Yesterday I explained that film critics discussing Bertolucci's The Dreamers missed the point that the film was about an innocent American being seduced by a family of decadent Europeans, and alternatively it was a film about abnormal teenagers trying to grow up in an abnormal world. Philosophers, psychologists, politicians, lawyers who are not also politicians, moralists and social scientists generally conflict over what is normal and its converse. The UK and American media tends to regard abnormality as something to be avoided, at times dangerous and threatening.
My understanding is that at least in the USA exceptional people who contribute to American society are appreciated and sometimes rewarded within their own lifetime, whereas in the UK, it is only occasional exceptional acts that are appreciated and there is a dislike of those whose who are consistently better and successful and therefore different from the majority. We tend to prefer individuals who make mistakes, overcome hardships, or go off on occasional binges, unless of course they have established their position lecturing the rest of us on what we should and should not do, in which instance, we, the public tend to be merciless. Thus we are with Prime Minister Gordon Brown who convinced everyone that only he could manage the British economy in such a way which enabled the majority to continue to improve their position regardless of what was happening elsewhere in the world. Because he has now failed to do this, first with the run on Northern Rock, then with the hike in the prices of energy, especially petrol, and in the price of basic food. You could get a loaf of bread at Asda for under 20 pence and now you are lucky to find one under £1 if you go late in the day. The solution Gordon, I repeat is to put an immediate freeze on public expenditure projects unless they are designed to reduce food and fuel prices and find ways to reduce taxes on everyone. The Government has to start being ahead of its back bench politicians.
Yesterday was a normal day for me but will be considered abnormal by the majority especially those who go out to work for their living, who bring up children or care of the sick, the disabled and the elderly.
I awoke early, completing a Blog write before 10.30 and yet I still failed to make the kind of progress in the morning that I aspire to, spirits lowered as the weather became autumnal, grey, cold and wet.
But three new sets of work were completed by midday, the printing out of My Space Blogs Creative set 561, an information set on Contemporary Catholicism and other catholic issues 9491 and a set about my Video and stills camera 9893. However I made no progress on my in tray, the annual household accounts, the masterwork required to progress action in relation to the premature and preventable death of my aunt, or on the two hundred boxes of material waiting to be converted into work sets.
While I worked at this and that, including a sardine and olive salad lunch with two slices of Hovis, followed by the second cream slice from yesterday and coffee, I watched John Spencer, Leo McGarry from the West Wing playing a detective wracked by guilt having accidentally shot a fellow officer, inclined to get fighting drunk who married to a nurse ends in divorce "you need a nurse which is only my day job great line." The film, A jury of One concerns the apparent Hispanic gangland shootings of three individuals. At the end of the film we find out that the three were assassinated by the aggrieved widowed father and war veteran, whose son was accidentally killed by the three and who had subsequently walked free the court. Spencer allows the man to take his own life rather than go through the criminal process and with the help of a female friend whose combat soldier husband was killed in a friendly fire incident he is able to go and say sorry to the widow of the policeman he has killed. He can begin the process of forgiving himself as well as forgiving others for their sins.
I then turned to another film, a court room drama based on a true story, called Boomerang, released in 1947 starring Dana Andrews and also featuring Lee J Cobb and Karl Maldren. A well known and liked priest is shot at close range while he makes his evening constitutional after supper, but the police are unable to find any evidence of motive or the killer. The incident occurred in Connecticut, in the run up to local elections where previously the town was run a national political party, but had been over turned by a group of local reformers. The national party commenced to make political capital over the fact that no murder was apprehended and considerable pressure was exerted on the police by the new civic leaders as a consequence. An ex servicemen who had left town shortly after the killing was arrested and a substantial case brought against him, witnesses identifying him, his gun matched the bullet, and he then made a confession. Accordingly when the inquest was held the man was placed in police custody and the Public prosecutor appeared to have straight forward case to prove that the man should be formally indicted (charged) and brought to a jury trial. The responsibility of the public prosecutor at this point is to be satisfied that there evidence which will stand up in court and to make appropriate enquiries if not. Because of these enquiries the Prosecutor has major doubts which he brings to the court on first day of the hearing. Over night he is approached by one of the political officials who discloses that a conviction is essential because failure could threaten a project which he has sunk all his funds, moreover he has obtained a loan from the wife of the Prosecutor who had also been made chairwoman of the project which would buy the land at the price which would make the politician a significant profit.
The film is constructed in such a way to give the impression that the prosecutor is being influence by this pressure and by a bribe offer to be recommended for the state governor. A journalist gets wind of the apparent change of view and makes his own enquiries and during a break in court room proceedings advises the politician that he is aware of the corruption.
However the Prosecutor has not changed his position but uses procedure available to him to explain to the judge the issues which has led him to the view that the accused is not the killer. He cleverly present various issues before dramatically demonstrating that the bullet that killed the priest could not have been fired from the gun at the required angle because of a fault in the firing mechanism and the case against the war veteran is dropped. When the corrupt politician then shoots himself the audience is for a moment left believing that the real killer has been identified. We are then told that this is not so and that the case remains unsolved, although the film suggests that the killer was member of the congregation who in confessional had disclosed a criminal tendency.. The Priest had insisted that the man admits himself for residential psychiatric treatment but gives him time to do so on a voluntary basis or he will be obliged to report the matter to the authorities. The man is shown in court looking uncomfortable as the evidence for dismissing the case against the war veteran is disclosed and at the end of the film we are told he has been killed in a motoring accident. We are also told that the prosecutor went on to become the Attorney General for the United States.
After lunch I had moved to the first floor to do some set work where a number of projects in progress are stored, bringing down stairs several volumes after realising that I made a major mistake with a half finished volume covering film and culture interests, having also commenced a separate volume in the down stairs work room. It took time to amalgamate the material from the two volumes, and then sorting out the associated record keeping, adding some records while deleting others although overall the result was one additional set. Three other work sets were completed and registered before a tea break.
After tea there was a good hour of intense work activity and then I eased a little while taking photographs of completed work against a background of a familiar 1944 John Wayne Western, Tall in Saddle. This is a stock western where the outcome was predictable and good prevailed over evil and there was not just a meaningful sense of justice but a happy ending. The year when the film was made is significant
So far in Britain's Got Talent I have been able to predict that who I wanted to win would also gain the public vote and tonight there was no difficulty in doing so in relation to the outright winner who was provided with a stunning set and routine which if reproduced in the final will win over the Chorister Andrew Johnson. However the act I predict will and should win overall does not perform until Thursday evening. Predicting the second and third places last night was more difficult and the two acts which I wanted to get through to this stage did not- three forties female singers from Newcastle and a fun trio of students using hula hoops. The two acts which the public selected was a precocious over confident stage singer actor and two young men who have turned their marshal arts body strength sport into an entertainment routine who the judges put through 2 to 1. There was also something going on behind the scene as all three judges attacked the song routine which had been provided by a friend of the boy's father who clearly manages him and their comments were clearly designed to influence the audience against the boy in favour of other artists.
I then reached that stage of being too tired to work but not tired enough to go to bed so I tend to eat in such situations and last night was no exception. There was an interesting dramatization of the life of Ian Fleming during his wartime work in intelligence but as went to bed as soon as I knew I would sleep. It had been a back to normal day.
No comments:
Post a Comment