Saturday 28th June 2025
Blog Page 1628

Shrewdbacca: George Lucas sells Star Wars franchise

0

In 1988 filmmakers, preservationists and businessmen went to Congress over legislation responding to a pressing concern amongst interest groups in the film industry. Flouting the Berne Convention for Moral Rights – which would prevent alteration of a cinematographic work by those looking to profit from its reinterpretation – renowned filmmakers such as Jimmy Stewart, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas testified on the importance of preserving a national ”cultural heritage”. Lucas said: ”People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behaviour, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society…A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.”

By 1996 his attitude seems to have changed. Lucas began working on the first of many repackagings of the Star Wars films – in 2004 and 2006 for DVD, and in 2011 for a horrifically expensive Blu-ray remaster. In the 1980s, Lucas batted against the colorization and other manipulations of classic films in the name of ”cultural heritage”; more recently, he has exploited every innovation in the special effects portfolio to tweak the udder of his wrinkled old cash cow.

Now, it’s not as if I see this as a desecration of a set of sacred artefacts – I don’t care about Star Wars. But hypocrisy riles me. Lucas, despite being one of Hollywood’s wealthiest and most business-minded filmmakers, is also one of its most outspoken critics.

He began his filmmaking career at the University of Southern Carolina, putting together edgy and artisanal anticapitalist political documentaries and “tonal poems”, structured around a piece of music or found sounds: ”1:42:08” centres on the noise of a Lotus in top gear. His filmmaking outpost, Skywalker Ranch, is located in Nicasio, California, rather than Hollywood – Lucas’s attempt to range his operation against the Hollywood moviemaking machine he has repeatedly condemned. Lucas says in the 2004 documentary “Empire of Dreams”, in one of countless interviews saturated with complaints against the commercialisation of cinema, that he is ”not happy that corporations have taken over the film industry.”

But, like the young and idealistic Anakin Skywalker, Lucas seems to have lost his way, growing into the leader of an evil empire: ”What I was trying to do was stay independent so that I could make the movies I wanted to make,” said Lucas in 2004. “But now I’ve found myself being the head of a corporation…I have become the very thing that I was trying to avoid.”

Star Wars was the first modern blockbuster. Its simple structure and morality – the battle of good and evil, light and dark, rebellion and empire – bolstered by expensive and foregrounded special effects and emphasis on action sequences, has served as the blueprint for much popular cinema. Most of all, it was the first film which was written to create a universe of possibility for merchandising. Though today a time before major releases necessarily corresponded with imperious marketing and PR campaigns may seem quaint and strange, the commoditisation of a film franchise was indeed relatively new in 1977. The films have spawned countless innovations in toys and games, and earned Lucas Films billions from clothing, collectables and convention culture. The franchise has, according to Bloomberg, garnered Lucas Films $4.54bn in ticket sales; merchandising has brought in more than $13.5bn.

Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with this – if parents want buy their brats overpriced replica lightsabers to beat their friends over the heads with rather than bits of old wood, that’s their prerogative. If 40 year-old virgins want to fill their garages full of taxidermised Wookies and rows of plastic action figures, good for them. But there’s a hypocrisy in Lucas’s self-cultivated outsider stance which, in the light of this corporate sovereignty, strikes me as unmerited and pretentious.

This week, Lucasfilm, which is 100% owned by the director, was sold for $4.05bn dollars to Disney, with a view to the creation of more Star Wars flicks. Some critics have suggested Lucas has sold out. My point is that he sold out long ago. And it is unsurprising that the rhetoric of ‘cultural heritage’ has been wheeled out again in the context of this new move: “For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next,” Lucas has said. “I’ve always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime.”

But perhaps more than the money, experts say Lucas was also taking steps to ensure the future of his vision and ideas. Disney says it will produce ‘Star Wars Episode 7” for release in theatres worldwide in 2015, and will release more films every two to three years, projects which Lucas will join as a ‘creative consultant’. “I felt like I wanted to put the company somewhere in a larger entity that would protect it,” Lucas told reporters this week. “We could go on making Star Wars for the next 100 years.” This explains why Lucas has done this now – he wants to ensure that his legacy is not distorted by its inheritors while he still can. So much for ”cultural heritage”.

But there’s another rationale behind Lucas’s timing. Long-term capital gains tax from the sale of assets held for more than one year are currently taxed at a rate of 15% for investors in the 25% income-tax bracket or above, the level in which Lucas lies, and at 0% for investors in the 10% or 15% bracket. In January 2013, those rates are due to increase to 20% and 10% respectively. Lucas, surrounding himself with the finest legal advisors in the country, has designed the sale to take advantage of the lower rates on long-term capital gain while they are certain to exist. What we’re talking about here is not merely an example of financial savvy, but actually a form of legal tax evasion. The same kind of tax evasion that has earned a number of figures, including Eduardo Saverin, one of the founding partners of Facebook, public condemnation, media derision and government criticism in recent months. I doubt though that the billionaire director’s manipulations will undergo the same kind of scrutiny.

In any case, we can see that Lucas is not the devout anticapitalist he claims to be.    

Interview: Robin Hanbury-Tenison

0
“That’s Chico,” he says airily, gesturing at what looks like a dead parrot on top of the wardrobe. “Picked him up in the Amazon. Spent 15 years in my deep-freeze. Rather tatty really.”
I’m standing, slightly bemused, in the rural Cornwall home of Robin Hanbury-Tenison, the remarkable man celebrated as our greatest living explorer. In a nearby cabinet, there’s an elegantly carved ostrich egg (“my only water-carrier when crossing the Kalahari with bushmen”), and hovering mysteriously over the mantlepiece there’s a gaudy headdress from Borneo that apparently has something sinister to do with head-hunting. The living room seethes with the slightly improbable.
On leaving Oxford in 1957, he promptly undertook the first overland crossing to Sri Lanka (interrupted, admittedly, by a brief desert abduction by Afghan horsemen). Within a few short years, he had become the first to travel the full length of South America by river, ride the Great Wall of China, cross South America at its greatest width, and – faintly surprisingly – hovercraft his way over the Orinoco. He was the first to climb the forbidding Mount Roraima single-handedly, and that was something of an impromptu accident. And he has the most evocative ringbinders I’ve ever seen, if that’s a thing – “Siberut 1972”, “Africa 1969”, “Sulawesi 1974”, and on through the world. 
As he carefully pours the tea and gestures warmly towards a fruit cake, it is – for a fleeting moment – hard to imagine this affable man rafting alone through the wilds of Brazil or sleeping rough under a Saharan night-sky. At one point, he impersonates a tropical spider with a chocolate brownie. But as he recounts each extraordinary episode (smuggling himself over borders under moonlight, becoming a godfather to a Penan child in Sarawak, debating with island chieftains dozens of miles off Sumatra), it becomes clear that it’s the human encounters that really grip him. He has an extremely acute social conscience. This is a man who, when meeting the legendary activist Claudio Villas Boas deep in the Brazilian interior, was hailed as the “first sign” of a visionary new enlightenment. Villas Boas may well have been right: Hanbury-Tenison co-founded the world’s first charity for indigenous groups, Survival International, the self-described “movement for tribal peoples”, 43 years ago. And he hasn’t paused for breath since.
“Explorers,” he remarks dryly, with his hands clasped as through reciting a confessional, “are very selfish people.” This seems like unnecessary self-flagellation, but he continues: “It’s riven with clichés, but we’re all into finding the last blue mountain and all that. We want a bit of supremacy. And why? Because we’re inadequate in some way. It’s no coincidence that many explorers had powerful fathers and domineering mothers.”  
It was during his childhood, spent in rural Ireland, that the first hints of this remarkable character began to show. I ask rather bluntly how he can bear the loneliness of exploring. The reply is quick and succinctly logical. “I’ve always been good at coping,” he says. “From the age of seven, I’d happily sleep alone in a treehouse on the island in the middle of the lake. Not many children get to do that.” I put it to him that not many children want to do that. “Yeah,” He ponders momentarily. “Then I don’t know what it was. Maybe having a sibling in the war?” There’s a pause. “I was able to endure solitude,” he declares eventually.
As a child, did he dream of travel? “Yes, always. It’s just born in you, I suppose. I was – and am – eclectic.” When I ask which historical explorer he feels most affinity to, he answers instantly: Humboldt, the great Prussian scientist. “He was brilliant – the last of the great Renaissance men exploring.” He smiles modestly. “But really I’m not at all a Humboldt. I’m just lucky enough to have been there. I just get things done and change things.”
Hanbury-Tenison loves science – or, at least, scientists, insisting, “I’ve learnt the art of provoking scientists into speaking like human beings.” Sounding guiltily romantic, he muses, “There’s a genus of butterfly called Idea. It looks a bit like a lace handkerchief. I used to enjoy watching lepidopterists pursue an Idea through the forest.” He grins warmly. “That really sums it up for me.” 
But his memories are as poignant as they are poetic. He recalls accompanying a military expedition through Panama in 1972, on the way seeking out the defiant Cuna Indians on the mysterious Darien Gap. There, under the astonished eyes of a tribal congress, he endured the grotesque experience of having to explain that their ancestral lands were shortly to be inundated by a vast government dam. “There are huge forces opposed to people and terrible things happening all over the world,” he proclaims, with a defiance that catches me off-guard. “If you’re looking for a cause to support, there’s none greater than tribal peoples.”
Three years earlier, he had been dispatched to survey and encourage the ailing indigenous populations in Brazil, after a British journalist published a gruesome exposé of the abduction, intimidation, and ethnic cleansing of thousands of tribespeople. He has dark memories of an almost cinematic encounter with a high-level apparatchik in this shadowy realm of the Brazilian government. “I mean he wasn’t Germanic, but the man sounded like Hitler,” he grimaces. “He basically tethered me to a spy. Mr Romalio, Jr. A dreadful man.” He whispers in a mock-conspiratorial tone. “Our mission was to get round behind him and charm people.”
His work has of course not won everyone round, but that is perhaps unavoidable. There’s a perilously slim line between protection and paternalism. Critics call for an organised programme to integrate marginal groups into the modern, global village. By this stage in our conversation I was a convert, but I muster a sceptical tone so Cherwell’s worldly readers don’t think me totally besotted. Mightn’t he be denying opportunities for tribal peoples by promoting their isolation? What if a hundred Newtons or Einsteins have been confined to some neglected tropical forest? The veteran explorer frowns severely. “No, no, no,” he stutters in staccato. “Now you’re being ethnocentric. Deeply racist. Victorian.” 
The problem with integration, he explains, is the inevitable loss of dignity on the part of indigenous peoples. “It is important to have a strong culture. Everyone needs a culture against which to fight.” He views societies and their traditions as distinct and accountable only on their own terms. Tragically, his best friend was killed in a surprise attack by tribespeople in the Brazilian rainforest, but he thinks blaming the attackers is unthinkable, even nonsensical. You can’t cross-pollinate values and principles without degrading something: “Teaching property rights is not a good plan. Anyway, there’s something wrong with us,” he ventures, rather boldly. “We don’t have culture.”
How does he feel about being labelled “the greatest explorer of the past 20 years”? He laughs, disarmingly. “I don’t actually believe my own propaganda, but somebody had to put it forward. So I say, I know it’s tough, but I’ll take the glory.”
He takes it discreetly; he is astonishingly modest. I look back at stuffed Chico, who is still (unsurprisingly) surveying the living room aloofly. The great explorer is, by now, settling down on the sofa with the TV schedule, but I can’t resist asking “where next?” Is he tempted to track down the remaining uncontacted groups scattered across the Amazon? He closes his eyes serenely. “One longs to go down and say hi. But, of course, they’d kill you.” A wry smile flashes across his face, and he grins suddenly. “To which I say: very properly.”

“That?” he says airily, gesturing at what looks like a dead parrot on top of the wardrobe. “That’s Chico. Picked him up in the Amazon. Spent fifteen years in my deep-freeze. Rather tatty really.”

I’m standing, slightly bemused, in the rural, Cornish home of Robin Hanbury-Tenison – the remarkable man celebrated as our greatest living explorer. In a nearby cabinet, there’s an elegantly carved ostrich egg (“my only water-carrier when crossing the Kalahari with bushmen”), and hovering mysteriously over the mantlepiece there’s a gaudy headdress from Borneo that apparently has something sinister to do with head-hunting. The living room seethes with the slightly improbable.

The world is made of two sorts of people: couch potatoes and Robin Hanbury-Tenison. Keeping up with his myriad exploits is like interviewing Indiana Jones squared. “I could leave a good party at five o’clock and be on a camel by nightfall,” he laughs, without a hint of irony.

On leaving Oxford in 1957, he promptly undertook the first overland crossing to Sri Lanka (interrupted, admittedly, by a brief desert abduction by Afghan horsemen). Within a few short years, he had become the first to travel the full length of South America by river, ride the Great Wall of China, cross South America at its greatest width, and – faintly surprisingly – hovercraft his way over the Orinoco. He was the first to climb the forbidding Mount Roraima single-handedly, and that was even something of an impromptu accident. And (bear with me) he has the most evocative ringbinders I’ve ever seen, if that’s a thing – “Siberut 1972”, “Africa 1969”, “Sulawesi 1974”, and on through the world. He’s now in his seventies, and the globetrotting folders are still spreading from wall to wall.

As he carefully pours the tea and gestures warmly towards a fruitcake, it is – for a fleeting moment – hard to imagine this affable man rafting alone through the wilds of Brazil or sleeping rough under a Saharan night-sky. At one point, he impersonates a tropical spider with a chocolate brownie. But as he recounts each extraordinary episode (smuggling himself over borders under moonlight, becoming a godfather to a Penan child in Sarawak, debating with island chieftains dozens of miles off Sumatra), it becomes clear that it’s the human encounters that really grip him. He has an extremely acute social conscience. This is a man who, when meeting the legendary activist Claudio Villas Boas deep in the Brazilian interior, was hailed as the “first sign” of a visionary new enlightenment. Villas Boas may well have been right: Hanbury-Tenison co-founded the world’s first charity for indigenous groups, Survival International, the self-described “movement for tribal peoples”, forty-three years ago, and hasn’t paused for breath since.

But what are explorers, today? “Explorers,” he remarks dryly, with his hands clasped as through reciting a confessional, “are very selfish people”. This seems like unnecessary self-flagellation, but he continues. “It’s riven with clichés, but we’re all into finding the last blue mountain and all that. We want a bit of supremacy. And why? Because we’re inadequate in some way. It’s no coincidence that many explorers had powerful fathers and domineering mothers.”  

It was during his childhood, wiled away in rural Ireland, that the first hints of this incredible character began to show. How do you bear the loneliness, I demand rather bluntly. The reply is quick and succinctly logical. “I’ve always been good at coping. From the age of seven, I’d happily sleep alone in a treehouse on the island in the middle of the lake. Not many children get to do that.” I put it to him that not many children want to do that. “Yeah.” He ponders momentarily. “Then I don’t know what it was. Maybe having a sibling at the war?” There’s a pause. “I was able to endure solitude,” he declares, finally.

As a child, did he dream of travel? “Yes, always. It’s just born in you, I suppose. I was – and am – eclectic.” When I ask which historical explorer he feels most affinity to, he answers instantly: Humboldt, the great Prussian scientist. “He was brilliant, the last of the great Renaissance men exploring.” He smiles modestly. “But really I’m not at all a Humboldt. I’m just lucky enough to have been there. I just get things done and change things.”

Hanbury-Tenison loves science – or, at least, scientists. “I’ve learnt the art of provoking scientists into speaking like human beings,” he laughs, then looks sheepish. “There’s a genus of butterfly called Idea,” he muses, sounding guiltily romantic. “It looks a bit like a lace handkerchief. I used to enjoy watching lepidopterists pursue an Idea through the forest.” He grins warmly. “That really sums it up for me.”

But his memories are as much poignant as they are poetic. He recalls accompanying a military expedition through Panama in 1972, on the way seeking out the defiant Cuna Indians on the mysterious Darien Gap. There, under the astonished eyes of a tribal congress, he endured the grotesque experience of having to explain that their ancestral lands were shortly to be inundated by a vast government dam. “There are huge forces opposed to people and terrible things happening all over the world,” he proclaims, with a defiance that catches me off-guard. “If you’re looking for a cause to support, it doesn’t come greater than with tribal peoples.”

Three years earlier, he had been dispatched to survey and encourage the ailing indigenous populations in Brazil, after a British journalist published a gruesome exposé of the abduction, intimidation, and ethnic cleansing of thousands of tribes-people. It’s a chapter of world history still disturbingly below the cultural radar. He has dark memories of an almost cinematic encounter with a high-level apparatchik in this shadowy realm of the Brazilian government. “I mean he wasn’t Germanic, but the man sounded like Hitler,” he grimaces. “He basically tethered me to a spy. Mr Romalio, Jr. A dreadful man.” He whispers in a mock-conspiratorial tone. “Our mission was to get round behind him and charm people.”

His work has, of course, not charmed everyone, but that’s perhaps unavoidable. There’s a perilously slim line between protection and paternalism. Critics have repeatedly called for an organised programme to integrate marginal groups into the modern, global village. By this stage in our conversation, I might as well have been Survival’s biggest convert, but I muster a sceptical voice so Cherwell’s worldly readers won’t think I was totally besotted. Mightn’t you be denying opportunities for tribal peoples by promoting their isolation? What if a hundred Darwins and Newtons have been confined to some neglected tropical forest? The veteran explorer frowns severely. “No, no, no,” he stutters, in near-outraged staccato. “Now you’re being ethnocentric. Deeply racist. Victorian.”

The biggest problem with integration, he explains, is the inevitable loss of dignity on the part of indigenous peoples. “It is important to have a strong culture. Everyone needs a culture against which to fight.” He views societies and their traditions as distinct, definable, accountable only on their own terms. Tragically, his best friend was killed in a surprise attack by tribes-people in the Brazilian rainforest, but, he claims, blaming the attackers has always been unthinkable, even nonsensical. You can’t cross-pollinate values and principles without degrading something. “Teaching property rights”, for instance, “is not a good plan. And anyway, there’s something wrong with us,” he ventures, rather boldly. “We don’t have culture.”

The world, he says, is on a relentless path towards ecological tragedy. “We are reaching tipping points.” Is he optimistic? “We could go back to being hunter-gatherers – which of course I’d love – but it isn’t very practical. My main book I’m working on is an answer to all this, but” – he smiles – “I’m not going to reveal it to Cherwell just yet. Watch this space.” I watch. He looks like he’s weighing up whether to mention something. “Alright,” he concedes. “It’s basically about geoengineering. The time has come to grasp the nettle. It’s what we’ve been trying to do since the first shaman tried to make it rain. The only difference is now we can do it.”

How does he feel about being labelled “the greatest explorer of the past twenty years”? He laughs, disarmingly. “I don’t actually believe my own propaganda, but somebody had to put it forward. So I say, I know it’s tough, but I’ll take the glory.”

If he does take the glory, I think privately, he does it rather discreetly; he is astonishingly modest. I look back at taxidermic Chico, who is still (unsurprisingly) surveying the living room aloofly. The great explorer is, by now, settling down on the sofa with the TV schedule, but I can’t resist asking “where next?” Is he tempted to track down the remaining uncontacted groups scattered across the Amazon? He closes his eyes serenely. “One longs to go down and say hi. But, of course, they’d kill you.” A wry smile flashes across his face, and he grins suddenly. “To which I say: very properly.”

Interview: Japandroids

0

Any music fan worth their salt will have heard of Japandroids. All those still earning their musical stripes will find it worth their while getting to know the duo. For the uninitiated, Japandroids, aside from having the best pun in their name this side of Camper Van Beethoven, are one of the most exciting Canadian bands of the new millennium. In a Canadian indie scene that is flowing over with talent (Arcade Fire, The New Pornographers, Broken Social Scene, etc.), Japandroids have become legendary for their live prowess and their energy.

Any music fan worth their salt will have heard of Japandroids. All those still earning their musical stripes will find it worth their while getting to know the duo. For the uninitiated, Japandroids, aside from having the best pun in their name this side of Camper Van Beethoven, are one of the most exciting Canadian bands of the new millennium. In a Canadian indie scene that is flowing over with talent (Arcade Fire, The New Pornographers, Broken Social Scene, etc.), Japandroids have become legendary for their live prowess and their energy.
Their most recent album, Celebration Rock, is a collection of five-minute bursts of visceral rock music, drums crashing, guitars wailing and snarling, and voices shouting above the fray. Fans of the band’s debut album, Post-Nothing, will find the idea of the vocals being above the mix a little foreign. In Post-Nothing, the vocals hovered beneath the music, never quite breaking free. Dave Prowse, on drums and vocals, confirmed that this album marks a change in the way they work: “We´re becoming less ashamed of our voices as time goes on, so we’re less and less shy about bringing them up in the mix.  For a long time, the vocals and lyrics were an afterthought in the songwriting process, whereas now they are as important as the music.”
The music is certainly important, as their legions of fans across the world will attest. The two members of the band are influenced by an impressive number of great artists – “The Sonics, Constantines, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and Mclusky” to name a few. The influence of shoegaze also looms large, without ever allowing their music to descend into the somnambulant noodlings of so many noisier artists.
However, as excellent as the recordings are, it seems the heart of Japandroids lies in live performance. Prowse acknowledges the importance of recorded output as a permanent mark left on the musical world. He insists, however, that the Japandroids “started playing in a band because we wanted to play shows, and playing live is still what I love most about being in a band.” 
Nowadays, Japandroids play gigs across the world, and across Canada, although the life of a Canadian touring band is a difficult one – “Canada is such a gigantic land mass with very few people, so touring across Canada involves a lot of long, long drives.” They still manage to cover the three main cities – Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal – but this unfortunately leaves many smaller cities Japandroidless. 
This must be especially galling given the global touring schedule that Japandroids regularly undertake, covering Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Greece, Russia, Iceland, and Costa Rica. This is in part due to the support of internet tastemakers such as Pitchfork. Prowse admits as much: “I don’t think we would have been able to go to those places without the help of the internet, and the ease with which music can travel these days. Of course, some bands will always get more attention than others, but you can find anything you want online, and that’s amazing.” 
This attention has fundamentally changed their lives (back before Post-Nothing they had perfectly normal existence) “working day jobs, playing shows on weekends, going on small tours when we could get the time off from work.” Nowadays, they have the opportunity to do what they love as their day job. Prowse is not naïve, however, and realises how far there is yet to go. “It has been incredibly exciting, and we are very aware of how lucky we are, but at times it has been a difficult transition. We’re still learning how to be a ‘real’ band, and we still have a long way to go.”
Celebration Rock starts and ends with the sound of distant fireworks. Perhaps this is a celebration not only of rock, or of how far the band has come, but of what lies before them. Or perhaps, as Prowse points out, they “just like having an excuse to light fireworks.” Fair enough, they deserve it!
Japandroids are currently touring.

Their most recent album, Celebration Rock, is a collection of five-minute bursts of visceral rock music, drums crashing, guitars wailing and snarling, and voices shouting above the fray. Fans of the band’s debut album, Post-Nothing, will find the idea of the vocals being above the mix a little foreign. In Post-Nothing, the vocals hovered beneath the music, never quite breaking free. Dave Prowse, on drums and vocals, confirmed that this album marks a change in the way they work: “We´re becoming less ashamed of our voices as time goes on, so we’re less and less shy about bringing them up in the mix.  For a long time, the vocals and lyrics were an afterthought in the songwriting process, whereas now they are as important as the music.”

The music is certainly important, as their legions of fans across the world will attest. The two members of the band are influenced by an impressive number of great artists – “The Sonics, Constantines, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and Mclusky” to name a few. The influence of shoegaze also looms large, without ever allowing their music to descend into the somnambulant noodlings of so many noisier artists.

However, as excellent as the recordings are, it seems the heart of Japandroids lies in live performance. Prowse acknowledges the importance of recorded output as a permanent mark left on the musical world. He insists, however, that the Japandroids “started playing in a band because we wanted to play shows, and playing live is still what I love most about being in a band.”

Nowadays, Japandroids play gigs across the world, and across Canada, although the life of a Canadian touring band is a difficult one – “Canada is such a gigantic land mass with very few people, so touring across Canada involves a lot of long, long drives.” They still manage to cover the three main cities – Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal – but this unfortunately leaves many smaller cities Japandroidless.

This must be especially galling given the global touring schedule that Japandroids regularly undertake, covering Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Greece, Russia, Iceland, and Costa Rica. This is in part due to the support of internet tastemakers such as Pitchfork. Prowse admits as much: “I don’t think we would have been able to go to those places without the help of the internet, and the ease with which music can travel these days. Of course, some bands will always get more attention than others, but you can find anything you want online, and that’s amazing.”

This attention has fundamentally changed their lives (back before Post-Nothing they had perfectly normal existence) “working day jobs, playing shows on weekends, going on small tours when we could get the time off from work.” Nowadays, they have the opportunity to do what they love as their day job. Prowse is not naïve, however, and realises how far there is yet to go. “It has been incredibly exciting, and we are very aware of how lucky we are, but at times it has been a difficult transition. We’re still learning how to be a ‘real’ band, and we still have a long way to go.”

Celebration Rock starts and ends with the sound of distant fireworks. Perhaps this is a celebration not only of rock, or of how far the band has come, but of what lies before them. Or perhaps, as Prowse points out, they “just like having an excuse to light fireworks.” Fair enough, they deserve it!

Japandroids are currently touring.

Kerry: From Kitten to Kat-ona

0

From munching cockroaches in the jungle to snorting coke and singing what could arguably be dubbed karaoke, the name Kerry Katona conjures some controversial images. Katona has been in the limelight since she first rose to stardom nearly fifteen years ago as a member of pop sensation Atomic Kitten, at the young and innocent (or not-so-innocent, in Katona’s case) age of seventeen. Yes, we all remember the songs. (Well, I remember the songs, and they’re probably still being played in Park End.) She’s appeared in pretty much every reality show you can think of and seems to have lived about seven lives in one (what else could we expect from a former Kitten?). A former self-confessed drug addict, however, the limelight hasn’t always been positive.

Despite this, it’s hard to believe that this bubbly, open and down-to-earth woman sitting in front of me is the same one that hit the headlines five years ago for a very notorious This Morning interview in which her slurred speech provoked accusations. Katona has come an incredibly long way in the past three years, cleaning up her act with the help of Nik and Eva Speakman, two highly optimistic life coaches who have cured hundreds of patients over the course of their twenty year career, not least Kym Marsh, as well as somebody suffering from a severe case of button phobia. Overcoming bipolar disorder, a heavy drug addiction and an extremely controlling ex-husband, Mark Croft, Katona turned her life around with the help of these “Schema Conditioning Psychotherapists.”

Katona didn’t have an easy upbringing. “My first memory is when my mum slit her wrists”, she openly states. She was three. She frequently witnessed her mum taking drugs, and it’s easy to see how Katona’s problems began.

When I ask her about her Atomic Kitten days, she laughs as if it were something wholly alien to her. For a moment I get the sickening fear I’ve got the wrong girl. “What?!” It turns out it’s just so long ago nobody really asks her about it any more. “I was out in a night-club and a guy came and asked me if I wanted to be a backing dancer for his band. I went along and started pretending to play the keyboard, wearing revealing clothes. He asked me if I wanted to front a new band and I said ‘Oh okay, thank you so much.’” At just seventeen, Katona had never been to an audition before.

“But I went along with my page three photographs, my wicked sense of humour and my amazing singing voice. I told a few jokes, sang a few songs and became the founding member of Atomic Kitten”, she declares with bags of light-hearted irony. Four weeks after getting Natasha Hamilton on board, the band got a record deal. Had she done any professional singing before? “I’d only sung in local karaoke bars. I used to go around to all the pubs entering the competitions.”

When I ask her somewhat tentatively if she is still in touch with the other band members, the answer is positive. “I spoke to Liz today!” I ask her yet more tentatively if she would consider a return to the music industry. “Absolutely, watch this space. More likely than unlikely.” I start to get more than a little excited at the vague prospect of a reunion and an excuse to break out all those explosive (or, one might say, atomic) nineties dance routines classily choreographed in my school playground.

We move swiftly on to Katona’s experiences in I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here. What made her willingly volunteer to live for sixteen days in an Australian rainforest with venomous spiders, witchetty grubs and, deadliest of all, Jordan and Peter? Contrariness, it would seem.

“Everybody said I wouldn’t do it. I like to prove people wrong. I got a phone call for the third series inviting me to the audition, so I thought I’d go along.” She got through. “I shat myself”, she jokes. “I was in hospitals having panic attacks! And when I got there, especially when it came to the eating challenge, what actually got me through was knowing that everyone at home was watching it and saying, ‘she won’t do that’, and I thought, ‘just watch!’”

The hardest part? “Missing my kids. I missed Lilly’s 1st birthday.” And what did then-husband Brian McFadden think? “He didn’t want me to do it.” We briskly move away from a subject that I can tell is a touchy one.

And yet Katona certainly did prove people wrong, going on to be crowned Queen of the Jungle in the infamous series that saw Jordan the glamour model and Peter Andre the one-hit-wonder become Katie Price the horse-lover and, well, Peter Andre the two-hit-wonder.

Katona is extremely modest. Eva Speakman thinks that’s what people liked about her. “Obviously we didn’t know you then, but we watched that whole show and you just became the nation’s sweetheart.” “I still am!” Katona jovially replies. “I didn’t get it or understand it. I thought the viewers had forgotten that I was in there, I didn’t have a story line. I actually sat there thinking, ‘I don’t think they’re showing me on the TV you know.’” Did she watch any of it afterwards? Yes. “I thought ‘Oh my God I’m such a tit!’ It was like watching back your home videos. I didn’t actually get picked to do many challenges because I was just awesome”, she states, again with more than a hint of irony.

Much of the interview is filled with these hearty laughs and self-mocking statements. Katona is entertaining and energetic, and I get the feeling she is one of those admirably good-humoured people who knows how to laugh at her (self-confessedly hilarious) self. Swigging away at her lager and lime while Eve and Nick sip their tea, Katona pokes fun at them; “Oh yes thanks for the cups of tea! Whatever!”

I grill her on Celebrity Big Brother. “I enjoyed I’m A Celebrity more.” Why? “Because I won that, I only came runner-up in Big Brother!” About the experience, she says, “Big Brother was a bit like rehab. I felt quite intimidated, even though in the jungle I was with Katie Price, one of the biggest glamour models ever. We were all stripped of our makeup there though.” I ask her what it was like to be under constant surveillance. “You completely forget about the cameras.” Katona says the hardest thing was not knowing what was happening in the outside world. As she recalls getting to speak to her daughter on her tenth birthday, she gesticulates in a melodramatic crying impression that is characteristic of her unashamedly outgoing personality.

Katona admits she did Big Brother partly for the money. She was declared bankrupt in 2008 during a tough period of her life whilst still with ex-husband Mark Croft and still fully in the midst of her addictions.

So what has Katona learnt from battling with her painful past? “Never believe what you’re told.” Katona was diagnosed with the “worst case” of bipolar disorder and told she would be on prescription drugs for the rest of her life. When she met The Speakmans, that all changed. Using a treatment that consists in identifying “schema” (unconscious memories dating back to childhood that influence the way we behave) they work with patients to condition the mind into perceiving more positively. The therapists worked on changing Katona’s first memory, one which had produced feelings of inadequacy. By conditioning that “schema”, their story was one of success. “There’s always a resolution”, says Eva. Her support for the new, reformed Katona is clear. “I love listening to the way you talk now. You’re really positive.”

 

Eva and Nik Speakman have treated each other to cure their own phobias and are firm believers of nurture over nature. “I came from a challenging background”, states Eva Speakman. “I was a smoker and a drinker. I turned it around through what we learnt. I listened to this tape about creating your life and I was amazed at how it helped transform me.”

Katona has a new autobiography, Still Standing, coming out on November 22nd. When I ask her what it was like to write of her painful experiences, her response is immediate, and markedly less jovial than before; “horrendous.”

“I absolutely hated it”. She says that her first autobiography, Too Much Too Young, published in 2006, was a lot easier; “it was like therapy. After I did it I thought, that’s not really my fault, it was my childhood and it was out of my control. This second book is so raw and honest. It is about things that I chose to do. When it got read back to me I felt so ashamed and embarrassed by it. It’s like I don’t even know who this person is in the first half of the book.”

Yet Katona remains positive. “I’ve been open and honest, and I’ve come out the other end. In a way I’m glad it’s there in black and white, on paper, in a book. If I ever feel like going down that road again, I can read it and think sod that for a bag of… whatever the saying is.” And in a flash Katona is joking and giggling and back to her jolly old self.

When I ask Katona how living in the public eye has affected her, she makes this comparison; “If you walk outside and trip over running to the bus stop, the old lady sees you. I trip over and the whole world sees me. But there might not be any difference in our personal lives.”

And her first experiences of public exposure? “We’d been doing The Big Breakfast for a week and we went to a nightclub. I hated it, I had Tom, Dick and Harry constantly asking me for pictures, I didn’t like the attention, so I started having more drinks before going out, doing lines.” It seems the constant public exposure made its mark on Katona.

“I’m not an arrogant person, I’m not ignorant”, she states. Eva Speakman defends her unquestioningly: “She is one of the most genuine, endearing, kind and, believe it or not, normal people you could ever wish to meet. Kerry actually hasn’t changed. The public’s perception has, but she hasn’t. She has no delusions of grandeur. What I love about Kerry is that if people ask her for a picture, she’s always so accommodating, so kind. She makes every single person that comes up to her feel like an individual. She’s really inspirational, honestly.”

And I can’t help believing her. There’s no pretence about Katona, and her brutal, energetic honesty about a dark past is admirable. Of course, she makes a characteristic joke that she’s only prepared to have a picture if she’s being paid “a fiver” for it. Yet I know instantly that Katona is joking. After a short period of time I’ve already warmed to the genuine, open and seemingly light-hearted woman that was, just a few years ago, at the extreme end of the bipolar spectrum and on the brink of death. Katona has most certainly turned her life around, and something tells me she’s not going to back down now.

Fan-tash-tic!

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6188%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6189%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

Martha Newson shows
us how Movember
should be done, at the
2012 British Beard
and Moustache
Championships

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6190%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6191%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6192%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6193%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6194%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6195%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

 

 

Screenwriters Losing the Plot

0

 

n a recent episode of Mythbusters, the TV show that attempts to prove/debunk popular misconceptions, the presenters took on a singularly contentious task. They were to ascertain whether Rose and Jack could both have fitted on that floating door at the end of Titanic. The subject has been something of a running joke on the internet for years, with many opining that both could easily have fitted, but it also seems to be a point of irritation for the film’s director, James Cameron, who recently muttered that it was a question of buoyancy, not space, and of keeping enough of the body out of the water (80%) to avoid hypothermia 
The Mythbusters team found that indeed, buoyancy was an issue; that is, until they had the bright idea to slide Rose’s lifejacket under the door. Hey presto, extra buoyancy; they could have both survived. Unfortunately, James Cameron’s response to this wasn’t an indulgent chuckle; nor did he allow for any change in the interpretation of the film’s ending. Instead, he said (to paraphrase),“Well, maybe we screwed up on that; we should have made the door smaller. But the fact is, the script says he’s gonna die. He was a goner.” 
Some of the connotations of Cameron’s statements are a little troubling. He could have noted the unlikelihood of Rose coming up with such an ingenious solution in the middle of a freezing ocean; perhaps even acknowledging that the possibility of Jack’s survival heightens the tragedy of his demise. But for Cameron, it is enough to say that it happened because it had to happen; because that’s what the script demanded. For me, this has a negative impact on my exprerience of the film: rather than the writing justifying the events that happen, they just happen and the audience is left to try and justify them in their own heads, or, rather, as James Cameron seems to suggest, forgo becoming engaged at all and accept things as they come.
It’s similar to problems I had with the recent run of Doctor Who, particularly the last episode. At the end of ‘The Angels Take Manhattan’, long-time companions Amy and Rory were banished to 1938, with only the explanation that the titular hero couldn’t travel back in time to reach them due to a paradox previously created. Sure, that seems implausible but it’s a science-fiction show; you have to try and embrace these ridiculous rules. However, viewers were quick to point out a gaping problem with this ending: if the Doctor couldn’t return to 1938 New York, couldn’t he go and visit, say, five years later? Or could he not even visit another country in the same year? Presumably there is some sci-fi timey-wimey reason that this couldn’t happen, but it isn’t made clear.
 As it is, if Doctor Who ever returns to a World War II setting (pretty likely), the emotional impact of the episode will be completely undermined. As it stands, it was hard to feel sorrow for the departure of the Ponds, except in the immediate void caused by their absence. If anything, though, this was more frustrating than upsetting; there wasn’t a good enough reason for their departure in the writing, so it seemed unnecessary. With some more explanation, or a different ending, it wouldn’t have – if, for example, the script actually had the cojones to kill them off there’d be little issue at all.  Instead, in its increasingly desperate bids to exit characters conclusively without frightening the horses by actually killing anybody (we’ve had alternate reality and magic alien memory wipe of death previously), Doctor Who sabotages its own efficacy.
The issue with both Doctor Who’s finale and Jack’s death in Titanic is that they threaten the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy these films. In these and the many other narratively challenged productions, it’s possible to become very aware that things are happening because they have to, rather than because the plot up to that point means that these events have been justified. It’s a jolting realisation, seeing behind the curtain like this, and in my mind it really undermines the potency of both endings. It’s more explicit in Doctor Who – even in genre productions, we as the audience need to understand and accept why things had to happen the way that they did; that characters reason in a way we might in the same situation.
 The really annoying thing about the Titanic door debacle is that even with the Mythbusters findings, it would be possible to justify Jack’s death. It’s just that James Cameron’s pig-headed response implies that doing so is pointless; that blind acceptance is preferable to any degree of critical engagement. And that’s a terrible attitude in any creative medium.

In a recent episode of Mythbusters, the TV show that attempts to prove/debunk popular misconceptions, the presenters took on a singularly contentious task. They were to ascertain whether Rose and Jack could both have fitted on that floating door at the end of Titanic. The subject has been something of a running joke on the internet for years, with many opining that both could easily have fitted, but it also seems to be a point of irritation for the film’s director, James Cameron, who recently muttered that it was a question of buoyancy, not space, and of keeping enough of the body out of the water (80%) to avoid hypothermia.

The Mythbusters team found that indeed, buoyancy was an issue; that is, until they had the bright idea to slide Rose’s lifejacket under the door. Hey presto, extra buoyancy; they could have both survived. Unfortunately, James Cameron’s response to this wasn’t an indulgent chuckle; nor did he allow for any change in the interpretation of the film’s ending. Instead, he said (to paraphrase),“Well, maybe we screwed up on that; we should have made the door smaller. But the fact is, the script says he’s gonna die. He was a goner.” 

Some of the connotations of Cameron’s statements are a little troubling. He could have noted the unlikelihood of Rose coming up with such an ingenious solution in the middle of a freezing ocean; perhaps even acknowledging that the possibility of Jack’s survival heightens the tragedy of his demise. But for Cameron, it is enough to say that it happened because it had to happen; because that’s what the script demanded. For me, this has a negative impact on my exprerience of the film: rather than the writing justifying the events that happen, they just happen and the audience is left to try and justify them in their own heads, or, rather, as James Cameron seems to suggest, forgo becoming engaged at all and accept things as they come.

It’s similar to problems I had with the recent run of Doctor Who, particularly the last episode. At the end of ‘The Angels Take Manhattan’, long-time companions Amy and Rory were banished to 1938, with only the explanation that the titular hero couldn’t travel back in time to reach them due to a paradox previously created. Sure, that seems implausible but it’s a science-fiction show; you have to try and embrace these ridiculous rules. However, viewers were quick to point out a gaping problem with this ending: if the Doctor couldn’t return to 1938 New York, couldn’t he go and visit, say, five years later? Or could he not even visit another country in the same year? Presumably there is some sci-fi timey-wimey reason that this couldn’t happen, but it isn’t made clear. 

As it is, if Doctor Who ever returns to a World War II setting (pretty likely), the emotional impact of the episode will be completely undermined. As it stands, it was hard to feel sorrow for the departure of the Ponds, except in the immediate void caused by their absence. If anything, though, this was more frustrating than upsetting; there wasn’t a good enough reason for their departure in the writing, so it seemed unnecessary. With some more explanation, or a different ending, it wouldn’t have – if, for example, the script actually had the cojones to kill them off there’d be little issue at all.  Instead, in its increasingly desperate bids to exit characters conclusively without frightening the horses by actually killing anybody (we’ve had alternate reality and magic alien memory wipe of death previously), Doctor Who sabotages its own efficacy.

The issue with both Doctor Who’s finale and Jack’s death in Titanic is that they threaten the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy these films. In these and the many other narratively challenged productions, it’s possible to become very aware that things are happening because they have to, rather than because the plot up to that point means that these events have been justified. It’s a jolting realisation, seeing behind the curtain like this, and in my mind it really undermines the potency of both endings. It’s more explicit in Doctor Who – even in genre productions, we as the audience need to understand and accept why things had to happen the way that they did; that characters reason in a way we might in the same situation. 

The really annoying thing about the Titanic door debacle is that even with the Mythbusters findings, it would be possible to justify Jack’s death. It’s just that James Cameron’s pig-headed response implies that doing so is pointless; that blind acceptance is preferable to any degree of critical engagement. And that’s a terrible attitude in any creative medium.

 

Series Review: The Thick of It

0

Just another day at the fuckoffice’ was one description of the events in the seventh episode of this series of The Thick of It. But this wasn’t just another day; this was the last day. After four series of sweary, satirical brilliance, Iannucci’s show is leaving the building with its head held high and its audience wanting more. Something its legendary anti-hero didn’t manage to emulate. 

Things started to unwind for Tucker in the penultimate inquiry special, in which he was ultimately reduced to that most dire and desperate of inquiry responses: ‘I don’t recall.’ In the finale, the Malc-iovellian genius rapidly ran out of options. Capaldi has been enthralling since day one, but his acting in the second half of this series has been remarkable, especially his blistering rant to Ollie about the deadening effect of his job, and his final moments when, after an undignified arrest, he prepared to make a last statement to the baying press-pack. Staring at them through hollow eyes, he finally muttered ‘It doesn’t matter’, and swept off screen. 
Stuart and Glen were the other casualties of Tickellgate but neither was going to go quietly. Stuart’s rant struck a chord with many as he described his doomed attempts to rebrand the nasty party: ‘You can take out a sexist beam here…replace the odd homophobic roof tile, but in the end the foundations are built on what I can only describe as a solid bed of cunts.’ And Glen – who’s always come closest to having what could vaguely resemble some morals – finally went Glental, in a deranged and hilarious rant at his colleagues. The whole speech was fantastic, though the gem saved for Peter might just be the highlight: ‘Peter, it’s been dreadful. I hope your cock falls off.’ 
The series showed that no one – no matter how conniving and ruthless – wins at politics for long. Even the briefly exultant gang at DoSAC managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again, as their fleetingly successful policy backfired. ‘What a shit day’ were the show’s appropriate closing words. It was bleak but brilliant. 
If you haven’t seen this show, buy the box set and watch the lot. If you have, buy the box set and watch the lot again. TV of this quality doesn’t come around every day. And so farewell then, The Thick of It. Or, as Malcolm would have it, fuckety bye.

Things started to unwind for Tucker in the penultimate inquiry special, in which he was ultimately reduced to that most dire and desperate of inquiry responses: ‘I don’t recall.’ In the finale, the Malc-iovellian genius rapidly ran out of options. Capaldi has been enthralling since day one, but his acting in the second half of this series has been remarkable, especially his blistering rant to Ollie about the deadening effect of his job, and his final moments when, after an undignified arrest, he prepared to make a last statement to the baying press-pack. Staring at them through hollow eyes, he finally muttered ‘It doesn’t matter’, and swept off screen.

Stuart and Glen were the other casualties of Tickellgate but neither was going to go quietly. Stuart’s rant struck a chord with many as he described his doomed attempts to rebrand the nasty party: ‘You can take out a sexist beam here…replace the odd homophobic roof tile, but in the end the foundations are built on what I can only describe as a solid bed of cunts.’ And Glen – who’s always come closest to having what could vaguely resemble some morals – finally went Glental, in a deranged and hilarious rant at his colleagues. The whole speech was fantastic, though the gem saved for Peter might just be the highlight: ‘Peter, it’s been dreadful. I hope your cock falls off.’ 

The series showed that no one – no matter how conniving and ruthless – wins at politics for long. Even the briefly exultant gang at DoSAC managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again, as their fleetingly successful policy backfired. ‘What a shit day’ were the show’s appropriate closing words. It was bleak but it was brilliant. 

If you haven’t seen this show, buy the box set and watch the lot. If you have, buy the box set and watch the lot again. TV of this quality doesn’t come around every day. And so farewell then, The Thick of It. Or, as Malcolm would have it, fuckety bye.

Review: The Casual Vacancy

0

Warning: contains over 200 F-words, 10 mentions of heroin, and zero references to Horcruxes. Yes, to say that Miss Rowling has moved somewhat away from the sugar-coated kisses of Cho Chang and the Boy wizard would be an understatement.  This is Harry minus the magic, with plenty of casual sex, self-harming and regular drug taking, and all embellished with profanities that put Voldemort and his naughty wizard mouth to shame. School robes are replaced by stringy thongs, turreted Hogwarts with the tripled-storied Winterdown Comprehensive, and that strange man turning up on the doorstep is less likely to be your friendly magical groundskeeper, and more likely to be your local drug dealer. Sorry Hagrid.

It’s a tale about the muggles, a change from the happy-go-lucky boundary of the fantasy genre and a ticket into the seedier territory of realism. And why not? After more than a decade of writing about owls and broomsticks surely JK deserves to dabble in other genres. But the problem with The Casual Vacancy isn’t to do with the change in content, it isn’t even to do with the “miraculously unguarded vagina’s” or the “the gossamer cocoon” condom. It’s to do with the generality of her characters, and the caricature of the real world that they create.

The absence of any kind of moderation is ultimately the novel’s undoing. It’s set in pretty Pagford, with Hogsmeade-esque cobbled streets, picturesque buildings and a community church. It even boasts its very own authentic twelfth-century abbey and residents can enjoy the gentle tones of undisrupted birdsong on their morning rambles. So far, so English idyll. But behind the twitching curtains and hanging baskets, Pagford-Privet Drive is nothing more than a breeding ground for bitter rivalry, sexual frustration and badly concealed racism. 

Just around the corner from Pagford is the public housing project known as the Fields. It’s a sprawling estate filled with dirty terrace blocks, boarded windows and is “swamped by the offspring of scroungers”. The plot wrestles with the question of who should have responsibility for this deprived area and unfortunately for its residents, the main man committed to saving the Fields dies on page five.

The death of Liberal Barry Fairbrother creates a ‘casual vacancy’ on the parish council, and the brawl for who will fill this vacancy, and for the future of the Fields, begins.  From page one of Harry Potter, JK makes it clear her stance on the middle classes, the author introducing readers to a bigoted couple whose opposition to magic verges on fanatical. This extends into the pompous characterisation in her new book, top baddie revealed as obese deli owner Howard Mollison, who dons a deerstalker – just in case readers fail to grasp how middleclass he is. 

In a sense, Rowling’s desperate attempt to leave fantasy behind her comes full circle again. Because her novel is fantasy. The Casual Vacancy may have replaced magical prowess for the more conventional skill of IT, but the events that take place in the novel are too extreme to ever be called real. Satirical of Pagford, maybe, but one gets the impression that Rowling doesn’t mean to mock the residents of the Fields or their situations when she includes prostitution, drug taking, drowning and suicide all under one title. 

The only problem with approaching Pagford as drenched in snobbery and hypocrisy, is that the tone jars. It makes what is clearly meant to be a novel about the real world, display less realism than the Ministry of Magic. The Fields are meant to show the “seamy underside” in all its sincerity, and not be undermined with moralistic steamrolling and condemnation of dinner party chatter of its neighbouring town. It’s meant to show a neighbourhood with all its peeling cream paint, petty crime and prostitution, with individuals who are not, as Rowling says they often are, “discussed as this homogeneous mash, like porridge.”

Why then, does JK insist on serving this porridge? Any diversity in the mash is lost to the fact this book is laden with extreme stereotypes and stock situations. Krystal, for example, is one of the novel’s main driving forces. She’s rude; openly aggressive and intimidated by big words and Rowling attempts to justify why this is. But the backstory is repetitive and generic, and although her mother can remember the precise dosage of methadone she is on and not her daughter’s age, we feel too distanced from Krystal’s life to see the fiction as reality, to emphasize why she steals, why she wants to get pregnant, and why she copulates within metres of her four-year-old brother.

As one of many twenty-something’s who grew up with Harry and Co, I had graduated the scholarship of Hogwarts and demanded more. It’s easy to overlook the clunky prose, or the fact JK decides to put whole paragraphs in ellipsis (annoying), but harder to forgive the impression that Rowling is furiously rebelling from the realm of witchcraft and wizardry. Expletives feel forced, the sex scenes fictional, the grotesque too sought for and the references to Rihanna and her umbrella too try hard. It would have been interesting for readers – and for Rowling – if The Casual Vacancy was published under a pseudonym, without Rowling’s need to reassure her readers that this is an adult novel, and without readers striving to find constant comparisons with the best-selling series of all time.

The book isn’t bad by all accounts. Once one gets passed the initial hurdle of archetypal characterisation and the painstakingly drawn out first half, the novel actually becomes quite engaging. Rowling tries to show us that vacancies exist all around, and are not confined to the ballot box: in Robbie’s cardboard boxes, in Parminder’s self-harming daughter, in Kay’s futile relationship.  Rowling highlights, albeit with an awful sadness, that gulfs are ever present in everyone’s shared experiences, and that every human being is tied together by their own mortality. The casual vacancy is a vacancy that cannot be filled by the wave of a magic wand. There is no magic, no spell to make the pitiless stockpile situations go away, no Dobby to come and accio the bad. It is ruthless and it is terribly clichéd, but it is well worth a read.  

‘Being offensive is not an offence’

0

I’m pretty easily offended. Honestly, I’m very thin-skinned. I’ve had people hurl obscenities at me when they drove past me down the road. Quite upsetting at the time. Somebody once undermined my wittily insightful point in YouTube comments. Ouch. Just recently, I was directed towards a blog called lookatmyfuckingredtrousers, in which a particular sartorial choice is roundly mocked. I’d just recently purchased a rather dashing pair of burgundy chords, so of course my immediate reaction was one of dismay and annoyance. I, like anyone, get annoyed and upset when something offends me. But that’s just part of life. As Stephen Fry once said, ‘Being offensive is not an offence.’ Except, increasingly, it is.

Recently, there have been a number of cases where people have been prosecuted under various legislatures for offending others. For example, Barry Thew was sentenced to four months for wearing a t-shirt that seemed to celebrate the death of police officers; another man was arrested for asking a police officer if he knew his horse was gay. Another man was charged for playing Christian dvds in his Christian cafe. Most importantly, though, in October Matthew Woods was sentenced for six months in prison for posting offensive messages on his facebook page about the April Jones case. I can’t say what they were; as is usual with these sort of cases the public never get to see for themselves what language is deemed so offensive (though that’s an argument for another time), but they were cruel and uncalled for. And what Woods did is illegal, under section 127 of the 2003 Communications act, which states that it is a crime to send  ‘by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character’. 

What’s more disturbing is the justification for his custodial sentence, given as ‘The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused.’ In other words, because of the large amount of people he is considered to have offended, his crime is worse. So what about all the people who weren’t bothered?

On a basic level, offense is hugely subjective.  Offensiveness varies between cultures; in the middle ages, taboo language largely revolved around desecrations of religion and sickness (a plague on both your houses! Is a far more offensive line than we might allow for; in modern terms it’s more applicable with ‘I hope you all die of AIDs’); even today, what is considered offensive differs from country to country. Even between individuals, it is hugely variable. For somebody who’s recently lost a relative to cancer, any frank talk on that matter could be seen as offensive. Equally, someone making a joke about, say, Middlesborough could hugely insult anyone from that area through generalisation. Some wags in the media have taken this to its extreme in suggesting that they found Justice Hudson’s decision in the Woods case hugely offensive, and are demanding his arrest.

Even ignoring personal subjectivity, many things can be seen as offensive; criticism, for example, no matter how well-intentioned and constructive can be quite hurtful. Equally, any kind of disagreement can be offensive: who can honestly say they haven’t been piqued by some arrogant politico dismissing their ideology with the wave of a hand? This applies to religion, too – recently ( in a case that was later thrown out of court due to the high levels of publicity), a student was arrested under section 5 of the public disorder act for labelling Scientology a ‘cult’ on a protest. The reasoning is that somebody could have been offended by the sign; well yes, presumably they could. They don’t believe their religion is a cult, and based on that they almost certainly would be offended.

So what?

There are laws in place to deal with significant, threatening behaviour, discrimination or incitement. But should it really be a legal matter if our feelings are hurt? If you’re upset by something, don’t form a mob and rush someone’s house (as happened to Matthew Woods); just accept that whoever it was is unpleasant and move on. Nobody is claiming that what Woods or many others have said was inoffensive, but life is full of unpleasantness. People are being charged for the kind of things that, if heard in conversation, might lead to an argument, or just a passive-aggressive sidle away. We don’t need these disproportionate attempts at social engineering, because they won’t work; people will always be unkind, and we will always have upsetting things said about us. Trying to stop people having their feelings hurt by sending people to prison does nothing but set dangerous precedents for free speech.

I know that these cases aren’t black and white censorship issues, and I know it’s not as if people’s right to air grievances is being infringed upon. But if we start imprisoning people for saying things we don’t like, we set legal precedents that are the first step on a long progression to a world where we’re no longer able to express ourselves freely for fear of arrest. It may seem melodramatic, but I don’t want to live in a society where people aren’t free to insult me. Life is upsetting, but that shouldn’t give us a right to censor the cruel. Democracy requires more voices, not less.

Demo2012: Protest for the sake of protest?

0

#Demo2012 is scheduled for the 21st of November, and will see thousands of students descend on the capital to have their voices heard. The problem with the protest is that their voices do not seem to be putting forward a coherent message in any sense. This protest does not seem to be fighting any particular issue merely offering an opportunity for disgruntled students to vent. For this reason it is hard to criticise any of their goals, as no one really knows what they are beyond the 3 banner headlines ‘Education, Employment and Empowerment’ which spans such a huge section of social policy it all seems a little diffused and ineffectual. The last event on this scale in the UK was a direct reaction to events in parliament; the tuition fee rise, which let us not forget, is two years old now. This protest does not seem to have a stimulus, mandate or reason, beyond protest for the sake of protest. This is not a defence of the Coalitions policy but a critique of the direction this protest is taking and how it is counterproductive.

Firstly if the protest does not know what it wants, with a set of clear demands then how can any parliament be expected to listen and respond. A comparison could be made between this and the Occupy movement, which did not seem to have any particular demands beyond having their opinions and obvious dissatisfaction heard. The difference being that the Occupy movement scapegoated the bankers and their greed, something which the public can easily latch onto. Whereas student protests run the very serious risk of demonising themselves; last time students marched, the news stories surrounded the outbreaks of violence across the city of London, and all the work of those who protested peacefully was tarnished with a highly negative brush.

Are there not better uses of resources that will help to achieve some of the aims that students are so concerned by? Will the funding of outreach programmes better help pressured students, rather than a protest which will have no benefit to the movement’s cause (used in its most nebulous sense).

Student bodies were of huge importance to issues such as the civil rights movements, groups such as SNCC were influential in pioneering the sit-ins and other critical events. What was key was that they were built around a core set of ideals with an ultimate goal, in that instance racial equality. The fact that student unions are supporting this motion as whole bodies seems somewhat ludicrous as these bodies represent huge bands of people, many of whom accept the fee rises and do not feel victimised. In the same way that the students who protest, are not all violent, students cannot be grouped by our unions into this bracket that we are all being unfairly persecuted, as not all students feel this way. It is not the beliefs that are the issue, it is the method for getting them heard.