Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Good God, they've done it again!



This week has seen the release of the theatrical trailer for the latest of Shakespeare's plays to receive a big-screen adaptation, Romeo and Juliet. Hey, wait a minute! Haven't we seen this one before? Didn't Baz Luhrmann do a version not too long ago?

Upon checking my facts, realising that the Luhr-Man's version came out in 1996 and taking a brief pause to come to terms with my own mortality, I concluded that this is one remake the internet doesn't have much of a right to complain about – though inevitably they will. After all, this new release has a traditional setting, whereas the old version had a modern setting. How delightfully ironic! Of course, there is the old, old version – directed by Franco Zeffirelli in 1968, which also had a traditional setting, so it seems our 2013 release will have more in common with that then the 1996 version. Before I go on, here is the fabled trailer that I spoke of, embedded for your convenience:


 Brought to you by Swarovski entertainment - putting style over substance since 1895.


Proudly announcing the involvement of Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey, as screenwriter, one can't help but feel that this is an attempt to cash in on the period drama craze that is sweeping the US at the moment. IMDB, at least, were kind enough to give Shakespeare shared story credit – though obviously Fellowes got top billing. The cast also implies a desire to poach fans from television – Ed Westwick, of Gossip Girl fame, and Damian Lewis, of Homeland, are both set to star. That being said, the cast boasts some impressive muscle – veteran actors Stellan Skarsgard and Paul Giamatti fill supporting roles, whilst Hailee Steinfeld is playing the lead (Juliet, not Romeo). If you had the pleasure of watching the Coen Brothers' update of True Grit, you know that, despite her age, she can handle meaty roles. If you haven't seen it, go watch it. Now I say! Now!

Regarding the setting, the sets and costumes look nice enough – though I lament the fact that the crew have done away with the spiffing stockings/codpiece combos that were uncomfortably prevalent in Zeffirelli's version in favour of what appear to be skinny jeans. I guess a bulge just doesn't attract an audience like it used to. Other than that, what is there to say? It's Romeo and Juliet – we've all seen it, we all know the story. All that's left to guess is just how long they're going to drag out the climax in an effort to boost sales of Kleenex. My bet is that the John Lewis Christmas Advert strategy is going to be implemented here; absurd amounts of camera glare accompanied by a breathy female covering an eighties pop song on piano at a quarter of the tempo of the original recording (My own choice would be Safety Dance).

And therein lies the problem that I have with this film – we've seen it all before. I can't see this version adding anything remotely new to the pantheon of Shakespeare adaptations – unless they change the ending, which would be equal parts mortifying and hilarious. How audiences will respond is anybody's guess; the producers are probably hoping that the Downton connection will sell it to older audiences, whilst the Ed Westwick/Chuck-Bass-as Bad-Boy-Tybalt angle will attract younger audience members. Other than that, I can't see the film being a box-office smash. But then again, I'm dead inside – maybe love will conquer all?

Monday, 29 July 2013

Rhyming couplets that pop music needs to stop using

 

Girl/World


Notable Offenders: Rihanna, Bruno Mars, every RnB artist from the late 90s/early 00s

Let's say you have a special lady friend - your 'girl', if you will. How do you let her know how special she is? Tell her she's the greatest girl you know? No, that implies that she's the best of a select few, and that there are better women than her out there. How about the greatest girl in the city/town/administrative district? Too small. How about the world? Yeah! The world! Then all she has to worry about is extraterrestrial-extramarital affairs, and with fuel prices as they are, only Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei have the means to go questing for interstellar poon-tang.

The logic behind this rhyming couplet is water-tight, but it needs to stop. Yes, 'girl' is an affectionate term, if not a tad belittling with a smattering of paedophilic intent. And yes, not much rhymes with girl, but the two together have been used far too much to all say the same thing. At least Justin Timberlake made a valiant effort to shake things up by asking his 'girl' to 'give it a whirl' – not to mention the fact that he used two words that actually rhyme. Alas, this half-rhyme doesn't look to be going away anytime soon.

Suggested alternatives

Why not tell your girl that you'd like to give her some pearls?

Or, tell your miss that she's the greatest in the diocese?

 

Serious/Delirious


Notable Offenders: Vistoso Bosses, Chico

I shall not insult you by explaining what delirious means, however, someone should probably insult the music industry and inform them what it means (“severe confusion and disorientation”). At the moment, artists use it in order to describe being head-over-heels in love – as in Vistoso Bosses' case “ You make me delirious”, or, which seems to be more often, when they can't think of anything else that rhymes with “serious”, as in Chico's case.

In actual fact, serious and delirious are two states that rarely mingle – one could say that they are almost opposites. Actually, fuck it, they are opposites. It is physically impossible to be both serious and delirious. In fact, the only time the words should be coupled in a song is during a duet between a man who has returned, extremely dehydrated, from wandering in the desert and his doctor – and it should go something like this:

Man: There's treasure/ghosts/something fantastical in that desert, I'm serious!
Doctor: Just ignore him, he's delirious.

Suggested alternatives

If you want to let them know just how serious you are, reinforce the fact by telling them you are also imperious (it's a word!).

If you're actually delirious, you're probably unable to form a rhyming couplets, so just shine on you crazy diamond!


Hands/arms/other extremities in the air/ Just don't care


Notable Offenders: Outkast, Florence and the Machine, lazy songwriters

Before this rant begins, Florence and the Machine deserve a special mention because they were the only artist I could think of who hasn't used this couplet in the context of 'putting your hands like you just don't care'. So well done to them, but also, shame on them for using this, the most overused rhyming couplet in song-writing history.

I don't know about most people, but I don't think it's possible to put one's hands in the air like you don't care. You care enough to raise your arms out of their default position - hanging comfortably at your sides, and keep them raised. Maybe it means 'like you just don't care about the people in the club/at the concert surrounding you'; carelessly waving your arms around your head with reckless abandon whilst squashed in a small room with a hundred other people certainly falls into the definition of 'putting your hands in the air like you just don't care...about other people's well-being'.

Suggested alternatives

If you want everyone in the room to raise their hands, why not say 'Put your hands in the air/as if you're Hitler, mein herr'.

Alternatively, as the above suggestion could land you a jail sentence in certain countries, it might be better to just abandon the hope of legions of worshipping fans with their arms raised in salute to you. Though if that's your aim, the preceding lyrical suggestion might be perfect for you.