not the point. The thing is, we are not paying cash up front, but recieving loans. Degrees take a minimum of three years, combined with the fact that it won't affect anyone until the 2012 batch, means that that the government won't be seeing any return until 2015. That's not even taking into account that a graduate has to be earning more than £21k p.a. before it gets payed back, and even then it will only be a trickle. I can't see how this will help the UK emerge from the recession; as a long-term investment I would imagine it is financially sound (presuming the number of students remain the same), but in the short-term it seems it would have a negative impact on the economy.

Moreover, the loans themselves come from the government so in between now and 2015 the university system will be an even greater financial burden than it already is. Perhaps I'm missing something here - this point seems too obvious to have been overlooked by messrs Osbourne and Cable - but I can't see it. Enlighten me in the comments.


P.S. Anybody reading this that hasn't been to a large-scale protest before, I highly recommend it, even if you don't have any particular allegiance to a cause. It's so much fun, and something of an eye-opener - seeing 50'000 people getting fired up made me realise that things actually do matter, and it's worth fighting for the people that are getting hit the worst.

A Critical Analysis of 'Eh Marine!'

As part and parcel with my new Film & English degree, I've been exposed to a lot of great films in the past few weeks - we're talking Casablanca, Rear Window and Singin' In The Rain - but one stand head and shoulders above the rest. What's amazing about this film is the sheer amount of brilliance encapsulated within just six short seconds. You'll laugh, you'll cry (with laughter), you'll press replay umpteen times. What is this film? It is, of course, Eh Marine!

Eh Marine! exhibits some deceptively complex mise-en-scene. Notice the stark contrast of our two protagonists; one so manic and energetic - undoubtedly a parody the gurning and goofy Cosmo Brown - and the other so unsuspecting, so mundane. Caliboss99 is clearly a skilful manipulator of his audience. We automatically favour our anti-hero over Marine: he looks like a guy that really knows how to party...check out that killer jiggle/head-wobble combination and tell me he wouldn't give Andrew WK a run for his money in the party stakes. Marine is such a drab character, we relish her getting one smartly upside the head. Her clothes: drab; her expression: dull; her repsonse: a grunt - everything about her is asking for a whipping.

It's all about context though, really. What causes the bouncy guy to strike down upon her with great vengeance (though not so much furious anger)? Why is he so bouncy? How did he get that slap so damn right? As for the latter, I would suggest it lies in the follow-through: that was a proper pimp-slap and make no mistake. The guy clearly has experience; p'raps Marine's a whore and she's been skimming some hoe money off the top. What better way to punish a girl than by brutally smacking her on camera? Don't answer that question.