FILM REVIEW: The Martian

I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about Prometheus. On one hand, it showcased Ridley Scott’s remarkable ability to generate a visually stunning self-contained world, all clean lines and expansive landscapes. On the other, it suffered from near-terminal narrative flaws. Highly trained astronauts and scientists making inexplicably dumb choices? Sure. Plot holes the size of one of Mars’ craters? Let’s do it. It was a film that reeked of “could have been” to me, yet I returned to it several times convinced I had misinterpreted or missed something. After 4 viewings, I’ve settled on “not bad” and nothing more. A beautiful, if incoherent puzzle. When I considered Prometheus alongside Scott’s most recent work, which you could charitably describe as “inconsistent”, my hopes for The Martian were not high. Happily, The Martian exceeds Prometheus and more.

Continue reading →

Five Albums from 2015 That You Need To Hear

We’re halfway through 2015 already, so it’s an appropriate time to slow down, take stock and re-visit some of the best music of the year so far. 2015 has been a sneaky one, starting off slow with some of the best releases taking a while to fully reveal their charms, but it’s been as good a year as any for great new music. There are a few glaring omissions here, purely because I haven’t been able to get through as many of this year’s albums as I’d have liked. Bjork’s ‘Vulnicura’, for example. I’ll save those one’s for the end of year list. So, without further ado,  here are some of my favourites. Spotify links included, as always.

Continue reading →

The Struggle To Stay Hopeful

 

I grew up believing that it was important to engage in the world around you. I can thank my parents for that. We have almost diametrically opposed views on many subjects but the most important lesson stuck, namely that one should read, engage and challenge. I’ve tried to apply this ethos throughout my adult life and not just with regards to politics but in other areas too. Never blindly accept, always think for yourself. It’s one of the reasons I feel as strongly as I do on a range of issues such as equal rights, climate policy and the NHS. All of this hinges on a crucial element, however: Hope. We have to believe that we can shape a better world for our children than the one we grew up in. It’s the dream of every generation: that we can draw on our shared knowledge and experience and correct the mistakes of the past. Behind every diatribe, criticism and woe-is-me apocalyptic rant was a foundation of Hope. If I didn’t believe we had the ability to do better, I’d have been considerably less angry. My stress levels would have cried out in relief, but no. More news leads to more fury because I still hope. Now should be one of the most hopeful times for someone of my political persuasion. My home country came this close to realising a centuries-old dream of independence. All over the world, from Occupy to Syriza, people are standing up to the established world order. So why is it that I feel so curiously empty? Why am I having such a crisis of Hope?

The weeks since Britain’s recent General Election have been challenging. The Conservative Party swept to a majority against all perceived wisdom and David Cameron became the first Prime Minister to increase his share of the vote since 1955. Their victory was based not least on a combination of lack of confidence in the Labour alternative and an intoxicating narrative of SNP insurgency. Popular support for shrinking the welfare state and curbing immigration remain high. Fear has a lot of political currency in 2015. The seven years since the financial crisis have exemplified the central role of narrative in the political process beyond all doubt, and perhaps this is also central to my crisis of faith. People will always believe what they wish to believe. To some extent, those of us on the Left are like the naive child in the popular internet meme: “If I can only bring these facts to people’s attention, surely they will change their minds!” No. The political and media discourse of the last seven years have begun hammering the nails into that particular coffin. Take the welfare state for example. There are numerous websites and articles freely available that provide easy to understand figures on welfare spending (like this example). We know that the majority of spending goes on pensions. We know that benefit fraud accounts for 0.7% of the bill and is 70 times smaller than money lost through tax evasion. We know these things, but the myths persist because a good narrative will trump facts every time. This Conservative government succeeds because it understands this truth. If you repeat often enough that our precarious situation is a result of over-indulging the poor then people will believe it.  After all, many of us enjoy recounting stories of the unemployed family with Sky TV (at the massive cost of £5 per week for the basic package) or the lay-abouts with more children than we deem appropriate. Perhaps they should have foreseen their future unemployment before starting a family, the selfish bastards. Central to our benefit mythology is the implication that unemployment is a choice, and that disability is a conveniently vague form of justification. This shapes the narrative that our government propagates to turn voters against each other. Scroungers vs Strivers. This week’s budget suggests that life will only get harder for the poor in Britain.  I don’t hate the Tories. They just know who they are and what their purpose is. They exit to advance the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the poorest and they dress it up in the borrowed robes of aspiration. Like any government, they desire power and utilise fear to maintain it. We must fear the poor. We must fear Muslims. Our way is the only way. It’s no different to Coca Cola selling processed sugar-water as happiness.

We live in an age where human beings are reduced to economically viable units of production, and many of us are no longer considered economically viable. Care workers, single parents, the young, the unemployed. In the neo-liberal narrative, these players serve no purpose, because there is only one purpose: to generate profit. It’s why the idea of the NHS is so galling to neo-liberal thinkers, they can’t fundamentally accept an institution that is not built to generate profit. George Osbourne famously called on businesses to fight back against charities because he believes they are anti-business. The belief that even basic human charity should be monetized goes to the highest levels of government.  According to our governments and media, austerity is the only realistic solution to the crisis generated by the financial sector despite plenty of dissenting economic opinion. Neo-liberal economics were (and are) considered the only viable way to generate wealth for all, but the reality is that it generates massive wealth for the few on the backs of the majority. The true legacy of neo-liberalism is the devaluation of the Human Being and the Earth in service to the Almighty Dollar. To challenge this, we have to change our entire way of looking at the world and each other. Right now, it doesn’t seem like we have the collective will to do this. Some of us don’t believe this is something worth doing, even if we could. In times of uncertainty, sacrifices have to be made and those in power are brandishing the knife, believing the Gods will make it rain.

But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe one day we’ll all wake up and realise that we’re worth something beyond a pay slip and the stuff we own. Maybe we’ll realise that our planet is worth saving, and not just in an “isn’t the view nice” kind of way. In a real, genuine way. Maybe we’re better than we seem. Maybe there’s a little hope left.

 

FILM REVIEW: Avengers: Age Of Ultron

As we come to the end of April, we start to see the first of the summer’s big-hitting blockbusters stalk out of the shadows and into the public realm. Now starts the slow build to June and July’s crescendo, when marquee films jostle for position and audience’s hard-earned cash. Avengers: The Age of Ultron is the first of 2015’s big franchises to play its hand.  Now for the standard comic-book movie disclaimer. While I’m a fan of comic books (and sometimes their movie counterparts), I’ve never been a big fan of “superheroes” and I’m not as familiar with canon and story threads as some will be. I’ve tried to review Age of Ultron as a movie rather than a comic-book adaptation, and so wont’ be comparing the movie to its source material etc. Bear this in mind as we move forward…

Avengers_Age_Of_Ultron-poster1

While I’ve definitely been suffering “Superhero Fatigue” over the last few summers, I’ve generally considered the Avengers movies to be quite well executed and admirable in their attempts to tackle wider themes amongst the contractually mandated explosions and gadgets. I appreciated Avengers Assemble, and very much enjoyed the Captain America spin-offs in their attempt to reconcile notions of patriotism and honour with a modern world. That being said, watching The Age of Ultron highlighted what, for me, is the franchise’s major flaw: too many characters. Ultron contains ten characters that could be considered major players in the narrative. TEN. Old favourites like the Hulk, Iron Man and Thor team up with several new ones for a veritable cacophony of super-stuff, which unfortunately leads to a sense that some characters are left disappointingly  thin. I say disappointingly, because some of the wrinkles that writer/director Joss Whedon adds to the mix are interesting and merit much deeper exploration that he is able to indulge here. Ultron clocks in at an extensive two-and-a-half hours, but it still feels as though we have only superficially engaged with some characters. From what I can tell, the spin-offs are where we are meant to dive deeper into the motivations, flaws and aspirations of each character, but that unfortunately leaves Ultron looking like a very thin “greatest hits” compilation. All the boxes are ticked, but the whole still seems unsatisfying.

In one particular new shade, we find out a little more about Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye and his life outside of the Avengers. This thread is interesting in how contrasts the Technicolor  gleam of his professional world with the autumnal hue of his home life. Indeed, “professional world” is an apt term because  HawkEye very much views his avenging as job he must do, despite its inherent risks. I was keen for Ultron to explore this further, but because there is so much story and so many characters to cram in, this thread felt curiously unfinished. There is also fleeting exploration of the struggles experienced by Bruce Banner, as he finds it increasingly difficult to cope with the jarring brutality he is capable of. Every fibre of him wants to run away and hide from those around him. The psychological toll of containing himself would make for a solid film in itself, but again this ends up being lost along the way. While Ultron gamely tackles themes of safety vs freedom and the consequences of developing artificial intelligence, there’s not much space to go into them in any real depth. I’m not sure how future Avengers films could solve this issue, without either paring down the characters or spreading the story out of more installments, even a mini-series.

Despite these issues, much of what makes the Marvel films so succesful is present and correct in Ultron. Many of the jokes are laugh-out-loud funny, particularly those involving Chris Hemsworth’s Thor and his out-sized machismo. He’s like a slimmer Robert Baratheon, cursing his foes and enthusiastically requesting booze. The action scenes zip along at a good pace, and rarely feel like they’re dragging on too long. Mark Ruffalo should also be noted for his engaging portrayal of Bruce Banner, the first one I’ve enjoyed on the big screen. The Avengers franchise that knows what it can do well, and what it can’t.

There’s a lot to enjoy in Age of Ultron, and even some things to admire. The action is well choreographed, there’s plenty of humour and the film is ambitious in the themes it attempts to mine. But, ultimately, it doesn’t satisfy on that deeper level that it feels eminently capable of achieving.

The Lay of the Land.

It’s morning and another (yes, ANOTHER) leader’s debate lies behind us. The pieces are starting to move into place. If you followed the event on social media, like me, you’d be utterly flummoxed about who came out on top. Labour activists were quick to call it for Red Ed (who still holds the championship belt for most hilariously inappropriate nickname in political history), the Pro-Indy Twitter Young Team were crowing about another strong performance from Nicola Sturgeon and absent Tories used the debate as an opportunity to highlight what the political landscape would look like without them to keep everyone in order. Which is, apparently, perfectly fine.

_82371439_0073628a-7f5b-468b-b2e7-ce1aadc0e82b

I’m always pleased to see Natalie Bennett, Nicola Sturgeon and Leanne Wood on a stage together. It’s something the Boy’s Club of Westminster has sorely needed for decades. But it’s their principles that set them apart from their male counterparts as much as their gender. Sturgeon was far more willing to challenge Nigel Farage’s anti-immigrant rhetoric than resident Trotskyite Ed Miliband. Ed will say anything to get elected. He’s a man constrained by the whims of newspaper headlines, focus-grouping policy like he’s trying to re-brand domestic cleaning products. He’s an avatar, a “safe pair of hands”, the “least worst option”. He’s not a Prime Minister and the press know it. We see statements like “The Scottish tail will be wagging the English dog”, suggesting Labour would be the weaker party of any cross-border coalition. Scotland remains an important part of the Union, so long as it has no significant impact on how it is governed. One wonders if the major parties are so glad we stuck around.

“Principle” will play a stronger role in this election than any other during my political adulthood. Voters are no considering the viability of Trident and the role of renewable energy.  We’re considering what kind of country we want to live in, which only highlights how shallow our options have been up until this point. The factor that unites the three female-led parties is hope. The belief that we can and should improve quality of life for all citizens. We have the ability to do so, but all we are missing is the will. It comes down to what we value as a society. The Conservatives value money and property, a selfish motive dressed up in the facade of “individual freedom”. This conceit rings more hollow as the months and years pass, as our coalition government presides over enforced austerity and the transfer of wealth from citizen to proprietor . They declare that citizens should stand on their own two feet, conveniently forgetting the role of state infrastructure in their own acquisition of wealth. Time and again, we see that socialism is for the wealthy and the pitfalls of capitalism are reserved for the poor. The Labour Party are meant to provide meaningful opposition to this approach, but have failed to do so. We are told that continued austerity is the only option, that we have no choice but to balance our books on the backs of those least able to carry the burden.

It’s increasingly clear to me that hope for a less cynical, more inclusive society lies with Plaid Cymru, the Greens and the SNP, and I’m certain I’m not the only one. This is why there is an undercurrent of fear behind every condescending remark and pithy dismissal that is directed toward them. They represent the only real alternative to the status quo. Our leaders celebrate the resurgence of the democratic sprint, so long as we vote how they tell us to.

Starting The Conversation: The Leaders’ Debates

A couple of nights ago we had the first of the General Election 2015 Leaders’ Debates, and I’ve been considering the role of the debates within the narrative of the election as a whole. What is the purpose of the debates? Can they enlighten the public or are they merely carefully choreographed advertising opportunities made for an inert forum? It’s  my opinion that the debates, while flawed, are a vital catalyst for political engagement.

potd-lego-election_3252980b

I’ve seen my Facebook and Twitter feeds light up with diatribes addressing the perceived pointlessness of the debates. This viewpoint appears to be rooted in the idea that all politicians are inherently corrupt and ultimately trying to fleece the public. It’s understandable that many people, particularly of my generation, feel this way. We grew up under New Labour and the prototypical modern politician, Tony Blair. If there was ever a public figure that embodied the betrayal of hope and belief, it is Blair. Rising to prominence on the crest an Obama-like wave, Blair will now be remembered more for the still-raging bloodbath in the Middle East for which he is significantly responsible. Now, our politicians are modelled in His likeness, abundant in centre-ground appeal and completely lacking in principle, innovation and perhaps even conscious thought. My generation’s baseline attitude is that all politicians have a hidden agenda, that they have been devised by a focus group and installed as the avatar for malevolent business interests.

So it is perhaps not unreasonable to ask what the point of all this media-generated drama is. The most recent edition had one interesting wrinkle, however, in that it featured seven leaders instead of three. Welcomed to the fold were the leaders of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP and the Green party.This is a representation of the fragmentation of old political allegiances, as well as the vibrant culture of our routinely criticised youth and I think this is a positive development. To reduce the entire spectrum of political opinion to a choice of left or right does no service to the electorate, who deserve to hear all the philosophies on offer. Indeed, the choice between left and right is now an essentially meaningless choice with regards to the Conservatives and Labour. The differences between the two parties are now superficial at best. Both represent the established order of things, and anyone looking for meaningful change would do well to look elsewhere. The Liberal Democrats, beneficiaries of the last round of debate, have been reduced to a distraction thanks to an ineffective term as the lapdogs of a strutting, cruel Conservative government. One wonders what we ever saw in them.

The four remaining parties comprise a wide variation in priorities. The SNP and Plaid are primarily concerned with the welfare of their respective nations, while the Greens are focused on environmental welfare and UKIP seem most concerned with the preservation of an imagined ideal of Britain in the 1950’s . All these philosophies deserve to be heard and judged on their respective merits, which is why the debates play an important role in the discourse of the nation. The SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon came away as a big winner from the first debate, demonstrating the power of introducing a new approach to a large audience. Parts of England, complacent and frustrated with the status quo, found that the world is not comprised purely of competing shades of red and blue and were energised by this realisation. One can only hope that the engagement generated in Scotland can pass over to the North of England and elsewhere. It’s part of being a healthy nation. Regardless of the pre-prepared soundbites and carefully choreographed body language, any event which starts the nation talking is worth the effort. People are now discussing the role of parties like the SNP and Plaid Cymru within a UK-wide government. The fine performances of the female leaders has generated a discussion about the still-astonishing gender inequality within Westminster. Likewise, from a personal standpoint, I would support any event which puts environmental policy front and centre in the national debate.

We need to discuss fiscal policy. We need to discuss defence spending and Trident. We must discuss how we meet our energy needs while caring for our environment. It doesn’t matter how the conversation starts, as long as it starts.