OSCAR SEASON

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome once more, to the Randomizer!

Today we will be looking at the recent 2013 edition of the Oscars, not the possible lynching of Oscar Pistorius. I know it says OSCAR SEASON in the title, but still we can at least try to be human beings and not pretend to be Elmur Fudd. Hehehehehehehe. (If your mind went into his voice for laugh, give yourself a point)

Moving on swiftly (and fast before people come after me), we know what the Oscars are about. A celebration of the great and good of film-making all on a February night, the handing out of awards for those considered to be the best films of that year, and of course, the ability in screwing Ang Lee out of a best picture award again (the new Martin Scorsese for this generation).

This year had some lovely segments inserted in and some pretty funny gags from presenter Seth McFarlane. And I was absolutely taken back by some of the jokes. But there were a few segments I thought were quite off putting and such.

 With the awards themselves, there were definately some predictable results which were probably well-deserved because I haven't seen the films, but from the clips shown I thought were mightily impressive, especially from Anne Hathaway and Jennifer Lawrence. And there was even a TIE for one award! Apparently it's only happened five times beforehand!

So let's not waste anymore time. We shall cover the actual awards first, before looking at the presenting and segments. If you haven't seen or heard the results first, go spoil it for yourself first so you won't be disappointed with me :-). Also please bear in mind I have NOT seen every film on the list so I apologise for any mishaps I make or come across perchance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:

CHRISTOPH WALTZ (DR. KING SCHULTZ IN DJANGO UNCHAINED).

This was the first predictable role, however quite deserved. Waltz played the bounty hunter really well, and is a pretty good negotiator when it comes to killing those people he has been assigned to despatch. The way he delivered his lines were perfect, the gold tongued devil (see what I did there, replaced the word silver with gold ;) sorry, I couldn't resist), as well as the actions he carried out, killing the slave trader brothers with quick succession.

It's really hard to imagine any other actor who can play this role as well as Waltz and deliver a better performance. But since Quentin Tarantino actually wrote the role with him in mind, it's not hard to see why.  I think it might be a good career move for him to stick with Tarantino films, because from gaining TWO academy awards, it's clear these films bring out the best of his acting abilities.

I must admit though I did like his horse. I'd like a horse who'd politely bow after being introduced. Or maybe a cat. Least that would be cheap.

--------------------------------------------------------

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM

PAPERMAN (JOHN KAHRS)

Now I've only seen this last week when it was tagged onto Wreck-it-Ralph. And it was good, nice time to spend about 2 minutes of my life.

The story is about a man whose bit of paper in his folder flies and hits a woman in the face, leaving lipstick on it. The man, who's attracted to her, goes to work and discovers her in a building opposite him. Trying to get her attention, he uses a stack of paper been given to send her paper aeroplanes. But that fails dismally and she leaves. He tries to catch up with her but to no avail and he angrily throws his last paper, the one with the lipstick on. However, the paper meets with all the others and come alive, the lipstick covered one going after the woman, while the rest pin the man down. Eventually the two are reunited and have coffee together.

There are some really good animated pieces in this little flick, and the story is quite simple to follow with a good ending. But I didn't feel as if it was anything spectacular, possibly because of the simplicity and the realism it projected. Still I wouldn't mind watching it over again, to at least give me something to watch.

-----------------------------------------------------

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

BRAVE (BRENDA CHAPMAN, MARK ANDREWS)

No brainer really, it's Disney they usually win everything when it comes to animated awards. I did already talk about this film a lot when I was doing the Top 10 films I've seen in 2012 so I don't have really a lot to say on the matter.

Though I do admit, there were definitely a few films I liked in this category, this one included. The other two were Band of Pirates and Wreck-it Ralph. Band of Pirates was never going to win, even though its stop-motion animation is something we hardly see nowadays, and with near everything being computer made it's a sad slight to see. Wreck-it Ralph was good too, but I never got a sense of enjoyment that I did with Brave.

I did feel some time ago that with some animated films like the adaptation of Marjane Satrapi's graphic novel 'Persepolis', they should deserve some recognition because the narrative was more mature then say Disney animated flicks. But I had also come to thinking that computer generated stuff is more harder to work on because your having to create a 3D world, as opposed to a 2D world. So I wouldn't judge this too harshly, but it would be nice to see a 2D animated film win the prestigious award at some point. But it's very unlikely to happen, because of the technical aspects brought with computer animation.

------------------------------------------------------

CINEMATOGRAPHY

LIFE OF PI (CLAUDIO MIRANDA)

Watching the trailer for how everything is lit up, Miranda really knew how to create a vibrate colourful world. The scenes during the day use a mixtures of oranges, reds and maybe a hint of brown, make it look like the real world. But with the scenes at night, using blues and greens when Pi is out at sea and presumably on the island, these palettes of colours mix beautifully well seemingly throughout the movie and make it look like Pi has entered into a fantasy world. It's quite clever that it managed to provoke a reaction of such......I can't think of a good word for it!

This article will posted up before I get a chance to see the bloody film all the way through to dutifully lust longfully at the imagery with my drooling mouth open like that bald yellow guy.....Marge I think his name was.  (I especially like when the thunder strikes in the trailer. Looks magnificent!). I look forward to seeing this movie when I have my chance! And gawp at all the beautiful images.

-------------------------------------------------------

VISUAL EFFECTS

LIFE OF PI (BILL WESTENHOFER, GUILLAUME ROCHERON, ERIK-JAN DE BOER, DONALD R. ELLIOTT)

Definately not a surprise. From watching the trailers, Life of Pi does boast a very detailed and fantastic piece of computer generated art, and probably used the 3D to great expense.

I never got to see this film in cinema (yet), because at first I wasn't that interested in it. But I would take a look now since it's won some awards. Jumping on the band wagon I know, but what can you do?

*SPOILERS*

I must admit though it was odd to see that the tiger has an actual name: Richard Parker. Why? Least it would be an excuse to see what happens in this film.

*END OF SPOILERS*

-------------------------------------------------------------

COSTUME DESIGN

ANNA KARENINA (JACQUELINE DURRAN)

Costume in time-period films are always going to be a bastard to pull off. So making costumes being set in the 19^th century is not an easy task. But from looking at some of the pictures, Durran did pull it off really well. The costumes seen look to die for and reflects the character's class status, even though some of the colours can be quite dulling. They just stand out amongst the crowd, which is what a costume should do really: to make a character recognisable and reflect their world in the film.

However I wasn't that interested in seeing Anna Karenina, and still don't. Yes, the costumes are nice but they really don't get me interested in seeing this film, just how beautiful they are.  There seemed to be more interesting films to keep an eye-out for as the article continues. So sorry Anna Karenina, you just didn't do it for me. I'm not into Russians to be honest.

------------------------------------------------------------

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

LES MISERABLE (LISA WESTCOTT, JULIE DARTNELL)

Watching a video about crafting the make-up to Les Mis, it shows how hard these two artist tried to make people look so decrepid and suffering in a stylised world. Westcott describes how Jean Valjean as a convict is treated with a scar on his head and a long straggling beard and essentially at the bottom of the barrel. There was also talk about teeth which sounds weird, but does make sense because it matches the appearance of that decrepitude of the world. If Hugh Jackson just had his normal teeth, it wouldn't have matched.

Make-up on Anne Hathaway also brings about how the character has changed as well from working in a factory to just being in the gutter and having to become a prostitute, even painting her tooth blood red, and having to become part of a brutal world.

Maybe that's why they won the award, on the basis of teeth. Sounds like a good day for dentistry doesn't it? A very well deserved award once more for Les Mis.

--------------------------------------------------------------

BEST SHORT FILM

CURFEW (SHAWN CHRISTENSON)

'At the lowest point of his life, Richie gets a call from his estranged sister, asking him to look after his nine-year old niece, Sophia, for a few hours'

The tagline doesn't reveal much as opposed to some others. But this little film does have some interesting moments from its plot about a budding relationship between the two characters and how the film has been shot to these those moments in creating a chemistry. Also the trailer shows some really good camera shots and good choreography.

Again, I won't try to spoil anything, but the over-riding theme of the film is 'idols'. Like who was that person you looked up to (or still look up to) and how that affects your life. So you might be able to understand the plot from that one word, though it might be better watching the film itself instead so you get the full picture. It looks a good film and probably worth a viewing, with some great use of cameras, interesting characterisation and even a dance number apparently. Maybe I should have done that for my short film. Random mosh-pit at the end of the film since I used a Metallica song. Oh well.

'Curfew' definitely works as a short film by the look of it, so is worth the 20 minutes of anyone's time.

--------------------------------------------------------------

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT

INOCENTE (SEAN FINE, ANDREA NIX FINE)

'Inocente' is the journey of a 15 year old homeless girl who finds solace in painting a vibrant colourful world onto paper while hiding her present situation from her classmates in case they will laugh her off.

Watching the trailer for this film, you see how Inocente creates her art, even using paint at the start of the day on her face and how she slowly begins to make her own art show. But there is a darker side in her personal life as family problems reveal domestic issues, an attempted suicide and shuffling through homeless shelters.

I became facisinated by what is shown in the trailer and would definitely want to give this film a try, because it looks so heartfelt and deep that I couldn't exactly take my eyes away from the story of her life. I want to understand why her life has become the way it has and how she deals with the issues at hand.

'Inocente' looks a fantastic film about this girl's life and is worth a viewing into a world we have never crossed before.

----------------------------------------------------------

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN (MALIK BENJELLOUL, SIMON CHINN)

'Searching for Sugar Man' is another journey about finding the truth behind the myth. And it's an odd myth to say the least. 'Sugar Man' or Sixto Rodriguez is not really known around the world, but is immensely popular in South Africa, where it was rumoured since the 70s that he had commited suicide because there was so little known information about him. Well, Wikipedia had existed since 2004 so someone must've posted something about him between that time and the documentary.

But I digress.

The film shows the discovery that Rodriquez did not in fact commit suicide and how hard he has lived life. His albums had hardly sold at all in America and having a job as a construction worker in order to at least have some income. But with the onset of the Academy Awards, his audience has increased and is subsequently now touring with his band 'We're not Dead', alongside Paul McCartney, Jeff Goldblum on drums and random members of CNN.com incident.

The documentary looks quite interesting to look at, considering how Rodriguez had influenced the South African population at the time of apartheid and comparing that to his life now. I would give it a go and see how this man has fast-becoming at least a recognisable figure in few parts of the world now.

-----------------------------------------------------------

BEST FOREIGN LANGAUGE FILM

AMOUR (MICHAEL HANEKE)

Now I'm half and half on this film after recently watching the trailer as I write this.

After reading up the story online, I thought I would give this movie a go. And from a few clips, it's definitely has some shocking moments, especially when the main woman is slapped by her husband when refusing to gulp down water. Now there is a reason for this, but I won't spoil it for anyone.

From one of the trailers, I wasn't sure what to make of it. It seemed distorted and only a few points were made clear in trailer that the main couple are very much in love. Though I have read comments on the Youtube page that the trailer does not do the film justice and that it's better off actually watching the film.

But the plot did shock and bring me into the story so I'd watch this film given the opportunity.

-----------------------------------------------------------

SOUND MIXING

LES MISERABLE (ANDY NELSON, MARK PATERSON, SIMON HAYES)

This comes not much as a surprise too. But to be fair, the sound mixers had their work cut out, having to match the actor's voices with the crescendo of the musical score. Now that cannot an easy task, especially with the actors singing live on set, rather than singing in a studio.

So what are the advantages of this? Well firstly, it could give you more time to prepare for meeting with other actors and allows for more emotion to show through the acting, instead of having to mime alongside the playback while you're actually shooting the film in the first place. Second, the music team used a piano to help with the tempo of the music so you could capture the right sound from the actors and replaced that with orchestra pieces.

Disadvantages would be: a bad stroke of luck if one of the actors loses their voice during production. Luckily for Tom Hooper, this didn't happen. However, the other problem is if one of the actors can't sing, and falls onto Russell Crowe for not having a good voice. I thought he wasn't bad during his bit at the ceremony, so I'd have to disagree moderately.

In the end, I think all the actors could sing well and helped to bag a small award for such a ground-breaking production. It might actually try to tell us those who can sing and those who can't (maybe in future High School Musical productions. Then we can see whose shit and who isn't).

------------------------------------------------------------

SOUND EDITING

TIE!!- 1^ST: ZERO DARK-THIRTY (PAUL N.J. OTTOSSON), 2^ND: SKYFALL (PER HALLBERG, KAREN BAKER LANDERS)

Yep, there was a tie. Between the ever-running James Bond Franchise and the compromising of Osama Bin Laden. But the tie here isn't so important.

What is important is how sound editing helps in the process of making a film sound believable, the collection of pieces of gunshots, phones ringing, and flipping through of books that come together into the editing process.

Talking to Entertainment Weekly about ZERO DARK THIRTY, Ottosson wanted to keep it authentic and allow for these little pieces to build up the tension in the film. Because Zero Dark Thirty isn't the conventional action film, it uses the realism to maintain a sense of tension within its world. He also revealed that he was in the army, which in a film like this, is key to heightening the sense of realism in the world of modern day military spying and planning.

With SKYFALL, you get the usual explosions and gunfights that are relevant to a James Bond film, but with the added expansion of a train ripping into two pieces and a London Underground train crashing off-track into an open chamber, and missing Bond in the process. The collection of these sounds are quite spectacular (shame about the Aston Martin though.....) and help make a bigger impact on the audience through possible exaggeration of the force of these sounds.

Sound Editing is one of those things that could have such a big responsibility to the film overall and ZERO DARK THIRTY probably shows that a bit more than SKYFALL, but still SKYFALL was a epic galore of sound making and deserved an award for it as much as ZERO DARK THIRTY did. So I can kind of see how difficult it was to choose between the two. Well done to both.

------------------------------------------------------------

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

ANNE HATHAWAY (FATINE IN LES MISERABLE)

OH MY GOD, I DEFINATELY DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING!!! THIS WAS AWESOME! THIS WAS----(ahem) sorry, I let my sarcastic nature get the better of me.

Obviously this was one of the biggest predictors and came through as we all expected. Though hearing the song, Hathaway could have won it on that basis (seriously she is pretty good singing I Dreamed a Dream). Going by the song, she probably gave her all in the performance of playing Fantine and really deserved winning that Oscar.

I was conflicted whether to see this film or not. Wasn't that interested, then quite interested. In the end I couldn't really get into convincing myself to go watch it. And I'm thinking as I write this: I probably should've done. Not because of the song (or the crying though I've heard rumours where people had pretty much fallen in tears from this movie. Damn you Tom Hooper.), but just a gut feeling. I missed out on a different experience altogether. And I only have myself to blame.

I dreamed a dream of time gone by, when I should've seen Les Miserable in the cinema........shit.

------------------------------------------------------------

BEST EDITOR

ARGO (WILLIAM GOLDENBERG)

If a film can make you feel a rush of emotions that feel RIGHT, then the editing must be near or spot on the money. And there were definite moments in Argo where I felt the pacing was just right. I'm starting to like movies that make good use of their running time, like with The Hobbit and The Hunger Games where everything didn't feel too extreme in slow like a snail, but neither too fast like a cheetah. And Argo falls into that category too. Even with the events happening on-screen, I felt everything was happening at the right and appropriate speed that the events SHOULD be going at.

From the beginning of the escape from the embassy, to Mendez coming back from Iran, the film flowed perfectly in the narrative side of things. The comedy relief was good, the threatening scenes were tense and the final scene was incredible. Everything in this film brought the right emotions out of me, and that's what a film should do: make you feel the right emotion at the right time. And if you don't feel right, then obviously the film hasn't done its job. Or maybe it's just you.

Goldberg did a fantastic job on this film, personally making me feel the rise in tension at the right moments and laugh at the good jokes, and make the film feel just right. Personally, I would tell anyone to watch this film. Including you. Yes, you. Go watch it. Now!

---------------------------------------------------

PRODUCTION DESIGN

LINCOLN (PRODUCTION DESIGN: RICK CARTER, SET DECORATION: JIM ERICKSON)

Like costume design, designing the sets and finding the accurate props needed for 19^th century America is also a total bastard. The finding and creating of bringing back to life the dark days of the American Civil War, and how to make the picture look in some sense realistic, yet darkened world.

Well, these two guys must have achieved a great feat in showing us a realistic picture of history, enough to win this award. Carter said of the interior design of the White House that "it was an extremely personal space and often a psychological space". So what this means is the White House was Lincoln's own playground to let his mind wander and plot his plans into motion, into bringing around the 13 amendment: to abolish slavery. Jim Erickson apparently knew when to keep his mouth shut when he was talking to Abraham Lincoln about his research , and Lincoln said: "Jim, I'm the President". Would you have done the same?

I must admit that the sets and production do look pretty good, impressive and feel ok, but that's all the reaction I can get out. Just ok. But maybe that's what the film is trying to do, to not make everything ok. There are obviously battlefields, strung with craters and what-have-you. All in all, these two men did a good job on Lincoln and focused on the more emotional side rather than the technical side.

------------------------------------------------------

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

LIFE OF PI (MICHAEL DANNA)

Music in film can help nail down the emotion of a scene, or completely distract you from everything. So far, listening to the song 'Pi's Lullaby', you can tell that the music is something out of this world and feels like Oscar material.

Danna has created something almost child-like with this song and it flows quietly, yet brings you into a different environment altogether. I'm curious to know what the other songs will be like to listen to, and I have good hopes that the rest of the soundtrack will be something other-worldly. Though I shouldn't expect too much, then I'd have a greater sense of being let down.

Then I listened to some of the other tracks like, 'Christ on the Mountains', 'Richard Parker' and 'The Deepest Spot on Earth'. I liked 'Christ on the Mountains' with its pop-like beat and nice flute accompaniment. 'Richard Parker' felt quite haunting and long with a quick crescendo to quickly wrap the song up. 'The Deepest Spot on Earth' sounds epic, but I hope it's better in the film. It doesn't sound as good on Youtube then you think.

So far, the soundtrack sounds like it has ups and downs. Some songs work beautifully, while others feel like they miss the mark. However, I am listening to it without the film in general so I shouldn't judge harshly. If the songs work on screen, I will be happy as a bumblebee with a pot full of honey. Admittedly, I'm not sure this score deserved the Oscar so much but I'll just have to wait and see until I get my hands on a ticket to watch Life of Pi.

----------------------------------------------------

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

SKYFALL (ADELE, PAUL EPWORTH)

This ISN'T one of my favourite Bond songs. I'm throwing it out there. I just feel as if it doesn't really bring anything as a whole. Maybe it's because I am not a massive fan of Adele in general, and her songs are quite annoyingly catchy. But I wouldn't say it's a bad song, there are some bits I like about it, like the opening piano bit and the chorus. And also this song was better than some of the entrants on the list (Everybody needs a Best Friend was quite good, but I don't think Oscar material). And I have to admit, it is difficult thinking about someone else who could've pulled that song off with the gusto that Adele has.

I am generally happy that a James Bond film had won an Academy Award, even if it's for a song. It's probably one of those things that will never be seen again at least for a few decades at least.  Also seeing the performance live was a lot better rather than hearing it in studio form. Maybe I should try to steal a live version or something. Still, it is a great achievement to get and Adele has a very prestigious award to show for her efforts. So kudos to you Adele.

-------------------------------------------------

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

ARGO (CHRIS TERRIO)

One thing I like about a movie is when it reveals to your surprise to have some very good jokes and some nice written in moments where no words don't really need to be spoken. Terrio did that very well for 'Argo'.

I wasn't even expecting Argo to be as good as it could be, but the writing for this film was really, really funny. And I'm still remembering that great one-liner 'Argo fuck yourself' :D. Best. Line. Ever :P. Perhaps then the key to a good film is that it doesn't look as if it's trying to force funny moments onto us, but allows us to diffuse the tension of the story using those little moments, especially in a situation such as Iran. I won't list the scenes that will be tense, but when you see this film you might get a feeling of happiness, at least for a few minutes while your brain has a chance to relax.

*SPOILER*

Another nice scene was at the end, where the main character Tony Mendez shakes the hand of one of the hostages and not one word of dialogue is made between them. In some cases with scenes like that, dialogue is really not needed. Film can sometimes about more expression in the face and seeing the emotions on screen, where if any words were spoken it could in fact ruin that moment totally. We know that dialogue has obviously been a mainstream in film since the later 1920s, but we can still sometimes see the character's on-screen expression reveal everything, even if they aren't talking. If those two characters had said anything, it would've felt different, and wouldn't have been right to say anything in the first place.

*END SPOILER*

ARGO is a clever, brilliant written film and deserved this Oscar in so many ways.

---------------------------------------------------

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

DJANGO UNCHAINED (QUENTIN TARANTINO)

*DEFINATELY SPOILERS*

Like 'Argo', DJANGO UNCHAINED is clever and funny. But of course in Tarantino's hands, it was gold.

The little moments again do come in great, like the bag scene. If you haven't seen it yet, take some time out to do so because it is funny as! Personally, I liked it when Dr. Schultz said Auf Wiedersehen and carried on with his business.

All the characters were written well. Not just Django and Dr. Schultz, but Calvin Candie and his manservant Stephen as well.

The pairing of Django and Dr. Schultz is good,as Schultz becomes a mentor figure to Django and teaches him how to use guns and to kill people as well as giving him the first opportunity to free his wife from slavery. They develop a kind of chemistry with each other and Django even gives Schultz some advice as well when he's antagonising Candie.

 But the main villains are just as good. With Candie, you can see how the character can be so brutal and yet show it so little in a subtle kind of way. He allows Django to enter into his circle, but you can see he clearly has misapprehension for him and then comes out as a kind of psychopath when he threatens Broomhilda. Now I didn't like Candie, But I HATED Stephen. Hated him with a passion because he was a treacherous low-life betraying bastard, and brilliantly played by Samuel L. Jackson! Though that's more acting side than the writing.

Now I probably should come onto the multiple use of the word, nigger. It was used a few times for some really funny jokes, like: 'that nigger's on a horse!'. Yes, well done you, specific character. Have a medal. But it is also used for some of the more vicious moments (like Candie's eurphoria at one-upping the two), and it is for uncomfortable viewing. But I guess the overall use of the word was because the focus was on a black person and his struggle to save his wife against white slavers, and using it will probably make anyone squirm in their seats.

But the screenplay is still awesome in that it gives a new perspective on the revenge story and tackling such a grave subject in America's past (Spike Lee should say nothing until he's seen the film.) An award again, well deserved for one of film's prolific makers, Mr Tarantino.

-----------------------------------------------------

BEST DIRECTOR

ANG LEE (LIFE OF PI)

This was probably a two-legged race between Lincoln and Life of Pi, with the latter winning through. And probably rightfully so.

Life of Pi does seem the more visually impressive (being done in 3D), better acted, and the more personal journey that the main character goes through (and there's a tiger. Maybe Lincoln would have been better if there was a tiger? Just one random tiger appearing at Lincoln's side? No? Ok....................sad face). Anyway, it just looked better and felt really good.

As I've talked about in the cinematography section, the film looks stunning with its colourful imagery. Acting-wise, it looks very-well done with Suraj Sharma being pretty good as Pi. And I did really believe that that was a tiger despite it being CGI! Though I do hope there's a good explanation why the tiger's called Richard Parker. I have one idea but I'm not going to spoil it for anyone.

I have read that the film was apparently unfilmable, with M. Night Shyamalan and Alfonso Cuaron had rejected directing the film. Well, they said the same thing about Lord of the Rings.......and anyway, M. Night Shyamalan hasn't had a good run with films for the past few years has he? With the emotional depth needed to carry such a large scale film, Ang Lee was probably the right choice to make LIFE OF PI, because Pi has quite the journey to go through, as John Hiscock put it in his article for the Telegraph newspaper: Literal and spiritual journey.

--------------------------------------------------------

BEST ACTRESS

JENNIFER LAWERENCE (TIFFANY MAXWELL IN SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK)

Oh look, Jennifer Lawerence tripped up on the stairs. Yay. Moving on!

It probably should never be denied that Jennifer Lawrence is becoming THE female talent in Hollywood today. I have seen her perform in 'X-Men: First Class' and 'The Hunger Games' and she is good at the roles she plays.

As I again saw a clip to her performance in 'Silver Linings Playbook', I was simply gobsmacked by her ferocity at projecting the anger at Bradley Cooper's character and probably wouldn't want to approach her when she's in psycho mode (especially if she's holding a bow and arrow, then I'd be super-fucked). And I did think about seeing this film, but I never got around to it. God, what a life I lead!  However I have read a little about the character she played so I think it added more to the intensity of the scene I saw.

Still, getting an award on your second nomination is a definite plus and says something about your future career. I'd even go as far as saying Jennifer Lawrence could be the next Meryl Streep if she continues in her choices of roles, which suffice to say, are very good choices. Soon as Silver Linings Playbook comes out on DVD, I'm definite willing to give this film a go and see how everything pans out, not just with Lawrence's character but everyone else's too, because judging by the clips I've seen there is plenty to get sucked into! After all, what are crazy sluts with dead husbands for?

(If you like to answer this question, use the comment box below)

---------------------------------------------------------

BEST ACTOR

ABRAHAM LINCOLN (ABRAHAM LINCOLN IN LINCOLN)

You know, at the tender age of 202, Lincoln doesn't look half bad for playing himself considering he took over from Liam Neeson. His beard seemed well-trimed.

As we all know, his performance was greatly praised. Well he was playing himself so be fair, he'd know his own stuff like the back of his hand. And with his third Oscar win, he became the first three-time recipient for the Best Actor award in the history of the Academy Awards (his other two being in 'My Left Foot' and 'There Will Be Blood').  Still it was quite predictable that he would capture another award. But in all fairness, this is Abraham Lincoln we're talking about. His dedication to playing roles is well documentated. He even played Daniel Day-Lewis at the Oscar ceremony. Could've won an award for that even!

However I can't really comment on the actual performance itself sadly. So I'll have to wait until it's on DVD or make a last ditch attempt to see it in cinema at least (though I have been told on good authority by the mother that it made one of her friends fall asleep. So maybe it will be a good opportunity to have a quick nap. At least when Lincoln's not on screen).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

BEST FILM

ARGO (BEN AFFLECK, GEORGE CLOONEY AND GRANT HESLOV)

I was so hoping for this film to win the Academy Award, and I was happy I even shouted 'YES!' when Madam President announced the winner (probably because it was the only film I actually saw out of all the others).

As I said before, I had good fun watching this film and enjoyed the funny moments, so there isn't much to talk about. Although I do think in a way, 'Argo' is a redemption for Ben Affleck. He has come a long way through despised and poorly received films like Gigli and Pearl Habour, only to slowly build himself up again over the years and come back smiling with a Best Picture award (into Seth McFarlane's face) and reinventing himself from an actor into possibly a great director, and turning himself into a family man with wife Jennifer Garner.

I suppose the only thing I regret is not putting this film into my Top Ten list at the start of The Randomizer. It was such a hard choice between this film and Brave, that in the world I thought Brave was the better film. But that was my gut feeling at the time. Now I think I should've put it in somewhere, but what's done is done.

Argo is a fantastic film and quite worthy of the Academy Award for Best Picture 2013. Though Life of Pi could come to strike more of a cord with me when it's started the ball rolling, I still remember the rush and funny moments that Argo brings with it. So for the moment, Argo comes out on top and deservedly so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESENTING AND (a few) SEGEMENTS

SETH MACFARLANE

I love Seth Macfarlane. I laughed out loud completely at his risqué humour while watching and liked some of the comedy routines he did. Comes with being a Family Guy fan for donkey years (thanks brother Nick :) ).

And of course, controversy followed. Seems people don't have the same sense of humour and have criticised his tenure because of such jokes as "Django Unchained is the story of a man fighting to get back his woman subjected to unthinkable violence. Or as Rihanna and Chris Brown call it, A date movie" and probably more famously, 'The Boob Song', a listing of the female actors who brought them out in selected films. After the Oscars, Macfarlane announced he would not present another in the future.

I don't think Macfarlane was horrible as host for the Oscars. I enjoyed his wise-cracks at the actors and at himself, though why William Shatner made an appearance is bizarre to me. Would it have made more sense to have Billy Crystal or something?. But I do think that some of the jokes were hit and miss. Especially those that made me go: oooh, that was awful. For example, the Lincoln joke was so dark, I think I just laughed and cringed at the same time. Also, what was up with that Sally Field sketch. Again, kind of a miss.

But his humour is very risque that it will only appeal to certain adult people (like me) and not to a wide-range audience that might include children or otherwise the easily offended. So as much as I liked the comedy, I can understand why he won't be back so soon. But I enjoyed it while it lasted and that's the main thing.

FIFTY YEARS OF BOND....

......was shit. James Bond got a tribute video and Shirley Bassey singing. I was completely let down by this segment, thinking at the time I could've come up with something so much better. Fifty Years of the longest running film franchise in history, and THAT was what the Oscars came up with?

The tribute video was a selection of clips from all the Bond films. Nothing remotely interesting to say really.

And much as Shirley Bassey is the main Bond singer, I didn't like her singing the Goldfinger theme song because she sounded so croaky. I'm sorry, but Adele could've sung that better I reckon, and she was the best Bond tribute of the night with her rendition of 'Skyfall'.

If I was to do a tribute of fifty years, I would have possibly brought ALL the James Bonds on stage and let them talk for a few seconds of their experience as 007. Then I could have asked Adele and Bassey to do duets with each other, bringing old and new generations together. And I would've asked Barbara Broccoli to come onto stage and allow her a few minutes to talk about a monumentous event of continuation since 1962.

But such things exist in fantasy. Fucking Oscars.......

IN MEMORIUM

As with any year, the film industry loses esteemed members and recognisable figures that we hold close to our hearts. I shall be taking a look at three figures I remembered from time's past:

Michael Clarke Duncan:

I remember seeing this man in a multitude of roles, first being in Cats and Dogs as Sam the dog, and then I recognised him more in Sin City as the giant manservant Manute. His voice is so recognisable for its deep baritone level, you could probably orgasm on cue at any word he said and then you'd have to go and clean yourself up. His win for his only Academy Award actually came early in his career with his performance in the role of John Coffey in 'The Green Mile', and he kept up being suitable for dramatic and comedic roles alike. The last film role I saw in him in was, of all things, Green fucking Lantern as Killowag.

It would have been good to see his career continue, whatever his choices. Sadly, it's not to be.

Tony Scott:

Ridley Scott's younger brother and well-known director in his own right, famous for films such as Top Gun,  Beverly Hills Cop II and most recently, Unstoppable. Honestly, I have never seen any of his films, mainly because I wasn't so interested in them apart from Unstoppable, but I never saw that in the cinema. Interestingly enough, I have seen him act when he was younger on his brother's short film, Boy and Bicycle as he travelled through West Hartlepool and Seaton Carew.

 The circumstances around his suicide in August last year will always remain a mystery at best since there hasn't been a clear-cut reason as to why Scott would suddenly take his own life. A sad loss to the film industry.

Ernst Borgnine:

I'd be lying if I said I knew a lot about his career. The only thing I knew him for was having a guest role in an early episode of 'The Simpsons'.

Like Clarke Ducan, Borgnine received his only Academy Award for his role in the film 'Marty' early in his career, and went to have a glittering career in both film and television, playing a significant role in 'Spongebob Squarepants' as Mermaid Man. One of Hollywood's finest actors, he will be missed.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Final Notes:

Overall, the Oscars were quite predictable in a lot of areas with every expected victor coming out on top. Seth Macfarlane is unlikely to come back as a host in any regard, and there should have been a better tribute to Bond.

But it wasn't all a bad night. There were good points like Adele singing and Argo coming out on top to win the Best Film award. I had good fun watching and will definitely watch next year's show with interest. I apologise for the lack of substantial humour in this article. Normal service should be resumed in the next when my next blog comes up.

Randomizer out.

--------------------------------------------------

The French Derping sessions of 1940

Welcome back to the third article of The Randomizer!

I suppose you might be wondering what the title means. Well I'll give you three points:

1.       French = France. Duh.

2.       1940 = The second year of World War II

3.       Derping Sessions = One of the nominations for the award for best fuck-up of the 20^th Century :D

But I digress.

When you were at school, you knew about the basics of World War II like when it started, what Britain did during the war, How America got involved into the war and how the ever popular stereotypical evil Nazis got their asses kicked by the Soviet Union (communist Russia or the Galactic Empire, take your pic) and how Hitler committed suicide.

And hopefully, you knew that France got metaphorically kicked in the balls and asked for an armistice six weeks after Germany first invaded. SIX weeks. Soooo, what were France doing at the time? Well the short version would be like a French person owning a pub, going outside to have a fag and coming back in only to find a German and his buddies had taking over the place and replacing all the French beer like Pelforth and Fischer Tradition with the evil German beers of Erdinger and Weihenstephaner (I've tried the latter, it's not actually bad J).

But if you want to know the long version, stick around and I'll tell you some big factors, some of them from the years before World War II, into how France fell to Nazi Germany.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's start in the 1919 and the year that probably was considered, at the time, Germany's worst nightmare. Why here you ask? Because this was very, very, VERY important and is part of the long list of causes to how World War II started in the first place, leading of course to France's fall.

And it started with the Treaty of Versailles, which probably should have been called 'The Treaty of Revenge, Mother-f***ers!'

France had been beaten over forty-five years previously in the Franco-Prussian war and lost its own territory of Alsace-Lorraine to the newly made German state. I remember a quote made from 'The Great War' documentary: 'Think of the motherland as your second mother, as she weeps and suffers over the children they have torn from her bosom'. There was a deep resentment against Germany as you might expect. And with their victory of the First World War, France was keen to make sure Germany would be crushed and never rise as a major power again.

All the French peoples anger and craving for revenge were poured into France's prime minister for the Treaty, Georges Clemenceau. He knew the French mentality had suffered greatly during the war: They were the ones that the Western front was built on when invasion occurred and possibly lost the most troops on the allied side in terms of death or disabled from gas or otherwise, 1.5 million killed in combat. Clemenceau made it his policy to destroy Germany with the Treaty and make sure France's revenge would be as sweet as apple pie.

You'd imagine they deserved every right to cripple Germany into submission. As a person who has a great interest in history, I'd have to disagree and will show this as how the French's extreme mindset would eventually come to bite back with ferocious intent.

Looking at the Treaty of Versailles, there are a few major points that need to be brought up:

1.       Germany is responsible for her and her allies cause of damage done to the Allies.

Now this was quite obviously bullshit. Yes, Germany was responsible in some ways of causing the damage, but it wasn't entirely their fault that the war started, nor did they cause all the destruction. The main spark for World War I was always attributed to the old Austrian-Hungarian Empire's subsequent aggression against the nation of Serbia for the shooting of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophia. After that, every country fell like dominoes into war: Austria-Hungry declared war on Serbia, Russia (allied with the Serbs) declared war on Austria-Hungry, Germany (allied with Austria-Hungry) declared war on Russia, and France (allied with Austria-Hungry.....nah I'm kidding : ) they were allied with Russia) declared war on Germany (in which they predicted Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill series as well! Should've got reparations for that!)

It was basically because Germany was seen as the greater foe of the main players: France, Great Britain and USA. We probably didn't give much of a crap about Austria-Hungry, Turkey, Bulgaria or any other German-allied country. Germany seemed always to bear the brunt of the Allies, and mostly to an extent France's, subtle polite bullying.

2.       Germany was to pay for the damage caused by the war, with a figure set for a later date.

Again, this was due to polite bullying and possibly being childish. Germany were probably buggered financially by their own admission, but asking them to pay for the entire war is really pushing it. About two years after the declaration of payment to the allies, the figure was set at £6,600 million (£6.6 billion pounds), which in effect outraged the Germans. But from a French point of view, they were probably very happy to receive their share of the dough. Though we must remember that France wanted their revenge. And they were getting it handed to them on a plate. But as I will reveal soon, the relationship between the two countries would disintegrate badly.

3.       German territory was to be broken up and given to other countries.

Now in one sense, some of this was partly right with Alsace-Lorraine given back to France. One territory that would prove to have big ramifacations in future was Upper Silesia, Posen West Prussia being given to Poland, newly created as an independent state once more. Prussian troops in the past had captured Polish territory and made it part of their own kingdom. So this was pretty much giving Poland its own land back with free access to the sea. (while the city of Danzig was made into a free city). However, this broke Germany effectively into two pieces as the country still maintained a piece of land further to the east, the Province of East Prussia.

On the other hand, there were some lands that were given to Germany over 100 years before in a separate treaty called The Congress of Vienna, only to be nicked from under their nose. The first is that the territory of Eupen-Malmedy was taken from Germany and given to Belgium. Now it can be argued that Germany did destroy parts of Belgium during the war and probably did deserve giving something to them, but in another way it was given to Germany in the first place in said congress. It's quite difficult who to side for.

Another piece of land that was placed under the League of Nations management was The Saarland. This was an area littered with coal mines and was looked after by Morrocco. Seriously. Morocco. Definately not France. Honest!!

Oddly enough, not all the lands were forcibly taken from them. Some lands had referandrums to vote if they to be part of another country. For example, Northern Schleswig voted to be part of Denmark, breaking away from Germany.

With territory, it is a mixed of logical and surreal reasoning and makes it more difficult because there are both good points and bad. I would say that Germany shouldn't have lost a lot of territory it did lose, but I understand that the politics at the time would have made it inevitable.

4.       German military was weakened substantially

This was a crushing blow to Germany. Her army was reduced to 100,000 men. Compare that with how many men they had in the First World War and you'd be thinking 'the hell?'. No airforce was allowed, 6 navy ships allowed, no submarines and the Rhineland was commissioned a de-militarized zone (where no weapon was allowed in this area). So in effect, it was an attempt to make dead sure Germany could not declare war against the Allies. It was helpful to France so that they could feel at least a little bit safer from quashed German ambitions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that we've established the Treaty of Versallies, We shall be delving a little bit into some points of the history of both France and Germany during the inter-war period.

Needless to say, it wasn't a good relationship. Sort of like sibling rivalry over who owned the house whenever mum and dad weren't around. But I think we can be kind and let the younger sibling have its say. So let's start off with Germany:

Germany's major points during the Inter-war period.

1)      The Occupation of the Rhur

In 1922, the German government failed to pay its instalment of reparations. This was due to the defaulting (not fulfilling obligations) of different shipments of coal and timber. So what did France do?

a)      Said to Germany: "Hey don't worry about it, you need to relax and pay it back soon as you can, ok?"

b)      Said "Well this is highly annoying. You will pay it back by this date and no extensions good gentlemen!"

c)       Said, "Fuck this, we're taking over"

The answer.

Come on, it's France! They weren't going to bake a cake and send it in hoping to let bygones be bygones. (Though it might've been tasty at least).

On 11^th January 1923, France took over the region of the Ruhr to force the payments to come through and keep Germany obligated to Versailles. The Germans in the area resisted tenaciously against the French, going on strike and beginning a passive resistance to not attack the French soldiers. How odd. Germans not attacking Frenchman. It's like a cat deciding to ignore the mouse when it's blatantly stealing the cheese.

Both countries suffered different consequences as a result. Germany suffered because of its passive resistance, in that the government decided to pay the worker's salaries by printing more money. You can see where this is going, as hyperinflation increased rapidly in Germany and wrecked its own economy, making their currency worthless. France suffered by being seen as the aggressor, probably taking advantage of its rival and expelling 150,000 workers from the area, replacing them with Frenchmen whom would help in getting the reperation money.

This incident does show how extreme the French were willing to go when it came to Germany, especially since it was three/four years after Versailles had been signed. I even read that at least over 130 people were killed in the resistance against the French. But the Germans were just as stubborn and their pride resulted in their near collapse of economic structure. If anything, stubbornness is shown as a great nationalist factor with these two at the time, and probably would have gone further if not for one certain individual, which forms part of my next point.

2)      Gustav Stresemann

Stresemann was in effect, Germany's saviour of the Ruhr crisis. Made foreign minister in 1924, he accepted a restructured method of Germany's reperation payments called the 'Dawes Plan' and managed to obtain an reconciliation with the Allies and sign the 'Locarno Treaties' in 1925. These treaties established no attacks or wars between Germany, France and Belgium, fixed the border boundaries between them and allowed Germany to become a member of the League of Nations, which at first banned the country because it was Germany. Duh.

In  a way, Stresemann partly reversed the humiliation of Versaillies and got Germany accepted back into the European Community. His time as foreign minister greatly helped the country through a nightmare situation and at least possibly gain some leverage in making Germany a stronger country then it was during its hyperinflation and Ruhr crisis. Unfortunately, Stresemann would become ill over the course of the next four years and finally died of a stroke in 1929. What made his death more inconvenient was it occurred about four weeks before the Wall Street Crash, plummeting the world into 'The Great Depression'.

3)      The Nazi Party

And now we entered into Germany's beginnings of its darkest period. With the onset of 'The Great Depression', Charlie Chaplin was seen as a figure destined to turn Germany's fortunes around and create a sense of......Chaplin? sorry I meant Oliver Hardy. No wait....hang on I read it somewhere......erm......just rummaging through my paperwork here.......ah here we go. Hitler. Now we're on the right track.

In their despair, the German turned to Hitler who was seen as the next Jesus Christ of Germany. I say Jesus Christ, he was affectively a tit with the messiah complex of Robert Mugabe. But I digress, Hitler quickly become popular with his policies of wanting to destroy the Treaty of Versailles, lowering the numbers of the unemployed people, and of course blame the Jews for Germany's problems. Because obviously it's the best way to go, blaming the Jews for everything.

However in November of 1932, Hitler's voting strength was waning as he lost 2 million votes. Those Jews again eh?. But then in January 1933, Hitler was offered power by the former World War I general, and president Paul von Hindenburg. The government thought they could control Hitler and even suggested 'We are hiring him'. (clap, clap, clap) The second nomination for Best Fuck-up of the 20^th century.

Hitler did act on his promises, and directly disobey the Treaty of Versailles, along with creating more jobs, creating an alliance with the army and of course, blamed the Jews. Still a way to go apparently. Never tried it personally. Don't see the fun in it.

So that's a few important things of Germany's side of things. Now the older sibling will get it's chance to speak and possibly be more mature. Pfft, yeah right:

A few points with France.

1)      Divisions

Political divisions arose between Werewolves and Vampires, or less known in the Twilight world as the Left and Right. The Left consisted of communists, socialist politicians and those interested in destroying facism in their homeland, rather than their idealology out into the world. The Right grouped people who loathed Communists, read Le' Daily Mail and possibly feared the threat of a Marxist revolution akin to Russia. According to 'The World at War' documentary series, they were even prepared to accept dictatorship. Going further, they made the old war hero and saviour of Verdun, Marshal Phillppe Petain as the icon against the communists.

In the French elections of 1936, things intensified when the Popular Front (consisted of leftist parties) won and the overall leader Leon Blum became Prime Minister. However in just over a year, he was forced to stand down due to differing factors, one of which involved the Spanish Civil War, being fought between the republic and the fascist leader, Franco. Leaders came and went in the never-ending cycle of French politics.

2)      Military structure

France's military organisation is interesting in that it never seemed to evolve. Like a Pikachu unless you gave it a Thunder Stone. Unfortunately there are no Thunder stones in France. Military books looked into the tactics used during the First World War, did not improve on using the tank and airplane in their army even though they helped expand them into warfare, and went back to using railways and horses. From this view, it looks the French were expecting a similar experience of the First World War.

Their own Head of the Army, Maurice Gamelin, never even left his own headquarters and was never asked to stand down to make way for someone younger due to his war record. Adding to this, his long-term plan was simply to wait. Wait until at least he could match the Germans in terms of soldiers and weapons. Must've been his favourite word at the time: Wait. I'm sure Hitler's favourite word at the time was Blitzkreig. We'll be coming back to Gamelin a few more times I reckon.

One thing the French did invest in was the Maginot Line. A series of fortifications lining along the French borders against Germany to the east, provided the Germans came towards them in that direction. However, it didn't stretch far enough to at the least, protect France's defensive measures, going at 87 miles long. 250 miles short of the channel. They tried to expand it, but by the time they were invaded, it was nowhere near finished.

Looking at the military side of things, it's fair to say that France had taken an underground defensive strategy, unwilling to take the Germans head on when it came to face them in battle. If they had been expected a war akin to twenty years before, they were ignoring how their old enemy had rapidly changed into something more than a stronger country: a war-machine. Germany had practically been re-built as a vengeful destructive country, bent on righting its wrongs. France had effectively not bothered to keep up the pace with its rival, focusing on its own internal struggles. When war came, it would be very different from the first war, no matter how deluded the French were.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1939

Germany invades Poland. Britain and France simultaneously declare war.

For all its defensive strategies, France actually made one offensive in the Saar, advancing into German Territory. With the bulk of Hitler's forces in Poland, you'd have thought that France would gain the upper hand in a war to the west. And for a time they did, however with little bloodshed and resistance. Austra wrote that: "Despite its aggressive beginning, however, the French probe into the Saar evolved into such a leisurely stroll that German soldiers and officials were able to collect their belongings and depart well in advance of Gamelin's legions". So it seems the so-called offensive was really a walk in the park, with public benches next to minefields. I wouldn't suggest letting the kids run around if I were you.

So why didn't the French capitalize on this effort? Austra suggested that: "The French, however, were unaware of the favourable balance of forces. Furthermore, the French were generally unsupportive of another European war, and the morale of the army was at an all-time low". It seems the French did not fully understand how more superior they were at this war-malarky business, at least at the beginning. If they had continued further on, who knows what would have happened. But if we are to take the idea that the French did not want to see another war and how bad army morale was, then we can possibly see that patriotism did not fill these men's hearts as much as it did over twenty five years ago in 1914.

In the end, before Poland disappeared off the map of Europe, French soldiers were ordered to retreat from Germany back towards the Maginot Line. One general, Henri Giraud, saw the opportunity to try and bring the war to the Germans, but nothing came of it. Even Germany's own, General Siegfried Westphal stated that "...German forces on the so-called western front could stand no more than one or two weeks".

I can see how the French would not want to go to war if it was not in their main interests due to not wanting another war. But despite that, I think this was the first mistake that French top brass made. In not attempting to take on the Germans in the war at this point of time when their focus was elsewhere, The French gained bugger-all essentially except possibly a few biscuits and cattle. If there was one word to sum up the French Army or possibly France as a whole, it could be 'Fear'. Fear is a strong emotion in times of war and unfortunately for them, it did more than break their backs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

May 1940.

The Phoney War was about to be disrupted.

The Germans thought of a way to try and circumnavigate the Maginot Line to finally invade France. There was one place they could go through: the Ardennes. Thought impenetrable by the French, Gamelin placed his worst divisions here, thinking that the Germans would never be able to get through the deep woodland and narrow roads. 'The World at War' documentary stated that "reports had been pouring in that nearly 50 Wehrmacht divisions were on the move - reports that the French chose to ignore. They even learned the date of the attack, but still did nothing. As Gamelin put it, they preferred "to await events". Their waiting was almost over".

This, to me, is absolute foolhardiness at its finest hour. If there were reports of Wehrmacht making their way north, it's something to seriously be considered, not to be set aside on the table. Even learning the date of the attack should at least prompt some action. I think this was due to the strong belief that the Germans would not try to attack through the deep forest area at all. What could they do instead?

Well, they pulled it off. When the Germans invaded Belgium and Holland, Gamelin sent his best troops up towards Belgium with the expeditionary force from Britain in tow. However unbeknownst to him, The Germans had laid a trap. The panzers had penetrated the Ardennes forest and reached the River Meuse by the third day of the attack. The French blew up the bridges, except for one in case the river could be lowered enough for the Germans to cross over easily.

Gamelin simply did not believe that the Germans would be able to mount full scale crossings of the river for at least another few days. Yet the Germans did manage just that as well on the forth day, defeating the French pillboxes easily and sapping up bridges on the river for the tanks, motorbikes and cars to pass through unscathed. Then the trap was sprung: German forces took a swing up north and isolated the French/Britain forces in Belgium. The French, in folly, thought Germany would try to attack Paris, so pulled troops back to defend it. But this only helped the Germans secure more bridgeheads.

So what did Gamelin do to sort this problem? Nothing! Except he chose to dismiss at random 20 of his front-line generals. He probably included himself on that list, because in the end he himself was sacked for his massive FAIL, and replaced by 73 year old General Weygand. Marshal Petain then became Deputy Prime Minister. Before leaving for France, he had told Franco "My country has been beaten. This is the work of thirty years of Marxism". Erm........how? Unless Socialist governments had been voted into power for that length of time, you are just being a grumpy sod because the French army had their ass handed to them.

Despite a last ditch defensive by the French, The Germans broke through and marched to capture Paris. Marshal Petain had now become Prime Minister and asked the Germans for an armistice. And hence France was defeated in six weeks, and Hitler won an Xbox achievement for them in a shorter amount of time than the Germans in the First World War.

Now came Germany's revenge for 21 years of hurt:

1)      The Armistice was to be signed at the spot where the 1918 armistice took place: In the same train carriage where Foch accepted the German surrender beforehand. Soon after the 1940 armistice was signed, Hitler ordered the site to be destroyed. The train carriage itself was taken to Berlin. Germany was half-way avenged.

2)      For Paris, humiliation came in parade form. The German victory parade followed the same route as the French route after they had won the First World War.

And so here ends over 20 years of history. France had capitulated backwards and Germany had avenged herself onto her foe. The fall was complete.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I had thought at the start of this particular blog was that France had deserved to get an ass kicking in the first place, due to their extreme measures during the drawing up of Versailles. On one hand, they still do. Because they had suffered badly under Germany in the First World War and loss of territory before that, the mindset was at the time to break Germany and make sure they can never rise again. But as they became overly aggressive such as the case in the Occupation of the Rhur, it only served to swell up pride in German citizens, not breaking their spirit. On the other hand however, they didn't deserve so much of a beating, because they had been looking for revenge themselves in the First World War since they had lost Alsace-Lorraine in the 1870 against a unifying German state. In addition, Germany had probably become hypocritical since they lost their own territory and complaining about that, even though they had taken Alsace-Lorraine for their own. It's understandable the French wanted Germany to suffer, but they took things too far with the Ruhr Occupation and to a major extent, the Treaty of Versailles.

However, the German took things too far themselves in their occupation of France. In 1944, a SS officer was being held in Oradour sur Vayres. A battalion of the 2^nd SS Panzer Division confused this place with a village called Oradour sur Glane. It was there that 642 men, women and children were massacred and the village razed to the ground. This was no act of revenge, but an exercise in cold-blood.

So in the end, both France and Germany were always as bad as each other, trying to destroy each other with national pride in hearts and victory in mind. But maybe when it comes down to it, Pride is a factor that can sting just as hard as losing family, because then you will have lost more than the war, you have lost part of yourself.

WRESTLING......yeaaa

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahhh.....the world of wrestling. What's the first thing that springs to mind when you think about wrestling? The characters? The blood? The weapons? The girls? The storylines? The titles?

You know what I remember? Mostly all of these things. I remember a time when the World Title picture was dominated by at least 4 to 5 main event wrestlers, when gimmicks stretched out far out from the down-right bizarre to the extremely charismatic , when special matches were made to draw in the crowd and test how far a wrestlers body could go in taking punishment..........when wrestling was fun. Pure unedited, great fun.

I feel quite nostalgic now. But really I loved wrestling when I was a child. All those great characters like The Undertaker, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H. All those fantastic matches those people were involved with like the dreaded Hell in a Cell, a journey through hell in the Inferno Match, and the brutality of the Hardcore Match.

So what's wrestling like nowadays? Well............there's John Cena who is the Face of WWE, Gimmick PPVs, a Divas division that had obviously seen better days, and honestly......no fun at all.

Maybe the time has come to review my own status as a wrestling fan, and whether my time has come full circle. I will give my opinions on the times when I first became a wrestling fan and how times have changed throughout the years. This is wrestling........yeaaaa........

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where to start?  Perhaps a little brief description and a quick history is in order.

For those who don't know, WWE is a popular (I say popular :P) pro-wrestling company reaching all around the world, using storylines as the basis for entertainment and high-profile matches. The head of WWE is Vince McMahon, whom I will be talking about a little bit in this throwback.

I was 8-9 years old when I got into the world of the World Wrestling Federation (the popular name for WWE at the time). It was during the time when the 'Attitude Era' was coming into full swing. The Undertaker was feuding with the deranged Mankind, The Rock was fast becoming a rising star, and one of my favourite wrestlers was a man called Goldust (which might explain a lot about my childhood with my KISS and Joker costumes :P). To be honest I don't always remember this time of my childhood, possibly because my brother and me kept beating the shit out of each other (mercilessly I might add with pillows). But thanks to playing WWE 13, I caught up with what was happening with the popular storylines.

But it was around 1999/2000 that I got fully committed into a world I loved and kept looking up results on WWF.com as I went along. By this time Stone Cold had been out for some time, leaving Triple H and The Rock fighting it out for the WWF Title in my first memorable feud.  I do remember that I was completely lead on by the result of that match, thinking the Rock had won. However discovered to my annoyance that Triple H had won. Curse you, you little schoolyard berk. Your ass is grass!

As time went on, I followed the world of WWF with great passion watching how a twatty American Olympic Hero (commonly known as Kurt Angle) became the WWF champion, going into a 6 man Hell in a Cell match. Obviously there was blood all over the place. Despite this however, Mr. Twat retained the championship. Because he was a twat.

But the next year, 2001 was a very special year (or a shit one considering how you look at it). What happened was WWF's rival World Championship Wrestling (known as WCW went out of business, maybe due to their heads possibly smoking weed at the time, but I'm sure there were other reasons). WWF subsequently brought out some of the WCW roster's contracts and started a memorable storyline called 'The Invasion'. This was essentially WCW trying to destroy WWF. Another twist was when another wrestling company called Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) forged an Alliance with WCW and took on the WWF in the second half of 2001. WWF won at the Survivor Series in November in a 10 man elimination tag-team match (5 vs 5) and became the dominate wrestling promoter. Now this is where things get a bit interesting, which I will come back to later.

After this Pay-Per-View, the 'Attitude' Era slowly passed way towards the 'Ruthless Aggression' era, and quite annoyingly, WWF changed its name to World Wrestling Entertainment in the early days (thanks to a panda who sued because it was called Wilfred William Fredrickson who didn't in fact wrestle and wanted to stop people teasing him about the name). The era introduced new wrestlers as the destructive Brock Lesnar (who was a twat at first), a young John Cena (whom to some happy wrestling fans no one really cared about) and an also young Randy Orton (pre-dating anger issue days). But of course it also welcomed back Old School wrestlers back into the fold such as the legendary Hulk Hogan (before sex-tapes), the equally iconic Shawn Michaels (before retirement tapes) and the secondly iconic Kevin Nash (still in his knee breaking days. Seriously he broke his quads in quick succession in a couple years. Must have walked under a ladder maybe).

This era lasted from around 2001/2002 to 2008 and contained quite memorable matches such as the rivalry between Shawn Michaels and Triple H, Eddie Guerrero vs Brock Lesnar, John Cena vs JBL, Randy Orton vs Chris Benoit, the list is quite long. However of course more so then any other era, 'Ruthless Aggression' had more tragic and horrifying moments that overshadowed WWE for many years. I will point out two of the main ones:

1.       Eddie Guerrero was on the up and rise as the most popular wrestler in living memory. But on November 13^th 2005, Eddie sadly passed away from a heart attack while staying at a hotel. This came as a complete shock to me and other wrestling fans around the world. The next Raw became a tribute show to Eddie and all storylines were cancelled. Tributes poured in and wrestler talked at length about their memories about him (his close friend Rey Mysterio actually taking off his mask after he had finished his statement). Nothing like this had happened since the tragic death of Owen Hart 6 years prior, and it still surely stings in the hearts of many in the world of wrestling.

2.       Chris Benoit was also becoming a main event attraction in WWE. However in the course of one weekend in June 2007, his reputation and good name was systematically destroyed by his own doing. The June 25^th Raw show started off as another tribute to Chris Benoit as it was sadly revealed that he had also died. It was revealed shortly after a police investigation that Benoit had actually committed the murder of both his wife and his young son before killing himself over that three day period. Since then Benoit has been near completely erased from WWE history and no mention has been made of him ever since. There are many theories as to why he committed these murders, but as much no motivation has been made clear for these deplorable actions.

What makes this more sadder is that both men won their brand's respective top titles on the night of WWE's flagship PPV, Wrestlemania XX in 2004 and now they have disappeared of the face of the earth. One man remembered greatly and remains popular to this day, the other with blood on his hands, his reputation dead in the water. Both events shocked me very much and writing about those times almost brought tears to my eyes.

A year later, WWE overhauled its image into more family friendly territory, which has become recently known as the 'PG' era. Gone was the blood and swearing and hardcore matches. Entering through was a new world of gimmick pay-per-views, children as the source of market produce, and the focusing of one John Cena as the company's 'Face' (whom pretty much became a Hulk Hogan clone from the 80s. Except without a beard............ And the bandana..............and the initial awesomeness. You can guess I was never a massive John Cena fan from the off. Twas getting into my rock persona back then).

Now this era has received a lot of criticism from some of the fan-base (or WWE universe in the loop), some of which I will talk about in good time.

There weren't many memorable feuds around this time. The two that stood out I guess were obviously the Shawn Michaels vs Undertaker fued (which gave the best match in the world at Wrestlemania 25 which I probably still need to see) and the Cena vs Nexus feud. The former resulted in Shawn Michaels retiring from the sport and two great matches, the latter resulting in a failed stable and failed storyline in a way. Also this was a point where I steered away from wrestling for a time as I was quite busy with university work so I don't really remember what was properly happening around this time (though the anonymous GM storyline I kept up with and ultimately found silly when it came to its conclusion.

But then in February 2011, The Rock made a surprise return to 'home' and proceeded to rip apart John Cena. Because only The Rock could do that with great awesomeness. Over the months, things slowly changed in terms of content, such as swearing slowly became common-place once more and apparently chairs and the steel steps around the arena being used as well. Everything cultivated in July that year when CM Punk worked a promo, berating John Cena and the current product. That same month, CM Punk won his first WWE championship.

The 'PG' era thus became the 'Reality' Era, where use of tweeting (which I found kinda stupid) and other social media to promote the WWE into a new limelight (which worked ingeniously with the accidental racism in one of the characters. Luckily that was quashed and no-body remembers it......there's no elephant in the room......Honest!!). Of course there were rises of new superstars such the ever-hungry Ryback, the Triple H of the past rip-off Damien Sandow and the new recent stable from WWE's developmental grounds, The Shield.

I think the company slightly improved now, but still the way that storylines and characters are played out, there is a great divide between the main event stars and the middle to lower stars in terms of.....caring? that too strong a word?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for my views. What's changed since I started watching and what's changed now? What I would like to go into is 5 major points that I think are appropriate to look at some differences between then and now.

1.       1. Main event stars.

      

      In the past you had a number of superstars to love and loathe. You had Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, The Undertaker, Kane, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Shawn Michaels, Mick Foley etc. You had at least 10 main event stars from that time period so there was someone to like out of a good even number. Nowadays you have obviously John Cena, Randy Orton........erm......Ryback? (yea he's getting pushed into the main event scene), Alberto Del Rio, Sheamus, CM Punk. At least 5 superstars wrestling on a full time basis. That's nearly half of how many superstars were in the main event 10 years ago.

      There is a bit of choice there still, but really for me I don't personally care about these people. CM Punk is probably the most popular out of these guys, but actually he hasn't been in a main event on a PPV for a good while, even as WWE Champion. The company always puts the emphasis on John Cena in many aspects, even when he wasn't in the title picture recently with his feud against the "up-and-coming" Dolph Ziggler (up and coming is a strong phrase, more repeatedly used cannon fodder against more popular superstars). Even if John Cena is the 'Face' of the WWE, should you really have ONE person as the overall powerhouse of the company?

      This is something I have been thinking about for a bit. Fair enough, you need someone to promote the business. But does it need to be just one person who is made out to be the best in the world? If everything was equalled out between superstars, it might showcase them as also the best in the world AND show off WWE's strength in numbers as having the best superstars in the business. This is possibly a bad move on WWE's bad, because really one superstar doesn't make a business.

2.     2. John Cena

      Cena is one of the most controversial superstars today. Not because he hasn't done anything bad. But because of the character he plays on television. A section of the fans really hate him and want him to turn into a bad character to living things up. Erm......no. I think the problem is the creative staff in part. Cena is booked to win almost everytime, and if he must lose, it's due to interference or someone costing him a match. The last time he lost cleanly (meaning without cheating or outside interference) was to The Rock at last year's Wrestlemania. And I don't think anyone remembers the last time he tapped out at all. (They should do a storyline around that, it would make for interesting viewing!)

      Unfortunately, a character like this is not original. This has happened before in the middle 1980s with Hulk Hogan. He was booked as the biggest superstar in the world and lost sometimes by interference in matches and was cost world titles matches as well. However when Hogan stayed down, he stayed down. Cena does not. Going back very quickly to the Cena vs Nexus feud, there was meant to be a huge match against a group of WWE superstars and the recently formed Nexus stable. Cena at one point was the last man and hit onto exposed concrete. However, Cena recovered quickly and then proceeded to defeat the remaining two members. Ok some superstars should be superhuman, but not at the point of being hit onto concrete which should effectively knock someone out. Interestingly, in a main event last December, John Cena is about to claim victory by climbing a ladder, yet is pushed over and proceeds to be knocked out after hitting the ropes below. O_O . Great creative writing WWE! Just Great!

      Now I've argued for that side of hating John Cena, let's be impartial for a minute and look at the good side of his character as the 'Face'.

      For a start, he is quite popular with the children in the Make-a-Wish foundation, granting over 300 wishes to meet him! And apparently, no other celebrity comes close, clocking in around the 200 mark. That is a really fantastic feat in on itself, and keeps him remaining popular with the target market.  I don't remember reading ever of 'Attitude' Era wrestlers getting asked to do that, though admittedly that would have something to do with the TV rating WWE had at the time. Also quite recently, WWE had a promotional deal with the Susan G. Komen for the Cure (a cancer foundation) for breast cancer awareness month and of course, John Cena promoted a pink/black wristband and t-shirt to promote this. So there is a good point to this character making a connection with children and women, especially when it's the target audience. It really helps the company to promote him as a hero to women and kids.

      There is also a point that Cena's merchandise is also possibly a big money maker for the company. If true (and it's more than likely), then WWE is doing the right thing for the business. Capitalising on a popular figure would bring in more revenue for any company, and John Cena would have been raking it in for the last 7/8 years since being at the top. It would be foolhardy to the point of insanity to NOT have Cena on TV (which has happened before and ratings dropped. o_o oops).

      So really the case with Cena is a tough one. I think that while Cena is a necessity to the business for his popular image, his character might need some revamping but not too much so fans don't recognise him at all. Maybe have him lose cleanly once in a while and possibly tap out to a superstar that looks capable of doing the act.

3. Domination

The third point I want to talk about is going back to the 5 vs 5 elimation tag team match I mentioned earlier.

One of the reasons why WWE went towards a more edgier product in the first place was that it was dominated virtually by WCW for over 80 weeks. Eventually, WWE overcame its problems and became the dominant force, while WCW floundered and devastatingly crashed due to all sorts of problems (possibly from backstage personal smoking weed. I'm sure even the fans could smell it). When it did, WWE brought out not just WCW but also ECW (because they had all sorts of financial problems, though not on a bigger scale of crap as WCW had). So WWE had pretty much taken out two birds with one stone, becoming the most dominant wrestling promotion in the United States.

Nowadays, WWE has a minor rival in TNA Impact Wrestling (which would be true in saying that it is WWE's graveyard where all its former stars go to). But really, TNA is kind of a minnow in comparison to WWE. No disrespect to any of its fan, but it probably would be crushed. In fact, it did go head-to-head with WWE for a few months when it changed time-slots to Mondays, against WWE Raw. However, ratings didn't really change much and TNA eventually moved back to its Thursday night slot.

So in essence, WWE has no competition. Nothing to challenge the business in terms of major star power and creative storylines. Essentially to a Western audience, WWE IS wrestling. And unless one gets into wrestling, WWE is all we think about. If there was another company to take up WWE into another war of ratings, it would be interesting to watch. But in this day and age, it's highly unlikely for the moment. For now, WWE is the dominant wrestling product expanded worldwide, and there's nothing we can do about it for the minute.

4.  Female Wrestlers

Like the main event stars of the past, you had many memorable Divas (women wrestlers) ranging across the roster, like the Canadian's favourite daughter Trish Status, to the high-flying Lita, the psychopathic Victoria, and the 9^th Wonder of the World Chyna (whose profession nowadays is.........porn. Yeah apologies for destroying any childhood dreams).

In WWE now, there are...............this girl called AJ.......and that girl called Kaitlyn.......ok I'm going to be honest. The Divas division is absolute shit. There are no recognisable favourite Divas in the company anymore (apart from AJ and she doesn't even wrestle). During the early part of 2000s, there were many interesting female characters that audiences loved to watch and loved in general. But leading on from that, Trish Status and Lita retired in late 2006. Now I'm sure that there were a few interesting divas after they left. But watching many WWE matches in today's product, the matches do not last very long at least around 2 minutes in comparison to some matches lasting at least around 7-10 minutes in the past.

Now one argument could be made that women could be weaker than men in terms of how much their bodies could take in a match. However, I counter this with the fact that women have competed in steel cage and hardcore matches. So that argument immediately becomes invalid (no pun intended with said meme).  There should be a match of Trish Status vs Victoria at Survivor Series 2002 on Youtube, so check it out when you find the time. Lot of stuff involving a trash can!

Another argument that continues to this day is that backstage, the Divas division is taken less seriously. This does look to be the case. Former diva Gail Kim have aired grivences about the state of the division, claiming that those in charge didn't want the Divas to upstage the men, and that they wanted more "girliness" in matches. Another former diva Tara has said that "a story cannot be told in 4 minutes with 2 entrances". What she means is that the length of time that WWE is showing the Diva matches as such a short length doesn't allow a proper storyline to develop. This could be taken as a criticism towards the creative department for, lack of a better, not properly using female wrestlers greatly. Also for some reason, Natalya (a third generation wrestler from the much respected Hart Family) had a farting gimmick. That didn't go anywhere and annoyed a lot of fans who thought that it showed the lacking of seriousness taken with the Divas, making it disrespectful.

However, I think this isn't fully true. In 2011 WWE showed promos of certain TNA wrestler called Awesome Kong, whom was dubbed 'Kharma'. Immediately, she was a forced to be reckoned with and possibly create more dramatic tension in the devision. Unfortunately, Kharma had gotten pregnant and ultimately had to take time off, derailing the character and taking WWE back to square one. Since then, nothing of significance has really happened with the division.

The last thing I should mention is how much competition there is in the division. ............erm is there? Of the 10 members of the Divas roster, 5 of them are not valets for male superstars. With few numbers, there isn't much competition to speak of, especially if their title isn't going to change hands anytime soon.

The Divas Division has gone downhill quite significantly these past few years from the looks of things. With no proper direction and proper creative storylines to use for the divas, things look to stay the same, and not for the better. Hopefully, things will change in future, but for now, use the time for divas matches as a loo break if you like. It's what everyone else does!

5. The Storylines

Now this will be quite interesting to talk about. Many internet fans voice a lot of displeasure towards the WWE creative writers week in and week out for what is shown on TV. Though not to be too harsh on them, they are having to write and re-write material every week for approval to go on the show, sometimes even a few hours before the show is due to air live or taped, and possibly all this has to be approved by Vince McMahon himself (so you could probably blame him for the Divas problem if you like). I'm going to try and attempt to look at two storylines from past and present, good and bad.

The first good storyline I will talk about from the 'Attitude Era' is what could be considered the longest feud ever to occur: Stone Cold Steve Austin vs. Vince McMahon. It started the night after Wrestlemania 14. Austin had won the WWF championship and McMahon wanted him to conform since Austin wasn't, in his eyes, the correct image of a champion. Austin promptly gave him a stunner. Throughout the year and well into 1999, the two fought each other with various degrees of success for both sides. Eventually, the feud ended in July at the Fully Loaded PPV, where Austin won and early stipulations required that McMahon would never appear on WWF television again.

This was an immensely popular feud, bringing WWF back into the ratings war against WCW. There were definite moments I remember from this and have relived over again as I played WWE 13. I think I had more fun playing the game than watching the experience! I'm thinking that this was a necessity for WWE to happen, because if it hadn't then WWE wouldn't be as greatly remembered then what it was.

Now for the shit storyline. Get a bucket in case you feel quezy after you hear this. Some of you might remember Mark Henry, who was in his 'Sexual Chocolate' gimmick at the time. He started going out with Mae Young. Who was around 70 years old at the time. And then got pregnant. And got power-bombed through a table. And gave birth. To a hand.

Good thing you got that bucket out didn't ya? This was a disturbing storyline (though the words Katie Vick might destroy some more credibility) and completely bizarre. The only defense for this is that WWE were trying to use different shocking storylines during the Attitude Era to bring in a more adult audience. Though saying that, I don't think giving birth to a hand counts. I hope you agree with me on this. Please?

Now onto the present storylines. One of the more recent ones I got interested in was the CM Punk vs John Cena storyline in 2011. CM Punk had a massive real -life rant on stage about how he is the best 'wrestler' in the WWE, how people kiss Vince McMahon's ass, how he should be promoted as one of the best, and finally attacking Vince McMahon himself. This set off fans world-wide and got many people behind him. Eventually everything came to a head at the July PPV, Money in the Bank. I literally sat up until the end of the show at 4 in the morning, watching how CM Punk defeated John Cena to become the next WWE champion. That was properly the best shock I have ever had watching as a fan. This was quite the storyline by creative and they at least had something to work with thanks to CM Punk's rant, with a great twist at the end.

The shit one I can definitely remember was the Anonymous General Manager storyline. In June 2010, Vince McMahon appointed a general manager who was to remain hidden for the time being. Over time, it seemed to be messing with our heads as to who the person actually was, using different quotes from past superstars. But really, the anonymous GM just went nowhere and after a year of being used and being a nuisance, they were quietly dropped, without any revelation. Now I'm guessing your thoughts are: what was the point? Well he was revealed in July 2012, as the loveable Hornswoggle............BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT EVER!!!! Seriously though, it was crap that WWE had Hornswoggle as the GM all this time and yet was meant to be built up as a game-changer. Quite a let-down I must say.

So you see there was quite a major difference between storylines from the past and now. WWE would go into quite bizarre and dark storylines during their feud with WCW. But some of them were at the least consistent and prompted great interest with the fans. It's kind of the same in today's product, but storylines still need to be thought out properly. Examples like the Anonymous GM and the Nexus storyline show how storylines with poorly planned endings can get egg on the company's face. I heard a quote saying that 'Once you have the ending, you can develop the story from there'. Or something along those lines. That then could make for good storytelling. But don't get me wrong, WWE do have good storylines. But sometimes they need to think about how they can complete them with at least a satisfactory payoff.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The final part of this wrestling I will review is my own status as a WWE fan which is so easy to do (ha bloody ha).

Nowadays with wrestling, I don't properly watch the shows as I used to. I use the Internet to get my fix of drugs.....erm WRESTLING NEWS, like results and hearing backstage know-how. I suppose it takes the fun of it when you know the results of the shows before their aired, but with live shows you get the results anyway. Also it is interesting to hear what does happen backstage with all the wrestlers and seeing who is getting a big push and what-not.

One thing I'm not massively interested in is the new generation of wrestlers shown on WWE nowadays. People like Kofi Kingston, Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio, Cody Rhodes, The Great Khali, even Ryback just don't have that appeal to me as a fan of wrestling. I don't care about these characters. Children aren't the only demographic, there are some adult men who like to watch wrestling (some of them bit more mad then others). But there are some older wrestlers still there I grew up with. Yet what will happen when all they stop? I'm not sure I would stay to watch wrestling if I'm not that invested into the new characters. And if I did, it will because of childhood nostalgia that isn't even there anymore.

Secondly, the only real WWE products I have brought in recent memory are of course the video games. And this is where the full circle notion comes in. I started playing the video games in 1997 with WWF War-Zone, all the way to WWE 13 which of course features the Attitude Era mode. This is where I thought it would appropriate to stop with all the wrestling, where I began my interest all those years ago. Sounds weird I know, but there you go. The Attitude Era Mode was a nostalgic trip for me and brought me into understanding that era a bit more than I did at the time. But it didn't make me want to stay into wrestling for so long.

Yet I still have a ridiculous passion for wrestling, I just can't escape it. Maybe it's still quite an obsession of mine to keep in my life, even though none of the characters really do it for me. Though I did give up watching it, because I didn't want my friends to think I was completely obsessed with wrestling :P.

I think for the moment, it might be worth while to wean myself off wrestling for a time at least until after Wrestlemania 29 because we all know what will happen there anyway. The Champ will Return. More importantly, will the Fan return? It's only a matter of time......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's my second article complete ! I hope you enjoyed this edition and keep tuned. Til the next fortnight, this is Si saying: Good night!