Skip to main content

Diamond Day


Apparently our Queen, QE2 – and yes, she’s still our Queen, Australia, until we get the paperwork done; Our Own Dear Queen – and her Significant Other, Prince Phil are celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary today.

Listening to News Radio today I was annoyed, but not surprised at the vaguely fawning tone of the reporting. The reporting of such matters in Australia was much more nauseatingly royalist years ago, so some things have improved.

Today we enjoyed audio of the 1948 ceremony. An expert explained how the whole thing was a bit of glamour during a period of post-war austerity; we heard how Australian Girl Guides provided the ingredients for the four tier wedding cake; there was a short interview with the Queen’s own seamstress of the time, how it felt to have her work so prominently displayed on that day sixty years ago; all interesting at a low level.

Then the story went a bit too softheaded as it detailed how enduring was the relationship between The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh (aka Prince Phil you non-royalists) - which is certainly technically true. A Royal expert, Lady Pamela Crawley-Inbred (I think) went on about how he walked one step behind Elizabeth the Second, but he was very much The Head of The Family. And how he could tell her what to do when no one else could etc.

This sounded tops if one ignored his various oblivious, autocratic public pronouncements over the years and assumed that on the domestic front he was a man of wisdom with much good advice about the royal kids and the grandkids.

Who cares? Not Important? Let’s wish ‘em well anyway.

Elevate the Insignificant,

Mr Trivia


Popular posts from this blog

What's with George Eads' Hair? & David Edwards

Hey Zeitgeisters,

Bet you thought this blog would never top “What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?” For those of you who weren’t part of that historical blog entry, it was the glittering moment where I wondered what’s with West Wing star Bradley Whitford’s hair. Good times.

However, tonight, while watching the current series (in Australia) of CSI :Original Recipe, I was forced to witness the unpleasantness of George Eads’ new(ish) 'do and I felt compelled to blog on’t.

George plays the part of Nick Stokes and has spent some 5 or 6 seasons with a haircut “you could set your watch to,” as Grandpa Simpson might say. It was always short; it always had that US Marine Corps vibe; it was always as dependable as the ebbing and flowing of the tides.

Now in something of an El Nino effect, I note that someone in Jerry Bruckheimer’s organization has decided to mess with the length of George’s crowning glory.

Although I chiefly watch CSI waiting for Grissom…

What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?

Okay, Zeitgeisters, that’s as shallow an attention-grabbing start as one could ever want, but I really want to know. And sure, I’m really talking about Josh Lyman’s hair. (I’m like one of those people who insist on calling an actor by their character’s name – only in reverse. e.g. “Go Knight Boat!”)

Whitford plays Deputy Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman, in the Aaron Sorkin-created, NBC television series The West Wing. He plays this part to a tee and now he’s set to do great things in the new Sorkin drama, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I know this last bit because the Angriest Ex-Video Store Clerk in the world told me.

Oh, and Whitford’s married to the awesome Jane Kaczmarek who plays mom, Lois, in the series Malcolm in the Middle. So Mr Whitford’s your regular pop-cultural icon and yardstick for excellence. We’re here in this, frankly, puzzling cultural landscape, because I’ve just finished watching season four of The West Wing on DVD. And Josh Lyman’s hair has bothered me throughout. It’s…

Institutional Memory

Note: If you’re here, you were connected with Perth’s Film and Television Institute at some point. The FTI in the form that we know it, is being wound up and some of its functions are being taken over by ScreenWest. This is my idiosyncratic tribute to the FTI as it was formerly.
I’m not someone who plans things. Depending on how well you know me, you might be saying “Amen to that” right about now. There was no plan to have anything to do with filmmaking when my friends and I entered our first efforts in the WA Film and Video Festival almost 35 years ago (forerunner of the WASAs). We made experimental films on Super 8 movie film; in-camera editing, falling down sand dunes, raw meat and tomato sauce representing the terrible effects of our filmic violence. Super-8 was the cheapest type of movie film. 8 millimetres in width. You could shoot two-and a-half to three-and-a-half minutes depending on your frames-per-second. We had no money, so shot “longer” at 18 fps. Our tiny epics, like “Mea…