Film review: LA VOIE LACTÉE [THE MILKY WAY] (Luis Buñuel, 1969)

Luis Buñuel'a irreverent send-up of Christianity sees Pierre (Paul Frankeur) and Jean (Laurent Terzieff) embarking on a religious pilgrimage from France to Santiago de Compostela in Spain. Along the way, they come a series of unexpected events, from walking in on a ritual from a secret sect, being asked to moderate a duel, and a chance meeting with the Grim Reaper.

La Voie lactée's surrealist elements and indictment of Catholicism render it classic Luis Buñuel, but  neither of these two components were employed terribly effectively. As in Tristana, I found the dream sequences distractingly low-quality, and because the whole file had a trippy vibe, it was difficult to delineate the fantasy sequences from the actual storytelling. The cutaways didn't add anything to the narrative, and, perhaps because I'm treated due to shows like Family Guy, I usually expect my cut-aways to be, you know, funny. Here, they were met with a *tumbleweed*-style reaction.

The Catholic Church offers ample material for mockery, and having their teachings torn apart, something that Pedro Almodóvar does effectively in several of his films. He achieves it by writing characters such as a shady priests into various stories (e.g. La mala educación), and then allowing the plot to unravel as the hypocrisy and corruption of said characters are exposed. That way, the audience sees these people for the monsters they are, whilst recognising their religious background played a formative role in this. We have been shown, rather than told.

But in La Voie lactée, the speeches delivered by characters in this film by preachers and brainwashed kids, written in such an brazen way so as to make the deliverers look stupid, felt like the audience was being spoon-fed to laugh at these characters and ridicule their beliefs. The contradictory things they were spouting were too out there and nonsensical for it to be plausible that the character believed in what they were saying.

The closing titles of the film, which laid out all the problems with religious dogmas, epitomises Buñuel's heavy-handed approach:  if the film had done its job properly, the audience should already know this. They wouldn't need it rammed down their throat. This complete lack of nuance meant I was, lamentably, not able to enjoy this film as much as I would have liked to. (I like ridiculing religion as much as the next person!)

However, as with previous Buñuel titles, I was still amused by the film, and scenes which were darkly comic and the audience unsure whether or not to laugh meant we were kept on their toes. One vignette, where a woman lies on the cross and has her hands pinned to it like Jesus Christ, was visually discreet but made an arresting impression. And the benefit of having so many short scenes, pieced together in a sketch-like way, meant that the viewer was at least, never bored.

I wouldn't classify La Voie lactée as Buñuel's best work. But it's a curious entry into his filmography that his aficionados might derive more enjoyment from than I did. 

6/10

--

If you enjoyed this review, the rest of my reviews are here!

Sausage Party should NOT have been rated 15!!

Urgh, Sausage Party.

I wasn't the biggest fan of this film (5/10 for me), which is somewhat surprising given I love crude, non-PC humour a la Family Guy, and the Hollywood cast behind it was eye-watering. But I found SP ludicrous, try-hard, thinking itself cleverer than it was, as well as committing the cardinal sin of comedies: being unfunny.

The dialogue, for starters, felt forced, like they were trying to beat some record for the amount of f-bombs in a movie. The screenwriters inserted 'f_ck' into almost every line of dialogue and as such, it lost its impact. It also led the script to feel somewhat clunky; contrast that to the swearing in Martin Scorsese movies. In some of his films, the curse words come thick and fast, but you buy it, because it feels organic, and part of the character and the way they speak. With SP it just felt like they were trying to be edgy.

I didn't laugh at many of the jokes. I thought the scope was too ambitious - trying to cover racism, religion, and analogising each race to foodstuffs (how utterly groundbreaking), as well as having an underlying story about sausages discovering the truth about what happens to them. The weird plunger who kept wanting to get revenge on Seth Rogen and Kristen Wiig's character was creepy A F, didn't like him.

But I'm not here to rant about Sausage Party. It's doing well for itself at the Box Office, and you can't begrudge Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg for that. What didn't do it for me, is clearly doing it for many other cinemagoers.

No, I'd like to discuss how on earth the BBFC gave Sausage Party a 15 certificate. There are two main classification issues that I thought should have taken it to an 18.

1. The male-to-female usage of the c-word

in the following discussion, when I refer to 'cnut', I'm actually talking about the word with the n and the u switched around.

The f-word itself is not enough to elevate a 15 to an 18, no matter how many times you say it. And you can actually say 'cnut' quite a few times in a 15-rated film (from the BBFC podcasts, I believe the record number of c-words you can say is seven or eight), depending on the context. 

But single uses of the c-word can lift it from a 15 to 18. I'm thinking of Sleeping Beauty, not the Disney classic, but a dark tale of a girl who lets men pay her to do whatever they want to her whilst she's asleep. There were three issues contributing to the 18 certificate there, but if you read the report I linked, one of them was an 18-rated use of the c-word, which was directed aggressively towards her whilst she's asleep. There's another such anatomical use of the c-word, directed from a man to a woman in François Ozon's similarly themed Jeune et Jolie, also an 18.

So the BBFC are pretty squeamish about male-to-female uses of the c-word, because of the misogynistic overtones, as well as the fact that men are generally taller and stronger than women, so the utterance of the c-word adds to an element of 'imbalance of power'. One episode of Californication was thus put up to 18 because a lady was called a 'f_cking cnut' by a drunk man because she accidentally bumped into him.

Similarly, one of the two issues that got Gone Girl its 18 rating was when Ben Affleck calls Rosamund Pike a 'f_cking cnut' repeatedly, to which she replies defiantly, 'I'm the cnut you married'.

Off the top of my head, one film which was passed 15 despite containing a male-to-female usage of the c-word is in Frank, when Domhnall Gleeson calls Maggie Gyllenhaal one. But that scene is resolved immediately in a comic manner to show that she hasn't taken offence, quite the opposite, it's turned her on, and in that case, the impact is greatly reduced.

Anyway, back to Sausage Party, which contained three uses of the c-word. Two of them were uttered by Edward Norton's bagel, and he's either referring to himself or another man, so they didn't bother me. His character has ongoing beef with a lavash called Kareem (Seth Rogen's laboured metaphor for the Israel/Palestine conflict), so one of the c-bombs was him calling Kareem that under his breath, pretty expected.

The third c-word, however, said near the start of the film, is delivered by Jonah Hill's sausage about Kristen Wiig's bun, after she's shown him up in front of everyone. He turns to Seth Rogen's sausage (Wiig's boyfriend in the film) and says 'Dude, um, how do I say this to you gently? But your girlfriend, um... She's a fucking cnut.'

Sidenote: we already know Jonah delivers the c-word with relish:

Given all the examples I've just given of films taken up to 18 because of male to female uses of the c-word, and what the BBFC repeatedly state themselves on their podcasts (which I have listened to over and over many a time on my commutes, how do you think I can just reel off examples off the top of my head?), a man screaming the c-word at a woman is likely to take the film up to an 18.

I get that Jonah's sausage didn't scream it in this scene, and he was also saying it about a woman rather than to her (although she was within earshot) but the matter of fact way in which he said it, the fact that misogynistic abuse was being played for laughs, meant that the BBFC should definitely have thought about the suitability of such language within a 15-rated framework.

2. The orgy scene
Firstly, I totally get that you can show quite a lot of sex in 15-rated films. Blue Valentine, Monster's Ball and Black Swan are held up by the BBFC as the upper bounds of sex that will be allowed in a 15; the former two flirted with the Kiss of Death rating, the NC-17 in the States, yet didn't even get the highest 18 certificate here.

(Interestingly, La mala educación, which, whilst being nowhere near Pedro Almodóvar's most explicit film and comfortably placed at 15, got NC-17 in the States. This is because the MPAA rate homosexual love scenes with a different yardstick to heterosexual ones, something that the BBFC, who treat all sex scenes equally, don't. Basically, the MPAA be hella homophobic).

The reason Blue Valentine and Monster's Ball had their sex scenes rated 15 despite being quite long and featuring mechanical thrusting motions, is, as argued by the BBFC in their podcasts, the crucialness they play to the plot of the films, as well as both movies featuring sex in the framework of a loving relationship.

It is for this reason that the BBFC are stricter on group sex scenes, even if the detail is minimal. The last Lindsay Lohan movie I saw, the 18-rated The Canyons, contained a ménage à quatre scene, but although there were some impressions of what was going on, it was so dimly lit that all you saw were shadowy movement. Because the shapes were so dark and vaguely made out, this group sex scene lacked the intimacy of something in, say, Blue Valentine.

Similarly, Straight Outta Compton: Director's Cut was rated 18 (the theatrical cut was a 15) due to one such scene, even though the BBFC's Irish counterpart, the IFCO, rated the Director's Cut a 15, and the Irish film board, whilst matching the majority of the BBFC's decisions, tend to be harsher with sex scenes overall. For example, some of the sex scenes that the BBFC allow at 12, the Irish rate 15. This tells me that the content of the Straight Outta Compton: Director's Cut scene couldn't have really been that strong, or else the Irish would have followed suit in rating it 18.

So the BBFC are more permissive than their Irish counterparts on sex overall, if it's within the framework of a couple doing it, whether it be man/woman [Never Let Me Go is a 15 in Ireland, 12 here], man/man, or woman/woman [Black Swan is an 18 in Ireland]), but stricter on orgies. Fair enough, every film board is different and operates by their own protocol.

So, why, then, if a sex scene involving more than 2 people usually gets a film an 18 certificate, was Sausage Party a 15?!?!?!?!?!

I lost count of the amount of members of the supermarket foods orgy scene, but there were a hell of a lot more people involved than just 2, and the detail was graphic, there was no ambiguity about what was going on, and the mechanical detail, in terms of sexual outlets was crude and nasty.

I was traumatised by that scene. The audience around me loved it, laughing their heads off at every frame, but honestly, I just thought it was tacky. And like I've said before, it's hardly like I'm epitome of highbrow; I usually find crude humour hilarious. But this was too much. And definitely too much for a 15 certificate.

I know the BBFC will just say that 'oh but it was with animated foods, it's not like it's humans' , but these foods are given anthropomorphic (foodthropomorphic?) qualities, so that argument doesn't really wash with me. They had arms, legs, faces, voices, and quite clearly, sexual libidos. To palm the explicitness of that sex scene off as 15-material just because they were cartoon sausages and buns is irresponsible, and irresponsible is not a word I often throw at the BBFC [I usually think they're too cautious].

Long post was long, I know. But Sausage Party should not have been a goddamn 15. I'm sure Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg would have embraced the 18 certificate had they been given it, and taken it as a badge of honour in terms of what it said about the film's filth. Because it was filth, and 15-17 years old should not have been allowed to see it.

--------------

maybe I just wrote all this because I watched Sausage Party almost exclusively for Jonah Hill (just like the cartoon pictured above), and the film was ultimately disappointing. Here's hoping that Kubo and the 2 Strings, which I'm watching tomorrow for Rooney Mara, won't follow in SP's crappy footsteps.

My 10 Favourite Performances of 2012.

Powering through the series where I list my top 10 acting performances by year. Remember, the top 10 isn't so much a list of the top 10 best acting performances, per se, but more me playing favourites to actors and actresses I really dig, as well as performances that gave me the feels. You know, to quote Family Guy, 'all the things that make us, laugh and cry'. Which is ironic because a certain prominent member of the Family Guy cast is on this list. It's almost like I set up my own joke, isn't it?

If you're wondering why no performances from Lincoln or The Master are on the list, it's because I haven't seen those films. If you're wondering why none from Silver Linings Playbook is on, that'll be because I despise that dishonest movie with every bone in my body, and cannot abide Jennifer Lawrence's hammy, OTT, shrill performance in it, which was not an accurate portrayal of a woman with mental health issues at all, so much so, that the mental health community had backlash about her acting in it. There, I said it. J-law did not deserve to win that goddamn Oscar. The lady who I have listed first should have received the award instead, for what was, in my opinion, one of the best acting performances of all time.

10. Amandla Stenberg, The Hunger Games

09. Kristen Stewart, On the Road

08. Quvenzhané Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild

07. Jonah Hill, 21 Jump Street

06. Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty

05. Seth MacFarlane, Ted

04. Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained

03. Keira Knightley, Anna Karenina

02. Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

01. Emmanuelle Riva, Amour

A couple of stats...

By Gender
Gals: 7
Dudes: 3

By BBFC certificate
18: 1
15: 4

12A: 5 (my favourite is Beast of the Southern Wild's warning: 'Contains moderate threat, injury detail and potentially dangerous behaviour')

Shameless favouritism (people who've been on before)

Keira Knightley: 8th in 2014 for The Imitation Game

Leonardo DiCaprio: 2nd in 2006 (for The Depahted; hi Scorsese!) and 9th (Blood Diamond) although that list was constructed a l-o-n-g time ago and would be subject to change, 2nd in 2010 (Shutter Island; another Scorsese collab!), 2nd in 2013 (The Wolf of Wall Street; directed by some Martin Scorsese bloke I haven't heard of)
Jessica Chastain: 10th in 2014 (for A Most Violent Year)

Jonah Hill: 3rd in 2014 (for 22 Jump Street; the sequel to the film he's on this list for. I'm pretty brazen with my Jonah fangirling), 9th in 2013 (The Wolf of Wall Street)

Film review: FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (Will Gluck, 2011)

Mila Kunis plays Jamie, a New York head-hunter who brings Justin Timberlake’s chilled California boy Dylan, an extremely talented art director to GQ. Both have just been dumped and both are extremely photogenic people, so it’s not long before they’re offering each other’s bodies to each other for pleasure. 

What they perceived to be a no strings, win-win relationship, however, is soon complicated when emotion and personal baggage gets involved. Jamie, a romantic at heart, wants the fairy-tale happy ending, and Dylan, the realist, knows that no such thing exists. As such, both seem to have a revulsion for romantic comedies, and indeed, half of Friends with Benefits is spent dissing other romantic comedies. So it goes without saying, then, that Friends with Benefits fits quite comfortably in the rom-com genre.

The film is a surprisingly slick affair given the genre, with pretty cinematography and a script that is shamelessly one-track. Kunis and Timberlake are more than just pretty faces, and Mila Kunis brings that cute neuroticness that has served her well as Family Guy’s long-suffering Meg (not to mention as my fifth fave girlcrush) to her character, whereas, without damning Timberlake with faint praise, his acting here comfortably eclipses that of his in The Social Network. 

There is an amusing cameo by Emma Stone at the start as the girlfriend dumping Dylan’s sorry ass and Patricia Clarkson emulates more of that bohemian, laid-back parent she played as (funnily enough) Emma Stone’s mother in Easy A as Jamie’s hippy mom here (although, given Will Gluck directed Easy A, that kinda makes sense...). 

Richard Jenkins’ mature turn as Dylan’s father suffering from Alzheimer’s gives the film some emotional grounding and Woody Harrelson clearly has the time of his life as Dylan’s gay co-worker who occasionally offers the odd gem of advice.

So the cast do their job capably, and the scenes in which the eponymous “benefits” are given don’t skimp on skin either, which is refreshingly open of the director (literally ;) ) given that the mass-audience of sexy romantic comedies are PG-13s and thus incredibly limited in the amount they can show. So far, so sexy, so smooth, so slick. But the main area where the film fails is that it spends so long ripping apart the whole concept of romantic comedy, just to end up as one itself, we as the audience can’t help feeling, as the two protagonists themselves might argue, “used and cheap”. 

I have absolutely nothing with romantic comedies, in fact, my #3 favourite film of 2011 so far, Bridesmaids, and my second favourite film of 2011, The Inbetweeners Movie is (arguably) another one. But where Bridesmaids gave us a fully-rounded, interesting lead female who genuinely does stand at risk of throwing away the cute guy, I felt all the obstacles in Friends with Benefits were incredibly superficial, and thus, there was never any risk that the ending would be anything other than Kunis and Timberlake sharing a smooch. 

The first half the film has so much promise with its witty banter and repartee that when the film decides to take the easy way out and tries to have its cakeand eat it, we feel seriously let down, regardless of the film being oh-so-on-the-nose about what it's doing.

Give me the more wholesome laughs of Easy A any day of the week.

Grade: C

Fernandon't Scorres.

Chelsea signed Fernando Torres for a club record of £50 million from Liverpool on 31st January with the weight of the world on his skinny shoulders. By the time Chelsea signed him, the title race was realistically only between Manchester United and Arsenal, but for the price that Abramovich shelled out for him as well as his preceding reputation, it was only natural that Chelsea fans – and all football fans, for that matter – expected at least some goals from him, if not immediately, then at least imminently. However, if (500) Days of Summer taught Miss Bung anything, then it’s that the expectation and the reality are very rarely the same. And what happened in that film -- Joseph G-L expecting to find a loving Zooey Deschanel in his arms when he really found her kissing another man, is not a bad analogy for Fernando Torres' failed love affair with Chelseabung. Carlo Ancelotti, for his part, tried everything he could to get Torres to score. He played Torres with Kalou. He played Torres with Drogba. He played Torres with Anelka. He played Torres with Drogba and Anelka. But, for all the want in the world, Fernando Torres still hasn't hit the net. Chelsea fans are impatient, Carlo Ancelotti is worried, Roman Abramovich just smiles that silent steely smile that is impossible to read but can so easy signal difficulty. And still, Fernando Torres has scored the same amount of goals for Chelsea as David Cameron, Olalla Torres (his wife), even the frogs in my garden. On the back of a soul-shattering defeat to Manchester United last night that knocks Chelsea out of the CL and effectively ends our awful season, I thought I’d take a look at Torres’ contributions in the games since he's joined Chelsea. After all, didn’t Miley Cyrus say, it’s all about the climb? Giggity.

Chelsea vs Liverpool, 6th February (Chelsea lose 1-0)
The football gods would just so have it that the first game Torres was available to play for Chelsea was that against his old club, of whom he’d gone from beloved son to reviled Judas. Football fans all over the world were rubbing their hands together at the anticipation of Torres scoring against the club that nurtured him into one of the world’s superstars, if only to see how he would celebrate after he scored. They needn’t have worried; Torres was off-form, as were most of the Chelsea team and a Liverpool side with a point to prove could easily have scored more than the one they did; a shot from Meireles. Following their spirited 4-2 win in the mid-week against Sunderland (which Torres was ineligible to play in) in which Nicolas Anelka had been deployed more as a midfielder than his natural forward role and absolutely thrived, giving one of his finest performances in a Chelsea shirt, Carlo Ancelotti attempted a three-man attack with Anelka, Torres and Didier Drogba upfront, but it was an experiment that failed miserably. The sad truth is that, had Ancelotti played just Anelka and Drogba in a straightforward 4-4-2, Chelsea had the quality to defeat Liverpool that day. But, with Roman Abramovich in the audience watching his new buy, that simply wasn’t an option for the Italian. Poor tactics, a miserable Chelsea performance and a good Liverpool team meant that Chelsea suffered their second home loss this season. Hardly the meeting against his old club that Torres would have dreamed of.

Fulham vs Chelsea, 14th February (scoreless draw)
There was little romance for Torres in this Valentine’s Day West London derby, in which a solid Fulham defence and some errant finishing from the Spaniard meant Torres was yet to be in a winning game for Chelsea. Ancelotti benched Drogba, so it was Torres and Anelka upfront for Chelsea, but the two exhibited little cohesion playing alongside each other, Anelka spending the majority of the game in his standard sulk-face. In fact, the player that truly shone for Chelsea in this game was the other expensive January acquisition, David Luiz, who, despite it being his debut premier league start, played like a veteran of the premier league. He was here, he was there, he was defending, attacking, creating chances; in other words, all the things Torres wasn’t do. Chelsea were unlucky, and should probably have had a penalty when Hangeland felled Malouda, but in the last minute, Man of the Match David Luiz’s lapse led to Chelsea conceding a penalty. The American Clint Dempsey’s penalty was poor and Petr Cech’s save was brilliant, meaning that whilst Chelsea should have won, they were lucky not to lose. "Are you Torres in disguise?" the Fulham fans jeered at Drogba in the second half when he misplaced a hit. Quite.

Copenhagen vs Chelsea, 22nd February (Chelsea win 2-0)

In between this Champions League knockout stages game, Chelsea’s luck went from bad to worse when they got knocked out of the FA Cup to Everton on penalties (a game Torres was ineligible to play in due to being Cup-tied) thanks to two very questionable penalties from Nicolas Anelka and Ashley Cole. The Frenchman, again employed alongside Torres upfront with Drogba yet again sat on the bench chewing bubble gum and looking glum, atoned himself somewhat in this game, in which two classy finishes from him secured two priceless away goals for Chelsea, temporarily easing the pressure on under-fire gaffer Ancelotti. Before the game, Chelsea captain John Terry issued a rallying cry to his team, urging them to “Man Up”, and his words seemed to have worked; Chelsea looked more assured and together, albeit playing against “lesser” opposition. Torres had the occasional moment of brilliance but was once again frustrated by the Copenhagen defence and his own inability to finish in a Chelsea shirt.

Chelsea vs Manchester United, 1st March (Chelsea win 2-1)

The team against my most despised oppositions in the whole wide world; needless to say, I was wasted. Yet again, it was Nicolas Anelka and Fernando Torres starting for Chelsea, but there were so many other back stories surrounding this fixture that the Spaniard’s goal drought actually took the sideshow for the first time in a month. For one, Ashley Cole had recently wounded a Chelsea work experience student with a rifle, whilst Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney should have suspended for the game following his elbow on Wigan’s James McCarthy. However, he was allowed to play, and it was he who opened the scoring (grr) in the first half, meaning that, at half-time, not only were Chelsea’s title ambitions out the window, but their chances of securing a CL slot for next season was looking precarious. But in the second half, they showed Manchester United what they were made of. Chelsea new boy David Luiz, who as in the game against Fulham, played a belter, equalised shortly after half-time with a finish that any striker would be proud of, before Smalling tripped up Zhirkov in the penalty area in the 78th minute to allow Frank Lampard to make like Jamie Redknapp tells his son to do in the latest Wii advert - and smash a penalty down the middle, leading to a precious, precious Chelsea win that had me so delirious that on just two pints, I was ALL OVER THE PLACE.

If truth be told, luck was on Chelsea’s side that Tuesday; David Luiz was lucky not to be sent off and Zhirkov’s fall, whilst a legitimate penalty, could just have easily been shrugged off (and in another game, possibly would have been.) However, Carlo Ancelotti, and Chelsea fans weren’t complaining. Torres played well and looked more comfortable with Anelka than he had done in previous games, and funnily enough, it was the fourth time that a game in which he’d played against Nemanja Vidic had resulted in a red card for the Serbian; Vidic being sent off for two bookable offences. Drogba came on for Anelka with half an hour left and the Ivorian saw out the rest of the game in majestic style; the way he took one for the team, when he himself is every bit the superstar that Torres is, was brilliant to see. Chelseabung got lucky in that game, but I wouldn't get too happy, the two upcoming fixtures against Man Utd meant that the luck debt was fully repaid.

Blackpool vs Chelsea, 7th March (Chelsea win 3-1)

Following that morale-boosting win over Utd, Ancelotti pushed the boat out and paired Torres with Drogba (there’s your FIFA dream team) against Blackpool, who, despite fighting the relegation battle, were far from pushovers at home, having scored in every home game this season. However, it was a defender who opened the scoring for Chelsea, John Terry heading powerfully from a Frank Lampard corner in the first half to separate the two sides. In the second half, Drogba picked up a minor knock, but Anelka, his planned replacement, didn’t look at all happy to be coming on, so Ancelotti bunged Kalou on instead, and serendipity would have it that that substitution really swung the game in Chelsea’s favour. Having spent a few minutes on the pitch, Torres sculpted a pass to Kalou to which the Ivorian was felled, giving Chelsea a penalty, to which Lampard dispatched with signature coolness. Kalou and Lampard then combined coolly to score Chelsea’s third, before Blackpool themselves collected a consolation goal. Salomon Kalou, the somewhat “forgotten” player of Chelsea’s four attackers in the wake of Torres’ arrival, gave an excellent account of himself in his performance, and Torres looked more content playing alongside him in a 4-4-1-1 formation that asked lots of questions of Blackpool’s defence.

Chelsea vs Copenhagen, 16th March (scoreless draw)

It was time for Torres to experience starting on the bench, though Ancelotti reasoned that he was resting him for game against Man City that weekend. This meant that the tried-and-tested strikeforce of Didier Drogba and Nicolas Anelka was employed, and although the game saw no goals, it did allow the former to show what a world class player he was. Some of his interplay was absolutely delicious, and had it not been for some lacklustre finishing from Yuri Zhirkov, this Drogba->Cole->Zhirkov could have resulted in one of the best team goals in recent history. Torres came on for a brief while in the second half and the two goal cushion from the first leg allowed for some indulgence on Chelsea’s part; Lampard could have scored towards the end but chose to tee it off to Torres in the hope that the Spaniard would get his first Chelsea goal. It didn’t work, but the thought was there; despite what naysayers may like to think, Torres’ teammates are just as eager/desperate for him to hit the net as he is.

Chelsea vs Manchester City, 20th March (Chelsea win 2-0)

Alas, the CL-slot six-pointer, as well as the clash of the nouvelle-riche vs the newer-nouvelle-riche. Manchester City came with one game plan: 0-0, and thanks to some staunch defending from Vincent Kompany (one of the underrated performers this season) and the City defence, that they almost got. However, the curly-haired, twinkle-toed, goal-scoring defender David Luiz had other ideas, and when he won a free-kick in the 78th minute which Drogba dispatched, he was there to pounce and bung it in the net. In stoppage time, his compatriot Ramires shimmied past two City defenders to slot in Chelsea’s second against Joe Hart, meaning the West London side gleefully leapfrogged City in the league table. Eyebrows were raised when it was noted that both Anelka and Drogba were benched and it was actually Kalou who started alongside Torres, but the Ivorian more than justified his start, and following the strength of their performances together against Blackpool, I’d say the move was bold, but, considering Chelsea won, it paid off. As usual, Torres' contribution to the match was limited, but he did at least wear a cute blue headband that was the exact same shade as his Chelsea strip. Blair Waldorf, eat your heart out!

Stoke vs Chelsea, 2nd April (1-1 draw)

Following an international break, in which Torres disappointed for Spain against the Czech Republic (but at least partook is a display of some sweet Chelsea fraternity at the end when he and Cech had a moment), Ancelotti started with Anelka and Drogba, perhaps with the view of resting Torres for the midweek showdown against Manchester United, and sat next to the perpetually-sweet face of Salomon Kalou on the Chelsea bench, Torres didn't look too chuffed about it. And Chelsea could only salvage a 1-all draw from what was actually a surprisingly even game, Drogba scoring the equaliser for the visiters; both sides had chances aplenty. Torres and Kalou came on for Drogba and Anelka in the second half, but, surprise surprise, the Spaniard didn't score. Again.

Chelsea vs Manchester United, 6th April (Chelsea lose 1-0)
In what was the most important game of Chelsea's season, luck was most certainly not on their side and they slumped to a morale-crushing 1-0 home loss thanks to Wayne Rooney's  goal in the first half. Carlo Ancelotti tried to play 4-4-2 with both the ~FIFA superstars~ Drogba and Torres upfront, but it failed as it did against Blackpool, and unlike against Blackpool, the rest of Chelsea were unable to pick up the slack. Much as it pained me to say it, Rio Ferdinand, coming back from huge spell of injury, had Torres' number, and Drogba, though his feet did all they could, his face told the story of a deeply discontent man. Ramires should have won a penalty and Evra should have been sent off, but this is Chelsea in the CL, when has "should" ever had a damn thing to do with anything?! To be fair, Torres did have one shot that did look to be going in if it weren't for Edwin van der Saar's brilliance, but, that he was booked for diving towards the end of the night summed up a deeply frustrating game for Chelsea on the platform of the CL, the thing they want more than anything else.

Chelsea vs Wigan, 9th April (Chelsea win 1-0)
A very unconvincing win for the home side, against a team who, in their previous two fixtures, they'd aggregated a mass scoreline of 14-0. In the end, Malouda scored the winner in a goalline kefuffle, in which Torres, ironically, did actually play a part - by impeding the Wigan goalkeeper. On the same day, Chelsea's loanee forwards Borini smacked one in for Swansea City, and Danny Sturridge scored two majestic goals for Bolton, bringing his tally since transfering to Bolton up to six. What Torres would give to just one of those six goals. Chelsea loan out one of their strikers who is scoring for fun and spend millions on a player who couldn't hit the proverbial cow's arse with the proverbial banjo? Now that, Alanis...

Manchester United vs Chelsea, 12th April (Chelsea lose 2-1)

But I speak on behalf of all Chelsea fans when I say that we would have gladly put our what-ifs on hold if Torres repaid the faith that Ancelotti showed in him, repaid the millions that Roman spent on him and repaid the hours of us fighting his corner when his former blatantly didn't deserve it, with a brace against Manchester United. But it wasn't to be. And to be honest, I  think that as soon as Chelsea fans knew that it wasn't to be, although that didn't stop us from hoping, praying, wanting. But what you can want something as much as you want, it doesn't actually get you it. Torres was so poor in the first half (The Guardian rated his performance a 4/10, only 2 points more than what they gave Crouchie for his performance against Real Madrid -- and he got sent off) that Ancelotti had no choice but to withdraw him for Drogba, who, in the second half, played his heart out. Even when Chelsea were down to 10 men, and chasing a 2-0 deficit, he ran and ran, sought loss causes, and neveve up. Drogba was aptly repaid by a brilliant goal, though in the end, it counted for nothing more than pride as Park Ji Sung scored another practically seconds later. It does raise a pertinent point, though. Carlo Ancelotti, last night, could have seeked to do one of two things, get to the final four of the CL, or appease Roman Abramovich by playing the footballer he spent so much on. In the end, Ancelotti got neither. The woe that befell Chelsea fans after this match is too great to even begin writing about, but I have to admit that this year, with the teams that we put out, we just didn't look good enough. I feel bad for players like Michael Essien, Frank Lampard and Petr Cech, who are amazing. But mostly, I feel for Didier Drogba. He, arguably, out of the entire Chelsea squad, has had his nose put out of joint most by Fernando Torres' arrival. Yet even on his form, which isn't the greatest, he is playing Torres off the pitch. Didier Drogba is a superstar, one of the best forwards in the world, but with 27-year-old Torres being paraded in front of his 33-year-old self, he can't help but wonder where he fits in at Chelsea. But I do so hope he stays, because he is an amazing footballer and an even more amazing man. We may have lost but I'm delighted Didi scored. He, more than anyone, deserved his moment last night.

So all this leaves Chelsea in somewhat of a quagmire (can you tell I've been on a Family Guy binge recently? Can ya?!). They have a £50million, perpetually injured striker who couldn't score in a brothel. They have zero chance of any silverwear this season, and the only thing left to fight for his for third and fourth slot, which is between them, Spurs and Manchester City. The malaise that I, and I imagine all Chelsea fans are currently in is immeasurable, and Carlo Ancelotti best sleep with one eye open if Roman's wrath is anything to be believed. It would be churlish -- and downright unfair -- to lay blame all of Chelsea's problems with Torres (we screwed up our title challenge long before he came along and he was ineligble to play in the FA Cup matches which we screwed up), but at the same time it would be blind to suggest he played no part in the massively dissappointing two games against Manchester United, which were, to be honest, the ones that mattered the most by far. Nicolas Anelka is a gem and has come out and said he "doesn't mind" not starting that much, knowing that as he's over 30 and at a club with four forwards, he needs to be realistic. However, Drogba and Salomon Kalou are clearly thinking over their options. Kalou is 25, an adorable sweetheart and a terrific little utility player for Chelsea, but when he was at Feyenoord with Dirk Kuyt, the two were tearing defences up, and Kalou must secretly pine for the days when he started almost every game, as opposed to for Chelsea, where if he's lucky, he'll get 10 minutes, and if he's very very lucky, he'll get a start, despite the fact that his goals-to-shots ratio has been far better than Torres'. The Fernando Torres jokes come in thick and fast ("Did you hear about my Torres night out?! I spent loads of money, had loads of shots but in the end didn't even score!" is a popular one, as is the website, http://hastorresscoredforchelsea.com/, which I don't believe will need updating until 2014) and I meet them sometimes with a bittersweet chuckle, sometimes with an ingrained need to defend by team -- and thus Torres. I know Roman Abramovich is a billionaire and can do whatever the hell he wants, but next time, I'd really appreciate it if he approached such a big-sum spending with a little more prudence. Torres and Drogba may score feckloads on FIFA, but, sry2say, Roman, life isn't a game of FIFA. Oh how I wish it was, but nah. At the end of the day, I'll support any player in a Chelsea shirt, even massive flops like Mateja Kezman, but this Torres escapade is all getting a little disappointing.  If I had to do the same again, well, er, I most certainly wouldn't do the same, my friend, Fernando.

All the things that make us laugh and cry.

Recently I’ve really gotten into Seth McFarlene’s Family Guy and American Dad!. I gave his The Cleveland Show a watch too, but it really did nothing for me. However, the other two shows, I feel, are modern masterpieces, and never fail to cheer me up when I’ve had a bad day with their mixture of bad taste, visual humour and good ol’ family values. So it got me thinking, how would I rank the characters? And this is what I came up with.

01. Stewie Griffin
02. Brian Griffin
03. Roger
04. Stan Smith
05. Meg Griffin
06. Steve Smith
07. Francine Smith
08. Chris Griffin
09. Peter Griffin
10. Hayley Smith
11. Lois Griffin
12. Klaus Heissler