?

Interesting things that I read today:

1. An article suggesting Danes are some of the most indebted people in the world
    
2. The same article stating Denmark has 'statistically' the happiest population in the world
    
3. An article stating that GDP in the UK had grown by 1.9% in 2013
4. An article showing customer satisfaction with businesses had generally improved in the UK

I also watched another episode of Season One of The Wire.

All of these concern two things: money, and the lack/ surfeit of it, and happiness (or in #BizTalk which is basically awful all you hashtaggers).

Does money equal happiness? Is it that simple? Can you measure happiness? Or rather, does it simply make us behave n different ways that result in more positive outcomes?

One doesn't appear to equal the other. Take Denmark. Danes pay the highest taxes in the world, but only earn the sixth highest salary. Effectively, they're losing something, somewhere. It's obviously possible that they get it back in kind - a kind of BIK - from their government through safe and secure neighbourhoods and borders, excellent housing, a flexible labour market and great health care. But where?

The HPI (or Happy Planet Index) seems a good place to start. That's got some big name fans - Zac Goldsmith, for one, although he seems a bit nuts. This looks at subjective well-being, ecological footprint, and life expectancy. Here, Denmark is ranked first on subjective well-being. Britain is ranked 19th.

It's when you look at GDP that it gets interesting. There's approximately 62 million British people, and they generate $35,866 per capita (or £21,641.70 by today's XE comparison) - just over 75% of what US makes in ratio terms.

Denmark, however, generates $40,163 per capita - or 85% of the profit generated by the US, in ratio terms - for its population of 5.5 million people. So 10% more appears to count for a lot, based on the HPI.

What about that great fear factor: after poverty, people are afraid of death. Denmark has one doctor per 294 of its population - by comparison, the Telegraph laments EC figures that state there's 2.71 docs per 1000 people in the UK. Denmark's figure is 3.40 - less than one better. Is that such a big deal?

Denmark spends approximately 9.8% of its GDP on healthcare - at least according to Wikipedia. The UK spent approximately £170 billion on healthcare in 2011, or 9.3% of its budget. Does .5% make such a big dfference?

What about quality of life? In 2012 the average Dane worked 1546 hours over the course of the year - or, assuming he gets five weeks holiday and weekends off, that's about six and a half hours per day. Wow!

By comparison the average UK worker did 1654 hours in 2012 - using the same figures, that's about seven hours per day. There's basically almost nothing in it - again, the only really big difference really does appear to be money, and how much of it people have.

The other interesting element at play here is how happy customers are with businesses. You might not be surprised to learn the least favourable satisfaction scores this year were generated by energy and utility companies - Ed Miliband has clearly been doing his homework.

By contrast, the only major group to have bounced back from declining scores was... banks and building societies. Weird, right? Even though I can testify from first hand and professional experience that some banks are making strenuous efforts to improve their products and services, that is a big jump in just 12 months. Link that in to the widely reported news that in 2013 the UK's GDP grew by 1.9%, taking it back to pre-recession levels, and there seems to be a pattern developing.

To return to one of the main ideas at the start then - do people make better decisions when they have more breathing room financially, and does this help achieve a snowball effect?

Looking at the opposite side of the coin, there is some scientific evidence that quick access to cash with little attention to creditworthiness tends to lead to a decrease in self control, increasing the chance of default. This can have an effect on mental health and result in depression, which is just one of many symptoms of poverty.

In conclusion:

How people achieve a constant state of happiness in an ever-changing economy is a harder question - and many people might not like the answer that comes to mind.

 

Thanks NME for your picture!

 

 

OSCAR CHAT

 

TWENTY EIGHT OUT OF SIX HUNDRED is less than 5%. Other things that are less than 5%:

• The number of voting members of AMPAS that are black.

Steve McQueen stands a great chance of becoming just the 29th black man or woman to win an Academy Award, and the first to win a Best Director award. Since the inaugural awards, there have been 600 Oscars handed out. Having suggested a nomination for handsome Hollywood hero Robert Redford here last week I now feel a bit embarrassed to have overlooked this weirdly archaic statistic. It seems difficult to believe that not a single black director has won an Oscar - in the entire history of the Academy Awards, only four films made by a black director have been nominated.

There are two ways to look at this. The first concerns the above numbers; whilst no one (i.e. me) is suggesting the Academy is institutionally racist, another statistic on their makeup is pertinent: more than half of the makeup are sixty or older. America has changed dramatically since 1953, when Sarah Keys became the first African American to challenge the 'separate but equal' race law in Carolina. That's important. From a demographic perspective it's hard to suggest America's rewarding it's film-making talent. Incidentally, McQueen is British.

The second is a knottier question and therefore a little more difficult to answer. How many films made by black directors deserved to win an Oscar? And, one step back, how many black film directors are there working in the industry? It's knottier because there are smaller considerations that flow into bigger subjects like national politics and macroeconomic policy, and those considerations are much harder to quantify.

For example: the age old debate on equality of opportunity and how that affects career trajectories. The US Social Security Administration (SSA) recently released data showing more than half of Americans earn below $30,000 pa, which is about $3,000 above the 'federal poverty line' (the line delineates who is in living in poverty and who isn't). That was for 2012. As this heat map shows, many Americans in the South live below the poverty line. The US Census Bureau suggests the majority of African Americans live in cities and suburbs within the South (although the suburbs are undoubtedly more affluent than they once were). CNN Money thinks the average public college education (i.e. open to all) is $8,200 pa per student. So allowing for a reasonable margin of error, a good percentage of African Americans will never get to college, and therefore find a door to film-making closed. And that's just part of the question - why are they in that position in the first place?

Demographics do make a huge difference - the most recent American census put the African American population of the US around 12%, so naturally more white Americans will be getting the opportunity to make an Oscar-winning film. But 12% of 381 million people is just under 45 million people - that's the equivalent of Ukraine or South Africa. It also doesn't answer the much more subjective question of quality - how many black directors are making Oscar-worthy films?

So in short, there does seem to be something wrong with the current set-up - but how much of that is in the Academy's hands is difficult to say. One final and interesting thing: the four previously nominated films made by black directors/ producers are The Color Purple, Precious, Django Unchained and The Blind Side. For anybody who's seen those films, there's a certain underdog theme to each, and three explicitly concern slavery. I think the Academy's right to promote these films as great social commentaries but they should be broadening the net more - it does ask an awkward question of what the voters are interested in watching.

Pic from Shetland Arts

 

ALL IS LOST

 **A FEW THOUGHTS**

This was the second of two films I saw last week which focused on imperilled humans at the mercy of their environment. The other film was Gravity, which I posted about below.

Sarah and I discussed both films whilst eating delicious (healthy) Malaysian food at Ning NQ, in Manchester. She hasn't seen either film and does not want to, which I think is a pragmatic reaction to two scenarios which I found very unpleasant to watch.

Sarah said she felt like being adrift in the ocean was much more preferable to space and I am inclined to agree, but on reflection, it seems the defining factors have an air of irrelevance about them. I found myself thinking again that most of the universe, including the planet Earth, is totally intolerant to human life.

I really admired the way JC Chandor set his tale up - with (what may be) the ending at the start of the tale. Throughout this, I kept returning to:

~How do people understand and process a tragedy in their lives?~

As the viewer, did I pity Redford's character because I (thought I) knew of his fate? If I'm under no illusions as to the ending, is the emotional journey more or less satisfying? The main reason I loved this is down to Redford. He invests so much into the character and creates connections with an audience through a full appreciation of, and reaction to, his environment. Another thing I unconsciously noted about All Is Lost is how out of touch almost all American cinema is with its surroundings. You could probably do World War Z in a music hall in the Caribbean, it's that focused in on itself.

Robert Redford should win Best Actor at the Oscars, no doubt. I also think JC Chandor should win Best Director, but with him, McQueen and Cuaron all up for the same thing I don't think the Academy people will make the 'right' choice. History is heavy. Now I have said that Scorsese will win again.

One award I do feel the film will walk away with is the cinematography and sound. It is gloriously expansive, and approaches its human subject in an almost alien manner - the wide underwater lenses observe Redford's plight impassively, almost benignly, from below the ocean surface. It looks and sounds like the world is watching itself.

I did feel the practical attentions of Redford really upped the ante emotionally. Lots of people have come out and claimed the science is bogus in Gravity but what mattered for me there was the fragility and the expertly unravelled storyline, as Ryan's paradox regarding her loneliness is revealed. Just watching Redford pack away glassware and wash items before the coming storm created a tangible, scary foreboding that many directors could learn from. And that's not mentioning the ordeal suffered in his lifeboat following the storm.

This is a great film and, I feel, ought to be remembered in years to come. It is lean, subtle, beautifully shot and will reduce you to an emotional wreck. A must see.

Pic thanks to Athena Cinema, Athens.

 

G     R     A     V     I     T     Y

It was as good as everyone said. I saw Gravity once everyone had come back down to Earth (yes I did that) about the astonishing special effects, the knuckle-shredding tension, the superlative performance from Sandra Bullock (I know!) which will probably see her up for another Oscar.

The biggest draw for me, though, was the 3D element. I have seen four films (I think) in 3D. Gravity is the fourth and so far it's the only one to do anything interesting with the format. And interesting is probably putting it lightly. It was great to feel so directly involved with something, watching a film that made superior use of its environment, much like All Is Lost in fact.

Leaving aside the physics and the chemical side of things, I feel like Cuaron handled the 'space is the ultimate metaphor for the human condition' thing adroitly. Ryan's loneliness is the mirror image of Matt's; but Cuaron riffs on the same sensation through both of them in smart, character-building ways. Matt bounces around the vast nothingness as he tells his story about floating, alone, through the crowded streets of Mardi Gras trying to find his lost love; Ryan stays attached to the dock, focusing down on the one thing in front of her, in the same way that she does with her daughter.

Cuaron finds ways to create drama in a lean, clinical fashion. He has excellent manners when creating drama. He also employs action at strategic intervals like he is conducting an orchestra. The crash sequence is astonishing and has to be seen on a big screen; nothing else will do it justice. This might be the best film I never buy on DVD.

I don't know why Cuaron has been called out for bogus science by those in the know: this seems stupid and self-effacing by those who've said so. Of significantly more interest were the remarks made by overtly Christian writers who suggested a belief in (a) God in the film. Ryan's numerous monologues do appear to be referring to an unconscious belief in someone/thing that's not present: but as the admirably brief intro makes clear, an inhospitable environment's the natural catalyst for humans to reconnect with their absent brethren too. I felt like Cuaron took the humanist route in his treatment of Ryan's grief and both sides should probably feel there's some merit in the others perspectives. Which I suppose is pretty much humanism in a nutshell.

Besides those elements the running time was a pleasant and effective surprise, lending some urgency to the whole enterprise and giving a 'real time' element to the story.

This is also the first time I've loved watching Sandra Bullock in something - her Ryan was full of faults, imprecise in the most unforgiving of environments, and blinded by emotion for her colleague and daughter, both absent to some extent. But getting mad somehow seemed brutally careless - as Peter Bradshaw said, this is the first space film happening now, with real live humans, rather than the past or future, with a faceless android, or a Vulcan. As such empathy was a much more direct sensation - easy, familiar, and it gave the film a powerful directness.

The best expression of Gravity's effects? Afterwards I craved familiarity. Much as Ryan squeezes wet soil between her fingers following re-entry, I wandered around Manchester in the rain, glasses in my bag. You'll never want to go into space again. 

(Pic from Alt Film Guide)

Twenty fourteen (2014) will be EXCITING. If you want it to be. I want it to be. Here's what I'm excited about.

Lord of the Flies - in ballet

 

That's right. Matthew Bourne, him of the winningly solid pudgeface (not a word but it ought to be) and sixth form gelled fringe brings Golding's societal piece to the stage. I know almost nothing about ballet, besides watching a very impressive Natalie Portman performance in the very impressive Black Swan back in 2011, but I've caught snippets of Bourne's version of that (check out the trailer here) which I wish I'd seen live as it looks excellent.

Equally LotF was never one of the books I got to read at school but I've since atoned for that criminal gap in my formal education and am 'intrigued' to say the least what he will do with characters like Piggy. Extra incentive, if needed: it starts round the corner from me at the Lowry Theatre in Salford.

The Premier League

 

Being a Manchester City fan, I've enormously enjoyed the first half of this English season, watching a renascent side destroy opposition defences (my highlights, since you asked, were the 6-3 v Arsenal, the 3-2 v Bayern away, and of course that first Davey Moyes derby) at home.

But it's no real wonder the Premier League managed to blow even its own astonishing rights deals out of the water when there is finally some sporting drama on Saturdays again. Who's going down? Who will win the league? Will Levy keep Sherwood? What is going on with Mata? Will Thud go to the World Cup? And will Luis Suarez ever just bundle one in off his arse? The quality's great, but the stories are many, varied and seemingly endless. We might not see another one like it for a bit, so catch it if you can.

Dave Eggers does Bill Bryson

One of my favourite ever books a historical collection of food writing, in all of its literary forms, in The New Yorker magazine. Composed of pieces by writers, not cooks or chefs, I quickly realised that you don't need to know your subject as much as needing to know how to write - but some subject knowledge is important.

I'm guessing 'some' is precisely the right amount for Dave Eggers. The novelist formally collects his memoirs of his trips to Thailand, the Sudan and the northeastern states of America amongst many, many others into Visitations, a piece of work I will presume to contain more than its fair share of breezy metaphysical rhetoric slung around  'some' interesting perspectives on, say, mini shrines on the street corners of Bangkok.

Obviously Eggers is known for his forays into parts of the world untouched by much of the professional writing class, and his sharp eye and goofy wit will undoubtedly bring to life much of a planet still perused through the 'World' section of broadsheet newspapers.

Visitations is out in November 2014

The Men Are Back In Town

 

To misquote Thin Lizzy, but it sort of feels like they never left. The hardest woikin' band 'n sho'bidness has got to be these guys right now, who are on for their fifth album in as many years in between tours. Anybody can knock an album together in under a fortnight - several bands made it sound like a skill in the early noughties - but The Men's range has broadened in parallel with their ever-longer tours, and New Moon is a soulful echo of Neil Young's early years, without losing their belt and braces steely punk sound around the fringes. For a band that appears hellbent on challenging normal concepts of time, the record's title - Tomorrow's Hits - feels entirely appropriate.

*!* Tomorrow's Hits is released on Sacred Bones Records *!*

An Oscars Worthy of an Academy Award

 

For those complaining that the Academy Awards is getting carried away with populism, the decision to drop the aforementioned name last year and replace it with the catchier and more vacuous 'Oscars' was the proverbial red rag. OK so: I enjoyed Silver Linings and Bradley Cooper is deceptively good at this acting stuff. I admit it.

Anyone still out there?

Anyway, onto the American mantel goes Oscar next to buddies Tony and Emmy (what's up with a Golden Lion guy?) and does the debate over whether this is an awards or an entertainment product intensify? Who knows and it's probably a silly argument anyway - the irony won't be lost on anyone when the inevitable drama ensues from some no-hoper claiming the Oscars 'has lost its allure'. All except the Americans of course, who we all know have never understood irony, as long as Woody Allen and Jerry Seinfeld have lived. 

But! What is this garbage, I hear you mumble. Fair point. And now I'll come to it: this year, more than any I can ever remember, I'm sort of excited. Alright, another David O. Russell film (see above for my swooning heart). BUT. What about Steve McQueen, riding into the postmodern American West, hat not on head, cardie round shoulders, shorts above knees, with a film so deserving of superlatives that you can actually use them without fear of unintentional hilarity. Tremendous. Magnificent. Etc. 12 Years A Slave looks rich with promise - and who doesn't want to hear a Steve McQueen acceptance speech?

Elsewhere another of my favourite guys - Alfonso Cuaron - might win something for Gravity (and Sandra Bullock could win another Oscar. Yeah.) And what of films like Blue Is The Warmest Colour, Blue Jasmine, and All Is Lost? Not to mention interesting curios like Upstream Color and Only God Forgives. You can probably count the last two out, sadly. Nevertheless there is - finally - justification for that furious Monday morning scowl and four espressos from your local café after an all nighter getting passionate, alone, with Mr Oscar. About damn time.

Pix thanx to Douban, Style Weekly, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and Sky Sports.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

Upon seeing The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, here and forever known as Mitty, It seems as though I broadly disagreed with my favourite source of film trivia and news. But I don't think I'm in the minority here, although I do feel like Peter Bradshaw was excessively mean-spirited towards my birthday - sorry, the film. Which I saw on my birthday.

And of course that explains the general hurt anyone feels when someone or something they respect and have faith in turns on them, however misplaced those sensations are. For Walter Mitty, the titular protagonist, this represents a moment to get on a skateboard and walk out of an office to Arcade Fire. A touch harsh? Well maybe.

This Mitty, the second on screen following Danny Kaye's 1947 version, is played by a Ben Stiller who I will describe as handsome and mild-mannered, neither of which are qualities that particularly stand out in films I really enjoy watching over again.

Mitty is a 21st century version of the character from writer James Thurber's whimsical, sentiment-free short story. He is the sad and logical end of the man who began the start of the 20th century dreaming of conquering the Nazis (as the original Mitty does) and begins the 21st agonising over whether to wink at a pretty lady on a dating site; eHarmony, which is a real thing. The film's got more where that came from - Papa John's also play a big role as Mitty's employer in an earlier, more miserable life. Kickstarter's not for everyone it seems.

The lady, Cheryl, is played by Bridesmaids' Kristen Wiig, and prompts numerous fantasy elements to be introduced to the viewer as Mitty dives into buildings, rescues kittens, walks out of the Antarctic with a weird Latin accent and a parrot and various other bemusing moments.

But the really interesting parts are not the humorous bits. Adam Scott plays Ted, a brand junkie, management-speak-extraordinaire who exudes horrible from every pore as the man come to wreck Mitty's life following the closure of Life the magazine and the opening of Life the website, with the commensurate number of jobs to be shed in the name of 'cost effectiveness'.

Scott is a disgusting guy and the scenes he is in are a delight to watch - for me it also included the best fantasy as Mitty beats the crap out of Ted whilst both are waiting in the lift. The bone of contention? A Stretch Armstrong toy. It betrayed a goofiness in Stiller's direction that I always liked about his other films and just because it is something he has excelled in previously, I don't think it's a good enough reason to try something else.

Other highlights include the floor huddle where the unfortunate Life staff are informed of their doom - think The Office with added awkward as hand signals and weird emphasis on stuff make for richly satisfying viewing and a charming short scene where Mitty demonstrates incredible skills with a skateboard in the background as the woman he dreams of chats to her ex-husband. I think the stunt double for that scene is Rodney Mullen, incidentally.

The rest of the film follows Mitty as he traverses around northern Europe and the Middle East in search of the aptly named Sean O'Connell, a Life freelance photographer who kicked the whole shebang off back in America with a missing photo, the last to ever grace the Life cover and one that each party within the film is quite interested in. Ted's interested because he'll get shouted at if he doesn't get it. Cheryl is because she needs something to keep talking to Mitty about, and Mitty - well, Mitty because he hasn't really been anywhere but Phoenix, as he tells eHarmony's customer services team, and he basically needs to get the hell on with his life.

The cinematography is absolutely great, there's a lovely scene where Stiller skateboards down the side of a volcano, a very well filmed oceangoing scene with what may be a porpoise or a shark, and a moment with Sean Penn, a good fit for the rugged photographer who Mitty sets out to reach for the accursed photo number 25, which is totally predictable and so easy for Penn he practically sleepwalks his way through, but it's nice to watch two actors doing their own thing.

The film's moments of naturalism blow away the more absurd, intricately concocted elements and I particularly enjoyed the scenes that are not really integral to the story. There's truth in Stiller's work when he does not force the pace, and a lot of this bears the look of a guy forcing it as a fairly green director.

That might feel a little unfair, but it seems as though much of the heart of the original is held up to a clever-clever 21st century perspective that just doesn't possess the same throwaway intellect as its predecessor. A shame, particularly as I'm only 29 once.

Photo: The Guardian