Posts

Showing posts with the label BENIDORM

Sexy beast

R.I.P. Terence Stamp, of The Limey (1999). In his honor – more or less – I’m watching another fine movie about aging, expatriated, English gangsters: Jonathan Glazer’s Sexy Beast (2000), starring Ray Winstone and Ben Kingsley (not Terence Stamp). I don’t know why it’s called “Sexy Beast.” This is my third viewing. Once each decade is about right. Winstone is Gal, a genial gangster who has retired with his woman to a villa in Spain. He stretches out beside his pool, drinks his beer, and roasts. Or he potters around the countryside with another retiree and an errand-boy, shooting at rabbits. It’s a good life. There’s the occasional hiccup. A boulder rolls down a hill, almost kills Gal, and wrecks the bottom of his pool. Worse, Don – Kingsley – arrives from England to browbeat Gal into going back for a final robbery. (Gal is a safecracker or some such technician – I don’t quite remember; I haven’t reached the “heist” scene yet; I watch in installments, late at night.) Don is a honey badger. Or a demon. Gal dreams about Satan the night he finds out that Don is coming to Spain. The longest section of the movie shows Gal enduring Don’s relentless abuse. You’d think this would make for lousy viewing, but it doesn’t. Everything about this movie is entertaining. It wouldn’t be so much fun set in a dark den in East London, but this is Spain, specifically the sunlit, garish, hallucinatory, Mediterranean coast: the backdrop for such varied screen oddities as Morvern Callar and Benidorm: where pasty Britons flock to party or lie low or simply turn beet-red. That Gal has opted for the good life is an affront to Don’s frenetic code. It’s amusing that someone as nasty as Don should follow a code; but, does he ever.



1996, the best year in movie history, pt. 78: Ladybird, ladybird

What is it about British karaoke scenes that are so moving? Mike Leigh stages a lovely one in All or Nothing. The sitcom Benidorm, about a hotel for British tourists in Spain, concludes most episodes with karaoke. Some scenes are transcendent. (I don’t exaggerate.)

But why is karaoke so effective? The words and notes aren’t the singer’s, but the individuality of the performance is. We glimpse the distinctive person through her appropriation of the music.

Ken Loach’s Ladybird, Ladybird begins with karaoke. We observe several performers. Then the movie stays with one woman. A man in the audience is moved by her singing. He buys her a drink. He is Jorge (Vladimir Vega), a political refugee from Paraguay. She is Maggie (Chrissy Rock). She lives in a shelter. She’s had four children by four fathers. The state has taken them from her.

Hers is a terrible past. In flashbacks, we see the children forlornly trailing her through the streets as she brings home the shopping to an abusive boyfriend (the terrifying Ray Winstone). An accident occurs. The children are removed. Maggie visits them; one son has hung hellish drawings of the accident on his foster carer’s walls. Maggie lashes out at the carer, and at the social workers whose reports will determine the children’s placement. She doesn’t regain custody.


Jorge, the refugee, listens. He is kind. Maggie hardly can bring herself to trust him. But his optimism and good nature are formidable.

Maggie and Jorge make a home together. They conceive a child. Then truly horrific troubles begin. There is a parade of social workers, nurses, police, lawyers, and judges. Each does his or her bit to squash the couple. The neighbors are just as oppressive. There is no solidarity among members of the working class, no tidy escape into Marxian utopia.

Why pile misery upon misery, I wondered. Closing titles supply the answer: Maggie and Jorge are real people. They really suffered these things.

Maggie is not sentimentalized – not by the movie, and, despite his sympathy for her, not by Jorge. “We can see” the authorities’ “reasoning,” Roger Ebert writes: “Maggie explodes again and again”; she chooses imprudently again and again. And yet the authorities are “monstrous precisely because they seem to apply rules without any regard for the human beings in front of them.” Social worker after disheveled social worker looks down upon volatile Maggie and gentle Jorge. Some pronounce judgment without having met the couple. Others, during Maggie’s supervised visits with the children, frown and bury their noses in psychology texts. They choose not to see the person. This is why we can’t leave your children with you, one social worker says after Maggie explodes. Can’t you see, Jorge tells the social worker, this is a person in pain.

Jorge sees Maggie. He’s virtually powerless, but seeing is something he can do. That’s the least we should try to do, the movie argues. Loach has made other movies with this message, the most famous of which is Kes (1969), about a beaten-down youngster whom a kind teacher notices and tries to build up in others’ sight. I respect Loach, and I find his movies absorbing. But I put off watching them. They’re just so sad.

There’s an ethos, or a philosophy, or a family of philosophies, called personalism; Martin Luther King Jr. and John Paul II advocated it. It doesn’t get much discussion in the academic mainstream. I’m not sure whether discussion would clarify it much. Perhaps it’s clearer what personalism is not. It isn’t “identitarian”; it doesn’t consider the Black or the prole or the social worker first; it considers the individual person first. What this comes to is hard to say. How could I see you apart from your social roles?

A good beginning, maybe, would be to listen to your karaoke.

P.S. Chrissy Rock also has a role in Benidorm.

Closing credits

This year, I thank:

First, the people who gave money, advice, or labor to help our family to buy and move into our new house. I love our house. Every day, I am happy to be in it.

Second, our COVID-19 vaccinators.

Third, our TV. These shows stood out:
Now that I’ve listed them, I see they’re all police procedurals, except Benidorm (a sitcom). Their seriousness varies. Wire in the Blood is gothic and ridiculous. No Offence is jokey and ridiculous; it’s very near to being a sitcom. Rebecka Martinsson has the saddest murder cases. The saddest murderers are in Cracker, which Karin & I are currently watching. The best investigators to watch are played by Ida Engvoll in Rebecka Martinsson, Aaron Pederson in Mystery Road (and in two movies, Mystery Road and Goldstone), and Robbie Coltrane and Geraldine Somerville in Cracker. Pederson and Coltrane, I daresay, are great, and Somerville is often great (the script doesn’t give her enough scenes). Mystery Road and Wire in the Blood are stunningly photographed, and Mystery Road and Rebecka Martinsson have stunning landscapes. Benidorm is ugly to look at, and that’s the point.

One more show, or YouTube channel, is worth mentioning again: Un mundo inmenso.

For completeness, I’d have to list Samuel’s shows, which certainly have taken up much of my time; but I’ll let him discuss them when he begins to blog. This year he has taken great physical and intellectual strides. I am grateful to YouTube for his intellectual ones. Samuel now knows his colors, shapes, numbers, letters, animals, and vehicles; he recognizes quite a few written words; he repeats interesting phrases; and today, he sang a few lines along with Dua Lipa and Elton John.


This year I’ll have completed the Bible-reading schedule devised by Robert Murray M’Cheyne. It’s the best schedule I’ve used, and the Good News Translation has been a joy to read.

I also passed my eyes over more philosophy than in any year since I lived in Ithaca. I wrote down the title of every article and book chapter I finished. Perusing the titles, I’m dismayed that I remember so little of the content. There’s something to be said for reading less.

(This doesn’t reflect well upon the industry of philosophy, whose practitioners are caught up in a whirlwind of having to publish more and more and more.)

I also wrote down the vast majority of the calories I ate; and, consequently, I lost a lot of lbs.

So did Karin, though she’s been gaining weight again. In February, Lord willing, we’ll have another son.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

P.S. I forgot Clarkson’s Farm. That show was outstanding, too!

World Cup updates; “I love you”; Benidorm; the reader

With just five matches to play, we’re dragging ourselves over the finish line. Last month, in Colombia, we did some heroic time-wasting to earn a 0–0 draw. Kudos to our savvy goalkeeper, Alexander Domínguez, for wasting ten or fifteen minutes during his goal kicks; and to the VAR officials for annulling Colombia’s last-minute goal.

Then, a few days ago, we eked out a 1–0 home victory against cellar-dwellers Venezuela. We were so poor, the result was downright inspiring.

(In fairness, many of our regular players weren’t available.)

Tomorrow night, we’ll play in Chile. The Chileans also have been poor. Even so, they’re on a three-game winning streak and have climbed to fourth place, four points behind us.

If we so much as draw this game, our position will be very strong.

Colombia and Uruguay, the other nearest contenders, also have been struggling.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

The Troggs (on Spotify): “Wild thing, I think I love you.”

Samuel: “I love you.”

He doesn’t say it to his parents; he only repeats what he hears from the TV. When he first said “I love you,” he was repeating a sign-language lesson from Baby Einstein.

Tonight he said, “Love Benidorm.” He really does love Benidorm, the little weirdo.

I think he can read or at least recognize words he’s seen in his books. Today, he recognized the word “summer” when it appeared on the TV; and, yesterday, when the word “Texas” appeared on the TV, he said “taxi.” He’s been doing this for several months.