A long time ago there was, you may recall, a craze for little books of inspiration sayings and a host of parodies too. One such was Rohan Candappa's Little Book of Wrong Shui which promises to tell you "How to drastically improve your life by basically moving stuff around. Honest."
Here are some pearls from that book:
Beams are Bad:
Beams are exceedingly bad Wrong Shui. Steer clear of anyone who beams at you. They are invariably untrustworthy. Or come from California.
Nipping the Problem in the Bud:
If you are having trouble with your neighbours, try to heal the rift by planting a soothing hedge of Leylandii between your properties.
Eggsistentialism:
Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Use an egg box like everyone else and stop being such a poser.
Interior Design:
Always try to keep your lungs positioned above your kidneys.
I'm not terribly sure how to review The Hobbit. It's a book to which I return again and again and know so well, it's hard to read it with a critic's eye - or to want to do so. It's also a book that's so well known (even ahead of the new films) that providing a synopsis seems to be of limited value.
This time through I was struck by two things, though. First I was reminded how much of a book for children it is: something I tend to forget. As narrator, Tolkien makes a number of asides to reader over and above the expository sections. The second thing that struck me this time is where the story hints at it's darker edge.
The first of these things has long been considered a problem in the filming of The Hobbit, particularly in light of the Middle Earth created by Peter Jackson in the Lord of the Rings films. Indeed, the lighter tone of The Hobbit itself is the reason why Jackson decided to make two films and to bring in material from other Tolkien sources.
The second, of course, offers the film-maker the opportunity to mine the story further - and to create a world more in keeping with that of Tolkien's later books. There were a number of occasions where I thought "oh, that could be exploited more in the film" and I look forward to seeing that realised.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a confession to make.
For all my professed love of The Muppets, the truth is I've never seen much of them. I know I loved them as a child but can't truly remember them. Added to that, I've never seen a Muppet film (the cinema didn't feature in my childhood).
So, much as I wanted to see the latest Muppet film, I was also a bit worried it would disappoint. There were three main causes for concern. 1) I have a general dislike of "family films" - particularly American family films; and 2) I was worried about the mix of animation and actors, even if this is a long-standing Muppet technique; and 3) I am sceptical about film musicals.
Reader, I shouldn't have worried. Yes, the story was schmaltzy family fare. Yes, it had live action with comic actors. Yes it was an unashamed musical. But above all, it knew it was all these things. It knew it had to not take itself too seriously and it did this with aplomb.
The tone was set early when Gary (Jason Segal) and his Muppet brother Walter complete the first song and dance number (Life's a Happy Song). At the end, Segal presents his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) with a bunch of flowers pulled from his suit with words to the effect of "Sorry they're a bit crushed, that will be the number I've just done."
And so Gary, Mary and Walter head off to Los Angeles where Walter is keen to visit The Muppet Studios and see the place where his heroes trod the boards. The studios, though, have gone to rack and ruin and - even worse - the new owner plans not to turn them into a Muppet Museum but to drill for oil. Cue much maniacal laughter. Cue, also, an attempt to get The Muppets back together to raise $10m to buy back the studios.
The film has a lightness of touch and sense of humour which transcends the more sentimental moments. You'll come out singing "Life's a Happy Song" but here's the Oscar Winning "Man or Muppet":
It's April Fools Day and, as I can't beat The Observer's story about Shaun Ryder being invited to advise Cameron and Co on how to present their policies to the Working Classes, I've opted for a particularly apt song from 1956 - Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers.
I must confess that, although I obviously knew the song, I didn't know who sang it or anything about him. The track was released when Frankie Lymon was just 13 and appears to have been the highlight in his career: he broke from The Teenagers just over a year later, his solo career did not reach the same heights of success.
But it was his personal life which was really tragic: he was addicted to heroin at age 15, dishonourably discharged from the Army at 24, and married 3 times (although he disputed the legitimacy on one of those marriages). He died of a heroin overdose at just 25 despite having been "clean" for some years. Ironically, he was celebrating a new record deal.
You can read more about him here, meanwhile here he is with Why Do Fools Fall In Love?:
The latest of the K25 treats has been unveiled (you can see the previous ones here). Rather than being from the acoustic set at Abbey Roads, this time we get to see a happy and relaxed Kylie rehearsing for one of her Anti-tour shows in Melbourne (and, in a few days, the UK).
The opposite of the big budget Arena tours, these are small shows featuring less well known songs;- b-sides, demos and rarities. Designed to have an intimate and noncommercial feel, the gigs sound like absolutely amazing nights.
Here is the lady herself singing "I Don't Need Anyone", which was on the Impossible Princess album (released as "Kylie Minogue" in the aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales):
