Category Archives: A & E

#ArtsFriday | Streaming | The Best Police Procedural On The Planet | #Belfast


Grace (Siân Brooke) and Stevie (Martin McCann) respond to a distress call, in Blue Lights.

There is a quiet moment in Blue Lights when a patrol car glides through the rain-soaked streets of Belfast.

There are no gunshots. No dramatic chase. Just two police officers talking about life, fear, disappointment and the endless uncertainty that accompanies both policing and adulthood. Somehow, that simple conversation carries more dramatic weight than an entire season of many American crime dramas.

That is the genius of Blue Lights.

Broadcast on the BBC in Britain and streamed in North America on BritBox, the award winning Irish police procedural has become one of television’s finest achievements — and at present is VanRamblings’ favourite, most compelling and heartrending TV series — not because it reinvents the police procedural, but because it remembers something many modern dramas have forgotten.

Before police officers are heroes or villains, they are simply human beings.

Created by former journalists Declan Lawn and Adam Patterson, Blue Lights follows three probationary officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland as they learn their profession in a city still living beneath the shadow of the Troubles.

Belfast is not merely a backdrop; it is a character unto itself, haunted by memory, divided by history and yet stubbornly determined to move forward.

The city breathes through every frame.

The comparisons with the greatest American police dramas are inevitable.

Like Hill Street Blues, Blue Lights understands that policing is messy, exhausting work carried out by imperfect people trying to make decent decisions in impossible circumstances.

Like Homicide: Life on the Street, it finds extraordinary drama in ordinary conversations, allowing silence and uncertainty to tell as much of the story as action.

And like The Wire, it recognizes that crime cannot be separated from politics, poverty, history or community. Institutions matter. History matters. Geography matters. No crime exists in isolation.

Yet Blue Lights never feels derivative. It possesses its own rhythm, quieter and more intimate than its American predecessors, less interested in spectacular violence than in the emotional toll that violence leaves behind.

The Guardian called it “one of TV’s best shows,” praising its gripping realism, nuanced writing and richly believable characters. Rather than relying on endless action, it creates tension simply by placing two officers together inside a patrol car and allowing conversation to unfold naturally.

The second season only deepened that achievement. The Guardian admired its ability to move effortlessly “between light and dark,” noting that the evolving relationship between Grace and Stevie remained one of television’s most delicately observed partnerships.


Annie (Katherine Devlin) and Aisling (Dearbháile McKinney) attend at a bar when a fight breaks out

The Independent praised the series for being inseparable from Belfast itself, observing that the city “looms as a character” and that the legacy of Northern Ireland’s divisions informs every episode. Viewers have compared it to Line of Duty, but Blue Lights possesses something even rarer: compassion.

At the heart of all of this stands Siân Brooke.

Her portrayal of Grace Ellis is the finest television performances of the past decade.

Grace arrives as an outsider — an Englishwoman, a former social worker, considerably older than the other recruits and carrying both optimism and self-doubt. She enters policing believing that kindness remains a practical tool, even in neighbourhoods where violence has become routine.

That belief should make her naïve.

Instead, it makes her courageous.


If you’re going to watch only one of the Blue Light clips, the scene above is the must watch clip.

Grace refuses to surrender her empathy simply because the job encourages emotional distance. She listens. She comforts victims after everyone else has moved on. She sees frightened children where others see future criminals. She carries the instincts of a social worker into the patrol car, reminding both colleagues and viewers that justice without compassion quickly becomes something else entirely.

She is, quite simply, the moral centre of the series.

The heart.

The soul.

Siân Brooke never overplays the role. Grace’s strength emerges not through speeches but through small gestures — a reassuring hand, a quiet conversation, a hesitant smile, a look that communicates exhaustion and hope simultaneously.

Every expression feels lived rather than performed.

Opposite her stands Martin McCann as Stevie Neil, whose weathered pragmatism forms the perfect counterpoint.

Stevie has seen too much to believe every problem can be solved. Yet beneath the dry humour and occasional cynicism lies immense decency.

The chemistry between Siân Brooke and Martin McCann is remarkable precisely because it grows so slowly.

Their partnership is built not upon television clichés but upon trust earned over countless shifts, shared danger and quiet conversations over homemade lunches eaten between emergency calls.

The Guardian beautifully described one scene in which Grace finally offers Stevie something she has baked herself — an almost wordless declaration of affection that says more than pages of dialogue ever could.

Their relationship reflects the achievement of Blue Lights. Everything is earned.

Nothing feels manufactured.

Nothing is rushed.


Aisling (Dearbháile McKinney) and Annie (Katherine Devlin) attend at a family home to report bad news

Perhaps that explains why the series has resonated so deeply with audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. At a time when television often mistakes relentless pacing for storytelling, Blue Lights has the confidence to pause, to breathe and to trust its audience.

Its extraordinary success also reminds us that police dramas need not glorify violence to explore courage.

Sometimes heroism is quieter.

Sometimes it looks like a middle-aged officer choosing compassion over anger.

Sometimes it is an experienced partner silently standing beside her.

And sometimes the brightest blue lights are not the ones flashing atop a patrol car.

They are the fragile lights of humanity that continue to flicker in people determined to believe even in wounded places, kindness remains worth defending.

#Cinema | The Tyranny of the Tomatometer: How Aggregated Scores Are Killing Cinema Going

There was a time — not that long ago — when moviegoing required curiosity.

You read a few critics, maybe listened to a friend’s recommendation, and decided whether to spend two hours in the dark discovering something new.

Today, that act of discovery has largely been replaced by a single number. Before many people even consider seeing a film, they glance at a percentage on Rotten Tomatoes, or a numerical score on Metacritic. If the number is high, the film is deemed worth watching. If it is low, it might as well not exist.

The result is one of the most profound — and least discussed — transformations in the modern film industry.

Review aggregation has quietly reshaped the way audiences choose movies, the way studios finance them, and even the kinds of films that get made. In the process, it has flattened audience taste, suffocated mid-budget filmmaking, and helped create the blockbuster monoculture that now dominates cinema.

The Reduction of Criticism to a Number

Film criticism once thrived on disagreement. One critic might celebrate a bold experiment while another dismissed it as indulgent. That tension created a conversation around movies.

Aggregators ended that conversation by reducing criticism to arithmetic. On Rotten Tomatoes, reviews are translated into a simple binary: “fresh” or “rotten.” The site’s famous Tomatometer then calculates the percentage of critics who gave a positive review.

In practice, this system erases nuance. A film that receives dozens of mildly positive reviews can achieve a dazzling 90% score, even if no critic thought it was particularly great. Meanwhile, a polarizing masterpiece that divides critics — half loving it, half hating it —might end up with a mediocre score.

The number becomes the narrative.

And because audiences increasingly rely on that number to decide what to watch, a film’s reputation is often determined before the public has even seen it.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of Success

Hollywood has noticed. In fact, studios have been obsessing over Rotten Tomatoes scores for years.

The industry’s anxiety became obvious during the summer of 2017, when several heavily marketed films opened far below expectations after receiving poor Tomatometer scores. Studios privately blamed Rotten Tomatoes for undermining their marketing campaigns, while highly rated films like Wonder Woman benefited from glowing scores and exceeded expectations at the box office.

Films are now judged almost instantly by their aggregated scores. A low rating can create a perception of failure before opening weekend even begins. A high rating can generate momentum and headlines. Either way, the number becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Once audiences internalize the logic of the score, they begin to behave accordingly: avoiding films with bad numbers and flocking to those with good ones.

The Crushing of the Mid-Budget Film


Kristen Stewart and Andrew Garfield on the red carpet at the Independent Spirit Awards ceremony

The biggest casualty of this culture is the mid-budget movie — the $20-$60 million drama, thriller, or adult comedy that once formed the backbone of Hollywood.

These films depend heavily on word-of-mouth and critical reception. That means they are far more vulnerable to aggregated scores than massive franchise films with huge marketing budgets. In fact, research suggests Rotten Tomatoes has a greater effect on smaller or independent movies than on major blockbusters.

For a mid-budget film, a weak score can be fatal. It discourages audiences from giving the movie a chance and convinces studios that similar projects are too risky.

The lesson Hollywood has absorbed is simple: if audiences are choosing movies based on numbers, studios should make films that are least likely to receive negative numbers.

The safest way to do that is to make movies audiences already know.

Sequels. Franchises. Superheroes.
The Homogenization of Taste

Aggregated scores quietly reshape the psychology of moviegoers themselves.

When audiences use a single metric to choose entertainment, they gravitate toward consensus. The safest choice becomes the one everyone else appears to like.

Over time, this process homogenizes the marketplace. Films that aim for broad approval — competent, inoffensive entertainment — perform better in aggregated scoring systems than films that take risks or challenge viewers.

The result is a feedback loop: audiences follow the scores, studios follow the audiences, and the entire system rewards safe mediocrity.

Gaming the System

Once numbers became powerful, the temptation was to manipulate them.

Studios now carefully manage early screenings to influence aggregated scores. Positive early reactions can create a high initial rating that attracts audiences before more critical reviews appear. In some cases, marketing campaigns have even tried to boost a film’s rating by selectively promoting favorable critics or delaying negative reviews.

Meanwhile, user scores on sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes can be distorted by organized campaigns known as “review bombing,” where groups flood a site with extreme ratings for political or cultural reasons unrelated to the film itself.

When the system becomes a battlefield of manipulated numbers, the illusion of objectivity collapses.

Yet the numbers remain.

Cinema as Data

Perhaps the most troubling consequence of aggregation culture is philosophical.

Cinema is an art form built on subjectivity. The experience of a film is deeply personal —shaped by mood, taste, memory, and emotion. Turning that experience into a percentage suggests a false precision.

And so cinema — one of the most expressive art forms ever invented — has been reduced to a metric.

Rediscovering Curiosity

The tragedy is not that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic exist. Aggregating reviews can be useful. The tragedy is how completely those scores have come to dominate the conversation.

A score should be the beginning of exploration, not the final verdict.

If the future of cinema is decided by percentages alone, the industry will continue drifting toward the safest, most predictable movies imaginable.

And the next generation of great films — the strange, polarizing, risky ones that critics initially disagree about — may never get the chance to exist.
The tyranny of the Tomatometer is not just changing how we judge movies.

It is quietly changing which movies get made at all.

#SundayMusic | Perfection | John Prine’s Remarkable, Eternal 1971 Début Album


Guitarist Jason Wilbur played on stage with John Prine for 1999’s  Live from Sessions at West 54th

One of the most celebrated singer/songwriters of his generation, John Prine was a master storyteller whose work was often witty and always heartfelt, frequently offering a sly but sincere reflection of his Midwestern roots, writing about the lives of ordinary people in a remarkable and perceptive way.

Widely cited as one of the most influential songwriters of his generation, Prine was known for his signature blend of humorous lyrics about love, life, and current events, often with elements of social commentary and satire, as well as sweet songs and melancholy ballads.

John Prine’s first record, simply titled John Prine (Atlantic, 1971), featured a photograph of the slightly impatient-looking young singer-songwriter seated on a bale of hay, hands cradled in his lap, with his guitar standing upright nearby.

The austerity of the image was a good reflection on the album’s contents: a baker’s dozen songs clocking in at about 43 minutes, performed mostly on acoustic guitar with a spare backing combo, delivered in a straightforward nasal drawl, with titles like Sam Stone, Donald and Lydia, Hello in There, Illegal Smile, and Souvenirs.

Beneath the casual simplicity of the presentation lies a treasure trove of lyrical beauty: detailed portraits of despair and loneliness, interspersed with witty cultural commentary about dimestore patriotism, back-to-nature movements, and the justice system’s obsession with people’s “illegal smiles.”

That first record wasn’t a big seller.

It peaked at #156 in the Billboard charts in 1972, a year after its initial release. But that small splash had big ripples down through the years. John Prine not only set the tone for his half-century career, it influenced several generations of American singer-songwriters working in the rock, country and folk traditions.

1971 was a year of disaffection and ennui. The Beatles had broken up, the hippie dream was over, four kids were shot in Ohio by National Guardsmen and you had Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young singing a protest song that was powerful at the time but who wants to listen now? Prine’s eyeglass was focused on all of the same things but his was an ironic, detached P.O.V. that remains vital and relevant.

The record is of that time but it is somehow of this time too, though Prine’s delivery and from where in his throat he’s singing obviously owes something to Dylan.

All through the 1970s Cathy and I would attend annually at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre with a packed audience gathered to appreciate John Prine.


John Prine on stage and singing with Iris DeMent (who we will write about another day)

Some artists are one hit wonders and one album wonders. Not Prine. He kept doing it and gathering up new fans right until the end, even when sickness made a physical mess of him.

John Prine died on April 20, 2020 of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), the pandemic coronavirus that became known as COVID-19.

At the 2026 Cannes Film Festival, A New Cultural World Order Emerged

The Boulevard De La Croisette at the Palais des Festivals, during the 79th annual Cannes Film Festival  

The Cannes Film Festival has never been the Oscars.

For most of its history, Cannes existed in a parallel cinematic universe: a place where auteurs were celebrated, formal experimentation rewarded, and films destined for repertory cinemas received standing ovations from critics long before mainstream audiences had even heard of them. Winning the Palme d’Or once meant prestige rather than popularity.

Yet the gap between Cannes and Hollywood continues to narrow.

The 79th Cannes Film Festival was, at first glance, a quieter edition than many in recent years. There were fewer major studio titles, fewer headline-grabbing celebrities, and a competition lineup that lacked the immediate excitement of some previous festivals. But beneath that apparent calm, Cannes once again demonstrated its ability to identify the artistic, cultural, and commercial currents that will shape cinema over the coming year.

Three themes emerged from the Croisette in 2026: the continued rise of LGBTQ+ storytelling, the growing strength of Japanese cinema, and the enduring vitality of Spanish-language filmmaking.

Queer cinema was unquestionably the dominant force at this year’s festival.

The most discussed films in competition centered on LGBTQ+ characters and experiences, reflecting an industry increasingly willing to place queer stories at the centre rather than the margins of contemporary filmmaking.

Among the standouts was Ira Sachs’ The Man I Love, starring Rami Malek as a gay performance artist navigating New York’s AIDS crisis during the 1980s. The film earned one of the festival’s most enthusiastic receptions and immediately positioned Malek as a potential awards-season contender. Rather than revisiting familiar tragedy, Sachs crafts an intimate story on love, creativity, desire, and mortality.

Belgian filmmaker Lukas Dhont continued his remarkable ascent with Coward, a World War I drama exploring forbidden love amid the horrors of trench warfare. Following the success of Girl and Close, Dhont delivered another emotionally devastating examination of identity and human connection.

Perhaps no film generated more passion than La Bola Negra from Spanish directing duo Javier Calvo and Javier Ambrossi. Spanning generations of queer men from the Spanish Civil War to the present day, the film received the festival’s longest standing ovation, emerging as one of the festival’s most acclaimed titles.

The prominence of these films suggests something larger than a passing trend. Queer stories are no longer being treated as niche programming. They have become central to contemporary cinema’s understanding of history, memory, identity, and social change.

Equally notable was the extraordinary presence of Japanese cinema.

Few national film industries are currently operating with the artistic confidence and commercial momentum found in Japan. The country’s box office revenues reached record levels in 2025, while production volume climbed to historic highs. That energy was clearly visible at Cannes.

Palme d’Or winner Hirokazu Kore-eda returned to competition with Sheep in the Box, another nuanced exploration of family relationships.

Ryûsuke Hamaguchi, whose Drive My Car became a global phenomenon, presented All of a Sudden, a thoughtful examination of friendship and emotional intimacy.

Meanwhile, Koji Fukada competed with Nagi Notes, continuing his reputation as one of Japan’s most perceptive contemporary directors.

Although stylistically distinct, all three films explored themes of family, loneliness, companionship, and human connection. Their collective presence underscored Japan’s position as one of the most important creative centres in world cinema.

Three Films in Competition, a Thriving Box Office and the Envy of Europe: Spain Is Having Its Moment

Spanish cinema also enjoyed an exceptionally strong year.

From Almodóvar to a new generation of auteurs, Spain arrived at Cannes 2026 in historic fashion — and the industry behind it has never been in better shape: “Spanish cinema is in a very exceptional situation right now.”

Beyond the acclaim received by La Bola Negra, Spanish-language filmmaking demonstrated a remarkable ability to combine artistic ambition with emotional accessibility. The result was a slate of films that connected with critics while remaining accessible to broader audiences.

Director Rodrigo Sorogoyen’s new film, The Beloved (El Ser Querido), joined Pedro Almodóvar’s Bitter Christmas (Amarga Navidad) and Javier Calvo and Javier Ambrossi’s La Bola Negra in an unprecedented three-film representation of Spain in this year’s Official Competition at Cannes.

That balance increasingly defines the modern Cannes success story.

The Cannes Film Festival is no longer merely a launching pad for challenging art-house films. It has become a marketplace where prestige, commercial potential, and awards-season momentum intersect.

Several titles emerged from Cannes as serious Oscar contenders.

One of the festival’s biggest acquisitions came when independent distributor A24 purchased Club Kid for a reported $17 million. Directed by and starring Jordan Firstman, the film follows a gay nightclub promoter who unexpectedly discovers he has a son. What might have sounded like a modest independent comedy became one of the festival’s biggest crowd-pleasers, demonstrating once again that audiences remain hungry for character-driven storytelling.


Scenes from James Gray’s Paper Tiger, starring Scarlett Johansson, Adam Driver and Miles Teller

Scarlett Johansson generated strong reviews for James Gray’s Paper Tiger, while Léa Seydoux enjoyed a particularly successful festival with appearances in both The Unknown and Gentle Monster. Each performance strengthened their standing as potential awards-season players.

Elsewhere, veteran auteurs returned with films that may finally bridge the gap between Cannes prestige and Academy recognition.


Winner of the Palme d’Or at Cannes last month. Certain to feature in the upcoming Oscar race.

Romanian director Cristian Mungiu captured the Palme d’Or with Fjord, a provocative examination of religious intolerance featuring acclaimed performances from Sebastian Stan and Renate Reinsve.

Russian filmmaker Andrey Zvyagintsev earned the Grand Prix for Minotaur, while Polish director Paweł Pawlikowski returned with Fatherland, a postwar road movie featuring another standout performance from Sandra Hüller.

Together, these films reinforced Cannes’ unique role in the cinematic ecosystem. The festival remains a place where future Oscar nominees are discovered, where international auteurs launch their next projects, and where global film culture takes stock of itself.

As the lights dimmed along the Croisette and the crowds drifted away from the Palais, what lingered was not the memory of celebrity sightings or red-carpet spectacle. It was the sense of cinema looking outward once again — toward different cultures, different identities, different ways of seeing the world.

The strongest films at Cannes this year were united not by style or genre, but by curiosity. They crossed borders of language, history, sexuality, and geography in search of common human experience.

And perhaps that is the enduring lesson of Cannes.

Every May, the festival gathers stories from every corner of the world and projects them onto a single screen facing the Mediterranean Sea.

For a brief moment, cinema becomes a conversation between strangers. Japanese families, Spanish lovers, queer artists, wartime dreamers, and lonely souls all share the same flickering light. The waves continue to lap against the shoreline, the projectors fall silent, and the stars eventually depart.

But the stories remain, carried home across oceans and continents, waiting for audiences everywhere to discover them.