Eighth Grade


Eighth Grade is an excruciatingly honest coming-of-age drama about what it feels like to be a socially awkward 13 year-old girl. It is cringe-inducing, funny, moving and ultimately hopeful. Teenage actress Elsie Fisher is wonderful as Layla. Her performance feels raw and real and we are with her every step of the way, suffering her agonies of mortification and celebrating her hard-won victories and glimpses of happiness.

Image result for eighth grade film poster

Layla’s painful journey from eighth grade to the cusp of High School freedom is orchestrated with empathetic brilliance by first-time writer-director, Bo Burnham. After witnessing such a sensitive and wise portrayal of adolescent girlhood, it was a surprise to learn that Bo is a twenty-eight year-old man.

During her last week of Middle School we follow Layla around as if she is the subject of a documentary on teenage anxiety. Fisher’s acting is so lifelike that we respond to her character as if she was a real person. We first see her via her homemade vlog, in which she tries to help her audience feel better about themselves. Her video topics include ‘being yourself’ and ‘how to be confident’. A dedicated self-improver, Layla has a wall of motivational post-it stickers (sample: ‘Go Get’em!’) and a handwritten list of ‘Things I want’ and ‘how to get them’. Top of the list are a best friend and a boyfriend.

When Layla is awarded the class superlative award for ‘most quiet’, she looks so crushed we want to give her a hug. Layla is determined to beat her shyness but there seems to be no escape from her lonely misery; the tyranny of the mobile screen and peer pressure of social media only add to it.

Image result for eighth grade film

Layla has a crush on Aidan, winner of the ‘best eyes’ award. But sex is a puzzle to her, made more baffling by the sex education video they are shown in class (‘Chapter 1: the hair down there’). Any tentative forays into the sexual end in squeamishness and embarrassment.

In one of the film’s best scenes Layla makes her entrance at a ‘cool’ classmate’s party: we watch her from behind as she trudges towards the swimming pool with sloping shoulders, as if walking to her execution. It has the same sense of dislocation, of being forced into an alien world, as the pool party scene in The Graduate (1967), in which a reluctant young Dustin Hoffman surveys the watching adults through a scuba diving mask. As if to emphasise this link, nerdy Hoffman lookalike Gabe (Jake Ryan) surfaces next to Layla wearing a swimming mask and starts chatting to her.

Image result for eighth grade film

Any attempts to befriend the cool kids is doomed to failure. A hush descends as birthday girl Kennedy opens Kayla’s present, a card game. “It’s actually really fun,” says Kayla. Kennedy looks as if she has just unwrapped a dog turd.

Despite all this Layla has the courage to take the mike and sing karaoke. In a nicely-judged move by director Burnham we don’t get to hear what she sounds like and we don’t get to see any negative reactions from the other kids. For all we know, Kayla might have a singing voice like Aretha Franklin.

Much-needed happiness arrives in the form of Olivia (Emily Robinson), the older girl paired with Layla for the day when her class visit their High School. Olivia is kind and reassuring (“You’re so cute … I was a complete mess when I was your age”) and it is a joy to see Layla really smiling, loving the company of a cool older friend. This is what she has been missing and we wonder how much easier life might have been for her with an older sister to mentor her.

Image result for eighth grade film

Beyond the teenage angst, Layla has a loving relationship with her Dad (Josh Hamilton), who has brought her up single-handedly since she was a baby. He might be a bit of a ‘dork’, but she takes his advice to heart. When he interrupts her phone-scrolling at the dinner table – gently encouraging her to ‘put yourself out there a bit more’, she is annoyed. But the next topic of her vlog is ‘putting yourself out there.’

When we first see Layla she is wearing a butterfly t-shirt so Burnham prompts us to expect transformation. Will she turn into a beautiful butterfly? Or will the nervous butterflies in her stomach stop her becoming her true self? When Layla opens her old time capsule shoebox she doesn’t much like her younger self. But her new eighth grade one includes a video message to her future self: “I can’t wait to be you.”

Free Ballooning


If you think that extreme sports such as kite surfing are a recent invention, think again. According to Tom Crouch’s book Lighter Than Air: An Illustrated History of Balloons and Airships (2009), by the end of the nineteenth century the Free Balloon was not only popular in France, but was “attracting an entirely new class of enthusiasts on two continents.”

As Crouch explains, “a short voyage aloft, dangling beneath a colorfully decorated bag of hydrogen” – like the image depicted in the above poster – “proved just the ticket for a jaded young man with money in his pocket and a taste for adventure.” Likewise, this poster reminds that while entertainment like the circus and ballooning were sources of cultural fascination throughout France, the level of a Frenchman’s participation was dictated by his social status.


The Aéro Club de France became a favorite gathering place for one of the wealthiest and most fashionable social circles in fin-de-siècle Paris. Ballooning, for over a century the presence of aerial showmen, soldiers, and adventures, now became a sport appearing to wealthy dilettantes.




Skinny Lister live at Cambridge Junction

April 10th, 2019

Skinny Lister are a welcome reminder that not everything in England has gone to shit. This rollicking good-time indie folk six-piece are a tonic for our troubled times – a dose of communal uplift and an advert for the healing power of live music. They should be prescribed on the NHS.


Since the band formed in London in 2009 they have released four albums and toured extensively, honing the kind of polished-yet-spontaneous live set showcased at this Cambridge Junction gig. Not having heard them before my son offered me a ticket, I am now a convert. Skinny Lister’s songs are so catchy they get into your bloodstream after first listen. By the time they play Six Whiskies during the encore you feel like bellowing along even if you’ve only had a couple of shandies.

Comparisons to The Pogues are warranted – see Sally Maclennane-soundalikes This is War, and Hamburg Drunk. Skinny Lister share the same bar-room romanticism and sonic template. They even have a Christmas song (Christmas Calls). But they are far more clean-cut and harmonious. Singer/guitarist Dan Heptinstall looks more like young actor Thomas Sangster (Maze Runner, Nanny McPhee) than Shane McGowan, and their folk-pop cocktail never seriously threatens to go off the rails.

Any resemblance to folk imposters Mumford & Sons, though, should be confined to their most popular song on Spotify, Rollin’ Over, which has the same earworm quality as Mumford’s inescapable smash The Cave.


Skinny Lister have a musical magpie approach, borrowing sparkle from British pop royalty – Dexys, Madness and The Clash (see My Distraction’s nod to Police on My Back’s 2-note guitar solo); they also deign to allow the commoners into their repertoire – see The Alarm-like call-to-arms of 38 Minutes. But their best songs transcend these influences: Cathy has an exuberant terrace-chant of a chorus (“Oh Cathy, you’ve got me on my knees, my knees, my knees”) and Six Whiskies is a stirringly bittersweet ode to London.

On stage Skinny Lister line up a bit like The Clash in their global heyday, orchestrating their look and attack – red shirts and quiffs on one side, black on the other. They have a cool bass player (Scott Milsom) who lifts his double bass high in the air; he looks like actor Laurence Fox (Lewis) playing Paul Simonon.

The band are generous. “You’re looking very beautiful tonight” vocalist Lorna Thomas tells us more than once (we’re really not, but thanks, anyway). She gets off the stage to dance with those at the front, passing round an enormous earthenware flagon from which many of us take a swig. What was that stuff? I can’t be sure but it tasted like vodka and peppermint. In the spirit of cameraderie they invite members of the support bands on stage for a communal encore.


Slow songs such as Colours are interspersed in the set, but don’t dampen the party mood, with the band encouraging audience sing-alongs to Bonny Away and John Kanaka. We came to escape the madness of Brexit and Skinny Lister have a song for that too (Thing Like That):

Why do you want to go and do a thing like that?

We’ll come to find we’re living in a land gone mad

Throw away the world to get your country back

Why do you want to go and do a thing like that?



Forever Iris – Celebrating the Centenary of a Magnificent Novelist

As part of 2019’s Cambridge Literary Festival journalist and critic Alex Clark chaired a discussion to celebrate the writing of novelist Iris Murdoch, who would have been 100 years old this July. Joining her were writers and critics Catherine Taylor and Jonathan Gibbs.


Clark began by acknowledging Murdoch’s Marmite quality: “I identify as an Iris Murdoch fan. But a lot of people don’t like her.” Gibbs, whose own work has drawn comparisons with Murdoch, prefaces his current novel The Large Door with a quote from her: “One of my fundamental assumptions is that I have the power to seduce anyone.” She famously had multiple affairs with both men and women during a long marriage to John Bayley.

Gibbs first read Murdoch’s debut novel Under the Net (1954) because he was reading “lots “of existential novels.” He now has a poster of the “lovely” cover for The Sea, The Sea (1978) on the wall of his college room, presumably the classic Hokusai painting The Great Wave off Kanagawa used for the book’s first edition.


Taylor said she had read all Murdoch’s books by the age of 20 (her Mum was a huge fan), rediscovering them 20 years later. She acknowledged the change in the prose quality after the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. The author of books on philosophy such as The Sovereignty of Good (1970), Murdoch “put a bit of her philosophical tenets into her work, like Simone de Beauvoir.”

As someone who confessed not to read women writers at the time, Gibbs was shocked and surprised how funny and “page-turnery” Murdoch’s novels were: “it was an absolute joy to come across someone who was writing such vivid prose.”

Clark noted that the author was ambivalent about her intricate plots, both cleaving to them, then not seeming to care about them. In her letters Murdoch does not really talk about the novels, which begged the question of why she wrote them at all. Taylor pointed to an unfettered imagination that could not be constrained by only one discipline.

When Murdoch’s first novel was published in 1954 Kingsley Amis wrote “she is a distinguished novelist of a rare kind”. Under the Net had a “definite whiff of Europe,” said Clark, a mixture of philosophy and gritty kitchen sink realism.


What other qualities marked her out? Vivid settings and the chameleon ability to shift between them. Polyamory, gender-fluidity, a “ridiculously over-the-top” carnivalesque cast of characters. “She just plays around with these characters like a puppet master,” observed Taylor. She was working through a particular theme until it worked itself out on the page.

Murdoch’s prose is “so simple and pellucid”, said Gibbs. Her novels are “luminous … beautifully clearly written” – place, buildings, nature are all vividly captured. Taylor: this is a writer, like Dickens, “who really dwells on the physiognomy of her characters”.  She goes against the “show, don’t tell” advice given to budding writers, telling you about them instead.

Since her death in 1999 Iris Murdoch’s reputation has become “obfuscated”, influenced by her husband’s memoir of her when she was suffering from Alzheimer’s, which was the basis for Richard Eyre’s feature film Iris (2001). Taylor thought this was “questionable,” a way of writing about her without her knowledge. There was a “prurient interest in a mind falling apart,” agreed Clark. “All marriages are opaque,” said Taylor.


Clark brought the discussion back to seduction: “this is what she is fascinated by – sudden revelations that a character is passionately in love with another.” These “thunderclaps” are why Murdoch is popular with adolescent readers. Like Shakespeare, she makes us believe in falling in love, said Taylor, and she writes beautifully about middle-aged love in all its “piteousness and ridiculousness”.

Murdoch came of age during World War II and the horrors of way work their way into her books. She is concerned with the nature of ‘goodness’, morals and ethics in relationships, and what happens to her characters when they are not ‘good’.

What conclusions did she come to? wondered Clark. “If you come up with the answer, you shut up,” observed Gibbs, citing authors such as Rimbaud. But Murdoch was always asking the same questions – 26 times. Her books get longer, the older she gets.

How important was her Irishness to her? (My own kids always call her ‘Irish Murdoch’). Taylor was delighted to report that a Centenary stamp of the author was being created in Ireland this year.

Clark: “Some of her books aren’t very good, are they?” This was due to the speed they were written at, said the others (1 every year during the 1960s/70s). Books like The Italian Girl (1964) “feel like they were written in a fever,” thought Clark, “but not a good one.”


Murdoch described herself as “a male homosexual sado-masochist.” Unlike contemporaries such as Margaret Drabble she did not go in for feminism. She wrote books that would appeal to men, said Gibbs. Her male characters are “a mess, but it’s flattering to be worthy of [the novelist’s] attention.”

The panel discussed The Sea, The Sea, winner of the Booker Prize in 1978, and “a phenomenal work about self-deception,” in which the “amazing central character, Charles Araby,” tries to rescue an old flame from her marriage. But she doesn’t want to be rescued. Clark wondered whether this exposition of male shortcomings chimed with the #MeToo movement, or was at odds with it.

Gibbs talked about a recent ‘Murdochian’ novel, Hanya Yanagihara’s A Little Life (2015), which has also sharply divided readers, with its ‘operatic’ suffering and sexual abuse. Like Murdoch, the author here is not much interested in psychological realism, so much as Dickensian character development and the playing out of an idea.

To close, Alex Clark tells the story of Philip Larkin and his lover, Monica Jones, of how they used to enjoy visiting libraries on holiday and defacing books, much like Joe Orton famously did. Thus, Iris Murdoch’s Under the Net became ‘Under the Nether Regions.’

Questions from the audience included one about humour and comedy. The Black Prince is farcical, said Taylor, and there is always a death in her books, but it is hilarious. The Sea, The Sea is a tragi-comedy about coercive control. Her characters say very witty things, said Gibbs. They’re all clever, gossipy, and they have outlandish names. Girls have boys’ names like Julian.

Taylor pointed out that Murdoch “jettisoned people quite cruelly in real life, just like her characters.” The author could be “terribly heartless,” agreed Clark, but she was “driven by ideas of the moral good.”

How many of the audience had read an Iris Murdoch novel in the past year? A few hands go up.

The event finished with the panel’s personal favourites:

Catherine Taylor – The Flight from the Enchanter

Jonathan Gibbs – The Black Knight

Alex Clark – A Severed Head.



Jordan Peele’s 2017 magnificent debut Get Out was always going to be a hard act to follow. Us retains much that was so good about that film – the creepy atmosphere, shocks and thrills, snappy script, bold storyline and dark humour. But whereas Get Out seemed effortless and perfectly formed, Us feels a little strained and overcooked. An offbeat central idea gets bogged down by too much talky explanation. The dragged-out ending becomes tiresome and the final twist is predictable.


But this story of a family battling their mysterious look-alikes is still hugely entertaining. It features a visceral central performance from Lupita Nyong’o as mom Adelaide, whose past comes back to haunt her, and writer/director/producer Peele is generous with his cryptic puzzles, pop-culture references, gory violence, satire and comic dialogue.

Many of his best lines are delivered by likeable doofus dad-on-vacation, Gabe (Winston Duke): – “there’s a family standing in our driveway [pause]; it’s probably the neighbours”.  “You don’t need the Internet,” he tells his screen-addicted kids. “You’ve got the Outernet”.

Us starts with an onscreen caption, perhaps the real-life germ of Peele’s fantastical plot idea: “There are thousands of miles of tunnels under the United States … Many have no known purpose at all.” Cut to an ‘80s tv charity advert for Hands Across America. Then we are at a beach fairground in 1986 Santa Cruz. A little girl wanders away from her dad into the hall of mirrors inside Shaman’s Vision Quest. Find Your Self, the attraction promises, and the girl does indeed bump into another girl who looks exactly like her.


Jump forward to the present. The little girl has now grown up into the mother of a sporty teenage girl and her eccentric little brother. As they are settling into their holiday home, it is invaded by red-jumpsuit wearing doppelgangers who move as fast as velociraptors and speak in strange voices. “It’s us,” says little Jason (Evan Alex).

When asked ‘what’ they are, the Mom answers “we’re Americans.” What do these ‘others’ want? To kill their ‘twins’, it seems. And we soon find out that these Hydes are attacking their Jekylls all over the USA.

By the end it all gets a bit silly. Even the score by Michael Abels, who also composed the soundtrack to Get Out, is disappointingly ‘horror by numbers’: screechy strings, subterranean bass note, mad monk choral chanting.

Is this a satire on the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’? A swipe at Trump-era division and the scapegoating of immigrants? Interviewed by Steve Rose for The Guardian Peele said:

“We are our worst enemy, not just as individuals but more importantly as a group, as a family, as a society, as a country, as a world. We are afraid of the shadowy, mysterious ‘other’ that’s gonna come and kill us and take our jobs and do whatever, but what we’re really afraid of is the thing we’re suppressing: our sin, our guilt, our contribution to our own demise … No one’s taking responsibility for where we’re at. Owning up, blaming ourselves for our part in the problems of the world is something I’m not seeing.”



Can You Ever Forgive Me?

This fact-based account of author Lee Israel’s 1990s crime spree as a forger of literary letters makes for blackly comic, compelling and ultimately moving cinema. Director Marielle Heller’s film showcases two stand-out performances: from Melissa McCarthy as Israel and from Richard E. Grant as fellow boozehound renegade, Jack Hock.


In adapting Israel’s 2008 memoir screenwriters Nicole Holofcener and Jeff Whitty have a treasure-trove of bitchy one-liners to draw upon. The biographer was evidently a ‘difficult’ personality, someone whose bad behaviour enlivens Can You Ever Forgive Me?

But McCarthy doesn’t play for easy laughs; she breathes depth and soul into this frumpy middle-aged New Yorker with a caustic tongue, who refuses to play the publishing game and likes cats better than people. At first the actor’s Jimmy Krankie hair and spinster librarian wardrobe jolts the viewer – it is nearly as off-putting as her drunken response to journalist colleagues at the start of the film (“fuck off!”). But we soon get used to her misanthropy and “crimes against fashion.”


In 1991 hard-drinking Lee is “going through a rough patch,” behind with the rent and in need of funds to pay vet’s bills for her sick cat. Her apartment is also in need of a detox – it has a plague of flies, probably attracted to the fossilised cat turds under her bed. Once on the New York Times Bestseller list, Lee is trying to write a biography of comedienne, Fanny Brice, but writer’s block gets in the way: “This is me sitting down to fucking write,” she types on a blank sheet of paper.

A way out presents itself when Lee sells a personal letter she received from Katharine Hepburn to a local book dealer for $175. Told that she would have been paid more for if the content of the letter had been more interesting, Israel begins to forge and sell letters by famous dead writers and actors, embellishing them with postscripts and intimate and scandalous details. She invests in a collection of second-hand typewriters similar to those used by her subjects.

A chance meeting in a bar with old drinking buddy Jack Hock (Grant) leads to shared reminiscences and mischief. The two scoundrels play phone pranks on her enemies and crease up laughing like teenagers – McCarthy does a wicked impersonation of director Nora Ephron.


Richard E. Grant almost steals the show as Jack, a rakish old queen who recalls the actor’s memorably debauched debut in Withnail & I (1987). Asked by Lee if he is working, Jack replies “this and that. Mostly that.” With his flamboyant swept-back hair, scarf, perma-fag and one cutting use of the ‘c’ word, Jack’s cheery “Chin chin!” seals the deal.


When the FBI finally catch up with Israel she is unrepentant, confessing in court that “in many ways this has been the best time of my life.” Nobody got hurt, after all, and the people who paid inflated sums of money for her forgeries are mostly presented as greedy and pretentious. This was hardly a scam on the scale of the Hitler Diaries.

In a strange way Lee is keeping the literary flame alive (“I’m a better Dorothy Parker than Dorothy Parker”). She believes in her own integrity, that her letters provide “a portal into a better time and place when people actually honoured the written word.”

Lee Israel forged and sold around 400 letters. Two of her forgeries were included in a 2007 biography of Noel Coward. A critic called her 2008 memoir “a sordid and pretty damn fabulous book”. Can You Ever Forgive Me? is a sordid and pretty damn fabulous film.



Three Identical Strangers

This stranger-than-fiction documentary about triplets who were separated at birth will have you shaking your head in disbelief. Starting off like a Disney fairy tale, Three Identical Strangers becomes a sinister conspiracy thriller. With its echoes of Nazi medical experimentation during the Holocaust, the film is like a blockbuster idea from writer William Goldman (Marathon Man), rejected by his agent for being too outlandish.


Talking head testimony from the brothers, their families, friends and others, are often accompanied by dramatic reconstructions of the events they describe. There are chatshow clips from 1980, their walk-on part with Madonna from Desperately Seeking Susan, as well as home video footage. This documentary rarely pauses for breath, but when words fail, zen-like images help us digest the human fall-out from this drama. “My brother Eddie could light up a room with his smile,” says David. Cut to the evening sunlight going down behind a chimney stack.

Robert Shafran tells the story of how he first met his brothers. It was his first day at college and any nerves soon turned to stunned surprise as a succession of strangers greeted him like a returning hero. Girls kissed him and asked him how his summer was. “Eddie! How are you?” One of Eddie’s friends phones the real  Edward Galland up and they drive to Long Island in the middle of the night. “The door opens … and here I am. His eyes were my eyes.” They looked exactly alike and moved as if they were looking in the mirror.


“Then it went from being amazing to being incredible,” narrates Robert. After a journalist covered the story David Kellman’s wife saw a photo of the twins and the three brothers were reunited for the first time since their birth in 1961. “They knew each other. There was no need for introductions,” says Eddie’s grandfather, “I watched three lives becoming one.”

When they compared notes, it turned out the brothers all had the same taste in booze, cars and women; they all smoked Marlboro cigarettes and wrestled. In 1980 this ‘fairy tale’ reunion went viral and became a media circus. Soon they were living together in New York, dancing at Studio 54 and mixing with celebrities. They opened a restaurant called Triplets and life was like “a big barmitzvah.”


But as the brothers begin to ask questions about their past the dream turns into a nightmare. Why were they separated at birth, when experts knew it would result in separation anxiety and terrible deprivation? There is anger directed at the elite adoption agency, Louise Wise, which specialised in Jewish babies

Journalist and author, Laurence Wright, begins to research an obscure scientific study which separated babies at birth for the purposes of psychological study. He discovers that the three infant brothers were intentionally placed with families at different economic levels – one blue-collar, one middle-class, and one wealthy. Their progress was then monitored by assistants, who would visit them periodically to film them and conduct tests. The shocking truth was that they were ‘lab-rats’ in a science experiment. It was “like some Nazi shit … it felt like our lives had been orchestrated by these scientists.”

What was the aim of the study? Psychiatrist Peter B. Neubauer felt that this was an opportunity to ‘prove’ once and for all which was stronger, nature or nurture.  A research assistant admits that “in retrospect, it was undoubtedly ethically wrong”.

Why did the boys’ lives turn out so different? “I saw it at first hand,” says Wright, “it’s all about nurture.” There were many superficial similarities between the triplets, but deep down they were different. Their lives were not proof that ‘biology is destiny’, but that ‘nurture can overcome nearly everything’.