This is John Cleese’s favourite film of his own¹, and one can see why: it’s a simple, yet very funny, story of a theft in the same tradition of The League of Gentlemen, The Lavender Hill Mob, or that other heist film from Ealing Studios I don’t recall the name of right now. Drat.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

Anyway, this similarity isn’t too surprising, given that the film is mostly directed by Charles Crichton, the man responsible for directing The Lavender Hill Mob. I have described Mr. Crichton as having “mostly” directed the film because the studio was worried he wouldn’t be able to handle a comedy assignment, and asked Mr. Cleese to ‘keep an eye on things’²; demonstrating that studio people in positions of influence are frequently idiots and haven’t a clue about anything other than what they have watched in the last minute or three, most likely due to most of their brains have been burned away by cocaine.

But, I digress.

Cleese’s character, the barrister “Archie Leach” (the birth name of Cary Grant³), is possibly the simultaneously stupidest and highly educated individual you’ve ever encountered. Sadly, he’s possibly also the most realistic character you’ve ever seen in a film. That’s what makes not only his character, but all of them in the film work so very well. As absurd as they are, they’re all well within the bounds of reality. We see the events of the tale and the way the characters deal with those challenges causes us to think there, but for the Grace of God, go I. This doesn’t exactly prevent one from considering a life in crime, but it certainly makes for a damned funny movie.

The key to this–or any–type of comedy is best summed-up in a post by Christopher Fowler (which you can read RIGHT HERE), in which he details a conversation he recently had with the writers of the Tony Hancock’s material, Ray Galton and Alan Simpson. Hancock’s character (he only had the one, really) could never be mistaken for either a ‘success’ or a ‘bright spark’, and therein the comedy bursts forth, according to the writers. In describing the un-produced Hancock film The Day Off, Mr. Fowler says this:

It’s virtually plotless, sad and very funny indeed. In it, Hancock meets up with another bus driver, and argues about the pointlessness of saving and withdrawing the same amount each week with his bank. He tries to bully a man on a park bench into admitting he feels insignificant, and fails. He loses an argument about wasps and bees. He meets Charlotte, a girl who works in a dress shop, and pretends he’s an architect building a cathedral, while she pretends she’s a model. He forces her to have a dessert she doesn’t want because she needs to stay model-thin. Hancock gets found out just before a touching goodnight kiss, and the romance turns sour. The film ends as it begins, with Hancock going home alone as the weather-girl announces tomorrow will be a sunny day–for those with a day off.

… [Ray Galton and Alan Simpson] agree that the script’s downbeat ending is funnier because ‘failures are funny, successful people are not’.

Thus we can see this film, full of the incredible failures nearly from start to finish, as a classic English comedy in the same tradition as Hancock, Ealing, and so very many others… most of which I can’t remember the names of… Drat.

There’s a further connection to this film for Mr. Fowler: in addition to his award-winning novels, he’s also responsible for co-writing a piece of comedy on the DVD of A Fish Called Wanda with Mr. Cleese. Unfortunately I returned this to the library before I remembered that, and thus I cannot tell you either which bit of “extra material” it is, or how funny I thought it was. Drat.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Prominent Features
Star Partners Limited Partnership 

Directed by Charles Crichton
and un-credited John Cleese

Writing credits
written by John Cleese
from a story by John Cleese and Charles Crichton

CITATIONS

1.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr1054980 [ JUMP BACK ]
2.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr0792640 [ JUMP BACK ]
3.  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095159/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr0792726, and yes I’m stopping this now [ JUMP BACK ]

The Big Lebowski (1998)

While this has become a cult classic, I still don’t think it’s that incredible. Yes, it’s fabulous, but I wouldn’t declare it “87 out of ten stars!!!!” as some have. I’m not sure what I would change, but it’s so anarchic that it’s tough to identify anything as either “not sufficiently developed” or “extraneous”. The one section which I wouldn’t remove is the dream sequence, oddly, as it’s such a fabulous reflection of Hollywood’s musical montages, as well as the idyllic nature of The Dude’s notion of life. 

I might take out the character Jesus Quintana, as it really has nothing to do with anything in the story, but he acts in the same way as the gravedigger in Hamlet or the Night Porter in “the Scottish Play”. Besides, the basis for taking out that character would then have to equally apply to the character only identified as “The Stranger”, played by Sam Elliott, and he is possibly the only consistently normal person in the entire tale, so we need him. Hmmm… tricky…

Like Fargo, the movie the brother released two years earlier, The Big Lebowski is what may be best described as “minimalist noir™”. Basically, ‘how much can you do with a noir mystery or thriller to follow its rules, yet make it about as non-depressing and cynical as possible?’ Everyone in both of those films, plus Burn After Reading, is entirely out for the betterment of no one but themselves, and are willing to do anything in order to get it. The one individual who is an exception to this is the police officer Marge in the earlier film, but that’s getting a bit away from the two films we’re really examining here.

With The Big Lebowski, the questions are “why is this loser getting confused with someone else?” plus “where’s this ‘Bunny’ Lebowski, and what does Jackie Treehorn have to do with it?” An obvious additional couple of questions are “where’s The Dude going to get a decent run that really pulls the room together?” as well as “how are they going to fare in the league standings after all of this shakes down?” but those are more by the way sorts of things.

Burn After Reading (2008)

In Burn After Reading, however, the questions are more straight-forward: “who’s going to pay the most for these secret files?”, as well as “how did they get those secret files?” Again, everyone is out for their own betterment, whether they’re the author of a memoire, wanting–no, needing, dammit–cosmetic surgery, or simply looking for a bit of sex to warm them up for another run. The number of selfless people in this story are about as many as you would expect to find in Washington, DC: zilch.

The number of excellent performances from people you hadn’t expected to do real solid comedy yet are pretty damned good thank you very much, however, is “all”. There’s a moment when Brad Pitt’s character needs to be ‘sneaky’, and only ends-up looking completely self-conscious instead. And yet, if you really deconstruct what Pitt does, it’s such an incredibly subtle yet entirely clear bit of body language adjustment, but the guy makes it look effortless. 

Somehow, the Coen boys get the best performances of their careers out of everyone in their films. In some cases, the actors go on to continue their careers with increased skills in every genre of film, but they never quite match their achievement without a script written by them.

Typically, each of their scripts are filled with excellent dialogue which demonstrates a love of and un-matched facility with language. They also have a love of the movie-making business, as their ability to turn stereotypes and predictable scenarios on their proverbial heads is a high-water mark in cinema.

Damn, they’re awesome!

The Big Lebowski (1998)
Polygram Filmed Entertainment
Working Title Films

Directed by
Joel Coen & an uncredited Ethan Coen

Written by
Ethan Coen & Joel Coen

Burn After Reading (2008)
Focus Features presents
in association with Studio Canal
in association with Relativity Media
in association with Working Title Films
Mike Zoss Productions

Directed by
Ethan Coen & Joel Coen

Written by:
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen

This year, I’ve been watching DVDs from the library for a number of reasons, mostly to do with a combination of “filling in the gaps in my ‘pop culture’ knowledge”, as well as a concerted effort to better understand story editing by both watching a film and then re-watching listening to people who have studied that particular movie for years in order to better appreciate the themes, plot construction, symbolism, and so on.

The process would be nothing without the secondary audio tracks. Sometimes it’s like having actually been through the film-making process with the people involved.

The Meaning of Life (1983)

Still, there are a number of slightly more pertinent portions of the experience which are employed to direct our concern to the precise nature of “life; what’s it all about, anyway?” Birth, religion, dreams, death, sex, learning, eating in a restaurant, fish, working life, health, and then finally death. It’s all here.

Oddly, there’s a few times that the actual ‘meaning of life’ is specifically addressed, and they’re not all completely concerned with fish. There’s a quite beautiful monologue featuring the waiter “Gaston” in an idyllic setting describing his mother’s advice. While it’s not actually fully linked to the phrase “…and that’s what life should be, you see”, the matter doesn’t need to be: the advice is there for those who recognize its simple solution. For those who are incredibly slow on the up-take of information and require a large, heavy object to gain their attention, the “Meaning of Life” is read to us by The Lady Presenter with the less-than enthusiastic introduction “it’s nothing very special.” That both of these sequences are performed in a ‘throw-away’ fashion and immediately followed by ‘shock humour’ text speaks clearly about how obvious the answer to one of the most pointless questions ought to be. 

Yes, the question is important, absolutely. Giving over one’s entire life to making sense of the thing is–according to Monty Python’s fellers–a bit of a waste of time, really. Life won’t make sense, no matter how hard one tries, and no matter how one wishes to find patterns. It’s a journey, and we drop things from the caravan, someone farther down the line of humanity picks it up, or maybe not, and we keep going onward through the wasteland. 

May as well have a bit of a chuckle while you’re moving along, then, eh?

The Meaning of Life (1983)
Celandine Films
The Monty Python Partnership
Universal Pictures

Directed by
Terry Jones

Written by
Graham Chapman & John Cleese &
Terry Gilliam & Eric Idle & Terry Jones & Michael Palin

 Presented with the short film:

The Crimson Permanent Assurance (1983)

Written and Directed by:
Terry Gilliam

This year, I’ve been watching DVDs from the library for a number of reasons, mostly to do with a combination of “filling in the gaps in my ‘pop culture’ knowledge”, as well as a concerted effort to better understand story editing by both watching a film and then re-watching listening to people who have studied that particular movie for years in order to better appreciate the themes, plot construction, symbolism, and so on.

The process would be nothing without the secondary audio tracks. Sometimes it’s like having actually been through the film-making process with the people involved.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Here we get the ‘fish out of water’ variety of time travel-based comedy–yes, I realize there’s a joke to be made there, but let’s try and be above that, okay?–and it’s probably a good thing as the whole “Spock needs to be re-built from scratch” deal is getting a bit tired. Sure, the Vulcan’s have a cool culture and everything, but there’s only so many incomprehensibly named ceremonies involving logic and ration thinking you can stand. At the core of any story you’re supposed to focus on who we as a people are, not who someone else is; to reveal that which is within ourselves is the key, is it not?

Given the rather unbelievable quality of the plot points, as well as the forgettable cinematography–the damned thing looks so much like a TV episode I swear they used the least number of camera set-ups possible without actually resorting to ‘nothing but the master shot’ for the whole picture–it’s a wonder that there are so many memorable bits of dialogue. I’d quote some, but there’s far too many spoilers as a result. Let’s just say that this is easily the funniest in the Star Trek series in any form.

The rules for time-travel are followed accurately (or as near as I can tell; nothing stuck out as wrong, let’s say), but there’s some fair amount of science which–even for Star Trek’s usual standards–is incredibly wrong and / or not developed enough dramatically.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986), alternate poster

BRIEF ASIDE: While the need to suspend disbelief is key to any story, and especially a movie, when something is done in Science Fiction, you’d like the science to be at least semi-plausible in some way. The exact details may be wrong, but when basic laws which are known to even someone as non-science aware as this artsy-bastard™ are not only ignored but stricken from the room, there’s something very very wrong.

The basic concept here is that our boys go back in time to 1986 (the time of the film’s release), when Grey Whales were alive, and no one had any fashion sense [see image of alternate poster, left]. To accomplish that, the ship zooms around the Sun to use its gravitational orbit as an acceleration mechanism to “sling shot” the ship into the past. The explanation on how this is accomplished is non-existent. The description of how it is accomplished is simply the actions which they achieve. A tautology is not acceptable to me, frankly. I’d like some pseudo-science at the very least, please.

Meanwhile, later, they “beam-up” a whale into the hold of a ship, along with the water immediately around it. Again, this isn’t explained as to specifics of the matter; beyond Scotty’s “I never donna this a-fore, Cap’n!” anyway. Once more, I’d like to have some pseudo-science about ‘increased pay-loads requiring greater power-supply’ and possible some sort of adaptation of their transporter array infrastructure–both for pick-up and delivery, for that matter–as well as some dramatic “golly, we’re never going to accomplish this, because of [whatever the pseudo-science demands are]” dialogue and story points. A missed opportunity there, really, and disappointing over-all in this area.

It really does feel like the team had a good time making it, however, and we have a good time watching it; they really feel like a team now, for one thing. Nothing wrong with that at all. In the end, all my grumbling included, worthwhile.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
Paramount Pictures
co-produced by Industrial Light & Magic

Directed by
Leonard Nimoy

Writing credits
Gene Roddenberry (television series Star Trek)
story by Leonard Nimoy & Harve Bennett
screenplay by Steve Meerson & Peter Krikes 
and Harve Bennett & Nicholas Meyer

This year, I’ve been watching DVDs from the library for a number of reasons, mostly to do with a combination of “filling in the gaps in my ‘pop culture’ knowledge”, as well as a concerted effort to better understand story editing by both watching a film and then re-watching listening to people who have studied that particular movie for years in order to better appreciate the themes, plot construction, symbolism, and so on.

The process would be nothing without the secondary audio tracks. Sometimes it’s like having actually been through the film-making process with the people involved.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

So, that said, how did Mr. Ritchie do? Brilliantly, in my view.

The essence of the character is that of highly intellectual eccentric with a fountain of knowledge crammed into his brain and available at a moment’s notice. Coupled with that is his constant need for intellectual stimulation which can only be calmed briefly by the world, thus necessitating the injection of opium, consumption of alcohol, or non-stop experimentation with both. After that, yes, there are a bunch of things that need to be observed, but that’s the basic un-changeable nature of the thing.

Given the above character specifics, it’s hardly surprising that Robert Downie Jr. is the man in the role of the detective. While one shouldn’t say “he was born to play this”, as it sounds a bit too messianic for one thing, it still seems presumptuous to suggest that the reason for his chemical self-abuse in the 1990s was so that he would be a perfect actor in this series. None the less, it works.

There were a few reviewers who suggested that Holmes and Watson had more than tinge of “bromance” or possibly even homo-erotic tone to their friendship. Where this comes from may be a tetchiness about their verbal sparring, plus the certain jealousy when two flat-mates are separated due to one of them getting married. There is nothing more there, and its most probable piece of evidence pointed to by some would be that we see them initially arguing over the possession of an article of clothing; something which ‘Gay men argue about all the time’, which is ridiculous. the two men simple love each other, as any two close friends do, and not with a love “who dare not speak its name” as the parlance of their time phrased it. I wouldn’t have a problem with the two characters actually being lovers, but there’s insufficient evidence to get on one’s high horse about the possibility here, and that house isn’t about to get more disturbed than merely shifting around on its hooves a bit.

The fight scenes using a combination of ‘Baritsu’ and ‘Wing-Chun Kung Fu’ (but mostly the latter) are excellent, and aptly add to the story with both action and plot development. The nature of the villains and heroes are demonstrated and broadened, yet mostly the scenes add the thrill of the event more than anything. A huge chunk of the fight in “the Punchbowl Pit” probably could have gone without any perceptible loss, but that’s something that’s subjective; others would want more of it.

The ‘look’ of the thing is excellent, with the digital creation of Victorian-era London being nigh-on flawless. The one place where it does seem a tad fiddly is with the complexity of Tower Bridge’s creation: it’s almost too intricate and on our screen had some artifacts around its outline, making it stand out with a “hey look at how cleaver we are!” nature as a result. Given the up-scaling from a DVD image to an HD monitor, it was probably better in the theatres and could very well look fine on someone else’s screen. It bothered me, however.

What really could have been fixed–and wasn’t a result of various technical aspects–was the singular lack of colour in the image. The poster above is a good indication of the over-all palate of the presentation: cold, quite blue, and drab. Granted, London in the late 1800s was a damned filthy place, with much of the city covered in inches of coal dust, thus hardly somewhere you go to for the excitement of a riot of colours. Still, it’s a fairly prevalent trend in cinema these days, so the lack of saturation and colour range over-all is something I’m growing weary of.

Of additional concern is the sheer number of production companies involved in making what might have been a fairly simple film. Six production companies involved in initial creation is insane. Certainly the amount of digital effects–city skylines, ship’s hulls, bridges and so on–was necessary due to the star of the story being the location and time of the tale. It’s impossible to do something from the Sherlock Holmes ‘canon’ without showing as much of the city and its own character as is possible, based on technology available at the time. Still, couldn’t there be a way of doing all that which didn’t demand so much money and so much financial risk that the thing has to be an insanely huge block-buster in order to begin to cover its own costs?

Sherlock Holmes (2009)
a Warner Bros. Pictures presentation
in association with Village Roadshow Pictures
a Silver Pictures production
a Wigram production in association with
Internationale Filmproduktion Blackbird Dritte GmbH & Co.
and Lin Pictures (uncredited)

Directed by
Guy Ritchie

Writing credits
screenplay by Michael Robert Johnson and Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg
with screen story by Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson
using the characters “Sherlock Holmes” and “Dr. Watson” created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

This year, I’ve been watching DVDs from the library for a number of reasons, mostly to do with a combination of “filling in the gaps in my ‘pop culture’ knowledge”, as well as a concerted effort to better understand story editing by both watching a film and then re-watching listening to people who have studied that particular movie for years in order to better appreciate the themes, plot construction, symbolism, and so on.

The process would be nothing without the secondary audio tracks. Sometimes it’s like having actually been through the film-making process with the people involved.

However, here are some films which I pray to God never get made, but apparently are actually a part of this year’s American Film Market (whatever that is, head to Wired for more on that, I suppose).

Now remember, these are real posters for real films that people are trying to get made.

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

To be brutally frank, nothing is really going to help this film, as it really is just that bad. You could get a perfect print struck from the original source negatives (apparently Quentin Tarrantino has a 35mm print he cherishes), digitally re-mastered sound with a THX quality signal, sit at the ‘sweet spot’ from the screen in an ergonomically ideal chair, eat a stream of perfectly popped and salted popcorn, and the end result would still make you want to find the person responsible for the thing and force them to swear that, as long as they live, they’ll “never again even consider making a movie”.

For some context, here’s a review from the Internet Archive Movie Archive (where you can even DOWNLOAD A COPY to watch the ‘source material’ for the MST3K version):

Reviewer: earplay–September 23, 2011
Subject: Don’t despair!

If you’ve watched Manos, you are probably in a deep funk… and will be for some time. Perhaps the rest of your life if you don’t take remedial action.

I think the only way to clear your palate of this movie is to watch it again as Joel and the Bots of MST3K take it apart. …

Some movies are just plain bad, some are so bad that they’re good, but Manos transcends all that! Ed Wood is Hitchcock or Buñel or D.W. Griffith in comparison.

Rating: –5 Stars

Yes, that’s a negative five, and yes, that’s the maker of Plan 9 from Outer Space being praised for their superior film-making skills in comparison to this. The rating on the IMDb for Manos has it rated at 1 1/2 stars, placing it at #4 on the “Bottom 100″ list.

So… it’s not just me.

There are times repeatedly that people will repeat their lines a couple of times repetitively. Initially I wondered why in blazes they did that. Once the thing was done, my theory had changed several times to settle on “they needed to fill the 74 minutes up somehow”. A bit of research, however, changed this yet again to my current thinking: it was just that badly assembled and no-one had a clue about how to “match edit” a film. The damned thing took eleven weeks to shoot–during the process crew members started calling it “Mangos: The Cans of Fruit” ¹ instead of the actual title–and the shooting process was often interrupted owing to the camera used being a 16mm Bell & Howell, spring-powered, hand-wound unit that could only record thirty-two seconds of film at a time² which further complicated the putting together of the piece. As much as you can cover things by using a second or so of another actor’s reaction to something, eventually you have to stick together two pieces of film of the same actor crossing the room, and the two different sections of that motion don’t match properly so the guy jumps three feet forward where the join exists.

The fact that the Screenwriter is also the Director who happens to be the lead male Actor as well as the Producer, and he’s never directed a film, written a screenplay, produced, or acted before… well, this isn’t a good foundation upon which to build, is it? Initially I thought maybe the lines get repeated due to bad writing, which could be the case to an extent.

Manos: The Bacchae Scene

The acting, direction, costumes, and camera-work are bottom-notch. Where ‘day for night’ scenes could have been accomplished, ‘night with bloody bright lamps for night’ are implemented (except for a bit at night that cuts to film of a rattle-snake which was pulled from Disney stock nature footage and shows the animal in daylight on some purple cloth³), and interiors seem to have been lit with all the subtlety of the headlights of a 1957 Buick switched to “high-beam” as soon as the actors are more than ten feet from the camera (closer than that they’re on ‘low’ and when the camera is much closer than about seven feet everything’s about four ‘ƒ-stops’ over-exposed).

All of the dialogue is dubbed–badly–using a grand total of three voice actors–two male and one female–resulting in an entire conversation between the father character Michael and one of the police officers obviously involving only one of the voice talents. Further joy is to be had late in the film with a group discussion taking place among five different women around a camp-fire–again clearly only one woman is actually speaking despite the fact we have differing faces having that sound come out of them–but, thankfully, this rapidly breaks into a wrestling match between the ladies in their negligées as you can see in the image on the left (for more images and a far more detailed break-down of the film, head to THIS PAGE on I-Mockery.com).

Two final points

• “manos” is the Spanish word for “hands”, so the title in effect is “Hands: The Hands of Fate”
• the poster image up there is one I created by combining an original poster and a couple of elements from MST3K, as the DVD cover almost makes it look semi-respectable

I swear that there is only one way you can have possibly ever seen anything as bad as this before: you’ve already seen Manos: The Hands of Fate.

The boys at Mystery Science Theatre 3000 do a fair decent job providing sarcastic comments, but I could have done without the commercial interruptions as the visual onslaught really ought to have been continuous for greater impact. The ‘bumpers’ of studio stuff either side of the commercial breaks could have been done away with as well, mostly due to anything you can come up with is inherently not going to be as funny or awful as the film they’re mocking. This damned film really is the worst thing ever created and trying to compete with it is quite fruitless.

Simply awful.

You’ve got to see this!

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

Director: Harold P. Warren

Writer: Harold P. Warren (screenplay)

Cited Sources

1. Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)–Trivia–IMDb: IMDb.com/title/tt0060666/trivia?tab=tr&item=tr0769206 [ return ]
2. “The Hand That Time Forgot” (May 1996); Mimosa, pp. 35–38: Jophan.org/mimosa/m18/brandt.htm [ return ]
3. op cit.: IMDb.com/title/tt0060666/trivia?tab=gf&item=gf0814244 [ return ]

This year, I’ve been watching DVDs from the library for a number of reasons, mostly to do with a combination of “filling in the gaps in my ‘pop culture’ knowledge”, as well as a concerted effort to better understand story editing by both watching a film and then re-watching listening to people who have studied that particular movie for years in order to better appreciate the themes, plot construction, symbolism, and so on.

The process would be nothing without the secondary audio tracks. Sometimes it’s like having actually been through the film-making process with the people involved.

Sadly, in my opinion, Harper has been handed a blank cheque to do whatever he wants, with no punishment in the offing. The national voters seem to have said “whatever it takes” in order to get whatever it is that is their individual priority. This makes me sad.

As with the previous post, what follows is a copy of my stream as I “live tweeted” the returns (which is hardly a verb, but I haz not a shit to carez for dat as the LOL-kidz say. This will again be in reverse chronology, so head to the bottom to work your way from start to finish.

	oytamarind Brad K — RT by IanAMartin What part of “CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT” do you guileless sheep not understand?! #elxn41 24 minutes ago
	@thedarkerside We’ll all be safe once everyone is in jail! …oh, wait… #elxn41bc 15 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc Bby Douglas is going to be a very close one again. NDP 43% to CPC 39%. I smell re-count. 17 minutes ago
	JonJennings Jon Jennings — RT by IanAMartin If one good thing comes out of this, it’ll be me finally applying for my citizenship so I can vote against these liars & criminals next time
	#elxn41bc Canada has handed Harper a blank cheque. What in blazes are we going to do until someone locks him in jail? 20 minutes ago
	@Astrogirl426 The PM + his Gov’t was charged with “contempt” (and that was a new charge to my ears) and out-right lied during campaign. Sad. 22 minutes ago
	@Astrogirl426 About to begin second glass of wine. #elxn41bc 25 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc Here’s a question: does this mean a resurgence of the Proportional Representation, I wonder? 25 minutes ago
	reneestephen Renée Stephe–RT by IanAMartin They used to say that Canada trails the US by about 10 years in terms of trends. We’re right on track, I guess. 26 minutes ago
	pqpolitics Pete Quily–RT by IanAMartin “I will serve as long as the party wants me to serve and not a day longer” Iggy Not long I’d suggest #elxn41 #lpc 27 minutes ago
	@Astrogirl426 Holy crap, it’s like 1980 when Reagan cleaned-up in California and re-drew everything conservative. #elxn41bc 28 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc Wow the CBC Translator’s microphone really needs to be grounded. Terrible buzz! 29 minutes ago
	@harrietglynn Don’t forget that the CPC is the Reform with new name, it’s NOT the old Tories. @smuttysteff @anthonyfloyd #elxn41bc 30 minutes ago
	PhoeLam Phoenix Lam–RT by IanAMartin In other news…my cat just ran into the door. LOL 31 minutes ago
	@smuttysteff @anthonyfloyd Well, it’s certainly the end of the [Liberal] party that we have known over the years. 33 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc Burnaby South/New West looks like NDP again. It moves around a bit historically. 34 minutes ago
	@AnthonyFloyd There’s some coughing [in the Liberal crowd] a second ago. I think they’re all incredibly stunned. #elxn41bc 35 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc Libby Davies ahead by over 2:1 and solid enough to call that one. 36 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc Liberals down 44 seats. It’s almost as bad as Kim Campbell taking Mulrony’s drubbing for him. 37 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc How odd that the crowd in front of Ignatieff isn’t doing traditional vocal denial of results when he congratulates Harper/Leighton. Well, okay, not odd; telling. 37 minutes ago
	@harrietglynn @smuttysteff Ken Dryden is behind substantially. I’ve said it before: there is no safe seat this year. 39 minutes ago
	CBCStephenQuinn Stephen Quinn–RT by IanAMartin Duceppe defeated. elxn41bc 41 minutes ago
	@Zoeyjane “Even the Bruins won”…? What riding were they in? I was… oh. sorry. #elxn41bc 40 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc Van South 1300 to 1100 (CPC to Liberal) 41 minutes ago
	ounodesign ouno–RT by IanAMartin RT @AndyJukes: Don’t call them Tories. The Tory party is long gone. These people are right-wing lunatics, plain and simple. #elxn41 42 minutes ago
	@AnthonyFloyd Pardon? Oh, I suppose that [Elisabeth May is] independent/other until [the Greens] have official status. [Vancouver East MP Libby Davies] got 550 to 235 last I saw. …so that’s something. #elxn41bc 44 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc BBY-Douglas is now NDP 46% to Cons 39%. And it just went there from a wider margin. Eeep! ~ Elizabeth May 566, next one is 543. 45 minutes ago
	CBCVancouver CBC Vancouver–RT by IanAMartin Type in your postal code and get results for your riding http://bit.ly/elnK8g #elxn41 50 minutes ago
	CBCStephenQuinn Stephen Quinn–RT by IanAMartin Popular Vote so Far: CPC 40 NDP 31 Lib 20 BQ 5 Green 3.5 #elxn41bc National Numbers 50 minutes ago
	#elxn41bc @harrietglynn Totally. [The Liberal’s drubbing is] a bullet [Ignatieff] will not dodge. Paul Martin bowed out after a far better position. 1 hour ago
	#elxn41bc @cbcnewsbc says independent/other in one riding. Please tell me this is Helena Georgis (badly spelled: turfed by Harper for rumours) 1 hour ago
	#elxn41bc Hating m keyboard layout. Hating! 1 hour ago
	vancouver East.#elxn41bc Libbie Davies ahead 2:1 in  ~~ 1 hour ago
	#elxn41bc Elisabeth May is in very slim lead by 39 votes. @Herne Ignatieff STILL behind by nearly 1,000 votes. ~ Bob Rae is very tight in the lead. ~ 1 hour ago
	EmmeRogers Emme Rogers–RT by IanAMartin What happened with the University Vote Mobs? Please don’t tell me they voted Conservative or neglected to actually vote? 1 hour ago
	#elxn41bc Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon sees Strahl’s son in with a 2:1 rate. Surprising, given his lack of experience. Vancouver-East: Con high 300, Liberal mid-200. The BQ and Liberals are both down the same amount of popular vote. Ken Dryden is out! KEN DRYDEN!!!! Un-be-liev-a-ble. 1 hour ago
	#elxn41bc @cbcnewsbc now caling Conservative Majority. I am getting wine now. BBY-Doug NDP ahead by 66%. Conservatives 2nd place, AND THEY DID NOTHING FOR THAT! 1 hour ago
	#elxn41bc Vancouver south: CPC 120, to Lib 90-odd. Sorry, @julesjulesjules ~ Vancouver East 216 to 135 (NDP vs. Cons) 1 hour ago
	smuttysteff Steffani Cameron–RT by IanAMartin 1 hour ago Anyone who didn’t vote today, they ever fucking whine to me about this country, NOT slapping them might be impossible.
	Herne Herne–RT by IanAMartin Gilles Duceppe is out! Ignatieff is still down by 1,000 votes! #cdnpoli #elxn41
	#elxn41bc There are no safe seats tonight. People have abandoned the Liberals and gone NDP? How ARE the Cons getting this support? 2 hours ago
	@jpadamson Usually, yes, but [Libby Davies’] lead right now is still very slim. Everything in Canada is up for change from the norm it seems. #elxn41bc 2 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Bby-Douglas 205 NDP, CPC 104. Again, close. ~ Vancouver East is 150 to 120 for NDP, but still too early. ~ Kooteney is CPC 2:1, Okanagan is CPC 7:3, New West-Coquitlam very very close. 2 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Vancouver East might not go NDP, but all numbers below 100 ~ Rishmond: CPC 4:1 [I swear I hadn’t even opened wine at this point] ~ Okanagan Shuswap: CPC 2:1 ~ Delta-Richmond CPC 3:1 ~ Bby-Douglas looks like NDP so far. ~ 2 hours ago
	@julesjulesjules so very saddening. #elxn41bc #whereIsThatWine ~ South Surry: CPC by 3:1 ~ Cariboo: CPC by 3:1 ~ Too Close to call: Vcvr-Quadra, Vcvr-Kingsway. Both look NDP-leaning 2 hours ago
	CBCVancouver CBC Vancouver–RT by IanAMartin Current results: CON 153 NDP 106 LIB 31 BQ 4 #elxn41 2 hours ago
	@inkcanada Even URBAN Ontario has gone blue. What country is this? Has John A come back? #elxn41bc 2 hours ago
	inkcanada Karen Walton–RT by IanAMartin Ontario, I never knew ye. You have swallowed the Kool-Aid and yet hate on pre-change US? Really, rural ON. wow. 2 hours ago
	@Watcher58 That’s what I thought. It’s like Reagan cleaning-up in California. By today’s standards, Reagan would make a good Liberal leader. #elxn41bc 2 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Richmond is CPC (Wong) by 151 to 36 for liberals ~ Kootenay is CPC (Wilkes) by 2:1 ~ If there’s oodles of conservative support, why am I living here still? #whereIsThatWine 2 hours ago
	#elxn41bc According to CBC prediction: Conservatives 153 seats. One more and they’ll have a true majority. Oops! 151 seats now. 2 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Duceppe behind by 1/3 in his riding. Harper’s ahead by 500% in his riding. Ignatieff behind by 10% in his. 2 hours ago
	CBCStephenQuinn Stephen Quinn–RT by IanAMartin Wait… BC could decide on whether it’s a CPC majority. Don’t turn it off yet! #elxn41bc 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Ontario is rejecting the Liberals in droves. I’ve never seen that. I wonder when it last was this way. Duceppe and Ignatieff are both trailing in 2nd place in their ridings. The whole Canadian Political map is being redrawn. The clear message voters are giving is “Harper can do ANYTHING he wants.” So very sad. 20 hours ago
	@TheresaLalonde #elxn41bc I suspect that Justin [Trudeau] might actually refuse to run for leader [of the Canadian Liberal Party]. He’s already seen what that demands. 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc CBC predicts NDP as er Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. I can live with that. ~ …okay. Conservatives 138, NDP 87, Lib 29, BQ 6. Time for wine, I think. ~ What with the results we have now, the desire to start a pool about when @petermansbridge sits down calls to me. 20 hours ago
	smuttysteff Steffani Cameron–RT by IanAMartin Don’t know why I’m even planning to watch the election results. I wonder if there’s a hole I can go stick my head in somewhere. 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Volpe is at HALF the CPC candiate’s numbers. What the hell happened? I didn’t think the Conservatives had a chance! I know long-term Tories who refused to vote for the Harper-led party. Ajax/Pickering: CPC ahead by 25%. Ignatieff is ahead by one. ONE vote! Incredible. Totally insane. 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Things are early still, but CBC TV saying 132 Con, 70 NDP, Lib 29, Bloc 5. Missed the radio numbers. Volpe is out, PC replaced him in Eglington. Surprising. So is Soloman waving his arms around. Not normal for him. 20 hours ago
	CBCAlerts CBC News Alerts–RT by IanAMartin Cabinet ministers Peter MacKay, Gail Shea re-elected . Defence minister wins in NS, fisheries minister wins in PEI. 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc CBC reporting 62 NDP seats, Liberals 27, Bloc 5. Liberals looking worst in its history. CBC projecting CPC government with 131 seats (150 for majority). #whereIsThatWine 20 hours ago
	smuttysteff Steffani Cameron–RT by IanAMartin Global is apparently CALLING the election nationally without even having had polls close on the west? If so, fuck off, Global. Asshats. 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc I still say the easiest process for voting is a pencil and a bit of paper. #HangingChads 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Damned fingers are cold, plus a bandage on one of them, and this netbook has an 80% keyboard. #NotDrinkingYet #Really #Seriously 20 hours ago
	CBCStephenQuinn Stephen Quinn–RT by IanAMartin 8 minutes Until we are able to report results. Man. Long eight minutes. 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc I’m guessing that Vancouver-South will be Dosanj due to Leung’s civil case and Malik’s approval. …okay, HOPING that happens. 20 hours ago
	CBCVancouver CBC Vancouver–RT by IanAMartin 11 minutes left before results @petermansbridge continues to introduce the Canada Votes panel #elxn41 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Hearing @CBCStephenQuinn discussing Social Media #tweettheresults points. AM 690 / FM 88.1 20 hours ago
	gaybachelorblog Gay Bachelor Blog–RT by IanAMartin #tweettheresults The blueberries are at 25, the strawberries at 21, oranges at 15  20 hours ago
	Jessica Adamson @jpadamson–RT by IanAMartin UBC students are getting turned away from the polls? Does anyone have confirmation. #elxn41bc 20 hours ago
	Herne Herne–RT by IanAMartin Canada : Stephen Harper breaks election rules, campaigns on radio on election day http://herne.me/isuIAa #cdnpoli #elxn41 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Narduar on TV right now with Ignatief. Thank goodness the signal’s muted. ~ Burnaby-Douglas was NDP last time by 700 votes, CPC 2nd place. No campaigning by them this time, so NDP #1 and CPC #3. My guess is that Atlantic Canada will go CPC and Liberal, as those are very tradition-based voting patterns. Multi-gen. traditions #prediction 20 hours ago
	ChrisDca Chris D.–RT by IanAMartin Interesting. Americans on Twitter encouraging Canadians to e-mail them early election results and they’ll tweet them. #tweettheresults 22 hours ago
	CBCVancouver CBC Vancouver–RT by IanAMartin CBC takes a light look at #elxn41 with @CBCDragon kicking things off. @kevinolearytv says he wouldn’t want to be PM as it doesn’t pay enough. 20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc I wonder if the CPC candidate for Bby-Douglas ever knocked on a door? *I* never saw him. ~ Polls close in 26 minutes people. VOTE YOUR ASS OFF (presuming you haven’t yet). ~ Evan Soloman looks so spiffy in his suit and his gigantic iPad. He keeps making smileys on it too.  20 hours ago
	#elxn41bc Hey, Harper! You shouldn’t “be in Ottawa dealing with the economy”, you should be dealing with the Contempt Charges! 21 hours ago
	#elxn41bc The real question about @cbcnewsbc TV coverage: will @petermansbridge get to sit down? ~ Hey! @petermansbridge is following 42 people now! ~ AHA! @petermansbridge is standing! 21 hours ago
	#elxn41bc A Conservative majority results in nation-wide celibacy. #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement 21 hours ago
	Currently watching Gloria and New Guy chat… oh, now we’re in commercial. BC feed not picked up on radio yet, polls close in 40 #elxn41bc 21 hours ago
	raincoaster raincoaster–RT by IanAMartin @IanAMartin Personally, I’m thinking watching the election on the big screen at a casino might be a good metaphor #Vancouver #lazyweb 21 hours ago
	CBCStephenQuinn Stephen Quinn–RT by IanAMartin Going Live with our local coverage in 12 minutes on CBC Radio One. Tag your local tweets #elxn41bc and we’ll pull them in to Cover it Live. 21 hours ago
	Currently in basement, on netbook, @cbcradio on, @cbcnewsbc muted on TV… all is ready. #elxn41bc 21 hours ago