I'm All Right, Jack ! (1959) : A racist message, or a subversive one ?

This is a place-holder for I'm All Right, Jack ! (1959) : A racist message, or a subversive one ?

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2019 (17 to 24 October)
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)

4 May

This is a place-holder for I'm All Right, Jack ! (1959) : A racist message, or a subversive one ?

Not recently, but - quite seriously - I was watching him in I'm All Right, Jack (1959) to-night

— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 4, 2020

If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here

Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

The Unhinged Tweets*

The Unhinged Tweets*

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2019 (17 to 24 October)
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)

12 May

The Unhinged Tweets*

Not only... :

The distributors wittily (?) probably intended both ?

The casualness of its #mh slur apart, an example of what would appear to be a pair of words, one of which we don't actually have

'That Crowe ? Yeah, he's well hinged, he is !'

Sadly, more at #UCFF :https://t.co/qvaIabXOns

— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 12, 2020

But also :

PS With 'that crazy N* thing', it's an attempt to turn us on, as it were, to type - as well as character-type ;)

* Which pixily connotes five-bar gates, as well as suggesting all the lack of promise that Bullhead (2011) was never really offering ?

— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 12, 2020

End-notes :

* Well, in these troubled times, we made the difficult decision - at #UCFF - to generate content, but with minimal effort...


If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here

Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

The 'Raindance' Tweets

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2019 (17 to 24 October)
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


11 May

Interesting :

Both times that #UCFF watched True Romance* (1993), there was no bank-robbery... ;)

* I.e. Quentin Tarantino's screenplay under Tony Scott's direction - *that* True Romance ? https://t.co/n7zR2mbINT

— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) April 10, 2020

Meanwhile, others find a difference between :

'Make my day punk' [Jubilee (1978) - Derek Jarman (director)]

- and -

'Make my day, punk' [Dirty Harry (1971) - Clint Eastwood (as Harry Callahan)] https://t.co/eucvYZK9wd

— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 11, 2020

If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here

Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Some Tweets about the efficacy of employment law

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2019 (17 to 24 October)
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)


11 May

It all started with the certainty claimed by this Tweet :

If your workplace isn’t safe, you don’t have to work there. Section 44 of the 1996 Employment Rights Act is clear on this. Stay home, save lives.

— James Meadway (@meadwaj) May 10, 2020

And then casually looking up the statutory reference (s. 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 (as amended)) :

Even if it did help to invoke s. 44, it's hard to see why anyone would rely on this Act of Parliament, let alone this section, when enforcement of rights in Emloyment Tribunals is a costly and hardly easy remedy :

Is there some case-law that justifies referring to it at all ?

— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 10, 2020

Or this Tweet ? :

- If your workplace isn’t safe, you don’t have to work there.
- Read Section 44 of the 1996 Employment Rights Act. 👇https://t.co/3L5KTZAerJ pic.twitter.com/fSx2ELwsdD

— Novara Media (@novaramedia) May 10, 2020

And replying :

Or s. 230 [https://t.co/l81upd9weW] ?

The word 'employee' appears in s. 44 (not 'worker'), and is defined in s. 230(1) :

'In this Act "employee" means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment' https://t.co/VnZZyVgeAl

— THE AGENT APSLEY #ScrapUniversalCredit #JC4PM2019 (@THEAGENTAPSLEY) May 11, 2020

In conclusion (of some sort) :

You're entirely correct to say that people must take advice on their individual circumstances before seeking to rely on sections 44/100. I am concerned about the various tweets flying around which suggest that these sections are a panacea - they are not, they are fact specific.

— Matt Sellwood (@MattSellwood) May 11, 2020

If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here

Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)

Note of a dream (uncorrected proof) : Max Reinhardt¹, and maybe not Nick Luscombe (?), was part of it

Note of this afternoon's dream : Max Reinhardt¹, but maybe not Nick Luscombe², were part of it

More views of - or before - Cambridge Film Festival 2019 (17 to 24 October)
(Click here to go directly to the Festival web-site)

10 May

Note of this afternoon's dream (uncorrected proof) : Max Reinhardt¹, but maybe not Nick Luscombe², was part of it

The Agent was looking at a metal crown, fitting to it some sort of cake-skirt (and adjusting it to fit), and chatting to @imaxreinhardt¹ about the crown's place in the history of music. (The skirt was largely transparent, but with red designs on it, and, when finally in place, tightened and fastened perfectly.)


It was Max¹ in that way that, in a dream, people are. [Ideally, for the dream's own internal purposes, the other person² with me needed to be <@nickluscombe, but I think that I became aware - even as I wasn't aware whether Max, in the dream, actually resembled him - that he didn't look like Nick (at all).]

Max was busy with something else in an amiable Blue Peter way (at some point, we were definitely 'on air', and the group of three, maybe four², of us tittered at a double entendre that we had managed not to get noticed).


In talking about the crown, the three of us - it was definitely just Max, 'Nick' and The Agent, by then - concluded that the required proof of something to do with it, or its musical connection, was missing.

'Nick' asked if I had read Hidden Proof by Mr Nerd, and apparently wasn't joking. Did we just linger on that question (which I didn't (couldn't ?) answer), and that caused the propitious dream-air to dissipate (Or it just did dissipate ?), since it clearly wasn't Nick after all ?


End-notes :

¹ He of the funky Twitter banner-images, no less.

² One of us had gone somewhere, off set, and didn't return before the dream ended (because I awoke - that got him !).


If you want to Tweet, Tweet away here

Unless stated otherwise, all films reviewed were screened at Festival Central (Arts Picturehouse, Cambridge)