Election time - at uni

At the campus where I work, there is a great push of those running for various positions, with all manner of flyers and posters proliferating. It is a great opportunity to spot the flaws in each - reasons not to vote. Take Carlos Reviero, angling for vice-president of education or in his own inimitable words "VICE PRESIDENT EDUCATION" (he isn't alone in being rather potted in his placing or otherwise of hyphens). He handed me a flyer as I walked around the campus in a spot of overtime the other day. He is "a Third Year Engineering Student that have [sic] experience with [questionable; 'in' works better] representing people's interests and know [sic] how education works at various institutions across continents and will try to pick the best for us at the University of Greenwich." Well, at least he trys. Obviously, he didn't try very hard at proof-reading though. Then he runs through a checklist where, of course, grammar goes out the window - like rubbernecking at Britney Spears' carcrash life, everyone does it. One of his pledges is to "support societies as they play a significant role in student life." Phew, there's a relief, since previously I thought his intention was to undermine societies, but that's cleared up. His final promise is "Be listening [sic] to your voices and make sure they are heard where needed." 'Nuff said. He exhorts to "Vote 1 for Carlos Reviero." Is that because his campaign is listed as one in a student ballot or because he views himself as the numero uno candidate or is it an oblique assessment of democracy? Who knows? Finally, he tells everyone "Create a Greenwich Pride - leave a legacy." How do create a pride - it is an amorphous concept that can not be quantified. Create Pride in/of Greenwich is better. And leaving a legacy? Like all those demands for 'change' in the USA primaries, legacies can swing for good or for bad.
But let's not be too hard on Carlos. Having so many spelling mistakes by someone running for an education post - well, that's par for the course these days. What about Cai Robbins? She is very professional with glossy posters featuring slightly pixellated photos (poor picture magnification) and even her own campaign website. She's running for sports (pun not intended). Miss Robbins is "a third year cricketer who will try her hand at any sport." Really? Nude mud-wrestling? Bare-knuckle fist-fighting? Footy? (I support the England's woman football team). The usual checklist of grammar mistakes on her checklist inevitably follows swiftly, after a bried overview of her election CVshe's going to be "lobbying for a new athletic track and aesthetic pitch". Because athletes can be aesthetes too, I suppose.
Well, the elections are happening today, hooray! That means students can freely roam campus without being accosted by a leafletter every five steps.

Saw There Will Be Blood last night. I forgot it was three hours long and so I got home at after half eleven. A very impressive film with some outstanding acting. I can see why Mark Kermode says the movie introduces a new cinematic narrative, but I wouldn't be quite so strident. Other people could say the film goes off at tangents and thus its length could have been shortened. What separates an auteur from an amateur? This, though, is no amateur work. There are constant pleasing touches and neat little inversions of tradition to surprise one, such as the camera holding fast on an empty railway line in the desert. We expect the train to hove into view on the horizon, but after thirty sceonds it pans to the right to show a natty little turn-of-the-century car roll up alongside it. Daniel Day-Lewis plays a cross between John D Rockefeller and Henry T. Ford and seems so immersed that his puckering of lips seems natural, whereas on a lesser actor it would seem risible. He deserves his Oscar. Paul Dano has two roles, one as a most unChristian church pastor, just as domineering as Day-Lewis's character and shows that televangelists haven't started anything new in their histrionics (I wonder how much he watched in preparation for the role). Ciaran Hinds meanwhile provides sterling support as the right-hand man of Day-Lewis' oil baron. The film's climax is very provocative, so much so that it draw one attention to some plot illogicality. Not because of anything that happens in the denouement, but why that scene came to pass in the first place, given the history between the characters. I can see what is trying to be achieved, but is sad since it draws attention to the narrative manipulation needed to effect it when the introduction to the scene could have been brought about more subtlely. Close to a ten out of ten then, but more appropriately nine. There Will Be Blood is a powerful film that remains in the mind a long time afterwards.

I'm glad, Sir Alex Ferguson and Carlos Queiroz have been charged with misconduct following their ill-considered outbursts following their exit from the FA Cup at home to Portsmouth who hadn't won at Old Trafford for 51 years. There was a pretty obvious foul that could have led to a penalty for Man Utd, but that was evened up when Milan Baros was held back from running at goal in an incident prior to the Portsmouth penalty award. That's the trouble with the Manchester United management - they expect to win every match five-nil. Fergie's greatest mistake was eliminating Arsenal 4-0 two rounds earlier as it allowed Portsmouth to giant-kill the Manchester team instead of Arsenal (or possibly Spurs). Ferguson should keep quiet about Newcastle and focus on his own problems.