Gibt es Leben auf dem Mars?

I was discussing American remakes of British shows with a friend of mine the other day when I mentioned how much I enjoyed the American version of Life on Mars. I was a fan of the British version, and was dreading the American remake, but I was rather pleasantly surprised.

Generally speaking, American remakes annoy me. The actual shows annoy me, and the very fact that they exist annoys me. Americans are smart enough to deal with other accents and cultures (or, at least, they should be), and I do not like the fact that their self-appointed nannies (viz., the studio executives, network bosses and publishers) feel it is their responsibility to make sure Americans never have to deal with other cultures.

They say Americans can't deal with foreign accents, British humour, products they can't find on their own shelves or subtitles. I think most Americans probably could, if they were given half a chance. So often the American versions are practically identical to the original - they even use the same scripts, barely changing more than one or two words. This has the effect of making the American version feel like a cheap copy. It's the same show, only badly acted for the sake of a population who, apparently, can't cope with irony or subtlety.

Original American shows can be as challenging, interesting and full of irony and subtlety as the overseas programmes they theoretically can't cope with. So, if they can rise to the challenge of their own shows, and they can cope with a copy that's practically identical to the British original, why on earth would anyone assume they can't cope with the British original? Nine times out of ten, the American remake is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. And then it only lasts one season anyway, no one likes it, and they cancel it. After that, of course they aren't going to show the British version, are they? After all, Americans didn't even like the American version.

Oh, but if only our sad little story could end there. No, American networks sell their television programmes to other countries in packages, and they make sure they sell these remakes in those packages (must make money somehow). So, here in Australia, we often get to see the crappy American remake no-one liked long before anyone thinks to import the British original. By then, we've already seen all of the major plot-lines and jokes done badly. It doesn't matter how good the British original might be, it's already a little bit spoiled.

Ah, American cultural imperialism - making sure everything is crappy for everyone on a global level.

I had heard about Life on Mars a year or so before it actually came to Australia. When I first read about it, the second season of the British version had already screened in Britain, and the American remake was in the works. I suspected we'd probably get the American version before someone bought the British version, and was pleasantly surprised when we got both seasons of the British version on ABC (which once stood for "Another British Comedy", but changed in recent decades to "Another British Crimeshow") before the American version was screened by one of the commercial stations.

The more I saw of the British version, the more I liked it - and the more I worried about how badly the American version was going to kill it.

I have this hope, you see. It never leaves me, in spite of previous experiences. This hope is that, if the Americans are going to go to the bother of remaking something, they'll at least make something significantly different and interesting in it's own right - something that justifies the fact that they didn't just watch the original. I am usually let down, and the first episode of the US LoM implied I was going to be let down again. Then I watched the second episode, and they started to shake things up a little bit. By the time I watched the third episode, I realised that someone had finally done what I always hoped an American remake would do - they had taken a few of the plot points and concepts from the original, but had used them in a new and interesting way rather than simply re-hashing the original with American accents.

Now, LoM is one of the few shows that actually warranted an American remake. Part of the hook of the British show was the fact that it drew on the nostalgia Gen Xers have for London as they saw it on TV shows from the 70s. It was, as the creators often said, a show set in a 1970s cop show world. I didn't grew up in London in the 70s, but I did watch a lot of British repeats in the 80s, so I was very familiar with this world. That was part of the reason why the show hooked me so deeply.

Americans, of course, would be much less familiar with London cop shows from the 70s. Their own cop shows showed a completely different world. The culture was different, the clothes were different, the music was different and the racial mix was different. It made perfect sense to remake that programme for an American audience using 1970s New York as the setting. Apart from the first episode, which was largely copied from the original, the rest of the show seemed to grow organically from this new place. It was a different show, which seemed to be dancing with with the original rather than imitating it. I loved it.

I also loved the fact that the ending really annoyed me. I know that sounds weird, but the ending of the original really annoyed me, and the American version annoyed me just as much but for completely different reasons. Different ending, equally annoying. Loved it. Besides, I don't think it's possible to end that show (no matter where you set it) in a good way. All endings would be ultimately annoying.

Anyway, I've been thinking lately that I'd love to see a German remake of the show. London in the 70s may be strikingly different to London today. New York in the 70s may be strikingly different to New York today. But Berlin? That practically was a different planet. Imagine a cop getting hit by a car in modern Berlin and waking up on the Eastern side of the wall in 1973? Not only is he solving crimes in the "dark ages" (technologically speaking), but he's gone from being in Western Europe during the time of the Eurozone to being in a Soviet country at the tail end of the Cold War.

Now that would be a very interesting show to watch.

Shooters and Fishers

Well, we've gone and elected ourselves a hung parliament.

That means we don't have an elected government until they've sorted out the preferences, which is kind of fun, and not entirely new. After all, we haven't had an elected Prime Minister for the past couple of months.

Anyway, the way I look at it I can't complain. After all, I deliberately wasted my votes this year.

I often deliberately waste my votes. I'm worse than a swing voter, I'm an anarchic one. Every once in a while I'll care who gets into power because I'll actually believe that one party is worse than the other, but most of the time I believe we get offered a choice between red jelly-fish and blue jelly-fish. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you're still going to get a jelly-fish.

Last election, I cared. Phillip Rudd ran a campaign I could actually respect. This never happens in Australian politics. I can't stand politicians who spend most of their time telling me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy - please just stick to telling me why I should vote for you!

Now, Rudd did a little bit of "don't vote for the other guy", but most of his campaign focused on "this is what I want to do". Sure, most of it was rubbish and he couldn't deliver in the time frame he thought he could, but it was still someone standing up and saying "vote for me because I think I can do something" rather than "vote for me because the other guy is trying to sell us to crack addicted cannibals". The mud slinging and fear mongering were pretty much all from the side of the Liberals, last time.

This time, everyone was doing it. Back to the "red jelly-fish or blue jelly-fish" selection. So I went back to voting anarchically.

In past years, when I really didn't care one way or another, I used to randomly select my candidates based on some arbitrary and pointless quality - for example, whoever had the most Ls in their name. Then I started really hating everyone in both of the major parties, and went for the Democrats just because they weren't the other guys - and then, of course, the Democrats imploded. After that I started voting for minor parties that didn't have a hope of winning. I make a point of choosing whomever I believe will not win under any circumstances and voting for them.

Last election, I wanted Labour to win, so I voted for them. This election I preferred Labour to Liberal, but the Labour candidate for my area was someone I couldn't vote for in good conscience. The man was mayor of the town for 12 years and the number of things he did for the region can be counted on one hand.

The thing about Federal Elections is that people tend to forget they are local elections. You aren't really voting for the prime minister, you are voting for your local member of parliament. If the local Labour candidate is the worst candidate on the list, then sensible people don't vote for him. Thus, they don't vote for Labour.

So this year, for the House of Representatives, I had the choice of voting for the candidate I didn't want (Labour), the party I didn't want (Liberal), the party I don't respect (Family First) or the party I don't care about - which hadn't even bothered to advertise their candidate in my area (Greens). Fine choice. I went with the nobodies I didn't care about, obviously.

Then for the Senate I just picked a party that a) didn't have a hope of winning, b) amused me and b) had the opposite views to the party I voted for on the other ballot. I may as well go for balance. It's not like I've got anything else to go for.

So, for the first time in my life, I voted for the Shooters and Fishers Party. I'd never heard of them before, they would probably never have a hope in hell of having any influence on the government and you couldn't get further away from the Greens if you tried.

Plus, the name amused me greatly. "Shooters and Fishers Party". One day I'm going to start up my own political party and call it the "Legalise Ferrets Party". We'll largely stand for making ferret ownership legal in Queensland, but just to ensure we can also be relevant to other states and territories we'll also make a point of campaigning to stamp out daft laws across the country.

Of course, today I actually looked up the Shooters and Fishers Party and discovered they campaign against national parks (of which I'm quite fond), so now I wish I'd voted for the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party.

Interestingly, the Shooters and Fishers ended up with 1,490 votes in my district alone for this election (the Fishing and Lifestyle Party blitzed past them on 2,411), but no one voted for the actual candidates. This means that approximately another 1,489 people also thought "what the heck" and just ticked the party box on the ballot paper. Sixty-one of them went to the same polling place I did. All up, 73,174 people voted for them. Some may have even done so on purpose.

Next time I'll try voting for the Citizens Electoral Council or the Socialist Alliance - they tied for bottom place in my district on 55 votes a piece. Either that or the Legalise Ferrets Party.

Go the LFP!

Mudila - or - Yin, Yang and Laulud

So, I found this site yesterday that is...

Well, it's...

That's to say it's...

Well, it just is.

Have you ever encountered something that was so awful you want to tell everyone how bad it is, yet so useful that you also want to recommend it to people?

I'm not talking about one of those "so bad it's good" kind of things, where the awfulness is actually the charm, but rather something that is equally bad and good.

This site is the source of my bipolarisation:

http://mudila.lastekas.ee/

It's a site designed to help Estonian kids improve their language skills. It has songs, games and activities as well as sections where you can work on learning vocabulary. It's clearly designed for children between the ages of three and six, and has the option of using subtitles in Estonian or Russian, so I'd say it's probably intended for Estonian preschoolers.

It's terrible. Really and truly terrible. The songs are awful, the animation is terrible, the games are designed in such a way that you can't repeat the question (or the answer, if you missed it), the animation is terrible, the music is inane, there are no explanations for anything and the animation is terrible.

Did I mention that the animation is terrible?

And yet...

And yet it's actually quite useful. The option to play "easy" games entirely within the Estonian vocabulary (no English language support at all) was fantastic. I found the songs and games helped to reinforce some of my existing vocabulary and expand on it with new words that I could work out from the context (and then confirm using a dictionary). Repeating the songs and games helped it to sink in a little better, and even just pottering around on the site for half-an-hour made me feel like I was making progress.

So, I'd play a game, or watch a song, and think, "Oh, good lord, that was horrible - I must do that again." At no point did it get any less horrible, but I actually had to drag myself away.

The whole site is like an exercise in Yin and Yang. The horribleness and the usefulness hugging tightly to each other, with a little bit of the useful within the horrible, and a little bit of the horrible within the useful.

Then again, maybe I'm just desperate for interactive resources that are beyond the "hey, let's introduce you to this crazy language" stage, but not as advanced as everything else I can find.

All I want, people, is for someone to remake French in Action in Estonian and make it a bit more computer friendly. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, I know there's Eesti Keel ja Meel, which is trying to do the French in Action thing with the framing story (right down to the blond chick in the long skirts), but it really doesn't have the same approach to vocabulary. In FiA, they would grab the key vocabulary and phrases and repeat them in multiple contexts with different people (and a mime). EKjM wastes valuable time each "episode" showing you pretty pictures of the countryside when it could be giving you extra vocabulary/grammar lessons. The exercises you can do aren't really as good as multiple and varied exposure to the vocabulary.

That said, I don't mind EKjM. I think the way they are trying to do the FiA framing story is kind of cute. It just feels like they couldn't quite figure out if they wanted to create a language programme or a tourism brochure.

At least that Mudila thing knows what it is. It's not a very good whatever it is, but it's not trying to sell you the "Visit Estonia!" package at the same time. Maybe Estonian preschoolers aren't on the "Visit Estonia!" hit list.

Stylin'

Every now and then, for no real reason, I just like going to work dressed like I'm a character from Neighbours in 1992.

Not a specific character, mind. It's not like I set out to be one of the Blakeney twins, or anything. I just assemble an outfit, take one look in the mirror and think: "Man, I look like I was dressed by whoever was styling the cast of Neighbours in the early 90s".

It's a combination of factors, you see. My pants sit higher than the fashion would dictate (especially when I'm holding them up with braces), and look more and more like they would fit in better in the early 1990s as the colour fades. They're also a bit long and instead of letting the cuffs get ripped from dragging along the ground (as is more the current fashion) I roll them up - also a bit symptomatic of the early 1990s. White sneakers and socks? Barely out of the 1980s. White v-neck T-Shirt? Well, quite frankly that could belong to any given era, but the fact that it isn't a fitted T knocks it back into the last century.

And then, to top it all off: the vest. I think the vest actually comes from the 1990s. I bought it years ago from a "vintage clothing store". It's one of the few things I own that might have been vaguely trendy, once. Most of my other clothes were born dorky.

So, a black vest over a white T-Shirt/blue jeans combo with white socks and sneakers, high cut pants and rolled up pant cuffs (and braces - not that anyone really notices that bit)...

All I need is a pork-pie hat and I could move right into Ramsey Street, circa 1992. Or maybe Degrassi High, although I think I might be a bit too dorky for that.

I see this and think: "Hey, my sense of style is clearly 18 years out of date. How much fun is that?" And then can't be bothered changing. Sadly, I'm somewhat aware that this is probably the sharpest I've looked all week. Plus, no one at work actually notices, which says volumes about the way I usually dress.

Mind you, I still have a hankering to come to work dressed like I'm a background character from Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman one day. I wonder if anyone will notice?

Well, they're bound to notice the skirt, because I can't wear a skirt to work without every second person commenting on the momentous occasion (which is one of the reasons why I rarely wear skirts), but would they notice the rest of the anachronism? That's the question.

Beastly things

For the Slide Show of Doom I was putting together for Open Day, I had the brief of finding "interesting YouTube clips about libraries" and peppering them throughout. Now, if you are a librarian, there are plenty of YouTube clips about libraries which you may personally find "interesting", but which, on reflection, aren't really suitable for the general public.

I found a clip stolen from the Disney production of The Music Man, starring Matthew Broderick and Kristin Chenoweth (who I loved in West Wing and was the only person worth watching in RV). It was one of the spate of classic musicals remade for TV by Disney during the early 2000s, and the clip I found was, of course, the "Marian the Librarian" number - which was brilliant. Only, it went for over seven minutes, and I wanted exactly 14 seconds' worth. Just the exchange leading to the punchline:

"What would you like to take out?
"The librarian."

The various means I had at hand for keeping and cutting the clip simply would not work with the PowerPoint slide I was putting together. Every time I thought I'd managed to side-step one problem, it wouldn't work for a completely different reason. In the end, I had to forgo using that clip because I just couldn't get everything to work together for free, and I'd already wasted enough time downloading programs that looked helpful, but weren't. However, I found myself left with a desire to watch the rest of the movie.

I have to admit I've never seen The Music Man, but only pieces of it. I was hoping to correct that over the weekend, but the three DVD rental shops I tried didn't have any version - Disney or original. And, yet, I was in the right frame of mind for a musical (which seems to be a permanent condition these days - I've spent the last four weekends in a row watching musicals). In particular, I wanted a musical with the same feel as the one I couldn't watch - which was harder than I thought as my personal collection didn't have anything I'd consider in the same vein. So, I ended up watching Beauty and the Beast, because it was the closest thing I could find.

Now, I haven't seen the movie version of Beauty and the Beast for a good ten years or so, but a few years ago I watched the stage version, as performed by one of the local amateur theatrical companies. I had bought two tickets on speculation, assuming I'd be able to rope someone into coming along with me, and I ended up seeing it with Conor, who was in town for his holidays. Conor's father was working on a new subject for the Humanities department concerning horror movies*, and while Conor was in town he had been watching through a stack of horror films with his father. He made the comment about how seeing a musical based on a romantic Disney cartoon would probably just seem freaky and weird after watching all of the blood and gore and terror...

The show was actually rather underwhelming, due to a woefully miscast Beast. He really didn't bring anything to the show, and you have to believe in the Beast if it's going to work.

Sitting down to watch the movie again, I was struck by two things: Firstly, it really is rather beautiful to watch. It was one of the first Disney films where they used a combination of computer animation (to create "three dimensional" renderings for the foregrounds and rooms) and hand-painted backgrounds (to show the French provincial countryside), and it's absolutely gorgeous. The years have been kind to the technology used, and it doesn't look dated at all.

Secondly, we've probably reached the point with CG animation that you could easily remake the film as "live action" - imagine what Weta could do with the special effects for the Beast and the talking furniture.

As I was thinking this, it suddenly occurred to me that the whole Beauty and the Beast saga was actually a horror story gone horribly wrong. The "haunted castle", the man transformed into a hideous, ferocious wolf-like thing, the corner of the woods where nothing good can live or grow, the innocent girl who wanders into the woods and finds herself in the unfortunate position of being the chosen Bride of the Monster...

But then it suddenly turns into a romance and they all live happily ever after.

If they did make a live-action version of Beauty and the Beast, they really should make it scarier. It needs a few good scares.

As it was, the film I watched wasn't exactly the film I remembered. It was some "special edition" jobby with an added musical number/scene. Interestingly, this new scene addressed one of my main peeves with many romantic movies - the lack of "getting to know you" moments. I just can't buy the love story if I don't have some indication that the characters have actually had a couple of conversations at some point. The new scenes added to B&B gave the impression they actually spent quite a bit of time in each other's company, making it more believable that they might fall for each other.

Yet, at the same time, it annoyed me - just like the "Special Edition" of Bednobs and Broomsticks annoyed me. I sat down to watch a favourite film from my childhood, only to find it wasn't the same film - and I hadn't been given the option to watch the film I knew. That's the thing that irks me most about "Special Editions" - the people who make them are so convinced that we'll be happy to see "more" that they don't even consider the fact that we might want to see the old version. That's why Star Wars fans all hate the Special Editions of the original trilogy - no one responsible for the DVDs understood the fact that the fans just wanted to see the best and cleanest version of the films they new and loved.

This post isn't actually going anywhere, it has to be said. I largely started it for a chance to share my favourite lines from B&B:

"New, and a bit alarming./ Who'd have ever thought that this could be?/ True, that he's no prince charming,/ But there's something in him that I simply didn't see..."

And

"I use antlers in all of my decorating."

I don't know why those are my favourite lines, they just are.


* I know that I'm not really one to talk, as I took his subject on "Science Fiction, Fantasy and Popular Culture", but horror movies? As a course in a university degree? Really?

He said, "Jenny..."

Well, the other night I sat down at my computer to work on my thesis, and accidentally made this instead:

He Said, "Jenny..."

Don't ask me how someone can accidentally make something like that, just blame Apple and their inclusion of Garage Band on all computers and laptops.

The voice doesn't quite match the music at times because I recorded it first and then found sounds to layer over it. I made the background a bit too loud to try to compensate. You get that.

Needless to say, the thesis isn't exactly progressing according to schedule.

Year's Mind

Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of my grandmother's death, and it completely slipped my mind.

The scratched record that masquerades as my brain has been skipping a lot lately, and I have to admit I'd barely noticed it was August, let alone remembered that the fourth of August was the day my grandmother died last year.

I had vaguely remembered her birthday was coming up, and reminded myself that I didn't need to think of a present this year, but the other date slipped my notice completely.

In fact, I wouldn't have noticed it at all except that my mother asked me if I was okay with it. She was worried I might have needed some sympathy or something - and was relieved when it was obvious I had completely failed to notice the significance of the date. We don't really do sympathy in my family. We much prefer to make inappropriate comments and drink tea while switching to more practical conversation topics.

We got this somewhat abrupt approach to life from my grandmother, so I doubt she could complain too much if it kicked in on the first anniversary of her death.

Strangely, I had been feeling a weird urge to do something nice for my mother all afternoon. I wanted to buy her flowers or cook a nice dinner or something. For no real reason, or so I thought, I just wanted to make her feel noticed. In the end, I only had a couple of hours between work and a study group, and I felt too tired to go out of my way for the flowers and I only had time to buy take-away for dinner (which was what I was supposed to do anyway).

After my mother reminded me of the date, I wondered whether this urge to do something nice was my subconscious trying to tell me I should have been asking her if she needed sympathy. Lord knows my conscious mind is never that thoughtful; it would be nice to think my subconscious mind has at least some consideration for others.

I have to admit that, even after my mother reminded me of the date, it wasn't so much the loss of my grandmother that struck me as the loss of time. A whole year has passed. It doesn't really seem possible. I guess that's what happens when you don't pay attention.