After the mass shooting in Tucson of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge, and other bystanders, President Obama gave one of those unite-the-divide speeches that give journalists leg thrills. We need to “sharpen our instincts for empathy,” he said. He lamented political finger-pointing: “It's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” The initial speculation was that conservatives were responsible for the Tucson horror. Even after this proved to be false, the attacks were relentless, with a barrage of media reports on the alleged excesses and mean-spiritedness of the Tea Party and all things right of center.
Continue reading …• Trouble flares prior to qualifier between England and Wales • Metropolitan police confirm murder investigation is under way Police have launched a murder investigation after a Wales supporter aged 44 died when trouble flared before the Euro 2012 qualifier with England at Wembley. The man was taken to hospital with serious head injuries, after having suffered a heart attack. Emergency services were called to the concourse outside the stadium at about 7.20pm on Tuesday night. The man was pronounced dead at 8.50pm. Six people have been arrested in connection with the incident. A Metropolitan police spokesman said the victim and the suspects were Wales fans. A London ambulance service spokesman said: “I can confirm that LAS got a call at 7.20pm to reports of an assault outside Wembley Stadium. Staff treated a 44-year-old man who had suffered a cardiac arrest. Extensive efforts were made to resuscitate the patient and he was taken to hospital.” Staff on standby at the international match, which England won 1-0, were on the scene within three minutes, the spokesman said. The victim was taken to a north London hospital in an ambulance belonging to a private medical contractor employed by Wembley. He was pronounced dead at 8.50pm. A postmortem examination will be arranged in due course. Police believe they have identified the victim but await formal confirmation that all his next of kin have been informed. Officers from the Met’s homicide and serious crime command are now investigating his death. Cardiff City released a statement to confirm that the deceased was a supporter of the club. “Late on Tuesday night, details reached us concerning a tragedy where a Wales and Cardiff City supporter died at the match between England and Wales,” the statement read. “Out of respect for the family of the supporter, the sensitivity of the situation and until full details and circumstances are ascertained, no statements will be made until deemed fit by proper channels.” The death of fans in violence in or outside grounds is a comparatively rare phenomenon. In 2010, a football fan from Darwen, Lancashire died after appearing to head a bin thrown by a fan during Stoke City’s match with Blackburn Rovers at the Britannia Stadium. An Aston Villa steward died in 2003 during a running battle between more than 100 rival hooligans after a game between Villa and Queens Park Rangers. 1985 was said to be when football reached its lowest point in England. At a Second Division game, Leeds and Birmingham fans clashed before, during and after the match, ripping up St Andrews and killing a 14-year-old-year old fan when a wall collapsed on top of him. On 24 August 1974, 17-year-old Blackpool fan, Kevin Olsson, was stabbed to death at the back of the Spion Kop, Bloomfield Road at Blackpool’s home match with Bolton Wanderers. In 2009, Blackpool supporters raised money for a memorial plaque for Olsson. In August of that year, on the 35th anniversary of his death, the plaque was unveiled beside the club shop. Football violence Wales London Crime Dominic Fifield guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …I promise I will not do a lot of “meta” here on C&L , but I couldn’t help myself after I read something this morning. Apparently the Politico ’s Ben Smith is experiencing a little bit of “ blog neurosis .” He feels confused on how to navigate through his news chores of both blogging and tweeting as he lamented to AdWeek that Twitter is “sort of draining the life from the blog.” His boss Jim VandeHei seems to feel his pain suggesting blogs many not “thrive as robustly as it did four years ago” because of the rise of Twitter. Well the thoughts from both Smith and VandeHei seem amusing because they give us a peek of the mindsets of traditional media reporters who never fully appreciated the concept of blogging. It is interesting that these reporters are looking at the 2008 election cycle as the time when blogs really came into prominent. This platform actually came into prominence during progressive netroots emergence following the march to Iraq war. I am sure Amato can share his own thoughts on that. Moreover, reporters like Smith, VandeHei and their colleagues from traditional media outlets in the DC bubble fundamentally misconstrue the purpose of blogging. I have a newsflash for those guys: blogging is not just about breaking news stories with a provocative headline slapped together with a 2-4 paragraph excerpts and 2-3 sentence superficial takes. It is lot more than that. Blogging can have many different purposes including but not limited: Aggregating all the news in place to give the readers a sketch of the narrative Offering analysis and break-down on micro-angle of a story Using it as an organizing platform for community related events Using it to lay out a vision/plan – applicable for that community – in the coming months Using it as a place to solicit substantive feedback from the community on targeted issues and stories One can just scroll through years of Crooks and Liars archive to get a sense of the multi-dimensional aspects of blogging which can come in so many different forms, making it a richer place for knowledge (especially when it is run in a smart and strategic way like Amato has done here and also in places like DailyKos , TalkingPointsMemo etc). The purposes outlined above are just a sampler. Both blog and Twitter can be integrated effectively, if the person using those tools actually knows what they are doing. I doubt you will find prolific reporters such as Brian Beutler , Greg Sargent or Sam Stein complaining about the chores of blogging and tweeting at the same time. Those guys actually enjoy it and are setting examples of how it is done in the modern media landscape. I get the sense that reporters like Smith never really understood blogging. A close friend of mine, who I consider to be one of the sharpest Democratic Strategists in DC, fired off some poignant reflections when he read Smith’s post today. Let me share that and a closing thought after the jump. Here were my friend’s musings on Smith’s “blog neurosis” post: “People are not refreshing my blog anymore!!!” Please. Ben Smith and these other “blogger reporters” always approached blogging through the perception of what they thought bloggers did or were like. Ben Smith, especially, brought a sort of juvenile approach to his usual two or three lines, blockquote, snarky remark formula. Furthermore, blogs have never really been viable, financially. That was always sort of the problem. Liberal blogs come and go all the time because so few manage to be self-sustaining whereas conservative blogs of all stripes tend to feed from the right-wing welfare trough or are bought up by goons like the Eagle Forum. News is broken on Twitter now, yes, but you can’t get the full story on Twitter and it is littered with misinformation (some intentional, some not, like the Giffords aftermath). Ben Smith seems to just admit defeat, wave the white flag, and sigh, because he’s fixed in his view of blogging as a business model, which I’d liken to pharmaceutical companies and prescription painkillers: it’s all in the comeback. Seems to be on point to me. By the way, if you can care you can follow yours truly musings at “ @murshed . Unlike Mr. Smith, Twitter is not draining our blogging.
Continue reading …I promise I will not do a lot of “meta” here on C&L , but I couldn’t help myself after I read something this morning. Apparently the Politico ’s Ben Smith is experiencing a little bit of “ blog neurosis .” He feels confused on how to navigate through his news chores of both blogging and tweeting as he lamented to AdWeek that Twitter is “sort of draining the life from the blog.” His boss Jim VandeHei seems to feel his pain suggesting blogs many not “thrive as robustly as it did four years ago” because of the rise of Twitter. Well the thoughts from both Smith and VandeHei seem amusing because they give us a peek of the mindsets of traditional media reporters who never fully appreciated the concept of blogging. It is interesting that these reporters are looking at the 2008 election cycle as the time when blogs really came into prominent. This platform actually came into prominence during progressive netroots emergence following the march to Iraq war. I am sure Amato can share his own thoughts on that. Moreover, reporters like Smith, VandeHei and their colleagues from traditional media outlets in the DC bubble fundamentally misconstrue the purpose of blogging. I have a newsflash for those guys: blogging is not just about breaking news stories with a provocative headline slapped together with a 2-4 paragraph excerpts and 2-3 sentence superficial takes. It is lot more than that. Blogging can have many different purposes including but not limited: Aggregating all the news in place to give the readers a sketch of the narrative Offering analysis and break-down on micro-angle of a story Using it as an organizing platform for community related events Using it to lay out a vision/plan – applicable for that community – in the coming months Using it as a place to solicit substantive feedback from the community on targeted issues and stories One can just scroll through years of Crooks and Liars archive to get a sense of the multi-dimensional aspects of blogging which can come in so many different forms, making it a richer place for knowledge (especially when it is run in a smart and strategic way like Amato has done here and also in places like DailyKos , TalkingPointsMemo etc). The purposes outlined above are just a sampler. Both blog and Twitter can be integrated effectively, if the person using those tools actually knows what they are doing. I doubt you will find prolific reporters such as Brian Beutler , Greg Sargent or Sam Stein complaining about the chores of blogging and tweeting at the same time. Those guys actually enjoy it and are setting examples of how it is done in the modern media landscape. I get the sense that reporters like Smith never really understood blogging. A close friend of mine, who I consider to be one of the sharpest Democratic Strategists in DC, fired off some poignant reflections when he read Smith’s post today. Let me share that and a closing thought after the jump. Here were my friend’s musings on Smith’s “blog neurosis” post: “People are not refreshing my blog anymore!!!” Please. Ben Smith and these other “blogger reporters” always approached blogging through the perception of what they thought bloggers did or were like. Ben Smith, especially, brought a sort of juvenile approach to his usual two or three lines, blockquote, snarky remark formula. Furthermore, blogs have never really been viable, financially. That was always sort of the problem. Liberal blogs come and go all the time because so few manage to be self-sustaining whereas conservative blogs of all stripes tend to feed from the right-wing welfare trough or are bought up by goons like the Eagle Forum. News is broken on Twitter now, yes, but you can’t get the full story on Twitter and it is littered with misinformation (some intentional, some not, like the Giffords aftermath). Ben Smith seems to just admit defeat, wave the white flag, and sigh, because he’s fixed in his view of blogging as a business model, which I’d liken to pharmaceutical companies and prescription painkillers: it’s all in the comeback. Seems to be on point to me. By the way, if you can care you can follow yours truly musings at “ @murshed . Unlike Mr. Smith, Twitter is not draining our blogging.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Mitt Romney has come under fire for his statements saying that right-to-work laws should remain a state issue , even though, as he reiterated here during Sen. Jim DeMint’s GOP Presidential Forum, he said that he would sign a national right-to-work law if it came across his desk as President. Romney has also previously had some praise for unions , making similar statements to the one here where he said “unions play an important role in our country.” Apparently Romney doesn’t think much of that role if you’re either talking about government worker’s unions, or heaven forbid unions being allowed to have any influence over our politicians and making campaign donations. Jim DeMint explained what the Republican Party’s real issue with unions being involved in our politics is with the way he framed this question to Mitt Romney — they support Democratic politicians. And of course with all of the corporate money pouring into Republican campaign coffers these days after the Citizens United ruling, no one in the Republican Party wants to see anything remaining to balance that on the left. Romney said he was concerned about anyone in union leadership being allowed to make decisions for their membership as to who they make campaign donations to, but he doesn’t share that concern for the all of the workers in America of varying political affiliations that have their bosses and CEO’s making decisions about which politicians to donate to, or that corporations being allowed to buy off our politicians might also be “almost like a form of corruption.” No, that’s just free speech in Romney-GOP world. And his criticism of unions and closed shops of course does not address what open shops and these so-called right-to-work laws really are. They are nothing more than a way to bust unions financially because when someone opts out of paying their union dues, those unions are still forced to represent those workers. They’re allowed to reap the benefits of union membership without any of the costs for those protections. Republicans seem fine with the idea of democracy when it comes to electing our politicians and citizens who did not vote for those politicians having to live with the results of their actions. They don’t think so highly of democracy in the workplace, where if a majority of the workers want to join a union, they get a union and once that union is in place, everyone contributes to pay for the benefits and wages that are negotiated for them. And where if they don’t like the decisions or the actions of the leaders that their union puts in place, they’re free to vote them out during the next election, just as we are when we don’t like the way our politicians behave. The GOP has decided that they were going to do an all out assault on labor unions this year, which isn’t working out that terribly well for them in places like Wisconsin and Ohio. It appears Romney has decided that it’s a good idea to follow their lead. Let’s hope it doesn’t play too well for him either if he does end up being their presidential nominee. Given Romney’s propensity for flip-flopping on issues when it suits him politically, I won’t be shocked to see him try to backtrack from some of these statements later. Transcript via CNN : DEMINT: Mitt, thanks for being here. Let’s start talking about unions. For me it’s becoming one of the biggest issues that we’re dealing with on the federal level because there’s such an insidious relationship between unions and the Democrat Party. The president and the Democrats are trying to expand government unions at the state and the federal level because of the political support that comes back and we seeing the difficulty at the state level to make the reforms and cut back because of the resistance of government unions. Where are you on unions? And I’ll put it in this context, there’s a federal law right now that requires an American to join a union if their work place is unionized. It’s only if your state opts out of that law that your people are free not to join a union. And there are 22 states that have opted out, but there’s still a federal law that requires Americans to join unions and we have legislation at the federal level to repeal that with a federal right to work law. I understand that you’ve said that’s a state issue and the federal government shouldn’t be involved. But the federal government is involved because they have the law that requires that. Where are you on the federal right to work? And what is your opinion about government unions at the federal and state level? ROMNEY: First of all, what I said was if a right to work piece of legislation reached my desk at the federal level I would sign it. DEMINT: OK. ROMNEY: And the right course I believe politically at this stage is to have states carry out their own right to work legislation. And as you know, right to work states, those 22 have created three million jobs over the last 10 years. The union states have lost about half a million jobs. So right to work is the way to go if you want good jobs. That’s number one. Government unions — and unions play an important role in our country and can be — the Carpenter’s union, for instance, trains their people in ways to provide good services when people want to compare in a fair basis, that’s great. When the government has people in unions, it presents a particular problem and there are a couple of ways it presents a problem in my view. When unions are allowed to collect money from members, and then one person, the chief executive of that union could give that to whichever candidate they want, that’s simply a violation of the personal rights of that individual, and that shouldn’t be allowed. And number two, I really have the problem with the idea that one person is able to collect money from all their members and then give it to a party or an individual who that person made them be the one that decided on matters of legislation directing that union. It’s almost like a form of corruption. I’ve got all this money I’m going to elect the person to give me what I want. So the power of unions in influence elections is a real problem and the place I would address it is with legislation saying that individual union members may not have money taken out of their paycheck to go into funds, which can then be directed by an individual in a way that might be different than what they would have preferred themselves. That should not be allowed.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Mitt Romney has come under fire for his statements saying that right-to-work laws should remain a state issue , even though, as he reiterated here during Sen. Jim DeMint’s GOP Presidential Forum, he said that he would sign a national right-to-work law if it came across his desk as President. Romney has also previously had some praise for unions , making similar statements to the one here where he said “unions play an important role in our country.” Apparently Romney doesn’t think much of that role if you’re either talking about government worker’s unions, or heaven forbid unions being allowed to have any influence over our politicians and making campaign donations. Jim DeMint explained what the Republican Party’s real issue with unions being involved in our politics is with the way he framed this question to Mitt Romney — they support Democratic politicians. And of course with all of the corporate money pouring into Republican campaign coffers these days after the Citizens United ruling, no one in the Republican Party wants to see anything remaining to balance that on the left. Romney said he was concerned about anyone in union leadership being allowed to make decisions for their membership as to who they make campaign donations to, but he doesn’t share that concern for the all of the workers in America of varying political affiliations that have their bosses and CEO’s making decisions about which politicians to donate to, or that corporations being allowed to buy off our politicians might also be “almost like a form of corruption.” No, that’s just free speech in Romney-GOP world. And his criticism of unions and closed shops of course does not address what open shops and these so-called right-to-work laws really are. They are nothing more than a way to bust unions financially because when someone opts out of paying their union dues, those unions are still forced to represent those workers. They’re allowed to reap the benefits of union membership without any of the costs for those protections. Republicans seem fine with the idea of democracy when it comes to electing our politicians and citizens who did not vote for those politicians having to live with the results of their actions. They don’t think so highly of democracy in the workplace, where if a majority of the workers want to join a union, they get a union and once that union is in place, everyone contributes to pay for the benefits and wages that are negotiated for them. And where if they don’t like the decisions or the actions of the leaders that their union puts in place, they’re free to vote them out during the next election, just as we are when we don’t like the way our politicians behave. The GOP has decided that they were going to do an all out assault on labor unions this year, which isn’t working out that terribly well for them in places like Wisconsin and Ohio. It appears Romney has decided that it’s a good idea to follow their lead. Let’s hope it doesn’t play too well for him either if he does end up being their presidential nominee. Given Romney’s propensity for flip-flopping on issues when it suits him politically, I won’t be shocked to see him try to backtrack from some of these statements later. Transcript via CNN : DEMINT: Mitt, thanks for being here. Let’s start talking about unions. For me it’s becoming one of the biggest issues that we’re dealing with on the federal level because there’s such an insidious relationship between unions and the Democrat Party. The president and the Democrats are trying to expand government unions at the state and the federal level because of the political support that comes back and we seeing the difficulty at the state level to make the reforms and cut back because of the resistance of government unions. Where are you on unions? And I’ll put it in this context, there’s a federal law right now that requires an American to join a union if their work place is unionized. It’s only if your state opts out of that law that your people are free not to join a union. And there are 22 states that have opted out, but there’s still a federal law that requires Americans to join unions and we have legislation at the federal level to repeal that with a federal right to work law. I understand that you’ve said that’s a state issue and the federal government shouldn’t be involved. But the federal government is involved because they have the law that requires that. Where are you on the federal right to work? And what is your opinion about government unions at the federal and state level? ROMNEY: First of all, what I said was if a right to work piece of legislation reached my desk at the federal level I would sign it. DEMINT: OK. ROMNEY: And the right course I believe politically at this stage is to have states carry out their own right to work legislation. And as you know, right to work states, those 22 have created three million jobs over the last 10 years. The union states have lost about half a million jobs. So right to work is the way to go if you want good jobs. That’s number one. Government unions — and unions play an important role in our country and can be — the Carpenter’s union, for instance, trains their people in ways to provide good services when people want to compare in a fair basis, that’s great. When the government has people in unions, it presents a particular problem and there are a couple of ways it presents a problem in my view. When unions are allowed to collect money from members, and then one person, the chief executive of that union could give that to whichever candidate they want, that’s simply a violation of the personal rights of that individual, and that shouldn’t be allowed. And number two, I really have the problem with the idea that one person is able to collect money from all their members and then give it to a party or an individual who that person made them be the one that decided on matters of legislation directing that union. It’s almost like a form of corruption. I’ve got all this money I’m going to elect the person to give me what I want. So the power of unions in influence elections is a real problem and the place I would address it is with legislation saying that individual union members may not have money taken out of their paycheck to go into funds, which can then be directed by an individual in a way that might be different than what they would have preferred themselves. That should not be allowed.
Continue reading …While ABC didn't find time for the James Hoffa outburst this morning, ABC reporter Jake Tapper repeatedly engaged White House press secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday on the question of whether Obama felt Hoffa was in the spirit of Obama's January speech in Tucson about the need for civility. Carney repeatedly backed away from the opportunity to distance the president from Obama (other than lamely claiming he hadn't arrived yet). Carney claimed there's a “ritual in Washington” to press for disavowal, but Obama wasn't present. There's also a “ritual in Washington” where a president doesn't want to upset his liberal/leftist base, which is clearly being observed. Here's a look at the Tapper-Carney exchanges as transcribed by MRC's Scott Whitlock: JAKE TAPPER:
Continue reading …John Hurt makes a convincingly cerebral spook in the new film of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. But in real life, if he were in charge of MI6, we’d be in trouble. He’s too gregarious, too eager and far too puckish John Hurt doesn’t think he’d have made a good spy. “I’d have been terrible! Too transparent by half!” He scoffs happily, gimlet eyes a-twinkle. But surely actors and operatives share certain skills? A big wise head waggle. “Don’t forget there are two sides to performing. Finding the truth, but you also have to be transparent enough for the audience to see it. How many times have you seen a performance and thought: well, it seems to be meaning a great deal to you but it ain’t coming across to me? It is to be shared. This isn’t a grief for your own pleasure … Ah, coffee!” A waiter glides into the hotel suite, bearing a tray, offering milk. “No, no cow, thank you, James,” says Hurt, mistaking him for the film PR (they’re both slightly light on hair), twigging too late to explain. The waiter bows out, and Hurt pinkens with giggles. “Dear oh dear! So much for observation, baby!” It’s true: the longer one spends with Hurt, the more one feels that if he really were in charge of Her Majesty’s Secret Service – as he is in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy – we’d be in trouble. He’s too gregarious, too eager to be easy company, too brimful of bonhomie. Try and pin him down on post-cold war paranoia and he just tries to steer things silly. He makes a convincingly cerebral Control in Tomas Alfredson’s doomy adaptation of the John le Carré thriller, but says that, personally, he found the plot hard to follow. “I need to see it again. But even when you’re losing the thread a bit you never lose interest in the film. Of course I have to think: is that just because I’m in it? If I were watching it in an auditorium would I just think: fuck this, I’m out of here? But I don’t think I would be. It’s not easy. You have to sit up straight.” Hurt’s Control is a more belligerent beast than his opposite number in the mammoth 1979 TV series, played by Alexander Knox. His is the first face you see on screen, cocked with suspicion, warning a colleague to trust no one (they’re trying to root out a mole). He dies before the opening credits have unspooled, but he’s there throughout in flashback, and the whole film feels freighted with his upset. “It causes Control a huge amount of pain that the camaraderie of those boys at the top should have been betrayed. And of course he wasn’t well and they all drank too much and smoked too much and were all living on the real edge.” Does Hurt think he’s someone, too, who inspires loyalty in others? “I don’t know whether I inspire anything in anyone. I don’t think like that, like Caligula: ‘Oh my God I must get up and inspire a few people! I must go out and shed a little light.’” In Tinker, and on its promotional tour, Hurt takes the mantle of veteran thesp, the ringmaster wrangling younger acolytes (Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Ciarán Hinds). At 70, he is one of the grand dons of British drama, and content with it, despite the odd campy protest. “Each day as you get older there is a new perspective on life. It’s a progression of some sort.” A pause. “Or a procession at any rate …” He’s pleased with the word play. New in Hurt-world is quitting drink (he was once a boozing buddy of Francis Bacon and Richard Harris), and a new hobby, horticulture. Both are credited to the influence of his fourth wife, producer Anwen Rees Meyers, 25 years his junior. “I like the physical activity of gardening. It’s kind of thrilling. I do a lot of weeding. At one stage I had a sort of Richard Mabey moment where I suddenly got really quite upset by the fact that I was destroying life in order to make way for life I felt deserved to be there. Terrible! I thought: ooh that’s interesting, philosophically.” What did he do? “Well, I went on. Those weeds had had it. But they come up somewhere else. They’re wonderfully resilient.” Hurt shares their bounce. He’s been ripped up a few times, both professionally (Mel Brooks’s 1987 film Spaceballs, and the 2008 thriller The Oxford Murders) and personally (three divorces, the death of a fiance), but he’s nothing if not a hardy perennial, always popping back up, smelling of roses. There’s a puckishness to him – particularly if pictured alongside near-contemporaries Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi, Ian McKellen – which, despite those river-bed wrinkles, lends an impression of youth. Also fresh is Hurt’s edge of malice: remember his leering turn in Brighton Rock and those arch, vaguely depraved voiceovers for Dogville and for Manderlay? He actually appears in the new Lars von Trier film, Melancholia, as another sweet establishment deviant, dancing about at his daughter’s wedding with two dates, both apparently called Betty. Indeed his personal reputation isn’t wholly savoury – just before he went dry, he was booted out of Spearmint Rhino for “boorish behaviour” (quite an achievement, especially when you factor in the fame and the fact of being a pensioner). “I can see people get a bit wary of me,” he says. “Sometimes a bit frightened. People get very nervous. I try to put them at their ease. I say: look, I’m the last person to make anybody nervous, believe you me.” What’s it down to? “I think fame makes people a bit nervous. I’ve never changed the way I live, I still walk the streets, I don’t give a damn. And everyone’s very nice to me. But this new idea of being famous for no reason at all? I can’t actually get my head round it.” We talk about Facebook: he can’t fathom why people might want to celebritise their own lives. Might it be that people want others to care about them? Or at least to acknowledge their existence? “Just being noticed? That does herald a different kind of community. I think people should be protected from being made to feel that they want to know what somebody famous had for breakfast.” How? “By not telling them.” Hurt’s no fogey (his sons are barely out of their teens) but he ascribes a lot of the world’s current woes to lives lived too virtually. The recent riots in London, he thinks, are partly a product of too much time spent online, “playing games, all of which are phenomenally violent. It means people look at property and they don’t see it as part of their own society. “I’ve been saying for years that the biggest difficulty of the 21st century is going to be anarchism. There’s no question that the internet aids and abets that. People have had hard times before. It didn’t mean you just cocked a snook at society. The first sign of it was punk, which was the first youth movement that was negative, that said: “You don’t want us? Well, fuck you.” I don’t think anybody took enough notice of that, sociologically. Previous youth movements had optimism, hope, something to offer. But suddenly a generation came along saying: ‘we don’t feel wanted.’” Hurt sighs with empathy. He’s always been more of a jazzman, he says. “I suppose I’d have been called a beatnik. It was nice because it was more exclusive. It wasn’t a great fat rather stupid popular movement.” And the more one looks at Hurt the more central his essential hippiness seems. Check out those earth-tone tweeds, the golden fuzz of stubble. Clock, also, that chunky necklace, the silver bangle inscribed with a Julian of Norwich homily: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well” (Hurt’s recitation is a rare moment of gamey oratory). He wants to be liked, to live and let live, and believes that “authority actually isn’t right”. He’s indignant at heavy-handedness and unafraid to say so. Cannes’s decision to ban Von Trier in the wake of his larky sympathising with Hitler was “pathetic … it was a joke! Just a joke. Lars is intuitively one of the most intelligent men I’ve met. I’d do anything for him. He feels things. It’s his perception I admire most.” What’s the quality Hurt most wishes he himself had? “I’d love to be one of those people who, whenever you see them, you feel pleased.” He doesn’t think he’s already that simpatico? “Oh, I can’t ask myself those questions, sweetheart, that’s for somebody else to say.” Our time is at an end: Hurt confers a hug, a couple of kisses, some parting gossip. It’s a butter-up. But still, I can’t imagine the person who wouldn’t feel better for seeing him. Except, perhaps, the head of HR at MI6. John Hurt Film adaptations Catherine Shoard guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …