Oscars 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/87th_Academy_Awards

The beauty of the Oscars is that everyone holds their own view on what should win and what should be nominated. The resulting divergence is often half the fun as is predicting what will take home the gold.

It’s still baffling to me that “Interstellar” didn’t even manage a Best Picture nomination. This is a big, bold and intelligent film that delivers for every segment of the moviegoing public. It’s disappointing to see it be completely ignored.

Anyway, I’ve linked, via Wikipedia, the full nominations; and here are my choices, and what I expect to win, from the headline categories. To make it nice and easy, I’ve put my own choice in green and what I expect to win in red.

Best Picture

Whiplash
Boyhood

Not sure how “Nightcrawler” missed out on a nomination, but as much as I loved “Boyhood”, I just think “Whiplash” is an incredible piece of filmmaking. It has you on the edge of your seat from the first moment.

Best Director

Richard Linklater
Richard Linklater

To have made a film so seamless over such a long period of time is something truly special. Linklater reminds me of Cameron Crowe with the way in which he’s lovingly crafted this beautiful film.

Best Actor

Michael Keaton
Eddie Redmayne

As much as Redmayne delivers a measured and memorable performance, there’s ultimately very little to work with. I found ‘Theory’ to be lightweight and lacking any real cohesion.  Keaton is, as ever, wonderful and this talented actor deserves recognition for an impressive body of work. He’s absolutely perfect in a massively unappreciated, “My Life”, too.

Best Actress

Rosamund Pike
Julianne Moore

It’s a tough one to predict. Julianne Moore is a big favourite with critics and with this being her 5th nomination, it’s hard to look past her. Personally, I’d go for Rosamund Pike as I felt she gave the most versatility with her character and her performance resonated with me more. Felicity Jones suffers from the same script issues, which is a shame as she’s both honest and believable here.

Best Supporting Actor

J.K. Simmons
J.K. Simmons

Simmons is absolutely wonderful in “Whiplash”. He delivered that perfect blend of terrifying you and leaving you laughing at his utter command and contempt for any disobedience. It’s the best performance I’ve seen since Heath Ledger in “Brokeback Mountain”. Any other year I’m pretty sure I’d want Ethan Hawke to win.

Best Supporting Actress

Patricia Arquette
Patricia Arquette

It has to be Patricia Arquette for the way she ushers her soon from boyhood to adulthood with a fragility that was touching to watch.

Best Original Screenplay

Nightcrawler
Boyhood

“Nightcrawler” is never going to be “Network”, even though it traverses some of the same territory; it is, however, a fascinating look at the voyeuristic tendencies we all share, and it’s driven to some very dark places with a truly memorable performance from Jake Gyllenhaal. “Boyhood” will be a deserving winner, though.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Whiplash
The Theory of Everything

“The Theory of Everything” is one of those Oscar favourites and I fully expect it to win this one as part of a 3-5 Oscar haul.

A myriad of thoughts

Two years and four months. Or 875 days. Or 21000 hours. Or 125 weeks.

Now, this entry starts with no clear or defined purpose. No direction other than a need to get some words down on the screen. This is part of a conscious effort to utilise this platform and get some longer read thoughts down. To not just fire in the odd joke or picture of my white slippers. As lovely as those slippers may indeed be.

So, whatever your measure, it’s been quite a while since I last blogged. An awful lot has happened in those intervening days, months and years. All too often, as we navigate through our daily lives, we never spend too many of those minutes giving much pause for thought. Perhaps a cursory acknowledgement of what changed, or what may change, but we stick to our goals, our plans and the paths we’re already on. Seldom do we change course, or change tack, or make a fundamental shift. Not, at least, perhaps, without a great upheaval, or a lesson so stinging, we’re forced to make a change as a consequence. We make mistakes, we learn from them, and we usually oscillate between over or under compensating when we try to atone. The important element is that we do try and atone. Ultimately, that will always be the message that resonates.

As I sit here with the contemplative sounds of “The Way” by Zack Hemsey bouncing around my head, it’s clear that the one thing you must always do is stay 100% true to yourself. Regardless of the risk of mockery or embarrassment or failure or loss. That very essence of sticking to your inner moral compass is what guides you and pushes you on. As soon as you lose that, you force yourself down a path that won’t necessarily alter your core beliefs, but harden you to a perceived reality that you cannot achieve what you desire on your own terms, or on your own turf. But, instead, on someone else’s terms, or on someone else’s turf.

Over the past few weeks, it’s been interesting to debate/discuss/ruminate and chew the fat with several of you lovely people over many different issues. You never see someone so clearly as when their passion shines through on a subject that they care about. To see eyes light up and switch ON. To see that level of engagement. To see that level of passion. To see that level of openness. Whether or not it’s discussion revolving around matters of the heart, or religion, or politics, these kind of interactions are what fuel us, are what propel us forward, are what force us to learn about ourselves, are what force us to grow.

It’s all too easy to get caught up in a moment. To show a side of yourself that is perhaps 10% of who you are, but essentially communicates to others that it’s the 90% of you. And this links to the reality of modern life being such a rush. We often don’t think of how we are perceived by others. We own a version of ourselves for different people, different situations. That’s normal. To compartmentalise ourselves. At work there’s a version. Consciously or not, we alter ourselves for a situation and it’s really only the people who know us best who can decipher the differences, only the people who know us best who can understand the small differences. To bring it back around to that sense of people lighting up with passion, it is those moments where we see not a 10% version or a 90% but a 100% version, in that moment, in that time. We mentally photograph these moments and they form part of how we view that person. We use it as our filter with which we interpret future actions and future agreements and disagreements.

All of this segues me to the thing that baffles me the most. Cynicism. A failure, or a refusal, to see the best in people, or in situations. Often governed by fear or anger or disappointment, cynicism manifests in many different ways. The greatest achievers in history were all governed by a sense of hope, of possibility, of a sense that it IS possible. Whatever your goal or your dream may be. That dream or goal may inevitably be shaped by failure and adapt to the realities of our situation, but the essence of it remains intact.

Cynics tells us nothing can change, or refuse to hope for a better outcome. The most pertinent example right now is that of ISIS. Here we have people so deeply cynical about the human race and its ability for compromise, for agreement, for a shared purpose, that they coalesce around a deeply misguided interpretation of a religion founded on peace. The subsequent anger and carnage is fuelled by their deep cynicism. This corrosive mentality and approach to life is lost on people whether they pray to Allah or not. We know thhe answer isn’t to slice and dice people in groups of good/bad or right/wrong, but to look at the prospect of what we share, of what our common interests and goals are. There is peace as a possibility in Palestine and in the wider Middle East and throughout parts of Africa being savaged by Boko Haram if we focus on this central tenet: that there is possibility in everything. And this is only to touch on the “Islamist threat”. It doesn’t even begin to look at other issues, geopolitical or not, religious or not, that we face on both macro and micro levels.

So there we go. A few cheery Sunday thoughts for you.

Why A President Romney would be bad for Britain

The US undeniably sets the overarching tone of British politics. If you follow US politics you’ll see the same debates filter over to the UK shortly afterwards, enabling us to insert lovely terms like “wealth creators” and “the politics of envy” into the national vernacular. Do not ignore the weather report.

It’s a well documented stark choice facing the United States this election cycle. On the one hand, there’s President Obama seeking to foster a culture whereby the richest in society contribute a larger share of tax revenues, while on the other side, Mitt Romney argues that lowering tax rates will unleash a tornado of economic activity and growth, allowing everyday Americans to prosper. There are, of course, a number of differences in policy, but the election in the minds of everyday Americans will coalesce around this central economic difference.

The Economy

It would be churlish to suggest both parties do not look for the betterment of wider society. This issue is simply one of priorities. George Bush instituted large tax cuts under the exact same argument Romney advances. The United States is running a debt to GDP ratio of over 80%. Sweden on the other hand – where tax rates are much higher – runs a debt to GDP ratio of more than half that. Bush squandered the surplus he inherited and left Obama a large deficit. Bush argued that lower tax rates for the wealthy would grow the economy. It hasn’t. It’s left the US economy lopsided and more indebted. The notion that somehow tax cuts for “the wealth creators” will unleash investment above and beyond times of higher taxes is a fallacy that’s demonstrably false. However, a President Romney signals to the world mass tax cuts will stimulate growth, “America’s open for business” and enriching the rich is the answer.

Let’s get this straight: Less tax revenue leads to less money for government to spend on the types of programmes that we all support here in the UK. Programmes and bulwarks of society such as: the NHS, the emergency services, education, infrastructure building. We cannot conceivably retain the levels of provisions we’re used to with less revenues, so we’ll have two options: A reduction in the size of the state (or “smaller government” in US parlance) in favour of the private sector assuming the running of said services, or the working and middle classes taking on the extra tax burden to fund these services we all count on. Republicans (and Tories) believe in privatisation of most (if not all) public services. They believe this leads to a greater efficiency and a better service, because it’s driven by competition. As we all know from the debacle with the UK train network, this is simply not the case. Will it work in certain cases? Yes. All cases? Evidence shows us not.

In a Europe beset by crippling deficit reduction plans that have choked off growth, we must tackle a double dip recession with bold government investment. Keynesian policy dictates we invest in times of recession to trigger and stimulate growth, while we pull back in the good times. Criticism of the previous Labour government overspending during the boom is not without credibility. However, for a collective conservative reaction in entering dramatic deficit cutting plans, as in Europe, has resulted in the malaise we currently see. Lest we not forget that the Labour Party left a small recovery that the Tories turned into a double dip recession. It’s not partisan to say this – it’s simply stating the facts.

A reduction in government spending and activity during a recession, or the onset of a recovery, leads to greater unemployment, larger welfare costs and no cutting of the deficit. We’re seeing extra borrowing from the Tories for this very reason. We’re seeing them renege on borrowing pledges. What’s happened in the meantime? People have suffered and turned to other sources of income like payday loans. Now, I do not intend to protect these greedy little vultures, but the fact is they provide a service based on demand. People do not use payday loan companies out of choice – they do it out of necessity. They do it because they cannot make ends meet. They do it because the costs of living rise quicker than the growth of their pay packet. So plainly speaking, these payday loan companies step in and provide a largely unregulated service that worsens people’s debt situations. Whilst a short-term approach of regulation will temper the worst of the stories we now see in the media, only a long-term evaluation of reducing income inequality can fully alleviate these problems. The payday companies become a convenient punch bag for government because it detracts from the fact there are too many unemployed, too many underpaid and too many at the point of desperation. A vibrant working class will put these companies out of business. It is not the responsibility of payday loan companies to help spur economic growth – that is the role of the government. We must take a long-term, beyond-the-end-of-your-nose approach is critical.

To my mind, one of the key, long-term sensible solutions, is that we institute a higher minimum wage (or a living wage) that can withstand the costs of living. This must be reassessed each year and tagged to a value above inflation. In the short-term, we must not lose sight of the fact we’re a consumerist economy, and as such, people at all levels must possess the cashflow to keep the hamster on the wheel. An inflated debt bubble sustained us in the late ’90s/early ’00s and now that people are indebted beyond their means, we need short-term measures to encourage spending. However, it’s all very well growing that GDP pie, but when we have an increasingly larger portion going to the wealthiest in our society, we have a problem and a crossroads: a political party in the UK needs to actually embody these concerns and act on plans to grow a working class that has been let down time and again. A President Romney would be a man who recently stated he hasn’t paid less than 13% taxes over the course of the last 10 years. This is a man who has taken advantage of every conceivable loophole to avoid paying tax, stashed money offshore and now advocates making George Bush’s tax cuts permanent and then some. Who will this immediately benefit? The wealthiest in the US. This is what the priority is. Plain and simple. Such a bold move by a US President will send out a message to those who seek to institute similar tax reforms here in the UK, that perseverance can see the implementation of your goals. It’s worth mentioning once more the resounding failure of the George Bush tax cuts. This trickle down notion is demonstrably false. Consult the facts and figures. A tax cutting programme like the one advocated by Romney is exactly what Boris Johnson is calling for: tax cuts for the wealthiest Brits to grow the economy.

It’s also important to note that the plan Paul Ryan put forward in the States doesn’t actually slash the deficit any quicker than Obama. It does, however, put tax cuts for the wealthiest in society at the forefront as a priority. This is not the right course for the United States. This is not the right course for the UK.

Healthcare

Republicans believe healthcare should be run by the private sector. The Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan believes the NHS impinges on our freedoms in the UK. Do you? Do you want companies like G4S with their mitts (pun intended) on the NHS? A President Romney pledges to repeal “Obamacare” on his first day in office. Obama’s healthcare act has, amongst other things, stopped insurance companies restricting access to insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. It’s disgusting that Americans have died because they could not obtain access to healthcare simply due to a lack of funds, or that they were unfortunate enough to be born with a “pre-existing condition”. Why not treat people with pre-existing conditions? Because it impacts the bottom line. Barack Obama’s healthcare law puts a stop to this practice and acts to constrain the profit motive in the provision of healthcare. And Mitt Romney plans to nullify this key aspect of Obama’s bill with no alternative.

Here in the UK, we have a creeping privatisation and the growth of an overriding profit motive in the treatment of human beings while they’re at their most vulnerable. So why’s this important? A President Romney repealing or taking the teeth out of Obamacare emboldens the Tories in their seeping privatisation of the NHS (something Labour was also guilty of). Romney and Tories share an ideological view of the world. This cannot be stressed enough. It’s at the very core of their contemporary beliefs. The Tories are not the One Nation Disraeli party any longer. They’re not even the party of Ted Heath.

To bring a common sense into the equation, outsourcing elements of services to private companies that can increase efficiency in a naturally bureaucratic environment (on the caveat it does not impinge treatment or jar with the primary focus of a healthcare service – namely to treat people) is fine. It’s common sense. However, Labour has proved that contracts with the private sector can very quickly become a fiasco and a huge waste of taxpayer money, as anyone familiar with the computer project failure will attest. But ultimately, let’s not lose sight that the goal for the Tories, ideologically, is to dismantle what they’d term inefficient public entities in favour of a private system. Their long game is to create an NHS provided by the private sector. A President Romney helps embolden this pursuit.

The Tories know that a gradual erosion of the NHS as a public body is the only way to bring the private sector in. Unlike the sell off of other public services such as gas, water and rail, there’s no way the British people will sanction a radical move like privatising the NHS. Nobody really knows what form such a privatisation would take. Would it remain free at the point of use? Or would we be at the mercy of an insurance-based model and pre-existing conditions? Either way, it’s undeniable the profit motive would grow larger and lead to private companies reaping profits from our medical treatment. This is unacceptable and you only need to look at the situation Obama has had to tackle. The NHS must remain sacred.

Social Issues

On social issues, a President Romney has voiced his support for banning abortion. For the party that espouses freedom as its clarion call, it’s pretty unfathomable that their idea of freedom doesn’t extend to a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body. Whilst I don’t think that the Republicans will ever achieve the ban nor would British politicians be stupid enough to push the case, it does set the tone for regressive social policies. It’s welcome that Cameron and Osborne have proved to be liberal on social issues. They are facing lots of opposition within their own party for this laudable stance. A President Romney, however, will be in the pocket of the far right Republicans, as he’s had to kowtow to their demands for election – these are people who now outright question the validity of climate change research, claim Barack Obama was born outside the US, that he is a Muslim and is intent on destroying the US from the inside. The centrist policies he has pursued do not dissuade them of this folly. What these far right-types achieve is dragging the centre ground further to the right, which a President Romney will personify.

This will clearly have an impact on UK politics and could lead to us allowing social issues like abortion to re-enter the national discussion. This puts progressive issues like same-sex marriage on the back burner. It was decided long ago that we embrace the separation of church and state.  We are supposedly secularist societies. We march around the world spreading democracy to countries we decry as too overtly religious. These far right-types are patently unaware of the irony in their hawkish foreign policy and what they seek to achieve at home. The far right in the US have their brethren here in the form of the BNP, and these people seek to redesign the basic social construct with their anti-immigration, anti-minorities stance. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Many may consider this post a smidgen apocalyptic. President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher shifted the ’80s political central ground way to the right of the post-war consensus, which was marked by a collective mindset. Clinton and Blair’s “Third Way” sought to incrementally shift from the selfish, greedy individualistic capitalism that gave birth to larger deficits, larger debts and larger income inequality. A President Romney and a Prime Minister Cameron, or Prime Minister Johnson, would shift us even further to the right. This will be regressive and detrimental to the vast majority of Americans and Brits.

The exacerbation of income inequality this past 30 years has led us to the yawning gaps last experienced prior to the Great Depression, which of course prefaced World War II. There’s no latent suggestion from me that we’re on the precipice of World War III. History, however, is to be studied to avoid making the same mistakes. We must institute into our society a fairness that acknowledges not all poor people are lazy or benefits cheats; or that the only measure of hard work is your bank balance; or that fostering a reduction in income inequality is the politics of envy; or that the rich got rich simply because of their initiative, resolve and hard work.

We’re an interconnected society. It’s time we started to act like it again.

Film in 2012

And the favourites so far:

The Raid
Just about my favourite of the year to this point. It’s a film that will give you the type of exhilarating ride normally found in other ports of life. The action scenes are a sight to behold, while the storytelling is handled perfectly within one claustrophobic setting. After seeing this, it’s pretty clear Gareth Evans will direct something very big, very soon. Don’t be surprised to see him helm the next set of Batman films.

The Cabin In The Woods
Geek has never been so chic. Filmed a couple or so years ago, this gem has been sitting awaiting its delivery to an unsuspecting audience. It ostensibly kicks into first gear as the type of late ’90s/early ’00s horror that lost its audience before swivelling genres until you don’t really know what you’re watching – you just know you like it. The much vaunted scene of complete destruction merits the vaunt fully.

Headhunters
The kind of film that an early Tarantino or Coens would’ve made. The screenplay is obviously brilliant, but the direction to handle the oscillating tone whilst locking you deep within was masterful. In many hands this would’ve been a wreck. Already looking forward to director Morten Tyldum’s next, on top of catching up with his back catalogue.

How I Spent My Summer Vacation
Unfortunately, this appears to have passed many by. Mel Gibson may well be divisive, but his talent and gravitas own any screen he fills. The guy is solid gold as both an actor and a movie star. He commands in a way very few do. This is a terrific film to cast your eyes upon the curious leniency afforded Mexican inmates.

Wild Bill
Juxtaposing the growth of east London via the Olympic Stadium with the seeming desolation of council estate London is just one of many clever elements here. Bill may well be deserving of his ‘wild’ tag, but he’s not deserving of the children he has let down and seeks to abandon upon his release from prison. With both parents absent, 15-year-old Dean displays the type of stoicism inherently attached to Brits in raising his younger brother, while growing up himself. This is tough subject matter that’s brilliantly acted, with incisive writing and direction. It’s very British, but also very universal in its outlook.

Ill Manors
Yes, it may be another British film about life in the ‘underclass’. However, it separates itself by telling an interesting story with characters that are well-written, compelling and interwoven intelligently. There’s more than a dash of flair in direction to accompany the gritty reality of life in deprived areas of London. This film never preaches or judges. It simply presents us with situations to decipher with our own moral code.

The Dark Knight Rises
The abiding memory of the first viewing was of disappointment. Becoming excessively excited about a film builds up a sense of expectancy that can very rarely align with reality. A second viewing will bring a realisation of what this film is, allowing an appreciation within those parameters. This is an epic in every sense. From the omnipotent brilliance of Zimmer’s score, to the scope of ambition in Nolan’s vision, to the scale of the challenges Batman must overcome, this is a work of brilliance that will inspire filmmakers for generations.

Silent House
Not really sure why this was so maligned. A taut, well-acted little bundle of fear. What’s not to like.

Chernobyl Diaries
Not one likely to win out with the cool kids of cinema, but it entertained within the limits it set itself. This was not supposed to be Citizen Kane.

Killer Joe
Weird, brilliant, twisted. This is a visceral film that’s to be experienced. Words are largely redundant in describing how good this is.

Finally, upcoming films that have me excited:

• Shadow Dancer
• St. George’s Day
• Killing Them Softly
• The Master
• Django Unchained
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower
• Taken 2
• Skyfall
• Argo
• Jack Reacher
• For Ellen
• Silver Linings Playbook

Instagram.

The Olympic Rings adorn Tower Bridge.

Comedy gold.

Yes, Andrew Sullivan, Yes.

Seldom is there an article that hits the nail more squarely on the head:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

Distortion of Obama’s first term is something I’ve written about myself. This article is a fairly comprehensive debunking of those falsities.

Give it a read.

Films watched over the festive period.

The last few days have seen a glut of good to excellent films pass before me. It’s rare to experience such a purple patch. Usually you’ll watch a couple of poor films but not this time. Of the films below, I urge you to watch them all if you haven’t already.

Martha Marcy May Marlene
The Olsen twins much less famous sister (Elizabeth) soars like a Chinese Lantern in this incredibly powerful film. It tells the story of a young girl who flees a cult and rejoins her family – albeit at the upstate holiday home. It’s only her sister left and the sister has spent the last few years wondering where Martha (Olsen) has been. We see recollections of Martha’s time in the cult as she struggles to slot back into family life and the real world. It goes without saying that it’s been a truly harrowing experience for her. Olsen deserves an Oscar nomination for this performance – she’s pitch perfect as the shell-shocked victim. The tension is cranked up by a very tight performance from Hugh Dancy as the sloaney husband of Martha’s sister trying to enjoy ‘his only two weeks off’. You’ve got to watch this. Easily one of the my favourites of the year with “Snowtown” and “We Need To Talk About Kevin” and the film below…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1441326/

Tyrannosaur
What can be said about this film. It’s immense. Incredible. Brilliant. There’s a degree of Frank Gallagher to Joseph, our incredibly reluctant anti-hero. Joseph (Peter Mullan) is an unfathomably angry man. His temper has reached a tipping point when Hannah (Olivia Colman), a Christian charity shop worker, comes into his life. Joseph doesn’t know to deal with a patient, caring person who doesn’t reciprocate his anger. Hannah has experience in dealing with anger, though, via her husband, James (Eddie Marsan). It’s definitely best to go into this film knowing as little as possible, so I won’t reveal anything else. The cast is incredible. Each of the three leads delivers a powerhouse performance. It’s likely you’ll recognise elements of these characters in people you know. They personify anger that’s prevalent in everyday life and enrich the film with a realism that may scare a few people.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1204340/

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Having not seen the original films or read the books, it was intriguing to go in blind to this. I’m a big fan of David Fincher and appreciate his heavily stylised films. They look beautiful and are anchored with strong performances. There’s no change here. At the core, the premise owes a debt to “The Wicker Man” and the confusion in unravelling the mystery definitely mirrors ‘Wicker’. Rooney Mara is exceptional as Lisbeth Salander. One of the things I really enjoyed with this film was how we are privy to Lisbeth’s world before she becomes involved with the film’s lead mystery: the disappearance of a young girl (Harriet Vander) who’s part of Sweden’s most successful family. By investigating Lisbeth’s backstory and running this parallel to the investigation into the disappearance of Harriet, there’s a nice connect between ‘finding’ the girls and discovering the mystery of them – it’s surely no coincidence that the photo of Harriet looks remarkably like Lisbeth. By the time Lisbeth becomes involved with the investigation into the disappearance, we see how she is dedicated to her work and how vulnerable she can be. There are a couple of scenes which are stomach churning and do an awful lot towards making us care about her. When she joins up with Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig), I found myself totally immersed in her character and looking out for her. Rooney Mara and David Fincher deserve enormous credit for crafting that. Christopher Plummer is also excellent as the old man desperately seeking closure on the disappearance of Harriet. This is an incredibly layered film that requires you to submit to it with patience in reserve.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568346/

Tabloid
This documentary possesses more ‘kooky’ characteristics than hours of watching Phoebe Buffay. It’s a recounting of the kidnapping of a Mormon missionary. The fact that the abductor is a former beauty queen (Joyce McKinney) and the victim (Kirk Anderson) is a portly bespectacled man only adds to the craziness. The official line is that Joyce abducted Anderson, had her wicked way with him (he had been a virgin), and then packed him off on a train back to the Mormon Church. Once back, he had her arrested and she became part-pantomime villian, part-heroine of the ‘I-wish-she’d-do-that-to-me’ variety. Now, naturally McKinney disputes this chain of events. She claims that Anderson willingly participated in the romp and was planning to marry here when he grabbed the train; she says he only recanted once back in the clutches of the Mormon Church who threatened to excommunicate him for his sordid behaviour. The tabloids (The Express and Daily Mirror) had a field day with her and once she was released on bail, she fled the country impersonating a mute. You couldn’t make it up. McKinney is a captivating interviewee. You cannot take your eyes off her. She claims the screen with incredible charisma. I’ll leave it to you decide if she’s telling the truth.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1704619/

The Devil’s Double
I’m sure there will be a number of forthcoming films about Iraq under Saddam. I’m not sure, however, they will be as fun as this film. There’s a tightrope between serious and silly at times, yet this film just about toes the line without ever getting silly. There seems to be no attempt to politicise the content: Saddam’s sadistic first son, Uday Saddam Hussein, employs a body double like the one Saddam himself employs. Uday’s intentions seem to be as much about ‘creating something’ for his ego as it is for his safety. There’s a sense of Uday as a lonely man who, unrestrained by normal social rules, seeks alternative pleasure. Latif (his body double) becomes like a human Barbie to Uday and in turn witnesses the brutality that led Saddam to pass him over as heir apparent for his younger brother. Dominic Cooper plays both characters and infuses each man with his own personality. He does an excellent job in showing two sides of what becomes one coin. On the one hand, he shows Uday revelling in the chaos he causes, whilst on the other hand showing a peaceful man caught up in an alien world trying to reclaim his identity. The source material itself is compelling and the book written by the real Latif must be a good read. The film does a great job in bringing Latif’s story to the screen.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270262/

Moneyball
Brad Pitt adds another impressive performance to his resume with this retelling of the Oakland A’s adoption of computer-based analysis of statistics for constructing your team. Forgoing the wisdom and experience of the team’s scouts, Billy Beane (Pitt), faces ridicule and pariah status for this strategic shift. As a sports film, it’s likely to turn a few people off, which would be a shame. To me it spoke more of the pursuit of your dreams in the face of financial constraints, the opposition of naysayers, and your own self-doubt. Who cannot relate to that? Who cannot remember being told you can’t do that or that it’s not the ‘way we do things’? Beane discarded the advice and has changed the game forever. Or so I’m told – I cannot think 0f anything worse than following baseball to actually find out. And that’s the triumph of the film – I liked it irrespective.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/

Kill List
It’s been a good year for British film. This film will infuriate many with its inconclusive ending. There’s a huge debt (in my mind and for a second film in this post) to “The Wicker Man”, but to explore that link would be to ruin it for those who haven’t seen it yet. There’s a lot of ‘kitchen sink drama’ and violence. Jay (Neil Maskell) has to take on a job to fix up his finances and together with his buddy, Gal, embarks on a ‘kill list’. From there we sink into a world that becomes increasingly confusing but intoxicating. This is a very British film and if you like that kind of thing (which I do), then you’ll enjoy large parts of this film. The ending will divide opinion but this film will never leave you bored. Neil Maskell does a sterling job as a deranged man with unfinished  business in ‘Kiev’. Maskell is best known to me for his excellent turn in “The Football Factory”. One of the scenes is so excellent, I’ve had to drop it in below. The quality is shabby but listen to those words. Excellent.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1788391/

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
Finally! Tom Cruise is back where he deserves to be. At the very top with a smash hit. The man is a great actor (“Collateral”, “Magnolia”, “Jerry Maguire”, “Born on the Fourth of July”) and apparently a lovely guy. He’s taken a barrel load of abuse these past few years for his devotion to the Church of Scientology. Who cares? You think he’s a weirdo for being a member, I think you’re a weirdo for being offended. As you can probably tell, I’m a fan of Cruise. It’s the reason I’ve written a feature length script called… “Cruiseaholics”. Great title but one I nabbed from a man who’d prefer to remain anonymous. This latest installment of the M:I series is up there with the third one in my affections. This is a very strong action movie. Some of the stunts will stun you whilst others will tread the line of ‘Oh, come on!’ but that’s the beauty of this film – it makes the impossible possible. It works. Whilst I prefer the grittier (rather than the more showy M:I) action of “Taken”, “Die Hard” or the Bourne trilogy (especially “Bourne Ultimatum”), M:I films will always entertain you.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229238/

Margin Call
Now this is a loaded film. Set in an investment bank, we see the fallout from the discovery of some toxic investments that will ultimately lead to the financial crisis of 2008. Writing this film must’ve been extremely difficult. It’s a setup laden with opportunities to disseminate arguments of the ill effect of  greed and malpractice in financial services, the lack of regulatory oversight and commentary of our complicity in the whole affair wrapped up in a thriller to the moviegoing public. Lofty ambitions but surely on the writer’s mind when he wrote this. As it is, the film succeeds to a degree in showing you the scramble to sell off these bad debts with scant regard for the human impact (and yes, the negative impact on bankers) and the repercussions and ripple effect on the whole sector. Jeremy Irons plays the top dog who – in unavoidably echoing Gordon Gecko – precipitates the crisis by seeking preservation of his firm over the economy. When you boil it down to a simple decision and omit the ramifications of his decision, on a human level it’s simply a decision to save your own bacon – an example of a man with the power to enact Social Darwinism. What the film is lacking is more nuanced characterisation and disappointingly, a raft of excellent performances. There are some good performances but no standouts and that’s what ultimately holds this film back. I would’ve also enjoyed a character like that of Blake in “Glengarry Glen Ross”. Would’ve added so much. See clip below for one of my all-time favourite cameos.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/

Sarah Palin:You Betcha!
What an incredibly divisive figure she is. Revered by far-right Republicans and loathed by the left. Broomfield’s documentary describes a polarising figure who has anywhere between 30-40 on-going feuds. That’s a lot of angst. The central point to Michael Moore’s “Roger and Me” was that he couldn’t get an interview with the CEO of General Motors. He tuned his whole polemic to that central problem in his documentary. The supposed irony is that Moore was able to interview ‘Roger’ but elected not to as it wouldn’t serve his ‘agenda’. I’m a big fan of Moore and whilst I acknowledge he’s disingenuous at times, his heart is certainly in he right place – he’s a man of the people, in my opinion. Broomfield attempts to channel Palin’s reluctance to be interviewed into a commentary of her paranoia and the lingering suspicion she has ‘something to hide’. That’s all well and good, but it lacks the conviction of Moore’s work. In my mind, (and the reason I keep referencing Moore) Broomfield was using the Moore template without the delicate touch. For large parts of the documentary, Broomfield feels a prisoner to his decision to go ahead with the documentary and appears to be scampering around for material to fill the 90 minutes. It could just be that Broomfield didn’t enter the film with an agenda and presented what he found, though. For me, the film is at its strongest when it focuses on Palin’s role on the McCain-Palin ticket in the 2008 election. That was an avenue I felt should’ve been explored more. She was a disaster with her bumbling interviews and divisive rhetoric. There’s a revealing interview with Steve Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager, that echoed these thoughts. He considered her a huge mistake that ultimately put the final nail in the coffin. All that said, the exploration of Palin’s roots and her strong religious conviction were interesting. Broomfield did gain access to Palin’s family and the interviews with her Dad revealed a very down to earth family a world away from the fast pace of Washington, DC.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1965264/

Network.

Here’s a festive gift:

Now go treat yourself to the full movie.

Finally. My first blog post.

As I sit twirling my newly formed moustache (fully aware that – with my hair also – it makes me look like a 1940s Colonel leading his battalion) around my fingers, the weight of saying something ‘interesting’ or ‘significant’ in my first blog post weighs heavily on me. If you’re looking for an example of either of those words, it may be best to check out now! In lieu of any defined subject, this post is likely to be a mishmash of what’s been going on in my head these past few weeks. There’s going to be very little attempt to synthesise the constituent elements of film, football and politics. Hopefully this erratic post is not a harbinger of things to come!

So what exactly is this blog going to be a repository of? Well, hopefully it’ll shed something a little more enlightening than my sometimes sporadic contact with many people who are worth an awful lot more of my time. Those already a recipient of my constant attention can choose to experience my regurgitated thoughts in written form. Oh, the delight.

Film

So what’s been happening? There’s more scribing with the continued development of my spec TV shows “Competitive Advantage” and “EMD”. “Competitive Advantage” being the story of two rival shopkeepers who must come together to face down the threat of big business, i.e. Tesco, opening a store right on their patch. Can community opposition meld these two warring foes together to fight to save their livelihood? “EMD” continues to gather pace as a story of the truly impressive people that man the first point of contact in our emergency services. We’re privy to idiosyncrasies inspired by some of the more colourful people I’ve had to pleasure to share time with. Chuck in a couple of feature scripts and there’s a ‘slate’ of projects keeping me going. If you want a read on any of these to share your thoughts, then drop me a message.

Next week I’ll be working on an animated short which will enhance that barometer (in the minds of some) of our potential, also known as the CV. There are a few more jobs on the horizon as I close in on shooting, and directing, my first short next year, “I’m Sorry, Harry”. It deals with guilt, regret and parental failure through the lens of a young blind boy, Harry, and his misguided father, John.

Football

Many of you had quite a chuckle at the recent Manchester derby. An uncharacteristically shoddy defensive display (not to mention a couple of fortunate goals) and you’ve got a media heralding the start of a new dawn. Fanciful thinking. Simple as that.

No doubt about it that last night was also disappointing. Anyone who knows their football knows this is the United way. Imperfect results in the treble season didn’t spawn the ‘look at me’ views of many desperate pundits and clueless fans. In the frenzied days of the ‘net, we’re seeing the pressure cranked up to levels that would’ve seen Keegan spontaneously combust. An old, wise head like Ferguson is the best antidote to the crazy world of football. That’s why we’ll see United continue to push for all major silverware irrespective of the financial outlay of City and the brilliance of Barcelona. Fergie’s mixing the team and adding a lot of youth, so it is something of a transitional period. I’m sure Chelsea and Arsenal would love for such transitions. Let’s not forget United’s opening fixtures – we’re well set for the second half of the season.

Politics

As many of you know, I spoke regularly in the run-up to the 2008 election of my support for Barack Obama. Right now a lot of his accomplishments are politically toxic with Democrats failing to champion significant achievements: his landmark healthcare reform (which eliminated ‘pre-existing conditions’ as a barrier to health insurance) blazed a trail in ensuring average Americans will not be deprived of healthcare as a consequence of hereditary cancers, for example; his ‘bailout’ of the auto industry (which is now demonstrably on the road to recovery – pun intended); his stimulus package that staved off a potential depression in the US that would’ve hit markets across the globe; his repealing of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (a pragmatic but outdated policy of Clinton) that affords all members of the US military recognition of their sexual preference; and, his curbs on greedy credit card companies hitting people with hefty charges – this change is currently being lumped in with other consumer protections and being touted as ‘job killing regulations’ by Republicans leaders. History will rank Obama’s first term favourably. Bold changes made in an incredibly challenging and difficult environment.

Obama inherited an economy with a huge deficit (a reversal of the huge surplus Clinton had left Bush) that was shedding jobs – not to forget two messy wars, or the shadow of Bin Laden being cast over the peaceful majority in the Middle East and beyond. It’s obscure that the maniacal conservative right (a virulent strain that bears no resemblance to the conservatism of Eisenhower) has poisoned his image to a degree and cast him as a “socialist”. It is these intellectually bankrupt right wingers – many of whom believe Obama to be a Muslim not born in the US – that are influencing views in America through huge media corporations and extremist radio outlets. A great shame that to a degree it tarnishes America for some, especially when you consider the inherently good nature of the country. There’s no real doubt in my mind that a majority will pull the lever for Obama next year. It’s important not just for America, but the rest of us as well. Why? Well, amongst the current field of Republican candidates, some of the absurd proposals include: a flat tax structure (a new name for enormous tax cuts for the rich); healthcare that allows uninsured people to die as a consequence of their pay packet; building electric fences in Texas to ‘keep Mexicans out’; refusing to allow Muslims in government; abolishing the Department of Education; stamping out Social Security; and, denying climate change. All of these are positions easily rejected by the mainstream, American or otherwise.

Here in the UK, we’re staring at revisions of borrowing pledges made by the Tories when they chose their current economic course of action; which has effectively stymied growth with ideological cuts. Tory stoking of populist urges, such as the demonising of our unemployed sit alongside the patently unfair reform attempted in the public sector. The same public sector delivering our healthcare, education, policing, and emergency services. This is a special category. It ‘greases the wheels’ of our society and makes it a better place. Government shouldn’t run roughshod over the pensions and working conditions of people who want to help us all.

Across the political spectrum, there’s a need for political courage to acknowledge and treat the true cause of our current deficit (and debt): a greedy capitalism based at the expense of the many. The Occupy movement is certainly shedding light on the disturbing growing income inequalities; unfortunately, many blithely dismiss Occupy’s fight as unnecessary activism. I wouldn’t call myself a supporter of the movement per se. This is mainly because I’ve been too busy to really look at the proposals they’re putting forth to create more parity. Whilst my instinct is to support their main point (income inequality), I caution against being a vocal supporter until I know what is making this grassroots movement tick. As ever, though, it will take the will and courage of politicians to change the course. Ed Miliband is taking many of the threads of the Occupy anger and coalescing it around an idea of a ‘better, fairer capitalism’. My feeling is that this is not a show of political expediency, but rather a drive for changing Britain for the better. In terms of concrete policies, it remains to be seen what Labour will propose in their future manifesto.

In terms of my own views on income inequality, it’s not an ideologically driven or business illiterate stance I take. It’s simply a product of looking across the country today and seeing far too many people struggling to make ends meet or invest in their future. Too many people who will perpetuate disenchantment via their children and create the mindset that you ‘shouldn’t get above your station’. Too many kids without the emphasis on education that will free them to unlock their potential. Too many kids looking at the bleak future that precludes them from a university education as a consequence of gargantuan fees. These issues cross party politics. It’s a succession of governments that have created this climate and an electorate turned off by broken promises and disappointing politicians.

To get back to my thoughts on the current economic situation, it’s rarely discussed that a huge exacerbation of the deficit occurred in 2008 with the near collapse of many banks – the huge outlay of public finances was an unavoidable solution to the challenge of 2008.  The deficit is too easily attributed to rash Labour economic management. Sure, the trajectory of the deficit under Brown was already inching upwards without the more prudent Blair to curb Brown’s vision of a fairer Britain for all, but it was within acceptable limits and allied with record investment in the NHS and education. Ultimately, Gordon Brown was chased out of office despite his (and Alistair Darling’s) credible plan on deficit reduction. Brown foresaw the damage that could be done by the huge cuts proposed by the Tories, and unfortunately this is coming to pass. These cuts are leading to jobs being lost, which leads to less income for the government purse. The true bill payer of this expense is the British people who face a fraying of public services and an incredibly tough job market. The more egalitarian Australians are still experiencing the benefits of a fairer, more equal society. It’s no coincidence. To be fair, the problems in Europe worsen an already bad situation, and this is surely not of the Tories making. They should be commended for their initial opposition to joining the Euro (even if in many quarters it was the product of xenophobia); their conservatism was shared by Gordon Brown who refused to budge on Tony Blair’s ‘if the conditions allow, we should join’ mantra.

Tone struck the right tone when he noted the antiquities of a political system played out in a classical definition of right and left. He suggested more fluidity and less rigidity when confronting issues. This applies to people (myself included) on both sides. This is something we all need to all strive for.