The Battle of Algiers

"Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences." - Colonel Mathieu

Algeria, 1954. After over a country of French colonial rule, the people of Algeria are preparing to rise in revolt. The terrorist group FLN begins a rebellion with a rapidly escalating series of terrorist attacks and assassinations. The local authorities are unable to stop this faceless, increasingly ruthless enemy, and so an elite division of French paratroopers led by the coolly professional Colonel Mathieu (Jean Martin) arrives to deal with the situation. The French engage in a brutal but effective crackdown which includes mass arrests, assassination, and use of torture, which ultimately kills the FLN off. However, the people of Algeria have been inflamed, and Independence soon becomes inevitable.

The Battle of Algiers is simply a brilliant movie. Gillo Pontecorvo has created one of the most stark, brutal, realistic depictions of guerrilla warfare - a film which has been viewed and used as a guide by various terrorist groups since its initial release. In abstracts rather than particulars, it is extraordinarily pertinent to the War on Terror that the US finds itself faced off against today, as America finds itself being forced to concede the moral high-ground to win a potentially unwinnable conflict.

Pontecorvo's film spares no one. Every side, every group of people is shown as being nasty in its own way. While Pontecorvo's film is on the side of the FLN, it does not shy away from showing their actions, such as placing bombs inside diners and discos, killing and maiming teenagers and even children. Likewise, the French army's techniques of assassination and torture are shown as well. It's clear that from a purely moral point-of-view, neither side has the high-ground.

In regards to the film's politics, I would hasten to say that it's a bit unfair to compare the situation in Iraq today with the film's setting, except in an abstract way. For while we have only recently conquered Iraq and have no intention of colonizing it, France had occupied Algeria for over a century and indeed considered it to be not just a colony, but part of France itself. That being said, in regards to the tactics of both the terrorists and the French counter-insurgents, and the never-ending cycle of vicious violence - well, it's obvious why the Pentagon screened this film as a guide on how to combat terrorism.

The film's bleak, realistic visual sense gives the impression of a documentary; we feel we are really living history, not just watching a film. The violence is not particularly graphic, understandable considering the time in which it was made, but we do see at least the aftermath of mass shootings and terrorist bombings - maimed and bloody bodies and destroyed homes have their own power, even if the actual act was sublimated. There are some genuinely disturbing sequences, as when a group of Algerian children beat a drunken man to death, the montage of torture, and of course the famous scene where three Algerian women disguise themselves as Frenchwomen to carry out a series of bombings. Ennio Morricone provides a desperate, driving score which allows the message to hit home.

On one last note: the cast is made up almost entirely of non-professional actors, with one notable exception. It is to the immense credit of Pontecorvo and screenwriter Franco Solinas that they made the film's antagonist, Colonel Mathieu, not a typical fascist-type monster, but an immensely sympathetic, refined man who would rather not be doing these nasty things, but recognizes he has to. His scenes where he addresses the press about the tactics of the paratroops (another scene which could be ripped from the headlines today), and his one-to-one talks with captured terrorist leaders, show that he is a genuinely decent man making the best of a bad situation. Jean Martin, a celebrated stage actor whose film appearances are generally less-than-memorable (My Name is Nobody and Day of the Jackal), turns in a truly astounding performance. The cast of amateur actors is equally impressive, particularly Ali la Pointe, the fiery rebel leader who is a man of action more than ideas, perfectly played by Brahim Haigag.

It is impossible to understate the importance of The Battle of Algiers. As a primer for both terrorists and counter-terrorists, it continues to be one of the most politically influential movies ever made. Forty years later, with the US engaged in a vicious struggle against terrorism, the topics covered in the film are as pertinent as ever.

Rating: 10/10 - Must See

Waiting, Hoping, Praying

Damian Thompson's blog continues to speculate about the name of the new Archbishop of Westminster, the new spiritual leader of the Catholics of England and Wales. The latest rumour is that Bishop Arthur Roche of the Diocese of Leeds is leading the pack.

I shall be careful with what I say here. As far as I can see, the most important quality for the new Archbishop will be loyalty to the Holy Father and unequivocal adherence to the Magisterium of the Church and a desire to proclaim it fearlessly in season and out of season. If it is Bishop Roche who is chosen, I really hope and pray he has those qualities.

The next few years are going to become increasingly more heated in this country. Fr Blake already today highlighted how difficult it is becoming for faithful Catholics to gain and maintain employment in health and education, if they do not compromise their Catholic Faith with their career. The Government's pro-abortion and pro-contraception stance will make it increasingly difficult for Catholics in both health and education.

The most public difficulties, perhaps have been seen in the Houses of Parliament itself, where Catholics in Government were pressured to vote for the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which the Church condemned outright. Ruth Kelly soon left the Cabinet after that vote, though she didn't publicly use that as the reason. Whatever her reasons, as a member of the conservative Opus Dei, she can't have been having fun in the Government when it was so intent on attacking the sanctity of human life.

If faithful Catholics, loyal to their conscience cannot be in public life, in Government, in various departments of the civil service or local councils, without going against their faith then that will amount to a direct persecution on the Church, the Body of Christ.

There are so many issues that Catholic Priests and lay faithful care passionately about when it comes to the next Archbishop of England and Wales, from the re-introduction of the Latin Mass to an improvement of the liturgy all round, to a more determined and focussed attitude on vocations. The most important issue is that to the Faithful and to the World, the Gospel of Salvation be preached and the words echo from the Pulpit and beyond, to the ears of Government and citizens, that the next Archbishop is fearless in proclaiming it and does not fear persecution for sake of the Gospel. The Holy Father is faithful in his duties to proclaim Christ Crucified to the World. The Catholic Church of England and Wales, when the Holy Father has done this, has too often remained quiet and acquiescent to the whims of a secular Government. This cannot, we pray cannot, be allowed to continue. The next Archbishop must speak out and proclaim the Gospel from the rooftops. If he doesn't, the Faith in this country and much more is at stake.

RIP Maurice Jarre

Just when you think things can't get any more miserable, this happens:

French composer Maurice Jarre, best known for his music for Hollywood films, has died in Los Angeles at 84, after suffering from cancer.

Jarre, father of the composer Jean-Michel Jarre, rose to prominence relatively late in life.

His breakthrough came in 1962 when he wrote the score for Lawrence of Arabia, for which he was awarded an Oscar.

He won two further Oscars for Doctor Zhivago and A Passage to India, and composed music for more than 150 films.

His scores enhanced the work of some of the film industry's greatest directors - among others David Lean, Alfred Hitchcock, John Huston and Luchino Visconti.

He also wrote symphonic music for theatre, ballet and television, including the 1970s mini-series Jesus of Nazarath.

Jarre, who moved to the US in the 1960s, was married four times and is the father of Jean-Michel Jarre, a pioneer of electronic music.

One of his final public appearances was at the Berlin International Film Festival in February, where he received a lifetime achievement award.

At the time, festival director Dieter Kosslick paid tribute to Jarre saying: "Film composers often are in the shadows of great directors and acting stars.

"It's different with Maurice Jarre - the music of Doctor Zhivago, like much of his work, is world-famous and remains unforgettable in cinema history."

I don't know what I can say. A year ago I was devastated when Paul Scofield and Charlton Heston passed away, and now one of the greatest lights of my life dies at a time when I need all the help I can get just to get through the day.

I don't know how many times I've sat down and listened to his music, particularly Doctor Zhivago, and been transported to another realm, another plane entirely. Music that sweeps you off your feet, that makes an impression, that moves you and transports you to another time nad place, rescues you from despair and loneliness, makes you weep tears of sad and joy, is invaluable, and Jarre's work has done all that and more. Next to Ennio Morricone, he's my favorite film composer. He is a legend, and deserves to always be remembered.

RIP Monsieur Jarre, the world is already a lesser place without you. Lara's Theme is playing in my heart.

Doctor Zhivago
Lawrence of Arabia
The Professionals

Duplicity

My first 2009 film seen to date is Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton)'s comic thriller Duplicity, a fun, breezy Hitchcock-lite thriller that makes for an entertaining and fun two hours. It's not a brilliant masterpiece, but it certainly achieves what it sets out to do.

Ray Koval (Clive Owen) is an MI6 operative who gets screwed over (literally) by CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) during a tryst in Dubai in 2003. A few years later, both are working as intelligence operatives for a cosmetics megacorporation led by Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti), who desperately wants to find out what secret product arch-competitor Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson) has up his sleeve. However, their involvement is itself a scheme, as the twosome are planning to swindle the companies out of $40 million. The two never know if they can trust their bosses, those around them, or even each other as the plot slowly unravels.

If Gilroy's Oscar-nominated Michael Clayton was a servicable "intelligent" thriller, then Duplicity is a more-than-servicable light thriller. In tone and construction it's basically Stanley Donen's Charade to Hitchcock's North by Northwest when compared to the previous film, with similar tales of international (or corporate) espionage gone more than a bit awry. Duplicity gets by mostly on the strength of its script (also by Gilroy) and its two leads, and its sense of humor.

Gilroy again goes full-bore after mega-corporations, but this time in a lighter way than before. It may seem a long shot that the competitive markets of soap and frozen pizza would provide for an interesting film plot, but Gilroy manages to pull it off. Regardless of the product, high-stakes competition are always dead serious - especially when the two competitors hate each other so much (as evidenced by their violent confrontation during the opening credits, arguably the film's best individual sequence). Although the movie lacks the violence and dead-serious tone of Michael Clayton much of the scheming is the same, with spies always double-crossing each other, and absolutely nothing is off-limits. The film skillfully balances humor and tension throughout, making it entertaining if not completely compelling.

If the movie is making any sort of point (besides saying that corporations are evil) it shows the level to which deceit occupies people's day-to-day lives. It's easy to point out a spy or corporate operative doing it, but in essence (according to this movie, anyway) these liars are the only ones honest about it. This isn't exactly an original point or idea, and the movie goes a bit overboard by giving each character a lengthy "I love you THIS much!" monologue towards the end (in the same scene!), but it does create a shade of depth and helps us care about our characters. Both Ray and Claire are believable characters, with romantic chemistry and genuine sympathy generated. The film particularly has a great ending which (without revealing too much) leaves our protagonists in an unexpected Limbo.

It follows then that the film succeeds primarily because of its leads. Julia Roberts and Clive Owen are both wonderful leads, with near-perfect chemistry and delivery; they make quite a couple. The smart script is witty and well-constructed if occasionally hard to follow, the direction good if unremarkable. The supporting cast is adequate, but largely under-utilized; only Paul Giamatti as the manic CEO and Carrie Preston's ditzy transportation girl make any real impression.

All in all, Duplicity is an enjoyable watch and comes recommended as two hours of fun. I'm a bit doubtful it would turn out to be any more than that on a repeat viewing - but it's fun while it lasts.

Rating: 7/10 - Recommended

The Voice in the Wilderness

Republican nominee who was rejected by the party in Illinois, the Catholic, Alan Keyes on Obama.

Disgusting Facebook Campaign Gathering Supporters to Send Condoms to the Holy Father

We must bombard Heaven with prayers for the Holy Father and the appointment of the next Archbishop of Westminster. St Michael, Archangel, pray for the Holy Father, pray for us.

Courtesy of The Telegraph

Organisers have claimed that 60,000 have pledged to send prophylactics to the Pontiff as a result of the call on the social networking site. The Italians (What?????!!! Well, they say keep your enemies close!) behind the initiative hope they will be joined by Facebook groups around the world, including from Britain and the United States: "The campaign is spreading across Europe, with thousands of supporters in France, England, Germany, Austria and Bulgaria."

Benedict XVI was deluged (Remember St Peter didn't drown either!) with criticism after stating that condoms "aggravate" the spread of the disease. The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, used an editorial to accuse Benedict of having distorted scientific evidence in order to promote the teachings of the Catholic Church.

"Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," it said. "When any influential person, be it a religious or political leader, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record." (The Lancet are an influential journal still promulgating the untruth that condoms are helping anyone but condom companies. Could they consider retracting?)

The Vatican maintains that the use of condoms promotes promiscuity (Yep!) and that fidelity to one partner or total abstinence from sex are the best ways of combating the disease. (Yep!)
The Pope made the remarks last week to journalists on board his official plane as he flew to Cameroon on the first leg of a week-long Africa trip – the first of his papacy – which also took him to Angola.

He was condemned as misinformed and insensitive by Aids groups (Groups who help spread AIDS by encouraging HIV sufferers to have lots of sex using condoms which one day either fail or in a moment of mutually assured destruction decide to forego because sex is more enjoyable without them), health professionals and governments around the world, including the European Union, France and Germany. (Yes, because the EU, health professionals and governments are always right aren't they?)

He was accused of sending a dangerous message which would worsen the Aids pandemic, particularly in Africa, where the virus has taken its heaviest toll. (What is the message of the Aids groups again? Oh, yes, keep having sex even if you're HIV positive!).

Senior Catholics rallied to the Pope's defence this week, with the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, saying the depth of opprobrium directed towards the pontiff had "been prolonged beyond good reason." (Not half!)

I don't know, evil as this Facebook initiative is, it is also very dumb.  

a) What's the Holy Father going to do with the condoms? I mean, he's hardly going to use them, or give them to his friends, is he?

b)  If condoms are so great and effective at stopping AIDS, sending 60,000 condoms to the Holy Father is a waste of condoms that could have saved lives in Africa or been given to 10 year olds here in the UK.

I Can't Wait for Brown's 'Act of Succession'

PM Brown: "Dear Catholics, as you know, my agenda is to de-christianize the country as quickly as possible, to promote aggressively the killing of the unborn on TV and radio, to use human embryos as playdoh for the scientific community even though evidence suggests that using then destroying human life to make human life better works about as effectively as quantitative/qualitative easing does for the wreckage of our economy, to place condom machines in every school in the land, to give the State more power over individual liberty than ever before and to dedicate my entire life to President Obama, a eugenics-enthusiast with whom I am utterly in love.

Catholics: "Outrageous! How dare you destroy this country and attack the Faith that once made it great!"

Brown: "Ah, but wait...one of you could one day marry a Royal. Aren't I nice?"

Catholics: "Oh. That's alright then...That Gordon Brown, he's nice. He likes Catholics and respects us and everything we profess to believe."

Yeah right! Gordon, mate, take your act of succession idea and shove it where the sun don't shine. None of us wants to marry into the Royal Family and a favour from you is like an invitation from a paedophile to a class of schoolchildren to view his puppies. The only act of succession Catholics give a toss about is the act of voting your anti-Christian arse out of office next election, and praying your successor respects human life and liberty.

Criminalising Conscience

Zenit today highlights a quite long, but very interesting article by Elizabeth Lev.

It begins, 'A long time ago, during the reign of Commodus, six Christian men and women in North Africa refused to acknowledge the law declaring the divinization of the Emperor. It was little matter, some incense on the fire, and a public vow. First they were shunned and insulted, then they lost their jobs and homes and ultimately they were brought to trial before the Roman Proconsul Saturnius. The acts of the trial, lovingly preserved over 1,800 years, tell us what transpired...'

Elizabeth then goes on to say later in the piece, '...One of the first priorities of the administration of President Barack Obama razed the path to unrestricted abortions. The greatest impediment to this plan is a formed human conscience that recoils at the idea of murdering an unborn baby while lies in its mother's womb. Six weeks into President Obama's term of office, he has begun to uproot this obstacle by repealing a regulation granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.'

You can see already where this post is going. The thrust of her article is that the general persecution that befell the Church during the time of the pre-St Constantinian Roman Empire could be on its way back.

The aggressive abortion legislation coming from the heart of Washington and spreading out to US states is frighteningly rapidly gathering pace and heading straight to the hearts of medical professionals across the US. The UK too, clearly, is heading in the same direction. Healthcare workers, doctors and nurses, if secular legislators get their way, will no longer be in a position to act in accordance with their consciences in the public sphere and in their daily working lives.

Cutting to the chase, the heart of the matter is that when a Catholic doctor, or any doctor who feels deeply uncomfortable with the idea of killing an unborn child at a mother's request, is asked to 'terminate' a pregnancy, he or she will no longer have the right to politely refuse and act in accordance with his or her conscience. Legislation like this strikes at the heart of individual freedom of conscience, religion and of course, the freedom of unborn babies not to be killed.

The situation is serious, scandalous and highly, highly disturbing. The situation is this...

Patient: "Doctor/Nurse, I wish to have an abortion at this hospital and I wish you to do it."

Doctor/Nurse: "I am sorry, I do not agree with abortion and can in no way be acquiescent in it or perform an abortion because I believe in the fundamental right to life."

Patient: "Get me the manager."

An hour later...

Manager: "Doctor/Nurse, please can I have a word with you for 5 minutes."

Doctor/Nurse: "Of course."

Manager: "I've just received a complaint from a lady who said you refused an abortion to her."

Doctor/Nurse: "That's right I did."

Manager: "I'm afraid that if you do not perform the abortion your job is at risk."

Doctor/Nurse: "While that is an outrage, I understand that according to state legislation, that would always be a risk if I refused to perform an abortion or to assist in performing one. According to my conscience, however, I cannot take the life of an unborn child."

Manager: "I'm sorry, I'm going to have to let you go."

Doctor/Nurse: "You are willing to see my livelihood disappear because I refused to kill an unborn baby?"

Manager: "It's about the lady's right to choose."

Doctor/Nurse: "And my right to choose? Where is that?"

Manager: "According to state legislation that right has been removed. I wish you luck in your career, but you can no longer work here."

Yes, indeed, the days of the Emperor are on the way back.

Daytime Condom Ads

Coming to a TV screen near you soon...

Narrator: "You've heard the story about Jack and Jill. Well, here's a new one. Look, here is Jack and Jill now. What have you children been up to? Fetching a pail of water again?"

Jack and Jill: "No, we've been having sex."

Narrator: "Having sex? Oh how wonderful. Sex is fun isn't it?"

Jack and Jill: "Yes, its awfully fun!"

Narrator: "But with it comes responsibilities. Look, children, when you have sex use one of these."

(Narrator showers children with condoms)

Jack and Jill: "Oh what are these?"

Narrator: "These are condoms, children. Use them when you have sex so you don't get any diseases and don't fall pregnant, because, really, you are too young to fall pregnant. You're just children and children having children is just silly isn't it?"

Jack: "Yes! These condoms are wonderful. Look, Jill they come in different colours and flavours. Which one shall we use this time?"

Jill: "Oh let's use the toffee one."

Jack: "Okay!"

Jack and Jill: "Thanks Mister! We'll always use condoms when we have sex now."

Narrator: "Good children, now run along and start having sex."

Jack and Jill: "Yippee!"

Probably the best abortion providers in the World...

Imagine you've just done a hard day's work, come back from the office, put the kettle on and turned on the TV. Then you hear this...

"Have you fallen pregnant?"

"Worried your career or personal enjoyment might be endangered by having a baby?"

"Inconvenient pregnancy?"

"If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then we could help you. Infanticide UK, is the country's leading providers of abortions. At a price that's right we can help you kill your child and leave those baby blues behind. Life is cheap and death is easy, so when you want to destroy innocent human life, come to us and we'll kill your baby."

Well, that day is just around the corner. Yes, that's right, the Government, seemingly unembarrassed by the nation's spiralling rates of abortion are set to give the all clear, no pun intended, to abortion clinics to advertise, at any time of day, on the nations TV channels. What will the effect of this policy shift be? Well, given that advertising works and is highly effective all round, one would imagine the effect will be more abortions, more destruction of human life and more depression in women who suffer the psychological after-effects. It will also encourage abortion as a contraceptive step, rather than the option of last resort.



Talking with a friend of mine this morning, Henry, he came up with an idea that would counter the culture of death that seems to have the nation in its hideous grip. E-baby, would be a new company which would provide childless couples who wished to adopt the chance of raising children unwanted by their natural parents. That way, people wouldn't have to shell out so much for IVF treatment, mothers who didn't want babies could be free of the awesome responsibility of which they are afraid and couples unable to have children but who wanted a baby would be able to have one. Also, babies would be allowed to live, rather than be torn limb from limb in an abortion clinic. Henry's written a piece on it too. Click here for his view of the debacle.

Clearly, the Government's chief fear is of rising teen pregnancies, rather than rising teen abortions and so wishes to counter one with the promotion of another. Abortion, remember, like Euthanasia in Switzerland is big business. There is a lot of money to be made out of people's capacity to snuff out human life. Pro-Life organisations, on the other hand, who don't have the kind of money that the abortion lobby do, are not in the financial position to counter the tide of death emanating from the TV screens when the abortion clinics are able to advertise.

Unfortunately, public opinion will only get half the story of what services are on offer if you have an unwanted pregnancy. Life UK provide pre and post abortion counselling, supportive accommodation and practical help to women and couples who are going through the moral dilemnas of the issues of pregnancy and abortion. Unfortunately, they will be unable to counter the demeaning and inhumane advertising of the abortion companies who have profited from the loss of human life and the vulnerability of women who have fallen pregnant at a difficult time in their lives, and that, is a very depressing thing indeed.

Eisenstein, Vertov and the Rise of Soviet Cinema

My latest film essay, where I take on early silent cinema for the first time. Enjoy!

Eisenstein, Vertov and the Rise of Soviet Cinema

During the 1920’s, in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution, a new form of cinema began to emerge in the newly-formed Soviet Union. Lenin’s oft-cited comment that “Cinema is the most important art form” shows the degree to which the Soviets utilized film for ideological purposes. Early Soviet cinema, based at the Moscow Film School, functioned as an arm of the state, influencing and “educating” the masses about Communism through cinema. As such, Soviet Cinema quickly developed its own distinctive style and film language, which would soon revolutionize cinema as whole. The use of editing and montage in particular made an important mark of film history, creating a story through a montage of images intercut with one another. Soviet filmmakers differed in how they utilized such tools, but the ends – the education of the proletariat through film – were the same.

Two of the most prominent filmmakers in post-revolutionary Russia were Sergei Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov. Both men were passionate Bolsheviks, but disagreed how to construct films. Eisenstein emphasized an artistic approach to cinema, utilizing the art for depictions of historical events, expression of ideology, and education of the masses. Vertov, meanwhile, advocated a documentary depiction of Russia, not devoid of style or interest but free of fictionalization, to emphasize the reality of his message. Though their methods and types of films differed, both left an indelible mark on film language through their effots.

The Soviet filmmakers came onto the scene at a critical time. In the United States, D.W. Griffith had solidified the importance and prominence of cinematic narrative through the 1900’s and 1910’s, while also introducing a number of stylistic innovations – close-ups, cross-cutting – which established a distinct cinematic language. Unlike the Americans’ thriving industry, however, the Russian film industry had collapsed during the Revolution, and the Soviet Union had to recreate the industry using extremely limited resources of film and equipment (indeed, the necessity of reusing film may explain Soviet cinema’s reliance on editing). Moreover, to a degree exceeding that of their Western counterparts, early Soviet filmmakers were driven by ideological concerns, as they functioned as an arm of the Soviet state, shaping the nation’s ideas through art. It was a combination of these factors that shaped Soviet montage theory and the development of Soviet cinema.

Eisenstein’s films, including Battleship Potemkin (1925) and October (1928), are a dramatized depiction of Russian history seen through a Bolshevik lense. His films served not only as a dramatic depiction of historical events, but as propaganda pieces advocating the superiority and righteousness of the Bolshevik Revolution and their program of Communism. Through these films – not only their subject matter, but their techniques of direction and editing - Eisenstein hoped to educate the Russian people of the Bolshevik idea of history and create a visceral experience that would shape the minds of viewers – achieving, in other words, “Intellectual dynamization” (Eisenstein 40).

In his essays “Beyond the Shot” and “The Dramaturgy of Film Form”, Eisenstein argued for the importance of montage in film language. The goal, in Eisenstein’s view, was to distinguish the films from the strict realism (or formalism) of other art forms such as painting, sculpture and theatre, recognizing the ability of a filmmaker to shape and change his art in a way a painter could not. And the key to this was editing. Lev Kuleshov and Vsevolod Pudovkin had already argued for editing’s importance to an extent, but Eisenstein took this idea even further, arguing that “Cinema is, first and foremost, montage” (Eisenstein 14) – that not only was editing important, but the way the images were used and arranged.

Montage is used throughout Eisenstein’s works. The most famous example is the Odessa Steps massacre in Potemkin, intercutting shots of mechanical Tsarist troops marching down the stairs shooting civilians, panicked demonstrators being shot and trampled, and a baby carriage careening down the steps towards destruction. October uses similar montage structures: A cannon being lowered onto soldiers in trenches, a dying horse and cart falling off an opening bridge, and a machine gunner aiming his weapon and the barrel firing, creating a “rattling montage effect” (Eisenstein 35) through such rapid editing. The effect is overwhelmingly of violence; realism is not necessarily what is arrived at, but a visceral emotional effect on the viewer. By combining depictions of real events such as the Potemkin Mutiny and the October Revolution with dramatically striking editing styles, Eisenstein hoped to not just “direct and develop the emotions... (but) developing and directing the entire thought process” (40).

Vertov, on the other hand, opted for a documentarian approach, using his films to depict “the communist decoding of world relations” (Vertov 66). Films such as Man With a Movie Camera (1929) depict day-to-day life in the Soviet state, showing how ordinary, working-class Russians went about their lives. His films did not lack for style or interest, nor were they above using cinematic elements. Overall, however, they were more concerned with documenting reality than Eisenstein’s dramatized efforts, focusing on the real, the mundane and the everyday rather than dramatized, fictional or extraordinary events.

Vertov’s primary motive was to connect with the average Russian, the peasant or proletariat who had little time for ideology and desired a realistic depiction of life. During the Russian Civil War of 1918-1921, he had seen the reactions of uneducated Russian peasants to Russian propaganda, noting they were more likely to criticize artistry and realism than its political importance: “The more remote the place, the less the peasants grasped the general, urgent, agitational meaning of the drawings” (Vertov 60). He argued that the plot of a film was not as important for education purposes as its images. Unlike Eisenstein, he felt that people would be persuaded only if they could believe what they saw was real. Vertov hoped to create a cinema completely divorced from Western narrative cinema, which he felt promoted bourgeois values and seduced viewers into idleness. In his view, narrative cinema “act(s) on the viewer’s subconscious, completely circumventing his protesting consciousness” (65), and thus Vertov avoids narrative as such in his work. However, his images tell a story of their own.

Man With a Movie Camera is a prime example of Vertov’s “revolutionary” documentary cinema. Vertov’s film depicts an average day on the streets of Moscow. The film depicts a variety of Russians engaging in routine activities, from shoppers to workers to children and students on the beach, eating, riding in cars, exercising, or working. It shows Soviet Russia as a well-off, content, prosperous place, its people efficient, friendly, content and happy – the “real”, everyday Russia, not Eisenstein’s intricate construct. To underscore his point, Vertov repeatedly draws attention to the film’s artificiality: repeatedly showing the director and his camera filming, as well as animations of a camera dancing, crayfish grouping together, and theatre seats opening for an as-yet unseen audience. Unlike Eisenstein, who used these tools to create narrative cinema, Vertov is capturing the reality of Soviet life. This is a statement in and of itself, convincing unsophisticated peasants and workers of the righteousness of Soviet ideology by presenting an idealized portrait of life in the new Russia.

Although their methods and ideas differed, both Eisenstein and Vertov were very much products of their time. Their historical context shaped their films, taking pre-existing ideas of film and fusing them with ideology and their technical limitations to create a new and interesting form of cinema, completely separate from its Western predecessors. Ultimately, their ideology and purpose was rendered obsolete by the tides of history, but their revolutionary techniques in film editing, montage, and expression of ideas changed cinema forever.

Catholic Knight Highlights "Obama Youth"

From THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT

It has begun! The U.S. House of Representatives just passed HR 1388 "The GIVE Act" which authorizes the creation of a "voluntary" youth corp, promoted in the public schools across America, in which children will receive official government uniforms and be sent to "camps" where they will learn the basics of social service to the state. The legislation was passed by the House on March 18, 2009. This is Phase 1 of the plan. The legislation will now be passed on to the Senate, where it is expected to receive wide support before it is signed into law by President Obama.

The bill also authorizes an investigation as to how the program might be made MANDATORY for ALL YOUTHS IN AMERICA at some future date. That will be Phase 2. No word yet on when that will come about. Finally, the bill addresses the further study of an axillary program for adults, which will also be mandatory for a certain number of weeks out of the year. This will be phase 3.

Democrats in Congress applaud the legislation as a measure mapping out a national mandate for all citizens to participate in the fine American tradition of volunteerism. Few seem to be concerned that mandatory "volunteer" labor was actually called by another name during the early to middle 1800s, and supposedly prohibited by the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. No word yet on how Congress plans to get around that little problem, but we can rest assured their constitutional lawyers are hard at work trying to make it happen.

The problem with this legislation is threefold. First and foremost, it threatens to kill the very thing it claims to promote. Volunteerism is only volunteerism when people participate voluntarily. The moment you make participation mandatory, it is no longer volunteerism. It's sort of like reinstating a military draft and calling it a "volunteer army." It's also a lot like our supposedly "voluntary" income tax system in the United States. The IRS likes to boast about how so many Americans voluntarily submit their tax returns and pay their income taxes every year, but then we all know what happens to those who don't. Yes, volunteerism is a fine American tradition, but Congress by proposing to make it mandatory, threatens to end it all with the stroke of a pen. If Phase 2 and 3 are ever implemented, it will actually spell the end of American volunteerism.

The second problem with this legislation is the nature of the program itself. We must ask ourselves what business the state has in recruiting children for social service work. The comparison is sometimes made to "Hitler's Youth," which was formed in 1920s Germany and remained active until the end of World War II. On the one hand, the comparison is unfair, because as far as we know, the youth corp this legislation creates does not have a racist component. As far as we know, it does not have a military component either, even though one could be added very easily. On the other hand, the comparison is perfectly legitimate because the basic underlying concept is similar. Children are being recruited to serve the state. They will be wearing state uniforms, and going to state run training camps, where they will undoubtedly learn state sponsored indoctrination. That indoctrination may not include the racial darwinism that was characteristic to Hitler's Youth, but it is state sponsored indoctrination nonetheless. That means whatever form this indoctrination takes, it's going to be very pro-government, and may quite possibly be designed to cast suspicion upon anybody who doesn't share the same pro-government views. Jews and Gypsies probably won't be the targets of such suspicion, but social and fiscal conservatives probably will be. That would especially include practicing Catholics and Evangelicals (of course devout and practicing Jews might fall into this category as well). It is likely that indoctrination will be done quietly and subtly at first, so as not to alarm the general public. As time passes however, the indoctrination will slowly become more bold and abrasive. We can rest assured this will happen because of the very nature of government itself. Remember, government programs have a tendency for self-preservation, and those who are involved in them often take a very pro-government political position. So it's only reasonable to assume the youth corp will follow the same pattern.

The third and final problem with this legislation is that Barack Obama himself is the inspiration for it, and based on the campaign speech he gave in July of 2008 (featured above), he made it very clear that a military component is eventually planned for this mandatory "volunteer" security force. How will this manifest? We don't know exactly, but if the American Youth Corp follows the Hitler model; children will be made physically fit, and competitively train in exercises similar to army boot camp, minus combat and weapons training. That is reserved for the adult version of the program.

The only way it could be stopped is if the Senate votes it down. That is not likely to happen. So the time has now come for parents to do some serious reflection. This youth corp is just weeks away from being created. By early to middle 2010, parents may start to see some of their children's school friends going to meet the school bus fully uniformed. Chances are these kids will be indoctrinated with a very pro-government point of view, and might start to hold a suspicion of anyone who thinks contrary, particularly religious conservatives. It is very probable, parents will also begin to notice their own children being pressured to join this program, especially if they attend public school. That alone will be disturbing enough, even if phases 2 and 3 are never implemented.

Big Bother

The UK Government want to monitor our Facebook, Myspace and Bebo profiles to protect us from terrorism.

I always suspected Facebook was a cloaked surveillance operation by the Government to keep tabs on UK citizens. I mean, why bother with round the clock undercover operations when people are telling everyone what they're doing and where they're going anyway under the banner of 'social networking'.

So, in light of this news, it is clear that the Government are fully intent on curbing civil liberties until there is nothing left to curb, under the pretext that it is all for our 'protection' from nasty terrorists. New policies to look out for might include...

Domestic bodyguards: Your very own housemate, employed by the Government, wearing bulletproof vest, with a full range of police accessories such as tazers, teargas and truncheons. You don't have a choice whether he lives with you, but that's okay because he is there to protect you from the nasty terrorists.

Shopper check-in: You need a packet of fags and a pint of milk. You go to the local shop but wait, you need to have your iris scanned and your fingerprint taken in order to purchase them, the information of your visit to the local shop going direct to Whitehall, who are happy to hear you have bought milk and fags without getting blown up by terrorists.

Street Terror Enforcers: A new sub-division of the Community Police Support Officers, will be employed to go around telling people to be hyper-aware of the terror threat, to be very worried and not to enjoy a second of their lives in case they get blown up. They can also fine you on the spot if you drop your cigarette on the pavement.

Terror Level Traffic Lights: Traffic lights take on a whole new meaning. Red no longer means stop, it means, the terror threat is very high, amber means the threat is medium but to be very alert and green means everything is okay at the moment.

Microchipped Arses: Totally and utterly self-explanatory.

Any more ideas? Post them here or send your security measures to the Prime Minister who doubtless will listen to your great ideas to protect us from terror.

Government Wants UK Churches to be Post Offices, CofE says, 'Good idea'

The Government are wondering whether the urban and rural havoc caused by post office closures around the country could be solved by the Church of England, which, unable to preach the Gospel of Christ, due to its irrational inability to adhere to any doctrine that might cause upset or offense to the sensibilities of the Government or anyone in particular, says, 'Splendid idea!'

According to the Telegraph, 'The Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, insisted that churches that take on new roles for the wider community will remain primarily places of worship.

He went on: "This is an example of a growing trend to return church buildings to their original function as places of worship and also places of assembly and celebration for the whole of the local community.

"This ancient tradition has in more recent times been overlaid by a distaste for mixing the sacred and the secular but this dichotomy is increasingly being challenged."'

Indeed, Rt Rev Richard Chartres is correct, this dichotomy is increasingly being challenged. The problem is as soon as the CofE is challenged by an aggressively atheistic Government that clearly seeks in its policy to undermine faith in the UK, it rolls over like a cat, and purrs with enthusiasm while the Government strokes and massages it near to death.

If, if, the Government come with this policy proposal to the Catholic Church in England and Wales, the Church should politely send the idea back to the Government as unsolicited mail and write 'return to sender' on the back, preferably with a drawing of a middle finger extended towards the original sender. But then, it might depend which Bishop gets the request...

Rt Rev Richard Chartres. The reason that the sacred and the secular dichotomy should continue to exist is that the Church should be a place where people worship God, not a place where you go to pick up a parcel that was too big for the letterbox. What would Christ, who overturned the tables of the market traders in the Synagogue say...perhaps, "My Father's House is a House of Prayer! You've gone and turned it into a post office!"

If the Human/Animal Hybrid Embryos was 'Frankenstein' Science...

Find Peter Cushing as Dracula scary? That's nothing! This Government wants buckets of baby blood!

....then get ready for 'Dracula' Science. Human embryos, according to the Independent will be used to make an unlimited supply for infection-free transfusions. I'm speechless and the whole idea actually makes me want to puke all over my flatmate's laptop. This, by the way, is the only computer I can use at home now since my own computer was smote by God with a virus, a lenten Divine punishment for yours truly, who had been looking at things that he truly should not.

'Scientists in Britain plan to become the first in the world to produce unlimited amounts of synthetic human blood from embryonic stem cells for emergency infection-free transfusions.

A major research project is to be announced this week that will culminate in three years with the first transfusions into human volunteers of "synthetic" blood made from the stem cells of spare IVF embryos. It could help to save the lives of anyone from victims of traffic accidents to soldiers on a battlefield by revolutionising the vital blood transfusion services, which have to rely on a network of human donors to provide a constant supply of fresh blood.

The multimillion-pound deal involving NHS Blood and Transplant, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and the Wellcome Trust, the world's biggest medical research charity, means Britain will take centre stage in the global race to develop blood made from embryonic stem cells. The researchers will test human embryos left over from IVF treatment to find those that are genetically programmed to develop into the "O-negative" blood group, which is the universal donor group whose blood can be transfused into anyone without fear of tissue rejection.

This blood group is relatively rare, applicable to about 7 per cent of the population, but it could be produced in unlimited quantities from embryonic stem cells because of their ability to multiply indefinitely in the laboratory.

The aim is to stimulate embryonic stem cells to develop into mature, oxygen-carrying red blood cells for emergency transfusions. Such blood would have the benefit of not being at risk of being infected with viruses such as HIV and hepatitis, or the human form of "mad cow" disease. The military in particular needs a constant supply of fresh, universal donor blood for battlefield situations when normal supplies from donors can quickly run out.

But developing blood made from the cells of spare IVF embryos will raise difficult ethical issues for people not happy with the idea of destroying embryos to create stem cells. It also raises the intriguing philosophical question of whether the synthetic blood will have come from someone who never existed. In theory, just one embryo could meet the nation's needs.

The Wellcome Trust is believed to have promised £3m towards the cost of the project, with further funding coming from the blood transfusion services of Scotland, and England and Wales. The Irish government is also understood to be involved. A spokesman for the Wellcome Trust said complicated legal issues were still being ironed out between all the parties involved but that an announcement is likely to be made in the coming week.

The project will be led by Professor Marc Turner, of Edinburgh University, the director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. Professor Turner has been involved in studies investigating how to ensure donated blood is free of the infectious agent behind variant CJD, the human form of "mad cow" disease. Several vCJD patients are thought to have contracted the disease by blood transfusions.

Professor Turner was unavailable for comment but a spokeswoman for the National Blood Service for England and North Wales confirmed that negotiations on the joint research project were at an advanced stage and that legal, rather than scientific, issues were holding up the announcement.

The multi-centre collaboration is also understood to involve scientists at the Medical Research Council's Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, and Roslin Cells, a spin-off company that has emerged out of the Roslin Institute, where Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996.

Scientists in other countries, notably Sweden, France and Australia, are also known to be working on the development of synthetic blood from embryonic stem cells. And last year, a team from a US biotechnology company, Advanced Cell Technology, announced that it has been able to produce billions of functioning red blood cells from embryonic stem cells. But the US work had been held up because of funding problems dating back to the ban on embryonic stem cell work under the Bush administration. President Barack Obama has since reversed that policy.

In Britain, the project was held up because of the difficulty of finding funding for "translational" research that attempts to take scientific studies in the laboratory into the earliest stages of commercial development. This problem has now been overcome.'

Camp America

Depression USA 1930s Shanty Town

March 2009, Sacramento, USA

Today I was able to see my brother and his wife and their new baby, with my parents in London. The baby was premature and is vulnerable at the moment so please say a prayer for her and the family.  On the way back my mother told me about Sacramento where formerly middle income earners are now living in tents in Sacramento, USA.  When I was at ATD Fourth World in London, it was well known that Fr Joseph Wresinzki was sent to a camp outside of Paris called Noisy-Le-Grand, a camp of dispossessed and poor families born and bred in poverty.  This was post war, France and it looked a bit like the picture above.  These pictures below are pictures of Recession USA...

These are middle income earners and the poor who lost everything in the credit crunch and it is a salutary image indeed.  The idea that this could become widespread is incredible at a time when human technology and the advance of modernism and capitalism was at its height.  The people who live in this tent town in Sacramento, like refugee camps in Africa are without running water and sanitation, much like parts of the developing World.  People in these camps are said to have walked 3 miles to get bottled water. It is both saddening, tragic and strangely bizarre in the 21st century, with all of mankind's 'advances', wealth and technology, that the shanty town is the worrying development on the rise.

For the full story click here.

Pulp Fiction

So now we continue our belated excursion into the oeuvre of Quentin Tarantino, a director I've either avoided or just not gotten around to watching. Reservoir Dogs was a solid if unremarkable genre pic, but Pulp Fiction is something else entirely. Although flawed in certain areas, on the whole it's deserving of all the praise it gets, for its well-constructed narrative, ensemble of (mostly) interesting characters, memorable set-pieces - and of course, it's razor-sharp dialogue.

To try and explain the plot of the movie is a bit of a burden, but we can try anyway. Vincent and Jules (John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson) are two semi-competent hitmen sent by crime boss Marcellus (Ving Rhaimes) to recover a mysterious suitcase from a gang of low-rent crooks. During the course of this Jules experiences an event which he interperets as a miracle, and a sign from God to change his life. Vincent meanwhile is assigned to take Marcellus's sexy wife Mia (Uma Thurman) out on a date, but gets into major trouble when she overdoses on cocaine. Marcellus also has to deal with Butch (Bruce Willis), a washed-up boxer who refuses to throw a fight for his boss, kills his opponent in the ring, and risks his life trying to recover a valuable gold watch. And then there's the framing device, where a would-be Bonnie and Clyde (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) attempt to rob a diner where Jules and Vince just happen to be chowing down. And that's barely half the cast list, which also involves a drug pusher and his piercing-obsessed wife (Eric Stoltz and Rosanna Arquette), a duo of rednecks (Peter Greene and Duane Whitaker) who go Deliverance on Marcellus and Butch ("Bring on the Gimp!"), an obnoxious semi-friend of Vince's with good taste in coffee (played by who else but QT himself), and a "clean-up" expert (Harvey Keitel) sent to fix one of Vince and Jules' more egregious errors.

So there's a lot going on in this film, that much is obvious. There is undoubtedly a lot of clutter going on, and the movie goes off on tangents which don't contribute a great deal to the story. Still, the narrative manages to work itself out, and Tarantino clearly establishes himself as a talent, both behind the camera and as a writer (although how much he wrote versus collaborator Roger Avery remains in dispute).

The film's non-linear plot isn't in and of itself particularly novel, but the way it's handled certainly is. Tarantino proves again that he's an exceptional writer, providing not only well-written dialogue but a clever narrative construction. Although not all of the threads tie directly together, all of these characters clearly exist in the same Universe, their temporal and physical relations aside. In particular, Butch's sequence is a marvel, a seemingly trivial incident - Butch's ditzy girlfriend leaving a prized watch behind in their apartment - building from its seeming triviality to a major set piece, Butch accidentally meeting with other characters and then leading to a gruesome denouement in Maynard's pawn shop. This is brilliant screenwriting and story construction, and if the movie had nothing else going for it, this scene would alone be worth watching it for.

That's not to say the film is perfect. On a few occasions, as with Christopher Walken's cameo (which exists solely to provide backstory) and arguably Harvey Keitel's lengthy appearance, does he get carried away, but these sequences are compelling and enjoyable in and of themselves, despite their seeming lack of function in the story. Tarantino does occasionally indulge his need for homage and movie references, but except for the dinner sequence (where they're excusable given the context) they're mostly subtle and fit into the story rather than standing out as blatant movie buff moments. The movie does stumble a bit with its ending, which for me strikes a false note, but up until that point it's a near-flawless work of narrative art, for which QT deserves the highest praise.

The cast is top-down excellent. John Travolta makes Vince a fairly likeable guy in an odd series of situations, although he doesn't have the tough edge the character probably needs. More intense is Samuel L. Jackson, who sinks his teeth into the part of the menacing and contemplative Jules. Bruce Willis gives one of his best performances as Butch, carrying the middle third of the film perfectly. Ving Rhaimes' Marcellus ("I'm gonna go medeval on your ass!") is a wonderfully menacing bad guy. Uma Thurman is sexy and extraordinarily charming as Mia, and one almost wishes she had more to do. Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel give scene-stealing cameo appearances which makes their seeming superfluity easy to overlook. Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer are rather wasted and Tarantino is rather annoying in his little part, but they're the minority.

Pulp Fiction is simply a marvel, a wonderful piece of pop art that has stood the test of time. I'm leery about diving further into Tarantino's body of work, and the upcoming Inglorious Basterds looks like shit (judging from the trailer, previews and the screenplay), but even if I never enjoy another QT film I'll at least have this one to come back to.

Rating: 8/10 - Highly Recommended

Holy Father! Brighton Needs You!

While various 'quality' newspapers continue to pour over the words of the Holy Father, who has been heroically preaching the Good News to Cameroonians, and while they continue to lambast him for re-iterating Church teaching and for expanding upon man's spiritual hunger, issuing a challenging call for the humanization of sexuality, rather than its increasing commodification, HIV rates, ironically, continue to rise here in Brighton.

What? HIV rates and sexually transmitted diseases are soaring here? In the UK? In Brighton, the 'Gay Capital of the UK'? Here in the UK? The enlightened nation, in which getting a condom is easier than getting a cup of tea? How can this be?

The press are hammering the Holy Father for suggesting that condoms are not the solution to halting the alarming rates of HIV infection in the World. Has anyone ever considered that the evidence that condoms can halt the alarming rates of HIV infection in Brighton is not that impressive? Heck, maybe the Holy Father has had a look at parts of the West and seen that if the invention and the promotion of the sheath hasn't put an end to staggering rates of infection here, putting aside for a moment the profound theological reasons why contraception is immoral, why on earth would they put an end to staggering rates of infection in Africa?

Gay bars, gay clubs and the whole of gay culture promotes 'safe sex' and raises the rubber johnny to the high altar of HIV salvation, yet the rates of HIV infection are very, very high in Brighton. So, let's look at the possible reasons for how this could be...

Either
a) Gay men in Brighton are not using condoms.
Or
b) Gay men in Brighton are using condoms but they are not a guaranteed safeguard against HIV infection.

Is it possible that the truth of the matter is that some gay men are not using condoms, but some are and they have proven ineffective in stopping the transmition of HIV because they have split during intercourse or have allowed the disease to pass through some other way, because they are not 100% effective, every time? When I was at university a woman I knew got pregnant because during intercourse the condom split. Courageously, because she was Catholic, she had the child. Therefore the Church and in particular, the Holy Father, is absolutely correct when he says that condoms are not the 100% safeguard against HIV infection that many people, and of course, the contraception industry, claim. Furthermore, gay Brighton provides us with ample evidence that the condom most certainly does promote and encourage promiscuity, multiple partners and the risk of exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The simple truth of the matter is that the more people you sleep with, the higher the risk grows of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. Keep your todger in your trousers and you won't get HIV or any other STI. This may sound rich coming from a Catholic with a bizarre sexual history but it is true. Every time a man, gay or straight, who is HIV positive has sex with someone, condom or not, he is putting that person at risk of contracting the disease because there is always a risk the barrier could fail.

So then, what is the solution to the high rates of HIV infection in Brighton, especially among the gay community which has put so much trust in the power of the condom to protect individuals against the threat of HIV? Well, perhaps the His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is onto something...
"I think that the reality that is most effective, the most present and the strongest in the fight against AIDS, is precisely that of the Catholic Church, with its programs and its diversity. I think of the Sant'Egidio Community, which does so much visibly and invisibly in the fight against AIDS ... and of all the sisters at the service of the sick.

I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money - which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, money doesn't help. One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem."The solution can only be a double one: first, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; second, a true friendship even and especially with those who suffer, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices and to be with the suffering. And these are factors that help and that result in real and visible progress.

Therefore I would say this is our double strength - to renew the human being from the inside, to give him spiritual human strength for proper behavior regarding one's own body and toward the other person, and the capacity to suffer with the suffering. ... I think this is the proper response and the church is doing this, and so it offers a great and important contribution. I thank all those who are doing this."

Government Bans God

The UK Government, not content with banning smoking in public places or anywhere someone might want to smoke, public consumption of a can of beer and taking more than 100ml of toothpaste on holiday, have now taken the drastic step of banning God.

A spokesman for the Government said, "In the end, we had to ban Him. He was a threat to our nation's security and the very idea of God filled us with terror. At this time, in a continued War on Terror, it only seemed appropriate that we should ban a source of great terror to us, namely the Triune God.

Also, He wasn't keen on our multi-faith, diversity agenda which basically says that anything goes and as long as it weakens the standing of Christianity's eternal values of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Justice and Love, then it should be promoted. Through His Church He spouted outrageous propaganda about gay marriage, abortion, contraception and divorce being immoral and destructive both to individuals and to society as a whole and then He had the temerity to stand up for the poor, lame, unborn, weak and marginalised. For these reasons, He just had to go."

God, when asked about the ban said, "How dare they? The great injustice here is that three persons have been banned here. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all banned from the UK. I may just be One True God, but three persons were banned here, I tell you. Three. All I was doing was blessing people, making them holy, sanctifying them, healing, loving, cleansing and forgiving their sins and then the Government come along and ban Me. Honestly, if I were a UK citizen I'd be worried because if they can do it to Me, they can do it to you."

The Father said, "I tell you, this country is going to pay for this outrage. Oh yes, bigtime!"

The Son said, "Father, forgive the British Government for they know not what they do. I mean, just look at the economy. It's a total shambles."

The Holy Spirit said, "I still hope to touch the hearts of this Government and bring them to repentance, aiding them to restore Our Lady's Dowry to a bedrock of faith and devotion to God."

Bonnie and Clyde

"We rob banks." SFW?

I'm going to back-track a bit to last week, when slow Internet made updating somewhat problematic, and review Arthur Penn's Bonnie and Clyde (1967). If nothing else, it gives me a frame-of-reference from which to address the idea of the remake with Hilary Duff.

Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) is a bored and dirt-poor Oklahoma girl who runs into the handsome petty crook Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) one day and decides to tag along on a robbery. This leads to the formation of one of the most successful and violent gang of bank robbers of the Great Depression, as they rob bank after bank throughout the Midwest. Bonnie and Clyde covet their fame, following newspaper coverage eagerly and making themselves into glamorous Robin Hood idols, robbing the greedy banks but leaving the poor farm folks - but their reputation eventually catches up with them, and soon they find themselves staring down the barrels of a well-laid police ambush.

While often lauded as a landmark film for a variety of reasons, from its amoral characters to the extreme slow-motion violence (which isn't nearly as bloody or violent as Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch just two years later) to its establishment of Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway as Hollywood idols (and also giving Gene Hackman's career a nice boost), Bonnie and Clyde is, more than anything else, very much a product of its time. That's not to say it isn't an entertaining film; on the contrary, its action, direction and acting are all top-notch. But besides being a decent waste of two hours, there isn't a great deal there, and the movie is remarkably dated in a number of important ways.

The movie is very much a product of the rebellious late '60s, with its depiction of two of the most violent, pathetic and sleazy criminals in American history as glamorous young folks driven into crime by the Depression and the oppressive System. It's easy to see the film's appeal; coming out just as the '60s were beginning to boil over into radicalism, its beautiful, very fashionable young criminals sticking it to the Man and going out in a blaze of glory - a message that undoubtedly appealed to the disaffected youth of the late '60s and the new generation of critics and film makers who would eagerly tap into the soon-to-form counterculture. Seen today, however, they seem extremely dated; scenes where Bonnie tells a farmer to keep his own money during a robbery, or when Clyde helps a ruined landowner shoot a foreclosure sign, seem forced and just don't work. They may have struck a chord at the time, but today they just seem trite and obvious. Maybe in that time and place, one could have seen these guys as heroes, but with hindsight and knowledge of history it's very difficult. The Model T's and other period details are mere decoration; this isn't a period film, but some sort of social commentary.

As a result, the movie has a curious lack of depth. The cast of characters, even our two leads, have a curiously sketched-in quality, and never rise above the level of ciphers. Bonnie and Clyde have a typical rough-and-tumble relationship, and are portrayed somewhat incredibly as mostly good people who happen to be criminals. Even visits with Bonnie's family, the presence of Clyde's brother (Gene Hackman) and annoying sister-in-law (Estelle Parkins), and the inclusion of C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard)'s s dad (the always-welcome Dub Taylor) as a key plot device, don't do a great deal to flesh out their depth. It's hard to see why we should sympathize with these characters, who don't do a great deal to earn our sympathy. Beatty and Dunaway may be glamorous but what exactly makes them compelling protagonists, or even anti-heroes? Again, it's presumably their taking on the establishment with Tommy guns and cool clothes, but that's not much incentive for me - nor is their gloating over being celebrities, which ultimatley gets them killed. Do they rob banks out of any financial need, or just to be cool? Logic dictates the former, but the film seems to push for the second answer.

Still, despite these deficiencies, the film excells on most entertainment levels. Penn's direction in particular is top-notch. He captures the Midwestern countryside in its stark beauty and desolation and handles the action scenes with aplomb. The movie has a number of legendary bits of violence - the murder of a pesky bank clerk, the nighttime ambush of the gang's hideout, and particularly the final ambush of our protagonists - that still hold up today, though their raw power of originality has long since faded. The constant bluegrass score adds immeasuribly to the film's atmosphere; it's the one detail that makes the film seem authentic.

Helping somewhat, too, is the cast. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway are good-looking, glamorous and have screen presence to burn, and through sheer force of charisma they make their characters worth watching. They're backed up by an able supporting cast, including Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons, Michael J. Pollard, Denver Pyle, Dub Taylor, and a young Gene Wilder. Even though their characters are rather poorly drawn, the movie is certainly well-cast and the performers do their best to pull it off.

Bonnie and Clyde is in many ways an important film, and it remains reasonably entertaining, but its historical context is extremely obvious. This doesn't take too much away from the film, but it prevents it from being a must-see classic film.

Rating: 7/10 - Recommended

How to Put Out a Fire: Pour More Petrol Onto It

The Holy Father has come in for criticism for suggesting that condoms are not the solution to fighting the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa, implying that they may in fact 'aggravate' the problem. How shocking! Pope disagrees with the use of condoms! What do people expect the Holy Father to say? "A condom a day keeps the doctor away?"

Dishing out condoms to people either in Africa or the West is like giving plasters to haemophiliacs. It isn't a cure, or a solution, and doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that people are addicted to sex. Lust is like a fire that rages and dishing out condoms to people is like pouring petrol onto the blaze.

It doesn't matter if we're discussing the spiralling numbers of teen pregnancies or the spread of HIV or promiscuity in general. Distributing condoms to people carries the message, "Sexual promiscuity is just fine. Carry on what you are doing, just be careful." If you give a condom to a 13 year old, you are telling him or her that they are ready to have a sexual encounter. If you give a condom to a man in Africa or the West, he will most likely use it as soon as he possibly can.

So, a little personal honesty.

Have I had sex outside of marriage? Yes.
Have I used condoms? Yes.
Would I have reconsidered committing mortal sin if condoms were unavailable? Yes.
Did easy accessibility to condoms encourage me to have promiscuous sex? Yes.
If I had fully exposed myself to the possibility of contracting AIDS/HIV or impregnating someone I really didn't know that well and to whom I was not ready to commit the rest of my life to, would I have continued? Unlikely. I understand we all get caught in the heat of the moment, but I certainly would have thought twice.

Sexual liberation is not liberating but enslaving. Addiction to sex is not helped or solved by the promotion of more value free sex. The Government still think giving condoms to teenagers is a fantastic idea and the only way in which to combat teen prenancies, high abortion rates and the like. What a surprise! It isn't working!

Some people think the invention of contraception was actually liberating for women. What a joke! Contraception actually means that men can put it about more and get their end away without having to worry about actually lovingly devoting themselves to the person they are 'making love to'. The idea that contraception has benefitted women is a total con! It demeans the sexual act and commodifies sex and, in fact, individuals. This is the only age in which nearly everyone pays for sex. It used to be free you know. It is no wonder we in the West are so crap at relationships, when value free sex is abundant, the Sanctity of Marriage, which offers stability and security to human relationships, is thrown out of the window, and large swathes of society are frightened of commitment having had their hearts broken repeatedly by undevoted, selfish lovers who were really only interested in one thing.

Yes, sexual lust is like a fire that doesn't go out. The World cannot stand hearing that the only waters that quench the flames are the waters of Baptism, repentance, prayer and the Holy Teaching and Sacraments of the Church. I'm afraid that the distribution of condoms is merely pouring petrol onto the flames.

Happy St. Patty's Day!

Enjoy the wearin' o' the green, me lads!

Hands Up Those in the Sensible, Responsible Majority?

Me last Sunday morning...

Sir Liam Donaldson, the Government's chief killjoy (he was the one who proposed the smoking ban, to help close pubs and make smokers go out in the pissing rain after we'd just paid £3.20 for a pint) wants to increase alcohol price according to units contained in the bottle/can.

The Ministry of Frenzied-Bloodthirsty Social Control would like to bring down alcohol related crime, anti-social behaviour and generally turn this once great nation into a kind of puritan community where poor drunkards are punished with social exclusion and a massive tax.

While it is laudable that the Government wants to see less violent drunkenness on the streets of Britain, you do kind of get the feeling that what is at the root of this is the near Talibanisation of the UK. Gordon Brown says this idea of Sir Liam Donaldson's is a bit too much, but adds that the reason he doesn't want to see alcohol increase in price (at this time when Depression is causing depression), is because he doesn't want the 'reasonable, sensible drinking community to be punished for the sins of the irresponsible drinking community.'

So, hands up who is in the 'responsible, sensible drinking community'? I'm certainly not, nor it seems, are any of my friends, who on a Saturday night get royally pissed and end up consoling ourselves with a kebab, only to wake up to it in the morning on our chests. Well, maybe that's just me. You get my point.

Furthermore, are the Government really suggesting that everyone in the House of Commons is a 'responsible, sensible, drinker', who has a pint of lager and then goes home to dilligently look after his wife and family. Or is it possible that there are a good many people in the House of Commons who prop up the bar 'til closing time and roll out of a taxi after a fantastic session and one too many scotches?

So, what is this Sir Liam Donaldson's idea, and Brown's division of the sheep and goats of alcohol consumption really about? It's about snobbery, hypocrisy and blindness to the reality that Brits have always had a bit of an uneasy relationship with alcohol, that we're pent up, frustrated English whose only release from the drudgery of workaholism is alcoholism and that we'll never be so accepting of ourselves as the Spanish, French or Italians. As far as I can see, the grand majority of British people aged between 18-40 at least are pissheads and are by no means 'sensible or responsible drinkers'.

Indoctrination

Barack Obama in his younger days explaining things...

in⋅doc⋅tri⋅nate: [in-dok-truh-neyt]
–verb (used with object), -nat⋅ed, -nat⋅ing.

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view
2. to teach or inculcate
3. to imbue with learning

So, it has been a relatively quiet day for me today. I've had a bit of a faffing day, really, sorting out my room when I should be sorting out my head. You know what they say, tidy room, perverted mind.

Anyway, watched a programme tonight about Communism, which I thought was apt given I had been in a discussion with a friend with whom I discussed Our Lady of Fatima's warnings on Communism and the fact that it is plausible it could be on the way back. The programme was very good, and highlighted the real lives of people who lived under it in East Germany. It highlighted the propaganda, the lies, the building of the Berlin Wall.

I wonder if BBC are trying to get us used to it, because as many commentators have suggested, all the signs are that it is on its way back in a slightly more glossy and glamourous fashion. This fear is highlighted in the media with various articles on the blatant curtailing of freedoms in the UK and the US, such as the laws on photography of the police, the smoking ban, the banning of public drinking, CCTV, ID cards and the new policy proposal to monitor the travel arrangements of every single UK citizen.

The most fascinating and the most frightening aspect of Communism was the power of the State to indoctrinate people into believing that the ideology and the functions of the ideology were helping to create that 'Heaven on Earth' utopian society that chaps such as Marx and Engels had envisaged and of which they saw themselves as 'prophets'.

However, I am growing a little tired of banging on about the rise of the State in the UK and the US and the obvious implications that it could have for liberty, be it religious, civil, political or social. If the country has been hijacked by totalitarian monsters then there is probably not that much we can do about it anyway.

What was interesting about the programme was the process of indoctrination that the State in East Germany used upon its citizens. Of course, this accusation too could be levelled at the US and the UK about the 'commies' and fear of all things leftish. However, religious freedom and liberty existed throughout the Cold War in the West, unless you fell under McCarthy's Law. It did not in East Germany really very much at all. Anyway, I'm getting lost digressing again.

The main point is, when I am on Telegraph blogs and the such and an issue of religion comes up, I hear so much the desire to see its influence from public life, school life, any aspect of life banned. Religion, the anti-religionists say, is a purely private matter which should be kept to yourself, because if you teach it to others it isn't fair: 'It's indoctrination!'

Aha! But this precludes the fact that indoctrination is already taking place and if religion were not taught in schools, that in itself would be indoctrination. Which brings me back to the programme tonight. The indoctrination forced upon the children of East Germany was that there was no God, that the State alone was worthy of our adulation and, in the early days of East Germany that Stalin was the figure to look up to. Oh yes, the State of East Germany had them singing songs to Stalin and the Glorious State, built a gigantic wall which was made to look as if the corrupt West was being kept out, rather than they were being hemmed in and that Communism, or at least advanced Socialism was bearing fruit in abundance.

Many people think it very unfair that the Catholic Church should be perceived to indoctrinate children. Yet, the Church is not afraid to declare that the Faith is based on sound, religious doctrines which have been handed down to us by the Apostles from Christ, who is God. Yet, the same people who decry religious doctrine and bewail its presence in any form are the same people who would like to see the indoctrination of the young, the old and anybody else, that there is no God, that all religious belief is superstition and that only a society based upon atheistic materialism or a new social construct will possibly be true and rational.

Every time that religion is banned from the public sphere the proverbial hits the fan. China now is reeling from its 'one child policy'. China is fearful of any religious influence upon the citizens because it is deemed to threaten the hegemony of the State. Soviet Russia and the Eastern Bloc crushed the Church because it was anathaema to their new religion and their new dogma and their indoctrination of the masses that Utopia was on the way. Chairman Mao had little children reading his little red book from as soon as they were able to read until they had joined his militia.

The simple fact of the matter is that society, religious or not, cannot help but indoctrinate the young, middle aged, or old, because the zeitgeist holds sway, especially reinforced through the mass media. No matter what you teach children, they will be indoctrinated. If you teach children that God does not exist, then that is indoctrination. If you teach children not to steal then that is indoctrination. If you teach children not to lie, then that is indoctrination. If you teach children to be kind, then that is indoctrination. The word only means that you are educating children or anyone in particular with a set of values by which you feel they should live for the good of themselves and society at large.

The Church proclaims that Her doctrines are perfect. They teach the fullness of the Moral Law and they teach the fullness of Truth. The Truths of the Faith, the truth as witnessed by Our Blessed Saviour alone are worthy of the title of sound doctrine. Every other doctrine teaches half-truths at best and at worst, lies that will lead the young and old to ruin. Therefore the day that religious doctrine is banned from the public sphere is the day to be very concerned indeed, because it doesn't just mean that religion is absent. It means that another doctrine from man has come in its place. In the case of Communism, then history has borne witness to the fact that things not only get messy, but they also get violent and end up strangulating the very people that the ideology in itself sought to liberate.