Pablo

One day last week, during late afternoon, I crossed paths with Pablo, an Italian (?) homeless guy from whom I often buy the Big Issue magazine. A lot of Issue vendors have quite a cheery disposition, which is most likely a mask to hide their troubles and attract customers (I can't imagine anyone actually enjoys being in the position of having to sell the Big Issue). Pablo often smiles when he sees me coming, although he generally has an understandably dour demeanour, as he did when I approached him the other day. "Cheer up, heartface!" I said cheerily, as I purchased my latest Big Issue, "thing's'll look up soon, I'm sure!" Pablo seemed doubtful (I didn't really say that, but I did try to appear jovial to lift his spirits). He admitted that he hadn't sold many Issues that day, which he blamed on the cold weather and people's general disinterest.

I've become friendly with Pablo through buying the Issue (which I do actually then read, and usually enjoy) and seeing him through voluntary work with the homeless; it's heartbreaking to see him, like many other vendors, still struggling away selling the magazine after all that time (and longer, no doubt) yet it is also somewhat encouraging to see that he hasn't given up. It's not like he has much choice, though. He told me that he still sleeps rough and can't get into a hostel because (and I remember the details a little hazily, here), given that he's from abroad, Pablo isn't a registered UK tax-payer and therefore, isn't entitled to goverment benefits that would enable him to afford a room in a hostel that could provide him with an address to use for a job.

I felt hopeless for Pablo, as I have before, wondering if he would ever find a way out of his situation, one familiar to so many of the homeless people I've met through working at a Sunday afternoon drop-in for the disadvantaged at my church. It provides them with a place to eat, shower, socialise and wash their clothes, etc but I've often felt that, whilst that's something good and Biblical (e.g. Isaiah 58:7) that has helped many, it's not really enough to change the lives of those like Pablo, who have, in his own words, "nothing" and perhaps encourages those who have "something" (i.e. those on benefits with a hostel room/flat) to take advantage of the church's generosity.

Amongst the occasional newcomers, It's always the same faces who come to the drop-in, some of whom I knew from a previous voluntary stint with a daily Salvation Army drop-in three years ago. Pablo depressedly noted that that drop-in now charges for hot meals where it didn't used to. I think that, whilst this is tough on a lot of the place's clientele (if that's the right word? It certainly fits with a place that charges for its food), it must partly be to do with keeping its funding going, even if that means charging the poor people it exists to serve. Not to mention that charging might give those that take advantage a kick up the arse to do more than they are to improve their situation. Pablo may have a point but perhaps he could save some of the money he spends on cigarettes for a hot meal during the week? That said, if the charges are putting needy people off attending a place that can help them move on when they themselves can't due to mental illness or whatever, then that can't be good.


As I've said, the hopelessness of Pablo's situation got to me and I was at a loss as to what to say to him. Is his predicament really as hopeless as he says? Perhaps there's aspects of it I don't know about? Who am I to give advice anyway? Rather, Pablo had some encouraging words for me. After expounding on what he didn't have, he told me to be thankful that I had something - a home, benefits, friends, family, etc and to appreciate these things. I told him I would. I know I can easily take what I have for granted when I feel down about my life, struggling "between jobs" and still living with the parents. I was grateful to Pablo for lifting my spirits about my own situation. All I can do for him is keep buying his magazine and pray for a miracle.

Remembrance Prayer

As today is Armistice Day, I felt inspired to write a prayer/poem in honour of the occasion...

Lord,
It is easy to say I remember those who gave their lives for our country.
I pin on a poppy, give two minutes silence, then back to my own life.
But how can I truly comprehend their sacrifice? The horror of war?
Yet, that is the real freedom for me, today,
That I will probably never have to fight in a war because my freedom has been won for me.

Lord Jesus, you won freedom for me, like those soldiers, at the cost of your own life.
And it's your cross that marks their graves now - pure, white, like a dove; the sign of peace -
The result of their sacrifice.
And yours.

I can imagine a teenage soldier in the trenches,
Shivering in cold and fear as he stands ready to go over the top.
Death is certain.
Maybe not his, maybe his comrades, or the enemy's by his hand,
And with them, his innocence.
He reaches inside his jacket and pulls out a crucifix...
He kisses the cross as a sign of his trust in you, Lord,
Remembering you before his possible death, as we now remember you,
And all those who died for us in your name.

Amen

Bustin' makes me feel....OK, I s'pose

...but bloggin' makes me feel good! (To paraphrase the 'classic' GB theme song from Ray Parker Jr., below)

I must admit that I have never actually attempted to Bust a Ghost in my life (although the idea still appeals) but Ray Parker's lyric seemed a good post title.

2009 is the 25th anniversary of 'Ghost Busters', so, on Hallowe'en, I thought it high time to revisit one of my cinematic childhood favourites for the first time since...my childhood, probably. I really can't remember the last time I watched either of the two GB films, although I remember watching 'Ghost Busters II' at the cinema with my Dad, despite not having seen the first film beforehand. Through school friends, I had become an avid fan of the late-80's cartoon version, 'The Real Ghostbusters' and had only been two - too young for the cinema (to my parents, anyway) - when the original film was released, so that was my excuse. I think the first time I saw it was at some summer kids' club on VHS in the early '90's. By the time GB II came out, I was the envy of my classmates due to the fact that I had collected all of the TV show toys, including, my favourite, the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, who, to my dismay, was actually a villain in the first film and ended up splattered all over NYC. Well, he had been my childhood friend, anyway. The second film's villain, Vigo, was so scary, he gave me troubled sleep and so forfeited any right to my friendship.

Re-watching one of your youthful favourites at least 15 years on is a tricky prospect; the innocence and naivete of youth now replaced by the bitterness, regret and vagaries of adult life. OK, well maybe just the advancing years for me. Obviously, Ghost Busters is a kid's film and not really aimed at men in their late twenties, but it's good to get a little nostalgic from time to time, I think. Plus, films you enjoyed when you were younger can have a different appeal when you watch them as an adult. I recently re-watched 'Short Circuit' on TV and enjoyed the humour more than I did as a kid. The original 'Star Wars' and 'Indiana Jones' films also still hold up really well, more so than their recent sequels, for sure.

I did enjoy watching 'Ghost Busters' again but found it underwhelming and just not as funny as it thinks it is. Yes, it's a 25 year old comedy but if other '80's comedies like 'Short Circuit', with the slightly less comedically talented Steve Guttenburg and Ally Sheedy, can still amuse, how can 'Ghost Busters' fail to do so, especially with this cast? Bill Murray (second from left, above) brought his now well-known laid back, Devil-may-care shtick to the starring role of Dr. Peter Venkman, who now just irks rather than amuses. He has most of the best lines (e.g. "This city is heading for a disaster of Biblical proportions...human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!") but I  prefer Dan Ackroyd's (top second right) loveably nerdy, less jaded Ray Stanz or Harold Ramis' straight-laced and smart Egon Spengler (top left). I'm only really saying that because I always had to be Egon when we played Ghost Busters at school. He was seen as the quiet, wimpy one who took a back seat to the more popular and heroic Venkman, usually played by Barney Wills. Git. (Maybe I am bitter and regretful?) I've learnt to love Egon over the years, he's cool because, apart from inventing all the GB's equipment, the actor portraying him co-wrote the script and came up with the fantastic character names such as 'Ivo Shandor' and Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson - top right), who should also have had more screen time. If I actually had been Spengler/Ramis in the 1980's, I would have seen to that. That said, we didn't really care who wrote the script when we were in Primary School.

...fair enough, that's a very recent picture of me and I look more like the films' Egon now than I did at Primary School, when I didn't even wear glasses! I did have more hair, though :(

Anyway, back to the film. I failed to appreciate the humour as a kid, when, really, the main appeal of the film for me was watching the GB's use their cool gear to trap those nasty ghoulies and imagine myself doing the same thing. The toy line from the TV show allowed one to do this with the figures but I never got a proton pack or ghost trap for X-mas, unfortunately. I dunno, maybe I took it all too seriously and that's why I got saddled playing Egon. When I was 10, I just saw Stay-Puft as a villain and didn't get the joke that he, a beloved character from Stantz's childhood, became the film's ultimate, Godzilla-like manifestation of evil and destruction. Watching as an adult, the humour often seems too adult for a kids film, such as the sexual innuendoes between Venkman and Dana (Sigourney Weaver). The Stay-Puft gag is probably the most child-friendly joke in the whole film. As a whole. though, most of the humour falls a bit flat. "That's a big twinky" isn't as zingy a punchline as it's intended to be.

The special effects have dated pretty badly since the dawn of the CGI era, especially the stop-motion Terror Dogs, but at least they don't overwhelm the film and the scene where all the ghosts previously busted by our heroes are released across NYC still looks cool, as does a lot of the production design, e.g. the Ectomobile and the rest of the GB's gear. The same can't be said of the film's main villain, Gozer, who, for all the paranormal manifestations building the tension prior to her appearance, disappoints by looking like a reject from Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' video. Still, she redeems herself by creating Stay-Puft.

 

So, watching 'Ghost Busters' again was a lacklustre experience, overall. The film still has an eerie, yet upbeat charm, helped no end by Elmer Bernstein's score and who could forget Ray Parker's funky theme tune? However, it did still rouse my childhood desire to bust ghosts - a possible career option, maybe? How about the Norwich Ghostbusters, anyone?