Final Thoughts on the Scottish Elections

I was standing at a bus stop last week in the middle of the day, eavesdropping (terrible habit, can’t condone it, but sometimes you can’t help yourself) on two middle aged, working class women discussing tactical voting (or how to get rid of Labour without getting the SNP – the Lib Dems were going to do quite well with this totally unrepresentative sample of the Edinburgh electorate). Anyway, in a weird kind of way this restored some of my faith in the political process. I think the electorate are often a lot more canny than they are given credit for by politicians. At the last Scottish elections, for example, Lothian region returned 4 out of 7 regional MSPs from smaller parties or independent candidates – not a fluke, I think and I trend I hope we will see replicated again this week.

One of the strengths of the Scottish Parliament has been the voice given to the smaller parties, and if, as seems likely, we have a minority government after Thursday, these smaller parties will have an even larger part to play. I suspect the turnout is going to be low on Thursday (I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t much over 50%, unfortunately) which means that the parties who get their voters out will do better than expected. Its also worth noting that opinion polls for the Scottish elections have consistently failed to predict the outcome of the regional votes, with smaller parties often doing much better than expected, and I suspect the same will happen this time.

Anyway, having thoroughly critiqued the Christian parties in my previous posts (Christian Politics Revisited and Family Values and the Scottish Elections), I thought it only fair to share some thoughts on the other parties, together with some predictions, so I can look a complete fool come Friday morning!

Labour – the labour candidates I’ve seen look thoroughly demoralised already. I think they know they’re in for a hiding. They’ve also been so busy trying to distance themselves from the Labour government in Westminster, they don’t seem to have done a very good job of putting forward what they’re actually standing for. I suspect, if their supporters are equally demoralised, they might struggle to get their voters out on Thursday. If they have a good day they might only lose 10 seats, if it goes badly maybe twice that or more. will win 37 seats (-13)

SNP – The SNP will be the largest party after Thursday. My feeling with them, is that apart from the referendum, they’re trying a bit too hard to be all things to all men, supporting anything that’s popular and it will be interesting if they do form a government to see what gives first. Not sure how much I trust Alex Salmond, but the nightmare scenario is that he doesn’t win his own seat (it could happen) and we get Nicola Sturgeon as first minister! Overall I think they’ll gain between 10-15 seats, the balance in the system meaning that for some of the constituencies they win, they’ll lose some regional seats. 41 seats (+13)

Lib-Dems – will be desparate to keep the debate off Trident as their stance doesn’t come across as well as the easy “No” stance of other parties. There is an element of sitting on the fence about it, but its also quite a considered, thought-out approach, but not one which distils easily into a soundbite. However, its not a stance I agree with them on – my own view trident should go as soon as possible. That apart, I like what I’m hearing from them about health, education, local taxation and the environment, but am not over-enamoured with my local candidate. I think they will do well in some areas – I think Edinburgh could be particularly rich pickings for them, keeping the two seats they have and maybe picking up one or two more, perhaps making Malcolm Chisholm one of the big name casualties of the day in Edinburgh North. The advantage being in Lothians, they have no list MSPs to lose if they pick up seats here. Overall, I think they’ll finish one or two seats up. 19 seats (+2)

Conservatives – for all David Cameron’s friendly face of tory-ism, Scottish leader Annabel Goldie comes across as more of an old-fashioned conservative. I think they’re weak on the environment and I’m not convinced by their arguments that their policies will benefit the least well-off sections of society. The candidate in my constituency was particularly poor answering how his party would address the gap between rich and poor. Overall, I think they might pick up a few constituencies from Labour, but will lose on the list anything they gain on the constituency and finish up exactly where they started. 18 Seats (no change)

Greens – unsurprisingly, are probably the best on the environment, but also sound reasonable on health, tax, etc… I do take issue with their plans to indiscriminately abolish denominational schools, but otherwise like what I’ve heard from them. I think they might do better than expected, holding what they’ve got and maybe picking up one or two other seats. 9 seats (+2)

Scottish Socialist/Solidarity – I anticipate that the split will also split their votes, leading to a bit of a wipe out of the seats they have. Unfortunately, I suspect Tommy Sheridan might hang on in Glasgow, although anybody who campaigns with George Galloway deserves to lose!. I hope Colin Fox holds onto his seat in Lothians, but it will be a close run thing. 1 for SSP, 1 for Solidarity (-5)

Senior Citizens Party – (oops, can’t quite remember their proper name). Bizarrely, they might be the main beneficiary of the socialist wipe out. Could also do well because their core support are possibly the most politically motivated, committed and active part of the population and will vote on Thursday. They’ll hold the seat they have and maybe add one or two more. 3 seats (+2)

Independants – Margo MacDonald will hold her seat in Lothians, and good for her. Dennis Cannavan’s decision not to stand again in Falkirk West for family reasons could give Labour its one solitary gain of the night. That’s usually one of the first seats to declare, so it might be an indication of how things are going - if Labour don’t win it back, it will be a very bad night for them indeed! 1 seat (-1)

UKIP - Thankfully an irrelevance in Scotland, and long may they remain so. 0

BNP - in the words of one Radio 4 comedian – “they are racist, and if you vote for them, so are you”. 0

I think that about sums it up – I hope you will vote, if you’re entitled to do so, whoever you vote for. As for me, the constituency vote will probably go Lib Dem for lack of a better option and the regional vote will be Green.

Anybody think they can do any better with predictions of want to try and change my mind about things - please add your comments here.

A Final thought - my favourite election poster so far - "Vote SNP for longer school holidays". OK, so that was from a mock-election in one of my schools, but it appealed to me!

Froth-less Christianity

Over the years my coffee drinking habits have changed. I used to favour the cappuccino, with about an inch of froth and foam before you got to the real coffee. Now I prefer my coffee black and strong. In a completely trivial and inappropriate way, I’m now going to use this as a picture for how the way I relate to God has changed as well. What I’m about to share is my own personal experience, it is not meant to cast negative reflections on anybody else’s. I’m also largely referring to things from my own church tradition and I suspect this may be more common in the more charismatic type of church, but I also suspect that other traditions probably have their own forms of froth.

What it all comes down to is a desire for greater reality in my walk with God, in my experience of God. The real coffee, if you will, of spirituality. And I’m increasingly getting put off by the froth – the unreality of certain aspects of church. Sometimes it seems that people are trying to hype things up and to whip things up in worship. Whereas once I might have really got into that and it would have helped me to meet God, nowadays I’m finding it more of a distraction. Its froth that used to taste good to me, but is now just hollow and artificial. I’m finding the volume and repetition of the person at the front telling me to push into God doesn’t actually help me to push into God. Instead its more of a distraction and I find myself standing there thinking “Will you just shut up, get out of the way, and let me focus on God!”

OK, there are some truths I need to balance this with. Firstly – it doesn’t really matter what guys up the front are doing, there’s no excuse for not worshipping because God is always worthy to receive our worship and he’s always there. Also, I’m not saying that I’m any better than others – for them it might be a real and helpful way of encountering God – I’m not prepared to pass judgment on that. Like the coffee in the cappuccino, I’m sure God is in it somewhere.

I guess the interesting question here is can you hype God up? After all he is infinitely more in all possible ways than the hype would suggest. But sometimes I feel that by an “artificial” exaggeration of what we see happening, we maybe miss the bigger picture of who He is and what He’s really doing.

Here’s what I know for certain – that God is there, that He is immensely more good and loving and powerful and involved and compassionate (and I could keep going here) than I possibly could imagine.

I also know that he’s with me all the time, although most of the time I’m just not aware of that and I want to know him with me much more. Not just in lovely, cosy times of worship – actually the times I’ve felt closest to God haven’t always been that cosy, like Aslan – he’s good, but he’s not necessarily safe and being close to him can be literally awe-inspring. But even just mean the wow-moments, I mean a greater awareness of him in the day-to-day, a greater sense of his hand in my life and in the world around, a greater ability to see the divine at work in creation in the little thing he does every moment. Most of all I need a greater awareness of him to lift me out of my self-centred existence and the breakdown the hardness that has grown in my heart. To get there I need a reality in my walk with him, which moves past the froth and to the heart of the matter.

True Comfort and Encouragement

I've been thinking a bit about what real comfort and encouragement look like. Moving swiftly past the temptation to imagine a large glass of nice red wine or a bar of dark chocolate. There is probably nothing tremendously new or earth-shattering in what I'm about to say, but hey, the thoughts are running through my head at the moment, so why not get them down.

Let me give an example from myself of how this can be sometimes complicated. I do the type of job where it is often difficult to know how well you're doing and so many things outside of my control can affect things. Sometimes this leaves me feeling like I'm completely useless, I'm doing no good and so on. At those times, what I think I need is reassurance that I'm doing well, that I'm making a difference. And its very easy for friends to buy into that as well and offer me that
reassurance, which appears to work. I end up feeling all warm and cosy and comforted ... until the next time something goes wrong and I go back to square one. The root problem, you see, maybe isn't work going badly, but that I derive too much of my sense of self-worth, value and significance from what I do. And what I really need to know is not that I'm doing a good job, but rather that even if I'm not, it would be OK - that I would still matter, that God would still be there for me.

The film Reign Over Me (see my earlier post) raised interesting questions about the best way to help somebody - on the one hand, trying to force somebody into things, even for their own good, is seldom a strategy that seldom turns out well. On the other hand, what people need and what they think they need aren't always the same. Platitudes will sail well wide of the mark and, whilst God can use scripture powerfully in some cases, biblical "sticking-plasters" often just don't do it. However, there is something incredibly powerful about someone who understands and stands alongside in the midst of difficulty. Job's comforters did a far better job when they just sat with him and wept than when they opened their mouths! Maybe loneliness is at its most acute not when we are alone, but when we are going through hard times and lack somebody to understand and stand with us. I don't think thats the whole story for comfort and encouragement, but maybe it should be the starting point.

This weeks viewing – Alpha Dog and Reign Over Me

We’re into that rather quiet period in cinemas between the last of the award contenders and the first big blockbuster of the summer (Spiderman 3 due next Friday). It’s a space when sometimes some quite original and interesting movies get their moment in the sunshine. Both these movies have the potential to do that, but both ultimately fall short of their potential and remain interesting but flawed offerings.

Alpha Dog – 3/5 (contains plot spoilers)

This is based on the true story of Jesse James Hollywood (renamed Johnny Truelove for the movie to avoid legal complications with Hollywood’s trial) a teenage drug dealer and would be gangster. He kidnaps the younger brother of somebody who owes him money (an unrecognisable drugged-up Ben Foster) and whilst working out what to do with him, the sheltered youngster is introduced into his cohorts’ world of partying.

How you react to this movie might depend on whether you’re aware of how its going to end – but as there has been a reasonable amount of publicity around Hollywood’s time on the FBI’s most wanted list, we can assume most viewers will be aware that its not going to be a happy ending.

The structure has potential – the action is interspersed with flash forwards to faux documentary recollections of those involved. Captions on the screen add up the tally of witnesses to the kidnapping. It is also interesting that these aren’t kids from deprived areas – these are the children of the privileged and the glimpses of their dysfunctional (and intoxicated) parent provides some insight into just why they developed the way they did. Much of the action seems framed in a much lighter tone, suggesting either a different outcome or the avoidability of the tragedy that unfurls.

However, the film is also flawed structurally – too much attention is paid to Truelove, who although making the decisions, is actually separate from much of what’s actually happening, and even the usually reliable Emile Hirsch (Lords of Dogtown, The Girl Next Door) can’t make interesting or engaging. Fundamentally, there also just too many characters – it all gets too confusing and muddled.

Where the film is at its strongest is when the focus is on the kidnapped Zach (Anton Yelchin – giving a great wide-eyed innocent) and his minder, Truelove’s right-hand man (Justin Timberlake – yeah, him). And the most pleasant surprise is that Timberlake can act – in fact, he steals the whole movie. It was a bold choice of character for him – someone who’s neither the romantic leading man nor particularly heroic or even villainous. In some ways his character is weak and too easily led, but Timberlake makes him convincing and engaging throughout all the films most entertaining moment and shows great range in doing so.

The other highlight is Sharon Stone’s flash forward as the bereaved mother – even hampered by a ridiculous fat suit, she adds a real depth and realism to her recollections – a performance which kind of feels like it belongs in a different film.

Reign Over Me – 3/5

On paper a film dealing with the personal aftermath of 9/11 and starring Adam Sandler could (maybe should) be a horrendous idea. That it almost works is a tribute to Sandler’s most restrained, least grating performance to date. He plays a broken shell of a man who lost his wife and children five years previously in one of the 9/11 planes.

The film doesn’t directly address the atrocity itself. Instead the focus is on the personal aftermath. It treads a fine line between touching personal drama and wry comedy (dangerously, considering the subject matter) and for the most part pulls it off. Sandler’s Charlie Fineman is a man in complete denial – refusing to even remember his family and retreating into a world of computer game fantasy and obsessive kitchen re-modelling. A chance encounter with his former college roommate (Don Cheadle) renews their friendship and maybe offers a glimmer of hope for Charlie.

The film poses some interesting questions as to what extent it is right to interfere in a friends life to help them or whether its better just to be with them and let them find their own way. The first two-thirds of the film hold a delicate balance between genuinely moving moments, genuinely funny situations and dialogue and some neat observation of what people are actually like. Sandler shows more impressive range than he has previously and is really moving at times. At other times, he still suggests the usual Sandler a wee bit too much for satisfaction.

However, Sandler is completely over-shadowed by the absolute brilliance of Cheadle – who manages to be both utterly compelling and utterly normal at the same time. It is an amazing performance from a great actor on the top of his game and makes the film worth seeing. He is ably supported by the underused Jada Pinkett Smith as his slightly controlling, but still loving wife. Liv Tyler proves disappointingly forgettable as the psychiatrist who treats Charlie.

Given of all of that, it is a real shame that writer/director Mike Binder completely blows it with a ludicrous final act that doesn’t so much stretch the bounds of credibility as rip them to shreds and dance a merry jig upon them and ladles on the sentimentality with a shovel. We are given a needless courtroom drama which seems only to exist in order to give Donald Sutherland a twinkling eyed cameo as the judge (entertaining enough in another context, but misplaced here) and a rather forced happy ending with new romantic interest for Charlie.

An intelligent, well-acted, well-observed, well-scripted first two-thirds of a film looking at loss, personal tragedy, denial, friendship and the possibility of healing and growth, which is all kind of spoilt by a movie-cliché ending. Still worth checking out though.

Scary Thoughts from across the water.

I've been thinking about our American friends a bit. I was watching this peculiar little film on DVD called the CSA - The Confederate States of America, which was a mock documentary imagining what would have happened if the confederacy had won the civil war and slavery was still legal in the States today - it came across as an interesting imaginative exercise full of things like scientific investigations into a disease that makes slaves more ikely to run away and interspersed with adverts for products like "Darky toothpaste", "Niggerhair tobacco" and "Coon chicken". And then there was the scary part - the captions over the closing credits which revealed that research had really taken place, that they were real products marketted under those names, some as recently as the 1980s. Food for thought.

With the tragic events at Virginia Tech still in the news, the response of the gun lobby has really got me incensed. You see it seems that the real problem, wasn't the availability of guns to the killer, but the fact that Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone and therefore other students weren't armed in order to defend themselves. I'm afraid I just don't get this guns make you safer argument - it doesn't make sense to me. I remember having this conversation with a couple of otherwise reasonable American friends, who were adamant that owning guns made you safer. However, during the course of the conversation it emerged that they were the only people in the room who had ever had a loaded gun pointed at them - I'm not quite sure how this made them safer! Of course, those who like guns always fall back on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All Americans, you see, have the right to bear arms, it says so in their constitution. Except, of course, it doesn't, because the bit they forgot to say, the full text of the 2nd Amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". To me that reads that they only have the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia, but what do I know, I'm just British.

Christian Politics Revisited.

I attended another hustings yesterday - this time attended by representatives from both Christian parties, the Christian People's Alliance and the Christian Party. Again, although I disagree with them, I must say that the Christian People's Alliance came across as very reasonable. I wish I could say the same about the Christian Party - what follows is probably going to be a bit of a rant, for which I make absolutely no apologies, but the woman representing them really got me worked up.

Firstly, she twice compared the policies of the present government to Nazi Germany - always a lazy and crass comparison to make and to be honest, completely nuts in this instance - favouring gay adoption and civil partnerships versus the extermination of million Jews - not an obvious comparison. I would also think its one that, if anybody took them seriously enough to respond, could easily return to haunt them. After all, the Nazis weren't too keen on homosexuals either.

The leaflets they were handing out weren't much better either - full of horror stories about 5 year old being forced to learn about homosexuality and 13 year olds being allowed to go and live with men and parents being unable to remove them. If there is any truth at all in these stories, it is severely distorted. This is scaremongering of the worst kind, even worse as it comes from a party which claims to be standing fr truth!

They say they want to return to the land of the book, but the impression was more of just wanting to turn the clock back 50 years - there was the call to bring back matron! The details of their policies also would give teachers the right to use reasonable force to maintain discipline in school - note that, to maintain discipline, not to protect themselves or other pupils. There is something about that that makes me very uneasy. Yes, there is a problem with discipline in school and the number of teachers assaulted by pupils is completely unacceptable, but fighting violence with more violence has never seemed that sensible a solution to me. There a many teachers who do an excellent job under very trying circumstances, but there are some who have difficulty controlling themselves, let alone their classes. Take a minute to think which group are more likely to use force and what the outcome might be.

I did find it fascinating that when asked who else on the panel they would vote for if they couldn't vote for themselves, neither Christian party would have voted for the other. Now, what does that say? Colin Fox of the Scottish Socialists came out very well from that question, which seemed a fair response as, whether you agreed with his policies or not, he came across as both a man of integrity and a talented politician. Kudos also to Mike Pringle, the sitting Lib Dem MSP, for admitting that at a European election he did vote Green, because his party's candidate was a complete idiot.

One final thought on christian politics, before I leave the subject and I'm going to tackle that most controversial of all subjects - abortion. I should make clear that I'm against abortion, I think it is a tragedy for both parent and unborn child. It also seems to be an issue that creates the most entrenched opinions on both sides of the debate. In fact, opinions are so entrenched that realistically there seems little hope for any real movement on the issue. Now, here is where I'm going to get controversial, I think both sides get so stuck in arguing the case from a legal point of view that they miss something. What they miss is this - that NOBODY actually wants there to be more abortions, everybody would like there to be much fewer unwanted pregnancies, especially amongst teenage girls. I just wonder if all the energy which currently seems to be spent in futility arguing about legislation where re-directed into preventative work around sex education (including ideas both on abstinence and on birth control), drugs and alcohol awareness, confidence and skills training for young women, so they have the ability and the confidence to say no when they mean it or to insist on birth control when they do have sex, if all that were to happen, would we perhaps make more difference than all this arguing is producing. Of course, that would involve both sides recognising the best intentions and sincerity of the others, and maybe that is a step too far.

As always, please do feel free to comment with your responses or thoughts on these issues.

What I've been watching this week

Shooter – 3/5

This is a film for everybody who loves a good conspiracy theory. The plot, such as it, follows Mark Wahlberg’s Bob Lee Swagger (how’s that for an all-American name) – an expert marksmen, left for dead when a mission in a country he shouldn’t have been in goes wrong. Having survived, several years later his patriotism is played upon to recruit him to try and work out how a potential assassin is going to make an attempt on the president’s life. Too late he realises that he’s actually there to take the fall for the assassination. What follows is less an attempt to clear his name than an effort to wipe out those responsible through the standard twists and turns.

In reality its nothing new – its all been done before and done better. Without giving too much away, the conspiracy revolves around securing oil supplies in the developing world, which you guess is supposed to add some contemporary relevance, but without the seriousness of, say, a Syriana, it just feels a bit bandwagon-y and old hat now. Danny Glover, his voice husky to the verge of incomprehensibility at times, is the year’s least surprising villain to date. And the implied treatment of token woman/romantic interest (Kate Mara – seen in last season of 24) when she’s captured feel unnecessarily nasty for a film which is fundamentally about entertainment. All in all the film’s just not really as smart as it would like to think.

On the plus side, director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) handles the action and set pieces very well and the action is very entertaining. This is aided by Wahlberg’s increasing confidence as a leading man/action hero – carrying the movie more or less by himself for the first time. He’s come a long way since the Funky Bunch! He’s ably assisted by the excellent Michael Pena as the FBI agent who twigs that something’s not quite right.

So, nothing original – but entertaining conspiracy thriller/action piece. Despite its best efforts it can’t compete with Bourne, but if you like this sort of thing is probably worth checking out.

The Lives of Others (Das Lieben der Anderen) – 5/5

This is the film that to the surprise of many (most of whom, myself included, probably hadn’t seen it yet) beat Pan’s Labyrinth and Days of Glory to the Oscar for Best Foreign Film. I’ve got to admit that, despite the critical acclaim I approached this film with a fair amount of wariness. I guess I kind of resented the defeat of Pan’s Labyrinth, which was one of my favourite films of last year. I was also aware of Oscar’s tendancy in the Foreign Film category to reward overly sentimental mush over genuinely innovative and excellent films (Nowhere in Africa – Exhibit A). Finally a German film about the Stasi observing people in the old East German promised to be, honestly, just a little bit grim.

Having seen it, my opinion is that the Oscar was well deserved – this film is utterly compelling and enthralling, brilliantly scripted and acted and subtly, yet powerfully, moving. The plot centres around Stasi Captain Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe) who is assigned the task of surveilling playwright Georg Dreyman (Sebastian Koch – seen recently as the SS officer in Black Book). Gradually, as he is drawn more into Dreyman and his actress girlfriend’s lives, the more he moves from observer to participant – manipulating and controlling events.

Koch is suitably charismatic as the committed socialist writer who still falls under suspicion and Martina Gedeck (Matt Damon’s German secretary in The Good Shepherd) is excellent as the girlfriend. However, the film belongs to Mühe’s subtle and complex portrayal of the Stasi captain. In contrast to his self-interested superiors, Wiesler is a true believer in the rightness of his role – his cold detachment describing interrogation techniques to students in the film’s opening is truly chilling. However, the more he is drawn into Dreyman’s life, the more he begins to change himself. I have seen parallels made with Robin Williams’ Sy in One Hour Photo, but the difference is crucial. The more Sy gets drawn into the life of the family whose photos he develops, the creepier and more divorced from reality he becomes. However, Wiesler, through Dreyman’s life, starts to re-discover his humanity and seek more connetion with the world. He emerges as the true hero of the film, risking and ultimately losing much as he plays a dangerous game.

A post-script, set after the fall of the Berlin wall, could potentially have been a mis-step, but as with the rest of the film, the obvious grandstanding moments are sidestepped in favour of more delicate and convincing touches. And the final scene of recognition between the two leads is entirely appropriate for two me who impact each others lives greatly without ever actually meeting and is carried out with a brilliant yet careful touch. The final line is astoundingly simple, and yet profoundly works on several levels – a fitting climax to an intelligent, gripping, original, thought-provoking and moving film. A film made even more remarkable by the fact that this is writer/director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s debut feature.

Following on the heels of other recent successes like Downfall and Goodbye Lenin, this is further evidence that German cinema is thriving both creatively and commercially. A genuine must-see movie – don’t let any preconceived ideas about it, put you off!

The Curse of the Golden Flower – 3.5/5

The latest film from Zhang Yimou, the director who gave us The House of Flying Daggers and the brilliant Hero, is as you might expect visually striking. In fact, its so striking that, like staring at the sun, its in danger of burning a permanent image on your retina. The exquisite beauty of the previous two films is replaced by the jaw-droppingly spectacular in excesses of silver and gold and a variety of gaudy colours. At one level, this reflects the moral decadence and corruption of the royal family at the centre of the film, it does all feel just that wee over the top. This is also a much gorier film than the previous two – whereas in the Flying Daggers blood dripped poignantly onto the snow at the end, here it splatters just about everywhere. Finally, it is a much less fight/action driven film than the previous ones.

Other critics have compared the plot to Shakespearean tragedies like Macbeth or King Lear, but in truth the characters lack that amount of depth, and if a Western cultural comparison must be made, Greek tragedy is perhaps a better point to start from. The royal family at the centre of the film and whole new layers to any understanding of dysfunctional. The emperor is slowly sending the empress demented by poisoning her medicine with a black fungus. The empress is plotting the overthrow of the emperor, recruiting the middle of his three sons to her cause. The eldest son is a bit of bumbler who manages to get romantically involved with both his step-mum and, unwittingly, his half-sister. Whilst the youngest son has nobody-loves-me, I’m going to kill you all issues.

Three things lift this above the average. Firstly, Chow Yun Fat’s coolly restrained, smug-glint-in-the-eye, beard-stroking villain as the emperor is a joy to watch throughout. Secondly, Gong Li adds real depth and a strange kind of dignity the empress, who is forced by circumstance and protocol to repeatedly drink the medicine she knows is killing her. Her performance adds real tragedy to the mix. But most of all, when the fight scenes do come, we are given evidence yet again that Zhang’s are the surest hands in the business at this kind of thing and he can still turn out the stunning and exciting that leave other directors in his shadow.

This is no Hero, but if you go with lessened expectations, its still worth checking out, sitting back and just drinking in the spectacle for a couple of hours. You probably won’t see anything quite like it for a very long time.

FAmily values and the Scottish elections

Yesterday, I attended hustings for the candidates for my constituency and regional list in the upcoming scottish elections. The following are just some personal thoughts and observations, in no way intended to influence anyone's votes. If you disagree or have your own thoughts please feel free to comment.

1. The first two questions last night were about the behaviour of an SNP MP at Westminister and about Trident - both issues which are largely irrelevant for these elections. Holyrood has no real power over issues like trident or the war in Iraq. The only way these become Scottish issues is if Scotland becomes independant. Therefore the SNP and SSP have a vested interest in keeping these issues at the forefront, but turning the election into a referendum around these issues seems to be denying us the chance to hear more about what the parties would actually want to do about key issues that Holyrood can actually impact - like healthcare, education and the environment.

2. Solidarity and the SSP seemed to give identikit answers to every questions, although Solidarity's were slightly more polished, which begs the question why we need both of them apart from to provide room for Tommy Sheridan's ego. I am slightly surprised that he hasn't gone the Robert Kilroy Silk route and named it the Tommy Sherida Solidarity Party - it might perhaps be a bit more accurate.

Two parties who weren't represented last night and who I won't be voting for anyway were the Scottish Christian Party and the Christian People Alliance Scotland. I've got to admit that I'm not totally sure about the idea of a christian party to start with - I think its great for Christians to be involved in politics - in all parties, but there seem to be so many issues where it would be legitimate for christians to hold quite widely differing opinions that to have a "Christian" party. Given these differences, christian parties tend to end up focussing mainly on the "family values" issues.

I had a quick scout around the websites for both parties this morning and have to say I couldn't find a single policy for the Scottish elections for the Christian Party. The Christian People's Alliance was far more comprehensive - although their first two policies were on Trident and the War in Iraq (see above). Pleasingly and surprisingly they did have policieson healthcare, the environment and education, although not as comprehensive as the major parties and not different from many of them. So, their major distinctive and the area where they are getting all their media coverage is around "family values". What follows are my own individual view on these issues and why I tend to get turned off by the political debate on these issues. Please feel free to comment and disagree.

(1) To start on a positive - the CPA favour offering greater financial incentives for parents who wish to to stay at home looking after their children, especially in the early years. This I believe is a great idea - bringing up a child is one of the most valuable jobs anybody can do - greater recognition and valuing of this key role can only be a good thing.

(2) How people react to talk of the family will depend to a large extent on their own experiences of family - for many people this is not a positive thing at all. I think the CPA need to recognise this one heck of a lot more than they do.

(3) The biblical concept of family is a much wider, more inclusive one than the Western nuclear family - maybe we should stop talking as if this is an inherently Christian concept.

(4) Of course the Bible is very strong on marriage. However, I'm not sure that I see it as a politcal agenda to support it. In fact, I tend to think that if marriage needs politics and legislation to support it, then the battle is already lost. Maybe Christians should instead focus on the power of a good example. As to offering financial incentives for married couples over other couples - with divorce rates already so high, do we really want people to marry for financial reasons? Most people who choose not to marry do so for other reasons - sometimes the negative example set by their parents. I think the law should be there to offer equal protection and rights to all. We are not looking at a situation where marriage is being discriminated against - that would be unjust and a cause for outrage - rather there seems to be unhappiness because other relationships are being given equal status under law. Basically I think marriage is God's plan, but don't think it is the place of legislation to give one group of people or ideas privileged status over another. So why shouldn't co-habiting couples or same sex relationships be equal under the law?

(5) Yes, God's ideal plan would be for a child to be raised by a mother and father who love them and perfectly image God's love for them. But lets be honest, no child since the Garden of Eden has actually had that. We are dealing with degrees of imperfection here - and in some cases it might be better for a child to be with a single parent or same sex parents who are able to show them love, than a mother and a father who aren't or who are even abusive. I do tend to find that alot of the debate about family values is actually far too divorced from the reality of what childhod is actually like for many children.

(6) Two of the main areas of recent legislation the CPA have been critical of are civil partnerships and gay adoption.

Civil Partnerships - if two people of the same sex want to enter into a legal commitment to each other, who are we to say that they shouldn't be allowed to do this? Nobody is saying that churches should be forced into marrying them. I'm not sure that I see this as a threat to marriage. Is ther real argument here pro-marriage or anti-gay?

Gay Adoption - the thing that bugs me most here is talk, on both sides of the argument, of a right to adopt. NOBODY has a right to adopt - they have a right to put themselves forward to be considered for adopting a child - there is then, as there should be, a very thorough selection, vetting and matching process before they are allowed the privilege of adopting. The process, as it should be, is governed by the best interests of the child and as I've said above, those best interests may sometimes be best met by two parents of the same sex. If it places more children in homes where they will be genuinely loved and cared for it can only be a good thing as far as I can see.

(7) The CPA favours an abstinence based sex-education programme in schools. All well and good in principle - it can only be good for teenagers to hear about abstinence as a viable alternative, but I'm afraid their language tends to suggest a "just say no" approach, which has been shown time and time again to be counter-productive. (After all, the Bible tells us that one of the effects of the law is to produce a desire for the opposite). It is also based on the huge assumption that the most at-risk teenagers have the confidence and the skills to say no - I'm afraid that this is not the case. Any serious sex-education programme I believe should include not only biological facts, but also moral and ethical considerations plus some element of social skills training. Fundamentally, it needs to recognise that teenagers will make decisions for themselves, preaching won't work, but supporting and guiding so that they have the confidence to make choices that help themselves might.

In general then, I'm not in agreement on a lot of these issues and even if I was, I'm not sure they're important enough issues for me to sway my vote, but what do other people think?

This weeks reviews - Sunshine and two very different types of Glory

Danny Boyle does sci-fi, Cillian Murphy plays with the edges of sanity (again), Ferrel and Heder re-discover funny and Africans liberate France.

Sunshine – 4/5

Having tried his hand at just about every other genre, Danny Boyle turns his hand to Science Fiction. The basic premise is that the sun is dying and a mission is sent to deliver a bomb into the heart of the sun to restart it. Actually it turns out that this is second such mission, the first one having gone missing some seven years previously.

The film begins with an amazing reveal shot which shows us we’re not looking at what we thought we were. It sets quite a standard for the rest of the film to live up to and Boyle plunges us straight into the heart of things – there is no pre-launch build up, no character backstories, very little explanation at all. And he does a pretty good job of maintaining a constant state of tension throughout – there are very few relaxing moments in this film as the crew tackle mechanical failures, unexpected occurrences, tough decisions and their own mental frailties.

Things start to go wrong when they discover the ship from the original mission is still intact and divert to check it out. Anybody who has watched any sci-fi will realise that this is A BAD IDEA, but off they go anyway.

The crew is made up of a set of faces that make you go “oh, that’s whatshisface from whatwasit!”: Michelle Yeoh (Crouching Tiger, Memoirs of a Geisha), the dad from Whale Rider, the Chinese guy from On a Clear Day, Rose Byrne (Troy, Wicker Park) and Chris Evans (The Fantastic Four, Cellular) together with Cillian Murphy doing his wide-eyed stary thing again to great effect. All of which makes it more interesting trying to work out who’s going to survive to the end. All give great performances and Murphy is his usual reliable self, but its Evans, with his most mature performance to date, who is the stand-out.

There is no let up as problem after problem is tackled, covering things like weighing up the life of one man versus the whole of humanity with no pause for reflection. It also has to be said that there is nothing new here, although Boyle does follow the mantra that if you’re going to borrow, borrow from the best – 2001, Silent Running, Solaris and, especially, Alien. It is in trying to be too Alien-esque in the third act that things start to fall flat, which is a shame as the first hour or so deserved better.

And then there is the ending – you’ll either love it, hate it or be completely bewildered by it, or possibly all three. I think it had something to do with time and space being distorted by the gravitational pull at the centre of the sun (one of the explanations earlier in the film) but it doesn’t quite feel like it fits the rest of the film.

That said, there might not be a whole lot that’s original here – it plays a lot like the greatest hits of science fiction, but Boyle has made a hugely entertaining movie that will keep you gripped and probably on the edge of your seat throughout. Definitely worth checking out.

Blades of Glory – 3/5

Will Ferrell and Jon Heder are undoubtedly both funny actors, but both have been going through a lean patch recently. Heder has failed to live up to the promise of Napoleon Dynamite, having to make do with such limp fare as School for Scoundrels, while Ferrell, apart from a rare straight turn in Stranger Than Fiction, hasn’t done anything decent since Anchorman. So, the idea of pairing up to make a film about the world of figure skating could have been comedic gold or another disappointingly unfunny Talladega Nights.

In fact, it turns out to be neither, but somewhere in the middle. The set-up is promisingly silly enough – the two are banned for life from skating after a podium fight, but when Heder’s stalker points out a loophole (‘cos “its kinda embarrassing stalking a has-been”) they start competing again as the first ever all-male pair. From thence the plot follows the usual clichéd route – the pair move from enemies to respect and friendship whilst battling to get their act right and not be sabotaged by their cheating opponents. The bickering between the pair works most of the time, but the film is at its funniest in the set pieces. A chase on ice-skates, which becomes very slow as soon as Ferrell and his pursuer leave the ice is a particular highlight and the skating routines themselves, like the costumes, get more outlandish and outrageous as the film goes on. Plus, we get the obligatory fellow frat pack cameo, this time from Luke Wilson as facilitator of Ferrell’s sex addicts support group.

This doesn’t have the gag count of a Dodgeball or an Anchorman, and if silly isn’t your thing, probably not for you, but it is certainly the funniest thing either star has done for a few years. Rather like their characters, they make a slightly unlikely but rather effective and successful team.


Days of Glory – 4/5

Definitely not to be confused with the above – this Oscar nominated film tells the largely forgotten story of the men from France’s African colonies (mainly Algeria and Morocco) who volunteered to fight for the liberation of France during the second world war. As such you can imagine it wouldn’t exactly be Jean-Marie Le Pen’s favourite viewing. In France, it went by the slightly more provocative title of Indigenes (or ‘Natives’).

The story focuses mainly on four of these soldiers – Said (Jamel Debouzze who’ll you’ll recognise from Amelie) who seems to manage to go through the whole war with one hand firmly in his pocket, Messaoud (who falls for a French girl, but has their letters blocked by disapproving censors), Yassir (who just wants to keep his brother alive and get as much loot as possible) and the educated corporal Abdelkader, who wants to progress in the army but is riled by the injustice faced by the African troops compared to their French counterparts.

The film follows this small group very closely and there is little sense of what is going in the wider picture, which, I guess, is kind of the point as it shows what it must have been like for these soldiers. As such the story is episodic – with brief moments of battle and long periods of the soldiers not really being sure what’s going on or being treated unfairly by the unthinking command. (The closing credits reveal that this didn’t stop after the war and, indeed, successive French governments have still failed to pay the pensions due to these soldiers). The episodic structure has its drawbacks – the director (Rachid Bouchareb) tries to cram in maybe a few too many plot strands and could have done with allowing his characters a bit more room to breathe, but it sets a mood for the film which is more reflective, punctuated by brief moments of gritty realism in battle. As we build towards the final battle in a village in Alsace the tension becomes almost unbearable.

The question of why these men volunteered to free a country to whom they really owed no loyalty is not really tackled. Instead we get a fascinating insight into the lives and struggles of some of the war’s least sung heroes and the injustice they faced – just contrast the differing reactions of French villagers to Abdelkader’s small unit to their reaction to him when he is part of a larger mainly white force. It is a shame they felt they need to add a modern day coda ripped straight out of Saving Private Ryan – it’s not needed – the film is a stronger remembrance of these brave and remarkable men without it.

Mr Bean's Holiday and The Namesake

Mr Bean’s Holiday – 1.5/5

Rowan Atkinson returns to one of his most famous comic creations and despite the passing of the years he shows that he’s as physically limber as ever. Unfortunately, it’s the humour muscles he’s not been exercising. This film is disappointingly unfunny. The 13 year old I took to see it rated it 1/10 – so its obviously not hitting that target audience either. If you’re a fan this will come as a disappointment, if you’re not you’re best steering well clear.

The plot, such as it is, follows Mr Bean as he wins a trip to Cannes in a church raffle. En route, he lose his luggage and passport and inadvertently abducts the son of a Russian film director en route to the Cannes film festival. Much supposedly comic mayhem ensues.

There is the odd slightly amusing moment – most of which are borrowed from better sources (Monty Python comes to mind at some points). You need to wait until Mr Bean is heading south from Paris before there is even a glimmer of a laugh. The busking routine, a running joke involving wrong mobile numbers and some classic miscommunication in a car heading south might raise a smile or two. Other bits are rather two predictable, and to put simply, just not funny enough. And the funniest moments neither belong to Mr Bean nor follow his usual humour. Willem Dafoe, as an outrageously egotistical director possibly has the funniest moments and his film shown at the festival (which Bean interrupts) is amusingly dreadful in an arty way. The screening is a definite high point, but you have to sit through quite a lot to get there

Emma de Caunes (seen recently in The Science of Sleep)is pretty and charming in a Gallic way but struggles to do much else with the thankless task of being Mr Bean’s romantic interest. And the film is all but stolen (and that’s really not saying much) by a charismatic performance from Max Baldry as the child.

This film is not lacking in heart, but at the end of the day you go to see Mr Bean for the laughs and there simply aren’t enough of them. Approach with caution.


The Namesake – 3.5/5

Director Mira Nair’s latest film follows two generations of an Indian family in America. Having miraculous survived a train crash, Ashoke Ganguli is inspired to leave India, pausing only for a brief return for an arranged marriage to Ashima. Their children, born in the States, are in many ways more western than Indian, only really starting to come to terms with their Indian heritage following the death of their father.

As such the film could be said to be about the process of adapting – to a new country, to heritage, to a spouse who’s practically a stranger, to changing circumstances. The whole is beautifully shot with a loving attention to detail – whether shots of the Taj Mahal or of a sterile, empty hotel room which communicates more about isolation and loneliness than a whole script of dialogue.

Kal Penn (whose previous cinematic high point was Harold and Kumar get the Munchies) gives a credible performance as Gogol, the son named after Ashoke’s favourite author, and proves he can handle serious drama as well as comedy. However the film belongs to the older generation. Ashoke’s and Ashima’s relationship is not the most showy you’ll ever see in the cinema, but it is beautifully shown in its gentle tenderness and restraint. The passion here is in what isn’t spoken rather than in what is and the whole is softly but powerfully moving.

There is nothing particularly original or amazing about this film, but in the unlikely figures of Ashoke and Ashanti it has perhaps the most tender, gentle and, dare I say, realistic, romance you’re likely to see on screen this year. I remember several years ago hearing an Indian on the radio commenting on the lines that we, in the West, tend to see marriage as the culmination of romance, whereas in India they would see it as the beginning. Its an interesting thought and one for which The Namesake could be produced in evidence as exhibit A.

The Good German - a flawed experiment?

The Good German – 2.5/5

In which director Steven Soderbergh (Traffic, Erin Brockovich) teams up with his best pal George Clooney again (having already directed him in Out of Sight, Solaris, Oceans Eleven and Twelve). This time they’re attempting a 40s film noir/thriller – not just a 40s set thriller, but one as if made in the 40s (albeit with added sex and swearing). This is a film that seeks to set itself alongside greats like Casablanca, The Third Man or The Maltese Falcon. As such it makes an interesting companion piece to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow which tried a similar experiment with sci-fi serials of the 30s and 40s.

The plot follows a war correspondent (Clooney) in Berlin for the Potsdam Peace Conference. His driver (Maguire) is a soldier on the make and into anything that will bring a bit of money, and is also involved with local girl and old flame of Clooney’s (Blanchett). Being an attempted noir the plot then takes many twists and turns, in this case around war crime trials, rocket scientists and murder.

In looks, the film nails it to perfection – from the 40s Warner Brothers logo at the start of the opening credits, to the dodgy back projection of the car rides and gorgeous black and white photography and use of genuine newsreel footage of Berlin immediately post-war. The last scene, on a rain-drenched airstrip is a direct and rather clumsy echo of Casablanca. The score also sound like it could have come from the period. And at heart there is an intriguing mystery plot that would not be out of place in any film noir. Intriguing, but not compelling.

Clooney and Cate Blanchett are OK, but somewhat disappointing. They look the part, but both rather underplay for a noir. Blanchett (usually so reliable) in particular is curiously unalluring in the femme fatale role, whilst Clooney lacks his usual charisma and heart. All of which makes you wonder how much better a job Bogart and Bacall in their prime might have made of this. Only Tobey Maguire, taking a trip to the dark side before his next outing as Spiderman, conveys the necessary vim in his role, and the film struggles a bit after his early exit. Motivations for most of the characters are left a bit unclear and confusing even at the end, and ultimately, unlike the films it emulates, there is nobody (however tarnished) that you’re rooting for at the end. The confusion goes further – whereas many thrillers of the 40s would have the hero giving the narrative at points, The Good German can’t seem to decide who the hero is, and Maguire, Clooney and Blanchett all get their own narration at different points.

However, the film’s main fault, which might explain the difficulties the actors had, is its basic conceit – to marry 40s noir thriller to modern sensibilities about the war. Yes, there are noir-ish elements to wheeling and dealing by the Americans and Russians to get their hands on German rockets scientists, but the spectre which looms so large behind this is that of the holocaust and Nazi war crimes. The subject is just too big for the genre. Noir does deal with the darker sides of life, but it is fundamentally about entertainment – it should zip you through numerous twists and turns and moral ambiguities, its characters are usually all compromised in some way, but the goodies at least have heart. It seems to me that there are no moral ambiguities about Nazi war crimes, and while the film does raise interesting questions about what might be justifiable/understandable/forgivable in order to survive, it picks the wrong genre in which to explore them. Knowing what we do of the holocaust, such matters have to be handled respectfully, but this fits ill with the 40s thriller. Thus, in terms of genre the film is leaden when it should zip and in terms of subject it never really gets to grips with it.

It’s almost as if this film asks what would happen if you crossed Casablanca with Schindler’s List or perhaps closer to the mark, The Pianist. Unfortunately, the answer is rather a confused mess – an intriguing, but fundamentally flawed experiment.