Lots of stuff about her family relationships, and some exploration into her motivation that doesn't really explain anything. Some hard-to-watch boxing footage that really does show the pain and the exhaustion.
Watched on BBC iPlayer.
Ramblings on politics, technology, culture and poultry.
Lots of stuff about her family relationships, and some exploration into her motivation that doesn't really explain anything. Some hard-to-watch boxing footage that really does show the pain and the exhaustion.
Watched on BBC iPlayer.
Some sex, some drugs (including a heroin scene that doesn't lead to addiction and disaster, just one more thing that they try out), lots of deceit and conflict.
This was the second film we watched on our BFI subscription (via Chromecast and the BFI app), and it was as good as the first.
Watched on Channel 4 online, which kept buffering and dropping.
There's religion, and anti-clericalism, and some miracles.
I quite enjoyed it, others who watched with me were not at all sure. Beautifully filmed though.
Watched via BBC iPlayer,
Watched at Jane's shop via laptop and what appeared to be a legitimate streaming vehicle, can't say which one.
They form a friendship and explore the creepy derelict mine, where they have some experiences that are probably consensual hallucinations - the boy also repeatedly sees his absent father at a distance. It's clever and atmospheric, and says a lot about children with absent or departed parents.
And yet, you can sort of see the contours of the film hidden beneath the layers of dross and muddle, which makes the achievement of that all the more remarkable.
He's learned in a way that upper class Brits who have had a "classical" education can be, and he can draw on lots of background about the history of the Empire and of religion to make it interesting. As we went through I occasionally noted places where he'd left things out that didn't favour his narrative of beleaguered Eastern Christians keeping alive a flame of holiness.
The book is from 1998, and what's changed and what hasn't in terms of the contemporary politics that he describes is interesting. The Kurdish PKK has laid down its arms and ended its guerrilla war against Turkey, and the Islamists that are only just beginning to appear on the horizon in 1998 are now firmly in power. The lovely orderly oasis of religious toleration that he finds in Syria is its exact opposite, and probably wasn't nearly as nice as he seemed to think it was even back then. Lebanon is an even bigger shit heap than it was then. I was reminded by the book about the trail of massacre and counter-massacre...I suspect that almost all of my friends know about the Deir Yassin massacre, but I bet not one of them has heard about the Damour massacre, when Fatah and Palestinian Ba'athist fighters slaughtered hundreds of Lebanese Christians in retaliation for an earlier massacre, and for which the subsequent slaughter of Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila massacre was claimed as a retaliation by some of the victims' relatives.
The Israeli pogroms against Palestinians in the West Bank, and persecutions in Israel proper, have notched up a gear - he doesn't mention or go to Gaza, which is funny because there's quite a lot Byzantine Christian stuff there, including a very old and famous monastery.
And his analysis of the Mubarak regime and its "crackdown" on the Muslim Brotherhood is so misguided as to be comical. I guess "experts", and people who visit and talk to others on the ground, are not really better informed than anyone else. Did the Western intelligence agencies see the fall of Mubarak coming? I don't think so.
The drama comes from the sudden appearance of a man claiming to be the Queen's supposedly dead son Oluf, which undermines her plans to marry her adopted son and co-ruler Erik to an English princess and thereby solidify the dynasty and the union. The real history says that the impostor's claims were not at all believable, and the plot was amateurish. In the film it's left uncertain as to whether "Oluf" is genuine is not - I incline to think that the film is saying that he was, and that the Queen believed him.
Watched on BBC iPlayer.
But I enjoyed it lots anyway...Zadie Smith (who I don't think I've actually read before) is a very good writer and lots of it is beautifully observed, particularly the bits about NGOs and aid projects in Africa - the celeb wants to save the world one village at a time, and is really obnoxious about it.
I have a vague memory that some of the German Social Democrats, in particular Hilferding, thought along similar lines - that Monopoly Capitalism would make socialism thinkable and possible.
Bits of are repulsive, though I think Bellamy has tried to think kindly about the way in which a future society will include women (somewhat better than Morris did), and about how "from each according to their ability" really does mean that those who can't contribute much deserve just as much as everyone else.
As a piece of fiction it's not great, but better than Morris's book, which has a lot of people floating about dressed as happy medieval peasants and doing cute crafty things. Bellamy's frame tale, in which he explains how his protagonist arrives in the future, also seems better crafted than Morris's, which is barely explained at all.
The book was a response to Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, which set out a much more modernist mechanised automated future, and I'm looking forward myself to reading that and seeing if it's closer to fully automated luxury communism...I guess I will have to read that too!
I've liked everything Andrew Miller has written so far - I think it's all been historical novels so far, so this was a bit different, but still very good.
The plot is about a lonely gay man living in a near-empty newly-built tower block in London, who is visiting his dead parents in his childhood home in a small town to the South of London. It's beautiful done, without much explanation of the mechanism but with plenty of mystery, and it's not entirely clear how it works for the dead parents either.
Watched on Channel 4 catch-up.
And it's sort of odd that it's so much about the way that the "rules based international order" is rigged, even as that order seems to be coming to an end and being replaced by something even worse.
There's not much reflection on what democracy means, or why it's a good thing...there's some stuff about the rule of law, also taken to be self evidently a good thing, without much reflection.
The plot is a thinly veiled version of Stakeknife, come back to haunt the new Labour Prime Minister, who had some hand in it back in the day.
A small mystery is why the right wing press like Herron so much, when his stories are so critical and subversive of their cherished institutions.
Watched on Channel 4 online.
It's very stage-y - we won't actually see the utopia, just the faces of the characters talking about it from a weird castle overlooking the wonderful city. They go into it, and then return to the castle to talk about it. The upper class characters mainly hate it, and the working class ones mainly love it. From their descriptions it seems a very limited sort of utopia - clean houses and streets, gardens, and everyone happy in their jobs.
The frame tale is a man and a woman, both in uniform, talking about what England is going to be like after the war, and a stranger (played by J B Priestley, who wrote the play and the film screenplay) comes to describe the story to them.
I couldn't help noticing the accents - which along with the clothes, were the class markers for the characters. The posh accents felt authentic; after all, there's plenty of actual footage of posh people talking from that period, and they more or less all sound like Queen Elizabeth. The working class accents felt wrong - a lot of substitution of "eh" sounds for "ah" sounds - did working class people actually speak like that in the 1940s, or is that just how posh-speaking actors thought they spoke?
Watched on YouTube via Chromecast.
Watched on BBC iPlayer.
It's just about possible that the film is an alternative account of the known facts (rather than a parallel account) because we are shown Elizabeth increasingly changing places with one of her ladies-in-waiting...so maybe she does commit suicide, and it's the lady-in-waiting who dies in the assassination many years later. Of course the Emperor Franz Josef would have had to been in on this, because although they don't spend that much time together they do occasionally have perfunctory sex, and he would surely have noticed.
Despite the slowness I enjoyed it, particularly the depictions of stultifying court life. Elizabeth doesn't seem to have much fun. I note in passing that although the rooms in the Imperial palaces are very grand, the corridors between them are shabby and cluttered with old furniture. Maybe that's how they were.
It took me a while to get into it, and I was a bit confused by shifting narrators, but I ended up enjoying it very much.
Watched in the cinema on the Brittany Ferry ship to Santander!
But then there's a stalker, and the vague threats coalesce into something much darker, and the sleaze migrates from the book-within-a-book to the main narrative, and it went from being something that I read at night to go to sleep to something that I had to avoid reading last thing at night. Trigger warning - there's some rape, but also some hint of rape fantasies too.
There's a small additional pleasure in the technology, which is pre-mobile and pre-web, even though it's by no means a "historical" novel.
Small declaration of interest. I haven't actually met Sarah Dunant, but she is the partner of a member of the Stroud Red Band, so that's sort of connected.
Watched at Jane's house, streamed via Amazon Prime.
Just brilliant, watch it.
Watched on BBC iPlayer.
A lot of the action happens in Turkey, as they try to reach and then cross the border into Syria. There's tension but no real terror for most of the film - it almost feels like a caper movie. Most of the Turkish people are kind and helpful to them.
Watched as part of the Stroud Film Festival, with a discussion afterwards featuring women from the Bristol Somali Kitchen (one of the girls in the film is Somali).
From the descriptions I'd expected it to be funny, but it mainly wasn't - not bad, just not at all feelgood. The end is supposed to be a sort of redemption, but it didn't feel like it to me.
Watched via USB stick and informal distribution.
I've read other books by Richard Powers, and they were also good, but this shows how broad his range is.
So much to think about - I was really sad when I'd finished it.
Anyway, it's a surprisingly nice film.
Watched on someone else's laptop via HDMI cable to someone else's big TV - so I don't know how it came to be obtained.
I was reminded of this when I read Rebecca Solnit’s book. It’s about hopefulness, so it’s inevitably a compilation of success stories. Trouble is, it’s from 2016, so we know how a lot of the stories turned out. Solnit’s a “horizontalist” anarchist, and she wants to believe that spontaneous non-hierarchical organisation works well. Truth is, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t. It seems to me that it can sometimes work for short term mutual aid settings, and for organising protests, but that it doesn’t for long term projects about political or social transition.
For the most part the Arab Spring was a ghastly failure. There was a transition in Tunisia, though I haven’t followed up on how it’s turned out now. But in other countries the decentralised non-hierarchical organisation that is so celebrated didn’t lead to anything good. In Bahrain the pro-democracy protesters were gunned down. In Egypt the non-hierarchical opposition led first to the triumph of the entirely hierarchical and disciplined Muslim Brotherhood, and then to the overthrow of the elected Muslim Brotherhood government by the same militarist forces who had been in control in the first place.
And the protests and boycotts that the book celebrates? Sometimes they were successful, at least in their own limited terms, but the world is not transformed. Capitalism is more powerful than it was in 2016, economic inequality is worse, the atmosphere is more full of Carbon Dioxide…
There’s no analysis of what worked and what didn’t – even though such analysis is possible...Vincent Bevin’s book “If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution” did this in an honest way, though it’s still short on prescriptions. If we keep learning the wrong lessons from our experiences, and in particular if we fetishise some kinds or organisation (the leaderless, non-hierarchical thing) despite experience, then we will never move forward.
I understand that it’s important to raise our spirits, and to keep believing that things might go our way. But transparent dishonesty about success stories has the opposite effect, at least for me. If we are not prepared to learn anything from both our successes and our failures, then we are engaged in pointless gestures, not actual political transformation.
The student strikers interviewed are all young women - there are some men/boys involved in the strike, but the film doesn't centre them. They're all passionate, articulate and thoughtful, and it's a joy to watch. Lots of surprises about corruption in the Brazilian school system, and the brutal response of the police.
Watched at the Trinity Rooms as part of Stroud Film Festival.
Misan Harriman is clearly a mensch - even though he's documenting the protests for Palestine he makes it clear he's not on the side of Hamas, or hostage taking, and he has lots of pictures of Jews protesting for Palestine.
The younger of the police women is only in the force because she has "inherited" her policeman husband's job on his death, which seems like a very weird arrangement, but turns out to be a real thing.
It's a very hard watch, with lots of graphic depictions of police brutality, corruption and caste-based hatred.
Reminded me again why I really don't want to go to India and experience the beauty and the culture.
Watched at Lansdown as part of Stroud Film Festival.
The film was very moving, the more so because of the panel discussion with the director Jessi Gutch, who moved to Folkestone from London and spoke about how she'd set out to make one film (about confrontation with the far right) and found herself making another. The panel was chaired by one friend and included two others - I love Stroud.
It rather reminded me of another film from a couple of years ago - Seaside Special, about Cromer and how it processed Brexit.
Watched in Lansdown as part of Sroud Film Festival.
Watched at Lansdown Hall as part of the Stroud Film Festival.
Oddly this covers the same territory as "Everything is Illuminated" which is a much better film (but which I don't seem to have reviewed).
Even more oddly there's a scene in this film where the two Americans go up on to the roof of their hotel to smoke dope, and we see them going up the hotel staircase. When I was in Warsaw, on a work trip, there was a fire alarm and I had to go down the hotel stairs, from the 12th floor. The stairs in my hotel looked a lot like the stairs in theirs.
Watched on a USB stick, via informal download.
Small personal note; my Dad's 43 Group hero Gerry Flamberg fought at Arnhem, was taken prisoner, and was decorated for his bravery.
Watched on BBC iPlayer.
This film is in some ways a mirror image of those, and even though I don't identify at all as a Zionist any more, it's still a hard, gruelling watch. It's not intended as a neutral, balanced history but as a tribute to the struggle of the Palestinians against British rule and Zionist expropriation. It manages to slip in some early references to why the Jews were coming to Palestine, and it does capture some of the conflict within Palestinian Arab society about how to respond to Zionism, but it's mainly about the bravery of the resistance. There are some very romantic looking freedom fighters with horses, keffiyehs and big moustaches. We see some sabotage on the railways but not much footage of the struggle in the cities, or of the general strike - that's covered mainly be visuals of newspaper headlines.
The British are rightly depicted as brutal and cruel. After the film I went home and read the Wikipedia article about the revolt, and realised that I hadn't appreciated the scale of the casualties. Wingate is depicted as a cruel bully. It would probably come as a surprise to lots of British Jews, for whom he is still something of a hero - football clubs are named after him, for example.
There are a few weird historical anomalies and errors. One of the Palestinian elite - the newspaper owner/editor - is found to have been receiving payments from the Zionists; his wife finds cheques from the "Zionist Commission for Palestine" in his desk drawer. But the Commission was a short lived body, soon replace by the Palestine Zionist Executive, and then in 1929 by the Jewish Agency for Palestine. This isn't very important, except that it's part of a wider tendency in the film not to show any Jews at all. We do see a few people in European dress in some early street scenes, and they might be Jews, though there are plenty of Arabs in European dress too. We see some refugees arriving by boat in a very short segment, and we see a long distance shot or two some pale people working in the fields of a kibbutz.
But there's not much sign of the Zionist settlement, though it's talked about often enough by the characters. There's a scene in which Palestine Radio is launched, and the Jew at the joint British-Arab-Jewish ceremony is a long-bearded, hatted orthodox man. There's a shot of Jerusalem railway station devoid of Hebrew, even though the real station most definitely had trilingual signage - you can see it in old photos, and Hebrew was one of the three languages of the British Mandate authority. Like I said, almost the mirror image of my teenage Zionist movies. It does seem as if the film wants to minimise the existence of Jews in the country, even as part of the colonial apparatus.
The final scene, after most of the credits, shows a silhouette of a Palestinian bagpiper playing what seems to be a Scottish lament. I've asked a Palestinian friend what's the thing with Palestinians and Scottish bagpipes.
A detailed, grown up sort of book with a lot of knowledge about history, scripture and theology. Not for the casual reader, I'd say, but no less enjoyable for that. Some discussion about whether the Abrahamic religions really have a place for "holy places" at all in their theologies, and perhaps not enough consideration as to whether the idea of a sacred location is really a hangover from previous non-monotheistic religions.
There are weak signals that something bad in happening in the outside world - crackly radio reports of preparations for a major war, sudden unavailability of petrol. Then Moroccan soldiers arrive to evict the ravers, and the Spanish man and his son impulsively fall in with a small group who decide to drive deeper into the desert rather than wait in line to be repatriated.
Saying anything more than this would be a spoiler, but the film is tense, visually striking, and with a remarkable soundtrack. I think it had more of an impact on us because we've been in on the fringes of the world that it depicts - dancing with drug-addled people in the techno pit at We Out Here, attending the Nowhere festival in Spain in a tiny scrap of desert, and beginning to understand the power and attraction of that kind of music.
We watched this via a USB stick in our TV, having obtained it informally.
Part of the tension in the book comes from the fact that even for people in that separate world, there are points of overlap with the world that I know - wives who work as human rights lawyers, kids who go off to work on eco projects rather than into the city or the law.
For a while the pace of the plot and the series of unexpected twists got me more involved, but by the implausible and not very interesting denouement I was waiting for it to be over.
I think the response is mainly fair, and I agree with most of the points that it makes. For example, it is indeed odd that the document doesn't have any named authors, and that though it says the writers talked to lots of groups and individuals, it doesn't say who they are. There doesn't seem to have been much engagement with Jewish groups who are critical of Israel and Zionism, who might have been thought of as natural points of contact for Quakers. The Quaker Socialists mention Jewish Voice for Liberation, and I'm disappointed that there is no mention of my own group, Na'amod. The reading list, and the list of groups to learn from, is also somewhat partial. The discussion on definitions of antisemitism, which mainly focuses on the IHRA definition and the rival Jerusalem definition, is both partial and muddled.
But that's not my main criticism. There's a small section at the back that is labelled "How this guide came about", which says it started life as a advice to ecumenical accompaniers who spend time in Israel-Palestine. This really shows - it's too much about when it's OK and not OK to criticise Israel and Zionism, and how that might land with different kinds of Jewish people. Although there is some kind and thoughtful material about how to talk to and listen to Jews about their experiences and feelings, it's not grounded in a proper understanding of contemporary antisemitism.
There's a view among some progressive people that antisemitism is not really a big deal these days. Sure, it was nasty in the Middle Ages, and the Holocaust was really bad, but these days Jews don't face much racism - they're white, after all, and often privileged too. So how can they really be victims of racism? An addition to this is that responding to antisemitism somehow claims precedence, that there is a hierarchy of forms of racism where Jew-hatred is (wrongly) put at the top. And this is supplemented by a thread about how accusations of antisemitism are used to deflect criticism of Israel and Zionism - something that very much does happen, but surely shouldn't be the first thing to speak about when one speaks about hatred towards Jews. Though it often is.
What I felt was missing from the pamphlet is how absolutely fundamental antisemitism is to far right politics and ideas. This isn't always immediately apparent. The mobs that gather outside migrant hotels don't chant slogans about Jews. But if you look at how they talk about migrants to each others, and to their target audiences, theories about powerful Jews are never far from the surface - the so-called "Great Replacement" is allegedly a conspiracy by Jews to bring migrants in to replace "indigenous" white people. Almost any far right commentary on what's really happening in the world, from Covid to 9-11 to the financial crisis, quickly becomes a conversation about Jews. Curiously, the far right, and antisemites, are represented among the ranks of both pro-Zionists (like Tommy Robinson, and Victor Orban) and anti-Zionists (like Nick Fuentes, and British neo-Nazis including Nick Griffin and the Patriotic Alternative group).
I won't explain here why antisemitism is so important to the far right ideologically and intellectually. That deserves a separate, longer piece. But it's a big thing, and by omitting it the pamphlet makes it look like antisemitism mainly belongs to history and to conversations about Israel.
One more thing. For a pamphlet aimed at people in the UK it was rather thin on the special contribution that England has made to Jew-hatred - the first country to expel Jews, the place where the blood libel (the idea that Jews kill Christian children so as to obtain and use their blood) originated, the introduction of the first immigration controls to bar the entrance of Jews fleeing pogroms in the Russian empire.
So I'm grateful that the Quakers have had a go at addressing the subject, and I do appreciate some of the good parts of the report. I just wish it had been better.
I felt a bit annoyed by the violation of the convention that close third person narrative shouldn't switch between the inner lives and thoughts of multiple characters, but maybe that's a bit nit-picky.