I just got in from my regular Tuesday night at the cinema. I had intended to see Brokeback mountain, but that would mean waiting around for two hours for the next showing, and getting home late, which I didn’t really fancy. The film nearest our arrival at the cinema was bee season – I hadn’t heard of this film, and thought it might be worth a try.

I was wrong. The film is a weird mix of spelling and theology: somehow, ancient religious scripture guides the daughter of this professor of religion to spell better. Somehow there’s a link between religion, power and spelling. It’s all done in this mystical way, where the girl can see imaginary birds spelling letters.

Its just a garbled mess – pointless melodrama mixed with religious undertones. It was made by fox, and I could see their grubby right-wing fingers all over it. Even the fine acting ability of Richard gere couldn’t save this film. No wonder I hadn’t heard of it.

Tonight I thouught I might post a link to the blog / online diary of my mate chris. He’s a great poet, musician, annd all round good egg. however, he has the poor sense to let me into his house every week.

link.

Perhaps this article from the bbc represents final proof that the united states government is a hoard of nutters. They seem uneasy with the ‘net being so open to different points of view – so much for valuing freedom of speech.

As for taking control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, could they be planning to block out the sun, a la mr burns?

today is mozart’s 250th birthday. It’s probably fair to say my taste in music is rather eclectic: I like everything from holst to hendrix, although I can’t stand helter skelter or house. I just put on some Woolfgang Amadeus, and it is simply breathtaking. sooo beautiful. how many contemporary musicians will be remembered 200odd years from now?

Anyway, go listen here

It looks like I should stop lambasting the americans for breeding creationists; it looks like about half of us brits remain unconvinced of evolution too. mind you, most of us watch big brother. I despair sometimes, I really do.

link

click here for a disability-oriented perspective on celebrity big brother, an article with which I could not agree more.

I don’t usually post jokes, but this links to the best blond joke ever link

I am currently of the opinion that eighty to ninety per cent of TV is crap. Well, most of it is. It was probably always crap, and we only remember it as being good in the past because the good stuff is more memorable: we remember Jacob Brovlovsky’s Ascent of Man, David Attenborough’s Life on Earth / Blue Planet / etc, and we remember Schalma’s History of Britain, but we forget all the shyte that was on before and after it. So TV was probably always crap.

But it seems to be getting crappier. No, scratch that, the crap is getting crappier, but the good stuff is getting better. How, for example, can one condemn channel four for showing big brother – a programme, the very mention of which had my film lecturer in spasms of rage and bile – when it has the sheer cajones to show Dawkin’s Root of all Evil?

This programme was an open, unmasked attack on religion. While I agree with Dawkins’ sentiments – wholeheartedly so – I think the way he expresses those sentiments is open to criticism. For example, ” Religion isn’t ‘the root of all evil’ as such, but a primitive attempt to understand what it is to be human and thus provide meaning and purpose to our action. Ironically, Dawkins fails to appreciate how religion has contributed to the humanism he is seeking to defend.”source

In other words, a more balanced approach would be to explain how religion came about, and how it was once needed. At times it seemed like he was preaching rather than teaching, and he did so with the attitude of Kent hovind. What he did note but fail to stress is that science should never be taken at face value, for it is always being refined. It can never offer us absolute answers, saying with 100 per cent authority that something is true. Thus it is open to refinement, change, which is what makes it glorious.

At least dawkins’ programme contributes to the public knowledge. To me, worthy TV should fall into one of three categories: it should be art, science or sport. All three of these can be studied and analysed. For example, Dawkins’ programme can cause debate; it is open to analysis and criticism; thus it makes an intellectual contribution. Just as one can analyse film, you can analyse TV drama or soap opera. Believe it or not, even soaps have a lot to say about culture – the way the dramatis personae interact is a reflection of our society, so for analysis of culture soaps are an excellent tool. The characters remain relatively constant over long periods, so one can look at thee situations these people are placed into to see how society changes. One can look at the shooting styles and mise-en-scene employed and ask why the director made such choices, just as one can ask why a painter chose to paint something in a specific way.

This can equally be said of documentaries: although they are non-fiction, they are still produced – there are reasons why they are shot in specific ways. Although they are mostly scientific, there is some degree of art involved – go look at ‘<arch of the Penguins’ and tell me it isn’t beautiful.

While both rely on some degree of Scoppophilia and voyeurism, this, I think, is the fundamental difference between documentary and reality TV. My preferring one over the other is intellectually problematic because they are both are about watching things: we watch the moppets in the big brother house, but we also watch the animals in the jungle. What’s the difference? Why is one reprehensible and the other beautiful?

I see no art in big brother, as I do in documentaries. Admittedly, big brother has a director who chooses which camera to feed to air, while documentaries have directors who chose how to shoot things. However, their palette is limited in that the cameras are fixed throughout the house and they have no control over the subject matter. Thus, Big Brother is not art, but is it science? No, because there are differences between Reality TV and documentary. The real difference is the difference between voyeurism and Scoppophilia – one has overtones of perversion, the other is simply the joy of seeing. In other words, one is manipulative while the other is not; one is unnatural while the other is not. We look at documentaries because they show us nature, albeit artistically chosen shots of nature – they quench our thirst to find out about the world, which is the urge that underpins most of science. Reality TV shows like big brother are fundamentally different – they do not focus on natural phenomenon because the programme makers themselves manipulate the subject matter. Hence they fit neither category.

What, then, is the point of reality TV? they are neither art nor science, but are simply voyeurism. They defy any intellectual analysis because they make no comment – they say nothing of culture or nature, they do not contribute to the human condition: these programmes are simply unthinking voyeurism, a complete waste of time, made only because they are cheap and people are foolish enough to watch it.

It’s been a good day. Thursdays always seem to be good. I was just talking to my mate Steve, and we stumbled upon an idea for a film. I was telling him about the types of film ii want to make, about my desire to make realistic portrayals of disability, and we decided on a rough idea. I showed him my old essay Disability musings, and part of summon the lambs (explaining, of course, that Stanhope’s point of view is particularly bleak and cynical, and I do not share it, but it was one way of looking at things which is sometimes handy). He was impressed, and we set a date for next Thursday to get to work on it. Excellent!

If ever one doubted that there is beauty in cinema today, I would strongly advise them to go and see March of the Penguins. I just returned from my local Odeon, and I’m full of excitement, for I have just been reminded what cinema is capable of.

There is something in natural-history films that really capture my attention. They offer us the most enthralling images, I think. They are scopophalic orgies. There are shots in march which are simply breathtaking, such as those of the southern aurora, or of melting icicles, or the endless ice flows, extending into the distance, with the penguins marching endlessly on. You know these shots cost billions to set up, and they are framed with the eye of a master painter. Each shot is worthy of a photography exhibition.

Morgan Freeman is an excellent choice of narrator. His deep voice adds gravitas and a sense of profundity. His rich, smooth voice helps lull you into a mystified stupor, as you wonder at the sheer beauty of it all. Thus, although there is very little plot in this film – it is, after all, a documentary – it s a pleasure to watch. My parents were talking about going to see it, but I could not wait. Yet if and when they do go, I would like to go with them, for this is a film I want to watch again, and again, and again. Its quite simply the most beautiful thing I’ve seen in ages (life in the undergrowth aside).

One last note: in the states, the Christian fundies have adopted this film because they say penguins exhibit family values. As noted elsewhere, this is simply not the case, as the penguins frequently have affairs, fight, and kidnap children. Moreover, the film refers to a time when Antarctica was forested, which clearly shows it is in accord with modern science, not biblical claptrap.

Anyway, this is a great film. I really suggest you go to see it in the cinema: it’s amazing on the big screen (mind you, the Odeon were sonly showing it in a small auditorium, which s a heresy. How they can profess to be fanatical about film I do not know) Even if you don’t usually watch documentaries like this, I suggest you go. If you feel any wonder and excitement about the world at all, you will not be disappointed.

Interestingly, blogs can be in languages other than english, which may very well surprise some americans (that is, if they’re not too busy itching for war in iran!) anyway, I just received a link to my aunt Dinah’s blog, which has the pictures of what we got up to over christmas. I think the most amusing is the picture of luke’s hair; theres also one of grandma looking miffed, and one of me in a bra! thanks uncle and aunt. tres bien!

Link

I have some very mixed feelings about Mr. Brown’s ideas about a day to celebrate Britishness. Indeed, the idea on one level may be paradoxical – Britain’s are characterised by the stiff upper ‘lip, and quiet respect for their country, rather than jingoistic flag waving, which I associate with Americans and vulgarity. Thus a public expression of Britishness would we innately unbritish.

Don’t get me wrong, I like being British – I loved beating the Australians last summer; I love old English beer; in the bbc I think we have the finest broadcasting company on earth, but this does not mean I want to put a flag up in the garden, or say ‘woo’ every time I hear the name of my country spoken. Such gestures of crass and puerile.

I know I am British, I do not need to remind myself or anyone else of it. Being British is being tolerant – about being tolerant of everyone upon this island, regardless of belief or skin tone or anyone else. It is this multiculturalism, not some vague idea of some mythic Britain, which should be celebrated. I may love British beer, but there is nothing more British, I’d maintain, than drinking a Belgian larger with a curry.

Yet, if tolerance is British, why can’t our schools be fully inclusive?

link

I was just catching up with the news on the bbc website and wondered onto ‘From our own Correspondent’. I sometimes listen to that programme as it reminds me of far flung places. I was, however, surprised to read that it is fifty years old, having began in 1955. they post some articles from the archive there.

What I found was quite incredible – an article written just after Stalin’s death. It allows us to glimpse the end of the cult of Stalin, when the man was worshipped as a god. we can see how the people of Russia loved him through fear.

I know a little about Russia, but it relates to the beginning of the communist era. During the October 1917 revolution, it was Lenin, not Stalin who lead – Stalin’s nickname among the Bolsheviks was ‘comrade paperclip’, because he just sat behind his desk. Only after he brutally came to the fore after Lenin’s death in ’24 did Stalin alter documents to show he was close to Lenin,

Fascinating, bloody era of history. How could this man, this insanely paranoid man, be worshipped as a god?

look here. My childhood role model, professor Stephen Hawking, is now a doll, and a yellow one at that. Is nothing sacred?

I sometimes think of the oddest things while lying awake in bed. This morning, at about four, I woke up, cold, and couldn’t get back to sleep. I looked at my alarm, and wondered why time wasn’t decimal. Why doesn’t the clock have 100 minutes instead of 60? And why not ten hours rather than twelve?

I started to do the maths. Assume we keep the second the same, a normal half day lasts 60*60*12 seconds instead of 100*100*10. that’s 43200 normally, instead of 100000 seconds with decitime. To fit decitime in with the normal day, we would have to make seconds shorter.

It then occurred to me that this would mean replacing every clock on earth, which would be very hard indeed. Alternatively, we could slow down the earth’s rotation, which may have implications vis–vis gravity. All in all, although it would make time easier to use in maths, decimalising it would cause more trouble than it’s worth.

It just seems quite a random number – 60. the Hittites came up with it. Oh well, perhaps when I become rich I can include decimalising time in my plan for world domination. [insert sinister laugh; enter the guy in a tuxedo]

Quite why I’m obsessed with David Attenborough I’m not sure. I think his programmes are comforting, as well as exceptionally beautiful. The interlocking web of the natural world never ceases to amaze me. I am thus very excited to read of this: although I can only find a few press releases, and details are sketchy, if life in the undergrowth is anything to go by, it will be marvellous.

However, programmes like this are surely TV’s attempts to apologise for big brother. How anyone watches that crap I do not know. For Christ’s sake – there are so many beautiful things on the world upon which one can focus a camera, and all most people want to watch is a few z-list celebrities in a room. Why do we watch this worthless pap – it is not artistic, nor does it contribute to the public knowledge. I mean, the first series was an experiment, so it was OK, but now, after five series, it’s simply trash: an attempt by some ‘celebrities’ to restart their washed-up careers. And this attracts million’s of viewers! This is a sqandering of the potential of television

Sod it. I’m off to read a book.

As a disabled person, I am slightly concerned about all the hubbub over ‘benefit fraud’. Listening to radio five earlier, I got the strong impression that people thought that most of us who claim DLA are slackers. Putting aside my own tendency to slob in front of the television of an afternoon, may I tale this opportunity to refute that allegation. We are, for the most part, very industrious: two CP-ers I know run their own companies, one writes for disability now, and one woman with mobility problems is a professional musician.

This is not to say that we do not need the DLA. It is of great help. However, it is very hard to live off the DLA, and I daresay none of us would choose to live off it. I get agitated when I hear of able-bodied people claiming falsely too – the money that costs is enough to fund something like 9000 nurses – and the people who do so should be brought to justice. In part, such behaviour gives rise to anti-disabled feeling: we are tarred with the same brush as the benefit cheats, and accused of not pulling our weights. In extreme cases, people have suggested we walk funny and drool on purpose. Thus, benefit fraud should be stopped, and a part of me favours jailing the culprits. It hurts all of us, both economically and socially.

further reading

I am alarmed how similar the two main political parties are appearing these days. I was just watching the lunchtime news, which ran a story about how labour plans to reform incapacity benefit. They plan to reduce it drastically, to try to get people into work.

Is my memory failing me, or was labour a left-wing party once? This sounds very conservative to me. Reminiscent, slightly, of Thatcherism, with that make-the-lazybuggers-work mentality. Now, I’m not saying I want to live off the dole – I intend to get a job one day – but what new labour fails to realise is that some of us crips will find this hard, especially given the standard of education we receive in special schools. With labour lurching to the right, the door is open for ccameron, and we all know what that means!

link

Things kind of suck around here. My brothers went back to their respective universities this afternoon, uncle aki et al went home on Wednesday, and we will take Chris to London tomorrow.. thus I have the downtrodden feeling that everything is over – no more parties, no more brothers, no more cards.

Well, at least I have my room to myself again. I love Luke, but I like my privacy. When out Christmas shopping, I instructed bill to get a pear of black tights for my grandmother; these, I later realised, turned out to be fishnets, and so not appropriate as a gift. I had to get my grandmother another gift, leaving me with the fishnets.

Because Luke was here, I haven’t had chance to try them on…until now.

They fit.