Eric Clapton: The Autobiography

Published 9th October 2007
(Century Press)

Eric Clapton is a complex figure, revered by many, famously cast as "God" by some London graffiti-artists, and whose life has been played out in public since he was a teenager. My first gig, at the age of 12, was to see Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall, so when his autobiography was released I looked forward to learning a bit more about the man himself.

Did I learn much? Well, yes, but not in the way you might expect. Sure, there is an account of the way that young "Rick" learnt that his "Mum and Dad" were in fact his grandparents; he recounts the acquisition of his first couple of guitars; he even tells some of his reckless pursuit and subsequent marriage to Patti Boyd. However, by the time the book moves onto the later years, most notably the tragic death of his four year old son Conor, and the happier times that he now shares with his wife and young daughters, I found myself feeling curiously dissatisfied as a reader; I can't help feeling I learnt more about Clapton from the things he doesn't say, as the things he does.

The most obvious example is the way he skirts over many issues, such as recounting tales of excessive drinking and drug abuse but refusing to dwell on the moment, or any of the consequences (the time he rolled his car over while driving home drunk is a fine example). Equally, if you want to get under the skin of Eric as a musician, it is nigh-on impossible; he mentions a lot of blues musicians that he likes, admires, and in some cases has tried to copy, but does not mention much of his own skill and hard graft in learning the instrument or writing songs. If I was to write an account of an average day in the same style as this book, it would read much like this:

"The alarm went off at 7am, then I got up and made a cup of tea and some toast. Then I ate it and brushed my teeth. I got to work by car, then I turned my computer on and checked my emails. Jane was in the office, so I chatted to her, and also to Jenny and Andy. At lunchtime I went to the canteen and got a sandwich, then I made another cup of tea and before I knew it, it was time to go home again. At home, I sat down before having pie and chips for dinner, and then I watched TV and it was time for bed."

It is lacking in feeling, expression and merely feels like a factual account, save for Clapton's willingness to name-drop. He talks about his many celebrity friends, such as various Beatles and Stones, as well as blues musicians. However, as you might expect, the nearest that he comes to humility is when he addresses the death of Conor, and this is partly because he contrasts his own subdued reactions to those of Conor's Italian grandmother; cultural barriers notwithstanding, this really tells its own story.

I don't think it is a bad book, in fact, Clapton's life features many intriguing episodes and characters; however, I am not sure that Eric himself was the best person to write it. I am sure he would be the first to admit that his primary talent (and mode of expression) comes through the six strings, and unfortunately he is clearly no writer. Clapton is credited as the author on this book, and although a lot of subjects get criticised for their use of ghost writers, I think this book cries out for some proper editing at the very least, and if I was being harsh, would have been better ghost-written.

While writing this review, I checked out what others have to say about the book on Amazon: although most give him a good star rating, and praise him for his honesty in raising many subjects (it cannot be easy to talk honestly about family issues, bereavement, rehab and sexual inadequacy), many also comment on the lack of depth that I have referred to above.

The best way I can describe this book is as a good catalogue of the events in Clapton's life; he is painfully honest about many of the factual occurrences, but fails to discuss his own thoughts and feelings (other than the occasional bout of guilt). The amateur psychologist in me would suggest that it is symptomatic of a man who has spent much of his life struggling to face up to harsh realities and addictions, but the critic in me would counter that by saying that people read autobiographies to learn more (much more) about the subject. It is on the latter count that this particular volume falls short.

8/10 for effort, 5/10 for execution.

In Bruges

Starring: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Ralph Fiennes.
Director: Martin McDonagh
Format: Currently on release in cinemas since 18/04/2008
Certificate: 18 (VERY Strong Language and Strong Violence)

I ought to mention straight off the bat that if this review were to have a tabloid style headline, it would be something like "COLIN FARRELL IN GOOD ACTING PERFORMANCE SHOCKER". My sincere apologies to all Colin fans out there, but personally, I'm not a big fan. He's tolerable in some things; Minority Report (where he puts on a very convincing American accent), Phone Booth (hardly the stuff of the RSC but a perfectly functional performance), but frankly awful in other things (Daredevil anybody?.. no, thought not). Imagine my surprise then dear readers when I sat down with the missus to watch In Bruges, only to find that the guy is actually a pretty decent actor.

Farrell plays hitman Ray, who, along with his friend and fellow assassin Ken (the brilliant Brendan Gleeson), are sent to the beautiful Belgian town of Bruges by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) following a job that goes horribly wrong. Their instructions are simple; hang out there for up to 2 weeks laying low and sightseeing and await a call from Harry who will inform them of what to do next. Ray is less than enthusiastic at the prospect of hanging out in "F*****' Bruges" (his words not mine), whilst Ken relishes the prospect of spending time in a picturesque town with so much history in it. Whilst awaiting the call from Harry, Ray and Ken wax lyrical about life and death, particularly in the context of the botched job which plays heavily on Ray's mind. Eventually, Harry calls, revealing exactly what is to happen next. It would be remiss of me to reveal anything more than that plotwise.

In Bruges is the first feature film by director Martin McDonagh, whose previous directorial experience netted him an Academy Award for Best Short Film for the...erm... short film Six Shooter, also starring Brendan Gleeson. I've not seen it, but have read a plot synopsis of it, and boy is it dark. Well, if you like your comedy served very very black with a side order of VERY bad language garnished with a liberal amount of the red stuff, then chances are you will like In Bruges a lot. But above all these things, the thing that stands out above all else is the script. This is an extremely well-written film which despite liberal inclusion of The Worst Word in the English Language (TM) actually does have something to say about the state of the world we live in. It is clear that writer/director Martin McDonagh has a less than favourable view of the world, and indeed, whilst In Bruges is in many places laugh out loud funny, with some of the most quotable lines in recent memory ("You can't give horse tranquilisers to a midget for f**** sakes"), there is very little in the film that will leave you feeling that all is right with the world. That is not to say however, that In Bruges is a depressing experience. Far from it. As stated, there are many laugh out loud moments, and the chemistry between Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson is evident from the moment they are on screen together. Both put in excellent performances, with Brendan Gleeson for me giving the best performance of the film. Ken is an extremely world-weary character who seems too decent an individual to do what he does for a living, and Gleeson's performance is so good that he makes Ken about as likeable and sympathetic as a hitman can be.
As well as the two central performances, Ralph Fiennes also acquits himself well as Harry, who turns up in Bruges later on in the film to sort a few fings aht (that was 'sort a few things out'. sorry it's hard to write Cockney). Harry is considerably less likeable than Ken and Ray, but is himself not without hidden depths which is particularly evident at the film's climax. Indeed, there is perhaps even an argument for almost sympathising with the job he is faced with in the film and it would perhaps be somewhat inaccurate to call him the villain of the piece as such. Fiennes's performance invokes memories of Ben Kingsley's riotous turn as crime boss Don Logan in Jonathan Glazer's very enjoyable Brit crime flick Sexy Beast, although Fiennes's performance is perhaps not quite on that level. It will be seen that Harry is in many ways a bit of a stereotypical East End criminal and this may or not get on your nerves depending on your mood at the time. Personally, I quite like Ralph Fiennes so found him perfectly watchable here.

All in all, I enjoyed In Bruges immensely. The film is almost 2 hours long but felt at least half that length which has to be a good sign. Belgians or Belgiophiles may see the film as a slur on the country and perhaps understandably, but for every negative comment Farrell's Ray makes on the place, there are enough positive comments from Ken and Harry which I think balance things out and prevent the movie from being overtly offensive. If the film was called In Hyderabad (the city in India where my family all come from), and had the exact same dialogues as In Bruges had, I personally don't think I would find it too offensive.
The film is not entirely without its minus points though. Whilst I accept that bad language is part and parcel of films involving underworld characters, some of the language does verge on the gratuitous (in my opinion, almost any use of the Worst Word in the English Language TM is unnecessary). Also, the introduction of a rudimentary love interest for Farrell's Ray could for me have been trimmed a bit, but it is not entirely irrelevant to the plot and is not a major shortcoming of the film. These things aside, the performances are of a high standard, the script is dark but witty and at times laugh out loud funny, and Bruges is clearly a beautiful town and provides a lovely backdrop against which the often grim events of the film unfold. On the basis of In Bruges, writer/director Martin McDonagh could well be One to Watch for the future, and if he casts Brendan Gleeson in all future projects, that would be perfectly fine with me. Those who feel that the world is a less than wholesome place to live and raise a family in will be unlikely to have their views altered even remotely by the film, and I think that was very much the point. Nevertheless, In Bruges is by no means depressing, and the bad language and violence in no way detract from the performances and the real star of the show: the script, which is sharp, witty, hilarious and, at times even thought provoking. Highly Recommended.

Overall Mark: 8.5/10.

Happy-Go-Lucky

Starring: Sally Hawkins, Eddie Marsan
Director: Mike Leigh
Format: Currently on release at selected cinemas since 18/04/2008.
Certificate: 15 (Strong language)

A big hi to everyone who' reading this blog and many apologies for the inordinately lengthy pause between my inaugural review and this one. I was entirely preoccupied with completion of my PhD thesis but have a bit of time off now before embarking on some revisions to my work.

Anyway, on to this review. Happy-Go-Lucky is the latest film from highly-acclaimed British director/auteur Mike Leigh, and follows the life of Poppy (Sally Hawkins), a primary school teacher whose temperament and outlook on life is essentially... yes you've guessed it... happy-go-lucky. She hasn't a bad word to say about anybody and cannot resist chatting to every stranger she meets (often to their chagrin) as she goes about her business. The basic premise of the film involves Poppy's decision to jettison her bicycle in favour of a car, and thus begins to take driving lessons with Scott (Eddie Marsan), an instructor with an entirely different world view to Poppy. It is her interactions with Scott, as well as her siblings and co-workers, that are detailed in this film.

For me, this film was a bit of a curate's egg. I must admit straight off the bat that including this one, I have only ever seen three of Mike Leigh's films, the other two being Secrets and Lies and All or Nothing. Both I found to be excellent pieces of work from a clearly exceptionally talented film-maker and I was looking forward to more of the same. And Happy-Go-Lucky delivers... but not on all counts. The quality of the film is undeniable, particularly evident in the acting performances which are first-rate and, most importantly for me, real. These are real people who we have probably all met at some point in our lives. Scott the driving instructor reminded me of a now ex-friend for example and every time he was on screen I could not help but imagine that this is how this ex-friend would turn out come middle-age. Similarly, those who watch Happy-Go-Lucky will no doubt have come across a Poppy at some point in their lives also. Which leads me on to my main criticism of the film; Poppy herself.

For at least half the film, I can but use one word to describe her: ANNOYING. Whilst she is an unfeasibly decent individual, Poppy is at times simply exhausting (Note that I am referring to the character and not the performance by Sally Hawkins which is excellent). To be happy and full of the joys of spring is one thing; but to come across like a chimpanzee with ADHD is quite another. This is particularly evident during the driving lesson scenes, in which on a number of occassions, she is berated by her instructor Scott for mucking about instead of actually focusing on the road. Whilst Scott is an obnoxious character whose world view I certainly did not agree with, I also found myself sympathising with his exasperation with a pupil who seemed less interested in learning to drive safely and more with reacting to every comment and instruction with an inane grin and an equally inane comment of her own. Indeed, at one point, Scott expresses in no uncertain terms his absolute bewilderment at how such an immature individual would be put in charge of educating children, and at the time, I thought he was not ENTIRELY incorrect in his view.

However, Mike Leigh balances showcasing Poppy's life outside of school hours by showing the way in which she works and interacts with her pupils. And the school scenes were for me a real highlight of the film. Poppy is a simply brilliant teacher. She is inspiring, fun and most importantly, very conscientious. The last quality is shown beautifully during the film when Poppy steps in to help an extremely unhappy pupil, and such scenes are interestingly juxtaposed with the somewhat grating manner in which Poppy conducts herself in everyday life.

It may be noted that the majority of this review centres around the main character, but this is because Happy-Go-Lucky is entirely Poppy's story. She is in every scene in the film, and, in actuality, pretty much every FRAME of the film. For me, one's enjoyment of the film centres around the issue of how tolerable one finds Poppy herself. And it is here that I come to a cross-roads. Basically, I suppose I could say that I liked Poppy. She is clearly a warm hearted person, and in todays highly cynical age where getting a hello out of a shopkeeper is in itself an ordeal, it is certainly commendable for Mike Leigh to make a film about a character who is far more PMA than PMT, particularly given the more serious nature of his main body of work. However, this for me did not alter the fact that I found the central character to be rather annoying on more than one occassion, and this left me wondering what Mike Leigh was trying to convey through Poppy. Was he trying to bemoan the more cynicised world that we live in today whilst also lamenting the lack of more people like Poppy, or was he trying to show that whilst it is great that people like Poppy may wish to make everybody happy, this is an unrealistic goal and one that may often result in a lack of awareness about what makes others the way they are. Chances are, Mike Leigh was thinking about neither of these things, and I know not what I am talking about. But these are the questions that this reviewer found himself asking.

As for whether I would recommend the film, I would, all in all, say yes. Mike Leigh is a great director, and this is a very simple but very well made film. The fact that the central character got on my nerves on a number of occassions should not detract from this, as Sally Hawkins gives a great performance supported ably by the rest of the cast.

Overall mark: 7/10.