A Pair of Brexit Thought Experiments

It’s been a little while, but I’m afraid this is another Brexit post. However, it’s not going to go in the direction you might think. I want to run through a couple of inter-related thought experiments. I’m going to run through some events and it’s going to be clear who I am talking about, but I want you to ignore any pre-conceptions you may have and go with it.

So first up I want to rewind to the pre-referendum time, back when your pound was still worth something on the global stage.

Now, imagine you’re a relatively senior member of the Government and you back Remain. You back it wholeheartedly. You expect Remain to win. You can see Cameron and Osborne campaigning and don’t think they’re doing an especially good job, but you’re still reasonably confident. However, you know there’s a chance of losing the vote.

Either because you know something or because you have read your boss well, you think that should Leave win then the Prime Minister will resign, leaving a gap at the top which will most likely be hotly contested by those on the Leave side. They would have won the vote and see that as a mandate to take control of the Party and the country. You believe these people to be, let’s be diplomatic, ass-hats, and can’t stomach the idea of them taking charge and destroying the country because it appears they know nothing about what they’re doing.

You believe, rightly or wrongly, that being an outspoken Remainer will not win any more votes over to the Remain side, but more importantly, you know that if you are on the frontline then you basically rule yourself out as the next Prime Minister. With all that in mind, you decide to keep quiet in the lead up to the vote. Some could see this as wanting to make a grab for power, but that’s not necessarily the case. You want what’s best for the country and, looking around, all the other options are bad. Should the unthinkable happen and Leave wins, you view yourself as the only steady, reliable hand. The only person who would have a chance of being Prime Minister who would have a chance of getting the country out of the mess it’s in.

Is that why Theresa May did what she did in the run up the referendum? Who knows, but it’s a compelling narrative. But does it also chime with what has come since? That leads me on to my second thought experiment.

So, all that was laid out in the first half of this post has come to be and you are Prime Minister. You are tasked with taking the Uk out of the EU, something you think is an unholy mistake. You think it will lay to waste so many aspects of the country, it is a disaster of unparalleled proportions. How do you go about it?

You have a mandate from the country that you feel you have to follow through on. It is an unwinnable situation. Whatever deal you come away with at the end of negotiations will be a bad one. The ones that do the best for the UK – the soft Brexit options – will be seen as a copout by the electorate. They will involve us still paying into the EU and will probably do nothing (or, at most, very little) to get back our sovereignty, stop immigration, free us to cut our own trade deals – the things people were misguidedly voting for. If you manage to do one of those things you won’t be satisfying everyone who voted Leave. At best a soft Brexit probably meets the requirements for maybe 40% of Leave voters while the rest will feel screwed over because they didn’t get what they want.

On the other hand, if you go for the hard Brexit option you give those people what they want, but also a whole load of what they didn’t want. Added to which, the ramifications for the country will be catastrophic. And again, you’ll probably only please maybe 40% of the Leave voters. People will say “I only wanted to stop immigration, I didn’t want businesses to leave the country, we needed to stay in the single market”, etc and so on.

Basically, you have inherited a no-win situation. There’s nothing you can do that will please the country (and remember, 48% of the country didn’t vote for any of these options, and you didn’t want them either). So what do you do? How do you fix this mess?

First of all, you need to maximise the time you have to get the result you need while also making people think we’re moving forward. The initial Brexit discussions were about when Article 50 would be invoked. European elections meant we couldn’t delay for ever, but equally we needed a plan before we started negotiations. Sometime in the new year seemed a fair compromise. Arguably March 2017 is about as long as it could be left. Announcing that at the Tory Party conference gives a 6 month window to come up with a plan.

The next thing is to build a case for either the softest of Brexits or not having one at all in your 6 month window. How do you do that? Well, if you announce that we’re aiming for total removal from the EU, that the UK will go it alone, it’s likely that people will freak out. The pound will dive. Businesses will get scared and start openly talking about how they plan to leave the UK. Foreign investment will dry up. Fewer jobs will be created. The cost of living will start to rise as the UK imports far more than it exports and even the things produced at home are often produced using foreign parts, so all these things will become more expensive to the regular consumer. In the run up to Christmas this would be a nightmare. Wallets will feel the pinch. People won’t be able to afford to go abroad.

Many of those who voted to Leave fall into two categories – the older generation and the poorer households. Many of the older generation rely on state pensions which now won’t go as far. Some winter abroad and now will find that more expensive. Poorer households will struggle to make ends meet.

Suddenly the reality of what Brexit might mean will hit home. The discussion will shift to “And this is all happening before we’ve even left – things will only get worse”. People will panic. Then it becomes possible to raise the prospect of not going through with it. Whether or not that can be followed through is a different matter, but at least it brings the conversation out in the open. It gives us a chance of staying.

I think it’s notable that the policies regarding Brexit that caused the most fuss at the Tory Party conference came from remainers – Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt and Amber Rudd. Their speeches sparked debate about how we treated people from other countries, and how much we rely on them. The NHS can’t be truly self-sufficient in terms of medical staff. It’s outrageous and impractical for all businesses to publish the number of foreign workers they have (this has, of course, since been taken back and was “never an official policy”).

Of course, the three Brexiteers will continue to talk their guff. Guff which isn’t aligned with each other. And guff which is rapidly dismissed by various EU politicians. But it all plays a part.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see further announcements and proclamations which spark debate and outrage around the country in the coming weeks and months, and the debate starting to take a different shape in the new year. Now, whether that debate will be enough to prevent Brexit from actually happening is a different matter, and there are questions as to whether a soft Brexit is even possible (European Council President Donald Tusk certainly seems to have ruled it out). To be fair, it’s difficult to see any deal that gets signed off by all 27 states and the EU Council, so the options probably are limited. Shaping the debate to all-or-nothing might be beneficial.

Of course, this is all speculation. I have no idea. Maybe Theresa May really is moving the Conservatives into the UKIP space in a bid to appeal to the modern xenophobe. Maybe she doesn’t care about the shape of the country and her legacy. But right now, her moves are the same as those I would make if I were trying to shift the debate and keep the UK in the EU.

The Loving Embrace of the Inevitable Heat-Death of the Universe

Is it really not even three weeks since the referendum? So much has changed in such a short time, and tomorrow we’ll have a new Prime Minister installed, a woman who’s record points towards more right than centre on the political spectrum (voted against the repeal section 28, and more recently declared her ambitions to take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights) somehow became the Liberals preferred choice when the other runners and riders for the role came forward.

In my last post I said I had a sneaking suspicion that Article 50 wouldn’t be invoked, suggesting that, like Leicester, it was a rank outsider that might just come good in the long run. That was in the halcyon days when Boris Johnson was favoured to be the next Prime Minister and appeared to be doing everything he could to undo the mistake he appeared to realise he had made by leading such a successful Leave campaign. Now the possibilities of not leaving the EU seem more like Tottenham Hotspur’s chances of winning the 2015/16 Premier League – unlikely at the start, then hopes raised before failing comically at the last.

Theresa May has said that “Brexit means Brexit”, but given that no one wants to say what Brexit actually means, beyond that recursive statement, there’s still much to play for, and it’s making for a fascinating period in politics.

Now, fascinating can be taken in many different ways. I don’t want that to be taken as an indication that, ultimately, I am happy with where we are – I most certainly am not. Nor that I am happy with the direction we are heading. I would say this is fascinating in the same way that studying the decomposition of your own severed hand would be fascinating – I didn’t want the hand severed, I feel I should probably be doing something more about it, but given the significant lack of options, I may as well see what I can learn from the horrific process while it’s going on.

The leadership ‘race’ was like the worst Hunger Games movie ever made, in which each contestant was suffering from manic depression and instead of successive fights to the death they decided to kill themselves in a variety of mundane ways. In the case of the Conservative leadership race it seems that everyone’s mode of suicide was ‘being themselves’ and the last woman standing, Britain’s Jennifer Lawrence, is Theresa May. Can’t we have J-Law instead?

Now, despite being the liberal’s choice, don’t be fooled by T-May’s promises of uniting Britain, sorting out our economy and sticking up for the working man. These are the same things David Cameron was saying back when he was elected party leader in 2005 and he’s just leaving number 10 as probably the worst Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain, having failed to hit any of his targets self-imposed and unnecessary targets, made the country poorer, reduced social mobility, increased inequality, made further education the most expensive in the world from a standing start, and split the country in so many different ways it’s a wonder anyone likes anyone else anymore. I suppose you could say the only way is up, until you realise we are currently part of the EU, with freedom of movement and all of the other benefits it brings, so don’t think things are going to get better any time soon.

Sorry, that’s rather bleak, isn’t it? So what are our options from here? Is there anything to get excited about? Well, assuming that “Brexit means Brexit” means invoking Article 50, the first question is when that will happen. Obviously the world wants us to do this as quickly as possible, but we are under no obligation to stick to any timescale. With significant elections happening in Europe in 2017 (including in Germany and France, the other members of Europe’s big 3, along with the UK for now), there’s an argument for waiting until those have been completed to make the negotiations easier. At the very least, waiting until the New Year seemed to be on the cards, but right now, who honestly knows? A possibility has also been raised of the ability to revoke the decision within the 2 year negotiation period, but it might take some legal trickery to pull that one off.

There is also the question of legal challenges being made that suggest the Prime Minister can’t invoke Article 50 without the go ahead of parliament – it being unclear whether this includes both the Commons and the Lords. The case has been made in both directions and it’s safe to say I don’t fully understand either, but given that many MPs seem to be taking the route that “the people voted Brexit so that’s what I must do if it comes to a commons vote” (something I know the MPs of friends have communicated to them), this doesn’t look too hopeful either.

That said, the argument I made to my own MP when I felt she might be faltering in this direction maybe slightly more persuasive. I would be upset losing this referendum under any circumstances, but it’s not being a bad loser to decry the tactics played by the opposition in this case. This would not be like Cristiano Ronaldo getting upset with ‘defensive’ Iceland after their draw at the Euros. Iceland played within the rules and there is a strong (undeniable?) case that the Leave campaign did not. The promises made were not promises, they were suggestions, ideas, possibilities (they were lies). If the Remain campaign had promised everyone in the country a Mercedes, they would not have been less truthful.

The fact is that the Leave campaign was operating like Lance Armstrong – does he deserve to keep his tour victories because he won at the time or should he have lost them when the truth was revealed? Of course, the frustrating thing for most people on the Remain side is that we knew they were lies and we told people they were lies, but apparently we were “suckered in by Project Fear” rather than Project Reality. Yet now we hear of university researchers being excluded from projects because EU partner organisations don’t know whether we’ll still be eligible for funding. And so the brain drain begins (though given the result, not to mention level of the debate, you could reasonably make the argument that it began long ago).

The thing I don’t understand is why there is no investigation into this? I appreciate that the Chilcott enquiry has taken 7 years to return it’s (very thorough) verdict, but this is of arguably greater importance to the future of the country and no one thinks we should look into the manner of the campaign and whether it was conducted on a level playing field?

Here’s a counterpoint. In June, a public vote takes place, shortly after which it is revealed that the victor was involved in deceiving the public. There is widespread outrage. Those at the centre of the deception are tabloid fodder for days and the story is covered by all the broadsheets too. An investigation is launched and, eventually, a guilty verdict is reached. The year is 2015 and ITV are found guilty of deceiving the public, paving the way for Jules O’Dwyer and Matisse to win Britain’s Got Talent. Now obviously that was much more scandalous – the public had to pay £1 per vote, while the votes in the EU referendum were free – but I still feel like there should be some kind of public enquiry into how a campaign on such a serious matter should be allowed to be conducted on the basis of such lies.

I have made this case to my MP and it felt like it was taken on board. Whether or not that matters, given the signs of resignation from many in the Remain camp, remains to be seen, though the Lords may be a different matter. They are unelected, and so perhaps less concerned with upsetting the public, and have proved surprisingly useful in a few votes in recent years. I’m not holding out hope, mind.

So what kind of a deal might we end up with? I think it’s pretty pointless to try to predict right now. We don’t know when it’ll happen, who will be involved (apparently we have too few trade negotiators in this country so may need to draft them in from abroad – those Barmy Brussels Bureaucrats may soon be doing our deals for us), or anything else about the process. I think the one thing we do know is that whatever kind of deal we get, it’s only going to satisfy about 1% of the population.

I mean, we’re on the weaker side of the negotiating table so if we get access to the single market (which seems to be a pre-requisite from almost everyone who’s spoken on the subject) we’re going to have to keep freedom of movement – perhaps a deal which walks back the frankly unprecedented deal David Cameron negotiated on freedom of movement prior to the vote. So that’s anyone who voted for immigration unhappy. In fact, the single market, means we’ll have to abide by the EU laws we apparently don’t like as well, so those sovereignty voters will be out of luck. Likewise if you wanted the country to save money, well that was a lie, for starters, but also access to the single market will cost us. Meanwhile, the Remain camp will obviously be unhappy regardless because any deal that gets done will be worse than the one we had as members of the EU.

The only other option appears to be to get out of everything and go it alone, but I struggle to believe any rational Government could consent to trying to do that kind of deal. Given that new trade deals with the EU alone would take a minimum of 4 years to negotiate, and then there’s the rest of the world (logistically we couldn’t negotiate with everyone all at once), it would risk crushing the economy of this country and setting us back 30 years.

To be honest, part of me had been hoping that Andrea Leadsom might end up taking the Tory Party leadership. I mean clearly she’s insane (not in any actual way relating to her sanity, but in a “all of her opinions and public offerings seem to be diametrically opposed to mine and any right-thinking individual” kind of way, though we’ve recently seen how many fewer right seeking individuals there appear to be compared to what we once thought), but it would have continued the fascinating theme.

And no, before you ask, it wouldn’t have been like looking at my other severed hand decompose. Reports circulate briefly over the weekend that Tory party members fearful of the possibility of a Leadsom-led party and Labour party members in increasing despair at the reign of Jeremy Corbyn were talking about breaking off from their respective parties and joining in the middle somewhere. Of course, this would have been in the middle between two right of centre parties, one slightly more right of centre than the other. The prospect of essentially all parties going into proper meltdown and the possibility of the complete reinvention of politics in this country briefly had me excited. And then Leadsom pulled out yesterday, dashing any of those hopes completely.

And yet… The Liberal Democrats have already come out and said that their primary policy will be to either stop the UK leaving the EU or getting us to rejoin the EU in the event that we leave, which sets up a potentially fascinating election in 0-4 years time (yes, it’s due in 2020, but everything has gone batshit mental so I’m not going to predict we’re going to be waiting that long for it to happen). There’s the possibility that no one will want to Vote Tory because they don’t like the Brexit deal negotiated (or the fact that one had to be negotiated at all), and no one will vote Labour because of the implosion they are going through shows no sign of abating. OK, so the Corbyn-ites will vote Labour but everyone else will abandon them, possibly including their MPs. UKIP will keep their stubborn band of supporters but fail to bring any more along with them. And meanwhile the Lib Dems could sneak up around the outside. At the very least we could have a parliament split three ways and with no one willing to share power with anyone else.

Actually, make that four ways. There’s the SNP to consider, a party who, I honestly believe, if they put up candidates in each constituency outside Scotland would have a decent chance of taking the entire country. And that would answer a big question about the fate of the union – I mean why would they need to vote for independence if they already ran England as well?

So, what to make of all this? I don’t fucking know. I vacillate between anger, despair, resignation and fascination constantly. Strangely, like many of those who voted Leave, I have never felt so disenfranchised. As Homer Simpson once said – “When will people learn, democracy doesn’t work”. I’m not a great believer in dictatorships but fuck it, put me in charge and let me do what I want and I’ll sort it out. If everyone just did what I want them to do this would all be much better.

But seriously, despite the disenfranchisement, there’s a possibility for a decent future, but only if we don’t forget, only if we keep the pressure on, only if we keep reminding those in charge that, ultimately, we are in charge of them. Having written to my MP now, I’ve got the bug. I will be putting pressure on her over issues. I will be expressing my concern over the way things are run and making it clear that my vote is earned and that people in this country do care and won’t let people do what they want. The more they hear from constituents stating their desires and their requirements, the more likely they are to take that on board and to adjust policy positions. So I would encourage everyone to write, and to write about everything that you feel matters.

And if all that fails, you should remember that, in the end, it will all be OK. I am, of course, talking about the inevitable heat-death of the universe. It comes to us all.

Brexit, Bregret, Brindecision … and Bremain?

I’m going to say something that I think you’ll think is crazy, and then I’m going to set out my stall. I don’t think the UK is going to quit the EU.

Late Friday night/early Saturday morning I put the odds down as being 1% for the Government not invoking Article 50 and 0.01% of having another referendum. 0.01% is odds of 10,000 to 1. Well, let’s double the chances (making it 5,000 to 1) because then it’s the same odds as Leicester winning the Premier League in 2015-16 and that means I can use a nice footballing analogy.

So yesterday I was thinking that the UK remaining in the EU was like Leicester’s chances last summer, before a ball had been kicked. This morning, I felt like we’d reached October 2015 in the Premier League. Leicester were doing well but everyone knew they would fall away, no one really believed they would win it. I think I’ve now reached Christmas 2015. This is the point at which people were saying “They’ve got a difficult run of matches ahead of them, but if they come out of that well then they’ve got a chance.” The next week is Leicester’s difficult run of matches, and explain why shortly. Let me first issue a caveat – the possibility of remaining may not be Leicester. It may be Crystal Palace. Palace were competing for the Champions League spots in October/November kind of time and then promptly barely took a point for the rest of the season. I may be backing the wrong no hoper.

But let me try to build a case. And what a case it is, featuring as it does the redemption of David Cameron. He wouldn’t need a redemption if he hadn’t messed everything up in the first place, but it could be that this redemption does more for the country than a straight win for Remain ever would have done.

Now, in building this case, I’m combining information culled from multiple stories to produce one narrative. You may well have already seen some of those sources. I apologise for not crediting the individual theories, thoughts, anecdotes and stories, but most of them can probably be seen on my Facebook timeline so you shouldn’t have to look far to find them.

Let’s start this story with a picture. A picture I shall title Victory is Mine!

Victory is Mine!

Victory is Mine!

These men have just won the most amazing political victory of their lives. Something I described as the most important decision in the history of the UK since we decided to go to war in 1939. This is a campaign they fought long and hard for, one they passionately believed in, one they went to war with colleagues in their own party over. They’re very excited about it. Jubilant. I think, just before they walked on stage they were shaking bottles of champagne over each others like Grand Prix winners.

So this has been noted in plenty of places, but they are not happy men. This was not supposed to happen. They were supposed to be plucky losers representing the common man and using their new-found popularity to ride a wave into number 10 (Boris more likely, with Gove as Chancellor?) when Cameron stood down before the next election. They both knew, Boris especially, that Leaving would be bad, ne cataclysmic, but that campaign had no realistic chance, right? So now they are in a position where they have to make the biggest mistake in British history.

Why do they have to make it? That’s because of Cameron’s decision to walk away without pulling the plug. I barely stopped short of labelling his resignation cowardly in my previous post, but an excellent comment left on a Guardian article (since shared virally on social media) has made me realise that it was, in fact, incredibly astute with regards to the future of this country and our position in Europe.

For one, he stated that we shouldn’t invoke Article 50 until a replacement is in place. Invocation would lead to two years of negotiation with the EU and if he’s not going to be around for that, it should be left to his successor. What that did was buy us time to sort this mess out. Perhaps more importantly, it gives time for the general public to realise what a mistake leaving would be.

As the importance of this decision sinks in, it will become clear how much of a poisoned chalice the leadership is. Whoever comes in will go down as the Prime Minister who crippled the country, and crippled it not just by leaving the EU, but also in all likelihood leading to the breakaway of Scotland and, possibly, Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom, and who wants that on their resume.

The other important element of this is the enormous amount of Bregret being felt across the country. There have been an incredible number of reports of people wanting to take their vote back. Comment pages on articles on the Daily Mail and The Sun websites show readers complaining that their newspapers gave them poor information in advance of their votes. What had been dismissed as scaremongering by the Leave camp has turned out to be all too real and these people feel cheated. So taking on the role of Prime Minister would not only mean irreversibly damaging the country (destroying the country as we know it), but also making a decision that the majority of voters no longer back.

So what does this mean? I realise that my case still has someone pulling the trigger, despite how unpalatable that job is. Well firstly, there is plenty of precedent in countries across the EU for ignoring or re-running referenda that initially came out negative. Now, none of those decisions were of the same scale as this one, but most of them featured wider margins of victory than in this one.

I contacted my MP earlier today to register my feelings about the referendum – about the fact that each of the promises made by the Leave side was a lie to one degree or another. These promises have been unravelling across the weekend when, in various interviews, leading players in the Leave team have admitted that money won’t go on the NHS, that immigration won’t fall, that free trade is unlikely to continue if we try to stop immigration, that the British economy will be stronger out – about the fact that voters no longer believed in their vote – and about the fact that the electorate were not educated enough to make this decision. My MP shared my concerns and I am convinced that there will be healthy discussions within Parliament about the fact that this is not the best thing for Britain. The vast majority of MPs believe the UK should stay and, I believe, will try to build a case to do anything to prevent this self-immolation.

What does that mean? Well, most likely I think will be a second referendum. I don’t believe the Government will just discard the outcome of the vote. This would cause far more problems with those most vocal on the Leave side not accepting it. Don’t get me wrong, I think they will be strongly against a second referendum too, but if they have a difficult case to argue. If they say we shouldn’t have another because the majority of people want to Leave the argument coming back to them will be “Why are you afraid of another vote, if the majority are with you?”, while if they accept a second vote I think they would struggle to get past 40% of the vote, perhaps even less.

MPs will make the case that their constituents have contacted them to say they made the wrong choice, that there is an overwhelming and compelling case that we should have a rerun and with the majority of their colleagues behind them I believe they will get their way. Thankfully.

I also think this may be agreed as soon as during this week. With pressure coming from the EU to invoke Article 50 as soon as possible in order to stabilise markets and enable Europe to start moving on, the UK will need to do something quickly. Admittedly, the EU can’t force us to do anything but we probably want to avoid annoying the rest of Europe much more. If we can clarify that there will be a second vote in relatively short order, and there is a much clearer backing for Remain this time, markets should stabilise and the worst can be behind us. The UK already look like dicks to the rest of the world, we would look a bit more sensible if we admitted we were wrong, and did so as soon as possible. Essentially, it’s like we all got really, really drunk and did some stupid things and now we need to go and contact all the people in our phones and apologise to them. Better to do that than say “I’ll just get new friends”.

So what kind of timescale would we be looking at? This is my made up scenario so I can make something up about this too, right? I’m building my case. What makes most sense is to have one done before the Conservative party elect a new leader. We want this done as quickly as possible and the Conservative party won’t want a leader with this hanging over their heads. Boris will happily endorse it, confident they can win again while Farage will hate the idea, and both for the same reason, they know Leave can’t win again. I would suggest we’d be looking at 6-8 weeks time for another run, so mid-to-late August?

That then gives the Tories a couple of months to sort out their new leader between the end of the next Referendum and their conference. The added advantage for them is that remaining in the EU would lessen the calls for a new General Election, something they’d like to avoid considering the mess they’re currently in (even with Labour in a similar mess). If they can hold off on an election until 2020, they might avoid some of the UKIP gains that would be likely in the event of an election called later this year. If we are to continue with the Brexit then surely a General Election is a must to ensure the public get the negotiating team they want for the exit mechanism.

So back at the top of this piece I said that David Cameron might have a redemption greater than if he had just won the referendum straight up. Well, that obviously only happens if we do get that second go around, but assuming that happens, the results the first time around have brought the deep unhappiness that exists throughout the UK society to the fore. Politicians are aware that they can’t just brush people to the side because they are unpredictable and they can mess up even the best laid plans. Politicians had become complacent, but if this leads to some kind of… well, it’s not going to be a revolution… but a rebalancing of power, of a wider range of voices at the table and the end of the Bullingdon Club domination of the Houses of Parliament, that will perhaps be the best thing to happen here since the end of Thatcherism.

So that’s my case. How crazy is it? Is it Leicester or Crystal Palace crazy? I guess time will tell, but right now I believe.

Anything else?

A couple of things that I didn’t fit into my narrative.

The biggest concern right now is the right wing extremism that is now coming out onto the streets. A search on twitter for #PostBrexitRacism should show you the kind of incidents that are occurring across the country. The far right in this country were always behind Brexit and they have taken they majority verdict as an indictment of their views. Suddenly they are justified in what they think because the majority are behind them. it is terrifying to think of what this country will become if we follow through with the Brexit. I am surprised that those on the Leave side a) aren’t condemning this behaviour more and b) that they don’t understand the role they have played in bringing this to the fore. I can’t think of many times in history when being on the same side as the racists has been a good idea and it will be interesting to see how this develops. Hopefully with the racist outbursts disappearing. In the meantime I’d urge anyone encountering any kind of incident to step in and to reassure those on the receiving end that the majority of this country are behind them, whatever the polls may appear to say. It’s sad that the most vocal are often the most objectionable and we should try to put a stop to that.


Finally, there has been pushback from a number of hardened Leave supporters. They won and they want their victory and the rest of us should shut up and accept it. I can understand that, they currently have a remarkable victory. What I find astonishing is that, those that I know, are saying this despite the promises they bought being pulled back in. It seems that if people didn’t instantly regret their vote after the results came out then they are sticking with it. It’s tough. I’d issue the same challenge to them as the Government will have to do to the Leave campaign as a whole – if it’s such a strong win then you should have no problem with another referendum. What I can tell you is that those of us appalled and distraught by the result, who fear for what it means for this country and our families, are going to continue to fight. This fight doesn’t end. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t. And if we do pull out of the EU, when the money goes and the jobs follow, I’m sorry but I hope yours go first. You wanted this and you should be the ones that suffer.

Trying to make some kind of sense of the Brexit

[This post was originally published on Facebook at about 1:30am on Saturday June 25th, 2016]
Today has brought a range of emotions. Is one a range? It’s mainly been rage. I suppose disappointment is in there too, that’ll do for a range. But I’ve talked it through and I feel calm enough now to try to sit down and compose something to try and make sense of this mess the country has made for itself.
I was woken by my baby daughter at around 5 or so this morning. I thought I would check the results coming in before heading back to sleep, but 20 seconds later there was no chance of me sleeping. I couldn’t believe what I saw, and at various points today that has been repeated. But I’ll come to that.
First of all, let me say that those of us on the Remain side should probably follow Mark Rylance’s character in the recent Spielberg film, Bridge of Spies. Tom Hanks asks him if he’s worried about what the American government might do to him, a Russian spy who has been caught. Rylance replies, “Would it help?”. It can feel very cathartic to get wound up, shout and scream, to abuse those we feel have betrayed the country (more on them soon), but in the grand scheme of things, “Will it help”? The answer is no. It won’t. And besides, there’s still too much we don’t know.
First things first, technically the result isn’t legally binding. The Government could still decide not to go through with this. It’s highly unlikely, but it’s possible. An even greater outside chance is another referendum, which is being demanded already. If the first of these two options holds a 1% chance, the latter holds about a 0.01% chance as far as I can see but, to quote Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber (an apt film for this situation), “So you’re saying there’s a chance.”
Secondly, we don’t know what kind of deal will be done in negotiating out exit. There are a number of options and I’ll list them in no particular order, though starting with the least likely. It’s possible that whoever replaces David Cameron (more on him soon, too) could go to the negotiating table with the rest of the EU and eke out a deal which is acceptable to sell to the British public and keeps us in the EU. Beyond that, there are the Norwegian and Swiss models. Both are shitty deals but, from where we stand right now, but better than not being in at all. I’ll not go into details, I’m just saying they’re options which offer a little light at the end of this dark tunnel. We could get some kind of hybrid deal which isn’t either of those models but is something new entirely, giving us some access to some things and not others. Diffocult to pin that down to how good or bad it would be.
The final option, and the one everyone is assuming right now, is effectively the nuclear option – we go it totally alone. This is the one we should be really afraid of as I believe it leads along a path to irrelevancy. But let’s not worry about that just yet. Whoever takes over, and who knows, we may have a general election coming too, so it may not even be the next leader of the Conservative party, will have to gauge the mood in the country and come up with a deal that is palatable. There seems to be a pretty clear mood in a lot of the country and it may become clearer in the next few months as it dawns on a lot of the Leave voters what this really means.
But the point is that there’s an awful lot still up in the air so let’s not panic too much just yet. It won’t help. We need to approach this with clear heads.
So now I want to momentarily dwell on the aftermath. As the day has gone on, it has appeared that a significant chunk of the country is having buyers remorse. There are seemingly ever more stories of people saying they didn’t expect Leave to win and if they had known what it meant they would have voted to Remain. This highlights a couple of things. Firstly, that Leaving perhaps isn’t what the majority actually want. But also, the political naivety of a large number of voters in this country. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt we can get a second referendum, but this may be the one thing that we can cling to on that front.
So then we have to focus on the electorate. Not only are there a multitude of stories of people regretting the choice they made, there was also a message from Google today that the second most searched for term in the UK SINCE THE POLLS CLOSED was “What is the EU?”. People were voting on something they didn’t understand. The Leave campaign was successful because they made this vote an emotional one, not an intellectual one, and that has been the problem with British politics (and global politics, to be fair) for too long. You prey on people’s fears and you appeal to their hopes and you hope you can lay blame at someone else’s door. People don’t like to engage with facts. They’re not fun. Cold hard numbers don’t get the pulse racing. So people vote because they are told a bad thing will happen or because they are promised a good thing, but they don’t look for evidence. You can see this everywhere – the MMR vaccine scare, climate change – people don’t want to listen at an intellectual level.
I hope that if one good thing can come out of this sorry mess it’s that people will start to engage again. That people will set aside emotional arguments and look for the information they need to make a decision. And that parties may realise that they need to address the concerns of everyone.
The sad fact is that everything the EU has been blamed for should actually be laid at the door of the government. This one, the last one, anyone that’s been in power. This has been a slow downward slide with each successive government knocking another few bricks out of the wall and causing ever more disillusionment. With the majority of politicians agreeing that a Brexit was a bad idea and now trying to recover from the shock, we can only hope that this is taken on board by a lot of them. Anecdotally, a number of Leave supporters were keen to give the Government a bloody nose, without realising that in doing so they were also managing to cut off their own arms and legs.
So those railing against the rise in NHS waiting lists, the fall in availability of school places or housing, blamed immigration and, by extension the EU. That is the primary factor this has boiled down to. However, it is government policies of austerity that led to each of these things, not immigration. I’m not going to go into dissecting this too much, but safe to say that by failing to invest in things which “the common man” viewed as essential, they looked for a scape goat. The government had told them that austerity was important right now, despite the fact that you should always pay for your essentials and only try to pay off your debts when you;re making a profit. So if what we were doing was essential, it must be someone else’s fault, and so the myth of the evil immigrant began. This horrible people, coming over here, working and paying more into our tax system than they took out, taking our jobs but by dint of earning and spending money they also generated more income which generated more jobs and on and on. But the government couldn’t blame themselves so immigration it was.
This hotbed of unrest has been bubbling around for some time and was always going to come out some way, some how. A few years ago it was the riots in London, but that was seen as perpetrated by scum rather than a symptom of a wider malaise within the country. That could have been addressed at the time, but instead it was pushed back under the carpet and written off, ignored. And now it’s come home to roost.
In the run up to the 2015 election, the Conservative party, working under the assumption that they couldn’t win outright, made a manifesto promising all sorts of things they knew they couldn’t deliver. It was packed with promises that could be rolled back should they end in coalition, as they expected. But of course, the wild promises were taken at face value (much like the wild promises of the Leave campaign which are already being walked back – see spending £350m a week more on the NHS), leading to a majority for the Conservative party and a need to fulfil promises they never had an intention of keeping. The reduction in immigration was one of those, still lingering from the days of coalition, and the referendum was another. Now they had to go through with the vote – they had promised it after all (why it couldn’t be a forgotten promise is a matter for the Conservative backbenches and whips) – but felt confident it could be easily won. But they had no plan. When they talked to people they started to realise that their own policies were what led to people’s concerns and the Tories weren’t going to come out and say “Hey, it’s not the EUs fault, don’t blame them, we did it!”
What was more concerning was that the Labour party didn’t take this line. I have no idea why they felt they needed to join with the Conservative Remain campaign. They could have fought this battle with truth and scored some vital political points for when an election came calling. If they had started calling the Tories out, telling people, reminding people, that their stretched services were due to Conservative austerity measures, how exactly do they lose?
I like Jeremy Corbyn and the bulk of what he stands for, but it’s clear that there are significant problems with the way he is running his party. He is a great voice to have in Parliament, offering exactly the kind of voice the disenfranchised in this country need, but he’s failed to be a leader when it mattered most. It’s possible he can turn it around, but I have my doubts.
So with a complacent Remain campaign, the emotional narrative was seized by Leave and now we find ourselves where we are. We already had a lame duck Prime Minister – Cameron had already said he wasn’t going to lead his party into the 2020 election, but now he has walked away. Perhaps that is right – he led an incompetent campaign for something he was supposed to be passionately in favour of. But he also said that he didn’t “walk away from the big decisions” precisely as he was walking away from perhaps the biggest decision in this country’s history since 1939 and the decision to go to war with Germany.
This should come as no surprise. He was never a great leader. He was a man who could deliver a vacuous sales pitch and nail it more often than not (though not when it mattered most), but he had never distinguished himself as a leader. To my mind he was always the palatable face to the sinister evil that lurked behind George Osborne’s eyes of a serial killer. (I use the word palatable merely in relation to Osborne, and not to suggest that I find the man palatable). The one great thing that he can hang on his mast is the legalisation of gay marriage, but that was a gimme for whoever was in power, it was not his own work. Beyond that, what can he truly say he did for this country in the 6 years he led it? In a positive sense I mean. There’s plenty he could say he did, but I imagine he wouldn’t want it on his resume.
So where does all this rambling leave us? I don’t know. I just feel I needed to try to work through that story, see if I could make some sense of it. Hopefully there’s some kind of logical procession going on there. Hopefully it’s contextualised a few things. I think it has in my mind. I hadn’t thought about the riots and some of the other elements of this until I tarted typing, but I think it’s an important part of this story.
I guess now I look forward. I don’t think we have a great time ahead of us. The pound will bounce back up. Not to the level it was at (not for a while, anyway), but it won’t stay as low as it fell today. Same goes for the stock markets. I feel it’s inevitable jobs will be lost. Business will move elsewhere. Eventually some small shoots of recovery will come, but they will be longer in coming than the apparent majority believe. There will be pain. Not for all of us, but for enough, and those of us who are lucky enough to avoid most of it (and who knows if I will be one) should remember that not everyone will be that lucky.
And this country will go on. We’ll produce a surprising amount of writers and artists and musicians and scientists for a nation so small (though I feel scientists in particular may drop off significantly), but we will not take our place on the world stage in the way that we previously did. No longer will we be the gateway to Europe for America (and vice versa). I don’t know what that diminished role will feel like, no one does. I’m no great patriot. This country has done great things and it has done terrible things, and I feel that patriotism is probably best left for the sporting arena (though maybe not football given the behaviour or many of our fans in France right now). Our island status has left us insular as a nation and that means we often don’t appreciate how we are seen by the world. Instead we have this image of ourselves as the all conquering Victorians with the Empire stretching as far as the sun can see, but that country is long gone. I have often lamented (to myself mainly) that the biggest problem we have as a country is we don’t understand how we fit into the world, that we’re puffed up with self importance and the world is passing us by a little. If that wasn’t the case before, I certainly feel it will be now.
This morning I was afraid for the future. It seemed bleak. It was all gone. You maniacs. You blew it up. God damn you all to hell. But it’s not that bad. I mean it’s bad. But it’s not world-ending bad. I viewed myself as a citizen of Europe, grateful for all that it had to offer. I may never take advantage of the right to work or study in any of the EU nations, but my daughter could have (and maybe she still will have those rights). I believe we’ll all be poorer for these events, but then I feel we’re all poorer for having voted in the Conservatives in 2015, and we’ll be poorer for a number of other choices we make as a nation. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Sometimes you lose big. But as every casino knows, you’ll keep coming back. And in the lottery that our political system has become, we’ll take another shot at electing a decent government in a few years time, or maybe sooner, and perhaps this week’s events will shorten our odds of finding a good one just a little.
LikeShow More Reactions


SPOILERS – Making A Murderer and True Crime Obsessions

Making-a-MurdererBefore I get stuck in, and in case the headline for this page doesn’t make it clear enough, this post contains spoilers from the entire series of Netflix’s Making A Murderer. While it is true crime and all the facts are in the public domain (not to mention updates appearing daily in newspapers, on TV, in blog posts and all over social media), I recommend you watch the entire show before reading what I have to say or searching out additional information. Read on, when you’re ready…

Oh, and if this looks too long (it is quite long), then just skip ahead and read the Sold A Story section, that’s the most important bit.


I, like millions of others, am currently obsessed by Making A Murderer, the new Netflix documentary series about Stephen Avery and Brendan Dassey, two men who have been convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach on the basis of – as contended by the show – at the very best dubious evidence. True crime, it seems, is big business as this follows hot on the heels of possibly the two biggest media obsessions of the past year – Serial and The Jinx.

All of these cases have one thing in common – they wouldn’t be acceptable to an audience if they were presented as fiction. In Serial and Making a Murderer this is, at least in part, because of the lack of closure. There’s no finality or even clarity, but where that would be frustrating in fiction (and it is here, though for very different reasons), in these cases that leads to only greater obsessive behaviour with viewers eager to fill in the gaps and allowing them to fill the role of Poirot or Columbo all by themselves.

Serial was the diametric opposite of the CSI school of television crime, with all the technical evidence only clouding things further, with experts disagreeing on how to interpret ‘evidence’, with the memories of those involved having changed over time. There was no one damning piece of evidence and, ultimately, room for every viewer to have their own theory as to what had happened.

The Jinx, with the unusual story of a multi-millionaire seemingly thinking he had got away with multiple murders being caught accidentally confessing off-camera but on mic, conforms in many ways with a more traditional crime story with a piece of ‘conclusive’ evidence revealed at the last moment and then the climactic ‘you got me’ confession, but the journey that Robert Durst takes along the way, including a period living as a woman in relative squalor, barely seems plausible and would surely be laughed out of a writers’ room.

And finally, Making A Murderer, which features so many seemingly staggering decisions made by people at so many levels that it’s almost impossible to understand how any of these events could have happened in a 21st century western society. The twists and turns along the way beggar belief.

But this is a significant part of their appeal. Truth, so the cliche goes, is stranger than fiction and all three cases demonstrate that all too clearly. People love these series because they provide stories that fiction can never give us, and because they start conversations. These aren’t “Who shot JR?” or “Who shot Mr Burns?”, these are real stories we may never have closure on, and certainly that won’t be decided by a group of writers in a room arguing a satisfactory resolution out.


So at this point I’m going to venture my opinion on the Avery/Dassey case, but I’m also going to stress that I’m not saying this is the truth. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and, at this point, yours is just as valid as mine, so if you disagree with me I’m not going to debate you on it.

So I feel pretty confident that Avery and Dassey are not guilty, but not 100%. But regardless of that, I believe the process that put them away was so flawed and, according to jurors both released from the trial and who served on the final jury, those deciding Avery’s fate in particular were so wedded to their pre-trial view that the trial cannot have been considered fair. I think the case, as presented in the documentary, offers far more than reasonable doubt.

But there’s a key phrase there – “as presented by the documentary”. The documentary makers were embedded with the Avery family and undoubtedly presented a story from the point of view that Avery and Dassey were innocent. While it was inevitable that the prosecution would have a different point of view given the implied accusations against them, I think we need to be careful when dismiss their claims. The filmmakers got to choose what they put in and could easily exclude anything which went against their narrative.

There are two pieces of ‘evidence’ Ken Kratz has stated were left out of the series, both of which seem potentially important. The first is the sweat-based DNA of Stephen Avery that was allegedly found on the latch of the hood of the SUV, and the second are the repeated phone calls made to Halbach in the lead up to her murder. The former was not addressed at all in the documentary, and it seems that some kind of theory should be presented about its existence.

The documentary does, briefly, address the second of these, with an implication that an ex-boyfriend or obsessed acquaintance was responsible. It’s not clear whether the prosecution used the phone calls as part of their evidence but if they did it seems pretty damning that the filmmakers decided to exclude them from the narrative they present.

All that said, the key fob which appeared months later with no DNA beyond Avery is highly suspicious. The fact that, in his summary at the end of the case Kratz seems to imply this was indeed planted, is only more alarming. The fact that no blood was found anywhere, that there was seemingly another burn site (although this wasn’t really explored in the series either), and the tampering with Avery’s 1985 blood sample all point away from Avery.

Finally, some people have said that Avery didn’t prove he was innocent, but that is not how trials work. The burden is on the prosecution to prove what did happen. An innocent man, inconveniently, may not have alibis in place.


But as I said, it’s important not to dismiss the claims of the prosecution. We have seen one side of the story and it’s very easy to just arbitrarily decide that anything which doesn’t conform with our own preconceived views isn’t relevant or can be dismissed. This is a case where we’re asked to believe that the police were responsible for framing an innocent man and so any evidence which seems to contradict that view can easily be thrown out as ‘just another thing they did’. This is exactly the same as the 9-11 truthers dismissing any science which goes against their view of it being an inside job.

It’s difficult because the documentary is so excellently constructed to impart a specific point of view but an open mind should be maintained at all times. And, to agree with Dean Strang, one of Stephen Avery’s defence lawyers, it might be best is Stephen is guilty because it would be preferable to the alternative.


And that brings me on to something very important. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this is a real case and a real woman is dead. It’s great fun to play detective, to get outraged, to sign petitions, but all this renewed attention will be bringing further pain to a family who has suffered a great loss.

I’ve seen comments rebuking Mike Halbach, brother of Teresa, for his demeanour in press conferences in the documentary but I can feel nothing but sorrow for him, not only for the loss of his sister, but also for the lies he has been sold. As I said, I am of the view that Avery and Dassey are not guilty and that a case has been constructed in bad faith intending to put them away. Mike Halbach was not complicit in this. He comes from a different town and won’t know (or at least won’t appreciate the extent of) the history between Avery and the Manitowoc Police Department. He will have met the police and DA and trusted them as we all expect to be able to trust the police in such matters. He has been told a story and has, to use a highly emotive and perhaps inappropriate word, been indoctrinated by them.

It is, of course, totally understandable. He will have been told that Avery will say anything in his defence and not to believe it. He will be desperate for closure and someone to blame. And given the circumstances I doubt he’d have the ability to evaluate the evidence in a dispassionate manner. Add to that the fact that, on the face of it, the defence seems so far fetched. I mean, Avery’s defence is hardly Occam’s Razor. As one of his defence lawyer’s states early on, it’s not exactly the ideal defence to be offering. So with that in mind, why would Mike Halbach question what he’s been told?

Just like we, the viewers, are sold on Avery’s innocence (for the most part, anyway) and are liable to dismiss any evidence which disproves the story we want to hear, so Mike Halbach will not want to believe that Avery’s defence is remotely possible. What’s the alternative? That the people he trusted, the people there to protect and serve, to deliver justice, all lied to him to get even with someone who’s life they had already ruined once, while the real killer has been free for a decade and no one in a position to do anything about it has shown any inclination to do so. Horrifying.

This aspect was just one way in which I was reminded of the Meredith Kercher murder and Amanda Knox trial. As Knox’s first trial was starting I read a book called The Monster of Florence about a spate of killings in Florence and surrounding area which (and forgive some vagaries, it’s a while since I read it) were pinned on a group of men, supposedly carrying them out as part of some underground sex cult. The book details an incredible and ridiculous story concocted by the police and prosecutors that has more than a few resonances with the Kercher case. This probably shouldn’t be a surprise considering the same men were in charge of that investigation too. The bizarre sex cult aspect is the most obvious connection between the two and seems to be more of an obsession for the prosecutors than pretty much anyone else in the world.

As with the Halbach case, the Kercher family were told a story from the beginning by the prosecutors and have almost been held hostage by it, requiring the closure but not being given it. They maintain their belief that Knox is guilty (or at least said they did when she was finally acquitted), and probably always will, and I can’t blame them. I am convinced Knox is innocent but as with Mike Halbach, it would be so painful to think anything else. And as with Halbach, I can only feel sorry for them for not only having lost someone but having been lied to by the people they should be able to trust the most. I think we’d all like to think we could see past the bullshit being fed to us but I’m not sure any of us could.

For a true demonstration of how unpalatable this would be you just have to read this interview with Penny Beerntsen, the woman who’s testimony put Stephen Avery in jail, wrongly, the first time. She trusted police to have the right man and when it turned out they had led her the wrong way she found it almost unbearable. Of course it’s easier to believe what the police tell you.

Another important aspect of these cases and the indoctrination process is the way in which the prosecutors used the media, a media hungry for all the sordid details. In both the Halbach and Kercher murders a young, attractive women was killed and those in charge of finding the killer(s) took every opportunity to talk to the press and make their case before all (or any of) the facts were in. In both cases, the story presented too good to be true and the press loved the opportunity to discuss it. In one, an attractive young woman was killed by another attractive young woman (and partners in crime) as part of a sex game. In the other, a man in jail for 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit is now guilty of a far worse crime.

In both cases, the press helped sell the victims’ families the story. They all reported the culprits and events as fact (or may as well have) – no amount of “has been arrested for” and “has been accused of” disclaimers are going to undo the damage of the reporting. If everyone is telling you who the guilty party is, including the front page of every paper you see and the top item of any TV news report, how do you stop and ask yourself if it’s the right story?


True crime has been popular forever. We consume it daily in newspapers (OK, news websites) and on the news on TV as it happens and so shows like Serial, The Jinx and Making A Murderer have to be, in some way, bigger or more compelling and there are only so many of those to go around. I imagine we will be inundated with stories such as these, but whether they will ever replicate the cultural impact of these three, well, I have my doubts. I fancy we’re nearing peak true crime and it won’t be long until it resumes its place at the more ‘pulpy’ end of the spectrum. It may be more obvious than it was, particularly on television, but it will surely be more exploitative, more resembling the Fox reporter seen in Making A Murderer exclaiming how bloody murder sells than resembling the honest (I think) attempt at searching for justice for Stephen Avery.

But even when true crime was often the reserve of the pulp novel, great works were produced, from In Cold Blood to The Suspicions of Mr Whicher to The Devil in the White City, and this will surely continue to be the case.

The Best Films of 2014

OK. I made a mistake. I wrote out most of my top 10 films of the year and then, apparently, didn’t save the post. That means I now have to do the whole thing again, which is a bummer, because it took a while. Therefore, this might be slightly abridged as I skim through most of the list.

A couple of other notes. I have included all films released in the UK in 2014, even if they were up for awards in last year’s awards season so some of these you might think shouldn’t be valid, but they are. So there.

Finally, last time I did this it turned out I miscounted and had 11 films in my top 10. I see no reason to change. However, I’m still going to start the countdown at 10. Ha. My list, my rules. I only realised my mistake when I got to number 3 last time, so there were two number 3s, but seeing as I know going in I have 11 films this time, we’ll have a joint 10th.

So, at 10…

=10. Calvary – dir John Michael McDonagh

Where McDonagh’s brother, Martin, followed up his brilliant small Irish crime thriller In Bruges with the underwhelming 90’s-style Pulp Fiction knockoff Seven Psychopaths, John Michael goes a different route after his debut, The Guard.

Calvary takes a philosophical look at matters, slowing the pace down to something far more contemplative. Brendan Gleeson is again the lead, this time as a priest who is told in confession that in one week he is to be killed and he should use the time to put his affairs in order. The time is used to meet his parish and try to diagnose the underlying motives that might exist before his date with destiny. It’s brilliant and understated and well worth your time.

=10. Frank – dir. Lenny Abrahamson

In 2013, Abrahamson’s brilliant What Richard Did made my list. Frank doesn’t quite reach those heights, but it’s still a very funny black comedy about the fictionalised life of Frank Sidebottom creator Chris Sievey. Michael Fassbender takes the lead inside the papier-mâché head (as far as we know) and adds another string to his bow.

9. Paddington – dir. Paul King

Look. When I first heard about this I assumed it would be bad. Like the Thomas The Tank Engine movie or something. It isn’t. It’s delightful. Funny, fun, good all-round family entertainment. So don’t make assumptions.

8. Dallas Buyers Club – dir. Jean-Marc Vallée

It won lots of awards. Justifiably. It signalled a peak in the McConaughsance as well as having a great supporting performance by Jared Leto. It dealt with a difficult topic sensitively and humourously. It was just great. And it’s on Netflix already.

7. Edge of Tomorrow – dir. Doug Liman

If they’d given it a better title (like Live. Die. Repeat. which is all over the bluray box, for example) and a slightly better trailer, this would have been a monster smash. It’s by far the best action film of the year (and yes, I include the Marvel films which were fine, but nothing more). It’s perhaps the best action film since Inception. It’s the kind of thing we need to encourage Hollywood to make more of, rather than Transformers movies, so go out and do your bit by buying a copy. Now.

6. The Boxtrolls – dirs. Graham Annable, Anthony Stacchi

A lovingly made stop-motion animation that has undercurrents of Roald Dahl in its heart. It’s delightful and weird and deserves to be seen by many more people. I’m not sure it’s as good as ParaNorman, but that was brilliant. This is close.

5. 12 Years A Slave – dir. Steve McQueen

This has probably only fallen down this far due to recency bias. This came out a year ago and you probably know everything about it by now. It’s a genuinely great film.

4. Nightcrawler – dir. Dan Gilroy

Set aside the fact that I read the title and hear ‘Nightcrawler, Nightcrawler…’ to the tune of the Beegees Night Fever for a moment. This is a great character study with a brilliant central performance by Jake Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal has become a firm favourite of mine now, after a string of great movies (Zodiac, Source Code, Brokeback Mountain) and great performances in flawed movies (Prisoners, Jarhead, End of Watch). He seems to have great taste in scripts. This may now be at the top of the list, certainly performance-wise, if not film-wise.

3. Pride – dir. Matthew Warchus

Pride follows in what has become a tradition in British film-making of funny, heart-warming movies about issues, often with a historical context. The Full Monty was the first, but following on from that was Brassed Off, Billy Elliot and Made in Dagenham. Pride may be the best of the lot.

Set in the mid-80s as the AIDS epidemic was taking off and the miners strike was hitting its peak, Pride follows a group of London gays and lesbians who set to support the miners of a small, Welsh village. An unlikely alliance is made. The film is based on a true story and, by all accounts, gets almost every detail bang on. It’ll make you laugh, it’ll make you cry. It’s the feel-good film of the year. And some other clichés. Seriously though, it’s brilliant.

2. Boyhood – dir. Richard Linklater

A film literally 12 years in the making and one that may clean up in the coming months. Richard Linklater got his cast together once a year for 12 years to film the childhood of a boy (Ellar Coltrane). It’s moving and powerful and something that is unlikely to ever be attempted again, let alone pulled off so well. Its strong central dramas at the core are brilliantly realised, with great performances by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke. I’m not sure I can do it justice…

1. Under The Skin – dir. Jonathan Glazer

So I want to get into this movie a bit more. In 2013 I reviewed everything I saw. In 2014… not so much. But I feel I have something to say about this. It will contain spoilers though. I’ll highlight the spoiler section clearly when I get there, don’t worry. It’ll be after the embedded trailer.

When I see films I give them a rating in a little database I have. It helps me keep track of what I’ve seen and gives me a broad idea of where films fit in but it’s far from hard and fast. My initial rating for Under The Skin slotted it in 8th for the year, but it’s got the (coveted?) number one slot because, more than any other film, it’s the film that has stayed with me the longest and made me think more than any other.

The film has little in the way of story. Scarlett Johansson plays an alien driving around Glasgow, picking up men to seduce and lure back to her lair where they are engulfed in infinite blackness. It is purposely obtuse, it is unlike anything else. It is bizarre, scary, haunting, and, on some level, erotic. It is, as I am proving, indescribable really.

It’s a film I can’t guarantee you’d like. It’s a film I would expect a lot of people not to like. But, as I said, it stayed with me more than any other film on this list. I think it is a masterpiece.


I’m not even sure these will be spoilers, but they are my thoughts on what the film means and they may give away things that you wish you didn’t know before seeing the film.

Johansson’s alien is seeking out men and through the course of the film her encounters are all different (as you would hope), while her approach in all situations is pretty much the same. Her demeanour doesn’t change. In no way is she the reason the different men react in the way they do.

We live in a culture which demeans women or tries to subjugate them. The culture will try to tell women that the way in which they are treated is because of them, and that men can’t be blamed. ‘Rape culture’ says that women shouldn’t drink to excess, shouldn’t wear short skirts or show skin, and that if they do then it’s their fault if they get assaulted. While that is the extreme end of the spectrum, those attitudes are present in all areas of life – the home, the workplace and all social spaces. There was a revealing video recently of a woman who just walked through the streets of New York recording all the comments that were sent her way. These are things that, fortunately, I am not subject to, and don’t even occur to me most of the time, but which are commonplace across society.

If women are held responsible in society for these things – “It only happens because they dress too sexily/dowdily” is the kind of comment you hear from people justifying the unsolicited complements or put-downs – then this film is a reaction to that. Johansson never alters in her approach to men but the reactions she gets are across the board – nervous, admiring, obsessive, assault. Johansson doesn’t court these reactions. She is neutral. They are the true nature of men asserting themselves in ways they feel are appropriate. The film is designed to show the lie at the core of the ‘blame culture’ that surrounds us. The responsibility for how women are treated by men lies with the men, not with the women.

Now, I don’t know if this is what Glazer and Johansson meant when they made the film, but that’s my reading, and I do find it interesting that Johansson is involved. Johansson was, of course, hacked several years ago, with nude photos being leaked over the internet. This was a massive violation, with many people pointing the blame at Johansson for having the photos in the first place. Things have taken a turn since then and when Jennifer Lawrence was hacked earlier this year, her reaction was not to apologise for having the gall to have nude photos for her own private reasons, but instead label the theft and publication as a sex crime and to call out people for asking her to apologise.

These cases of photo theft are just the extreme end of men taking a form of ownership of female bodies and sexual freedom. It’s an important topic and one that should be addressed. Of course, it’s not one that many in the media want to address because so much of what the media does is predicated on the exploitation of female flesh.

That then gets into whole other discussions about sex, pornography and so on that I’m not tackling here. It’s merely to link the themes of this film to the pervading narrative in our culture.

Under The Skin has a lot to say, but makes the audience work for it. Like great art should. And Under The Skin is certainly that.

How I Fell In Love With How I Met Your Mother And Why The Break-Up Hurt So Much

(The beginning of this post features very minor and general spoilers from How I Met Your Mother, however, half way through I launch into total spoilers of the last season, and I recommend you don’t read it until you have seen the finale. The point at which I start this section is marked clearly.)

Ted's such a douche he won't let anyone else sit on his sofa

Ted’s such a douche he won’t let anyone else sit on his sofa

Kids, I want to tell you about why I fell in love with a show called How I Met Your Mother and how it ended up breaking my heart…

Relax. I’m not going to make you sit down for 9 years while I tell you a long drawn-out story with no satisfactory conclusion in the way that one of my favourite TV shows had a character do with his (fictional) kids. But I do want to talk about what made the show so great, why it was unappreciated and why it fell at the last hurdle.

First of all, a brief recap. How I Met Your Mother (HIMYM for short) was a sitcom launched into a post-Friends landscape. It featured 5 friends who regularly met in a bar, rather than a coffeeshop (Friends) or diner (Seinfeld). It was the story of their struggles with growing up from post-college through marriage and families and various career decision. In that sense it is completely unlike Friends… No, wait a moment…

how-i-met-your-mother-how vs friends

Actually, Friends is probably the worst thing for HIMYM because while superficially they have the same DNA, they are thoroughly different shows in the ways the are written and contructed, but HIMYM was launched at a time when every network was scrabbling to find The Next Friends. It was also a time when mainstream (in the US, Network) TV was dying. It’s a death which is still going on, ever so slowly. In the decade since its launch TV services such as Netflix, Lovefilm, and Hulu have meant people don’t watch live, people downloading TV shows via Bit Torrent has eaten into revenues, and even at the base level, PVRs (like Sky+) mean that people skip adverts and ratings can’t be measured. Now no one can say what a hit show is. Something getting 5 million viewers on one channel is a disaster, while for another network 5 million is an unbelievable hit. Up is down. Dogs are living with cats.

So HIMYM could never become Friends. It could never conquer the globe in the same way. Equally, it was too smart to be Friends. And I’m not down on Friends, there were some seasons of that show that are among the funniest I have seen, but it was always playing to the widest audience possible. That’s not a criticism. Things can have a wide audience and also be good. See also Cheers, Seinfeld, Sherlock and many others.

But Friends was always a joke delivery device. It was an efficient machine. Sure, it delivered some dramatic moments, but it was never about the story, it was about the laughs. It was a sitcom, that was its raison d’être. From the very beginning HIMYM set out its stall differently. It would be funny, but the point was that the show was telling a story.

More specifically, its nominal lead character, Ted, 20 years in the future is telling his children the story of how he met their mother. We see his tales spring to life. This was a sitcom where jokes were not the most important thing. That sounds like a criticism, but it’s not. In fact, I would argue that it made HIMYM a funnier show. Friends needed to cut to the chase. At the very least every other line had to be a zinger of some kind. Cutting to the chase like that meant the creativity had to be a little lacking. HIMYM could take detours, it could be different, inventive, and sure, maybe you didn’t get as many one-liners in your half hour as you did in Friends, but you got a lot more jokes you couldn’t see coming.

HIMYM Challenge Accepted

Here is a choice – you can:

A) Give someone a 5 on the laugh scale right now


B) Meander at laugh level 1 or 2 for 20 seconds and then slap them with an unexpected 8 or a 9.

Friends always took route A (though some of those laughs inevitably climbed higher) while HIMYM would regularly go down route B and deliver a Slapsgiving to remember.

But it’s not just about being a story. The fact that the story is being told 20 years hence means that linearity goes out the window. Friends was always told in the now. There might have been the odd flashback, but each story, generally, had to after last week’s story and before next week’s story. HIMYM would regularly flash forward or backward in time, overlapping with incidents past or future, with promises that “I’ll get to the story of the goat”. And this is where the true genius in the story-telling lay.

It’s quite a regular occurrence for a TV show (in America) to get greenlit on the basis of a concept but for the writers to have no idea where it is heading. Lost is the prime example. Every week the writers were making up more questions with no idea what the ultimate answer was. But HIMYM always seemed to know. When they promised to get to a story, the got to it. Things that were small details in one episode became the focus of another. There were never any contradictions, everything added up. And in doing so it became something more than a story, it became human. It allowed the audience to truly become invested because we knew these characters and their worlds added up.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle the show had was turning Barney Stinson – the pick-up artist breakout character played by Neil Patrick Harris (and played brilliantly, I might add) – into a real boy. When the show started he was one-dimensional. He cared about suits, sleeping with women and the bro-code. But as his popularity grew he earned more screen time and needed depth, and the show found it for him.

Barney - Legen-wait-for-it-Dary

Barney – Legen-wait-for-it-Dary

Ted, our ‘hero’, had been searching for love since day one. While the show was ostensibly about his search for The One, it actually became his journey through a lot of potentials who could never be The One. Barney was never looking for The One. He was looking for a different one every night. But the journey the writing team took him on to fall in love was perhaps their greatest triumph. They slowly filled in the details as to why he was the way he was, why he treated women the way he did. The show indulged him at times, but mostly it condemned his ways.

As funny as his sleeping around and trickery was, it was also always frowned upon, but as the show coloured in his background, Barney started to feel and slowly grew his extra dimensions. This was a big risk for the show. Stinson was the marquee character and by adding the shading they risked taking away the alcohol from Fun Bobby. The remarkable thing is that they didn’t. Barney was always Barney, even as he became more human in front of our eyes. Of course, this wasn’t all down to the writers, Patrick Harris is brilliant in the role, but the skill it took to pull off this manoeuvre is not to be sniffed at.

And then we come to perhaps the longest joke in television history. In season 2, episode 9, Barney has a bet with Marshall and the winner will be able to slap the other 5 times, at times of his discretion. A ‘Slap Bet’, if you will. I won’t go into it too much, but this was a joke which kept paying off right until the final episode of the show, and was regularly sitting as an idle threat in the background. It was a beautiful thing whenever the next slap was revealed, and the fact that one joke could run so perfectly for seven and a half seasons is a real credit to the show.

So that is why I fell in love with How I Met Your Mother, and why you should watch it if you haven’t already. Now I shall move on to what happened at the end of the relationship.

This is where the real SPOILERS kick in. I will literally talk about the very end of the show. Seriously – don’t wanna know, stop reading.

So episode one starts with a classic bait and switch. Ted starts telling his kids the story of how he met their mother and proceeds to tell the story of how he went on a date with their “aunt Robin”. Robin becomes the newest member of the group and, over time dates Ted, then Barney, and come the final season, is preparing to walk down the aisle with Barney.

In fact, the final season of HIMYM is one of the most daring things to be put on in a mainstream, popular show, up there with Seinfeld’s season 4 arc where Jerry and George are trying to sell a pilot to NBC. It came about because the show was due to end after season 8 but the network wanted to get one more season out of the producers and cast. Patrick Harris was still hot, Jason Segel was starting to hit in Hollywood (having written and starred in the Muppets revival movie), and they had nothing coming through to take its place. So what was going to happen in the last 3 weeks of season 8 instead became the whole of season 9.

That right there is a recipe for disaster. Stretching a few episodes to fill a 24 episode arc. More than that, the whole season would take place over the course of just one weekend. The weekend of Robin and Barney’s wedding.

Of course, it’s not as simple as that. This is a show that plays with time all the time, so there were plenty of flashforwards and flashbacks, but generally, we were watching the weekend. And for the first 22 episodes they pulled it off. It wasn’t perfect – Marshall (Segel) couldn’t join the cast for the first half of the season so was stuck in his own story line – but they did callbacks to so many great moments, they played with the emotions of all the characters, they resolved issues, and they got past the problems. Throughout we have the spectre of a love-lorn Ted still filled with feelings for Robin, the woman he met in episode 1, that he fell for, hard, that he mourned. That he was still mourning. He struggled to let he go. But while all that was going on, the most important thing is that we got to meet the mother, Tracy.

That’s right, throughout the season we followed the mother’s course to meeting Ted. We saw her side of numerous near-misses that called back to episodes we’d seen years ago – the yellow umbrella, Ted’s mistaken lecture, a meeting with Barney in a convenience store. We got to find out what type of person would fall in love with the douche (but loveable) Ted, and we got to find her as adorable as Ted did. We got to fall in love with her too. And that is why the ending hurt.

You see, the ending wasn’t really about how Ted met the kids’ mother. After they meet we skim forward and the story takes a melancholy tone. Ted and Tracy have some wonderful years together and they have a family, but then we find out that Tracy has passed away and Ted is alone again.

At the same time we are learning about the lives of the other characters and, especially, about the marriage and divorce of Barney and Robin. This is followed up with the kids asking him if the whole story was an excuse for him to ask them if they’d be ok with him asking ‘Aunt’ Robin out on a date…


The problem with this isn’t so much the story as the execution and the confounding of expectations. Coming into the last episode we have one expectation – that Ted will meet the mother, nothing else. We have seen the two orbit each other all season. We’ve seen how close they came to meeting in years gone by. We’ve seen how they perfectly match each other. In fact, the writers have done such a good job that we now know that Tracy is a far better match than Robin ever was. We get to see the pair on their first date. We get to see them on honeymoon and anniversaries. Time plays inwards to the point at which they met so we’re seeing before and after until eventually they converge, two halves of the same whole.

It’s beautiful story-telling and by the end of it we’ve not just fallen in love with Tracy, we’ve fallen in love with Tracy and Ted.

And then it is ripped from us.

Without the burden of an extra 24 episodes, without the decision to have the audience meet Tracy before Ted does, without the chance to fall for her, maybe this blow isn’t so crushing and maybe they get away with it.

Maybe there could have been some more hints. I mean, in retrospect maybe we should have guessed. Ted has been telling this long story to his kids since 2004 and he has never been interrupted by his wife; there has never been a reference to her in the present tense. Looking back, perhaps there were a few “Your mother was…” comments in the voiceover, but even if there were it wasn’t enough. This is nine years of build-up to a supposed meet-cute and happily ever after and then we’re told that happily ever after ended a few years past. There is no happily ever after.

Perhaps if Robin and Barney hadn’t got together so convincingly, perhaps if we hadn’t been sold so totally on the idea of them as a couple, we could still have wanted Ted and Robin together. Was this supposed to be fan service? Did the fans long for Ted and Robin to end up together? I spent the whole of season 9 wishing Ted to move on from Robin, to drop those thoughts and prepare himself for the love of his life to arrive.

The ultimate resolution felt like a stab in the heart. It’s not that it’s wrong, it’s that the season was written to push all of our hopes and desires and expectations in one direction and it was pulled out from under us. That’s not a bad thing – if you’re making Breaking Bad or The Sopranos or Mad Men – but this isn’t those shows. This is a 9-year long romantic comedy and there are certain expectations that are part and parcel of that commitment. I, the viewer, do solemnly swear to fall in love with these characters and to will them together and you, the writers, do solemnly swear to put ample obstacles in their path but ultimately let them live together forever and ever in our hearts and minds. Nowhere in your side of the contract does it say that you will kill her off and replace her with the biggest obstacle that we have spent the past 11.5 hours (23 episodes of a half hour show) getting over and past.

As I said, there are ways this could work, and that make a degree of sense – Ted and his children are mourning the passing of beloved wife and mother and so Ted tells the story of all that he loved about her and how they came to be – a way to ensure that his wife and his love can live on in eternity. But in this circumstance he’s too close to the tragedy for us a) to not know before we get there (a good thing in a story like this) or b) for him to be able to be contemplating dating Robin. So this approach would perhaps have changed the show beyond recognition, though it would have been able to confront mortality in a way that mainstream television is all too afraid to do. I doubt, however, that audiences would have watched for 9 years the moment they got an inkling that the mother was no longer with us.

If Tracy hadn’t been written so well as the yin to Ted’s yang, the slutty pumpkin to his hanging chad, then perhaps we could have been more accepting too, but then this would seem like bad writing. We might have been accepting of the Robin resolution but we never could have accepted Ted with someone who wasn’t the woman of his dreams. And beside’s how would that play to the kids? “Kids, I want to tell you the story of how I met the woman I mistakenly married when I should have been with your Aunt Robin all along” isn’t the best intro to a story.

Ultimately, the finale failed because HIMYM tried to have its cake and eat it. It wanted Ted to have the woman of his dreams and the woman he obsessed over for most of the previous 9 years, but failed to realise that to do so meant killing someone the audience had not only grown to love, but had fixated on, which isn’t bitter-sweet, it’s just bitter.

But does any of this matter? In the grand scheme of the universe, no, obviously. But neither should it in terms of television of the show. In a way, the finale reminds us that it’s not the destination that counts, it’s the journey. The destination is, for all of us, the ground, just as it was for Tracy.

What mattered for us wasn’t where we got to, it was the road we took to get there, and HIMYM gave us 8.95 seasons of brilliant television which managed to do things that no show has managed to do before and, it’s highly likely, no show will even attempt to do again. It gave us 5 great characters (of variable douchey-ness), it brought Neil Patrick Harris to the world’s collective consciousness (and if you’ve not seen any of his Tony or Emmy song-and-dance numbers you have been missing out), it gave us Robin Sparkles, it gave us Slap Bet, it gave us Alyson Hannigan and Jason Segel’s love for the ages, and it gave us so many more wonderful memories that no matter where the story went in that final half hour, it went somewhere else for me.


The Wolf of Wall Street

Some kind of fevered masturbatory fantasy rather than something with anything of value to say

Some kind of fevered masturbatory fantasy rather than something with anything of value to say

The greatest opening line to a movie comes from Goodfellas:

As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster

It sets the scene, it draws you into the journey of how Henry Hill became a gangster and then how it destroyed him. The opening line to The Wolf of Wall Street might as well be “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be rich”. It’s only a small change but it makes the world of difference. Martin Scorsese seemingly wants to do for Wall Street bankers what he did for the Mafia by filming the story of Jordan Belfort, a self-made Wall Street multi-millionaire who rode the wave all the way to the top and then couldn’t let go, destroying himself in the process. Only he’s not quite as destroyed as many of us might hope.

The film is problematic in many ways, but the first thing to say is that Wolf is a very funny film. Funnier than anything Scorsese has done for some time, and certainly the funniest performance of Di Caprio’s career, including some brilliant physical comedy, something of which I didn’t think him capable. Also, at three hours long, the film does not feel anywhere near as blaoted as one might fear. It rips along at a rare old pace and doesn’t really give you a chance to draw breath. But all of that leads to the however…

However, if Goodfellas is the equivalent of a big fat juicy steak meal (says the vegetarian), something that leaves you full and satisfied, Wolf is something else entirely. It’s full of empty calories. It’ll make you feel sick, it’ll make you fat, it’ll do nothing good for you. Here’s the thing. The film depicts the debauchery that was (is?) common-place amongst Wall Street traders. It is full of sex and drugs and drink and wasted money. It is life turned up not to 11 but 12. It is the thing we (hopefully) would hate to become were we living in a world of unlimited resources.

The better poster. The one that has some art behind it. Less representative of the film though, given it has some art about it.

The better poster. The one that has some art behind it. Less representative of the film though, given it has some art about it.

But the problem is that the film isn’t just depicting these things, it is these things.

The film is packed with nudity but it crosses the line between artistic merit and pornographic excess. Is there a justification for the lengths it goes to? I can’t see one. Likewise, there’s no equality. There’s a difference between portraying misogyny and being misogynistic and The Wolf of Wall Street crosses the line into the latter category. The women are treated pretty abysmally throughout and, ultimately, it comes across as leering and masturbatory. At times one can’t help visualising the other side of the camera as a 71 year old man asks a bunch of naked 20-somethings to do his bidding and it’s not exactly comfortable. This may be a representation of the behaviour that carried on with these people but we got that message in the first half hour. The constant repetition is unnecessary – the very definition of pornography, no? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-nudity in films and neither am I anti-pornography per se, but in this context it is unnecessary and uncomfortable. There needs to be some kind of authorial voice or something.

So The Wolf of Wall Street is a film that was enjoyable, though bloated, but the longer you reflect on it the worse it becomes. A leering and seedy exercise that unfortunately bears a resemblance to the worst of Michael Bay’s “fucking the camera” extremes.


Film Length: 2 hours 59 minutes – Feels like: 2 hours 30 minutes

The Best Films of 2013

So this year I inadvertently conducted an experiment, writing reviews of everything I saw (including stand-up and music, but centred around films). I didn’t intend to do this when the year started, but that’s how it turned out. By the end of the year it was a bit of a slog. I didn’t always have things to say about films and, at various times, I got behind and had to blitz a few to get back up to date (witness my delayed best of year list!). I won’t be doing the same in 2014, though I will still post the occasional review when I feel I have something to say. A Wolf of Wall Street post will follow this shortly. In the meantime, here’s a quick run down of what I thought were the best films of the year, in reverse order…

10. Behind the Candelabra

A camp classic. I was completely unaware of the story of Liberace and this was a brilliant film getting me up to speed. Funny, scary, twisted and heart-breaking at various junctures, and the kind of thing you rarely get to see on screen.

9. No

Another true story I was completely unaware of – the advertising campaign that ousted a dictator. That dictator being Augusto Pinochet in 1988. Imaginatively shot to bring the era to life, and shot through with the kind of humour borne of the oppressive regime. Uplifting, fun and informative.

7 & 8. Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa & The World’s End

I’m not separating these two brilliant British character comedies. Both spin incredible stories out of the familiar, be that familiar characters, familiar ensembles, familiar settings. Both show Hollywood how to make good comedies – something Hollywood has been pretty bad at in recent years. Strong characters, strong stories and let those naturally bring the comedy forward, rather than forcing it.

6. What Richard Did

An antidote to American high school movies. A realistic portrayal teenagers coming of age. Likeable kids give fantastic performances, the film then throws in a heartbreaking twist, literally what Richard did. This film offers something that’s all too rarely seen and deserves a far wider audience.

5. Zero Dark Thirty

An enthralling telling of the hunt for and assassination of Osama Bin Laden, which gets stuck into the both the process and the moral stand points of the global hunt, culminating in a stunningly realistic visualisation of events at Bin Laden’s compound which serves as a thrilling and tense counterpoint to almost every espionage and action film of th last few decades.

4. All Is Lost

Daring and highly original film of man versus nature. Robert Redford is all at sea, battling his boat and the elements as he tries to survive.

3. The Sessions

Both heart-warming and heart-breaking, this is the story of poet and polio sufferer Mark O’Brien and his quest to lose his virginity. This is a film of touching and rare humanity that makes you think about life and the role sex plays. An incredible central performance from John Hawkes is complimented by Helen Hunt as his sexual surrogate and William H Macy as the priest Mark seeks counsel from.

2. Gravity

Yes, it’s a B movie with a B movie script, but it also does things on screen that you’ve never seen before. Tense, exciting, breath-taking – literally and metaphorically. The kind of film that needs to be seen in the cinema, and the first film that really merits the use of 3D.

1. Cloud Atlas

Insane on many levels and I’m still not entirely sure it works, and yet I was blown away. It’s like nothing else. It’s ambition is off the charts and for that alone it deserves to in the top 10, but then there’s what it actually accomplishes. It tells 6 interlocking stories, which don’t really interlock. It uses actors to play multiple roles across those stories, often unrecognisable. It has Buddhist undertones but leaves it to the audience to draw conclusions. It’s not for everyone but it is most definitely for me. Outstanding.

What’s interesting (to me) is the wide variety in there. Aside from numbers 7 & 8, the Britcoms, there’s a huge range of topics, styles and genres. There really is no film like any other on there. ven Alpha Papa and The World’s End are only really united by being British comedies, the films themselves are very different beasts. Looking back over the list, I saw 64 films at the cinema in 2013 and 26 of them I rated at 8/10 or better. That’s a really impressive hit rate. But it does bring me round to the other question. The worst films of the year. Here is my list of shame, the 5 worst films I saw this year and to save any confusion, the worst is the last one I list…

5. Elysium
4. To The Wonder
3. Kick Ass 2
2. A Good Day To Die Hard
1. Parker


The story of the Canadian folk hero, a moose, and his best friend the snowman

The story of the Canadian folk hero, a moose, and his best friend the snowman

Frozen, the new Disney film based on Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen, has been garnering rave reviews everywhere it goes and, to be honest, I’m struggling to see why. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with it – it’s a perfectly entertaining film. It rattles along, has some laughs along the way, and has some strong female characters at the centre of it who don’t need to be validated by a man. It’s fine. It’s good fun. But nothing more. It’s not up there in the pantheon of great animated kids movies. For me, it’s a little behind Tangled, the 2010 retelling of Rapunzel, but it doesn’t get up there with the great films Pixar have produced (even if their standard has dropped the past couple of years) or the best of Disney from the past.

Still good fun though. Worth a watch.


Film length: 1hr 42mins – Feels Like: 1hr 50mins