Toy Story a kids' film? Nah...no such thing now!

There is no doubt that over the next few weeks of the summer holidays one of the most frequently visited places will be the local cinema.

Whether it’s Bath’s excellent multi-screen Odeon or my favourite movie house in the world –The Little Theatre – countless parents will be taking their offspring along in the hope of two or three hours of peace as their children remain engrossed and out of mischief.

In the past, I suspect many parents were happy to take their youngsters to what were called ‘children’s films’ so they could have a quiet snooze, safe in the knowledge that their young charges were being royally entertained. Now, however, there is less of a distinction between a children’s film and an adults’ one and as a perfect example of this genre I give you the latest Toy Story film, Toy Story 3.

The whole Toy Story trilogy – the Shrek films are very similar – has helped created a whole new style of film which is aimed (on the surface) at the younger market but which contains so much material and clever writing that an adult can be fooled into believing this film is almost exclusively for them.

On Sunday we, that is two grown adults with no children present, settled down to watch Toy Story without any fear that someone would point to us and say “you’re too old to be in here!”. We did, obviously sit quite close to children so we could pretend we were related if challenged, but the reality is we didn’t need to because I would estimate that half the audience could be classified as adults without families. I saw many couples of different ages and even a group of teenage goths piling in eagerly awaiting to see Woody and Buzz in action.

A kids’ film? Nah . . .

It is, of course, all an example of brilliant marketing – after all, if you can write a film that a six-year-old and a 60-year-old can laugh along with at the same time then you have struck box office gold. Different generations have always enjoyed films together but what makes the Toy Story/Shrek concept different is that the writers have skilfully engineered the scripts so sometimes you are laughing at different lines to your offspring or there are double entendres which means you’re both laughing at the same time – but at different things. (As an example, does anybody else who has seen Toy Story 3 agree with me that Ken isn’t quite, ahem, Barbie’s ‘type’!)

I think what these films show is that, above all, it is great writing that makes a great film and there is something particularly impressive about people who can write a script that has such universal appeal that a wide-eyed four-year-old can be grinning next to a black-clad emo and both of them feel entirely comfortable with what they’re watching.

Incidentally, I saw Toy Story in its 3D form and even this made all of us of different ages feel united in a shared experience. With 3D you all look that little bit silly anyway which puts you in the perfect mood as you prepare to go on a glorious journey to infinity and beyond . . .

Hurt Locker reminded us of the men behind the uniform

Apologies for the delay in putting this up.

This is the column I wrote for the Bath Chronicle and was printed on March 11.

The last time I used my columns to talk about war/ peace et al, it created a healthy debate on our letters pages – and, to put it mildly, not everyone agreed with my views. But provoking debate is one of the main reasons such columns as this exist so here I go into battle-station mode yet again.

Literally.

I have been provoked to do so after being truly delighted on Sunday night to see the remarkable Iraq war drama The Hurt Locker grab the two most important Oscars for best film and best director.

This was definitely my choice of the film of 2009 but I feared that the esteemed Hollywood Academy would have been so bowled over by the multi-millions raked in by 3D epic Avatar that they would have gone for that overlong slice of Pocahontas-in-space sci-fi nonsense instead.
TIN.

But, thankfully, they didn't and The Hurt Locker was rightfully given the star billing it truly deserved.

For those who haven't yet seen the film (and I do hope it now gets a wider release following its Oscar success) it follows four ordinary American soldiers who just happen to have one of the worst jobs in the military – bomb disposal.

In often painstakingly intricate detail, it shows how every decision they make could literally be of life and death proportions and you can't help but put yourself in their shoes and just feel eternally grateful that you don't have to put on such footwear.

Where I think the film also triumphs is that unlike many dramas to do with wars past and present, this film makes no social or political commentary about the reasons why the soldiers are where they are. We all may have our own views about the need for our fellow countrymen to be in Iraq or Afghanistan but the real power of The Hurt Locker is to remind us all that behind the politics and the big debates are just ordinary men and women who are asked to do extraordinary jobs in inhospitable surroundings.

The film works because you look beyond the uniform and just see the men instead.

I personally think we should try to do that with all our soldiers who are currently fighting in the terrible conditions of Afghanistan. Whatever people may think of the rights and wrongs about this conflict, we should never forget that the people who have a Union Jack on their uniforms were given no choice about being sent to the front and must therefore be treated with respect for their work there regardless of our views on whether it is right or not that they are caught up in this strange and often bewildering campaign.

Men and women choose to join our forces for all kind of reasons but as Jack Nicholson's character in the film A Few Good Men pointedly says, they are sometimes doing the sort of work that we may not want to even think about but may just be making it that bit easier for us all to sleep safely each night.

The Hurt Locker is important because it shows that it is politics that causes wars but it is men and women that have to fight them.

We should never forget that.

Kermode, Hitchins and the power of belief

You just can’t beat a bit of passion.

No, I’m not referring to the passion associated with, say, John Terry or Tiger Woods, but I’m talking about people who really care about something that interests them and can carry you along even if you don’t necessarily support their view.

I have seen two great examples of such passion this week during the Bath Literature Festival. The events I’ve attended so far have all been excellent and I really feel this festival has been a tour-de-force but it was the passion of two people that left the biggest impression on me.

The first was possibly from a somewhat unlikely source. I’ve often read columns by Daily Mail writer Peter Hitchens or seen him on television and thought I had very little in common with a man who seemed to the right of Atilla the Hun. I genuinely thought he hammed up his views for the benefit of the paper and the camera – but I saw him in action in the flesh on Tuesday and really saw his absolute commitment and belief. And my respect for him grew enormously.

Basically, Mr Hitchens believes that there is very little in modern politics to tempt the majority of British people to get excited. He believes that the idea that we are all ‘centrist now’ and we live in the land of consensus politics is completely wrong and he says that there is no credible outlet for millions of ordinary Brits.

Given the opportunity to explain this view, Mr Hitchens came alive and although there were still moments that made me wince, I saw a man who truly believed in what he said, said it with humour, fervour and honesty and refused to play to the gallery. He just truly believed in his words – and I really rather liked that.

Fast-forward just a few hours and I witnessed another man who exudes the passion that comes from delighting in his chosen field.

Mark Kermode has long been the best film critic in this country because he is sharp, funny, intelligent, unpredictable and above all, totally committed to the medium of film. He doesn’t suck up to stars (Jonathan Ross’s fatal flaw in his film work I’m afraid), he just says what he feels and says it with aplomb and a conviction that makes you smile even if you don’t always agree with what he says.

Take 3D for example.

Mr Kermode is virtually alone at the moment in the movie industry in saying that this is actually a bad thing and we are just being conned into believing we are getting more for our money. He showed us his personal ‘3D rectifier glasses’ which takes movies back to 2D and he passionately argued even when challenged that films such as Up and Avatar are better just as plain old films than as ‘3D experiences’.

In my opinion the people who most inspire and excite are those like Mr Hitchens and Mr Kermode (and yes, I do admit, that’s the only way you’ll get those two in the same sentence), who speak from the heart but have the head and intelligence to give substance to their words.

Oh, if only John Terry had concentrated on such ‘head passion’ instead...