Ah, the 2011 list. For a hack of a blogger like myself it’s my once-a-year bread and butter. This year instead of separating music, movies, and television I’ve decided to produce a comprehensive list and lump it all together. Hold onto your hats, and enjoy.

Favourite Films of 2011

I had a quick look around because I was curious and it seems like Tree of Life is topping everyone’s lists this year. We have it in the queue but haven’t got around to watching it yet. I’m curious now though and I wonder if it would change things if I were to watch it first.

The curious bit, however, about the two films that did make my list is that both feature the unmatched Paul Giamatti as the leading actor. This wasn’t intentional but when I looked at everything I’d watched this year and boiled it down to just a couple of my favourites… Do I have a particular bias towards anything that Paul Giamatti does? Perhaps. Is he undoubtedly the best actor working in Hollywood right now? Yes, sir.

Barney’s Version

Barney’s Version is a brilliant take on the novel by Canadian literary heavyweight Mordecai Richler. I remembering having to read The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz in my O.A.C. (Grade 13) English class. I probably only understood about a third of what I read at the time but I can certainly appreciate a heavily nuanced and deeply moving plot a lot more now that I’m older. Barney’s Version is a movie about love, marriage, family, and memory. It’s wonderfully-acted (duh), well-written (duh), and unfolds itself in a fantastically pleasing fashion distilling all the very best parts of a well-developed Woody Allen movie. Complicated, comedic, and charming sums it up pretty well too.

Win Win

Win Win follows in the same genre of comedy as another of my all-time favourite movies Lars and the Real Girl. I’ll sum it up like this: Small town, quirky characters, social conundrums, and the kind of plot that sometimes seems like something you couldn’t make up if you tried. Like Lars, we’re treated to ninety minutes of some truly great and wholly surreal story-telling about people, a place, and a number of situations we’d never even thought about before. In this film, Giamatti plays and small-time lawyer and high-school wrestling coach as if he were born for the role.

Read the rest of this article »

If you do a Google Image Search for Prime Suspect you’ll find that the majority of the pictures are of Helen Mirren, not Maria Bello. That’s because the NBC version of Prime Suspect which premiered last week is a remake of the British version that came before.

Prime Suspect, with Helen Mirren, was a watershed police drama which ran from the early 90′s until 2006. Mirren owned the role of Jane Tennison, a female police detective in what was then a highly exclusive boy’s club. Struggling against the rampant sexism, Mirren’s character faced down her own demons in the form of alcoholism and a swath of destructive relationships.

Helen Mirren’s Prime Suspect was gritty, violent, and honest taking the characters into the seediest underbelly of London and holding nothing back. Even the camera work felt raw, often finding no qualms with getting right into the actors blemished faces.

Prime Suspect also broke another boundary. Seasons—or series, as they’re called overseas—consisted not of individual episodes and individual cases but each season was a case unto itself. Every 200+ minute season followed Tennison on a single case allowing for a significant amount of time to track down her “prime suspect” and for the case to unfold.

So, how does the NBC remark stack up?

Read the rest of this article »

I’ve written about copyright several times before. Now I write more.

The Harper Government, now in a substantially more powerful majority position in the House of Commons, are poised to reintroduce the copyright legislation that died on the table last May. According to Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, the bill will be introduced in the exact same form it was left in before the election.

This is a problem.

To be fair, the most recent incarnation of the Conservative’s copyright reform has been, by far, the most balanced we’ve seen out of that government. They’ve tried before, several times, to introduce copyright reform legislation and always met with an enormous backlash of public opinion. After the latest bill was introduced Industry Minister Tony Clement made a concerted and very public effort to consult with groups that had expressed concern and hear them out. He heard them out and it seemed that he was really listening, but then the election was called, the writ dropped, and the bill met an untimely death.

The problem with the bill being reintroduced in the form it was last left in is that there were glaring—enormous(!)—issues with that bill. Through concerted consultation Mr. Clement discovered these issues. But this time around, according to the Harper Government, no consultations will be made.

In other words, they know the bill is broken, their previous consultations told them so, but they aren’t fixing a thing. Not a thing. Nothing changed or reworded or rejigged after all those consultations. Which really makes you wonder if it wasn’t all just window dressing from a government that, as a minority, really didn’t have a choice. They acted to appease; when push comes to shove, they don’t have to act anymore.

So the bill is broken. While it’s protections are, for the most part, fair and reasonable, the “digital locks” provision which has been in the legislation since the beginning is a fatal flaw.

To put it simply, despite any protections and provisions for consumers that exist in the law, if a piece of media is protected by a so-called digital lock, all consumer rights are null and void.

However, it gets much worse. In the midst of the Conservative’s last push for copyright reform cables released by Wikileaks reveal that the Harper Government actually lobbied to be put on a U.S. copyright watch list. Yes, if you can believe that. The Harper Government actually requested that we be put on an American copyright watch list—a list of prolific copyright violaters—that includes countries like China and Russia. We are on that list, at the request of the Harper Government, under the assumption that public pressure from the Americans would perhaps help pass the legislation through to law. Our government, lobbying a foreign government, to put pressure on our citizens. It seems pretty unreal.

So, there is a lot to worry about. We have a bad bill coming down the pipe. One that was introduced before, protested against strongly, and despite consultation was not amended in any form. And we have a government that, if the cables indicate anything, will do whatever it takes to push through this reform into law. For what it’s worth, both the Liberals and the New Democrats were opposed to the legislation the last time around. There’s also an enormous, well-organized protest movement that mobilized in the past and remains very active and energized. So, if nothing else, we can at least hope that the passage of this bill won’t exactly go quietly.

Maria and I are crazy for British period dramas, particularly anything adapted from Charles Dickens.

We recently watched a BBC mini-series called Little Dorrit, adapted from the Dickens serial novel of the same name. It was an incredibly well-done adaptation and if you love 19th century Britain I highly recommend it. This isn’t a television review though.

One feature of Little Dorrit was something that I hadn’t been familiar with before: a debtor’s prison.

Marshalsea debtor’s prison is one of the main focal points for much of the novel and it’s where we find Amy Dorrit, one of the main protagonists. Her father, a disgraced gentleman, has spent the better part of his life imprisoned in Marshalsea for undisclosed debts that he owes. Although we never find out who the father owes money to, we know that he can’t be released until he pays it back. That is, he’s in jail until he can pay off his debts.

Do you already see the fallacy here?

Little Dorrit was originally written as a satire on British society. Also featured in the novel is the famous Circumlocution Office, Dickens’ ingenious name for the local branch of the British government. Of course, both the debtor’s prison and the highly bureaucratized British government are easy targets for satire.

In fact, the debtor’s prison is nearly satirical by its very nature. Imagine, being put in prison until you can pay off your debts but having no way to work or make money—because you’re in prison!

It seems senseless.

So I was surprised when I stumbled across this story which seems to indicate that, at least in principle, the debtor’s prison is still in existence.

Now don’t get me wrong. People who, for financial reasons, are unable to afford to pay fees and fines issued against them shouldn’t be let off scotch-free. The law needs to be upheld, but surely there’s a better way. Off the top of my head I’d say it makes sense to waive the fee in lieu of, say, community service but to keep them in prison with no way to actually repay? I can’t understand.

In this day and age, is there any sense to the notion of locking someone up behind bars because they can’t pay a fine?

TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin recently aired a great piece of the whole usage-based billing fiasco that’s sweeping across this great nation.

If you aren’t familiar with the concept of the big Internet providers forcing the smaller ones to adopt their pricing structures and to charge users based on how much Internet they consume, I wrote a piece about it here that you might like to read.

Below, though, is a great clip from The Agenda contributor Tony Keller, who compares usage-based billing (UBB) to fast food restaurants. It’s a great explanation of what UBB means for the Internet industry and for ordinary Canadians:

For those looking for more techno-political drama, The Agenda also assembled a panel debate on the issue. As a way of cliffnotes, it’s 37 minutes long, altogether pretty interesting (if you’re into this kind of stuff), and in the end the Bell representative winds up coming across as an greasy snake oil salesman.

With the enormous groundswell of protest building up amongst the Canadian population, it seems as though Internet metering (or usaged-based billing) is going to wind up as a mere footnote in Canadian telecom history. At least, let’s hope that’s the case.

The concept of billing Internet customers according to how much bandwidth they use isn’t a particularly new concept. Years ago, I signed what was a early version of the current Stop the Meter petition to call on regulators to say ‘no’ to companies setting strict limits on their customers and then charging enormous fees for overages. Back then, it was the big Canadian telecoms, Rogers and Bell, who moved to reduce the amount of bandwidth their customers could use and hitting them with fines for every gigabyte they went over. The rationale then was that the Internet was growing too fast and that a select few customers were “hogging” the pipelines. These so-called heavy users were the kind of geeks who lived in their parents’ basement and downloaded full seasons of television shows, full-length movies, and pirated music. At first, they were painted as sinister delinquents who wanted to ruin the fun for everyone else. But then Rogers and Bell rolled out even more strict limits on downloading and the “regular” users began to feel the pinch as well.

With study upon study revealing that more Canadians are ditching their landlines for cellphones, and abandoning their cable and satellite subscriptions for Internet-based movie and TV streaming, strict limits on how much Canadians could actually download every month became a growing concern. Rogers and Bell argued that their limits were generous and that the average user would never come close to their cap each month, but others disagreed. Anyone who’s signed up for Netflix, downloaded TV episodes of iTunes, or even tried to use services like Rogers TV to stream World Cup matches or stream television from CBC will know that the tiny bandwidth limit imposed by the big telecoms is quickly eaten up.

Read the rest of this article »

Speaking to As it Happens on CBC, Romeo Dallaire, arguably Canada’s most respected soldier says in regards to Canada’s handling of the Omar Khadr case,

[Canada] has failed beyond description.

The rest of the interesting and compelling interview can be found here (part 2 of the program).