All hail LiLo

We live in troubled times. Albeit every era has its own brand of turbulence but with the ever-expanding media and blogosphere giving voice to all manner of doom-mongering it can seem that things are getting worse. War, torture, increasing violence in big cities, Hillary’s ghoulish face. It’s enough to make a sane person cancel their newspaper subscription and take to watching the Comedy channel all day.

Which is why it’s nice that, despite Castro standing down, Northern Rock eating up public funds and Diana conspiracies gallore, we can alleviate some of the modern information fatigue after learning that one charitable celebrity soul has performed a beautiful public service. That’s right – Lindsay Lohan has finally stripped off. She is channeling the vuxom spirit of Marilyn Monroe in a series of nude shots for New York magazine. Now, I feel guilty for adding to the internet buzz about this – giving Lohan more of the publicity she clearly lives for – but my point is this: why do we care?

Britney Spears is fascinating; her crazy actions are now said to be caused by a mixture of bi-polar disorder and being drugged by a controlling manager with a God-complex. Her actions affect her two little boys, both innocent victims of the narcissistic celeb-culture. Heath Ledger and his ex-fiancee Michelle Williams are clearly a fascinating topic due to the overwhelming tragedy of it all. Even Amy Winehouse is interesting as she’s not just driven by sheer boredom or self-obsession, she’s a huge talent who is self-destructing and it’s sad.

So why is Lindsay Lohan making the news for shameless self-promotion (she isn’t even promoting anything professionally, she has no film or album out at the moment) and for imitating an icon who can’t be bettered? Are we all so jaded by the direction our world is going, or do people actually care about LiLo? If the pictures, taken by Bert Stern, the same photographer who shot the 1962 photos, were actually an improvement on the playful, tragic sexuality of the Monroe shots then fine. But all they really do is show off how scrawny Lohan is after years of drug use (confirmed) and bullimia (alleged) and prove why Marilyn Monroe is a legend – she had that special somethin’.

Perhaps it’s the paparazzi intrusion into the mundane everyday actions of the famous that’s ruining their star appeal but we really don’t have any current starlets to rival the appeal of the greats of yore – Monroe, the two Hepburns, Grace Kelly, and even some stars of the past few decades such as Susan Sarandon, Michele Pfeiffer, Diane Lane and Meryl Streep. Todays actresses are so open in interviews, and we’re so bombarded with images of them doing their grocery shopping, that all the mystery is gone. Where is the appeal without any mystery?

So congratulations Ms Lohan, you have just added another nail into the coffin of your appeal. Had she taken a step back from the media for a while, focused on her acting ‘craft’ and thrown herself into working on quality films, then perhaps she could hope to be even half the star Monroe was. Marilyn had her troubles, sure, and she even did her bit to remind everyone what troubled political times they were in thanks to dalliances with politicians who should have been using their time to better serve their country. But she had an enduring appeal that none of the modern crop of starlets exhibit, no matter how they try to (poorly) imitate the greats.

Love is a many-splendoured thing

C.S. Lewis identified four types of love in his book The Four Loves (1960): romantic love (eros), affectionate love (storge), friendship (philia) and an unlimited, charitable love (agape). Valentine’s Day is an odd day of celebrating romantic relationships, but recently it’s become something of a trend to send a Valentine to a friend. Hopefully most philia-style Valentine’s aren’t given to only single friends out of pity, but as a true gesture of loving friendship. It’s also become a modern trend for singles to spend the day wallowing in a trench of romance-hating bitterness, but to do so is to miss the point entirely, as Valentine’s Day should be celebrated for all types of love. So in the spirit of promoting goodwill amongst all friends and relatives, here are my recommended films and songs to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about the people you love platonically and affectionately.

Best films about affectionate love:

- Edward Scissorhands: An isolated, disfigured ‘Frankenstein’s monster’ Johnny Depp lives alone in a mansion after The Inventor (Vincent Price, his last role) dies before finishing his creation, leaving Edward with scissors for hands. Welcomed into a nice suburban home, he is misunderstood by some of the less tolerant members of the community but forms an unbreakable bond with Winona Ryder.

- Little Miss Sunshine: A family of misfits come to understand and appreciate one another during a road-trip to California to enter the youngest in a beauty pageant. Very funny – it’s worth sitting through a slow beginning for the penultimate ’super’ dance scene.

- Greyfriars Bobby: A lovely Disney film from the 1960s set in 1860s Edinburgh and based on the true story of a dog who refused to leave his master’s side even when he died – living for 14 years in a cemetery. Anyone not moved by a story of such devotion has a heart of stone.

- My Dog Skip: Yes, another dog film; the best examples of affectionate love fall to families and pets – most other loves are romantic or between friends. This film stars Frankie Muniz (Malcolm in the Middle) as a lonely kid who finds his best friend in the world is a Jack Russell dog. My ownership of a Jack Russell in no way inspired my own affectionate love of this film, of course.

- Jersey Girl: This charming film was unfairly ignored by pretty much everyone when it came out, thanks to the Ben Affleck / J.Lo media farce. Affleck stars as a widower left to raise his baby daughter alone after his wife dies in childbirth. Set seven years after the birth/death, it’s a film about a man who finally learns to let go of the past and let himself truly fall in love with being a dad. This film is a perfect Valentine’s Day watch for any girl who grew up thinking her Dad was the Coolest Dad Ever.

Best affectionate love song: I feel slightly queasy just typing this sentimental choice but truly the best song about this type of love has to be the Bette Midler song (from Beaches, a classic friendship movie) ‘Wind Beneath My Wings’.

Best films about friendship:

- Lord of the Rings: Sam follows Frodo to the scariest place on Middle Earth. That’s true friendship.

- Some Like It Hot: The best buddy movie of all time. Two musicians (Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon – both in their best roles ever) witness an Al Capone-style mob shooting and go on the run to escape in the best disguise they can think of – dressed as women.

- The Bridge to Terabithia: A young boy creates a fantasy kingdom with the new girl in town – his first real friend. The author of the novel this was based on lives in the same town as my aunt and uncle in Vermont, though I promise that’s not why I picked it.

- Thelma and Louise: Nothing says friendship quite like rape, murder, armed robbery and country music.

- The Wizard of Oz: The ultimate friendship movie, and also the ultimate story about affectionate love. I’ll assume that everyone in the world besides a small deep-jungle tribe somewhere in South America knows the story.

Best song about friendship: There are quite a few classic songs about the bond of friendship, such as Carole King’s ‘Where You Lead’ and ‘You’ve Got a Friend’, and the Beatles’ ‘With a Little Help from My Friends’, but the ups and downs of modern friendship are best summed up in the immortal opening tune of the show Friends – ‘I’ll Be There For You’ by the Rembrandts. Precisely because no one told us life would be this way, we all need friends who will be there for us, when the rain starts to fall (preferably with a handy umbrella-ella-ella).

Because some of you reading this will be in happy relationships and might want a mushy film to watch while cuddling that special person, here are my three favourite romantic films:

- When Harry Met Sally: About the true, deep love that can only develop through really taking the time to get to know someone.

- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: A depressing film on the surface but with the message that the experience of love, however painful to remember when over, is a precious gift.

- The Wedding Singer: I weighed up this and The Notebook and decided on the former because just thinking about it puts a big smile on my face. It’s possibly one of the most adorable, romantic films to include mullets and shoulder pads.

Best romantic song: At Last – Etta James.

… Despite all of this, some people really just want to spend today feeling bitter at the world. And I say, why not indulge yourself for one day and feel really miserable at being left on the shelf? Just don’t let that follow on to the 15th. So in the spirit of singleness, here are my best anti-romance films:

- Vertigo: James Stewart forms a dangerous obsession with a woman who reminds him of his dead wife. Creepy.

- Sleeping with the Enemy: In the same league as Fatal Attraction for making anybody not in a relationship feel slightly relieved. Julia Roberts escapes her abusive, tyrannical husband, but finds that hiding is a less permanent solution than revenge.

- The Break Up: The title really says it all – it’s a Hollywood ‘rom-com’ about what happens when ‘happily ever after’ just hasn’t worked for a couple.

- Grease: I’m sorry but any ‘love story’ in which one person has to change everything about themselves is disturbing, not romantic.

- Romeo and Juliet: Pick whatever version you like. Typically idolized as the most romantic story of all time, it’s really nothing more than two hormonal teenagers sacrificing everything for a person they never actually have a full conversation with. Sweet, beautiful but ultimately empty.

Best anti-romance song: You Oughta Know – Alanis Morisette. Nobody beats Alanis for pure break-up rage as she sings ‘and every time I scratch my nails down someone else’s back I hope you feel it… well can you feel it?’.

Rowan Williams, ‘Anglican’

The Archbishop of Canterbury faces calls to quit his position. Good. The merits of what he said are irrelevant; he’s lost the confidence of his flock in favour of pandering to a liberal ideal, thus he’s a lousy leader. It’s been said his scholarly attitude might be better suited to a university setting, and I agree. In an institute of learning he would be free to throw ideas around, but as a religious leader it ought to be his duty to preserve and care for the faith he actually represents.

To read more about the situation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581

Voice of the Writers

Do you write fiction, poetry, or interesting non-fiction?

I am involved in the creation of a new website for budding writers – Calliope: Voice of the Writers. It’s an online writers’ magazine, currently accepting submissions for its opening edition.

We are seeking submissions of all kinds — poetry, short stories, episodic novels, non-fiction pieces, commentaries, etc.

If you would like your writing to be considered for Calliope’s inaugural edition, please email your submissions to contact.calliope@yahoo.com no later than March 12, 2008.

Our website is currently under construction, but feel free to take a look around for more information:

http://calliope.jimdo.com/index.php

contact.calliope@yahoo.com

PLUS – All aspiring novelists who need an extra push in the right direction:
Calliope will be bringing you the Great Novel Race of 2008! Submit chapter one of a piece you want to continue with, and those with the most potential will be entered into the race. Submit a new chapter each month, with total freedom to edit as you like. Complete your novel in six months to a year, with encouragement, constructive criticism and a devoted following.
How very Charles Dickens!

Primary consensus

I doubt there’s anything new I can add to the blogosphere noise about the results of the Super Tuesday votes. All the celebrity hype is worrying – the advantage the Republicans have over the Democrats is that they have relatively few celebrity supporters. I think the average voter finds celeb endorsments frustrating and patronising. Who is Oprah to tell me how to vote? Why does Perez Hilton think he has the power to sway my opinion?

The sad fact is that many Americans will be pursuaded to vote a particular way because of these endorsements. My own feeling is that I don’t really mind who gets the Republican candidacy and Obama is quite pleasing but I really don’t want Hillary in the White House. I have the same feeling of despair about this Clinton dynasty that Democrats had in 2000 and 2004 to Dubya. That desire to scream at the top of my lungs ‘nooooooooooooooo!’.

A jazz legend lives on

Humphrey Lyttelton and His Band present Cornucopia, February 2008.

A typical 86-year-old man might enjoy a night in front of a fire with slippers on feet, pipe in mouth, Jeeves and Wooster in hand.

Humphrey Lyttelton ain’t a typical 86-year-old man. He spends his evenings touring the country with his eight-piece jazz band, collectively called Humphrey Lyttelton. When he’s not doing that he’s on BBC radio, lending his thoughts to The Best of Jazz and I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue.

Humphrey remains full of energy. Watching him it’s hard to believe he was born in the reign of King George V and that he served his country in WWII. What really gives his age away though is how little he himself is able to play his instrument of choice, the trumpet. His lungs, mid-way through their ninth decade of breath, are obviously not what they used to be and the man himself played only sporadically during the course of the concert, receiving rapturous applause with each go.

Such applause was a common theme of the night, with each member of the band given a little musical spotlight moment in which to show off their skills on their respective instrument, and the quality was amazing, even if they did all look like bankers rather than wild jazz musicians.

His current tour is called Cornucopia and incorporates traditional and mainstream jazz styles, creating an evening that can be both musically thrilling but yet, at times, mediocre. One particular highlight was a tune, and Humph made a point of joking how he loathed the title, called M25, which was written by the only woman in the band, Jo Fooks. This tune was five minutes of pure aural bliss, combining soft lows with exhilarating trumpet-induced highs, just like a sojourn along the notoriously difficult motorway.

Guest vocalist Tina May joined the band on stage for a few songs including Gershwin’s classic Embraceable You, which had the entire audience entranced. Tina and Humphrey together clearly relished performing a scat-duet, the old legend and the young(er) glamazon humourously paying tribute to the vocal improvisational style made famous by jazz greats such Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong (who, incidentally, Humphrey opened for in his 1956 British tour).

The show became mediocre when the band reverted to a modern style of jazz that is more about showing off how skillfully they can play their instruments rather than performing a melody. It can be exciting at first but after a few minutes it begins to grate.

The most touching tune of the night was also the most unexpected. Just as James Stewart famously said he could turn any trivial tune in to a fine piece of music in The Glenn Miller Story, and demonstrated with a classic rendition of Little Brown Jug, Humphrey told the audience he would prove his ability to make a humble tune in to something beautiful with his quietly moving take on Marsie Dotes and Dosie Dotes. It was the highlight of the evening.

Typically, an evening with Humphrey Lyttelton tends to be enjoyed by an older demographic. It’s a shame – an evening of jazz is an engaging alternative to a night spent downing tequila shots. To appreciate it one must actively listen, and let the music lead the imagination where it wishes to go. Humphrey and his band could do with incorporating a little more melody but an evening in the company of a true jazz legend should be savoured before it’s too late.

Creature Feature

I’d like to know what brand of camera it is that Rob Hawkins (Michael Stahl-David) owns in this year’s first creature feature blockbuster Cloverfield because that piece of equipment endures a lot of abuse thanks to a nasty monster and survives right to the end. Which is more than can be said of some of the film’s unfortunate characters. Not to mention poor old New York itself, which seems to be the target of every malicious beast Hollywood has to offer. Maybe monsters loathe Ms Liberty as much as Bin Laden does. Maybe it’s a new breed of terrorism: mutant warfare.

In times of political strife the monster movie gets a renaissance. The real world is full of human monsters – whatever your political point of view – who use weaponry and righteous rhetoric. There’s enough reality to be scared of and Hollywood taps into that fear by creating stories to scare you for 90 minutes before you walk back out to the real world, safe in the knowledge that your country might get nuked but at least you’re not likely to be eaten by a 300ft tall monster.

Cloverfield has been much-hyped and in some ways it doesn’t live up to it – there’s not as much grisly man-eating as one might expect and the ending provides more questions than answers. It benefits from the use of a single viewpoint, creating a fear that a typical ‘omniscient viewpoint’ can’t. The audience experiences only what the character holding the camera experiences and nothing more. We’re not privy to discussions in the Oval Office to decide how to handle the situation; we’re not shown scientists speculating about where the monster came from and how it might be killed; we don’t even get music clues for tension or release.

It’s as though the story is happening to us as we look directly through the lens of the camera trying to outrun the beast of unknown origin. It’s the reason Spielberg’s 2005 War of the Worlds was so scary; by keeping the story solely on the actions of one ordinary group of people who know no more about what the heck is going on than we do, we are allowed to take that journey with them. No smug ‘I know what this is and you don’t’ attitudes in this audience.

Not being told what’s going on is a trick producer J.J. Abrams is famous for. He’s best known for his ultimate audience-tease of a show Lost which, in its fourth season, is no closer to revealing the big picture its fans have been waiting for. Cloverfield is directed by Abrams’ buddy from his Felicity days Matt Reeves, who hasn’t directed a feature in over a decade though this inexperience isn’t obvious. The camera, an extension of the character Hud (T.J. Miller), skillfully shows everything we need to see in the amateur home-movie fashion it’s supposed to depict.

The dialogue, written by another Lost team player Drew Goddard, is both realistic at times for the characters, all mid-twenties yuppies, and at other times clunky and trite. But perhaps there’s a limited amount of dialogue possible for a monster movie, and, this is just a guess, but it’s unlikely people will watch this expecting Woody Allen-esque conversation; it’s New York, but it’s no Manhattan.

As for the actors, they are perfectly cast. No big names – a star would distract from the documentary feel of the film. The best known face is Lizzy Caplan – playing Marlena, the girl who really shouldn’t be with the group but finds herself running in their direction anyway – who was the bitter best friend in the 2004 gem Mean Girls.

Don’t see it hoping for a cliche-busting film fresh with new ideas but just enjoy it for a frenetic 85 minutes of the rich and the beautiful running for their lives from a giant monster that doesn’t care how expensive that handbag is – he just wants to eat it anyway.

Boyhood friend vs. alleged British threat

I met Tooting MP Sadiq Khan in October 2007. He was jovial and laid-back where I was nervous – just a journalism student on work experience. Of course we met under jolly circumstances; one local paper photo-op out of many for the MP as he presented a train station with an excellence award. Not exactly the nitty-gritty side of politics.

I doubt this time last week many people outside the Tooting/Wandsworth area in south London would have heard of Khan; he was just another Labour MP. He stood out only in that as a Muslim MP he has been vocal about issues pertaining to British Muslims, particularly his opinions of the Iraq war and Guantanamo Bay. Britain’s Muslim population is increasing and it’s only right in a democracy that there should be governmental representatives of the faith.

Yet I can’t help but feel that someone made an understandable decision to bug Khan’s conversations with prisoner Babar Ahmad. Under the Wilson Doctrine MP’s are usually afforded special privileges to protect them from surveillance operations. Why is this? MP’s are elected individuals who are trusted to act in the best interests of their constituents, and as such should be held accountable. It is regular citizens who should be given special privileges to protect their privacy, not those that make decisions affecting the very people who elect them.

Khan knew Ahmad as a boy in Tooting where they were known to have played sports together as teenagers. But let’s not pretend that on his visits they discussed the thrills of cricket; they have grown up and the dynamics of their friendship have changed and Khan has a responsibility to the public to be open about the reasons for meeting with a terror suspect. Even just a simple statement supporting or opposing Ahmad’s cause would suffice.

Currently Ahmad remains a suspect as he fights extradition to the U.S. and so remains far away from the fair trial he deserves. His family are fighting for him to be tried in the U.K., but the websites he is alleged to have run were registered American and used to recruit jihadists abroad. Ahmad and his family deny all the allegations, claiming it’s a government conspiracy.

Khan is known to be a government loyalist, despite his objections to certain policies. As a member of parliament, the very government Ahmad claims is out to get him, is he guilty of not doing enough to raise awareness for the friend who has spent four years in prison without a trial? Or by conducting meetings with a suspected terrorist does he deserve to be scrutinised, in any way possible, by the government?

To read more about Babar Ahmad:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4441680.stm

http://www.freebabarahmad.com/