Archive for the 'Pieces' Category

Warston Spring 2012: Links, visitors and the future

wspring.jpg

Since September, Warston grew a lot. In terms of visitors and team.
We’ve had new writers, we’ve launched The Log and we finally had a decent growth in visitors.
For the following weeks, Warston will wear new clothes. The main URL (http://www.warston.com/) will automatically redirect to Warston Links. We will soon enter exam mode and we won’t really have the time to write the enjoyable bits and pieces you are used to. However, we’ve decided to keep content up so we opted for links. Images, videos are considered as links and a little comment from time to time won’t hurt anybody.
This is impermanent and is part of Warston Spring 2012.
Oh and yes! I almost forgot: you can now submit your own link or image/whatever for publication on Warston Links. Keep them coming!
We hope you like it, do tell us if you have a suggestion.

Why Facebook bought Instagram

It’s been a long time since bloggers and technophiles alike haven’t been surprised as much as when they heard the news of Facebook buying Instagram. 1 billion dollar, in cash and stock to share between only a handful of people. The Economist provides a good contextual report:

On April 9th Facebook announced that it was splashing out precisely that sum of money in cash and shares to acquire Instagram, a mobile-only, photo-sharing social network that is barely two years old and has a dozen or so employees. The move by the world’s largest social network, which is preparing for an initial public offering (IPO) in America, has stunned even veterans of Silicon Valley’s boom-and-bust cycles.Their consternation has been fuelled by rumours that Instagram had just closed a venture-capital funding round that valued it at some $500m, up from $100m in a previous financing. By forking out $1 billion for the outfit now, Facebook is effectively doubling the value that smart investors reportedly assigned to Instagram only a week or so ago. The financiers, who just picked up a chunk of the company or expanded their existing stakes in it, will no doubt be doing a jig down Sand Hill Road, the epicentre of the venture community in California.

So why? What happened? Why would Facebook pay a billion dollar for a company that has a 0$ revenue? Some think it’s the end of the current tech bubble, others, like Om Malik have more convincing explanations:

Facebook was scared shitless and knew that for first time in its life it arguably had a competitor that could not only eat its lunch, but also destroy its future prospects. Why? Because Facebook is essentially about photos, and Instagram had found and attacked Facebook’s achilles heel — mobile photo sharing.

I have to say that I agree with Om, Instagram has the best user experience when it comes to photo sharing. Facebook wants that because Facebook is essentially about photos. Mark Zuckerberg, in a post on his timeline said the two companies will grow closer but Instagram would remain independent. We’ll see about that.
Tidbits of information regarding what Facebook is doing with Instagram are already surfacing. According to Inside Facebook, the two teams have worked together for weeks on rolling out the Open Graph to Instagram:

Open Graph lets applications create “actions” that can be published automatically to Facebook. These apps compile user activity over time and share summaries of that activity on Timeline. For Instagram, that action is “took a photo.” We first saw evidence of an Instagram Open Graph app in mid-March. Late last week, we noticed a few more users who got access to the app, but even today it has not gone live for all Instagram users who have connected their accounts with Facebook.

This would be a solid beginning that is reminiscent of how Spotify is now “part” of Facebook. I’m sure Facebook is planning an Instagram update where users will be able to tag their Facebook friends in the Instagram photos. If this disturbs you, well, you’re not alone.
On GigaOM, Om writes about how people are reacting to the deal. Mainly with black pictures uploaded in protest:

One of my favorite Instagramers, Elise Marie, shared a black screen in protest of the deal. There is a #instablack hash-tag that has been created to protest the deal. Clicking on #facebook on the service exposes one to even more photos expressing disappointment. When I posted a snapshot of my own previous story, many left comments that expressed a sense of loss and hurt. “Happy for the instagram crew. Bummed though, instagram was my fb alternative. Who trusts Facebook?” wrote @emersonnh.

As always, time and time only will give us more insight on what happened. But this is nothing short of extraordinary, it has somehow sparked a feeling of excitement that has been gone for too long. If you want to learn more about Instagram’s history, check out this article on TechCrunch/a. I once wrote that startups entered the entertainment age last April. You might want to check that too and tell me about it

Battleship and the toy-to-film bandwagon

They’re making a movie about Lego. Quirky documentary this ain’t – Lego: The Movie will be a feature-length animated adventure. Set for release in 2014, the Danish toy company’s Hollywood debut is being made by the team behind 21 Jump Street. Director Phil Lord and scribe Christopher Miller are keeping the details quiet, but the film is rumoured to be set in a universe made entirely from Lego. As Lord says, “If there’s water or clouds or a big explosion, that will be made out of Lego.” It’s not your standard film set-up. So why is it being made?

Toy-based films are becoming common phenomena. Transformers and GI Joe are now massive global movie franchises, having experienced great box office success. The Transformers movies alone have grossed over $2.6 billion. A large part of this profit is probably attributable to the public’s hunger for extravagant special effects – Transformers has more explosions than Optimus Prime can shake a circuit board at. But  according to studio bigwigs, a large part of Transformers’ initial success was due to its familiarity. Many people had grown up with Transformers toys and television shows, and this meant that the original Transformers film had a large, eager audience ready and waiting. As a result, the studios now believe that if a toy is popular enough, it can be a viable basis for a movie.

Cue Battleship. Based on the classic board game, Battleship is a $200 million movie funded by United Artists. For those who missed out, the table-top Battleship is a two-player affair in which each person tries to guess the coordinates of the other’s navy and sink it. There are no characters beyond those conjured up in the player’s imagination, no figurines with names, identities or back stories. This places it in stark contrast to the character-driven worlds of Transformers and GI Joe. Can a movie adaptation of a protagonist-lacking board game really illicit a feverous box-office response? Perhaps. From the studios’ perspective, the important thing is that for many of us, “Battleship” is a familiar word. The game has been around since 1967 and has become a part of popular culture. We may not be passionate about it, but we understand it. We automatically think of the naval search-and-destroy concept and dramatic seaborne warfare. We’re taken back to our childhood living rooms and the fun we had (or not) trying to guess where sly sibling could be hiding aircraft carriers. It’s nostalgic, and the studios reckon we’ll be curious to see how it makes the transition to the silver screen.

So where does the toy-to-screen bandwagon go from here? If movies based on board games are successful at the box office, can we expect Jenga: Escape From Wobbly Tower any time soon? There’s no reason why not. Creative limitations can actually facilitate a slicker and more focussed plot. Just take a look at the wacky premise for Monopoly: The Movie, helmed by accomplished director Ridley Scott. Of course, there’s  a danger this kind of film will increasingly rely on the curiosity factor to draw the crowds, and in the process forgo good storytelling. Indeed, films like Transformers and Battleship do suffer from lazy scriptwriting and tired visuals. But toy-based films needn’t be dreadful. A film about Lego can go in many directions….imagine the comedic potential of swapped body parts, or painful plastic rain. I look to Lego: The Movie with hope.

FILM REVIEW: The Hunger Games, 12A, 142 mins

Yoshihiko Ueda is a Japanese photographer who takes pictures of the Quinault Rainforest in Washington. You can check out some of his work here. There’s something very comforting about seeing such an unspoiled forest – it’s a reminder that the western world still has its pockets of mystery. Forests like Quinault are places to go when life in the city gets a little too lairy, or – as in the case of Katniss Everdeen, the protagonist of latest blockbuster The Hunger Games - when the reality of living in a coal-mining ghetto becomes a bit too much to bear. Beyond the perimeter fence and beneath the canopy, Katniss has space to think. And hunt. She’s a strong sixteen year old, and after she puts herself forward in place of her sister to fight in the annual Hunger Games – a televised battle to the death between twenty four children, two from each of the twelve ghetto districts – we suspect we could be onto a winner. But what makes The Hunger Games such a fascinating watch is the fact that for all her guile, Katniss is no killer.

The silver-screen adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ hit book The Hunger Games has been hotly tipped as the successor to the Twilight and Harry Potter films. Katniss is the latest in a series of young protagonists dealing with issues of love and mortality before the backdrop of a forest. But Collins’ heroine marks a satisfying break from the doe-eyed romantic so pervasive in female teenage literature. Katniss does have a couple of love interests, but first and foremost she’s a figurehead of resistance, subverting the morbid wishes of the wealthy Capitol to which the twelve districts are subservient. There’s certainly a lot resting on the shoulders of Jennifer Lawrence, the actress selected to play her.

As it turns out, Lawrence is the force which makes The Hunger Games tick. Oscar-nominated for her role in Winter’s Bone, she continues to demonstrate a fierce capacity to temper strength with vulnerability. A good deal of The Hunger Games is spent watching Katniss silently slink through the forest battle-ground, and what could have been a dull fight sequence is made alive by Lawrence’s desperate resilience. We never feel detached from Katniss, which is quite something considering she spends a good portion of the film pandering to the inhabitants of the Capitol in an attempt to gain sponsors for the battle. Lawrence switches with ease between caring older sister, uneasy reality television star and hardy warrior, and – in the absence of the first person narrative present throughout the book – the consistency of character exuded from her bold black eyes is impressive indeed. What’s more, she has a fine supporting cast, with an excellent appearance from Woody Harrelson as Katniss’ drunken but well-meaning battle mentor, and a welcome return of American Beauty’s Wes Bentley as the sadistic games master.

As Lawrence points out in an interview, this isn’t just another popcorn movie. Director Gary Ross has a careful artistic eye and skillfully realises the various settings of Collins’ dystopian America. Katniss’ ghetto home is a realistic mixture of wood huts and telegraph poles; its grittiness is accentuated through shaky hand-held camera shots. The Capitol, meanwhile, is a joyous exercise is decadent production design: its inhabitants look like futuristic extras from Alice in Wonderland. And the forest battleground, much like Katniss’ local forest, is a cool blend of blue and green. The distinct locations are not only pleasing to look at – they imbue the film with energy; switching between them affords The Hunger Games a pace which sweeps us along at speed.

The Hunger Games is one of those rare commodities: a story which survives the transition from book to film. The ending is perhaps lacklustre, but it’s inevitable that much will be left hanging – The Hunger Games is the first chapter in a trilogy, after all. The 12A certificate is also something of a surprise, given the film’s dark premise. As it happens, much of the violence is hidden using careful cinematography – and this isn’t really a problem, because The Hunger Games was never supposed to be a gore-fest anyway. More than anything, it’s a timely tale about the repulsiveness of reality television. Yes, it has similarities with Battle Royale, another film in which children must fight to death, but The Hunger Games has a voice of its own, and gifts us with a well-realised world full of original and believable characters. I now have a guilty desire to read Catching Fire.

* * * *

FILM REVIEW: 21 Jump Street, 15, 109 mins

Jonah Hill has slimmed down. The tubby Superbad days are over. It’s almost a shock to see him looking so slender, yet closer inspection reveals a fair amount of girth still clinging to his person – he’s no athlete, and he’s certainly not the high-school sports superstar his cop character is forced to portray in 21 Jump Street. A new synthetic drug has hit the classrooms of Sagan High, and cops Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) are ordered to take up false student identities, infiltrate the school, and find the supplier. But after a mix-up in the headmaster’s office, Schmidt is mistaken for a sporty drama student, whilst the muscular Jenko is sent to the chemistry lab. Seeing two grown men readjust to high-school life is funny enough; watching them squirm in their unnatural classroom roles is priceless.

In a world of endless movie remakes and sequels, it was perhaps inevitable the studios would eventually turn their heads towards the much-loved 1980s crime drama 21 Jump Street. But this is one remake which embraces its heritage without descending into pastiche. There are plenty of nods to the original Jump Street - there’s even a cameo from its original star – but our 2012 update never feels tired or overworked. What could have been a lacklustre homage turns out to be a strangely satisfying medley of the well-worn buddy-cop and action-comedy formulas.

This is largely due to some smart casting calls. Tatum is not well-known for comedy – if anything, he’s more of a romance guy. Yet many of the funniest scenes in 21 Jump Street stem from his particular brand of detached deadpan humour. As a previous jock, Jenko tries to exude a sense of effortless cool, but quickly finds that he’s no longer considered as such. The cool clique of Sagan High worry about the environment and Berkeley admissions. Jenko’s couldn’t-give-a-damn attitude no longer cuts it. He’s a fish out of water, and – in a slightly tragic kind of way – it’s funny to watch him flounder. Tatum lends Jenko a certain doltishness, and whether Jenko is coming to terms with his new status at the bottom rung of the high-school social ladder or desperately trying to avoid probing questions regarding his manly physique, Tatum’s dry, matter-of-fact responses are comedy gold.

But what really makes 21 Jump Street a worthwhile watch is the bromance. Jenko and Schmidt have a history: back when they were real students, Jenko was a bully and Schmidt a nerd. Having them return to school as undercover cops pretending to be brothers is fantastically stupid. This relationship could have been written as a dumb farce-fest (think Will Ferrel and John Reilly in Step Brothers) but writer Michael Bacall gives us something pleasingly multi-layered. It’s no character study, but there’s an interesting dynamic between the two cops: each lacks something (be it brains or brawn) and watching them attempt to duplicate the strengths of the other is endearing as well as humorous.

I’ve never seen the original Jump Street. I’m probably prime target audience, entering the cinema with no preconceptions as to how Jump Street should be. Although the film is at times a little predictable, and perhaps a little too self-knowing (one cop actually realises he is a cliché), the unlikely pairing between Hill and Tatum produces an unlikely chemistry, and this more than makes up for any shortcomings the plot may have. The future of remakes is a little less bleak.

* * * *

How bribery can help prevent AIDS

Zomba Plateau
The Zomba Plateau.

In many parts of Africa, money-based relationships that vacillate between marriage and prostitution, by old men with younger girls are one of the main transmitters of HIV. And most of the time, it’s not because the girls want it to be like that.

To explain that, some have formulated an hypothesis stating that if we gave these teenage girls an option for an alternative source of money, they could, for instance, stay in school and so they would be less likely to get infected.

Berk Özler, an economist in the World Bank (blog here) with a team of colleagues have conducted an experiment where they randomised clinical trials of the idea that money, and money alone, can stop the spread of HIV.

In the Zomba district of Malawi, they recruited almost 1300 never-married women between 13 and 22. They opted to divide Zomba in 176 areas where a computer assigned randomly a different type of the same treatment. In some areas women were simply monitored. In other areas, they and their parents received small amounts of money each month (between $1 and $5 for the women, and between $4 and $10 for the parents). In some other ares, the money was given only if girls promised to attend school.

Unpaid women had suffered more than twice the HIV infection rate experienced by the paid women over the course of 18 months.

The Economist:

Intriguingly, there was no difference between the infection rate suffered by those required to go to school and those who received the money unconditionally. Whether the actual amount of money mattered was not clear. For that to emerge a larger sample would be needed.

Those attempting to stop the spread of AIDS have, in the past, tried many ways of getting people to change their behaviour in order to reduce the risk of infection. They have extolled, exhorted and even threatened, all to little avail. They have not, though, previously, resorted to bribery. But it seems to work.

FILM REVIEW: Wanderlust, 15, 98 mins

Few reach Elysium. In ancient Greek mythology, it’s the place in  the underworld reserved for the righteous. And it’s supposed to be bliss. Those deemed worthy could expect an eternity of paradise, living with fruit aplenty and mind unfettered. The Greeks certainly wouldn’t refuse a ticket  to enter it. But flick forward two millennia and New Yorkers George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) seem a little hesitant. Of course, the Elysium offered to them isn’t the mythical ecstasy isle of yore, but a rural hippie commune just outside Atlanta. Having lost their jobs, our city-dwellers decide to go searching for a new way of life and stumble upon a welcoming New Age community named after the mythical idyll. The minds of its members seem relatively unfettered, and the fruit is certainly aplenty. But our urban couple is used to a different way of life, and so commit to a two-week stay only after much deliberation. Can this Elysium really offer salvation for the denizens of the city?

So begins Wanderlust, the latest comedy from director David Wain. The commuters-turning-hippies premise is certainly promising, and with casting like Aniston and Rudd, you’d think this ought to be a pretty funny film. The scriptwriters haven’t held back in the joke department – they bombard us right from the get-go with quip after quip. George falls over a cab. Linda pitches a documentary about penguins with testicular cancer. George falls asleep on top of Linda. Etcetera. Within ten minutes we’ve had the full tour of Manhattan life through the funny lens. Much like the sitcoms Aniston knows so well, Wanderlust taps the funny bone relentlessly.

In fact, it never lets up. On the way to Atlanta, George and Linda try to find somewhere to rest for the night. They turn down the road to Elysium, thinking it’s a regular B&B, and are confronted by a nudist. There are no clever concealing camera angles to be found here - Wanderlust is an ‘R’ rated picture, after all. Nakedness abounds throughout, as does drug-taking and F-bomb dropping. In one memorable scene, George – having been given permission to engage in the commune’s free-love initiative – spews obscenities at himself  in front of a mirror in an attempt to lather  up a sexual frenzy. It’s all pretty crude. That’s not to say obscenity can’t be amusing – it undoubtedly can. But Wanderlust’s vulgar jokes too often fall the foul side of funny, sticking to a routine formula of awkward pause following profanity.

Wanderlust embodies a very particular kind of humour. Judd Apatow, the film’s producer, has a whole string of similar works to his name. He’s overseen pictures such as Get Him To The Greek and Pineapple Express -  pictures which, like Wanderlust, revel unabashedly in poor taste. But unlike in these films, Wanderlust’s central characters aren’t distinctive enough to grant the lewd humour a fresh edge. Vulgarity is funny, provided it’s not repeated incessantly, and provided those expressing the vulgarity be funny themselves. To be honest, it’s a little embarassing watching two dull city types spew profanities and swing their arms around in an attempt to find their inner chi. Which is a pity, because Wanderlust had a lot going for it.

* *

Life in Greece: degrowth, debt and democracy

NewImage
It all started there.

There is somehow a connection between what is happening in Greece and what ails profoundly the world. What the Greeks are doing now could be revelatory of what we need to do next in order not to fall again into a system which does not work. (If you want to argue on that, feel free.)

Wolfgang Münchau wrote an article for the Financial Times stating that Greece must default it it wants democracy — because Germany is asking for some extreme insurances for the money it is willing to lend. Crazy demands by ze Germans?

The first was the incendiary proposal, contained in a policy paper, to impose a fiscal Kommissar on Athens, with the power to veto economic policy decisions. After that was rejected, officials proposed using an escrow account, which would ensure that the eurozone can withhold funds to Greece at any time without triggering a default. But clearly the most extreme proposal is to suspend the elections and keep the technical government of Lucas Papademos in place for much longer.

Münchau caught my eye when he said that these demands weren’t adequate to Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. If Germany does not want to implement the same measures to itself, why would Greece do it? I especially find that the fact that the German government asked to postpone the elections in Greece is a saddening proof that even in the European Union the value of democracy in itself has lost some of its past shine.

The Germans being so rigid on virtual principles is surprising: now is the time for pragmatism in policy-making because so many turning points are taking place at the same time everywhere around the world.

Although the second bailout package has been agreed on in the German parliament, trying to reimburse the debt is not going to be a smooth procedure. The amount of money that Greece needs will not be limited to this. It is needed now that the European Union admits that Greece is bankrupt and work to erase its debt.

This doesn’t make economic sense? Who will pay back? No one and it does not matter — that much. This article, written by Christian Rickens for Der Spiegel gives some detail about the bailout package. Around a quarter of the package will not arrive in Athens and will go directly to the country’s international creditors. This leaves 100 billion euros to to the government which is clearly not enough. The problem has nothing to do with the numbers, really, the setting of this package was flawed since its inception.

In truth, Greece has of course been bankrupt for a long time. The country doesn’t need debt forgiveness of 70 percent, it needs a 100 percent debt cut if it is ever to recover. This sick cow won’t be producing any milk for years to come.

Most of the countless officials dealing with the Greek problem in the euro zone are well aware of this simple truth. Some of them, including people in the German government, privately admit that the €130 billion won’t solve the problem. It’s only about buying time, they say. Time until the financial markets have stabilized to such an extent that they can weather a Greek default without a disastrous chain reaction. Without bank insolvencies, without domino effects through credit default swaps and without an explosion of bond yields in the euro zone’s other ailing economies.

While legislators are waltzing in their offices in Berlin and Brussels not doing much to prevent the now inexorable fate that awaits Greece, Greeks themselves have started to consider a different way of life. Sometimes, the answer comes from the eye of the storm itself, rather than from quiet corridors.

In an article called “Vivre en décroissance” published on the 10th of February in French newspaper, Le Monde, Olivier Razemon and Alain Salles correspondents in Athens gave an enthralling account of daily life in Greece. But first, “décroissance” means degrowth which is more or less an, environmentalist, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalistic political and economical movement.

Yes, it reads like a lot of anti-something and not much like a sleek and tailored political message. The absence of true leaders may be causing this confusion but degrowth ideas are already being put in application by quite a lot of citizens in Greece.

In the article, the journalists talk about to Nea Guinea, a project-collective which aims to empower citizens with the self-management of their basic everyday needs such as food, energy, health and clothing. They report on how the thirty-year old couple behind the project is growing basil, tomatoes, thyme and spinach on their roof; how Kostas teach how to build photovoltaic panels and wind turbines or solar ovens in the basement of Nea Guinea and how the wife, Fotini gives Yoga lessons and advice on how people should treat themselves with plants.

A growing body of disillusioned thirty-year olds is starting to adopt the degrowth way of life. Degrowth is scary, they say because technically it is the same as economic recession. Recession however is not to be lived through while degrowth can be an alternate way of life. Of course, this wouldn’t work except if happens simultaneously all around the world — that people stop using money.

To see that a people are turning to other opportunities at large-scale is nonetheless impressive. What must be done is clearer than what politicians say, we must never forget this fact. Meanwhile some people are writing articles in front of their computers and some are moving forward.

Viktor Orban’s interview in “Le Monde”

Discurso Viktor Orban

We recently talked about the ongoing protests and political uprising, if we may call it so, in Hungary. I also linked to an article by Der Spiegel which firmly criticised the behaviour of politicians from the European People’s Party – of which Orban is vice-president – because they failed to reprehend Hungary while currently, democracy is moving backwards there.

Orban gave an exclusive interview to French newspaper Le Monde. He said many interesting things, like the fact that he doesn’t believe in ideology anymore but rather in traditional values, or, how he is just another right-wing plebeian. Maybe the most insightful remark he made was indirectly concerned the current economic crisis in Europe. I found that it also made more sense; it sparked, perhaps, a conceivable thought process that could get us out of our present situation.

To the question: ‘can you be populist and democrat?’, he answered:

We like democracy because it is a system based on values, liberty, respect of human dignity, etc. But democracy is also results and successes. And, in Europe we have indebted countries, a sharp decline in population, social integration that has failed and the rise of political extremism. These elements weaken – [the legitimacy, I'd say] – of our democratic systems and we will be soon enough, confronted to the challenges of a rising number of non-democratically organised countries that are more successful than us – China, Asian Pacific countries. [...] We should allow intellectuals and politicians to think freely about the future of democracy.

Oddly enough, the fact that democracy is good in itself does not seem to be good enough anymore. Personally, I just can’t believe that democracy will abruptly end anytime soon. To see, however, politicians delving into disillusioned possibility is not very encouraging. They are right, the system is broken. These words are not only on the streets anymore, extremist political thinking is on the rise with more credibility than ever in the recent past.

Liberal democracy, in its current form in Europe, the United States and other countries that belong to the same community of interests, does not provide the essential elements of the equal, just and dignifying democracy we can and must have.

Now must also be the right time to let politicians, intellectuals, citizens, think ahead. Figure out something that would preserve the core principles of a legitimate democracy. It is wrong, I insist to envision an authoritarian state deprived of very basic liberties as the only possibility. Such views are unsuited to ensure a durable society.

What to do is indeed the question, now is the right time to ask it. Let’s not rush to unwise application. For the better, it is needed that we take a full step back, and ask in pure frankness why did we go wrong.

Read this article to see how Orban defended his new Constitution during the state of the nation address.

FILM REVIEW: The Woman In Black, 12A, 95 minutes

The children living in the vicinity of Eel Marsh House have a terrible habit. They keep on killing themselves. The gloomy climes have nothing to do with it. In fact, the youngsters are quite a fun-loving bunch, given their bleak surroundings. The girls play tea-party, the boys build sandcastles; from their perspective at least, everything appears well. But for some diabolical reason, our poor younglings are jumping out of windows and walking into the sea. The adults whisper to one another. They exchange nervous glances. They point to Eel Marsh House, and tell stories about the woman who used to live there. The Woman in Black. The crazy hag who lost her own child in a freak accident, and who – according to local legend – compels infant suicide whenever her ghost is sighted.

The Woman In Black marks Daniel Radcliffe’s first film since Harry Potter. He plays Arthur Kipps, a young solicitor sent from London to handle the estate of Eel Marsh House. The locals give him an icy welcome, and try to send him back south on the next available train. They don’t want him anywhere near Eel Marsh House. At this point, Kipps doesn’t know why, and besides – he doesn’t believe in the supernatural anyway. He’s considered it, following the death of his wife during childbirth, but deemed it nonsense. He finds solace in the village’s sole rational mind, the wealthy landowner Sam Daily (Ciarán Hinds). They sip whiskey together in front of the fire, Kipps nodding resolutely as Daily ponders the dangers of the fanciful mind. Daily himself has lost a child, but refuses to subscribe to the local jibber-jabber, for – as he astutely states – ‘If we open the door to superstition, where does that lead?’

Well, Kipps is about to find out. And here we enter Eel Marsh House. The haunted manor is the highlight of the film, a gothic nexus of Edwardian grandeur filled to its crumbly brim with all manner of dark secrets and spooky relics. At any rate, it’s a terrible place to sleep, permeated as it is with incessant banging and bumping. If you’re planning on bringing popcorn to this film, it’s probably best to eat as much as you can in the first twenty minutes: director James Watkins is certainly a master of jolts, and the cinema-goers sat nearby probably won’t appreciate having food flung in their faces.

Yet beyond The Woman In Black’s capacity to empty the popcorn bag, there isn’t a whole lot to applaud. Daniel Radcliffe does possess a certain charm, and it’s true that the Harry Potter star is the film’s biggest draw, but he continues to suffer from a lack of credibility. We never really feel as though we’re watching Arthur Kipps; we’re always watching an earnest Radcliffe, dressed in old-timey garb, trying desperately to muster some kind of gravitas. I wouldn’t go as far to say he’s been miscast, but it’s certainly a stretch to think him the father of a four-year old boy. As such, the parent-child relationship – which underpins the film’s climax – is hard to swallow. None of this would matter if the film were scary enough, but the shocks begin to wear thin. Rather than ramping up the fear factor, Watkins takes us down the Woman’s backstory, and unfortunately, this serves only to detract from the creepy mystery of our ghostly leading lady.

The Woman In Black is rather like a ghost train. Radcliffe is our impassive carriage, taking us on a ride down its thrill-laden tracks. Children crawl from the marsh, music boxes tinkle down dark corridors, and rocking chairs go through severe bouts of enthusiastic self-swinging. The villagers shriek and sob. It’s a little unnerving, but nothing more.

* *