HEADLINES

Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Review. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Where’s the Conflict in this Deadly War of Words?


Marc Sidwell reviews ‘Called to Account: The indictment of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair for the crime of aggression against Iraq – a Hearing’ at the Tricycle.

Peter Brook once wrote that a man walking across a bare stage is all that is needed for an act of theatre to be engaged. But what if he just sits there?

In this two hour fantasy tribunal, the Tricycle theatre takes its pacifist politics even more seriously than normal, choosing to eliminate any suspicion of conflict from the script itself. Instead, two men in suits take turns to put their jackets on and off while questioning bureaucrats. In a rare moment of tension, a secretary fumbles as she tries to slip her shoes back on before it is her turn to stand up and sit down again. And I made the tension part up. Her feet slip in and out of her heels just as smoothly as I slipped in and out of consciousness throughout the second half.

It would be easy to dismiss this as cheap criticism. But a cheap play deserves nothing better. The reason this play lacks any spark is not just that the devising team have purged it of all normal sources of theatrical diversion and variety, but that the tawdry subject matter wastes our time. We’d all have been better off with our heads down.

The real tribunal plays at the Tricycle, edited from actual, existing transcripts, provided a startling new kind of dramatic realism, dragging onstage characters from the very eyries of contemporary power, their words for once inescapably exact. The action moved towards a real verdict, on which justice and truth hinged. ‘Called to Account’ does nothing of the kind, because it never happened. The writers have fabricated a “tribunal” with the C- and D-listers who suited their agenda and were willing to take part in a phoney exercise, only Richard Perle adding a serious counterweight to Bob Marshall-Andrews and Clare Short (the latter admittedly well-played). It all ends with a sputter, as the fake inquiry fails even to reach a fake verdict.

Yet who cares? With a title like this one, the chatteriat were out in (peacekeeping) force for the press night: from Menzies Campbell to the Guardian’s top-ranking commissars, all revelling in the fantasy that they matter. On Newsnight Review, one critic was so deep into false consciousness she was reduced to praising the play’s bold use of tedium. You don’t realise how hard it is to act dull, she gushed, not remembering it is even harder to watch.

For those of us who haven’t been looking for a voodoo doll of Blair to stick pins in, much better stay home and get some shuteye. This is a fantasy play, a distraction in dangerous times. As David Aaronovitch protested to the blinkered audience in a post-show discussion, where was the play detailing abuses in Darfur and calling for action? That would be to blend investigative journalism with the tribunal play format in a fresh and engaging manner. Where was the reconstruction of a terror trial, as has just ended today? Why not gather a collection of soldiers, journalists and foreign policy advisers and make the case for sticking with the Iraqis, whatever one’s thoughts about the invasion, in the interests of fighting off the murderous fascist gang of thugs now trying to steal their country? A play where we don’t know what we think, or that sharpens our appreciation of moral horrors we could do something to mitigate would be worth watching.

Instead, the Tricycle is sitting still, speaking words that don’t matter to an audience who already agrees about something that is never going to happen. Peter Brook would have understood where their theatrical experiment has ended up. “To make matters worse there is always a deadly spectator, who for special reasons enjoys a lack of intensity and even a lack of entertainment… who emerges from routine performances… reciting his favourite lines under his breath… he lends the weight of his authority to dullness and so the Deadly Theatre goes on its way.”

Culture Clash tonight at 8.30 on 18 Doughty Street

Tonight we’re going to be looking at two films in which politics of one sort or another play a major role. The Lives of Others, the German winner of this year’s Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars, explores the workings of the Stasi amongst the cultural community in 1980s East Germany. And Fast Food Nation, which is released this week, is a fictionalised adaptation of the expose of the fast food industry which bestseller for author Eric Schlosser.

With me to discuss these are the journalist and historian Ruth Dudley Edwards, and Social Affairs author Adam Smyth.

The debut feature by director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarsk, THE LIVES OF OTHERS centres on the surveillance of a George Dreyman, a playwright who, although apparently supportive of the socialist regime, is suspected of Western sympathies. He is watched round the clock by a seemingly robotic Stasi agent, who is aware too that a government minister has his eye on Dreyman’s girlfriend. Things become complicated when, moved by the suicide of a colleague, Dreyman writes an article criticising the state.

Now FAST FOOD NATION was a hit in the bestseller’s list for author Eric Schlosser when it was published a few years ago. Now, following on from the success of Morgan Spurlock’s SUPER SIZE ME, Hollywood has come up with an adaptation of Schlosser’s book– not, as you might expect, another Michael-Moore type documentary feature, but a fictionalised re-working by director Richard Linklater, centring on a group of Mexican immigrants working illegally in a meat-processing factory north of the border.

Peter's guests are Ruth Dudley Edwards, author and historian, Sean O'Callaghan, author and terrorism expert, Adam Smyth, writer, and journalist Franck Guillory.

Watch the show HERE

Saturday, April 28, 2007

BBC Newsnight Review - Friday, April 27th


Peter Whittle, Director of The New Culture Forum, joins the panel on Newsnight Review at 11.00pm last night.
Watch the show HERE
and read Peter's profile on the programme's website HERE


Sunday, April 22, 2007

Spiderman 3 - A review by Dominic Hilton

If you can get beyond the cheesy opening, the improbable hot scientist chicks with clipboards chewing their pens in the radiation lab, the inexplicably English airhead TV reporter who won’t stop barking the bleedin’ obvious into her mike all through the denouement, the snaggletoothed Kirsten Dunst singing flat, and, most of all, the deeply disturbing idea of making out in the sticky goo of a giant spider’s web (and, let’s face it, lots of otherwise horny arachnophobes will never get beyond this), there’s a lot to be said for Spiderman 3, and even more to be read into, geopolitically speaking.

First, let’s get the obligatory review stuff out of the way. Spiderman 3 is a terrific spectacle, great entertainment, and scary enough to guarantee your kids will soil their Spidey costumes. The visual effects are a knockout, the soundtrack is top-notch, Tobey Maguire is tremendous – this is a hugely 21st Century film. It’s also very funny in parts, as if the producers brought in comics for three scenes then dumped them back onto their barstools for the allegorical stuff.

The plot is a smidge disjointed – multiple villains, united only in their frustration with Spidey’s maddening habit of pooping their various parties, keep reappearing about fifteen minutes and several scenes after a seemingly fatal confrontation with the hero – but this matters not a jot. The storyline relentlessly flashes back to Spiderman I and II, which can get repetitive, if you’re looking for something to complain about. Mary Jane (Dunst) is still unbelievably annoying, and now jealous of Spiderman’s success (as I said, very 21st Century). Peter Parker’s best pal, the slightly slow rich kid Harry, still can’t stop whinging about the death of Willem Defoe, his father – and has now taken to therapeutic Cézanne copying. And the death of Peter’s maddeningly honest uncle Ben remains the thread that holds the franchise together.

Which is where it gets weird. At risk of adding a spoiler warning, it turns out that Spidey’s uncle was shot and killed because America has no socialist healthcare system. Uncle Ben’s sandy killer – whose identity has conveniently shifted to keep things ticking over – explains why he bumps people off and tears up Manhattan:

"My daughter was dying. I needed the money. I was scared."

One man’s hospital bills are killing New Yorkers. We are shown Flint Marko’s (aka Sandman’s) cute daughter with breathing apparatus lodged up her nostrils. All he wants is to get his kid the treatment she needs – and the only way he can do this is to knock off cash-loaded security vans and slaughter whoever is in his path. A world where a muscleman refuses to get a job needs a superhero.

Meanwhile, a meteorite oozing with some evil black stuff lands in the Big Apple and hunts after Spidey. It catches up with him, and turns him bad. Spidey’s suit turns black. So does his hair. It’s the same plot as Superman III, though less silly. The scene in which a stubble-covered, dirty-caped Superman perches on a barstool, shooting whisky, is, unintentionally, one of the funniest in movie history.

Spiderman 3 never quite plumbs such depths. The point about Spidey’s dark turn is explained by an online poll on the official website:

Can a man confront the forces of darkness without giving in to them? Yes/No

When I looked, 77% of visitors had voted ‘Yes’, which means only 23% of people would join Al Qaeda if they were forced to confront the evildoers. Hmmm…

Anyway, that, in a spider’s eggshell, is what this film is about: Can America defeat the forces of terror without building nude pyramids in Abu Ghraib? … No, sorry, that’s another issue. Spiderman 3 is far more explicit. Auntie May tells Peter that “revenge is like a poison” and insists Uncle Ben “wouldn’t want us living for one second with revenge in our hearts” (he’d want them dead?). As office workers fall from Manhattan’s crumbling skyscrapers and Peter fails to comprehend the French maître d’s “bon chance!”, the reference to the War on Terror will hardly be missed by your kid in his baggy-in-the-seat Spidey costume.

So what, then, is Spiderman’s strategy for the War on Terror? I’m not entirely sure of my ground here, but I think it involves a good sprinkling of forgiveness and a large spoonful of capitulation. The original Spiderman movie, an eager friend of mine insists, was infused with the spirit of the Aeneid (or Adenoid, as my computer spellchecker would have it). The message of the first two instalments was “with great power comes great responsibility”. This was not to suggest that Peter Parker need use his powers ‘proportionately’; it just meant he had to use his powers in whatever way necessary, and so quit hanging out at the mall with teenage girls in low-cut tops. But that was then. Spidey III is war-weary. Three major lessons are drawn in the finale:

First, never humiliate your enemy, for he will quickly humiliate you back, and then we’ll all get caught in a vicious cycle of humiliation (etc.). Peter/Spidey makes this mistake with Eddie Brock, a singularly obnoxious squirt who nicks Parker’s photography job at the newspaper by photoshopping some snaps of Spidey knocking off a bank. Peter exposes him, rightly gets him fired, steals his big-chested girlfriend, shoves him up against a wall and tells him, “If you want forgiveness, get a religion.” The result of this ‘error’ is that, weirdly, Brock heads to the local church, kneels in front of Christ, and says, “I want you to kill Peter Parker.” Christ doesn’t deliver, but Brock gets gunged by Spidey’s evil black stuff and turns into Venom, a nasty little screaming shit of a villain who can’t bear the sound of church bells (you’ll just have to go see it), and sets about slaying Pete himself.

Second, not even America… sorry, not even Spiderman can act unilaterally against multiple enemies. We are treated to a multilateral finale, in which Spidey saves the day (in front of a crisp Stars and Stripes) thanks to the support of an ally, who is meant to represent… Who knows? In the real world nobody but America and the terrorists is serious about arming themselves.

Finally, and this is the big one, America must make more of an effort to understand its enemy. The concluding confrontation between Spidey and his uncle’s killer goes like this:

Uncle Killer: “I’m not asking you to forgive me. I just want you to understand.”
Spiderman: “I’ve done terrible things too. I forgive you.”

As a consequence of Spidey’s forgiveness, the baddy evaporates and becomes good. The lesson is obvious: Forgive Al Qaeda and they will just evaporate into thin air. Easy.

Not to read too much into it all, of course… There is quite a lot of the earthy, crunchy thing, though not enough to make it unbearable: Dunst disapprovingly refers to a blonde hottie’s “polished fingernails”; the silver-haired Auntie May revels in her lack of make-up and pathetically small diamond engagement ring; Peter uses a payphone in the hallway of his immigrant landlord’s slumhouse and in a moment of ‘badness’ complains about paying rent given how the door to his hovel never opens.

Indeed, Dunst’s MJ is a real moody cow and Peter/Spidey should dump her asap. She spends the whole film screwing up our superhero’s life and behaving like she’s on Oprah’s sofa. You know the form: “Try and understand how I feel. I look at these words [an honest review of her pitiful singing voice] and it’s like my father wrote them.”

Please don’t go there! The woman proceeds to cheat on Peter only minutes after breaking up with him, then triggers Harry’s (thankfully lost) memories and aids and abets Spidey’s enemy by luring Peter into a trap. Plus, this time there’s no wet t-shirt scene. Spidey can, and almost does, do better than this frump.

Ultimately, the film relies on you being the type of moviegoer who worries about American power and arrogance. If, like me, you have a crush on America’s cockey swagger, something strange happens: You end up preferring Spiderman when he is supposed to be ‘bad’ and feel disappointed when he returns to being a humble, unpaid do-gooder. The scenes when Spidey ‘turns to the dark side’ are the best fun of all, and hilariously played by Maguire. He becomes a dude, strutting and moonwalking down the sidewalk, letting his hair go floppy, picking up babes, playing jazz piano, beating up bouncers, and hanging out with blacks in jazz clubs! We are supposed to frown on his fun-time behaviour (and in the real world war, of course, the enemy certainly wouldn’t drink with curvy blondes in decadent jazz clubs…). But if this is supposed to represent America showing off to the world, reserve me a table at that gin joint. After all, what is the FX-laden blockbusting Spiderman III if not America showing off to the world? We love it, and Hollywood really must stop pretending it is something it is not.

© Dominic Hilton, 2007

Monday, April 09, 2007

300—the most civilised film in decades, writes Marc Sidwell


Frank Miller’s bold and bloody reinvention of the Battle of Thermopylae hits British cinema screens this week, fresh from two record-breaking weekends at the American box office. Certificate 15 (‘R’-rated in America) this is a violent and at times sexy film aimed at a youth market. From its takings, the producers did not mistake their fan base.

The film is an unrelenting, two hour epic remythologising the historical record. Frank Miller’s graphic style is brought to vivid life thanks to groundbreaking use of blue screen technology, supplemented by influences from Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. For those whose stance is instinctively ironic and cynical, the straightforward heroism celebrated here will be disconcerting. For those who know the value of sacrifice and the price of freedom, the experience is thrilling. This is a modern film that reconnects with the essence of Western civilisation.

For what makes this film exceptional are the classical foundations upon which it draws – the American scholar, Victor Davis Hanson, was a consultant – and the resonance they evidently have with a fresh generation of westerners, officially unschooled in Herodotus and Homer. If our education system has given up on the value of a classical education, the runaway success of 300 proves that the values of the mass of the West remain those of Ancient Greece, even in the Age of Barbie. Freedom, Beauty, Excellence and Reason are all celebrated here—four exceptional touchstones of the West that come to us from tiny Greece, thanks to the resistance of the Spartans.

One of Miller’s sources was an essay by William Golding, ‘The Hot Gates’ – a literal translation of Thermopylae. Golding reminds us of simple historical fact: ‘A little of Leonidas lies in the fact that I can go where I like and write what I like’. When the freedoms to write what we like and go where we like are once more under threat, it is no surprise that Thermopylae should return to inspire us. The West, for all our forgetfulness, is one civilisation, stretching back two and a half thousand years to the shining example of Greece. The last time the Spartan epic was re-enacted, it served to stiffen sinews in the Cold War.

300 reminds us too that for all the current misperception of America as global bully, the West is in truth the eternal underdog. In a world always ready to fall back into tyranny and superstition, only the Greeks and their inheritors know the value and the power of individual human beings. When we are set free, we can bring down giants, but we always play David to the world’s Goliath. Refusing to kneel before the Persian horde, Gerard Butler’s Leonidas and his buffed-up men are an army of Michelangelo’s Davids. They are simultaneously the progenitors and inheritors of the best of the West. Their reception in 2007 is proof that ordinary westerners retain a sense of their civilisation and its essential values. Our elite gatekeepers may find the unofficial western motto—freedom or death; war is not the worst of evils—hard to grasp. 300 shows that everyone else gets it. There is hope for us yet.



Thursday, March 22, 2007

'300' reviewed on Culture Clash

Based on Frank Millar’s graphic novel, which was itself inspired by the film The 300 Spartans, 300 tells the story of the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC, in which King Leonidas, played by Gerard Butler, leads his men in a stand for freedom against Xerxes and the mighty Persian army. The film, which like Millar’s Sin City, is shot as a kind of hybrid between real action and animation, has been accused by expatriate Iranians of being ‘irresponsible’, a distortion, and ‘an assault on its culture and tradition.’

With Peter Whittle to discuss these are Dolan Cummings of Spiked Online, Dawn French of the New Criterion magazine, Andrew Haydon, critic for Culturewars, and Marc Sidwell of the Henry Jackson Society.

Watch a clip


and the full programme here