Staring at the sky…

Saw “The Simpsons Movie” this weekend, and I have to say, it’s perfect. Exactly what it should have been.

It was the biggest episode of “the Simpsons” I’ve ever seen. It’s 85 minutes long (about 4 episode’s worth), and manages to focus on each member of the family in turn [NOTE: Maggie is, as usual, not a very prominent character, but she has a fair amount of screen time].

As with the best episodes of “the Simpsons,” I can’t explain it without sounding like a lunatic. But it’s definitely got a great deal of the elements which made us all fans in the first place, without some of the things which have been slowly souring us on the experience. This is due in large part to the fact that the writing staff is made up of the creators, veterans, and the best loved from the past 2 decades.

The story is linear, for the most part, and manages to touch on most every character from the series, but not in a way that hurts the story.

It’s not the greatest film ever made, but it made me smile during a pretty tough week, and it’s definitely worth the price of admission.

So, I saw “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix” on Wednesday, after an extremely long Tuesday. Ann had gotten tickets for us in advance, and so despite being up until 3am the night before, and having to get up early that morning, I was going regardless.

Also, the theater was having problems, unfortunately — the film stopped 3 times. So all-in-all, not an ideal experience.

I would have to say that the new film was most similar to the film version of “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.” In the same way that film zipped along, not letting the story breath, this one tried to do far too much, and cut out far too much while attempting it. My own views on the editing have already been presented here, so I won’t go into it.

The first thing noticeably cut from the film, was really the Order of the Phoenix. I mean, they’re there, but there’s so little that’s done with them.

I definitely wonder how this would have been if I hadn’t read the book, as this is the first film I’ve gone to see after reading them. The great part about this was that Ann didn’t spend the entire time tugging on my sleeve to point out every bit of meaningless minutiae that was left out. The problem is that my memory is better than hers, and so I remembered twice as many things as she usually does while she’s tugging on my sleeve.

Over all, the film was good and recommended, but I seriously hope that for once they do a full on director’s cut version when they release the DVD, because you can tell there’s more footage there, and I just don’t think a “cut scenes” section is going to do it.

[Warning: This post contains what may seem like political beliefs, but aren't, please keep reading]

We saw “Sicko” this weekend, Michael Moore’s latest documentary, and I have to say it was probably his most documentary documentary. I also have to say that every person in America should see it.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that because I think we all need to jump on board with a socialized medicine scheme. It would be nice if we did so, but, as with many political changes I would love to have happen in the US, I personally have long term questions on whether the United States Government would be capable of handling such a burden, given what we have seen with most government programs. The point made in the film is that going to the hospital else where in the world, where they have a single payer program is not like standing in the DMV here, but I can’t help but feel that if we were to institute something here that was similar, we would end up with something that was exactly like the DMV. That’s how we do government programs in this country.

But while it’s probably not going to work for us (unless a major shift happens in this country’s view), I am tired of hearing about how problematic these other systems are, when I personally have known so many people who have come from other countries and been in these systems, and do not complain on the same level as we do in the US. We view these systems through our own prism — “if the Government is in charge, then they will want to know where the money is, and they will want to spend less money, and so the service must be terrible,” you say. But the problem with that is that it fails to realize that the government has lots of other things to worry about in regards to people, and keeping people healthy and therefore able to work and pay taxes saves money in the long run. In the US, it’s simple economics, because private industry worries about health care, and that’s all they need to worry about.

In addition, a very poignant part of the film takes us to the home of a British man, who explains how England socialized medicine. He points out that the after World War 2, so many people had lost everything, and they all realized they were in it together. They also realized that they were able to work to produce war machines for years and years, and so hospitals and schools should be no problem. In the end the argument is that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You pay taxes, which in the end may go to someone else’s medical treatment — so what? It’s exactly the same thing that happens when you pay insurance, it’s just a different giant impersonal organization that decides where the money goes, and in the case of government control, you can vote those people out.

I know Michael Moore gets under a lot of people’s skins, but in this film he presents something that I think everyone can watch and form their own opinions on a bit more fully. He even tosses a bone to the Republicans by pointing out Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy.

In the end, the important part of this movie is hearing from people in those systems, and people in ours, and for once Moore really lets their stories talk for themselves, with just a little of his own commentary. If you hate him, go see this one — 90 minutes of your life won’t kill you. If you love him, you’ve probably already seen him. If you’re indifferent to him, and have ever been to a hospital, go see this. If you have no idea who he is, but love Harry Potter, “Sicko” is the film for you!

To follow up my post on the certainty ladened “Die Hard” sequel, let me discuss a film I had no certainty in - “Transformers” starring that kid from “Even Stevens,” who is now Hollywood’s “It” boy [NOTE: I do not mean to indicate that he will be replacing Clara Bow in a remake -- I just mean he's working a lot].

The basic interweaving plots of “Transformers” involve a teenage getting his first car [NOTE: a teenager named Witwicky, but not Spike, or Buster, which will plague the sad people who used to write into the letters page of the Marvel Comics series to complain about the difference between the comics and the cartoon. Anyone who wants to make jokes about me remembering the argument -- I was 9, leave me alone], and a series of computer viruses and attacks which cripples the government’s ability to deal with anything [NOTE: Yes I cut and pasted that description straight from my previous post -- the two movies have a lot in common, which probably wouldn't have been noticed if we hadn't seen them less than 24 hours apart]. The two plots are enough on their own, and the film tends to feel a bit too full.

The film deals too much with the human characters, and not the huge #$%^ing robots. Honestly, I was not expecting that, and didn’t give Michael Bay enough credit. Unfortunately, while it’s slightly interesting to see the human reaction to an alien invasion, and the government’s reaction (which was thankfully lacking in producer Spielberg’s version of “War of the Worlds”), it’s been done. That’s not why people wanted to see this movie. Hopefully they get this, and the sequel will deal more with the robots.

The plot is at times stuffed with silliness, mainly in the form of the cliche’ nods to the cartoon advertising, and unnecessary cameos. But all the same, it’s much better than I feared (ahhh, the joy of lowered expectations).

The special effects great, but there are few, if any slow moments with the robots. I’m glad to see the special effects being done so that they carry the action, as I hate it when special effects are allowed to sit on the screen to just be shown off. But in this case, the special effects are characters, and if you had a human character running every minute he was on screen, that would cause too much confusion. I think this ties into my concerns from above, however, so, again, I’m sure a sequel more focused on the robots would not have this issue.

[SPOILERS Alert!]

The administration of Herbert Hoover is treated to its best on screen portrayal in history in this movie. Apparently, he wasn’t a complete failure — he was able to understand the importance of protecting an enormous alien artifact (i.e. the cube, or all-spark, responsible for the creation of the Transformers, and Cybertron). It is this cube that both the autobots and decepticons are on Earth to find.

The cube, leads directly to the most ridiculous moment in the film. It’s very brief, and so you might miss it at first, if you’ve seen the film, think about it. There’s a moment where one of the troops tells the Secretary of Defense his plan, which is: “We’re going to take it to the city, and hide it there.”

Now, this cube is the sole reason that 20 foot tall, heavily armed robots are attacking planet Earth. They have already caused the deaths of many, many people.

So does the Secretary of Defense asks, “Are you high?” No! Does he try to point out the inherent flaws in taking this alien artifact into a highly populated area? No! What does he do? He says: “That’s a great idea!”

Now, I’ve seen a lot of bone-headed moves from various Secretaries of Defense (and don’t want to get into specifics). But that’s seriously the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen one, either real or fictional do. And that bar was set pretty high, so I gotta hope that they start the next film with a hearing in which Jon Voight is questioned for a full 20 minutes on what he was thinking, and specifically when he realized that it was not, in fact, a great idea.

All in all, it was fun, and better than expected, but keep those expectations low.

(Rated for PG-13 for violence, sexual innuendo, and Bumblebee urinating on John Tuturro)

So, we tried to go see “Transformers” on July 3rd, so that we could see something else on the 4th, but it was sold out, so Ann and I went to go see “Live Free or Die Hard” instead.

Ann swears she’s a Bruce Willis fan, but this is the first “Die Hard” movie she’s ever seen. I’m not even certain how they can be avoided.

“Die Hard” was, without a doubt, the greatest action film to come out of the 80s. It was the antithesis of every other action film, where the hero heroically heroizes, and never breaks a sweat. To see someone actually getting hurt, and complaining about his lot in life was refreshing, and that’s really what made that first film perfect. You have a guy who isn’t really an every day guy, but who is a guy you could believe exists.

The 4th film breaks with that in a number of ways, but it makes sense in this case. Here we have a character that has spent 19 years dealing with crazy, bizarre circumstances, and so he has actually become the typical action hero. At 52. This makes sense to me. He’s the hardened hero who knows what he’s doing, and so he manages to pull things off that seem impossible, based on the fact that he’s done similar before.

I won’t get too much into the plot, but it basically revolves around a series of computer viruses and attacks which cripples the government’s ability to deal with anything and forces them to close all transportation networks. [NOTE: After a small initial scrape, our heroes have no trouble with traffic, not even having to go through the check points that are mentioned at one point, which is lucky, as they're driving a stolen car. This reminds me a bit too much of Titanic, where people are dying because they're trapped below decks, but the heroes manage to effortlessly go from the top to the bottom Deck and back again like 12 times in the course of an hour].

Kevin Smith is a welcomed addition to the story, in a role that he was born to play. I’m pretty sure that if he hadn’t gone crazy for film, he would have become that exact guy.

In a move that harkens back to the infamous Pacific Bell mistake from Die Hard 2 [NOTE: Okay, maybe it's not infamous, as Wikipedia fails to mention it -- basically, the film was set in Washington Dulles, but the filmmakers showed a few close-ups on pay phones, which gave away the fact that the film was in fact shot in Denver] there is a scene in which Justin Long’s character says, while driving through downtown DC, “we just passed another Arby’s…” and then asks to stop to buy food. The only Arby’s that I have seen in the past 6 years of living in the DC area have been inside of malls.

All and all, it was a fun film — Arby’s notwithstanding.

I saw “Ratatouille” on Friday night.

This is the second Pixar film I’ve seen in the theatre. “The Incredibles” was the only other one. I like Pixar a lot, and I definitely find myself involved in the stories, and enjoying the characterizations. From an animation perspective, they are clever, and innovative, and manage to capture an originality, as well as a cohesiveness in a way no one in the US has really managed since the old days at Disney.

So, why have I only seen two in the theatre? Really, I know the movies going to be good, and timeless when it comes from them, so the only time that I feel it’s necessary to see the movie before it comes out on DVD is when it’s a topic near and dear to my heart.

I don’t care for cars [NOTE: Okay, I like cars alright, but I'm not much a driver, so I tend not to gravitate towards films involving them. I was born in Detroit, and my dad worked for the auto industry for a long time. So cars are in my blood], I like underwater stuff but not really enough, and etc., the list goes on.

But when it comes down to it, I had to go watch “the Incredibles” because it was a comic book movie [NOTE: I initially thought that Marvel should sue Pixar because the Incredibles was a pretty clear rip off of "the Fantastic 4," and while it had some really original twists, it's just not a comparison you can escape. Then I saw "Fantastic 4," and thought they would be better off suing the makers of that], and likewise I had to go see “Ratatouille” because of my love of rats… er, I mean, obsession with food.

The usual Pixar rules apply - spot on casting of people you don’t expect to be spot on for the part (Despite their own respective geniuses, Janeane Garofalo is about as strange of a choice for a French love interest as Sarah Vowell seemed as the character of Violet in “the Incredibles.” Both did an amazing job), A story line that’s open to deal with humanity first and plot second, and animation that wows.

The first scene where Remy the rat gets to explore Paris is amazing, intricate, and fascinating. I turned to Ann in the middle of that and told her that I wished Pixar would re-do “the Secret of Nimh.”

The story did seem to go in a few too many different directions, when compared with the other Pixar films, but it only stretched the plot a bit, it did not break it. Overall, it’s another classic, but hopefully Pixar will be a bit more coherent in their next film “WALL-E” as if they allow projects to expand outwardly as this one did, this may eventually lead to their own “Black Cauldron.” This one is not that, however.

Highly recommended.

I saw “Ocean’s 13″ this past weekend, and thought it was pretty enjoyable. As with all of the series, it truly is a thinking man’s popcorn film, a triumph of style as substance, and a film which could definitely be improved with the addition of Norman Fell.

Admittedly, I’m still a bit annoyed that the entire plot of the original movie was jettisoned for the remake, and that they went for the worst joke in the world in making “Ocean’s 12″ [NOTE: I am waiting for Hollywood to announce production on "301" any day now], and I really, generally dislike George Clooney as an actor. As a person, I don’t know, so I won’t say anything, but I just feel much more comfortable with him in a role is he’s a bad guy. And he kind of is in this series.

Granted, it’s not as pronounced as in my favorite film with George Clooney, also directed by Soderbergh, and also starring another actor I can usually do without — Jennifer Lopez. That was, of course, “Out of Sight,” based on the book by Elmore Leonard, whose work I love.

“Out of Sight” got me interested in the work of David Holmes, who provides the music in the entire “Ocean’s” remake trilogy. His Jazzy and infectious blend of music honestly puts me in a good mood in any situation. To be honest, I could probably site through anything if he were scoring it. And his work in “13″ is spot on as always, and the perfect accompaniment to the cinematography which Soderbergh has become known for.

The film looks great, and while the plot is a little too straightforward in many ways, it gives ample opportunity for the varied skills of the regulars, and the occasional guest star. Eddie Izzard does and impressive turn, Julian Sands kind of shows up unexpectedly and blends in well (as his role required), Al Pacino plays a good villain.

The only person who disappointed me was Ellen Barkin, whose skills as an actor were not really fully explored, and whose character ended up being portrayed as a little too weak for her tough as nails reputation.

Overall, it seems like the team has become a bit too good at their jobs, and moved into being an unstoppable, well connected force of thievery in this film. I seriously hope this is the last one, as, if it isn’t, “Ocean’s 14″ had best be about them helping the military, or stealing the Statue of Liberty, or something of the sort. They’re running low on scams that require more than 11 people.

Alternatively, they could follow the trend that’s become popular now, of going back to the beginning, and do an Ocean’s 7 (you know, for the gambling reference).

With Michael Bay’s epic Transformers movie coming up, I’d like to take a look back at two classics of the 80s, which no doubt will have some influence on this production.

The first was the final film role of both Orson Welles, and Scatman Crothers. I film which brought together such other luminaries of film and television, such as actor/director/photographer Leonard Nimoy, television favorite Robert Stack, brat pack actor Judd Nelson, and the un-sum-up-able Eric Idle.

I am of course referring to the original “Transformers the Movie.” Seriously, I am.

I feel bad for Orson, as the last thing you want is to start with “Citizen Kane” and end with a 2 hour commercial, but he’s not the first person to be in that situation, and he won’t be the last. Also, better that than the classic guilty pleasure of “The Man Who Saw Tomorrow,” which is as relevant today as it was in the 80s… which is to say not at all, but I’m sure it bought 20 minutes worth of film for him to work on his still unfinished version of Don Quixote. And, on a side note, his last finished directing work was one of my two favorite films by the master, “F for Fake.” A film that is so pretentious, it goes past pretentiousness to self mockery, and then past that to pretentiousness squared. Highly recommend it.

I saw the original Transformers film in the theater. I owned the comic book limited series based on it. I owned Rodimus Prime. Yet, I can still look back at it and realize that, frankly, it’s not a very good movie. I mean, I still get goose-bumps whenever I hear “the Touch” by Stan Bush, but not the good kind, it’s actually the kind that comes before nausea. And, I would not sell my copy, unless someone has a really good offer.

But, the film is essentially a series of plot holes, around which interesting animation is arranged, followed by the discovery that a hot head whose heart is in the right place, is always the right person to be made leader — essentially meaning that experience does not matter. No matter how quickly this film takes me back to my favorite parts of childhood, that’s something I will never get around.

However, compared to “G.I. Joe” the movie, “Transformers” is “Citizen Kane.”

“G.I. Joe” ended up going direct to video, because of “Transformers” poor performance, and this is reason enough to be thankful for “Transformer’s” existence.

The problems with this film, I’ve always felt could be summed up with the clever way in which the character played by Burgess Meredith plays. He just shows up suddenly, and says, “Know that I am Golobulus.” And then we do.

No one in either universe is going to have a normal name, admittedly. Transformers characters are named for car parts, despite being from a far distant planet which they left millions of years ago, and G.I. Joe is basically a cross between the military and the village people. All the same, I can’t say the name Golobulus without laughing. It is a testament to Burgess Meredith’s acting abilities that he was able to do so.

Okay, so maybe that’s a personal thing — I’ve got one better reason why this film is terrible. The concept behind it is that there’s this race of beings who pre-date humankind, and have been alive for hundreds of thousands of years. They live in a completely organic society. Basically, they’re hippies, who happen to have a bit more austere view of the world, and are, you know, snake like.

Now, they decide to try and turn the planet back into it’s pre-humanity state, the US Military, lead by the Indian, the Construction Worker, the Cop, and Snake Eyes, come in, and kill them all. Wipe it out.

So, basically, the message is that nature is evil, and the US armed forces are here to destroy it. Which to my mind is probably not the message that should have been given to young people. But okay.

On top of this, the plot centers around both sides trying to get their hands on something called the BET (Broadcast Energy Transmitter), which seems a poor choice for the writers, given that the most prominent established African American character in the film, Roadblock, is a pretty offensive caricature, who is apparently incapable of speaking in any way other than rhyme, and the newest African American character introduced for the film is a basketball player. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to either focus on characters like Stalker, the second in charge of the team from the original miniseries. Or, if it’s really not possible to write a character that doesn’t show a highly limited view of the African American community, maybe it would have been better to not let the same name as the established BET (Black Entertainment Television Network) anywhere near the script.

And then Duke gets hurt in a way that no one should ever walk away from, but because of the financial failure of Transformers (which was assumed to be because of the death toll), the powers that be decided to include a lovely little voice over of “he’s going to be okay.” It reminds me of the scenes in “Battle for the Planets” where they would freeze frame, and have the character say “Oh, he’s stunned. He’s not dead. I swear, really, he’s stunned.”

Now, I had high hopes for the new “Transformers” film at one point. I can tell you the point. We saw the trailer, and I saw “Steven Spielburg” and I though “Fantastic,” and then I saw “presents a film by,” and I thought “It’s still good, it’s still good, it’s only a little -” and then I saw “Michael Bay.” But then, a few weeks went by, and I saw a new preview. This preview included footage of Starscream, and I thought, “ooooh, this looks good.” And then, this week, I heard what I hear is going to be the theme song, and immediately hoped that they switch to “The Touch,” by Stan Bush. I’m still going to see it, but I’m terrified. I’m dumbfounded. I’m Golobulus.

This weekend I also saw “Jindabyne” starring Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney.

It’s a very moody piece (as it would have to be given the story), and it tends to plod a bit, and to be honest, I have no idea how I feel about it. The longer I’ve had to think about it since I saw it, the more I have to think about. It’s a film that provides no resolution, and nothing but questions.

In many ways, it reminded me of “Picnic at Hanging Rock,” though it wasn’t really supernatural, like that film was, and some of this may have to do with it being an Australian movie. All in all, though, I can’t really think of another film that isn’t a true story [NOTE: I always thought "Picnic at Hanging Rock" was a true story, too, but it wasn't], but feels like it is.

The premise is that Gabriel Byrne is a gas station owner, who enjoys fishing. His wife (played by Laura Linney) and he have a young son. The son has a friend whose mother passed away at some unspecified point in the past. Her grandmother is friends with Laura Linney, and her grandfather is friends with Gabriel Byrne.

The story mainly seems to revolve around a great deal of interpersonal strife happening within these families, and a few additional friends. Laura Linney’s character seems to have suffered from postpartum depression after the birth of her son, and disappeared for a time to stay with her sister. The son’s friend is in need of therapy, and seems to be obsessed with death. Many other things like this are present, just below the surface, just waiting for a match to ignite them all.

This match is provided by way of a serial killer, who kills a young aboriginal woman on her way to a music festival, and dumps her body in the fishing hole that Byrne and his friends frequent, in the middle of nowhere.

When the men discover the body, they can’t return back to their cars, because it’s getting dark, and it’s a long hike. So they stay. And the next morning, they go fishing, rather than going for help.

What follows is an exploration of these person relationships, grief, small town politics, right and wrong, perceived and actual racism, life, death, and etc.

Linney’s character goes to inappropriate lengths to try and make amends for her husband, Byrne’s character isolates himself, and the murder itself, which in most films would be the main focus, seems to only be a catalyst. The men’s oafish act of stupidity, and the lack of a suspect in the killing, means that they are the only place to direct blame, even though they can’t be charged with anything, and had nothing to do with the killing.

It’s an interesting character piece, and Jindabyne, itself, seems to be a fascinating place. One those towns that had to be relocated due to intentional flooding, and the creation of a man-made lake. The scenery is beautiful, but stark.

All in all, I have to give it a mixed review, as I either really enjoyed it, or really hated it, and for the life of me, I can’t decide which.

Jack Sparrow’s back… again… and this time the film has an ending!

Before I get into discussing the film, let me again criticize the most common mistake of back to back film-making. If you’re going to make films back to back, they each have to stand on their own alone. The first half cannot be simply unnecessary set up for the second one — it can’t be filler.

There is a reason that there’s an Oscar for editing, and that is that it’s a tough balance — avoiding leaving out something important, but also not thinking that every stray thought you have needs to go into the film.

I enjoyed the second Pirates film, because these are very enjoyable characters, but it felt like it lacked much of the magic of the first one, because it pulled its punches. It didn’t want to stand on its own and make you interested in the next one — it was designed to act as prolog and advertisement to the third film.

Contrast this with films that are split into parts which work. For example, “Kill Bill.” “Kill Bill” was story that outgrew the time alloted for films, and part 1 was fantastic. It contained much of the necessary action, and part 2 acted as the prolog and the epilog, tossing in a bit of action itself. They work well alone. They work well together.

Take a look at the “Star Wars” trilogy (the original trilogy, as episode 1’s race scene made it clear that George Lucas assumed he didn’t need an editor, and part 3 made it clear that he was trying to make up for not hiring an editor for part 1). “The Empire Strikes Back” is the best made, with the most involved and gripping story. It gives you loose threads to ponder, but it works well on its own.

Take a look at the “Back to the Future” sequels, which were among the first major Hollywood films to shoot back to back (unfortunately, as it turned out, because they didn’t make as much money as expected). The stories are so different. Yes, there is a set up, again for the next film, but the plots are self-contained, and you feel satisfied at the end of the film.

Examples where this is failed include “Pirates,” and the “Matrix.” Admittedly, the “Matrix” series was not going to end in a way that would satisfy anybody. “Pirates 2″ however, started with no expectations — they could have gone any direction with this, and choose instead to turn it into what it is — fine on a certain level, but deeply dissatisfying on another, and only half of a film.

That’s why I am happy to report that “Pirates 3″ is much more satisfying. In fact, I would almost recommend avoiding the second film altogether, comparatively (were it not for Bill Nighy’s performance as Davy Jones, who apparently was not as whimsical before being paired with Micky Dolenz, Mike Nesmith, and Peter Tork).

As with the first film, much of the simple joy from the film comes in watching Johnny Depp and Goeffrey Rush chewing the scenery together and apart. These two characters could work well together in perpetuity. Perhaps they should do a talk show. Bill Nighy could be the musical director. Or maybe Keith Richards, who does an impressive turn as Jack Sparrow’s father.

The special effects are stunning, but not the most interesting part of the film (which is fortunate as the most impressive special effects are shown right in the preview).

The film like its predecessors, of course, is as accurate with regards to pirates as “Shanghai Knights” is with regards to British history [NOTE: If you haven't seen that film, it's pretty clear that the writers had heard of England, but not much else other than the name of the country was left untouched for the sake of the story]. But, it’s a Disney film, and they are the heroes, so it’s hard to fault them. However, it’s struck me as very strange that it was necessary to imbue all of the characters with a magical and mythic background which wasn’t obvious in the first film. It made the story bigger, but again, that’s kind of my complaint for the above — it didn’t need to be so big, it could have done with just being one focused film.

Also, I do take issue with one Historic detail in the film, which seemed very small, and appears at the very beginning of the film. I don’t believe that the Writ of Habeas Corpus could have been suspended in this particular case, given the Habeas Corpus act of 1679. Owing to the debacle of justice which lead to the creation of that bill, I doubt a little thing like Piracy would allow the governor of the region such leeway.

Granted, I don’t expect a legal scholar to have written this, nor am I one myself… and it is just a movie after all, in which a squid faced man fights with a pirate on top of a mast during a maelstrom which is caused by a goddess, during a war with a trading company. I suppose that if I can sit back and suspend my disbelief on this matter, I should probably do the same on complex legal questions for the British government.