The Politics of Life

The views of ordinary American Tom Brown, Virginia, reveal a staggering short-sighted selfishness and stupidity which I cannot leave unanswered.

There is nothing in the US constitution which says the federal government can fine a citizen for not purchasing a health insurance policy.

Wow, brilliant insight. Just like there's nothing in the constitution about cars, or the internet, or any other progressive, modern, enlightened features of intelligence that exist today. Presumably, as long as there's nothing in the constitution which prohibits the federal government from doing so (and the constitution is usually described in terms of negative freedom, i.e. restraints on what the federal government can do), the founders thought it was probably a grey area that sensible people with more information could hammer out later. One could even argue that the Declaration of Independence mandates adequate healthcare for all Americans, as it requires the government to enforce the 'unalienable Right... [of] Life'.

It will decrease the quality of healthcare and we will end up like England where if you have anything that is the slightest bit postponable you can wait months and months for care.

Oh, God forbid that that hospitals and doctors might prioritise poor, dying people over rich hypochondriacs. Obviously an exaggeration, but there is nothing wrong with treating patients in order of severity. The NHS is not a perfect system, no one would say it is, but it saves lives, unlike the US system. Not to mention that private healthcare still exists in the UK and can get you your pathetic rotator cuff operation on time without having to sacrifice someone less privileged than you to do it.

All in all, this bill is a "Robin Hood" plan to rob the well-off to give to the have-nots, and this is what socialism really is. This may work well in England, but will not sit well with the American people

Brilliant. This is perhaps the biggest issue of American politics, that socialism is such a dirty word (much like those in the UK who use 'social worker' as some sort of insult). There is undoubtedly a base hypocrisy in the opposition of most Americans to this concept of socialism. Like myself, many Americans describe themselves as meritocrats, and, in fact, the country as a whole is founded on meritocratic principles. But a meritocracy can only truly function in a semblance of a fair environment. Obviously, some things are not and perhaps will never be fair (without levelling down), like your genetics. But a true meritocrat recognises that since illness is often, if not predominantly, random, or at least beyond the control of the sufferer, it would be wrong to penalise someone because of it.

Anyone can get sick at any time, and this will be true long after we've sussed out and 'cured' all the diseases that are the biggest threats to mankind today. Meritocracy relies on a fair starting point of equal opportunity, so far as is reasonable. And you simply cannot say that a sick child should die on the basis of chance - his chance of getting a disease, his chance of recovery, his chance of his parents being able to afford to pay for his care. If Republicans can look into the eyes of that hypothetical child (who is actualised and real across America) and tell him or her that they don't have the right to live because that's how they do things in America, then the war's already lost, and we might as well push the button now.

Which is all to ignore that there are serious ethical questions to be had about the entire existence of health insurance in the first place. In China, you pay a doctor when you are well, but not when you are sick, because they believe, since their job is to keep you healthy, that when you get sick they have failed at their job. But in the west, and particularly the US, you pay to get better, you pay when you are vulnerable, often when you can afford it the least, and this despite the fact that the US has some of the most expensive healthcare per capita in the world, but the quality of it is in no way reflected by the price. Insurance as a rule is a pretty necessary industry within a capitalist system - house, car, travel etc. Possessions come and go - life is something else altogether.

Obama might have been able to do more if the Republicans had ever been even remotely interested in bipartisanship. But in the end, he's done what he can, and, as the Democrats keep saying, it's a step in the right direction. Social security had a slow start too. Yes, we got a watered down bill, with significant caves on abortion rights and a public option. Yes, Tom Brown is probably right in proposing the abolition of state-restricted insurance, and including the pharmaceutical companies in the "profiting from life and death" shit-list. Yes, this is an issue which could, unjustly, cost Obama a second term and give the rampant fuck-wittery of the Tea Party movement a groundswell of support. But this step in the right direction, this legislation should outlast Obama, outlast all of us. It's perhaps optimistically been described as the Civil Rights Movement of the 21st century, but, whatever the propoganda and hyperbole by either side, let's hope this step is only the first, and not just a misstep on America's stumble into depravity.

First Locker? Not Even Close

So to follow up on my previous Oscars rants, I've decided to disentangle precisely why I think Kathryn Bigelow and The Hurt Locker were the wrong choices for their respective categories. Let me start by saying I totally reject arguments of redressive equality - that Kathryn Bigelow is a woman (indeed, the first woman to win a best director Oscar) is as irrelevant as Clinton's womanhood or Obama's race, and anyone who voted for her on that basis is an imbecile. It is, of course, another discussion entirely as to whether her sex/gender influences her directorial style, or permits her insight a man could not provide, but I don't think it's a necessary one to the focus of this post - we can, I think, debate the merits of directors and their styles without referencing the origins of either. Art stands alone, independent of the creator.

With that established, let me say that I enjoyed the Hurt Locker. It is a film which exhibits an extremely impressive grasp of cinematic tension and release, and hints at some interesting debates. But it is no less 'predictable' than Avatar - it was obvious to me that Lt Colonel Cambridge would die as soon as he asked to accompany the team on their mission, or that James, on returning home, would have difficulty adjusting to the 'real world' and end up going back to his comfort zone. In terms of America's role in Middle Eastern conflict, the effect on individual soldiers and all the other pertinent and engaging questions the Hurt Locker is purported to raise, most everything in it and more is covered better and in greater detail by The Kingdom, which is well worth your time and which I have discussed before.

The victory of the Hurt Locker is a result of both major categories being pitched as the battle of the sexes and the ex's - the underfunded, sexually and historically disadvantaged, flag-waving, underdog ex-wife, Kathryn Bigelow, representing 'character-driven' and 'independent' cinema in the one corner, and the 'commercially driven', big budget, 'tecnhologically-reliant', anti-imperialist ex-husband, James Cameron, in the other. Awarding the gongs to Bigelow and the Hurt Locker is Hollywood patting itself on the back in a way which confirms many of the worst criticisms thrown its way - that it is elitist, self-serving, and self-congratulatory. While these may be sometimes true - after all, self-congratulation is often just a negative way of describing the recognition of achievements upon which awards ceremonies are based - it is often incidental to the Oscars, not the purpose of it, for the clique to pat itself on the back.

The Academy had no trouble awarding Cameron for his first record-breaking blockbuster endeavour, the billion dollar plus, financial powerhouse Titanic. But when he repeats, and in fact, outdoes his own success, not only with a superior movie, but also through advancing the cause of film (with undeniably inspiring advances in technology) and cinema (by giving punters a reason, in the shape of 3D, to turn from piracy and flock to movie screens) in the process, the same people who sang his praises and overwhelmingly voted him in for every category a little over a decade ago jump ship to avoid being caught up in the whirlwind of bullshit accusations about style over substance and hype over heart. I've already spoken about why I think Avatar is one of the best films you'll see this year, so I won't go into it again unless pressed, but even if you were not a fan, there are other films in the top 10 worthy of consideration.

Up is a film that has its problems, but surely even for the sublime opening 10 minutes, which I would rank as one of the finest pieces of cinema I have ever seen, it earned its place amongst those nominations. Though it drifts in and out, which is particularly clear in comparison to the Hurt Locker's consistent and quality pacing (barring the ending), its moments of genius are so far beyond anything Bigelow has to offer that they redeem Up as a whole, and push the film well beyond The Hurt Locker in terms of quality and Oscar-worthiness. Consider also Inglourious Basterds, without a doubt Tarantino's finest work to date: humour, intelligence, tension and suspense that easily rivals and almost certainly surpasses The Hurt Locker's, and the integrity to follow its characters and story to the end, regardless of history. Which is not even to mention the absolutely stunning and deservedly rewarded supporting actor performance from Christoph Waltz.

District 9 is a fun but ultimately overly flawed film, and ranks alongside Hurt Locker in terms of quality, whereas A Serious Man sits firmly at the bottom of the pile, being, as it seemed to me, humour about Jews, by Jews, for Jews (though I have similarly heard Jewish friends accuse it of anti-semitism, so burning bridges all round, really). I have not yet seen An Education, Previous or Up In The Air, which have all received high praise (and indeed more serious Oscar recognition for Precious), but the point still remains that there are at least 3 films and directors more deserving of their respective Oscars this year than Kathryn Bigelow and The Hurt Locker were.

It's been said before by many people about many things, often falsely, but I will make a bid to join the list of those whom history proved right: The Hurt Locker will not be remembered in 10 years time, certainly not as a classic, and certainly not if it hadn't won an Oscar. It is not especially new or clever, nor does it have anything remarkable to say or any remarkable way to say it. It does not, in short, either advance the cause of cinema, as Avatar has, or merit repeated viewings and fond remembrance, as Inglourious Basterds and Up do. For this reason, it does not deserve its successes. For yet another successive year, the Academy has got it oh so wrong.

List of the Month: February 2010

Song of the month:

By some considerable margin, it is Disappear. This song is truly product of that talent of Belmont University - written by my two good friends John Flanagan and Brett McLaughlin, arranged by Dan Pentecost and performed by John and the Performer's Showcase band. The recording, sadly, is a little rough, due to the low quality audio limits on youtube, and the difficulties of live recording without a desk input. The worst consequence of this is that the lyrics are somewhat hard to hear on the first few tries, but as someone who was there live, I can assure you this is in no way a product of John's perfect diction.

Obviously, I am not impartial in my analysis or recommendation of this song, but I can honestly say that there is no part of this song and performance that I do not consider perfect, or at least flawless. Lyrically, it is a top class example of writing on a theme, in this instance the parallels of love and magic, with various brilliant lyrics. Vocally, John is pitch-perfect , with the sort of vocal range I would happily kill for, and displays both power in the choruses and riffs and emotional tenderness in the breakdown. Musically, the verse uses a quirky but pleasing progression, while the chorus rests on the well-known but satisying 1-5-m6-4. Overall, the video goes some way to capturing the magic of the live performance, and for that alone is worth your time.

Film of the month:

Through the bounties of Sky Player, I discovered the indie gem that is Live! With most certainly the greatest performance of hers I have ever seen, Eva Mendes, as an ambitious but engaging TV executive, leads this documentary-style life-cycle of a reality TV show based on russian roulette, from its inception in a creative meeting to its impossibly gripping end. Rarely have I become so drawn into the illusion a film has created, so immersed in the lives at stake, as the final scene, where each character puts a loaded gun to their head and pulls the trigger for a shot at money and fame.

There are a lot of films which claim to investigate the reality TV genre, the blurring of fact and fiction, the limits of what people will watch - Gamer, Wrong Turn 2: Dead End, The Condemned, even as far back as The Running Man. Many of them are shit, especially those that focus on violence, and most of them fail to do explore the questions in any great depth, or offer insight worth the 2 hours they require. But a precious few, like The Truman Show or the Extras Christmas Special, do have something worthwhile to say, and make no bones about saying it. Live! definitely falls into this category, both as an exploration into reality TV, and a commentary on contemporary audiences. There is one part of the final rundown where my suspension of disbelief was broken by the audience reaction to something, but otherwise, this is a film which stays true to its documentary style, even when it obviously moves to scenes directly from the show. Partly as a result of this, and partly because of some great performances and excellent direction, this is a film which stays human and real from start to finish. It is thought provoking, credible and 100% worth your time.