Wednesday 25 February 2009

University Challenge - The Final (insult)







On Monday I watched the final of University Challenge. Corpus Christi College, Oxford, edged out Manchester University to win. I'm a general knowledge geek, so like pitting myself against the contestants. Except that the star of the Corpus Christi team, and in fact the whole series, has been one Miss Gail Trimble.

She was far and away the most knowledgeable, and (crucially for this quiz show) speedy in her responses on everything from biology to Shakespeare, central Asia to Latin aphorisms, and single-handedly amassing scored 825 of Corpus Christi's 1,235 points. Gail is no supermodel - I'd describe her appearance as sweet - but having a stellar brain just pushes a woman several notches higher up in the desirability stakes. A lady who can demonstrate depth of knowledge, learning, culture and an understanding of the world automatically becomes that little bit hotter. For me, anyway.

Unfortunately poor Gail has been engulfed in a maelstrom of publicity, much of it emanating from angry bloggers, furious at her supposed arrogance, smugness and poshness. Jesus, give the girl a break.

I watched her in the final (and semi-final the previous week) where she was lightening quick on the buzzer and displayed a formidable general knowledge. Bloggers and Facebook cretins are apparently infuriated that she smiled after each question answered correctly, or said "well done" or "quite!" to her colleagues when they got something right. (She could have won it all by herself).

We all know what it really is, don't we? It's inverted snobbery, envy, and class prejudice - plain as the nose on your face. So what if she smiled when she got things right? If you were on telly in front of millions you'd grin a little too. If you didn't people would say you were moody, arrogant etc etc. I noticed she had a habit of flicking back her long mane of hair rather imperiously after every answer was again rewarded by a clearly smitten Paxman with an affirmative. But again, so what? Everyone has their little ticks, habits and idiosyncrasies. Put yourself on TV, bigmouth, and we'll see how you look.

Funny how the nation fawns over Jade Goody, the uber-chav and ignoramus supreme. I feel sorry for her now she has cancer, but I'm referring to her lionising by the media before her illness. Isn't it safer to gawp at someone when they're so obviously dumber than you? But take a uber-smart woman, who is successful, and whom you could never emulate and suddenly the women of Britain (and is mostly the women) are venting their rage at her. Too bad the sisters missed the chance to take to the blogosphere to defend one of their own when she does quite well in, you know, the male power-structures. Oh wait, they don't actually like her being a bit brainy. Sorry Gail, back to the kitchen, love.

Then there's her class. Maybe it's because she single-handedly (almost) smacked the arse off those northerners from Manchester. But really it's because she's vaguely posh, goes to Oxford, has a 'cut-glass' accent (whatever that is) and - this is the clincher - she went to a private school.

The Sun jumped on the bandwagon and wasted no time in applying a bit of inverse snobbery. In a spectacular display of vulgarity and crassness trumpeted the fact that Gail failed to answer a single question - a single question! - of their own "pub quiz". Sample question: "Who won the most recent series of Celebrity Big Brother?" Well I bet that makes the Einsteins who read The Sun feel a lot better about themselves.

I've been a fan of this show since the 1980s, when Bamber Gascoigne presided over this general knowledge inter-university quiz. Even with the inferior, sneering little twerp Jeremy Paxman in the role of host (or 'inquisitor' as some people refer to him) it's still compelling. I've never got over missing out on the chance to represent my alma mater, The University of Warwick, while I was a student there between 1992 and 1995. Inexplicably, the BBC axed Bamber Gascoigne and the show between 1992 and 1997 (I think), only resurrecting it when it was too late for me to even apply. I did see someone I recognised on the Warwick team a little later.

As for my own performance, I did get a few of Gail's questions in the semis and final myself, especially the history and Latin ones ("Carpe Diem" - that's "seize the day" by Homer! Hooray!). But she would still have trounced me, and most other people. And that's what the cyberspace bullies don't like.

Monday 16 February 2009

The Credit Crunch - YOU are to blame


That's right, you. Not the banks, the chief executives of said banks, the traders, short-sellers, estate agents, gazumpers, or even politicians. You. Well, partly.

Now I know this is harsh. And here in the UK the chiefs of several major banks have been hauled before the Treasury Select Committee in the House of Commons and 'grilled', as they say in the jargon here, on their role in the credit crunch. Like medieval undesirables being put in the stocks, the bankers were forced to endure the rotten tomatoes thrown by, of all people, politicians.

You could just sense the MPs' relish at finally getting their chance to play the role of people's champion, and striking a blow for the common man. Rarely do politicians find themselves in such a position, usually being themselves pilloried for their duplicity and greed and universally despised to boot. So there they were, like modern-day Wat Tylers in their own little Peasants' Revolt. Except of course, it was nothing more than an exercise in theatre and hypocrisy. Politicians like John McFall MP, the Chairman of the Committee, are trying to salvage their own reputations - and who better to make even a politician look like a virgin bride than a banker? To quote Oscar Wilde, it was 'the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable'.

But all this blaming and outrage serves to obscure the pernicious tendency in today's society to blame everyone under the sun but oneself. I agree, the banking ghouls who sought quick bucks, the spineless regulators who let them carry out regardless and the politicians, now crying foul, who encouraged them all the way are to be despised. But how about the general public accept that they played their part, and take some of the blame themselves?

I don't remember a mass boycott of 100% mortgages, at 4, 5, or 6 times a borrowers salary; no boycott of cheap and easy credit cards with their low interest rates. Where money was available, people took it, investors bought buy-to-let properties, bank shareholders approved the bonus culture which skewed the banking system. Shareholders also voted en masse for the de-mutualisation of the building societies for a few bucks - great, but these banks are now all bust or have been sold to foreign buys for a pittance. Not so great.

For years everyone I spoke to spoke of the 'housing bubble' - warning of the inevitable 'correction' in the housing market. The whole country could see it, but not everyone acted on it. Gordon Brown, as Chancellor and then Prime Minister, did nothing whatever about it. We've had housing booms in the UK before. Unsustainable demand always collapses. The same with credit cards, that everyone was in love with until just recently. It all boils down to personal responsibility, something lost in British society.

If you go ice-skating and break your leg, it's your fault. Mostly. But everyone wants to sue the ice rink now. When people get themselves into a mess they cast around for a pantomime villain - the system, the government, their parents, their friends; anyone but themselves. And so it has been with the recession. I always find it hard to sympathise with people who have a debt problem. Just because you walk past McDonald's every day doesn't mean you have to ram down their big macs, does it? It's your own damn fault.

Bankers, politicians, regulators and a flawed system have to take a lot of the blame. But don't wriggle out of personal responsibility. Consider the inverse: people who shunned easy credit and high debt and instead saved might be feeling aggrieved right now. The Bank of England is slashing interest rates, printing money, offering vast loans and generally prostituting itself to save the indebted, and their egregious banks. It seems unfair. But hold on. People who have over-stretched themselves most will be hit hardest, and first: repossessions and bailiffs. If you lose your job, those with savings will be best placed to ride it out.

The causes of the recession are many, and complex. But you reap what you sow. Collectively, as a society; but also individually. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Thursday 12 February 2009

Stopped and Questioned - Section 44

A few weeks ago I was on my way back to the office from the bank during my lunch break. I work very close to Highbury and Islington station and was beginning a walk through Highbury Fields back to my place of work. I didn't pay any particular attention to the police van parked by the junction, or to the policeman standing beside it. "Excuse me," he said as I passed. "Could I have a quick word?"

I said yes, of course. He sounded almost apologetic. He then told me that he was carrying out some "stop and questions", and that he had been authorised to do so by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act - and could I please explain to him what I was doing in the area? I was just stunned - was he serious? It was so absurd on so many levels that I was tempted to laugh, but guessed that he was serious and that an air of ridicule would not have worked in my favour. I said sure - I was on my way back to work from my lunch. Which I was. He said thank you very much that's all - oh, and did I understand why I had been stopped? I said no, I didn't. I thought – why me?

So the bobby proceeded to explain the reasoning behind his action. Except that he didn't. He just repeated, verbatim, what he had just told me. That the Assistant Commissioner had designated this area as somewhere where stop and questioning could take place because of sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act - and that was why I had been stopped. And he assured me that he was stopping people of every colour and race, and that it was nothing to do with that. And that that was why he had stopped me. And questioned me. I didn't point out to him that his reasoning was circular and amounted to really no reason at all. I could see that it wasn't worth it, that he was just doing his job, following orders and trying his best. And, I have to say, he was very, very polite; friendly, even.

Something strange then happened. He offered to take down my name in a notebook - but not necessarily my address. He said this was purely optional, that it wouldn't be kept, and that it for my protection: if I wanted to pursue a claim against him the police notes would reveal who he was. I said ok. I noticed he spelt my name wrong (I have a very awkward surname) and he didn't write down my address. So no chance of anything going on my record in the vast databases the police have. I went on my way, but felt I shouldn't really have given him my name. In fact thet whole episode struck me as an absurd waste of his and my time, and an exercise in futility that made no-one any safer.

Let's suppose I was in fact, a terrorist. Not a freedom-fighter, of course - but a terrorist. (You can write in and we can debate the difference.) Now why would I tell PC Plod that I was on my way to blow up some infidels? You can bet I wouldn't. It would take a blunder of pub-theatre proportions for me to blurt out my dastardly plan. So we can safely say that a real terrorist would not be snared by the "excuse me can I have a word" tactic. I like to think I'm a reasonable chap who recognises that the cops have a tough, and unpleasant job to do so I didn't kick up a fuss, play the race card (I'm a bit swarthy, you see) or threaten to sue anyone. Besides, Plod isn't responsible for Section 44 - the government is.The problem with Section 44 is that it proffers no basis for discerning suspicion. None. It's just applied against whomsoever the officer feels like questioning. From the public's perspective it's a preposterous intrusion into their everyday lives (why do I have to tell anyone why I'm on a street?) and from the police's point of view it's an absurd waste of time and resources. It smacks of the old 'sus' laws in the UK, when the police could stop and search anyone without having to explain themselves. It's the first crack in the shiny white egg-shell of a free society - the apparatus of the state being able to decide at a whim that it should demand that you explain your very presence.

I'm all in favour of hunting down those who mean to kill us. I was on the tube system on 7th July 2005 and escaped the bombs meant to kill me. I want my would-be killers destroyed, stopped, or at least caught. But stoppages of the citizenry need to be based on evidence. Evidence that the fellow walking through Highbury Fields may have been, or is about to be, involved in plotting murder, or evidence that carrying out such stops can actually prevent a crime. (For example if it is known that a bomber is in the Highbury Fields area and he is a 6ft swarthy type - then I'd understand.) Notice I do not say 'proof' - evidence can be something much flimsier than that. I'm happy to entertain the argument that some evidence is so sensitive that it should not be made public - as long as a judge can still view and assess it. But random stop and questions, or stop and searches, that are based on an individual's gut feeling (ie prejudice) serve no purpose, achieve nothing, waste much and ironically leave us more vulnerable to those who would harm us.

If you have had a similar experience, or have a comment to make, please write in.

Hollywood Bad Guys
















They are the indispensable part of just about every Hollywood movie. In the Charlie Chaplin era they twirled their big handlebar moustaches; in Westerns they wore black hats; and by the time James Bond was on the scene they were fully-fledged megalomaniacs. But Hollywood baddies have evolved over time. In some ways they have become a cultural weathervane. And culturally controversial. Is it true that muslims have got, or are getting, a bad press? Is Hollywood’s portrayal of good vs evil just American cultural imperialism? And why do so many bad guys seem to have British accents?


In the 1950s it was quite simple. The sci-fi and horror movies of the 50s reflected insecurity about communism with rubber-suited aliens (and occasionally their human dupes) invading or subverting America. Cue the US military, or a humble maverick citizen, to bring them crashing down, as in Invaders From Mars (1953). The classic westerns made it black and white too. Just airbrush the annihilation of the natives, as well as the appropriation of their land, from history and presto! You get good old fashioned cowboys and indians. (The real cowboys were actually mostly black.) If it was cultural vandalism it didn’t matter as by then there weren’t many native Americans left to protest against it. It was an early example of historical revisionism, flavoured with blatant racism. As John Wayne famously said: "I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves." Thanks John, I’m glad we’ve cleared that one up.



Dr No kicked off the James Bond era in 1962. The villains tended to be, once again, communists in the guise of the KGB, or else preposterous megalomaniacs. The latter did reflect a shift, however. They tended to be maverick (and Western) capitalists, with untrammelled power and influence, even to subvert usual cold-war politics. Suddenly, capitalism could be scary. SPECTRE (Special Executor for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) was a sort of multi-national corporate entity, with operations and influence everywhere. A bit like McDonalds, but with Ronald as a serial killer. Out-of–control Western-style corporatism and commercialism was portrayed as a Bad Thing, notwithstanding the absurdity of building cities under the sea (The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977 ) or in space (Moonraker,1979). By the era of The French Connection (1971), ruthless drug dealers had appeared on the silver screen. They were ideal baddies. Generally foreign (Latin American, or for Popeye Doyle, French), they were ruthless, sadistic and threatened the American way of life. In Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry movies a psychopath (Dirty Harry, 1971) gave way to corrupt cops (Magnum Force, 1973). Well, everyone can agree that you wouldn’t want a psychopath living next door. What would it do to property values? But cops as villains…now there was something new.
The Vietnam War, Watergate and the Iran Contra scandal dented confidence in authority figures. Could Hollywood still rely on the US Government to save them from aliens? (Either the intergalactic type, or the foreign variety?) Apparently not. Patriotic mavericks were what was needed. And suddenly, as in Dr Strangelove (1964), M*A*S*H (1970) and Three Days of the Condor (1975), corporate America, the CIA, the army, the government, or even the president could be the enemy. As the 1980s progressed, James Bond persisted with the KGB / Bill Gates-turned-psycho theme, but the search for baddies was about to get tougher. The end of The Cold War, in 1989, had at a stroke deprived the movie moguls and scriptwriters of tailor-made bad guys for action blockbusters and thrillers. This only intensified the search for villains. With the commies gone, Hollywood increasingly turned to raiding the vaults of history. Nazis were fair game; everyone could agree that Hitler’s boys had been on the wrong side of history. So from the knockabout fun of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) to the more serious Schindlers List (1993), Saving Private Ryan (1998) and The Pianist (2002), jackboot-wearing stormtroopers slotted neatly into the bad guy roles. Imperialists and slave-traders were also given the villainous roles in films such as Amistad (1997). Such portrayals are rarely contentious. There aren’t many willing to defend slave-traders as being unfairly traduced.
But Hollywood has always taken liberties with history – the portrayal of native American ‘Indians’, for example, and the silliness of virtually every version of Robin Hood. But historical liberties were turned into travesties in films such as U-571 (2000), which portrayed American sailors as recovering the German enigma ciphering machines from a submarine, when in fact it was the British Royal Navy ship, HMS Bulldog, which did the heroic deed. In a way every country’s film industry is a reflection of how a nation’s self-image and mythology, what they believe about themselves and how they believe others should view them. For The United States, its movie industry also serves a role in cultural affirmation : seeing themselves as being on the ‘right’ side. In many blockbuster movies, such as Independence Day (1996), Armageddon (1998) and Pearl Harbor (2001), it’s the Americans who save the day – as well as, quite often, the human race – with only a few token foreigners thrown in as backup. (Josh Hartnett in Pearl Harbor: “I think World War Two just broke out!” Message to Josh: it actually broke out a whole 2 years before you lot were forced to join in, mate.)
Other films such as The Patriot (2000) and Braveheart (1995) also subverted the historical record. What these films also had in common was the portrayal, as bad guys, of identifiably English-accented characters. Think General Zod in Superman 2. Think Scar, the devious panther in The Lion King. Or the cockney-accented Orcs in Lord of the Rings (Hollywood is American after all, they don’t go for class distinctions.) The devious, untrustworthy, snobbish and often vicious baddie in Hollywood often seems to be British, or more specifically, English, and comes with a posh public-school accent. Maybe it’s America’s roots in it’s Revolution against the British Empire. Or maybe it’s a lingering inferiority complex the Yanks seem to have when faced with British accents. Or maybe it’s just that the English don’t seem to have a grievance-chasing lobby group ready to march around in little circles outside American movie theatres, and then boycott your film. Hollywood has often, it seems, delighted in portraying an evil British baddie getting his comeuppance against an American hero. In any case, the Brit as baddie seems to be a Hollywood, and indeed an American, cultural stereotype. Or is it?
In fact James Bond, Patrick Stewart in Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), Obi Wan Kenobi’s characters in the Star Wars series, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia and others show that there are plenty of quintessentially British characters who wear the white hat, so to speak. True, talented British actors such as Alan Rickman, Charles Dance, Jeremy Irons, Sir Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman often get cast as baddies, sometimes very British ones. But these actors often turn out a German/eastern European accent as required by the role – think Irons in Die Hard with a Vengeance (German) or Oldman in Air Force One (Kazakh, apparently). In fact a lot of nasty bad guys are quite American – think Ray Liotta, Christopher Walken, Ed Harris and Willem Defoe playing all those psychos, hitmen, gangsters and nutters. John Lithgow may have played a dastardly, and very English, baddie in Cliffhanger (1993), but in virtually every other movie he’s been in he’s been a very American evil-doer. Similarly Bruce Willis, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford and Richard Gere have all had goes at being thoroughly unpleasant (and clearly American) characters in movies. Think also how many Hollywood movies have portrayed Americans themselves variously as white supremacists, rednecks, hillbilly simpletons, ignorant hicks, devious lawyers, gangsters, CIA fiends and crooked politicians and you get the picture. Recently it would seem that other nationalities, particularly Russians, east Europeans, Latin Americans and currently the French, have more feel aggrieved about (see table below). The ‘British baddie’ character beloved of whingers over here is in fact buried beneath an avalanche of foreign, and indeed American, villains.
Hollywood portrayal of foreign villainy is undoubtedly a reflection of American cultural prejudices, ignorance and stereotyping, which after all comes from a nation that prides itself on its insularity. If anything, we should take comfort from Hollywood’s portrayal, through these very stereotypes, of the American public in a negative light - as insular, ignorant and only able to relate to the lowest common denominator and to the most simplistic characterisations. If I were an American movie-goer, I’d start a pressure group to lobby against such offensiveness about me. The 9-1 attacks changed shifted the cultural ground on which movies, and villainy, have been set. The cry has often been raised that Hollywood has characterised Arabs, and Muslims generally, as bad guys, unfairly stereotyping them and reinforcing or even creating prejudices in the minds of movie-going audiences. But does this accusation stand up to scrutiny? The table below, whilst not definitive, suggests not. Arabs and Muslims have very rarely been portrayed as baddies; in Rambo 3(1988) the Muslim Afghans, the mujahadeen, were portrayed as the good guys, on Rambo’s side. In fact aside from a handful of films like True Lies(1994) and Rules of Engagement(2000) not many blockbusters have taken this route. In fact the Sean Penn thriller, The Interpreter, was originally about Muslim terrorists blowing up a bus in New York. But Hollywood quickly rewrote the script and the bus got blown up by African terrorists from the little-known republic of Matobo. ''We didn't want to encumber the film in politics in any way,'' said Kevin Misher, the producer. But by trying not to, he instantly made a different kind of political statement. Nowhere in Hollywood’s anthology has Tom Cruise been shown jetting off to Baghdad or the Hindu Kush to duff up the Taliban or the Mahdi Army. Perhaps because with his boyish looks he has a credibility problem - he might in real life be taken in as a concubine by some butch Afghan. A forthcoming movie about the 9-11 hijackers, United 93, may yet open another chapter in this story. To date, however, Hollywood has so far left Al-Q’aeda and Islamic fundamentalism relatively unblemished by criticism, and tiptoed around Muslim sensibilities, even to the extent of rewriting scripts - which hardly proves Muslim grievances. At least, not yet. Villains and villainy as part of mass entertainment have always reflected cultural assumptions and prejudices, and Hollywood surely stands guilty on that count. When Hollywood has stuck its nose into geo-politics the results have been simplistic, and even historically misleading, and have served only to reflect the American world-view and cultural assumptions. But a lot of accusations of targeting specific groups fall wide of the mark. The explosion of blockbuster movies which began in the 80s and 90s produced a plethora of baddies, including the usual drug lords, but also a liberal sprinkling of corrupt cops and CIA/US government agents, conniving American politicians, Latin American generals, smooth-talking Central Europeans, British toffs and gruff Russian mobsters (see table below).
The US itself is frequently portrayed as being flawed and having nasty undercurrents. In fact Hollywood still has a liberal streak, despite all the gore and violence that today accompanies action blockbusters. Corporatism, capitalism, the CIA and the US military-industrial complex are more often than not the ‘bad’ guys. Even the Christmas classic and annual tear-jerker It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) had plucky James Stewart fighting back against ruthless capitalists. It’s just that Jimmy didn’t chainsaw nasty Mr Henry Potter’s head off at the end like he might today, given what CGI can do for you. In fact there are a myriad of groups complaining that they have been negatively portrayed in Hollywood. But despite their villainous roles, you don’t see white people complaining about their portrayal, do you? Well actually you do now. The latest offended groups are blond men (yes really – apparently they’re disproportionately more likely to be twisted, amoral sociopaths than their darker-haired cousins). Albinos seem to be psychos and killers rather a lot these days– in The Firm(1993) , Matrix Reloaded (2003), Die Another Day (2002), and Blade 2 (2002) – and a pressure group is already complaining. At least albinos are white, no-one can argue about that. The scriptwriters must have thought they were safe from accusations of hate-mongering from minority groups. Oops, wrong again. I’m still waiting for a fight scene between an African-American albino and a Caucasian albino to see if racial stereotyping is independent of colour. If that makes sense. The unfortunate thing is that virtually every film has to have a villain of some sort, otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a film. So there will always be someone complaining. But doesn’t it reflect a lack of cultural confidence to object to ‘your’ group playing the villain?
Perhaps sensitive to who the bad guys are, a new trend has started – aliens as baddies. They have no specific race, no historical or cultural grievances, and we don’t even know that they really exist. The perfect choice! Someone who can’t complain because no-one knows if he exists to complain. Of course, if we ever find they do exist, they could be pretty annoyed. Have you seen Starship Troopers? Predator 1 or 2? Let’s hope aliens never get discovered and come down to live amongst us – like in Alien Nation. Because then the scriptwriters will really be stuck.