BOOKS
THE WORST JOURNEY IN THE WORLD, by Apsley Cherry-Garrard. I first learned about this book through Ranulph Fiennes's Captain Scott. Fiennes reported it as being often referred to as one of the six best travel books ever written, which puts it in pretty exalted company. And so it should be. Like T.E. Lawrence when he was writing Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Cherry-Garrard enlisted the help of George Bernard Shaw in the editing process (he was a neighbour) and the result is a magnificent account of hardship, suffering and death at the bottom of the world. But what exactly is the worst journey in the world to which the author refers? Although the book covers the whole, fateful journey of Scott's doomed mission to the South Pole, the title actually refers to the famous "Winter journey", undertaken by the author, along with Henry Bowers and Dr Edward Wilson (both of whom later died on their way back from the Pole), to collect Emperor penguin eggs from a rookery some 100 miles distant from the safety of the expedition's winter quarters at Cape Evans, which lies at the edge of the great Ice Barrier, now known as the Ross Ice Shelf.
Nobody with any sense travels in the Antarctic winter, but that's exactly what these men did, because for reasons best known to them, Emperors lay their eggs in the depths of Winter . They were attempting to prove some evolutionary theory (which later turned out to be wrong). and were literally willing to risk their lives for the cause of science. Pulling a sledge which weighed twice their combined body-weights, their epic venture is told in typical English understatement, but still the horror shines through with unique vividness. Over the course of three terrible months they very nearly died of frostbite and starvation, but unlike the doomed polar party, they were lucky and made it home after what the author calls "the strangest bird's nesting expedition that ever was, or ever will be". Cherry-Garrard, however, was left permanently emotionally scarred, suffering depression and panic attacks for the remainder of his long life.
An absolute must.
ARCHANGEL, by Robert Harris. An Oxford historian is in post Soviet Russia on the hunt for Stalin's secret diary. But the ghost of Uncle Joe has not yet been laid to rest, and there are others who still revere the Great Dictator who want to find it before he does. And they don't care how they go about it...
Robert Harris has been carrying all before him in recent years. His Selling Hitler, an account of the great fiasco of Hitler's forged diaries was well received, and his fictional offerings including Fatherland have been praised by the critics as well as being highly successful. This is my first outing into Robert Harris territory, but it won't be my last. I greatly enjoyed his straightforward style, telling a thrilling story without all the page-by-page plot twists so characteristic of, say, Dan Brown.
Recommended.
FILMS
TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE (2013) D- Steve McQueen. A free black man living in New England in the 1830s is kidnapped and sold into slavery to work on a cotton plantation in the Deep South. Somehow, all the beatings and indignities fail to destroy his spirit. But it seems he will live out his life as another man's property...
British director McQueen tells an extremely harrowing and sometimes horrific tale in great style, enough indeed to secure him a well deserved Oscar as best director earlier this year. Hard to watch, but you can't drag your eyes away from the action.
True quality.
THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2013) D- Wes Anderson. An educated concierge (Ralph Fiennes) runs his luxury hotel in Bohemia with a kind of relaxed tyranny and couldn't be happier in his work, especially as his style goes down extremely well with the aristocratic ladies who like to stay there just to be served by him. Then the owner of the hotel dies and leaves him an Old Master. Closer relatives are furious and determine to wrest the painting from him.
This is just a fraction of the positively byzantine plot of this sprawling piece of whimsy, which, although I enjoyed Fiennes's performance, did not succeed for me precisely because of that. There are just too many disparate strands to the narrative and in the event it fails to satisfy. Pity, because a lot of the required elements are there to make it exceptional
BEST BOY (1979) D- Ira Wohl. (documentary) Philly is the "best boy" of his parents who live together in New York. Philly is in his 40s but has never left home because he has the mind of a child and cannot live independently. But his parents are getting old: what will happen to him when they die? Indeed, during the three years over which this film was shot, Philly's dad does die. Can mom manage the job of caring for him by herself, or will Philly go to live in a supported setting elsewhere?
A film of great sensitivity and warmth, the director (Philly's cousin) delving deeply into the hearts and minds of the players: the long-suffering mother to whom it never occurs that Philly might be better off elsewhere, but who hides her true feelings under a veil of outward calm, the father who cannot hide his disappointment with how things have turned out, and Best Boy himself, who lives his life as a carefree five year old.
Moving and rather wonderful.
STRIKING DISTANCE (1993) D- Rowdy Harrington. Bruce Willis is a cop determined to uncover corruption in the ranks of his colleagues, but they see him as a loose cannon. Sarah Jessica Parker is brought in to watch him. She does more than that...
A lamentable dog of a movie, poorly written and amateurishly directed (though Willis still convinces). It is almost as if the producers were thinking like Ed Wood: not worrying about technique because the story will carry in the end. It doesn't. I don't usually get too upset by "bloopers", but at one point Willis and SJP are becoming entwined, and earlier in the scene she is clearly seen to be bra-less. But when Bruce whips her dress off she is somehow wearing one. How come?
Execrable.
THE BALLAD OF NARAYAMA (1958) D- Keisuke Kinoshita. An everyday story of country-folk in rural Japan in the 19th century. It might as well be the middle ages, however, because one of their quaint little customs is for people over the age of 70 to travel to a nearby mountain top- and die there. Some accept their fate with stoicism, others are less keen. For this latter group, there are always friendly neighbours who will escort them- whether they want to go or not...
An extraordinary effort from one of Japan's most revered film makers, with amazing, almost expressionist colour and a look that is reminiscent of a Hokusai print. But I suspect that my copy was cut substantially from the 2 1/2 hour running time down to little over 90 minutes. Thus I feel I may have been deprived of some of the most glorious and lyrical sequences. I'm not sure how or why such a thing could have happened, but check this if you are considering obtaining a copy. I wish I had, 'cause I feel a bit robbed.
VENUS IN FUR (2013) D- Roman Polanski. A theatre director is casting for his latest play when a woman who hasn't booked turns up and begs him for an audition. He's tired, it's the end of a long day and he isn't keen. But our girl is very persuasive... Soon they are immersed in the minutiae of the play, which is coming to life before their eyes, and in a way neither could have anticipated...
Based on David Ives's Broadway play, Polanski (who has been one of my favourite directors for over 40 years) has taken a big chance. You don't see many movies these days which are confined to just two players on one set, yet it still works brilliantly. This is due in no small part to the two players, Mathieu Almaric and Polanski's famme Emanuelle Seigneur who should have won Oscars but for the fact that Polanski is still a dirty word in some quarters.
SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (2004) D- Kerry Conran. In 1939 (but in a kind of alternate Universe) a journo called Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) is trying to track down an elusive plutocrat (Lawrence Olivier, sic: all clever stuff, n'est pas?) and enlists the willing co-operation of a dashing airman (Jude Law)
This film looks impressive: there are elements of both Metropolis and Things to Come in the plot and also in its appearance. It is an example, so Wiki informs me, of so-called Dieselpunk, which is a style of graphic novel. To me, however, this remains a children's film: fun to watch but really as light as air.
OK for a rainy Sunday afternoon when there's no sport on (or too much sport on, if you're that way inclined.
JERRY MAGUIRE (1996) W/D- Cameron Crowe. Jerry (Tom Cruise) is an agent to sporting superstars. One day he decides to write a memo listing his own failings as a cautionary tale for his colleagues, but his bosses interpret it a resignation letter and fire him. Now he's on his own. Can he claw his way back to the big time?
This film was massive in its day, securing an Oscar for Cuba Gooding Jr as one of Jerry's protégées, and most people believe it was one of Tom Cruise's strongest performances to date. And it certainly is compulsive viewing, though its utter Americanness made it, like the earlier sporting themed movie Field of Dreams, difficult to fully appreciate for audiences outside those shores.
Still worth watching.
DOC HOLLYWOOD (1991) D- Michael Caton Jones. A young doctor misses the Interstate sign and finds himself in Hicksville, USA. Worse, he runs over a judge's flower-bed and is given community service- as the town's doctor. Inevitably (this being Hollywood) he also finds love, risks losing it, all the while slowly winning the grudging respect of the townsfolk. And when the time comes for him to return to his lucrative practice in LA, will he go or will he stay?
Yet another of those "stranger in a strange town movies" which is a favourite Hollywood theme:My Cousin Vinnie springs to mind; later John Lassiter was, with very minor changes, to virtually graft the whole plot of Doc Hollywood on to his animation Cars. Certainly in this vehicle we find the fantastic Mr Fox at his most feisty and engaging. Present as always is his aura of vulnerability which only enhances his appeal.
At this moment in history Michael J Fox was at the zenith of his career. He'd just made the fabulously successful Back to the Future series, and was riding high in the Nielsen ratings with his sitcom Family Ties. He repeated his success with Spin City, but no one, even Fox himself, could know that Doc Hollywood would be his last big movie before Parkinson's disease claimed another victim.
NEBRASKA (2013) D- Alexander Payne. A frail old man (Bruce Dern) convinces himself he's won the lottery: all he has to do is travel two states over to claim his prize. That and convince his family, who believe he is deluded. Finally his son gives in and drives him the 750 miles to "claim" his non-existent prize. Or is it?
Although well supported by Will Forte and Bob Odenkirk (you'll remember him as Saul Goodman in Breaking Bad) who play his two sons, and featuring other fine performances by, inter alia, Marisa Tomei and William H. Macey, the real strength of this movie lies in the brilliant performance by Bruce Dern as the confused old man whose passionate belief threatens humiliation to himself and his family.
American indie film making at its best.
ZOMBIELAND (2009) Ruben Fleischer. First it was mad cow disease. Then it was mad human disease. Next thing you know, you're in a post apocalyptic dystopia inhabited by flesh eating monsters where all you need to survive is a pump action shotgun and a set of wheels. And, preferably, Woody Harrelson by your side, because he's the biggest sonofabitch in the valley and don't take no shit from a bunch of stinking zombies. Anything else is a bonus. Like falling in love for instance: something our co-hero Jessie Eisenberg would like to do, as long as they ain't monsters of course.
Rather entertaining movie with some very good moments, though I was not totally happy with Eisenberg's voice-over. Maybe, like Bladerunner, they'll take it out when we get to the director's cut. They certainly should...
Friday, 29 August 2014
Friday, 22 August 2014
Do you know what the hell's going on?
I don't, that's for sure. I doubt if you do either. We certainly won't find out watching the news on TV or reading the newspapers. They have their own agendas, which come well ahead of delivering the truth to the people. For instance: In the Ukraine: who downed flight MH17? We, the West, are saying it must have been the Ruskies. We punish them with sanctions, carefully designed so as not to destroy all trade with that lucrative bloc. They deny responsibility, deliver counter-sanctions and say why couldn't it have been the right wing loonies who are in control of Ukraine? They could be right: we don't know the truth. The only truth is that there is burned out shell of a jetliner in a field in eastern Ukraine, and that there were nearly 300 souls on board.
In the middle east, the West is now talking about making friends with Assad, despite having been hitherto committed to his downfall. He, we are told, may be our only way to destroy the monsters of ISIL. It smacks of the support we used to give Saddam Hussein when the Iran/Iraq war was going on and before Bush decided he was a suitable scapegoat for 9/11 and we could go in and steal his oil.
As for ISIL, remember the US helped fund their efforts when they were fighting Assad. Now they're the devil incarnate. Doesn't it remind you of how the CIA supported the Afghani Mujahadeen when they were fighting the Russians, only for them to morph into the Taliban and become the West's biggest foes- until ISIL came along.
Arch leaker Snowden (or traitor, some would have us believe) has said the US connived to support ISIL because Israel needed a suitable adversary for them to combat and preserve international support. This sounds too far-fetched to be true, but we have already seen many times how labyrinthine US foreign relations can be. Snowden's diplomatic leaks have shown that nothing has changed, and that black ops and other almost inconceivable skulduggery is still going on today. We should be grateful to him. We still don't know what's going on, but we do understand a little bit more than we did. And it's scarier than we thought...
In the middle east, the West is now talking about making friends with Assad, despite having been hitherto committed to his downfall. He, we are told, may be our only way to destroy the monsters of ISIL. It smacks of the support we used to give Saddam Hussein when the Iran/Iraq war was going on and before Bush decided he was a suitable scapegoat for 9/11 and we could go in and steal his oil.
As for ISIL, remember the US helped fund their efforts when they were fighting Assad. Now they're the devil incarnate. Doesn't it remind you of how the CIA supported the Afghani Mujahadeen when they were fighting the Russians, only for them to morph into the Taliban and become the West's biggest foes- until ISIL came along.
Arch leaker Snowden (or traitor, some would have us believe) has said the US connived to support ISIL because Israel needed a suitable adversary for them to combat and preserve international support. This sounds too far-fetched to be true, but we have already seen many times how labyrinthine US foreign relations can be. Snowden's diplomatic leaks have shown that nothing has changed, and that black ops and other almost inconceivable skulduggery is still going on today. We should be grateful to him. We still don't know what's going on, but we do understand a little bit more than we did. And it's scarier than we thought...
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
The Great War: did I get it all wrong?
I was born just six year after the end of World War II, and growing up in the 1950s everyone was still talking about it, reading books and comics about it, watching films about it. And I soon learned there had been another war before that: a war of unparalleled ferocity that in terms of soldiers killed (though not civilians) was even greater than the one that followed it.
In 1964, when I was thirteen, the BBC showed a documentary series entitled "The Great War" and I watched every episode. Narrated by the great Michael Redgrave, it seemed to demonstrate (to my eyes at least) the utter pointlessness of the whole enterprise. With horrifying vividness it showed the terrible savagery of trench warfare: the needless slaughter of the working classes of Europe at the behest of the ruling classes. And this view was further strengthened by watching Richard Attenborough's brilliant film adaptation of Joan Littlewood's Oh! What a Lovely War some five years later.
Then last year I learned of Michael Gove's attempted revision of our perspectives on the Great War. Citing not only Oh! What a Lovely War but also Blackadder Goes Forth, he complained that the left has subverted our view of what was in reality a just war, a necessary war for the survival of our great nation. I was disgusted by this attempt by one of the darlings (at the time) of the Tory right wing to whitewash the generals and politicians who had sent so many young men to their doom.
Just last month I read Ranulph Fiennes' biography of Captain Scott which was written in 2003. And to my surprise I found in its closing pages a very similar view being promulgated. Fiennes had already explained how Scott's reputation had undergone a transformation since his lionisation by the British public in the years leading up to the beginning of the Great War. By the 1960s books were being written which challenged his decision making and leadership qualities. But Fiennes went further. He also suggested that this sort of "let's tear our heroes down"attitude penetrates our view of the Great War. He rejects the class analysis, reminding us that one of the greatest "villains", Haig, was not a member of the elite like so many of his contemporaries, but had actually risen through the ranks from sheer ability. And his methods, such as the sending of thousands of troops across No Mans Land to face a hail of machine-gun fire, were simply the best, or even the only, methods available. Fiennes believes that the real problem was that warfare itself was undergoing a sort of industrial revolution and that the upper echelons struggled to come to terms with what was a totally new way of waging war. Inevitably there was going to be a tricky (and murderous) learning curve as the leaders modified their tactics and strategies from the tried and trusted methods that had been deployed for centuries.
So, now I find myself thinking through these issues again, not because of the loathsome Gove, but because of one of the world's greatest explorers. But still I find myself unconvinced. In most wars it is the strong and powerful who order the weak and powerless to fight their wars for them, and to me the Great War demonstrates this grim reality more powerfully than any other conflict. Germany was flexing her muscles, keen on becoming the biggest power in Europe. France was desperate to settle the score of their humiliating defeat at the hand of the Germans fifty years previously. And Britain needed to prove once and for all that it was Number One, not only in Europe but in the whole world. A big conflict was inevitable and the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand was simply the flame that lit the fuse. I am not against all war. Right now I believe we should be going to war against ISIl, or whatever they are calling themselves today. But I do believe we need to be very cautious about establishment figures attempting to persuade us that something as terrible as the Great War was not such a bad thing. Why, the next thing they'll be telling us that Tony Blair really did have the interests of the British people at heart when he launched the invasion of Iraq...
In 1964, when I was thirteen, the BBC showed a documentary series entitled "The Great War" and I watched every episode. Narrated by the great Michael Redgrave, it seemed to demonstrate (to my eyes at least) the utter pointlessness of the whole enterprise. With horrifying vividness it showed the terrible savagery of trench warfare: the needless slaughter of the working classes of Europe at the behest of the ruling classes. And this view was further strengthened by watching Richard Attenborough's brilliant film adaptation of Joan Littlewood's Oh! What a Lovely War some five years later.
Then last year I learned of Michael Gove's attempted revision of our perspectives on the Great War. Citing not only Oh! What a Lovely War but also Blackadder Goes Forth, he complained that the left has subverted our view of what was in reality a just war, a necessary war for the survival of our great nation. I was disgusted by this attempt by one of the darlings (at the time) of the Tory right wing to whitewash the generals and politicians who had sent so many young men to their doom.
Just last month I read Ranulph Fiennes' biography of Captain Scott which was written in 2003. And to my surprise I found in its closing pages a very similar view being promulgated. Fiennes had already explained how Scott's reputation had undergone a transformation since his lionisation by the British public in the years leading up to the beginning of the Great War. By the 1960s books were being written which challenged his decision making and leadership qualities. But Fiennes went further. He also suggested that this sort of "let's tear our heroes down"attitude penetrates our view of the Great War. He rejects the class analysis, reminding us that one of the greatest "villains", Haig, was not a member of the elite like so many of his contemporaries, but had actually risen through the ranks from sheer ability. And his methods, such as the sending of thousands of troops across No Mans Land to face a hail of machine-gun fire, were simply the best, or even the only, methods available. Fiennes believes that the real problem was that warfare itself was undergoing a sort of industrial revolution and that the upper echelons struggled to come to terms with what was a totally new way of waging war. Inevitably there was going to be a tricky (and murderous) learning curve as the leaders modified their tactics and strategies from the tried and trusted methods that had been deployed for centuries.
So, now I find myself thinking through these issues again, not because of the loathsome Gove, but because of one of the world's greatest explorers. But still I find myself unconvinced. In most wars it is the strong and powerful who order the weak and powerless to fight their wars for them, and to me the Great War demonstrates this grim reality more powerfully than any other conflict. Germany was flexing her muscles, keen on becoming the biggest power in Europe. France was desperate to settle the score of their humiliating defeat at the hand of the Germans fifty years previously. And Britain needed to prove once and for all that it was Number One, not only in Europe but in the whole world. A big conflict was inevitable and the assassination of Franz-Ferdinand was simply the flame that lit the fuse. I am not against all war. Right now I believe we should be going to war against ISIl, or whatever they are calling themselves today. But I do believe we need to be very cautious about establishment figures attempting to persuade us that something as terrible as the Great War was not such a bad thing. Why, the next thing they'll be telling us that Tony Blair really did have the interests of the British people at heart when he launched the invasion of Iraq...
Thursday, 14 August 2014
What's wrong with BBC sports coverage?
Quick answer: almost everything.
When I was a kid, I loved to watch Grandstand, and one day I asked my dad why it was so called. He explained first what a grandstand was, namely that it offered the best seats in the house, and that that was what you always got on Grandstand. And that sums up what the coverage of a sporting event should be: giving us, the viewers the best seat in the house.
However, in the last few years the Beeb seems to have forgotten this fundamental precept. In, say, an athletics competition, these days the director is never happy to dwell in the stadium to watch whatever activity is going down, be it track, field or whatever, and allow us to absorb the unique atmosphere of such an event. Instead he constantly reverts to a little studio where we can watch "experts" discussing events past or future with their strictly limited diction. While there are a few good men, such as Michael Johnson, who invariably has an interesting insight, or the estimable Cardiffian Colin Jackson, more often we must endure the mediocrity of Denise Lewis (great athlete, miserably inept commentator) or the even more pallid charms of Paula Radcliffe, who can't seem to say anything without wearing a false smile. She's like an athletics version of Virginia Wade; indeed, I'm waiting for her to say something like: "Well, so-and-so didn't win that race because they didn't run fast enough". or some such deathless gem of sporting wisdom. Who decided the great British public wanted to see these endless tedious exchanges rather than watching live action? It is only when the big track races begin we approach the original vision of how races should be covered,- and then we have the excellent voice-overs of Steve Cram and Brendan Foster. Otherwise we find the coverage converted to a "One Show" level, the lowest common intellectual denominator being catered to, but not real sports fans. They will end up seeing just the winning throw of the discus or hammer competition being shown, because when it was actually going on we were watching a few has-beens swapping endless platitudes. If not that then we are subjected to endless little filmlets illustrating some (British) athlete droning on about their aspirations. Here's the news: we don't need it!
Eurosport still knows how to cover a sporting event, as can be seen with the current European Athletics championships. There, we stick with the action in the stadium, which is where we want to be- sitting in the best seat in the house. But the problem is not confined to athletics. Snooker too seems to demand a switch to the studio between frames rather than allowing the viewer to drink in the atmosphere in the arena and observe the demeanours of the contestants as they prepare themselves for the next frame.
I'd like to see a return to those original values of programmes like Grandstand. And it wouldn't even be hard: just try this little guideline:
LESS CHAT- MORE ACTION!
I thank you. I must go now, as it's the women's 20 kilometre walk and I don't want to miss a step.
When I was a kid, I loved to watch Grandstand, and one day I asked my dad why it was so called. He explained first what a grandstand was, namely that it offered the best seats in the house, and that that was what you always got on Grandstand. And that sums up what the coverage of a sporting event should be: giving us, the viewers the best seat in the house.
However, in the last few years the Beeb seems to have forgotten this fundamental precept. In, say, an athletics competition, these days the director is never happy to dwell in the stadium to watch whatever activity is going down, be it track, field or whatever, and allow us to absorb the unique atmosphere of such an event. Instead he constantly reverts to a little studio where we can watch "experts" discussing events past or future with their strictly limited diction. While there are a few good men, such as Michael Johnson, who invariably has an interesting insight, or the estimable Cardiffian Colin Jackson, more often we must endure the mediocrity of Denise Lewis (great athlete, miserably inept commentator) or the even more pallid charms of Paula Radcliffe, who can't seem to say anything without wearing a false smile. She's like an athletics version of Virginia Wade; indeed, I'm waiting for her to say something like: "Well, so-and-so didn't win that race because they didn't run fast enough". or some such deathless gem of sporting wisdom. Who decided the great British public wanted to see these endless tedious exchanges rather than watching live action? It is only when the big track races begin we approach the original vision of how races should be covered,- and then we have the excellent voice-overs of Steve Cram and Brendan Foster. Otherwise we find the coverage converted to a "One Show" level, the lowest common intellectual denominator being catered to, but not real sports fans. They will end up seeing just the winning throw of the discus or hammer competition being shown, because when it was actually going on we were watching a few has-beens swapping endless platitudes. If not that then we are subjected to endless little filmlets illustrating some (British) athlete droning on about their aspirations. Here's the news: we don't need it!
Eurosport still knows how to cover a sporting event, as can be seen with the current European Athletics championships. There, we stick with the action in the stadium, which is where we want to be- sitting in the best seat in the house. But the problem is not confined to athletics. Snooker too seems to demand a switch to the studio between frames rather than allowing the viewer to drink in the atmosphere in the arena and observe the demeanours of the contestants as they prepare themselves for the next frame.
I'd like to see a return to those original values of programmes like Grandstand. And it wouldn't even be hard: just try this little guideline:
LESS CHAT- MORE ACTION!
I thank you. I must go now, as it's the women's 20 kilometre walk and I don't want to miss a step.
Monday, 11 August 2014
Where's an invasion when you need one?
We've seen a number of ground invasions in the last few years: Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, Panama. At the time, and certainly since, the world has wondered whether any of them were really necessary, or even if they did more harm than good. Yet now, with thousands of innocents driven from their homes, facing rape and murder simply because they don't subscribe to one particular, perverted from of Islam, the West is wary of doing anything more than dropping food and water to the victims and some bombs on the perpetrators. To me this is one case where there should indeed be boots on the ground- a proper and definitive military action to crush these barbarians who would cast the world back into the middle ages if they could.
There is nothing new about the techniques deployed by IS. Mohammed himself, peace be upon him, practised exactly the same tactics of "convert or die" as he and his followers moved from town to town in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century. You'd like to think things have moved on a little since then: apparently not, certainly in some quarters. Israel too relies on events which took place 3000 years ago to justify their exclusive claims to the land known as Palestine. They say their claims are justified by certain texts in the Old Testament- again we might have thought that was no basis for current policy but again we'd be wrong.
What is going on in Gaza right now is appalling, but from the terrible images we have seen from Kurdistan in the last few days, the plight of those people seems even worse, if such a thing were possible. We must help them before they perish.
There is nothing new about the techniques deployed by IS. Mohammed himself, peace be upon him, practised exactly the same tactics of "convert or die" as he and his followers moved from town to town in the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century. You'd like to think things have moved on a little since then: apparently not, certainly in some quarters. Israel too relies on events which took place 3000 years ago to justify their exclusive claims to the land known as Palestine. They say their claims are justified by certain texts in the Old Testament- again we might have thought that was no basis for current policy but again we'd be wrong.
What is going on in Gaza right now is appalling, but from the terrible images we have seen from Kurdistan in the last few days, the plight of those people seems even worse, if such a thing were possible. We must help them before they perish.
Monday, 4 August 2014
They're going to have to do it some time
When I visited Syria in 2008 I remember walking past a school supply shop in central Damascus. In the window was a large map of the western middle east, showing Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. Where the state of Israel should have been, there was a large blank, implying that area may have belonged to Jordan or Syria. It wasn't clear. So although such landmarks as the city of Jerusalem (and other towns and cities), the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee were included, the modern borders of Israel, and certainly the name Israel was completely absent on the map. Remember, this was a map intended for use in schools.
I imagine the maps Hamas use are similarly blind when it comes to any mention of the hated Jewish state. Let us examine why. The state of Israel was created by a joint effort of the British and French, with the active participation of many other countries around the world, including the Soviet Union and the U.S. Penetratingly, no Arab states were consulted. Following the end of WW2 and the exposure of the Nazi death camps, world Jewry were presented with the most powerful argument imaginable to have their own country following nearly 2000 years of the diaspora. In 1948 they began flooding into what was then known as Palestine, pushing aside the Arabs who were living there, dispossessing them of their homes and farms. As you enter the refugee camps near Bethlehem today, above the gates are huge keys, symbolising the keys the displaced Arabs kept with them when they fled. One day, they hope, they will be able to return to the homes they were forced to leave all those years ago.
This is why Hamas and many Israeli Arabs refuse to recognise what they see as the illegal state of Israel. To them it has no right to exist, and they would be happiest if all the Jews buggered off and settled, say, in Alaska (one of the less helpful contributions to the debate offered by Iran's prime minister Armadinajad). They know, I guess, that that is not going to happen, but that's their position, and I for one can't say I blame them. Unfortunately this approach has little to do with what Germany's chancellor Bismark called realpolitik.
Much of the world is appalled by the disproportionate nature of Israel's latest adventure in Gaza, where a handful of Israeli deaths has to be balanced against over one thousand Palestinian deaths. But the fact that Hamas refuses to acknowledge the state of Israel continues to keep them isolated from world opinion that would be far more sympathetic were they to do so. One of these days they are going to have to deal with real situations, however unpalatable they are. Only then can they win the moral argument against Israel and move on to the only viable solution: not a two state solution- that will never work, but a one state solution: a multicultural Israel with all its citizens enjoying equal human rights. It's a big ask for a people who have been bullied and exploited for over sixty years, but it's the only way forward
I imagine the maps Hamas use are similarly blind when it comes to any mention of the hated Jewish state. Let us examine why. The state of Israel was created by a joint effort of the British and French, with the active participation of many other countries around the world, including the Soviet Union and the U.S. Penetratingly, no Arab states were consulted. Following the end of WW2 and the exposure of the Nazi death camps, world Jewry were presented with the most powerful argument imaginable to have their own country following nearly 2000 years of the diaspora. In 1948 they began flooding into what was then known as Palestine, pushing aside the Arabs who were living there, dispossessing them of their homes and farms. As you enter the refugee camps near Bethlehem today, above the gates are huge keys, symbolising the keys the displaced Arabs kept with them when they fled. One day, they hope, they will be able to return to the homes they were forced to leave all those years ago.
This is why Hamas and many Israeli Arabs refuse to recognise what they see as the illegal state of Israel. To them it has no right to exist, and they would be happiest if all the Jews buggered off and settled, say, in Alaska (one of the less helpful contributions to the debate offered by Iran's prime minister Armadinajad). They know, I guess, that that is not going to happen, but that's their position, and I for one can't say I blame them. Unfortunately this approach has little to do with what Germany's chancellor Bismark called realpolitik.
Much of the world is appalled by the disproportionate nature of Israel's latest adventure in Gaza, where a handful of Israeli deaths has to be balanced against over one thousand Palestinian deaths. But the fact that Hamas refuses to acknowledge the state of Israel continues to keep them isolated from world opinion that would be far more sympathetic were they to do so. One of these days they are going to have to deal with real situations, however unpalatable they are. Only then can they win the moral argument against Israel and move on to the only viable solution: not a two state solution- that will never work, but a one state solution: a multicultural Israel with all its citizens enjoying equal human rights. It's a big ask for a people who have been bullied and exploited for over sixty years, but it's the only way forward
Friday, 1 August 2014
July 2014 book and film review
BOOKS
EFFIE BRIEST, by Theodore Fontane. Effie is a pretty, fun loving 17 year old who thinks being married off to an ambitious minor aristo 20 years her senior might be a lark. But having moved from her beloved family home into a creepy old house miles away and her husband always away at his work, she slowly realises she may have made a mistake. And as so often happens in real life, one mistake leads to another...
Thomas Mann thought this little masterpiece was one of the six most influential novels ever written, and it is widely acknowledged, along with Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary as one of the three greatest books written by a man, about a woman. Fontane's style appears simple and naturalistic, but the text conceals layer after layer of hidden significance. We may not approve of her headstrong, even foolish life decisions, but we remain sympathetic to this beautiful little bird locked in a cage of her own making. Marvellous.
CAPTAIN SCOTT, by Sir Ranulph Fiennes. The life of one of Britain's greatest "heroic failures", and unlike many of the hundred or so other books written about Scott, this is by someone who has literally walked in his footsteps. Fiennes probably knows more about trekking in the Antarctic than anyone else alive, and is also, as a leader of many expeditions to the Poles, able to identify strongly with the burdens of command in such extreme environments. And there indeed is the rub: Fiennes tells Scott's story paying close attention to the shifting attitude of the "Great British Public" towards Scott in the decades since his demise.
In the early part of the 20th century Britain was in need of a hero, and Scott's tragic story lit up the public's imagination in a way not seen since the time of Wellington and Nelson. But over the years his reputation has been picked apart by witters who have never been to the polar regions, culminating in the appalling slander committed by a man called Roland Huntford in his book Scott and Amundsen, in which Scott is accused of everything from incompetence to culpable homicide. Fiennes reserves particular venom for this piece of pondlife, not fit to shine the shoes of the Great One in his view. True, Fiennes tells us, Scott was a complicated man, troubled, prone to depression and anger, and who did make some poor decisions. Yet Fiennes admits he himself has made mistakes on every expedition he has ever commanded, some of them serious, and his final verdict is that Scott was a great man, a great explorer and a great commander, despite his failings. Fascinating reading.
LA BETE HUMAINE, by Emil Zola. Lust, murder and mayhem set among the railways of late 20th century France. As always in Zola, all human life is here: a dirty old man with a guilty conscience, an attractive woman pursued by a variety of suitors, and a young man who can't see a pretty girl's décolletage without wanting to plunge a knife into it. Will he be able to resist the beast within him?
For me Zola is one of the most approachable French writers of the 19th century. My dental hygienist spotted me reading it and said she could never manage a novel like that, but I told her she probably could if she just tried. Remarkably easy to read, his characters spring from the page in their vividness, and the plots race along like something out of James Patterson. Superior holiday reading.
ALONE IN BERLIN, by Hans Fallada. In 1940 in Hitler's Germany, a quiet couple is brought the telegram everyone fears: their only son has been killed during the campaign in the Low Countries. In a mixture of grief and anger against their Fuhrer, whom they rightly blame for their son's death, the couple mount their own low-level campaign of resistance: they write little postcards with pithy epigrams like The Fuhrer killed our son! Don't let him kill yours! and then leave them in places where people will see and read them, and maybe pass them on. This kind of behaviour will of course be construed as treason by the authorities, and the penalty for that is death. So they're careful... But the postcards soon come to the attention of the Gestapo, who are determined to take these despicable traitors down.
Based on actual events, this is quite simply one of the most powerful and affecting books I have ever read. Its overwhelming humanity, its brilliant narrative, its quiet, understated atmosphere of fear are quite unlike anything else I have read. In my last blog I wrote about the importance of protest, whether or not that protest is effective in bringing about change, and this book demonstrates this to the ultimate degree. Otto Quangel's postcards don't change anything: most are handed over to the authorities as soon as they are found - they actually instill great fear in the hearts of the people who discover them, but no matter. Otto has remained true to himself, and that is what really counts. A quite wonderful book.
FILMS
JACK THE GIANT SLAYER (2013) D- Bryan Singer. A young man discovers some beans, then loses one, which sprouts. The resulting beanstalk reaches to the sky, but he doesn't want to climb up there, because there be giants. Nasty giants... Since the phenomenal and richly deserved success of Game of Thrones we have seen a rash of movies and TV series with the emphasis firmly on the medieval/magic theme. This, for instance, looks like it was made in the same studios with the same special effects crew. Unfortunately this is no GOT. The writing is poor and the acting risible, even though there are some good actors involved including the excellent Stanley Tucci. Disappointing.
COLD COMES THE NIGHT (2013) D- Tze Chun. The single parent owner of a motel has her life turned suddenly upside down when the mob send one of their own to recover a stash of money, and he enlists her help to find it. Strangely, he seems to need quite a bit of help, because he's blind...
Bryan Cranston showed how good he can be with Breaking Bad, but here they make him do a comedy Russian accent which is wholly unconvincing, and that with the very hard to swallow premise of a blind man being sent by the Russian mafia to do a job of this importance made it impossible for me to suspend my disbelief.
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939) D- Wallace Worsley. In medieval Paris, a beautiful young gypsy girl turns people's heads, so much so that the very foundations of government may fall as a result. Above it all, a disfigured man swings from the great bells of Notre Dame and laughs at it all...
One in an occasional series of films I have actually seen before, though I believe the last time was in the 60s, and all I could remember from that distant time was Charles Laughton saying "I can hear the bells!" I had completely forgotten Maureen O'Hara's Esmeralda, the girl who bewitches (without even trying) every man who lays eyes on her. She was well cast, as she does indeed radiate the most luminous beauty in every frame she appears in. And Charles Laughton is equally magnificent as the beast to Esmeralda's beauty. A classic which has dated surprisingly well.
DRINKING BUDDIES (2013) D- Joe Swanberg. Being the life and times of a disparate group of souls who operate a micro brewery. They work hard, they play hard, and they definitely enjoy too much of their own product. And there's your problem. Don't mess with Mister Booze! seems to be the message here in this well made and notable effort. Olivia Wilde's drinking threatens her relationship as well as the livelihood of her fellow workers. Can she come out the other side a better person, or will everything fall apart? Try it yourself and find out.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH ((2006) D- Greg Coolidge. A luscious creature (Jessica Simpson) joins the team at the local supermarket, and Dane Cook is determined to snag her. Trouble is, rumour has it she will only go out with workers who win the employee of the month award, and Dane is something of a slacker. Time for a change... One of those films which owes a lot to films like Ron Burgundy, Anchor Man but lacking the unselfconscious charm of that film. Jessica Simpson's part is particularly disappointing as she is reduced to a mere pneumatic cypher. Leave it out.
NEVER BEEN KISSED (1999) D- Raja Gosnell. A cub reporter (Drew Barrymore) is sent to do an undercover expose on college life, but soon finds herself in the same sort of binds she encountered when she was in college herself- labelled a dumpy nerd, a general no-hoper. Then one of the teachers falls for her and suddenly she has a real story on her hands, but does she want to print that, or allow the romance to progress naturally? Tricky problem... This reminded me a little of Legally Blond, with its apparent innocence blended with hard-nosed reality. It sort of works, but only just.
HAMLET TWO (2008) D- Andrew Fleming. Drama teacher Dana Marschz (Steve Coogan in a wholly plausible American accent) is on his final warning but fancies himself as an inspirational theatre producer, so he does one of those classic "Let's put on a show!" things, much to the ire of his highly sceptical colleagues. In a way they have a point. A sequel to Hamlet? I mean, didn't everybody die in the first one? Coogan doesn't allow little details like that to get in his way; he just invokes a time machine to solve those little problems and despite the shock-horror reaction of his fellow teachers and governors, this project might just work...
Never content to rest on his laurels, Steve Coogan has mounted his assault on the American market, and while he hasn't yet scored like, say, Dudley Moore a generation before, he could be on his way. He's welcome back here any time he likes though, as he's still one of the biggest comedic talents we have.
WHITE MATERIAL (2009, French) D- Claire Denis. In an unspecified central African country, a woman (Isobel Huppert) struggles to keep her coffee plantation operating, despite the imminent arrival of a rebel army which is operating a scorched earth policy. And they consider her enterprise as mere "white material"- of no relevance in their world. She does her best to ignore the threat, while all around her everyone is fleeing, even her most trusted employees. To make matters worse, her brother is selling the concern off behind her back. Still she will not be dislodged...
Isobel Huppert is one of my favourite French actresses: her face is angular, even gaunt, yet she remains stunning for all that, and her acting is wholly convincing.in everything she does. Here she commands attention in every shot with her passionate, if doomed, commitment to her precious coffee beans.
FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) W/D- Tom Holland. A young man is addicted to horror movies, especially a TV series hosted by "Peter Vincent" (a deliciously camp Roddy McDowell) and when a real-life vampire (a much-praised Chris Sarandon) moves in next door and nobody believes him, he decides to seek out Peter Vincent and enlist his help to put a stake through the evil one's heart. At first McDowell is dismissive, but when he notices Sarandon doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror, he realises this is the real deal...
A really rather good vampire movie, which was well received at the time and made the producers a lot of money into the bargain. If shlock-horror movies are to your taste, you'll like this a lot...
WINGS (1927) D- William Wellmann. (silent) Two young men are full of patriotic zeal when World War One begins in 1917 (this is America, remember) and both sign up for the newly formed US Air Force. They leave behind girls, one of whom (Clara Bow) decides to follow them out to the Western Front and enlists as an ambulance driver. But the real action is in the skies...
In my last film review I catalogued one of Wellmann's last films, a war picture called Darby's Rangers, and here we see Wellmann almost at the dawn of his career, a full thirty years earlier, given a big budget and showing every cent of it up on the screen with dog-fight sequences that were revolutionary at the time and remain riveting to this day. Howard Hughes took a leaf out of Wellmann's book when he made the famous Hell's Angels three years later, using many of the devices Wellmann introduced. But Wellmann got there first. Very special.
EFFIE BRIEST, by Theodore Fontane. Effie is a pretty, fun loving 17 year old who thinks being married off to an ambitious minor aristo 20 years her senior might be a lark. But having moved from her beloved family home into a creepy old house miles away and her husband always away at his work, she slowly realises she may have made a mistake. And as so often happens in real life, one mistake leads to another...
Thomas Mann thought this little masterpiece was one of the six most influential novels ever written, and it is widely acknowledged, along with Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary as one of the three greatest books written by a man, about a woman. Fontane's style appears simple and naturalistic, but the text conceals layer after layer of hidden significance. We may not approve of her headstrong, even foolish life decisions, but we remain sympathetic to this beautiful little bird locked in a cage of her own making. Marvellous.
CAPTAIN SCOTT, by Sir Ranulph Fiennes. The life of one of Britain's greatest "heroic failures", and unlike many of the hundred or so other books written about Scott, this is by someone who has literally walked in his footsteps. Fiennes probably knows more about trekking in the Antarctic than anyone else alive, and is also, as a leader of many expeditions to the Poles, able to identify strongly with the burdens of command in such extreme environments. And there indeed is the rub: Fiennes tells Scott's story paying close attention to the shifting attitude of the "Great British Public" towards Scott in the decades since his demise.
In the early part of the 20th century Britain was in need of a hero, and Scott's tragic story lit up the public's imagination in a way not seen since the time of Wellington and Nelson. But over the years his reputation has been picked apart by witters who have never been to the polar regions, culminating in the appalling slander committed by a man called Roland Huntford in his book Scott and Amundsen, in which Scott is accused of everything from incompetence to culpable homicide. Fiennes reserves particular venom for this piece of pondlife, not fit to shine the shoes of the Great One in his view. True, Fiennes tells us, Scott was a complicated man, troubled, prone to depression and anger, and who did make some poor decisions. Yet Fiennes admits he himself has made mistakes on every expedition he has ever commanded, some of them serious, and his final verdict is that Scott was a great man, a great explorer and a great commander, despite his failings. Fascinating reading.
LA BETE HUMAINE, by Emil Zola. Lust, murder and mayhem set among the railways of late 20th century France. As always in Zola, all human life is here: a dirty old man with a guilty conscience, an attractive woman pursued by a variety of suitors, and a young man who can't see a pretty girl's décolletage without wanting to plunge a knife into it. Will he be able to resist the beast within him?
For me Zola is one of the most approachable French writers of the 19th century. My dental hygienist spotted me reading it and said she could never manage a novel like that, but I told her she probably could if she just tried. Remarkably easy to read, his characters spring from the page in their vividness, and the plots race along like something out of James Patterson. Superior holiday reading.
ALONE IN BERLIN, by Hans Fallada. In 1940 in Hitler's Germany, a quiet couple is brought the telegram everyone fears: their only son has been killed during the campaign in the Low Countries. In a mixture of grief and anger against their Fuhrer, whom they rightly blame for their son's death, the couple mount their own low-level campaign of resistance: they write little postcards with pithy epigrams like The Fuhrer killed our son! Don't let him kill yours! and then leave them in places where people will see and read them, and maybe pass them on. This kind of behaviour will of course be construed as treason by the authorities, and the penalty for that is death. So they're careful... But the postcards soon come to the attention of the Gestapo, who are determined to take these despicable traitors down.
Based on actual events, this is quite simply one of the most powerful and affecting books I have ever read. Its overwhelming humanity, its brilliant narrative, its quiet, understated atmosphere of fear are quite unlike anything else I have read. In my last blog I wrote about the importance of protest, whether or not that protest is effective in bringing about change, and this book demonstrates this to the ultimate degree. Otto Quangel's postcards don't change anything: most are handed over to the authorities as soon as they are found - they actually instill great fear in the hearts of the people who discover them, but no matter. Otto has remained true to himself, and that is what really counts. A quite wonderful book.
FILMS
JACK THE GIANT SLAYER (2013) D- Bryan Singer. A young man discovers some beans, then loses one, which sprouts. The resulting beanstalk reaches to the sky, but he doesn't want to climb up there, because there be giants. Nasty giants... Since the phenomenal and richly deserved success of Game of Thrones we have seen a rash of movies and TV series with the emphasis firmly on the medieval/magic theme. This, for instance, looks like it was made in the same studios with the same special effects crew. Unfortunately this is no GOT. The writing is poor and the acting risible, even though there are some good actors involved including the excellent Stanley Tucci. Disappointing.
COLD COMES THE NIGHT (2013) D- Tze Chun. The single parent owner of a motel has her life turned suddenly upside down when the mob send one of their own to recover a stash of money, and he enlists her help to find it. Strangely, he seems to need quite a bit of help, because he's blind...
Bryan Cranston showed how good he can be with Breaking Bad, but here they make him do a comedy Russian accent which is wholly unconvincing, and that with the very hard to swallow premise of a blind man being sent by the Russian mafia to do a job of this importance made it impossible for me to suspend my disbelief.
THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1939) D- Wallace Worsley. In medieval Paris, a beautiful young gypsy girl turns people's heads, so much so that the very foundations of government may fall as a result. Above it all, a disfigured man swings from the great bells of Notre Dame and laughs at it all...
One in an occasional series of films I have actually seen before, though I believe the last time was in the 60s, and all I could remember from that distant time was Charles Laughton saying "I can hear the bells!" I had completely forgotten Maureen O'Hara's Esmeralda, the girl who bewitches (without even trying) every man who lays eyes on her. She was well cast, as she does indeed radiate the most luminous beauty in every frame she appears in. And Charles Laughton is equally magnificent as the beast to Esmeralda's beauty. A classic which has dated surprisingly well.
DRINKING BUDDIES (2013) D- Joe Swanberg. Being the life and times of a disparate group of souls who operate a micro brewery. They work hard, they play hard, and they definitely enjoy too much of their own product. And there's your problem. Don't mess with Mister Booze! seems to be the message here in this well made and notable effort. Olivia Wilde's drinking threatens her relationship as well as the livelihood of her fellow workers. Can she come out the other side a better person, or will everything fall apart? Try it yourself and find out.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH ((2006) D- Greg Coolidge. A luscious creature (Jessica Simpson) joins the team at the local supermarket, and Dane Cook is determined to snag her. Trouble is, rumour has it she will only go out with workers who win the employee of the month award, and Dane is something of a slacker. Time for a change... One of those films which owes a lot to films like Ron Burgundy, Anchor Man but lacking the unselfconscious charm of that film. Jessica Simpson's part is particularly disappointing as she is reduced to a mere pneumatic cypher. Leave it out.
NEVER BEEN KISSED (1999) D- Raja Gosnell. A cub reporter (Drew Barrymore) is sent to do an undercover expose on college life, but soon finds herself in the same sort of binds she encountered when she was in college herself- labelled a dumpy nerd, a general no-hoper. Then one of the teachers falls for her and suddenly she has a real story on her hands, but does she want to print that, or allow the romance to progress naturally? Tricky problem... This reminded me a little of Legally Blond, with its apparent innocence blended with hard-nosed reality. It sort of works, but only just.
HAMLET TWO (2008) D- Andrew Fleming. Drama teacher Dana Marschz (Steve Coogan in a wholly plausible American accent) is on his final warning but fancies himself as an inspirational theatre producer, so he does one of those classic "Let's put on a show!" things, much to the ire of his highly sceptical colleagues. In a way they have a point. A sequel to Hamlet? I mean, didn't everybody die in the first one? Coogan doesn't allow little details like that to get in his way; he just invokes a time machine to solve those little problems and despite the shock-horror reaction of his fellow teachers and governors, this project might just work...
Never content to rest on his laurels, Steve Coogan has mounted his assault on the American market, and while he hasn't yet scored like, say, Dudley Moore a generation before, he could be on his way. He's welcome back here any time he likes though, as he's still one of the biggest comedic talents we have.
WHITE MATERIAL (2009, French) D- Claire Denis. In an unspecified central African country, a woman (Isobel Huppert) struggles to keep her coffee plantation operating, despite the imminent arrival of a rebel army which is operating a scorched earth policy. And they consider her enterprise as mere "white material"- of no relevance in their world. She does her best to ignore the threat, while all around her everyone is fleeing, even her most trusted employees. To make matters worse, her brother is selling the concern off behind her back. Still she will not be dislodged...
Isobel Huppert is one of my favourite French actresses: her face is angular, even gaunt, yet she remains stunning for all that, and her acting is wholly convincing.in everything she does. Here she commands attention in every shot with her passionate, if doomed, commitment to her precious coffee beans.
FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) W/D- Tom Holland. A young man is addicted to horror movies, especially a TV series hosted by "Peter Vincent" (a deliciously camp Roddy McDowell) and when a real-life vampire (a much-praised Chris Sarandon) moves in next door and nobody believes him, he decides to seek out Peter Vincent and enlist his help to put a stake through the evil one's heart. At first McDowell is dismissive, but when he notices Sarandon doesn't cast a reflection in a mirror, he realises this is the real deal...
A really rather good vampire movie, which was well received at the time and made the producers a lot of money into the bargain. If shlock-horror movies are to your taste, you'll like this a lot...
WINGS (1927) D- William Wellmann. (silent) Two young men are full of patriotic zeal when World War One begins in 1917 (this is America, remember) and both sign up for the newly formed US Air Force. They leave behind girls, one of whom (Clara Bow) decides to follow them out to the Western Front and enlists as an ambulance driver. But the real action is in the skies...
In my last film review I catalogued one of Wellmann's last films, a war picture called Darby's Rangers, and here we see Wellmann almost at the dawn of his career, a full thirty years earlier, given a big budget and showing every cent of it up on the screen with dog-fight sequences that were revolutionary at the time and remain riveting to this day. Howard Hughes took a leaf out of Wellmann's book when he made the famous Hell's Angels three years later, using many of the devices Wellmann introduced. But Wellmann got there first. Very special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)