Yesterday was one of stark contrasts. One of my closest friends contacted me with some desperately sad news about her unborn son, and 30 minutes later, a friend of mine I believed to have died called me up out of the blue. It’s not a funny old world by any means but on occasion it can trip you up.
I spent another evening in the chasm of sobriety, I’ve quite a schedule over the next few evenings so two days away from booze seemed ‘sensible’. I found last night quite simple to deal with, once one has accepted one isn’t going to drink in the evening as soon as one awakes, thereby quashing any acceptation that the day is going to be anything other than fucking shite, it’s sort of alright living through it fully aware of the whole world about you in stark boring anti-climax.
The bright sunny evening and bike ride home cheered me though, it’s funny how putting myself in mortal danger in order to satisfy my lust for hard acceleration gives me such a thrill, I can see parallels between that and drinking too much or taking drugs, though the latter elements are slower of course. I was thinking about this with regard to the ban on advertising tobacco in motorsport, yes, smoking isn’t particularly good for your health but far worse would be to hit a fucking wall at 200 mph.
Following supper and a documentary on the Gutenburg Press which I knew more about than the documentary, though it was enjoyable enough to watch the arcane process first hand, I watched Name of The Rose. I’d not seen it for a while and had forgotten how utterly wonderful it is, it’s not aged (of course) and still has the emotional punch I recall when first seeing it some 20 years ago as teenager, it’s almost without flaw and as contemporary medieval thrillers go, it’s without peer.
The only irksome aspect of the evening was finding lumps of James’ stomach lining in my washed clothes. I’d thrown the vomit clad sofa bedclothes into the machine within an hour of their soiling and washed them at once in the wee hours of Sunday morning. I’d forgotten all about them until early evening yesterday when I went to fill the machine and found a huge pile of wet stuff quietly retting away.
I grabbed bundles of sheets, towels pants and other ephemeral items of clothing and pulled them onto the kitchen floor, but in addition to sweet smelling linen there were large dog-food like chunks scattered about the laundered clothes, back they all went into the drum, the floor was brushed of James’ lunch and I fired up the machine again. Two hours later the same thing happened, there were fewer lumps of Chum but enough to put the clothes back in to wash, the floor was brushed a second time and the machine switched on.
Third time lucky, well luckyish, after the Name of the Rose and before I went to bed to spend an good hour reading I found myself picking small lumps of someone else’s sick off my underpants.
Here is the first of the promised youtube discoveries from Friday night, fucking great stuff…
April 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
That video was a big pile of crap.
I watched the Stephen Fry thing and The Name of the Rose last night too. I’d forgotten what a collection of gargoyles they’d got to play the monks – was this intentional? I only wonder because when the Franciscans turn up, they’re all relatively normal-looking. Anyway, smashing film, though not as good as the book.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Doesn’t Christian Slater have his way with some titty temptress?
I liked that bit when I was a lad.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Glad you didn’t ‘get’ the video -means I remain in my lofty state unchallenged. Just thought it was interesting how they recorded songs in one shot…
Yes, the ugly was intentional, the Franciscans were a moderate and practical order in comparison to the Benedictines who were much more ‘intellectual’ and devotional and took the word of the bible as the fixed word of God.
The plot of the story is to hide the books of comedy from the masses as it can supposedly encourage immoral behaviour after all.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:31 am
He does indeed SH, surprisingly explicit that scene, my front cock went all funny
April 15th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Yes, I think we all get the plot of the film. Well done for pointing out the bleeding obvious. Swineshead’s right about the titular temptress. There’s a cracking shot of her grinding her fantastic arse, and her tits are smashing tits.
And your risible history lesson about the two monastic orders depicted in the movie is simplistic, and doesn’t actually explain why the filmmakers depicted the monks in this monastery as ugly bastards.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:39 am
You did ask…
‘I’d forgotten what a collection of gargoyles they’d got to play the monks – was this intentional?’
did you not?
They didn’t laugh, they were devoid of humour and joy, this was reperesented with their faces, it’s very very very very simple and obvious.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I did indeed ask. And you, as per usual, failed to answer in any logical fashion. I asked for your opinion on whether them being ugly bastards was an intentional ploy on the part of the film makers, you replied with a pop-up, four year old’s explanation of the differences between the Franciscans and the Benedictines. That’s not actually answering the question I asked you. It’s very very very very very simple.
And they did laugh, even the ugly buggers.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Yes, it was an intentional ploy; I’ve made that abundantly clear surely…
Breugal influenced the look of the exterior of the monastery and Piranesi the library complex; you can have that for free.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
*fucks off*
April 15th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I know you think it’s an intentional ploy, you just don’t seem to able to explain why in any logical fashion. Ah well.
As for your incredible skill of remembering some arty farty people’s names, thanks, but I don’t want that for free. I don’t know who it is you’re trying to impress with your wanky ‘knowledge’, but it ain’t impressing me, you fat ponce.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:38 am
It’s too late I MADE YOU LEARN AHAHAHAHAHAHA, YOU’RE MINE, FOREVER
April 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
There’s fuck-all I can learn from you, thanks all the same. If you’d bothered to read the book, you’d have discovered the layout of the monastery and the library are printed inside. I can’t learn much from ‘facts’ made up by a man who’s trying rather too hard to impress. And as for being ‘influenced’ by these folk? Right you are. So the fact the monastery looks exactly like a Medieval Italian monastery didn’t lead you to believe the design was influenced by a Medieval Italian monastery? No? Why would you, when you can throw in some fancy names and make up some bullshit instead? Try reading the book, you ignorant sod.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I could teach you some manners potty mouth
(I have read the fucking book)
As you may be aware though, that writing is different to pictures (being a cartoonists and what have you, thought you may have grasped that) so in order to translate the literary word to the screen, like, certain motifs need to be employed to visually imply ‘medieval’ and basic plot, such as sullen ugly Benedictine monks and roguish Franciscans
It has also failed to cross your brain that Eco himself when writing the fucking book would have taken his literary descriptions from contemporary images of the medieval by regarding artists such as Breugal, Piranesi (the only Italian in the list of examples, note) Bosch, Cranach, Durer etc etc and of course by studying illuminated manuscripts themselves.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Or he may have taken his influence from studying the layout of Medieval Italian monasteries, perhaps? The words in your final paragraph that should be noted here are:
“Eco himself when writing the fucking book would have taken his literary descriptions from contemporary images of the medieval…”
See the words ‘would have’ in there? Or, in other words, you don’t know and have made it up. We can all fire off lists of famous Medieval etchers and painters and what-have-you. However, whether they were an influence on this man when he was writing this book is conjecture on your part, and nothing more. Ditto the set designers.
It’s clearly failed to cross your brain that, when imagining a Medieval monastery, a good starting-point for both an author and a set designer would be a Medieval monastery. A Bruegel painting of naked people being tortured in Hell isn’t of great help when designing aedificiums and cloisters and the like.
Of course, you went to art college, so you’ve been taught that everything has to be more fucking complicated than it usually is. Talk about up your own arse.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
That’s stating the bloody obvious isn’t it, studying the ‘layout of a medieval monastery’
That’s you and I staring at a gutless stone shell for 2 hours with a couple of blokes in hoods reading Hustler
Well researched
April 15th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
As opposed to your well-researched notions? Or, ‘made-up theories about how a designer designs a monastery that cast you in a clever light without any actual evidence’, perhaps? I’m merely suggesting that a designer would perhaps look at a medieval monastery when he’s designing a medieval monastery, as opposed to some old paintings that, being painted before the dawn of perspective, are stylised versions of medieval scenes.
Of course, that would be too practical for the likes of you, wouldn’t it? Instead of designing a monastery from the ground-up by researching monasteries, you like to think the writer and designers were as artsy-fartsy as you are. They surely couldn’t have researched medieval architecture when designing medieval architecture? No! Not when there were all those wonderful works by Piranesi to draw influence from instead? Surely not! How incredibly low-brow and common!
You’ll actually find most folk in the arts need to get the job done. Get it done practically, as opposed to wanking over irrellevant rubbish that wouldn’t actually allow them to fullfill the brief.
Brief: Design an medieval Italian monastery. Practical solution to brief: Study medieval Italian monasteries.
See?
And yes, it’s stating the obvious. Because if someone doesn’t, you get away with fanciful, made-up claptrap designed to make yourself seem cleverer than you actually are. They designed this monastery using these artists as an influence, did they? Where’s your evidence?
April 15th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Piqued – tomorrow why not just post a series of bullet pointed indisputable facts? Napoleon will still turn up and argue with you.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I took it as a given that they used the basic layout of an existing buildings and, in addition, depict images ‘of the medieval’ (not just the building, it was you that started harping on about that) carts, peasants, costume etc.,
My theory is based on paintings/drawings I’ve seen used as models for the some of the set designs et al
http://www.ideofact.com/archives/Imaginary%20Prison.jpg
http://www.jmarkbertrand.com/pics/proverbs_big.jpg
http://www.chowdernation.com/images/Durer.jpg
I can assure you the library was pure fiction, that was based on Piranesi, I’ve supplied one example, check the rest yourself. If you can’t see that almost verbatim then there is something wrong with your face.
I should think they would let any old cunt wander into the film studies and just get paid for producing some replicas of a few layouts of monasteries, do you? Don’t you think to get that atmosphere, that detail then they may just be a grain of truth in what I’m saying your arrogant chip on your shoulder dolt?
April 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Not if he actually gets something right, I won’t. That’s getting something right as opposed to making fanciful statements that I’m supposed to swallow as facts. Chance would be a fine thing.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Again, no actual evidence supplied that the writer or designers based their designs on either Bruegel or Piranesi. Just some links to artwork. That establishes the fact you can look up medieval paintings and engravings on the internet, not that they directly influenced the film’s architecture.
Again, I’m merely suggesting that the influence you’ve decided to tell the world about as if it’s an established fact is more likely to have stemmed from a study of medieval architecture. Usually, the most practical solution is the way people tend to go.
And the library, if you’d bothered to read the book, is described exactly as it appears in the film. Sorry if that bursts your Piranesi bubble, but that’s just the facts of the case.
It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility to see a replica of a medieval Italian monastery and assume the designers took their cue from medieval Italian architecture. It certainly seems more practical than your romantic notion that they sat about dreaming this stuff up after looking at 14th century engravings. For one thing, if you’d built your replicas in the style of Breugel’s buildings, they would have looked bizarre, and would have fallen down. This is, after all, work undertaken before the Renaissance.
As for atmosphere? Hmm, fog and snow. Must have had to do a lot of studying of Duhrer to come up with that.
Still, let’s all live in an airy-fairy dream world where Piqued is clapped on the back for his incredible knowledge of medieval art. That the practical facts don’t stand up to scrutiny is neither here nor there, apparently. Instead, let’s look at some links that fit in with his made-up notions about how you go about designing a medieval monastery in the most abstract fashion possible. Huzzah.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I’m running the risk of repeating myself so I won’t bother…
You’re just making assumptions; I’m trying to give some evidence for my theory. Breugel was working during the heyday of the Spanish Inquisition, incidentally, so I’m not sure where that argument was leading…
Surprised you don’t get the Piranesi aspect at least, and that you can’t grasp that writing can be influenced by actual images. If a writer is unable to paint a mental picture it’s going to be a pretty shit book isn’t it, The Name of the Rose is choc full of descriptive prose is it not?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
And you’re not answering my central grievance concerning your off-the-cuff remarks. Instead, you’re focusing on the minute and ignoring the bigger picture. I have no doubt the set designers looked at some contemporary art when they were designing the film, I just don’t believe the main influence on the design was what you said it was. Again, looking at the finished product, it looks awfully like the main influence behind the design was a MEDIEVAL FUCKING ITALIAN FUCKING MONASTERY, YOU HIDEBOUND FUCKING OGRE.
And I can grasp the notion that writing can be influenced by actual images, cheers. However, that wasn’t what you originally said in your smartarse, made-up claims, was it?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
*strips naked*
*paints self blue*
*runs around warbling*
April 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
And to make matters worse, Hawkwind’s on the fucking radio.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I said this
‘Breugel influenced the look of the exterior of the monastery and Piranesi the library complex’
Influenced, inspired, I didn’t say create, twat. As said, I took it as a given they’d researched and created from actual patterns
…though in hindsight I’m prepared to say Piranesi DID create the pattern for the the look of the libraray complex
April 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
That’s enough for me, a sign of victory
April 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Well you’re wrong, as per usual. And you’re a louse.
*wins again*
April 15th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Sure I brushed you off the kitchen floor last night
I’m spot on, nar nar na nar naaar
April 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hmm. What a witty comeback. Shame it didn’t make any sense, as usual.
You’re not spot-on.
*still wins*
*holds up trophy*
*thunderous applause from audience*
April 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
There’s proof you don’t fucking read what’s been written when it’s right in your face. You read as far as ‘Name of the Rose’ which probably took you 10 minutes, then gave up. Very interesting.
*wins double whammy*
Here, I don’t need this, I’ve won loads already, you take it NC your poor sod, go on mate, take it
Aw bless, he’s all crying
April 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Very clever. As has been firmly established in previous arguments, you neither read nor understand anything that’s ever said to you. You have the argument-construction capabilities of a four year old. It’s hardly my fault if you post spurious nonsense on your site, then expect not to brought up on it. Still, what are facts when you can just make stuff up?
*runs round stadium showing trophy to adoring fans*
*later pisses up Piqued’s future killer (his bike)*
April 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
*later pisses up Piqued’s future killer (his bike)*
Yes, that made sense
*waves cock*
April 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Your bike will kill you – simple enough to understand?
Makes a damn sight more sense than …
“Sure I brushed you off the kitchen floor last night”
… after I call you a louse.
*waves bigger cock whilst holding Nigella’s udders won in a previous engagement*
April 15th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
That’s nice, thanks
What I said made complete sense, irrespective of you calling me ‘a louse’
*calls police*
‘Yes, hello officer, there is man outside my house waving his, yes, it looks like a penis only smaller, at me and he appears to be carrying a large severed pair of breasts…’
April 15th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
No it doesn’t. I called you a louse, and you replied:
“Sure I brushed you off the kitchen floor last night”
So what does that mean? Sure (don’t know why you put ‘sure’ at the start, but I’ll follow suit), you, a louse, brushed me, the one who called you a louse, off the kitchen floor? Is that what lice do, then? Brush humans off the floor? How’s that a witty comeback? It doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense, you arse.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
(aiming a stern look at piqued then at NC) Gentlemen, (using the word lightly), the banter between the two of you somewhat excludes some people. It’s like stumberling in on two old gits trying to tear strips of each other. At the very least you should provide recliners and refreshment so some of us could, at least, watch in comfort!
April 15th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
He started it.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Well I haven’t ‘contributed’ today, so here’s my two cents:
$0.02
*thumbs up*
April 16th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
NC will get a botty slap if he back chats his betters, that is ME…MEMEME…
John Q you are very cheap though witty, which is odd in one so young.