Though I enjoy movies and in the past have read about the making of them and used to be a regular viewer of movie critic programmes, I have never been overly drawn to interviews with movie stars themselves. I would preferably read something from the director about the film than the actors' comments, though in contrast to many movie buffs I see the actors' contributions as being of greater importance to the quality of the film compared to those who tend to put all the blame or praise at the foot of the director. I also think the Director of Photography of many films is another person who needs attention when a movie is good or bad. Anyway, today I am going to talk about comments by movie actors (and actresses, if that word is still permitted) when they downplay or even denigrate a movie they have appeared in.
This is not a common occurrence. Generally any doubts they have, if they have not come out with the director on set, they keep to themselves and smile and promote the movie. However, some strong actors will make comments about poor movies they have been in. Some are very honest and say that they do bad movies for the money. Notable in this category is Richard E. Grant who quite consciously took any movie part (such as in the awful 'Spice World' (1999)) he could get to raise the funds to direct his own movie 'Wah Wah' (2005) the first movie ever to be made in Swaziland, where he grew up. Some actors, notably Colin Farrell in regard to 'Alexander' (2004), just are tired of the whole thing and want to party rather than tramp around the world saying great things about the movie they are in. 'Alexander' is pretty insipid, with one decent battle scene and far too much mysticism. It had the courage to portray the Macedonians as all with Irish accents to fit in with Farell's ,with the interesting consequence of Val Kilmer having to play Phillip, Alexander the Great's father with an Irish accent.
We do tend to have a rather patronising view of how people in the past should be portrayed as speaking. Unless you go with Mel Gibson's approach in 'The Passion of the Christ' (2004) and get everyone speaking ancient Aramaic to be authentic, you have to accept they are going to sound like us. I felt Keira Knightley was unfairly criticised for an upper class English accent in 'King Arthur' (2004) as she was supposed to be playing a Queen and maybe a 5th Century CE queen would not have spoken the way the queen does today, but it would have been the equivalent; she certainly would not have spoken like an urchin.
Sorry, I am getting sidetracked. The two case studies I want to look at are of movies which I like and think are of decent quality so I feel disappointed that the stars in them do not share my positive opinion of them. The first is 'Plunkett and Macleane' (1999) and the co-star of that movie, Robert Carlyle. Carlyle's career has been strong if varied. He is noted for his role as Albie Kinsella in the series 'Cracker' (1994), the peak moment in an excellent series and thuggish Begbie in 'Trainspotting' (1996). He was a reasonable baddie in the Bond movie, 'The World is Not Enough' (1999) and family man-cum-stripper in 'The Full Monty' (1997). He played a similar character in 'The 51st State' (2001). He is rather typecast as the working class character with various attributes, usually looking to achieve more in his life and, to some degree, he even brought this to his portrayal of Hitler in 'Hitler: The Rise of Evil' (2003). His physical stature actually matched that of the dictator. I have not seen all of his movies and I imagine in 'Ravenous' (1999), in which he plays a cannibal colonel in the 19th century, he steps outside his usual roles.
I can imagine why Carlyle had problems with 'Plunkett and Macleane' as I read in a magazine interview at the time, though it seems a pity. It was directed by Jake Scott (son of Ridley Scott) and, as in his father's work, there is a visual idiom which is informed more by pop videos than by classic movies. There are anachronistic elements in the movie such as the use of modern pop songs at the banquet. This was an approach later adopted successfully in 'A Knight's Tale' (2001) and less successfully in 'Marie Antoinette' (2006). However, in other ways 'Plunkett and Macleane' is actually incredibly accurate in historical terms about the 18th century, something that many people overlook. For example, there is the filth, even of the rich people. This was a time when the toilet facilities at balls were pots behind a screen in the corner. It is good on the prison system; the fact that if you were in prison and wealthy you could live quite comfortably; that people were hanged at Tyburn (where Marble Arch is now in London) from tripods rather than the later mechanical 19th century gallows you see in almost all movies. It also accurately shows that the rich could live in squalor during the day and live a vicarious life of parties, gambling, drink and drugs in the way celebrities do today; that one call fall in status easily; that there were puritans alongside the debauched and that corruption was rife; that it was difficult to rise in status but America was a real land of opportunity for those who could get there.
All of these things form a rich background to a romp movie, admittedly, but there is nothing wrong with a movie that has excitement and narrow escapes. The banter between the reckless, middle class Jonny [sic] Lee Miller character, Captain Macleane and working class Plunkett adds an extra and credible dimension to the movie. Plunkett's anger, disappointment and frustration when he finds Macleane has gambled away what they had gained from being highwaymen, shows Carlyle's depth even when acting in a mainstream. populist movie.
I know Carlyle might not see 'Plunkett and Macleane' as his greatest hour, but in that I think he is wrong and it is certainly far better than 'The 51st State' which is a mess of a movie and lazy or '28 Weeks Later' (2007). It is particularly better than the twee TV series 'Hamish Macbeth' (1997). It is certainly at least as decent as 'The World is Not Enough' and, in fact, gave opportunity for a better range from Carlyle, as, in the Bond movie, his character is supposed to be devoid of feeling which Plunkett certainly is not. So Robert, do not disparage 'Plunkett and Macleane' be proud of it and keep working.
The second case study is 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' (1996). Janeane Garofalo's career has been more focused on working in comedy television series appearing in 'Ellen', 'Seinfeld' and 'The Larry Sanders Show' and, in the 2000s, more in serious series like 'The West Wing' and '24'. However, she has made a number of movies in which she is often a minor character such as 'Reality Bites' (1994), 'Cop Land' (1997), 'Romi and Michelle's High School Reunion' (1997) or 'Dogma' (1999). She was a great part of the ensemble in 'Mystery Men' (1999). This is a little gem of a comedy movie about dysfunctional superheros which could be seen as a precursor to the current TV series 'Heroes'. Garolfo played The Bowler who had a bowling ball with the skull of her father in which returned to her hand when she throws it.
Garofalo probably unsettles Hollywood with her liberal political views and her appearance: black hair and being about 5'1" (c. 1.53m) is not what people see as that of a Hollywood movie star. Consequently she has done voicing for movies, notably as The Bearded Clam in 'Freak Show' series and Colette in this year's 'Ratatouille' movie.
Anyway, this brings us to 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' in which she is the star (as in another, even lower key movie, 'The Matchmaker' (1997) another romantic comedy). It was another updated Hollywood remake of the Cyrano de Bergerac. The first had been 'Roxanne' (1987) with Steve Martin. That is a decent movie and retains the scene in which the lead runs through 20 jokes about his nose from the original play. However, 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' did gender reversal and the two people competing for the same lover are women chasing after a photographer played by British actor Ben Chaplin.
Given Garofalo's feminist credentials, the original project would have probably featured more about the role of women in relationships in contemporary USA. However, unfortunately, Uma Thurman was brought in as her rival and this meant the movie moved from the independent scene to the Hollywood scene. This is the basis on which Garolfo is annoyed by the movie. She disliked what she saw as her 'ugly duckling' role and regrets taking part in it as you can read on a number of websites about her career. One bad thing is that Uma Thurman is listed as the star of the movie, when Garolfo is the key focus right throughout it. She appears, or is at least being heard, in almost every scene. Would you expect to see Vincent Perez listed at the top of the actors in 'Cyrano de Bergerac' (1990) or Rick Rossovich for 'Roxanne' (1987) even though they played the part that is fulfilled by Uma Thurman in 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs'? Maybe, that in itself, is part of the message of the movie about the relative standing of women in contemporary USA.
I accept that Garofalo is upset by the loss of the more feminist aspects of the movie and it would have been fascinating to see the original version make it to screen. However, it does not make the movie a bad one and I feel that by having Garolfo as the heroine it still retains some messages that counter standard Hollywood approaches. In some ways, I accept I am biased, as, in terms of beauty, I feel Garofalo beats Thurman every time. Thurman may be blonde but she is gawky and unusual in appearance, this does not make her ugly but in herself she is quite removed from the typical Hollywood definition of 'beauty'. Thurmanis far sexier in 'Pulp Fiction' (1994) than her portrayal in 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' which is rather low key.
Garofalo's role is as a radio vet, Abby, who plays the violin and reads Jean Paul Sartre. Whilst Chaplin's character, Brian, is attracted physically to Thurman's Noelle actually he loves Abby's intelligence and culture and also her personality which is robust and yet caring. In fact, most men who are looking for long-term relationships are seeking a woman who challenges them and this is one thing that I like about 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs'. For a romantic comedy it actually has its feet on the ground and, setting aside the humour, the relationship that develops between Brian and Abby is credible and has an authentic feel about it. It shows that a woman can be true to her strengths, she does not have to suppress her personality or her interests to find a man to share those with. In addition, it is fine for a strong woman to admit she is not made of iron and can have doubts and worries, like anyone else, without that meaning her giving up her right to be a strong woman.
These strengths of the film stem from the fact it is based on an excellent story which itself had roots in actual people, and, in that Garofalo is an actress with integrity which comes through even when things have been distorted to move nearer to what Hollywood seeks. I would advise teenagers to watch this movie for a better view of relationships than many other featuring submissive women that they will have pushed at them. On that basis I would also underline '10 Things I Hate About You' (1999) based on the Shakespeare play 'The Taming of the Shrew'. Anyway, to conclude, Janeane, you are a beautiful woman, a good actress and comedian and, like many, you have been jostled by Hollywood but 'The Truth About Cats and Dogs' has not been shaved of all merit and be proud that it was in your career.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Brown Stumbles ... and Falls?
When Gordon Brown agreed with Tony Blair in 1994 that Blair would lead the Labour Party and quite likely become the next prime minister, but that Brown would be his annointed successor, Brown must have felt that he had probably got the best deal that was left open to him. Throughout the Blair regime 1997-2007, Brown as the UK's longest consecutively serving Chancellor of the Exchequer (i.e. Finance Minister) had a major role in the government and at times probably expected Blair to fall opening the way for him. Blair, sustained by his self-centredness and incredible arrogance managed to hold on for 10 years before he finally went and then Brown got his chance. Now, Brown must have anticipated that things would not be plain sailing because the public usually gets tired with politicians after a while, though this is less the case now than it was 30 years ago, with the Conservatives in power for 18 years (11 years of Margaret Thatcher; 7 years of John Major) then 10 more years of Blair, there have only been three prime ministers in 28 years since 1979 compared to seven prime ministers in the 28 years before 1979. So Brown, at worst, would think he had as much chance as Major had after following Thatcher.
This now does not seem to be the case. I think Brown is a better prime minister than Blair ever was, but partly this seems to be his undoing. He is coming undone already. Many of the reasons are cannot be directly blamed on him, such as the loss of identity and bank details of 25 million people claiming child benefit this week. That would have happened if Blair was still in office or there had been a November election and Brown had been replaced by David Cameron. However, this is the luck of the draw and the loss happened on Brown's watch. In terms of the economy, something Brown has been directly responsible for for the past 10 years, stability seems to continue, with all the usual seasonal fluctuations. The remaining economic tool of interest rates seems to have slowed inflation and cooled the ridiculously hot housing market in the way that they are supposed to. Of course Britons have become so hooked on always climbing house prices that these days any slowing of the rise, let alone a fall is seem as some problem in the economy, despite the fact that even average houses are being priced out of the reach of even richer than average people. Someone soon is going to have to face the UK's love of consumption and overheated economy and that is going to be doubly hard given the sustained pressure on oil prices. Given Brown's outlook with that sober, Scottish perspective of his, almost puritan in outlook, it is likely to have to be him rather than anyone else and Cameron will be glad he is not in power as such a readjustment is going to be painful and upset a lot of people's assumptions of what they are entitled to buy. (As an aside interestingly, two months ago all banks reduced people's credit card limits by 10% in an attempt to reduce borrowing. This month, not only did I have that 10% restored, but I had an additional 10% put on top of my original limit. This says something serious about banks' inability to really tackle borrowing when they work in a competitive market).
Brown is being challenged over defence spending. Partly this is a legacy of the Blair years as the UK is still involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as all the other locations where we send troops. Day-to-day costs for the armed forces remain high and mean that expenditure on strategic things is challenged. The trouble is, for a supposedly non-militaristic country, the British absolutely love their armed forces in a way which is probably only rivalled by the USA and France. Even in the USA there are more active protests against the armed forces than there ever are in the UK. So anyone who harps on about 'our brave boys [and of course, increasingly, 'girls' too]' is going to get a sympathetic hearing from the public as the three former defence chiefs now in the House of Lords have received today. Brown made a blunder by combining the Defence Secretary and Scottish Secretary posts in one man. With the advent of the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Secretary's role has shrunk considerably, but in terms of public relations, the British public wants a full-time Defence Secretary charging around in tanks. On organisational grounds it probably made sense [especially as Scots are over-represented in the armed forces], but it is a blunder Blair would not have made.
This brings me to my final main point, which is the fiasco over a November election. David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition [the UK is the only country which has the party which has come second in an election an official post, i.e. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which entitles them to a number of parliamentary roles], i.e. head of the Conservative Party. He managed very well to turn speculation about an election this month into a commitment that Brown seems to have backed down from. Blair would have very successfully 'spin doctored' his way out of this situation, but Brown has eschewed this media tampering so beloved by Blair and his cronies and in this case he has consequently allowed Cameron to successfully create a phatom issue. Brown could have gone to the polls, but his integrity and common sense stopped him, yet Cameron has portrayed this as vacillation and weakness. In addition, it started a downward slide that with the mishaps mentioned above has reduced Brown's popularity and has concealed his successful handling of terrorism and of the foot-and-mouth and blue tongue outbreaks. If you compare what happened under Blair when terrorists went on to commit another atrocity two weeks after the first and foot-and-mouth spread right across the country, Brown's government has been far more effective, but with minimum credit (partly because farming communities despise the government due to the changes in the rural economy with an oligarchy of supermarkets in control and the issue of the ban on fox hunting, though it only ever appealed to a few farmers has become a beacon for opposition to Labour; rural areas tend to be Conservative anyway).
Brown does not have to have an election until 2009 and whilst it has always been bad for the Labour party to have an election later rather than sooner, Brown may be able to regain some credit in the intervening months. If he can stop his civil servants blundering (or sabotaging) things then that will help. He needs to tread very carefully on defence issues as they are always a natural part of the Conservatives' policies. His own strength in terms of the economy will take time to come through. Sober, even dour, is not exciting and does not appeal these days. Cameron has quite well managed to dismiss his 'silly Billy' manner and comes over as more dynamic which is why Brown will have to work doubly hard to contest Cameron whenever the Brown government makes an error. With the Liberal Democrats' leadership problems still dragging on and with the two main parties so close together on policy, unless Brown can get his strong policies across (and despite my personal horror at it, the increase of detention without trial from 28 days to 58 days is likely to be one these) it is going to come down to a talent show or a beauty contest between Brown and Cameron, something Cameron would win just because he is newer to the scene, if no more attractive in reality. It does appear though, that despite his efforts Cameron is not attracting as much support as you might expect and maybe he is going to have to keep plugging away for months yet. However, with an unlimited potential for blunders and scandals on Labour's horizon, maybe that is all he has to do, just keep on keeping on.
This now does not seem to be the case. I think Brown is a better prime minister than Blair ever was, but partly this seems to be his undoing. He is coming undone already. Many of the reasons are cannot be directly blamed on him, such as the loss of identity and bank details of 25 million people claiming child benefit this week. That would have happened if Blair was still in office or there had been a November election and Brown had been replaced by David Cameron. However, this is the luck of the draw and the loss happened on Brown's watch. In terms of the economy, something Brown has been directly responsible for for the past 10 years, stability seems to continue, with all the usual seasonal fluctuations. The remaining economic tool of interest rates seems to have slowed inflation and cooled the ridiculously hot housing market in the way that they are supposed to. Of course Britons have become so hooked on always climbing house prices that these days any slowing of the rise, let alone a fall is seem as some problem in the economy, despite the fact that even average houses are being priced out of the reach of even richer than average people. Someone soon is going to have to face the UK's love of consumption and overheated economy and that is going to be doubly hard given the sustained pressure on oil prices. Given Brown's outlook with that sober, Scottish perspective of his, almost puritan in outlook, it is likely to have to be him rather than anyone else and Cameron will be glad he is not in power as such a readjustment is going to be painful and upset a lot of people's assumptions of what they are entitled to buy. (As an aside interestingly, two months ago all banks reduced people's credit card limits by 10% in an attempt to reduce borrowing. This month, not only did I have that 10% restored, but I had an additional 10% put on top of my original limit. This says something serious about banks' inability to really tackle borrowing when they work in a competitive market).
Brown is being challenged over defence spending. Partly this is a legacy of the Blair years as the UK is still involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as all the other locations where we send troops. Day-to-day costs for the armed forces remain high and mean that expenditure on strategic things is challenged. The trouble is, for a supposedly non-militaristic country, the British absolutely love their armed forces in a way which is probably only rivalled by the USA and France. Even in the USA there are more active protests against the armed forces than there ever are in the UK. So anyone who harps on about 'our brave boys [and of course, increasingly, 'girls' too]' is going to get a sympathetic hearing from the public as the three former defence chiefs now in the House of Lords have received today. Brown made a blunder by combining the Defence Secretary and Scottish Secretary posts in one man. With the advent of the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Secretary's role has shrunk considerably, but in terms of public relations, the British public wants a full-time Defence Secretary charging around in tanks. On organisational grounds it probably made sense [especially as Scots are over-represented in the armed forces], but it is a blunder Blair would not have made.
This brings me to my final main point, which is the fiasco over a November election. David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition [the UK is the only country which has the party which has come second in an election an official post, i.e. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which entitles them to a number of parliamentary roles], i.e. head of the Conservative Party. He managed very well to turn speculation about an election this month into a commitment that Brown seems to have backed down from. Blair would have very successfully 'spin doctored' his way out of this situation, but Brown has eschewed this media tampering so beloved by Blair and his cronies and in this case he has consequently allowed Cameron to successfully create a phatom issue. Brown could have gone to the polls, but his integrity and common sense stopped him, yet Cameron has portrayed this as vacillation and weakness. In addition, it started a downward slide that with the mishaps mentioned above has reduced Brown's popularity and has concealed his successful handling of terrorism and of the foot-and-mouth and blue tongue outbreaks. If you compare what happened under Blair when terrorists went on to commit another atrocity two weeks after the first and foot-and-mouth spread right across the country, Brown's government has been far more effective, but with minimum credit (partly because farming communities despise the government due to the changes in the rural economy with an oligarchy of supermarkets in control and the issue of the ban on fox hunting, though it only ever appealed to a few farmers has become a beacon for opposition to Labour; rural areas tend to be Conservative anyway).
Brown does not have to have an election until 2009 and whilst it has always been bad for the Labour party to have an election later rather than sooner, Brown may be able to regain some credit in the intervening months. If he can stop his civil servants blundering (or sabotaging) things then that will help. He needs to tread very carefully on defence issues as they are always a natural part of the Conservatives' policies. His own strength in terms of the economy will take time to come through. Sober, even dour, is not exciting and does not appeal these days. Cameron has quite well managed to dismiss his 'silly Billy' manner and comes over as more dynamic which is why Brown will have to work doubly hard to contest Cameron whenever the Brown government makes an error. With the Liberal Democrats' leadership problems still dragging on and with the two main parties so close together on policy, unless Brown can get his strong policies across (and despite my personal horror at it, the increase of detention without trial from 28 days to 58 days is likely to be one these) it is going to come down to a talent show or a beauty contest between Brown and Cameron, something Cameron would win just because he is newer to the scene, if no more attractive in reality. It does appear though, that despite his efforts Cameron is not attracting as much support as you might expect and maybe he is going to have to keep plugging away for months yet. However, with an unlimited potential for blunders and scandals on Labour's horizon, maybe that is all he has to do, just keep on keeping on.
Men: Obsolete in the UK by 2030
A serious of recent media reports in the UK have been indicating how obsolete men are becoming in this country. The fact that there are more female than male workers in the country has been a fact of life since the 1970s, partly because women are far more likely to fill part-time and temporary jobs and to have more than one job. The 1970s saw the growth of the feminist movement in the Western world, and in the UK it had some benefits for women, with anti-gender discrimination legislation coming in the mid-1970s and added to incrementally over the past three decades. The latter phase under Blair owed more to his very pro-family agenda but did mean some additional benefits for mothers in terms of tax breaks and maternity (and paternity) leave, despite other contrary policies which tried to get even more women to work. Despite over thirty years of such legislation women on average in the UK earn 16% less than a male counterpart in the same role. However, a third of women over 40 are now the main earner in their household (partly this is due to the increase in single parent families as a result of a divorce rate of over 150,000 per year in the UK) and in 25% of all households a woman makes all of the decisions about the main purchases - i.e. house, car, holidays, furniture, electrical goods, etc.
So, given the gains, but the fact that we have not yet attained gender equality, you might ask on what basis I argue men will become obsolete by the time I retire. The key reason stems from education. Girls have been doing better at age 11 since the end of the Second World War, but this has now extended further down the age range and they are streaking ahead of boys from the minute they start school, these days on average at the age of 4. Interestingly, in South Africa the starting age is 7; in Sweden it is 6 and a later start actually benefits boys. The move to 'reception' classes for 3-4 year olds becoming increasingly common actually disadvantages boys even further. Boys and girls learn in different ways. Boys always tend to be more physically restless especially below the age of 11. All primary schools in the UK have a large majority of female teachers and many of them have no male teaching staff at all. This stems from the status of primary school teachers and men considering the profession worrying they are going to be accused of paedophilia. The balance is currently shifting backwards, but certainly in the 1990s and 2000s there has been a real shortage of male school teachers; consequently things such as reading books are seen as exclusively female activities. In addition, female teachers, unsurprisingly, despite all their training, think like women, which means an emphasis on communication, consensus and group activity rather than the activity-driven, often quite individualistic focus of boys' preferred forms of working. I am not saying boys should be taught by men and girls by women, but certainly boys would benefit from a range of staff in their primary schools.
As boys find it difficult to engage at the start of their schooling, they now particularly suffer in the very target-driven approach to schooling with exams at age 7, 11, 14 and so on (the test at 7 has been dropped in Scotland and Wales but not England where 83% of the UK population lives). I would be interested if any other government has issued targets for children under the age of 5, as the UK government has done. Doing poorly in such tests disheartens boys and so distances them from any interest in learning. Both sexes are increasingly attracted by the other, easy ways to success in the UK - crime and celebrity, but these stand out a little less for a girl who is doing well at school than they do for boys, who are likely to have a tendency to petty crime anyway (the two most common youth crimes are vandalism and shoplifting and girls engage in shoplifting as much as boys), especially that which involves violence or the destruction of property. So, from the moment they start school, boys are liable to be lagging behind girls, a position they never recover. The disheartening nature of failing every couple of years and the lack of a clear position in society must be a contributing factor in the high level of suicides among men and boys in the UK.
The National Curriculum was introduced to UK schools in 1992. It was the first time in British history that the government outlined what schools had to teach (bar religious education which was the only subject to have been made compulsory previously, in 1944), what skills they expected pupils to gain and issues they had to cover. This means that any person who is 20 years old or younger will have gone through this system for all of their school life and any person 31 or younger will have at least experienced it during their secondary education. The consequences are already apparent in the gender imbalance in universities. Again, I am not arguing it was wrong for the position of women to improve, but it seems now that they are pushing far ahead and we will soon see a gender imbalance which mirrors (i.e. in reverse) that of the 1950s. There are currently over 330,000 more female students at university than male students. The balance is 56% female to 44% male and the female share is increasing. Some subject areas such as engineering and certain science subjects are holding on to a male majority. However, other traditionally male subject areas such as medicine (to become a doctor) and law now have 6 women students for every 4 men and again this level is increasing. You may say, well, that is only university students, but in contrast to the early 1980s when only 6% of the population went to university the level is now not far off the government target of 50% of the population under 25. Of course, also, people with degrees tend to fill the best jobs. Men are more debt-averse than women, so again the move towards students (or their families) paying up to £3000 (€4290; US$6210) fees has just increased the tendency of men not to go to university and to seek work, adding to the fact that because of their lagging in study right throughout school they lack the grades to compete against women.
So it is clear that in the next decade women will be the majority in terms of graduates entering the labour market. This is why I said it will take 25-30 years for the impact to be felt, because in that time those men appointed in the preceding circumstances will retire and in many cases will be replaced by women. For example, female lawyers are still a minority but the force of numbers will change this in the next decades as it already has in senior positions in the police service. The female dominance at all levels of education will be reinforced. Women have already made great gains in the number of female doctors and this trend will increase or even accelerate as the current batch of students and their successors begin to qualify (the shift to a female majority in universities occurred in 2000, so with 5-year medical courses you will expect to see women from that majority position appearing in hospitals and surgeries now).
One factor that will accentuate the simple numerical pressures is that the skills women have are those now demanded in the workplace. Think how often you see the requirement for good communication and presentation skills, balancing conflicting demands and team working, just the skills that women excel at from the moment they start school. Things like leadership and manual skill (and in the technological age even the ability to fight) that men were seen as good at are no longer wanted. In the global marketplace, languages are also at a premium and this is an area in which women have always been stronger than men.
Socially men have long been redundant. Single-parent families, which generally means the mother and child(ren) is predominant in many areas of British society, no matter whether it is a working class or middle class context. Often these are multi-generational female-only families with grandmother/mother/daughter sharing childminding. Boys in such circumstances seem out of place and have no positive male role model, though their understanding of the female psyche may be strong. In these common family patterns men come, they produce a child, then contribute some money (or not) and they go again. The number of divorces which happen while the children are at primary school is very high and of course this signals to girls that men are not needed and in fact cause upset and argument. Men are not even needed sexually. In common with other European countries, notably Germany, sex toys are now available in high street shops, even department stores are branching out into them. Whilst male 'escorts' lag in number behind the female variety they are on the increase and it is clear that women in the 2010s will not have to bother with the pain of having a man around the house, they can simply hire one when they feel they need one. Of course they can buy sperm if they want to create a child without even having to have sexual intercourse with a man.
Men will clearly not disappear. As on average in the UK 1056 boys are born for every 1000 girls, they will be in the majority numerically. Women are balancing against their longer life expectancy with their increased consumption of alcohol and drugs, so exacerbating this discrepancy. The issue is what will these men do with themselves? They will be semi-skilled manual workers but lacking the physical and mental abilities to even gain the kind of skills that are needed for high paid, responsible jobs. They will have minimal role as fathers and certainly none as bread winners as even those who marry are likely to earn less than their wives and will probably only be kept on until the woman tires of them. Multiple female families with a couple of mothers (not living in a lesbian relationship, simply in an economic one) and their children may be the common pattern of homeowners in 2030. Men will be the cleaners and the shop assistants (they are already losing their status as bus and train drivers and the number of women truckers is rising quickly too). Boys will have little to aspire to except roles like these or the military or a life of unemployment. The UK will never get to the stage where families will want to abort male foetuses, but there is an issue of what to do with all these men with little hope.
One model is the USA. In the 1980s one saw the rise of the male movement trying to capture a role for men in a changing society. It came in step with the closure of much manufacturing, engineering and related employment in the USA (the UK too) and little success in these regions in creating replacement work. Women were the ones needed for the light engineering, service sector and ICT industries which appeared. The men's movement has never really penetrated the UK, possibly because the gender-specific unemployment was lost among the mass unemployment (4 million+) of the 1980s making it less apparent than in the USA. The future for British males is already becoming visible from the USA - prison. The USA currently has more than 1 in every 100 of its population in prison and the large majority are men. The UK is now at the limit of its prison spaces (around 80,000 compared to over 2.5 million in the USA; population 65 million - UK to 256 million USA), but it is clear that with its prison expansion programme these places are going to be filled by men with no other option bar suicide. By 2030 prison will become the main career route for any UK man who cannot stomach taking his own life or taking a McJob.
So, given the gains, but the fact that we have not yet attained gender equality, you might ask on what basis I argue men will become obsolete by the time I retire. The key reason stems from education. Girls have been doing better at age 11 since the end of the Second World War, but this has now extended further down the age range and they are streaking ahead of boys from the minute they start school, these days on average at the age of 4. Interestingly, in South Africa the starting age is 7; in Sweden it is 6 and a later start actually benefits boys. The move to 'reception' classes for 3-4 year olds becoming increasingly common actually disadvantages boys even further. Boys and girls learn in different ways. Boys always tend to be more physically restless especially below the age of 11. All primary schools in the UK have a large majority of female teachers and many of them have no male teaching staff at all. This stems from the status of primary school teachers and men considering the profession worrying they are going to be accused of paedophilia. The balance is currently shifting backwards, but certainly in the 1990s and 2000s there has been a real shortage of male school teachers; consequently things such as reading books are seen as exclusively female activities. In addition, female teachers, unsurprisingly, despite all their training, think like women, which means an emphasis on communication, consensus and group activity rather than the activity-driven, often quite individualistic focus of boys' preferred forms of working. I am not saying boys should be taught by men and girls by women, but certainly boys would benefit from a range of staff in their primary schools.
As boys find it difficult to engage at the start of their schooling, they now particularly suffer in the very target-driven approach to schooling with exams at age 7, 11, 14 and so on (the test at 7 has been dropped in Scotland and Wales but not England where 83% of the UK population lives). I would be interested if any other government has issued targets for children under the age of 5, as the UK government has done. Doing poorly in such tests disheartens boys and so distances them from any interest in learning. Both sexes are increasingly attracted by the other, easy ways to success in the UK - crime and celebrity, but these stand out a little less for a girl who is doing well at school than they do for boys, who are likely to have a tendency to petty crime anyway (the two most common youth crimes are vandalism and shoplifting and girls engage in shoplifting as much as boys), especially that which involves violence or the destruction of property. So, from the moment they start school, boys are liable to be lagging behind girls, a position they never recover. The disheartening nature of failing every couple of years and the lack of a clear position in society must be a contributing factor in the high level of suicides among men and boys in the UK.
The National Curriculum was introduced to UK schools in 1992. It was the first time in British history that the government outlined what schools had to teach (bar religious education which was the only subject to have been made compulsory previously, in 1944), what skills they expected pupils to gain and issues they had to cover. This means that any person who is 20 years old or younger will have gone through this system for all of their school life and any person 31 or younger will have at least experienced it during their secondary education. The consequences are already apparent in the gender imbalance in universities. Again, I am not arguing it was wrong for the position of women to improve, but it seems now that they are pushing far ahead and we will soon see a gender imbalance which mirrors (i.e. in reverse) that of the 1950s. There are currently over 330,000 more female students at university than male students. The balance is 56% female to 44% male and the female share is increasing. Some subject areas such as engineering and certain science subjects are holding on to a male majority. However, other traditionally male subject areas such as medicine (to become a doctor) and law now have 6 women students for every 4 men and again this level is increasing. You may say, well, that is only university students, but in contrast to the early 1980s when only 6% of the population went to university the level is now not far off the government target of 50% of the population under 25. Of course, also, people with degrees tend to fill the best jobs. Men are more debt-averse than women, so again the move towards students (or their families) paying up to £3000 (€4290; US$6210) fees has just increased the tendency of men not to go to university and to seek work, adding to the fact that because of their lagging in study right throughout school they lack the grades to compete against women.
So it is clear that in the next decade women will be the majority in terms of graduates entering the labour market. This is why I said it will take 25-30 years for the impact to be felt, because in that time those men appointed in the preceding circumstances will retire and in many cases will be replaced by women. For example, female lawyers are still a minority but the force of numbers will change this in the next decades as it already has in senior positions in the police service. The female dominance at all levels of education will be reinforced. Women have already made great gains in the number of female doctors and this trend will increase or even accelerate as the current batch of students and their successors begin to qualify (the shift to a female majority in universities occurred in 2000, so with 5-year medical courses you will expect to see women from that majority position appearing in hospitals and surgeries now).
One factor that will accentuate the simple numerical pressures is that the skills women have are those now demanded in the workplace. Think how often you see the requirement for good communication and presentation skills, balancing conflicting demands and team working, just the skills that women excel at from the moment they start school. Things like leadership and manual skill (and in the technological age even the ability to fight) that men were seen as good at are no longer wanted. In the global marketplace, languages are also at a premium and this is an area in which women have always been stronger than men.
Socially men have long been redundant. Single-parent families, which generally means the mother and child(ren) is predominant in many areas of British society, no matter whether it is a working class or middle class context. Often these are multi-generational female-only families with grandmother/mother/daughter sharing childminding. Boys in such circumstances seem out of place and have no positive male role model, though their understanding of the female psyche may be strong. In these common family patterns men come, they produce a child, then contribute some money (or not) and they go again. The number of divorces which happen while the children are at primary school is very high and of course this signals to girls that men are not needed and in fact cause upset and argument. Men are not even needed sexually. In common with other European countries, notably Germany, sex toys are now available in high street shops, even department stores are branching out into them. Whilst male 'escorts' lag in number behind the female variety they are on the increase and it is clear that women in the 2010s will not have to bother with the pain of having a man around the house, they can simply hire one when they feel they need one. Of course they can buy sperm if they want to create a child without even having to have sexual intercourse with a man.
Men will clearly not disappear. As on average in the UK 1056 boys are born for every 1000 girls, they will be in the majority numerically. Women are balancing against their longer life expectancy with their increased consumption of alcohol and drugs, so exacerbating this discrepancy. The issue is what will these men do with themselves? They will be semi-skilled manual workers but lacking the physical and mental abilities to even gain the kind of skills that are needed for high paid, responsible jobs. They will have minimal role as fathers and certainly none as bread winners as even those who marry are likely to earn less than their wives and will probably only be kept on until the woman tires of them. Multiple female families with a couple of mothers (not living in a lesbian relationship, simply in an economic one) and their children may be the common pattern of homeowners in 2030. Men will be the cleaners and the shop assistants (they are already losing their status as bus and train drivers and the number of women truckers is rising quickly too). Boys will have little to aspire to except roles like these or the military or a life of unemployment. The UK will never get to the stage where families will want to abort male foetuses, but there is an issue of what to do with all these men with little hope.
One model is the USA. In the 1980s one saw the rise of the male movement trying to capture a role for men in a changing society. It came in step with the closure of much manufacturing, engineering and related employment in the USA (the UK too) and little success in these regions in creating replacement work. Women were the ones needed for the light engineering, service sector and ICT industries which appeared. The men's movement has never really penetrated the UK, possibly because the gender-specific unemployment was lost among the mass unemployment (4 million+) of the 1980s making it less apparent than in the USA. The future for British males is already becoming visible from the USA - prison. The USA currently has more than 1 in every 100 of its population in prison and the large majority are men. The UK is now at the limit of its prison spaces (around 80,000 compared to over 2.5 million in the USA; population 65 million - UK to 256 million USA), but it is clear that with its prison expansion programme these places are going to be filled by men with no other option bar suicide. By 2030 prison will become the main career route for any UK man who cannot stomach taking his own life or taking a McJob.
Saturday, 17 November 2007
The Movie 'Ratatouille' and the American View of France
Well, I have addressed some classic movies and some far less classic. In this posting I am going to have a quick look at a recent release 'Ratatouille' (2007). This is an animated movie aimed at children. It features a rat living in France who develops the tastes of a connoisseur and moves to Paris where he can enjoy the cuisine on offer. Haunted by the ghost of a successful television chef he goes to the chef's restaurant and aids the dead chef's illegitimate son to return the restaurant to its former glory but conjuring simple but popular, delicious dishes. There is of course lots of running around, problems with the rat's relatives turning up, some romance for the human lead in the kitchen and generally a fine all round package.
What my issue is, is not about the whimsy of a connoisseur rat but how France itself is portayed in the movie. In the same way that well into the 1960s even after the clean air acts in US films London was always portrayed as being foggy, so there is a fixed view of France that seems to be even more lingering. It is as if every American director (in this case Brad Bird who directed the excellent animated movie 'The Incredibles' (2004)) is compelled to watch the Gene Kelly movie 'An American in Paris' (1951) to get his/her view of France. One assumes that the France portrayed is France in the 2000s and yet every television featured in the film is black and white. Paris is shown as full of those 19th century apartments with gurgling pipes and crimes passionelle being conducted behind closed doors but so noisily the public can hear; huge dated restaurants of the old style. The clothing seems contemporary and the female chef Colette (voiced by Janeane Garofalo who I always have time for) who rides around on a powerful motorbike seem like nods to the contemporary world. However, for the rest the movie seems like France circa 1964. France does have old world charm in small villages but so does most other countries in Europe; but France is also the country of high tech, DVDs were common there well before the rest of Europe as were smart cards on public transport and the minitel a sophisticated telephone/public information system in every bedroom before anyone had the internet at home. For the Americans, France always seems to be stuck in the Autumn, presumably when they go and visit it. If you have ever played the computer game 'Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars' (1996) you find exactly the same environment in Paris with golden afternoons and brown leaves blowing in the boulevards.
I can accept that 'Ratatouille' is supposed to contain elements of nostalgia in it, but it is rather alarming if this is the USA's view of what contemporary France is like. It would be the equivalent of a French or British film showing Americans clustering around to watch the McCarthy trials or go out to the corner drugstore for a soda and pretend that is the USA today. Either set your movies in the past and make this clear or have them in a correct present otherwise a lot of American children are going to be rather shocked when they travel on their trips to Europe to find countries actually more advanced than their own (and with four seasons), not stuck in some setting their grandparents knew forty to fifty years ago.
What my issue is, is not about the whimsy of a connoisseur rat but how France itself is portayed in the movie. In the same way that well into the 1960s even after the clean air acts in US films London was always portrayed as being foggy, so there is a fixed view of France that seems to be even more lingering. It is as if every American director (in this case Brad Bird who directed the excellent animated movie 'The Incredibles' (2004)) is compelled to watch the Gene Kelly movie 'An American in Paris' (1951) to get his/her view of France. One assumes that the France portrayed is France in the 2000s and yet every television featured in the film is black and white. Paris is shown as full of those 19th century apartments with gurgling pipes and crimes passionelle being conducted behind closed doors but so noisily the public can hear; huge dated restaurants of the old style. The clothing seems contemporary and the female chef Colette (voiced by Janeane Garofalo who I always have time for) who rides around on a powerful motorbike seem like nods to the contemporary world. However, for the rest the movie seems like France circa 1964. France does have old world charm in small villages but so does most other countries in Europe; but France is also the country of high tech, DVDs were common there well before the rest of Europe as were smart cards on public transport and the minitel a sophisticated telephone/public information system in every bedroom before anyone had the internet at home. For the Americans, France always seems to be stuck in the Autumn, presumably when they go and visit it. If you have ever played the computer game 'Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars' (1996) you find exactly the same environment in Paris with golden afternoons and brown leaves blowing in the boulevards.
I can accept that 'Ratatouille' is supposed to contain elements of nostalgia in it, but it is rather alarming if this is the USA's view of what contemporary France is like. It would be the equivalent of a French or British film showing Americans clustering around to watch the McCarthy trials or go out to the corner drugstore for a soda and pretend that is the USA today. Either set your movies in the past and make this clear or have them in a correct present otherwise a lot of American children are going to be rather shocked when they travel on their trips to Europe to find countries actually more advanced than their own (and with four seasons), not stuck in some setting their grandparents knew forty to fifty years ago.
What If? Art 6: Books that Existed but have been Lost
This posting is slightly different. All of the books shown did actually exist at one time, it is just that for various reasons they have now been lost to us. In the past ten years a whole slew of lost books has turned up in various places, suich as 'Paris in the Twentieth Century' by Jules Verne (1863) a very accurate prediction of Paris in the 1960s which reappeared in 1997; 'Basil Howe: A Story of Young Love' by G.K. Chesterton (1894) was published in 2001; 'The Rum Diary' by Hunter S. Thompson (1950s) which resurfaced in 1998; 'Summer Crossing' by Truman Capote (1943) republished in 2004, 'The Last Cavalier' Alexandre Dumas's final novel which had been lost then refound and published again in 2005, plus Robert A. Heinlein's 'For Us, the Living' (1939) which was suppressed as it was seen as 'too racy' at the time. This year, 89-year old Dutch author, Hella Haasse found a manuscript of her own lost book 'Sterrenjacht' (Hunt for the Stars) (1950). The next one to be published imminently is 'The Children of Húrin' by J.R.R. Tolkien which is apparently set 650 years before the events featured in 'The Hobbit'. There is a great list of lost books at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_work Many of them date from Classical times and it is just an issue of things being lost in history or destroyed for example in the burning of the Library at Alexandria. Even material that we know about produced by William Shakespeare is now no longer available, but we know it existed because others refer to it (the same has happened with paintings, some artists include other artists' paintings in the background of their pictures and these are often the only clues, along with things like bills of sale, that we have about these paintings which are now lost). In more modern times, books have tended to be lost because of war or repression or more often because the author themselves or their executors have destroyed incomplete or early work or work that embarrassed them. Capote thought he had done this with his early 'Summer Crossing' but one manuscript escaped destruction.
Thus, the novels and the plays featured here are books which existed at one time, but you certainly can no longer pick them up at your local bookstore. Whenever a lost novel is found there is a great rush to get it published as sales, if only based on curiosity alone, are typically strong. This is a range of some of the interesting lost books. I have worked on the covers over a few weeks and have noticed I have become rather dependent on Victorian paintings for the covers, sort of Pre-Raphelite style in most cases so I hope you forgive my lack of imagination in this respect. I will do them in chronological order.
Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) has featured quite a bit on this blog so probably needs no introduction. Somewhere in the world probably exists an actual copy of this book with a different cover as there are three of Dick's earliest novels: 'A Time for George Stavros' (1956), 'Nicholas and the Higs' (1958) and this one which have subsequently become lost. Dick features religious elements in some of his novels. In 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' (1968) via a device he and his wife grasp, the hero tunes into a constant television programme of religious leader struggling up a hill who can throw rocks at the viewer. So though I have no idea about the content of the 1956 novel 'Pilgrim on the Hill' one might speculate its plot included some elements of this.
Thus, the novels and the plays featured here are books which existed at one time, but you certainly can no longer pick them up at your local bookstore. Whenever a lost novel is found there is a great rush to get it published as sales, if only based on curiosity alone, are typically strong. This is a range of some of the interesting lost books. I have worked on the covers over a few weeks and have noticed I have become rather dependent on Victorian paintings for the covers, sort of Pre-Raphelite style in most cases so I hope you forgive my lack of imagination in this respect. I will do them in chronological order.
'Achilles' by Aeschylus
'Studiosus' by Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Elder (23-79) was a Roman historian, natural historian and author. We have more of his natural history works than we do his other material. His 'History of the Times' and 'History of the German Wars' may have given us a different picture of Roman civilisation especially penetration into Germany as many now believe that there were Roman settlements farther into Germany than was previously thought. In addition Pliny lived through the end of the Roman Republic into the Imperial period, including the conquest of Britain. The book featured here, 'Studiosus' was his lost study of the art of rhetoric, an important skill in Roman civilisation.
'Love's Labour's Won' by William Shakespeare (1598)
'Les Journées de Florbelle' by the Marquis De Sade (1807)
The Marquis De Sade (1740-1814) was a playwright and author in the years leading up to and including the French Revolution and almost to the end of the reign of Napoleon. He is renowned for his erotic fiction and his name was given to the sexual perversion of 'sadism' in which a person gains sexual gratification from inflicting pain, though the term has now broadened to refer to straight forward brutality. De Sade spent much of his life in prison or insane asylums. He his most famous for 'Justine', 'Juliette' and '120 Days of Sodom'. The Marquis's son had all of his unpublished manuscripts burnt after his father's death including the many volumes of 'Les Journées de Florbelle' featured here. Another eight of De Sade's works have been lost.
'The Poor Man and the Lady' by Thomas Hardy (1867)
'Pilgrim on the Hill' by Philip K. Dick (1956)
Philip K. Dick (1928-1982) has featured quite a bit on this blog so probably needs no introduction. Somewhere in the world probably exists an actual copy of this book with a different cover as there are three of Dick's earliest novels: 'A Time for George Stavros' (1956), 'Nicholas and the Higs' (1958) and this one which have subsequently become lost. Dick features religious elements in some of his novels. In 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' (1968) via a device he and his wife grasp, the hero tunes into a constant television programme of religious leader struggling up a hill who can throw rocks at the viewer. So though I have no idea about the content of the 1956 novel 'Pilgrim on the Hill' one might speculate its plot included some elements of this.
'You and Me and the Continuum' by J.G. Ballard (1957)
This is another lost early novel of a science fiction writer, though J.G. Ballard (born 1930) never actually finished it, it was seen almost completed in 1956. Ballard has given rise to the term 'Ballardian' because of his various dystopian visions such as 'The Drowned World' (1962), 'The Burning World' (1964) and even Shepperton (in Surrey, England where he lives) becoming an overgrown jungle in 'The Unlimited Dream Company' (1979). Attention to him in the mainstream media has been around his novel 'Crash' (1973) and the movie that was made of it in 1996 about people who get sexually aroused by car accidents and his semi-autobiographical novel about his life in China during the Second World War in 'Empire of the Sun' (1984) and its movie of the same name in 1987. Maybe 'You and Me and the Continuum' would have been a more mainstream science fiction novel, maybe it would have been an early engagement with his later dystopian themes of worlds out of control. Ballard is still alive so maybe someone will ask him if he remembers and if they do (or already have done) can someone point me towards his answer.
'Double Exposure' by Sylvia Plath (1964)
Maybe our computer age is ending the 'lost' novel, now that we are no longer dependent on handtyped manuscripts that can be lost by authors (even when this appeared as a conceit in the movie 'Love Actually' (2003) it appeared very dated) or destroyed by their executors. Different versions of novels can be deleted by a touch of a button. However, so many of us create backup files (often our computer will do it without asking, this blog keeps saving as I type so even if I died while writing this my partially saved 'lost' blog posting would remain for discovery) that there may be many copies that would not be deleted. In addition, I have already encountered this, that there are stories I have saved on disk that I cannot now access because the file type has changed and I cannot open them to delete them maybe one day a data archaeologist could get in and access my early work (this happened to the University of Hull's computerisation of the Domesday book carried out in 1986, they thought they were all high-tech at the time, but a decade later no-one could access their files; funnily enough, the original Domesday Book is as easy for a user to read as the day it was written).
So, anyway, this speculation brings me to why my cut-off date for a lost book maybe the 1960s, twenty years before home computers. The manuscript of 'Double Exposure' or 'Double Take' (people are uncertain about the exact title, I picked the former, partly because of the mental illness Sylvia Plath (1932-1963) suffered and a sense of a divided personality and by including the Marilyn Monroe image in the picture it suggests double taking a celebrity) was seen in poet Sylvia Plath's possession around the time of her suicide and it is believed the manuscript was destroyed in 1970. I imagine it being taken up and published posthumously. Monroe had died in 1962.
So all of these books see counter-factuals if just simply in someone holding on to what had been written. At the minimum their survival would have expanded the body of work we discuss about these writers and their books may have fed into our contemporary culture triggering a range of cultural outputs. Of course, given that lost work seems to keep turning up in recent years, it is quite possible we will see some of these on the book shelves in the coming future.
Property in the UK 6a: My Final Chapter?
Well, the challenges of trying to sell a flat (apartment) and buy a house seem to be continuing right down to the wire. This week, over 3 months since I accepted the offer on my flat it was finally sold. If you are ever going to get involved in property in East London you have to realise that things happen differently to anywhere else in the UK that I have experienced (it may be the same in other rough parts of major UK cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow, etc., but someone will have to let me know, I do not intend to try to buy a house in those places). The key problem is that having made an offer the buyers (and I had two, I switched from the first when he could not get sufficient funds together) push for what used to be termed 'squeeze', i.e. little extra bonuses. The first buyer, despite getting the flat at a very good price (more on that in a minute) insisted that I put in a whole new bathroom before he would buy it. The second buyer, well in fact the man representing the woman who was buying it, right at the last moment insisted that the furniture which was being sold with the flat (and had been listed with it from the start) be removed before he would exchange contracts, and he demanded £545 (€779; US$1100) from me to do it. I got it done for £100. He then claimed there were cockroaches in the flat. Cockroaches are not common in the UK especially in places which have not been deserted for a long time (and the flat had only been empty four weeks). He was permitted to go in and out of the flat by the estate agents. I went to the flat and whilst it was musty there was no sign of cockroaches. I refused his demand for the money and told him to sign or back off. On the day before the contracts were about to be exchanged removal men employed by the estate agents were in the flat taking out the unwanted furniture and miraculously the front door lock got broken. The estate agent's man supposed to organise fixing it went off sick and so it was up to me to get the lock entirely replaced at my expense before the solicitors would exchange contracts, at the cost of another £150, which really I had no choice but to pay or face the sale dragging on for more weeks. I am so glad to be rid of the flat, it turned out to be a burden on me rather than the money spinner people predicted when I moved out and put it up for rent. My message is: do not buy property in Newham.
Now I turn to the estate agents. I think it is time to name names. If you are in East London looking to sell a property do not use David Daniels Professional Property Services. My 2-bedroomed flat was finally sold for £26,000 (€37,180; US$52,520) less than any other 2-bedroomed flat they had for sale and that is despite mine going on the market 2 months before the slow down in house prices we have seen in the past 3 months. I accept that I might not have got something in the high £150,000s but I certainly would have expected a price closer to that. They entirely exploited me because I was calling them from outside London; clearly local influence has a big impact. This was despite the fact that I had earned them hundreds of pounds over the years as the letting agent for my flat on my behalf. Throughout it seems that they were working in the interests of someone else; though I was paying them a decent fee they seemed to not be benefiting me.
They initially encouraged me to take an offer of £115,000 for the flat despite that being £15,000 less than 1-bedroomed flats in the same street. When I refused this they said I was pricing myself out of the market. As it turns out everyone I met in the district, taxi drivers, the locksmith, shopkeepers said I had under-priced it. I was at a disadvantage dealing with them from scores of miles away but there is only so much pressure you can bring on a company. I clearly should have switched estate agent much sooner. Clearly it is not always possible to avoid selling a property at a distance especially when you have to move for work, but I would certainly recommend avoiding it or at least enlist a number of estate agents rather than rely on one even if you have worked with them before or they have been recommended. I might be naive when it comes to property and I might be insufficiently cunning or aggressive to cope with the modern property market, but when I pay people a couple of thousand pounds I expect better service than I received. It is the typical powerlessness, we can do nothing in the face of 'skilled' workers, they set the agenda not us even when they are spotty wide boys just out of their adolescence throwing their weight around.
Now I turn to the estate agents. I think it is time to name names. If you are in East London looking to sell a property do not use David Daniels Professional Property Services. My 2-bedroomed flat was finally sold for £26,000 (€37,180; US$52,520) less than any other 2-bedroomed flat they had for sale and that is despite mine going on the market 2 months before the slow down in house prices we have seen in the past 3 months. I accept that I might not have got something in the high £150,000s but I certainly would have expected a price closer to that. They entirely exploited me because I was calling them from outside London; clearly local influence has a big impact. This was despite the fact that I had earned them hundreds of pounds over the years as the letting agent for my flat on my behalf. Throughout it seems that they were working in the interests of someone else; though I was paying them a decent fee they seemed to not be benefiting me.
They initially encouraged me to take an offer of £115,000 for the flat despite that being £15,000 less than 1-bedroomed flats in the same street. When I refused this they said I was pricing myself out of the market. As it turns out everyone I met in the district, taxi drivers, the locksmith, shopkeepers said I had under-priced it. I was at a disadvantage dealing with them from scores of miles away but there is only so much pressure you can bring on a company. I clearly should have switched estate agent much sooner. Clearly it is not always possible to avoid selling a property at a distance especially when you have to move for work, but I would certainly recommend avoiding it or at least enlist a number of estate agents rather than rely on one even if you have worked with them before or they have been recommended. I might be naive when it comes to property and I might be insufficiently cunning or aggressive to cope with the modern property market, but when I pay people a couple of thousand pounds I expect better service than I received. It is the typical powerlessness, we can do nothing in the face of 'skilled' workers, they set the agenda not us even when they are spotty wide boys just out of their adolescence throwing their weight around.
Monday, 12 November 2007
Denying a Counter-factual: Issues around Second World War invasions of the USA
While seeking out source material for my current lost book cover project I came across the following image of a cover of 'The Man in the High Castle' by Philip K. Dick (1961). To contextualise this, 'Fail Safe' was a novel written novel by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler published in 1962 and was about an accidental nuclear attack by the USA on the USSR it became a movie in 1964 directed by Sydney Lumet with Peter Fonda and Walther Matthau in it. Similarly 'Seven Days in May' by written by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey in 1962 sees a coup staged by generals in the USA who fake a nuclear crisis so that the President can be sealed in a bunker and they can take control. This novel also became a movie in 1964 directed by John Frankenheimer starring Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas and Ava Gardner.
I would argue, however, that Dick's denial of the possibility that a US defeat in the Second World War (which is unsurprising, if he had written anything different in 1961 he would never had had it published) fits an ongoing denial in the USA that they ever faced the danger of this or that they are not somehow the blessed nation. My political concerns about the USA creep in here, I fully acknowledge that, but I also think it is unhealthy for any country to think it is exempt from the dangers and possibilities of (violent) change that occur. This has often been a problem for the UK as well. The US inability to accept that it can be threatened and even be defeated is what has made it so difficult to cope with the Vietnam War, the 11th September attacks and the disintegration of the position in Iraq.
I found parallels with this in a computer game released by Talonsoft in the late 1990s. Their games in the so-called 'Campaign' series were produced from 1996 onwards. They seem pretty simple nowadays, being platoon-level turn based games with a landscape set out in hexagons like the board wargames that were popular in the 1980s. However, there were little animations and sound effects of the soldiers, tanks, etc. moving around. In addition there was immense historical detail of the battles they featured. They started with 'Eastern Front' which as it suggests featured battles of the Soviet campaign not only against the Germans but also the Finns, 1940-45. This was followed by 'West Front' which included North Africa as well as France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany and other locations of the Western Front of the Second World War. The final one was 'Rising Sun' which had a series of battles in the Pacific region. The games were produced as a boxed set with the three core games, plus all the upgrades as 'The World At War' in 2001. The company went on to do battles of the Arab-Israeli conflict too and it had already covered battles from the American Civil War.
Though the games seem simplistic now, the attention to detail and the ability to refight classic battles meant they were long a draw for wargamers. Naturally I enjoyed reversing history and was able to defeat the German attempt to take Crete in 1941 and stop the Panzers at the River Marne in 1940. As yet I have never been able to hold the bridge at Arnhem in 1944 for the Allies, but I kept a far larger bridgehead. In addition, upgrades of the games contained specifically counter-factual scenarios, such a series of battles around the German invasion of Britain in 1941. These allowed you to play either the German attackers or the British defenders not only in the South of England but even up to attacks on Manchester in the North-West.
I was interested to try out the Japanese invasion of the USA in 1942. Playing as Japanese characters especially in campaign mode which allows you to fight a sequence of connected battles was always difficult. Despite Talonsoft's efforts in terms of historical accuracy, whenever you played as a Japanese commander, even if you were not actually defeated, but failed to achieve all of the objectives you had been set, your character committed seppuku, even if only at the rank of major. Anyone who has looked at the Japanese campaign in China and the Pacific knows this did not happen. The Japanese were not always successful and their commanders only committed suicide when things seemed hopeless and they were holed up in some redoubt, not when they simply faced set-backs particularly on the advance. If the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy had adopted the ethics of Talonsoft, by 1942 there would have been no senior officers left.
What was more disconcerting is when you turn to the counter-factual invasions of the USA. In the 'West Front' game, you can play as the Germans and defeat the British so conquering the UK; equally you can play as the British fighting off the attacks. However, in the 'Rising Sun' game, you cannot play as the Japanese in attacking the USA, you can only play as the US defenders. In addition, in contrast to all of the other battles you can fight (which often turn quickly counter-factual even if starting off on a historical basis, otherwise what is the point of playing the computer wargame, you might as well simply watch a documentary), there is a statement saying how this never would have happened, that the Japanese never would have been able to invade the USA and so on. Is the USA that insecure about its place in the world that it cannot even let people play at invading it? Why is it alright for Talonsoft to let the UK fall to Nazism (and for Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad all to be overrun by German troops) but for the West coast of the USA for this not even to have been a possibility?
It is clear, as we have seen from looking at counter-factual books about the Second World War and even about the American Civil War there is still a lot of political currency in the USA around 'what if?' and that many Americans are unwilling to even countenance speculation over 'wrong' history whether in print or in a computer game. In my view this counts as a form of censorship as without speculation how can we truly test our society and the options it has faced and faces still. Without such testing it is all too easy to fall into seeing thing as simply 'inevitable' and 'right'.
In many ways, Dick's book is different, as you can see from the cover it envisages the USA lost the Second World War and was divided by Nazi Germany and Japan. This is the only map I have seen of the set-up though I think it is a bit wrong as in the novel the Germans stay East of the River Mississippi and so not holding Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana as shown here. If I remember correctly the Japanese have not gone much farther East than Nevada and Idaho; a series of collaborationist American states are mentioned as running the region of the Rockies.
Dick was a prolific author having 44 novels published in his lifetime (1928-82) and numerous short stories; other things were published after his death. I think he is the science fiction author who has had more of his stories turned into movies than any other; 'Blade Runner' (1982), 'Total Recall' (1990), 'Screamers' (1995), 'Minority Report' (2002), 'Imposter' (2002), 'Paycheck' (2003), 'A Scanner Darkly' (2006), 'Next' (2007) and 'Confessions d'un Barjo' are all adapted from his stories. Ironically I had always assumed 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' (2004) was based on a Dick novel; it certainly has many elements he enjoyed playing with.
Dick's novels, whilst predominantly science fiction, are often influenced by drug issues and mysticism. This applies to 'The Man in the High Castle' which is probably the novel which saw the best crossover into mainstream popular fiction before the 1980s. Towards the end of the book, through the use of the I-Ching method of predicting the future, many of the characters find they are in the 'wrong' world and that our world where Germany and Japan were defeated is the 'real' one. This undermines much of the basis of counter-factual fiction, but plays to Dick's interest in our perceptions and how these can be distorted, a theme which you will see even in the movie adaptations, such as Rick Deckard in 'Blade Runner' uncertain whether he is an android or now, the protagonists in 'Total Recall', 'Minority Report' and 'Paycheck' are all uncertain too what is the 'truth' and what has simply been fed to them. 'A Scanner Darkly' is about seeing the world through a drug haze.
I would argue, however, that Dick's denial of the possibility that a US defeat in the Second World War (which is unsurprising, if he had written anything different in 1961 he would never had had it published) fits an ongoing denial in the USA that they ever faced the danger of this or that they are not somehow the blessed nation. My political concerns about the USA creep in here, I fully acknowledge that, but I also think it is unhealthy for any country to think it is exempt from the dangers and possibilities of (violent) change that occur. This has often been a problem for the UK as well. The US inability to accept that it can be threatened and even be defeated is what has made it so difficult to cope with the Vietnam War, the 11th September attacks and the disintegration of the position in Iraq.
I found parallels with this in a computer game released by Talonsoft in the late 1990s. Their games in the so-called 'Campaign' series were produced from 1996 onwards. They seem pretty simple nowadays, being platoon-level turn based games with a landscape set out in hexagons like the board wargames that were popular in the 1980s. However, there were little animations and sound effects of the soldiers, tanks, etc. moving around. In addition there was immense historical detail of the battles they featured. They started with 'Eastern Front' which as it suggests featured battles of the Soviet campaign not only against the Germans but also the Finns, 1940-45. This was followed by 'West Front' which included North Africa as well as France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany and other locations of the Western Front of the Second World War. The final one was 'Rising Sun' which had a series of battles in the Pacific region. The games were produced as a boxed set with the three core games, plus all the upgrades as 'The World At War' in 2001. The company went on to do battles of the Arab-Israeli conflict too and it had already covered battles from the American Civil War.
Though the games seem simplistic now, the attention to detail and the ability to refight classic battles meant they were long a draw for wargamers. Naturally I enjoyed reversing history and was able to defeat the German attempt to take Crete in 1941 and stop the Panzers at the River Marne in 1940. As yet I have never been able to hold the bridge at Arnhem in 1944 for the Allies, but I kept a far larger bridgehead. In addition, upgrades of the games contained specifically counter-factual scenarios, such a series of battles around the German invasion of Britain in 1941. These allowed you to play either the German attackers or the British defenders not only in the South of England but even up to attacks on Manchester in the North-West.
I was interested to try out the Japanese invasion of the USA in 1942. Playing as Japanese characters especially in campaign mode which allows you to fight a sequence of connected battles was always difficult. Despite Talonsoft's efforts in terms of historical accuracy, whenever you played as a Japanese commander, even if you were not actually defeated, but failed to achieve all of the objectives you had been set, your character committed seppuku, even if only at the rank of major. Anyone who has looked at the Japanese campaign in China and the Pacific knows this did not happen. The Japanese were not always successful and their commanders only committed suicide when things seemed hopeless and they were holed up in some redoubt, not when they simply faced set-backs particularly on the advance. If the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy had adopted the ethics of Talonsoft, by 1942 there would have been no senior officers left.
What was more disconcerting is when you turn to the counter-factual invasions of the USA. In the 'West Front' game, you can play as the Germans and defeat the British so conquering the UK; equally you can play as the British fighting off the attacks. However, in the 'Rising Sun' game, you cannot play as the Japanese in attacking the USA, you can only play as the US defenders. In addition, in contrast to all of the other battles you can fight (which often turn quickly counter-factual even if starting off on a historical basis, otherwise what is the point of playing the computer wargame, you might as well simply watch a documentary), there is a statement saying how this never would have happened, that the Japanese never would have been able to invade the USA and so on. Is the USA that insecure about its place in the world that it cannot even let people play at invading it? Why is it alright for Talonsoft to let the UK fall to Nazism (and for Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad all to be overrun by German troops) but for the West coast of the USA for this not even to have been a possibility?
It is clear, as we have seen from looking at counter-factual books about the Second World War and even about the American Civil War there is still a lot of political currency in the USA around 'what if?' and that many Americans are unwilling to even countenance speculation over 'wrong' history whether in print or in a computer game. In my view this counts as a form of censorship as without speculation how can we truly test our society and the options it has faced and faces still. Without such testing it is all too easy to fall into seeing thing as simply 'inevitable' and 'right'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
