Month: September 2006

No, the title isn’t a reference to Alan Carr or Graham Norton. It refers to a quote by biologist J.B.S. Haldane, that the world is "not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." It is also the title of a talk by Richard Dawkins, given at Oxford in July last year.

Clearly this talk was given at a time when Dawkins’ was consolidating and preparing his thoughts for The God Delusion. For the benefit of those who are put off by the title of that book, neither the talk nor the book carry the degree of negativity that you might suppose. Both are, as anyone who has read Dawkins before will expect, more about promoting a scientific world view than it about denigrating a non-scientific one.

The central point of the talk is the proposition that our view of the universe is dependent on our position within it, specific that we exist on a medium scale neither small enough to innately comprehend quantum effects nor large enough to grasp galactic scales. That therefore we are naturally unable to grasp the nuances of the oddness of the universe.

Anyone else who likes to play a game of "Where’s Douglas?" when listening to or reading Dawkins will note that the game is becoming increasingly easy. To be fair, if I had been friends with Douglas Adams I’d go on about it the whole time too.

If An Inconvenient Truth can reach beyond preaching to the choir and actually affect the views of global warming deniers it may become the most important movie ever made. If An Inconvenient Truth can reach beyond preaching to the choir and actually affect the views of global warming deniers it may become the most important movie ever made. I said that twice because I want to highlight the fact that I really mean it, without hyperbole.

I went to see it not expecting to be hugely influenced. I was already aware, or so I thought, of the effects of global warming. I was already a member of what appears to be a disturbingly small minority who recognise that there is no uncertainty among scientists about whether global warming is happening or whether it is caused by human activity. It is, and it is. I went because I wanted to show my support.

But it turns out there was a hell of a lot that I didn’t know. About the extent of our destruction of the world, about the importance of getting our shit in order, and most importantly about the fact that we have the means to do it.

Plus, it’s funny. And it has a clip from Futurama.

My giddy excitement at the arrival of The God Delusion this morning led to that all too familiar feeling of wanting to share it with all of you but not really having all that much to say. After all, there isn’t a huge amount I can really say about a book that I haven’t read yet.

You’ll understand then, I hope, the envy I feel for Ben at "Back off, man; I’m a scientist." His own pleasure at seeing the book is prompted by that fact that he is quoted in it! This is a remarkable honour, especially as the quote is accompanied by the description of Ben as an "eloquent blogger". Of course I agree, but my judgement of a person’s eloquence is presumably worth somewhat less than Richard Dawkins’.

My copy of The God Delusion is in transit from Amazon, and I expect that many of my readers are in similar circumstances. While we all wait, there’s a video on YouTube of Jeremy Paxman interviewing Richard Dawkins about the book.

Interestingly, I find it very difficult to tell what Paxman’s own beliefs might be. He doesn’t go easy, but neither does he appear to simply feed Dawkins the questions he most happily address. I suppose that can stand as a testament to his journalistic integrity, something that begins to stand out for me as I see more videos of American interviews. Dawkins makes a typically sturdy defence of his position. Not terribly surprising given the strength of the position he’s defending.

Paxman gives some time to the question of whether the sense of worth and happiness that many people derive from their faith should be ignored. Dawkins, quite rightly in my view, maintains not only that that question has no bearing on the truthfulness of religious claims—which is inarguable—but also that to him truth is more valuable and more desirable than comfortable ignorance.

A brief TV interview obviously can not address the entire topic of the veracity of religion. I doubt even that a whole book can make a serious dent in the subject, vast as it is. But Dawkins is most certainly the person I would favour in framing our side of the argument, and I look forward to reading what will be his first book solely dedicated to the subject.

I am beginning to notice a rather obvious trend here on Soylent Red towards every post being about movies. Perhaps this is what the yuppie thirty-something renovated loft-dwelling New York blogger ruling class mean when they refer to "finding a niche". Just my luck that my niche appears to be one of the most popular pastimes in the world.

Anyway, Clerks II. This is the sixth movie in a "trilogy" that I love. It is the sequel to one of my favourite comedies ever. It received an eight minute long standing ovation at the Cannes film festival. And it lived up to my expectations.

It was slow to start, which I found worrying because this was one of those films that I went to with a sense of needing it to be good. I certainly didn’t want it to retroactively ruin the original like a certain pair of Matrix sequels did. Thankfully it picked up the pace soon enough. Now that I think of it, I have levelled the "slow to start" criticism a few times recently and been proved wrong. Maybe I should start to put more trust in the film makers.

This is another easy one for the "if you liked X you’ll like this"-style reviewer. X is Clerks, quite simply.

This one’s easy. If you like Anchorman then you’ll like this. If you didn’t like Anchorman then chances are I don’t care for you as a person. Will Ferrell ("Cow and Chicken") is typically hit and miss but he hits a good average. Sacha Baron Cohen (The Jolly Boys’ Last Stand) is capable but largely absent. The plot is standard sports movie fare.

Jagshemash. My name Rory. I make review Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. You read!

I have just returned from a special preview of the Borat movie months ahead of the full worldwide release, an event made somewhat less exclusive by the fact that it was a free promotion run by MySpace. Also by the fact that the cinema was only half full. Which obviously made my showing up two hours in advance to secure my seat a little unnecessary.

Verdict in short: it is, as any sane person would have expected, a very funny film. But I felt a little let down. Clearly Borat derives most of his humour—with the obvious exception of his Kazakhstan-based segments at the beginning and end—from the genuine reactions of perplexed Americans. These scenes are predictably hilarious.

The problem is that Borat has a plot. This is admittedly an unusual complaint to level against a film. Let me explain. A plot requires that it be driven forward. Driving a plot requires character motivation and advancement. Character motivation and advancement do not naturally derive from scenes of unrehearsed crackpot reactions to Borat’s chauvinism and anti-Semitism. So by necessity there are lots of scenes that are, clearly and unashamedly, entirely scripted.

But, like watching a magician who is seen to use stooges and camera tricks on top of the expected sleight of hand and misdirection, these scripted scenes take away from the viewer’s certainty in the reality of the rest of the film. It goes from, "I can’t believe he reacted like that," to, "I don’t believe he reacted like that."

If you can drag yourself back to believing in the authenticity of the non-character developing scenes, the ones that you expect to be of real people, then plot strikes once more. The climax of a film can not get away with following unrelated tangents. So as the film gets closer to the end the ratio of scripted to unscripted material shifts hugely to the former, leaving the most important part of the film far shorter of laughs than the rest.

All of that having been said, I don’t think I went a single minute without laughing out loud. Borat is easily as funny as Sacha Baron-Cohen’s other movie of this year, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (of which I owe you a review). I expect it to feature in the top five of 2006.

One final hilarity that I noticed while refusing to leave before the lights came up: there was a credit for "Mr Baron-Cohen’s faeces provided by". Now there’s a tantalising teaser for you for when the film is released fully in November.

‘Tis thee day t’ be talkin’ like a pirate, lest ye find yerself scrubbin’ th’ barnacles off a’ th’ ship’s underbelly f’r squalkin’ like a landlubber. Fairly warned be ye, says I.

I am walking back to my office from the university restaurant, where I ate a second rate pork chop with third rate lukewarm chips and read the abysmal excuse for a newspaper, the Irish Independent. I have learned my lesson about going to lunch too late.

It is raining on me quite heavily. I am cold. I have learned my lesson about leaving the house with only a T-shirt.

Something catches my eye. One of the myriad posters trying to drag me into some society or other. I look closer. The Literary and Historical Society has a list of the guests they have lined up for the coming year. The list is accompanied by a picture montage of said guests.

Who is that strikingly dignified bald man in the centre? It is only Captain Jean-Luc bloody Picard himself, Patrick Stewart! A better man than I would be able to react to this news with quiet interest. That man is not me. I will not be satisfied with anything short of a "w00t!"

Why were the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (or their European cousins the Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles, because apparently ninjas are too cool for a European audience) referred to as "heroes in a half shell"? They each had a complete shell. It was just vaguely hemispherical.