Wednesday, May 26, 2010

I listen to Radio 5 on my way to and from work, which means I get Nicky Campbell's call-in in the morning. Normally, of course, the opinions of people (all people) annoy me, but I remind myself that we live in a pluracracy and it's good to hear debate about important issues and most importantly, by the time I get to work, I've written a blog-post-rant in my head and I'm just sorting out the formatting and capitalisation of important words. Then, I sit down at my desk and remember that I have Paid Employment, so it will have to wait.

Not going to happen this morning, however. I don't know why the issue of choosing a baby's sex is getting some attention this particular week, but it is and that was the topic of the call-in. The point I entered the discussion was with a woman, who had lost a daughter (possibly miscarried) and wanted to have one through a gender selection procedure, and two men, who clearly felt she (and everyone else) shouldn't have that option.

Mentioning the caller's respective genders was intentional, and is probably the reason why I got angry enough to ignore Paid Employment for a few minutes more. The tone of the exchanges sounded (once refined through my brainfilter) very much like: "Okay, WOMEN, we MEN can no longer dictate to you whether you have a child or not. You have taken that power away from us. As a result, we are looking for new and increasingly petty ways to tell you how you may and may not use your body, specifically in the womenparts region."

Nicky Campbell did a decent job directing the debate, particularly when he drew the discussion to a close when it became a lot more aggressive. One caller actually suggested, behind a wall of faux disclaimers, that it was "sick" to attempt to use science in this way to deal with the loss as a kind of therapy. Others made the point that it was just a natural thing, that people didn't always get what they want, that having children was reward in itself, regardless of their sex, and that not all children develop into the gender stereotypes that anyone who wanted one or the other might expect (if you want a boy for the typical reasons, he might not be interested in playing football).

All of which may be fine for the people making those points (some of whom were female). However, it doesn't mean that the lady calling in, or anyone else who felt in a similar position, should be expect to similarly console themselves with it. Gender selection seems to me like a victimless scientific advance. In that I can't think of someone that gets hurt by it. It uses science. And it's an advance (also: a stepforward; an improvement and a conquering of obstacles). As a result, it should be a choice. If you're not fussed either way, or not comfortable with the idea, no-one will force you pick an X or a Y chromosone from a catalogue. If you are, well, now you can.

Final point. One of the later callers (try to guess what parallel he made by the end of this paragraph), who couldn't be cut off soon enough, made me conclude this: Godwin's law and its resulting rules needs to apply to non-Internet discussion as well.

And penalties for violating it should be harsh, just like the Nazis were.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

It's actually a little difficult for me to write about Four Lions, which I watched last night at the Phoenix. It seems pointless to talk about how funny it was, given that the top half of the film poster consisted of about twelve different quotes of the single word "Funny" taken from various different newspapers and reviews. The jokes, by the way, are fantastic - in true Chris Morris style, they move between the dark and uncomfortable (Omar's Lion King allegory) through the intentionally provocative ("Jews invented spark plugs to control global traffic") to the absurd ("What we gonna blow up?" "Internet.") and the banal ("Is this a gesture?", says Barry, slowly running his car into a wall).

The other problem I've got is the urge to write things like "true Chris Morris style" (see above). Everyone knows his work will not so much push boundaries as it will repeatedly kick dirt at them until people can't tell where they once were. You go in with certain expectations. The last time I was left actually shocked to the point of breathlessness was during his Blue Jam series, when two parents discuss, in bored ambivalent tones, the disappearance of their child, the police finding the body and the inconvenience of having to deal with it ("Well, it sounds like he was buggered quite a lot and then strangled." "Oh. That's a bit much.") Yet, despite that bar, Four Lions managed to do it again. It is a film that is funny up to the point that it isn't, and when it isn't funny, it is stark and shocking.

I don't think the shocking is gratuituous, however, and that is where I generally draw the line. Without those moments (and don't read this next paragraph is you don't want to know about them in advance) the whole thing would be a farce. They'd be Sean Penn in the Assassination of Richard Nixon - clueless and deluded and impotent. With them, however, it becomes much more meaningful. It becomes clear that completing the bombings becomes the important thing, regardless of the actual damage done. They are no less ineffectual for being, in some way, successful.

The hardest thing about this film, but arguably the reason it is brilliant, are the moments where you are almost forced to sympathise with the bombers, especially Omar. He has a loving and devoted wife and child, yet the idea of his death is not a source of anguish and grief for them. I found Omar's coded goodbye to her at her job, perfunctory as it was with the police standing nearby, utterly awful to watch, as it should have been. There's no given justification for what he wants to do, and even his wife jokes that he as "more fun" when he was going to be a bomber. The absence of apparent motivation stops you thinking about them as heroes, however imperfect, and forces you to see them as the fools that they are.

There has been a lot of negative attention on the film, particularly coming from families of the victims of 7/7, given the close parallels. I think there is a difference between being offended and being upset. Such a person would of course be upset by the film - it's too close to a painful personal memory. That's not the same as the film being offensive. The only people that should be offended by this film are supporters of violent radical Islam, and I am completely OK with upsetting those particular sensibilities.

For a post that began with a concern that I might find it difficult to write about the film, I seem to have found enough to say. I should point out this post has taken several hours to write, in bits, because I'm still sorting out exactly what I think about it - another good thing. But I've picked over what I remember, and can't find anything disappointing, and clearly a lot that I thought was tremendous. Comments welcome, of course.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

We watched (500) Days of Summer, as heart-warming and delightful a film as I've seen since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The story skips between different days from the beginning to the end of a relationship between the two main characters, Tom Hanson and Summer Finn, with each day numbered at the start of the scene. This was a cool little device, especially as they played around with it. Two scenes, far apart in days but similar in setting, are used to give little insights into the characters, like Tom's different feelings about the same memory of summer lying in bed, or his move from prodigously writing love messages to angry condolence cards. The shorter scenes were nice touches, especially in the midst of Tom's depression. One scene sees him yelling on a bus, and asked to get off. Later, there are two consecutive days shown in quik succession where he ignores his alarm; then a third scene, amusingly labelled 1/2 a day later, watches him leave a shop, unshaven, in his dressing gown.

What I really liked about this story is that although its about a failed relationship, it's not about a huge drama which ruins these two peoples lives. Rather, it says, simply, that sometimes relationships don't work out. This is striking in a film, where we are almost preconditioned to expect these things to go one way or the other: either they work out their differences and go off into the sunset, or their lives fall apart. For all the surreal moments of humour, the story here feels very real. I really liked the split scene bit, where Tom's imagined reunion with Summer at a party and the actual disappointing outcome are shown side-by-side. It would have been easy to have have the imagined scene stray into overly romantic fantasy: instead, the differences start off minor (Tom imagines a dinner party, rather than a gathering on the balcony) and the gap builds from there in a much more natural way.

Time isn't just a device in this film, although the careful arrangements of the different scenes out of chronological order adds a great deal. The main message is that life comes in phases, in episodes, and things rarely work out as planned because something surprising is just around the corner, a point emphasised by the final punchline. Funny, smart and touching. Oh, and the music is really great as well. Lovely.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

I argued before that people needed to give Nick Clegg credit, rather than criticism, for trying to make a deal with the Conservatives. I believe that an agreement on a programme of government between them and the Liberal Democrats would best represent the country, and that the same people who argue for proportional representation needed to to acknowledge that it works both ways.

However, if an agreement can not be reached, then this ceases to be the case. Two parties that can't agree to a great deal and can't move on their own aims and those of the voters who supported them does not best represent the people. In such a case, an alliance of Labour and Liberal Democrats would be more representative of the country than a Conservative minority government.

Obviously, that isn't the only consideration, and the numerous media narratives that are currently going on show that their probably isn't one completely correct, iron-clad viewpoint. On one hand, many commentators have labelled the potential Lib-Lab government a 'coalition of the losers', whilst on the other hand, other have pointed out that the Conservatives are also not winners either. In fact, if you consider where the country was last year, when Labour managed 16% of the European election vote, you would have to summise that the Conservatives have taken quite a beating from the electorate too, whilst Labour did much better than expected. It's a confusing time.

Mainly, I think this is because the country at large is dealing with a new perspective on elections as the two-party system has fallen apart. A majority of people in this country voted for one of the two main left-of-centre parties. If they are the "losers", then we are essentially saying that the 36% who voted for the Conservatives are the winners, which is an odd mathematics at best.

I will say this though, as a trained economist. Screw the markets. I'm so sick of hearing about the "market's reaction to the uncertainty of a hung parliament". Firstly, it says a lot for our priorities when short-term market fluctuations could an important driver on much longer-term decisions. That's pretty much how the financial crisis started in the first place, and it's a psychology we need to lose. Secondly, the markets went down on Friday (uncertain government, failing Greece) and up yesterday (uncertain government, bailed-out Greece). One idea that presents itself to me is this: MAYBE IT'S FUCKING GREECE, YOU FUCKWITS.

Sunday, May 09, 2010

Due to numerous other time constraints, my film watching year hasn't really gone quite as planned. However, I've been watching at a steady rate of about one film every two weeks, and as soon as I'm back on top of work, I plan to motor through a lot more.

Films I have watched: 15
...of which are rewatchings: 2 (Da Vinci Code, The Prestige)

Films I have watched by the Coen Brothers (despite owning every single Coen Brother movie on DVD): 1
...of which were A Serious Man: 1
...of which were a comic masterpiece: 1

Films I have watched by Tarantino: 1
...in which Nazis were killed with reckless abandon: 1
...of which I loved: 1

Films starring George Clooney: 2
...of which seemed like less than the sum of the parts: 1 (The Men Who Stare At Goats)
...of which did not: 1 (Up In The Air)

New favourite films: 1 (Network)

Black comedies: 3
...of which seemed like they were written for me personally: 1 (Drop Dead Gorgeous)

Films that are good because of great solo performances: 3
...by a man: 2 (Up in the Air, The Assassination of Richard Nixon)
...by other (woman, etc.): 1 (The Reader)

We just watched Glorious 39, a British film set during the summer and autumn of 1939 which neither Cath nor I had ever heard of, but we picked up on a shopping trip earlier. It's about a wealthy family who are strongly linked to the government and a plot to make peace with Hitler rather than fight a war many believe unwinnable. I found this a really intriguing viewpoint on a period of British history generally associated with heroism and principle. The scenes about the suspension of habeas corpus and military detainment, and those about blackmail of opposing voices, focus on the uglier side of war, a theme extended in a more personal way by the mass putting down of household pets. The lead character, Anne Keyes, an adopted daughter of the family and actress, stumbles across recordings of the plot, which involves disposing of dissident voices within government, especially those who wanted to follow Churchill's much tougher line of anti-appeasment. Slowly, the plot reveals more and more people who are involved, who, perhaps predictably, are increasingly close to Anne, and her previously comfortable existence unravels.

The whole story is really engaging, with little details and twists added gradually, and the tension builds nicely. There are a number of scenes which seem slightly surreal, which added to the growing sense of unease as Anne becomes increasingly unsure about who to trust. That said, there were a few things which, at the end, were unsatisfactorily explained. Anne's escape, aided by her mother, is particularly confusing - her family, who want to keep her locked away to avoid her asking more questions, react warmly to her when they see her in the town. Cath say's its about public appearances, but it seemed strange to me. The presence of Walter, a boy whose older self tells the whole story in the present-day, provides a number of jarring moments as he appears, alone, unexpectedly - it emerges that he helped the family at times, but its not always clear why, neither does it become particularly clear who is involved in what parts of the plot.

That said, I suppose some confusion or unresolved issues in the story are needed - it's a conspiracy thriller, told by individuals not fully informed about the whole thing. Romola Garai was excellent portraying the mounting paranoia and terro of Anne, as was David Tennant's all to brief appearance as a outspoken MP and supporter of Churchill. I can't decide whether I liked Bill Nighy here - his character is so mellow, its hard to reconcile him with being a plotter doing unpleasant things for the good of his country. Then again, such jarring distinctions works in mirroring the doubt Anne increasingly feels with her familiar surroundings. Overall, a gripping and tense story, with minor fumblings.

Friday, May 07, 2010

Well, there you go then. Not the night I thought we were going to have at all. I must say I felt very depressed watching late into the night, especially after Dr Evan Harris lost his seat. Caroline Lucas' win was the only really pleasing moment.

That said, I think Nick Clegg is doing the right thing, at least morally. I believe in a more proportional system of representation. I think a country that is split between different ideas is better represented by a compromise, and a Lib Dem-Tory agreement is the best way to represent the most amount of people (60% of all votes we cast for those two parties). Now, had Labour and the Lib Dems enough seats between them to form such a coalition, I may have a different opinion, because the scope for agreement is greater, so whilst the vote share is smaller, the actual policies might be more representative. But they can't do it. They didn't get enough support.

The anti-Tory sentiment seems to be encouraging people to urge Clegg not to support the Tories. Maybe it's nice for some people to believe that they can keep the Tories out for another term, fair or otherwise. These people need to grow up. Get more involved next time, fight harder for what you believe in and put your trust in whatever system we will have then. If it's undemocratic that the Lib Dems get far less power from their share of the vote, it is just as undemocratic to deny the significantly larger support for the Tories yesterday.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

I want to publically (in a fashion) thank Andrew Smith for being a good MP during the four years I have lived in this constituency, for replying to my letters, raising questions with his party's government and on occassion voing against them on matters of principle. In an ideal world, he'd have a safe seat and someone pointless like Blears would be losing her seat tomorrow. This is not, however, the way of the world, which is unfortunate because tomorrow I will be voting Liberal Democrat in the hope that this marginal seat changes hands.

I voted Lib Dem last time, and I guess they are my default position for most elections. Of course, they do not speak to my views exactly, so I do try to find a reason to support them more than any other party. In some cases, they don't go far enough (immigration, nuclear disarmament), and on others I just disagree (tuition fees, vocational training). However, of the three main parties, they are the only ones who I would trust to make expenditure cuts in the fairest possible way, to impose and cut taxes and to regulate our banks. They are strongest on civil liberties and have the track record to back it up. They share my progressive views on drugs and on crime, and have the longest standing environmental credentials.

Most importantly, however, I genuinely believe we have a chance, tomorrow, to forever change our electoral system. The more votes for the Lib Dems, the greater the imbalance in our first-past-the-post system will seem, the more unfair it will appear, the stronger the case for reform will be. I'm so tired of hearing how a vote for anyone other than Labour or the Conservatives is a wasted vote. If tomorrow marks the start of a long-overdue reform, no vote will ever be considered wasted again.

By the way, none of this is intended to influence anyone's vote, as if I had that power anyway. I just like recording things like this. I think it will be interesting to re-read them in thirty years time. However, I would echo Stephen Fry's call earlier to thoroughly consider the merits of re-electing Dr Evan Harris if you live in the other Oxford constituency. It is a tragedy that his intellect and uncompromising principles are an exception, rather than the rule.