London, GB | Formerly of New York, Buenos Aires, Fife, and the Western Cape. | Saoránach d’Éirinn.

Hogarth

Maine

Well, your humble and obedient scribe is retreating to the coast of Maine, whence the defeated loyal men of Berwick fled after suffering defeat at the hands of the wretched Cromwell in the Battle of Dunbar. I am bringing a few friends along, including Mssrs. Trollope, Goethe, Burns, Chesterton, Balzac, von Rezzori, and a Ms. Undset (I am finally more than two-thirds of the way through Kristin Lavransdatter). There may also be a corgi or two. Internet connectivity very sketchy in those parts, though I will see if I can send a pigeon back to Hogarth if any news. (Doubtful it would do any good; the last e-mail I had him send he instinctively translated into dots and dashes — he does remind me of Uncle Otto sometimes).

So I bid you farewell, and you can expect my return in a fortnight’s time, invigorated anew by the salty breeze.

August 13, 2010 11:41 am | Link | 2 Comments »

Gadzooks!

Tintin aficionados (such as your present scribe) have always had a certain nervousness with regards to putting the Belgian boy wonder on the big screen. Hergé’s creation is brilliant in the original comic books, acceptable in the 1990’s television cartoon version, but has produced only some thoroughly suspicious live-action film versions. (Namely, the 1961 “Tintin and the Golden Fleece” — not that Golden Fleece — and the 1964 “Tintin and the Blue Oranges”; neither of them based on books).

There was mention in the Economist some years ago of Spielberg doing a Tintin film and casting Leonardo diCaprio (!?!) in the lead role. I happened to cut it out of the Economist and so I have it somewhere amongst my clippings, but Hogarth claims his rheumatism and the current climate (“with respect, sir, wasn’t this humid before the war”) prevent him from classifying and filing my gigantic collection of clippings so I may have to wait until retirement to find it.

Word now comes, via the Guardian, that Herr Spielberg, fresh from his fourth and presumably final Indiana Jones adventure, is indeed to embark upon a Tintin film, and that he will cast the 17-year-old Briton Thomas Sangster as the heroic reporter. Cinephiles will recall Master Sangster from the 2003 Richard Curtis romantic-comedy “Love Actually” — which could have been a lovely, if typically sappy, film were it not for an entire subplot revolving around something rather lewd and not worthy of mention.

Unfortunately, my first reaction is that young Sangster is ill-suited for the role of Tintin. Firstly, he’s too young. I have always thought Tintin was permanently about 21, whereas Sangster will have just reach 18 when the film is in production. At a mere age of 18, can we really expect him to be undermining Bolshevism in the early Soviet Union? Or saving the ancient Syldavian monarchy from the threat of the dreaded Iron Guard? Or helping his pal General Alcazar regain the dictatorship of San Theodoros? I think not. But at 21, it seems much more possible.

(Of course, there are several more questions that any earnest Tintinophile feels compelled to ask. Will it be an adaptation or an original script? If an adaptation, of which book? Having a particular love of Scotland, I hope it’s The Black Island. Being a monarchist, I hope it’s the splendidly mitteleuropan King Ottokar’s Sceptre. But then perhaps, somewhat topically, they will choose Tintin in Tibet. And who will the rest of the cast be? Captain Haddock? Professor Calculus? Thompson and Thomson? Oh my…)

Well, we will just have to wait and see. After Herr Spielberg finishes his Tintin film, it appears that Peter Jackson (of “The Lord of the Rings” fame) will have a go at directing one himself. And there’s nothing to say he’ll use the same cast. Spielberg’s film is due in late 2009.

April 15, 2008 8:49 pm | Link | 5 Comments »

New & Improved

NO DOUBT YOU have been wondering what we have been up to. In truth, I had been beset with a grievous illness of the gravest nature. Bedridden, I scratched and scrawled and made calculations for the expansion of this little corner of the web, which I then had Hogarth (seen above, bringing me some hot toddy in my poor condition) send on to the architect. I have now recovered and my scratchings and calculations have born fruit. The result, you see before you: a new, improved, rather wider andrewcusack.com. Many elements have been made a bit cleaner than previously, while one or two things here and there became a bit clumsier in the construction process. I am sure you will pardon the niggling infelicitous remnants when you chance upon them. At any rate, the general result is an expanded central column, in which we can exhibit to you even broader and bigger images to enlighten you, brighten your day, or raise your ire, whichever the case may be.

(P.S.: I very rarely give advance notice of things to come, but you can of course expect a proper appreciation of the late Rt. Hon. Ian Douglas Smith in the coming days, now that the scaffolding is down and our new edifice complete, as well as at least one more entry in my ‘Maces of America‘ series, and so on and so forth…)

December 6, 2007 9:34 pm | Link | 6 Comments »

Happy New Year!

I hope everyone welcomed the New Year in style while I lounged at home.

Poor Hogarth, I made him drive the past year’s worth of andrewcusack.com (specially bound) to the Cusack archives at the New-York Historical Society first thing in the morning.

January 1, 2006 9:47 am | Link | No Comments »

Home | About | Contact | Paginated Index | Twitter | Facebook | RSS/Atom Feed
andrewcusack.com | © Andrew Cusack 2004-present (Unless otherwise stated)