Closure

Everything ends

Someday, everything ends

The trees

The beach

The rocks your world is built on

Everything ends

...

All at once, or piece by piece

They break apart

And float...

Until the world runs out

Everything ends

...

Sometimes the pieces are loved anew

Part of another world, in turn rubbed out by time

We are all pencil on a page

Dust on the stage

...

Everything ends

Everything we love

Everything we touch

Fruit, cars, atom bombs

...

Memory

The swelling of strings

Petrol fumes

Tears, and joy

Everything

Meaning

Love

Lines in the sand

Everything

.

.

.

Ends

Mad Abbott The Girl

We’re all doomed if politicians can’t empathise with people from other backgrounds. One person can never cover all the bases, but only one person can hold any one seat at a time. We don't expect authors or songwriters to have lived every story they tell, or painters to have seen every scene they paint. And yet many people expect such identity of politicians. This is, perhaps, the biggest problem – the constant assumption by many, not least the electorate en masse, that only someone who has experienced what they have experienced is capable or qualified to represent or understand them, hence the illogical and unnecessary continuation of tribalistic vitriol against 'posh boys' and 'toffs' on the one hand and 'council house denizens' on the other. We are not automatic products of our backgrounds or our skin colours or our genders – of course they affect us, but they are not dominating, nor do they produce necessary and unavoidable results.

The reason I'm discussing this at all is because of the decision, or rather the manner of justification for the decision, of Diane Abbott to run for the Labour Party Leadership, as covered by the BBC and the Guardian (twice). What's at stake in this discussion is not her candidature - I welcome any and all people who genuinely believe they can be the best person for the job, although I do not think she would be anything like a competent or electable leader. What is worrying are some of her reasons for running and what they seem to imply about her opposition. Here is a sample:

"The other candidates are all nice and would make good leaders of the Labour Party but they all look the same... We cannot be offering a slate of candidates who all look the same. The Labour Party's much more diverse than that."

"We can't go forward with a leadership debate where there is no woman"

"If we are going to have a debate about immigration, I am the child of immigrants. Don't the millions of British people who are the children of immigrants have a voice in this debate also?"

Firstly, the children of immigrants already have two voices in the debate - the Miliband brothers are both (obviously) the product of fugitives of Nazi occupation in Ralph Miliband and his Polish wife. This is, of course, personal conjecture, but such a remarkable lack of knowledge in regards to her opposition for the role highlights a patronising arrogance and an ignorance which is too often and too easily on show for even casual viewers of This Week. Indeed, her willingness to put her foot in her mouth, notably in regard to the apparent impossibility of empathic Finnish nurses, is just one of the reasons I believe her to be a hypocrite (along with the well-known schools debacle), and unsuitable for anything beyond representing her constituency. The crux of her eventual apology on the matter - that her main priority was to ensure that her constituents received medical treatment from the very best people "irrespective of race" - is ironically the very point I am making.

But the real deal-breaker in her comments is the implication that only she, as a woman, can speak for or represent women voters, and that only she, as a black person, can do the same for black people. I’ve touched on similar issues before in talking about the black vote in relation to Obama, and the woman’s vote for Hillary. But it is always dangerous to talk about the black vote or the woman’s vote – it implies mass voting blocks, and just the sort of social, racial or gender determinism that I am refuting. No one is denying that different people are hard-wired differently - there is almost certainly a probabilistic trend for black candidates to understand black issues and female candidates women’s issues, and it is also probable (right or wrong, and I would definitely argue wrong) that people identify more with people who share their background or race or gender. But I know plenty of public school products who would rather have Gordon Brown than David Cameron any day. Anecdotal evidence it may be, but it is also empirically observable in the difficulty of marking any clear trends amongst general voter blocks (like the young vote, the black vote etc.).

We must, absolutely must, move towards the realisation that probability is not the issue. We must judge candidates on what they say and what they do – their propositions, their policies, their interactions. To assume that just because someone comes from a particular background – and this applies as much to the results of working class, comprehensive upbringings as silver-spoon, public school boys – that they will automatically hold a certain set of beliefs or be incapable of understanding people from other walks of life is exactly the sort of poisonous idiocy that fuels the tribalism that is miring British politics. This is especially obvious in light of the fact that MPs ultimately serve their constituents, and must come to understand and identify with problems that would never factor into their personal life or their personal politics. If this were impossible, or even improbable, MPs would rarely, if ever, be re-elected. In essence, we must listen to what candidates actually say, rather than what we expect them to say. Do not judge on what is likely, judge on what is.

One of the other problems I have already encountered with Abbott’s stand is how quickly valid criticisms are perceived, in the light of paranoia, as the thinly-veiled barbs of discrimination. Although it remains to be seen whether Abbott herself will do so, many of her supporters have already pulled the race or gender card in response to any suggestion that the Hackney MP is not all sweetness and light. This false expectation of bigotry and enemies all around is just as damaging to the cause of racial equality as those, like the BNP, who actually display it – we should be moving to a point where, insofar as possible, race and gender are irrelevant. Accusations to the contrary only serve to highlight the differences, and is exactly the sort of fuel on which xenophobia thrives. It should be hoped, therefore, that such idiocy is kept to a minimum, to allow the true flow of debate to continue unshackled by fear of unjust allegations.

It may be the case that, in the coming weeks, it becomes apparent from the nomination debates that all the current candidates other than Abbott (Ed and Dave Miliband, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and the intriguing John McDonnell) are entirely incapable of representing or understanding women or black people, in which case, her comments may be somewhat vindicated. And it may be that she is simply playing to the sad realities of the irrationality of people's existing prejudices in putting greater faith and expecting greater understanding from their own kind. But the former seems unlikely, certainly from what I have heard from the Milibands at any rate, and the latter, if true, I would call cynical in the extreme (though doubtless some would simply label it realistic). Either way, whatever positives may come out of Abbott's candidature (pushing the debate further to the left, apparently re-energising some of the supporter base), they are overshadowed, for me, by a rather inauspicious start. Like her vomit-inducing hypocrisy, it leaves rather a bad taste in the mouth...

List of the Month: April 2010

Song of the Month:

Yet another I've basically not been able to stop listening to, partly because it's a collaboration between two of my absolute favourite artists, and partly because it's just a great song. Alicia Keys and John Mayer's Lesson Learned is a beautiful synthesis of styles and instruments: as you would expect, it's Keys on the piano, providing sparse chords, a heart-rendingly simple riff in the verse and a beautiful soundscape, and Mayer on the guitar, bringing the rhythm, groove and the killer chorus hook, not to mention occasional and tasteful fills that make you realise how enviable his tone is. Vocally, John mostly sings the BVs to Alicia's passionate and honest assessment of a situation we've all been in, somehow managing never to spill into the sentimental.

A massive shout out actually has to go to the drummer (not sure which, but one of Steve Jordan, Trevor Lawrence Jr, or Mark Robohm) - because the song and instrumentation is so sparse and full of pauses and hangs, it really highlights the drums, which carry the momentum of the song, especially through the verses. A really simple drum pattern can sometimes be the hardest thing to play, especially with the precision and sensitivity required by this kind of track, but this is really a perfect performance. The song was rightfully nominated for Best Pop Collaboration with vocals at the 2009 Grammy awards, unjustly losing out to Robert Plant and Alison Krauss's frankly baffling Rich Woman. In my opinion, a song of this rare quality deserves recognition beyond a single Grammy nomination, but for now, I can only add my recommendation to the pile.

Film of the Month:

Continuing in my drive to see all 10 of the Best Picture nominees this year, so I can know for certain just how overrated Hurt Locker has been (and believe me, it has been), I caught up with both The Blind Side and Up In The Air this month, leaving only An Education on the list. It was a close call, but I'm definitely going to have to go with The Blind Side. Up In The Air is a thought-provoking, engaging, and beautifully acted piece, and in another year could well have walked away with a deserved Oscar (over Slumdog Millionaire or No Country For Old Men, for example), but this year it was simply outshone by one of the best films I have seen in at least the last 5 years.

Part of the power of The Blind Side is that it's based on the true story of Michael Oher. Playing on my and many Americans' love for American Football, the story shows us the rise of Oher from essentially homeless dropout to NFL athlete. The film is not shot in a documentary way, but knowledge of the reality behind the film colours one's entire perception of events, bringing new meaning and life to what otherwise might be forgettable or dull moments and aiding the suspension of disbelief with what otherwise might be unbelievable or stretching the bounds of credibility. More than once I found myself choking back tears, not least as Sandra Bullock delivers what is undoubtedly the performance of a lifetime as Leigh Anne, for which she deservedly won the Best Actress Oscar. Her unexpectedly nuanced performance and pitch-perfect depiction of the go-getting, Southern Belle, ex-cheerleader-cum-soccer mom is surprisingly almost matched by Tim McGraw, whom I had known only as a country music artist and husband of Faith Hill. Perhaps that life experience prepared him well for taking the backseat to a somewhat domineering wife, but his performance is no less impressive for it.

Alongside Bullock, the true star of the show is of course Quinton Aaron, in the role of Michael, or Big Mike. Considering his relatively meagre acting experience up this point (this is his first lead role), Aaron delivers a credible and understated performance of such quality, I could scarcely believe he wasn't born in front of a director and a camera. Excellent supporting roles from little brother SJ (Jae Head) and Collins (the gorgeous Lily Collins), not to mention the various teachers, family members of both Michael's and the Tuohys', gang thugs and insufferable lunch friends add up to complete an utterly convincing and engaging world where the characters live and interact and where actions have true and proportionate consequences. For all this heavy subject matter, there is ample humour, much of it provided by SJ or, unwittingly, Michael himself, and again, this perfectly reflects the unpredictable and bittersweet capriciousness of life, where you can be laughing one minute and crying the next.

The lion's share of the character development is shared between him and Bullock, as the film fundamentally is the story of their relationship - the transformation from uneducated, lumbering quasi-mute to the man comfortable calling Bullock mama, standing up for himself under interrogation, and singing along to Bust-A-Move with his adopted brother is marked but entirely realistic, a stark contrast to many Hollywood films where people change overnight or even in the space of a few hours. In real life, people don't change, not really, not much and not often. When they do, the changes are more minor or subtle, mostly occurring during times of great stress and external change (puberty, adulthood, marriage etc.). This kind of realism is perfectly captured by writer Michael Lewis and screenplaywright and director John Lee Hancock over the 2 year timeframe of the film. They are, of course, helped by the truth behind the story, but rarely if ever do they overstep their remit and fall into the inviting but sugar-coated trappings of Hollywood melodrama.

Some friends of mine have commented that the film is patronising, both to its audience and to the black community portrayed within it. Personally, I never found this to be the case. The Blind Side never claims to show the entirety of black society, and actually the breadth of characters was quite subtly varied - without giving too much away, there is the janitor Michael is staying with at the beginning of the film who first gets him into the school; there is Michael's birth mother; there is the gangleader but also an obviously reluctant member; the NCAA investigator... I don't think there is an overwhelming stereotype of anyone, black or white: for every good Christian presented in the film, there's a casually racist redneck or a high-society bigot to balance the scales. What I think the film does show is the sense of being trapped felt by so many people from poor backgrounds - in this case black, but not by necessity - and how hard they have to work or lucky they have to be to escape it.

If the film falls down anywhere, it's in an arguably saccharin presentation of Christianity. On the one hand, The Blind Side is an excellent advert for what can be achieved through a strong, loving Christian faith. But such faith is not necessary to act as Leigh Anne did (or does in the film), even though, in her particular case, it was the obvious spur to her behaviour. Obviously long, drawn-out arguments can be had as to whether the good achieved by such Christian action is outweighed by the negatives of organised religion, but that is not the focus of the film, and therefore it should hopefully suffice that I have mentioned it. The Blind Side pretty strongly sets out its stall, blocking any accusations of "white guilt" in a particularly poignant lunch scene, although some might say that even bringing it up is defensive, that the film "doth protest too much".

Regardless, through a combination of superb acting, strong social conscience, faultless realism, humour and heartbreak in good store, and an inspiring message, The Blind Side stands as the best of the 9 Oscar nominees I have seen so far, a film that could, had it existed then, have won Best Picture in any of the last 6 years, with the possible exception of 2006 and Little Miss Sunshine. Avatar may have changed cinema, Up In The Air may have changed the way we look at our world, Inglourious Basterds may even have changed history (or at least rewritten it), but The Blind Side is that special breed of film that will stay with me, and hopefully you, for years to come.