http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:13:23 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/21/221323.php Danny RosenbaumIn the October 2005 issue of Prospect Magazine they announced their competition featuring "the top 100 world public intellectuals". After all, why should populist television have it all its own way with its obsession with top 100, top 50 and top 10 lists? Well there are pros and cons to Prospect's list. As the magazine itself admits its competition is rather nebulous and also it is UK-American centric in that the collaborator is an American magazine called Foreign Policy. That's the downside. Still, it should be fun to see whom readers vote for because the list is just so odd! It includes such diverse figures as Pope Benedict XVI, Germaine Greer, and Paul Wolfowitz. Now that would make a good tea party. The Prospect list follows on from the 24 September 2005 issue of the BBC's Radio Times revealing that in their readers poll for the smartest people on television, Stephen Fry came first, Carol Vorderman second, and eighth equal with Ian Hislop was Lisa Simpson! Culture36612@blogcritics.org Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:13:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/12/225129.php Danny RosenbaumIn times to come political historians may well reflect that yesterday, 12 April 2005, was a watershed moment in British politics. Early on in the day Robin Cook in the Standard reflected that if Labour were returned then Tony Blair's departure might be 'sooner rather than later'. Robin Cook wrote, "the past week has seen a decisive shift in the balance of power between them [Blair and Brown]." Indeed, in Labour's election campaign thus far Gordon Brown has been prominent and since the election's announcement it has been hard to prise Blair and Brown apart. Some Labour candidates including standing MPs appeared to be campaigning on the basis that a vote for Labour was a vote for Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. Tony Blair, who had previously been such a campaign asset to New Labour, was now, it appears, more of a liability in the eyes of many Labour supporters. What may be deemed just as significant on reflection, but has so far gained little or no attention, is that this week Time Magazine published a special issue featuring "The Time 100: The lives and ideas of the world's most influential people."Gordon Brown was in the 100, listed under 'leaders and revolutionaries' but Time did not include Tony Blair. The piece on Brown was written by Bob Geldof, who wrote of "He [Gordon Brown] and Prime Minister Tony Blair" and "Brown and Blair."It could be that we are seeing the last days of Blair and Brown. Politics28095@blogcritics.org Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:51:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/01/19/111424.php Danny RosenbaumA historian from 2100 (the middle of the Sino-American era) look backs on 2004. 1. 2004 was the middle of what historians know as the American era. President George W Bush was re-elected and like many leaders of the dominant force in a given moment of history, he will isolate America at the same time as seeking to extend its influence 2. 2004 was right at the start of internet policing. Penalties for spamming, and malicious spyware which in 2100 are often life sentences were only just being enforced and regarded as serious crime in 2004. In the hundred years to follow the anti-malignant internet wreckers would very nearly crash the net and threaten its usefulness. But schism within the anti-internet forces would lead to their losing the war. 3. Historians have yet to understand why Saddam Hussein was seen so little of, after his capture. Many assume that he had nothing useful to say about weapons of mass destruction. Historians marvel at 2004's obsession with WMD and reflect that 'disinformation' by all sides was the currency of the era. 4. 2004 is recognised as the start of the realisation that drugs were incredibly prevalent in sport. In 2100 all sporting events are divided into drug-free and drugs-assisted. 5. 2004 is seen by many as a period of curiosity and experiment in the West. Many great cultural achievements were only unearthed much later as they were swamped by the 'noise' of the times. 2004 was the era that culture became less a matter of music and art and other traditional forms, but more focussed on newer genres: fashion, tattoos etc 6. 2004 was the era of the rise of gambling particularly from the home, with huge gains in traffic from online casinos and gambling sites. In 2100 gambling is incredibly prevalent, to the extent that are celebrity 'netcasts' where you can watch the world's top leaders playing poker online. 7. 2004 is seen as the era that Americans started to become aware of the importance of Spanish as a language. Rather like the French in the 20th century banning 'Franglais' the Americans over the next couple of decades will take steps to prevent the use of Spanish words and phrases in the media. It will be a losing battle. 8. 2004 was the middle of the 'age-extension' era. Many decades later the Chinese will persuade the Americans that all people above the age of 110 should automatically be killed by the state. It is a very popular policy as future generations resent the resources being spent on the aged. They have taken over from the immigrants as a focus of irrational hatred. The old people will fight back and even in 2100 geriatric renegades exist but their plight is a hopeless one 9. 2004 is regarded as one of the key years of the cult of the 'celebrity'. Obsession with A, B, and C list celebrities was at its height. In 2100 media attention is focussed on those who are felt to contribute most to society. 10. 2004 heralded the starting point of the death of academia and many middle-class professions. In 2100 with its more utilitarian and in some ways more Chinese perspective, brawn is valued much higher. Top academics are still be respected but no cachet is attached to the level of gaining a degree in any arts subject. The sciences, of course, are much higher valued. Sci/Tech24420@blogcritics.org Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:14:24 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/17/232523.php Danny RosenbaumI must be one of the few people yet to read 'The Da Vinci Code'. So, it is perhaps strange that I should be found pontificating about it. But since when have the facts got in the way of a good story? The best-seller has just been banned in Lebanon after complaints by Catholic leaders that it was offensive to Christianity. Father Abdou Abu Kasm, president of Lebanon's Catholic Information Centre, is reported to have described the contents of the book as "insulting". "There are paragraphs that touch the very roots of the Christian religion... they say Jesus Christ had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene, that they had children. Those things are difficult for us to accept, even if it's supposed to be fiction," he said. 'The Da Vinci Code' had sold in great numbers in Lebanon where about a third of the population are Christian. There are many sub-sets of censorship, but one way of boiling this thorny issue down is to split secular and religious censorship. Secular censorship has often tried to protect us from ourselves, with the result being that future classics, like James Joyce's 'Ulysses' and D.H. Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' were banned initially. It has also been used by authorities such as Napoleon III and Nazi Germany as a tool to maintain the status quo. Religious censorship has often revolved around the notion of image. In early Christianity, for example, the feet of the saints and the Virgin Mary could not be shown bare. In the 17th Century, Bartolome Murillo, a great painter of religious subjects, suffered the wrath of the Spanish inquisition for "suggesting that the Madonna had toes". I suppose I have always instinctively felt that the essence of civilisation was to allow fredom of expression. In the realm of 'fact' whether books, or documentaries, for example, we have a variety of laws such as libel, privacy, incitement to racial hatred to protect society. Like all laws they are imperfect, but nevertheless they are rightly there to prevent people from peddling hatred and lies. But do we want laws to prevent the publication of self-proclaimed fiction? I'm open to argument, but I am minded to say 'no'. It is a difficult call. Earlier this week, Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Burma protested against a film called 'Hollywood Buddha' which they said degrades the religion's founder. "We want the release of this film stopped," monk Mawarale Baddiya told the Associated Press. "The film scoffs at Lord Buddha, his character and his teaching." Not having seen this film and not having read 'The Da Vinci Code', I cannot comment on their quality. But I don't believe that the subjective judgement of quality should interfere with matters of principles. A practical illustration of where I stand is the work of T.S. Elliot. Whilst I am repelled by his anti-semitism, I would never want to live in a society that sought to ban his books; and almost as importantly I think that such censorship would be self-defeating. In the long run, there is nothing that perpetuates antipathy more than the authorities placing themselves on some moral pedestal, and dictating to us what we can or can't read or view. As a footnote, I see the major problem in another genre altogether. Films and books that claim to be 'docudramas', or 'based on reality' allow themselves a freedom from the truth and simultaenously a freedom from many of our laws. They exploit a loophole so that they can present a portrait of people without actually having to be factually accurate. Books19954@blogcritics.org Fri, 17 Sep 2004 23:25:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/10/201544.php Danny RosenbaumTwo years after winning her privacy action against the Mirror, and just a few months after the Lords overturned the Mirror's succesful Appeal, Naomi Campbell has told Michael Parkinson that she first took drugs 10 years ago. "I did a drug, a speedy drug," she says in the show. Parkinson asks whether it was like cocaine. Campbell replies: "Uh-huh" before adding: "No one forced me to do it. I did it because I wanted to. I don't have any blame for anyone but myself." "I go to (rehabilitation) meetings in every country I'm in ... I have a sponsor," she said. "When you stop drugs, you have to stop everything." It's this last part that is of most interest when seen in the context of the case against The Mirror. Casting our minds back to that case, the judge said: 'The public had a need to know that Naomi Campbell had been misleading the public by her denials of drug addiction. 'And balanced and positive journalism demanded the public be told Miss Naomi Campbell was receiving therapy for her drug addiction.' According to Piers Morgan, the Mirror's editor at the time:" Apparently the offending words that brought us to this farcical court case were, 'Narcotics Anonymous', which is the world's most famous treatment centre for drug addiction... She has won the massive sum of £3,500, which by anybody's yardstick is an embarrassingly small, derisory sum of money. In a seperate statement after the Lords ruling, Morgan said: "This is a very good day for lying, drug-abusing prima donnas who want to have their cake with the media, and the right to then shamelessly guzzle it with their Cristal champagne." By going on 'Parky' and declaring her history of drugs and drugs therapy is not Campbell actually confirming that the Mirror were right that the matter was one of national interest? I must admit that I have little interest in the likes of Naomi Campbell, but then I am not the general public. No doubt many millions will tune in to Campbell's interview with Michael Parkinson and will be avidly peering at the screen, and listening to her every word. Therefore, in this case, I have to put aside my instincts - which normally lean towards the individual's right to privacy. The crucial context in this particular case was expressed neatly by the original trial judge when he declared: 'I must consider Naomi Campbell's evidence with caution...She has shown herself over the years lacking in frankness and veracity with the media and manipulative and selective in what she has chosen to reveal about herself. 'I am satisfied that she lied on oath.' In a week that saw the England football players refusing to give any interviews after their victory against Poland, because of the nature of the criticism from the media after their draw against Austria, perhaps celebrities in all walks of life are trying to assert themselves by sticking a finger up at the media. The trouble is that many of them receive massive wage packets and sponsorship deals based on their media coverage. They may win the battles, but one suspects that the hacks will make sure they are just pyrhhic victories. Culture19700@blogcritics.org Fri, 10 Sep 2004 20:15:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/08/225450.php Danny Rosenbaum"Bacall hits out at co-star Kidman," shouts the headline on the BBC website. Shock, horror! My eye was drawn to the story immediately. What was going on? Had the sprightly 79 year-old thrown a deft right jab at her fellow thespian? Well no, the sum total of the story was: "Veteran actress Lauren Bacall has labelled co-star Nicole Kidman a "beginner" after an ITV journalist described Kidman as a "legend". "She's not a legend. She's a beginner... she can't be a legend at whatever age she is," Bacall told GMTV." And that was that. Now, what on earth is a legend? I tried looking it up but my dictionaries at home are pretty good but rather old. The King's English Dictionary, with a picture of King George V at the front, says: "a chronicle or register of the lives of saints"; for 'legendary' it states: "strange, fabulous". Not very helpful unless Ms Bacall was aware of this old definition and was simply trying to say that Nicole Kidman wasn't 'strange'. I think not. For a modern definition I was forced to use the internet and the Merriam-Webster website and I have to say that it shed very little light either: "1 a : a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b : a body of such stories (a place in the legend of the frontier) c : a popular myth of recent origin d : a person or thing that inspires legends e : the subject of a legend (its violence was legend even in its own time -- William Broyles Jr.) So let's forget dictionaries; what is it that makes someone a legend to you or me? There's no doubt that being dead is very helpful. It definitely confers status. The likes of James Dean and Marilyn Monroe may not have had that many roles but they are definitely legends. Being on the older side helps too - I would suggest that Lauren Bacall could legitimately be called a legend in her own lifetime. But now, I come to my own litmus test - the modern day young star. Let's take Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, or Michael Schumacher. I have to say that unless they pass away or grow old and wear very long grey beards I don't think I would call them legends. Ms Bacall is right. And I suspect that she was not being critical of Kidman, but asserting her role of protecting the English language. This theory holds water - especially when you consider that the BBC article goes on to say: "Bacall told a recent press conference she and Kidman had a "fabulous relationship both on screen and off". "I love working with a young actress," said Bacall. No contest. Moving swiftly on .... Video19621@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Sep 2004 22:54:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/07/221041.php Danny RosenbaumMany serious questions were discussed in Tony Blair's conference yesterday. The keywords in the source code of the full transcript give a flavour: "reshuffle, Beslan, Olympics, School, Siege, Milburn, Smith, Andrew". They are not comprehensive as, for example, the thorny subjects of the IRA and of hunting came up. With regard to hunting, we had the following exchange - as recorded in the official transcript: QUESTION: You have said you want to tell Parliament first about your plans for hunting, but on the other hand we are reliably informed that you are going to allow your own instincts for a compromise to be overruled by your back-benchers who want it banned. That doesn't sound very much in character with you, but let that pass. At the same time as you are being intolerant on hunting, you are being wildly permissive about boozing and gambling, you are moving towards legislation which would allow round the clock drinking, a huge extension of gambling in this country. Many people are worried about that as a priority for government, especially for a Labour government. What is it all about? PRIME MINISTER: Well on the first I am afraid you are just going to have to wait. On the second, I don't agree that is what we are doing, but we are liberalising ... QUESTION: ... the small print. PRIME MINISTER: I have studied the small print, I haven't quite figured you out, but never mind. But actually that is not what we are doing. In respect of licensing, we are going to extend licensing hours, but why shouldn't we? Over the rest of Europe people are perfectly able to have extended licensing hours without it leading to all these terrible things. And in respect of gambling, actually we are trying to make sense of up-dating what is an out-dated legal framework. It is not a question of saying there is going to be boozing and gambling encouraged by government, it is getting a sensible legislative framework, and I think if you actually look at the details of it you will find that that is right. I am not persuading you, am I Mike? QUESTION: You are trying to stop us drinking more. John Reid, how does he square with this policy? You ask why we are doing it, we are puzzled Prime Minister. PRIME MINISTER: Well let me try and remove the puzzlement. In the end it is your decision, right, as to how much you drink. We can tell you what the health difficulties may be if people drink too much, I think they probably know that. But why on earth should we, virtually alone of any European country I know, have extremely restrictive licensing laws when actually surely we should be telling people about the need to drink sensibly, not to abuse alcohol, but actually allowing them the greater freedom. That is what I think. Inaudible... Well, what interests me is: since when has Mr Blair used the argument that we should fall in line with our European partners? It was not immediately obvious in his stance on the war in Iraq. And, indeed, whatever one thinks of the individual issue, since when has following like a sheep what our peers do ever been a valid argument for any action. More beguiling, though, than that is the very last word: "INAUDIBLE". Fortunately my days of being a conspiracy theorist are far gone. Twenty, or even, ten years ago I would have been trying to find any way I could to discover what the words were that were conveniently replaced by 'inaudible' in the official transcript. I would be searching for journos who attended, in particular, 'Mike'. I would be on to the news broadcasters for access to their feed. But, nowadays, I prefer merely to wonder. Wonder not so much what was inaudible, but more why. The Prime Minister is normally a clear speaker. It is the only point at which he wasn't heard. Was he tentative? Unsure of what he was saying? Or, was it simply that the stenographer or typist couln't make sense of what he seemed to say and rather than commit the Prime Minister to some absurd gobbledegook, preferred to leave it simply aside? I presume that it was only a few words - a sentence at most. Maybe, it was just that Mr Blair's words were muffled by the sound of 'Mike' huffing and puffing as he stormed out. Politics19576@blogcritics.org Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:10:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/05/131659.php Danny Rosenbaum'Feel', the biography of Robbie Williams by Chris Heath, has just been published. In researching and writing 'Feel', Heath spent nearly two years working with Robbie Williams. But, is this a biography? I have to admit to being confused. Looking through newswires and sites, I noticed that some refer to the book as a biography and others as an autobiography. So I decided to look at the Amazon site and I found: Feel: Robbie Williams ~ Chris Heath -- (Hardcover - September 1, 2004) and Robbie Williams ~ Robbie Williams, Chris Heath -- (Paperback - June 2, 2005). Leaving to one side intuition, the logical conclusion is that there are two books - one is a hardback biography by Chris Heath, and the other is a paperback autobiography written by Robbie Williams in association with Chris Heath. Those with more energy than me, might investigate further or perhaps just ring the publishers for clarification (who knows I might try this myself), but, whatever, it does raise critical questions about the respective values of biographies and autobiographies. If I was writing an autobiography, even though I can be annoyingly self-deprecating at times, I can assure you that the book would put me in a positive light. Similarly, if my brother was to write a biography of me then I think and certainly hope that I'd come out well from that too. And I'd also think that if I had an authorised biography where the writer had access to my diaries and papers that the book would not be too damning.On that last point I might be wrong: In an article in The Guardian (31 August 2002), JDF Jones poses this question: "What is he[the biographer] to do if he discovers that it [the truth]is anathema to the family that commissioned him?". Jones continues: "Is he to abandon the book - the thought occured to me more than once - since he certainly cannot suppress or delete the facts he had unearthed?" His biography of Laurens van der Post was authorised by the subject's family. Jones says: "... but on publication was described by some as that unusual creature a 'hostile' authorised biography. Some of Laurens's family and friends were understandably distressed ..." Perhaps the safest way to remembered fondly when one dies is to take the lead from Michael De-la-Noy. On 13th August, 2002 The Independent published an obituary of Michael De-la-Noy. The most interesting thing about it was that the man wrote it himself! It was the first time they had published an 'auto-obituary'. To get back to the point, it goes almost without saying that both biographies and autobiographies have value. The crucial aspect for the reader is to know what angle the author is coming from. That's why I would like to be a bit clearer about 'Feel'. Who the heck wrote it? Books19475@blogcritics.org Sun, 5 Sep 2004 13:16:59 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/04/005441.php Danny RosenbaumI was cheered to hear that the war-torn Bosnian city of Mostar has just announced that it is to erect a statue to remind people of Bruce Lee's "loyalty, friendship, skill and justice". The man who came up with the idea, writer Veselin Gatalo said: "Lee is a true international hero and is a hero to all ethnicities in Bosnia and that's why we picked him." Mr Gatalo is to be applauded not just for his intention of finding common bonds but also in his choice of Bruce Lee for that purpose. Much nonsense has been written about the martial arts legend, and I do not want to add to it here! For what is important is the general principle. Bruce Lee, 'a fighter' who in films is seen regularly punching and kicking his way through his opposition represents peace and harmony. Those who choose to lazily and superficially look at an artist's work, whether it be an actor like Lee or a musician like Eminem through a prejudiced prism and shout about the danger of their films and lyrics should come to realise that artistic representation does not always imply advocacy and that history through its longer lens will inevitably come to its own more objective and valuable assessment. That assertion is not there to condone any lyric or any film - it is there merely to say: Look at the evidence before you make your judgement. As Bruce Lee's wife, Linda Lee Caldwell said on the 30th anniversary of his death: "Everyone can relate to having limitations in life," she said, "and Bruce is an icon to them in overcoming those limitations. Maybe it's time for some critics to take note of that fine message. Sports19448@blogcritics.org Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:54:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/02/233442.php Danny RosenbaumGoing, Going, Gone! Associated Press reports today on an unusual Britney Spears used item for sale: " There are over two dozen auctions of used chewing gum on eBay, each claiming their product has been spit out by the 22-year-old singer. Prices go as high as $14,000, but most are for significantly less.' My first thought was 'what about the provenance?', and sure enough this turns out to be a problem. One vendor offered a piece of Spears' gum from the 2004 MTV Video Music Awards that "still has her teeth marks in it." The only problem is that Britney didn't turn up for that event. Anyway, I started thinking a little deeper and realised that the ramifications for future generations could be very serious. London's Bond Street and Brighton's Lanes will lose all their wonderful old furniture and artefacts and instead the antiques shops of tomorrow will be full of discarded celebrity junk. Their windows will be dressed with gum from Britney Spears and dead fingernails from Eminem.Worse still, that lovely old programme, 'The Antiques Roadshow' will no longer feature old 'chaps' in bow-ties pontificating about Georgian tables, and clocks from the Louis XIV era. Instead, someone will produce a celeophane-wrapped rotting apple core retrieved from Moby's trash can. "How long has it been in the family?" our new generation pundit will ask. "My grandfather bought it on eBay 100 years ago for $70" says our hopeful punter. "Well unfortunately, as you can see, it is not in pristine condition. Also, you may not realise, but when Moby and his contemporaries realised the value of their debris they started churning them out - a little bit like Picasso and pictures...now if this was a 20th Century apple core then it might be worth rather a lot, unfortunately its degradation seems to suggest that it dates from around 2006." And our hopeful punter starts to look crest-fallen. Culture19406@blogcritics.org Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:34:42 EDT