I’ve just read Me Cheeta by James Lever , and it’s made me think: why can’t standup comedy be performed by monkeys? The weaknesses, but mainly strengths, of this novel are not irrelevant to the world of standup. This faux-autobiography of the simian star of the Tarzan movies starts out laugh-out loud funny and stays in that register for about 200 pages. By which time, of course, the reader is desperate for something unfunny to happen. The final third does not disappoint: Me Cheeta is also one of the saddest books I’ve read this year. Does that compromise its status as a “comic novel”? It seems not: several noses tilted disdainfully upwards when Lever’s book (published anonymously) appeared on the Booker longlist in 2009 . It didn’t graduate to the shortlist; comic novels (Howard Jacobson’s 2010 champ The Finkler Question notwithstanding) seldom do. Even Lever undersold it: “If Me Cheeta wins the Booker prize,” ran the headline to an interview with the author, “it would make monkeys of [the] judges.” In fact, the novel’s emotional richness, its use of humour to access something profound, gloriously demonstrates what comedy can do – but does too infrequently, because it’s hamstrung by the expectation that, whatever else it may seek to achieve, it must always and constantly be making us laugh. Me Cheeta manages that effortlessly. By dint of simply being , it’s funny: the very idea, that an ageing chimp should, in the face of all the evidence, fancy himself sans pareil Hollywood royalty, makes me laugh. Lever adds to that a wicked portrait of the Tinseltown beau monde, at work, play and orgy, bitchy thumbnails of the lecherous Charlie Chaplin, among others – and a tart commentary on MGM’s daft depiction of jungle life. “The elephant in the room of Gaboni society,” writes Cheeta of the Tarzan movies’ native tribe, “was the fact that there usually was an elephant in their room, standing on them.” But this takes us only so far. What really distinguishes Me Cheeta is its dying fall, in which (spoiler alert) the chimp meets his Tarzan, Johnny Weismuller, as a frail old man. And so, a one-trick spoof memoir reveals itself as a meditation on age; on the unconditional love between animal and human being; and on hedonism, fantasy and the impossible dream that movies represent. What has any of this got to do with standup comedy? Only this. Standup is a curious art form, in that it’s the only one defined by the reaction it seeks to elicit in its audience. There’s no demand that visual art, music or theatre make you respond in a particular way. No one judges tragedy by how many times it makes us grimace. But we often assess standup according to how often, or how hard, we laugh. Which casts the activity less as an art form, more as executive relief. That’s fair enough: we go to standup (in increasing numbers) primarily because we want to laugh. But as Me Cheeta proves, comedy can provide that, and plenty more besides. I interviewed the Irish standup Des Bishop the other day about his hit show dealing with his father’s terminal cancer. (The piece runs in tomorrow’s G2.) Bishop told me he originally intended not to sell the show as standup; he thought its tragic content made it more suitable for a one-man storytelling-style show. The former Perrier award-winner Daniel Kitson now makes solo theatre shows alongside his standup output. To call a show theatre alleviates the need to be funny. But it also risks implying that standup is no place for serious content. It can be. There’s the work of artists like Julian Fox , melancholy minstrel of suburban insignificance, or Kim Noble , chronicling his depression in dark confessional comedy; or Tim Minchin ‘s delicate balance of puerility and – with “comic” songs like Not Perfect – swooning loveliness. But, as standup gets ever bigger and more lucrative, the incentives diminish to risk being anything other than funny with it. Funny gets you on Would I Lie to You? and Mock the Week ; meaningful might frighten the horses. But standup can be both. Comedy isn’t something that provokes a mechanical reaction, laughter, in a roomful of people. It’s a way of looking at the world. It’s the art produced by those who believe we’re at our most human, not when we’re noble, but when we’re ridiculous. As Me Cheeta proves, monkey business needn’t be just frivolous. On my radar On my bedside table: The Gift by Lewis Hyde. A present from my mum, who promised me that it makes people who work in the arts feel less bad about being
Continue reading …
Deep End was acclaimed by critics. Then it all but sank out of view. Ryan Gilbey on a newly salvaged British classic It’s not uncommon for movies to drop out of circulation and simply disappear, as fans of Deep End will attest. Barely seen since its release in 1971, the film concerns Mike (played by John Moulder-Brown ), a floppy-fringed 15-year-old who becomes dangerously infatuated with Susan ( Jane Asher ), his co-worker at the public baths. What’s unusual about this prolonged absence is that it should have befallen a film so passionately admired. The influential critic Andrew Sarris thought it measured up to the best of Godard, Truffaut and Polanski. The New Yorker’s Penelope Gilliatt called it “a work of peculiar, cock-a-hoop gifts”. If something as venerated as Deep End can sink, what hope for the rest of cinema? After years of being mired in rights issues, this vivid, rapturous film is about to return in a restored print. It’s appropriate that such an elusive picture should transpire to not be quite what it seems. What could have been just another coming-of-age story is transformed by an absurdist sensibility, uninhibited performances and a heightened use of colour. Although considered a defining British work, as well as one of the most acute screen portraits of London, Deep End is actually a US/German co-production, written and directed by a Pole ( Jerzy Skolimowski , best known then for co-scripting Polanski’s Knife in the Water ), and shot largely in Munich. There are glimpses of the capital –
Continue reading …
The artist’s latest project is a giant rusty nail in the centre of the City of London. What will the bankers make of it? There was a time when a 12-metre rusty nail stuck into a City of London pavement might have raised a few eyebrows. Good lord, the bowler-hatted gents would have said, what abomination is this? Modern Art, no doubt! Today, Gavin Turk ‘s sculpture Nail, to be unveiled later this month at One New Change in London’s financial district, is unlikely to appal anyone, for it comes in the wake of a great wave of public art commissions that have changed the appearance of squares, hillsides and city centres across Britain. But which of these sculptures, that range from a bronze statue of the poet John Betjeman at St
Continue reading …
French investigators hope data will solve debate over whether faulty sensors caused 2009 accident A black box flight recorder from an Air France plane that crashed off the coast of Brazil in 2009 , killing 228 people, has been recovered by a deep-sea search team, reviving hopes of understanding what caused the crash. French investigators said one of the plane’s two data recorders had been located by a robot submarine about 3,900 metres (12,800ft) below the Atlantic ocean’s surface. Pictures published on the website of France’s Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA), before the box was pulled on to the deck of the ship Île de Sein, show an orange cylindrical object half-buried in sand. In a statement, BEA confirmed that the device was “in good physical condition”. The discovery comes after months of start-and-stop search efforts on a 15,540 sq km (6,000 sq mile) area of sea-bed off the north-east coast of Brazil. Investigators hope information inside the recorder – expected to include records of cockpit conversations – will settle a dispute over the cause of the crash. The Airbus A330 plane plunged into the Atlantic while on the way to Paris from Rio de Janeiro in June 2009, after the flight hit stormy weather. There were no survivors. Speculation about what caused the accident has focused on the possible icing up of the aircraft’s speed sensors, which seemed to give inconsistent readings before communication was lost. Automatic messages sent by the Airbus A330′s computers showed it was receiving false air speed readings from sensors known as pitot tubes. However, investigators have said the crash was likely to have been caused by a series of problems, and not just sensor error. The recent discovery of chunks of the plane’s wreckage, as well as the chassis of the flight recorder, had rekindled hopes of locating the black boxes and explaining the crash, the worst in Air France’s 75-year history. Plane crashes France Europe Airbus Forensic science Damien Pearse guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, Rep. Paul Ryan, he of the “courageous” budget plan that isn’t courageous at all, spins a tale that the main thing on voters’ minds is the national debt. Really, Paul? You must not get out much. You really need to stop going to fundraising events and hit your local WalMart parking lots. I also want to point out the gaping hole in what Amanpour says later in the show: But what about the figures, the basic arithmetic? I mean, it is complex. You go to these town hall meetings, and the presentations are complex. And even people with vaguely conversant views on all of this find it difficult to understand. Is there a way to figure out what the actual math is without entering political and ideological debates? Is there a way to balance this budget, to reduce the debt, to get a hold of it without sort of hewing to very different political views? Is she kidding me? As Mario Cuomo once pointed out, a budget is a moral document . How on earth do you talk about taking care of the poor and vulnerable without bringing party philosophies into the picture? What a dope. Anywhere, here’s the interview: AMANPOUR: But first, we turn to a different sort of battle being waged right here in the United States. It’s a budget battle, of course, and this was the week Republican Congress members went home to defend their sweeping budget plan before their constituents. And the reception at one town hall after another was rocky. The plan is the brain child of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, who’s feeling some of the heat himself. I traveled to Wisconsin to see how Ryan is weathering the storm. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: How are the crowds increasing and their levels of anxiety and frustration? RYAN: It’s increasing, no two ways about it. AMANPOUR (voice-over): Congressman Ryan is at the center of the storm. It’s his plan, of course, that has sparked the outcries. Across the country, the anger is palpable. (UNKNOWN): May I finish? (UNKNOWN): No. (CROSSTALK) (UNKNOWN): You went and gave away all those tax cuts. AMANPOUR: We’ve seen Republican congressmen fending off boos and catcalls from constituents over a plan to fundamentally overhaul two programs that millions of Americans have come to count on, Medicare and Medicaid. RYAN: Hey, guys. How are you doing? AMANPOUR: With Congress in recess, Ryan is holding as many as four town meetings a day, and it’s still not enough to keep up with demand from his constituents. (UNKNOWN): What I can do is I can give you a list of the other listening sessions we have scheduled today. RYAN: The crowds are really getting bigger, and people are getting much more anxious about just where the country’s headed. AMANPOUR: This is the tail end of the marathon series of town halls for Ryan, who seems wholly unconcerned with the heat he’s taking these days. Though the crowds we saw in Wisconsin were mostly friendly, some of his town meetings have been contentious. (UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) trickle down. RYAN: We do (OFF-MIKE) (CROSSTALK) RYAN: It’s a sign of the times, I think. I think it’s a sign of anxiety of the times. It’s also a sign of the misinformation that’s been perpetrated out there. AMANPOUR (on-screen): Well, why do you say “misinformation”? RYAN: Well, there are TV, radio and phone calls that are running, trying to scare seniors. You know, the Democratic National Committee is running phone calls to seniors in my district, TV ads, saying we’re hurting current seniors when, in fact, that’s not the case. And so there’s a lot of… AMANPOUR: Isn’t that, though, par for the course? (CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: I mean, didn’t you lot do it the last time? RYAN: Yes, Republicans — Republicans — both parties do this to each other. And my whole point about that is, that’s why we have this political paralysis. AMANPOUR (voice-over): On the day we joined him, the gym at Franklin High School fills up well before the congressman arrives. (APPLAUSE) AMANPOUR: Ryan’s presentation is earnest and, it must be said, wonky. RYAN: This pie chart shows you our federal government, basically its budget for last year. AMANPOUR: The most controversial aspect of Paul Ryan’s budget plan would transform Medicare. He knows that could be political poison with seniors, and so he makes sure to remind those in the crowd the changes wouldn’t impact them. RYAN: How many of you are 55 years of age or older? This budget does not affect your Medicare benefits. That’s supposed to work because they think we don’t give a damn about our kids and grandkids. AMANPOUR: But for many, that leaves more questions than answers, especially since budget watchdogs estimate the Medicare revamp would cost people who are now under 55 thousands of dollars out of pocket each year once their benefits kick in , and that has some here in Franklin very concerned. (UNKNOWN): … because it’s going to be a real burden for them, especially with the economy coming up. And I think about all of the 54-year-olds who have been unemployed. Where are they going to come up with this money in 10 years to last their whole lifetime? AMANPOUR: Ryan argues delay is not an option. RYAN: Put these reforms in now, they don’t take effect for 10 years to give people time to prepare. If we keep kicking the can down the road and if we keep going trillions of dollars deeper in the hole, then the reforms are going to be sudden, urgent, and severe, and immediate, and people won’t have — that are going to catch them by surprise. AMANPOUR: Then the session ends… RYAN: I appreciate you coming out. AMANPOUR: … and Congressman Ryan is off. I stayed back to speak with two of the women in the audience, Jackie (ph) and Lois (ph), each with very different perspectives on the congressman’s plan. (UNKNOWN): I don’t appreciate it at all, and that burns my potatoes. And I think it’s not fair. And I think it’s selfish and self-centered. You’re worried about the seniors of today, and we have the seniors of tomorrow. We need to be worried about them, too. And there’s a better way of fixing this plan, this problem that we didn’t get into, but we always got to be the ones. AMANPOUR (on-screen): Did you vote for Paul Ryan? (UNKNOWN): No. No. AMANPOUR: Did you? (UNKNOWN): Yes. AMANPOUR (voice-over): Lois says Ryan is trying to fix the problem before time and money run out. (on-screen): The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has said that the average senior will end up paying some $6,500 more for their health care. (UNKNOWN): In 10 years. AMANPOUR: Yes. (UNKNOWN): By 2020, the whole plan Obama has is going to crash. RYAN: A few sentences later, CBO also said that the status quo of Medicare is unsustainable. AMANPOUR: Maybe, but it’s going to shift a huge burden on to the elderly. RYAN: Right. But what the CBO also forgot to add is that we’re giving an additional $7,800 for low-income seniors on top of that. And I would argue — and CBO concurs with this — comparing any Medicare reform plan with the Medicare status quo is a fiscal fantasy. The Medicare status quo is not going be able to occur, because it’s unsustainable. The CBO actually predicts a huge increase in how much the feds would spend on healthcare for the elderly under the Ryan plan. So he’s lying. AMANPOUR (voice-over): And Ryan dismisses any talk that tackling this thorny issue will cost Republicans at the polls. (on-screen): And now people are getting worried, people in your party. Perhaps they might think it might even cost them the election. RYAN: Sure. And I hear this all the time from the political people, from the pundits and the pollsters that this could be — this could hurt us politically. I don’t care about that. What I care about is fixing this country and getting this debt situation under control. Look, literally, Christiane, if all we fear about is our political careers, then we have no business having these jobs. If you want to good at these jobs, you’ve got to be willing to lose the job. AMANPOUR (voice-over): Still, politically it’s a delicate dance. Just listen to Speaker John Boehner discuss Ryan’s plan in an interview with ABC’s Jon Karl. BOEHNER: It’s Paul’s idea. Other people have other ideas. I’m not wedded to one single idea. AMANPOUR (on-screen): How do you feel when Speaker Boehner tells ABC News that he’s not wedded to your program, it’s a good idea, it’s one of many? RYAN: I’ve talked to John about this. It’s an institutional statement reflecting budget resolutions. And what a budget resolution — which is what we’ve passed — it’s the architecture of a budget. AMANPOUR: So you didn’t take it personally about… (CROSSTALK) RYAN: No, not at all. I didn’t take it personally. It’s not — it wasn’t meant to be personal. I don’t take it that way. AMANPOUR: Are you sure about that? RYAN: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I’ve talked to him quite a bit about this. AMANPOUR (voice-over): And with that, we arrive at our next stop. RYAN: Hey, folks. Nice to see you. Thank you very much. AMANPOUR: Some boos, but mostly cheers. The crowd is largely supportive. (UNKNOWN): And I’d like to thank you for being a bold person and standing up and saying, “Listen, we can’t continue this way.” AMANPOUR: Still, this man is angry that Ryan’s plan refuses to consider raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. (UNKNOWN): Borrow the money from the rich, fix the problem. RYAN: Look, I think a lot of people think this is sort of like the magic fairy dust of budgets, that we can just make a small amount of people pay some more taxes and it will fix all of our problem s. Well, let’s keep our eye on the ball. The eye on the ball is spending. And the sooner we get this thing under control, the better off everybody is going to be. AMANPOUR (on-screen): How do you feel about being the bogeyman in this whole budget business? RYAN: You know, I don’t really think about it. I sleep well at night. AMANPOUR (voice-over): At the end of the day, Congressman Ryan and I sit down to talk about the bottom line. (on-screen): People who’ve been studying your numbers very carefully and — have been saying that the numbers don’t add up. RYAN: Well, the Congressional Budget Office Says they do. AMANPOUR: Well, it also says that two-thirds of the savings that you want to make in the spending cuts come at the expense of programs designed for the poor, for the disadvantaged, and this is reverse Robin Hood-ism, if you like, take from the poor, give back to the rich again. RYAN: Yeah, sure, I’ve heard that. Yeah, I would disagree with that. First of all, spending increases in this budget. Spending on the safety net increases, but it increases at a more sustainable rate. Here’s the problem, Christiane. The safety net we have right now is going bankrupt. It’s tearing apart at the seams. AMANPOUR: What you’re proposing seems like it’s going to put a lot of the burden on the seniors. They’re worried that they’re not going to be able to afford the cost of health insurance. RYAN: So we’re saying give the most vulnerable people more money to cover their expenses and don’t give wealthy people as much money to cover their expenses because they’re wealthy and they should be able to afford more. But we’re also saying is, you’ve got to get at the root cause of health inflation. Even President Obama is saying slow the growth rate of Medicare. AMANPOUR (voice-over): For now, the president and the congressman seem far apart. And as we crisscross his Wisconsin district, I ask Paul Ryan if some grand budget bargain could be in the offing. (on-screen): Do you think that these massive issues that you’re dealing with, the budget, let’s say, can be done only by one party? RYAN: No. No, I don’t. I think it’s going to have… AMANPOUR: So you have to negotiate? RYAN: Oh, yeah, absolutely, yeah. AMANPOUR: You have to work together? RYAN: Yes, I think so. AMANPOUR: Is that atmosphere available… (CROSSTALK) RYAN: No, not right now. AMANPOUR: It’s not, is it? RYAN: Look, we’re probably not going to get some grand-slam agreement that fixes all of these problems. My now hope is to get a single or a double, you know, to get something done that gets us on the right path. (END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Congressman Ryan says that he expects Republicans and Democrats to agree on some fiscal controls to lock in spending levels, but he says a big-picture deal on the debt crisis probably won’t happen before the 2012 election. And it’s what the treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, said also on this program a couple of weeks ago.
Continue reading …
Feeling nostalgic for the good old Soviet Union? Then head to Lithuania, where several theme parks let visitors feel exactly what it was like – right down to scary, abusive guards ‘Forget your past! Forget your history!” A colossal bullfrog of a guard, in an olive-green uniform with red epaulets, is spitting at us in Russian while a huge alsatian strains at the leash, barking ferociously. “Welcome to the Soviet Union,” snarls the guard. “Here you are nobody!” I can’t say I wasn’t warned: I had just signed a health and safety waiver that included the following clause: “In case of disobedience participants may receive psychological or physical punishments.” This is 1984: Survival Drama in a Soviet Bunker , a three-hour long, quasi-theatrical experience in a genuine Soviet bunker in the middle of the Lithuanian forest; imagine Punchdrunk Theatre Company run by retired KGB officers. While most former Soviet republics have let their memories of the period fade into red mist, 20 years since the Russian tanks rolled out, Lithuania is confronting its communist past head-on. An hour earlier, Ruta Vanagaite, the creator of the Soviet Bunker, was setting the mood. “Someone always faints – our record is five people fainting in one show,” she explained matter-of-factly, re-assuring me that my translator will have smelling salts handy. “But be sure to answer the guards’ questions promptly and clearly. They are mostly actors, but they can get stuck in that time and forget they are actors. We had to fire some of them because they were a little too hard on people. It’s very easy to break people’s will – once you are down there, six metres underground, you feel like you can’t get out.” Just by the Neris river, towards the Belorussian border, a red flag by the side of the road indicates a turning into the forest, down a path towards an anonymous, decrepit building in a small clearing. Inside, Soviet anthems blare out from a creaking old radio, the paint is not so much chipping as crumbling off in blocks, the few striplights that are working are flickering maddeningly, and damp swarms over the walls like triffids. We are given mouldy overcoats that are so damp they’re virtually liquid, and a cup of Soviet coffee – coffee with no coffee in it, made from barley. As we wait for the actors to show up (several of them genuine ex-KGB), the 40 or so participants, mostly Lithuanians in their 20s, laugh at the absurdity of it, smirking at the kitsch costuming. This, it becomes clear, is the fun bit. “Do you guys understand Russian?” asks a Lithuanian comrade. An Australian, Matt, answers for both of us: “I understand people with dogs shouting at me.” Vanagaite chips in to tell us the alsation’s day-job is working in the police’s organised crime squad, digging for corpses. Oh good. The bullfrog-guard enters and gives us our orders: we will answer only in the affirmative or negative; dissent will be punished with beatings and solitary confinement; and we will forget all thoughts other than the glory of the socialist paradise in which we now live. We stand to attention for the Soviet anthem and hoisting of the red flag, and then down we go, into the freezing-cold bunker. For three hours, we are force-marched through icy, virtually pitch-black corridors, barked at (by canine and human alike), humiliated, interrogated, forced to sign false confessions to imagined crimes, shown propaganda, and taught to prepare for a nuclear attack by the imperialist pigs. Each stage is designed to illustrate, with little allowance for subtlety – or health and safety – an aspect of life in the Soviet Union. Having failed to answer a question correctly in Russian, I get it repeated in broken, angry English. The interrogating KGB officer pushes me against a filing cabinet. “Where are y’fRRROM?” England, I say, cowering. He prods me in the chest, hard. “You are English? English spy! English spy!” In another “scene”, a KGB doctor forces me to strip to the waist, in front of the other participants. “Jacket off! Shirt off! Strip to waist! Quick! Quick!” She sits me down on a stool, grabs a clump of cotton wool, douses it in alcohol, and sets it alight. This is then dropped in a glass jar and applied to my bare shoulders: known as “fire cupping”, it was supposed to draw out disease through the skin. Six metres underground, and comprising 3,000 square metres of tunnels and cave-like rooms, the bunker was built in 1984 as an emergency base for Lithuanian state TV transmissions, in case the capital Vilnius came under attack from Nato. It boasts stand-alone heating and sewerage facilities, and communication lines to Moscow, and a roof designed to withstand the impact of a nuclear bomb. Ignes, the young project administrator, thinks it is more of an educational experience than a dramatic one, especially for those, like him, who are too young to remember the parades, the food shortages, the paranoia and the rest. His parents would never even dream of enduring the bunker, he laughs, “but for us, for my generation, we should all come, so we can feel what it was like too”. This isn’t the first time a Lithuanian in their early 20s has used that very physical verb about their Soviet history to me – you have to “feel” it; just reading about it isn’t enough, because it is almost too strange to be believable. “The young people, they don’t understand what it was like,” Vanagaite insists. “They say: ‘How come you couldn’t get out of the country? You just take a train and you leave.’ They think they could just overpower Soviet guards. We try to show them the reality.” Less theatrical, but equally harrowing, is the Museum of Genocide Victims , housed in a former KGB prison in central Vilnius where hundreds were tortured and killed. The exercise yard is adorned with poignant children’s paintings in response to school trips here. “We encourage them to imagine what it was like,” says Remigija Paldauskaite, herself only five years old when the Berlin Wall fell. “The best way to learn it is to feel it.” She mimes a bored child flicking through a text book. “It’s a better way than history lessons.” The final, stunning plank in the trinity of Lithuanian exercises in Soviet memory is Grutas Park , known slightly glibly to some as “Stalin’s World”. It is not exactly a theme park (though there is a playground, and a zoo featuring llamas and bears), but a massive outdoor collection of the country’s Soviet-era statues, as well as log cabins containing thousands of other exhibits, from rugs with Lenin’s face on them to Pioneer drums, communist toys, flags, paintings and Soviet-era calculators. Now celebrating its 10th anniversary, this macabre oasis of socialist realism was built on snail money (the owner Viliumas Malinauskas is a wealthy snail and mushroom farmer), and is situated deep in the tranquil Lithuanian forest. It is a surreal experience, walking for a mile through the tiny village of Grutas, past a solitary fisherman sitting by a lake, to discover a world where Stalin stands quietly gathering cobwebs in a clearing, and Marx and Engels peek out from the shadows. Glimmers of sunlight pass through the cedars, dappling totemic statues to collective farm chiefs and partisan martyrs: it’s both fascinating and oddly beautiful. Malinauskas brought them there at a point when they were facing destruction, either deliberately or via neglect; the only Soviet statues left standing in Vilnius are the socialist-realist figures that adorn the four corners of the famous Green Bridge – and they are frequently doused in green paint by nationalist protesters. But again, perhaps problematically, they are beautiful statues – inspiring, optimistic, and utopian; totems to the radiant future that was always promised, but never quite arrived. “We will never escape our history,” the daughter of a Lithuanian communist chief said, upon visiting her father’s monument in Grutas Park recently – and Lithuanians are rare in recognising that fact. Hungary has a monument park similar to Grutas, and so does Poland – but generally former eastern bloc countries have chosen to remember the cold war by trying to forget it, sweeping their Lenin busts under the carpet and hoping people won’t trip up over them. But then Lithuanians have a number of endearingly eccentric characteristics. This is a country where the capital’s mayor travels everywhere on a Segway and is not ridiculed; beaver and mashed potato is served as a delicacy; and a high-profile monument has been erected to Frank Zappa , even though he never once visited, sung about – or even mentioned – Lithuania. The Zappa statue was audaciously suggested by local artists in 1992, as a slightly flippant test of their country’s newfound democratic freedoms; to their surprise, the authorities called their bluff. There are inevitable differences of opinion about how best to commemorate the Soviet occupation; Grutas Park in particular has attracted criticism for creating a shrine to communism, rather than a mausoleum for it. Vanagaite is dismissive of its softer approach: “What we are doing is the opposite of Grutas Park – you cannot buy anything here, this is not about nostalgia.” She suggests that the extensive gift shop and nostalgia-channelling Soviet-style cafe – featuring “Russian-style sprats” and a minimal “Nostalgija” borsch – make it a “Stalinist amusement park”. Grutas Park is unapologetic about using mockery as a weapon: on special occasions, they employ lookalikes to pose as Lenin, Stalin et al, and put on performances by young actors dressed up as Pioneers. “Now we can laugh at our Soviet past,” announces the park’s audio guide at one point. Vanagaite eventually agrees there is a role for this, as well as shock tactics: “I suppose it’s about finding the right mixture of absurdity and horror.” What they have in common is a recognition that, 20 years on, whether it provokes laughter or terror, the spectre of communism is still haunting certain parts of Europe – and ignoring the ghost is not going to make it go away. Lithuania Vilnius Europe Lithuania Europe Russia Dan Hancox guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Film-makers say studios’ plan to allow video-on-demand while movies still on release could close cinemas and increase piracy More than 20 leading film-makers, including James Cameron, Peter Jackson and Robert Zemeckis, have written a protest letter to Hollywood studios over their decision to allow films to be downloaded into people’s homes while they are still being screened in cinemas, rather than once they have completed their theatrical run, will take its toll on the box-office and film-making. The directors say they are shocked that Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Universal Studios and Warner Bros are to release some films on a premium video-on-demand (VOD) service 60 days after their cinema release. At the moment, cinemas generally have an exclusive run of around 120 days. Although VOD and theatrical releases are already overlapping for some films, directors and producers are alarmed that four of the biggest studios are going down that route. They have joined cinema owners to warn that reducing the exclusive release window traditionally given to cinema chains will lead to dwindling audiences and increased piracy with pristine digital copies being made available so early. Cameron, who was showered with Oscars for Titanic and Avatar, said: “The cinema experience is the wellspring. If the exhibitors are worried, I’m worried. Why on earth would you give audiences an incentive to skip the highest and best form of your film?” The letter, whose signatories also include Kathryn Bigelow, Roland Emmerich and Michael Mann, states that changing release patterns “could irrevocably harm the financial model of our film industry”. Acknowledging that studios are struggling to replace revenue lost by declining DVD sales, it condemns “a distribution model that cannibalises theatrical ticket sales”. It warns: “Some theatres will close. The competition for those screens that remain will become more intense, foreclosing all but the most commercial movies from theatrical release.” Last week, Sony’s Just Go With It, starring Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler in a romantic comedy about a plastic surgeon who pretends to be married, had a VOD release 70 days after opening in cinemas. John Fithian, head of the National Association of Theatre Owners, which represents cinemas in 50 countries, including the UK, warned of the perils of what he called a “misguided adventure”. Phil Clapp, chief executive of the Cinema Exhibitors’ Association in the UK, said that it could be “particularly destructive” for smaller, independent cinemas, leading to “a significant enough erosion of attendances to make them no longer financially viable”. But the industry is divided. A leading British producer, Stephen Margolis, head of Future Films, sees the benefits of change. He released his film Flawless, starring Demi Moore and Michael Caine, on VOD three weeks before it went into theatres to work up word-of-mouth recommendations.He said: “The film industry has an opportunity to avoid some mistakes that the music industry made. It has to grasp reality and understand what the consumer needs are. With VOD, you can watch it when you want, you don’t have to book a babysitter, and it’s no longer a £100 evening, but maybe £15 or £25 for VOD.” This seems to be the next chapter in the internet’s revolution of home entertainment. The legal downloads of films more than doubled from £35m to £78m in 2010, according to a recent report by the British Video Association. Last year, the supermarket giant Walmart, owner of the Asda chain in Britain, acquired the US VOD service Vudu. Last month, Tesco saw the potential of the British VOD market, taking an 80% stake in Blinkbox, a rival to existing services such as Amazon’s LoveFilm. Christopher Dodd, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the studios, said: “Films are made to be shown on big screens in dark theatres filled with people.” He added: “This is all part of a broad effort by our industry to lead through innovation and develop new business models that respond to growing demand by expanding consumer choice in an era of tremendous technological development.” Film industry Video on demand James Cameron Kathryn Bigelow Peter Jackson Technology sector United States Dalya Alberge guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Beatification of the late pope John Paul II in the Vatican City presided over by his successor, Benedict XVI More than a million Roman Catholics set aside the scandals that have rocked their church to take part in a jubilant beatification of their late pope, John Paul II. The Polish pontiff who helped speed the fall of communism in Europe was placed just a step from sainthood at a ceremony in St Peter’s Square presided over by his successor, Benedict XVI. Looking out at a congregation that stretched half a mile down the broad avenue leading to the river Tiber, the pope said John Paul had “reclaimed for Christianity that impulse of hope which had in some sense faltered before Marxism and the ideology of progress”. Benedict said the man who could now be referred to as Blessed Karol Wojtyla turned back “with the strength of a titan … a tide which appeared irreversible”. On the square’s colonnades, one of John Paul’s sayings was spelled out in giant letters: “Do not be afraid! Open wide the doors to Christ.” Benedict said his predecessor had “helped believers throughout the world not to be afraid to be called Christian, to belong to the church, to speak the gospel”. A roar of approval went up when the pope, speaking in Latin, declared John Paul beatified. A tapestry of his charismatic predecessor in his prime was unfurled above the door of the basilica. Many who converged on Rome had stayed up all night, or slept in churches or on pavements, to get within squinting distance of the ceremony. Crash barriers were erected to keep them from the area around St Peter’s Square until just before dawn, but by 2am the pressure of numbers was such that police let them through. Among those who packed the area – many singing and waving flags – were blue-robed Brazilian nuns, young men wrapped in the gold and scarlet Spanish flag, US Legionaries of Christ and more than 50 men and women from the diocese of Abuja in Nigeria, led by their archbishop. The Poles inevitably predominated, though. Long before the ceremony began, St Peter’s Square was an undulating ocean of red and white flags. The beatification, six years after John Paul’s death, was the fastest on record. For some, particularly those critical of his failure to respond to evidence of clerical sex abuse, it was too hasty. “Not for us,” said Elzbieta Bielawska, accompanying a group of scouts from Elk in north-eastern Poland. “We believe our pope was not just blessed, but a saint.” Ignacio Fernandez from Barcelona thought about the question for an instant and said: “Sanctity can’t be measured in time.” The requirement for beatification is proof of a miracle (canonisation needs two). John Paul is deemed by the Vatican to have interceded to cure a French nun, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre Normand, who was dying of Parkinson’s disease, the illness that killed him. She, and the Polish nun who was at his bedside when he died, were given a central role at the beatification as bearers of the reliquary: a silver olive branch containing a phial of John Paul’s blood, set aside for a transfusion that never took place. Representatives of five royal houses, including the Duke of Gloucester, attended. So did seven prime ministers and 16 heads of state, including Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who flew to Rome on Saturday, once again dodging a ban on his entry into the EU. Though the beatification had been arranged for May Day, when Karol Wojtyla’s communist enemies flaunted their armed might, the irony went studiously unacknowledged at the Vatican. The choice of 1 May had “a very precise connotation”, the chief organiser, Monsignor Marco Frisina, had told correspondents at a briefing last week. “It is the Sunday of Divine Mercy”. And, somehow, he managed to say it with a straight face. Pope John Paul II Religion Catholicism Christianity Pope Benedict XVI Italy John Hooper guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Organisers of the May Day rally said about 10,000 protesters gathered in Trafalgar Square to demonstrate against coalition policies Thousands of people marched across London to protest against government spending cuts and support calls for a general strike. Organisers of the May Day rally said about 10,000 protesters gathered in Trafalgar Square to demonstrate against the coalition’s claims that cuts were inevitable. The police did not give figures. The peaceful follow-up to the mass turnout in London on 26 March was organised by trade unions and international human rights organisations. The marchers were supporting trade union rights, human rights and international solidarity. Tony Benn called for action from the “majority who create the world’s wealth” to re-establish their rights over “the handful who control the world’s wealth”. The former Labour cabinet minister added: “All the gains that have been made have been made by people like ourselves, campaigning year in and year out. This week, local authorities have got their elections. We must use our vote to build on what the TUC did on 26 March, and work for a better society for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.” To cheers, Lee Jasper of Black Activists Rising Against Cuts, called on the TUC “to get off its knees and call a general strike, as early as June”. He warned spending cuts could boost the popularity of far-right groups. “It will be the BNP who seek to exploit the effect of the cuts in their communities. It will be the English Defence League who blame ethnic minorities for the problems the cuts cause.” Sarah Veale of the TUC said cuts in public spending would have a devastating effect on public services. “It’s going to have a particularly devastating effect on women, both as the providers and main users of services. It’s given new meaning to the phrase ‘women and children first’, because that’s where the cuts are going to bite,” she added. May Day Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Regime claims attack that killed son and three grandchildren was aimed at Libya’s leader, as allies accused of overstepping UN security council resolution Nato is facing urgent questions about the legality of its air strike on a Gaddafi family compound at the weekend, which the Libyan government said had killed the leader’s second youngest son, 29-year old Saif al-Arab, and three grandchildren under 12. The grandchildren were not named. The Libyan government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, said Muammar Gaddafi and his wife, Safiya, had been in the building at the time, but had escaped injury. He said the aim of the attack was clear: to assassinate the Libyan leader. Nato swiftly scrambled to deny that it was targeting any individuals, insisting that it was only interested in attacking the military command structure. The prime minister, David Cameron, told the BBC that UN resolutions permitted attacks against the regime’s “command and control” sites because their aim was to prevent “a loss of civilian life by targeting Gaddafi’s war-making machine”. But the deaths of Gaddafi’s three grandchildren, if confirmed, will reinforce the doubts of alliance members uncomfortable with Nato’s six-week bombing campaign and generate criticism from countries such as Russia that Nato is pushing beyond its UN security council mandate. “Statements by participants in the coalition that the strikes on Libya are not aimed at the physical destruction of … Gaddafi and members of his family raise serious doubts,” the Russian foreign ministry said. “The disproportionate use of force … is leading to detrimental consequences and the death of innocent civilians.” The ministry called for “an immediate ceasefire and the beginning of a political settlement process without preconditions.” The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, said in Caracas: “There is no doubt the order was given to kill Gaddafi. It doesn’t matter who else is killed … this is a murder.” The attack, which one diplomatic source said had been carried out by Danish airmen possibly in an F16 bomber, ripped through the Gaddafi residence at around 8pm on Saturday night. It was the second time in recent days that an airstrike has come close to the Libyan leader, and Ibrahim indicated that someone within the leader’s circle may have leaked intelligence on his whereabouts. But in Washington, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser in the Bush administration, warned that the assassination of Gaddafi by Nato aircraft could prove counterproductive. “The narrative we want to come out of this is that the Libyan people overthrew a dictator – not that we came in and toppled a despot,” he told CNN. “What we really want him to do is to leave or to die at a Libyan hand, not an American hand.” But senior Republicans expressed little concern over the prospect of Gaddafi becoming a casualty. Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News: “Wherever Gaddafi goes, he is a legitimate military target. He’s the command and control source. He’s not the legitimate leader of Libya and the way to get this to end is to go after the people around him and his support system.” Reminded that assassinating foreign leaders is illegal, Graham said: “In my view, he’s not a foreign leader, he’s a murderer.” John McCain, another Republican senator who specialises in foreign affairs, told CBS: “We should be taking out his command and control. If he is killed or injured because of that, that’s fine.” Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination who was also on the Sunday talk shows, said it was foolish of Barack Obama to have become involved in Libya. She told Fox: “When President Obama went in, his doctrine was to enter Libya for humanitarian purposes. The point of what I am saying is that we are seeing many, many lives lost, including innocent civilians’ lives. “What will be the ultimate objective and gain? I don’t see it. I think it was a foolish decision to have gotten involved.” In spite of criticism by Russia that Nato is trying to assassinate Gaddafi, Moscow has stopped short of raising the attacks at the UN security council. The Libyan government has been pressing Russia and China to challenge the legality of the Nato action. Both have expressed sympathy with the argument that Nato strikes against compounds where Gaddafi and his family live go beyond the UN mandate to protect civilians in rebel-held areas. A UN security council official said on Sunday that there was no sign of Moscow seeking to bring the issue up at the security council. The official said China was taking its cue from Russia. Both abstained in the vote on the resolution sanctioning action against Libya in March. According to British diplomats, the Gaddafi regime retaliated against the airstrike by dispatching a mob to attack western embassy buildings, which have been abandoned in recent weeks as the hostilities have gathered pace. A spokeswoman said a building housing the ambassador’s residence had been set on fire, and according to initial reports had been burned down. Sky News journalist Mark Stone, who visited the embassy, reported on Twitter: “Totally burnt out. WW2 memorial smashed on the ground. Burnt out cars. Looted.” A British official, speaking on condition of anonymity said there was no doubt in London that the mob attacks had been officially sanctioned. “There are no demos allowed to move anywhere in Tripoli unless they are 100% orchestrated by the regime.” William Hague said: “I condemn the attacks on the British embassy premises in Tripoli as well as the diplomatic missions of other countries. The Vienna convention requires the Gaddafi regime to protect diplomatic missions in Tripoli. By failing to do so that regime has once again breached its international responsibilities and obligations. I take the failure to protect such premises very seriously indeed.” Omar Jelban, the Libyan ambassador, who has worked as a diplomat in London since 2001, was given 24 hours to leave. Britain expelled five Libyan diplomats in March, on the grounds that they were a threat to national security. The Libyan embassy in London continues to function without about a dozen remaining staff, according to British officials. Britain retains a minimal diplomatic presence in Tripoli within the Turkish embassy. Libya Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Muammar Gaddafi Nato United Nations United States Europe Julian Borger Ian Traynor Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …