Friday, April 25, 2025
Blog Page 1662

Short Stories….

0

Black Flame

And when he heard and when he heard and I said yes. Mistakes steaming ahead and writhing in the sticky mud, I pushed it down and held you back up but did you hear it? The friction was the distance. It cradled the answers and advanced my hatred like a black flame that feeds on whatever it touches, it fattens and vomits and malfunctions and grows and spits and argues till no no no. It rolls away and magnifies and in the end I don’t know what I have.

The space was the killer. At least for you. Down with back to the side from the up past and it goes like GO behind you to I. You to I. From one end to the other and it keeps back again, water lily on the summer surface and I don’t know where I’m streaming will you help? Twisting round but the eyes are appearing and always, read, hurting me because I feel like I can see to the other end. Why can’t you throw yourself in? Is my gaze so repugnant to you, do you hurt because I remind you of the shame you buried when you sacrificed your mind?

Bubbling thrusting up violently the tip shards the skin and the rest will follow. Out far out so inconceivably out don’t pretend you don’t want it there. Don’t pretend here, the consequences are too dire and the pained answers you give will be held against you in the scorching craters of hell that is your smile.

I know what you’re thinking. 

 

234

Do you know what I felt on those jerky train rides? I stepped on the platform, my boots echoing on the dirty floor and my coat buttoned tightly. The fluorescent pink bag packed with artful inexperience, my clothes almost pushed out because I wanted strangers to see what I was carrying. The strangers mattered most of all, they mattered more than you or I ever realised. They counted the minutes, whispered when I wasn’t looking and ransacked my luggage. They provided the music. They told me when to stop, when to stride ahead though my desire was to go backwards; my words were fed through a funnel that I was desperate to imbibe because the illusions were sweet and acted like glue.

I picked up the closest crayon and coloured you in. Every brief glimpse of tangled hair, the hesitant smile and the ribbon around the wrist, all infused with a pulsating nostalgia that left you in its shadow as it assaulted every vacant opportunity. You drowned and it was my hand that held you under.

And I wanted to tell you which one was worse, but the truth is I wasn’t sure. She sat in the corner of the room with her back lining up against the wall, the sunlight coming through in a little patch that couldn’t reach her eyelids. I felt like there was a dagger somewhere thrust up, and my entrails were spilling out in a muddled heap on the floor staining the mahogany a sombre red. Amongst the blood and hope I tried to pick out all the things that were truly mine. I wanted to show it to you.

I wanted to give it all to you, shaped as it had been in my hand that sculpted it. I compressed it all, squeezed it down and forced it, I pushed my fingers in till the rubber released out through the gaps and I bit down, knowing my teeth could never pierce through without destroying what I had created. I made it all and I blamed you. I decorated it with trinkets and pendants, I threw in sand for good measure and I daubed it with my heart. I spread it all out and I perforated it, I let you handle something that loosened all over your hands. There it was, in a film that wouldn’t keep its hold as it ran faster and faster away from itself. It said yes then turned around and pushed you hard in the neck, it told you it was ok before crouching beneath you, sliding between your legs and slamming its elbow in the back of your knees. It told you go and keep going, but every second it was hurling itself against its jelly-like walls screaming at you, tearing its lungs apart screaming at you because nobody knew what was happening. The insides were straining and the outsides were pushing back in, it was all morphing and crashing and I didn’t know how to put it all. So I just said yes. Or nothing at all, they amounted to the same thing, didn’t they?

Of course neither of us was to blame. There’s a two faced with a three, but somehow we managed to make it equal four. And what’s so bad about that? When I stick my hands into the water I don’t know what I’m going to get. I’m no liar, but I’ll hold you to account. I will make you crawl through every detail, I’ll force you to relive and I’ll watch you tense. Rip you open, splinter by little splinter, and we’ll see who’s left on the lawn when the sun comes out. I’ll get you a gun and with my own face you. Twenty paces from each other I’ll align my eyes with yours, measure your shadow against mine and fire before the weight drags me down. The smile will handle the trigger.

And you and I know that is the only way. With fire I will combat more, and if you told me no I’d just pour more petrol till the flame hits the skyline and bursts back in on itself. Like a black flame that feeds on whatever it touches, it fattens and vomits and malfunctions and grows and spits and argues till no no no. It rolls away and magnifies and in the end I don’t know what I have.

None of it was mine. It was all stolen, forced and borrowed. The red, the black, the shirt, they’re all landmarks I use to remind me of a time that never existed. You told me yes they did. You soothed my cut and you enveloped my cheeks with your hands, you handed me water and warmed me. But through everything, through the knuckles and sandy backs, the sustenance, the music, the morning sun, you told me the wrong time. Printed in black as it stared out at me from the palm of my hand, I understood what had been stamped long before I came on the scene. Like waking up in the soft, constructed haven, I heard the relentless traffic noises stream through a cavity in the well-positioned window. A fishing rod was poked through the hole, nudging me in the hip and reminding me of the wet concrete and the sharp breeze that awaited my return. But you see what the trouble is, don’t you? I saw it so much faster than you did. I saw it so quickly I didn’t even register what had happened, it flitted past my consciousness but left its imprint to be revisited at leisure on the dankness of my wooden floor some time later. It passed me the answers and left back the way it came, but that was enough. That was the reason for my desperate plastering, for my entreaties and countless silences: I knew it had finished before it began.

Remember the things I’ve said when things get difficult. But best of all when they’re easy. Know that the great machine was set in motion in a way totally unconnected. I had no part in this; no part in me and no part in you. Like a rain daisy looking up and forever rooted to its position, dependent on the clemency of the heavens and praying that another doesn’t grow bigger and crumple its light. But  you never stretched far enough to see that when this flower dies, it spreads. 

 

I want you to sit in a corner

I want you to sit in a corner and think for a little bit. Tie your hands up and block the holes, admit no-one and act dead if you have to. Just because the mouth is silent doesn’t mean the thoughts are, but I never believed you to be stupid enough to think otherwise. Unless of course, you are, in which case stop reading because I’m not sure how much you’ll get out of it. Or if you’re a little bit sadistic then please carry on, it’s nice to be reminded where we fit every now and again. Actually what am I saying, do what you feel like. I don’t know who you are and I don’t know what I’m writing, but maybe you like that, yes? Capriciousness only hurts those who like their angles fixed.

He sat me down on the bed and asked me which I preferred out of lofty suffering and easy happiness.  I said I didn’t know what the difference was. He told me yes I did, or I wouldn’t have put the question to him. Stop playing with me, I said. You think you’re clever but you’re just capitalising on a smoky film, I know your game, I’ve had it tried on me enough times and that filth doesn’t wash. The dirt would be sufficiently thick to bury me in. And he slapped me round the face and poured shot glasses of water into my mouth, and told me that stains come out.

Did you know that? Head bent over the toilet, vomiting all the foulness that’s been poisoning my bloodstream since I took the first bite. All the bilious yellow gunk, all the insults, all the dog hairs and all the lies, all the pretty little kisses and the awkward barriers, all avalanching out whilst you hold back my hair and do all the things you should have done whilst the rice was still warm and the water was draining.

But, of course, there’s a time and place for it all. The hands don’t work out like they used to and the cycle is malfunctioning. But that’s a good thing, if we’re going to get all sentimental about it. It means there’s a little tadpole swimming around under the surface, tickled by the spring sun as it fights its way across something it doesn’t even know it’s in.

There’s a glow softening the wings, but it can only go so far before needing to refuel to reach further the next time. Each step is a better escape from the chain of no’s and suppressed anxieties, from the guessworks and the eardrums that were open to bursting.  Each one is an underformed yes in a jelly that releases its hold when the legs kick and the mouth bites, when the eyes are open wide enough and the thread is cut. When I stamp the envelope and send it with the pieces enclosed.

And you were right after all when you said I knew what the answer was. It turns out that one hurts and the other one doesn’t.

A Bluffer’s Guide to: George Bernard Shaw

0

 

The dude with the awesome beard, 
right?
The very same.  Facial hair based 
achievements aside, the Irish 
playwright and literary critic wrote 
for 65 years, and became a titan of 
literary, public and political life along 
the way.
So what’s he most famous for?
He was a dedicated Socialist, and 
founding member of the both the 
Fabian Society and the Labour Party. 
Of more general interest, he never 
once slept with his wife in their entire 
45 year marriage, but was still very 
keen on other men’s wives.
And the plays?
Were mostly just extensions of his 
political ideas.  They were about class 
divisions, villainous landlords and the 
failure of government, all presented in 
a darkly comic way that made them a 
hit with London audiences.
Sounds like a real radical.
Exactly    He  opposed  the  First  World 
War, and helped to found the New 
Statesmen and the London School of 
Economics.  On the other hand, he 
believed eugenics should be used to 
create a race of superhumans that 
would one day rule the world.  But his 
plays were very funny, so we normally 
just turn a blind eye to that.
Wow.  Were his plays that good?
He was (until Al Gore) the only person 
to win both a Nobel Prize and an 
Oscar.  He became extremely wealthy, 
and subsequently left a portion of 
his estate to the invention of a new 
phonetic alphabet, known today as 
Shavian.
Catch  your interest?  
Be ‘Shaw’ to see these: 
 Pygmalion
Heartbreak House
Man and Superman
Major Barbara

The dude with the awesome beard, right?

The very same.  Facial hair based achievements aside, the Irish playwright and literary critic wrote for 65 years, and became a titan of literary, public and political life along the way.

So what’s he most famous for?

He was a dedicated Socialist, and founding member of the both the Fabian Society and the Labour Party. Of more general interest, he never once slept with his wife in their entire 45 year marriage, but was still very keen on other men’s wives.

And the plays?

Were mostly just extensions of his political ideas.  They were about class divisions, villainous landlords and the failure of government, all presented in a darkly comic way that made them a hit with London audiences.Sounds like a real radical.Exactly    He  opposed  the  First  World War, and helped to found the New Statesmen and the London School of Economics.  On the other hand, he believed eugenics should be used to create a race of superhumans that would one day rule the world.  But his plays were very funny, so we normally just turn a blind eye to that.

Wow.  Were his plays that good?

He was (until Al Gore) the only person to win both a Nobel Prize and an Oscar.  He became extremely wealthy, and subsequently left a portion of his estate to the invention of a new phonetic alphabet, known today as Shavian.

Catch  your interest?  Be ‘Shaw’ to see these:  Pygmalion, Heartbreak House, Man and Superman, Major Barbara

 

Review: Killing Hitler

0

The rise, reign and fall of the Nazi party is, and always will be, fertile ground for theatre that aims to leave a lasting impression on its audience, and Killing Hitler is a worthy addition to this genre.  It tells the story of the July plot to assassinate Hitler (a plot familiar to film goers from Valkyrie), but from the perspective of Adam von Trott (Chris Williams), an Oxford alumnus with and equal love for the German nation and Oxford’s dreaming spires.

Williams’ first scene left me somewhat doubting his performance as the central character; I expected von Trott to be a charismatic force of nature, driving the whole production forward.  I came to realise however that that is not the case; Williams’ von Trott is the mild mannered, principled, gentlemanly Oxford scholar.  He is an honourable aristocrat, hopelessly outgunned by the modern world – the scene where, awaiting arrest, he tries to dictate a letter to The Times as a parting shot captures perfectly the noble futility of his character,

It is in such scenes that the wealth of thought and research put into the script shines through. Watching Clarita von Trott (Hannah Gliksten) read her husband’s final letter (gifted to the production by the von Trott family) is genuinely heartbreaking.  Not every scene reaches these heights, however.  Not content with the fascinating story they are  dramatising, the cast have pumped some scenes full of entirely unnecessary melodrama: Bishop Bell ‘s(Miles Lawrence) argument with Anthony Eden (Frederick Bowerman, a striking resemblance to the man himself) is nothing more than a display of blustering gestures, table banging, and exasperated gasps. 

Similarly, the interaction between an Oxford tutor and von Trott contains no quiet understatement, no unsaid feelings; just frustrated shouting. These scenes all share the characteristic of being ones of exposition, simply explaining the politics and rationale of appeasement: as such, the speeches made tend to read like GCSE history essays, perhaps explaining why such an exaggerated attempt has been made to enliven them.

They should, however, be helped greatly by the innovative staging planned by Lucie Dawkins – set in the Keble O’Reilly, the staging will consist of a series of rooms, each representing a different timeand place in the life of Adam von Trott, enveloped by the audience for what promises to be a hugely intimate performance.  Such a staging will hopefully lift the poorer scenes that I saw from being dire to, at very least, mediocre.

Nevertheless, a few poor performances should not spoil what otherwise looks to be a spectacular production.  When it is good, Killing Hitler is  unbelievably  good.    At its best, this play will elicit genuine emotion, as every scene builds on the last to create a sublime, moving, emotional portrait of an extraordinary man’s life.   And a little unwanted melodrama won’t spoil that.   

FOUR STARS

Review: Twelfth Night

0

There is something distinctly natal about Viola’s entrance to David Farr’s zany take on Twelfth Night. Erupting from a shimmering pool of blue water, Emily Taaffe lies gasping and spluttering in front of a slightly splashed front row, while behind her, a new and fantastic world begins to take shape. Farr has taken Olivia’s house of grief and transformed it into a clapped-out hotel, complete with French-style maids, an extraordinary mobility scooter and a genuinely rickety elevator. On the face of it, this probably shouldn’t work; on balance, it certainly does.

The Royal Shakespeare Company is, this summer, producing a trilogy of ‘shipwreck comedies’ – A Comedy of Errors, The Tempest, and Twelfth Night, in which the same cast takes all the roles. This has lead to some unusual casting decisions: Kirsty Bushell’s Olivia, though clearly a competent choice, is possibly a touch mature for her sudden infatuation with Cesario to be truly convincing; likewise, Viola is sometimes a little strident. The love story is booted to the back seat, while the subplot is realised in glaring – occasionally even obscene – technicolour. Jonathan Slinger deserves a special mention here: his Malvolio is at once ridiculous, appropriately arrogant and yet strangely touching. The occasional glimpse of a set of slightly flabby buttocks in his ‘cross-gartered’ get-ups will not quickly be forgotten. Farr’s production has passion, zest, and occasionally even a little too much fun. This is a massively engaging production in which energy levels of audience and cast are consistently high. Costume and set design are superb, acting is consistent and strong, lighting is exciting.

If you can, make a special trip to Stratford-upon-Avon as soon as possible. If you can’t face journeying to the Midlands, do not despair: it is being shown in London from July. A tremendous show.

FOUR STARS

5 Minute Tute: Politics and the Media

0

How will the recent media scandals change the relationship between the press and politicians?

In many ways, not that much will be different. Politicians and journalists will still have their secret contacts, and will use each other to advance their own interests just as they always have, but then these issues were never really the problem. The issue was that too much power was concentrated in the hands of a single individual – Rupert Murdoch, who had, or at least was thought to have by politicians, the power to win elections.

There is now a real chance that this will change, and that we will see a return to a more pluralistic media industry that will serve the public interest much better. Is phone hacking really just a proxy issue that al- lows MPs to tackle Murdoch’s political influence? Up to a point. The turning point was when Cameron made his ‘mea culpa’ speech, when he directly admitted that politicians, including him, ‘were so keen to win the support of newspapers that they turned a blind eye’, and has become the first Prime Minister to do so publicly.

Murdoch’s influence has been a taboo topic ever since Tony Blair first started courting him back in the 90s; the phone hacking scandal hasn’t so much allowed politicians to talk about Murdoch as forced them to, and the damage done to Jeremy Hunt, as well as David Cameron, shows that the Murdochs can still bite back if they want to.

What might future press regulation look like as a result of the Levenson Inquiry?

I think most people are agreed on the fundamentals. First, no one wants state regulation – for example, no one wants a system in which you have to get permission of a judge to disclose certain kinds of information, which would sacrifice too much for the sake of privacy. However, the Press Complaints Commission needs more power, perhaps even statutory powers. It needs the power to fine papers and the ability to investigate without a complaint being made, and it needs to have authority over all media outlets in the country, not just those that choose to participate. It’s all quite undramatic, but will likely be effective at curtailing the nastier side of the press.

Are all the parties equally at risk in this scandal?

Cameron’s in power, so ultimately he is most at risk of a public backlash. The real question is whether Ed Miliband can distance himself from News International, as he is trying to do at the moment. It may well not work though; after all, Margaret Thatcher may have been the first leader to take advantage of Murdoch’s support, but Blair was still the first to actively court him, to actually go and ask for his backing. Voters will remember this (Blair is still godfather to one of Murdoch’s children, after all), so it’s more likely that Labour and the Tories are in this together.

How might the shift from print to internet affect relations between the press and the politicians?

It’s fair to say that power is being diluted, although newspapers are still the agenda-setters in this country. British television is regulated so that it is obliged to portray both sides of an issue in a neutral way, which means that British news channels don’t have the influence over public opinion that, for example, Fox does in the US. However, it’s now much harder to completely control all means of communication with a slice of the electorate, as Murdoch was able to do, there are just too many other sources of news now. Newspapers aren’t finished yet, but I don’t think that anyone will be able to recreate the kind of control that Murdoch has had over the British media.

Steven Hewlett is a journalist, broadcaster and media consultant.

Sides of the Story – Pornography

0

Facts of the matter

The cynical view is that David Cameron stuck his oar into the internet censorship debate merely to distract the conservative press fromhis party’s dismal performance in the recent local elections. If so, the stunt worked. His statement last weekend that he wished to ‘make children safer’ in relation to online content has been seized upon by the British media as an opportunity to rehash an old favourite: the pornography debate.

Sides of the story
Our take on other takes on the
online pornography debate
Facts of the matter
The cynical view is that David Cameron stuck
his oar into the internet censorship debate
merely to distract the conservative press from
his party’s dismal performance in the recent lo-
cal elections. If so, the stunt worked. His state-
ment last weekend that he wished to ‘make
children safer’ in relation to online content
has been seized upon by the British media as
an opportunity to rehash an old favourite: the
pornography debate. The campaign to regulate
internet porn has been led (noisily) by
Claire Perry, a Tory backbencher. She chaired
an independent inquiry into online child pro-
tection last month which found that youthful
over-exposure to porn can lead to ‘early sexual
involvement and an increased consumption of
sexual media’.
Confronted with this new evidence, David
Cameron has promised a review of a range of
options for filtering porn. These include the
opt-in system favoured by Perry, whereby cus-
tomers would have to specifically request ac-
cess to adult content when signing up to a new
broadband contract.
Laugh-a-minute
The Daily Mail has fallen over itself to back
Perry and prevent “the wholesale corruption
of childhood”. Its preferred call to arms has
been a string of real-life stories on the victims
of the wave of perversion sweeping Britain. ‘Ja-
mie is 13 and hasn’t kissed a girl. But he’s now
on the Sex Offender Register after online porn
warped his mind’, read one headline.
Voice(s) of reason
Michael White’s article in The Guardian hits
the nail on the head. The libertarian position
on porn, adopted by many left-leaning colum-
nists, is superficially attractive. Unlimited ac-
cess to porn / drink / cigarettes is easy to justify
if you bandy ‘liberty’ around enough. But the
consequences can be unpleasant. “Whether
it’s sex or violence, physical or mental, being
bombarded with the stuff is bound to coarsen
young sensibilities.” At the end of the day, White
says, “It’s easy to tease the Mail… but surely we
should do our best to make it difficult for eight-
year-old computer whizzes to stumble upon
disturbing and unsuitable material online?”
Charles Arthur, also at The Guardian, disa-
grees. Arthur believes that “nothing short of
a direct meteorite” will stop adolescent boys
accessing porn. Maybe so. But this does not
mean that they should be confronted with it
whenever they surf the net – we should make
it harder for children to find adult content
online. Arthur’s solution to the problem of on-
line pornography – that parents should keep a
tighter rein on their kids – is also unconvinc-
ing. Children “don’t need legislation; they don’t
need complicated filters… they just need to be
part of the family.” This smacks of middle class
complacency.
When children do not have access to the sup-
portive environment Arthur envisages, the
state must step in.

The campaign to regulate internet porn has been led (noisily) by Claire Perry, a Tory backbencher. She chairedan independent inquiry into online child protection last month which found that youthful over-exposure to porn can lead to ‘early sexual involvement and an increased consumption of sexual media’.Confronted with this new evidence, David Cameron has promised a review of a range of options for filtering porn. These include the opt-in system favoured by Perry, whereby customers would have to specifically request access to adult content when signing up to a new broadband contract.

Laugh-a-minute

The Daily Mail has fallen over itself to back Perry and prevent “the wholesale corruption of childhood”. Its preferred call to arms has been a string of real-life stories on the victims of the wave of perversion sweeping Britain. ‘Jamie is 13 and hasn’t kissed a girl. But he’s now on the Sex Offender Register after online porn warped his mind’, read one headline.

Voice(s) of reason

Michael White’s article in The Guardian hits the nail on the head. The libertarian position on porn, adopted by many left-leaning columnists, is superficially attractive. Unlimited access to porn / drink / cigarettes is easy to justify if you bandy ‘liberty’ around enough. But the consequences can be unpleasant. “Whether it’s sex or violence, physical or mental, being bombarded with the stuff is bound to coarsen young sensibilities.” At the end of the day, White says, “It’s easy to tease the Mail… but surely we should do our best to make it difficult for eight-year-old computer whizzes to stumble upon disturbing and unsuitable material online?”

Charles Arthur, also at The Guardian, disagrees. Arthur believes that “nothing short of a direct meteorite” will stop adolescent boys accessing porn. Maybe so. But this does not mean that they should be confronted with it whenever they surf the net – we should make it harder for children to find adult content online. Arthur’s solution to the problem of online pornography – that parents should keep a tighter rein on their kids – is also unconvincing. Children “don’t need legislation; they don’t need complicated filters… they just need to be part of the family.” This smacks of middle class complacency.When children do not have access to the supportive environment Arthur envisages, the state must step in.

Settling the Score

0

 

T he first CD I ever bought was the soundtrack to Titanic. I bought all three Lord of the Rings soundtracks, and I will argue for hours with anyone who doesn’t agree that Nicholas Hooper didn’t produce the best Harry Potter score. And when I heard that Dario Marianelli was coming to Oxford, I took out my dancing shoes and skipped down to the Holywell Music Room. Marianelli – in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last seven years, or tend not to wait in the cinema after the film until the score credits come on – is the composer of period film. He wrote the score for I Capture the Castle (2001), achieved major recognition with Pride & Prejudice (2005), won an Oscar with Atonement (2007), and continued with Jane Eyre (2011). He’s been astoundingly prolific, finishing up to six projects in an eight month period, and scoring popular films like Eat Pray Love and the currently showing Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.  
His scores are lush, lyrical, neo-Romantic, and poignant. Marianelli takes a narrow and even repetitive melodic sequence and extends it symphonically. Pride & Prejudice is a matutinal, contemplative, arpeggiated piano-driven score. In contrast, the Atonement score arrests attention immediately with the percussive use of a typewriter in the opening sequence, immediately setting off a revolving rhythmic sequence which Marianelli likened to the ‘mechanical, but a bit deranged’ mind of Briony Tallis, the central character. Jack Liebeck’s violin in Jane Eyre is suitably expansive and desperately interior. This is music to have nestled in your ear, or played generously on massive speakers.
Marianelli appeared at the Holywell Music Room in conversation with Michael White, the Telegraph music critic, attended by Jack Liebeck, the young concert violinist who played on the Jane Eyre soundtrack. Despite his intuitive and very feeling scores, Marianelli betrayed little sentiment when describing how he was chosen to score a film. Atonement and Pride & Prejudice attracted attention and he’s subsequently been branded as a period composer – ‘That’s what they offer to me’, he said. Composing for film is a tricky business: most directors hand composers the finished product and expect a score as icing on the cake. Marianelli’s partnership with Joe Wright, director of Pride & Prejudice, Atonement, and the upcoming Anna Karenina (also, lamentably, starring Keira Knightly), has offered him something more generous, the opportunity to be in contact with the developing film, to start in advance, and to work alongside the director. 
White played several clips which featured key moments of Marianelli’s score. The first was the scene in Pride & Prejudice when Knightley stands on the edge of the cliff in the Peak district and Jean Thibaudeaut’s rendition of Marianellis’ score cascades all around, counterpointed by homophonous strings. Marianelli admitted he’d attempted the music several times before he got it right. It was like ‘a very big bird’ which runs fast and has to take off. 
White prodded Marianelli several times about the disparity between composing for film and composing for the concert hall. He asked if Marianelli felt a distinct lack of status, if he always envisioned making a transition, if there was something less glamorous about the commercial aspect of film-composing. Marianelli didn’t take the bait. Film composition ‘is not a sub-brand,’ Marianelli argued, ‘Music I write is used.’ Later, as the question continued to come up, Marianelli said, ‘Don’t think I’m diminished as a composer because there are people who need music to do certain things.’  He aptly compared his writing for film – a job which is recompensed by money and which might not be considered ‘pure art’ – to Bach’s composition of cantatas for the weekly Sunday mass, a job which required deadlines and an immediate sense of being set aside for the next week. ‘It’s not for the composer to judge its staying power,’ he said. 
It was very clear that White felt that such a hierarchy existed and Marianelli did not. Instead of viewing the film composer’s role as subservient to the director’s vision – liable to the sword of Damocles which the producers and financiers of films hold – Marianelli sees the composer’s role as a part of the narrative or as a character in the film itself. Like opera, film scores tell stories, enlighten, engage, and move, said Marianelli. His ambition is to write music which has ‘integrity and a life’ which can ‘stand on its own’. 
Contrary to what you might think,  young, insecure directors cling very tightly to their power and would have written the music themselves if they could. Mature directors, said Marianelli, are more relaxed. Should the director exercise his brutal editing power, Marianelli is satisfied by still getting an album, which he conceptualizes as ideally offering a narrative experience analogous to watching the film.
I met Marianelli after the conversation with White, wearied from his talk and from the queue of impassioned American fans who stayed behind to have him sign their piano scores. When I asked Marianelli about the life habits of a composer, he admitted to drinking lots of coffee. ‘I’m very messy,’ he said, ‘I go a bit to the piano or the computer, watch the movie millions of times, and then the main habit is just to sit on that chair and work until something comes out and not let go. When I find something I hold onto it like a dog with a bone and try to make something out of it.’ When he’s actively composing, Marianelli finds music ‘almost unbearable. Going out for a meal is excruciating, because there’s music in the restaurant, and I can’t eat.’ 
It struck me that Marianelli’s interpretation of the period of the film he works with is very intuitive. When I asked whether he thinks periods have particular ‘sounds’, he admitted there’s an ‘English sound’ but said he was unable to elaborate much further, as it would merit a ‘very long conversation about the surface sound of the style and of the place’.  
Marianelli is currently deeply  into composition of the score for Anna Karenina, and I wondered if his composition found any distinct roots in Russian music. Marianelli said that he found Russian folk music important, ‘Especially the kind of folk music that started the five (Mily Balakirev, Cesar Cui, Modest Mussorgsky, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and Alexander Borodin). Especially Balakirev. At some point he went off in the 1860s and went collecting folk music. He had this clear idea that he wanted a national Russian music based on folk tunes. And they’re very interesting, they have certain preferred intervals and idiomatic tone of phrases. I tried to listen as much as I could to them, more than the music of Mussorsky or Rimsky-Korsakov or even Tchaikovsky. I was more interested in what inspired them to come up with the Russian music that they invented, because Russian national classical music is a bit of an invention.’ 
Marianelli’s association with period films made me wonder if he responded to the novels upon which the films were based. ‘Yes and no,’ said Marianelli. ‘I did on Atonement because I started to work before the script was finished. Some ideas come from the novel, from knowing the characters better than I could have known if it was just a script. Sometimes it’s a hindrance to know too much because the film condenses or concentrates certain elements of the story.’
Marianelli divulged the fact that there’s a lot of liberty in Wright’s version of Anna Karenina because of a central conceit of an opera theatre.  ‘Most of the story happens within the theatre almost as if it were an opera itself,’ said Marianelli, ‘The whole story is almost like it were an opera or puppet show. So the music goes in very strange places sometimes.’
Before the end of their conversation, White played a clip of the scene of the evacuation of Dunkirk from Atonement, in which the riotous carnival and destructive mayhem of the beach is movingly contradicted by a slow cello and a building elegiac counterpoint which slowly grows towards a climax, in which soldiers on the beach resolutely sing a Hubert Parry hymn, then eases away. Marianelli doesn’t watch the screen, but looks at his feet. There is a taut attitude of concentration in his posture, as though he is feeling the music, as Wordsworth writes, ‘moving through the heart and along the blood’. When White asks Marianelli why he chose that particular realisation, Marianelli answers with feeling, ‘What music do you expect? It is a great pity…we feel a compassion for the loss and waste. It is not the hellish but the heavenly part which is missing.’ 
It is this ability to underscore or to contradict the visual dimension of the film, commenting on the narrative in a way which immerses the viewer in the experience, which will ensure Marianelli’s prominent place in film composition for years to come. 

The first CD I ever bought was the soundtrack to Titanic. I bought all three Lord of the Rings soundtracks, and I will argue for hours with anyone who doesn’t agree that Nicholas Hooper didn’t produce the best Harry Potter score. And when I heard that Dario Marianelli was coming to Oxford, I took out my dancing shoes and skipped down to the Holywell Music Room. Marianelli – in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last seven years, or tend not to wait in the cinema after the film until the score credits come on – is the composer of period film. He wrote the score for I Capture the Castle (2001), achieved major recognition with Pride & Prejudice (2005), won an Oscar with Atonement (2007), and continued with Jane Eyre (2011). He’s been astoundingly prolific, finishing up to six projects in an eight month period, and scoring popular films like Eat Pray Love and the currently showing Salmon Fishing in the Yemen.  

His scores are lush, lyrical, neo-Romantic, and poignant. Marianelli takes a narrow and even repetitive melodic sequence and extends it symphonically. Pride & Prejudice is a matutinal, contemplative, arpeggiated piano-driven score. In contrast, the Atonement score arrests attention immediately with the percussive use of a typewriter in the opening sequence, immediately setting off a revolving rhythmic sequence which Marianelli likened to the ‘mechanical, but a bit deranged’ mind of Briony Tallis, the central character. Jack Liebeck’s violin in Jane Eyre is suitably expansive and desperately interior. This is music to have nestled in your ear, or played generously on massive speakers.

Marianelli appeared at the Holywell Music Room in conversation with Michael White, the Telegraph music critic, attended by Jack Liebeck, the young concert violinist who played on the Jane Eyre soundtrack. Despite his intuitive and very feeling scores, Marianelli betrayed little sentiment when describing how he was chosen to score a film. Atonement and Pride & Prejudice attracted attention and he’s subsequently been branded as a period composer – ‘That’s what they offer to me’, he said. Composing for film is a tricky business: most directors hand composers the finished product and expect a score as icing on the cake. Marianelli’s partnership with Joe Wright, director of Pride & Prejudice, Atonement, and the upcoming Anna Karenina (also, lamentably, starring Keira Knightly), has offered him something more generous, the opportunity to be in contact with the developing film, to start in advance, and to work alongside the director. 

White played several clips which featured key moments of Marianelli’s score. The first was the scene in Pride & Prejudice when Knightley stands on the edge of the cliff in the Peak district and Jean Thibaudeaut’s rendition of Marianellis’ score cascades all around, counterpointed by homophonous strings. Marianelli admitted he’d attempted the music several times before he got it right. It was like ‘a very big bird’ which runs fast and has to take off. 

White prodded Marianelli several times about the disparity between composing for film and composing for the concert hall. He asked if Marianelli felt a distinct lack of status, if he always envisioned making a transition, if there was something less glamorous about the commercial aspect of film-composing. Marianelli didn’t take the bait. Film composition ‘is not a sub-brand,’ Marianelli argued, ‘Music I write is used.’ Later, as the question continued to come up, Marianelli said, ‘Don’t think I’m diminished as a composer because there are people who need music to do certain things.’  He aptly compared his writing for film – a job which is recompensed by money and which might not be considered ‘pure art’ – to Bach’s composition of cantatas for the weekly Sunday mass, a job which required deadlines and an immediate sense of being set aside for the next week. ‘It’s not for the composer to judge its staying power,’ he said.

It was very clear that White felt that such a hierarchy existed and Marianelli did not. Instead of viewing the film composer’s role as subservient to the director’s vision – liable to the sword of Damocles which the producers and financiers of films hold – Marianelli sees the composer’s role as a part of the narrative or as a character in the film itself. Like opera, film scores tell stories, enlighten, engage, and move, said Marianelli. His ambition is to write music which has ‘integrity and a life’ which can ‘stand on its own’. 

Contrary to what you might think,  young, insecure directors cling very tightly to their power and would have written the music themselves if they could. Mature directors, said Marianelli, are more relaxed. Should the director exercise his brutal editing power, Marianelli is satisfied by still getting an album, which he conceptualizes as ideally offering a narrative experience analogous to watching the film.

I met Marianelli after the conversation with White, wearied from his talk and from the queue of impassioned American fans who stayed behind to have him sign their piano scores. When I asked Marianelli about the life habits of a composer, he admitted to drinking lots of coffee. ‘I’m very messy,’ he said, ‘I go a bit to the piano or the computer, watch the movie millions of times, and then the main habit is just to sit on that chair and work until something comes out and not let go. When I find something I hold onto it like a dog with a bone and try to make something out of it.’ When he’s actively composing, Marianelli finds music ‘almost unbearable. Going out for a meal is excruciating, because there’s music in the restaurant, and I can’t eat.’ 

It struck me that Marianelli’s interpretation of the period of the film he works with is very intuitive. When I asked whether he thinks periods have particular ‘sounds’, he admitted there’s an ‘English sound’ but said he was unable to elaborate much further, as it would merit a ‘very long conversation about the surface sound of the style and of the place’.  

Marianelli is currently deeply  into composition of the score for Anna Karenina, and I wondered if his composition found any distinct roots in Russian music. Marianelli said that he found Russian folk music important, ‘Especially the kind of folk music that started the five (Mily Balakirev, Cesar Cui, Modest Mussorgsky, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov and Alexander Borodin). Especially Balakirev. At some point he went off in the 1860s and went collecting folk music. He had this clear idea that he wanted a national Russian music based on folk tunes. And they’re very interesting, they have certain preferred intervals and idiomatic tone of phrases. I tried to listen as much as I could to them, more than the music of Mussorsky or Rimsky-Korsakov or even Tchaikovsky. I was more interested in what inspired them to come up with the Russian music that they invented, because Russian national classical music is a bit of an invention.’ 

Marianelli’s association with period films made me wonder if he responded to the novels upon which the films were based. ‘Yes and no,’ said Marianelli. ‘I did on Atonement because I started to work before the script was finished. Some ideas come from the novel, from knowing the characters better than I could have known if it was just a script. Sometimes it’s a hindrance to know too much because the film condenses or concentrates certain elements of the story.’

Marianelli divulged the fact that there’s a lot of liberty in Wright’s version of Anna Karenina because of a central conceit of an opera theatre.  ‘Most of the story happens within the theatre almost as if it were an opera itself,’ said Marianelli, ‘The whole story is almost like it were an opera or puppet show. So the music goes in very strange places sometimes.’

Before the end of their conversation, White played a clip of the scene of the evacuation of Dunkirk from Atonement, in which the riotous carnival and destructive mayhem of the beach is movingly contradicted by a slow cello and a building elegiac counterpoint which slowly grows towards a climax, in which soldiers on the beach resolutely sing a Hubert Parry hymn, then eases away. Marianelli doesn’t watch the screen, but looks at his feet. There is a taut attitude of concentration in his posture, as though he is feeling the music, as Wordsworth writes, ‘moving through the heart and along the blood’. When White asks Marianelli why he chose that particular realisation, Marianelli answers with feeling, ‘What music do you expect? It is a great pity…we feel a compassion for the loss and waste. It is not the hellish but the heavenly part which is missing.’ 

It is this ability to underscore or to contradict the visual dimension of the film, commenting on the narrative in a way which immerses the viewer in the experience, which will ensure Marianelli’s prominent place in film composition for years to come. 

Interview – Peter Mandelson

0

Neil Kinnock famously quipped that ‘those who call Peter Mandelson an ‘evil genius’ are only half-right’. When I put this to the now ennobled Lord Mandelson, he cracks up into laughter – an uncharacteristic release of energy. The truth, I suggest, is that the two aren’t quite mutually exclusive, even mutually reinforcing. This time he reveals a wry smile and a knowing glance to his aide; he seems relaxed, jovial but overall – in control.

Since Labour failed to get a majority at the last election, the peer has maintained a ferocious schedule, globe-trotting, meeting foreign leaders – especially in the EU, on which he delivered the annual ‘Hands Lecture’ last Friday.

Mandelson is an ardent pro-European, unlike his grandfather Herbert Morrison who, as Acting Prime Minister, was faced with the decision of whether to join the European Coal and Steel Community (a precursor to the EU). When a civil servant pressed him for an answer, Morrison had no doubt. ‘The Durham miners won’t wear it’ he said, thereby sealing Britain’s fate on the periphery of the integrationist project for a generation. In his speech at the Exam Schools, Mandelson expressed concern that the ‘looser arrangement’ the UK is developing with the Franco-German core may lead ultimately to a similar exclusion that left Britain behind in the 50s and 60s. As the Eurozone’s ‘inexorable logic’, to coin George Osborne’s grim phrase, forces it to become fiscally and politically unified, Britain will ultimately have to make a choice – fully in, or fully out

Not surprisingly considering his voluminous charm and intellect, Mandelson was an Oxford PPE-ist. I ask him about those days; his answer was fascinating. As Mandelson recounts: ‘I came from a family background that was about serious politics. I was almost literally born into the Labour Party’. Indeed the Hampstead garden suburb in which he was raised nurtured those seeds of moderate liberalism that would come to full fruition under Blair’s premiership. Born in 1953 to a relatively prosperous family Mandelson was pedigree Labour – the grandson of Herbert Morrison and contemporary to the Wilson’s who lived nearby. I put it to him that given his pedigree it seems strange that the Union and even the Labour Club never fell under his spell. ‘A number of greasy poles inhibited [Oxford] politics’ replied the most infamous political operator of the past generation, ‘the struggles of the Union society, and their termly elections, didn’t fire me with great interest or enthusiasm’. Given that he proved so apt at climbing it, his statement that ‘the greasy pole didn’t attract me’, left me incredulous. Yet upon examination perhaps I shouldn’t have been so bemused. Mandelson was intensely political – it’s just he was more focused on doing something than on being someone.

His gap-year in Tanzania, then an incubator for an eclectic mix of leftism and nationalism had the effect of, if not radicalising him, then imbuing a sense of social purpose that was fundamentally socialist in its world view.  A 1972 letter he wrote to his friend, Stephen Howell, captured his political maturity: ‘Sometimes, I reason that Tanzanian socialism is tremendous, and the only hope for development, but that socialism in England would be wholly impractical…England no more has a socialist future than it will fly in the air’. Mandelson was left-wing, but not self-indulgently so like his contemporary Christopher Hitchens – the Balliol Bolshevik who planned communist insurrections before Sunday formal. Upon returned from Africa and settling into our city of dreaming spires, he was reticent: ‘Oxford to me was a little but alien, a little bit difficult, and I could not shake off my interest in Africa’.

An introvert, however, he was not, joining the United Nations Youth and Students Association and set up an alternative Oxford Labour Students Association, seeking to disassociate himself from the ‘self-serving careerists and preening would-be Cabinet ministers’ – the would-be Labour politicians, who inhibited the Labour club.  After failing his politics prelim – surely a refutation of any causal link between success in academic and practical politics – young Peter invested more of his time in academics, deepening his understanding of the world as the post-war consensus crumbled around him.

As we met, a legacy from that era, Ken Livingstone, was witnessing the end of his dramatic career as hopes of a third mayoral term disintegrated. Vindicating the incumbent’s strategy to focus on personality, not policy, Bullingdon Boris had won over the electorate in a city where Labour were polling 19 points higher than the Conservatives. Mandelson was candid: ‘if the Labour party chooses to run a candidate who is not just pre-New Labour, but pre-Kinnock as well, you can hardly be surprised when the voters turn around and say ‘actually we’d prefer a rather more contemporary candidate thank you’’. The spirit and tone was light-hearted, yet I couldn’t help thinking that the joviality was somewhat forced, contrived to mask a contempt towards Ken that has roots in his independent bid for the mayorality in 2000, for which he was expelled from the Labour Party.

Ken isn’t the only politician with whom Mandelson had turbulent relations. Indeed no one inspires loyalties or hatreds as much as he does. The price of success is that he accrued enemies in the parliamentary party; so many, in fact, that all of the Labour leadership candidates sought to disown him. Certainly his stock is less than it was. I challenge him on Enoch Powell’s famous observation that ‘all political lives…end in failure’. Without hesitation, ‘I’m the exception to that’ he asserts. ‘My career ended in failure half-way through it’ – alluding to the scandals that forced his ejection from the Cabinet, twice – ‘but I was given a third chance’.

Mandelson’s reputation as a Machiavellian man of mystery always proved useful, allowing him to manipulate the surprisingly small cabal of political correspondents who worked in awe of him. I wanted to uncover his human side; the one that walks his pet dog, Bobby, or lived secretly as a gay man, only to be out-ed on national television. It’s clear that he doesn’t revel in his ego, but largely the impressions of his personality evade me. He exudes statesmanship. In an inversion of Norman Lamont’s famous putdown to Major, Lord Mandelson gives the impression of being in power but not in office. Moulded by his experience at the heart of the Labour Party, teasing, disciplining, coercing it into a party of government, that is now his nature. Would he join a Miliband government? I didn’t bother asking; that’s been an unlikely prospect ever since Ed pronounced his crowning achievement – New Labour – dead. Still, with Mandy, you never know.

A Bluffer’s Guide to: The New Wave of Hip Hop

0

There’s been a lot of good stuff coming out of the US recently as the new guard of rap and hip hop artists have really begun picking up both steam and mainstream attention.  These new artists come from a range of hard to define genres from ‘cloud rap’ to ‘swag-hop’, hence the title that sounds like a BBC4 documentary or the title of Newsnight segment.  Although a Newsnight segment isn’t exactly beyond the realms of belief (I would advise anyone who hasn’t seen Odd Future’s appearance on the show to head to youtube A$AP).

Oldie is a song by the group Odd Future, and works as one of the best showcases of theircollective talent that they’ve released so far.  Anyone with even a cursory interest in the genre will have heard of them, but the song demonstrates their different styles and even features a verse from Earl, who’s finally been freed from Samoa, and Frank Ocean forsaking his usual croon for a more aggressive rap, behind a beat that repeats through the song’s ten minutes. 

Schoolboy Q, A$AP Rocky, SpaceGhostPurrp and Main Attrakionz are all derivatives of the ‘chopped and screwed’ style of rap which sees slowed down vocals mixed with woozy beats.  There’s a lot of overlap between these artists, A$AP Rocky guests with Schoolboy Q and Theophilus London, on his rework of the classic ‘Big Spender’, while SpaceGhostPurrp has produced and guested on a number of A$AP Rocky’s songs.  These songs have roots in the work of DJ Screw, who pioneered the screw music genre by slowing records and adding smooth cuts and slurred vocals to the mixes, before dying from an overdose of codeine caused from drinking cough syrup, a drug that is closely intertwined with the genre and the origin of the numerous references to ‘purple’, after the purple liquid.

Closer to the style of Odd Future, although his flow is a lot faster and possibly even more aggressive, is Joey Bada$$, who at only 17 has already released his first few tracks and has a mixtape, 1999, arriving imminently.  A final inclusion is Mac Miller, who is relatively established with a Billboard Number One album under his belt, but this cut comes from his earlier mixtape K.I.D.S. which I personally think is much better than his album, which ditched a lot of what made him distinctive.  The sun drenched video and the vibes from this song mean that, if the sun ever does come out, this song is a perfect soundtrack to a lazy afternoon in the park.

Tracklist: Oldie – Odd Future

Hands on the Wheel (feat. A$AP Rocky) – Schoolboy Q

Peso – A$AP Rocky

Survival Tactics – Joey BADA$$

No Evidence – SpaceGhostPurrp

Legion of Doom – Main Attrakionz

Big Spender (feat. A$AP Rocky) – Theophilus London

Kool Aid & Frozen Pizza – Mac Miller

Click here for the accompanying 8tracks playlist.

Students pledge 10% of future earnings

0

A group of St Peter’s students are among the latest Oxford students to have promised to give ten per cent of their future income to charity.

The move comes as part of an international scheme called Giving What We Can, where people make a public pledge to “use part of [their] income to do a substantial amount of good in the developing world” and will do so “publicly, freely, and without regret”.

On their website, the organisation says it believes strongly in the necessity of making this public pledge as it “encourage others to join” and lets them “share advice” about how best to give.

Giving What We Can was first founded by Dr Toby Ord in 2009, who was the first to make the pledge and will give an estimated one million pounds over his lifetime.