The Karate Kid Remake

I'm really sorry I can't share the pics of this remake with you, you'll have to go to the website to see them, but I have just found out they are remaking the movie The Karate Kid.

The classic cheesy original featured Ralph Macchio as Daniel-san, who even though he was in his twenties, played a teenager (he's a bit like Michael J. Fox, he just never grows up), who moves into a new neighbourhood in America. He gets bullied by these local guys and is surprised one day when a local maintenance guy, Okinawan-born wise old Mr Miyagi (Pat Morita) jumps the bullies. Mr Miyagi becomes his karate mentor and teaches him techniques unconventionally, as well as about honour and self control etc. And so he ends up one-upping the bullies by the end of the movie.

Most of us watched the movie and remember classic lines like "Wax on, wax off" and Daniel trying to do the crane stance, or catch a fly with chopsticks, or Mr Miyagi being able to mend his leg by rubbing his hands together, or giving the silent smile through the crowd and the nod.

Anyhow, I read about this remake, and I naturally read plenty about people being angry as hell that their original was to be 'tarnished' with this idea of a remake.

Here's the set up. Will Smith has pitched the idea for a remake, to star his nine year old son, Jaden as The Karate Kid. There's been talk of calling it The Kung Fu Kid, possibly partly to update it and partly to not offend people who are extremely precious about The Karate Kid.

A mother, for work reasons, goes to live in China, her son Dre (Jaden) is attacked by bullies and needs to learn Kung Fu. A master of kung fu teaches him both kung fu and how to speak Chinese. The kung fu master is played by Jackie Chan.

A lot of blood is being spilled on the message boards. Some claim that people who are against the movie are only against it because they are racist, and don't want to see a black kid learning kung fu. Others say they aren't racist, others say yes, they just don't think a black kid is right for the role - it just does not fit well in the story. It doesn't portray the ethnic issues realistically and they can't relate to it, and anyway, everyone thinks of the Karate Kid as white nowadays.

Other objections brought up are that:

1. Jackie Chan is the wrong actor to step into Pat Morita's role. He's too young and too flippant and funny. In fact you didn't even need a really good martial arts actor to step into Morita's role - what was more important was that the person had the right warmth and chemistry, because Mr Miyagi teaches more lessons about self restraint and less kicking ass in the movies, that's what he's really about.

2. It doesn't matter that Jaden is black, but it does matter that he's nine years old. No one can relate to a nine year old getting beaten up; you don't believe he really needs martial arts lessons, not serious ones. You feel that more at his age he is just likely to get into a few scraps and be teased. The film is a coming of age story and Jaden is not the right age to give that any real meaning.

3. A lot of posters just hate the idea that Jaden got the movie through his Dad - the nepotism, stating that he's untalented and wouldn't have got it if it hadn't been for Will.

This objection ... well I can understand the resentment, but it's basically born out of jealousy, hell we'd all do it if we could, we just didn't get the chance. If we had a rich and famous father who could give us opportunities or 'legs up' we'd take them (not necessarily in showbiz but in some other way) and not think twice about it. Most of us have this already and don't think twice about ti, taking it for granted. Many of us live in houses, get pocket money, went to certain schools, got Christmas presents, had parents of certain intelligence who may have given us advice, some might have parents who helped us with a loan or said they'd babysit our kids for free ... WHATEVER.

All that is help, but if you mention it to many of these same people and say it's getting help from fortunate parents with resources, they cite it as "different" from getting your big rich Daddy helping you put you in a Hollywood film because all the help they receive is 'normal, regular help', but getting a film is "unusual".

Actually, it just means that you're used to it. There are some people who would look with envy at your level and say "I hate those rich lucky bastards who get pocket money and can go whingeing to their parents every time something goes wrong and can dump their kids/dogs/parcels at their parents when they need a break ... spoiled brats!"

It's just a matter of degree. And some people are sure they can pick what degree is "acceptable", trying to convince others it's generally acceptable, when what they really mean is "acceptable ... to me". And that level is usually "Up to as many opportunities as I get, is acceptable for others to have too! But don't go too much further than thaaaat!"

4. Another poster suggested that a better remake, if one had to be done at all, would have been to put an aging Ralph Macchio into the Pat Morita role and have him teach a small Japanese kid the way of Karate ... that is, if it's possible for Ralph Macchio to age.

I'm not particularly looking forward to this Karate Kid myself, but then I never saw the Next Karate Kid. I only saw the ones with Daniel-san. The original and the best!

An Even Darker Side of Mary Poppins

Earlier this year, I suggested that Tim Burton direct a Mary Poppins film, which would show the darker side of Mary Poppins.

This was suggested to me in a dream and I'm still convinced it could work.

It seems that I'm not the only person who has a Poppins fantasy, or the wish to see Poppins' dark side. I was reading a movie message board today, and in a thread on suggestions for remakes of movies, a poster suggested a remake of Mary Poppins by Quentin Tarantino ... a really dark side to Mary Poppins.

Now, let me see, how exactly would it work?

I'm picturing Jane and Michael and the twins a little older now, and both are pot-smoking, cocaine-doing hired guns.

The scene should probably open at a cafe ... no, let's make that an upside down tea party on the ceiling, where Jane and Michael indulge in some badass gangster chat that is lightly disguised as philosophy about something totally pop culture irrelevant to the story, and use dirty language as much as possible.

Something like:

Jane: You see, Michael, I got this theory.
Michael: What's the f*ing theory?
Jane: You know that f*ing carousel we was riding on with the f*ing ponies?
Michael: Yeah?
Jane: Well, that is actually symbolic for child molestation.
Waiter: What'll it be today?
Michael: Can't you see we're f*ing floating on the ceiling having a private conversation? Come levitating later when I look like I'm ready to have my upside down jams and scones replenished.
Waiter: (sarcastically) Yes sir.
Michael: That's what's wrong with this country. You can't get no good customer service. he must've been molested by a f*ing carousel pony as a child and it messed with his sh*tworthy brain.
Jane: I was telling you about my theory. It's like, the carousel's spinning round, and the ponies are bobbing up and down, and the kids are being put on them by their parents, up down up down up down and this is just like being sexually molested, you know what I'm saying?
Michael: I hear you. Oh, shouldn't we be robbing that upside down cashier right now?


In the new Tarantino version of Mary Poppins, that spoonful of sugar Mary Poppins advocates probably costs thousands and has to be smuggled in over the border, but it really gives you a high!

The Making of A Legend: Gone With the Wind

One of the great things about being unemployed is that you can sit back and watch TV shows you wouldn't be able to watch if you were at work. (I can't watch TV much at night as my Dad dominates the telly with his endless reruns of Law and Order.)

Today I saw a show I'd taped, The Making of a Legend: Gone With the Wind. I'm an official Gone With the Wind junkie (see the link on this site to the GWTW Forever site).

I have the DVD of the feature film, I just hadn't realised how much had gone into making it.

I knew, of course, that GWTW was the only book Margaret Mitchell wrote. Scarlett was initially called Pansy, and the book was not initially written for publication. Then a publisher read it and was interested, but didn't like the name Pansy, so Margaret Mitchell agreed to change it to Scarlett.

And then David O. Selznick secured the rights for $50,000 to produce GWTW.

I watched the show as they showed the search for Scarlett. It seemed they had an easier time deciding on Rhett Butler - the public demanded they choose Clark Gable. The only problem was that Gable was with MGM and Selznick wanted to do the project alone. It wasn't for ages and after lots of money and negotiations that he made a deal with MGM - they would let him 'use' Gable, and they'd also lend some money to fund the project, so long as they got half the profits of GWTW for the next 7 years.

Then it turned out that Gable didn't particularly like the deal, as he didn't want to play Rhett, so they 'sweetened' the deal for him by giving him ... $50,000 so he could pay off his wife and get rid of her and a weekend off so he could marry his new girlfriend (an interest payoff!)

Anyhow, I watched a lot of the auditions with the different Scarletts and Ashleys. After seeing what Vivien Leigh and Leslie Howard can do - especially Vivien Leigh - watching the different screen tests is like watching a series of Australian Idol auditions, you just feel how wrong they are and you want a nasty judge to pop up and give them a gong and tell them they're absolute crap.

It was amazing to see how much work went into creating - or destroying - some of those sets. They decided one way to make a set was to burn down an old set and then rebuild. An idea they had was to burn down the old set and then film it as the burning of Atlanta. At the time they hadn't got Leigh and Gable working yet so a stunt double is what you see when you see the horse and carriage driving through burning Atlanta at the time. And they really did just burn down a whole set, film it, and then rebuild a set.

Then some sets were only partially built - for instance some of the big houses were built without roofs - it was less expensive - then an art director comes in later and "draws in" different style roofs later to make the different places.

And the scene in Atlanta with the soldiers all lying wounded ... well while they called in many extras to lie there as wounded men, but they didn't have enough so they put in some dummies as well and instructed extras how they could pull a string on the dummy so the dummy could move a little so it looked alive. (Apparently Margaret Mitchell's husband said when he saw that scene that if they'd had that many soldiers, they would have won the war!) I know, I know, I guess they cheated too because those extras, they only pretended to be wounded. Many of them weren't really shot or anything at all. They only pretended to be shot. And int he scene where Dr Meade is supposed to amputate the leg - I think he doesn't amputate it at all. It's all faked!

So much work went into the recreation, it was amazing, especially when you consider there was not the advantage of the special effects that we have today.

I watched in amazement as every detail of dress was attended to ... the only thing I think I could compare it to was watching This is It when I watched the perfectionism that went in to making the Michael Jackson tour show. How many people actually put the time and effort and research into their shows any more. It's immense and it's amazing.

By the way I still love Scarlett's green barbecue dress - it must be her most famous - but now I've really taken a fancy to that little light blue jacket and white dress she wears to the store when she's caught with Ashley.

Blackface comedy. I hope I am not offending anyone here. If so, apologies in advance.

Recently, on a Hey Hey it's Saturday sketch, a group calling themselves the Jackson Jive got verbally stoned by Harry Connick Jr for being racist because they used blackface comedy. The host Daryl Somers, apologised for any offence caused, and I too, would like to apologise for any offence I may cause in discussing this obviously sensitive issue.

This meant in the sketch, five of them turned up using black face paint (representing themselves as "Afro-Americans", also known by some people as "blacks", I hope that's not too racist. Another appeared wearing white makeup, satirising Michael Jackson who was an Afro-American who bleached his skin so it looked more of the pallour of those who are "Anglo-Saxon" or "Caucasian" or otherwise known as "white", hopefully that isn't offensive. Michael Jackson also recently "passed away", that is also otherwise known as "died". I hope that isn't too offensive either.

Now, I'm not "black" nor "white", not that it would matter if I was either. So I guess I don't really understand the fuss about blackface comedy, and whether it is the blackfacedness or the comedy bit that is really tasteless, or is it the combination?

Is it just plain offensive to make fun of blacks, or Afro-Americans, because it's racist? Because there goes the comedy material for about a third of those big budget Hollywood movies that are in production right this second.

Or is it smearing black face paint on that's just disgusting? Personally I don't like the look myself, I've usually thought the shoe grease should stay on the shoe though I haven't always been that successful. But what about all those disgusting, non-really-black actors who were trying to play Othello? Hung, drawn and quartered, ought they be?

A clue might lie in this where a guy says that blacks do not have pitch black skin, and that is why they are offended by that sketch. It is an interesting objection - one of the devices used by comedy is exaggeration - which is why clowns and mimes trying to hide behind a blank face use white makeup and exaggerated red lipstick which doesn't look anything like a real white human being. Hold the golliwogs!

To be perfectly accurate, most blacks aren't black, they're more browny, most whites aren't white either, they're kinda pinky-creamy-light-brown and I'll be damned if yellow skinned people look that yellow to me.

And anyway, why stop at racism? What I want to know is if black people can get on their high horses about blackface comedy, why should women stand for this crap either? Some idiots dress up INACCURATELY and EXAGGERATEDLY trying to imitate a DOWNTRODDEN group in the name of humour ...

I really don't know why we put up with Barry Humphries, Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, or John Travolta at all, who've all exploited women and dressed up in drag and put on caked up makeup in stupid looking outfits that look nothing like what I'd wear - I don't know anyone who acts or looks like Dame Edna Everage - just for satire. It's insulting, it's sexist, and I think I give them a zero. What's more, they degrade women's plight further by going on to earn a fortune out of their huge man-in-women's boobs act than many women who have real or at least only slightly modified by a very discreet surgeon's boobs, make because their own boobs have hit the glass ceiling!

I think all women should stand on their high heels, jump on top of their 'Tootsie' and 'Mrs Doubtfire' DVDs and make it clear that if Mr Harry Connick Jr can get the weight of America behind him, we should at least get a portion of it too!

Unfortunately, I feel that no matter how much I jump up and down, the race issue will always propel American s far more than the gender one. After all, they voted in Obama, and not Hillary Clinton.

Kyle and Jackie O, the continuing story

Apparently Kyle and Jackie O have become embroiled in another scandal! Last time it was one where Kyle insensitively questioned a teen girl on air about her sexual experience when she was doing a lie detector and it was revealed she'd been raped.

Now here's the next scandal and in my opinion, it's pretty mild and seems to be an attempt to capitalise on people's fury at Kyle and Jackie O.

The story this time is that Kyle reneged on a personal pledge of $35 000 made to a family. And that's not all. A woman named Wendy Koman appeared on air and was encouraged to discuss the plight of her four year old boy Josh, who's paralysed. Kyle personally promised $35 000, and people called in to pledge money. She was encouraged to sound emotional to get more money.

But when the family came to collect the cash, instead of handing over the money, the station handed over the names of the people who pledged the money. Kyle also reneged on his personal pledge after several callers made pledges of of $20 000. Wendy Koman complained that she felt like a debt collector, having to go after the people and collect the money pledged.

Basically, I think this is a pretty pathetic whinge.

Except for the part about Sandilands going back on his word, which is probably something you can get him for, even if he did help you raise the rest of the dough, but gets lost in the rest of the whinge.

It seems rather silly to whinge that you were prepared to go on radio, tell your story, want to get a whole lot of people to donate money to you, but then didn't want to feel bad about taking that money from them. Sorry, I just wanted it handed to me, I didn't want to actually either do the hard work or feel that I was taking it off them. I am happy to take the money from them, I just don't want the psychological stain, which is what calling people up gives you.

For $150K, I think there are plenty of people who would be happy to call around and collect the money. I would.

It seems to me that no matter how upset Koman is, she hasn't come out so morally outraged at Sandilands and principled that she would not touch the disgusting money that the terrible antics of these people has brought her. When she hands the money back to all those people who donated, or gives it to the station or to a charity or something then perhaps she will be more convincing.

Yes, probably the station could have been very much nicer about it. They could have been greeted at the door with a red carpet and a cake and a little funny clown could have been sent over to Josh and someone could have sent flowers over every day and the money could have been done up in little bundles tied in pink ribbon and a photo could have been taken of them receiving it and it could have been framed and sent over to them and Kyle and Jackie O could have become their best buddies forever too and then personally added an extra several ten thousands on top of that as a "bonus just because you're so darn cool".

Everything could have been very much nicer. However, should you reasonably expect it? It seems some people think they are almost entitled to extreme niceness - and often because they feel sorry for themselves. Then when they get less they get outraged. This can be something like what Ms Koman received, or it can be something very simple like someone not publishing your outraged letter to the Editor in the newspaper or not commenting on your blog article. How could they possibly think my original heartfelt wonderful story about this topic and my opinion on it is not worth publishing/reading/comment!

Anyway, I would be happy to go on 2DAYFM and get $150K myself but I have learnt from this lesson.

Hi 2DAYFM.

I have a very sad story and I would like you to raise a whole lot of money for it, say over $100K would be nice. However I have some conditions on this, I will sound impassioned on radio however I don't want anyone to say I am milking it. I want a heap of money but I don't want anyone to say I am cheap or selling myself. I want other people's cash but I want to feel that they are giving it freely and I am entitled to it not that I have to take it from them. I want to be able to collect it easily, so please get some of your staff to collect it from those people should they prove difficult to collect from, or better still, please give me the money straight from your coffers, and then you can refill your coffers at some later time with any pledges that you will naturally do all the work to collect and if anyone doesn't pay up, not my problem."

Yours Sincerely,

Maria

P.S. By the way this blog article is so darn relevant and my opinion is so darn right I feel entitled to at least one comment and I will feel outraged if I don't get one. If someone else doesn't do it I'll do it myself!

Where's Germaine Greer?

Michael Jackson has died.

I am waiting for Germaine Greer's commentary on this one. Has anyone heard from her yet? I'm a little disappointed she hasn't lashed out earlier, or has she and I haven't heard about it yet?

Sol Trujillo's parting shot

I thought I'd write about something else today, like about how I'm insanely thinking of having even less sleep in the mornings and catching the EARLY bus just to get to work early to impress my boss who was late to court this morning (even though he criticises ME for being late!) and also when I'm having trouble staying awake in court as it is.

But then I saw this piece on Sol Trujillo's comments on Australia. Now, let's leave apart the fact that everyone can get a bit bitter when they've been done out of a job. Especially nowadays.

Sol called Australia 'racist' and then people came back and made the usual comments about how we aren't racist and we're the most multicultural country ever with the biggest and best anti-discrimination laws ever and that makes Sol's comments 'ridiculous'.

I've heard these kinds of comments many times before, so basically, neither side is being very original though both may be extremely sincere. Or not. Having not been outside Australia much, from experience I can't give my considered opinion of how other countries rate on the 'racist' scale.

However, here's some comments I 'd like to make:

1. According to this article, India is is the most culturally, linguistically and genetically diverse geographical entity after the Asian continent. Doesn't say anything about Australia holding any record.
2. Simply because a country has lots of people from different ethnicities and nationalities residing within it doesn't mean those people can't feel and exhibit racial tension and develop racial hierarchies. They can even be legally endorsed. So 'multiculturalism' in itself isn't proof of non-racism, per se.
3. It seemed to me that some people ... and this goes for lots of other things, like health and environmental policy too ... want to say something doesn't exist as a problem just because it's not that bad in Australia. "We're not racist in Australia ... because our anti-discrimntaion laws are better than anywhere else" "We don't need to improve our carbon emissions because we don't emit as much as anyone else" blah blah.

This is a very Aussie way of thinking - I can be slack and I don't need to improve or strive higher because everyone else is worse than me. It's a very mediocre way of thinking and it reeks of people who never want to get to the head of the class. like a B-grade student who doesn't try to get an A because all his friends are getting Ds.

Maybe some child genius had the cure for cancer in Australia but figured there was no point in revealing it because their friends were just turning in book reports for Morris Bleitzman books so they threw out their analysis. I wouldn't be the least surprised.

In Australia there are racist people and there are racist social pockets and racist public figures and racist policy etc. Some people don't feel it or realise it because they aren't the ones getting the hard stick. It mightn't be as bad as other places but not acknowledging it belittles the difficulties some people have with it.

Which leads me to ...

4. Racism has a lot to do with the individual experiences.

Anyone can experience racism, but usually it's people in minority groups who get put at a disadvantage or feel a burden because of racism. Just like any other discrimination or sneering. People have always behaved differently towards groups that are different from them - that is, there have always been groups in some societies who have gotten some schtick because they've been different - looks, race, gender, disability, sexual pref, religion, political beliefs whatever.

Some people haven't felt it as badly or haven't been as negatively affected by it, or felt they've affected others badly that way. They're fortunate, and often they believe that discrimination and those 'isms don't exist and those who cokmplain about them are paranoid harpies making a mountain out of a molehill to get attention.

They could well be people who fall into a 'minority' category of one or two - "I'm a Lebanese female and I've never been harassed and no one talks to me strangely and everyone's really nice to me, I don't know what anyone's complaining about, eeveryone who believes racism or sexism exists is a whinger!"

But you've really got to find out what the other person's experience is to find out whether they've got a valid gripe ...

Maybe they do.

That doesn't necessarily mean the whole country is a nation of racists ...

However it can point to why their point of view has been coloured, and also, that their really is at least an element of racism in a country, whether you count that as a problem of the country yet or not.

Racism and any form of discrimation, harassment, bullying etc can be so personal and so hurtful I think it's somewhat insensitive to say someone is ridiculous for feeling that they've been cut down and that they've received racist slurs. How objective can this be? Though I understand why the defenders are quick to jump up and make those comments in an effort to ensure the image of the nation is protected.

P.S. If we have strong anti-discrimination laws it may be because we don't value racism ... but it also probably is pointing to the fact that there is a problem. I'm betting we didn't put the laws in there as a pre-emptive strike just in case someone happened to be racist or discriminative, but they never are.

The Darker Side of Mary Poppins; or Tim Burton Presents Mary Poppins

I like to interpret dreams. I dream pretty vividly. Lately I've been dreaming quite a bit about Mary Poppins, and I've come to the conclusion that my dream means one thing: I've got a fantastic idea for a Tim Burton version of Mary Poppins, which would of course star Johnny Depp. What major Burton movie wouldn't?

I've been dreaming of some major new Poppins adventures, but they've been more ghoulish, more dark and more fantastic than ever. The colours would look great on Blu-Ray. I'm telling you. They are straight out of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - bright colour contrasts with dark backgrounds. I'll leak some on to the Net, but if Burton would like to contact me for some more material, please post a comment wth a forwarding address. We can do business.

Firstly, lots of people will be familiar with the Poppins scene in the original movie where Poppins talks to erself in the mirror (and the mirror answers her back). My dreams not only had twin Poppins but multiplying Poppins - in fact I had a whole army of Poppins in a desert ready for lift off with their umbrellas, but dancing to a great song, in beautifully choreographed time.

I also had a wonderful idea for an EVIL TWIN Poppins who would have to be controlled by the real Poppins. Who would Bert rather have his way with, this time?

Poppins has several magical tricks up her sleeve this time, including some new fantasy places to visit by blowing soap bubbles and visiting the lands within them, and swinging from trees and eating enchanted fruit, and finding the curiosity in a hiccup.

In my version, I envisualise a cast including:

Freddie Highmore as Michael Banks
Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs Banks, the long suffering suffragette
and Johnny Depp as Mary Poppins (and all her multiple personalities)

It's about time Johnny followed every other Hollywood star and got himself into drag and did some dancing around and singing at the same time, and I'm sure Tim Burton will provide him with that excellent opportunity.

If Burton ever does a dark Mary Poppins, especially if Depp ever plays Poppins in drag, remember you saw the idea here first. I'll be particularly disappointed if I'm not credited and given my cut.

The Asian Wants a Xenophobe

I read in the celebrity section of the Daily Tele that Pauline Hanson might be interested on getting on a dating reality TV show - and she likes the idea of The Farmer Wants A Wife.

That's a show where rural males are tried out with city ladies, and the city ladies are put through the hoops to see if they could manage a country life - things like sticking their hands up cow's bums and stuff. Maybe a man will look at a girl with her hand up a cow's bum and just say "That's the girl for me." I don't know, maybe lot's of country romances start out that way.

But I just don't think we're exploring Pauline's potential to the fullest. My concept for a show would be The Asian Wants A Xenophobe (or The Asian Wants Pauline).

Watch a host of Asian males with Pauline Hanson as the dubious prize. Watch Pauline vy for their attention - or at least their votes, and the males put her through various tests.

Pauline Hanson attempts to put her hand in a martial arts slice through 6 breadboards!

(if she psyches herself up to think they are Asian immigrants' faces, she may well get through this one!)

Pauline Hanson doing the lion dance!

Pauline Hanson having to order in a Vietnamese restaurant without once asking a waiter to "Please Explain" the menu.

I think this one's got legs. Bring it on!

Someone is a Teapot; or How OJS is Influencing People all over Australia, and indeed, the World

Anyone who was a doubter, start undoubting yourself, starting now.

Anyone who believed it wouldn't happen. Anyone who ridiculed the proposition.

I wrote just about a month or so back about my wonderful idea for converting your loved ones into tableware . After they had died, that was. Ashes to ashes, ashes to porcelain, was my motto. Bone china, actually.

Dine off Aunty May, the delicate dinner plate? Sip out of Cousin Nettie, the Teacup? Take a sugar cube out of Uncle Herbert? What better way to enjoy a comfy Sunday afternoon? And I'm happy to report that I'm not the only one who think s this way.

I was travelling home this evening when I heard the Philip Clarke program on 2GB. I hasten to add that this was not my choice of radio station.

Mr Clarke was reading a TRUE STORY about how a man told him he'd always enjoyed a ritual with his Dad - Tea. yes, every week, teatime.

Then Dad died. He missed his Dad and teatime. It was important to him. He would bemoan "How can I have tea with my Dad again? There's a void in my life!"

Then, he explained, someone suggested how he COULD have tea with his Dad again. They got a potter who worked in clay to mix the ashes with the clay and make him a teapot.

"Now I have tea with my father again!"

Now, it mightn't be bone china, but there you go - that's Daddy the tea pot, and who's to say the whole family mightn't follow suit? Broadcast on 2GB it could easily become a craze, and coffin-makers could be replaced by potters.

Famous people could organise for their ashes to be made into fine china sets and auctioned off at amazingly high prices - only the best exotic herbals drunk out of them, thank you. None of this ordinary cheap teabag stuff.

I still think the person who is begging to be made into a mug is the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. The guy has it written all over him.

To be a mug, or not to be a mug? Mugabe has pretty much told us the answer to that question.

Has the Pope got this the right way round?

News from The Daily Tele, April 17:

WASHINGTON: Pope Benedict XVI yesterday told how he was "deeply ashamed" of the clergy sexual abuse scandal that stained the US Catholic Church and pledged to work to make sure paedophiles do not become priests.

Well, it's a step in the right direction, sure, but I'd feel it were a better step if the Pope were making sure priests weren't becoming paedophiles ...

How would we dispose of the Queen?

I've just been reading a book called The Queen and I. I've done everything a bit topsy turvy because late last year I read Queen Camilla by the same author, Sue Townsend, and I've just realised you're supposed to read them in the other order. Still, I understood Queen Camilla at the time. However, I recommend reading them the other way round. And if you're into Royal Irreverence, I recommend them fullstop.

Anyhow, I'm not a monarchist, but the book did make me feel sorry for Queen Elizabeth when she got ousted. The start of the novel is when the Queen gets kicked out of her Queenship and Britain starts as a Republic.

The Royal Family is exiled into a slummy area, and they exist on payouts and stuff. Phillip goes nutters, the Princes talk in street slang, Anne starts flirting with commoners, and Charles gets thrown in gaol for assault. And Princess Di is bugger all use at assisting him from the outside.

You've got to feel sorry for the Queen and all, trying to feed her dog, make a broth, deliver a neighbour's baby and get poor useless Phillip out of bed, while still trying to visit the Queen Mother who is in a time warp. Oh, and trying to cope with the fact that her son's in gaol.

It did make me think a bit about how we keep going on about how we should just get rid of the monarchy, but get rid of them .... HOW? We never really talk about that. WHat should we do, chuck them in the river and drown them?

When we get rid of a politician, we give them a hefty pension, in thanks for services rendered. Lots of politicians take time to get another job after politics. Some don't get one at all.

But what about the Royal Family?

After all, while we may think it's a bt annoying they've been living off us for years, it's probably cruel to throw them into the streets when they've grown up with skills like polo and curtseying, and this isn't entirely their fault. In fact, it's a lot our fault - our fault as a society, not individuals, so it's our duty to set them up so we don't have little Prince Phillip hobos with cardboard signs round their necks saying "donate 5c for a bit of high tea and scones and jams and cream, please"

We could possibly pension The Queen off completely by selling some of those nice jewels in her Crown, and maybe give her a complimentary life membership to a bowls club and let her keep her dogs. A nanny flat out the back of Charlie's place and she'd be all set.

Charles has all his gardening skills at his fingertips; what he doesn't have is the practical skills to make a go of it. Perhaps a gardener's apprenticeship, or a course in setting up his own small business, charged to the state.

We could also think about complimentary surgery for his ears.

Camilla could just do with a new wardrobe, and she and Princess Anne could probably get together and put their love of horses to some profitable use. I think both are past the jockey stage - Camilla especially - but surely grooming, training and breeding aren't out of the question. Or maybe they could just dress up as horses and amuse kids at birthday parties. The possibilities are endless.

And as for the Princes, Prince Harry probably just needs someone to keep him from becoming another Corey Worthington and throwing an Internet drug fuelled party. That would be enough for now.

Frocks & Shocks

If there's one thing I don't like about the Academy Awards, it's the Red Carpet. I don't like Red Carpets at all, and if I ever have a house of my own, there'll be no red carpets. No sirree.

It's not that I don't like a good nice frock. I like browsing in stores and walking through the expensive clothes department and deluding myself that I could actually afford to buy any of that stuff. I like wasting salesgirls' time by trying on a whole lot of highly priced items, only to say later "Sorry ... not right," when really I mean, "If you'd cut the price to bargain bin Target pricing, I could cut you a deal!"

That's why I have the site Gone With The Wind Forever linked to this one, because the idea of flouncing around in one of Scarlett O'Hara's faves is actually quite fun.

However, what I hate is the sniping and bitching that comes after the Red Carpet by some columnists who really probably are no oil paintings or fashion artistes themselves and probably write these articles in daggy trackpants and novelty slippers.

I open the paper and see a lovely picture of Amy Adams, blown up to almost full page, and rated as only 1/10. I can't see why, she looks gorgeous to me.

Her crime? She wore a dress that was almost identical to what Isla Fisher's was last year. Big deal, does that make the actual dress look really awful? (She also has the same colour hair, but what's wrong with that?)

I'd hate to be a celebrity if it meant you couldn't go out without someone thinking you might have the same clothes as someone else someday; you couldn't shop retail anywhere, you'd have to make all your own clothes. What a bore.

And then the other crunch comes - when someone ralises you wore the same clothes that you wore to another function - the other big faux pas. Which means every time you wear some clothes, you have to throw them in the bin. Then we complain about celebrities who live this high spend big life and only worry about clothes and crap while ordinary citizens are struggling. maybe it's because we crap all over them every time they do something like wear the same shirt or dress as someone else did some other time, or they did some other time, so they spend all the time with it on their mind. With bad dreams of Oscar gowns haunting them.

I think we ought to be proud of celebrities who wear their clothes several times over; at least they're not being wasteful bastards.

Then the next picture I looked at was a picture of Renee Zellwegger, who got a low grade of 4/10.

I couldn't see why, her sequined gown looked very pretty.

The comment was "Stunning sequinned ... dress. but someone give this woman a sandwich."

So basically a bitch about how Renee was on the thin side.

Cate Blanchett was there, and she was on the big side - that is, she was pregnant - and she got appladed by the critics for how nicely and glowingly she showed off her baby bump. It seems it's not ok to lampoon someone for having a natural biggishness, such as pregnancy, even though most mums I've talked to agree that this is a time of your life when you don't look your best. however if you're going through a thin stage, and as far as I know there isn't anything objectively wrong about being thin, except that some people mightn't really think it's to their taste, it's ok to snipe about it - and insinuate eating disorders.

When the chat turns to meanness and personal comments rather than personal preferences about fashion and a general appreciation about the creativeness of designers, I find it really off-putting.

I tossed away the paper in disgust.

Rise above your (school's) name!

Brad Pitt was educated at Kickapoo High School .

He was even voted best dressed in school in 1982.