The Mayor of Nice decided without warning that the recordings would be cut, claiming that it was necessary to make economies.

He said that the practice costs the local government 25,000 euros per year. He runs the Conseil Municipal (the town of Nice) which serves about 450,000 citizens.

Here’s a video for francophones:

Compare this to the Conseil Régional, that serves the entire region of Provence, the Alpes and the Cote d’Azur (including  Nice), that’s about 4,781,000 people, with a much bigger number of councillors and hence a bigger room and presumably more cameras. To broadcast a meeting, it costs the region 2,000 euros.

The Region meets 5 times a year, so broadcasting costs 10,000 euros per year. Estrosi holds 4 meetings per year, the legal minimum. To reach his figure, over double the cost despite fewer meetings, his cameras must be made out of gold. Note that 4 times a year is the legal minimum for the Conseil Municipal to meet.

Also note that the propaganda “magazine” that gets distributed to everybody’s letterbox, as well as “letters from the mayor” costs the town 450,000 a year.

Having dispelled the money myth, the real reason he was to censor the broadcast is because it is the only source of unbiased, unfiltered news left. The Mayor’s office buys “advertising space” in the local paper, to the extent it provides a third of the newspaper’s total revenue.

Estrosi is simply trying to hide the truth, and by preventing the  recording of the council meetings he does a disservice to democracy and his electors.

It’s my Party Election Broadcast for the Labour Party, as part of the House of Twits PEB competition, where I could stand to win an amazing £20.10, more than twice the cost it took to make!

As you can see, I went with the “No Tie.”

Hopefully this will signal the start of more videos from me, depending on critical reaction.

So, here it is, TORIES BEWARE:

The background is the flag of the Conseil Régional Provence-Alpes-Cote D’Azur; it just seemed appropriate as it was a present from our victory in March. I’ll be in Cannes this year for the Film Festival; I haven’t been invited, but I’ll be in the area.

4/10

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is one of the Oscar Grandees this year, and makes a lot of promises on which it does not deliver. Derived from a short story by F Scott Fitzgerald, Fincher has stretched three hours out of twenty minites of content.

Benjamin Button has an extraordinarily simple storyline; a biopic of a man who is born old and gets younger everyday. Its simplicity, therefore, is its principle downfall, as even though it lacks action, it does not make up for it in characterisation or message.

It would be easy to expect BB to have some sense of philosophical profundity, questioning our perception of time, the aging process, death and even life itself. The reality is in fact that the film, for all its technicall brilliance, lacks any coherance and most importantly of all; ambition. It is a ‘big’ film, not only for its excruciating length, but for it’s style. Apart from the initial “eww, it’s a disgusting old baby” reaction, the film is artistically spectacular (I believe Brad Pitt had to spend about 5 hours a day in make-up) and gives the impression of a spectacle.

The real disappointment of this film is that it denies its own unique selling point; I.e. the protagonist starts life old and gets younger. This has no relevance on any of the characters nor any of the plot, apart from a few casual remarks like “wow, you’re old!”. Benajmin Button starts his life in an old person’s home, then leaves to work on a tugbo at, ends up in Russia, then comes back for a brief stint in WWII and starts stalking a girl he knew from the beginning, who is trying to get on with her life.

The love-interest of the film is a girl called Daisy, who, for most of the “present day” part of the film, is old, decrepid and lying on her death-bed in New Orleans as Hurricane Katrina approaches, which like all the historical references in the film, has no impact on the film proper. The rest of the ‘action’ takes place through Daisy’s estranged daughter reading Benjamin’s diary.

Skipping to the end of the film, as you will want to, there begins to be a slight payoff, though nothing near rewarding enough to make the previous two-and-a-half hours worthwhile, we see Benjamin, as an 8 year old with a dementia-ravaged brain, though again the film fails to approach coherence and instead switches to a picturesque montage to emphasise the film’s vapid ‘sieze-the-moment’ theme.

For all its artistic grandoise style, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button lacks any trace of substance, go and watch Frost/Nixon instead. That’s much better.

As part of the Bath Film Festival, I attended an advance screening of Oliver Stone’s satirical biopic of US President George W. Bush; a quick-stop tour of his presidency, punctuated by flashbacks of his younger days. W. (pronounced “Dub-ya” and not the British “Double-you” is, surely, a passable piece of entertainment, but seemed a bit lacking in substance.

Perhaps my expectations were too high? The film seemed tailored to include everything I could possibly want; politics, investigation, biography, satire and so on. I’ve been a great fan of Oliver Stone for a while now too. I was expecting something between Jay Roach’s brilliant dramatisation of the 2000 US election Recount and Stone’s previous film Nixon (both of which are five-star films and if you can’t get the DVD, you should download immediately).

Nevertheless, W. Is a decent stand-alone film and worth watching once, and the acting is pretty clear too – it’s quite easy to recognise the characters. Although this often comes across as a comedy impression, (the likes of which we see on clips of Saturday Night Live, rather than those of Rory Bremner). Condi Rice gets a particularly savage portrayal, as the actress seems to have a set of huge goofy teeth in her mouth, making it difficult to speak. Donald Rumsfeld receives a very funny, mildly accurate, depiction as he does crosswords in cabinet meetings, while Colin Powell sounds like a character from the Nutty Professor. Dick Cheney was a golden opportunity sadly missed.

Credit where credit is due though, Josh Groblin (Bush Jnr) and James Cromwell (Bush Snr) are the focus of the film, to an irritating extent as the “paternal approval card” is played over and over again, but the pair give good performances alike. A special mention goes to Cromwell for his acting when Bush Snr loses the 1993 election (oops, spoiler.)

As a result of the emphasis on the father-son relationship, the film misses out so much the desperately needs to be included. There is almost no mention of 9/11, (which is like making a biopic of Margaret Thatcher and excluding the Falklands War) and Tony Blair gets one 30 second scene towards the end.

Essentially, W. does not have a coherent message. Though Bush is given a sympathetic representation, the flashbacks tell us very little we didn’t already know, and thus take time away from the more important issues defining Bush as a man and a president; creating film that feels like you’re picking up a biography in a shop and flicking through it to pass time. You cover so many topics so quickly, W. is a film that summarises, not sums up. 

All film entries will be compiled into a feature length DVD, to be screened at the festival’s 60th anniversary celebration the Party in the City on Friday, May 23 in the Pavillion and other main venues around town.

They will also be shown in shop windows, bars and clubs for the entire duration of the Bath International Music Festival.

The theme this year is “60 x 60″ and filmmakers are encouraged to interpret ’60′ in any way imaginable. Entry to the Bath Film Challenge and its screenings are absolutely free of charge.

Filmmakers can also find minute-long tracks by artists playing at the music festival, including festival artistic director Joanna MacGregor (above), that can soundtrack the films, although entrants are advised that films should be understandable with or without sound, due to the variety of screening venues.

Only the first 75 people to register will be accepted, so prospective entrants should visit www.bathfestivalsfilmchallenge.co.uk for all the information needed to take part.

The Film Challenge is supported by Bath Festivals Trust and finished films must be submitted by Wednesday, May 7.

The film appears very promising at the start, with a quick flashback to David’s first experience of teleporting, where he falls through the ice of a frozen river, and ends up in the school library. From this point on, his life is one-long holiday spent bank robbing and globetrotting. Of course, this does not last long, and a secret organisation led by “Roland” (Samuel L. Jackson) attempts to track down and kill David, for the sole reason that ‘only God should be omnipresent’.

However, just as the audience are able to accustom themselves to the situation, the film jumps off a cliff and ends abruptly with no warning or closure. The fate of most characters is unclear, possibly in order to set up Jumper 2 and 3 (Hopper and Skipper, maybe? No? Suit yourself.) and gives the film a very unfinished and under-performing feel.

Hayden Christensen once again seems to be struggling with a role that places effects and action sequences above characterisation (see Star Wars) but not to such an extent that it hinders the film, if the viewer can make the leaps of logic required. David’s love interest, Millie (Rachel Bilson) is equally under-developed and expected to follow him blindly without any real explanationand seems to forget the fact that he was presumed dead for about 8 years. Even the action is, which is (appropriately, perhaps) jumpy, is underplayed and seems to pointlessly zoom in on people’s shoulders, obscuring the view of the fight scenes just to create an ‘edgy feel’

Essentially, the film is fun while it lasts and contains some typically impressive visuals (e.g. sitting in a deck-chair on top of the Sphinx) but is still woefully under-developed; leaving too many questions unanswered and ending on a completely under-whelming note. For all the awe-inspiring visuals, Jumper expects the viewer to make a leap of faith that is just too large.

 2/5

Essentially, the real feeling that comes being an extra is one of very strong self-conflict. With one hand, the ego is stroked; an extra feels incredibly important and special, since there is a good chance of being on television for a short period of time, something that everybody secretly (or overtly) wants to do at least once. However, with the other hand, it is knocked for six; since an extra is the lowest rank on the set, less important than the straightness of an actor’s bow tie.

In addition to this, it is important to note that there are indeed professional extras, while those of us in the theatre society are students. These people, as Stephen Fry wrote years ago, are supposed to be called a “featured artist” or “background artist.” Nevertheless, while on set, it was self-deprecatingly amusing to be told by the director, “Don’t call yourself an extra. The real extras will get upset.”

The whole experience is quite an identity crisis. When faced with an extras job, the usual practice is to do as you are told to an extent, but the rest of the time is spent trying to be noticed on camera. If lucky, the director will not see your extremely melodramatic face-palm or hear your exalted gasp. Of course, some people (including me) try to be in shot more than the other extras (all right, particularly me). This type of person is well represented by Gervais’ character. By contrast, the ultimate goal for an extra is to be the smug git who will come up to you, a poor extra forced into the background, with the news “I’ve got a line!” The second objective is to be in a position to schmooze the actors between takes.

The key to being an extra is to remember just one thing; as an extra, you are technically furniture, but useless, as the actors cannot sit on you. On set, it may be a shock to learn that the most important and glorious position of all is actually the man who brings the tea and biscuits.

Originally published in Impact on 14/01/08

Hitman is essentially the story of Timothy Olyphant (last seen in Die hard 4.0) as Agent 47, going about his daily business as a silent assassin while Dougray Scott (of Desperate Housewives) as Interpol agent Mike Whittier, a detective who knows everything about “our boy” with the exception of how to catch him. The action of the film takes place when Agent 47s anonymous employer sends him to assassinate the Russian President.

The whole idea behind the character of Agent 47 is that he is a ghost, and is nothing more than a cold-hearted killer. However, instead of this cruel menacing figure we are presented with less of a killing machine than a curt C3PO, made all so much worse when Olga Kurylenko is thrown into the script in order to act as “generic love interest” in the role of stereotypical Russian whore Nika Boronina. Some lines are so incredibly trite, it is likely that James Bond himself would have rolled his eyes; while attempting to be grittier than Daniel Craig, Olyphant comes across as cheesier than Pierce Brosnan.

The main problem with Hitman is that it seems to have an identity crisis. While players of the game will be mildly amused at the various self-conscious references to the game, the film is not content, and is determined to steal from every other action film in existence. In some cases, Agent 47 adopts the guise of Rambo, and can somehow magically dispatch twenty enemies in a number of seconds, while using camera techniques lifted from The Matrix.

However, despite the mindless violence, there is some trace of a good story. Robert Knepper gives an excellent performance as “typical dodgy Russian police chief” and so does Michael Offei as Whittier’s police partner. Action scenes, of which there are many, are well shot and awe-inspiring, but drag the pace down rather than keep the viewer interested.

For all its flaws, Hitman does pull itself together enough to make a passable movie, but despite the intended plot complications, the real question is how a film with this level of violence can get a certificate of 15.