rectangular objects review (no, not ipads)

Book post ahoy!

Now that I’ve started using the mobile library I’ve been stocking up on books.  I love the mobile library even though I seem to be the only one under sixty.  Actually, that’s not fair.  There’s a few of us without a blue rinse. 

The best things about using the mobile library are avoiding paying fines and making book requests for free – YAY!

So what have I been reading?

'No Off Switch' - hilarious, brilliant read

My friend recommended to me that I read Stuart Maconie when I mentioned to her that I’d read Andy Kershaw’s autobiography (which I’m also re-reading btw and still loving – it’s hilarious).  I was unsure but picked up one of Stuart's books when I noticed it on the mobile library shelf.  ‘Hope & Glory’ (which I kept reading as ‘Soap & Glory’) picks out an event for every decade of the last century with Stuart visiting each place he mentions.  I don’t know how many adjectives I can think of to describe how wonderful the book is but it truly is a delightful journey through Britain's history.

If I was being cheesy I'd say 'Hope & Glory' is a hopeful and glorious read!  

Fnar fnar, oh, I'm so amusing.  

I loved the mentions of the West Midlands – Stuart seems to be a big fan of the region – as he gives a potted history on Handsworth, eats Caribbean food in Perry Barr and even walks down Soho Road (the most famous road in Birmingham for Asian shopping).  It was like seeing myself reflected in a book.  Funny how attached we feel to the places we live, isn’t it?  

Stuart’s account of multiculturism isn’t all doom and gloom (like certain right-wingers would have you believe) but instead upbeat and positive about the contributions minority communities have brought to Britain.  Reading that made me want to stand up and say ‘YES! YOU’RE SO RIGHT! THANK YOU!’  For just the food alone, we minorities must be thanked profusely.  

'Hope & Glory' is wonderful.  'Love Poems' is poetry of the highest quality

The book is such a pleasant and informative read.  I’m definitely going to delve into the rest of Stuart’s output as I’ve been converted to an instant fan.  I’ve even started listening to Radcliffe and Maconie on 6 Music! 

I also read Carol Ann Duffy’s book of love poems which was good but I’ve read most of her work already so it wasn’t much of a revelation.  I liked the book cover though. 

If I had more readers, I'd set up a book club or something but as it is, I just like talking about what I like.  Any book recs are most welcome.  

Get the (Lancôme) Look

I love the Sunday Times.

Even though it’s owned by the tax dodging octogenarian Rupert Murdoch I can’t help but love The Sunday Times.  It’s part of my Sunday ritual to sit and read the papers while sprawled out on the sofa.  And this past weekend was good ‘un. 

I gratefully received my deluxe sized edition of style magazine (A whopping 14 ½ inches by 11 inches - oh my!) which I think is their version of the September Issue.  It’s crammed with fashion tips, the newest trends, glorious photos, gossipy articles – I even love the glamorous, expensive looking ads – it’s like a sugar rush of high fashion each time you turn the page. 

While leisurely flicking through the mag, I happened upon the most gorgeous photoset in the make up section. 

1. 2.3.

They are utterly gorgeous aren’t they?  My photos don’t capture how wonderful the make up looks but believe me, it’s stunning.

I read through the listed products and my heart sank at how expensive they seemed.  I like my budget cosmetics and favour what Americans call ‘drugstore’ brands (the cosmetics section in Boots and Superdrug basically).  At closer look, I realised that all the products were by Lancôme.  I flicked through the other two pages and all the products listed were by Lancôme.

Huh. 

For my own amusement I totted up the cost of each list of products for each look.  They are as follows:

1. £ 148.50
2. £ 168.00
3. £ 233.50 

Now I understand that not everyone is like me in regards to what I’d pay for in terms of cosmetics.  Style magazine consumers are a well-to-do bunch and expensive brands are of course, going to be featured and I have no problem with that. 

The short paragraph accompanying the pictures says that the person who styled the make up is Aaron de Mey, artistic director of Lancôme.  Okay, well that makes sense. 

But is this feature an advertisement or an article? 

I’m not a journalist and I imagine the lines drawn are a little murky with fashion and beauty magazines (by nature they feature lots of brands and products and probably have dumpster trucks full of freebies landing into their offices, I imagine…) but this seems a little erm, blatant in terms of putting a spotlight on a brand.  I mean, the magazine is already packed with gorgeous ads which the brands will have paid for.  So why did Lancôme get this feature? 

To the magazines’ credit, it also shows upcoming make up trends with a variety of products and brands.  I just wish there was a little transparency.  I mean, at least be upfront about this sort of stuff.  Was a deal involved?  (Mag gets the amazing photos if they agree to feature all the Lancome products). 

Ah well. I hope a make up guru out there ( like my fave Klaire de Lys) does a ‘recreate the look’ tutorial or something for a fraction of the price. 

Also note to the mags and brands; consumers aren't stupid.  We notice when you do shady stuff so please bring it out into the open. 

Use It Up

Unless your introduction to beauty blogs was approximately 5 seconds ago, it’s safe to say, people who click by accident dear readers, that you've heard of ‘project pan’ – a phenomenon that has swept through beauty blogs and youtube make up ‘guru’ vlogs.  In case you don’t know, the basic concept is hold off buying any new make up products until you've finished the ones already in your possession.  Hence the ‘hitting pan’ where you can see the metal casing of your foundation powder/eyeshadow case etc. 

I’m ashamed to say I’m a hoarder of products.  I like to eke out their use very slowly.  Really slowly.  Glacially slow in pace, in fact.  I have make up products that are almost a decade old (that I still use – hello bourjois naturel lipstick in paprika, my favourite lipstick of all time).  It’s not right, is it?  I’m giving this a go because it’s a good way of using up products and being creative. 

First on my list to be used are these products by Burt Bees:

I don’t know the shelf life of Burt Bees products but I bought these products a long time ago and almost forgot about them.  As you can see, I’ve almost used up the Lemon butter cuticle crème – the most delicious smelling product I have in my possession.  By comparison, the lotion and hand salve look brand new.  There’s a part of me that still wants to hold off using them until the winter when my skin becomes dry but I remember the cautionary tale of my Burt Bees almond and milk hand cream.  I used to carry it in my bag and use it whenever I needed a hit of something sweet smelling.  Then, for some reason I took it out my bag and left it on my dresser where it lay forgotten.  I picked it up some months later to find the sweet almond smell had gone off really badly rendering the cream unusable. 

Burt Bees is like Lush in the sense that the ingredients are natural (or at least not overloaded with chemicals I've never heard of) and guess it must have a shelf life of some sort even if it’s not stated on the package.  Actually, the ingredients on the foot lotion are quite interesting to read through.  It has witch hazel, tea tree oil and baking soda amongst other ingredients. 

I’m gonna start using it and will report on it if all goes well.  Burt Bees is a great little company and I’ve been happy with their products so far (except the shampoo bar which didn’t clean my hair) so I expect great things.  

Let me shoehorn in a quick review...

Despite my ‘project pan’ I bought a new lipstick from The Body Shop.  I’d put buying a suitable shade of lipstick on a par with finding a decent pair of jeans that fit.  BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE!  I would have bought a lipstick from Revlon but I could get a major discount with my Body Shop card so I plumped for a sheer lip colour from the delipscious range.  

I’d read through the reviews on the Body Shop site and I would concur with the odd smell of the lipstick.  It’s natural fruit flavour apparently.  I’ve never smelt a fruit like it.  It smells off.  Also, weirdly, when testing the colour on the back of my hand, it looked a lot lighter than the actual shade printed on the sticker.  I bought ‘pomegranate’ colour thinking it was lighter than the sticker shade.  The reality is that when applying it to your lips, the colour matches the sticker not what's on the back of your hand.  It’s a berry colour and it looks very natural on the lips.  I'm quite pleased with it even if it's a tad darker than I wanted.  I suppose it will go well with the autumnal look although looking out my window, it’s far too sunny to make the wardrobe switch to autumn – not that I’m complaining.  This summer has been underwhelming weather-wise.  

Retro Packaging

I want to finish off my post by drawing your attention to another product that’s been sitting on my shelf.  My mum bought me this hand and nail cream.  It seems like a cute piece of retro packaging that was in vogue a couple of years back.  I think it’s cute too.  However, there’s something that just niggles at the back of my mind.  On the front it says ‘Saucy Girl’ probably in reference to the rather well endowed lady sitting pretty.  

On back it says:

Sweet as sugar

And cute as a kitten;

A night with me

Will leave you smitten.

The hand cream does indeed smell sugary but is it possible for a hand cream to be described as cute?  And does anyone spend a night with their hand cream? (Oh God, don’t answer that…).  Maybe I’ve got it wrong.  Maybe this flirty little verse refers to the ‘saucy girl’ so it’s some kind of hand cream as a girl metaphor?  In which case: eeeeeeeeew. 

And yet it sits happily on my shelf (although discreetly placed).  Secretly, I quite like the naughty innuendo.  

Oh, I’m such a bad girl. 

iLOVEfilm

Contributing in my own little way to the demise of the cinema multiplex, I like to rent films from LOVEFILM, to enjoy movies in the comfortable surroundings of my home. I rarely go to the cinema although I do cherish the cinematic experience. But then I also like to wrap up in my duvet and binge on chocolate in my pyjamas which an Odeon ‘premier’ ticket cannot possibly compete with unless they take a very relaxed approach to appropriate cinema-attending attire and provide the duvets.

Anyhoo…

LOVEFILM screwed up my 3 DVDs a month arrangement and as a goodwill gesture sent me two films in the post; ‘Tangled’ and ‘Submarine’. It was a cunning move on their part to send such a killer combination of films. Tangled was impossibly cute and sufficiently Disney-esque although I still can’t shake off the 90s glory years of ‘The Little Mermaid’, ‘The Lion King’ etc. My tumblr dashboard seems to throw up images of Ariel and Belle at regular intervals (and I’m not complaining because I love to indulge in a little 90s Disney nostalgia). But Tangled was a cute fairytale with catchy ditties, funny little sidekicks, witty jokes and lashings of romance.

I was slightly wary of ‘Submarine’. I’d read enough reviews to know that the critics loved it but I think any semi-decent British film seems to gets hyped to skies because the bar is set so much lower. I mean, how many great British films can you remember? Only a handful, I’d imagine. I was also wary of comparisons to Wes Anderson. A film’s ‘quirkiness’ and affectations of cool are not an incentive for me to watch. I had sat through ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’ in the cinema and found it dull. I remember a couple of people walking out before it was over. And yet, critics had fawned all over it.

So it was with some trepidation that I watched Submarine. And whaddya know?

I LOVED IT!

I mean, it’s as hipster and quirky as all get out – there’s even a scene with fireworks and sparklers thrown in for good measure – and yet I loved everything about it. The scenery, sets and costumes are rich in colour and detail  – there are edited sequences of startling beauty – they obviously took great care in putting it together.

The actors are all wonderful. The central character, Oliver Tate, is an arrogant and at times unlikeable chap and he’s played brilliantly by Craig Roberts.  His love interest who is fabulously unimpressed by Oliver, is played by Yasmin Paige. If the characters were American, I’d imagine them to sound world weary and achingly hip but there’s a humour that undercuts their pretension and self-importance. Oliver may think himself an intellectual but he’s still the loser getting beaten up at school (I guess only Brits would find this funny).

The Alex Turner (he of the Arctic Monkeys) soundtrack is woven seamlessly into the film and characterises the emotional journey of Oliver. I've never considered myself a fan of the Monkeys but the soundtrack is just the most perfect accompaniment.




And did I mention it was funny? It’s touching, sweet and a little dark in places but it rattles along nicely and I wasn’t bored at all. It wasn’t twee for a coming-of-age story nor a rose-tinted nostalgia fest and yet it manages to hit all the right notes. So did the critics get it right for once? I think so. It’s a fantastic film and would make a great rental for rainy night in, box of chocolates in hand.

Note to LOVEFILM: You've earned my forgiveness.  Just don't screw up again, 'kay?