Glory, glory Tottenham Hotspur!
Oh when the Spurs - Go marching in - Oh when the Spurs go marching in...
I've just had it drawn to my attention that i'm older than all the players in the Spurs squad - except Cudicini. But he's a goalkeeper who spends his whole time on the bench, notwithstanding his serious motorcycle injuries he's currently recovering from. I think my goose is cooked.
25 November 2009
19 November 2009
Harry Brown
The new Michael Caine film, in which he plays the eponymous Harry Brown, is some what confused. In Taxi Driver De Niro spoke the line "One day a rain will come that will wash all the scum off the streets". He then sets about becoming that rain and we watch as it costs him his sanity, his soul and his ideals. By looking to do away with sickness, he only serves to perpetuate it. Harry Brown (the film, as opposed to the titular character) looks like it's doing a lot of moralising and has the appearance of good artistic sensibilities, but its message is essentially that the way forward is to go over the heads of the failed justice system and blow away the criminal element. It is by this means that Harry Brown (the titular character, as opposed to the film) finds peace and justice for himself and his community.
The best term i've heard used to classify the film is 'chavsploitation'. The South London estate Harry lives on is plagued by a gang completely devoid of any morality. They are, classically, raised by single mothers (fathers absent by either death, non-commitment or imprisonment), armed, connected with serious and organised criminal activity, drug-dealing, turf-conscious, violent, remorseless, wild and chaotic scum bags from your nightmares. These characters are set-up to be completely beyond redemption and vile to the core so when they get what's coming we're in no doubt about what a good thing is happening. These characters are also set-up to be associated in your mind with those kids round where you live.
The film seems to use the 'from bad stock' argument as further reason to write them off, rather than as reason to consider exploring cycles of abuse.
What's confused is that Harry and the film gradually see more and more of this underworld and how systemic and far reaching its culture, and its causes and effects, are. Yet, by the end, one man and one man's murders have solved the problems of his estate. With all that in mind it's not surprising that the Daily Mail writer says "Finally a film that really matters". The idea of wiping out a class of people as a solution completely disregards the filling of the void that would remain and the fact that the problems are symptomatic of deeper ills in society.
One of the things that was most disturbing about the film was its conviction of the unchangeable, unrepentant nature of the villainous characters. This is disturbing because it portrays our freedom of choice as a much more limited thing than we might like. Abuse and cycles of destruction in culture and through generations have enormous power, and to suggest that our individual freedom of choice is enough to counter it is probably very naive. Enter God's power into the fray! Except in my experience (which adds to my disturbed state) even 'saved' and baptised people are held by culture, addiction and patterns of old and of character.
So i think i'm left with unproven faith, my stupid hope and love.
The best term i've heard used to classify the film is 'chavsploitation'. The South London estate Harry lives on is plagued by a gang completely devoid of any morality. They are, classically, raised by single mothers (fathers absent by either death, non-commitment or imprisonment), armed, connected with serious and organised criminal activity, drug-dealing, turf-conscious, violent, remorseless, wild and chaotic scum bags from your nightmares. These characters are set-up to be completely beyond redemption and vile to the core so when they get what's coming we're in no doubt about what a good thing is happening. These characters are also set-up to be associated in your mind with those kids round where you live.
The film seems to use the 'from bad stock' argument as further reason to write them off, rather than as reason to consider exploring cycles of abuse.
What's confused is that Harry and the film gradually see more and more of this underworld and how systemic and far reaching its culture, and its causes and effects, are. Yet, by the end, one man and one man's murders have solved the problems of his estate. With all that in mind it's not surprising that the Daily Mail writer says "Finally a film that really matters". The idea of wiping out a class of people as a solution completely disregards the filling of the void that would remain and the fact that the problems are symptomatic of deeper ills in society.
One of the things that was most disturbing about the film was its conviction of the unchangeable, unrepentant nature of the villainous characters. This is disturbing because it portrays our freedom of choice as a much more limited thing than we might like. Abuse and cycles of destruction in culture and through generations have enormous power, and to suggest that our individual freedom of choice is enough to counter it is probably very naive. Enter God's power into the fray! Except in my experience (which adds to my disturbed state) even 'saved' and baptised people are held by culture, addiction and patterns of old and of character.
So i think i'm left with unproven faith, my stupid hope and love.
17 November 2009
X - crement Factor
Farce! X-factor is a farce (it's always been a farce) but now, finally, the public have realised and are treating it like the farce it is. Amen.
Between John and the other John, all the 'shock' exits, and the 'judges' impartiality being massively and pantomimically compromised by their management of particular acts, the show's true colours are exposed.
I liked Rachel, really liked Rachel - before they changed her! She was a real talent with genuine, icy and androgynous star-quality. I don't think she was getting votes because she was too much the finished article. So much so the public couldn't root for her as one of their own. Then they changed her hair and made her skip, screech and gush while being interviewed, and it's bye-bye Rachel.
Louie banging on and on about rules as though the show, or his act, or he himself have an ounce of integrity between them! And sociopathic Cowell identifying the public's spirit towards the show and thus allowing the £££££s to direct his decisions - "Oh, alright then, i Like John and Edward too really".
Meanwhile, the whole country's gone mad for it, facebook has gone into X-Factor meltdown, most of the press is page 1-5 in the show's 'controversy' and gossip, and, really, do we need 3 hours a week of this enlightenment, plus all the x-tra factor nonsense - and repeats?
It causes me to wonder whether the personna of our public conscious would be able to sustain such a level of passion and commitment to something more meaningful, and if so, why doesn't it?
Olly to win! And then be completely forgotten about until his guest appearance on next years puppet show.
9 November 2009
5 November 2009
Not Just Jack, something brighter too.
So, last night right, our Wednesday night family service thing - Stone Soup - is about to start and my phone goes. It's Danny Cope, he says "I've got guest passes to see Just Jack tonight, do you want in?". After checking all the details, which reveal such an option to be a possibility, i say "Defo!".
I never really thought much of Just Jack, mainly because his breakthrough hit (starz in their eyes) is all about the way people clamour for fame, combined with the way record companies and media bodies use and dispose of artists. I always thought that was a bit rich a theme for an upcoming star, whilst agreeing with his sentiments. Anyway, free live music is free live music, so i let my sympathies with him take precedence.
In the car the joke is made: the police pick up two boys, one's swallowed a firework, the other's swallowed a battery. In the end they let one off and charged the other.
Don't worry, the evening was all uphill from there.
He was brilliant! I was familiar with about a third of his set and I was really quite moved by much of his stuff which, lyrically, is simultaneously quite honest, grimy and beautiful. His music is a sort of funk-disco-pop, from an urban stable (ok, that might not be a formally recognised genre, but that's how it sounds to me). His themes often come back to family, love, ambition and brokenness, which, given the way he speaks, can sometimes make it difficult to dance to, no matter how buoyant the underlying music is.
I was stunned on several occasions, but most notably by the repetition of the lines "Through all of the devilish things we do", "I can't help my stupid hope, it's always with me" and "We are all embers from the same fire" in the track Embers. The ideas in that, combined with a sort of prophetic edge in many of his lyrics, engaged my spirit and highlighted a connection with a higher being, let's call her 'God'.
I never really thought much of Just Jack, mainly because his breakthrough hit (starz in their eyes) is all about the way people clamour for fame, combined with the way record companies and media bodies use and dispose of artists. I always thought that was a bit rich a theme for an upcoming star, whilst agreeing with his sentiments. Anyway, free live music is free live music, so i let my sympathies with him take precedence.
In the car the joke is made: the police pick up two boys, one's swallowed a firework, the other's swallowed a battery. In the end they let one off and charged the other.
Don't worry, the evening was all uphill from there.
He was brilliant! I was familiar with about a third of his set and I was really quite moved by much of his stuff which, lyrically, is simultaneously quite honest, grimy and beautiful. His music is a sort of funk-disco-pop, from an urban stable (ok, that might not be a formally recognised genre, but that's how it sounds to me). His themes often come back to family, love, ambition and brokenness, which, given the way he speaks, can sometimes make it difficult to dance to, no matter how buoyant the underlying music is.
I was stunned on several occasions, but most notably by the repetition of the lines "Through all of the devilish things we do", "I can't help my stupid hope, it's always with me" and "We are all embers from the same fire" in the track Embers. The ideas in that, combined with a sort of prophetic edge in many of his lyrics, engaged my spirit and highlighted a connection with a higher being, let's call her 'God'.
4 November 2009
Horror shows.
The season of horror is over (unless of course you count the celebratory burning of effigies of a Catholic who failed in a gunpowder plot as falling within that season). Masks were worn, fake blood was liberally applied and tricks, treats, monsters and evil all came to the fore. However, the terms by which this darkness was presented meant it's a very cartoony and caricatured thing, so as to distract us from evil's reality.
It's a very similar line to this that Christians often use to object to the celebration of Hallowe'en (aside from the 'why celebrate evil at all?' line): "When you make light of dark and demonic forces you underestimate their reality and their true power". This angle is often spoken from a perspective which considers evil's primary identity to be found in a spiritual and occultic dimension.
I would like to share the line of argument, but present it from a quite different perspective. If, in order to present evil, we have to put on hideous masks and think in terms of ghosts, ghouls, witches on broomsticks, and suggest evil is something alien and removed, we do two things which are damaging. First we deny evils within ourselves and evils which we participate in and perpetuate by our daily lives; by virtue of our systems and structures. The second thing is that we enforce the assumption that we will recognise evil when we see it, rather than acknowledge the insipid means by which it most commonly operates.
Within this however, and in the celebration of Hallowe'en, is also the fact that to scare ourselves is a good thing. Getting to know and tame the effects of fear on us, and to rehearse our responses in situations that induce fear in us is key to our survival. It's the same system kids employ when they play, and the way playing equips them to become adults. The value in scary films is that we ask ourselves 'How would i respond in that situation?' and that we shout things at the screen like 'No, don't run upstairs!!'.
I saw 3 scary films this Hallowe'en period, only one was a horror, this was John Carpenter's quintessential 1978 Halloween. The films that i found most horrifying and disturbing were however the other two. They were were completely unrelated in genre, country of manufacture, primary theme of exploration, intended audience and certification. But they were released in the same year (2006) and expose and condemn the same practise - adults using children to further their own ends.
First was the supremely difficult watch of the excellent London To Brighton
This film, set over two days, follows the story of a young runaway girl who gets trapped into prostitution and used as a pawn by characters inhabiting a world which she barely understands.
Secondly was the very uncomfortable Jesus Camp.
(Can i also recommend following the youtube link to the Bill Maher discussion about the film).
This film is a documentary about an American youth pastor's work with children whereby they entirely and passionately adopt the Christian Right's political stances and therefore become pawns to those ends.
What's scary in both these cases is not the bogeyman, it's the way these children are at the mercy of the powers - be they emotional, financial, cultural, psychological or philosophical (read 'spiritual' where you will) - influencing the adults exploiting them. I was left reeling after both these films and the fear was two-fold. On the one hand was my response to the overwhelming force of the reality of both these stories. Secondly was my helplessness in addressing the actual situations represented, and again helplessness in the way i perhaps use children in accordance with my own ideology. You can keep your Michael Myers.
It's a very similar line to this that Christians often use to object to the celebration of Hallowe'en (aside from the 'why celebrate evil at all?' line): "When you make light of dark and demonic forces you underestimate their reality and their true power". This angle is often spoken from a perspective which considers evil's primary identity to be found in a spiritual and occultic dimension.
I would like to share the line of argument, but present it from a quite different perspective. If, in order to present evil, we have to put on hideous masks and think in terms of ghosts, ghouls, witches on broomsticks, and suggest evil is something alien and removed, we do two things which are damaging. First we deny evils within ourselves and evils which we participate in and perpetuate by our daily lives; by virtue of our systems and structures. The second thing is that we enforce the assumption that we will recognise evil when we see it, rather than acknowledge the insipid means by which it most commonly operates.
Within this however, and in the celebration of Hallowe'en, is also the fact that to scare ourselves is a good thing. Getting to know and tame the effects of fear on us, and to rehearse our responses in situations that induce fear in us is key to our survival. It's the same system kids employ when they play, and the way playing equips them to become adults. The value in scary films is that we ask ourselves 'How would i respond in that situation?' and that we shout things at the screen like 'No, don't run upstairs!!'.
I saw 3 scary films this Hallowe'en period, only one was a horror, this was John Carpenter's quintessential 1978 Halloween. The films that i found most horrifying and disturbing were however the other two. They were were completely unrelated in genre, country of manufacture, primary theme of exploration, intended audience and certification. But they were released in the same year (2006) and expose and condemn the same practise - adults using children to further their own ends.
First was the supremely difficult watch of the excellent London To Brighton
This film, set over two days, follows the story of a young runaway girl who gets trapped into prostitution and used as a pawn by characters inhabiting a world which she barely understands.
Secondly was the very uncomfortable Jesus Camp.
(Can i also recommend following the youtube link to the Bill Maher discussion about the film).
This film is a documentary about an American youth pastor's work with children whereby they entirely and passionately adopt the Christian Right's political stances and therefore become pawns to those ends.
What's scary in both these cases is not the bogeyman, it's the way these children are at the mercy of the powers - be they emotional, financial, cultural, psychological or philosophical (read 'spiritual' where you will) - influencing the adults exploiting them. I was left reeling after both these films and the fear was two-fold. On the one hand was my response to the overwhelming force of the reality of both these stories. Secondly was my helplessness in addressing the actual situations represented, and again helplessness in the way i perhaps use children in accordance with my own ideology. You can keep your Michael Myers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
