The Sun and British Nazis

Monday 16th April 2011 (yes, I know... it's a day late, in my defence I did write this yesterday though so it still counts!)

The Sun and British Nationalists (Nazis)


The second of my daily blogs is today written in a sort of psychological retort I suppose.

For contextual purposes; a couple of weeks ago I declared a purchase embargo upon myself for the Sun newspaper - primarily due to the sensational fury the ongoing front page headlines concerning Kate Middleton (her hat, her sister, pretty much any minisule detail the Sun could find to promote her impending wedding) and Kate McCann (Maddie's hat, Maddie's sister, pretty much any miniscule detail the sun could find to promote her impending book) had been continually subjecting me to.

In the interests of clarity, I will make clear that I am not completely condemning these two news stories as un-newsworthy, however I do dispute the sheer volume of time, effort and press coverage that has been devoted to two stories which have now been more dragged out than a dog's arse on a new carpet.

"Alas", I hear you cry, "these are perfectly worthy front page fodder!"

To prove my point I refer you to Article #1 - the Tuesday 20th April edition of the Sun which bore the front page headline "Which tiara will she (Kate Middleton) choose?"

Now, I was already fed up with the Royal Wedding saga, but this was now becoming ridiculous. Unfortunately, my horror failed to cease there as I then discovered on page 32 the remarkable story of the discovery of 'The God Particle' buried within what could be no more than ten lines of printed text. Professor Brian Cox (a respected Physician) claimed of a breakthrough which may have discovered the original source of all life as we know it. How the Sun could therefore deem a future Duchesses' choice of headwear more important than this I will never truly understand! I mean, I am far from a religious follower or even believer, but I damn sure know that this kind of discovery is timeless and could change the course of all existence. The Sun preferred to plug the taxpayer-funded £7million wedding of Wills and Kate. Do I need say any more? Considering the dire financial straits we are constantly badgered about by Government, splashing millions on two already wildly rich royals seems a tad silly.

I honestly could not give a monkey's about the Royal Family (bar the one day I was within feet of the actual Queen when stumbling through Sheffield city centre, hungover) and I surely cannot be the only one?

But it is not for this motive alone that I base my spited view of the Sun upon. To be fair I began to but it on a regular basis for two genuinely hilarious columns - Frankie Boyle on a Friday, and Jeremy Clarkson on a Saturday (and to an extent this is still my primary reasoning for betraying my Sun amnesty). I should also here give honourable mention to Mr. Andy Totham (the source of the Sun's daily sports betting tips via "Tot's Tips) for my regular readership, becoming hooked on his inside-track knowledge after backing JT at 22/1 to score for England in a Euro Qualifier based on his "Longshot of the Day". With this item occuring daily, I soon did the maths and calculated that for just 30p investment per day in the newspaper, I could make a tidy profit from following Mr. Totham. Unfortunately, it soon came to light that "Tot's Tips" weren't all they were cracked up to be, finding myself reading the article with scepticism and angst as opposed to my previous awe.

Anyway, I had now become a bonafide daily investor in the Sun, and in my mind a major stakeholder, therefore to get my money's worth I would systematically scan each page for interesting stories and articles (back-to-front of course for the sport). However, it was in doing this where my general annoyance of the Sun's morals rapidly evolved into a far more substantiated loathing of their self-righteous, vindictive and spite-ridden content.

In the interest of presenting hard evidence, listed below is just a small cross-section of topics/groups regularly criticised by the Sun newspaper:

- Teachers
- Nurses
- Police
- Students (particularly the Oxbridge elite)
- Labour, Lib Dems and any non-Conservatives
- Banks
- Bankers
- Footballers
- Cheats (love, sport, general)
- The Guardian
- The BBC
- Unemployed
- Big companies (Tesco!)

In contrast, the following groups are heavily promoted and praised;

- The Army
- Themselves
- Page 3 Girls
- Themselves
- BSkyB (another Rupert Murdoch venture)
- British Nationalists/Extremists/Themselves

You catch my drift. The Sun's pig-headed, polarised view of the world harbours inappropriate nostalgic perceptions of society (and the world as a whole) and therefore peddles outrage and discontent amongst the lower classes wherever it can. Well, this is at least the surface layer of the daily drivel which is recylced and repackaged by contributors (not writers!), but beneath lies the beating heart of Rupert Murdoch's quest for omnipotence in the press world. He reminds me of that bad guy in James Bond: Tomorrow Never Dies (1998), I think his name's Elliott Tarver? Anyway it's Terri Hatcher's hubby, that bloke. He is the pantomime Rupert Murdoch I suppose.

On a lighter note, there are also many more smaller issues (which are fairly comical) which still manage to infuriate me beyond recussitation:

1) Page 3 Girl thought of the day: No I am not a pervert, and yes I do actually read the thought bubbles which are grafted above the airbrushed heads of the 17-year-old Barbies, however it is always pretty horrific (take that as you will). From quoting famous historical philosophers to illustrate the importance of healthy school meals, to using JFK for demonstrating why the military deserve free bus passes (tissue-paper thin arguments). My particular favourite though is reserved for one 22-year-old model's damning criticism of an image the Sun printed of Cambridge University students drinking in a local park. I forget the exact quote (it wasn't something Aristotle-y), but the basic jist was that the topless page 3 girl thought that if Oxbridge students spent less time drinking, and more time studying, then the country may have avoided it's current financial/social plight. Now personally I tend to disagree with this right-wing nonsense, but hey, who am I to question the credentials and ideals of a girl who's qualifications comprise two Double D's and a quote from a fortune cookie...??

2) Duncan MacKenzie: Before I begin fully ranting about this bloke, please allow me to firstly just say that I hate ALL Sun columnists equally (beside Friday Boyle and Saturday Clarkson); from Lorraine Kelly (the feminist's Superman and/or woman) to Anita Something-or-other who without fail manages to hammer the white lower-, middle- and upper-classes with accusations of racism and discrimination (normally based on the evidence of the existence of Baa Baa Black Sheep and Bing Crosby's White Christmas) - both of said articles I could, and probably will, write another entire article about. Dear old Duncan though is a particular pet-peeve of mine and I shall need to blog my most recent encoounter with his preaching to fully depict his disgusting sliminess.

HEADLINE - "We Bash Tesco Bullies"
This was the genuine title of a 30-line article which seethed venom in reponse to an innocuous incident which occurred at a Tesco Petrol Filling Station, the aftermath of which cost a head office CSA her job. Duncan had received a letter from an irrate reader who had taken her car through the local wash, only to return home from the supermarket to find it badly dented (I know the feeling, I left my car in a car park at Tesco before around dozens of other banged up motors before and noticed a dent when I got back - bloody car washes!). She immediately responded by phoning Tesco Head Office seeking compensation for her damaged car, which had been inexplicably battered beyond repair by a soft, giant brush (or two). The Customer Services Assistant politely asked the lady to write a letter to them detailing exactly what had happened and they would subsequently launch an investigation (sounds fair enough, right?), but instead the woman wrote a letter of disgust to Dear Duncan whining that greedy capitalist Tesco had not only written-off her car but also breached her human rights (or something as crazy as that). In response, Duncan grabbed a handful of his equally bullish cohorts from the Sun, to whinge, pester and barrate Tesco Head Office until they received a formal apology, £800 compensation and the head of the disrespectful Customer Service Assistant on a silver platter with an apple in her mouth (ok slight exaggeration, but far less brutal than just adding an extra one to the unit column of the unemployment statistics. Well done guys, job well done!

3) Sun Employment: Claims to be the single-most force in recession busting, by offering apprenticeships to crackheads, chavs and criminals (preferrably all three) and then boasting by quoting the Chancellor George Osbourne's ludacrous praise every day, accompanied by the graphic of a medal/trophy/sash. Unpalatably pathetic.

4) Al Murray: Unfunny (not a great start for a comedian), and fills in for Frankie Friday every now and again when the Jock's due a jolly - lame subsitute, 'nuff said.

5) Blaming Gordon Brown for everything: Yes, he was an imbecile, but to be fair he inherited a pig of a step-child with Britain, so lay-off the guy (he's on suicide watch as it is!). After all, David Cameron is far from what I would call the Third Coming!


I feel as though I've ranted for long enough now so just to summise; the Sun is an evil publication reminiscent of Hitler-esque propaganda which brainwashes the lower/middle-classes with extremist ideaologies and naiive values of citizenship, sounds like a mouthful but the examples I've cited illustrate it pretty clearly. Soon I'll do an article entitled "Should Soldiers Be Paid The Same As Professional Footballers?" (SPOILER ALERT - the answer is no, they shouldn't), wherein my argument is validated by more recent anecdotes from my encounters with drunk people on benches. If two guys personified the Sun's nationalist incompetence and garishness, these were them. But that tale shall be saved for another time. I know it's not like me, but I have strong views on the issue and therefore too much to be tagged onto the end of another rambling argument.

Die Hard 4.0 and Quadrilogies

Sunday 15th May 2011


Now bear with me, because this is my inaugral attempt at blogging and so I warn you in advance that what you are about to read may be the most rambling body of text that has ever been created. This may appear overly pessimistic at such an early stage, however I feel I can justify my intital reservations in the fact that I fully expect that I, and I alone, will be the only person to ever lay eyes upon this blog (yes 42-year-old me, you are now reading the words you typed into your laptop two decades ago, scary I know!).

Anyhoo, let's crack on shall we?


My first rant will mainly focus on quadrilogies (films which have four installments). To give context to this article, basically I'm halfway through watching Die Hard 4.0 and as such began to ponder it's merits in relation to Indiana Jones 4 (The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). At the present moment I can't actually think of any more that I've seen (or attempted to endure in the case of Indy IV) but I'm (semi-)sure that I'll be able to conjure some more up when I get into full flow...


Let me start by saying that I absolutely love the original trilogies of both Die Hard and Indiana Jones. The third installment in both being two of my absolute favourite films. Let me also say that upon seeing trailers for the fourth edition of both, I was excited to the point of needing to change both my boxers and jeans. However, around Christmas time I downloaded Indy 4 with the intention of having a chilled-out night-in whereupon I could finish my emotional journey with Harrison Ford as Indy (something which I had previously managed before seeing the newest trailer). Without exaggerating, I managed eight minutes before having to switch off... It was terrible! To further contextualise my motives for downloading this (over two years after its cinematic release), I had seen an episode of South Park, basically in which they discuss the idea that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas had exploited the series inexcusably - depicting the two directors systematically sodomising Harrison Ford throughout the episode. In my eternal optimism, I contemplated Matt Stone and Trey Parker's condemnation of the film and thought that I had to see for myself (at the time for the mere sake of defending my love of all things Indiana Jones). So upon the completion of South Park, I began to download Indy IV. History lesson complete.


As aforementioned, I persevered for the film for an excrutiating eight minutes before the final nail was hammered with the revelation of Indiana discovering an alien in a crate. I know what you're thinking, but the answer is no, I am not making this up. With this, my present scepticism of quadrilogies was vividly painted.


Fast forward to this evening, Die Hard 4.0. I find myself torn between two contrasting schools of thought;
1) this will be Indy-esque terrible
2) this will be awesome like the previous three


Thankfully, two hours in, I can confirm the latter. In all fairness, I am writing this whilst watching the film so I cannot provide a full analytical assesment on the underlying politics and themes the narrative represents metaphorically. However, this is a Bruce Willis film so looking up every few seconds to see an explosion, baddie massacre or clever quip, I pretty much get the jist. Not only does the film have Big Bruce in it, we also see Timothy Olyphant as the main villain (The Crazies, A Perfect Getaway) and Justin Long (Jeepers Creepers, He's Just Not That Into You... second one slightly controversial but he was the ONE good thing in that film!). Admittedly, I miss Sam Jackson from the third one, but hey you can't please all of the people all of the time.

What makes "Live Free or Die Hard" so good I hear you say? (I concede the full title is pretty darn terrible)
Well personally, I love making lists, so here are my Top 5 Die Hard IV moments;

1) The quote "You just killed a helicopter with a car!!!!" screamed excitedly by JL to BW.

2) Timothy Olyphant being an absolute bastard, but still remaining ice cool.

3) Bruce Willis being  an absolute bastard, but still remaining ice cool.

4) The hispanice FBI dude going crazy when told "It's above your pay grade".

5) Even with a gun to his head and half-dead, BO still mustering the energy to whisper "Yippee-Ki-Yay Mother Trucker (*interpreted*)" then shooting TO in the face.

Personally, as much as this is a quadrilogy rant, I would really love to see a fifth Die Hard (I'm really hoping that stupid film RED wasn't an attempt to rehash the series because it was truly terrible - only Bruce Willis can pull off the retired, crazy supercop. Yes, I'm talking to you Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich).

At this point, I feel I must apologise to my audience - my 42-year-old self of course. This rant was originally intended to encompass all quadilogies I had seen, heard of or even made up. Therefore to only include two is, I appreciate, more than mildly disappointing.

Due to this I'm going to continue ranting, and hopefully I can think of a couple more...

Back to IndIV (Indiana Jones IV), I was that unenthused I made the title into a befittingly poor abbreviation. Here's a list to demonstrate just how terrible the first 480 seconds of this film were;

- Cate Blanchett: If she's in it, it is automatically dire. She spells here name (Catherine) with a C instead of a K... how pretentious can you be!

- Alien in a crate: Stupid idea, not even slightly realistic, absolutely goes against the idea of Indy being a religious history professor.

- Russian bad guys: Again comes back to Cate Blanchett, her attempted middle-eastern European accent comprises of just speaking American but adding -ski to the end of the final word of each sentence. Nothing against the Russians, but with CB as your leader, you cannot be taken seriously.

- Indy still using a whip as a weapon when your enemies are armed to the teeth: A whip is fine when faced with crazy tribal cults or incompetent Nazi's. Against 1960's Soviets however I'm not buying it.

I would go on, but in my ever random thought stream I began to think about the most recent fourth installment of a quadrilogy that I saw and felt equally passionate about verbally destroying; Scream 4 or Scre4m as it is more commonly known.

Released a little more than a month ago, I went to see this film at the cinema as an exercise in pre-night out drinking shenanigans. I therefore was accompanied to the viewing by my customary two bottles of La Comida (£2.48 - Asda) red wine. As with the previous two quadrilogies discussed, I had absolutely loved the previous triology of Scream and as the others before it, treasured the third installment as the masterpiece of the set. Having seen the trailer for the newest Scre4m, I ensured I was there on it's opening night at the Nuneaton Odeon. Unlike with Indy, the beginning of the film offered so much - giving a kicking to "shitty torture porn garbage" and remakes of horror films (I cite 2010's A Nightmare On Elm Street as the worst case scenario of this). Some pretty cool deceptions in the opening ten minutes made Scream 4 look really promising. The remaining 80-minutes however were soul destroying.

Even wined up, I was unable to conjure any emotion except anger toward the film which had decided to become a poor expolitation of the previous three. Director Wes Craven had dubbed the film a "rehash", looked far more like a re-cash in to me. The plot (after the great first sequence was over) was a simple dot-by-dot copy of the original Scream, but more annoyingly than that, an exact copy that referred to itself as defining the horror genre with lots of clever in-jokes and self-depricating references. It was like listening to an hour-and-a-half of someone talking in the third person about how they didn't quite invent the wheel, but re-envisaged and conseptualised it, redefining the wheel - i.e. a pretentious ****.

In Scre4m I broke my golden cinema rule of never leaving to pee during the film (in case of missing plot points etc.) but here I made an exception - what made it worse was the fact that this was during the final "dramatic" act. A film had never disappointed me as much (Please note that I do not consider it the worst film I have ever seen, just the most disappointing due to my high starting expectations... Avatar, Bee Movie and Monsters Vs. Aliens were far worse, but I had been forced to go along to each of these and therefore expected, to an extent, how terrible they would BEE beforehand).

Right, I understand this is has become a really long piece so I'm going to try and conclude it now. So in summary, we have established that;

- All quadrilogies have their finest hour during the third installment

- South Park is ALWAYS right

- Die Hard IV is actually pretty good, the title is just pretty lame

- Scre4m really dropped the ball (let's hope there are no more)

- A quadrilogy only counts if there are (at this point in time) only four editions released (for example Star Wars 1-4 would not count because there are six in total - we would literally be here for the next week if I ranted about films with unnecessary amounts of sequels!)

- This article should have been titled "QUAD-RANT" - See what I did there?

- If you've read this far then future me, you are a patient man.

Thank you for reading,

Yours
Rich