The Place Beyond the Pines and the Tripartite Structure.

This is also a film I watched a fair while ago now, but haven't had the chance to blog about. I seem to be incapable of watching a film now without writing about it (an intrinsic side-effect of being an English Literature student, I guess). Anyway, continuing the positive theme, this was a film I absolutely adored, and not just because it starred my ultimate celebrity pin-up Ryan Gosling (in fact, perhaps in spite of this!). By the way, if you haven't watched the film, and want to be surprised when you do, do not read this write up: MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT. 

The film opens with motorbike stuntman Luke Glanton (Gosling), preparing to perform at a state fair (I'm hazily guessing it is now set in the late 80's, possibly early 90's). Glanton, like Gosling himself (sorry, I can't be impartial), is effortlessly cool, your typical 'bad boy' figure. After performing his stunt, Glanton finds an ex-lover Romina (Eva Mendes) waiting for him; he subsequently discovers he has fathered her child, Jason. Glanton decides to do the right thing, quit the fair and support his child; Romina, however, is less than encouraging, having moved on and 'in' with a new lover, Kofi. Glanton follows them to church, where we see Jason baptized, in the arms of Kofi: silent tears roll down Glanton's face as he is confronted with a physical emblem of his loss of fatherhood (a fatherhood he, paradoxically, never knew he had in order to lay claim to). 

The narrative now follows Glanton's attempts to involve himself in his son's life. He finds a job fixing cars and a home (a beat-up caravan) with similar down-'n'-out Robin. The pair soon embark on a series of bank robberies, in an attempt for Glanton to get more money to support his child. With this money, Glanton begins to win Romina's favour. She allows him to see Jason, and spends the night with him (although this fact is, refreshingly, as my friend pointed out, not dwelled upon: the real affection and concomitant drama is between father and son, not lovers). Glanton, inspired by this recent contact, visits Kofi's house to deliver Jason presents when Romina and Kofi are out: when they return, conflict erupts. In this scene, we can't help but feel sympathy for Glanton. Although his gestures are misguided and extravagant, he is simply attempting to do what he believes to be 'right' by his child. A battle of wills emerges between Kofi (who believes that as this is his house, and Jason is his adopted 'son', Glanton should leave), and Glanton, who feels a touchingly paternal - if obstinate - claim to Jason, as his biological son. Glanton hits Kofi with a pair of pliers and is arrested for assault.

Now, I'm not sure if this is the director (Derek Cianfrance)'s intention or no, but I couldn't help feeling a remarkable pathos for Glanton, and sense that the other characters in the narrative have overreacted to his imprisonment. Romina for one, point blank refuses to allow Glanton access to her, while Robin effectively eschews him and hacks his beloved bike to pieces. It is, perhaps, this 'unjust' overreaction to what was, in my view anyway, an act of non-life-threatening retaliation to Kofi, that prompts Glanton's next, fatally drastic series of movements. He displays a heretofore unseen menacing side when threatening Robin with a gun to the mouth, before seizing his share of the robbery money, and buying another bike. It would be easy to develop a distaste for Glanton here, as the other characters do, yet I feel that all the while his primary (if doggedly, recklessly, quasi-ignorantly) concern for Jason, his utter devotion to him motivates this violent action. The sincerity of this motivation prevents the audience from wholly rejecting Glanton. He is, throughout, attempting to achieve a moral end, irrelevant of whether the means to this end are immoral.  

As the action progresses, Glanton becomes increasingly desperate, and embarks on a bank robbery on his own. As he pulls up, he realises he has forgotten his sunglasses. In the course of the narrative, these glasses would have no real effect anyway (he is followed by cops almost as soon as he leaves the bank), but this omission subtly augurs and insures the negative outcome of the robbery; he is not together, he is not thinking correctly, he will not be successful. During the robbery itself, Gosling reflects his character's desperation exceedingly well; his actions are sporadic and twitchy, he becomes increasingly profane, and his voice reaches a pitch almost inhumanly high. As he exits the bank, his bike (not his usual bike, that was destroyed by Robin), refuses to start: he is quickly pursued by cops, and a tense, high-octane car/motorbike chase through cemeteries and suburban streets ensues. Glanton eventually falls off his bike, taking refuge in a house - initially he claims the occupants as hostages, but quickly releases them - holing himself in an upper bedroom. The door is not ostensibly locked, and he sits in an open windowsill calling Romina, telling her not to tell Jason about him. Here, the two narratives converge. Avery Cross (Bradley Cooper), a low-ranking officer, tentatively pursues Glanton through the house, kicking in the door, and shooting him (Glanton in turn shoots him in the foot, it is unclear who shot first). Glanton falls from the window, killed by the shot and/or fall. 

One would not be overly presumptive to assume that here, the film would terminate (I certainly believed so), but no, the screenplay (written by Cianfrance, Ben Coccio, and Darius Marder) continues, now following the fallout of the incident from Cross' perspective. Some people I have spoken to have criticised this aspect, claiming that the film's posters and trailers did not advertise this section of the film (from a glance at these, 'The Place Beyond the Pines' is ostensibly exclusively dedicated to Glanton's narrative, centering on a specifically domestic setting). However, I feel that this omission is not lax or unintentional but extremely skillful. We do not expect the narrative to continue beyond Glanton's death, but this continuation opens up the film in an entirely new, experimental way, preventing an either linear or sentimental reading. 'The Place Beyond the Pines' is, for all intents and purposes, an extremely intricate, complex interrogation of human relationships, individual consciousness, conscience, morality, justice and crime: leaving off at Glanton's death would not allow these discrete, particular, yet paradoxically interconnected themes to be developed - and 'The Place Beyond the Pines' would simply become 'another' trash movie, in which Ryan Gosling looks pretty for a bit and is eventually shortchanged, and we all cry sympathetic tears (see The Notebook, or Drive). 

Cross is treated as a hero after killing Glanton, receiving an honorary award, and congratulations from his co-workers. There is, however, inside him and with us, a niggling suspicion that his actions were not, in fact, just or warranted, or event preventative (Glanton had not stated an intent to hurt anyone, he set the 'hostages' free, and it is unclear whether the door was barred). He feels remorse about killing Glanton, especially when discovering he has an infant son like his own, information we learn when he visits a therapists office (hang on, I'm having flashbacks to Silver Lining's Playbook!). Cross is induced by corrupt officers to visit Romina's home and seize (robbed) money left to her by Glanton. This is an extremely interesting element of the film. Just as Glanton attempted to do what he thought was 'right' by his son, yet encountered several obstacles (i.e. poverty, Kofi, jail), Cross attempts to do what is 'right' by handing the dirty money to a senior officer, yet discovers a barrier that prevents and skews his own moral compass: the senior police, he discovers, are just as if not more corrupt than everyone else. In light of this barrier, however, Cross persistently perseveres, recording an attempted blackmail and reporting the situation to an external board, and thereby securing a position as district attorney (removing himself from the corrupted police force). He is again reported in the news as a 'hero' who has busted an internal web of corruption, drug-dealing and money-laundering within the force: a man of integrity. I find the way the media is involved throughout the film extremely interesting; at several points it praises Cross (and disregards Glanton), elevating him to a superhuman, hero-like status. This outside intrusion is likely to have some impact on his perceptions of himself, as well as the pressure exerted by his father, and perhaps is what spurs or causes him to seek higher, more ambitious positions (he will later run for public office). Cross as a character - intentionally I feel - like Glanton, leaves us torn. On one hand, one appreciates that his first act (killing Glanton), was in part motivated by naivety and fear, and that he did (respectfully) attempt to atone for his 'crime' by turning in his fellow officers after the robbery; however, did he turn them in because he felt bad about invading Romina's home, or because of their corruption? did he seek to leave the police, only to achieve a higher position? is attention his motivation? is the public sphere one he chose, or, as the saying goes, had thrust upon him? These questions remain open-ended, and throughout my attitude toward Cross remained ambivalent: he seems to me, at once, an abstraction of the exceptional public 'hero', and an embodiment of the inherently ambitious but essentially flawed everyman. 

Again, one now expects the film to conclude, yet Cianfrance thrills in thwarting his audience's epistemophilia, and we quickly discover that the film is not in fact bipartite, but tripartite (big spoilers coming). It is fifteen years later (wow, Bradley Cooper hasn't aged one bit!), and we learn at Cross' fathers funeral that his son AJ (Avery Junior, played by Emory Cohen), is getting into trouble and wants to come and live with him. AJ comes to live with his father and transfers to a new high school where he meets a lithe boy sat alone (anyone with even rudimentary perceptive skills will work out who this is), named Jason (Dane Dehaan). In a deft twist of dramatic irony, neither boy (and why would they) knows who each other is: Jason does not know he is sharing a splif with his father's killer, nor does AJ know he's sharing one with the son of the man his father killed. We quickly discover that Aj is, in fact, a rather nasty piece of work, who induces Jason to 'score' some drugs for him. The pair are caught and arrested: AJ is set free, and - because of Cross' influence - Jason's charge is dropped to a misdemeanor. It is interesting to note here, that, in his position of power and influence (a privilege Glanton crucially lacked), Cross can make virtually 'anything' happen: the corruption he once eschewed appears to have regrown and metamorphosed, in a paradoxically similar, yet different mutation. Avery orders his son to stay away from Jason. 

Following his arrest, Jason begins to think about his 'real' father, and manages to convince Kofi (who insists that he is his 'real' dad), to give him Glanton's name. This piece of information sets the film's final action in motion, hurtling towards a disturbing denouement. Jason 'googles' his father, and discovers the information about him and his death that the audience is already party to, and goes to visit Robin. He learns about his father, his superior motorbiking skills, how much he loved him, and finds his bright green glasses (a nice touch, Glanton placed them on Jason as a baby, and more sadly, their 'loss' was the omen of his entire undoing). AJ invites (or bullies) Jason into stealing drugs for a house-party he holds at his father's house. Jason gets drunk, and spots a photo of his father's killer (AJ's father) Avery Cross, this horrible recognition prompting him to attack the unknowing AJ, who in turn beats him to a pulp. Watching this, I wonder here whether, if AJ knew why Jason was beating him, he'd understand or even sympathise. I'd hazard a guess at no. Both 'children' adopt and exaggerate their father's characteristics. Jason looks and acts like even more of an outsider, 'loner', or outcast than his father: with all the melancholy and none of the skill, fame, or attractiveness. AJ meanwhile, is an abstraction and amplification of the pig-headed, ambitious, popular, corrupt, self-important aspects that only glimmered in his father's character (however, through his public office campaign seem to have been developed). The two appear as polar opposites, and clash as opposites (despite the fact that some of their qualities intersect or intertwine). 

Jason leaves hospital, and his mother, and arrives at the Cross' house while AJ is in the shower - with a gun. We are not aware whether he has killed AJ or not as he kidnaps Avery senior, and makes him drive into the woods (in a scene that hauntingly echoes that when Cross is forced to drive into the woods by a corrupt officer), holding him at gunpoint and preparing, we are led to believe, to execute him. Jason, like his father before him, is displaying all the signs of a desperate man (or boy), attempting to do what is 'right' (for Jason, Hamlet-esque, revenging his father is the moral course). His conviction to kill Cross is blighted by Cross' affectionate concern for his own son, and admission of his regret and atonement for killing Jason's father (Cross displays his early integrity once more). Jason takes his jacket and wallet, finding the photograph of himself and his mother and father Cross took from Glanton's backpack in the evidence room. As Jason drives away, leaving Cross alive, there is a sense of circularity; he has the picture of his family (a token of their once ephemeral existence), and, we learn, he has 'spared' Cross and his son in a way that his father was not spared. Jason finds a new justice, one that does not end in death (but maybe a bit of crime). 

Cross goes on to win the public office election, AJ at his side. If the pattern is to repeat itself, Cross' success would be matched by 'a' Glanton (Jason's) failure. However, as Jason buys a bike and drives off into the distance, there is ambiguity. On one hand, this can be seen as a direct signal that - if it is not happening immediately - Jason will eventually follow in his father's footsteps, towards a life of crime and premature death; however, on the other hand, and more strongly, I feel that there is a profound sense of hope that Jason will move away from what is a largely corrupt and unhealthy setting, toward a new life. He sends the picture back to his mother; he will not, like his father, cling hopelessly to the vain, idealistic belief in the (I'll call it) 'Glanton family' - but remember it as a momentary, halcyon snapshot. This is not to say that Jason's faith in 'family' as a concept is altogether destroyed, but that, unlike his father, he will not allow a passionate, but misplaced familial fervour dis-rail his life entirely. As he leaves he is alone, but that aloneness itself becomes a good thing: cathartic, redemptive. Adopting his fathers positive traits (motorbiking skills), yet eschewing his bad ones (violence, attack), Jason, in fact, does Glanton proud. 

I loved 'The Place Beyond the Pines's three-parts. Although the film was incredibly long, I found myself engaged the entire way through, and even thought loosely of Aristotle and his three-part structure (protasis, epistasis, and catastrophe) while watching the film. The 'Glanton' section, rather than being the 'main' part of the film, is merely the protasis, or introductory element of the film, feeding the rest of the action. The 'Cross' section, is the epistasis, the main action - following 'Cross' the character whom links the two sandwich or 'bread' sections of the film together. And finally, the 'AJ and Jason' section is the catastrophe, where the climax of the film occurs: the characters confront each other, revenge is almost enacted, and the narrative is finally resolved. I do not believe this comparison is an overstatement. Cianfrance does something at once surprising, original, but ancient in origin: uncanny, at once familiar and unfamiliar, comforting in its linearity yet refreshing and exciting in its perspective (and, paradoxical, circularity). Five stars for the film that didn't focus on its actors' attractiveness, that created a surprising narrative, fresh yet indebted to ancient drama, that not only goes beyond expectations but obliterates them.   

*****

Django Unchained: the interlocking of fact and fiction.

Hi all, its been a while! I watched Django Unchained a couple of weeks ago, but haven't had a chance to blog about it yet, and realise I'm well behind the times! Now, my parents watched Django before me, and gave it a mixed review (too much gore, apparently), so I was skeptical. However, going against my parents judgement, I unequivocally loved it. 

I've recently been completing a module on American Literature, and the course has included some slave narratives, i.e. The Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass (an amazing, disturbing, fascinating read). I was amazed to see how Django was both a departure from, and remarkably accurate homage to such narratives. The film begins with a troop of slaves being lead through the dark, nearly-naked, chained before Dr. King Schultz (Christopher Waltz) bursts onto the scene, selecting Django (Jamie Foxx) for - as-yet unknown purposes - and murdering one typically repugnant, white slave driver brother, and leaving the other to be ripped to shreds by the remaining slaves. This first scene perfectly blends the fundamental elements of Tarantino's film: violence, historical accuracy, drama, and spectacle. These elements will be drawn out, massaged and elaborated as the film develops. 

Frederick Douglass

We quickly learn that Shultz is a German bounty-hunter, and Django is a slave separated from his beloved wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), and the quest that follows fulfills both their aims: Shultz's desire for his bounty, and Django's for his wife. The pair travel the south, collecting bounty's, and on one occasion return to a sprawling, white plantation where Django kills the brother's who whipped Broomhilda when they attempted to escape together. This scene is highly evocative, and highly accurate. In his narrative, Douglass describes the brutal, bloody whippings white slave-owners would perform upon his helpless aunts, or other slaves. Each crack of the white man's whip is a sickening reminder of the atrocities, truly, enacted in American slave plantations. I particularly like how Tarantino makes use of flashbacks to highlight the direct, corollary link between initial crime, and retribution: throughout the film, Django is not sporadically, senselessly killing white men, but selectively pinpointing the perpetrators who have caused him or his wife harm - or those intimately connected to those perpetrators. In this sense, Django Unchained is not merely a gratuitous, frivolous blood-bath, but a revenge tragedy - like Hamlet, or The Spanish Tragedy - that just happens to enact, and repeat revenge in the same gory forms that the initial wrongdoing took. The idea that events are circular, and that revenge accords to crime is perfectly encapsulated in Django's inversion of the white man's 'I like the way you beg, boy', to 'I like the way you die, boy' as he kills him: Django not only wrests the physical, violent power from the driver, but also his vocal power - appropriating action an language, he is the ultimate victor. 

The duo now travel to Mississippi, where Schultz discovers that Broomhilda's owner is the notorious Mr. Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). The pair first meet Candie when he is watching a 'Mandingo fight', where two black men are pitted to fight until death, in a disconcertingly sumptuous apartment. Mr. Candie is a francophile, yet Schultz is informed not to speak to him in French, as he does not know any, and it will embarrass/ anger him. This subtle fact embodies the hypocrisy, contradiction - nay madness - of the Southern plantation owner: they are wealthy yet deal in the unsellable (flesh), they have luxurious furnishings in which to watch blood-fights, they are extremely courteous, formal, charming even yet spit racist vitriol at their 'possessions' (the list is endless). Tarantino gives us a simultaneously stomach-churningly graphic and aesthetically-tuned view of the fight - two glistening black bodies writhing and slamming by a fire - which is extremely uncomfortable to watch. Yet, it is completely necessary - highlighting how 'bodies' were, quite literally, employed for sport, exploring the blurring of the boundaries between human and plaything that occurred in decadently-lit salons across America: and, most importantly of all, giving us a insight into Candie's simultaneous delectation for entertainment, and blood. Another of Candie's passions is cold hard cash, and the pair devise a plan to make a 'ridiculous offer' for a Mandingo (with Broomhilda thrown into the bargain) that Candie just cannot refuse. 

Candie is, of course, instantly attracted by this offer, 'you had my curiosity, gentlemen, now you have my attention' he drawls in a simultaneously honey-smooth and sinister Southern twang. Off they travel to the seat of 'Django's' action - Candyland. The dynamic between Django and the other men on the ride to Candyland is extremely interesting. As a 'free' slave (Schultz purchased his freedom when he appropriated him from the Schleck brothers), he feels superior to the Mandingos, and unlike them, rides a horse; as a man with integrity, he also feels superior to the repulsive, poor white slave owners - yet, he is however, not. This complex highlights the liminality felt by freed slaves (which Douglass, in his narrative, eventually is): they obviously enjoy greater liberty that their 'brothers in bonds', yet are not - and will not be for at least two centuries - equal to white men. In this situation, Django alienates himself from the black men, and the white: to some extent, he emerges almost race-less - or, at least, estranged from both races - and we are given the sense that he is a man on a sole mission, unlike any other, exempt, outside, ostracised from the slave world, but not yet immersed in another, freer one. This implacability is again highlighted when they reach Candyland and are met by Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), Candie's fiercely loyal, senior house slave. Stephen is a complex character, and Jackson portrays him perfectly; he is obstinate, petulant, almost sycophantic in his praise of his master, and - strangely - seems to believe he is white. He, more so that Candie or anyone else, is outraged that Django rides a horse (this was banned by law), and (rather comically) informs him so. He persistently refers to Django as nigger, and almost refuses to allow him in the house, to sleep on a bed. Stephen has become so completely, immovably indoctrinated in a lifetime of service, that he has absorbed the prejudices of Candie and others, and seems to forget his own 'heritage', or alliance to his race: with him, there is no such thing as brothers in bonds. I really admire the way that Tarantino does not specify the root of Stephen's behaviour/prejudice; does he think himself superior because he is a house slave? has he forgotten that he is 'owned' by Candie? does his hatred for Django come from a love of white people (see the old insult Uncle Tom), does he detest the thought of freedom, or merely the way Django acts when free? These questions about as we watch the film.

As the group sit down for dinner, we may verge on believing that Stephen has merely been indoctrinated in his beliefs, as he parrots everything Candie says. However, the embittered way he treats Broomhilda and other slaves, and, more-so, the calculated, clever manner by which he works out Schultz and Django's plan shows that he is not just a simple, unthinking old slave: he is sensitive, perceptive, and has far more cunning and sense that his supposedly 'superior' owners. He is however, completely dedicated to them, and informs Candie of the plan. I find this aspect of the film hard to process (but that is not a bad thing). Candie seems to think he has the answer to the question of slaves loyalty (i.e. why his father's barber did not seise the opportunity to slit his neck), using some hazy, obviously non-medical and unfounded phrenological argument which posits an excess of a 'servile' quality, ignorance, trust etc. That however, as we can appreciate, isn't quite it. Stephen is not 'built', or inherently constituted to serve Candie: Django isn't the exception, Stephen is. I believe here Tarantino makes us torn between hating Stephen, and pitying him; on one hand he frustrates us because he thwarts Django's plan and chooses to remain loyal to the repugnant Candie, yet on the other hand, what actual choice does he have? He has been brought up this way, fed into it, seeing no way out and - arguably - if you must obey him, it is better to love your master than hate him, isn't it?! Loyalty is a respectable quality, is it not? In a way, Tarantino uses Stephen as an embodiment of the many complex, conflicting questions that surround and constitute the slave trade. To go into them all now is beyond my capacity (and word length), but I hope to have set the spark alight for some of them. 

Now, on to DiCaprio. People have said he deserves his long awaited oscar for this performance, and I hate to follow the crowd but I can't help but agree! This isn't his usually attractive role. Candie is slightly podgy, (ironically) with rotting teeth, and a quasi-incestuous relationship with his sister Miss Lara. He is his most charming when his most menacing, consistently blending barbarism with Southern eloquence and etiquette: and this paradoxical combination makes for a simultaneously captivating and horrifying character. In this respect, as well, Tarantino plays upon real-live accounts of plantation owners. The white men that fill Douglass's pages are brutal and vindictive, barely concealing their inhumanity - or perhaps accentuating it - through an external layer of compliments, charm, convolution, elongated words and drawling lyric sentences. In the dinner-table scene where Candie reveals his knowledge of the plan (handily given to him by Stephen), DiCaprio is intense, captivating and forceful. There is a rumour bandying around the internet that DiCaprio was not actually supposed to cut his hand in this scene, yet carried on regardless. Whether pre-orchestrated or spontaneous, this move is extremely effective, Candie exerting his dominance and ownership in the ultimate act of possession: smearing blood on Broomhilda's shaking, terrified face (or should I say Washington: if this move was sporadic the blood would be as shocking for her as for her character). Here, DiCaprio is in his element.

Following the dinner-scene, there is the 'agreement' scene, and here, the Southern etiquette which I have alluded to costs Candie his life. I love how the hypocrisy we first witnessed in Candie's character reemerges in this scene. I felt genuine pathos for Schultz, as he attempts to reconcile the beautiful, melodious arias of Beethoven with the despicable violence of the parlour, that plays on his mind through flashbacks: how can a monster such as Candie enjoy or even deserve to hear Beethoven's beautiful music? Schultz again cannot digest the injustice of Candie's desire to shake hands - in a gentlemanly fashion - in regards to the sale of flesh. Here, Candie and Schultz begin to transcend their lineal characterisations, Candie representing an abstraction of false-hospitality, the south, evil, and Shultz representing honesty, transparency, the north, morality. We have witnessed wars of the flesh in Django Unchained, but this is a war of the mind. Although we may be frustrated with Schultz for refusing to concede to a simple handshake (his concession could have instantly resolved the situation, and Django would have walked free with Broomhilda), we appreciate that it is, again, not just a handshake but an emblem, a symbol of morality falling to the overarching power of evil, goodness lapsing to necessity, difficulty giving way to ease: in terms of the film's structure and message, Schultz cannot shake hands with Candie, and he does not.

Following this mental victory (resulting in the physical death of both Candie and Schultz), we are shown a sustained, gory war of the flesh once more (shot and orchestrated with great skill). It would be easy to say that the gore here is unneeded (and it does occasionally veer that way), but I see what Tarantino is attempting to do. It would not be enough for Candie to die, Django has to kill those related with him, the white men who pour to the house, who loyally walk into their own death for him: simultaneously obliterating every shade of 'Candie', and making Django's crime graver and graver, blacker and more heinous (whilst also showing off his excellent gun skills. Tarantino deals in extremes: Django has to commit the worst crime, in order to receive the worst punishment, in order to escape that worst punishment and be the ultimate victor. There is a chain, there is succession, and there is logic in Tarantino's design (despite superficial appearances). As Django is chained (again), upside-down and naked, he is taunted by a white man (Crash) who he had a previous clash with, who threatens to chop off his member. Although Django is clearly afraid here (who wouldn't be), this is not the most frightening interaction he has. The true psychological difficulty coincides with Stephen's reappearance. Candie is now dead, but Stephen's loyalty isn't (it was not, then, a circumstantial, situational affection): if this is a case of Stockholm syndrome, it is one that continues after death. Here, again, Stephen seems to show his intellectual (or at least sadistic) superiority over the white men, claiming that the have devised a series of physical torments for Django, where as it is he who comes up with the psychological torment: Django will be sent to a mine, where he will hammer rocks repetitively, will have no name no freedom no right to speak, and be tossed in a pit when he's dead like an old, broken tool. If Stephen hates Django for behaving like a white man, than he is going to remind him exactly what he is: a black slave, with no rights and no voice. As Stephen passes his judgement, however, I can't help but think that he embodies the very thing he claims to hate: Candie dead, he fills his place, more white and more hate-filled that him, able to execute the role better, perhaps, because of his close observation of it. 

After this scene, I feel that the film loses pace slightly. There is a lot of comedy in Django's gulling of the Australian slave drivers (with Tarantino in one of the roles), comedy which mirrors the Klu Klux Klan scene (which I'll talk about in a moment) where white men are revealed to be stupid and greedy; additionally, there is pathos and beauty as Broomhilda and Django are reunited. The film only springs into its own again, however, in the last few shots. Django returns to the house (while the family and slaves are at Candie's funeral), and enacts the perfect moment of transgression and re-appropriation: dressing himself in Candie's clothes. This act is not just actually, but symbolically and ideologically subversive: as he reclaimed the words used against him (see above 'I like the way you beg, boy') he reclaims and refashions the garments of studied hypocrisy, of fine brutality, of respectable injustice, and on them they lose those connotations - they look new, they look handsome, majestic even. When they return, he (literally) occupies the highest plain. I believe that here, who he allows to live, and who is deigned to die is particularly interesting. The white men are killed yet the two black women are allowed  to go. In this respect, one might argue that Django works by binary opposites - killing because they are male, and white, releasing because black, and women. However, his shooting of Miss Lara complicates matters. We begin to realise that, as I argued earlier, to some extent, Django sees through race, he also sees through gender. The black women are saved not because they are black and female, but because they are blameless: Miss Lara's gender doesn't save her - she is evil or does evil actions, so in Django's mind, deserved to die (how complicit she is is contestable, as I am aware that indoctrination is also colourblind). We also learn that race is not a saviour: Stephen is Django's final victim, and to the last, he remains pejorative to Django and loyal to Candie. Although I respect that in this cinematic sphere this is justice - Stephen, like Miss Lara is a bad person regardless of race or gender and should die. But, as I did with her, I question his complicitness. I feel that the questions I raised earlier complicate the sense of 'victory' in this killing: there is neatness, circularity (crime answering crime etc), but his death did not make me happy. There is the great sense as the film concludes that, although one Stephen is dead, there were (are) many Stephen's - complicated, hard to judge characters - still out there. It is a bittersweet justice, a justice you half-want and half-eschew (ah Tarantino you do confuse me so expertly).

My previous statements do not mitigate my appreciation of Django's ending. The house is blown up, effectively answering and silencing Stephen's claim that 'can't no n***** destroy Candyland' (they can, he just did), and Django walks away, master of spectacle, master of events, the master. In the final seconds of the film, I felt a respect for Django (Foxx's performance is consistent, sustained, sometimes unbelievable, but often witty, funny, likable, admirable), yet also a fear that correlates with my statement about the 'many Stephen's' still out there. Broomhilda and Django, two slaves on the run, still in the south, face the same danger and prejudice that Douglass and his new wife experienced when he was newly escaped. Tarantino effectively juxtaposes fantasy and reality in these final moments; fantasy in the massive explosion, like the fallacy and fictionality of this select story, and reality in the touching human tenderness of husband and wife, like the reality of those impossible - almost unbelievable - yet true stories like that of Frederick Douglass. I guess a pictorial representation is never fully accurate, but Tarantino's - in its blend of accuracy and inaccuracy, fiction and reality - actually, paradoxically, perfectly encapsulates the life of the escaping slave: your slave-life is one of a real pain that is almost fictional in its brutality, your escape involves true danger, but must be fantastical in order to succeed.  

Douglass in old age

Other notable parts of the film which I may have missed in this chronological review are:

1. The scene where Southern Klu Klux Klan members storm Schultz' dentist wagon. I was, at first, truly terrified by the scene - men charging towards the tiny, vulnerable wagon on horseback with flames and, by now, well-known costumes, with hooves clashing, disturbing whooping sound etc. - fearing that Django and Schultz truly were in danger. However, Tarantino creates a wonderful bathos, when their discussion of tactics descends into a petty, childish squabble over the inadequacy of their costumes. I love how Tarantino highlights the dual aspects of the KKK; these men were noxious and terrifying, they murdered black people across America for centuries (and this is, largely, how they are remembered in history books), however, they were also acutely stupid, uninformed, ignorant, poverty-stricken men - more often than not - with nothing better to do that make the lives of others a hell akin unto their own. Tarantino obliterates the abstract, quasi-mystical, fictionalised picture of a Klu Klux Klan member: they were not inhuman killing machines (although their actions were inhuman), but human, fallible - cheat-able, conquerable - mortals, who gained power not through true superiority or strength or cunning, but through the circumstantial historic climate, money (if not much of it), and the sheer mass of them. Pit 10 white men against 1 black man and its obvious that the minority will often be the losing party. This paradoxically light, and rich, scene is perhaps one of my favourites of the film. 
2. The reunification scene between Broomhilda and Django. There is all sorts of dramatic irony going on here. Miss Lara, and Broomhilda believe Schultz has sent for her to have sex, and her fear and frustration are evident. The fact that the scene is spoken in German heightens both the sense of danger, and tension. As Schultz talks he dresses - rather than undresses, figuring the opposite of the process which Broomhilda is used to (she is used for sex by Mandingos and others). We cannot help but admire Django's love of 'spectacle' (he is, so often, the object of other's entertainment, you can't blame him for wanting to re-appropriate glamour, and orchestrate a drama of his own), but the tension is near-distressing. The door opens, Broomhilda faints: it is, in its own way, the perfect reunification.
3. I love the slow shot of the blood splatter on cotton. It seems apt in so many ways.

JEM.

Does Tragedy in Boston Mean Persecution for Regular Muslims?

[This was an article I wrote for the student newspaper - it was changed by them without my knowledge, so I have re-published the version I want to be read here].

This week, the bombers involved in the recent Boston marathon massacre have been identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnev. The two brothers - of Chechen origin and Muslim faith - are naturalised U.S citizens. Whilst the arrest of these suspects has been met with joy by the majority of the American population, for the American-Islamic community, this arrest is a bitter-sweet occurrence. 

Not long before the dust had settled in Boston, Muslim groups had begun to urge their members to display an active presence on social media: calling for prayers for victims, promising to provide aid, and vehemently condemning the perpetrators of the crime. On Monday April the 14th, Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was quick to issue the following statement: ‘American Muslims, like Americans of all backgrounds, condemn in the strongest possible terms today’s cowardly bomb attack on participants and spectators of the Boston Marathon’. Meanwhile, the Muslim Public Affairs Council called upon ‘all of us as Americans to work together to bring those responsible to justice.’ Why have individuals and organisations felt the need to be so blatant and vocal regarding their support for justice - and, implicitly, eschew any suspicion of Muslim involvement in the crime?

As David Gibson, journalist for ‘religionnews.com’ argues, ‘almost as soon as the smoke cleared around Copley Square [the Muslim community] knew that some would immediately point the finder of blame in their direction’. At times of tragedy and terrorism, the Muslim community recognisably suffer an increased level of persecution and suspicion towards them; even when, in cases such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing the perpetrator of said crime was uncovered to be Timothy McVeigh, a white, American militiaman. ‘The Los Angeles Times’ corroborated Gibson’s argument, suggesting that there has been a great fear in the Muslim community, because they have ‘dark memories about the pervasive suspicion‘ they the received following the 9/11 attacks. Gibson and the Times’s arguments are not without evidence: from the moment of explosion, Muslim’s became the target of a backlash. On his radio show, conservative host Glenn Beck - seemingly unaware of evidence contrariwise, i.e. Oklahoma, or the various mass-shootings in American history, such as the 2012 Aurora massacre - declared that ‘no American citizen blows up random people; that’s a Middle Eastern scene, that’s not an American scene’. Affirmations such as this would suggest that, for many, it never crossed their mind that the perpetrators could be anything but Islamic. 

Christina Warner, campaign director of Shoulder-to-Shoulder - a national interfaith alliance committed to combatting religious prejudice - argues that ‘discrimination against Muslims has been a real dynamic in the United States’. Before the Tsarnevs were arrested, a Saudi man - himself wounded in the bombing - was falsely accused and taken into custody, causing a substantial rift with the Saudi community. Arguably, when a tragedy such as the Boston bombing occurs, every individual with a Middle Eastern background becomes a suspect; as spokespeople from CAIR have commented, ‘Sikh men who wear beards and turbans as part of their faith are often targeted by bigots who mistake them as Muslims’.

However, speaking last week Naeem Baig, President of the Islamic Circle of North America said that he had been impressed by the ‘cautious and balanced approach from the media’, asserting that ‘it shows a lot of responsibility on their part, not jumping to conclusions’. Yet, Baig also added that the religion and ethnicity of the criminals proved to be a ‘matter of concern’ for the Muslim community; now the perpetrators have been found to be Muslim extremists, these concerns have become even more pressing. Steve King, a congressman from Iowa suggested that if a Saudi or other Middle Eastern national was involved in the bombing, serious immigration reforms could be in order. King, speaking to the ‘National Review Online’ stated that the nationality of the bombers would almost definitely require the U.S. government to ‘take a look at the picture’: suggesting a further tightening of already strict laws on movement within America. 

Looking at another side of the argument, perhaps Americans are to some extent justified in harbouring suspicions against the Islamic community. A 2011 report by the American National Counterterrorism Centre revealed that 70 percent of terrorism is committed by Muslim terrorist groups. And, as many anti-islamists Americans might be keen to note, the 9/11 bombings - recognised as the worst terrorist attack in the U.S in recorded history - were indeed committed by Islamists, 15 (out of 19) were from Saudi Arabia alone. As the website ‘Religion of Peace’ has observed, since 1st January 2013 2,807 individuals worldwide have been killed as a result of terrorist attacks committed by Islamists. 

In addition, some have claimed that Muslims falsely portray investigations into terrorist attacks such as the Boston bombings as religious man-hunts. Robert Spencer, of ‘Jihad Watch’, is said by NBC to have claimed that ‘it [is] appalling how Muslims frequently attempt to portray such tragedies as attacks against them, rather than against the true victims of the crime’. Rush Limbaugh has gone as far to suggest that - due to political correctness - some politicians and the media have been terrified of the suggestion that the bombers would be Muslim: ‘they’re [the media] frightening people against coming forward with information that might offend people’. 

Yet, despite the figures, Spencer’s testament, and Limbaugh’s criticism I would suggest that the persecution of ‘normal’ American Muslims is wholly unwarranted, their fear and outrage is appropriate, and that the media have not been as politically correct as Limbaugh implies. When the bombings occurred, Daisy Khan, director of the American Society of Muslim Advancement started to use the twitter hashtag ‘#ihopeitsnotamuslim.’ Sadly, her hopes have not been fulfilled. Attacks such as Boston continue to fuel hatred for religious groups, as Khan attests ‘it will feed into the perception than Muslims are terrorists. Children are more likely to be bullied [...] individuals at work will be treated with suspicion by their coworkers’. Evidence of growing anti-Muslim bigotry is on the rise; since September 11th the Justice Department has investigated more than 800 incidents of racial violence, and there has been a 150% increase in workplace discrimination. Fear of persecution by association is a real, everyday, widespread issue, and it will not stop being an issue until the day - not when terrorism is abolished - but when racial stereotyping is annihilated: that day seems to be but a distant dream.

Venus and Adonis: She loves, she is love: and yet she is not loved.

Yesterday, I had my first 'real' Renaissance theatre-going experience, with a visit to Shakespeare's new Globe theatre in London, to see Venus and Adonis, performed by the Isango Ensemble from Cape Town, South Africa.

Firstly, a word on the theatre itself. I had been anxiously watching the weather all day, because I thought I had booked groundling tickets. When we arrived, it was a nice surprise to find that we'd actually got seats, under shelter (phew! it hailed at one point!). The theatre was extremely impressive, and I'm led to believe, authentic, with gilt edgings, colourful facades and worn-out posts and framing. There was, as I'd expected three tiers of seats (in a circle), and of course the middle section, for groundlings to occupy. I was pleasantly surprised that, as one would of in Shakespeare's time, the people standing could go right up to the front of the stage - practically resting on it! (with our current health and safety climate, I had assumed there would be some sort of barrier - especially as 'death' was wielding some dangerous looking, bloodstained cleavers uncomfortably close to the expectant eyes of the people at the front).

The performance began with the opening lines of the play, sung in a conglomeration of South African and English, by the female actors. It is worth noting that each one of the cast was profoundly vocally accomplished, able to sing as well in English as in other languages, and the majority of arias were truly spell-binding. The first scene featured Venus and Cupid, a comically morbidly obese man in a romper-suit, who got a lot of laughs, frolicking. Venus is accidentally pricked by one of Cupid's arrows, and this is how the love-story begins. Now, I have a slight bone to pick here. After studying Shakespeare's 'Venus and Adonis' in horribly deep depth for a recent second-year undergraduate essay, I know, as many of the theatre-goer's probably wouldn't, that this is not how his epyllion begins. However, it is found in his analogue Ovid's Metamorphoses, and I'd like to think that Shakespeare's overwhelming admiration for and indebtedness to the master-poet overrides that fact that this scene is not authentic to his poem.

Once pricked, Venus' wooing begins. Unusually, Venus was not played by a single actress. Almost every actress in the ensemble took a turn to play her, each wrapping a white linen cloth around them when they would assume the role. Usually, I might consider this to be slightly twee, however, for the character of Venus it is extremely appropriate. Shakespeare's Venus is a veritable emotional whirlwind; at some points she playfully jokes with Adonis, at others is comically lustful, occasionally extremely sensitive and loving, and, disturbingly regularly, is stiflingly oppressive and/or ferociously aggressive. Although each of the actresses displayed these various, shifting emotions during their performances, the literal changing of Venus effectively conveyed just how capricious, conflicting and perplexing she is, in the midst of overwhelming love and passion.

Another aspect of the Venuses performance was their use of the cloth (used to identify her) to bind, constrain and envelop Adonis at various instances. The company has successfully drawn out the aspect which I believe Shakespeare tries to emphasise most strongly in his poem - Venus's oppressiveness - and made it a visual symbol. This effect is particularly helpful when considering that, i'd say nigh on 99%, of the audience, maybe more, was not versed in South African. When language is a barrier, spectacle takes over.

A further notable characteristic of the Venuses performances throughout the wooing scenes, was their use of their bodies/sexuality. I'm keen to avoid stereotyping, however, the Venuses truly were beautiful, buxom ladies who knew exactly what moves to make, or hips to shake, to illustrate the lustful, sexual aspect of Venus's pursuit. Part of this was their sly glances, or covert winks at the audience, which made it lucidly clear - when language again confounded interpretation - exactly what Venus's intentions were. Oozing subtle sensuality at times, secreting raging passion at others, this female company had the goddess of Love (the vicarious goddess of Sex) down to a tee.

If they perfected Venus's sensuality, so too with her hopelessness. 'She's Love, she loves, and yet she is not loved', says Shakespeare. In her most desperate moments, the Venuses haunting, mesmerising voices give a true sense of her despair: her illimitable capacity to love, to cause other's to love, yet, paradoxically, her inability to make Adonis love.  

Now for Adonis. In Shakespeare's poem, Adonis is frustratingly reticent, declining to speak until around line 80, and largely vocal only to reject Venus's advances and/or, like the petulant teenager he is, to complain about the sun, or about her wringing grip. I was happy that the Isango Ensemble maintained this aspect of Adonis's character - it is not an unwarranted swipe to say that, for Shakespeare, he is not much of a character at all - as it would have been extremely tempting to make him vocal earlier, for the sake of theatrical interest. Really he is uninteresting, and uninterested: throughout Venus's elaborate wooing process, he'd much rather be somewhere else. Mhlekazi Mosiea, who played Adonis throughout - a petulant, stoic consistency which was a lovely contrast to Venus's capriciousness - had perfected the disdainful glances, pained grimaces, and violated vocal objections that characterise Shakespeare's young, narcissistic mortal beloved. Like the Venuses, Mosiea had a beautiful voice: he sang in English (which seemed quite appropriate for the young, unloving chap) and carried each note perfectly, with a tad more clarity than the rest of the company.

Other notable mentions include:

1. The treatment of the palfrey and jennet - a focal point in Shakespeare's poem, illustrating the successful sexual love which Venus attempts to persuade Adonis to - was very well done. The company used horse heads, yet, moreover, their bodies to convey the sexual act - securing a lot of laughs, imbuing the episode the comedy it deserves. 
2. The cast performing African songs and dances together, bare-footed and raw, were truly magnetic. All of the ensemble were enthusiastic, vocal, and spell-binding: this is clearly a cast who knows how to work well together.
3. Death, played by Zebulon Mmusi - not embodied in Shakespeare's poem, but embodied here, I assume, for some clarity/ to add some perspective to Venus's speech - was particularly harrowing. His frame painted as a skeleton, cavernous red mouth and serpentine tongue, bloodstained hand-held scythes and occasional menacing, animal-like hisses combined to make him a truly terrifying figure. We realise, perhaps before Venus, that he is not a character to be chastised - and his vengeance costs Venus her love.     
4. The boar was similarly effective. Wild, ferocious, rabid, we are given a true sense of the danger he can inflict.   
5. I know this is purely coincidental, but at one point, as Venus said 'the sun that shines from heaven shines but warm', the sun prophetically gleamed on the so-far gloomy stage. A sheer chance occasion, but a beautiful one at that. 

I only have a couple of criticisms about this performance. 

• One, is that I believe at some points, the cast was playing for laughs (at the cost of sentiment of the poem). I appreciate that they must cross a language barrier, and appeal to a popular audience, yet I would argue that pathos overrides comedy, and theatre trumps pantomime. 'Venus and Adonis' is an indubitably humorous poem, yet it is also a poetic master-piece: any more comic moments, and the play could have descended into farce. 
• Two, they could have made a lot, lot more of the final metamorphoses (after all, Shakespeare's analogue was Ovid's Metamorphoses!!!,  and Adonis's growth into a purple flower gives Venus far more hope and joy that this simple, unmemorable conclusion conveys.) However, I did appreciate when all the Venus's joined together again to indite her horrible prophesy (love will now be jealous, unkind, unrequited etc.), each woman versing the different afflictions in a round: they say do not mess with a woman scorned, but a woman thwarted by death is even worse.  
• Finally, not really a criticism but a piece of advice: it may be too late for Venus and Adonis, as it only had a short run here, but, if you are going to see a play in another language, read the English version. It was clear that almost 80% of the time, almost 80% of the audience had no clue at all what was going on. Obviously, not knowing the language (here, a mixture of IsiZulu, IsiXhosa, SeSotho, Setswana and Afrikaans) will always prevent anyone from grasping the exquisite lilts and facets of Shakespeare's verse (I recall them all too familiarly from my recent studies), yet having a general gist of the basic arguments definitely helps. I saw far too many confused (and quite disinterested) faces in the audience, which rather distracted me from the play itself. I know some people like to be surprised by a plot, but, if the play's in another language, you won't be surprised by the plot, you will never know it! The cast did their absolute best to transcend the language-barrier, but the audience needs to helps themselves. 

In conclusion, I was thrilled with my theatre trip. I was slightly skeptical following the recent theatrical-disaster of Hamlet, but all those concerns were dispelled from the first song of Venus and Adonis. A highly accomplished cast, a beautiful translation, a captivating, rich, multi-cultural performance. 

****

Video - http://vimeo.com/42139882 

My thoughts on Margaret Thatcher, in 2013.

OK, so this post is a little different from my usual film/theatre criticism, but I have something to say, and I feel like this is a good place to say it.

I recently posted a status on Facebook in response to Margaret Thatcher's death, and I feel that it has been misunderstood by some - so I'd better explain myself in more depth.

This is the post: Politicians are public figures, subject to criticism and judgment by the masses - but they're also people. Regardless of your thoughts on her policies and practices, Margaret Thatcher deserves the due reverence you would accord any deceased person. Celebrating/praising the death of an elderly woman says a lot more about the workings of your moral compass than it does about hers. Just my opinion.

To begin, I'd like to state that my belief is not, as some might think, that one 'should not speak ill of the dead'. I would gladly speak ill of Hitler or Mao: political leaders who subjugated their countries to unspeakable crime, genocide, famine, corruption etc. etc. Yet, Margaret Thatcher, I believe, is in a different category:

• Firstly, she was elected, by a popular vote. She was not a despot, who seized power for herself, disregarding the wishes of the people. 
• Secondly, although she was the figurehead and popular image of the conservatives, she did not constitute the whole party. Concurrently, it is absurd to state that 'Margaret Thatcher did this/ did that', and so forth. The whole point of government in Britain is that it is made up of a variety of MP's, from all areas of the country: each body of people is equally represented by politicians they elected. They form the House of Commons, and the PM structures a cabinet from these MP's. Margaret Thatcher was a strong-minded, strong-willed woman, but she was not a self-interested, un-elected authoritarian (we need only look to North Korea for an example of the like), so please, don't label her as one. 
• I would be able to tolerate some of the vitriolic, hateful garbage spewed about Thatcher across the internet if she had truly, recognisably, achieved nothing good for the country. As it stands, Thatcher made tangible, real changes that dramatically overhauled the country's economy (some policies which still stand today, for good reason), intervened when injustice was occurring overseas, in the Falklands war (dispute the justness and morality of that war as you may, but be aware that a recent referendum is likely to see the majority of Falkland Islanders uphold that they are, and their country is British, before blasting the war), amongst innumerable other achievements. She may have got things wrong, badly wrong - but it is ignorant to claim that all her political movements were failures. [NB: I vehemently disagree with a lot of Thatcher's actions, particularly her support of the Khmer Rouge, amongst other things, and fully appreciate the full spectrum of her ministership, positive and negative]. Meanwhile, take for example, Hitler. What can we say that Hitler did for Germany? One need not go into the full details of the atrocities, as they are well known. Amidst the murder, the victimisation, prosecution, starvation, and militarisation, it is insurmountably difficult to pick something out. On the other hand, Mao - like Thatcher - achieved apparent 'goods' for his country: increasing healthcare, improving education, providing social housing and promoting the status of women. Yet, unlike Thatcher, his counteractive crimes are off the human scale; he suppressed human rights, enacted multitudinous political executions, and as a direct result of his 'Great Leap Forward' China suffered widespread famine. The (preventable) deaths of citizens during his reign total 40-70 million - the largest democide in recorded history. You may, naively, argue that Thatcher did nothing for Britain, damaged it even; yet, one need only look at other political figures of the 20th century to see that her policies - even the ones which left some parts of society disgruntled - were humane. Was Thatcher a 'monster' who 'only did bad' for our country? No. To say such a thing is to violate the memory of citizens who truly did suffer the atrocities of a monster-esque, despotic reign, and who reaped little from their 'leader' but a legacy of shame and destruction. 

So, this is part of the reason why I struggle with the Thatcher riots. Here is another aspect, and forgive me for using an analogy to illustrate my point:

A wall is decrepit and crumbling, with great holes and several missing stones. People have been easily traversing this wall for several years: merely stepping over the broken sections, without any inconvenience or injury to their party. Now, if someone comes along, and finally kicks over the paltry remnants of this dilapidated wall, is this something to praise him for? Does the wall's destruction, actually, make any tangible difference in the lives of the people who cross that way every day - who, before now, happily went about their business, not minding that the sad feature was still clinging to existence. When it was first erected, the wall caused contention between the villagers and the landowner whom erected it: that grievance was of policy (the landowners desire to privatise previously public fields). However, when people became frustrated with this segregation, they pushed parts of the wall down, damaged it. The landowner eventually conceded, and reverted his judgement, re-inscribing the land's original, public function: his policy - not the wall - fell. Since that time the wall has been functionless, and suffered the physical harangues of weather, time, and the once vitriolic, but now imperceptible scorn of the people.

Now upscale a bit, take another wall: the Berlin wall. In 1989 the Berlin wall is irrefutably strong, impenetrable, uncrossable, severing western and eastern Germany in two, dividing families, separating friends. The wall is also fatally dangerous for anyone whom attempts to cross it. The Berlin wall is a direct, physical, active, acting functional tool of a rotten regime: it is the policy. When this seemingly inscrutable wall is destroyed this is victory, this is success, this is a thing worth celebrating.

My fundamental point is: If you hated Margaret Thatcher's policies, hate what she 'did to the nation', then the time to celebrate is when she goes out of power, when she is no longer the Prime Minister (when, with the people of my analogy, the landowner redeclares the land as public). You may argue that people still spit on the remnants of the Berlin wall, so we can spit on the remnants of Margaret Thatcher: they both represent 'bad' regimes. My response would be that these two things are discreet; Thatcher introduced policies, had practices, but she did not constitute those policies and practices - she may have held them, believed them, but does a policy equate a person? I am a vegetarian, but that's not all I am, I am a feminist, but that's not all I am: there are parts of my life completely distinct from my practices and beliefs. Meanwhile, the Berlin wall, that was an inanimate object, entirely representative of the regime it stood for, active, working, killing, indistinct from the GDR, with no life outside its function: without the roles of mother, wife, human being.

Now, I return back to that repugnant article I read which stated that public figures are unlike normal people in that they are not exempt from criticism after death. Yes, go on then, I agree - say she's a Milk Snatcher, hate the Falklands war, hate the closure of the mines: criticise these things forever, its your right. Every single person in Britain is entitled to their personal opinion (a right that we often take for granted, and therefore abuse). Yet, dignity in death, and respect for the sanctity of life are also rights, human rights, and criticism must contend and coexist with this right. My mind at least, would not make the illogical jump from hating a policy of Margaret Thatcher's to singing 'ding dong the witch is dead', saying I'd like to 'dance on her grave', or throw a party to 'celebrate' her demise. If I wanted to criticise her, I'd write/vocalise it in a way that did not seem so utterly disrespectful, that did not attack her as a person, and did not pull at the very fabric of society. This is why I say vitriol reflects on the 'moral compass' of the person speaking, rather than the person they attack. In saying things you would - quite rightly - be outraged at someone for saying about a member of your family (from the safety of a keyboard), all sentiment, all logic, all true criticism of lost. All real, true, accurate judgement on Thatcher is swathed in layers of crudeness, maliciousness, unthinking abuse, which infects and mars it. I read the words 'yay lets celebrate, the bitch is dead', and think not 'oh, what an educated individual this person is, her tax reforms truly were despicable, they're right', but that they have no sense of the need for justification of ones beliefs, no appreciation of rhetorical eloquence, and no respect for human life.

My last point [respect for human life] may sound sentimental, but it isn't. After going out of power, Thatcher may have acquired the title 'Baroness', but, like the rest of us will do, she became an elderly person. I do not believe that old age negates the 'crimes' of youth, but I am a strong believer in the thought that we are not one, consistent entity, but several distinct 'selves': the person I am today, is different from that I was yesterday. By 2013, the public has become detached from Thatcher. Do we know if she still holds all the same beliefs she did when she was in power? No. Do we know if she would go back and do the same all over again? No. Do we know if she is proud of herself? No. Therefore, how can we judge? How can we say she is an inherently and consistently 'evil' person? (which I don't, personally, believe she was). In April 2013, Margaret Thatcher was an extremely lonely, decrepit, aged woman, suffering the inexplicably life-altering, harrowing disease Dementia. Dementia is one of the most terrible afflictions man can suffer (I have watched it do its work on one of my own close relatives). It detaches you from yourself, leaves you constantly confused, and scared. Arguably, if you hated Thatcher so much, this would be your victory, this horrible, horrible illness. When she died, Thatcher was a shell - barely a woman, and certainly not 'herself'. Still believe that political figures aren't human, that they're not susceptible to the same eventualities to which all of us may succumb, that they can't feel pain, and confusion, and terror?

That wall, the one already defeated, no longer serving any functional purpose, one that - for years - had not been hurting anyone or anything: are you going to build it back up, to knock it down again? Hate 50 year old Thatcher, with her poll tax and war. You need not love 87 year old Thatcher, alone and dying - but, for the sake of yourself, and our nation, do not abuse and insult her: past all defence, past all use, past sentience.

I never thought myself conservative, but if the alternative to conservatism is turning up to a funeral angrily waving moth-eaten, mildewed banners of musty hate, then perhaps I am. If freedom of speech gives us these foul emissions, perhaps we do not deserve it. If public power results in personal attack, and if a life in politics means you lose your human life and the respect that accords, maybe the system is overrated.

I have a horrible, irrepressible feeling that tomorrow, a few people will expose the rot of Britain.

JEM.

The RSC's Hamlet 2013, a review: suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

On Saturday night I went to see the RSC's (Royal Shakespeare Company's) performance of Hamlet in Stratford. As we live fairly close to Stratford, I have been to the old and new, refurbished theatre on a number of occasions. Last year I saw Romeo and Juliet - a rather lack-lustre performance - and the year before enjoyed The Winter's Tale, which was excellent. In light of these variable recent experiences, I didn't quite know what to expect from Hamlet - but I was not pleasantly surprised.

Before I say anything about the performance, I think it is important to establish that - as it is well-known - Hamlet is one of Shakespeare's longest, weightiest and more complex plays, and poses a daunting task for even the most skilled and experienced of directors: including David Farr. Yet, the RSC is itself a formidable company - the defining establishment of British theatre - and Hamlet's cast includes some stellar theatre stalwarts. Despite the magnitude of the venture, the RSC had the tools and talent to produce a fantastic show.

Firstly, I must begin with our Hamlet - Jonathan Slinger. My criticisms of Slinger are multitudinous, and my praises (sadly) lacking.

• My primary problem with Slinger is his age. At the expense of appearing ageist, at 40 years old Slinger is simply too old to convincingly perform Hamlet. With a balding pate and distinctly middle-aged mannerisms Slinger is void of the youthful charm and spirited fervency one would expect a scholar recently returned from Wittenburg to posses; also - and I'll probably sound shallow as well as ageist now - he lacks any sense of Hamlet's animated attractiveness. These may sound like very superficial, pernickty points, yet, arguably our sense of Hamlet's youth and attractiveness are essential to our appreciation of his character; in the RSC's performance, there is ultimately no viable reason why Ophelia, and more importantly the audience, would be drawn to Hamlet. This inappropriate casting marrs every aspect of the play. When Hamlet is 'mad' (or feigning madness), his witty speeches and silly phrases lose effect; delivered, as they are from the vessel of a middle-aged man, they seem more like a joke your dad (or specifically my dad) would make, than brilliant flourishes of a quick, resourceful wit [in conjunction with this, Slinger's tedious - and ofttimes cringeworthy - tendency to hyperbolically elongate words or repeat them in a silly, childlike manner is unduly incongrous with his 'grumpy old man' facade, and very Jack Dee-esque, but I shall say more on his poor delivery later]. Perhaps more blasphemously, due to Slinger's maturity Hamlet's philosophical speeches on the nature of time, death and life concurrently emerge more as the embittered, dulled, disillusioned mumblings of one J. Alfred Prufrock than the fired-up, ebullient, exhaustive interrogations of a youthful Hamlet, struggling to comprehend the world's inherent complexities as he experiences the thrilling epoch of newly-burgeoning philosophical and worldly consciousness; the essential expansion of the mind (from considerations merely of the self, to musings on mankind as a whole), that occurs primarily when one makes the tentative, perplexed, perplexing transition from boyhood to manhood. [For a portrayal of Hamlet fat and oozing all his intended youthful, spirited brilliance, rhetorical skill, playful wit and philosophical aptness, see - the ineffable, unparalleled - master that is Laurence Olivier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0xYbpYgdPQ]

• Another unignorable aspect of Slinger's portrayal of Hamlet, is his in excruciating tendency to over-act. Indeed, Hamlet is an intense, tragic, dramatic play; however, Hamlet's passionate speeches or mad ramblings are more poignant when considered in isolation. In Slinger's performance there is no respite, no relief from the relentless harangues of his constant crying/laughing etc.. A truly great dramatic performance climaxes, crescendos, deftly works up to moments of intense emotion or compelling action. Slinger's decision to play Hamlet all on one (ebulliently dramatic) level erases the subtle nuances of Shakespeare's original text: in his interaction with his father's ghost the audience's pathos is negated and the sublime cadences of the actual verse are lost, as we are unrelentingly subjected to Slinger's cringe-inducing, childish, repulsive cries. Where is the delicacy? Where is the simplicity? Why is a revered, well-known RSC actor performing like a naively exuberant, unexperienced teenager straight out of acting-school (and don't tell me that's what Shakespeare's Hamlet is - he is anything but). Unfortunately, it seems that the word 'subtle' is not in Slinger's vocabulary. 

OK, so enough about Slinger (although I could say more), and onto Hamlet's other problems.

• The staging was confused, and quite frankly, ridiculous. Although I appreciate that the RSC is always striving to do new, exciting things with their sets, here they have massively overreached. The stage is a confusing conglomeration of high-school gymnasium, old-fashioned Scottish country-pile (see James Bond's family home, in Skyfall), littered with incipient fencing paraphernalia. There are simply too many 'themes' in conflict here, and, whats worse, none of them are remotely interesting/engaging/titillating. If anything, the play would be better suited to a simple, blank stage: at least then it would avoid the criticism of being confused/amateur in design.  (A couple of extra notes on staging. The stage was littered with skulls - I assume to foreshadow Hamlet's famous 'Yorick' speech, but which actually debase it. In addition, the 'movers' took far too long to clear away the stage in preparation for the graveyard scene, totally distracting the audience from Hamlet and Horatio's conversation). 
• Hand-in-hand with staging, naturally, goes costume. Again, there seems to be no consistent theme (or even thought) behind the costumes: Hamlet appears wearing a suit (circa 1950's), then time-travels back to a doublet and hose, before donning an absurd 'modern-day' hooded parka and jeans in the closing scene. Horatio and Ophelia suffer with the trials of dodgy knit-wear, meanwhile Claudius, the Queen, and their court are attired in a similarly inexplicable/clashing array of old-world fashion, 'modern' attire and fencing vizors. Yes, Hamlet is a play that thrives on the inherent inconsistencies and inconstancies of life, human psychology and physiology - but the RSC's costume choices seem more like an un-planned, accidental menagerie than a carefully-coordinated, intentional, thematic jumbling. 
• A flaw I have touched upon, but find too ridiculous to merit discussion is the 'fencing' dimension of this production. It is unnecessary, un-textual, unriveting and - and this is perhaps the most offensive aspect of the whole sodding conundrum - isn't even executed well. Hamlet may have been a skilled swordsman - but these actors are not. The average theatre-goer in 2013 is sophisticated enough to appreciate this aspect of Hamlet's character without having it literally (and poorly) rammed in front of his eyes. 
• I found Ophelia ill-cast and ill-concieved. I can see that Farr was attempting to make more out of her character, but really, in Shakespeare's text and in almost every other production of Hamlet, she is on the periphery. Hamlet has dimensions of 'love', yes, but it is not a 'love story'. Our focus  is meant to be on Hamlet alone, which is why his relationship with Ophelia is largely left unwritten/open to the imagination. Forgive me for sounding anti-feminist, but Ophelia is an unimportant antecedent. If any female character is interesting in Hamlet, it is Gertrude: the character whose decision to marry her husband's brother tears the rug from under Hamlet, and corrupts the very fabric of the play's moral universe (On that point, Charlotte Cornwell's Gertude was bland, unmemorable, and dire: when, in the play, she is actually a rather interesting, ambiguous paradox of a woman. I do concede, however, that her performance was not exactly helped by having Mr. Over-actor - Slinger - as her counterpart, who prevented her from getting a word in edgeways, anyway). On a different note, Ophelia's eventual 'madness' was as unconvincing as Slinger's, and her smearing blood on Claudius and Gertude etc. a trivial, predictable motif - which crowned my dislike for Pippa Nixon's performance. *also, extremely superficially, I did not like her hair. Where are the famous locks intwined with flowers and weeds that drag her to her watery-grave - WHERE?!

• Hamlet is long, yes, but at four hours (including interval) the RSC's production was looong (with extra 'o's'). Given, Farr may have felt that he wanted to give the play its full-run, and allow all of Shakespeare's verse to be included - but there were scenes which were tedious and un-engaging, and could have benefited from being shortened. Although I largely believe in the 'sanctity' of the written text, it is natural and necessary that a literary piece should be formally (as opposed to thematically) modified and altered to fit its new, dramatic context. I read recently that Renaissance theatre goers were extremely adept listeners, and would sit through a four-hour performance of Hamlet with no qualms/discomfort. It is a lamentable, but real fact that modern audiences do not posses this astonishing faculty. In order to keep engaging audiences with albeit, the same material of the Renaissance, contemporary directors must at least attempt to make that material palatable and enjoyable for them. I am sad to say that if this was my first experience of professional theatre (as I suspect it was for some of the 14/15 y/o's sat in front of me) I would be unlikely to return. * NB I am not suggesting a dulling-down/de-elevation/modernisation of the text (these sorts of productions are repugnant) - my suggestions are merely in a formal sense. 
• The final scene was inexplicably poorly acted.
• As the play ends, a fire alarm goes off and sprinklers flood the stage. Why was this necessary? The audience were not surprised, taken-aback, or even momentarily affected by this (shoddy, half-hearted) 'spectacle': in my mind, the only thing it achieved was making Ophelia's white dress extremely dirty - the RSC's dry-cleaning bill is going to be extortionate by the end of the play's run. 

Despite my criticism there are a few - sparse - parts/factors of the RSC's Hamlet that I genuinely enjoyed. 

•  I thought Robin Soans was an excellent Polonious. He exquisitely portrayed all of Polonious' comic idisyncracies: from his inclination for proverbs (many of which have now entered common speech), his pompous verboseness, his sycophantic manouvers, and his insuppressible dislike for Hamlet. Soans pulled-off the character perfectly, and shone as, arguably, the most experienced and well-suited to his role. 
• The dumb-play was extremely engaging, combining humour and dark-tragedy. The use of costumes/setting that would have furnished an actual dumb-show in the Renaissance conveyed the same sense of jeopardy and titillation Hamlet's first audiences would have undoubtedly felt: as they watched Claudius, watching the play of himself. There was menace, there was sexual-innuendo, there was unease and enjoyment: in this brief dumb-show Farr manages to engage and amuse the audience wholly, when in the actual theatrical performance - of which the dumb-show is a mere part - he only half-captivates them, and merely sporadically amuses them. 

Evidently, as I warned you at before beginning, my criticisms vastly outnumber my praises. Overall, I feel extremely let down by the RSC: I expected an excellent performance of one of my favourite Shakespeare plays, what I got was a paltry 'show' of amateur dramatics, shoddy staging and sore-eyes from watching such a dull play for so long. I have booked tickets for a dramatic production of Venus and Adonis at Shakespeare's Globe theatre in May - I can only hope that it will outshine Hamlet, although that should not be too difficult. 

JEM.