The Golden Strawberry

Via Norm, via Clive Davis:

Richard Schickel, who is apparently a “distinguished film writer”, has written this not-too complementary piece about bloggers reviewing:

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book… I don’t think it’s impossible for bloggers to write intelligent reviews. I do think, however, that a simple “love” of reading (or movie-going or whatever) is an insufficient qualification for the job. That way often leads to cultishness (see the currently inflated reputations of Philip K. Dick or Cornell Woolrich, both easy reads for lazy, word-addicted minds).

 

And we have to find in the work of reviewers something more than idle opinion-mongering. We need to see something other than flash, egotism and self-importance

Both Norm and Clive have decent things to say on the matter, but if I could add my tuppence worth…

Criticism is a democratic activity. It is ‘a good thing’, surely, to have reviewers who bring learned criticism to the latest film/novel/whatever, highlighting its social significance and its fitting into this or that school of film-making (or whatever).

It is also essential to have the other side of the coin - ‘normal’ people who just simply enjoyed a good romp, and want to spread the word.

Why can’t potential cinema goers hear these voices as well - which are judgements often by bloggers nearer to their taste than professional film reviewers?

On all of these attacks on bloggers (including the Melissa Kite/Iain Dale saga which has been getting right-wing bloggers’ knickers in a twist for a while now) there seems to be one uniting theme. People who get paid to write for a living don’t like people doing as good a job for free. Well, forgive me if I have little sympathy with them….

Cory

Maddy Bunting is back at the Graun. Check here for some hilarious comments.

Sophia Coppola’s new film is shit, according to this Trot.

LoL.

-posted by Adam

This evening I saw a film called No More Tears Sister. Quick synopsis:

 A story of love, revolution, and betrayal, No More Tears Sister explores the price of truth in times of war. Set during the violent ethnic conflict that has enveloped Sri Lanka over decades, the documentary recreates the courageous and vibrant life of renowned human rights activist Dr. Rajani Thiranagama. Mother, anatomy professor, author and symbol of hope, Rajani was assassinated at the age of thirty-five.

It was excellent. It weaves a tragic but inspiring tale of an educated, principled and idealistic woman who was killed for doing the right thing. She took a stand against both the authoritarian repressiveness of the Sri Lankan government,  with its de facto support to rascist Sinhalese gangs who attempted to ethnically cleanse the Tamil people from the island; and also the poisoned rebellion of the Tamil Tigers, people who had every right to take up arms to defend themselves, but whose fight for freedom was perverted by its methods and its indiscriminate targeting of civilians and recruitment of child soldiers.

While watching this film I was reminded of other figures on the democratic left throughout history. Men and women who could not stomach the bile spewing from much of the left wing intelligensia in support of genocidal countries like the USSR or Mao’s China. Men and women who were disgusted by the apologies made for dictators like Castro or thugs like Guevera who, whilst looking good in a photo-op, supported an ideology directly responsible for the murder of countless millions.

They took up rhetorical arms against people who should have been on their side. People who should have been with them in their quest for liberty, social justice and peace. People who, instead, sung the praises of men like Stalin and Lenin. People who, in effect, in practice, were in bed with the most reactionary and hardline of the furthest of the far right.

Rajani Thiranagama can take her place alongside such people as George Orwell and those other heroes of the democratic left who stuck to their principles in the face of those who would seek to stifle debate and dissidence; instead they would always challenge authority and tyranny - whether it comes from the left or the right. From the government or the rebels. From the Sinhalese or the Tamils. From the incompetence of the Bush administration or the inhumanity of the Islamic Fascists.

She should be a hero to everyone who is against tyranny and for justice. Everyone who is against war for wars sake and for reasoned resolution of conflict. People who choose the use of debate and discussion over the perverted self righteousness of the mob of faith, class or opinion poll.

If you have the time and live near one of the few places that are showing it, I can’t recommend this film enough. It sheds some light on one of the forgotten and unresolved conflicts of our time and it proves that, amidst the brutality of civil war, some people can rise above the melee and set an example which every person would do well to emulate.

-posted by Adam

Apologies for the lack of blogging, I have been engaged in a post exams ale session, inspired by the classic film Withnail & I.

So, to business. Roy talks here about how much he fears a Cameron government. I must say that I think his reaction is most conservative. I am not a Tory, although I have voted for them in the past. Their last election manifesto was about as reactionary as they come though in many ways preferable to the David Miliband esque New Labour spin. Cameron, it seems to me, is the type of Tory someone on the centre left could vote for. Someone like Roy would never even consider the prospect of putting an X in the box for the Conservative Party and it seems to me that he suffers when he limits himself in this manner. Cameron has positioned himself in the political centre - this is basic Tory politics. The Tory party was successful in the last century because it appealed to the centrist voter. That means capitalism - but with social services. It might have been Labour who created the welfare state, but the Tories kept it alive by ensuring the economy was healthy enough to support it. A healthy and growing economy is the single most important thing for a modern country to possess. In many ways I find it comforting that the condition of the economy is now, to a large extent, out of the hands of elected politicians. Obsessed as they are with getting elected, they seldom look at the big picture. Courage is a rare trait in a politician. Pericles had it, Winston (sometimes) had it, Blair had it on Iraq. I am disturbed by Roys reactionary stance when it comes to Cameron - he really is a nice bloke, you can trust him with the public services.

I won’t bother posting about Roys cricket obsession. I enjoy the odd session with the willow and the seam, but Roy takes things too far. Anyway the real world cup starts soon and that is going to be a blast. As long as Rooney’s metatersal gets better - that man is more than a footballer, he is a force of nature.

Roy descends into class warrior mode in his post about the ending of the AUT strike. A shame, because once the red mist descends it blunts his usually insightful analysis. The strikers were offered a perfectly reasonable pay package which was rejected without a ballot and resulted in students being screwed over because of the greediness of the unions. Organised labour is generally a good thing, but it can so often end up mimicking the arrogance and selfishness of the management which it so often defines itself against. I especially liked this beaut of a quote:

He implies universities ought to be privatised, sneering that the fact Oxford and Cambridge are in the Top 20 universities in the world is “pretty impressive for a state-run education service”, a remark that makes me very angry indeed

For those of us that live in the real world and who don’t have their opinions formed by an outdated dogma of resietance to everything not owned and operated by the state, this statement is simply ridiculous. The fact is that, like it or not, American universities are the best in the world. This is because they have more cash. This is because they are private institutions not dependent on miserly governments for their funding. Now, it seems to me that, if British universities want to close the gap, they would do well to mimic this model. The US spends 3% of its GDP on higher education, the UK just 1%. Oh, and University lecturers get far better pay in the US where they are employees of the private sector, not agents of the State.

I am no longer a libertarian, although I hope to return to those hopeful pastures one day where faith in human nature is at its peak. I do beleive in state provision in some areas, mainly those where market influence would be detrimental to the common good, but in this case it seems absolute madness to stick with a system which proved itself defunct years and years ago. As with many things, the best solution is the most radical one. As is often the case, the most radical solution is opposed by conservative elements on both sides of the political spectrum.

Thats it, I’m done. At least for the next few days anyway. I must return to my post exam state of sozzlement. I leave you with a link to the Dudes latest article. Toodles.

-posted by Adam