The Creative Impact award aims to honour those film-makers whose documentaries bring burning issues to our attention. But just how effective are they? Movie people are forever telling the rest of us that movies can change the world – but they would say that, wouldn’t they? It justifies the outrageous salaries, the decadent lifestyles and the grandiose awards acceptance speeches. Certainly, if James Cameron could point to figures detailing a fall in ocean-liner/iceberg collisions following Titanic’s release, his “I’m the king of the world!” Oscar proclamation might have been more forgivable. But beyond the bluster of Hollywood and the joy of escapism, what kind of real-world impact can cinema really have? The creators of the Puma Creative Impact award believe it can be massive. Its stated aim? “To honour the documentary film creating the most significant impact in the world.” As the documentarist Morgan Spurlock , a juror for the award, says: “There’s real power in a documentary, and there’s real power in movies to begin with. Movies transcend culture; they transcend countries, and to
Continue reading …AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka joined a host of labor leaders and organizations that are supporting Occupy Wall Street. He released the following statement on Tuesday: Occupy Wall Street has captured the imagination and passion of millions of Americans who have lost hope that our nation’s policymakers are speaking for them. We support the protesters in their determination to hold Wall Street accountable and create good jobs. We are proud that today on Wall Street, bus drivers, painters, nurses and utility workers are joining students and homeowners, the unemployed and the underemployed to call for fundamental change. Across America, working people are turning out with their friends and neighbors in parks, congregations and union halls to express their frustration – and anger — about our country’s staggering wealth gap, the lack of work for people who want to work and the corrupting of our politics by business and financial elites. The people who do the work to keep our great country running are being robbed not only of income, but of a voice. It is time for all of us—the 99 percent—to be heard. As we did when we marched on Wall Street last year, working people call on corporations, big banks, and the financial industry to do their part to create good jobs, stop foreclosures and pay their fair share of taxes. · Wall Street and corporate America must invest in America: Big corporations should invest some of the $2 trillion in cash they have on hand, and use it to create good jobs. And the banks themselves should be making credit more accessible to small businesses, instead of parking almost $1 trillion at the Federal Reserve. · Stop foreclosures: Banks should write down the 14 million mortgages that are underwater and stop the more than 10 million pending foreclosures to stop the downward spiral of our housing markets and inject more than $70 billion into our economy. · Fund education and jobs by taxing financial speculation: A tiny tax on financial transactions could raise hundreds of billions in revenue that could fund education and create jobs rebuilding our country. And it would discourage speculation and encourage long term investment. We will open our union halls and community centers as well as our arms and our hearts to those with the courage to stand up and demand a better America. As more and more organizations join the Occupy Wall Street movement, the harder it will be for the media to ignore what is going on or for opponents to use dirty tricks to undermine the protests and their concerns.
Continue reading …Colombian singer Shakira knows a thing or two about educating children. At least that’s what Obama must be thinking, as the White House has just appointed the “Whenever, Wherever” singer to the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics, according to a statement released on Wednesday. (PHOTOS: Colombian Sensation Shakira) While this appointment probably
Continue reading …The way Hugh Jackman tells it, he had to be stopped from giving Wolverine jazz hands. He tells Ryan Gilbey about his boyhood fight with his brother to be allowed to dance The day before I am due to interview Hugh Jackman , the Australian actor drops a tantalising hint on Twitter. “Hey tweeters, I have something exciting to announce soon,” he writes. “What could it be?” What indeed? I can’t help but think back to the last time I met him, shortly before the release in 2006 of The Prestige . Christopher Nolan’s thriller about two rival magicians (the other was Christian Bale) contains Jackman’s richest screen performance to date: he reveals hidden torment behind the conjuror’s curtain-calls-and-bouquets persona, one that he will know from his parallel career as a lead actor in musical theatre (an existence of which the majority of X-Men fans are probably oblivious). The Prestige was a mystery wrapped in an enigma, then padlocked in a chest and dropped in the ocean. Some people think the same applies to Jackman. A friend took me aside and asked whether I really swallowed those “ordinary, boring family man” quotes fed to me by Jackman. Couldn’t I see this was a classic cover story? Jackman has encountered such talk over the years, and always has a smiling riposte at the ready: “You really know you’ve made it when the gay rumours start.” I tell Jackman that his Twitter tease convinced me he was about to come out, and he humours this with a raucous laugh. Then again, some people would consider his eventual announcement – that he is bringing his one-man song-and-dance show to Broadway in mid-October – to be tantamount to bounding from the closet, anyway. He laughs at that, too, which is very game of him. He even throws in a slap of the thigh: his thigh, that is, not mine. It all makes for a cheerful alternative to the usual “No comment.” He’s been through this before, a long time ago. When he was 10, a teacher approached him after the end-of-year school concert to compliment him on his dancing skills and to advise him to sign up for dance class. His father was all for the idea, but one of Jackman’s older brothers told him dancing was for sissies: “What are ya – a poof?” he jeered. “I wasn’t 100% sure what that was,” the actor says now. “But I knew it didn’t sound like something I should be. And that was it as far as dance. I shut it down. I was just too embarrassed. I’m the 10-minute Billy Elliot. ‘I wanna dance!’ ‘You poof.’ ‘OK, I’ll be a miner.’” His brother apologised when Jackman was 18. “That released something for me. I literally signed up for a tap class the day after he’d said sorry.” Slightly sadly, he adds: “Of course, I was fully aware I’d left it too late to turn professional.” That said, he has to be positively restrained from hoofing in public. After stints on some minor Australian TV shows (including Corelli , on which set he met his wife: she played a prison psychiatrist, he was a tattooed inmate), his acting career took off in musicals, beginning with Trevor Nunn’s National theatre production of Oklahoma! in 1998. We are talking during the London stopover in the international publicity tour for Real Steel , the world’s first (and possibly last) touchy-feely boxing-robots movie. Somewhat improbably, Real Steel is The Champ meets Short Circuit, with a Crazy Heart country-and-western vibe. Jackman plays Charlie, a washed-up ex-fighter who enters hulking robots into showdowns at country fairs. Who else but Jackman could put vim into the ringside gibberish he is called on to holler (“Bring it! One, two, overlord! Shatter punch!”)? Who else could pull off Charlie’s grudging affection for his long-lost son, a blond-haired tyke with Shirley Temple pluck, without making the audience gag on its popcorn? But then Jackman has always excelled at bringing charm and sincerity to pictures that would sink a lesser showman. More interesting than Real Steel’s combat sequences, which resemble an uprising in a car assembly plant, is Jackman’s relish at shedding his slick, soft image, at least for the film’s first half. “It was so much fun to see how far we could take Charlie,” he says. “This is a DreamWorks picture being distributed by Disney, and our lead character sells his son in the first 20 minutes. I really liked that. When we showed it to the studio I thought they were gonna tell us to reshoot. I’d already asked Shawn [Levy, the director]: ‘Are we making him too much of an asshole?’ The studio thought we’d pushed it but that it worked.” Free of the physical heft required of him in Real Steel or the X-Men series, the 42-year-old is tall (6’2″) and lean. Dressed in black shirt and trousers, he resembles a giant chess piece. His manner is as courteous as a bellhop who’s banking on a big tip. Perhaps that’s another reason why he savoured the sleazier aspects of Charlie’s personality – it gave him a chance to go against the grain of his personality. “Absolutely. I loved it. I don’t allow myself to be like that in life, you see.” Or on screen, come to that. Beneath the snarling and the tantrums, Wolverine is just a pussycat. The rough-hewn Drover in Baz Luhrmann’s sweeping, silly Australia is essentially a Playgirl pinup minus the staples. Even when Jackman tries for sinister, in Deception or Woody Allen’s Scoop , it’s the suave front that is more convincing than the menace beneath. He has gained a reputation as the stand-in man – he only got to play Wolverine when the original choice, Dougray Scott, was unavailable, and he has stepped into parts vacated by Brad Pitt ( The Fountain ) and Russell Crowe (Australia). More telling are the roles Jackman almost played. He got as far as his costume fitting for the professor seduced by Nazism in Good, but then funding fell through (it was later filmed with Viggo Mortensen). And he was once the lead in Drive, back when Neil Marshall was attached as director. Either of these parts would have demanded a moral ambiguity rarely seen among the roles on Jackman’s CV. He’s self-deprecating about the luvvie side of himself; the way he tells it, he had to be discouraged from giving Wolverine jazz hands. “It takes every ounce of power in my body when I’m playing him just to keep still and find that interior, brooding aspect. [Director] Bryan Singer used to yell at me: ‘Stop moving! Just stand there and say your lines!’” But when I suggest that The Prestige worked so well because it played his glossiness against Bale ‘s method intensity, he seems offended. There’s an awkward pause, and I ask whether this isn’t how he sees himself. “Not really,” he shrugs. “I know I’m not known as method. By nature I’m not a brooder. What I continue to use is a mixture of the English school, which is traditionally outside-in, and the more American way of working from the inside
Continue reading …The way Hugh Jackman tells it, he had to be stopped from giving Wolverine jazz hands. He tells Ryan Gilbey about his boyhood fight with his brother to be allowed to dance The day before I am due to interview Hugh Jackman , the Australian actor drops a tantalising hint on Twitter. “Hey tweeters, I have something exciting to announce soon,” he writes. “What could it be?” What indeed? I can’t help but think back to the last time I met him, shortly before the release in 2006 of The Prestige . Christopher Nolan’s thriller about two rival magicians (the other was Christian Bale) contains Jackman’s richest screen performance to date: he reveals hidden torment behind the conjuror’s curtain-calls-and-bouquets persona, one that he will know from his parallel career as a lead actor in musical theatre (an existence of which the majority of X-Men fans are probably oblivious). The Prestige was a mystery wrapped in an enigma, then padlocked in a chest and dropped in the ocean. Some people think the same applies to Jackman. A friend took me aside and asked whether I really swallowed those “ordinary, boring family man” quotes fed to me by Jackman. Couldn’t I see this was a classic cover story? Jackman has encountered such talk over the years, and always has a smiling riposte at the ready: “You really know you’ve made it when the gay rumours start.” I tell Jackman that his Twitter tease convinced me he was about to come out, and he humours this with a raucous laugh. Then again, some people would consider his eventual announcement – that he is bringing his one-man song-and-dance show to Broadway in mid-October – to be tantamount to bounding from the closet, anyway. He laughs at that, too, which is very game of him. He even throws in a slap of the thigh: his thigh, that is, not mine. It all makes for a cheerful alternative to the usual “No comment.” He’s been through this before, a long time ago. When he was 10, a teacher approached him after the end-of-year school concert to compliment him on his dancing skills and to advise him to sign up for dance class. His father was all for the idea, but one of Jackman’s older brothers told him dancing was for sissies: “What are ya – a poof?” he jeered. “I wasn’t 100% sure what that was,” the actor says now. “But I knew it didn’t sound like something I should be. And that was it as far as dance. I shut it down. I was just too embarrassed. I’m the 10-minute Billy Elliot. ‘I wanna dance!’ ‘You poof.’ ‘OK, I’ll be a miner.’” His brother apologised when Jackman was 18. “That released something for me. I literally signed up for a tap class the day after he’d said sorry.” Slightly sadly, he adds: “Of course, I was fully aware I’d left it too late to turn professional.” That said, he has to be positively restrained from hoofing in public. After stints on some minor Australian TV shows (including Corelli , on which set he met his wife: she played a prison psychiatrist, he was a tattooed inmate), his acting career took off in musicals, beginning with Trevor Nunn’s National theatre production of Oklahoma! in 1998. We are talking during the London stopover in the international publicity tour for Real Steel , the world’s first (and possibly last) touchy-feely boxing-robots movie. Somewhat improbably, Real Steel is The Champ meets Short Circuit, with a Crazy Heart country-and-western vibe. Jackman plays Charlie, a washed-up ex-fighter who enters hulking robots into showdowns at country fairs. Who else but Jackman could put vim into the ringside gibberish he is called on to holler (“Bring it! One, two, overlord! Shatter punch!”)? Who else could pull off Charlie’s grudging affection for his long-lost son, a blond-haired tyke with Shirley Temple pluck, without making the audience gag on its popcorn? But then Jackman has always excelled at bringing charm and sincerity to pictures that would sink a lesser showman. More interesting than Real Steel’s combat sequences, which resemble an uprising in a car assembly plant, is Jackman’s relish at shedding his slick, soft image, at least for the film’s first half. “It was so much fun to see how far we could take Charlie,” he says. “This is a DreamWorks picture being distributed by Disney, and our lead character sells his son in the first 20 minutes. I really liked that. When we showed it to the studio I thought they were gonna tell us to reshoot. I’d already asked Shawn [Levy, the director]: ‘Are we making him too much of an asshole?’ The studio thought we’d pushed it but that it worked.” Free of the physical heft required of him in Real Steel or the X-Men series, the 42-year-old is tall (6’2″) and lean. Dressed in black shirt and trousers, he resembles a giant chess piece. His manner is as courteous as a bellhop who’s banking on a big tip. Perhaps that’s another reason why he savoured the sleazier aspects of Charlie’s personality – it gave him a chance to go against the grain of his personality. “Absolutely. I loved it. I don’t allow myself to be like that in life, you see.” Or on screen, come to that. Beneath the snarling and the tantrums, Wolverine is just a pussycat. The rough-hewn Drover in Baz Luhrmann’s sweeping, silly Australia is essentially a Playgirl pinup minus the staples. Even when Jackman tries for sinister, in Deception or Woody Allen’s Scoop , it’s the suave front that is more convincing than the menace beneath. He has gained a reputation as the stand-in man – he only got to play Wolverine when the original choice, Dougray Scott, was unavailable, and he has stepped into parts vacated by Brad Pitt ( The Fountain ) and Russell Crowe (Australia). More telling are the roles Jackman almost played. He got as far as his costume fitting for the professor seduced by Nazism in Good, but then funding fell through (it was later filmed with Viggo Mortensen). And he was once the lead in Drive, back when Neil Marshall was attached as director. Either of these parts would have demanded a moral ambiguity rarely seen among the roles on Jackman’s CV. He’s self-deprecating about the luvvie side of himself; the way he tells it, he had to be discouraged from giving Wolverine jazz hands. “It takes every ounce of power in my body when I’m playing him just to keep still and find that interior, brooding aspect. [Director] Bryan Singer used to yell at me: ‘Stop moving! Just stand there and say your lines!’” But when I suggest that The Prestige worked so well because it played his glossiness against Bale ‘s method intensity, he seems offended. There’s an awkward pause, and I ask whether this isn’t how he sees himself. “Not really,” he shrugs. “I know I’m not known as method. By nature I’m not a brooder. What I continue to use is a mixture of the English school, which is traditionally outside-in, and the more American way of working from the inside
Continue reading …Two thousand jobs to go, a reduction in sport and entertainment – and more TV repeats A shrunken BBC will lose 2,000 jobs, show more repeats on BBC2 and cut spending on sport and entertainment programmes as the broadcaster sets out plans to show that it could contend with a licence fee freeze that is due to last until at least 2017. BBC News will bear the brunt of the job losses, with 800 positions lost, largely from merging the broadcaster’s publicly funded news operation with the World Service, and not transmitting programmes such as Newsnight and Radio 4′s PM live from party conferences. Meanwhile, BBC3 will be moved to the corporation’s northern base in Salford, which will become home to at least another 1,000 staff, taking its total workforce to 3,300, while the BBC prepares to leave its west London headquarters. There will also be wide-ranging cuts to the BBC’s radio output, with the exception of Radio 4. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, said the review – called “delivering quality first” – would lead to a smaller and radically reshaped BBC. The changes were designed to save £670m a year by 2017. But the corporation had come to the end of the road, he said, if more cuts were forced on it in the future. “We can’t do this again. Another real-terms cut in the licence fee will inevitably lead to a loss of services or diminution in quality or both,” he said. “If [we are forced] to go for more real-terms cuts the amount of road left for productivity savings is rapidly running out.” A year ago, intense behind-the-scenes negotiations between Thompson and the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, left the BBC with its licence fee frozen at £145.50. The corporation also agreed to take on extra responsibilities from the government, including the taxpayer-funded World Service. Despite the freeze, the corporation has been able to avoid axing any of its digital channels or services, and its chairman, Lord Patten, argued that its scope was not significantly diminished: “The BBC is far from perfect but it is a great institution and, at its best, a great broadcaster. We have a tough and challenging new licence fee settlement, but it should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster on £3.5bn a year.” Unions voiced concern at the impact of the changes. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of technicians’ trade union BECTU, said: “When Mark Thompson did the licence fee deal he said the BBC could not continue to do everything. But this is salami slicing. I believe the BBC should have been brave and should have said we are not going to damage quality. This strategy is destroying quality, jobs and the
Continue reading …Two thousand jobs to go, a reduction in sport and entertainment – and more TV repeats A shrunken BBC will lose 2,000 jobs, show more repeats on BBC2 and cut spending on sport and entertainment programmes as the broadcaster sets out plans to show that it could contend with a licence fee freeze that is due to last until at least 2017. BBC News will bear the brunt of the job losses, with 800 positions lost, largely from merging the broadcaster’s publicly funded news operation with the World Service, and not transmitting programmes such as Newsnight and Radio 4′s PM live from party conferences. Meanwhile, BBC3 will be moved to the corporation’s northern base in Salford, which will become home to at least another 1,000 staff, taking its total workforce to 3,300, while the BBC prepares to leave its west London headquarters. There will also be wide-ranging cuts to the BBC’s radio output, with the exception of Radio 4. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, said the review – called “delivering quality first” – would lead to a smaller and radically reshaped BBC. The changes were designed to save £670m a year by 2017. But the corporation had come to the end of the road, he said, if more cuts were forced on it in the future. “We can’t do this again. Another real-terms cut in the licence fee will inevitably lead to a loss of services or diminution in quality or both,” he said. “If [we are forced] to go for more real-terms cuts the amount of road left for productivity savings is rapidly running out.” A year ago, intense behind-the-scenes negotiations between Thompson and the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, left the BBC with its licence fee frozen at £145.50. The corporation also agreed to take on extra responsibilities from the government, including the taxpayer-funded World Service. Despite the freeze, the corporation has been able to avoid axing any of its digital channels or services, and its chairman, Lord Patten, argued that its scope was not significantly diminished: “The BBC is far from perfect but it is a great institution and, at its best, a great broadcaster. We have a tough and challenging new licence fee settlement, but it should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster on £3.5bn a year.” Unions voiced concern at the impact of the changes. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of technicians’ trade union BECTU, said: “When Mark Thompson did the licence fee deal he said the BBC could not continue to do everything. But this is salami slicing. I believe the BBC should have been brave and should have said we are not going to damage quality. This strategy is destroying quality, jobs and the
Continue reading …Two thousand jobs to go, a reduction in sport and entertainment – and more TV repeats A shrunken BBC will lose 2,000 jobs, show more repeats on BBC2 and cut spending on sport and entertainment programmes as the broadcaster sets out plans to show that it could contend with a licence fee freeze that is due to last until at least 2017. BBC News will bear the brunt of the job losses, with 800 positions lost, largely from merging the broadcaster’s publicly funded news operation with the World Service, and not transmitting programmes such as Newsnight and Radio 4′s PM live from party conferences. Meanwhile, BBC3 will be moved to the corporation’s northern base in Salford, which will become home to at least another 1,000 staff, taking its total workforce to 3,300, while the BBC prepares to leave its west London headquarters. There will also be wide-ranging cuts to the BBC’s radio output, with the exception of Radio 4. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, said the review – called “delivering quality first” – would lead to a smaller and radically reshaped BBC. The changes were designed to save £670m a year by 2017. But the corporation had come to the end of the road, he said, if more cuts were forced on it in the future. “We can’t do this again. Another real-terms cut in the licence fee will inevitably lead to a loss of services or diminution in quality or both,” he said. “If [we are forced] to go for more real-terms cuts the amount of road left for productivity savings is rapidly running out.” A year ago, intense behind-the-scenes negotiations between Thompson and the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, left the BBC with its licence fee frozen at £145.50. The corporation also agreed to take on extra responsibilities from the government, including the taxpayer-funded World Service. Despite the freeze, the corporation has been able to avoid axing any of its digital channels or services, and its chairman, Lord Patten, argued that its scope was not significantly diminished: “The BBC is far from perfect but it is a great institution and, at its best, a great broadcaster. We have a tough and challenging new licence fee settlement, but it should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster on £3.5bn a year.” Unions voiced concern at the impact of the changes. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of technicians’ trade union BECTU, said: “When Mark Thompson did the licence fee deal he said the BBC could not continue to do everything. But this is salami slicing. I believe the BBC should have been brave and should have said we are not going to damage quality. This strategy is destroying quality, jobs and the
Continue reading …Two thousand jobs to go, a reduction in sport and entertainment – and more TV repeats A shrunken BBC will lose 2,000 jobs, show more repeats on BBC2 and cut spending on sport and entertainment programmes as the broadcaster sets out plans to show that it could contend with a licence fee freeze that is due to last until at least 2017. BBC News will bear the brunt of the job losses, with 800 positions lost, largely from merging the broadcaster’s publicly funded news operation with the World Service, and not transmitting programmes such as Newsnight and Radio 4′s PM live from party conferences. Meanwhile, BBC3 will be moved to the corporation’s northern base in Salford, which will become home to at least another 1,000 staff, taking its total workforce to 3,300, while the BBC prepares to leave its west London headquarters. There will also be wide-ranging cuts to the BBC’s radio output, with the exception of Radio 4. Mark Thompson, the BBC’s director general, said the review – called “delivering quality first” – would lead to a smaller and radically reshaped BBC. The changes were designed to save £670m a year by 2017. But the corporation had come to the end of the road, he said, if more cuts were forced on it in the future. “We can’t do this again. Another real-terms cut in the licence fee will inevitably lead to a loss of services or diminution in quality or both,” he said. “If [we are forced] to go for more real-terms cuts the amount of road left for productivity savings is rapidly running out.” A year ago, intense behind-the-scenes negotiations between Thompson and the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, left the BBC with its licence fee frozen at £145.50. The corporation also agreed to take on extra responsibilities from the government, including the taxpayer-funded World Service. Despite the freeze, the corporation has been able to avoid axing any of its digital channels or services, and its chairman, Lord Patten, argued that its scope was not significantly diminished: “The BBC is far from perfect but it is a great institution and, at its best, a great broadcaster. We have a tough and challenging new licence fee settlement, but it should still be possible to run an outstanding broadcaster on £3.5bn a year.” Unions voiced concern at the impact of the changes. Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of technicians’ trade union BECTU, said: “When Mark Thompson did the licence fee deal he said the BBC could not continue to do everything. But this is salami slicing. I believe the BBC should have been brave and should have said we are not going to damage quality. This strategy is destroying quality, jobs and the
Continue reading …Abramovich lawyers say Berezovsky gave contradictory and untrue evidence in support of his multi-billion damages claim The Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky faced repeated accusations in the high court that he had given untrue and contradictory evidence in his multi-billion damages claim against Roman Abramovich. Berezovsky is suing the owner of Chelsea football club for more than $5bn (£3.2bn). He claims that Abramovich “betrayed” him after Berezovsky fell out with the Kremlin and fled to Britain in 2000, forcing him to sell his share in the Russian oil company Sibneft for a knockdown price. Berezovsky told the court how he, Abramovich and the Georgian businessman Badri Patarkatsishvili created Sibneft in 1995, against the backdrop of Russia’s infamous “loans for shares” privatisation programme. He insisted that there had been an agreement under which Abramovich would own half the company and in effect manage it, while he and Patarkatsishvili owned the other half. Giving evidence for the first time, Berezovsky conceded that from early 1994 he became one of Russia’s most politically influential oligarchs. He had a “good relationship” with President Boris Yeltsin’s powerful daughter Tatyana, as well as with other members of Yeltsin’s inner circle, and was the first businessman to join the president’s exclusive Moscow tennis club. But Berezovsky said the main reason for his influence with the Kremlin was his superior “intellectual capacity”. He described Abramovich scathingly as “not a person of the first level” and said he was not talented enough to succeed in business on his own. “To get leverage you need to be smart …He [Abramovich] wasn’t,” Berezovsky said bluntly, conceding in written evidence that Abramovich was instead “very charming”. However, Abramovich’s star lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC, accused Berezovsky of inconsistencies. Berezovsky had publicly denied he was a Sibneft shareholder only to claim in 2001, once he had left Russia, that he and Patarkatsishvili actually owned half, the court heard. The barrister said the oligarch had lied when he sued Forbes magazine for libel in 2001. In that case he had denied influencing Yeltsin through his daughter – something, Sumption said, Berezovsky now admitted. “Why did you deny it and then sign a statement of truth in support of your denial?” he asked. Speaking in English, and visibly flustered, Berezovsky answered: “It’s a good question.” The packed court erupted in laughter. The judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, appeared unimpressed, chipping in: “Well, could you answer it please.” Berezovsky said his lawyers had prepared the document, and he had not paid too much attention to it. Abramovich, who was in court, listened to the proceedings via a Russian translation, intently, occasionally rubbing his face. Berezovsky asserts that Abramovich held his interest in Sibneft for him in trust, even though officially he was never a shareholder. Abramovich – who is still close to Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin – eventually gave him a $1.3bn pay-off. Berezovsky maintains this was a gross undervaluation for what his interest in the oil company was actually worth. Abramovich sold Sibneft to Gazprom in 2005. Berezovsky said he agreed with Sumption’s description of Russia in the 1990s as the “wild east”. The oligarch admitted that corruption was widespread, but said that he personally “wasn’t corrupt”. But he said that under Yeltsin Russia was significantly less corrupt than today under Putin’s authoritarian leadership, which scored 10 out of 10 for corruption compared with Yeltsin’s “3 or 4″ out of 10. Berezovsky that his main priority had been to secure Yeltsin’s re-election as president in 1996 against the spectre of a communist comeback during closely fought elections. He said he had used his lobbying skills to ensure Sibneft won an auction for two Siberian oil companies as a way of raising money. His real goal, though, he said, was to support his loss-making ORT TV station, a crucial tool in Yeltsin’s faltering re-election campaign. The case is scheduled to last two months. Boris Berezovsky Roman Abramovich Russia Luke Harding guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …