Oscar predictions 2013

The 82nd Academy Awards - Press Room - Los Angeles

Here, for what it’s worth, are my Oscar predictions for 2013. 

The ceremony is on Sunday…

 

Best Motion Picture
Lincoln

Achievement in Directing
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln 

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln  

Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty 

Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

Phillip Seymour Hoffman, The Master 

Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

 

Best Animated Feature Film
ParaNorman


Original Screenplay
Flight, John Gatins 

 

Adapted Screenplay
Argo, Chris Terrio 


Best Foreign-Language Film
Kontiki (Norway)

Best Documentary Feature 
Searching for a Sugar Man 


Advertisements

Dredd: A film review and poem.

Who’s that man with the helmet on his head?

It’s 2000AD comic’s top lawman Judge Dredd!

Brit TV director Pete Travis directs,

(Perhaps too keen on slow motion effects).

 

How good’s this one? Well, out of five I’d give it three,

A damn sight better than the Stallone monstrosity,

Thank Grud at least this time Dredd keeps his helmet on,

Underneath, is New Zealand actor Karl Urban.

 

Most of its in one block, a trick you may have seen,

If you ever watched the film Assault on Precinct 13,

Judge Anderson’s the best: a PSI judge so psychic,

She boosts the film in the role of Dredd’s female sidekick.

 

Game of Throne’s actress Lena Headley is Dredd’s nemesis,

If you don’t like violence, I’d give this film a miss.

Dredd speaks like Robocop: “Twenty seconds to comply!”
But if I were you, I’d think hard before you buy.

 

Image

For Dredd fans will enjoy: he is as he says, the Law,

But others may find this film something of a bore.

Hugh Gaitskell and Harold Wilson: fifty years on

Hugh-Gaitskell-in-1951-001

Sudden deaths in front-line British politics are mercifully quite rare. In 1970, Iain Macleod died suddenly a month after becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer, a desperate blow to Edward Heath’s new Tory Government. In 1994, Opposition leader John Smith died suddenly of a heart attack. Had Smith lived, it seems virtually certain he would have led Labour back into power in 1997, instead of Tony Blair.

Although he had been leading Labour for seven years at the time of his death fifty years ago, (he led the Opposition for longer than any other post-war leader except Neil Kinnock) it is less certain Hugh Gaitskell would ever have enjoyed the trappings of Downing Street even had he survived what turned out to be his final illness. True, Labour did win power again in October 1964. But this was only after Gaitskell’s successor Harold Wilson had immeasurably boosted the party. And even then it was a narrow win. Gaitskell had lost the 1959 election heavily and might well have led the party to defeat again. We will never know.

The youthful, combative Harold Wilson was undoubtedly the right choice for the party at the time, even though his subsequent leadership after the Labour landslide of 1966 would ultimately prove disappointing. George Brown, who came second in the race, was to prove a notoriously erratic figure and later that year appeared drunk on TV (having just provoked a fight with US actor Eli Wallach) on a  programme on which he was being interviewed about President Kennedy’s assassination which had occurred earlier that day. James Callaghan, who came third in the 1963 leadership, would eventually lead Labour and the UK himself between 1976 and 1979.

Alas, Hugh Gaitskell famous for his two conference speeches in which he tearfully pledged to “fight and fight again to save the party we love” and another in which he declared that European integration threatened to end “a thousand years of British history” would never get this opportunity to lead his country.  After years spent fighting the Left and working to keep the party alive, he died just as things were finally falling into place.

Wilson-Harold01

Bye bye Benedict! Now time for our Queen to abdicate as well

Nothing becomes Pope Benedict XVI more than the manner of his retirement.

He is the first Pope to resign since 1415, the year of the Battle of Agincourt. This is absurd. Where on Earth has this stupid idea come from that people should remain in certain positions until they die? The Pope is eighty five. He is slightly older than the last Pope was when he died. He is already the fourth oldest pope since 1295. He was already too old to be Pope when he took over in 2005. Of course, he should retire. In any other job, he would have been pensioned off years ago.

Remember the last Pope? Jean Paul II. Considered a successful Pope by many, his last years were painful to watch as he visibly deteriorated in front of the world’s eyes. The satirical magazine The Onion captured the mood with the headline “Ageing Pope ‘Just Blessing Everything in Sight’ say Concerned Handlers”.

There is much to condemn about the Roman Catholic church but the Pope and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands who announced she is to stand down recently (she is in her mid-70s) are here setting a good example.

Queen Elizabeth II should heed these examples. She is doing well now but do we really want her to feel she has to go on if her health seriously declines? It is time the Queen removed the stigma attached to the concept of abdication left by her uncle Edward VIII.

She is not Edward VIII. There is no scandal here. Furthermore, her son – the future Charles III – is not a reluctant George Vi type as in 1936.

The Queen should wait until Image On that date, her own reign will finally surpass her great great grandmother Queen Victoria’s reign by precisely one day. Elizabeth II will thus become the longest serving monarch in British history.

Then she should abdicate.

Book review: Bang! A History of Britain in the 1980s by Graham Stewart

The Sunbang-a-history-of-britain-in-the-1980s

Make no mistake: 1979 was a very long time ago. Let’s not have any of this “it seems like yesterday” bollocks. If it really does seem like yesterday, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Despite its name, this book actually begins in 1979. It is now 2013. The same amount of time has passed since 1979 as had passed between it and the end of the Second World War in 1945. When the same amount of time has passed again, it will be 2047. So perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to find things have changed a fair bit. In 1979, you wouldn’t be reading a blog on your phone, a laptop or anywhere else,

Consider:  in 1979, the Labour Prime Minister (a man born before the First World War) was still at ease sitting round the Downing Street table with leading trade union figures. This was a time when some such union leaders spoke openly of Marxist revolution in Britain and believed this was apparently a realistic prospect. Leading Labour figures like Tony Benn spoke of nationalising almost all of British industry to enthusiastic mostly male smoke filled Labour conferences.

Flash forward to 1990 when this book ends and things start to see a lot more familiar. Not the same but a lot more like now. Seventies fashions had lost their grip.  Nobody had IPods yet but they had Walkmans at least and CDs were already replacing vinyl.  Mobile phones were still rare and huge but they did at least exist. Channel 4 was now on air and a small minority could now watch BSkyB (although a common joke of the time was that the average person was more likely to get BSE – the human form of mad cow disease- than BSkyB).  EastEnders was on.

Meanwhile, strikes were a rarity. The SDP had been and gone. The Labour Party, although still firmly out of power were also a lot more recognisable. Behind the scenes, Peter Mandelson was hard at work. The smoke filled conference halls were gone. Neil Kinnock, although never a popular figure with the public, was smartly dressed and in command, a far cry from the decent but scruffy Michael Foot. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, then in their late thirties were advancing fast up the Labour ranks. New Labour was on its way.

In my view, the 1980s transformed Britain more than any other peacetime decade in the last 150 years, except perhaps for the Sixties.

Much of this is doubtless due in no small measure to the personality and politics of Margaret Thatcher, who Stewart seems rather a fan of. I am rather less keen. The Lady was undeniably a fine war leader and by the Eighties, union power clearly needed curtailing.

But this was a bad decade for the British economy. Before the Winter of Discontent wrecked Labour for more than a decade, the Callaghan Government had been doing a fine job of pulling the UK back from the oil shock, the Barber Boom and the errors of Wilson’s final two years. But Callaghan’s gains and those made by the discovery of North Sea oil were squandered by Thatcher’s Monetarist experiment. Soon more than a fifth of the nation’s industrial base had been wiped out forever and high unemployment hung over the rest of the decade like a curse.

This was also the decade where the unrestrained power of the markets took hold and Rupert Murdoch was permitted unprecedented media power by the Thatcher Government. Both of these problems should have been addressed later by Major, Blair or Brown. But the Lady (as the late Alan Clark would lovingly refer to her) is the original source of responsibility here. Crime soared, the health service suffered and homeless levels rose unforgivably under Thatcher. A simple comparison of how the UK fared under her watch and that during Tony Blair’s decade (1997-2007) is damning.

By 1990, she had grown tremendously in confidence to the point of mental instability. Having seen off the Argies, the miners and Labour (three times: under Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock), she seemed convinced of her own infallibility. She even began speaking about herself using the royal “we” (famously: “we are a grandmother”).

But when she linked her destiny to that of the hated and ultimately unfair Community Charge (or “Poll Tax”) even the Tories recognised she had to go. John Major secured one more win for the Tories in 1992. But twenty three years on, the Tories have not recovered from her fall. No Tory leader since Major has won a General Election.

This is a slightly badly structured book with hard going chapters about monetarism rubbing shoulders with those about pop music and the singles of Madness. But it’s a story worth retelling especially if you want to terrify your left leaning children before they go to sleep.

Just remember: don’t have nightmares.

Hurrah for Cameron, down with the Tories!

Yesterday was a good day for Britain.

Most people now recognise that gay people should enjoy the same right to a happy and loving marital relationship as heterosexual couples. Yesterday, most MPs agreed.  

Had Chris Huhne’s parliamentary career lasted slightly longer he would have got to vote on the issue too. But perhaps, in retrospect,  he was not the most qualified figure to pass judgement on issues relating to marriage.

The arguments against the gay marriage proposal largely articulatred by the Immoral Minority aka the dimmer half of what used to be known as the Silly Party (the Tories) are easy to dismiss:

  1. The new law redefines marriage! Why yes, it does. Words and concepts have been redefined and reinterpreted throughout all time, as there meanings have changed. So what?
  2. It’s a waste of time: This argument is deployed any time anyone opposes anything, usually on the grounds that it “distracts from economic situation.” Trust me, the economy won’t be affected one jot by this. The fox hunting ban hardly wrecked the economy either.
  3. We already have civil partnerships: A better argument. But this just isn’t the same as marriage is it?
  4. What about babies? Oddly, some argued that the marriage process is dependent on the possibility that the couple might subsequently reproduce. As this presumably also exempted and many disab;led people from marriage, this bizarre argument was sensibly ignored by most.
  5. Where will it all end? Another familiar one: will this lead to polygamy, three way marriages, dogs marrying cats? etc. NO.

The only annoying thing is that we owe this historic change to David Cameron, the leader of the traditionally homophobic bunch who tried to ban “gay propaganda” in schools and not to the traditionally more sensible Labour Party.

On the plus side, Cameron is clearly a better man than most of his members: he seems to have hopelessly split his party in the process.Image