Sunday 6th July 2025
Blog Page 1628

Review: The Government Inspector

0

The Government Inspector prom­ises a lot. It is both a withering critique of political corruption and a farce turning about gloriously caricatured officials. It has both dark semi-surreal elements and implicit appeals for social change. It wishes to entertain and stimulate thought. I was certainly well entertained – it was funny, though the slap-stick tended to dominate, leaving the unsettling satire a little neglected. Nabakov described the play as the “tense gap between the flash and the crash” that begin and end it. The opening freeze-frame, where each character animates one after the other, was admittedly striking, but the tension in the central section of the play came too slowly.

Let me quickly give those unfa­miliar with Gogol (and I was among you before yesterday), the drift of the play. A government inspector is due to arrive any moment to a little town in the mid­dle of nowhere, which is at the mercy of a host of political cronies, feeding off the poorest and leaving them­selves corrupted. Chaos ensues with much bribing, tricking and seduc­ing of the “inspector”, a revelation occurs, (I won’t spoil it for you) and we’re left wondering if justice will be exercised.

The acting in two words: generally good. As a pantomime-like mélange of vivid characters, the officials, played by Richard Gledhill, Angela Myers and friends, were amusing, complemented well by Tweedle- Dum-and-Tweedle-Dee-esque double act Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky. I say pantomime but I’m not sure if that’s exactly what Gogol was en­visaging, but let’s go with it. On the other hand, Joe O’Connor as the “in­spector” did a good job of changing the dynamic between the officials, with an often nuanced perfor­mance.

Just a few words on the overall aesthetic. The costumes were beau­tifully period and extravagant, re­inforcing the impression of excess. Moderate, but well-judged use of music, sound and stage effects (e.g. a whirling of manuscripts from above when the inspector has a bout of madness, all with psychedelic lights) added to the impact, already strong owing to the intimate performance space.

Despite being one hundred and eighty years old, the play strikes you with its topicality – corruption and scandals abound. If you’re looking for a close examination of these is­sues, the play probably won’t offer you too much. If you’re idea of a good night out, however, this was definite­ly to be recommended. 

THREE STARS

Preview: Bloody Poetry

0

The beginning of Michaelmas 2012 has been marked by dull skies and seemingly unending drizzle. So quite an evening is to be had watching Bloody Poetry, a play which brings the audience across the Alps and the centuries to Geneva, 1816, conjuring up both the tran­quil shores of Lake Geneva and the heights of violently Gothic storms.

The play centres around four main characters who carry the majority of the action, making for a highly personal, character-driven play, and three of them are among the most famous names in English literature: Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary Shelley, and Claire Clairmont, Mary’s stepsister. Following an inces­tuous summer that the four spend in Geneva, the play naturally swings between intimate expressions of emotion and declaimed contempla­tions of the nature of poetry.

In spanning both huge questions and intimate relationships, Bloody Poetry greatly depends upon the chemistry of the main actors; fortu­nately, each of the cast members in this production turn in solid per­formances. Arty Bolour Froushan is appropriately strident and seductive as Byron, and Claudia King brings depth to what could have been any lovestruck teenager in her Claire, hopelessly besotted with Byron. Amelia Sparling and Tim Schneider are both good as the Shelleys, filling out a foursome that really stands out in the chemistry they all share. Char­acters move about constantly, as if trying to run through all their possi­ble permutations – movement which could seem arbitrary and distract­ing, but which comes off as natural, ultimately selling the hedonistic developments between the four of them all the more convincingly.

Jack Sain is also to be commended as Dr Polidori, Byron’s physician and diarist, measuring the wanton im­propriety of the others through his own repression. His entrance, stand­ing stiffly upright over Claire and the Shelleys entwined on the floor, is a particularly nice moment, as is the scene in which the four torment him while acting out Plato’s cave. In both cases, as throughout the portion of the play I saw, the blocking creates and emphasises focal points, the foursome paired up variously, all fac­ing one direction.

These movements are swift and unforced, creating a nice sense of movement within the play, match­ing the dialogue’s intellectual crack­le. I do wonder whether this leads to a sacrifice of dynamics: surely, in a play where the nature of art and love are under discussion, more could be made of moments of silence, if only to allow the audience to catch up? However, since I only saw rather mo­mentous scenes, this could just be the peril of the preview. Ultimately, this production seems intriguing, and well worth a view.

 

FOUR STARS

Review: Taylor Swift – Red

0

Taylor Swift follows in the footsteps of the inimitable E. L. James in attempt to guide today’s consumers through their colour wheel. Like Fifty Shades, Red has mass appeal, will sell millions of copies, and possibly drags on a bit towards the second half. Where it differs (apart from the thinly veiled Republican nod), is that it does what it sets out to do in a really rather good way. 

This album is almost all Swift who trips recognisably into the songwriting room from adolescence’s lonely enclave. Where it is bigger and better than her previous offerings, however, is when she invites others into this room. Red makes for more than the country-lite of her previous releases, though there is plenty of that. It is a rare and excellent female pop album with a winning combination of power ballads, songs for girls to cry to, and tracks for drunk people to flop around to. This is what Swift has set out to do, and – intentionalism be damned – she should be proud of the product.
Red is the kind of album that millions of schoolgirls will get ready to in the mornings: this is the evolution of Avril Lavigne’s Let Go with more than a dash of Shania Twain’s Up!. There’s little here which is recognisably 2012 (ignoring the slightly snarky comments about indie records and ‘dressing up like hipsters’, which is clearly a bit of a bee in Taylor‘s salubrious bonnet). The dubstep influence that permeates floorfiller ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ may be a little questionable, but at least guarantees it a place on Park End’s ground floor playlist for some time to come. And ‘We Are Never Getting Back Together’ is, despite all my better judgment, simply superb.
Few surprises here, but an elegantly slick album which shows young Ms. Swift going from strength to strength. Pity about the Republican National Conference performance, though. 
FOUR STARS

 

Review: Gathering @ Oxford venues

0

To those familiar with more traditionally laid out festivals, Gathering may have seemed like it had been over-ambitiously named. Surely a few sets at a few venues in Cowley on a rainy winter’s evening couldn’t live up to the name of ‘festival’?

After a brief foray into the early bands, most headed for the O2 queue. Once the doors were opened Clock Opera took to the stage, the night instantly had an air of magic about it.

Their spell-binding performance was followed by a set from Bastille which was exactly as cleverly put together as you’d expect from a band whose EP, Bad Blood, is an interactive murder mystery. Dan Smith has always been a reluctant frontman, and he was visibly (and adorably) still finding his success difficult to believe.

Great as the two previous acts had been, the main event was still to come. As Dry The River took to the stage, the roar that filled the O2’s main room easily topped the noise made at the band’s set in Reading’s NME tent two months previously. If there had been any doubt, it had now been banished. This was a festival, filled with the party atmosphere and furious enjoyment that there had never been a better night in the history of fun.

Though Peter Liddle cut something of a tragic figure as he attempted to sing ‘Demons’ three feet from the microphone while Scott Miller, the heavily-bearded, unofficial face of the band, silently begged the crowd, in vain, to be quiet, the band were soon feeding off the incredible energy of the crowd.

Finally, they produced the moment of the festival as they pulled out their party trick, making their way into the crowd to perform ‘Shaker Hymns’ acoustically. The audience immediately around the band stood in hushed awe as Liddle’s haunting voice cut through the air, with no microphone or amplifiers in the way. We were definitely experiencing live music at its very best.

But disappointment came in an organisational form, as anyone who was near the front of Dry The River was turned away from a full O2 Academy 2, where for reasons known only to the organisers, Spector had been placed while the venue’s weekly indie club night, Propaganda was given priority in the main room.

Yet the many depressed Spector fans wandering through the streets found solace in an almost unbearably cute set from Lucy Rose at the Community Centre, followed by Peace, who catered well to the drunken state of a 1am audience. The evening ended as the audience joined the rest of the revels at Propaganda, and danced the night away like it was still festival season after all.

Shrewdbacca: George Lucas sells Star Wars franchise

0

In 1988 filmmakers, preservationists and businessmen went to Congress over legislation responding to a pressing concern amongst interest groups in the film industry. Flouting the Berne Convention for Moral Rights – which would prevent alteration of a cinematographic work by those looking to profit from its reinterpretation – renowned filmmakers such as Jimmy Stewart, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas testified on the importance of preserving a national ”cultural heritage”. Lucas said: ”People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behaviour, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society…A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.”

By 1996 his attitude seems to have changed. Lucas began working on the first of many repackagings of the Star Wars films – in 2004 and 2006 for DVD, and in 2011 for a horrifically expensive Blu-ray remaster. In the 1980s, Lucas batted against the colorization and other manipulations of classic films in the name of ”cultural heritage”; more recently, he has exploited every innovation in the special effects portfolio to tweak the udder of his wrinkled old cash cow.

Now, it’s not as if I see this as a desecration of a set of sacred artefacts – I don’t care about Star Wars. But hypocrisy riles me. Lucas, despite being one of Hollywood’s wealthiest and most business-minded filmmakers, is also one of its most outspoken critics.

He began his filmmaking career at the University of Southern Carolina, putting together edgy and artisanal anticapitalist political documentaries and “tonal poems”, structured around a piece of music or found sounds: ”1:42:08” centres on the noise of a Lotus in top gear. His filmmaking outpost, Skywalker Ranch, is located in Nicasio, California, rather than Hollywood – Lucas’s attempt to range his operation against the Hollywood moviemaking machine he has repeatedly condemned. Lucas says in the 2004 documentary “Empire of Dreams”, in one of countless interviews saturated with complaints against the commercialisation of cinema, that he is ”not happy that corporations have taken over the film industry.”

But, like the young and idealistic Anakin Skywalker, Lucas seems to have lost his way, growing into the leader of an evil empire: ”What I was trying to do was stay independent so that I could make the movies I wanted to make,” said Lucas in 2004. “But now I’ve found myself being the head of a corporation…I have become the very thing that I was trying to avoid.”

Star Wars was the first modern blockbuster. Its simple structure and morality – the battle of good and evil, light and dark, rebellion and empire – bolstered by expensive and foregrounded special effects and emphasis on action sequences, has served as the blueprint for much popular cinema. Most of all, it was the first film which was written to create a universe of possibility for merchandising. Though today a time before major releases necessarily corresponded with imperious marketing and PR campaigns may seem quaint and strange, the commoditisation of a film franchise was indeed relatively new in 1977. The films have spawned countless innovations in toys and games, and earned Lucas Films billions from clothing, collectables and convention culture. The franchise has, according to Bloomberg, garnered Lucas Films $4.54bn in ticket sales; merchandising has brought in more than $13.5bn.

Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with this – if parents want buy their brats overpriced replica lightsabers to beat their friends over the heads with rather than bits of old wood, that’s their prerogative. If 40 year-old virgins want to fill their garages full of taxidermised Wookies and rows of plastic action figures, good for them. But there’s a hypocrisy in Lucas’s self-cultivated outsider stance which, in the light of this corporate sovereignty, strikes me as unmerited and pretentious.

This week, Lucasfilm, which is 100% owned by the director, was sold for $4.05bn dollars to Disney, with a view to the creation of more Star Wars flicks. Some critics have suggested Lucas has sold out. My point is that he sold out long ago. And it is unsurprising that the rhetoric of ‘cultural heritage’ has been wheeled out again in the context of this new move: “For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next,” Lucas has said. “I’ve always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime.”

But perhaps more than the money, experts say Lucas was also taking steps to ensure the future of his vision and ideas. Disney says it will produce ‘Star Wars Episode 7” for release in theatres worldwide in 2015, and will release more films every two to three years, projects which Lucas will join as a ‘creative consultant’. “I felt like I wanted to put the company somewhere in a larger entity that would protect it,” Lucas told reporters this week. “We could go on making Star Wars for the next 100 years.” This explains why Lucas has done this now – he wants to ensure that his legacy is not distorted by its inheritors while he still can. So much for ”cultural heritage”.

But there’s another rationale behind Lucas’s timing. Long-term capital gains tax from the sale of assets held for more than one year are currently taxed at a rate of 15% for investors in the 25% income-tax bracket or above, the level in which Lucas lies, and at 0% for investors in the 10% or 15% bracket. In January 2013, those rates are due to increase to 20% and 10% respectively. Lucas, surrounding himself with the finest legal advisors in the country, has designed the sale to take advantage of the lower rates on long-term capital gain while they are certain to exist. What we’re talking about here is not merely an example of financial savvy, but actually a form of legal tax evasion. The same kind of tax evasion that has earned a number of figures, including Eduardo Saverin, one of the founding partners of Facebook, public condemnation, media derision and government criticism in recent months. I doubt though that the billionaire director’s manipulations will undergo the same kind of scrutiny.

In any case, we can see that Lucas is not the devout anticapitalist he claims to be.    

Interview: Robin Hanbury-Tenison

0
“That’s Chico,” he says airily, gesturing at what looks like a dead parrot on top of the wardrobe. “Picked him up in the Amazon. Spent 15 years in my deep-freeze. Rather tatty really.”
I’m standing, slightly bemused, in the rural Cornwall home of Robin Hanbury-Tenison, the remarkable man celebrated as our greatest living explorer. In a nearby cabinet, there’s an elegantly carved ostrich egg (“my only water-carrier when crossing the Kalahari with bushmen”), and hovering mysteriously over the mantlepiece there’s a gaudy headdress from Borneo that apparently has something sinister to do with head-hunting. The living room seethes with the slightly improbable.
On leaving Oxford in 1957, he promptly undertook the first overland crossing to Sri Lanka (interrupted, admittedly, by a brief desert abduction by Afghan horsemen). Within a few short years, he had become the first to travel the full length of South America by river, ride the Great Wall of China, cross South America at its greatest width, and – faintly surprisingly – hovercraft his way over the Orinoco. He was the first to climb the forbidding Mount Roraima single-handedly, and that was something of an impromptu accident. And he has the most evocative ringbinders I’ve ever seen, if that’s a thing – “Siberut 1972”, “Africa 1969”, “Sulawesi 1974”, and on through the world. 
As he carefully pours the tea and gestures warmly towards a fruit cake, it is – for a fleeting moment – hard to imagine this affable man rafting alone through the wilds of Brazil or sleeping rough under a Saharan night-sky. At one point, he impersonates a tropical spider with a chocolate brownie. But as he recounts each extraordinary episode (smuggling himself over borders under moonlight, becoming a godfather to a Penan child in Sarawak, debating with island chieftains dozens of miles off Sumatra), it becomes clear that it’s the human encounters that really grip him. He has an extremely acute social conscience. This is a man who, when meeting the legendary activist Claudio Villas Boas deep in the Brazilian interior, was hailed as the “first sign” of a visionary new enlightenment. Villas Boas may well have been right: Hanbury-Tenison co-founded the world’s first charity for indigenous groups, Survival International, the self-described “movement for tribal peoples”, 43 years ago. And he hasn’t paused for breath since.
“Explorers,” he remarks dryly, with his hands clasped as through reciting a confessional, “are very selfish people.” This seems like unnecessary self-flagellation, but he continues: “It’s riven with clichés, but we’re all into finding the last blue mountain and all that. We want a bit of supremacy. And why? Because we’re inadequate in some way. It’s no coincidence that many explorers had powerful fathers and domineering mothers.”  
It was during his childhood, spent in rural Ireland, that the first hints of this remarkable character began to show. I ask rather bluntly how he can bear the loneliness of exploring. The reply is quick and succinctly logical. “I’ve always been good at coping,” he says. “From the age of seven, I’d happily sleep alone in a treehouse on the island in the middle of the lake. Not many children get to do that.” I put it to him that not many children want to do that. “Yeah,” He ponders momentarily. “Then I don’t know what it was. Maybe having a sibling in the war?” There’s a pause. “I was able to endure solitude,” he declares eventually.
As a child, did he dream of travel? “Yes, always. It’s just born in you, I suppose. I was – and am – eclectic.” When I ask which historical explorer he feels most affinity to, he answers instantly: Humboldt, the great Prussian scientist. “He was brilliant – the last of the great Renaissance men exploring.” He smiles modestly. “But really I’m not at all a Humboldt. I’m just lucky enough to have been there. I just get things done and change things.”
Hanbury-Tenison loves science – or, at least, scientists, insisting, “I’ve learnt the art of provoking scientists into speaking like human beings.” Sounding guiltily romantic, he muses, “There’s a genus of butterfly called Idea. It looks a bit like a lace handkerchief. I used to enjoy watching lepidopterists pursue an Idea through the forest.” He grins warmly. “That really sums it up for me.” 
But his memories are as poignant as they are poetic. He recalls accompanying a military expedition through Panama in 1972, on the way seeking out the defiant Cuna Indians on the mysterious Darien Gap. There, under the astonished eyes of a tribal congress, he endured the grotesque experience of having to explain that their ancestral lands were shortly to be inundated by a vast government dam. “There are huge forces opposed to people and terrible things happening all over the world,” he proclaims, with a defiance that catches me off-guard. “If you’re looking for a cause to support, there’s none greater than tribal peoples.”
Three years earlier, he had been dispatched to survey and encourage the ailing indigenous populations in Brazil, after a British journalist published a gruesome exposé of the abduction, intimidation, and ethnic cleansing of thousands of tribespeople. He has dark memories of an almost cinematic encounter with a high-level apparatchik in this shadowy realm of the Brazilian government. “I mean he wasn’t Germanic, but the man sounded like Hitler,” he grimaces. “He basically tethered me to a spy. Mr Romalio, Jr. A dreadful man.” He whispers in a mock-conspiratorial tone. “Our mission was to get round behind him and charm people.”
His work has of course not won everyone round, but that is perhaps unavoidable. There’s a perilously slim line between protection and paternalism. Critics call for an organised programme to integrate marginal groups into the modern, global village. By this stage in our conversation I was a convert, but I muster a sceptical tone so Cherwell’s worldly readers don’t think me totally besotted. Mightn’t he be denying opportunities for tribal peoples by promoting their isolation? What if a hundred Newtons or Einsteins have been confined to some neglected tropical forest? The veteran explorer frowns severely. “No, no, no,” he stutters in staccato. “Now you’re being ethnocentric. Deeply racist. Victorian.” 
The problem with integration, he explains, is the inevitable loss of dignity on the part of indigenous peoples. “It is important to have a strong culture. Everyone needs a culture against which to fight.” He views societies and their traditions as distinct and accountable only on their own terms. Tragically, his best friend was killed in a surprise attack by tribespeople in the Brazilian rainforest, but he thinks blaming the attackers is unthinkable, even nonsensical. You can’t cross-pollinate values and principles without degrading something: “Teaching property rights is not a good plan. Anyway, there’s something wrong with us,” he ventures, rather boldly. “We don’t have culture.”
How does he feel about being labelled “the greatest explorer of the past 20 years”? He laughs, disarmingly. “I don’t actually believe my own propaganda, but somebody had to put it forward. So I say, I know it’s tough, but I’ll take the glory.”
He takes it discreetly; he is astonishingly modest. I look back at stuffed Chico, who is still (unsurprisingly) surveying the living room aloofly. The great explorer is, by now, settling down on the sofa with the TV schedule, but I can’t resist asking “where next?” Is he tempted to track down the remaining uncontacted groups scattered across the Amazon? He closes his eyes serenely. “One longs to go down and say hi. But, of course, they’d kill you.” A wry smile flashes across his face, and he grins suddenly. “To which I say: very properly.”

“That?” he says airily, gesturing at what looks like a dead parrot on top of the wardrobe. “That’s Chico. Picked him up in the Amazon. Spent fifteen years in my deep-freeze. Rather tatty really.”

I’m standing, slightly bemused, in the rural, Cornish home of Robin Hanbury-Tenison – the remarkable man celebrated as our greatest living explorer. In a nearby cabinet, there’s an elegantly carved ostrich egg (“my only water-carrier when crossing the Kalahari with bushmen”), and hovering mysteriously over the mantlepiece there’s a gaudy headdress from Borneo that apparently has something sinister to do with head-hunting. The living room seethes with the slightly improbable.

The world is made of two sorts of people: couch potatoes and Robin Hanbury-Tenison. Keeping up with his myriad exploits is like interviewing Indiana Jones squared. “I could leave a good party at five o’clock and be on a camel by nightfall,” he laughs, without a hint of irony.

On leaving Oxford in 1957, he promptly undertook the first overland crossing to Sri Lanka (interrupted, admittedly, by a brief desert abduction by Afghan horsemen). Within a few short years, he had become the first to travel the full length of South America by river, ride the Great Wall of China, cross South America at its greatest width, and – faintly surprisingly – hovercraft his way over the Orinoco. He was the first to climb the forbidding Mount Roraima single-handedly, and that was even something of an impromptu accident. And (bear with me) he has the most evocative ringbinders I’ve ever seen, if that’s a thing – “Siberut 1972”, “Africa 1969”, “Sulawesi 1974”, and on through the world. He’s now in his seventies, and the globetrotting folders are still spreading from wall to wall.

As he carefully pours the tea and gestures warmly towards a fruitcake, it is – for a fleeting moment – hard to imagine this affable man rafting alone through the wilds of Brazil or sleeping rough under a Saharan night-sky. At one point, he impersonates a tropical spider with a chocolate brownie. But as he recounts each extraordinary episode (smuggling himself over borders under moonlight, becoming a godfather to a Penan child in Sarawak, debating with island chieftains dozens of miles off Sumatra), it becomes clear that it’s the human encounters that really grip him. He has an extremely acute social conscience. This is a man who, when meeting the legendary activist Claudio Villas Boas deep in the Brazilian interior, was hailed as the “first sign” of a visionary new enlightenment. Villas Boas may well have been right: Hanbury-Tenison co-founded the world’s first charity for indigenous groups, Survival International, the self-described “movement for tribal peoples”, forty-three years ago, and hasn’t paused for breath since.

But what are explorers, today? “Explorers,” he remarks dryly, with his hands clasped as through reciting a confessional, “are very selfish people”. This seems like unnecessary self-flagellation, but he continues. “It’s riven with clichés, but we’re all into finding the last blue mountain and all that. We want a bit of supremacy. And why? Because we’re inadequate in some way. It’s no coincidence that many explorers had powerful fathers and domineering mothers.”  

It was during his childhood, wiled away in rural Ireland, that the first hints of this incredible character began to show. How do you bear the loneliness, I demand rather bluntly. The reply is quick and succinctly logical. “I’ve always been good at coping. From the age of seven, I’d happily sleep alone in a treehouse on the island in the middle of the lake. Not many children get to do that.” I put it to him that not many children want to do that. “Yeah.” He ponders momentarily. “Then I don’t know what it was. Maybe having a sibling at the war?” There’s a pause. “I was able to endure solitude,” he declares, finally.

As a child, did he dream of travel? “Yes, always. It’s just born in you, I suppose. I was – and am – eclectic.” When I ask which historical explorer he feels most affinity to, he answers instantly: Humboldt, the great Prussian scientist. “He was brilliant, the last of the great Renaissance men exploring.” He smiles modestly. “But really I’m not at all a Humboldt. I’m just lucky enough to have been there. I just get things done and change things.”

Hanbury-Tenison loves science – or, at least, scientists. “I’ve learnt the art of provoking scientists into speaking like human beings,” he laughs, then looks sheepish. “There’s a genus of butterfly called Idea,” he muses, sounding guiltily romantic. “It looks a bit like a lace handkerchief. I used to enjoy watching lepidopterists pursue an Idea through the forest.” He grins warmly. “That really sums it up for me.”

But his memories are as much poignant as they are poetic. He recalls accompanying a military expedition through Panama in 1972, on the way seeking out the defiant Cuna Indians on the mysterious Darien Gap. There, under the astonished eyes of a tribal congress, he endured the grotesque experience of having to explain that their ancestral lands were shortly to be inundated by a vast government dam. “There are huge forces opposed to people and terrible things happening all over the world,” he proclaims, with a defiance that catches me off-guard. “If you’re looking for a cause to support, it doesn’t come greater than with tribal peoples.”

Three years earlier, he had been dispatched to survey and encourage the ailing indigenous populations in Brazil, after a British journalist published a gruesome exposé of the abduction, intimidation, and ethnic cleansing of thousands of tribes-people. It’s a chapter of world history still disturbingly below the cultural radar. He has dark memories of an almost cinematic encounter with a high-level apparatchik in this shadowy realm of the Brazilian government. “I mean he wasn’t Germanic, but the man sounded like Hitler,” he grimaces. “He basically tethered me to a spy. Mr Romalio, Jr. A dreadful man.” He whispers in a mock-conspiratorial tone. “Our mission was to get round behind him and charm people.”

His work has, of course, not charmed everyone, but that’s perhaps unavoidable. There’s a perilously slim line between protection and paternalism. Critics have repeatedly called for an organised programme to integrate marginal groups into the modern, global village. By this stage in our conversation, I might as well have been Survival’s biggest convert, but I muster a sceptical voice so Cherwell’s worldly readers won’t think I was totally besotted. Mightn’t you be denying opportunities for tribal peoples by promoting their isolation? What if a hundred Darwins and Newtons have been confined to some neglected tropical forest? The veteran explorer frowns severely. “No, no, no,” he stutters, in near-outraged staccato. “Now you’re being ethnocentric. Deeply racist. Victorian.”

The biggest problem with integration, he explains, is the inevitable loss of dignity on the part of indigenous peoples. “It is important to have a strong culture. Everyone needs a culture against which to fight.” He views societies and their traditions as distinct, definable, accountable only on their own terms. Tragically, his best friend was killed in a surprise attack by tribes-people in the Brazilian rainforest, but, he claims, blaming the attackers has always been unthinkable, even nonsensical. You can’t cross-pollinate values and principles without degrading something. “Teaching property rights”, for instance, “is not a good plan. And anyway, there’s something wrong with us,” he ventures, rather boldly. “We don’t have culture.”

The world, he says, is on a relentless path towards ecological tragedy. “We are reaching tipping points.” Is he optimistic? “We could go back to being hunter-gatherers – which of course I’d love – but it isn’t very practical. My main book I’m working on is an answer to all this, but” – he smiles – “I’m not going to reveal it to Cherwell just yet. Watch this space.” I watch. He looks like he’s weighing up whether to mention something. “Alright,” he concedes. “It’s basically about geoengineering. The time has come to grasp the nettle. It’s what we’ve been trying to do since the first shaman tried to make it rain. The only difference is now we can do it.”

How does he feel about being labelled “the greatest explorer of the past twenty years”? He laughs, disarmingly. “I don’t actually believe my own propaganda, but somebody had to put it forward. So I say, I know it’s tough, but I’ll take the glory.”

If he does take the glory, I think privately, he does it rather discreetly; he is astonishingly modest. I look back at taxidermic Chico, who is still (unsurprisingly) surveying the living room aloofly. The great explorer is, by now, settling down on the sofa with the TV schedule, but I can’t resist asking “where next?” Is he tempted to track down the remaining uncontacted groups scattered across the Amazon? He closes his eyes serenely. “One longs to go down and say hi. But, of course, they’d kill you.” A wry smile flashes across his face, and he grins suddenly. “To which I say: very properly.”

Interview: Japandroids

0

Any music fan worth their salt will have heard of Japandroids. All those still earning their musical stripes will find it worth their while getting to know the duo. For the uninitiated, Japandroids, aside from having the best pun in their name this side of Camper Van Beethoven, are one of the most exciting Canadian bands of the new millennium. In a Canadian indie scene that is flowing over with talent (Arcade Fire, The New Pornographers, Broken Social Scene, etc.), Japandroids have become legendary for their live prowess and their energy.

Any music fan worth their salt will have heard of Japandroids. All those still earning their musical stripes will find it worth their while getting to know the duo. For the uninitiated, Japandroids, aside from having the best pun in their name this side of Camper Van Beethoven, are one of the most exciting Canadian bands of the new millennium. In a Canadian indie scene that is flowing over with talent (Arcade Fire, The New Pornographers, Broken Social Scene, etc.), Japandroids have become legendary for their live prowess and their energy.
Their most recent album, Celebration Rock, is a collection of five-minute bursts of visceral rock music, drums crashing, guitars wailing and snarling, and voices shouting above the fray. Fans of the band’s debut album, Post-Nothing, will find the idea of the vocals being above the mix a little foreign. In Post-Nothing, the vocals hovered beneath the music, never quite breaking free. Dave Prowse, on drums and vocals, confirmed that this album marks a change in the way they work: “We´re becoming less ashamed of our voices as time goes on, so we’re less and less shy about bringing them up in the mix.  For a long time, the vocals and lyrics were an afterthought in the songwriting process, whereas now they are as important as the music.”
The music is certainly important, as their legions of fans across the world will attest. The two members of the band are influenced by an impressive number of great artists – “The Sonics, Constantines, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and Mclusky” to name a few. The influence of shoegaze also looms large, without ever allowing their music to descend into the somnambulant noodlings of so many noisier artists.
However, as excellent as the recordings are, it seems the heart of Japandroids lies in live performance. Prowse acknowledges the importance of recorded output as a permanent mark left on the musical world. He insists, however, that the Japandroids “started playing in a band because we wanted to play shows, and playing live is still what I love most about being in a band.” 
Nowadays, Japandroids play gigs across the world, and across Canada, although the life of a Canadian touring band is a difficult one – “Canada is such a gigantic land mass with very few people, so touring across Canada involves a lot of long, long drives.” They still manage to cover the three main cities – Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal – but this unfortunately leaves many smaller cities Japandroidless. 
This must be especially galling given the global touring schedule that Japandroids regularly undertake, covering Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Greece, Russia, Iceland, and Costa Rica. This is in part due to the support of internet tastemakers such as Pitchfork. Prowse admits as much: “I don’t think we would have been able to go to those places without the help of the internet, and the ease with which music can travel these days. Of course, some bands will always get more attention than others, but you can find anything you want online, and that’s amazing.” 
This attention has fundamentally changed their lives (back before Post-Nothing they had perfectly normal existence) “working day jobs, playing shows on weekends, going on small tours when we could get the time off from work.” Nowadays, they have the opportunity to do what they love as their day job. Prowse is not naïve, however, and realises how far there is yet to go. “It has been incredibly exciting, and we are very aware of how lucky we are, but at times it has been a difficult transition. We’re still learning how to be a ‘real’ band, and we still have a long way to go.”
Celebration Rock starts and ends with the sound of distant fireworks. Perhaps this is a celebration not only of rock, or of how far the band has come, but of what lies before them. Or perhaps, as Prowse points out, they “just like having an excuse to light fireworks.” Fair enough, they deserve it!
Japandroids are currently touring.

Their most recent album, Celebration Rock, is a collection of five-minute bursts of visceral rock music, drums crashing, guitars wailing and snarling, and voices shouting above the fray. Fans of the band’s debut album, Post-Nothing, will find the idea of the vocals being above the mix a little foreign. In Post-Nothing, the vocals hovered beneath the music, never quite breaking free. Dave Prowse, on drums and vocals, confirmed that this album marks a change in the way they work: “We´re becoming less ashamed of our voices as time goes on, so we’re less and less shy about bringing them up in the mix.  For a long time, the vocals and lyrics were an afterthought in the songwriting process, whereas now they are as important as the music.”

The music is certainly important, as their legions of fans across the world will attest. The two members of the band are influenced by an impressive number of great artists – “The Sonics, Constantines, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and Mclusky” to name a few. The influence of shoegaze also looms large, without ever allowing their music to descend into the somnambulant noodlings of so many noisier artists.

However, as excellent as the recordings are, it seems the heart of Japandroids lies in live performance. Prowse acknowledges the importance of recorded output as a permanent mark left on the musical world. He insists, however, that the Japandroids “started playing in a band because we wanted to play shows, and playing live is still what I love most about being in a band.”

Nowadays, Japandroids play gigs across the world, and across Canada, although the life of a Canadian touring band is a difficult one – “Canada is such a gigantic land mass with very few people, so touring across Canada involves a lot of long, long drives.” They still manage to cover the three main cities – Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal – but this unfortunately leaves many smaller cities Japandroidless.

This must be especially galling given the global touring schedule that Japandroids regularly undertake, covering Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Greece, Russia, Iceland, and Costa Rica. This is in part due to the support of internet tastemakers such as Pitchfork. Prowse admits as much: “I don’t think we would have been able to go to those places without the help of the internet, and the ease with which music can travel these days. Of course, some bands will always get more attention than others, but you can find anything you want online, and that’s amazing.”

This attention has fundamentally changed their lives (back before Post-Nothing they had perfectly normal existence) “working day jobs, playing shows on weekends, going on small tours when we could get the time off from work.” Nowadays, they have the opportunity to do what they love as their day job. Prowse is not naïve, however, and realises how far there is yet to go. “It has been incredibly exciting, and we are very aware of how lucky we are, but at times it has been a difficult transition. We’re still learning how to be a ‘real’ band, and we still have a long way to go.”

Celebration Rock starts and ends with the sound of distant fireworks. Perhaps this is a celebration not only of rock, or of how far the band has come, but of what lies before them. Or perhaps, as Prowse points out, they “just like having an excuse to light fireworks.” Fair enough, they deserve it!

Japandroids are currently touring.

Kerry: From Kitten to Kat-ona

0

From munching cockroaches in the jungle to snorting coke and singing what could arguably be dubbed karaoke, the name Kerry Katona conjures some controversial images. Katona has been in the limelight since she first rose to stardom nearly fifteen years ago as a member of pop sensation Atomic Kitten, at the young and innocent (or not-so-innocent, in Katona’s case) age of seventeen. Yes, we all remember the songs. (Well, I remember the songs, and they’re probably still being played in Park End.) She’s appeared in pretty much every reality show you can think of and seems to have lived about seven lives in one (what else could we expect from a former Kitten?). A former self-confessed drug addict, however, the limelight hasn’t always been positive.

Despite this, it’s hard to believe that this bubbly, open and down-to-earth woman sitting in front of me is the same one that hit the headlines five years ago for a very notorious This Morning interview in which her slurred speech provoked accusations. Katona has come an incredibly long way in the past three years, cleaning up her act with the help of Nik and Eva Speakman, two highly optimistic life coaches who have cured hundreds of patients over the course of their twenty year career, not least Kym Marsh, as well as somebody suffering from a severe case of button phobia. Overcoming bipolar disorder, a heavy drug addiction and an extremely controlling ex-husband, Mark Croft, Katona turned her life around with the help of these “Schema Conditioning Psychotherapists.”

Katona didn’t have an easy upbringing. “My first memory is when my mum slit her wrists”, she openly states. She was three. She frequently witnessed her mum taking drugs, and it’s easy to see how Katona’s problems began.

When I ask her about her Atomic Kitten days, she laughs as if it were something wholly alien to her. For a moment I get the sickening fear I’ve got the wrong girl. “What?!” It turns out it’s just so long ago nobody really asks her about it any more. “I was out in a night-club and a guy came and asked me if I wanted to be a backing dancer for his band. I went along and started pretending to play the keyboard, wearing revealing clothes. He asked me if I wanted to front a new band and I said ‘Oh okay, thank you so much.’” At just seventeen, Katona had never been to an audition before.

“But I went along with my page three photographs, my wicked sense of humour and my amazing singing voice. I told a few jokes, sang a few songs and became the founding member of Atomic Kitten”, she declares with bags of light-hearted irony. Four weeks after getting Natasha Hamilton on board, the band got a record deal. Had she done any professional singing before? “I’d only sung in local karaoke bars. I used to go around to all the pubs entering the competitions.”

When I ask her somewhat tentatively if she is still in touch with the other band members, the answer is positive. “I spoke to Liz today!” I ask her yet more tentatively if she would consider a return to the music industry. “Absolutely, watch this space. More likely than unlikely.” I start to get more than a little excited at the vague prospect of a reunion and an excuse to break out all those explosive (or, one might say, atomic) nineties dance routines classily choreographed in my school playground.

We move swiftly on to Katona’s experiences in I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here. What made her willingly volunteer to live for sixteen days in an Australian rainforest with venomous spiders, witchetty grubs and, deadliest of all, Jordan and Peter? Contrariness, it would seem.

“Everybody said I wouldn’t do it. I like to prove people wrong. I got a phone call for the third series inviting me to the audition, so I thought I’d go along.” She got through. “I shat myself”, she jokes. “I was in hospitals having panic attacks! And when I got there, especially when it came to the eating challenge, what actually got me through was knowing that everyone at home was watching it and saying, ‘she won’t do that’, and I thought, ‘just watch!’”

The hardest part? “Missing my kids. I missed Lilly’s 1st birthday.” And what did then-husband Brian McFadden think? “He didn’t want me to do it.” We briskly move away from a subject that I can tell is a touchy one.

And yet Katona certainly did prove people wrong, going on to be crowned Queen of the Jungle in the infamous series that saw Jordan the glamour model and Peter Andre the one-hit-wonder become Katie Price the horse-lover and, well, Peter Andre the two-hit-wonder.

Katona is extremely modest. Eva Speakman thinks that’s what people liked about her. “Obviously we didn’t know you then, but we watched that whole show and you just became the nation’s sweetheart.” “I still am!” Katona jovially replies. “I didn’t get it or understand it. I thought the viewers had forgotten that I was in there, I didn’t have a story line. I actually sat there thinking, ‘I don’t think they’re showing me on the TV you know.’” Did she watch any of it afterwards? Yes. “I thought ‘Oh my God I’m such a tit!’ It was like watching back your home videos. I didn’t actually get picked to do many challenges because I was just awesome”, she states, again with more than a hint of irony.

Much of the interview is filled with these hearty laughs and self-mocking statements. Katona is entertaining and energetic, and I get the feeling she is one of those admirably good-humoured people who knows how to laugh at her (self-confessedly hilarious) self. Swigging away at her lager and lime while Eve and Nick sip their tea, Katona pokes fun at them; “Oh yes thanks for the cups of tea! Whatever!”

I grill her on Celebrity Big Brother. “I enjoyed I’m A Celebrity more.” Why? “Because I won that, I only came runner-up in Big Brother!” About the experience, she says, “Big Brother was a bit like rehab. I felt quite intimidated, even though in the jungle I was with Katie Price, one of the biggest glamour models ever. We were all stripped of our makeup there though.” I ask her what it was like to be under constant surveillance. “You completely forget about the cameras.” Katona says the hardest thing was not knowing what was happening in the outside world. As she recalls getting to speak to her daughter on her tenth birthday, she gesticulates in a melodramatic crying impression that is characteristic of her unashamedly outgoing personality.

Katona admits she did Big Brother partly for the money. She was declared bankrupt in 2008 during a tough period of her life whilst still with ex-husband Mark Croft and still fully in the midst of her addictions.

So what has Katona learnt from battling with her painful past? “Never believe what you’re told.” Katona was diagnosed with the “worst case” of bipolar disorder and told she would be on prescription drugs for the rest of her life. When she met The Speakmans, that all changed. Using a treatment that consists in identifying “schema” (unconscious memories dating back to childhood that influence the way we behave) they work with patients to condition the mind into perceiving more positively. The therapists worked on changing Katona’s first memory, one which had produced feelings of inadequacy. By conditioning that “schema”, their story was one of success. “There’s always a resolution”, says Eva. Her support for the new, reformed Katona is clear. “I love listening to the way you talk now. You’re really positive.”

 

Eva and Nik Speakman have treated each other to cure their own phobias and are firm believers of nurture over nature. “I came from a challenging background”, states Eva Speakman. “I was a smoker and a drinker. I turned it around through what we learnt. I listened to this tape about creating your life and I was amazed at how it helped transform me.”

Katona has a new autobiography, Still Standing, coming out on November 22nd. When I ask her what it was like to write of her painful experiences, her response is immediate, and markedly less jovial than before; “horrendous.”

“I absolutely hated it”. She says that her first autobiography, Too Much Too Young, published in 2006, was a lot easier; “it was like therapy. After I did it I thought, that’s not really my fault, it was my childhood and it was out of my control. This second book is so raw and honest. It is about things that I chose to do. When it got read back to me I felt so ashamed and embarrassed by it. It’s like I don’t even know who this person is in the first half of the book.”

Yet Katona remains positive. “I’ve been open and honest, and I’ve come out the other end. In a way I’m glad it’s there in black and white, on paper, in a book. If I ever feel like going down that road again, I can read it and think sod that for a bag of… whatever the saying is.” And in a flash Katona is joking and giggling and back to her jolly old self.

When I ask Katona how living in the public eye has affected her, she makes this comparison; “If you walk outside and trip over running to the bus stop, the old lady sees you. I trip over and the whole world sees me. But there might not be any difference in our personal lives.”

And her first experiences of public exposure? “We’d been doing The Big Breakfast for a week and we went to a nightclub. I hated it, I had Tom, Dick and Harry constantly asking me for pictures, I didn’t like the attention, so I started having more drinks before going out, doing lines.” It seems the constant public exposure made its mark on Katona.

“I’m not an arrogant person, I’m not ignorant”, she states. Eva Speakman defends her unquestioningly: “She is one of the most genuine, endearing, kind and, believe it or not, normal people you could ever wish to meet. Kerry actually hasn’t changed. The public’s perception has, but she hasn’t. She has no delusions of grandeur. What I love about Kerry is that if people ask her for a picture, she’s always so accommodating, so kind. She makes every single person that comes up to her feel like an individual. She’s really inspirational, honestly.”

And I can’t help believing her. There’s no pretence about Katona, and her brutal, energetic honesty about a dark past is admirable. Of course, she makes a characteristic joke that she’s only prepared to have a picture if she’s being paid “a fiver” for it. Yet I know instantly that Katona is joking. After a short period of time I’ve already warmed to the genuine, open and seemingly light-hearted woman that was, just a few years ago, at the extreme end of the bipolar spectrum and on the brink of death. Katona has most certainly turned her life around, and something tells me she’s not going to back down now.

Fan-tash-tic!

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6188%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6189%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

Martha Newson shows
us how Movember
should be done, at the
2012 British Beard
and Moustache
Championships

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6190%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6191%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6192%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6193%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6194%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6195%%[/mm-hide-text]

 

 

 

Screenwriters Losing the Plot

0

 

n a recent episode of Mythbusters, the TV show that attempts to prove/debunk popular misconceptions, the presenters took on a singularly contentious task. They were to ascertain whether Rose and Jack could both have fitted on that floating door at the end of Titanic. The subject has been something of a running joke on the internet for years, with many opining that both could easily have fitted, but it also seems to be a point of irritation for the film’s director, James Cameron, who recently muttered that it was a question of buoyancy, not space, and of keeping enough of the body out of the water (80%) to avoid hypothermia 
The Mythbusters team found that indeed, buoyancy was an issue; that is, until they had the bright idea to slide Rose’s lifejacket under the door. Hey presto, extra buoyancy; they could have both survived. Unfortunately, James Cameron’s response to this wasn’t an indulgent chuckle; nor did he allow for any change in the interpretation of the film’s ending. Instead, he said (to paraphrase),“Well, maybe we screwed up on that; we should have made the door smaller. But the fact is, the script says he’s gonna die. He was a goner.” 
Some of the connotations of Cameron’s statements are a little troubling. He could have noted the unlikelihood of Rose coming up with such an ingenious solution in the middle of a freezing ocean; perhaps even acknowledging that the possibility of Jack’s survival heightens the tragedy of his demise. But for Cameron, it is enough to say that it happened because it had to happen; because that’s what the script demanded. For me, this has a negative impact on my exprerience of the film: rather than the writing justifying the events that happen, they just happen and the audience is left to try and justify them in their own heads, or, rather, as James Cameron seems to suggest, forgo becoming engaged at all and accept things as they come.
It’s similar to problems I had with the recent run of Doctor Who, particularly the last episode. At the end of ‘The Angels Take Manhattan’, long-time companions Amy and Rory were banished to 1938, with only the explanation that the titular hero couldn’t travel back in time to reach them due to a paradox previously created. Sure, that seems implausible but it’s a science-fiction show; you have to try and embrace these ridiculous rules. However, viewers were quick to point out a gaping problem with this ending: if the Doctor couldn’t return to 1938 New York, couldn’t he go and visit, say, five years later? Or could he not even visit another country in the same year? Presumably there is some sci-fi timey-wimey reason that this couldn’t happen, but it isn’t made clear.
 As it is, if Doctor Who ever returns to a World War II setting (pretty likely), the emotional impact of the episode will be completely undermined. As it stands, it was hard to feel sorrow for the departure of the Ponds, except in the immediate void caused by their absence. If anything, though, this was more frustrating than upsetting; there wasn’t a good enough reason for their departure in the writing, so it seemed unnecessary. With some more explanation, or a different ending, it wouldn’t have – if, for example, the script actually had the cojones to kill them off there’d be little issue at all.  Instead, in its increasingly desperate bids to exit characters conclusively without frightening the horses by actually killing anybody (we’ve had alternate reality and magic alien memory wipe of death previously), Doctor Who sabotages its own efficacy.
The issue with both Doctor Who’s finale and Jack’s death in Titanic is that they threaten the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy these films. In these and the many other narratively challenged productions, it’s possible to become very aware that things are happening because they have to, rather than because the plot up to that point means that these events have been justified. It’s a jolting realisation, seeing behind the curtain like this, and in my mind it really undermines the potency of both endings. It’s more explicit in Doctor Who – even in genre productions, we as the audience need to understand and accept why things had to happen the way that they did; that characters reason in a way we might in the same situation.
 The really annoying thing about the Titanic door debacle is that even with the Mythbusters findings, it would be possible to justify Jack’s death. It’s just that James Cameron’s pig-headed response implies that doing so is pointless; that blind acceptance is preferable to any degree of critical engagement. And that’s a terrible attitude in any creative medium.

In a recent episode of Mythbusters, the TV show that attempts to prove/debunk popular misconceptions, the presenters took on a singularly contentious task. They were to ascertain whether Rose and Jack could both have fitted on that floating door at the end of Titanic. The subject has been something of a running joke on the internet for years, with many opining that both could easily have fitted, but it also seems to be a point of irritation for the film’s director, James Cameron, who recently muttered that it was a question of buoyancy, not space, and of keeping enough of the body out of the water (80%) to avoid hypothermia.

The Mythbusters team found that indeed, buoyancy was an issue; that is, until they had the bright idea to slide Rose’s lifejacket under the door. Hey presto, extra buoyancy; they could have both survived. Unfortunately, James Cameron’s response to this wasn’t an indulgent chuckle; nor did he allow for any change in the interpretation of the film’s ending. Instead, he said (to paraphrase),“Well, maybe we screwed up on that; we should have made the door smaller. But the fact is, the script says he’s gonna die. He was a goner.” 

Some of the connotations of Cameron’s statements are a little troubling. He could have noted the unlikelihood of Rose coming up with such an ingenious solution in the middle of a freezing ocean; perhaps even acknowledging that the possibility of Jack’s survival heightens the tragedy of his demise. But for Cameron, it is enough to say that it happened because it had to happen; because that’s what the script demanded. For me, this has a negative impact on my exprerience of the film: rather than the writing justifying the events that happen, they just happen and the audience is left to try and justify them in their own heads, or, rather, as James Cameron seems to suggest, forgo becoming engaged at all and accept things as they come.

It’s similar to problems I had with the recent run of Doctor Who, particularly the last episode. At the end of ‘The Angels Take Manhattan’, long-time companions Amy and Rory were banished to 1938, with only the explanation that the titular hero couldn’t travel back in time to reach them due to a paradox previously created. Sure, that seems implausible but it’s a science-fiction show; you have to try and embrace these ridiculous rules. However, viewers were quick to point out a gaping problem with this ending: if the Doctor couldn’t return to 1938 New York, couldn’t he go and visit, say, five years later? Or could he not even visit another country in the same year? Presumably there is some sci-fi timey-wimey reason that this couldn’t happen, but it isn’t made clear. 

As it is, if Doctor Who ever returns to a World War II setting (pretty likely), the emotional impact of the episode will be completely undermined. As it stands, it was hard to feel sorrow for the departure of the Ponds, except in the immediate void caused by their absence. If anything, though, this was more frustrating than upsetting; there wasn’t a good enough reason for their departure in the writing, so it seemed unnecessary. With some more explanation, or a different ending, it wouldn’t have – if, for example, the script actually had the cojones to kill them off there’d be little issue at all.  Instead, in its increasingly desperate bids to exit characters conclusively without frightening the horses by actually killing anybody (we’ve had alternate reality and magic alien memory wipe of death previously), Doctor Who sabotages its own efficacy.

The issue with both Doctor Who’s finale and Jack’s death in Titanic is that they threaten the suspension of disbelief needed to enjoy these films. In these and the many other narratively challenged productions, it’s possible to become very aware that things are happening because they have to, rather than because the plot up to that point means that these events have been justified. It’s a jolting realisation, seeing behind the curtain like this, and in my mind it really undermines the potency of both endings. It’s more explicit in Doctor Who – even in genre productions, we as the audience need to understand and accept why things had to happen the way that they did; that characters reason in a way we might in the same situation. 

The really annoying thing about the Titanic door debacle is that even with the Mythbusters findings, it would be possible to justify Jack’s death. It’s just that James Cameron’s pig-headed response implies that doing so is pointless; that blind acceptance is preferable to any degree of critical engagement. And that’s a terrible attitude in any creative medium.