Ground floor: perfumery, stationery and leather goods …

On Saturday I amazed myself by watching Are You Being Served for the first time in about 30 years, and amazed myself still further by actually quite enjoying it. It was followed by a Making of documentary. Hey, I was ironing and it was a good diversion. It was also interesting to compare what I knew then with what I realise now.

(I often do this. I enjoyed Dad’s Army when I was young but I appreciate whole new levels to it now. Like: the Home Guard are inept but no one for a second doubts their courage. Like: the class difference between Wilson and Mainwaring, which the socially superior Wilson doesn’t care about at all but the technically superior Mainwaring cares about intensely.)

I think, even when I was young, I understood that Mr Humphries was Not the Marrying Kind. I’m impressed now that although this opened up all kinds of possibilities for innuendo, he could also play the part with dignity and be accepted by all the other characters as an equal. I also hadn’t realised he is also one of the two most intelligent, switched-on characters in the show – the other, surprisingly, being Young Mr Grace. (I also got the joke that Young Mr Grace was extremely old and doddery and constantly staring down his nurse’s cleavage; I didn’t get the fact that he was played with a pronounced nasal London/Yiddish accent and displayed a ruthless business mind beneath the geriatric vagueness.)

I hadn’t realised the humour of the firmly defined pecking order in Menswear that went Mr Grainger -> Mr Humphries -> Mr Lucas. Captain Peacock would intercept gentleman customers as they arrived on the floor, then aim them at the appropriate sales assistant based on their perceived spending power. Thus lines like: “Mr Humphries, are you available for a clip-on bowtie?” / “I have never been available for a clip-on bowtie …”

Strangely there wasn’t anything about Mrs Slocombe’s feline companion. Maybe it wasn’t such a running joke as I remember.

In this episode the staff had been disciplined by Young Mr Grace for some reason – I didn’t quite catch the beginning – and made to spend the day in the Toy department instead of Clothing. This not only led to jokes about Mr Humphries’ Wibbly-Wobblys but was a fantastic nostalgiafest for 1970s non-electronic, pre-computing kids’ games. It ended with all being forgiven and even Young Mr Grace joining in with playing with the railway set. It was really quite sweet.

I was pleasantly surprised but I don’t think I’ll be buying any DVD sets to catch up. As I say, first time in 30 years, and once every three decades is probably about right.

Robert Louis Stevenson

I’ve just finished reading a biography of Robert Louis Stevenson by Claire Harman. Hmm. Interesting man, interesting life.

It’s also interesting to compare the life of a writer then and now – the similarities and the differences. The similarities: you can work for 10 or 20 years to be an overnight success. Stevenson was made famous by Treasure Island, and then went stellar with Jekyll & Hyde, but he had been writing for over 10 years when Treasure Islandwas written for serialisation in a magazine, earning a decent wage for a while but not creating much of a splash. It then sat in a drawer for two years until a friend had the idea of pushing it as a book to a publisher. Yup, I can sympathise with that.

The differences: the fact that Jekyll & Hyde could sell 40,000 copies in the UK, which Stevenson knew about, and 250,000 in the US (some legal, some pirated) which he didn’t. Copyright and IP wasn’t quite as vigorous then as now. And the whole publishing world was so much smaller. You get the feeling that it was like science fiction used to be in, say, the 50s – small enough that, in principle, you could read everything that was written.

Another difference, though: any successful author that I know today is organised, plans their plots, pays their tax and national insurance on time, and above all is disciplined in the writing. Stevenson was certainly a disciplined writer, but as for everything else he was vague, woolly minded, useless with money, constantly overflowing with noble dreams and projects which withered on the vine before he had got the first paragraph down. But for a few lucky breaks and an undeniable talent once he actually got writing, he would have been forgotten as yet another wealthy dilettante. This is probably why I would want to slap him if I had ever met him – except that I wouldn’t, because I’m nice and because one good blow would probably have killed him.

I frankly find it amazing that heroes such as Jim Hawkins and David Balfour – steadfast, brave, reliable, exemplary role models of integrity – could be created by someone like Robert Louis Stevenson, who wasn’t any of the above. It shows he was at least aware of the desirability of these virtues. Stevenson was the only son of a successful Scottish engineer, who was the wealthy head of a family firm that specialised in building lighthouses. His general uselessness at related subjects like maths made it clear to everyone, even eventually his reluctant father, that he wouldn’t be following the family trade, so instead he trained as a lawyer, in which after qualifying as an advocate he handled precisely one case, which didn’t even require him to speak and yet he still managed to bungle. The only interest he ever had was in being as writer and that was what he stuck at, living off his parents until eventually he got lucky.

Note that I do not criticise him for being useless at maths and physics, or not being a good lawyer, or even not following in his father’s trade. I do however get immensely fed up with the sense of entitlement shared by Stevenson and far too many wannabe writers that because they are clearly meant to be a writer, the world owes them a favour until such time as the fame kicks in. Like ‘eck it does. Get a job, you sponger. There is a poetic justice in that just as he got rich, he started having to support his own generation of parasites – mad wife, lazy stepson, not much less lazy stepdaughter and alcoholic stepson-in-law. Still, at his death he was probably the best known and best selling writer in the world, and to many was considered the best writer, period. That’s quite a hat trick.

To be fair, one thing against his ever settling down and earning a living –had he been so inclined – was that he had to travel constantly to stay alive. He was never well; in fact it’s astonishing that he made it through childhood, where received wisdom was to make a child’s room as hermetically airless as possible, and his mad Scottish nurse filled his head with Wee Free guilt and terrors, and then when this already highly strung child couldn’t sleep would dose him with strong coffee.

By the time he reached adulthood the cold and damp of Edinburgh was killing him. A pattern for over thirty years was that he would leave for a dryer climate, get better, return to Edinburgh and have a relapse. He was only ever really healthy when he settled in the South Pacific in the last ten years of his life, and that is when his life really gets interesting. I find it fascinating that he lived at a time when the world was mostly at peace and a well-off Victorian gentleman could go pretty well anywhere he liked. It is also amazing that in the 1880s and 90s there was already enough of a global communications network that a man could settle in Samoa and conduct a successful literary life, living off the earnings he was making in Europe and America. However, it was a one-way process as he lagged a long way behind what other writers were doing. It meant he was writing into a vacuum and it probably wouldn’t have worked at all if he didn’t have a loyal contingent of friends back home seeing that his stuff got into print. He could fire off manuscripts of all shapes and sizes and subjects with a reasonable expectation that they would still get into print regardless. (Another difference with today’s writers …) Inevitably he became more and more isolated from the contemporary writing scene and it is interesting to speculate whether he could have stayed quite so successful without suddenly dying at the age of 44 and making the matter academic. By the time he was my age, he had been dead for two years.

I must read Weir of Hermiston, which apparently ends mid-sentence because that’s where he put his pen down to take a break on the day he died.

The character I find most admirable in his story is his mother, Margaret. After her husband died when she was in her late fifties, this respectable Edinburgh widow decided to take an extended holiday with her son and his family across the US and then on a yachting cruise around the Pacific. In fact, she liked it so much that she then decided to move fulltime to Samoa. With her piano. Still a respectable widow throughout, photographs show her dressed and looking a bit like Queen Victoria, complete with starched widow’s cap. Go girl!

The Bens 2011

Your admirable patience since this time last year is rewarded. The Bens are in for the best movies watched by me in 2010. That is the sole criterion for consideration, so even quite old movies can be up for awards. Remember, it’s now what it’s about, it’s how it’s about it.

So …

Best movie shortlist

Winner: Toy Story 3

Judge’s Comments: a very strong choice of movies that were well made, well produced, well acted and (crucially) in which I had no idea where they might be going. For instance: movies where it is not a given that the hero(es) will survive. But in the end it had to be Toy Story 3. How many of these would I get on DVD and re-watch? Exactly.

Best actor shortlist:

Winner: Lotso Hugs

Judge’s comments: Lotso wins because, despite the handicap of being a CGI animation with no actual physical form, from the moment he appears he manages to come across as genial and friendly and slightly creepy and threatening, all of which he in fact is. Chiwetel Ejiofor gets an honorable mention for so spectacularly notbeing the Operative from Serenity in his portrayal of a transvestite club singer. And his songs are pretty darn toe-tapping.

Best SF short list

Winner: Moon

Judge’s Comments: Not such a strong list of contenders, frankly. Moon would have stood out in any year but neither of the other two really deserve an urgent repeat viewing. Very cleverly done, yes, but … but. Moon however has a standout performance by one actor playing two men, and an old-school approach to practical, model-based special effects that is a huge relief after endless vistas of CGI.

Best thriller shortlist

Winner: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Judge’s Comments: Another clutch of well-made movies where you really didn’t know what was going to happen or who would live and die. The Girl has to waltz off with the prize, however. What else could you do with a movie where the lead character has her probation officer tied up naked, is forcing objects inside him via the bodily orifice that isn’t the mouth, forcing him to watch a video of him raping her so she can blackmail him into releasing her from probation … and that’s just character background?

Best paranoid conspiracy theory

Winner: Defence of the Realm

Judge’s Comments: The judges surprise themselves on this one, expecting The Ghost to be the shoe-in due to its topicality and dislike of Tony Blair. Defence of the Realm came up from behind. It was made in the eighties, which only occasionally shows, but is still just as taut and unexpected as, say, State of Play. In fact, withoutDefence of the Realm there might have been no State of Play. Or indeed The Ghost.

Best Swedish Film

Winner: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Judge’s Comments: Okay, so the field was limited to two choices anyway – but even so. See comments above about the winner. Arn suffered a little from trying to compress a quite long trilogy into one 2 hour movie and from a certain Swedishness along the lines of: “oh look, something exciting is happening over there / has just happened here.” Mind you, I was at school with one of the villains which gives it a notch up.

Best comedy

Winner: The Big Lebowski

Judge’s Comments: Ooh, this was a hard one. The Big Lebowski scrapes it, just, but a very honorable mention to Tamara Drewe, not least for all the writer jokes.

And finally, some one-offs – categories of one which still deserve a mention because that single category was so noticeable.

Best facial hair

This movies features players like LongstreetLeeChamberlainArmistead andPickett, so the facial hair was always going to be key. As it turns out, their beards and whiskers were present at one of the most important battles of modern history and prove well up to the challenge.

Worst waste of Bill Nighy

Bill Nighy as a hitman. So much promise …

Best use of a screen legend

Michael Caine continues to prove that his one-style-fits-all acting method really does fit all. The man is a marvel.

Until next year, then!