Steve Martin has made some really bad choices, hasn't he? It's been more than 20 years since he convincingly knocked it out of the park and although there has been the occasional blip in his downward trajectory (I guess I'm just talking about Bowfinger), it has generally been two decades of below-par fare and a couple of truly baffling choices.
In 1996, he decided to take the role of Sgt Bilko - the character immortalised by the incomparable Phil Silvers 40 years earlier. Martin was rightly slated for the choice and hauled over the coals by the critics. History has been kind in forgetting. A decade later, lesson not learned, Martin made the frankly insane choice of stepping into Peter Sellers' shoes and taking over the role of Inspector Clouseau.
I never understood why a comedian so uniquely talented as Steve Martin would choose to turn his back on the brilliant deadpan moronity of his early career and opt to spend his autumn years trying to emulate the genius of his peers in roles they defined. Martin was at his peak in the 70s - his 'Wild and Crazy Guy' era - and that peak was validated in a rite-of-passage shared by anyone who was anyone in that era. He got to spend some time with the Muppets.
With the recent deaths of Bin Laden, Gadaffi and Kim Jong Il, there is officially nobody left on the planet who doesn't love the Muppets. You'd have to be a soulless idiot not to. Jim Henson managed to distill an unparalleled formula - unerringly optimistic yet tempered with a sardonic wit, fabulously silly yet unexpectedly poignant, simple and colourful enough for kids yet wry and witty enough for grown-ups. Few have come close to making work so accessible and well-crafted enough for an audience spanning entire generations.
For my part, there will never be another resident of the Muppet-shaped place in my heart. A couple of times a year, I'll flick through the DVDs to recharge my soul, I still proudly own my original Muppet Show LP (bought for the syrupy Halfway Down The Stairs, continuously appreciated for the melancholic whimsy of Bein' Green), a handful of books and, as I type this, a lifesize Gonzo replica watches me with open-mouthed joy from the shelf in my office.
I couldn't believe it when my dad scored tickets to take the family to the advance screening of the new Muppets film at the BFI last week, indeed seeing it with the family seemed strangely apt. For a 6.30pm screening on a Friday night, there were very few kids in the audience, but, as mentioned by the director in the post-screening Q&A, the current crop of four-year-olds aren't terribly familiar with Muppets.
The film's an odd 'un. Echoing 1979's The Muppet Movie which showed how the Muppets assembled and then made a film about it, this tells the story of a wannabe Muppet and his human brother who, on learning that the Muppet Studio and Theatre are to be destroyed by a greedy oil baron, put the Muppets back together again to stage a show which will raise the money to stop him.
It's a bold step away from the post-Jim Henson Muppet films, which have mainly been charming re-tellings of classic stories with a Muppet cast, overseen by his son Brian Henson. This time, the creative power has been handed to some well-meaning outsiders. Actor/writer/exec producer Jason Segel is probably the most Muppety of Hollywood's current brood, carving out a charismatic career of lovable 'manchildren' since his brilliant emergence as Nick on the TV show Freaks and Geeks (a one-season work of excellence, also responsible for kickstarting the careers of Seth Rogan and Judd Apatow) working with James Bobin - writer-director of The Flight of the Conchords. I've always been uneasy about Disney's ownership of the Muppets but I'm glad they took a risk with these guys rather than just handing it to a bland, safe team.
The resulting film is a curious piece of work. In essence, it's an homage to the Muppets, yet... starring the Muppets. The focus is a bit hazy. Although they have a lot of screentime, the Muppets themselves seem relegated to minor characters due to them being denied proper storylines of their own. That said, Segel, his faltering relationship and his Muppet brother also seem to fade into the background between a strong start and dramatic finish. It's a great conceit - the re-visiting of a faded pop-culture legend - I have an enduring fascination for the film Rocky Balboa for precisely this reason.
But Muppets can't age, so the poigancy of time passed and opportunity wasted can't ever really kick in. I'm critiquing a kids film. A Muppet film. Look, it's a lot of fun - it's silly and rousing and warm and funny and colourful and it's got funny celebrity cameos and some great songs in it. If you have kids, not taking them so see it would be an unnecessary cruelty, even if you don't, it's a great pick-me-up and you'd be hard-pushed to not grin like a loon, throughout.
On leaving the cinema, though, the grin faded quite quickly and I realised it had been more to do with the familiarity, the joy of seeing Kermit, Fozzie, Piggy and Gonzo on the big screen for the first time in 20 years (which isn't to say they haven't been on it, just that I haven't seen a Muppet film in the cinema since The Muppet Christmas Carol). It's a charming film but there is no escaping the fact that this is the first ever Muppet film without the name Henson in the credits. Frank Oz has long since jumped ship, Jerry Juhl who wrote most of what The Muppets ever said passed away in '05. Although the puppets still exist and the new generation of Muppeteers, led valiantly by Steve Whitmire and Eric Jacobson, do their best to uphold the quality, there is no escaping that these were more than just characters and cloth, they were the souls and personalities of their originators. That's why the Farrelly Brothers' forthcoming Three Stooges reboot is a horrible idea. That's why a brilliant comedian like Steve Martin can't just dress up as Bilko or Clouseau and make it work.
There was a lot of talk in the Q&A about introducing a new audience to the Muppets but this seemed shrouded in irony since the BFI is traditionally the place parents take their kids to introduce them to the brilliance of Chaplin, Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton... If something is of an incredible timeless quality, sometimes the most effective and respectful thing is to preserve and promote it rather than recycle and update it. The Henson Muppet material isn't going anywhere, there's loads of it and to introduce a new audience to it, you really just have to press play.
I did enjoy the film but can't help thinking how much better something Segel and Bobin might produce for a family audience today could be if left unsaddled by the demands of someone else's 30-year-old material.
2012年1月30日星期一
2012年1月29日星期日
nike wmns air max 1 – sail – celery – neutral grey
When the Nike Air Max 1 first debuted in 1987, it was released in two colorways – Sport Red and Sport Blue. Both featured a basic color blocking that combined each individual primary colorway with a hint of grey and white mesh uppers – a simple template that would continue to hold relevance today. We haven't [...]
When the Nike Air Max 1 first debuted in 1987, it was released in two colorways – Sport Red and Sport Blue. Both featured a basic color blocking that combined each individual primary colorway with a hint of grey and white mesh uppers – a simple template that would continue to hold relevance today. We haven't seen too many 'OG inspired' colorways of the Air Max 1 because the shoe itself is so versatile when it comes to colorization, but whenever we do get a taste of the original colorway, it's always worth notice. This new women's colorway of the Air Max 1 could have very well qualified to be an original, but fortunately it arrives now at retailers in store and online like from id4shoes on eBay.
When the Nike Air Max 1 first debuted in 1987, it was released in two colorways – Sport Red and Sport Blue. Both featured a basic color blocking that combined each individual primary colorway with a hint of grey and white mesh uppers – a simple template that would continue to hold relevance today. We haven't seen too many 'OG inspired' colorways of the Air Max 1 because the shoe itself is so versatile when it comes to colorization, but whenever we do get a taste of the original colorway, it's always worth notice. This new women's colorway of the Air Max 1 could have very well qualified to be an original, but fortunately it arrives now at retailers in store and online like from id4shoes on eBay.
2012年1月17日星期二
Romney steps into Gore's shoes
Following Mitt Romney on the campaign trail is a painful yet familiar experience.
Painful because of all the wince-inducing moments when you realize that, for all of Romney's efforts to imitate human attributes, there remain glitches in the matrix that reveal him to be different from the rest of us.
In the past week alone, he claimed to take pleasure in firing people, expressed his phony fears about getting a “pink slip” from the job that swelled his wealth to nearly a quarter-billion dollars and asserted implausibly that he worked an “entry-level” job after Harvard Business School.
Romney further alleged that “I never thought I'd get involved in politics” — even though he has been in politics for two decades. And he claimed he didn't seek re-election as Massachusetts governor because “that would be about me” — as if running for president, which he did instead, was a gesture of sacrifice and altruism.
Romney, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg argued last week, has an “authentic inauthenticity problem.”
And that is precisely why Romney's struggle is so familiar. He is the political reincarnation of Al Gore, whose campaign I covered with an equal amount of cringing a dozen years ago.
To see Romney, in his Gap jeans, laughing awkwardly at his own jokes and making patently disingenuous claims, brings back all those bad memories of 2000: “Love Story.” Inventing the Internet. Earth tones. Three-button suits. The alpha male in cowboy boots. The iced-tea defense. The Buddhist temple. The sighing during the debate.
It's familiar, as well, to Michael Feldman, a longtime Gore aide who watched his boss get undone by the inauthentic label. “When an impression like that hardens, you're communicating into a stiff wind,” he told me. “These caricatures can form impressions that are really hard to turn around.”
If anything, Romney's problem is greater than Gore's because it is rooted in his frequent repositioning on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and health care. In substance, Romney's troubles might turn out to be closer to John Kerry's: As my colleague Greg Sargent has written, the undermining of Romney's business acumen by the attacks on his work at Bain Capital is similar to the undoing of Kerry's record as a Vietnam War hero by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Romney, with his multiple homes, also shares certain rich-guy vulnerabilities with Kerry. Newt Gingrich, in his scorched-earth assault on the GOP front-runner in South Carolina, used an image of Kerry windsurfing in an ad last week that closed with a supposed insult: “Just like John Kerry, he speaks French, too.”
But in temperament and style, Romney is closest to Gore, another politician's son from Harvard with pedantic tendencies who, in public, never quite seems comfortable.
The media tend to assign each candidate a character flaw as a form of shorthand (John McCain was volatile, George W. Bush was dopey, Barack Obama is all talk). Ominously, Romney's descriptions are the same applied to Gore 12 years ago: assuming “personas,” going through “makeovers,” attempting “regular-guy” traits, exhibiting “robotic” behavior and issuing new versions, such as “Romney 3.0.”
For Romney, the problem now becomes that reporters, and opponents, are perpetually on the lookout for new examples to add to his dossier of awkwardness.
“It's a self-perpetuating cycle,” explained Chris Lehane, who tried with limited success to help Gore defy his “wooden” image. “You're trying so hard to think through what you're going to say that you get mental handcuffs every time you speak. You're so nervous about the archetype that you fall into the archetype.”
In Romney's case, there is already abundant support for the archetype: his belief that “corporations are people,” his talk about hunting “small varmints,” the story about driving with the family dog in a kennel strapped atop the Romneys' car, his attempted $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, his singing “Who Let the Dogs Out?” his pretending to be pinched on the behind by a waitress, his bizarre jokes about Hooters and Hollandaise sauce, and his tendency to ask debate moderators for protection from his opponents.
None of those is, by itself, disqualifying — and, as in Gore's case, not all the examples are fair. But combined with Romney's frequent fluctuations on the issues, his awkwardness has left an impression that he is a phony and not to be trusted. Romney isn't necessarily doomed — Gore, after all, received more votes than the other guy — but this much seems clear: Over the next 10 months, Romney's every move will get the Gore treatment.
Painful because of all the wince-inducing moments when you realize that, for all of Romney's efforts to imitate human attributes, there remain glitches in the matrix that reveal him to be different from the rest of us.
In the past week alone, he claimed to take pleasure in firing people, expressed his phony fears about getting a “pink slip” from the job that swelled his wealth to nearly a quarter-billion dollars and asserted implausibly that he worked an “entry-level” job after Harvard Business School.
Romney further alleged that “I never thought I'd get involved in politics” — even though he has been in politics for two decades. And he claimed he didn't seek re-election as Massachusetts governor because “that would be about me” — as if running for president, which he did instead, was a gesture of sacrifice and altruism.
Romney, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg argued last week, has an “authentic inauthenticity problem.”
And that is precisely why Romney's struggle is so familiar. He is the political reincarnation of Al Gore, whose campaign I covered with an equal amount of cringing a dozen years ago.
To see Romney, in his Gap jeans, laughing awkwardly at his own jokes and making patently disingenuous claims, brings back all those bad memories of 2000: “Love Story.” Inventing the Internet. Earth tones. Three-button suits. The alpha male in cowboy boots. The iced-tea defense. The Buddhist temple. The sighing during the debate.
It's familiar, as well, to Michael Feldman, a longtime Gore aide who watched his boss get undone by the inauthentic label. “When an impression like that hardens, you're communicating into a stiff wind,” he told me. “These caricatures can form impressions that are really hard to turn around.”
If anything, Romney's problem is greater than Gore's because it is rooted in his frequent repositioning on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and health care. In substance, Romney's troubles might turn out to be closer to John Kerry's: As my colleague Greg Sargent has written, the undermining of Romney's business acumen by the attacks on his work at Bain Capital is similar to the undoing of Kerry's record as a Vietnam War hero by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Romney, with his multiple homes, also shares certain rich-guy vulnerabilities with Kerry. Newt Gingrich, in his scorched-earth assault on the GOP front-runner in South Carolina, used an image of Kerry windsurfing in an ad last week that closed with a supposed insult: “Just like John Kerry, he speaks French, too.”
But in temperament and style, Romney is closest to Gore, another politician's son from Harvard with pedantic tendencies who, in public, never quite seems comfortable.
The media tend to assign each candidate a character flaw as a form of shorthand (John McCain was volatile, George W. Bush was dopey, Barack Obama is all talk). Ominously, Romney's descriptions are the same applied to Gore 12 years ago: assuming “personas,” going through “makeovers,” attempting “regular-guy” traits, exhibiting “robotic” behavior and issuing new versions, such as “Romney 3.0.”
For Romney, the problem now becomes that reporters, and opponents, are perpetually on the lookout for new examples to add to his dossier of awkwardness.
“It's a self-perpetuating cycle,” explained Chris Lehane, who tried with limited success to help Gore defy his “wooden” image. “You're trying so hard to think through what you're going to say that you get mental handcuffs every time you speak. You're so nervous about the archetype that you fall into the archetype.”
In Romney's case, there is already abundant support for the archetype: his belief that “corporations are people,” his talk about hunting “small varmints,” the story about driving with the family dog in a kennel strapped atop the Romneys' car, his attempted $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, his singing “Who Let the Dogs Out?” his pretending to be pinched on the behind by a waitress, his bizarre jokes about Hooters and Hollandaise sauce, and his tendency to ask debate moderators for protection from his opponents.
None of those is, by itself, disqualifying — and, as in Gore's case, not all the examples are fair. But combined with Romney's frequent fluctuations on the issues, his awkwardness has left an impression that he is a phony and not to be trusted. Romney isn't necessarily doomed — Gore, after all, received more votes than the other guy — but this much seems clear: Over the next 10 months, Romney's every move will get the Gore treatment.
2012年1月16日星期一
Nike Air Max Nomo – Blue / Volt
The Nike Air Max NM is a distinctly 90′s flavored sneaker that has had quite a resurgence in the past year. We have seen several colorways including Nike Air Max NM white / obsidian and Nike Air Max NM pro blue / varsity red but none have been quite as vibrant as this model.
This time Nike decides to lace us with a model that kicks things up a notch with the help of blue and volt for a very hard to miss colorway. The volt mesh underlay looks pretty sweet laying next to the blue nubuck upper that zig-zag’s its way across the sneaker while a white outsole forms a solid foundation for the shoe to sit atop. Expect to see these later this year.
This time Nike decides to lace us with a model that kicks things up a notch with the help of blue and volt for a very hard to miss colorway. The volt mesh underlay looks pretty sweet laying next to the blue nubuck upper that zig-zag’s its way across the sneaker while a white outsole forms a solid foundation for the shoe to sit atop. Expect to see these later this year.
2012年1月15日星期日
The Downsides Of Barefoot Running: Stress Fractures, Mean Looks And More
Whether you love or hate the way these ultra-popular barefoot-style running shoes look, they’re a sign of the times–and for some, a status symbol of sorts, signifying their desire to live a more natural lifestyle. But when people become too focused on the fad–and not enough on the technique or potential for injury–they can get hurt in a hurry. Is it bad for you? No. But while barefoot and minimalist running is great for some people, it comes with more than a few caveats.
Declared the “most popular footwear trend of 2011,” runners in barefoot and minimalist shoes (defined by those with next to no support or incline) have begun cropping up on trails, in gyms and just about everywhere else. Many were encouraged by Born to Run, a wildly popular 2010 book about–you guessed it–barefoot running, while others have jumped on because they wanted to know what the hype was about.
Long-time runner Ryan Holiday, a strategist for the likes of Tim Ferriss and Robert Greene and director of marketing at American Apparel, has eschewed the barefoot running trend, despite the fact that he’s passionate about evolutionary fitness, for exactly that reason: the hype. For Holiday, running naturally makes sense, but for many, it seems more about a statement than a style of running.
I understand it. I understand the science. The worst pair of running shoes I ever had was the Nike Shox, because it’s about the least natural thing you can imagine. But I think to go the other direction is more about status or attention, and not about what’s best for the foot or best for running.
The Shox that Holiday mentions were part of a long line of ultra-cushioned kicks that were super-popular in previous decades, and that trained a lot of people to run heels-first. But those unnatural shoes have slowly been disregarded as unnecessary–and potentially problematic. Holiday, who sticks to a paleo diet and attends evolutionary health and fitness conferences, says he tries to be as close to what’s natural as is possible (i.e. by not wearing giant, shock-absorbing shoes), but says he also understands that we’re not exactly in the cavemen era anymore:
I live in New Orleans and in Los Angeles and you see people not only running in Vibrams, but without shoes at all. And it makes me wonder–what is natural about running on this grass, or even on concrete, that’s full of trash and glass? Being natural is important. But we also live in 2012.
Declared the “most popular footwear trend of 2011,” runners in barefoot and minimalist shoes (defined by those with next to no support or incline) have begun cropping up on trails, in gyms and just about everywhere else. Many were encouraged by Born to Run, a wildly popular 2010 book about–you guessed it–barefoot running, while others have jumped on because they wanted to know what the hype was about.
Long-time runner Ryan Holiday, a strategist for the likes of Tim Ferriss and Robert Greene and director of marketing at American Apparel, has eschewed the barefoot running trend, despite the fact that he’s passionate about evolutionary fitness, for exactly that reason: the hype. For Holiday, running naturally makes sense, but for many, it seems more about a statement than a style of running.
I understand it. I understand the science. The worst pair of running shoes I ever had was the Nike Shox, because it’s about the least natural thing you can imagine. But I think to go the other direction is more about status or attention, and not about what’s best for the foot or best for running.
The Shox that Holiday mentions were part of a long line of ultra-cushioned kicks that were super-popular in previous decades, and that trained a lot of people to run heels-first. But those unnatural shoes have slowly been disregarded as unnecessary–and potentially problematic. Holiday, who sticks to a paleo diet and attends evolutionary health and fitness conferences, says he tries to be as close to what’s natural as is possible (i.e. by not wearing giant, shock-absorbing shoes), but says he also understands that we’re not exactly in the cavemen era anymore:
I live in New Orleans and in Los Angeles and you see people not only running in Vibrams, but without shoes at all. And it makes me wonder–what is natural about running on this grass, or even on concrete, that’s full of trash and glass? Being natural is important. But we also live in 2012.
2012年1月12日星期四
Priceless Cartier jewels and exquisite Dior dresses...The real stars of Madonna's Wallis movie
Madonna has never been someone who does things by half.
So when she married film director Guy Ritchie and moved to England - 'At first I felt sort of lost and a little bit like an outsider', she admits - she decided to work her hardest to fit in.
'I thought, OK, if I'm going to make myself more comfortable in this country, I'm going to have to learn some of its history', she says.
'I began with Henry V111 and worked my way up to Edward V11, and I stopped there because I was so struck with what he'd done.
He gave up his throne for the woman he loved..
'I was intrigued and mystified. Why would he do this? Men since the beginning of time have fought to get on the throne. Men are power-seeking animals, so why would this man run away from it?
Why would he give it up? What did this woman have that would inspire him to make such a great sacrifice? I wanted to know more about her.'
The more Madonna learned about Wallis the closer she felt to her. They were both Americans struggling to fit into the British Establishment.
They were the most famous women of their day and style icons who constantly had their characters pored over and demonised. Both were criticised for their ambition.
'I became completely and utterly swept up in the subject. I developed an unconscious attraction to Wallis. She'd come to England from the USA and found herself being treated like an outsider.
'That was the connection between us, although in time I realized I was welcome here, unlike Wallis, who was never accepted.'
Madonna became obsessed with the story and her fascination with Wallis far outlasted her eight-year marriage to Guy.
When she learned that Wallis had once lived around the corner from her home in central London when her affair with Edward started, although she was still married to businessman Ernest Simpson, Madonna says she would sit outside the apartment 'like a stalker', as she tried to put herself in Wallis' shoes.
She decided to see if it would be possible to make a film of the story, but - in spite of her superstar status opening many doors for her - she found the odds were stacked against her.
When she was turned down from buying the rights to a new Wallis book she was thinking about ending the project until a chance coincidence.
Answering a knock on her front door one night, she found nobody there - but parked outside was a van with the name Montague Removals on the side. Montague was Wallis's maiden name. 'I thought, "right, that's a sign", recalls the singer. So she persevered.
The result is W.E., Madonna's cinematic re-telling of the Wallis story, which she calls 'a three-year labour of love'.
The title - which Madonna pronounces as 'we' - comes from the way Wallis and Edward always ended their letters to each other, binding their initials.
'I never saw it as a simple love story', explains Madonna.' Nor is it particularly sentimental. I think love is impossible to describe or explain - it's like trying to understand the nature of God, or the laws of the universe.
'What I do know is that it's the force that moves us all and without it we couldn't exist'.
The film is a two handed look at Wallis; the story is told through the prism of a modern American, Wally Winthrop (her mother was such a fan that she was named after Wallis) who - as her marriage collapses around her - becomes obsessed with the story of what she considers the greatest love affair of the 20th century.
Like Madonna before her, Wally becomes entranced with the minutiae of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's lives as their possessions go on sale at Sothebys (in 1998 a sale of just some of their possessions reached ￡15million) and discovers the prosaic truths behind their romance as she reads their private letters.
With Madonna - a self-confessed control freak - micro-managing as director, writer, and with a producer credit, filming did not get off to a good start.
So when she married film director Guy Ritchie and moved to England - 'At first I felt sort of lost and a little bit like an outsider', she admits - she decided to work her hardest to fit in.
'I thought, OK, if I'm going to make myself more comfortable in this country, I'm going to have to learn some of its history', she says.
'I began with Henry V111 and worked my way up to Edward V11, and I stopped there because I was so struck with what he'd done.
He gave up his throne for the woman he loved..
'I was intrigued and mystified. Why would he do this? Men since the beginning of time have fought to get on the throne. Men are power-seeking animals, so why would this man run away from it?
Why would he give it up? What did this woman have that would inspire him to make such a great sacrifice? I wanted to know more about her.'
The more Madonna learned about Wallis the closer she felt to her. They were both Americans struggling to fit into the British Establishment.
They were the most famous women of their day and style icons who constantly had their characters pored over and demonised. Both were criticised for their ambition.
'I became completely and utterly swept up in the subject. I developed an unconscious attraction to Wallis. She'd come to England from the USA and found herself being treated like an outsider.
'That was the connection between us, although in time I realized I was welcome here, unlike Wallis, who was never accepted.'
Madonna became obsessed with the story and her fascination with Wallis far outlasted her eight-year marriage to Guy.
When she learned that Wallis had once lived around the corner from her home in central London when her affair with Edward started, although she was still married to businessman Ernest Simpson, Madonna says she would sit outside the apartment 'like a stalker', as she tried to put herself in Wallis' shoes.
She decided to see if it would be possible to make a film of the story, but - in spite of her superstar status opening many doors for her - she found the odds were stacked against her.
When she was turned down from buying the rights to a new Wallis book she was thinking about ending the project until a chance coincidence.
Answering a knock on her front door one night, she found nobody there - but parked outside was a van with the name Montague Removals on the side. Montague was Wallis's maiden name. 'I thought, "right, that's a sign", recalls the singer. So she persevered.
The result is W.E., Madonna's cinematic re-telling of the Wallis story, which she calls 'a three-year labour of love'.
The title - which Madonna pronounces as 'we' - comes from the way Wallis and Edward always ended their letters to each other, binding their initials.
'I never saw it as a simple love story', explains Madonna.' Nor is it particularly sentimental. I think love is impossible to describe or explain - it's like trying to understand the nature of God, or the laws of the universe.
'What I do know is that it's the force that moves us all and without it we couldn't exist'.
The film is a two handed look at Wallis; the story is told through the prism of a modern American, Wally Winthrop (her mother was such a fan that she was named after Wallis) who - as her marriage collapses around her - becomes obsessed with the story of what she considers the greatest love affair of the 20th century.
Like Madonna before her, Wally becomes entranced with the minutiae of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's lives as their possessions go on sale at Sothebys (in 1998 a sale of just some of their possessions reached ￡15million) and discovers the prosaic truths behind their romance as she reads their private letters.
With Madonna - a self-confessed control freak - micro-managing as director, writer, and with a producer credit, filming did not get off to a good start.
2012年1月11日星期三
When the 'Gladiator' met the 'Angels & Demons.'
As we slurped big scoops of gelato on waffle cones, we debated, should we or should we not… Finally we decided that we would throw a coin on Trevi Fountain that would ensure our return to the eternal city. Honestly, I don’t believe in these legends but as I stood in front of the Fontana di Trevi and watched hundreds of people tossing a coin into the waters, I thought may be its worth giving a try and if it doesn’t work till the last day of my life, I can tell people ‘It’s not going to work.’ Trevi fountain square in Rome is just a scene straight out of any of India’s festivals; teeming with people of all ages, dressed in their best and posing for photos from different angles of the fountain. Wonder how many actually see the unique fountain and the figures that adorn it.
We had planned that we must see the places that had been shown in films so gloriously and first in the list was ‘The Gladiator.’ So, next day, off we went to meet Russell Crowe, we had a date with the Gladiator at the Colosseum. My daughter was very disappointed to know that even though the film Gladiator had lot of scenes in the Colosseum; the film was not shot here in Rome but at Malta where a replica of this amphitheater was built.
Once again, the structure is gigantic. With tickets to go inside we started climbing up the stony flight of stairs. A word of caution for those who plan to visit this unique piece of Roman architecture, the stairs are big and high and once inside there‘s lot of walking and climbing up and down. Wearing a sturdy pair of shoes is a must.
It would be unfair to just term the Colosseum as huge; everyone is sure to fall short of superlatives, such is its grandeur and size. Built to accommodate about one lakh spectators, the theater was mainly used for gladiator fights, animal shows and fights and even enactment of mythological dramas.
There are three levels and each has its own unique style of showing the amphitheater from different angles; especially the arena and the hypogeum (underground corridors). The original wooden stage is no more there but the hypogeum is clearly visible. In fact there is also a separate tour that allows visitors to go to the hypogeum and visualize how gladiators and animals were kept in the tunnels and cages before the fight began. I generally find this idea of ‘fights’ and ‘hunts’ quite barbaric so I skipped this tour even though my family went for it. The entire complex was so huge and was so elaborately laid out that I could probably end up writing a book on the Coliseum, as it is called in Italian.
We had planned that we must see the places that had been shown in films so gloriously and first in the list was ‘The Gladiator.’ So, next day, off we went to meet Russell Crowe, we had a date with the Gladiator at the Colosseum. My daughter was very disappointed to know that even though the film Gladiator had lot of scenes in the Colosseum; the film was not shot here in Rome but at Malta where a replica of this amphitheater was built.
Once again, the structure is gigantic. With tickets to go inside we started climbing up the stony flight of stairs. A word of caution for those who plan to visit this unique piece of Roman architecture, the stairs are big and high and once inside there‘s lot of walking and climbing up and down. Wearing a sturdy pair of shoes is a must.
It would be unfair to just term the Colosseum as huge; everyone is sure to fall short of superlatives, such is its grandeur and size. Built to accommodate about one lakh spectators, the theater was mainly used for gladiator fights, animal shows and fights and even enactment of mythological dramas.
There are three levels and each has its own unique style of showing the amphitheater from different angles; especially the arena and the hypogeum (underground corridors). The original wooden stage is no more there but the hypogeum is clearly visible. In fact there is also a separate tour that allows visitors to go to the hypogeum and visualize how gladiators and animals were kept in the tunnels and cages before the fight began. I generally find this idea of ‘fights’ and ‘hunts’ quite barbaric so I skipped this tour even though my family went for it. The entire complex was so huge and was so elaborately laid out that I could probably end up writing a book on the Coliseum, as it is called in Italian.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)