Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 08:29:09 AM

Login with username, password and session length

My Wrongs #8245-8249 & 117: A Reappraisal

Started by Neil, July 20, 2010, 12:58:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Koosh Koosh!

#30
Quote from: Whug Baspin on August 31, 2010, 03:12:06 PM
I was listening to one of the radio shows the other day and there was a section where he interviewed a lady who suggested that dogs would make good judges, not sure if that's been mentioned before, but could have been the birth of the dog/lawyer idea.

To be honest, if I were a wanky pretentious bastard, I'd argue that "animals in unusual positions/situations" is a comedic auteur trait that Morris has, and that idea was probably not the one that sparked Rothko specifically.

Examples (that I can remember off the top of my head, as if I need to list them):
The Day Today - Bomb dogs
Radio 1 Music Shows - The stuff about the weeping gays and the giraffes
brassEYE - Carla the Elephant, spherical cattle (which I think originally came from the R1 or GLR shows)
Blue Jam - The flaming elephant, the bird with a teenager's testicles - hell, even the leopard that gets cried out of "your" eye during the first opening
Jam - Multiple shots of birds and a dog (Rothko specifically) litter the space between sketches, the crow that gets eaten by a toddler
Nathan Barley - The cat with the scissors in her head, obviously
Four Lions - Faisal's crow bombs

I know this is a rather pointless list and most people knew all about this before, but I had fun listing them. I also know there's tons of stuff I'm forgetting, especially from On the Hour and the GLR shows (most of which I need to relisten to), so if someone could add more, it'd make me do a big smile.

klaus

Good, great, awesome to see My Wrongs being given the kind of re-evaluation it deserves.  I'm still shocked by the NB hate-on.  Dan Ashcroft is clearly the Wrongs character gone on a different wander -  or as Morris told Julian Barrett "A man who is a refraction of a shadow" [paraphrased].  And what's even better is that Four Lions is the perfect response to NB.  What better way to deal with the Idiots then to blow them up.  If NB 2 was going to be about Barley losing his marbles over a grey hair and going hippie then why not go suicide bomber instead?  Also, NB as sitcom or, in line with the comedies that it most resembles, The Office and Curb (in the way that they are comedies about embarrassment and excruciating awkwardness) who doesn't love having a Morris/Brooker response?  Apparently people didn't but if My Wrongs can find new life, I suspect NB's charms are only a few years from being discovered.

Prediction time.  What does Morris do next?  I bet an ensemble piece, maybe something like a podcast/Blue Jam project (though hopefully not Blue Jam 10 years later).  For someone who was started in radio, the podcast and that uncensored arena might be too compelling for him.  And why wouldn't Warp want to get behind that?

Big Jack McBastard

I recently re-watched Nathan Barley and was surprised how much better it was than I remembered it.

It's still not ball-achingly fantastic but it's ok.

Think I'll dig this out and have another look too.

23 Daves

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on August 31, 2010, 01:02:14 PM

I recall reading the original thread on this, from just after I joined the board, and it wasn't as wholly negative as is being made out on here. It certainly was more negative than not (which is appropriate, considering it was rubbish) but there seemed to be plenty of positive-ish voices.

I can only speak from my own perspective, really - I was a defender of the show, and it felt like horribly hard work to keep that defense going.  In fact, it almost felt as if the counter-replies were getting unpleasantly agitated at one point, and from forum users I usually got on with as well.  I think I gave up in the end because no comedy series seemed worth that much hassle.

However, in response to the accusation that Nathan Barley's character is cartoonish, I'd argue that the image he wants to project to the world is indeed cartoonish.  He himself isn't.  You can notice moments where he panics, drops his Estuary English geezer act, and returns to his (usual) well-spoken voice.  This occurs, for example, when he thinks he may have killed Pingu in the final episode. 

Most of these people in real life are pathetically insecure.  I would argue you have to be extremely insecure to be that self-conscious and studied in how you present yourself to the world.  They adopt an act for the benefit of others - hipsters are usually the dweebs at school who, instead of growing up and using their intelligence as an adult to pull things into sharper focus for others, instead give up, dumb down and adopt the bullish, wideboy mannerisms and demands of the people who picked on them ("This is my expensive mobile phone.  WHERE'S YOURS?!").  It's generally a pathetic act, and you can see the inner geek in Ayoade's character and Nathan's.  None of them are all they appear to be, but you only very occasionally see flashes of their true selves.  Whether that's a strength or weakness of the show is for the individual to judge, I suppose.  Nathan might seem more sympathetic if you occasionally knew more about his past, but really he's not supposed to be the one you root for - that's the purpose of Ashcroft's presence. 

Neil

Quote from: Ignatius_S on August 31, 2010, 01:46:57 PM
Any chance of getting this a split thread?

I think I'll leave it as is, as both chats are intertwined now, and are helping keep the other afloat.  Morris has been very under-discussed on here of late, so I don't want to jinx it.

Quote from: 23 Daves on August 30, 2010, 10:58:01 PM
We haven't had a good old chinwag about "Nathan Barley" on here in a long time, and I think that's partly because the overwhelming consensus back in 2005 was that it was dire - and if you were a fan, arguing to the contrary was actually quite hard work.  For every comment you made in its favour, it felt like ten replies were being fired back at you every hour from naysayers.  It was like being stood at the opposite end of a tennis court whilst one of those automated ball shooting machines goes haywire.

Balls were being thrust in both directions, I seem to vividly recall.  There was no consensus, either, and the polls for each episode always veered far more towards the positive end of the spectrum.

An tSaoi

Seeing as we're discussing both, I've always felt Barley was maligned. It's the least of Morris' works, and certainly his most flawed production, but on balance I think it's a good show. I think what put a lot of people off NB was not entirely the show itself, but the way its defenders sometimes got too defensive, to the point of throwing around all that ridiculous nonsense about 'you are Nathan Barley', and acting as if those who disliked it simply didn't get it (a very patronising position). This made those who disliked the show get more defensive in turn, which led to all manner of back and forth bickering. It got to the point where both sides were arguing more over how erroneous and faulty the others' arguments were than discussing the merits of the show itself. If more fans had just laid out what they liked about the show in a calm and sensibler manner rather than sniping at the detractors, then maybe there wouldn't have been such strong feeling against it. And vice versa I suppose.

What I liked about the show was that it sent-up people whom I hadn't seen tackled in a television programme before. Maybe there are other shows which satirized the Barley types, but I'm not familiar with them. I don't buy the idea that it only has relevance to those familiar with that part of the media in that part of London; there are strains of those sorts of people everywhere. That specific subculture may not have spread that far outside of that location; but there are universal characteristics. Many of the characters seemed familiar, even though my own world is very different from theirs. YouTube vloggers who think they're in the media because Google has thrown them a few pennies of ad revenue; twats who think they're being original and trendsetting by copying the clothes of the supposedly trendy, only to ditch the look when it becomes too popular; those who refuse to openly appreciate anything unless ironically; idiots who think they're edgy by lazily evoking 9/11; people who think Banksy is deep[nb]That Banksy-eqsue graffiti booklet that comes with the DVD is wonderfully spot on. Brooker has written of his dislike for him in his Guardian column in a way that perfectly matches my own views on the man's work.[/nb] - I've encountered them in real life, so I really appreciated Brooker and Morris having such a comprehensive go at them.

I love the idea of writers getting angry about something, and then creating an extended diatribe about it. You get the feeling that they strongly disliked these people, were thoroughly sick of their carry on, and wanted to bloody well show them up for the idiots they are, in the show and in real-life. I find that quite exciting. The drawback of this is that too often they simply had a go at the characters, made them figures of hate, without making them as sympathetic and well-rounded as sitcom characters need to be. Ultimately it's the lack of clever comedy moments and the absence of subtlety which is the biggest fault. But even taking that into account, there's enough interesting and well-observed bits to make it worthwhile.

Neil

Another reason I kind of like the way these two threads have become intertwined, is that I agree with the idea that the NB targets require too much prior knowledge.  I'm enjoying trying to square the way that conflicts with the way I had to go and research various things in order to better understand My Wrongs.

Quote from: hummingofevil on August 31, 2010, 01:45:22 AM
Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I have just noticed on the last viewing that the book on the table when we first see Rothko come into focus is "Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions" by Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics Anonymous. The book is next to a full ashtray so kind of implies that he has been reading it. Doing a little bit of research, reviews of the book discuss how it discusses the idea of guilt at length and in summary (and I've not read it so might be wrong) that the only way of dealing with addiction is to constantly remind yourself of your own guilt, to follow a set of rules (the twelve steps) prosciptively that are clearly laid out in the text and for good measure to believe in God (in modern alternative AA groups this is sometimes replaced by the concept of a "higher power"). Of course its possible that the book is actually Imogen's and he is only reading it because he is at her flat; if this is the case then it opens up a further possibility about the dynamic of their relationship which I've never thought about before.

Just another piece of the puzzle for you.

Yes, this is what initially led to me starting to unravel My Wrongs.  It's a wonderfully subtle thing, with half the spine being visible and in focus, but then the focus switching to Rothko, looming in the background.  The very first shot we see is of the smoking device, it's on the table, and in long-shot, so it's easily missed, although it features prominently on the packaging, menu, and in one of the extras.  So we know that he's using the Twelve Steps to try and combat his addiction to nicotine, which is why he's taking an inventory.  Addiction and obsession are important themes, as are control, authority and shame.

Just watched it again, and currently I'm wondering if Morris is condemning the idea of giving yourself over to a higher power, particularly in the commentary.  Even when it's (seemingly) gone off the rails, it uses White Dog as a proxy to once again reinforce the idea that you should take responsibility for your own actions.  Things really start to go wrong for Him when he doesn't own up to his lack of control over Rothko, though, so...

Fucking hell.  I read this thread on my phone today, and had a completely different reply ready to go, but since watching it again this evening, I once again have this bunch of half-formed ideas that I need to try and connect.  I love it.  I love how deeply affecting this short is, and after watching Wall-E again last night, I noticed it has a similar economy with regards dialogue.  It's all mood, and feeling, and the throbbing pulse of the protagonist on the soundtrack, contrasting with the hectic panic-stricken sections.  Then that Richard Hawley song comes in at the end, and it seems so superficially uplifting, but with these undeniably bleak lyrics.

I'm currently really interested in the way his delusions have a sense of humour.  They have a sense of humour that targets Him as the butt of a joke (which must be related to his paranoia and low self-esteem), but it's still fascinating, particularly as Rothko continues to crack gags on his deathbed.  The delusions have all the character that he seems to be lacking, we only see him briefly crack a smile at the start, and it's at something very macabre. 

Neil

Quote from: An tSaoi on August 31, 2010, 02:11:59 PM
I've only ever thought My Wrongs was 'okay'. It always struck me as a quite interesting and nicely-made short film, but ultimately one which doesn't 'speak' to me that much. It seems to focus more on audio and editing tricks than it does on hard substance, and although it's possible I'm being hugely ignorant, the film doesn't say as much as it thinks it does. I also don't like the idea that in order to get the full picture you have to look up such and such, then read some book that appears in such and such a shot, and tear apart your DVD cover; the work should be able to speak for itself based only on what's in the film proper without all this auxiliary research.

You don't have to do all that, and indeed, the analysis you go on to give contains the nuts and bolts of the piece.  However, if you have the sort of mind that relishes a challenge, obsessively lusts after detail, and enjoys trying to 'solve' things that may be intentionally ambiguous, then you'll find My Wrongs to be a subtle masterpiece.  It invites over-analysis. 

That's why I love it so much.  I want art to be so subtle that I have to invest more and more and more into it, just to get any appreciation out of it at all.  I jump in the air when I figure out films like Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind or Inception, but My Wrongs has layers upon layers of depth.  I have to say, also, that I have found it quite challenging at times, and not everyone desires that level of self-doubt. 

You don't have to destroy the cover, you just have to realise you're being challenged to do so.  Doing it must invoke a mix of satisfaction and regret.  It's a destructive irrational act, just like when Him puts ink in the fishbowl because he thinks the fish are staring at him.  The object there seems to be to obscure their view, with their death being an unintended side effect. 

QuoteTake that bit about Him not having a name because he doesn't believe he deserves one; that's an interesting concept which goes some way to explaining his character, but it's not touched upon at all in the film, so unless you happened to read that description, you'd not appreciate it as much (where is that written anyway, is it on the blurb or something?)

It's on the back of the DVD case.  It doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the short itself.  We can infer plenty about him from his general demeanour, his lack of grooming etc.  The packaging communicates his thought processes in a completely different way, one which is appropriate to the medium, just like the film itself.  I love the obsessive back-tracking.

DeGrise

I couldn't agree with you more.

It's fantastic that the advantages of a medium are being used in this way to enhance a piece of art.

I love My Wrongs first and foremost because I find it so affecting. But the fact that it rewards repeated watching and investigation, and gives those driven to investigate further a springboard into  topics that would otherwise remain unexplored, is something that other artists using film should consider in the age of DVD and BluRay.

I hadn't made the AA connectio, so thanks for that Neil. It's an area I've always found interesting but, given I don't have an addictive personality one I've found difficult to form strong opinions about.

Neil

The sign at the end really is heart-breakingly bleak.[nb]Although it's dealt with in such a light way at times, brilliantly so when it comes to the twisted funfair music.  Morris appears to be sending up his own darkness a bit in the commentary, particularly with that bastardised Groucho quote[/nb] His last chance to assert control, and take responsibility, and he runs away from it.  Another thing I find really interesting is the way he conforms to authority of a certain type, but also feels compelled to subvert natural authority figures (ticket inspector, vicar, his dad etc).  He's repeating the same pattern, over and over again. 

Quote49. Sent out of class for being sullen and insolent
  but I wasn't so I ambushed teacher with pencil scrapings in face and was sent
            home but IT STILL WASN'T my FAULT although
                     everybody said it was

hummingofevil

Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2010, 02:32:22 AM

Just watched it again, and currently I'm wondering if Morris is condemning the idea of giving yourself over to a higher power, particularly in the commentary.  Even when it's (seemingly) gone off the rails, it uses White Dog as a proxy to once again reinforce the idea that you should take responsibility for your own actions.  Things really start to go wrong for Him when he doesn't own up to his lack of control over Rothko, though, so...


This is where it is getting too confusing for my simple brain but I'll give it a go.

My initial reaction was that the film is trying to say something about personal responsibility and I agree with the idea that when he really gives up responsibility things really start to go wrong (putting lead around his neck, the Imogen quote in the pond). He gives up responsibility for his actions to others and is guided by the dog, baby, hamster, whatever. Where this gets even more interesting though is that obviously these voices that he perceives to be coming from others are actually (probably) just his own hallucinations. So there is something in this where the idea is not necessarily about giving up responsibility to others and blaming others for your actions but more about how people are able to justify their own actions by not taking responsibility for things that are clearly one's own choice. Smoking is the obvious one. Its easy to blame others but most people who are try to give up start to gain a split personality where your brain is telling you smoke and not to smoke simultatiously. How this links to the source of his problems I am not so sure.

On a different note, My Wrongs #8245-8249 & 117. If these are his Wrongs in order then its fairly clear that Wrong #117 is surely telling his mam the story about the aunt. In the flashback he is hearing voices... if he is remembering this correctly in the present then he was hearing voices even at the time of this event so.... it is possible that even at this point he is trying to deal with some previous Wrong that he has done (take your pick from #1-116). Now he might be remembering the past incorrectly and his dad's leaving was nothing to do with him and he just blamed himself. This bit is all about the unreliability of memory and the fact that the visuals and the audio is incomprehensible at parts is more than just a way of showing that it is a flaskback.  Similar theme in the way that he is happy to imagine Imogen's reaction to finding the dog (and the only alternative is a message from the ducks) rather that talking to her himself. 

Sorry if I am rambling and not adding anything whatsoever. I'm quite enjoying this.

Questions.

1. What is significance of what is on the TV in the opening scene?
2. Why does he decide to put the keys back through the door? Is this the only possible way that he would not lose them. To me there is a link with the comment earlier about the twisted logic of having a go at the ducks for telling people he talks to dogs - the only way he can trust himself that he will not lose his keys is by putting them in the only place where they are of no use to him.


Neil

#41
Quote from: hummingofevil on September 01, 2010, 04:17:41 PM
How this links to the source of his problems I am not so sure.

The way in which he smokes is another method of showing us that he's obsessive and has an addictive personality - these events are in his mind because he's listing them, but I doubt they're far from his subconcious at times anyway.  Look at how tormented he is by the memory of Rothko at the end, he's battling against the ducks because he wants to be able to forget.  Smoking is classicaly also known as a way of alleviating stress, or at least coping with it. 

QuoteNow he might be remembering the past incorrectly and his dad's leaving was nothing to do with him and he just blamed himself. This bit is all about the unreliability of memory and the fact that the visuals and the audio is incomprehensible at parts is more than just a way of showing that it is a flaskback.  Similar theme in the way that he is happy to imagine Imogen's reaction to finding the dog (and the only alternative is a message from the ducks) rather that talking to her himself. 

That's really interesting, about the wooziness of the memory, I hadn't considered that before.  However, the ambiguity here is one of the things I really love, and I've also wondered whether we're seeing what happened, or we're seeing a retrospective explanation of what happened.  I think he saw it, told, and then has never got over the shame.  This could be the one moment where he really tried to assert himself, and it left him without a strong male role model.  However, the hidden parts of the packaging do reveal moments that predate this incident with the gerbil, and he was obviously a very troubled child.

Quote1. What is significance of what is on the TV in the opening scene?

I believe the TV fzzts out, and then we see subtle visual hallucinations on-screen.  If you look at the label of the DVD, you'll see that he reckons there's a connection between the goldfish bowl, and the telly.  It's possible that he's also inked that telly, and he's hallucinating appropriate visuals.  They do have an inky blob quality to them...a sort of lava lamp thing, with fish swishes, and I think it's actually the connection that he sees between the two things being played out.  Dropping ink into the goldfish bowl has affected the telly. 

These moments of paranoia are interesting, and remind me of a well-known schizophrenic usenet contributor whose site I won't link.  He meticulously catalogues all the coded digs that he thinks news readers and presenters are making at his expense, and I seem to recall him believing there to be some connection between ITN and the CIA, both of whom were conspiring to slander him in ways that would be impossible to prove to others.

The shooting script had the following suggestions for what should be on the TV:

Quotewhats on tv? Clz circuit of himself & dog? BBC4? Tarkovsky? Cricket. Cartoons. World at War?

Quote2. Why does he decide to put the keys back through the door? Is this the only possible way that he would not lose them. To me there is a link with the comment earlier about the twisted logic of having a go at the ducks for telling people he talks to dogs - the only way he can trust himself that he will not lose his keys is by putting them in the only place where they are of no use to him.

Yeah, it's another irrational act, which has its own weird sense of logic to it, same as using his head as a knob to stop the lead from flying away from him - which it does in the church, as he has no power over Rothko.  No redemption for Him.

I think I recall this being described in the monologue as him having put the keys 'in the wrong half', which I love.

Johnny Yesno

#42
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2010, 02:32:22 AM
Yes, this is what initially led to me starting to unravel My Wrongs.  It's a wonderfully subtle thing, with half the spine being visible and in focus, but then the focus switching to Rothko, looming in the background.  The very first shot we see is of the smoking device, it's on the table, and in long-shot, so it's easily missed, although it features prominently on the packaging, menu, and in one of the extras.  So we know that he's using the Twelve Steps to try and combat his addiction to nicotine, which is why he's taking an inventory.  Addiction and obsession are important themes, as are control, authority and shame.

Wasn't there a thread some time ago where you posted screenshots of the book and explained a bit about the idea of surrendering to a higher authority? TBH, My Wrongs (including even its title) had seemed a bit lolrandom to me until you pointed this out.

WRT Nathan Barley, I thought it was very patchy but it did have Doug Rocket and Jonatton Yeah?, the character who really was the cunt of the series. His snappy summary of the content of his magazine, "Stupid people think it's cool, smart people think it's a joke, also cool", is the template for much of modern advertising and popular culture, particularly where the two are connected.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2010, 04:47:32 PM
The way in which he smokes is another method of showing us that he's obsessive and has an addictive personality - ...  Smoking is classicaly also known as a way of alleviating stress, or at least coping with it....
Smoking can also be seen as a way of wasting/killing time – a substitute for actually doing anything.

The fact Me has laboured over producing a device in order to smoke, did strike me obsessive. It also underlines just how much he is wasting time by putting effort into a device to help him kill time. The device looks pointless, but arguably indicative of a mind that works on a different level to most.

Quote from: hummingofevil on September 01, 2010, 04:17:41 PM...
My initial reaction was that the film is trying to say something about personal responsibility and I agree with the idea that when he really gives up responsibility things really start to go wrong (putting lead around his neck, the Imogen quote in the pond)....

2. Why does he decide to put the keys back through the door? Is this the only possible way that he would not lose them. To me there is a link with the comment earlier about the twisted logic of having a go at the ducks for telling people he talks to dogs - the only way he can trust himself that he will not lose his keys is by putting them in the only place where they are of no use to him.
I've been meaning to comment on the responsibility aspect, but haven't had much time.

The lead around the neck is like the keys through the letterbox – Me is following what he's been told to do, but in a way that most would find strange. As Neil says there is logic.

The label on the key says 'don't lose' me and by putting the keys through the door, there is no way Me will be able to lose them. It's entirely logical but Me struggles with cause and effect – i.e. he does not appreciate how his actions will cause problems.

The talk of logic made me think of the G.K. Chesterton quote:

QuoteIf you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgement...

The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

Quote from: hummingofevil on September 01, 2010, 04:17:41 PM
.... He gives up responsibility for his actions to others and is guided by the dog, baby, hamster, whatever. Where this gets even more interesting though is that obviously these voices that he perceives to be coming from others are actually (probably) just his own hallucinations. So there is something in this where the idea is not necessarily about giving up responsibility to others and blaming others for your actions but more about how people are able to justify their own actions by not taking responsibility for things that are clearly one's own choice.....
For me, err Me doesn't give up responsibility. When Rothko first starts talking, Me isn't happy and doesn't takes the line of 'What now, my canine chum?' He's disturbed by it and says: "Stop talking you're a dog;" he doesn't want to listen but eventually becomes submissive to Rothko because he struggles to argue effectively against the hound.

The hamster I'll mention below.

If a schizophrenic hurts themselves because voices told them to, it could be argued that the person isn't taking responsibility for their actions; but if the voices are real and convincing to the person, there is reason for their behaviour.

Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2010, 04:47:32 PM
...That's really interesting, about the wooziness of the memory, I hadn't considered that before.  However, the ambiguity here is one of the things I really love, and I've also wondered whether we're seeing what happened, or we're seeing a retrospective explanation of what happened.  I think he saw it, told, and then has never got over the shame.  This could be the one moment where he really tried to assert himself, and it left him without a strong male role model.  However, the hidden parts of the packaging do reveal moments that predate this incident with the gerbil, and he was obviously a very troubled child....
I had meant to post about fairly recent research in the memory, particularly in chidren. This is me probably putting it badly, but here goes.

There used to be a conventional view that memory was like a video tape – it captured the moment, which could be replayed in the same way again and again. Whereas it's now being argued that when memories are being captured it's like shooting a film – and when we access those memories, it is an edited version, which may have scenes we've 'added'. When we see things differently in later life, for instance, it's less to do with the benefit of wisdom or hindsight but how we wish to perceive past incidences.

A fair bit of recent research has been into how children recall incidents and the conclusion was that because they want approval, particularly from parents. So if you ask a child to tell them what happened today, as soon as they start recalling, they subconsciously start shaping the memories into an account that they think win them praise. So if a child starts coming out with outlandish tales of beating up a pirate, they're not actually lying deliberately.

This pattern shapes how we access memories in later life, but rather than being concerned primarily with parents or olders and betters, we're more interested in how we view ourselves.

Why I was going to mention this, was when Me looks back to the incident as a child, it might have actually happened in a different way – but he sees it, because that's how subconsciously wants to see it and take the blame for his dad leaving the happy home.

It's always struck me that Me blames himself for the break-up of his parent's marriage as a very young child. If his dad was unfaithful, it's not Me's fault. If he wasn't, would his mother have thrown her husband out merely on the word of a young child?

Arguably, you could say that he tries to put the blame/responsibility onto the hamster. Going further, perhaps because the catalyst of the break-up was what he said to his mother, but it wasn't his fault that he said it (i.e. he said what he had seen). However, by doing that, it's indicative of deep guilt and when Rothko talks about the case (doesn't he say "You know what you've done?" Sorry, I need to re-watch it!), this is what first comes to Me's mind.

It's even possible that his mother laughed off what Me said or the break-up was because of something else. After all, children often do blame themselves when parents spilt.

Personally, I feel that Me has deep-rooted guilt about the break-up of his parents' marriage and feels responsible for something, as a child, he actually had no control over. 

Zetetic

Quote from: Ignatius_S on September 03, 2010, 02:56:47 PM
There used to be a conventional view that memory was like a video tape – it captured the moment, which could be replayed in the same way again and again.
I don't want to significantly distract from your eminently sensible thoughts about the suggestibility of both remembrance and recall, but I don't think it's worth letting this go by. Whenever this period of a conventional view regarding memory as being 'like a video tape' (in terms of reliability and accuracy), it can't have been at any point in the last 2500 years or so.

Anyway, more helpful rather than irritating:
You might have been thinking of Bartlett (1932). Certainly he's one of the first to examine the issue experimentally. The most well-known part of that work is probably 'The War of the Ghosts', where subjects were provided with a story placed in a South American native context and carrying very little traditional narrative sense, but upon recall altered both details (canoes -> sailboats) and imposed their own rationalisation and structure on the story.
Quote from: BartlettRemembering... is an imaginative reconstruction built out of past reactions or experience and a little outstanding detail

Quote from: Ignatius_SWhy I was going to mention this, was when Me looks back to the incident as a child, it might have actually happened in a different way – but he sees it, because that's how subconsciously wants to see it and take the blame for his dad leaving the happy home.

It's always struck me that Me blames himself for the break-up of his parent's marriage as a very young child. If his dad was unfaithful, it's not Me's fault. If he wasn't, would his mother have thrown her husband out merely on the word of a young child?
That seems a very sensible analysis to me.

Neil

#45
Quote from: Johnny Yesno on September 03, 2010, 11:10:06 AM
Wasn't there a thread some time ago where you posted screenshots of the book and explained a bit about the idea of surrendering to a higher authority? TBH, My Wrongs (including even its title) had seemed a bit lolrandom to me until you pointed this out.

Yeah, that was in a thread where we were discussing the trailers for Nathan Barley, oddly enough.

Ignatius_S, sorry to correct you, but you've referred to him as Me, rather than Him, and it's really set me thinking.  As he's only given the credit of Him in the film, I think I might have started to take that literally up til now, and what occurred to me from your post, is the way such a name would be Him once again showing no sense of ownership over himself.  Because he's neurotic to the point of paranoia, he defines himself through the imagined perception of others.  He is distanced from his own decision making process. 

Then I realised that, as I say, I'd started to take the credits too literally.  He is only Him to us, in the context of film credits.  In other words, he doesn't even deem himself worthy of the big H. 

One of the details I'm most intrigued by, is in the Extras menu.  When you hover over Main Menu, the "a" and "e" are crossed out, making it say "Man Men" instead.  I believe that to be important, and have noticed that all the real authority figures in My Wrong are men[nb]Apart from Imogen, who is played by the same actress as his Mum when he imagines her.[/nb] - even at the end, the mother of the baby hides behind the man, using him as a kind of proxy for violence.  I think this is all about him punishing himself, but mostly his Dad, and/or he's still playing that role of the little boy, with these surrogate fathers who he makes push him away. 

Then he's completely emasculated by Rothko, who delivers the best line in My Wrongs, while he's left literally holding the baby.  It's his Dad leaving his Mum again, isn't it. 

I do totally agree that it all comes down to this deep sense of shame and guilt and regret.  I hadn't considered his Mum's willingness to believe him, that's an excellent point. 

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Zetetic on September 03, 2010, 03:51:03 PM
I don't want to significantly distract from your eminently sensible thoughts about the suggestibility of both remembrance and recall, but I don't think it's worth letting this go by. Whenever this period of a conventional view regarding memory as being 'like a video tape' (in terms of reliability and accuracy), it can't have been at any point in the last 2500 years or so.

Anyway, more helpful rather than irritating:
You might have been thinking of Bartlett (1932). Certainly he's one of the first to examine the issue experimentally. The most well-known part of that work is probably 'The War of the Ghosts', where subjects were provided with a story placed in a South American native context and carrying very little traditional narrative sense, but upon recall altered both details (canoes -> sailboats) and imposed their own rationalisation and structure on the story.That seems a very sensible analysis to me.
If you keep saying nice things about my posts, distract away!

My source for the information about the memory research was from a R4 programme – my mind might be playing tricks, but when I was listening to it, I was a little surprised when the academic was saying about the traditional view I mentioned, but I might be doing them a disservice!

What the research was really looking at what how memory develops (and I've a feeling they mentioned stuff like how many details when, when your memory can take in colour), leading to how young children shape their memories as I mentioned about, which subsequently affects us as adults.

If I did get mixed up about the theories of memory (or lack of) on the programme, I think this research was providing actual evidence how memory works, which they seemed to be getting quite excited about. Thanks for the suggestion of Bartlett – looks very interesting and I'll have to do some reading!

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2010, 04:39:19 PM
....Ignatius_S, sorry to correct you, but you've referred to him as Me, rather than Him, and it's really set me thinking....
Oh, correct away - perhaps it's a Freudian slip on my part! Interesting thoughts on that – and I'd certainly say that he does distance himself considerably.

Neil

#48
I'm really loving this discussion.  It's prompted me to watch this again, and even now I'm still noticing (and re-noticing) new details.  Just little things that can float by, such as the way Rothko responds to the answer-machine with a natural sense of curiosity, but Him looks at it with a very slight sense of panic. 

I already mentioned that drooping bloop, but I also love the way Morris does a quick, menacing zoom in on Rothkos eyes when Imogen urges Rothko to tell her if Him doesn't take the dog out for a walk.  How great is that?  He shows a flash of panic at the possibility that the dog might hold him to be responsible for something!  Plus, this is before it even starts to talk.

Then the soundtrack, with those alternately dull and bright gongs dancing about as the camera flits between Him and Rothko.  Then the irregular pulse starts up as he braves the outdoors, escalating as he starts to realise putting the keys through the door was a bad move. 

"He thinks he's my lawyer but he's not" is a really brilliant line, with more lovely skewed logic behind it.

The bit in the church, where the Priest asks if anythings wrong, and you get that one bass stab, and all the other sound mostly drops out...that is such a punch in the stomach.  That's the key moment, his last chance.  When he writes the letter to Imogen afterwards, that's the, uh, "falling action" it seems. [nb]had to wiki coda and dénouement to check, and this seems the more appropriate term.[/nb]  He has this one final chance, and it looks kind of hopeful, as he'd started to assert himself over Rothko in the previous scene.  He removes the lead from around his neck, too, and holds it in a conventional manner.  I knew this was the chance at redemption, but I don't think I've ever realised before that he does get fleetingly close to it!  This really adds to the sense of tension for me now.

The baby, in that setting, with those proceedings underway, is the ultimate symbol of innocence, of rebirth.  It's being cleansed of all its sin, and Him just can't attain that, but then wants the baby to lead him, at Rothko's suggetsion.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Maybe Im Doing It Wrong on August 30, 2010, 06:13:40 PMAll in all I thought it was a hugely immature, wanky, and (for want of a better word) studenty film for a 40 year old man to have made. When Woody Allen was 40 he was writing "Annie Hall."

Hey.

Beagle 2

Ha, thanks for bumping this and prompting me to watch again. Yeah, I remember being pretty underwhelmed by this when I first saw it, but I really enjoyed it just now. I completely forgot that Morris's voice appears in it. The last noise the dying dog makes is amazing.

Also, that is a gorgeous Richard Hawley track.

Replies From View

I've always read it as "Mr. Wrongs".  I still do.

Thomas

I think I'll watch it again in a minute. I don't think it lives up to the fantastic Blue Jam Rothko piece, but, then, that's got Madonna's 'Ray of Light' at the end so nothing else really stood a chance.

The DVD case for my copy isn't book-themed, like lots of others seem to be. I don't have to rip it apart to read all the stuff. That miffs me. Am I missing out?

Neil

Quote from: Beagle 2 on March 08, 2013, 05:14:55 PM
Also, that is a gorgeous Richard Hawley track.

Very much so, Camera Obscure do a lovely cover of it too.  Apologies for the lazy YT link, I'll sendspace it later http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb2SLKJ6xx8

Thomas, my advice is not to really compare it to the Blue Jam version, see it as its own thing.  I still adore this and, with all I've learnt about personality disorders over the last 8 months or so, after being involved with sufferers, I think my take on it might be quite different now, and even more involved.  The more you bring to this, in terms of an understanding of (armchair) psychology, the better it gets - it's an extraordinarily involved and insightful piece of art, and you should invest as much of yourself as you can, or need to.

And as I'm sure I said earlier in the thread - you don't need to rip your cover, you just need to realise you were challenged to do so, and want to. My Wrongs makes me think more than any other Morris work, I reckon.  I have spent so much time obsessing over it, and that only causes it to continue growing in my affections.  It's a comedy anal-ysts wet dream.

Thomas

Thanks, Neil. One thing that stuck out for me in the original monologue was the line 'the key is in the wrong half,' which I think you yourself have mentioned before, in ye early days of this thread. But you're probably right about it being best not to compare the two things.

Be good if that Chris Morris did more short films, wouldn't it? What the hell is he up to these days?

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Thomas on March 08, 2013, 05:45:24 PMWhat the hell is he up to these days?

I was actually wondering the other day how he makes money.  Aside from the occasional directing gig, he can't be swinging that much in royalties from things like 'Brass Eye' (from which he probably didn't make all that much in the first place), yet he seems to be able to live on one or two relatively small projects every half a decade.  Not complaining about his output, mind you, I suppose I respect that far more than someone like er ...



Thomas

He was script editor for Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle so he might be returning to that, and I've read scraps of rumour here on CaB suggesting that he writes bits and bobs under pseudonyms, but I've got no idea whether there's any truth to that.[nb]There was, of course, the Richard Geefe stint. Perhaps it'll soon turn out that some famed figure is actually a fictitious character written by Morris.[/nb]

I'm just watching the My Wrongs extras now. I found the commentary, by a runner called Nick, quite funny -
Spoiler alert
it quickly turns into a history of dogs in film. Not sure if it's necessary to spoiler this, but y'know.
[close]
The 'Cartel Communique/Osmyso remix' of the film has some seconds of footage that was left out of the final cut.

Noodle Lizard

Quote from: Thomas on March 08, 2013, 06:43:57 PMI've read scraps of rumour here on CaB suggesting that he writes bits and bobs under pseudonyms, but I've got no idea whether there's any truth to that.

That was actually something I'd considered.  I didn't realise it was already a CaB theory.  Or did I start it?

QuoteThe 'Cartel Communique/Osmyso remix' of the film has some seconds of footage that was left out of the final cut.

Yeah I noticed.  Not much, mind.  That's a great little video, though - did Morris make it or the musicians?

Thomas

Perhaps it was your pondering that I read. I'm not sure who did the video, but I think Cartel Communique (whom I only came to know of today) did the video for 'Bushwhacked'. Perhaps someone in the know will swing by and throw some information at us.

To make up for my lack of knowledge here, feel free to look at this photograph of a dapper Chris Morris -


Noodle Lizard

Oh cool.  I have this one, if you want it:



It's like trading Pokémon cards again.