Dear Terry,
Your show just perpetuates the perceptions of the masses in their right wing extremes of thought and deed, in your continued insistence of including a ‘religious slot’ in your programme. I realise the deft delicacy of its presentation is designed not to offend any particular religion; especially so in these modern times where religious extremists would use any means of interpretation to twist the words in such a fashion as to appear to have an opposing meaning.
However, in your perceived ‘softly softly’ approach in likewise twisting words around into various wholesome shapes, you have omitted to be inclusive in your supposed all encompassing presentation.
I will have you know that The Devil himself listens in to your show every day, but woe betide Hell’s Controller of Radio Transmissions if she should fail to switch off at the appropriate time, when your appointed ‘preachers of all things good slot’ is aired.
I have known The Devil now for 104 years, having sold him my soul in exchange for a life of eternity, and I can tell you here that he is a very reasonable entity and fair in all decisions of Hellish importance.
But when you air your supposed ‘all encompassing religious slot’ he fumes more than is normal for him.
As a big fan of Radio 2 and specifically The Wogan show, he can’t understand why this exclusion?! 10 years ago he would not have batted any of his eyelids at this affront, but in these times of ‘add all ingredients to the recipe to make sure we include all tastes and flavours’ he feels especially affronted.
I’ll have you know that The Devil is an entity of some no small taste and culture; fully realising that if you mix all the colours of the rainbow together you get ‘brown.’ Similarly, if you mix all the world’s ingredients together you will only create the culinary equivalent of ‘brown.’ (Incidentally he uses this analogy when getting off on one of his political diatribes. Only replace lower case ‘b’ with capital ‘B’ in the word ‘brown.’) BUT even so, fully aware of the ‘all-things-to-all-men’ resultant recipe and its vomit inducing creation, he WILL NOT tolerate being left out of the list of ingredients.
It is to this end that he has asked me to write to you in order for you to flex your muscles in exerting pressure on the powers that be within the BBC.
His gratitude will be in the form of granting you five more years as a mortal upon this earth. I’d say that was a bloody good deal, especially given your advanced years and poor health.
He’s wicked isn’t he? But I suppose that’s what makes him so good.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Rebus Novels of Ian Rankin
The Rebus Novels of Ian Rankin
As a good friend of actor John Hannah, it’s been a difficult few months trying to pull him out of his depression, since his being ousted in the role of Ian Rankin’s rogue policeman Inspector Rebus.
His replacement is that fat bloke Ken Stott, who plays himself, playing Rebus as some manic cartoon creation who would be more at home as the painted baddie in the next Batman movie.
Luckily I am not alone in my desire to see the role of Rebus once more played by John (Hannah) and it is to this end that myself and a number of senior TV executives have formed a production company to make this a reality.
Up until now we have kept our plans pretty much ‘under wraps’ as the yanks would say, but we have now decided to go public on our campaign due to a letter received last week from the creator of Rebus, Ian Rankin.
He has made it very clear that our campaign ‘is doomed from the start’ and will exercise legal proceedings to ensure the integrity of his creation and the continuance of Stott in the starring role.
This is not something we are going to give up so easily on, especially as we don’t respond well to threats from the likes of Rankin and his cohort Stott.
We feel that John (Hannah) was the right man for the job. Just look at the viewing figures when he was in the starring role – nine million at its peak!
Stott’s creation is such a grotesque presentation of a policeman and totally unbelievable in his portrayal to such a degree that the producers have managed to create a character so far removed from a real police inspector to such an extent that it would be more appropriate to have ‘Rebus’ as a cartoon series, voiced by Mel Blanc, if he were still alive to provide such a service.
What I find most offensive is the portrayal of Rebus as an out-and-out alcoholic. The producers have been very cynical in making a point of enhancing this aspect of his character in a cruel dig at John Hannah’s personal real-life struggle to combat the demon drink, since being unceremoniously tossed aside like some human detritus.
It is no laughing matter to see a good friend lying in the gutter, covered in his own vomit and faeces, when he has done nothing wrong and in fact, it could be argued that he has done everything right!
We fully accept that the character of Rebus was created by Ian Rankin. We do not dispute that fact. We also accept that all rights to Rebus and its television adaptation have already been granted.
However, armed with these facts, we have decided to proceed with our own independent production, with John Hannah in the starring role; filming to start in January 2007.
As you are no doubt aware, John has been admitted to The Priory for a course of intensive treatment. But we are wholly confident that he will be fully fit and ready to ‘grasp the mettle’ when filming starts early next year.
We liken this unusual scenario to a similar situation a few years back when we had two ‘Bonds’ - Roger Moore and Sean Connery playing the same character in two ‘Bond’ films released at the very same time. Both films were a success and generally accepted by the viewing public.
We say, in similar circumstances, ‘let the public decide.’
Obviously, due to threats of legal action By Mr. Rankin, Stott and other nameless goons, we have had to make a few changes to the character of Rebus to avoid ‘confusion’ with the original creation and the subsequent televisual representation of the character in the flabby shape of Stott.
This has now been achieved and agreed, in the almost completed screenplay for the pilot episode of ‘Trebus’ which has been penned by myself – successful creator of ‘Operation South Downs’ and ‘Quigley Cuts Down.’
Edmund Trebus, Polish émigré and resident of Haringey in North London, is a police inspector on the edge. Chain smoking his trademark ‘roll ups’ he is a thorn in the side of his employers, who frown upon his unorthodox methods of crime fighting but generally give him a free reign, as his methods prove successful in reducing crime in the borough of Haringey and its environs.
Living alone in a large dilapidated house, he collects and collates evidence and crime samples, storing them throughout his abode, to such a degree that his home has become an unofficial extension of the police forensics lab.
Trebus is a big Elvis Presley fan and as such, the new series will feature some of Elvis’s most famous recordings as an accompaniment to the opening titles, the closing titles and to accompany the dramatic police chases featured in the opening pilot and also proposed for future episodes.
We didn’t want the character of Trebus to come across as a complete ‘hard man’ especially as we have him as living alone; his family having deserted him years previously due to his dedication to fighting crime. So we have decided that he will have a pet rat called ‘Peelie’, which will be the sole subject of his affection in the first series of ‘Trebus.’ We hope to introduce a ‘love interest’ in the second series, should the first series prove popular with the viewing public. More of that later.
We are already having successful talks with an American TV network. (my influential contacts across the water pulling strings on our behalf).
And we are hopeful in having a deal signed in the next few weeks, after approval of the screenplay.
One American television executive said it all when he stated, and I quote:
‘John Hannah?!! Loved the guy in Four Weddings. If I was queer, he’d be the guy inside my pants! Stole the show in The Mummy. And Acted the pants off Fraser in The Mummy Returns! So who the f**k’s this guy Stoat?!!’
Quite…..
Much like that successful police series ‘Kojak’ with the catchphrase ‘Who loves ya baby!’ Or the equally successful series ‘Hawaii Five-O’ with its catchphrase ‘Book him Danno, murder one.’ We have been asked by our American counterparts to come up with a similar catchy catchphrase for Trebus.
This was a tricky one. I mulled over its inception for a number of days; being directed in its creation solely by the nature of Trebus’s character.
I felt that the catchphrase should only be used when Trebus is in confrontational mode with either one of his fellow police officers or one of the hardened criminals he meets in the course of his crime fighting duties.
To this end, the catchphrase is a ‘put-me-down’ and will form the final ‘punch’ to the end of a scene or be placed just before a ‘cut-to’ instruction within the screenplay.
The words of the catchphrase will be ‘spat out’ by Trebus and will be preceded by him extracting the roll-up from the corner of his mouth before spitting out the words – ‘You couldn’t even get in Dad’s Army!!’
Make a note in your diary NOT TO MISS the opening pilot episode of ‘TREBUS’ pencilled in for its world television premiere late autumn 2007.
As a good friend of actor John Hannah, it’s been a difficult few months trying to pull him out of his depression, since his being ousted in the role of Ian Rankin’s rogue policeman Inspector Rebus.
His replacement is that fat bloke Ken Stott, who plays himself, playing Rebus as some manic cartoon creation who would be more at home as the painted baddie in the next Batman movie.
Luckily I am not alone in my desire to see the role of Rebus once more played by John (Hannah) and it is to this end that myself and a number of senior TV executives have formed a production company to make this a reality.
Up until now we have kept our plans pretty much ‘under wraps’ as the yanks would say, but we have now decided to go public on our campaign due to a letter received last week from the creator of Rebus, Ian Rankin.
He has made it very clear that our campaign ‘is doomed from the start’ and will exercise legal proceedings to ensure the integrity of his creation and the continuance of Stott in the starring role.
This is not something we are going to give up so easily on, especially as we don’t respond well to threats from the likes of Rankin and his cohort Stott.
We feel that John (Hannah) was the right man for the job. Just look at the viewing figures when he was in the starring role – nine million at its peak!
Stott’s creation is such a grotesque presentation of a policeman and totally unbelievable in his portrayal to such a degree that the producers have managed to create a character so far removed from a real police inspector to such an extent that it would be more appropriate to have ‘Rebus’ as a cartoon series, voiced by Mel Blanc, if he were still alive to provide such a service.
What I find most offensive is the portrayal of Rebus as an out-and-out alcoholic. The producers have been very cynical in making a point of enhancing this aspect of his character in a cruel dig at John Hannah’s personal real-life struggle to combat the demon drink, since being unceremoniously tossed aside like some human detritus.
It is no laughing matter to see a good friend lying in the gutter, covered in his own vomit and faeces, when he has done nothing wrong and in fact, it could be argued that he has done everything right!
We fully accept that the character of Rebus was created by Ian Rankin. We do not dispute that fact. We also accept that all rights to Rebus and its television adaptation have already been granted.
However, armed with these facts, we have decided to proceed with our own independent production, with John Hannah in the starring role; filming to start in January 2007.
As you are no doubt aware, John has been admitted to The Priory for a course of intensive treatment. But we are wholly confident that he will be fully fit and ready to ‘grasp the mettle’ when filming starts early next year.
We liken this unusual scenario to a similar situation a few years back when we had two ‘Bonds’ - Roger Moore and Sean Connery playing the same character in two ‘Bond’ films released at the very same time. Both films were a success and generally accepted by the viewing public.
We say, in similar circumstances, ‘let the public decide.’
Obviously, due to threats of legal action By Mr. Rankin, Stott and other nameless goons, we have had to make a few changes to the character of Rebus to avoid ‘confusion’ with the original creation and the subsequent televisual representation of the character in the flabby shape of Stott.
This has now been achieved and agreed, in the almost completed screenplay for the pilot episode of ‘Trebus’ which has been penned by myself – successful creator of ‘Operation South Downs’ and ‘Quigley Cuts Down.’
Edmund Trebus, Polish émigré and resident of Haringey in North London, is a police inspector on the edge. Chain smoking his trademark ‘roll ups’ he is a thorn in the side of his employers, who frown upon his unorthodox methods of crime fighting but generally give him a free reign, as his methods prove successful in reducing crime in the borough of Haringey and its environs.
Living alone in a large dilapidated house, he collects and collates evidence and crime samples, storing them throughout his abode, to such a degree that his home has become an unofficial extension of the police forensics lab.
Trebus is a big Elvis Presley fan and as such, the new series will feature some of Elvis’s most famous recordings as an accompaniment to the opening titles, the closing titles and to accompany the dramatic police chases featured in the opening pilot and also proposed for future episodes.
We didn’t want the character of Trebus to come across as a complete ‘hard man’ especially as we have him as living alone; his family having deserted him years previously due to his dedication to fighting crime. So we have decided that he will have a pet rat called ‘Peelie’, which will be the sole subject of his affection in the first series of ‘Trebus.’ We hope to introduce a ‘love interest’ in the second series, should the first series prove popular with the viewing public. More of that later.
We are already having successful talks with an American TV network. (my influential contacts across the water pulling strings on our behalf).
And we are hopeful in having a deal signed in the next few weeks, after approval of the screenplay.
One American television executive said it all when he stated, and I quote:
‘John Hannah?!! Loved the guy in Four Weddings. If I was queer, he’d be the guy inside my pants! Stole the show in The Mummy. And Acted the pants off Fraser in The Mummy Returns! So who the f**k’s this guy Stoat?!!’
Quite…..
Much like that successful police series ‘Kojak’ with the catchphrase ‘Who loves ya baby!’ Or the equally successful series ‘Hawaii Five-O’ with its catchphrase ‘Book him Danno, murder one.’ We have been asked by our American counterparts to come up with a similar catchy catchphrase for Trebus.
This was a tricky one. I mulled over its inception for a number of days; being directed in its creation solely by the nature of Trebus’s character.
I felt that the catchphrase should only be used when Trebus is in confrontational mode with either one of his fellow police officers or one of the hardened criminals he meets in the course of his crime fighting duties.
To this end, the catchphrase is a ‘put-me-down’ and will form the final ‘punch’ to the end of a scene or be placed just before a ‘cut-to’ instruction within the screenplay.
The words of the catchphrase will be ‘spat out’ by Trebus and will be preceded by him extracting the roll-up from the corner of his mouth before spitting out the words – ‘You couldn’t even get in Dad’s Army!!’
Make a note in your diary NOT TO MISS the opening pilot episode of ‘TREBUS’ pencilled in for its world television premiere late autumn 2007.
Monday, September 25, 2006
10 Years Older.
An interesting evening was spent last night at a private view, featuring a pilot for a new television series called ’10 Years Older.’
This has blatantly been developed ‘on the back’ of a previously successful television series called ’10 Years Younger’ presented by ‘style guru’ Nicky Hambleton-Jones.
The premise of the original series was to present a prematurely aged member of the public to a high street audience, who would guess at his or her age. This was followed by an intense schedule of treatments on this unfortunate person, including laser eye surgery, facial skin removal, botox injections, hair dyeing, facial hair removal, a new wardrobe of clothes and even plastic surgery!
They were then re-presented back on the streets for a further ‘guess-my-age’ session by members of the public, where undoubtedly their mean age would now be ’10 Years Younger’ and inevitably was.
The idea for the new series ’10 Years Older’ came from a 22 year old girl, who had written in to Channel 4 on a separate matter, complaining that she was always challenged when trying to get served alcohol at a public house.
Her problem is that she looks much younger than her years and wished that she could look ‘more mature.’
She was chosen as the ‘guinea pig’ for the pilot episode of ‘10 Years Older.’
I must say that she is bloody gorgeous, with the most perfect skin and a beautiful smile. A real natural beauty. Or at least she was.
On the first part of the programme, the public guessed her age at a mean 16 years old. One person actually thought she was just 14! The highest guess was all of 19.
The next part of the programme, which formed the bulk, was quite shocking.
I don’t believe I am doing a disservice here in revealing the content of the pilot, as it is unlikely to be commissioned by Channel 4.
(I have since heard that it may be taken up by one of the lesser satellite channels but in a heavily edited format.)
We found out that our young ‘guinea pig’ who I will call Claire, was regularly challenged in the pub when she tried to get served alcohol. She doesn’t actually drink alcohol herself, and on these occasions the alcoholic drinks were for her friends.
This was where our presenter, Paul Reynard-Grosse, concentrated his efforts initially.
He explained to young Claire the wonderfully beneficial benefits of alcohol in ‘maturing’ the interior as well as, crucially, the exterior features of one’s body.
Lager, in half pint measures over the first and second days, followed by pint measures on subsequent days, were consumed by Claire with much crying and no small amount of accompanying vomiting. But one could see the ‘beneficial’ effects quite noticeably on her features. Her complexion became flat and colourless and her hair, dank and lifeless. Even her previously sparkling eyes had lost most of their sparkle. Fantastic stuff!!
When she had reached a stage of being able to consume four pints every single day, Paul then added in another element to the recipe.
I liken Paul to an orchestral conductor, whereby the symphonic harmonies are built up slowly, instrument by instrument. In this case the first ‘instrument’ was the 'alcohol' followed then by the ‘crisps’ and then the ‘peanuts.’
Paul is a fantastic presenter and I’m sure he will ‘rise up’ in some other reality programme in the very near future. He has those necessary qualities of quiet manipulation and feigned sincerity that are a ‘must’ for any modern day presenter to acquire if they are to progress in this great industry of ours. Just look at Davina MacColl.
Claire, god bless her, actually gorged herself on multiple packets of hula-hoops and dry roasted peanuts with little complaint, as they naturally form a perfect accompaniment to beer or lager.
But there is one other ‘perfect accompaniment’ to the delights of alcohol that Paul kept up his sleeve until he deemed Claire was ready to accept it.
He needn’t have worried, she took to cigarettes like a duck to water.
Initially she was getting through maybe twenty Silk Cut Ultras a day, but soon moved up to Marlboro Lights and then amazingly Marlboro full strength or Camels, hitting a record thirty-three smoked in just one day. Pretty good going for someone who only started smoking just over two weeks ago.
But don’t think they spent all their time filming in public houses. They also visited MacDonalds and Burger King.
This should have been the easy part, but it just so turned out that Claire was also a vegetarian. This shouldn’t have been a problem as both burger outlets also stock a small number of vegetarian options; lettuce leaves and such. But Paul was having none of it! He insisted that she eat the ‘full monty’ – double cheeseburger twice with accompanying fries.
She couldn’t manage it and the wails of protest and tears were scaring off the regular punters. They were eventually ordered out of MacDonalds. The very same thing happened in Burger King.
So off they went, back to the pub to ‘soften’ her up with alcohol, prior to a further visit to each burger outlet.
Eventually it worked. (Now this was the bit that I found distasteful.)
Claire had consumed so much alcohol (you have to understand that she’d moved onto vodka and red bull with the occasional dark rum and coke) that she had collapsed in a heap, face down in her own vomit.
She was cleaned up somewhat before they all returned to MacDonalds.
Paul sat her down – he sat close by her side and the assistant cameraman sat on her other side. (to stop her falling over you see) This didn’t stop her falling forwards however, face down on the table, so they had someone called George kneel behind her pulling on her shirt, but out of view of the camera mostly.
This had the desired effect and she was then force fed the required items, in both burger outlets (some advertising tie up or agreement here I imagine) before they decanted back to the public house for further refreshment.
I’m sure you’re getting the picture by now. Very much more of the same.
Claire had been a regular gym member and visited usually three or four times a week. This was of course banned during the filming period. Claire eventually put on almost two stone in weight over the six weeks they took to film the pilot. I have to say it didn't sit well on her, but I suppose this could be considered a success.
They also tried her on some mild substance abuse, but her personality changed so drastically that they had to stop it. She couldn’t stop saying the word ‘c**t’ – which was bleeped out of course. I understand that there were so many instances of it, that it sounded like they’d been faked – a bit like on that Jeremy Beadle programme from a few years back. (funnily enough, Jeremy was in the invited audience, two rows in front of me)
The pilot show was an hour long, with an agreement that it would be cut down to half an hour in its regular format.
Anyway, when they eventually got back out onto the streets to ask the general public what they thought Claire’s age was, the end result was a foregone conclusion.
I have to add that the desired ageing of Claire was not all down to Paul and his team’s clever tactics. Near the end of the six weeks of filming, Claire was rushed to hospital with alcohol poisoning and had to have emergency surgery. She had only been out of hospital two days when she was ‘persuaded’ by Paul to complete the programme with the ‘guess my age’ spot in some anonymous shopping centre resembling Milton Keynes. (they all resemble Milton Keynes of course, as it was the model for all subsequent shopping centres built throughout the UK. But that’s another matter).
The result of her operation had a two fold effect. Yes, she’d managed to lose almost a stone of the weight she had put on over the filming period. But crucially, it had aged her features by at least another four years I would guess.
So when the mean age was revealed, as Paul and Claire drank coffee in some chic coffee bar, I felt a little cheated.
The mean age was revealed as 36 years. Though, as I said, I personally believe the hospitalisation and operation had added four years to Claire’s age. Therefore, if she hadn’t been hospitalised and we had been judging it purely on the work of Paul and his team, then the mean age would have been just 32 years – co-incidently ’10 Years Older’ than her real age.
Strange the way these things work out.
The end result is that Claire no longer has to worry about being challenged in public houses.
In the two months since the end of filming, she has managed to retain her looks and figure and, in fact, it could be argued that she has aged even more since then.
This has blatantly been developed ‘on the back’ of a previously successful television series called ’10 Years Younger’ presented by ‘style guru’ Nicky Hambleton-Jones.
The premise of the original series was to present a prematurely aged member of the public to a high street audience, who would guess at his or her age. This was followed by an intense schedule of treatments on this unfortunate person, including laser eye surgery, facial skin removal, botox injections, hair dyeing, facial hair removal, a new wardrobe of clothes and even plastic surgery!
They were then re-presented back on the streets for a further ‘guess-my-age’ session by members of the public, where undoubtedly their mean age would now be ’10 Years Younger’ and inevitably was.
The idea for the new series ’10 Years Older’ came from a 22 year old girl, who had written in to Channel 4 on a separate matter, complaining that she was always challenged when trying to get served alcohol at a public house.
Her problem is that she looks much younger than her years and wished that she could look ‘more mature.’
She was chosen as the ‘guinea pig’ for the pilot episode of ‘10 Years Older.’
I must say that she is bloody gorgeous, with the most perfect skin and a beautiful smile. A real natural beauty. Or at least she was.
On the first part of the programme, the public guessed her age at a mean 16 years old. One person actually thought she was just 14! The highest guess was all of 19.
The next part of the programme, which formed the bulk, was quite shocking.
I don’t believe I am doing a disservice here in revealing the content of the pilot, as it is unlikely to be commissioned by Channel 4.
(I have since heard that it may be taken up by one of the lesser satellite channels but in a heavily edited format.)
We found out that our young ‘guinea pig’ who I will call Claire, was regularly challenged in the pub when she tried to get served alcohol. She doesn’t actually drink alcohol herself, and on these occasions the alcoholic drinks were for her friends.
This was where our presenter, Paul Reynard-Grosse, concentrated his efforts initially.
He explained to young Claire the wonderfully beneficial benefits of alcohol in ‘maturing’ the interior as well as, crucially, the exterior features of one’s body.
Lager, in half pint measures over the first and second days, followed by pint measures on subsequent days, were consumed by Claire with much crying and no small amount of accompanying vomiting. But one could see the ‘beneficial’ effects quite noticeably on her features. Her complexion became flat and colourless and her hair, dank and lifeless. Even her previously sparkling eyes had lost most of their sparkle. Fantastic stuff!!
When she had reached a stage of being able to consume four pints every single day, Paul then added in another element to the recipe.
I liken Paul to an orchestral conductor, whereby the symphonic harmonies are built up slowly, instrument by instrument. In this case the first ‘instrument’ was the 'alcohol' followed then by the ‘crisps’ and then the ‘peanuts.’
Paul is a fantastic presenter and I’m sure he will ‘rise up’ in some other reality programme in the very near future. He has those necessary qualities of quiet manipulation and feigned sincerity that are a ‘must’ for any modern day presenter to acquire if they are to progress in this great industry of ours. Just look at Davina MacColl.
Claire, god bless her, actually gorged herself on multiple packets of hula-hoops and dry roasted peanuts with little complaint, as they naturally form a perfect accompaniment to beer or lager.
But there is one other ‘perfect accompaniment’ to the delights of alcohol that Paul kept up his sleeve until he deemed Claire was ready to accept it.
He needn’t have worried, she took to cigarettes like a duck to water.
Initially she was getting through maybe twenty Silk Cut Ultras a day, but soon moved up to Marlboro Lights and then amazingly Marlboro full strength or Camels, hitting a record thirty-three smoked in just one day. Pretty good going for someone who only started smoking just over two weeks ago.
But don’t think they spent all their time filming in public houses. They also visited MacDonalds and Burger King.
This should have been the easy part, but it just so turned out that Claire was also a vegetarian. This shouldn’t have been a problem as both burger outlets also stock a small number of vegetarian options; lettuce leaves and such. But Paul was having none of it! He insisted that she eat the ‘full monty’ – double cheeseburger twice with accompanying fries.
She couldn’t manage it and the wails of protest and tears were scaring off the regular punters. They were eventually ordered out of MacDonalds. The very same thing happened in Burger King.
So off they went, back to the pub to ‘soften’ her up with alcohol, prior to a further visit to each burger outlet.
Eventually it worked. (Now this was the bit that I found distasteful.)
Claire had consumed so much alcohol (you have to understand that she’d moved onto vodka and red bull with the occasional dark rum and coke) that she had collapsed in a heap, face down in her own vomit.
She was cleaned up somewhat before they all returned to MacDonalds.
Paul sat her down – he sat close by her side and the assistant cameraman sat on her other side. (to stop her falling over you see) This didn’t stop her falling forwards however, face down on the table, so they had someone called George kneel behind her pulling on her shirt, but out of view of the camera mostly.
This had the desired effect and she was then force fed the required items, in both burger outlets (some advertising tie up or agreement here I imagine) before they decanted back to the public house for further refreshment.
I’m sure you’re getting the picture by now. Very much more of the same.
Claire had been a regular gym member and visited usually three or four times a week. This was of course banned during the filming period. Claire eventually put on almost two stone in weight over the six weeks they took to film the pilot. I have to say it didn't sit well on her, but I suppose this could be considered a success.
They also tried her on some mild substance abuse, but her personality changed so drastically that they had to stop it. She couldn’t stop saying the word ‘c**t’ – which was bleeped out of course. I understand that there were so many instances of it, that it sounded like they’d been faked – a bit like on that Jeremy Beadle programme from a few years back. (funnily enough, Jeremy was in the invited audience, two rows in front of me)
The pilot show was an hour long, with an agreement that it would be cut down to half an hour in its regular format.
Anyway, when they eventually got back out onto the streets to ask the general public what they thought Claire’s age was, the end result was a foregone conclusion.
I have to add that the desired ageing of Claire was not all down to Paul and his team’s clever tactics. Near the end of the six weeks of filming, Claire was rushed to hospital with alcohol poisoning and had to have emergency surgery. She had only been out of hospital two days when she was ‘persuaded’ by Paul to complete the programme with the ‘guess my age’ spot in some anonymous shopping centre resembling Milton Keynes. (they all resemble Milton Keynes of course, as it was the model for all subsequent shopping centres built throughout the UK. But that’s another matter).
The result of her operation had a two fold effect. Yes, she’d managed to lose almost a stone of the weight she had put on over the filming period. But crucially, it had aged her features by at least another four years I would guess.
So when the mean age was revealed, as Paul and Claire drank coffee in some chic coffee bar, I felt a little cheated.
The mean age was revealed as 36 years. Though, as I said, I personally believe the hospitalisation and operation had added four years to Claire’s age. Therefore, if she hadn’t been hospitalised and we had been judging it purely on the work of Paul and his team, then the mean age would have been just 32 years – co-incidently ’10 Years Older’ than her real age.
Strange the way these things work out.
The end result is that Claire no longer has to worry about being challenged in public houses.
In the two months since the end of filming, she has managed to retain her looks and figure and, in fact, it could be argued that she has aged even more since then.
Operation South Downs - Part Three.
February 23rd 2001:
The latest from the “casting couch” has a certain young Mr. Depp “pencilled in” to play the archetypical American tourist, accidentally caught up in events far from home. (no “damp handshake” here I may add!).
I shall have to remain unofficial in my statements regarding his involvement until signatures have been exchanged.
His part wasn’t “officially” written within the first five drafts of the screenplay but it was expressed by the financiers that American interest in the project would be enhanced by the inclusion of a major American born, box office draw. Unfortunately, Depp was the only one they could muster.
No matter, I shan’t take these liberties with my script to heart. It is the industry norm when one is dealing with big money. And big money is what we need to recreate the floods of last year.
February 24th 2001:
So far we’ve managed to persuade a large number of the Lewes populous to allow their homes to be flooded again this summer for the sake of art. They were quite happy to accept large sums of money in exchange for the inconvenience; monies which will go towards the eventual renovation of their properties, most of which still remain in dire need of repair. I’m just so very glad we can be of help.
Of course if the precipitation proves to be as plentiful as last year then we may not need to recompense. We just turn up and start filming. Well here’s hoping!
February 25th 2001:
Young Depp came over from France to chat through the project. (he tried to write himself a bigger part of course!)
He has this annoying habit of speaking “frog” which has me all of a fluster given my grasping of only the tiniest smattering of “Franglais.” Didn’t get our relationship off on the steadiest of footings I don’t mind saying.
Anyway, thought I’d knock him down a peg or two.
You see, he fancies himself as a bit of a tennis player. (that much I picked up from his “frog” talk.) So I challenged him to a game right there on the spot!
So off we went. I said …”three sets?” He said ..”five.”… “No, you don’t understand.” I said with a wry smile. “It’ll only take three!” That wiped the smile off his face I can tell you.
Anyway, we had quite an audience. Lots of pretty young things had come to watch me thrash him soundly.
And they were definitely on my side too, the way they tried to put him off by staring at him so intently and sitting there with legs held apart, akimbo fashion.
So anyway, there we were, three sets later and I’d somewhat softened towards him. Decided to do the very British thing and let him win. I didn’t realise at the time that I’d decided on that particular course of action but it came to me later that, subconsciously, I’d obviously made that decision without my being aware of it. It’s a wonderful thing the human brain isn’t it?
So there I am, serving, two sets down, one five down in the third set, and at fifteen thirty. Cracking serve it was too, hit the frame of his racket at lightening speed and due to the ferocity of the serve, had enough momentum to come back over the net for a fluke point to him.
He shouts out “love deuce” and with that, all the pretty young things, clamp their legs together in unison. He couldn’t quite get the hang of the scoring system you see. Anyway, he won the next point to win the match.
I was full of admiration for the hordes of young British girls who flocked around him afterwards. I could see they were upset at my losing, yet they did the very British thing in congratulating him warmly – one more warmly than the others if rumours are to be believed.
March 2nd 2001:
Many kind wishes and congratulations have been received and have been warmly welcomed under the difficult circumstances that have constituted the past few weeks. I shan’t elucidate here as to specifics due to the legal ramifications surrounding the various rumours that have abounded and that will eventually be proved to be completely untrue.
Should you be aware of said rumours then you will surely realise their untrue nature. And should you NOT be aware of same, then I shall not waste my time and yours, repeating them here.
But please be assured that everything is running completely on schedule. I run a very tight ship!
March 3rd 2001:
One piece of good news regarding that Depp chap. Due, no doubt, to the cunning shown by my own disregard for glory in having let him beat me at tennis; I can now officially declare that his signature was forthcoming this very morning and he is now completely and officially a member of the “dream team.”
And so it is that finds me spending tonight holed up in a quite adequate suite at the Dorchester in London, having foregone my usual lodgings at my favourite club, in order to entertain our young Mr.Depp.
Having attired myself in apparel suitable for the occasion - smoking jacket and velvet smoking cap, complete with tassel - I was most pleasantly interrupted by a ringing telephone informing me that Depp was equally attired and awaiting my presence in the bar downstairs.
Being initially of a miffed demeanour at his inclusion in ‘my’ production at the insistence of the film’s financiers, I was beginning to have a change of heart, especially so in the knowledge that he was suitably presentable for an evenings jolly in the pleasant surroundings of the Dorchester.
In the circumstances I thought it appropriate to select a number of my finest cigars from the humidor and decant to the bar forthwith.
Yes, it is possible that he’s a quite decent sort of chap after all. He’d obviously gone to the trouble of hiring himself a suitable smoking jacket and cap for the evening, purely out of a mark of respect to my good self. This had the promise of being a very pleasant evening indeed.
Many admiring glances were focused in my direction as I entered the bar in all my finery and made my way over to the lone figure of young Depp perched on a bar stool.
I have to say, my initial reaction was one of disappointment at his choice of apparel; no doubt the American version of a very British tradition, his jacket more resembled a dark gothic version of a duvet quilt than the British tradition to which I was accustomed.
No matter, I tried to look impressed and commented favourably on his choice of evening attire, enquiring as to its providence.
He informed me that he had in fact purchased the same in New York. (they call it a “puffer” jacket over there).
So anyway, we took our positions at a secluded table to avoid prying eyes, and I offered him one of my cigars to “puff” on, while I “smoked” on mine.
The reason I’m telling you all this directly relates to the film, so please bear with me.
You see, young Depp is unfortunate in not being a very strong swimmer, which was proving to be problematic in respect of a vital scene in the film, whereby it is necessary for him to be swept forcibly down the Ouse. Witness the scene in the film “Chocolat” where young Depp was required to swim across the river to the burning boat. It is very clear that his head has been computer spliced onto a stunt double which, for me, completely ruins the film, not that it was a very good film anyway.
Of course a stunt double could be utilised for those critical scenes in Operation South Downs, but this was something I wasn’t prepared to consider given the need for a few crucial close ups.
This was something I wished to discuss with him within the relaxed and pleasant surroundings of the Dorchester. (only after a few gins you understand, by way of making him feel more relaxed. I could see that he was initially somewhat tense in my esteemed company.)
Anyway, after our fifth G&T I took it upon myself to raise the subject of this crucial scene.
Three G&T’s later and he was still adamant that a double would suffice (stunt double, that is, not a G&T double,)
That’s when it hit me; another one of my flashes of genius at the most opportune of moments. Let me explain:-
Young Depp was slightly squiffy by the end of the evening when I suggested he loan me his “puffer” for a couple of days. He naturally complied at my continued insistence, with wild animal gesticulations, before falling off his chair. He was carried up to his room, minus “puffer.”
March 4th 2001:
The morning after the night before, I take young Depp’s jacket to our costume department with very precise instructions as to its modification.
March 5th 2001:
Gloria from the costume department, myself and Depp are standing by the side of a quiet stretch of the Thames, when I remove his “puffer” from the boot of my car.
He is naturally pleased at its return and doesn’t notice the modifications to its construction.
Anyway, he puts the jacket on and smiles contentedly. I suggest he pulls up the zipper to its full extent, to which he of course complies.
He is in the process of igniting a cheroot when I manfully toss him into the Thames.
to be continued...........
The latest from the “casting couch” has a certain young Mr. Depp “pencilled in” to play the archetypical American tourist, accidentally caught up in events far from home. (no “damp handshake” here I may add!).
I shall have to remain unofficial in my statements regarding his involvement until signatures have been exchanged.
His part wasn’t “officially” written within the first five drafts of the screenplay but it was expressed by the financiers that American interest in the project would be enhanced by the inclusion of a major American born, box office draw. Unfortunately, Depp was the only one they could muster.
No matter, I shan’t take these liberties with my script to heart. It is the industry norm when one is dealing with big money. And big money is what we need to recreate the floods of last year.
February 24th 2001:
So far we’ve managed to persuade a large number of the Lewes populous to allow their homes to be flooded again this summer for the sake of art. They were quite happy to accept large sums of money in exchange for the inconvenience; monies which will go towards the eventual renovation of their properties, most of which still remain in dire need of repair. I’m just so very glad we can be of help.
Of course if the precipitation proves to be as plentiful as last year then we may not need to recompense. We just turn up and start filming. Well here’s hoping!
February 25th 2001:
Young Depp came over from France to chat through the project. (he tried to write himself a bigger part of course!)
He has this annoying habit of speaking “frog” which has me all of a fluster given my grasping of only the tiniest smattering of “Franglais.” Didn’t get our relationship off on the steadiest of footings I don’t mind saying.
Anyway, thought I’d knock him down a peg or two.
You see, he fancies himself as a bit of a tennis player. (that much I picked up from his “frog” talk.) So I challenged him to a game right there on the spot!
So off we went. I said …”three sets?” He said ..”five.”… “No, you don’t understand.” I said with a wry smile. “It’ll only take three!” That wiped the smile off his face I can tell you.
Anyway, we had quite an audience. Lots of pretty young things had come to watch me thrash him soundly.
And they were definitely on my side too, the way they tried to put him off by staring at him so intently and sitting there with legs held apart, akimbo fashion.
So anyway, there we were, three sets later and I’d somewhat softened towards him. Decided to do the very British thing and let him win. I didn’t realise at the time that I’d decided on that particular course of action but it came to me later that, subconsciously, I’d obviously made that decision without my being aware of it. It’s a wonderful thing the human brain isn’t it?
So there I am, serving, two sets down, one five down in the third set, and at fifteen thirty. Cracking serve it was too, hit the frame of his racket at lightening speed and due to the ferocity of the serve, had enough momentum to come back over the net for a fluke point to him.
He shouts out “love deuce” and with that, all the pretty young things, clamp their legs together in unison. He couldn’t quite get the hang of the scoring system you see. Anyway, he won the next point to win the match.
I was full of admiration for the hordes of young British girls who flocked around him afterwards. I could see they were upset at my losing, yet they did the very British thing in congratulating him warmly – one more warmly than the others if rumours are to be believed.
March 2nd 2001:
Many kind wishes and congratulations have been received and have been warmly welcomed under the difficult circumstances that have constituted the past few weeks. I shan’t elucidate here as to specifics due to the legal ramifications surrounding the various rumours that have abounded and that will eventually be proved to be completely untrue.
Should you be aware of said rumours then you will surely realise their untrue nature. And should you NOT be aware of same, then I shall not waste my time and yours, repeating them here.
But please be assured that everything is running completely on schedule. I run a very tight ship!
March 3rd 2001:
One piece of good news regarding that Depp chap. Due, no doubt, to the cunning shown by my own disregard for glory in having let him beat me at tennis; I can now officially declare that his signature was forthcoming this very morning and he is now completely and officially a member of the “dream team.”
And so it is that finds me spending tonight holed up in a quite adequate suite at the Dorchester in London, having foregone my usual lodgings at my favourite club, in order to entertain our young Mr.Depp.
Having attired myself in apparel suitable for the occasion - smoking jacket and velvet smoking cap, complete with tassel - I was most pleasantly interrupted by a ringing telephone informing me that Depp was equally attired and awaiting my presence in the bar downstairs.
Being initially of a miffed demeanour at his inclusion in ‘my’ production at the insistence of the film’s financiers, I was beginning to have a change of heart, especially so in the knowledge that he was suitably presentable for an evenings jolly in the pleasant surroundings of the Dorchester.
In the circumstances I thought it appropriate to select a number of my finest cigars from the humidor and decant to the bar forthwith.
Yes, it is possible that he’s a quite decent sort of chap after all. He’d obviously gone to the trouble of hiring himself a suitable smoking jacket and cap for the evening, purely out of a mark of respect to my good self. This had the promise of being a very pleasant evening indeed.
Many admiring glances were focused in my direction as I entered the bar in all my finery and made my way over to the lone figure of young Depp perched on a bar stool.
I have to say, my initial reaction was one of disappointment at his choice of apparel; no doubt the American version of a very British tradition, his jacket more resembled a dark gothic version of a duvet quilt than the British tradition to which I was accustomed.
No matter, I tried to look impressed and commented favourably on his choice of evening attire, enquiring as to its providence.
He informed me that he had in fact purchased the same in New York. (they call it a “puffer” jacket over there).
So anyway, we took our positions at a secluded table to avoid prying eyes, and I offered him one of my cigars to “puff” on, while I “smoked” on mine.
The reason I’m telling you all this directly relates to the film, so please bear with me.
You see, young Depp is unfortunate in not being a very strong swimmer, which was proving to be problematic in respect of a vital scene in the film, whereby it is necessary for him to be swept forcibly down the Ouse. Witness the scene in the film “Chocolat” where young Depp was required to swim across the river to the burning boat. It is very clear that his head has been computer spliced onto a stunt double which, for me, completely ruins the film, not that it was a very good film anyway.
Of course a stunt double could be utilised for those critical scenes in Operation South Downs, but this was something I wasn’t prepared to consider given the need for a few crucial close ups.
This was something I wished to discuss with him within the relaxed and pleasant surroundings of the Dorchester. (only after a few gins you understand, by way of making him feel more relaxed. I could see that he was initially somewhat tense in my esteemed company.)
Anyway, after our fifth G&T I took it upon myself to raise the subject of this crucial scene.
Three G&T’s later and he was still adamant that a double would suffice (stunt double, that is, not a G&T double,)
That’s when it hit me; another one of my flashes of genius at the most opportune of moments. Let me explain:-
Young Depp was slightly squiffy by the end of the evening when I suggested he loan me his “puffer” for a couple of days. He naturally complied at my continued insistence, with wild animal gesticulations, before falling off his chair. He was carried up to his room, minus “puffer.”
March 4th 2001:
The morning after the night before, I take young Depp’s jacket to our costume department with very precise instructions as to its modification.
March 5th 2001:
Gloria from the costume department, myself and Depp are standing by the side of a quiet stretch of the Thames, when I remove his “puffer” from the boot of my car.
He is naturally pleased at its return and doesn’t notice the modifications to its construction.
Anyway, he puts the jacket on and smiles contentedly. I suggest he pulls up the zipper to its full extent, to which he of course complies.
He is in the process of igniting a cheroot when I manfully toss him into the Thames.
to be continued...........
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Good News!
Distribution for 'Quigley Cuts Down' signed and sealed today. Slightly squiffy presently.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Operation South Downs - Part Two
I realise that this is posted five days early. But this is due to my unexpected requirement to pay a visit to Los Angeles on Sunday - won't be back in London until Friday 22nd September.
It's unlikely I'll have the time or the inclination to log-in to my blog whilst there, so here it is - Part Two of Operation South Downs.
December 13th 2000:
Things are certainly moving apace; numerous personal recollections documenting the direct and indirect effects on the lives of those involved in the great floods are coming together in a coherent structure which will form the backbone of my documentary.
The day to day grind of everyday existence of those affected has been disrupted to an obviously extreme degree by the power wielded by mother nature in all her awesome glory. That one can utilise that same material as the basis for a blockbuster screenplay of the natural disaster genre, is most welcome.
I envisage its premise as being very similar to ‘Twister’ but without the cows swirling across the sky – though having said that, if one could provide proof that this has in fact occurred as a direct or indirect result of the adverse conditions, then I should surely include it.
December 21st / 22nd 2000:
A very welcome visit by (name deleted) from the U.S. has only confirmed my thoughts and ideas on the particular matter of a great British production.
Certainly, monies will no doubt have to be forthcoming to a greater degree from our American cousins if the project can be gotten successfully off the ground.
I was assured the following morning that belief in the project was solid and all-encompassing. I’m now extremely confident that a British made production is a distinct possibility and has the potential to rival anything that Hollywood can throw at us.
January 19th 2001:
This has been a glorious day, wonderfully capped off by the signing up of Wales’ most famous son, Anthony ‘Hoppy’ Hopkins, for the leading male role.
My meeting with him in person was our first encounter but was destined not to be our last. Now it is down to me to put to him my proposal.
I shouldn’t have been so nervous, for he was extremely gushing when I presented to him the briefest of synopsi, and in fact nearly fell off his bar stool with the excitement of it all.
On the strength of his involvement our hopes have been greatly enlivened.
It is now our belief that we will be able to gather together the cream of British film talent for a rollercoaster ride through the East Sussex countryside.
January 26th – February 2nd 2001:
It is unfortunate, but rumours of Jones and Douglas being involved in our film project, was sadly only that…. a rumour. They did, however, profess their disappointment at not being able to participate due to a previous engagement.
It is true, however, that Julia Roberts has expressed an interest in playing the Hopkin’s love interest.
It is with extreme regret that we had to turn her down due to her not being able to convince with an East Sussex brogue. Very disappointing given that she’s an absolute corker, and more so in real life I can tell you! The upside is, is that we’ve managed to save a few million squid on fees.
(It was pointed out to me that Miss Roberts is very much a major box office draw, and yes, she was willing to work for a substantially reduced fee for the privilege of working with Hopkins.
Jane Horrocks, had even been tentatively signed up to dub Julia’s voiceover, but alas, it was not to be.
February 6th 2001:
Some major re-writing required on what is now my fifth draft of the screenplay.
It is now a joint effort with (name deleted). Can't say that I get on particulary well with the fellow!
Sixteen hour days are beginning to take their toll.
Also, a full realisation that there will be a requirement for a few hundred extras over the summer of 2001, now definitely agreed as to be filmed on location in East Sussex.
A few conditions have been drafted up specifying the necessity of each film extra to be a certificated swimmer, for those scenes where a large number of persons are forcibly swept down the River Ouse. Wet suits will of course be provided. We would have preferred the dry suit variety but found that the very nature of their construction causes them to be visible under everyday clothing.
February 8th 2001:
In respect of the requirement for extras; we need to draw up a disclaimer due to the real health risks involved (other than drowning). This is due to the very real but very small risk of serious infection by the natural contamination caused by raw sewage in the floodwaters.
Should be a wonderful experience fro them, something they can tell their grandchildren about and certainly it will be a better organised experience than those equivalent scenes experienced by extras, during the filming of “Titanic” where a number of extras, and more importantly, Winslet and Capriot, nearly drowned.
February 12th 2001:
I previously enlightened you as to the involvement of Hoppy in the starring role, where, in fact I should have stated that his involvement at that stage wasn’t officially “official” as per the “official” meaning of the word “official.”
I had my knuckles severely rapped on that one, I can tell you!
Seems that the gentleman’s agreement of a gob of spit skilfully directed at the palm of one’s hand and slapped into the hand of another, equally enhanced by a gob of same, is not sufficient to “ do the deal.”
To say I was extremely miffed at this revelation is an understatement! As far as I was concerned, the ”damp handshake” was a legally binding agreement! Fortunately, Hoppy, being the gentleman that he is, thought the same as I and signed on the dotted line the very next day.
As to his starring role, he’ll play the part of Parsons Linklater, ex-lifeboat captain, “retired” to the sleepy little town of Lewes, these past number of years. Through the gradual telling of his story in Act One, all will be revealed as to his very last operation as lifeboat captain, where a fatal drowning “accident” occurred; he being implicated in its great and awful tragedy.
Of course, our hero is completely exonerated in the ensuing court case, but not before it has left the indelible imprint of failure, etched on his brain.
And so there we find him, prematurely retired, trying to put the past behind him when his skills are once more called to the fore in the devastating floods that land literally on his very doorstep. Will he “bottle it” or will he come to the rescus and save the day? You’ll need to see the film to find out.
February 16th 2001:
A number of persons have expressed their dismay at our turning down Julia Roberts in the female lead. Wholly understandable given her acting credentials and her special place in the hearts of the British audience. As I have stated elsewhere, her abilities to play a character other than that of the American persuasion, sadly proved her eventual downfall.
Further to that, I’ve been inundated with bouquets of flowers and numerous phone calls from the very sweet Miss Horrocks, who you may remember had been “pencilled in” to dub the voiceover for Miss Roberts. It seems she has friends in high places. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I’ve been “persuaded” as to her suitability for the leading lady, namely Parson’s Linklater’s love interest, and the phone calls and bunches of flowers have now thankfully ceased.
I have to say my wife is now sadly talking to me again, having been sorely convinced of my involvement with the said Miss Horrocks. Words were exchanged which could not be printed here for fear of causing offence.
As to Miss Horrocks, she may be a wonderful character actress and an accomplished chanteuse - thankfully her vocal prowess is not required on this occasion – but her fissog leaves a lot to be desired in terms of capturing the desires of the male cinema going public. This has entailed additional expense in terms of the make-up budget and computer generated enhancements (CGI) in order for her to be transformed into an acceptable leading lady.
You have to understand that her first scene with Hopkins is when he drags her “bloated corpse” from the Ouse and instinctively performs the kiss of life upon her cold blue lips. This is a vital scene in their introduction, when she coughs up a gob of brown Ouse water, opens her eyes and seeing her saviour, immediately falls in love with him, and he likewise with her.
As you can imagine, she needs to look completely captivating even though she’s just been swept down river and swallowed a whole bucketful of rancid Ouse. This has called for a hefty appliance of superior quality foundation cream, not to mention the extra-firm hair gel to keep her “bob” in place.
Thankfully, developments in make-up technology have progressed enormously in the last few years, thanks mainly to “Titanic.” - witness the remarkable way that Miss Winslet remains a complete dish even after being submerged in the icy cold water, and all thanks to the make-up department. I know it will be an even harder task with Horrocks, but I’m convinced we can do it and that our make-up team will be “up there” when the nominations are announced.
Part Three to follow next week.
It's unlikely I'll have the time or the inclination to log-in to my blog whilst there, so here it is - Part Two of Operation South Downs.
December 13th 2000:
Things are certainly moving apace; numerous personal recollections documenting the direct and indirect effects on the lives of those involved in the great floods are coming together in a coherent structure which will form the backbone of my documentary.
The day to day grind of everyday existence of those affected has been disrupted to an obviously extreme degree by the power wielded by mother nature in all her awesome glory. That one can utilise that same material as the basis for a blockbuster screenplay of the natural disaster genre, is most welcome.
I envisage its premise as being very similar to ‘Twister’ but without the cows swirling across the sky – though having said that, if one could provide proof that this has in fact occurred as a direct or indirect result of the adverse conditions, then I should surely include it.
December 21st / 22nd 2000:
A very welcome visit by (name deleted) from the U.S. has only confirmed my thoughts and ideas on the particular matter of a great British production.
Certainly, monies will no doubt have to be forthcoming to a greater degree from our American cousins if the project can be gotten successfully off the ground.
I was assured the following morning that belief in the project was solid and all-encompassing. I’m now extremely confident that a British made production is a distinct possibility and has the potential to rival anything that Hollywood can throw at us.
January 19th 2001:
This has been a glorious day, wonderfully capped off by the signing up of Wales’ most famous son, Anthony ‘Hoppy’ Hopkins, for the leading male role.
My meeting with him in person was our first encounter but was destined not to be our last. Now it is down to me to put to him my proposal.
I shouldn’t have been so nervous, for he was extremely gushing when I presented to him the briefest of synopsi, and in fact nearly fell off his bar stool with the excitement of it all.
On the strength of his involvement our hopes have been greatly enlivened.
It is now our belief that we will be able to gather together the cream of British film talent for a rollercoaster ride through the East Sussex countryside.
January 26th – February 2nd 2001:
It is unfortunate, but rumours of Jones and Douglas being involved in our film project, was sadly only that…. a rumour. They did, however, profess their disappointment at not being able to participate due to a previous engagement.
It is true, however, that Julia Roberts has expressed an interest in playing the Hopkin’s love interest.
It is with extreme regret that we had to turn her down due to her not being able to convince with an East Sussex brogue. Very disappointing given that she’s an absolute corker, and more so in real life I can tell you! The upside is, is that we’ve managed to save a few million squid on fees.
(It was pointed out to me that Miss Roberts is very much a major box office draw, and yes, she was willing to work for a substantially reduced fee for the privilege of working with Hopkins.
Jane Horrocks, had even been tentatively signed up to dub Julia’s voiceover, but alas, it was not to be.
February 6th 2001:
Some major re-writing required on what is now my fifth draft of the screenplay.
It is now a joint effort with (name deleted). Can't say that I get on particulary well with the fellow!
Sixteen hour days are beginning to take their toll.
Also, a full realisation that there will be a requirement for a few hundred extras over the summer of 2001, now definitely agreed as to be filmed on location in East Sussex.
A few conditions have been drafted up specifying the necessity of each film extra to be a certificated swimmer, for those scenes where a large number of persons are forcibly swept down the River Ouse. Wet suits will of course be provided. We would have preferred the dry suit variety but found that the very nature of their construction causes them to be visible under everyday clothing.
February 8th 2001:
In respect of the requirement for extras; we need to draw up a disclaimer due to the real health risks involved (other than drowning). This is due to the very real but very small risk of serious infection by the natural contamination caused by raw sewage in the floodwaters.
Should be a wonderful experience fro them, something they can tell their grandchildren about and certainly it will be a better organised experience than those equivalent scenes experienced by extras, during the filming of “Titanic” where a number of extras, and more importantly, Winslet and Capriot, nearly drowned.
February 12th 2001:
I previously enlightened you as to the involvement of Hoppy in the starring role, where, in fact I should have stated that his involvement at that stage wasn’t officially “official” as per the “official” meaning of the word “official.”
I had my knuckles severely rapped on that one, I can tell you!
Seems that the gentleman’s agreement of a gob of spit skilfully directed at the palm of one’s hand and slapped into the hand of another, equally enhanced by a gob of same, is not sufficient to “ do the deal.”
To say I was extremely miffed at this revelation is an understatement! As far as I was concerned, the ”damp handshake” was a legally binding agreement! Fortunately, Hoppy, being the gentleman that he is, thought the same as I and signed on the dotted line the very next day.
As to his starring role, he’ll play the part of Parsons Linklater, ex-lifeboat captain, “retired” to the sleepy little town of Lewes, these past number of years. Through the gradual telling of his story in Act One, all will be revealed as to his very last operation as lifeboat captain, where a fatal drowning “accident” occurred; he being implicated in its great and awful tragedy.
Of course, our hero is completely exonerated in the ensuing court case, but not before it has left the indelible imprint of failure, etched on his brain.
And so there we find him, prematurely retired, trying to put the past behind him when his skills are once more called to the fore in the devastating floods that land literally on his very doorstep. Will he “bottle it” or will he come to the rescus and save the day? You’ll need to see the film to find out.
February 16th 2001:
A number of persons have expressed their dismay at our turning down Julia Roberts in the female lead. Wholly understandable given her acting credentials and her special place in the hearts of the British audience. As I have stated elsewhere, her abilities to play a character other than that of the American persuasion, sadly proved her eventual downfall.
Further to that, I’ve been inundated with bouquets of flowers and numerous phone calls from the very sweet Miss Horrocks, who you may remember had been “pencilled in” to dub the voiceover for Miss Roberts. It seems she has friends in high places. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I’ve been “persuaded” as to her suitability for the leading lady, namely Parson’s Linklater’s love interest, and the phone calls and bunches of flowers have now thankfully ceased.
I have to say my wife is now sadly talking to me again, having been sorely convinced of my involvement with the said Miss Horrocks. Words were exchanged which could not be printed here for fear of causing offence.
As to Miss Horrocks, she may be a wonderful character actress and an accomplished chanteuse - thankfully her vocal prowess is not required on this occasion – but her fissog leaves a lot to be desired in terms of capturing the desires of the male cinema going public. This has entailed additional expense in terms of the make-up budget and computer generated enhancements (CGI) in order for her to be transformed into an acceptable leading lady.
You have to understand that her first scene with Hopkins is when he drags her “bloated corpse” from the Ouse and instinctively performs the kiss of life upon her cold blue lips. This is a vital scene in their introduction, when she coughs up a gob of brown Ouse water, opens her eyes and seeing her saviour, immediately falls in love with him, and he likewise with her.
As you can imagine, she needs to look completely captivating even though she’s just been swept down river and swallowed a whole bucketful of rancid Ouse. This has called for a hefty appliance of superior quality foundation cream, not to mention the extra-firm hair gel to keep her “bob” in place.
Thankfully, developments in make-up technology have progressed enormously in the last few years, thanks mainly to “Titanic.” - witness the remarkable way that Miss Winslet remains a complete dish even after being submerged in the icy cold water, and all thanks to the make-up department. I know it will be an even harder task with Horrocks, but I’m convinced we can do it and that our make-up team will be “up there” when the nominations are announced.
Part Three to follow next week.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
A fair question.
I have been asked directly 'why do you operate a casino and sportsbook website?'
My answer? For one good reason.......I need to make money. I have had a few lean years after the disaster that was 'Operation South Downs.' I had mortgaged myself to the hilt and overspent in all areas of my life, having assumed the great financial success of the film, only to have it all fall in on me when I was kicked out of the profession - not officially, but to all intents and purposes.
'Quigley Cuts Down' is my first film venture in 4 years. That's 4 years with very little money coming in and plenty going out. And don't imagine that I am being paid a fortune on this project. Its budget is lower than the belly of a snake.
Internetgamble.org has contributed, in a small way, to my financial survival.
Hopefully I can sell it on at a later date, but until I am financially secure again, it shall remain active and a contributory factor to my survival.
For your information - 'Operation South Downs - Part Two' will be added here next week.
I haven't worked out how many 'parts' there will be in total yet, but somewhere around 30 or 40 parts, I imagine. (or until I get shut down for legal reasons)
My answer? For one good reason.......I need to make money. I have had a few lean years after the disaster that was 'Operation South Downs.' I had mortgaged myself to the hilt and overspent in all areas of my life, having assumed the great financial success of the film, only to have it all fall in on me when I was kicked out of the profession - not officially, but to all intents and purposes.
'Quigley Cuts Down' is my first film venture in 4 years. That's 4 years with very little money coming in and plenty going out. And don't imagine that I am being paid a fortune on this project. Its budget is lower than the belly of a snake.
Internetgamble.org has contributed, in a small way, to my financial survival.
Hopefully I can sell it on at a later date, but until I am financially secure again, it shall remain active and a contributory factor to my survival.
For your information - 'Operation South Downs - Part Two' will be added here next week.
I haven't worked out how many 'parts' there will be in total yet, but somewhere around 30 or 40 parts, I imagine. (or until I get shut down for legal reasons)
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Operation South Downs - Part 1
Due to a recent communication from someone calling themselves ‘pilchardsforbreakfast’ and the nature of their ‘persuasive’ reasoning; I have decided to do something I may yet regret.
I DO KNOW who you are Mr Pilchard, though I have decided that I will NOT reveal your identity on this blog, unless you choose to do the same in relation to mine. We both have a great deal to lose, so it is in neither of our interest to cause hurt and pain to the other by so doing.
In relation to your recent emails I have been ‘persuaded’ to talk about a particular period of my life in some detail. In conclusion, it is my intention to reveal certain events, during the course of the next few weeks. I hope that I do not live to regret this.
Here is the first part.
You may or may not remember what was then to be a major cinematic release in the summer of 2002. It was to be Britain’s answer to the American disaster movie “blockbuster” in the shape of a film based on actual events that had occurred at the latter part of year 2000 in the UK.
It may all seem like a long time ago, but the experiences surrounding both the actual events and the dramatising of those events on film, still bear heavily on my psyche.
What I am about to impart is actually a record of events in the shape of my own personal diaries recording the making of the film in which I was writer and director.
It was my first major film project after 15 years in the business and until ‘Quigley Cuts Down’ (see previous blog entries), it was my only major film project.
The whole thing began with the great floods that decimated the countryside around the area of Lewes in the southern part of England in year 2000. This was a major event in many peoples’ lives and achieved much media attention across the whole of the UK. There was even a book of photographs published, just after the events, full of dramatic images recording those events.
To cut a long story short, I had the idea for a UK based film project, dramatising the events of the floods – a film to rival anything Hollywood could throw at us. After all, we had the technology, the people and the real events as a basis for a screenplay.
I’m being brief here and cutting out a lot of facts, as I want to get to the main body of the text which are my own personal diaries recording the making of the film. A film which has not yet seen the light of day, either as a cinematic release or on video/DVD.
Anyway, I ended up co-scripting the film, based on my original idea. I was also the assistant director on the project. Incidentally, the director was very ill during the weeks and months of location shoots, which gave me the opportunity to take the reigns and make my mark.
We finished filming in February 2002 – ready for a summer release that year. Unfortunately, as I have stated, the film never made the cinema screens or even made it to video/DVD! I have to add that this has nothing to do with the standard or quality of the final product.
At the very worst, the special effects were truly amazing and in my own personal opinion the film had “success” written all over it. The reason for its never having yet seen the light of day is purely down to a few individuals (who will remain nameless here) exercising specific clauses in their contracts.
For it ever to be seen by the British public will require certain individuals to “pass away” or lighten up in their response to certain occurrences they were directly involved in but don’t want ever to be exposed for fear of ridicule.
It was always intended that I would publish a film diary, including many of my own photographs. It was my own little pet project, but was seen by the backers as purely a marketing ploy to increase public interest in the film. I didn’t mind this aspect, as I was given a pretty free reign as to its content. The only trouble, as it turned out, was that the diaries were contractually to be launched precisely two weeks after the American release of the film. As the film was never released in America or anywhere else for that matter, my diaries were shelved and even now, four years later, I am still not permitted to seek publication.
I am not even allowed to mention, anywhere in writing, the title of the film.
I will call it here “Operation South Downs.” After all this was my original name for the film but was changed at the behest of one of the American backers.
I will, however, mention the log-line that was to be used in all the film posters, marketing and media advertising.
It came to me, straight off the cuff, at an early meeting :–
“PREPARE TO BE SWEPT AWAY.”
If this sounds familiar to you, it’s because it was used as the log-line in a subsequent film. Not that I received any credit for its inception.
Not long after the film was completed and during the protracted and stressful dealings with lawyers etc, I suffered a breakdown. At this point in my life I felt ashamed and a complete and utter failure! This was the lowest point of my life experience to date. It’s only in the last year or so that I’ve been able to face up to it all and actually talk about that period in my life. What helps immensely, is that I am very happy with the progress of my latest venture ‘Quigley Cuts Down’ which is currently in production and due for release in summer 2007. (Of course this title is my own concoction. The real title I cannot reveal for fear of revealing my true identity)
One good thing – I have checked with my legal council and due to the nature of this website and the fact that submitting material here does not constitute “publication” in the legal and contractual sense of the word, I am able to let you read some excerpts from my diaries.
I hope, one day, to actually publish them in book form, complete with photographs, but until then, this will have to suffice.
Looking at my writing with hindsight, I realise that some of it is too deliberate and contrived. I was possibly too aware of it being written for publication and have probably tried too hard to be interesting or funny. I have been tempted to re-write it armed with the knowledge and experience of the last couple of painful years of my life. But being a bit of a purest, I have decided to leave alone.
Some of the names have been deleted/changed for legal reasons, otherwise most are of actual persons involved. I certainly hope you enjoy. Please do feel free to leave your comments or questions.
I DO KNOW who you are Mr Pilchard, though I have decided that I will NOT reveal your identity on this blog, unless you choose to do the same in relation to mine. We both have a great deal to lose, so it is in neither of our interest to cause hurt and pain to the other by so doing.
In relation to your recent emails I have been ‘persuaded’ to talk about a particular period of my life in some detail. In conclusion, it is my intention to reveal certain events, during the course of the next few weeks. I hope that I do not live to regret this.
Here is the first part.
You may or may not remember what was then to be a major cinematic release in the summer of 2002. It was to be Britain’s answer to the American disaster movie “blockbuster” in the shape of a film based on actual events that had occurred at the latter part of year 2000 in the UK.
It may all seem like a long time ago, but the experiences surrounding both the actual events and the dramatising of those events on film, still bear heavily on my psyche.
What I am about to impart is actually a record of events in the shape of my own personal diaries recording the making of the film in which I was writer and director.
It was my first major film project after 15 years in the business and until ‘Quigley Cuts Down’ (see previous blog entries), it was my only major film project.
The whole thing began with the great floods that decimated the countryside around the area of Lewes in the southern part of England in year 2000. This was a major event in many peoples’ lives and achieved much media attention across the whole of the UK. There was even a book of photographs published, just after the events, full of dramatic images recording those events.
To cut a long story short, I had the idea for a UK based film project, dramatising the events of the floods – a film to rival anything Hollywood could throw at us. After all, we had the technology, the people and the real events as a basis for a screenplay.
I’m being brief here and cutting out a lot of facts, as I want to get to the main body of the text which are my own personal diaries recording the making of the film. A film which has not yet seen the light of day, either as a cinematic release or on video/DVD.
Anyway, I ended up co-scripting the film, based on my original idea. I was also the assistant director on the project. Incidentally, the director was very ill during the weeks and months of location shoots, which gave me the opportunity to take the reigns and make my mark.
We finished filming in February 2002 – ready for a summer release that year. Unfortunately, as I have stated, the film never made the cinema screens or even made it to video/DVD! I have to add that this has nothing to do with the standard or quality of the final product.
At the very worst, the special effects were truly amazing and in my own personal opinion the film had “success” written all over it. The reason for its never having yet seen the light of day is purely down to a few individuals (who will remain nameless here) exercising specific clauses in their contracts.
For it ever to be seen by the British public will require certain individuals to “pass away” or lighten up in their response to certain occurrences they were directly involved in but don’t want ever to be exposed for fear of ridicule.
It was always intended that I would publish a film diary, including many of my own photographs. It was my own little pet project, but was seen by the backers as purely a marketing ploy to increase public interest in the film. I didn’t mind this aspect, as I was given a pretty free reign as to its content. The only trouble, as it turned out, was that the diaries were contractually to be launched precisely two weeks after the American release of the film. As the film was never released in America or anywhere else for that matter, my diaries were shelved and even now, four years later, I am still not permitted to seek publication.
I am not even allowed to mention, anywhere in writing, the title of the film.
I will call it here “Operation South Downs.” After all this was my original name for the film but was changed at the behest of one of the American backers.
I will, however, mention the log-line that was to be used in all the film posters, marketing and media advertising.
It came to me, straight off the cuff, at an early meeting :–
“PREPARE TO BE SWEPT AWAY.”
If this sounds familiar to you, it’s because it was used as the log-line in a subsequent film. Not that I received any credit for its inception.
Not long after the film was completed and during the protracted and stressful dealings with lawyers etc, I suffered a breakdown. At this point in my life I felt ashamed and a complete and utter failure! This was the lowest point of my life experience to date. It’s only in the last year or so that I’ve been able to face up to it all and actually talk about that period in my life. What helps immensely, is that I am very happy with the progress of my latest venture ‘Quigley Cuts Down’ which is currently in production and due for release in summer 2007. (Of course this title is my own concoction. The real title I cannot reveal for fear of revealing my true identity)
One good thing – I have checked with my legal council and due to the nature of this website and the fact that submitting material here does not constitute “publication” in the legal and contractual sense of the word, I am able to let you read some excerpts from my diaries.
I hope, one day, to actually publish them in book form, complete with photographs, but until then, this will have to suffice.
Looking at my writing with hindsight, I realise that some of it is too deliberate and contrived. I was possibly too aware of it being written for publication and have probably tried too hard to be interesting or funny. I have been tempted to re-write it armed with the knowledge and experience of the last couple of painful years of my life. But being a bit of a purest, I have decided to leave alone.
Some of the names have been deleted/changed for legal reasons, otherwise most are of actual persons involved. I certainly hope you enjoy. Please do feel free to leave your comments or questions.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Terrorist Threat- Part Two
London, 3rd Sept:
A public school teacher was arrested today at Gatwick Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Home Secretary John Reid said he believes the man is a member of the notorious "Al-gebra" movement. He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the Met Police with carrying weapons of math's instruction.
"Al-gebra is a problem for us," Reid said."They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute values. They use secret code names like "x" and "y" and refer to themselves as "unknowns", but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with co-ordinates in every country.
As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, "There are 3 sides to every triangle".
When asked to comment on the arrest, Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "If God had wanted us to have better Weapons of Math's Instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."
A public school teacher was arrested today at Gatwick Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule and a calculator.
At a morning press conference, Home Secretary John Reid said he believes the man is a member of the notorious "Al-gebra" movement. He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the Met Police with carrying weapons of math's instruction.
"Al-gebra is a problem for us," Reid said."They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute values. They use secret code names like "x" and "y" and refer to themselves as "unknowns", but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with co-ordinates in every country.
As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, "There are 3 sides to every triangle".
When asked to comment on the arrest, Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "If God had wanted us to have better Weapons of Math's Instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."
Terrorist Threat!
This taken from the Sunday Times:-
More terror in the air, this time in the skies over Canada when a man on an internal flight from Ottawa to Winnipeg was seen trying forcibly to open the door to the cockpit. The passengers' fears, however , were not immediately calmed when they found out he was the pilot. An airline spokeswoman said the pilot had left his position to use the toilet only to find the door back into the cockpit had jammed and would not open. Eventually the crew managed to remove the door from its hinges to let him back in. The spokeswoman admitted the incident had been "a bit dramatic" but insisted that at no time were the passengers in any danger.
More terror in the air, this time in the skies over Canada when a man on an internal flight from Ottawa to Winnipeg was seen trying forcibly to open the door to the cockpit. The passengers' fears, however , were not immediately calmed when they found out he was the pilot. An airline spokeswoman said the pilot had left his position to use the toilet only to find the door back into the cockpit had jammed and would not open. Eventually the crew managed to remove the door from its hinges to let him back in. The spokeswoman admitted the incident had been "a bit dramatic" but insisted that at no time were the passengers in any danger.
Friday, September 01, 2006
NFL - Be sure to place your bets!
Here’s the NFL schedule to give you a glimpse of the exciting matches that will be sure to cause frenzied betting.
National Football League (NFL) - Week One schedule:
Thursday, Sept. 7
Miami at Pittsburgh - 8:30 p.m. ET
Sunday, Sept. 10
Atlanta at Carolina - 1:00 p.m. ET
Baltimore at Tampa Bay - 1:00 p.m. ET
Buffalo at New England - 1:00 p.m. ET
Cincinnati at Kansas City - 1:00 p.m. ET
Denver at St. Louis - 1:00 p.m. ET
New Orleans at Cleveland - 1:00 p.m. ET
N.Y. Jets at Tennessee - 1:00 p.m. ET
Philadelphia at Houston - 1:00 p.m. ET
Seattle at Detroit - 1:00 p.m. ET
Chicago at Green Bay - 4:15 p.m. ET
Dallas at Green Bay - 4:15 p.m. ET
San Francisco at Arizona - 4:15 p.m. ET
Indianapolis at N.Y. Giants - 8:15 p.m. ET
Monday, Sept. 11
Minnesota at Washington - 7:00 p.m. ET
San Diego at Oakland - 10:15 p.m. ET
- 5% re-load bonus on Thursdays
- 5% juice on Fridays, including better parlay odds
- A chance to win $100,000 every weekend during the football season
- 10% Free Cash on your initial deposit
- 10% Free Cash when you Refer-A-Friend
- Many deposit options (VISA, MasterCard, eCheck, NETeller, FirePay and more)
- If Bets and Progressive Parlays; win 3 out of 4 and still get paid
- 12-team parlays and 15-team teasers
- In Running wagering - new betting feature
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Quigley Cuts Down - Update.
If you read my previous post, you will realise the significance of a smoking ban being introduced in all new films to be made with American monies. Even though this is unlikely to become law until 2008, it is being included in films being made now, just to be on the safe side.
It is still being debated whether or not there should be a retrospective ban and how this could be realistically acheived. CGI is the obvious answer. Otherwise it is unlikely that you will ever be able to legally view a Humphrey Bogart film on American soil again.
Again, making reference to my previous post, you will see that I have made those changes necessary in my screenplay, to meet all proposed legislation, by substituting 'cigarettes' with 'chewing gum.'
This was deemed the most desirable 'swap' as chewing gum has similar street cred to smoking cigarettes, without the obvious health hazards.
However, there is a serious problem associated with this chosen selection.
I have it from a reliable source that the use of chewing gum in films is being considered for a ban in films being made in the UK. This is directly linked to the USA smoking ban in films.
Extrapolating, as governments do, has produced a report that states that the banning of smoking in films in the United States will probably lead to a similar ban in the UK within 2 years, which will inadvertently lead to an increase in the use of chewing gum by our favourite film stars, on screen, as a substitute ‘cool’ habit for our youngsters to emulate.
The government's reasoning behind this chewing gum ban is that already our streets are covered in the tell-tale black stains of discarded chewing gum and that it already costs millions in tax payers' money, every year, cleaning it up.
This increase in the use of chewing gum on film has been predicted to lead to a rise in its use by the younger, more gullible generation, in emulation of their film heroes. This would lead to a directly proportional rise in the 'chewing gum' menace, whereby our streets become even more dominated by the tell-tale 'black stain.'
The crucial section of the government report relates to those film scenes where a cigarette was used in the past as a concluding element of a scene, whereas future films would propose that the hero spit out his chewing gum as a substitute for that 'cigarette moment' (as the government are calling it) This has been predicted by the official report to lead to our streets being 'a serious health hazard as well as a stain on our great country.'
It seems that the problem of clearing up the 'chewing gum menace' is the least of our worries.
I have it from a reliable source that the health issues are the major concern. It seems that the chewing gum acts as the perfect preserver in as much as the germs, bacteria and diseases from our saliva can remain preserved for up to 30 years in every piece of discarded chewing gum on our streets. This could lead to a modern day 'plague' which could kill millions in a few short months.
Looks like I may need to do another re-write very soon. I'll keep you updated.
It is still being debated whether or not there should be a retrospective ban and how this could be realistically acheived. CGI is the obvious answer. Otherwise it is unlikely that you will ever be able to legally view a Humphrey Bogart film on American soil again.
Again, making reference to my previous post, you will see that I have made those changes necessary in my screenplay, to meet all proposed legislation, by substituting 'cigarettes' with 'chewing gum.'
This was deemed the most desirable 'swap' as chewing gum has similar street cred to smoking cigarettes, without the obvious health hazards.
However, there is a serious problem associated with this chosen selection.
I have it from a reliable source that the use of chewing gum in films is being considered for a ban in films being made in the UK. This is directly linked to the USA smoking ban in films.
Extrapolating, as governments do, has produced a report that states that the banning of smoking in films in the United States will probably lead to a similar ban in the UK within 2 years, which will inadvertently lead to an increase in the use of chewing gum by our favourite film stars, on screen, as a substitute ‘cool’ habit for our youngsters to emulate.
The government's reasoning behind this chewing gum ban is that already our streets are covered in the tell-tale black stains of discarded chewing gum and that it already costs millions in tax payers' money, every year, cleaning it up.
This increase in the use of chewing gum on film has been predicted to lead to a rise in its use by the younger, more gullible generation, in emulation of their film heroes. This would lead to a directly proportional rise in the 'chewing gum' menace, whereby our streets become even more dominated by the tell-tale 'black stain.'
The crucial section of the government report relates to those film scenes where a cigarette was used in the past as a concluding element of a scene, whereas future films would propose that the hero spit out his chewing gum as a substitute for that 'cigarette moment' (as the government are calling it) This has been predicted by the official report to lead to our streets being 'a serious health hazard as well as a stain on our great country.'
It seems that the problem of clearing up the 'chewing gum menace' is the least of our worries.
I have it from a reliable source that the health issues are the major concern. It seems that the chewing gum acts as the perfect preserver in as much as the germs, bacteria and diseases from our saliva can remain preserved for up to 30 years in every piece of discarded chewing gum on our streets. This could lead to a modern day 'plague' which could kill millions in a few short months.
Looks like I may need to do another re-write very soon. I'll keep you updated.
Quigley Cuts Down
So it looks like “smoking” is to be banned from films in the very near future - at least in American made and/or financed productions – after all it 'glamourises' what is a foul and dangerous habit, much mimicked by those who would associate it with a 'celebrity' lifestyle.
No longer will the hero be able to “light up” after some crucial scene, to share a cigarette after lovemaking, or take his last inhalation of tobacco smoke before expiring of gun shot wounds.
As a scriptwriter and film director, I find myself having to re-write some crucial scenes in my current project because of this possible and most probable change. Here is an example of that re-writing process – a 'before' and 'after' to show you what I mean.
'QUIGLEY CUTS DOWN' is due for release in summer 2007:-
BEFORE:
……….Quigley steps out of the ink stained shadows, the yellow glow of the street light illuminating his creased gabardine as if he’d just stepped out of a bowl of custard.
The dipped brim of his fedora casts a butterscotch shadow over his face, cutting his head in two.
He stands rigid under the sickly yellow light, as the sound of footsteps approach. He steps back into the shadows.
Quigley slips a hand into an inside breast pocket, removes his trusty semi-auto and lets the hand fall by his side, cold metal clenched in his fist.
The footsteps reach a crescendo and then suddenly stop.
Quigley steps back into the custard, raises the gun to waist level and walks purposely forward, pulling on the gun's trigger until the slide locks in the open position. The flashes of light from the gun’s muzzle briefly illuminates his granite features.
Quigley stops and looks down. A faint moaning sound can be heard off camera.
He removes a cigarette from a pocket in one clean movement. He then lights up by striking a match across his 5 o’clock shadow. He inhales deeply and blows a few pretty smoke rings.
The moaning continues as Quigley removes the empty magazine from his 'best friend' and presses home a full magazine extracted from another pocket.
The cigarette hangs loosley from his lips; a wisp of smoke rising vertically in the still night air, sweeping horizontally under the brim of his fedora to dissipate in the evening air.
He spits out a few words from the corner of his mouth.
QUIGLEY
That was for Dobie, now this is for me……..
He fires off the full magazine into his victim’s body then pockets the gun in his breast pocket before turning and walking off into the night.
He extracts the cigarette from his mouth and inadvertently takes a small piece of top lip with it.
QUIGLEY
S**t!! F**k!!!
He walks on, but suddenly stops and lets out a scream. The hot barrel from a well used trusty friend has burnt his left nipple.
AND NOW AFTER – ALL REFERENCES TO SMOKING HAVE BEEN REMOVED: This is the official version, approved by the production company.
……….Quigley steps out of the ink stained shadows, the yellow glow of the street light illuminating his creased gabardine as if he’d just stepped out of a bowl of custard. The dipped brim of his fedora casts a butterscotch shadow over his face, cutting his head in two.
He stands rigid under the sickly yellow light, as the sound of footsteps approach. He steps back into the shadows.
Quigley slips a hand into an inside breast pocket, removes his trusty semi-auto and lets the hand fall by his side, cold metal clenched in his fist.
The footsteps reach a crescendo and then suddenly stop. Quigley steps back into the custard, raises the gun to waist level and walks purposely forward, pulling on the gun's trigger until the slide locks in the open position. The flashes of light from the gun’s muzzle briefly illuminates his granite features.
Quigley stops and looks down. A faint moaning sound can be heard off camera.
Quigley removes a piece of nicotine chewing gum from a pocket, into his mouth in one clean movement, chewing vigorously for that quick fix of nicotine.
The moaning sounds continue off camera, as Quigley removes the empty magazine from his “best friend” and presses home a full magazine extracted from another pocket.
That annoying, wet slap slappity slapping sound of chewing gum, forms an accompaniment to the 'off camera' moaning sounds.
Quigley spits out a few words from the corner of his mouth - the words all mixed up with chewing gum.
QUIGLEY
That was (slap) for Dobie, (slappity slap) now this is (slappity slap slap) for me……..
He fires off the full magazine into his victim’s body then pockets the gun in his breast pocket before turning and walking off into the night.
He suddenly stops, stoops over and retches. A small piece of gum exits his mouth and plops onto the sidewalk.
Quigley wipes his mouth, walks on, then suddenly stops and lets out a scream. The hot barrel from a well used trusty friend has burnt his left nipple.)
No longer will the hero be able to “light up” after some crucial scene, to share a cigarette after lovemaking, or take his last inhalation of tobacco smoke before expiring of gun shot wounds.
As a scriptwriter and film director, I find myself having to re-write some crucial scenes in my current project because of this possible and most probable change. Here is an example of that re-writing process – a 'before' and 'after' to show you what I mean.
'QUIGLEY CUTS DOWN' is due for release in summer 2007:-
BEFORE:
……….Quigley steps out of the ink stained shadows, the yellow glow of the street light illuminating his creased gabardine as if he’d just stepped out of a bowl of custard.
The dipped brim of his fedora casts a butterscotch shadow over his face, cutting his head in two.
He stands rigid under the sickly yellow light, as the sound of footsteps approach. He steps back into the shadows.
Quigley slips a hand into an inside breast pocket, removes his trusty semi-auto and lets the hand fall by his side, cold metal clenched in his fist.
The footsteps reach a crescendo and then suddenly stop.
Quigley steps back into the custard, raises the gun to waist level and walks purposely forward, pulling on the gun's trigger until the slide locks in the open position. The flashes of light from the gun’s muzzle briefly illuminates his granite features.
Quigley stops and looks down. A faint moaning sound can be heard off camera.
He removes a cigarette from a pocket in one clean movement. He then lights up by striking a match across his 5 o’clock shadow. He inhales deeply and blows a few pretty smoke rings.
The moaning continues as Quigley removes the empty magazine from his 'best friend' and presses home a full magazine extracted from another pocket.
The cigarette hangs loosley from his lips; a wisp of smoke rising vertically in the still night air, sweeping horizontally under the brim of his fedora to dissipate in the evening air.
He spits out a few words from the corner of his mouth.
QUIGLEY
That was for Dobie, now this is for me……..
He fires off the full magazine into his victim’s body then pockets the gun in his breast pocket before turning and walking off into the night.
He extracts the cigarette from his mouth and inadvertently takes a small piece of top lip with it.
QUIGLEY
S**t!! F**k!!!
He walks on, but suddenly stops and lets out a scream. The hot barrel from a well used trusty friend has burnt his left nipple.
AND NOW AFTER – ALL REFERENCES TO SMOKING HAVE BEEN REMOVED: This is the official version, approved by the production company.
……….Quigley steps out of the ink stained shadows, the yellow glow of the street light illuminating his creased gabardine as if he’d just stepped out of a bowl of custard. The dipped brim of his fedora casts a butterscotch shadow over his face, cutting his head in two.
He stands rigid under the sickly yellow light, as the sound of footsteps approach. He steps back into the shadows.
Quigley slips a hand into an inside breast pocket, removes his trusty semi-auto and lets the hand fall by his side, cold metal clenched in his fist.
The footsteps reach a crescendo and then suddenly stop. Quigley steps back into the custard, raises the gun to waist level and walks purposely forward, pulling on the gun's trigger until the slide locks in the open position. The flashes of light from the gun’s muzzle briefly illuminates his granite features.
Quigley stops and looks down. A faint moaning sound can be heard off camera.
Quigley removes a piece of nicotine chewing gum from a pocket, into his mouth in one clean movement, chewing vigorously for that quick fix of nicotine.
The moaning sounds continue off camera, as Quigley removes the empty magazine from his “best friend” and presses home a full magazine extracted from another pocket.
That annoying, wet slap slappity slapping sound of chewing gum, forms an accompaniment to the 'off camera' moaning sounds.
Quigley spits out a few words from the corner of his mouth - the words all mixed up with chewing gum.
QUIGLEY
That was (slap) for Dobie, (slappity slap) now this is (slappity slap slap) for me……..
He fires off the full magazine into his victim’s body then pockets the gun in his breast pocket before turning and walking off into the night.
He suddenly stops, stoops over and retches. A small piece of gum exits his mouth and plops onto the sidewalk.
Quigley wipes his mouth, walks on, then suddenly stops and lets out a scream. The hot barrel from a well used trusty friend has burnt his left nipple.)
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Our American cousins
You may have caught the recent news item from Virginia(VA) in the good old US of A. It concerns the proposed ban on underwear being visible above the waistline of your pants (trousers), or to state it officially –
“exposes his below-waist undergarments in an offensive manner".
The proposal is to levy a $50 fine on anyone caught exposing said undergarments in an offensive manner. The “bill” has been adopted by a voted margin of 60 to 34, though has yet to clear the state senate to become law.
Mr. Algie T Howell, from Virginia, launched the crusade to ban undergarments being visible, stating that “they're supposed to be worn under something else."
He also stated that “to vote for this bill would be to do something good not only for Virginia, but for this entire country."
Virginia? Isn’t that the state where you don’t need to have a permit to own a firearm? In fact, the law states that you can legally carry your firearm in a public place as long as it is exposed and visible for all to see.
So basically, as a resident of Virginia, if you are seen with a gun sticking out of your belt, well, hell that’s ok! But if that belt be worn in a low slung manner, thereby exposing your undergarments, then you’ll be stopped by the police and fined $50 for exposing said undergarments in a public place.
The good old US of A - they'll be banning online gambling next!!
“exposes his below-waist undergarments in an offensive manner".
The proposal is to levy a $50 fine on anyone caught exposing said undergarments in an offensive manner. The “bill” has been adopted by a voted margin of 60 to 34, though has yet to clear the state senate to become law.
Mr. Algie T Howell, from Virginia, launched the crusade to ban undergarments being visible, stating that “they're supposed to be worn under something else."
He also stated that “to vote for this bill would be to do something good not only for Virginia, but for this entire country."
Virginia? Isn’t that the state where you don’t need to have a permit to own a firearm? In fact, the law states that you can legally carry your firearm in a public place as long as it is exposed and visible for all to see.
So basically, as a resident of Virginia, if you are seen with a gun sticking out of your belt, well, hell that’s ok! But if that belt be worn in a low slung manner, thereby exposing your undergarments, then you’ll be stopped by the police and fined $50 for exposing said undergarments in a public place.
The good old US of A - they'll be banning online gambling next!!
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Another true story......
I was in a bar in Scotland recently when two men got into an argument. One of them suddenly put his hand in his pocket, pulled out a cigarette and threatened to light it. The police were there in minutes and prevented a major incident.
A True Story?
The devil himself told me this story. He swears it's true. Though I take everything he tells me with 'a pinch of salt.'
It really creases him up. Not a pretty site by the way. Anyway, here it is, word for word as he told it to me.........
A couple from Minneapolis decided to go to Florida to thaw out during one particularly icy winter. They planned to stay at the very same hotel where they spent their honeymoon 20 years earlier.
Because of hectic schedules, it was difficult to co-ordinate their travel schedules. So, the husband left Minnesota and flew to Florida on Thursday, with his wife flying down the following day. The husband checked into the hotel.
There was a computer in his room, so he decided to send an e-mail to his wife. However, he accidentally left out one letter in her e-mail address and without realizing his error, he sent the e-mail.
Meanwhile.....somewhere in Houston, a widow had just returned home from her husband's funeral. He was a minister of many years who was called home to glory following a sudden heart attack. The widow decided to check her e-mails, expecting messages from relatives and friends.
After reading the first message, she fainted. The widow's son rushed into the room,
found his mother on the floor and saw the computer screen which read:
To: My Loving Wife
Subject: I've Arrived
Date: 8 Jan 2004
I know you're surprised to hear from me. They have computers here now and you are allowed to send e-mails to your loved ones. I've just arrived and have been checked in. I see that everything has been prepared for your arrival tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing you then! Hope your journey is as uneventful as mine was.
P.S. Sure is hot down here!
It really creases him up. Not a pretty site by the way. Anyway, here it is, word for word as he told it to me.........
A couple from Minneapolis decided to go to Florida to thaw out during one particularly icy winter. They planned to stay at the very same hotel where they spent their honeymoon 20 years earlier.
Because of hectic schedules, it was difficult to co-ordinate their travel schedules. So, the husband left Minnesota and flew to Florida on Thursday, with his wife flying down the following day. The husband checked into the hotel.
There was a computer in his room, so he decided to send an e-mail to his wife. However, he accidentally left out one letter in her e-mail address and without realizing his error, he sent the e-mail.
Meanwhile.....somewhere in Houston, a widow had just returned home from her husband's funeral. He was a minister of many years who was called home to glory following a sudden heart attack. The widow decided to check her e-mails, expecting messages from relatives and friends.
After reading the first message, she fainted. The widow's son rushed into the room,
found his mother on the floor and saw the computer screen which read:
To: My Loving Wife
Subject: I've Arrived
Date: 8 Jan 2004
I know you're surprised to hear from me. They have computers here now and you are allowed to send e-mails to your loved ones. I've just arrived and have been checked in. I see that everything has been prepared for your arrival tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing you then! Hope your journey is as uneventful as mine was.
P.S. Sure is hot down here!
Looking good for your age old chap.
An acquaintance asked recently, how I managed to look so good for my age.
I said 'That depends on what age you think I am.'
He said. 'I know how old you are. It states it in your profile. You're 104.'
I said. 'Don't be silly. How could I possibly be 104?'
'That's exactly what I thought.' He said.
'That photograph was taken 104 years ago.' I said. 'And I was 24 then!'
There was a pause before he asked. 'What moisturiser do you use?'
I said 'That depends on what age you think I am.'
He said. 'I know how old you are. It states it in your profile. You're 104.'
I said. 'Don't be silly. How could I possibly be 104?'
'That's exactly what I thought.' He said.
'That photograph was taken 104 years ago.' I said. 'And I was 24 then!'
There was a pause before he asked. 'What moisturiser do you use?'
Sierra Star Casino
Here's your chance to win some money WITHOUT having to place a deposit before getting the bonuses on offer.
With Sierra Star Casino you get $10 up front when you sign up as a member. No need to place a deposit to get the $10 Bonus. Just sign up and bet with the FREE $10.
Sign up here.
What do you have to lose? 10 bucks may not be much, but it could lead to greater things if you bet wisely. Use one of our casino gambling systems and you could be betting your way to a small fortune.
Good Luck
Internetgambler
With Sierra Star Casino you get $10 up front when you sign up as a member. No need to place a deposit to get the $10 Bonus. Just sign up and bet with the FREE $10.
Sign up here.
What do you have to lose? 10 bucks may not be much, but it could lead to greater things if you bet wisely. Use one of our casino gambling systems and you could be betting your way to a small fortune.
Good Luck
Internetgambler
Magic Box Casino
I don't often recommend other online casinos, as they represent 'the competition' but this is one that I have been very impressed by. Currently offering an excellent set of bonuses to get you off to a winning start.
My advice would be to familiarise yourself with the FREE gambling system strategies available at OUR SITE and then use your preferred strategy to enable a greater chance of winning on a regular basis.
Here's an example of their current bonuses on offer:
$567 WELCOME BONUS!
Get 3 great bonuses on your first 3 deposits:
1. We will give you a 100% match bonus of up to $115 on your FIRST deposit!
For example, deposit $115, play with $230!
2. We will give you a 50% match bonus of up to $225 on your SECOND deposit!
For example, deposit $200, play with $300!
3. We will give you a 50% match bonus of up to $227 on your THIRD deposit!
For example, deposit $150, play with $225!
Sign Up Here!
Good Luck!
internetgambler
My advice would be to familiarise yourself with the FREE gambling system strategies available at OUR SITE and then use your preferred strategy to enable a greater chance of winning on a regular basis.
Here's an example of their current bonuses on offer:
$567 WELCOME BONUS!
Get 3 great bonuses on your first 3 deposits:
1. We will give you a 100% match bonus of up to $115 on your FIRST deposit!
For example, deposit $115, play with $230!
2. We will give you a 50% match bonus of up to $225 on your SECOND deposit!
For example, deposit $200, play with $300!
3. We will give you a 50% match bonus of up to $227 on your THIRD deposit!
For example, deposit $150, play with $225!
Sign Up Here!
Good Luck!
internetgambler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
