Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
He wasn't a trader! He just flogged crap to people with massive markups.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
We saw "Wolf" at the Almeida a time ago and enjoyed it thoroughly. Maybe being in a live audience with a demonically possessed production helped? I am sad for the the "facebook generation" staring at a disembodied screen remote from social contact.
It was not exactly a vintage year for films last year (and having checked it actually came out in 2019) but Knives Out was a recent film that might make it into my personal favourite list. It is certainly a film you want to see at least twice.
Agreed. It wasn’t remotely what I expected and I loved it.
Also, in a similar (but not that similar) vein Grand Budapest Hotel. I like it when a Director just does their thing, and the cast play along.
Oh I just love Grand Budapest Hotel. Wes Anderson is one of the few directors whose films I will watch just because of his name. I am rarely, if ever disappointed. But GBH was just brilliant.
And has anybody seen House of Games? David Mamet's directorial debut. A neo-noir heist thriller.
Yes. Bit dated now, but quite brilliant when it came out.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Irishman is up there. The final hour is without merit.
However, its worse crime against cinema is the de-aging CGI - that every vain Hollywood star (ie, all of them) is going to be requiring in their contracts....
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
Whilst Canonball Run is arguably the greatest film ever made, Canonball Run 2 was entertainingly derivative, even John Candy couldn’t save Speed Zone.
One of the most iconic intro sequences of any movie - and an event that still inspires a few mad Americans today, especially over the past year when the roads got somewhat quieter than usual!
Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
Used to get a lot of this in the Crimea. One thing the Ruskies do really well.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
Whilst Canonball Run is arguably the greatest film ever made, Canonball Run 2 was entertainingly derivative, even John Candy couldn’t save Speed Zone.
One of the most iconic intro sequences of any movie - and an event that still inspires a few mad Americans today, especially over the past year when the roads got somewhat quieter than usual!
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
He wasn't a trader! He just flogged crap to people with massive markups.
For me the film was worth it for the selling scene. One of the best scenes in movies period.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
Used to get a lot of this in the Crimea. One thing the Ruskies do really well.
BANG.
It has a great cast: Alec Guinness, Dennis Price, Alec Guinness, Valerie Hobson, Alec Guinness, Joan Greenwood, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, and Alec Guinness.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed
I would have stopped there, tbh. Still works.
If the Department for Education’s response to Covid has revealed the hollowness of Britain’s administrative structures, then it has probably brought a final end to the MSM as a meaningful source of news and information.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
As reported it’s a typical gimmick. Enough money for each school - regardless of need - 2/3 teachers for 2/3 weeks. Plus more resources on ONA. Don’t know what your experience is with that, but I found them useful for precisely two lessons among the 230 I have taught in lockdown.
I don’t think this is going anywhere, if I’m honest. Like masks in classrooms only more expensive.
Re previous posts. "Lawrence of Arabia" is easily my favourite film. The best film ever made, and what cinemas are for.
I think Apocalypse Now is my favourite. Every time that I watch it, I see something new.
For a very long period of my life I'd also have said the same. I went to see it when I was perhaps 15, and I'd had to drag my Dad along because it was AA certificate. I rather love the film because we saw it together - the only film that I ever saw just the two of us. We both emerged a little shocked and speechless.
Anyway in recent years I've come to view David Lean's masterpiece as edging it.
ZULU is peerless: so many superb scenes
Asking what is the best movie is like asking "what is the best country" or "what is the best weather" or "what is the best form of cooking eggs". You have to choose a genre
As a war movie, Zulu beats Apocalypse Now, shorter, sharper, more wrenching and yet exhilarating
Rom coms? Notting Hill? Richard Curtis is much maligned these days, but that was excellently done
Boxing? Raging Bull. Maybe indeed the best movie about masculinity in general
Gangsters: Goodfellas, for sure.
Damn that's two Scorseses in one list. He is impressive
The best RomCom is There's Something About Mary, it is probably the best film in a whole host of other categories as well.
The Godfather pts I & II rival Goodfellas as best gangster, wouldn't you say? All three are great (Gf I & II + Goodfellas)
Raging Bull is probably the only Boxing film I have seen other than Champ... Champ affected me quite deeply though, I bawled my eyes out. Oh and a couple of the Rocky's I suppose. Never really got into them
The best Gambling film is The Sting
The Lives of Others is great @Casino_Royale, so is Play Misty For Me, and two of my all time faves, Cool Hand Luke, and Hombre
Once Upon a Time in America comes close, but doesn't quite beat, Godfather pts I & II, especially not together.
However Once Upon a Time in the West is definitely the best Western of all time.
True, but the final gunfight in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is one of the best scenes in cinema, showing just how to put score and cinematography together.
Ennio Morricone is surely the greatest film composer of all time ?
For originality and atmosphere, definitely.
I get really fed up with film scores these days - they just seem to be painting by numbers or completely overblown (yes, you, Hans Zimmer)
I think Zimmer can be better on a smaller canvass, which is counter-intuitive given the character of his music. But consider for example his theme intro for 'The Crown'
That said, the Dunkirk score is a masterpiece; one of the few features of that film that are as good on second viewing
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Interesting chat with my brother last night. One of his kids schools is going to be alternating weeks in class and online, another is having staggered return by years. I didn't know so much flexibility was allowed.
My niece is annoyed at going back as she has so much online extracurricular stuff to do rather than commute. My nephew rather liked online PE, sitting on the sofa watching his teacher sweat...
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
As reported it’s a typical gimmick. Enough money for each school - regardless of need - 2/3 teachers for 2/3 weeks. Plus more resources on ONA. Don’t know what your experience is with that, but I found them useful for precisely two lessons among the 230 I have taught in lockdown.
I don’t think this is going anywhere, if I’m honest. Like masks in classrooms only more expensive.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
As reported it’s a typical gimmick. Enough money for each school - regardless of need - 2/3 teachers for 2/3 weeks. Plus more resources on ONA. Don’t know what your experience is with that, but I found them useful for precisely two lessons among the 230 I have taught in lockdown.
I don’t think this is going anywhere, if I’m honest. Like masks in classrooms only more expensive.
Interesting that it's only for secondary schools. Guessing it could be useful for some kids more than others.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Interesting chat with my brother last night. One of his kids schools is going to be alternating weeks in class and online, another is having staggered return by years.
My niece is annoyed at going back as she has so much online extracurricular stuff to do rather than commute. My nephew rather liked online PE, sitting on the sofa watching his teacher sweat...
Ha yes it seems anecdotally that there is a wide spread of remote learning experiences.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
Used to get a lot of this in the Crimea. One thing the Ruskies do really well.
BANG.
It has a great cast: Alec Guinness, Dennis Price, Alec Guinness, Valerie Hobson, Alec Guinness, Joan Greenwood, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, and Alec Guinness.
Hobson and Guinness were both brilliant in Great Expectations.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Interesting chat with my brother last night. One of his kids schools is going to be alternating weeks in class and online, another is having staggered return by years.
My niece is annoyed at going back as she has so much online extracurricular stuff to do rather than commute. My nephew rather liked online PE, sitting on the sofa watching his teacher sweat...
So again, to reiterate what I said last night - Johnson misled the Commons.
Sorry to have missed the film discussion overnight, but in the category of Best adaptation of Shakespeare I'm going to have to nominate 10 Things I hate about you - just great fun to watch everytime.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
As reported it’s a typical gimmick. Enough money for each school - regardless of need - 2/3 teachers for 2/3 weeks. Plus more resources on ONA. Don’t know what your experience is with that, but I found them useful for precisely two lessons among the 230 I have taught in lockdown.
I don’t think this is going anywhere, if I’m honest. Like masks in classrooms only more expensive.
Interesting that it's only for secondary schools. Guessing it could be useful for some kids more than others.
It’s for primaries too, but they only get one third of the money. Equally they are of course usually much smaller.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
Well indeed. I think it's amusing that for six days of the week nothing is shared from MSM clips other than 30 second gotchas, memes or "look at this idiocy" nonsense but then on Sundays people can share 5-10 minute long long form full interviews of someone on the Sophie Ridge program where you might actually learn something.
Its almost as if letting guests actually speak and asking serious questions is more informative than looking for thirty second "viral" videos.
Re previous posts. "Lawrence of Arabia" is easily my favourite film. The best film ever made, and what cinemas are for.
I think Apocalypse Now is my favourite. Every time that I watch it, I see something new.
For a very long period of my life I'd also have said the same. I went to see it when I was perhaps 15, and I'd had to drag my Dad along because it was AA certificate. I rather love the film because we saw it together - the only film that I ever saw just the two of us. We both emerged a little shocked and speechless.
Anyway in recent years I've come to view David Lean's masterpiece as edging it.
ZULU is peerless: so many superb scenes
Asking what is the best movie is like asking "what is the best country" or "what is the best weather" or "what is the best form of cooking eggs". You have to choose a genre
As a war movie, Zulu beats Apocalypse Now, shorter, sharper, more wrenching and yet exhilarating
Rom coms? Notting Hill? Richard Curtis is much maligned these days, but that was excellently done
Boxing? Raging Bull. Maybe indeed the best movie about masculinity in general
Gangsters: Goodfellas, for sure.
Damn that's two Scorseses in one list. He is impressive
The best RomCom is There's Something About Mary, it is probably the best film in a whole host of other categories as well.
The Godfather pts I & II rival Goodfellas as best gangster, wouldn't you say? All three are great (Gf I & II + Goodfellas)
Raging Bull is probably the only Boxing film I have seen other than Champ... Champ affected me quite deeply though, I bawled my eyes out. Oh and a couple of the Rocky's I suppose. Never really got into them
The best Gambling film is The Sting
The Lives of Others is great @Casino_Royale, so is Play Misty For Me, and two of my all time faves, Cool Hand Luke, and Hombre
Once Upon a Time in America comes close, but doesn't quite beat, Godfather pts I & II, especially not together.
However Once Upon a Time in the West is definitely the best Western of all time.
True, but the final gunfight in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is one of the best scenes in cinema, showing just how to put score and cinematography together.
Ennio Morricone is surely the greatest film composer of all time ?
For originality and atmosphere, definitely.
I get really fed up with film scores these days - they just seem to be painting by numbers or completely overblown (yes, you, Hans Zimmer)
I think Zimmer can be better on a smaller canvass, which is counter-intuitive given the character of his music. But consider for example his theme intro for 'The Crown'
That said, the Dunkirk score is a masterpiece; one of the few features of that film that are as good on second viewing
I made sure I went to see Dunkirk at a cinema with fancy sound. I can still feel that constant, audible rumble of tension which didn't let up throughout the film. Magnificent.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Interesting chat with my brother last night. One of his kids schools is going to be alternating weeks in class and online, another is having staggered return by years.
My niece is annoyed at going back as she has so much online extracurricular stuff to do rather than commute. My nephew rather liked online PE, sitting on the sofa watching his teacher sweat...
Ha yes it seems anecdotally that there is a wide spread of remote learning experiences.
My son is back full time in Scotland from 15th March. He was lamenting over the weekend that he has not really had a final year at school to talk of. So many activities and opportunities lost, never to be recovered. He is delighted to be going back but it has been a chaotic time despite the school going to exceptional lengths with their online offering.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
I sometimes wonder how you could formalise/monetise the knowledge on this site. There is a remarkable wealth of intelligent, articulate insight. Someone, somewhere should be willing to pay for that, surely?
Exhibit A - the UK Govt's Covid app. It was very clear within no more than 4 hours, probably 2, that their app was doomed. Workings were shown, both sides of the paper used. If someone in Government had said "Tell you what, before we go public, run it by pb.com first", they would have been running to Plan B by tea-time.
We are sufficiently politically broad-ranging to take politics out of it - or at least, expose the political risks with a course of action. We have no turf to defend. The analysis on offer is essentially just to show how smart we are in spotting pitfalls and bear traps.
If you want a caustic assessment of why something won't work/could be made to work better, then run it as a thread header. We'll save you billions - just for the bantz and the kudos....
One thing that does seem to have been dropped from these proposals is the idea of cutting the summer holidays in toto. I assume a lawyer had a quiet word and pointed out that there was no actual way of enforcing it under the terms of teacher contracts, nor time to rewrite them.
In one sense that is a shame because school years are something of a mess. It’s ridiculous that we have six weeks off, eight weeks on, week off, eight weeks on, two weeks off, five weeks on, week off (oh, you get the picture). It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
That could leave August off (four weeks, in effect) seven weeks in September/October, 1/2 weeks off in October, then another seven weeks, then 2/3 weeks at Christmas, and then much as now except possibly lengthen the May break to two weeks.
I think that would be better for everybody, especially for the children’s education - because let’s face it, they’re always too knackered to learn anything in the last week of the Christmas term anyway.
There would be issues. Exams and marking would be one, as marking can’t be done in school hours so normally has to coincide with the holidays. Equally, it’s unlikely GCSEs will survive (nobody trusted them anyway) so there will be much less marking to do. Planning may be another, but by extending holidays elsewhere it could be spread throughout the year.
However, that needs to be done in a planned fashion in an atmosphere of trust. After the way the DfE have behaved recently, that simply ain’t happening. Any move will be seen as hostile, because it usually is. So nobody will work with them.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
I really must go now as it is a school night, but I'm going to link to a good look at film scores: I don't agree with all of it but this guy has seen far more films than I have.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
I sometimes wonder how you could formalise/monetise the knowledge on this site. There is a remarkable wealth of intelligent, articulate insight. Someone, somewhere should be willing to pay for that, surely?
Exhibit A - the UK Govt's Covid app. It was very clear within no more than 4 hours, probably 2, that their app was doomed. Workings were shown, both sides of the paper used. If someone in Government had said "Tell you what, before we go public, run it by pb.com first", they would have been running to Plan B by tea-time.
We are sufficiently politically broad-ranging to take politics out of it - or at least, expose the political risks with a course of action. We have no turf to defend. The analysis on offer is essentially just to show how smart we are in spotting pitfalls and bear traps.
If you want a caustic assessment of why something won't work/could be made to work better, then run it as a thread header. We'll save you billions - just for the bantz and the kudos....
There was always a suspicion that this used to happen in the Cameron days when kites would be put up to see if they got shot down and for what reasons. Not so much since.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
I sometimes wonder how you could formalise/monetise the knowledge on this site. There is a remarkable wealth of intelligent, articulate insight. Someone, somewhere should be willing to pay for that, surely?
Exhibit A - the UK Govt's Covid app. It was very clear within no more than 4 hours, probably 2, that their app was doomed. Workings were shown, both sides of the paper used. If someone in Government had said "Tell you what, before we go public, run it by pb.com first", they would have been running to Plan B by tea-time.
We are sufficiently politically broad-ranging to take politics out of it - or at least, expose the political risks with a course of action. We have no turf to defend. The analysis on offer is essentially just to show how smart we are in spotting pitfalls and bear traps.
If you want a caustic assessment of why something won't work/could be made to work better, then run it as a thread header. We'll save you billions - just for the bantz and the kudos....
Basically, its a site of superforecasters, even if they wouldn't use the word itself.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
How much it will help I don’t know: I suspect that those who did badly in lockdown because they could not engage will not be keen on giving up a chunk of their holidays. Staffing it probably won’t be a huge problem as long as it is voluntary and the pay is an extra: we normally run a series of exam revision classes in the Easter holidays on a similar basis. The harder issue is making sure those most in need of it attend. Beside which, each will have their own set of very individual needs which will make devising a suitable programme for them a huge challenge.
There might be particular things that departments need done; in Physics (and the other sciences) we could work though a whole set of core practicals for instance, though that now relies on the lab technicians being available as well.
In many ways opening up schools for something more like a Sumer camp than formal education may be the best bet: get the P.E. Department in for a couple of week’s worth of games lessons might be the best thing to do from a mental health side.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
I sometimes wonder how you could formalise/monetise the knowledge on this site. There is a remarkable wealth of intelligent, articulate insight. Someone, somewhere should be willing to pay for that, surely?
Exhibit A - the UK Govt's Covid app. It was very clear within no more than 4 hours, probably 2, that their app was doomed. Workings were shown, both sides of the paper used. If someone in Government had said "Tell you what, before we go public, run it by pb.com first", they would have been running to Plan B by tea-time.
We are sufficiently politically broad-ranging to take politics out of it - or at least, expose the political risks with a course of action. We have no turf to defend. The analysis on offer is essentially just to show how smart we are in spotting pitfalls and bear traps.
If you want a caustic assessment of why something won't work/could be made to work better, then run it as a thread header. We'll save you billions - just for the bantz and the kudos....
Basically, its a site of superforecasters, even if they wouldn't use the word itself.
Superforecasters who back up their opinions by risking hard cash.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
How much it will help I don’t know: I suspect that those who did badly in lockdown because they could not engage will not be keen on giving up a chunk of their holidays. Staffing it probably won’t be a huge problem as long as it is voluntary and the pay is an extra: we normally run a series of exam revision classes in the Easter holidays on a similar basis. The harder issue is making sure those most in need of it attend. Beside which, each will have their own set of very individual needs which will make devising a suitable programme for them a huge challenge.
There might be particular things that departments need done; in Physics (and the other sciences) we could work though a whole set of core practicals for instance, though that now relies on the lab technicians being available as well.
In many ways opening up schools for something more like a Sumer camp than formal education may be the best bet: get the P.E. Department in for a couple of week’s worth of games lessons might be the best thing to do from a mental health side.
There was talk of PE and music for these things in the TES a week or so back. But again, I don’t see how you can staff both on the money offered. For safeguarding reasons, for PE alone you would need two staff of each gender. You can’t have multiple specialists in everything.
This was a problem with the initial ‘catch-up’ offering, which is how I ended up teaching Maths.
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
I sometimes wonder how you could formalise/monetise the knowledge on this site. There is a remarkable wealth of intelligent, articulate insight. Someone, somewhere should be willing to pay for that, surely?
Exhibit A - the UK Govt's Covid app. It was very clear within no more than 4 hours, probably 2, that their app was doomed. Workings were shown, both sides of the paper used. If someone in Government had said "Tell you what, before we go public, run it by pb.com first", they would have been running to Plan B by tea-time.
We are sufficiently politically broad-ranging to take politics out of it - or at least, expose the political risks with a course of action. We have no turf to defend. The analysis on offer is essentially just to show how smart we are in spotting pitfalls and bear traps.
If you want a caustic assessment of why something won't work/could be made to work better, then run it as a thread header. We'll save you billions - just for the bantz and the kudos....
Basically, its a site of superforecasters, even if they wouldn't use the word itself.
So long as the prefix doesn't refer to the accuracy of the predictions, of course.
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
I mentioned this the other day as a concern. Maybe the budget will bring Sterling down a bit when the gory details are exposed.
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Both of the above, Biden printing another $1.9tn doesn't help, the EU vaccine scheme looking like it will take until sometime next year to complete. I expect there has also been an element of EU based institutions picking up sterling to hold as a reserve currency again after basically being ordered to dump it in 2016. The last one will continue throughout the year as well and was listed as the reason for raising the ceiling the others for the general upwards movement.
It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
Where on earth did you get this idea that civil servants get 13 weeks of annual leave!? 25 days is standard, rising to 30 after 5-10 years of service. Bank holidays on top of that.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Interesting chat with my brother last night. One of his kids schools is going to be alternating weeks in class and online, another is having staggered return by years.
My niece is annoyed at going back as she has so much online extracurricular stuff to do rather than commute. My nephew rather liked online PE, sitting on the sofa watching his teacher sweat...
Ha yes it seems anecdotally that there is a wide spread of remote learning experiences.
My son is back full time in Scotland from 15th March. He was lamenting over the weekend that he has not really had a final year at school to talk of. So many activities and opportunities lost, never to be recovered. He is delighted to be going back but it has been a chaotic time despite the school going to exceptional lengths with their online offering.
It seems a familiar story. Now. How do you quantity that in terms of deaths god only knows. But it is a hugely important element of our next generation.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Watching them actually play speed chess, would be way more informative than most of their current output.
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
I sometimes wonder how you could formalise/monetise the knowledge on this site. There is a remarkable wealth of intelligent, articulate insight. Someone, somewhere should be willing to pay for that, surely?
Exhibit A - the UK Govt's Covid app. It was very clear within no more than 4 hours, probably 2, that their app was doomed. Workings were shown, both sides of the paper used. If someone in Government had said "Tell you what, before we go public, run it by pb.com first", they would have been running to Plan B by tea-time.
We are sufficiently politically broad-ranging to take politics out of it - or at least, expose the political risks with a course of action. We have no turf to defend. The analysis on offer is essentially just to show how smart we are in spotting pitfalls and bear traps.
If you want a caustic assessment of why something won't work/could be made to work better, then run it as a thread header. We'll save you billions - just for the bantz and the kudos....
What you have here is a huge range of skills, as well as a common interest in politics, and who are generally polite to each other.
During the pandemic we have people posting graphed details of the official stats, people posting links to actual research papers, people sharing modelling work they're doing, people who work in medical fields etc.
When other things are in the news, there's usually a few people who have knowledge on a subject, and a huge amount of information comes out here which simply isn't seen from other more mainstream sources.
We all see MSM news coverage of events in which we have some knowledge (my personal favorite is aeroplane accidents), and we know that most of what's being said is crap - yet we are somehow supposed to trust these same people to inform us, on the other 90% of stuff we don't know!
My own interests are computers, planes and cars, which do have the occasional input into current events (don't use phone apps for anything, you idiots!), and sports for the betting angles which often come up in conversation (Third Test starts in less than an hour, Eagles reckons not to lay the draw as the evening fog could curtail play. Ind 1.6, D 4.1 Eng 7.8 are current BfEx back prices).
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Both of the above, Biden printing another $1.9tn doesn't help, the EU vaccine scheme looking like it will take until sometime next year to complete. I expect there has also been an element of EU based institutions picking up sterling to hold as a reserve currency again after basically being ordered to dump it in 2016. The last one will continue throughout the year as well and was listed as the reason for raising the ceiling the others for the general upwards movement.
Do you think rising Sterling gives the Bank of England room to do some more Quantitative Easing to (unofficially) fund part of next month's budget?
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Both of the above, Biden printing another $1.9tn doesn't help, the EU vaccine scheme looking like it will take until sometime next year to complete. I expect there has also been an element of EU based institutions picking up sterling to hold as a reserve currency again after basically being ordered to dump it in 2016. The last one will continue throughout the year as well and was listed as the reason for raising the ceiling the others for the general upwards movement.
Bad news for exporters - possibly not such bad news for inflation?
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
How much it will help I don’t know: I suspect that those who did badly in lockdown because they could not engage will not be keen on giving up a chunk of their holidays. Staffing it probably won’t be a huge problem as long as it is voluntary and the pay is an extra: we normally run a series of exam revision classes in the Easter holidays on a similar basis. The harder issue is making sure those most in need of it attend. Beside which, each will have their own set of very individual needs which will make devising a suitable programme for them a huge challenge.
There might be particular things that departments need done; in Physics (and the other sciences) we could work though a whole set of core practicals for instance, though that now relies on the lab technicians being available as well.
In many ways opening up schools for something more like a Sumer camp than formal education may be the best bet: get the P.E. Department in for a couple of week’s worth of games lessons might be the best thing to do from a mental health side.
Thanks and yes. It seems to me, a layman from both sides, that a huge element is the socialising. The maths can come later.
It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
Where on earth did you get this idea that civil servants get 13 weeks of annual leave!? 25 days is standard, rising to 30 after 5-10 years of service. Bank holidays on top of that.
Flexi. 3 days a month. Or were my bosses at first the Land Registry and then the ONS wrong? If so, I owe them some money albeit it’s years since I worked for them.
(Also remember, teachers only get one bank holiday a year. The others are all in the school holidays.)
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Both of the above, Biden printing another $1.9tn doesn't help, the EU vaccine scheme looking like it will take until sometime next year to complete. I expect there has also been an element of EU based institutions picking up sterling to hold as a reserve currency again after basically being ordered to dump it in 2016. The last one will continue throughout the year as well and was listed as the reason for raising the ceiling the others for the general upwards movement.
Do you think rising Sterling gives the Bank of England room to do some more Quantitative Easing to (unofficially) fund part of next month's budget?
Honestly, I think Rishi might be encouraging the BoE to take measures to stop £ strengthening as an end in itself. I know I would.
...Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
File under "No sh1t, Sherlock"
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
Although the media questions at press conferences have not improved I do think that the overall media here do seem to have improved a bit since Burley and Rugby were suspended.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
Sophy is the only political programme I bother with these days
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
I mentioned this the other day as a concern. Maybe the budget will bring Sterling down a bit when the gory details are exposed.
The problem is that a lot of the other major economies (USA, EU, Japan) are going to be more affected than the UK by the pandemic in the coming months.
My worry is that Sterling keeps going higher until the autumn. Unless, of course, the budget contains a few hundred billion of extra money printing, as the US are doing.
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Both of the above, Biden printing another $1.9tn doesn't help, the EU vaccine scheme looking like it will take until sometime next year to complete. I expect there has also been an element of EU based institutions picking up sterling to hold as a reserve currency again after basically being ordered to dump it in 2016. The last one will continue throughout the year as well and was listed as the reason for raising the ceiling the others for the general upwards movement.
Do you think rising Sterling gives the Bank of England room to do some more Quantitative Easing to (unofficially) fund part of next month's budget?
Honestly, I think Rishi might be encouraging the BoE to take measures to stop £ strengthening as an end in itself. I know I would.
In the current circumstances QE seems to me to be two birds for one stone. Arrest £ and (unofficially) fund continuing emergency measures in the Budget.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
How much it will help I don’t know: I suspect that those who did badly in lockdown because they could not engage will not be keen on giving up a chunk of their holidays. Staffing it probably won’t be a huge problem as long as it is voluntary and the pay is an extra: we normally run a series of exam revision classes in the Easter holidays on a similar basis. The harder issue is making sure those most in need of it attend. Beside which, each will have their own set of very individual needs which will make devising a suitable programme for them a huge challenge.
There might be particular things that departments need done; in Physics (and the other sciences) we could work though a whole set of core practicals for instance, though that now relies on the lab technicians being available as well.
In many ways opening up schools for something more like a Sumer camp than formal education may be the best bet: get the P.E. Department in for a couple of week’s worth of games lessons might be the best thing to do from a mental health side.
Thanks and yes. It seems to me, a layman from both sides, that a huge element is the socialising. The maths can come later.
And maths can be taught online: running around in a field with your friends can’t.
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Both of the above, Biden printing another $1.9tn doesn't help, the EU vaccine scheme looking like it will take until sometime next year to complete. I expect there has also been an element of EU based institutions picking up sterling to hold as a reserve currency again after basically being ordered to dump it in 2016. The last one will continue throughout the year as well and was listed as the reason for raising the ceiling the others for the general upwards movement.
Do you think rising Sterling gives the Bank of England room to do some more Quantitative Easing to (unofficially) fund part of next month's budget?
It turns a potential issue of inflation into one of deflation, but I think everyone will want to wait and see what the size of the bounce is in June before any more monetary support is given. There's also going to be some unease over imports becoming cheaper within the government just as they get started on a reshoring strategy. It makes much less economic sense at $1.50 than it does at $1.30 to reshore big chunks of manufacturing and some agriculture. The UK's wage and productivity structure probably doesn't support much manufacturing being brought back at that level of sterling.
As I said, it may give man on the street a sugar rush to see sterling rise and we might get the Daily Mail give us a few headlines when some kind of pre-brexit levels are reached but I'm definitely in the camp that this probably not what we need right now.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
Used to get a lot of this in the Crimea. One thing the Ruskies do really well.
BANG.
It has a great cast: Alec Guinness, Dennis Price, Alec Guinness, Valerie Hobson, Alec Guinness, Joan Greenwood, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, Alec Guinness, and Alec Guinness.
Also has the second best closing line after “Some Like it Hot”......
As to “surprise twist” endings “The Usual Suspects” is one of the greats....
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
What do you think is behind sterling surging?
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
Both of the above, Biden printing another $1.9tn doesn't help, the EU vaccine scheme looking like it will take until sometime next year to complete. I expect there has also been an element of EU based institutions picking up sterling to hold as a reserve currency again after basically being ordered to dump it in 2016. The last one will continue throughout the year as well and was listed as the reason for raising the ceiling the others for the general upwards movement.
It's now clear that the UK is ploughing an independent path and its currency will be less correlated with the € and $ than before. As such it now forms an increasingly valuable component of a portfolio of currencies as a stabiliser.
I really must go now as it is a school night, but I'm going to link to a good look at film scores: I don't agree with all of it but this guy has seen far more films than I have.
One thing that does seem to have been dropped from these proposals is the idea of cutting the summer holidays in toto. I assume a lawyer had a quiet word and pointed out that there was no actual way of enforcing it under the terms of teacher contracts, nor time to rewrite them.
In one sense that is a shame because school years are something of a mess. It’s ridiculous that we have six weeks off, eight weeks on, week off, eight weeks on, two weeks off, five weeks on, week off (oh, you get the picture). It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
That could leave August off (four weeks, in effect) seven weeks in September/October, 1/2 weeks off in October, then another seven weeks, then 2/3 weeks at Christmas, and then much as now except possibly lengthen the May break to two weeks.
I think that would be better for everybody, especially for the children’s education - because let’s face it, they’re always too knackered to learn anything in the last week of the Christmas term anyway.
There would be issues. Exams and marking would be one, as marking can’t be done in school hours so normally has to coincide with the holidays. Equally, it’s unlikely GCSEs will survive (nobody trusted them anyway) so there will be much less marking to do. Planning may be another, but by extending holidays elsewhere it could be spread throughout the year.
However, that needs to be done in a planned fashion in an atmosphere of trust. After the way the DfE have behaved recently, that simply ain’t happening. Any move will be seen as hostile, because it usually is. So nobody will work with them.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
It`s possible to prevent people from seeing their family and leaving their homes but not override teacher`s contracts? I`m not saying I agree with the holiday schooling idea but ...
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
I mentioned this the other day as a concern. Maybe the budget will bring Sterling down a bit when the gory details are exposed.
The problem is that a lot of the other major economies (USA, EU, Japan) are going to be more affected than the UK by the pandemic in the coming months.
My worry is that Sterling keeps going higher until the autumn. Unless, of course, the budget contains a few hundred billion of extra money printing, as the US are doing.
As both tax rises and spending cuts are out, expect money printing in some form, disguised as recovery spending.
“Dr. Scott Gottlieb says an estimate for ‘herd immunity by April’ too aggressive but directionally right”
“After factoring in vaccination data, Gottlieb estimated about 40% of U.S. residents right now have antibodies from prior infection or inoculation — a percentage that will rise as more people are vaccinated.”
I think a significant proportion of those with antibodies from prior infection will be the type of vaccine hesitant groups referred to upthread. His comments do chime with those of Neil Ferguson lately regarding the levels of antibodies seen in the U.K. population - he reckoned about 32% IIRC.
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
I mentioned this the other day as a concern. Maybe the budget will bring Sterling down a bit when the gory details are exposed.
The problem is that a lot of the other major economies (USA, EU, Japan) are going to be more affected than the UK by the pandemic in the coming months.
My worry is that Sterling keeps going higher until the autumn. Unless, of course, the budget contains a few hundred billion of extra money printing, as the US are doing.
As both tax rises and spending cuts are out, expect money printing in some form, disguised as recovery spending.
Indeed, and low interest rates provide the opportunity for genuine investment in infrastructure projects. The worry is that borrowed money goes on current expenditure, which you'll agree with me is generally a bad idea but often unavoidable during a recession if we see extensive job losses.
I do think the £/$ might have another 10% to go, which is a pain when you earn dollars and pay a mortgage in Sterling. Time to hedge for a few months ahead I think.
The depth of the UK recession and high savings rates also indicates a lot of pent-up demand and a fast recovery, we could well see a serious dose of inflation in the second half of the year.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
The Wolf of Wall Street? Take out the illegal stock scam and it is just an overpaid Wall Street trader getting coked off his tits. And I suspect most viewers coming to the film now, some time after the release publicity rounds that explained the story, would be hard-pressed to understand how exactly the scam worked anyway. It is also very, very long, or directed by Martin Scorsese as the film buffs say.
Brief Encounter? Two people wait for a train and go to the pictures.
A truly great weepy. Brief Encounter gets me every time.
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
Eyes Wide Shut was 159 minutes long, and you felt every minute.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
Now there was a *really* bad film.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
“I shot an arrow in the air; She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
I see summer schools is going to happen as we discussed on here. What are your thoughts on the details so far?
Do you have a link for that? I haven’t seen anything yet.
How much it will help I don’t know: I suspect that those who did badly in lockdown because they could not engage will not be keen on giving up a chunk of their holidays. Staffing it probably won’t be a huge problem as long as it is voluntary and the pay is an extra: we normally run a series of exam revision classes in the Easter holidays on a similar basis. The harder issue is making sure those most in need of it attend. Beside which, each will have their own set of very individual needs which will make devising a suitable programme for them a huge challenge.
There might be particular things that departments need done; in Physics (and the other sciences) we could work though a whole set of core practicals for instance, though that now relies on the lab technicians being available as well.
In many ways opening up schools for something more like a Sumer camp than formal education may be the best bet: get the P.E. Department in for a couple of week’s worth of games lessons might be the best thing to do from a mental health side.
There was talk of PE and music for these things in the TES a week or so back. But again, I don’t see how you can staff both on the money offered. For safeguarding reasons, for PE alone you would need two staff of each gender. You can’t have multiple specialists in everything.
This was a problem with the initial ‘catch-up’ offering, which is how I ended up teaching Maths.
If the aim is to catch back the stuff that hasn't happened this year, a focus on the social and practical lessons makes sense. Practical science, drama, technology, sports, that sort of thing. I once worked at a place with enough funny money to offer something like that for a week over the summer to all the incoming Year 7s. It was great.
This scheme looks hopelessly underfunded to do that. If it's targeted English/Maths/Science Intervention, it might well run into the usual "those who want don't need / those who need don't want" problem.
One thing that does seem to have been dropped from these proposals is the idea of cutting the summer holidays in toto. I assume a lawyer had a quiet word and pointed out that there was no actual way of enforcing it under the terms of teacher contracts, nor time to rewrite them.
In one sense that is a shame because school years are something of a mess. It’s ridiculous that we have six weeks off, eight weeks on, week off, eight weeks on, two weeks off, five weeks on, week off (oh, you get the picture). It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
That could leave August off (four weeks, in effect) seven weeks in September/October, 1/2 weeks off in October, then another seven weeks, then 2/3 weeks at Christmas, and then much as now except possibly lengthen the May break to two weeks.
I think that would be better for everybody, especially for the children’s education - because let’s face it, they’re always too knackered to learn anything in the last week of the Christmas term anyway.
There would be issues. Exams and marking would be one, as marking can’t be done in school hours so normally has to coincide with the holidays. Equally, it’s unlikely GCSEs will survive (nobody trusted them anyway) so there will be much less marking to do. Planning may be another, but by extending holidays elsewhere it could be spread throughout the year.
However, that needs to be done in a planned fashion in an atmosphere of trust. After the way the DfE have behaved recently, that simply ain’t happening. Any move will be seen as hostile, because it usually is. So nobody will work with them.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
Not sure where you're getting your Civil Service data from. In my branch, the maximum was 30 days leave (at all levels). Extra non-bank holiday time at Christmas/Easter had to be taken as annual leave. No flexi- leave at all (and my understanding is where that is an option, you can earn a maximum of one day a month by working extra). Only bonus I remember was an extra half a day for the Queen's birthday. I hope you're not spreading fake news!
I really must go now as it is a school night, but I'm going to link to a good look at film scores: I don't agree with all of it but this guy has seen far more films than I have.
One thing that does seem to have been dropped from these proposals is the idea of cutting the summer holidays in toto. I assume a lawyer had a quiet word and pointed out that there was no actual way of enforcing it under the terms of teacher contracts, nor time to rewrite them.
In one sense that is a shame because school years are something of a mess. It’s ridiculous that we have six weeks off, eight weeks on, week off, eight weeks on, two weeks off, five weeks on, week off (oh, you get the picture). It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
That could leave August off (four weeks, in effect) seven weeks in September/October, 1/2 weeks off in October, then another seven weeks, then 2/3 weeks at Christmas, and then much as now except possibly lengthen the May break to two weeks.
I think that would be better for everybody, especially for the children’s education - because let’s face it, they’re always too knackered to learn anything in the last week of the Christmas term anyway.
There would be issues. Exams and marking would be one, as marking can’t be done in school hours so normally has to coincide with the holidays. Equally, it’s unlikely GCSEs will survive (nobody trusted them anyway) so there will be much less marking to do. Planning may be another, but by extending holidays elsewhere it could be spread throughout the year.
However, that needs to be done in a planned fashion in an atmosphere of trust. After the way the DfE have behaved recently, that simply ain’t happening. Any move will be seen as hostile, because it usually is. So nobody will work with them.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
I defer to your knowledge of the teaching experience, but civil servants having 13 weeks off? Don't see how that works? And flexi surely implies time worked?
Uni provision is pretty good on the leave front. Not the 3 months over summer that most seem to think we get (research time) but 31 days, plus BH, plus usually close over Christmas (not two weeks - normally an extra 4 days). I have no complaints.
It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
Where on earth did you get this idea that civil servants get 13 weeks of annual leave!? 25 days is standard, rising to 30 after 5-10 years of service. Bank holidays on top of that.
Flexi. 3 days a month. Or were my bosses at first the Land Registry and then the ONS wrong? If so, I owe them some money albeit it’s years since I worked for them.
(Also remember, teachers only get one bank holiday a year. The others are all in the school holidays.)
TTFN
Flexi is surely time off in lieu though - hours built up then taken off?
It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
Where on earth did you get this idea that civil servants get 13 weeks of annual leave!? 25 days is standard, rising to 30 after 5-10 years of service. Bank holidays on top of that.
Flexi. 3 days a month. Or were my bosses at first the Land Registry and then the ONS wrong? If so, I owe them some money albeit it’s years since I worked for them.
(Also remember, teachers only get one bank holiday a year. The others are all in the school holidays.)
TTFN
Flexi-time is at the discretion of your boss and reflects working longer hours at another time. So it's not leave at all. It also has to meet business needs - not your desire to take longer holidays.
I really must go now as it is a school night, but I'm going to link to a good look at film scores: I don't agree with all of it but this guy has seen far more films than I have.
I really must go now as it is a school night, but I'm going to link to a good look at film scores: I don't agree with all of it but this guy has seen far more films than I have.
Yes, I had the Oxford jab and had quite a strong reaction to it. My sister suffers from anxiety so I have some understanding of that. Here's what I can say.
The reaction wasn't pleasant, but nothing unusual for a mild illness and all described in the data sheet. It started about 15 hours after the jab: injection site swelled & was tight, hard & tender; I had aches & shivers, then a high-ish temp (101F, ~38C). The temp came down within 24 hours, then was just feeling mildly flu-ey plus intermittent nausea. Almost all of that resolved in about a week, except for occasional nausea. It's nearly two weeks since I had the jab. The swelling in my arm has been slowly reducing and is now almost gone.
I found the swelling in my arm reassuring because it showed my body was reacting to the vaccine and therefore reactions in other ways were highly likely, so I wasn't worried about the other symptoms.
I also found that xkcd cartoon, which compares the vaccination to a Star Wars episode, really encouraging because it gave me an amusing view of what was happening in my body. (Link below; it's about mRNA vaccines, but that doesn't really matter.)
I gather a strong reaction to Oxford/AZ is more likely in younger people. I'm 72, and am the only one I know personally who's had a strong reaction; also among my friends no-one else knows anyone besides myself who's had a strong reaction. However my god-daughter who is 28 reports that many of the people who've had the AZ in her circles have had a strong enough reaction to be off work for a few days. (I don't know what work she does now; she used to be a teaching assistant but maybe she's moved into care work.)
I would echo what @rcs1000 says; it's better than getting Covid. If you do have a strong reaction, be grateful that your body is fighting fit enough to get to action stations and prepare itself to fight off the Covid.
Sterling is surging, not sure this is particularly helpful at the moment. Our guys have revised the upper ceilings to $1.48 and €1.22. After years of weaker sterling export focussed businesses are going to find this much tougher than any brexit issues.
I mentioned this the other day as a concern. Maybe the budget will bring Sterling down a bit when the gory details are exposed.
The problem is that a lot of the other major economies (USA, EU, Japan) are going to be more affected than the UK by the pandemic in the coming months.
My worry is that Sterling keeps going higher until the autumn. Unless, of course, the budget contains a few hundred billion of extra money printing, as the US are doing.
As both tax rises and spending cuts are out, expect money printing in some form, disguised as recovery spending.
Indeed, and low interest rates provide the opportunity for genuine investment in infrastructure projects. The worry is that borrowed money goes on current expenditure, which you'll agree with me is generally a bad idea but often unavoidable during a recession if we see extensive job losses.
I do think the £/$ might have another 10% to go, which is a pain when you earn dollars and pay a mortgage in Sterling. Time to hedge for a few months ahead I think.
The depth of the UK recession and high savings rates also indicates a lot of pent-up demand and a fast recovery, we could well see a serious dose of inflation in the second half of the year.
I agree, yet index linked bonds have taken a dip recently, and may now represent a bargain
It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
Where on earth did you get this idea that civil servants get 13 weeks of annual leave!? 25 days is standard, rising to 30 after 5-10 years of service. Bank holidays on top of that.
Flexi. 3 days a month. Or were my bosses at first the Land Registry and then the ONS wrong? If so, I owe them some money albeit it’s years since I worked for them.
(Also remember, teachers only get one bank holiday a year. The others are all in the school holidays.)
TTFN
Flexi-time is at the discretion of your boss and reflects working longer hours at another time. So it's not leave at all. It also has to meet business needs - not your desire to take longer holidays.
Do you know how many hours of overtime teachers work? Without any extra pay or leave at all?
Comments
So, if getting sick with Covid is important to your wife, then she should avoid the AZ jab.
Is 2001 the worst film ever? Or were there others that were even more boring and pointless?
https://twitter.com/marknorm/status/1364321234595495942
https://twitter.com/DrewLinzer/status/1364336878313295873
However, its worse crime against cinema is the de-aging CGI - that every vain Hollywood star (ie, all of them) is going to be requiring in their contracts....
2001 is not even Kubrick's worst film, that honour goes to Eyes Wide Shut.
2001 was just 142 minutes long. But it felt like 300.
I’m disappointed that in all the discussions of greatest films, not a single person has mentioned Kind Hearts and Coronets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eU8j4MeJ4I
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1364292311325237250
Counterpoint...
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/1364378646237110277
And finally a more sober analysis...
https://twitter.com/jcbarret/status/1364294846853308432
Sometimes you do have to wonder about whether the 21st century’s obsession with clicks and likes may be a little unhelpful when dealing with a public health crisis.
She fell to Earth in Barkley Square”.
BANG.
Huge parts of the media have simply failed to understand their role in a public health crisis. Huge amounts of their output is unsubstantiated rumour or opinion, rather than facts and figures.
In the US especially, a lot of the media are looking at substantially reduced 'engagement' now that politics is back to more normal levels, and need to do something - anything - to keep the likes and shares coming. Not good, and especially not good during a pandemic.
If the Department for Education’s response to Covid has revealed the hollowness of Britain’s administrative structures, then it has probably brought a final end to the MSM as a meaningful source of news and information.
Certainly the gentleman who presents the Sky News breakfast program now is an order of magnitude better, asking informative questions not looking for edge case gotchas.
I think the best presenter on Sky at least that's been little mentioned in discussion is Sophie Ridge on her Sunday program. She asks a couple of questions then shuts up and lets her guest answer them. Letting someone speak for a minute or two then asking a related question and letting them speak again is far more informative than presenter and guest firing snide remarks back and forth every few seconds like you're playing speed chess on a clock.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-56175893
Covid: English secondary summer schools part of catch-up plan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-56175893
As reported it’s a typical gimmick. Enough money for each school - regardless of need - 2/3 teachers for 2/3 weeks. Plus more resources on ONA. Don’t know what your experience is with that, but I found them useful for precisely two lessons among the 230 I have taught in lockdown.
I don’t think this is going anywhere, if I’m honest. Like masks in classrooms only more expensive.
That said, the Dunkirk score is a masterpiece; one of the few features of that film that are as good on second viewing
Most of the stuff posted on here, is way more informative than what's seen from MSM outlets.
My niece is annoyed at going back as she has so much online extracurricular stuff to do rather than commute. My nephew rather liked online PE, sitting on the sofa watching his teacher sweat...
Like Sturgeon only with worse hair.
Its almost as if letting guests actually speak and asking serious questions is more informative than looking for thirty second "viral" videos.
Exhibit A - the UK Govt's Covid app. It was very clear within no more than 4 hours, probably 2, that their app was doomed. Workings were shown, both sides of the paper used. If someone in Government had said "Tell you what, before we go public, run it by pb.com first", they would have been running to Plan B by tea-time.
We are sufficiently politically broad-ranging to take politics out of it - or at least, expose the political risks with a course of action. We have no turf to defend. The analysis on offer is essentially just to show how smart we are in spotting pitfalls and bear traps.
If you want a caustic assessment of why something won't work/could be made to work better, then run it as a thread header. We'll save you billions - just for the bantz and the kudos....
In one sense that is a shame because school years are something of a mess. It’s ridiculous that we have six weeks off, eight weeks on, week off, eight weeks on, two weeks off, five weeks on, week off (oh, you get the picture). It would be altogether more sensible to spread the 12 weeks (which is less than the 13 weeks civil servants get,* just to point that out, for more work and much less flexibility) throughout the year and shorten terms to match.
That could leave August off (four weeks, in effect) seven weeks in September/October, 1/2 weeks off in October, then another seven weeks, then 2/3 weeks at Christmas, and then much as now except possibly lengthen the May break to two weeks.
I think that would be better for everybody, especially for the children’s education - because let’s face it, they’re always too knackered to learn anything in the last week of the Christmas term anyway.
There would be issues. Exams and marking would be one, as marking can’t be done in school hours so normally has to coincide with the holidays. Equally, it’s unlikely GCSEs will survive (nobody trusted them anyway) so there will be much less marking to do. Planning may be another, but by extending holidays elsewhere it could be spread throughout the year.
However, that needs to be done in a planned fashion in an atmosphere of trust. After the way the DfE have behaved recently, that simply ain’t happening. Any move will be seen as hostile, because it usually is. So nobody will work with them.
*4 weeks annual leave, just under a week around Easter, two weeks at Christmas and New Year, and 36 days flexi.
Staffing it probably won’t be a huge problem as long as it is voluntary and the pay is an extra: we normally run a series of exam revision classes in the Easter holidays on a similar basis. The harder issue is making sure those most in need of it attend. Beside which, each will have their own set of very individual needs which will make devising a suitable programme for them a huge challenge.
There might be particular things that departments need done; in Physics (and the other sciences) we could work though a whole set of core practicals for instance, though that now relies on the lab technicians being available as well.
In many ways opening up schools for something more like a Sumer camp than formal education may be the best bet: get the P.E. Department in for a couple of week’s worth of games lessons might be the best thing to do from a mental health side.
With added awesome puns.
This was a problem with the initial ‘catch-up’ offering, which is how I ended up teaching Maths.
People's fears over Brexit not materialising, or the success of the vaccine rollout, or something else?
I disagree with Anabobazina dissing Under The Skin which makes my "best modern films you may have missed" list:
Blue Ruin
Nightstalker
Under the Skin
London to Brighton
Hell or High Water
Sexy Beast
The Hunt (2012)
25 days is standard, rising to 30 after 5-10 years of service. Bank holidays on top of that.
During the pandemic we have people posting graphed details of the official stats, people posting links to actual research papers, people sharing modelling work they're doing, people who work in medical fields etc.
When other things are in the news, there's usually a few people who have knowledge on a subject, and a huge amount of information comes out here which simply isn't seen from other more mainstream sources.
We all see MSM news coverage of events in which we have some knowledge (my personal favorite is aeroplane accidents), and we know that most of what's being said is crap - yet we are somehow supposed to trust these same people to inform us, on the other 90% of stuff we don't know!
My own interests are computers, planes and cars, which do have the occasional input into current events (don't use phone apps for anything, you idiots!), and sports for the betting angles which often come up in conversation (Third Test starts in less than an hour, Eagles reckons not to lay the draw as the evening fog could curtail play. Ind 1.6, D 4.1 Eng 7.8 are current BfEx back prices).
Anyway, I have to go. Have a good day.
(Also remember, teachers only get one bank holiday a year. The others are all in the school holidays.)
TTFN
My worry is that Sterling keeps going higher until the autumn. Unless, of course, the budget contains a few hundred billion of extra money printing, as the US are doing.
As I said, it may give man on the street a sugar rush to see sterling rise and we might get the Daily Mail give us a few headlines when some kind of pre-brexit levels are reached but I'm definitely in the camp that this probably not what we need right now.
As to “surprise twist” endings “The Usual Suspects” is one of the greats....
“After factoring in vaccination data, Gottlieb estimated about 40% of U.S. residents right now have antibodies from prior infection or inoculation — a percentage that will rise as more people are vaccinated.”
I think a significant proportion of those with antibodies from prior infection will be the type of vaccine hesitant groups referred to upthread. His comments do chime with those of Neil Ferguson lately regarding the levels of antibodies seen in the U.K. population - he reckoned about 32% IIRC.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/22/dr-scott-gottlieb-herd-immunity-by-april-estimate-too-aggressive.html
Not delighted with the continuing rise of the pound against the dollar.
https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1364488943765508096?s=20
I do think the £/$ might have another 10% to go, which is a pain when you earn dollars and pay a mortgage in Sterling. Time to hedge for a few months ahead I think.
The depth of the UK recession and high savings rates also indicates a lot of pent-up demand and a fast recovery, we could well see a serious dose of inflation in the second half of the year.
This scheme looks hopelessly underfunded to do that. If it's targeted English/Maths/Science Intervention, it might well run into the usual "those who want don't need / those who need don't want" problem.
Uni provision is pretty good on the leave front. Not the 3 months over summer that most seem to think we get (research time) but 31 days, plus BH, plus usually close over Christmas (not two weeks - normally an extra 4 days). I have no complaints.
It also has to meet business needs - not your desire to take longer holidays.
Yes, I had the Oxford jab and had quite a strong reaction to it. My sister suffers from anxiety so I have some understanding of that. Here's what I can say.
The reaction wasn't pleasant, but nothing unusual for a mild illness and all described in the data sheet. It started about 15 hours after the jab: injection site swelled & was tight, hard & tender; I had aches & shivers, then a high-ish temp (101F, ~38C). The temp came down within 24 hours, then was just feeling mildly flu-ey plus intermittent nausea. Almost all of that resolved in about a week, except for occasional nausea. It's nearly two weeks since I had the jab. The swelling in my arm has been slowly reducing and is now almost gone.
I found the swelling in my arm reassuring because it showed my body was reacting to the vaccine and therefore reactions in other ways were highly likely, so I wasn't worried about the other symptoms.
I also found that xkcd cartoon, which compares the vaccination to a Star Wars episode, really encouraging because it gave me an amusing view of what was happening in my body. (Link below; it's about mRNA vaccines, but that doesn't really matter.)
I gather a strong reaction to Oxford/AZ is more likely in younger people. I'm 72, and am the only one I know personally who's had a strong reaction; also among my friends no-one else knows anyone besides myself who's had a strong reaction. However my god-daughter who is 28 reports that many of the people who've had the AZ in her circles have had a strong enough reaction to be off work for a few days. (I don't know what work she does now; she used to be a teaching assistant but maybe she's moved into care work.)
I would echo what @rcs1000 says; it's better than getting Covid. If you do have a strong reaction, be grateful that your body is fighting fit enough to get to action stations and prepare itself to fight off the Covid.
All the best to you and your wife.
https://xkcd.com/2425/
Good morning, everyone.