Today it was announced that Jeremy Corbyn has accepted an invitation to speak at this year's Glastonbury Festival. It's an interesting move, but I'm not convinced it's the most tactically sound. Whilst it's great he's embracing youth culture and stirring those who might typically be disenfranchised from politics, it's also the Left's stereotyped association with artists/hippies/druggies and general bohemian-types that makes half the country vote Right! There's really nothing in this world as synonymous with that bohemian spirit as Glastonbury. So when those voters see inevitable footage of thousands upon thousands of people (fitting that exact description) soaked to the skin in a concoction of mud, rain, sweat and their own excrement chanting Jeremy Corbyn's name and going bat-shit crazy in a mosh-pit, make no mistake - it will terrify them to their very core. The Right wing media will use it to crippling effect. I can predict the headlines now: certainly there'll be pictures of revellers in highly compromising and inebriated states, dancing around like idiots or behaving recklessly (a bit like the one I've posted), splashed on a front page with a tag-line to the effect of "these are the people who vote for Jeremy Corbyn, you don't want to put them in charge, do you????" Worse still, it will be quite effective. The Labour Party should perhaps be careful that in the process of pursuing new voters, they don't totally alienate those who already do, or mainstream Britain as a whole. Even a traditional Tory voter finally wising up to the evils of this government might be very put off by the decision, and swayed back to the Conservative camp. (My late mum, an educated woman born in the era of WWII, would certainly have been one of them.) Matters as personal as cultural taste and musical identity should perhaps be avoided in politics for that very reason. Picture an upper class politician, addressing the more privileged audiences who might attend something like the English National Opera or Ascot: would that not be equally loathsome for some? By showing specific allegiance to a particular group, you alienate those at the other end of the spectrum. At least, that's what happens when politics become irrevocably tribal. Effectively we're forced to support one of 2-4 competing football teams, and as with football, voters usually pick their team according to where they live, who their family/friends support, and who they more identify with. They'll then stick with that team, even if they consistently lose - or take on weak and unpopular players/managers. The last thing it's usually to do with is competence of the men on that particular team, or a genuine admiration of footballing skill. In the same way, political identity is influenced almost entirely by instinct and social convention - as opposed to pesky concerns such as what's morally correct or prudent in any given situation. True democracy would be voting on governmental policy on a case-by-case basis, decided by a populous and politicians unencumbered of the title either "Montague or Capulet". Back in the real world though, Jeremy Corbyn will be construed as identifying with one against the other. Not to mention of course, there may be a good many attending Glastonbury who have no interest or political stance whatsoever; people who actively want to escape tedious complications of the real world. That is their right. There might even be the odd Tory voter present - they're liable to be found in a VIP area somewhere away from the commoners, wearing a monocle and scoffing on pheasant pate. And one could possibly argue even misguided/pitiless agents of the damned have the right to not have politics forced down their throat at a music festival. Therefore, maybe we should just keep it simple, and leave music festivals for music fans. They're one of the few sacred things left. I say that as both a devoted music fan, and a self-confessed Left-leaning political ranter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jGRgI-b_c4 This link is to a news report from "Russia Today". Russia, eg: the supposed "great enemy", the war-mongering militant nation that allegedly bullies its smaller neighbours, threatens world peace, and persecutes minorities (including LGBT people). Some, or all of these may be true - and yet RT often demonstrates a frankness and basic humanity I'm yet to see in Western mainstream news media. I've seen several examples of it, this particular report is not just a flash in the pan. Also in stark contrast, RT welcome journalists of extremely varied backgrounds and opinions, and unlike Western media (certainly the more Right-wing stations, and more so in America) those journalists are actually allowed to speak at length without the constant interruptions of a host who wishes to aggrandise him/herself, or steer the programme in the direction demanded by producers. Eg: say something they don't like on Fox News, they will simply talk over you, or cut you off. I for one was brought up to believe that only wrong-doers need fear or suppress the truth; ergo a news service that censors its guests or picks and chooses which arguments are put forward, has a clear agenda, and is almost certainly unreliable. Whatever your thoughts, I hope most of us would agree there is something fundamentally wrong with terrorist atrocities in the West being considered important/newsworthy, but the lives of those lost in the Middle East and Africa (every single day) somehow matter less. And if you agree with that much, the next question is obviously "why do our news channels not cover those stories?" The reason is simply the Right-wing press WANT you to feel that way. They want Westerners to feel we are more important and somehow higher up the evolutionary scale, even if only on a very subtle/subconscious level. And it's worked! In fact, it's worked so well, and we've become so insular and selfish within our capitalist/celebrity driven cultures, we no longer give a crap what's happening to people up the road or in the next borough, let alone people from another continent. Those who do care are usually powerless to enact any change whatsoever any way. Of course, the single greatest cause of the imbalance is our media's desire to inspire fear, with tragic news closer to home. Fear is the singular best friend to austere and unpopular, warlike governments. After all, a populous in fear needs strong, unapologetic "leadership" to take "decisive" and often objectionable action, whereas a calm/relaxed populous will naturally begin to lean more Left-wing. Happiness paves the way for tolerance, but fear can be wheeled out to justify just about any oppressive action, at any given time. In essence, it really is as simple as that. Pointing out this imbalance doesn't diminish the significance of horrific terror attacks such as those in Brussels or Paris last year; it only illustrates how and why we are reminded of certain tragedies every single day, whilst others are omitted. The answers to such simple questions can often make analysis of complex/shadowy geopolitics a lot more straightforward - you find yourself less easily distracted.
Amid the vast collection of political and social catastrophes thrust upon us by this Conservative government in what's unbelievably been only ten months, I admit I wasn't concerned about Britain exiting the European Union. Much like the issue of Scottish independence, I simply never believed it would happen. Whatever sham of democracy was held up and dangled before the Scottish people, I simply knew the government of Great Britain (and the former British Empire) would not just "give back" virtually half its territory and resources, least of all under a Tory led government. If you think of it through the eyes of a cold shrewd tactician playing a board-game like Risk, it's the equivalent of deliberately losing, throwing away your cards. And that is how they see it, make no mistake. Similarly, I never really believed Britain would exit the E.U; I thought even its discussion was merely to satisfy the emerging xenophobic element within our country. Those poor fools who cling to ridiculous belief that all our problems are caused by foreigners, benefit cheats and lazy people (nothing at all to do with the elites who've stolen all the wealth), and that life would be so much better without the oppressive "dictatorial" voice of Brussels ruining our quintessentially British society. I cannot hide my contempt for such naivety. In what way have our government not got enough power? David Cameron's government have broken every promise they ever made, sold off half the state, and destroyed the lives of thousands upon thousands of the most vulnerable in our country, all in less than a year. What on Earth could possibly make anyone honestly believe these Tory tycoons will make life better for us, or fairer? If ever there was a government already believing it's accountable to no-one, who can throw any pre-conceived rule-book out the window, it's these guys. Thank heavens they are still currently accountable to another political body; certainly with regard to pesky issues like human rights, workers' rights, religious freedoms, and environmental/economic policies. The political coup by this Conservative party has been swifter, bolder, and more ruthless than anyone could have predicted, so God help us all if they're truly left to do as they like. In fact, in a Tory Britain of the future, I'm not sure I'd even be fee to share these thoughts and opinions. However, it's not the pros and cons of "Brexit" I'd like to discuss - it's that I believe yet another carefully planned political manipulation and borderline subterfuge has taken place, one I'm convinced will reverse everything predicted. In the same way the political media machine went into overdrive in the eleventh hour to manipulate the 2015 General Election, the likelihood of Brexit has now dramatically increased virtually overnight, and not because of newly revealed information or a tide of anti European sentiment, national pride etc. No, I believe it's quite possible we will exit from Europe - but mostly down to the astute political aspirations and machinations of one man: Boris Johnson. This jumping aboard the Brexit bandwagon is little more than a clear bid by the affable blonde buffoon to be the next leader of the Conservative party, and in all probability, our next Prime Minister. It is well known that a good majority of hard-line Tories are in favour of us leaving the E.U, and David Cameron's vested interest in seeing big business/finance get their way (and Britain staying in) is rumoured to be splitting the party in two. Normally I would welcome such news, but whereas the Tories would also be typically closing ranks to present a united front, even a decisive split in the party doesn't phase them now - not in the new age of "one-horse-race" UK politics. Boris Johnson has stepped up to lead this rebellion having shown little advocacy for the Brexit campaign until now; on the contrary, having championed the multiculturalism of London, the importance of our economy and trade ties, our love of freedom... yadah yadah yadah. In other words, he's practically u-turned at a time of critical weakness for David Cameron simply to make a name for himself, and to be seen as the viable "alternative". That timing is of great significance. Osborne and Cameron are deeply unpopular (with good reason), and if there's one thing the men behind the curtain know, it's that when cracks in an old wall start to show, a new lick of paint will temporarily disguise them. Putting a new face on the Tory party to publicly "relent" on the most deplorable of their recent legislations would actually be a pretty smart move right now. Boris Johnson is a (somewhat) beloved clown, and as the U.S have shown us in recent months - there's really no limit to how far a blonde fop famous for making a twerp of himself on telly can go. Such is the world we live in. The popularity of celebrity culture and reality TV is far greater than that of politics, so merging of the two makes the latter far more palatable for the gormless/easily led in society. The truth is, evenI like Boris Johnson. Well, I say "like", what I mean is he amuses me. I even read his book on Winston Churchill recently, and he's quite an entertaining writer. First and foremost, he's a man who became famous not for political skill, but for being the veritable bumbling buffoon of the established political/gentry class. It was endearing, and he certainly seemed harmless enough. I still maintain it was his hosting of the BBC's "Have I Got News For You" that actually catapulted him to becoming Mayor of London: an office I doubt in his wildest dreams he'd ever thought he'd realistically occupy. Again, that is the new way of things. A well-known recognisable face and character the population feel they know personally are far more effectual tools than ethics or genuine ability - that sure worked for Boris. However, that is why I believe the man to be so dangerous. I've said it for some time. He is the affable/friendly face of a deeply oppressive regime, able to distract the masses from the horrors his party enforce - with tomfoolery and a bumbling, Hugh Grant-like Britishness. In short, he's one of the best weapons and propaganda machines an inhumanly boring and uninspiring Conservative party currently have at their disposal. Worse still, he doesn't really stand for anything other than his own ambition and being in the spotlight - he'll be very easily manoeuvred by the "Dark Lords" and Tory heavyweights, simply to retain their favour in his climb to power. Some of history's most inhumane leaders are said to have been kind, warm and charming in person (Adolf Hitler being the first that springs to mind). Of course, that's exactly how they get to where they are, and is how they're able to manipulate populations to close their eyes and ears to evil done in their name. I really can't imagine anyone better than Boris Johnson with that aim in mind. (If Mr Bean tells us we're off to invade another country, it couldn't possibly be for ignoble reasons, right?) One particular detail really sticks in my craw. In a recent article in The Guardian by Michael White (that echoes many of these sentiments), the author flippantly mentions that Boris Johnson currently earns a yearly salary of £275,000 for his column in The Telegraph. That is of course before his salary as Mayor of London, or before any of the fees brought in by public appearances and endorsements (for which he will have an agent, like any other "celebrity"). Also before the great wealth and "old money" his family are already blessed to have. That just disgusts me. We have a country and economy falling apart, where all but the elite are squeezed, and the least fortunate are literally being starved and killed off. The average citizen only earns about £25,000 for working full-time as a slave to the system, just to survive, and here's a guy who earns over ten times that for his less important, "part-time" job, peddling Tory propaganda. Eg: he's about as out of touch with real issues facing real people as you will ever find, and lacks any notion of empathy whatsoever (like the rest of his ilk). For all the many many Tory slights, I wonder what Jeremy Corbyn would do with such extravagant wealth? For God's sake, his followers clubbed together to reimburse him for a push-bike, and he donated the money to charity! Perhaps he'd see to it so the grotesquely wealthy are made to "make do" for a little bit, and not continue fleecing average people? Perhaps he'd demand that the pot be distributed a little more fairly? That is of course, why he terrifies them so much.
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/02/13/isis-sideshow-really/ It's no exaggeration to say this article by Carlyn Harvey made me feel sick to my stomach, perhaps more than any other I've ever read (and I read a fair bit of alarming stuff). This is not a struggle half the world away: this could be war coming to our very doorstep. Recent actions by NATO explicitly fit a narrative that supposed "left-wing conspiracy theorists" have been shouting for a long time now: that the conflict in the Middle East is as much about Western encirclement of Russia as anything else, and we've actually been on the road to a new Cold War (or worse still WWIII) for some time. People may not want to believe it, but Western portrayal of the Syria crisis is nothing more than propaganda. Our involvement is for financial/economic and strategic benefit, nothing to do with humanity or democracy, and first and foremost it was an attack on a regime firmly allied to Russia. Isis/Daesh are (or at least originated) as Western funded/trained insurgents intended to cripple the Assad regime from within - there's more than enough evidence of this. Knowing that full-well, Russia joined the conflict to actually take down Daesh (not pretend to, like everyone else). Faced with that, Western stratagem became to destroy the region entirely - leaving it useless and insignificant. That's why the EU suddenly rushed in guns blazing, and why citizens were not consulted by their supposed democratic representatives: Russian involvement demanded a different and immediate response.
The Ukraine crisis was/is essentially the same Western/NATO mission to destabilise/threaten Russia, but on a different front. Same technique though, almost exactly. And all of it was predicted years ago. I wrote something back in December that included a YouTube video interview with academic Sam Ramidani in 2012 (http://macs-mouth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/a-prediction-from-three-years-ago.html); please watch it and see for yourself how every single domino is falling exactly as forecast. When I recently heard of the reignition of the Alexander Litvinenko story, and the UK government's "out of the blue" condemnation of an assassination that pretty much the rest of us accepted was a Russian political assassination almost a decade ago, I became edgy. Why now after all?
But the real warning light I've been waiting for with baited breath is early-stage forecast of U.S aggression towards Iran: the last of Russia's allies in the region, sharing its border - being also the gateway to India and the Far East. I've been praying to hear nothing, then a few days ago I read how Iran have announced they intend to no longer trade oil in U.S dollars, but Euros. Eg: EXACTLY what Saddam Hussein did, and what some say was the real cause of the Iraq war. It should be a huge news story, but media coverage has unsurprisingly been extremely thin. Then a few days later, this? It's not coincidence. I really hope I'm wrong, but it genuinely seems to be approaching one minute to midnight.
Within the last month, this government have (again) made even the machinations of Margaret Thatcher seem tame - and this week, the Tories have firmly put an end to any notion of democracy in this country whatsoever. Fracking is going full-steam ahead. These monsters are very literally risking the ground we walk upon and the water we drink, just to make themselves richer. Meanwhile, they've also just quietly removed the universal right of infants to receive free daily meals at school, having already glossed over the fact that the poor and disabled in this country are now likely to just wither and die. Just as they're simultaneously selling off state assets to their mates, and allowing banks and companies like Google massive tax breaks. It's grotesque. However in the last 24hrs, Jeremy Hunt has essentially admitted this government will not bow to democracy - they will force doctors to adhere to conditions the entire profession has unilaterally rejected. WE HAVE NO RIGHTS, ANY OF US: NOT IN THE MINDS OF THESE PEOPLE. This is the bell tolling for our NHS, make no mistake. It will now crumble, and privatisation will be construed as the only remedy - which is of course what they wanted all along. If this government are not removed from power at the earliest opportunity, our children's children will inhabit a corporate-run police state, with no voice, no guaranteed human rights and no prospects. They will simply be mice on a wheel (even more so than we already are). I so wish people in this country would take stock of what is happening. Sometimes I want to run down the street screaming it at the top of my lungs... sadly I'm not convinced it would help much.
Our Prime Minister is more akin to a Bond villain, cackling as he condemns thousands to poverty and death.
I absolutely despair. It genuinely upsets me to see those supposedly leading us and acting on our behalf behaving like little more than boorish teenagers: the House of Commons has just become a glorified sixth form common room. (I've used that analogy before, but feel it is particularly apt.) John Bercow has earned his salary more in the past six months than perhaps ever before, trying to control this pack of jeering buffoons. Our Prime Minister may be utterly deluded, but he is a fine orator. He also has the inane ability to stand there and tell point-blank lies with unwavering gusto. As much as I'm a Corbyn supporter and believe we desperately need his straightforward politics in the UK today (most certainly since UK politics went from being a heavily rigged three-horse-race to one horse and a few crippled donkeys), he is a poor speaker: no two ways about it. It worries me. Cameron consistently runs rings round him - even if it is all just nonsense, like a petulant child parroting or reversing every instruction given to them. To the eyes and ears of a spoon-fed Joe public, a confident lie is more effectual and memorable than a half-hearted truth, and as much as I'm sure Corbyn would find the idea loathsome, he really does need some professional coaching and/or rehearsal. Stop reading memos and bits of paper Jeremy! Face the beast, look him in the eyes! Tell him (and the world) straight to his snivelling puffy face what a liar he is; that he is a corrupt, profiteering angel of death, and has wrought misery upon thousands of people both at home and abroad. Tell him he is little better than a murderer and a tyrant, and no number of lies, false statements, or jeers from his mates will change that fact. Put some fire in your belly man! A hammer doesn't do the job if no force is applied. You need to grip this over-confident bull firmly by the horns, and drag him down to the ground Jeremy. Do not let go, Do NOT move on to the next question when he clearly hasn't answered the last one. It just comes across as defeat - admitting you don't actually have the authority to hold this Prime Minister to account. You do Jeremy. YOU MUST. Rehearse it and put it in less subversive terminology if needs be, but you must start engaging these self-righteous dinosaurs with some competent, passionate rhetoric Jeremy - and at least a smidgen of the same anger your supporters feel. I for one, would love a shot at him. UPDATE (14/01/16) One very sensible response I've received from a few people is it would be wrong for Corbyn to compromise his values or who he is; that he should not "lower himself to the level of the Tories" and not engage in the sort of rhetoric much of the country have come to despise. It's a fair point. However, I do believe they are confusing the Etonian traditions of waffle and avoiding the questions/telling lies/creating spin (the real cancer of politics) with verbal ability and/or engaging with those you're speaking to. Looking into someone's eyes when you talk is very powerful, as is the ability to speak from the heart without relying on information on a screen or memo. Winston Churchill was a great and effectual leader not only because he was a man of principle, but because he was able to rouse the souls of men and women to oppose tyranny. He connected with them, and he did so through the power of words. That should not be underestimated, or confused for talking bulls**t.
The armies of Jerusalem on the march, from Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005)
A friend from drama school who's now a teacher and director recently posted on social media asking for examples of favourite scenes from films. She wanted to provide her students with examples beyond her own tastes: a smart move I think, and a pro-active use of social media. As an avid film/television series junkie, it got me thinking, and seemed a good excuse to write something myself. Of the many genres I'm drawn to, one stands out as favourite: the big budget, historical epic, often also referred to as 'swords & sandals'. The kind of stuff that has the whole cinema/front room quaking with the sound of armies on the march, the clash of swords, yells of battle-cry. All peppered and held together with political intrigue and harsh realities of the era. I love 'em. Though many don't consider the genre the most 'high-brow', it's what I personally want to see in a film. I want the grandeur, the violence, the huge spectacle of vast armies and battles - the likes of which most of us (thankfully) won't ever witness. The real turning points of history. If I want to think about modern/intellectual issues, I can read a book. Hell, I can turn on the news. There's more than enough material to ponder at the moment. So to volunteer an answer to my friend's question, my mind raced through films I've enjoyed of that genre, that I felt had something to say in a modern context. Here are my top five.
1. Kingdom of Heaven (2005, Dir: Ridley Scott)
Strangely enough, though it's a prime example of a well-crafted and intelligent 'big-budget' historical film, having both profound meaning and relevance in the modern world, it didn't do particularly well at the box office. In fact, neither of Ridley Scott's follow-ups to Gladiator, this or the subsequent Russell Crowe Robin Hood reboot, were as well received.
First and foremost, there was one huge thing wrong with Kingdom of Heaven. In two words - Orlando Bloom. He was the supposedly big Hollywood name carrying the film (riding unmerited success from a veritably mute role in the Lord of the Rings trilogy), yet rarely have I seen an otherwise amazing film so corrupted and utterly poisoned by a lead performance. It is some of the worst, most disengaged and unbelievable screen-acting I've ever born witness to.
The same is true of the actor's involvement in the previous year's Troy, which he also nearly ruined too. Fortunately, director Wolfgang Petersen at least placed a few genuinely talented names above Bloom on the bill, namely that of Brad Pitt and Eric Bana, not to mention the formidable Brian Cox as Agamemnon, and together they successfully carried the film. Too much reliance was placed on Bloom in Kingdom of Heaven, and his lacking was only too painfully obvious. It bugged me outlandishly, because some of the other performances were nothing short of spell-binding. Notably Jeremy Irons as Tiberias, Brendan Gleeson as Reynald de Chatillon, and Ghassan Massoud as Saladin. Not only that, but the cinematography was awe-inspiring.
The other widespread criticism cited at Kingdom of Heaven was that it was too complicated, too slow moving, and too 'politically correct'. In other words, there was no clear goodie/baddie, no clear identification of who was right or wrong.
That's the exact reason I found the film so special. That is the real world. That is real-life. Nothing is black and white. Each side in any dispute will see justification for their cause, and I distinctly remember the epiphany of being taught at drama school: "villains don't see themselves as baddies, they usually see themselves as being morally right." I personally think the film tackled that sentiment far more bravely than the majority of Hollywood blockbusters, as well as the reality that within any political alignment, whether now or hundreds of years ago, there are often internal struggles between greatly varying temperaments.
However, a film suggesting Christianity could be at fault, or indeed that Islam could ever have held the moral superiority was never likely to go down well with large portions of Western audiences, particularly in America. (I think many would have preferred a Fox News style interpretation.) Kingdom of Heaven passes all too relevant judgement on the modern age, and also explains to a modern audience the early origins of the current conflict in the Middle East. The romantic notion of the Christian 'crusade' was really anything but, and in many ways the West are still doing exactly the same today - albeit under the umbrella of democracy and global capitalism. That's progress for you.
One of my favourite scenes is when Saladin and the great Mamluk army are about to lay siege to the crusader castle of Kerak. Balian (Orlando Bloom) has been spared from execution by the fantastic Alexander Siddig (better known for his more recent depiction of Doran Martell in Game of Thrones) as karmic retribution for his fair treatment earlier in the film, but our Christian hero is nonetheless warned he will soon die at the hands of Saladin: "My master has arrived". Then suddenly crossing the horizon, the whole army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem turns up, led by none other than the masked leper king, Baldwin (Edward Norton) - just in time to save the day. The audience sits there expecting some major on-screen battle action, but instead, events take a quite unlikely and almost anti-climactic turn.
The two leaders trot out to meet each other ahead of their armies, and in the ensuing conversation, we discover they respect one another. They even feel affection and concern for one another; they're virtually friends. It is this relationship, the wisdom of two men alone that holds together an incredibly fragile peace - one that would be flung aside in an instant by their own advisers and statesmen, even the greater populace. The ill-advised majority are only too keen to follow a propagandist agenda for war.
Sound familiar at all?
Instead, Baldwin and Saladin do not bow to the political pressures on them at this time. No lives are thrown away that day: reason and humanity win out, at least temporarily. The Mamluk army turns around and retires to Damascus, and Baldwin goes on to redress the evil within his own ranks, Reynald de Chatillon. For me, that is quite powerful imagery and sentiment.
The lure of war can be refused, by the right leaders.
2. Gladiator (2000, Dir: Ridley Scott)
Staying with our much celebrated director Ridley Scott, Gladiator was probably the title that most rejuvenated the once jaded historical 'swords & sandals' epic. Everyone loved this film, even those who might not ordinarily enjoy the genre. It was genuinely quite hard to find fault with - from the sets and costumes, the jaw-dropping enormity of the Roman legions, the barbarity and beauty of the Colosseum, the flawlessly crafted script and story, to the inspiring renditions of the leading cast. Russell Crowe was suitably tough, noble and stoic as Maximus Decimus Meridius, "commander of the armies of the north", Joaquin Phoenix was delicious as the tortured and tantrum-prone emperor Commodus (another good example of a villain who doesn't realise he's a villain), and performances by the late Richard Harris and Oliver Reed in their respective roles as Marcus Aurelius and Proximo were simply out of this world. (In fact, if there is a God, I'd like to imagine his character is similar to that of Richard Harris in this movie.) Derek Jacobi and Djimon Hounsou definitely deserve a nod too, but Connie Nielson was a bit of a weak link for me as Lucilla, if I was forced to find fault somewhere. Perhaps only because she spoke with an obtrusive foreign accent, when all other Romans seemed to exhibit a crisp, British RP.
How to pick a scene from the film? It was pleasing on so many levels: action, drama, intrigue, you name it. However, having provided myself the guideline of highlighting relevance in the modern world, I'd have to choose that pivotal moment at the very end where an already disadvantaged Maximus faces off against his nemesis, the emperor Commodus in single combat, before the eyes of the Colosseum. When it becomes evident to Commodus he will not win, in spite of underhandedly having Maximus stabbed beforehand, he casts aside all honour. Even in front of a huge audience. His true colours become evident. Disarmed by the gladiator, he calls out to his Praetorian cohort and demands they provide him a sword. Their commander Quintus (Tomas Arana), former friend to Maximus, is suddenly and unexpectedly handed direct responsibility for the outcome of the entire film. As Lieutenant to Maximus at the film's opening, Quintus had been torn by the conflict of morality versus mandate, for its entirety. Finally, at the crucial moment, he defies the ruthless maniac leading the Roman empire to ruin, and commands the Praetorians to sheathe their swords. Commodus is then defeated; justice is served, and control of the empire is handed back to the senate and people of Rome. The relevance? Now, as then, monsters who manipulate the world are only able to do so on account of a chain of command. It's only by unopposed compliance that evil is able to thrive unchallenged. It really is the responsibility of every human being to determine truth from propaganda: right from wrong. Only courage to challenge the established order can put an end to tyranny, and in this instance, by actively choosing right over wrong, even someone subservient in the established chain of command is effectively able to do exactly that. That's an important message.
3. Braveheart (1995, Dir: Mel Gibson)
Despite starring an Australian, cries of "Freedom" in a Scottish accent have become as culturally synonymous to our kilt-wearing cousins as Irn-Bru and bagpipes.
The Scots themselves generally loved it, as despite any misgivings and inaccuracies, it painted the English in an extremely unfavourable light. Continuously. Throughout. There were no 'shades of grey' here. That was more than enough to rally Scottish support, as well as that of our previous colonial conquests across the Atlantic.
In fairness, despite more than a few historical liberties taken, we were pretty malicious bastards back then. Our questionably 'United Kingdom' was forged by exactly such oppression. Only political and dynastic manoeuvres eventually conjoined the crowns of both countries in James Stuart; something of little concern or value to the average Scot, now or then. It was decided at a time of absolute monarchy, not the constitutional (and virtually ineffectual) one we have today. Scotland always has and will be a proud independent nation, and its forced union with England has been despised by many Scots for centuries.
It probably doesn't help that to this day, the lyrics of our national anthem originally included a society-wide request for our monarch to "like a torrent rush, rebellious Scots to crush". Wowzer. No wonder the Scots were annoyed. You can sing "ice ice baby" over the bass-line all you like, it's always going to be Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie.
The same sentiments are painfully present in Northern Ireland. An English national hero immortalised in stone and bronze outside our parliament is generally thought of (by the Irish) as a bit like a German parliament proudly displaying a statue of Hitler. Oliver Cromwell was responsible for untold atrocities across the Irish Sea. It's therefore arguably extremely distasteful, but inevitably, it's victorious conquerors that decide whom history shall revere.
It's important to understand that in the same way the populace of the Middle East have never forgotten sins committed against them, as portrayed in Kingdom of Heaven, similar atrocities were committed against the Scots and Irish around exactly the same sort of time. In fact, Edward Longshanks, the villainous English tyrant and 'Hammer of the Scots' so brilliantly played by the late Patrick McGoohan (ironically an Irishman), joined the ninth crusade to the Holy Land in 1268.
The film also glazed over the fact Longshanks had recently 'pacified' Wales too. They were the first to fall to a 'United Kingdom'. I obviously don't need to explain how the issue of Scottish independence, or the desire for freedom from English governance is relevant today. And if I do, you've probably been living in a cave.
My favourite moment in the film is actually one of those historical liberties previously mentioned. I'm not sure there's any evidence to suggest Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfadyen) did actively fight or engage in a plot to ensnare William Wallace (Mel Gibson), let alone fight on the English front lines dressed like the medieval equivalent of Darth Vader, but I do think it was a valuable dramatic license that comments on the reality of politics.
When it's finally revealed to be Robert the Bruce fighting for Longshanks (it is true his family were in and out of favour with English Kings over the years, dependent on their level of cooperation), it's an acute and visceral betrayal - as seen very much in the eyes of our hero. It's simply incomprehensible to Wallace how the very man on whom Scottish pride and dreams depend, could possibly do a private deal with the tyrannical power of England for personal gain.
It serves as stark reminder that those we conceive to be acting on our behalf are not always motivated by our desires or needs. Instead they are often motivated by greed, and desire for political advancement within the established order; motives more often than not in complete opposition to any notion of 'common good'.
However... the Bruce then helps Wallace escape. He turns on the oppressors, and leads the Scots to victory at the implied Battle of Bannockburn at the end of the film. Ergo, even those who've previously done the wrong thing can finally say 'enough is enough', and take a moral stand. Eg: It's never too late to do the right thing: it can make the difference. Again, that's a quite important message.
4. Agora (2009, Dir: Alejandro Amenábar)
This rather unconventional 'swords & sandals' epic strayed quite far from the formula that usually makes for a successful blockbuster in the genre: there was very little in the way of special effects, amassed armies waging war, epic confrontations etc. It was all about conquest of the mind, the conquest of ideas - the early oppressive and misogynistic Christianity that held dominion over the minds of Kings and paupers alike, all the way from its rise to Imperial power under Constantine and the Roman Empire, through the entire middle ages, until its decline with the rise of secular (colonial) government. Also unusually, there was no macho male hero clutching a sword in the face of all-encompassing evil; this film is the complete opposite. Our focal character is a virtually powerless but nonetheless compassionate, educated and inspiring teacher - who also happened to be a woman: Hypatia (of Alexandria), a Greco-Roman philosopher and mathematician played with enormous charisma, as ever, by the wonderful Rachel Weisz. The film covers a very specific and effectual period of history. In 391 AD the Roman Empire was at the peak of it's territorial control, controlling vast regions of Europe, north Africa and the middle east, but struggled with its own bureaucracy. It became fractured and splintered, resulting in countless civil wars and uprisings, and of course vying factions competing for power and influence. Eventually it divided into the western Roman empire with Rome as capital, and the eastern Roman empire with Constantinople (modern day Instanbul). The east identified far more strongly with Greek culture, having been colonised by Alexander the Great and his successor kingdoms even pre-dating Roman occupation, and it consequently became known as the Byzantine empire: a faction and lineage that went on to survive the western Roman empire by quite some time, well into the middle ages. It is there in the east, in the secondary Byzantine capital of Alexandria (Egypt) that the tale is set. The early years of the fourth century were critical. A potent slave religion known as Christianity had gathered incredible momentum across the Roman empire, particularly in the east, and severely threatened the established classes who still followed the old Greco-Roman gods. It was initially oppressed brutally, however then something very unlikely happened no-one could have predicted.
The Chi Ro - early symbol of Christianity
One of the four Roman would-be emperors vying for control was a man heralded as 'Constantine the Great'. Around 310 AD, he went to war with one of his competitors, Maxentius, and in a desperate ploy to rejuvenate his wavering and outnumbered troops (and perhaps also genuine personal conversion, who knows), he announced to his entire army they were now Christians, and fighting in the name of the "one true God". Constantine ordered his soldiers paint the symbol of this new religion, the Chi Ro (Greek symbol for Christ) on their shields, promising it would lead them to victory. Whether a stroke of luck or 'divine intervention', Constantine's army emerged victorious: which of course he saw (or at least publicised) as the latter. He formally converted to Christianity, announced himself its spiritual leader, and literally wrote the Catholic prayer-book (the Nicene creed, or Catholic 'declaration of faith'). Then he set about spreading its influence across his newly conquered Roman empire, and although Christianity and Paganism were allowed to coexist at first, Constantine's successors soon realised that controlling subjects with religion, eg: guaranteeing either eternal salvation or damnation in the next life, was far more cost effective than military repression. A multitude of different gods/different rules also created numerous bureaucratic problems for an empire seeking to re-establish order. The film covers that transitional period when Christianity suddenly ceased to be a religion of the slaves, abhorred by the gentry classes, suddenly becoming the official state religion. A pioneering humanitarian and scholar such as Hypatia is horrified by the routine violence engulfing her city, all in the name of what she sees as senseless man-manipulated religions. She preaches tolerance and reason, but all too soon the brutal and aggressive tide of Christianity becomes inescapable. The film was very poignant for me, especially as a former Christian who now considers himself Agnostic. Apart from clearly shining a spotlight on the oppressive and violent origins of Christianity and the dangers of religious fanaticism, it also showed how fickle people (of all classes) can be regarding their political/religious alignment, if their security and/or personal position is threatened. In one scene, the established order is very visibly overturned. Vengeful Christian preacher Cyril (Sami Samir) deliberately chooses to incite his newly empowered flock to violence, using scripture to attack the governing Roman prefect Orestes (Oscar Isaac, of recent Star Wars Episode VII fame) and his friendship with a Hypatia - now painted as a blasphemous heathen. Orestes resists the open challenge to his authority and refuses to bow to Cyril, who brandishes an early edition of the Bible as justification for the public subjugation. The Roman's refusal is seen as affront to the whole religion, rather than just the upstart preacher as intended, and Orestes is then stoned by the angry mob upon departing the temple. It marks a point in our history when religion suddenly became more powerful than imperialism. A 'New World Order' that lasted centuries. It's the last time in the film Orestes attempts to defend his beloved friend. If you make people fearful enough, they will give into anything eventually, even the persecution of those closest to them. One cannot help see common ground with the dangers of religious fanaticism today: how those at the top of any institution, especially the religious, are able to twist the minds and will of their followers to suit their own agenda. One group's perspective can become law with the flick of a pen. It also teaches another concurrent lesson from history: persecuted groups will often wreak the most terrible vengeance on their oppressors, should the tables ever be turned. I believe it was Machiavelli who centuries later wrote: "Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot." His theories of Realpolitik are certainly the carbon opposite and in complete contradiction to modern notions of humanitarianism and morality, but unfortunately they are arguably ignored by a modern statesmen at his or her country's peril. Machiavelli's writings are therefore, in essence, the foundation and justification for every right-wing argument and attitude to this very day.
5. The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999, Dir: Luc Besson)
This quite outlandish take on one of France's most iconic figures, revered as a saint by the Catholic church to this day, is as much a study on the effects of deep psychological trauma and injustice, as it is a historical 'swords & sandals' epic. In this quite twisted piece directed by Luc Besson portraying the famous turning point in the Hundred Years War between England and France, our heroine is little more than a manipulated, misguided (and often bizarrely behaving) pawn in a power struggle between vying French factions.
I always thought it odd that a predominantly French film should question one of its iconic figures in such a way, or paint Joan of Arc (Milla Jovovich) as an at-times insatiably impetuous lunatic - but then again, France is nowadays perhaps understandably more keen on promoting its staunch secularism, and the fact it gave birth to modern notions of 'liberte'. France were the first nation to reject both religious and monarchic absolutism, and that's of course a prevailing reason why just about every powerful dynasty in Europe went to war with them in the 18th and 19th centuries.
This specific ideology holds far more sway in the film than any promotion of France's pre-revolution Catholicism and/or crusader state heritage, at any rate.
This film is set around 1429, a period in The Hundred Years war (still the longest running concurrent period of war between two nations in world history) when France were virtually defeated, and English kings ruled more territories on the continent than the subjugated French. They were prisoners in their own land, and had almost given up hope of ever displacing the occupying English forces.
Basically Braveheart, but the other side of the English Channel.
Step forward a traumatised 'holy' woman with a score to settle, who claims to have received visions and instructions directly from God. She whips the French up into a rebellious frenzy, gives them a seemingly implausible belief they can in fact beat the invaders back with God on their side, and before you know it, the conquered become the conquerors.
Like some of the others, this film shows how fervent religious belief is truly a force to be reckoned with, particularly when it's combined with effective manipulation or propaganda and a prolonged state of repression. That specific combination can very literally turn the established order upside down.
It also highlights how once Joan's purpose to the state had been served, it turns on her - the very instant she was conceived to be a threat and at odds with the new status quo. And it disposes of her most ruthlessly.
Of course, what this film also bravely addresses in a shock twist at the very end, is that religious 'signs' and visions are psychosomatic flights of fancy, often a bi-product of trauma or vanity. However baseless, irrational or fraudulent their origin, such idealism can and often has been manipulated to implement calamitous world-changing events.
Dustin Hoffman, who periodically appears throughout the film as embodiment of Joan's conversations with God (possibly God himself in human form), suddenly turns on her at the crucial moment of her own trial. The voice that's guided her from the outset suddenly alludes to the fact he is not the voice of God, but simply a voice within her own head - now telling her she's conceived certain events to be signs exactly because she wanted them to be: it suited her purpose.
Suffice to say, this film was probably not a hit with the Catholics.
Fantastically, Hoffman's performance is so good, you can almost ignore the hideous protrusion of his American accent, amidst what is already a film full of jumbled accents. Surprisingly small details can be a suspension of belief too far, at least for me, and I do find American quite jarring. Surely it's an accent that should never appear in a historical film, certainly not one that's set pre-dating when the country was even discovered?? Worth a watch, particularly if you're an angry Atheist.
