Monday 22 April 2019

April film Review


The film Red Joan appealed to me because of ongoing work which involves separating coincidences from connections and sifting through the available information to try and find evidence which points to truth. In this instance I decided to see the film without reading reviews or reading on the person said to have inspired the making of the film although the two lives are only loosely connected

The basic  truth is that  the real life subject,  Melita Norwood, was a life-long communist supporter, the daughter of communist supporting parents, who worked  as a civil servant for 40 years in a government nuclear weapon development programme  during which time she provided information of value to Russia who regard her contribution as important as that provided by the more famous Cambridge Spies.  She worked as the personal secretary to the Director of the programme and therefore was able to photograph and pass on the documents and communications with which she had access. She was also married to a communist chemistry teacher who have helped her to understand something of the work involved. 

Melita appears to have retired about the same time Margaret Thatcher launched the most comprehensive and effect vetting service in the world to prevent left wing activists being appointed to any form of public funded position or job. In terms of her background she was bright enough with the personality to be school captain at a secondary school and to commence to study for a degree in Latin and Logic at Southampton University, deciding to leave to commence work in London after a year. She is known to have been part of the Woolwich spy ring where three members were arrested and imprisoned in 1938 but she was not even interviewed.

Nor was she prosecuted when  aged 80 years, and retired, she was identified in 1992  when a KGB archivist for the foreign intelligence service, Vasili Mitrokhin, defected and provided the British MI6 with files which remain classified, although some access has been  given, notably to Christopher Andrew who wrote the two editions of the 1000 page history of MI5, and published two books on the papers The Sword and the Shields 1999 and the Battle for the Third World in 2005.  Melita was one of three British spies whose names and roles were made public. The second was a Member of Parliament for 20 years Raymond Fletcher also a journalist and author whose wife has denied his participation saying he worked for MI6 and directly helped Margaret Thatcher.  Raymond Fletcher served   in the British army in WW2 and afterwards in Germany.

The most colourful of the three was John Symonds who fled Britain after becoming suspected of corruption when a police sergeant at New Scotland Yard. He claimed to have been framed and went to Africa where he used his military background to train government troops using sold off British weapons.  He was then recruited by Russia and used to gain information by seducing women who worked in embassies He returned to Britain and was given immunity for past deeds when cooperating in Operation Countryman. He was not believed about his role as a male Marta Hari until he was named by Mitrokhin. He is still alive and a film starring Daniel Craig and Jude law based on his book was planned but then discontinued.

In the Red Joan Judi Dench plays the 80 year old, a widow with one son who is a leading lawyer  and who spends most of the film horrified by what she discloses of former life to the  Special Branch in  long flashback covering her life story.  This begins when she meets two German Jews at Cambridge University and is groomed after joining a left wing film society and seduced by the male.  Unlike the Norwood, Sophie Cookson portrays the young Joan as a conventional bright academic from a middle class background passionate about the pure science of physics and a mathematical background which leads her to being head hunted to work as personal assistant to the director of the British nuclear weapon project before the war ends. and where her former communist contacts learn of her new role and try and persuade her to spy for them. She strongly opposes this until the bomb is used on Japan.

The story follows what happened in reality as in 1946, the McMahan Act was passed in the USA preventing further sharing of the development programme despite British scientists having played a major role in the Manhattan project. The irony is it was the former German scientist Klaus Fuchs who in 1950 was found to have spent years leaking his contribution to the Russians using the argument made by the film that this achieved a balance of power and prevented a third world war and the destruction of humanity.

The film has Atlee visiting the project and agreeing to what became the successful development of the British Bomb. The problem was that we lacked the means of effective rocket launching to prevent any pre-emptive strike by the enemy. We were blackmailed by the American President in 1960 into agreeing to provide the main base for the Polaris submarines and to do so near Scotland biggest centre of population as the means for the sharing of the rocket delivery system. The government wanted a more isolated location, but the USA insisted on Holy Loch to ensure their service personally had quick access to the facilities of a city. This information became available with the release of Cabinet papers and the treating of the Holy Loch demonstrations which I triggered and helped organise (papers of Direct Action Committee J B Priestly Library University of Bradford) with an online index and mentioned in a footnote Gandhi and the West Sean Scalmar).

In the film, the young Joan begins a relationship with the project director when they go to Canada for help with the British development. However, it is only when the project director is charged and held  in custody for being the source of the leaks to Russia development, that his wife agrees to a divorce and they can in theory be  together again.. Joan decides to admit her role to save him but then works out a plan to enable both of them to leave the UK for Australia by blackmailing a gay former communist student at Cambridge who has become a senior civil servant at the foreign office. It is only when this man dies that the evidence against her comes to light. The film ends with the media at her door as she attempts to explains why she did it supported at the last moment by her son. The ending is intended to leave the audience with sympathy for what she did.

The acting throughout is first class and some critics dislike the direction of Trevor Nunn which avoids this being yet another gripping spy thriller with lots of explicit sex and scandal.  Nunn is more concerned about portraying relationships and motivations in the context of the time period and in this he succeeds. The film is pitched for an intelligent and serious audience and not for the average cinema goers and film critics born in the last thirty years which suggests it will not have a long run in mainstream theatres.

I also recently enjoyed the Missing Link which uses puppets and stop motion but with the latest technology involving 110 sets at 65 locations. The sequence on the ice bridge to Shangri la is reported to have taken five years and has Emma Thomson as the voice of the powerful dictator of the hidden world   There is a great cast of voices including Hugh Jackman, Stephen Fry, David Walliams, Matt Lucas and Timothy Olyphant.   The story is of a dedicated explorer in search of living creatures from Big Foot to the Yeti which will prove to be the missing link between animals and humans and will gain him entry into the Royal Society where he is opposed by its President clinging to Creation in 7 days belief.   The film follows the Around the World in 80 days in this respect and where the Royal Society president hires a team to prevent the return of the explorer with proof.  There is a huge production company involved managed by Laika. I first became aware of this approach to film making when seeing Kubo and the two Strings in 2016 where the voices included Ralph Fiennes.

I also enjoyed the remake of Dumbo which upset me as child when seeing the 1941 original  when Dumbo was brought by a flock of wild storks but otherwise the basics of the story are the same with the mother elephant declared mad and locked away and separated from her son which continues to upset very young children today as it did then,  the impact of being regarded and exploited as a freaks  and  the happy ending, in this instance taken from public entertainment  back to  a natural habitat.

One of my first cousins spent his childhood including early school in Germany immediately after the war as his father was a regimental quartermaster in the British Army of Occupation. His mother was traumatised by the reality of the experience, so I was interested to see one of the few authentic accounts on film with best well known Graham Green’s the Third Man with Joseph Cotton and Orson Wells. The Aftermath more than lived up to my expectations but I am not surprised that that its season of showing was short for as T S Elliot comments in his Four Quartets humans cannot cope with too much reality.

I have no visual memory of the original 1937 movie A Star is Born with Janet Gaynor and Frederich March, but I do remember the 1954 version with James Mason and Judy Garland and then as Rock and Roll artists in 1976, Kris Kristofferson and Barbara Streisand. I was not surprised that the latest Hollywood version in 2018 with Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper won several awards. I went to Wild Rose at Bolden Cineworld  on April 12 because it was a  Scottish film with Julie Walters, not knowing much else, only to discover there were  similarities with the Star is Born series  but at a superior level of authenticity because of the performances of Jessica Buckley as the Country singer, Julie Walters as her mother and the  young actors who play her son and daughter both of whom are outstanding. I rate Wild Rose as one of the best Scottish productions and should feature in next year’s BAFTA awards.  The language is natural and the film rightly has a 15 certificate.

I then went to see Shazam at the Vue Gateshead using a one of the Lloyd Bank vouchers where it was being shown on their super clean screen with the latest special sound and found the entrance foyer in a disgusting condition after enjoying a cup of tea in the neighbouring Tesco. Usually the foyer area, full of leather armchairs and a large screen showing the latest trailers, is spotless but this time there was spilt popcorn everywhere and the remains of various snacks which was cleared up by the time I had my ticket and car park pass. I went for an entertainment experience without expectations and came away impressed that this is best action hero film made for families starting with children from about ten years of age.

The film centres of mixed age range of school age adolescents living in a small children’s home managed by a couple with the knowledge, experience and skill to treat each child as an individual, to give them their space while bringing them into a sense of family life where they begin to look after each other.  The most unhappy child was abandoned by his 17 year old mother at a fair and spend his life trying to find her believing he was lost and not abandoned. He is selected by an ancient solitary wizard to be tested to become his successor after years if failing to find someone suitable. He is given the full range of superpowers which he initially begins to use in order to get out school, attract attention and money for treats and let the situation get out of hand.  Unfortunately, a previous failure finds a way to return to the lair of the Wizard and join up with the imprisoned dark forces there and uses these creature monsters to gain power and revenge until  he is made aware of the potential threat from the adolescent superhero.. 

Thus, the age old battle between good and evils begins where the youngster is no match until one by one the other children realise the situation and try and help. At the end all the children become superheroes each with their own form of power which suggests this is only the first a series.  There was a good size audience for the film which was also enjoyed by them, overhearing the comments as we left the auditorium. Next in 3D with be the sequel to the Avengers Endgame.

Friday 12 April 2019

The Easter Brexit Agreement ?


I listened carefully to all the answers which the Prime Minister Teresa May gave in the House of Commons on Thursday afternoon April 11th 2019, as I have done on every previous Brexit reporting occasion and noted the significant differences which augur well in her dedicated effort to respect the binding undertaken given to the British people in the  June 23rd Brexit 2016 referendum. An undertaking which was also given by the Labour Party and which was also followed by both political parties in their 2017 General Election manifesto’s. As  I commented to a journalist three years ago when attending the presentation by the Shadow Chancellor when he outlined Labour’s investment bank  proposals at the Glass Centre in Sunderland, I anticipated that although our political relationship with Western Europe would change, ways would be found to retain all the elements which had served everyone well over the past forty years.

My confidence and my optimism is because I believe I recognise the fundamental shift in the approach of the Prime Minister as she appears to have decided that she has nothing to lose by persisting in what she believes is right for the for future of the British Nation and damn the personal consequences.

In this respect she has become more like Jeremey Corbyn, the official leader of the Opposition and leader of the Labour Party, that she would ever admit, in public. She still finds it difficult to control her feelings towards those in her own party who are determined to bring her down because she refuses to yield to their view of Britain’s political and economic future. She showed contempt towards Sir William Cash and other member of the far right in her party and is taking on the U.D.P. 

Having leaked the 27 page statement  the Cabinet Secretary  briefed on  why no deal would be bad for the British economy and the public welfare, the memorandum from the head of the Civil Services telling all government departments to stand down No deal preparations was also leaked further incensing the Brexit Right and in so doing challenges Cabinet Members Leadsom, Gove, Mordaunt and the other members of the Pizza Club, to shut up or resign. They know that if they resign, they will be replaced by those who support the approach of the Prime Minister and not by other Brexiteers. Mrs May knows that the rest of the Cabinet will not resign and bring down the government fearing the consequences of a General Election.

The remaining threat to her immediate position as Prime Minister is that the U.D.P are arguing that their binding agreement to support the government in any vote of confidence applies only to the previously agreed length of the present Parliament session which commenced on 21st June 2017 and is therefore due to end in June. This in part is why Mrs May attempted to extend Article 50 only to June. However, the present session of two years instead of the normal one is because of Brexit and the Right in her party immediately understood that the new flexible Article 50 extension will result in in the extension of Parliamentary session, with the UDP immediately saying the Supply and Confidence agreement will have to be renegotiated. It would be surprising if the Prime Minister has not checked that the agreement continues for the length of the session without the length being determined. The UDP also know that Jeremey Corbyn has no intention of calling for a new vote of confidence in the Government while he is in negotiation for a Brexit confidence agreement which will guarantee his party’s support for passing the Withdrawal agreement and for a revised political agreement on future relationships with Europe. As with the UDP agreement Labour could insist on other strings

It is not evident if the media is deliberately not explaining to the public the potential legally binding nature of any agreement or there is ignorance. It is important to appreciate that as with the agreement reached with the Liberal Democrats which formed the Coalition in 2010 and that with the UPD in 2017,  the discussions with Labour are of a similar order, and are being formally serviced by the Civil Service and its lawyers and will have the same force as any international treaty between two or more countries, and where the Prime Minister has  the power to enter into with the authority of the head of state using the royal prerogative. I assume the head of state formally sanctioned the Good Friday agreement, the Coalition and UDP agreements and would do so any between May and Corbyn.

This  also explains the anger of the SNP and other minority parties in Parliament to May’s decision to try and do a deal with Labour which will in effect replace that with the DUP. In this they are joined by the pure Remainers and anti-Corbyn members of the  Parliamentary Labour Party who appreciate that the 2017 Labour Election Manifesto and the 2018 annual conference resolution only commit the Party to a second referendum, a confirmatory vote , or to seeking a general election if their six tests are not met, and that on behalf of the Labour Party, Corbyn and Keir Starmer and other members of the negotiation team have made public their willingness to compromise, stating that so far the Prime Minister has not ab acceptable compromise on the table.  It is assumed that these talks will continue with added momentum during the next two weeks while the backbench members of the Commons have been sent back to face their constituencies and some of the media spotlight is defused. Obviously, some of the most outspoken have sorted out their position with their constituencies, but there will be others who the Prime Minister and the Tory Whips believe will accept the urgent need to get the Withdrawal agreement passed before May 22nd and preferable before May 2nd.  The momentum to get it done at any price now has full steam.

It was also evident from Mrs May’s answers to questions yesterday, that the priority, one which is also shared in part with Corbyn, is that they want to avoid participation in the EEC Elections on 22nd of May.  There are two reasons for this. The first is that Polls, as they do for the local elections on May 2nd are looking very bad for the Conservative Party, and also not good for Labour is some of the Leave seats where racism was the main factor in the referendum result. The second is the anticipated rise not just of the two Brexit parties, UKIP and the new party of Nigel Farage but of other far right parties. Much will depend if UKIP and the Brexit Party can do a deal not to both contest some seats or if the anti-Tory and Labour vote is split.  The timing of any formal agreement between Labour and the Government will therefore be crucial.

The media also did not appear to appreciate that the proposal to put options to the House of Commons which the government would be bound by the outcome, was only a back stop if agreement is not reached with the Labour Party, and then only if Corbyn also agrees for Labour to be bound by the outcome. May on behalf of a future Conservative government and Corbyn also, do not want to give more power to the present composition of the House of Commons than Speaker Bercow has allowed so far.

The preference of both leaders is for a general election rather than a People’s Vote as the Prime Minister knows that she could use a General Election not just to confront Corbyn for a second time, but believes that the work undertaken to discredit Corbyn as a security threat and  anti-Semitism has damaged him personally and that unlike  her previous attempt  to make the general election about Brexit, any new snap election will become Brexit dominated by the media, however hard the Opposition leader attempts to focus on the impact of austerity, climate change and the inherent inequalities of  the British economy and power structure.  Corbyn also knows that he needs the opportunity of a General Election to rid the House of Commons of some of his fiercest critics. Now that Commons have been given the taste of power against the executive they will want to exercise again and only a new more traditional Speaker  following a General Election will change that, and I still anticipate that Jacob Reece Mogg is the most likely candidate with Andrea Leadsom the other possibility as there will be  across party pressure for the officer to  again be held by a woman with Baroness Betty Boothroyd the only other woman to be elected.

The difficulty Labour has is in signing any agreement without a commitment to a Peoples Vote, and if this proves to be an obstacle the solution is a vote of no confidence leading to a general election, but as has been stated, the Tory right will not support unless there is a way to replace May and the UDP is legally bound to support.

My cause for optimism is that this all points to May immediately putting formally on the table a form of Customs Union and common  market conformity regularity which Corbyn and his front bench could sign up to with confidence knowing  he would have sufficient support from the shadow government and supporters to get the consequential Brexit legislation through the British Parliament, despite opposition from the hard right and the hard Remainers together with the SNP and Lib Dems who know that any deal will damage their future electoral prospects and that of UKIP and the Brexit Party.

Both leaders know that if a deal is to be done and prove successful it has to be done quickly and the two week recess provides a great opportunity for what future generations will call the Easter agreement