Mike Chalmers Blog       /      archive       message




I begin tucking him into bed and he tells me, “Daddy check for monsters under my bed.” I look underneath for his amusement and see him, another him, under the bed, staring back at me quivering and whispering, “Daddy there’s somebody on my bed.”

27 July 2013     1:25 pm

26 June 2013     11:47 am     1 note

Ohnotheydidn’t just posted a list of iconic roles turned down by famous actors, which I mindlessly clicked through to - but it turned out to be quite interesting and made me oddly nostalgic for what might have been. It also forced me to question my own tastes and rationality. For instance:

Sean Connery was almost Gandalf and Morpheus. I love Sir Sean, he’s my favourite Bond and I quote two of his other films on an almost daily basis (“What’s a haggis?" and "This is a raid!”) but I can’t see him improving on either of these iconic characters. I’m glad he didn’t. Sir Ian is perfect as Gandalf (I actually think he’s probably a better actor) and, I’ve never really considered this before but, Fishburne brings some ethnic diversity to the future of The Matrix that I now think made the initial film a lot stronger. Plus his performance was great and I’m not sure that Sir Sean would have enhanced the character. Sorry, Sean.

Paul Rudd was nearly Bradley Cooper’s character in The Hangover. On the other hand, here’s a movie that everyone likes, if everyone that I have blocked from my Facebook stream is anything to go by. I have tried - and failed - to get on board. I just don’t like the premise or the broad humour and all the ‘wackiness’ involved. However, I’ve been a big Rudd fan from day 1. Okay, maybe I wasn’t proclaiming my admiration circa Clueless - or even Titanic - yet, but as soon as he was funny, I was there. I think he’s good in the ‘straight guy’ role and I don’t know if he’d have turned The Hangover into a film I genuinely liked and would re-watch from time to time. But probably. I would at least have watched all three and probably gone to the cinema and everything.

Bill Murray was nearly Forrest Gump. I love Hanks in everything. I loved 80s Hanks and he is intertwined in my memories and childhood. I thought Tom Hanks was great in Gump and I have watched it several times. But this is Bill Murray we are talking about. What would this have been like? I honestly don’t know if Murray would have been energetic enough to pull it off and if he would bring a sardonic quality that would ruin the unwitting good-naturedness of the character, but boy would I love to see him try. We’ll always have Groundhog Day, Bill.

20 June 2013     8:11 pm     2 notes

David Foster Wallace’s notebook
"The relatively short extensions on letters like ‘t’ and ‘d’ indicate a writer who is “practical” and “mechanical” and suggests “short-term goals,” whatever that means. Like Palahniuk, Wallace prints, though we would argue that his writing is much more “harmonious” and thus more likely to indicate “a person who thinks in a building block fashion… able to take many small details and combine them into a coordinated whole.” Well, after our five hundredth footnote, we know that’s accurate."
- Analyzing Writers’ Personalities From Their Handwritten Manuscripts

16 February 2012     2:26 pm     13 notes

David Foster Wallace’s notebook

"The relatively short extensions on letters like ‘t’ and ‘d’ indicate a writer who is “practical” and “mechanical” and suggests “short-term goals,” whatever that means. Like Palahniuk, Wallace prints, though we would argue that his writing is much more “harmonious” and thus more likely to indicate “a person who thinks in a building block fashion… able to take many small details and combine them into a coordinated whole.” Well, after our five hundredth footnote, we know that’s accurate."

Analyzing Writers’ Personalities From Their Handwritten Manuscripts

Not new, but still relavent. 

05 February 2011     9:11 pm

15 October 2010     4:33 pm     3 notes

The question is, can an addiction to television be destructive? The answer we receive from modern science is a resounding “Yes!”

Wes Moore  - Television: Opiate of the Masses

August 2010     10:09 pm

thepublics:

Cinema’s Invisible Art
Film is a visual medium’. So goes the screenwriter’s favourite truism. And hence the most sublime joy of reading screenplays: the language of scene action. I’m not denying the pleasures of the cinematic experience for one moment. But the literary pleasures to be had from reading well-written scene action can be extremely powerful – and yet are largely overlooked…

The General laughs. Rianne shrieks. Harrowing. Terrible. A scene out of Hell. And then the Devil comes in and kicks the door off its hinges. Okay. Okay. Let’s stop for a moment. First off, to describe fully the mayhem which Riggs now creates would not do it justice. Here, however, are a few pointers: He is not flashy. He is not Chuck Norris. Rather, he is like a sledge-hammer hitting an egg. He does not knock people down. He does not injure them.
He simply kills them. The whole room. Everyone standing.

28 March 2010     1:13 pm     10 notes

thepublics:

Cinema’s Invisible Art

Film is a visual medium’. So goes the screenwriter’s favourite truism. And hence the most sublime joy of reading screenplays: the language of scene action. I’m not denying the pleasures of the cinematic experience for one moment. But the literary pleasures to be had from reading well-written scene action can be extremely powerful – and yet are largely overlooked…


The General laughs. Rianne shrieks. Harrowing. Terrible. A scene out of Hell. And then the Devil comes in and kicks the door off its hinges. Okay. Okay. Let’s stop for a moment. First off, to describe fully the mayhem which Riggs now creates would not do it justice. Here, however, are a few pointers: He is not flashy. He is not Chuck Norris. Rather, he is like a sledge-hammer hitting an egg. He does not knock people down. He does not injure them.
He simply kills them. The whole room. Everyone standing.