I’ll have what she’s having!!

Screenwriter Nora Ephron has died this week aged at 71, and as such I felt that I had to blog about her greatest screenwriting triumph – When Harry met Sally.

Ephron was without doubt the Queen of the romcom and When Harry met Sally is for me a classic of this genre, and a truly great film to boot. It is so good in fact, that I am always genuinely shocked when people haven’t seen it. Yet for all those who haven’t seen it, this is one of those films where everyone knows what it’s about.

Whether you’ve watched it or not, everyone knows that it stars Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal, and everyone knows that it contains a scene in which Meg Ryan’s character; Sally, fakes an orgasm in the middle of a crowded diner.

This scene is a highlight of the entire genre alone. The look of shock that registers on Billy Crystal’s face is classic, and I wonder how many men – who over the years have chosen to watch this film or been forced to endure it by their other halves, have been astounded and unnerved at Meg’s accurate portrayal.

I always think that while woman watching this scene are secretly laughing to themselves, the men sat next to them, are clearly, despite their sexual arrogance and what they’d admit to their mate, sitting more uncomfortably than they were only moments before.

I wonder how many women have been asked in the hours or days that have followed the climax of the film if they’ve ever faked anything, and better yet I wonder how many women have faked their answer. My bet would be a lot, and most with; “yes, but never with you!”

In a film that is tit for tat between a man and a woman throughout, a man and a woman who are both friends and then not friends, this scene is delightful and comedy gold. It also gives the scene over entirely to the female character. Sally holds all the cards over Harry in that moment, and her character has the power. Ephron makes Sally’s character bold and strong and she does it without any action, violence, sci-fi, magic, or foul language.

The other notorious moment in the film, and the one that for years left me in a quandary and almost unhappy with the film, is when Harry makes his quip about men and women not being able to be friends. He says; "You realise of course that we could never be friends... men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way.”

When I first watched this film I’m honestly not sure I was old enough to appreciate this statement, and I also have a lot of female friends now who de-cry that this is untrue. However, I don’t have any male friends who disagree with Harry’s sentiment.

Personally I don’t agree with the notion entirely, and I have a lot of male friends. I think that you can be friends with the opposite sex, and that the true warning of the film is actually that if you involve sex the friendship will be marred by it. Once sex is a factor you are usually going to either end up a couple, or as two people who were once friends!

I believe that it’s more than likely that if you’ve had a long standing friendship with someone of the opposite sex, over the years and at some point in time even if it’s just for the briefest of moment, one of the two people in the friendship will have harboured more than just platonic feelings. My male friends tell me that it can be as simple and as innocent as absent-mindedly wondering what you’d look like naked or be like in bed, and some of my female friends say that they have wondered what it would be like to kiss a certain male friend or potentially had a rogue dream or too.

Men and women can obviously be friends, and anyone who says otherwise needs to widen their horizons and get some more friends, and I think that a lot of relationships can stay purely platonic and that will be all that either people will ever want. Yet I think that drink, sex, and both of you being in bad emotional places at the same time, can cause issues with the friendship that same gender relationships perhaps can’t.

So maybe – just maybe, Harry wasn’t too far off the mark? Regardless, he does give pause for thought. It has also made a great conversation topic, and cause for many a heated argument between a mixed group of male and female friends since the film was released in 1989.

Thanks Nora Ephron for the film, for the ingenious scenes, and for the tantalising mischievous debate. When Harry Met Sally is a masterpiece, and a timeless romcom classic. 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Shades of Grey

Despite the Evening Standard and other newspapers making waves over the rise in the popularity of erotic literature this week, my blog is not actually about Fifty Shades of Grey. Although, as I have made reference to it, I will say that I don’t understand what all the fuss is about!

Erotic literature has been around for eons. If you wish to Wikipedia the topic you will see that the interest in this type of literature dates all the way back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

The only thing I find slightly fascinating about the whole “re-vamp” or “re-popularisation” of the genre is that it seems to have flowed from the publication of Fifty Shades of Grey, which I have yet to find a good review of. It seems that a blend of poorly written prose combined with a storyline that lifts heavily from teenage fiction (Twilight and the characters of Edward Cullen and Bella Swann) doesn’t do much for the critics – I can’t imagine why!

Yet as I say, the subject of erotic literature and Fifty Shades of Grey is not what this blog is about. In The Telegraph on Friday I came across this article; Woman who wants to die must be force-fed. The article is about the decision that has just been made regarding the life of an un-named 32 year old woman who suffers from anorexia.

 

From here on in, everything that I am likely to write is bound to be marred in some form of controversy and that is because this subject is sure to bring highly conflicting opinions.

 

My personal opinion on this case and article is that I don’t think that the right decision was made. Yet I must underlie this statement by saying that given the complexities of anorexia – which is so much more than just a physical illness, I appreciate that what a person wishes when suffering with this illness must often be ignored.

 

I do not therefore condone that every person suffering from anorexia who would rather die than be force-fed should be allowed to. In my opinion that would be nonsensical, and it would seem that in the vast majority of these cases that is the illness or disease of anorexia talking and these sufferers / patients should be treated by professionals and given a chance to get their lives back and learn to try and see the line between their own sense of mortality and that of the dark demon of “Ana”.

 

The reason I feel so differently in regards to the woman in The Telegraph article is because of all of the facts that surround both her illness and her desire not to be force-fed.

 

It is reported that she was physically abused between the ages of 4 and 12, and then began suffering from eating disorders. At 15 she was admitted to an adolescent eating disorder unit for treatment. The woman is now 32 and according to her barrister and family is completely aware of the decision she is making in regards to her own life, and in fact twice last year signed forms to say that she did not wish to be treated. In addition, at this point it is reported that she would be required to be force-fed for at least a year and at the end of this time she would still only have a 20% chance of survival. Her family are reported as saying that they wish to support her decision to refuse treatment.

 

Whether this case is completely unique or not, I do not know. I do know though that this topic and this type of case will never be a black and white subject.

I truly feel for the family and the woman, and I cannot agree with the decision that has been made by the judge. I accept that his must have been a horrendous job, and that whatever the outcome he would have had his critics and his advocates. Yet to my mind, this woman has suffered enough.

 

Force-feeding someone takes away their control, and will to my mind only cause further fear and pain to a woman who one can only assume is already deeply emotionally and physically scarred. When terminally ill patients no longer wish to accept treatments, such as chemotherapy for cancer patients, they make choices to refuse further treatment. It is a decision that they must make, and only they can know the rationale behind their decisions and I cannot see the difference in regards to this 32 year old woman.

 

I can already hear the cries as I type of “it is different!” But is it I ask back? Yes a terminal patient faces death anyway, but doesn’t this woman? A 20% chance of survival is not high, and I think it is probably clear that her will to live is much less than that. Should that not also be factored in here? Is it really fair to impose a year of force-feeding on her, because there is a belief that she will survive the year and at some point in the future she will be able to control her demons??

 

As I say, this is not a black and white subject and the area of grey seems to have no boundary here. So I will conclude by saying that surely if she is considered to be of sound mind, and her family are not against her wishes, this is a personal decision. 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

With Ricky Martin winning the Apprentice, is Lord Sugar living la vida loca?

It has been written and it will continue to be written for a while I feel sure, that yesterday the UK (or London more specifically) witnessed an event that has not been seen in many a long year. And an event that has never been seen on prime time television before!

No, I am not talking about the 1000 boat strong flotilla that graced the Thames yesterday for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, but instead the fact that Claude Littner (the best interviewer on the series the Apprentice) did not tear one of the candidates to shreds!

Interview week is without doubt my favourite week of the Apprentice series. It is great to finally see the candidates, who have over the course of 10 / 11 weeks made themselves look like idiots by acting less mature than primary school children in the boardroom (I really do always expect to see tears and not just from the girls), come under fire for their own self importance and arrogance.

If you’re not sure that the candidates always act immature, you must though agree that they certainly say some absolutely ludicrous and cringe worthy things. My two favourite quotes from the series have to be from Duane Bryan and Jenna Whittingham. Duane told another of this year’s candidates that; “you must never look a gift horse in the eye.”

Honestly this doesn’t even need a satirical remark from me as this mis-quote speaks for itself. But really, why oh why would you ever use a saying that you weren’t sure you had right. Though maybe I’m doing him a favour by thinking he mis-spoke, perhaps he genuinely didn’t know that that wasn’t the saying. Yet this either makes him a fool or forgetful, neither great traits when trying to become Lord Sugar’s business partner one wouldn’t have thought. If anyone who knows Duane is reading this, its mouth by the way and not eye! “Never look a gift horse in the mouth!”

In fairness to Duane though, his quote was nothing in comparison to Jenna’s blunder. Jenna during one of the tasks and on route to Edinburgh (where the task was set), asked fellow candidate and Scot Laura Hogg if she’d be able to understand and talk to the people if they spoke in Scottish. If you didn’t see this episode, find a clip and watch it because Jenna was being deadly serious!

I have to say when I was watching this episode and that comment was made, I was ready to pull out a vuvuzela from somewhere and blow it. That comment should have been an instant fireable offence on the grounds of stupidity!!

Anyway, back to topic – Interview week.

This is the week where Lord Alan Sugar brings in his most trusted advisors and lets them rip on his remaining candidates. As television goes, I always find this to be comedy and entertainment gold. Although I do wonder if any of these candidates have ever had interviews before? Yes, I appreciate that the advisors are possibly told to go OTT, and there is the extra pressure on the candidates because they know it’s televised, but still! If you apply for the Apprentice (and by this I mean the newer version of the Apprentice where it’s not for a job but to be Sugar’s business partner), then why can’t you answer basic questions on your business plan!

Aside from my issue with the candidates being occasionally open for ridicule, the entertainment gold comes from the interviewers. Who needs to watch a David Attenborough program on nature, when interview week is on? It is just like watching predators stalk their prey in the Serengeti, and they all have that give away look where you know they are about to pounce on the candidate, from Margaret Mountford’s eyebrow (love it!) to Claude Littner’s lean (brilliant!)

Yet yesterday I felt a little robbed. Claude Littner who has always provided the very best of the best entertainment from interview week – his best line ever being when he was interviewing Stuart Braggs – the Brand! The Brand (as he called himself) claimed that he was a big fish in a small pond. Littner’s response was; “you’re not even a fish!” It came after the end of a long drilling at which point Braggs looked like he was about to cry. I know I shouldn’t find someone else’s misery and pain entertaining, but isn’t that what reality television is all about!

But, imagine my disappointment yesterday when Littner didn’t attack yet more cajole Ricky Martin (winner of the Apprentice). I found it highly disheartening when he told him he thought he had a good business plan – that’s not entertainment gold, that’s like watching the good kid in the class’s parent evening! Dull! Thankfully though, Littner still made excellent attacks on the other three candidates, so I wasn’t left feeling totally short changed on my viewing amusement.

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk