Saturday 28 August 2010

New Town Anthology

One of my poems is in 'Tales from a New Town' recently published by Beacon Press. 


Based around experiences and perceptions of Skelmersdale, one of the UK's post-war New Towns, my contribution is an epic ode to The Concourse, the town centre's covered-mall shopping centre.  The poem, called Concourse, can be read on a separate page of this blog.

Friday 27 August 2010

Update from Planet Skem

The strange and wonderful world of dofollow has been entered...my little vessel of self-discovery has cast off from the a safe shore of cardboard trees, plastic rocks and artificial pebbles into the unknown...oh tempestuous opinions of worldwide rancour, be gentle with thine heart!...or something like that :)))

A new page has been added as well, the chalkboard,which will be an ever moving feast of new work, a veritable testbed indeed of draft scribblings.  Enjoy.

Thursday 19 August 2010

Dogville: A Political Analysis of Failed Republicanism

Orientation
I don't know how I missed the film Dogville when it was first released in 2003. Whatever, through the wonders of Sky Plus and Film 4, I caught up with it a couple of weeks ago.

Directed by Lars von Trier and with an impressive array of actors with Nicole Kidman in the lead role, supported up by the likes of Lauren Bacall, James Caan, Ben Gazzara and Paul Bettany amongst many others, it is a philosophical parable that is immediately striking- if not at first un-nerving- in its use of a minimalist, one stage set. Of course, what at first appears a bold, innovative art-experiment had more prosaic origins; the Swedish director won't fly, but wanted to make a film about and set in America and so came up with the ingenious idea of shooting it on a soundstage with minimal scenery. Buildings are shown as chalk lines on the floor and all locations, including the gooseberry bushes, are labelled to help orientate the viewer at any given point in the narrative.

What at first appears a surreal piece of theatre is in fact a clever calling card of intention and message; the small, isolated mountain town that 'clings to the edge of a cliff' has its few buildings charted out in plan form only. The characters literally move across an annotated largely one dimensional map, with wall-less buildings only occasionally alleviated by sparse examples of internal furniture, a bell tower over the mission hall, and a redundant mine entrance on the edge of the village. There are symbolically no solid doors although their opening and closing is mimed by the actors. All is apparently laid bare…although of course as in all communities, it slowly emerges that there are plenty of secrets, anxieties and prejudices woven through the fabric of the township. And slowly is the operative word here; although one can sense the director's aim is to gradually immerse the viewer into this enclosed world, it doesn't entirely work, particularly as the viewer has to contend with [for some time in my case] the play-like setting being so at odds with accepted cinematic models. This is not an entirely bad thing…the innovation at work here is to be applauded, but the lack of urgency for the first 120 minutes at least of the film [it clocks in at 2 minutes shy of a whopping, bottom aching 3 hours], filled largely with at times thought provoking but often needlessly wordy observations of individual characters delivered to us by a nonetheless impeccable narration by John Hurt, does become at times tedious.

This unfortunately runs the risk of only the very artistically committed staying the length- you can picture the most earnest movie buffs sat in deep thought on the edge of their seats in small metropolitan art house movie theatres- and this sadly I fear may well of been the case upon its limited release, as I myself in all modesty am not one with a particularly short attention span, still found myself taking use of the advantage of watching a recording of the film, so could do so in a number of bite sized chunks.

The fact that a larger audience will probably have been lost through the over lengthy [some less kind would say the over-indulgence] of Von Trier's direction is however a great shame, as the atmosphere generated, the issues explored and the extraordinary, explosively shocking ending, deserve to be seen, absorbed and discussed.


Analysis
It is the 1930s depression in small town America, and Grace Mulligan [Kidman] is a woman hiding from mobsters who arrives on foot in Dogville, desperate for a bolt-hole. She is allowed refuge there, in exchange for physical labour; a town meeting decides that she must win and maintain the acceptance of every single inhabitant of the township, and because of this, any attempt to do things her way, or any mistakes she makes, puts her at risk of being handed over to the criminals. The gangsters make an appearance early in the film, handing over a card to Tom Edison Jnr [Paul Bettany] asking him to contact them if he or anyone else in Dogville sees the girl. Tom is an aspiring writer and 'communitarian,' who tries to get his fellow citizens together for regular meetings to improve their intellect and 'moral awareness,' which he describes as a programme of moral rearmament. The story is seen very much from Tom's point of view, and it is clearly his prime aim is to succeed his aging father, a doctor, as the moral leader of the small town.

At a pedestrian pace, the film enfolds as it looks into the darkness inherent in people's souls, particularly those of a small community, which on the surface appears ordered, efficiently structured, democratic and consensually fair and moderate but, is in reality- as it is in every corner of the world- far from this ideal. It is the issues inherent in this hypocritical mask of normality and conformity that Von Trier deftly picks apart.
And the issues are huge, fascinating and highly political. Essentially, they cover the three basic tenets of Enlightenment republicanism: Equality, Fraternity and Liberty, which are of course principles enshrined in the French Revolution, but also are heavily woven into the US constitution from the immediately preceding, closely related republican revolution across the Atlantic.
Tom and Grace
All major decisions in the township are made through regular meetings in the Mission Hall, attended by all the adult population of Dogville. In this canton-like democracy, it is implied that the most important of the decisions that affect the structure/integrity of the town, must be agreed upon by everyone present. It is through such a meeting that Grace is, after at first much suspicion and doubt, allowed to stay in Dogville, with of course the labour conditions attached, for which she is deemed to receive a minimal wage.

What at first appears an enlightened, inclusive act- the towns people initially state that it is not their place to make demands on a newcomer; it is more so their duty to provide shelter to someone in need- is soon corrupted by all of the residents in some way or another. Although at first appreciated for her efficiency and friendliness, excuses are found to reduce her pay. The women become dependent on Grace for carrying out all the chores they most dislike; she is at first raped by one man, then the other men begin to take sexual advantage of her to the point of turning her into a 'whore-for-free.' In a bizarre scene, a pre-pubescent boy who she teaches, demands that he punish him by giving him a good spanking. She refuses, but he says if she doesn't, he'll tell his mother she did it anyway. She acquiesces, only to find herself reported by him to his mother anyway, a mother that also finds out she has had sex with her husband, but doesn't know it was through his action as a rapist [she eventually does find out but it does not change her attitude toward Grace].

In short she becomes enslaved. This is however further compounded and complicated by Grace's belief- which probably drove her to escape the world of Gangsters from which she was on the run in the first place- that people are inherently good and will not naturally do bad things unless they have been conditioned/brutalised into it by an outside agency; that understanding and forgiveness should be offered first and foremost to people who do bad things to you and others, because they either at best don't know any better, and at worst have discovered it is the only way to survive life.

This highly 'liberalised' [some would of course say naïve] world view of Grace's, is in itself an important political aspect of the film's societal comment; she embodies the individualist stance of 'enlightened' libertarianism, that people should be allowed to do as they wish, even if those actions affect you, directly, in a negative way, because individual rights should stand at the core of our society and any wrong doing should be ameliorated through sanction and/or understanding, rather than community penalty. This is an interesting psycho-moral paradox in it owns right; such a belief is quasi-religious in nature, yet in the modern context is grounded in individualist, free market capitalist ideology. This is a belief that however, ironically entraps her.

In this way she puts up with her enslavement until she decides enough is enough and she decides- tellingly in her mind as much for the benefit of the town as for herself- to secretly leave, bribing a bootlegging truck driver to take her to the next town in the back of his truck hidden beneath some produce, only to find herself eventually returned by him to Dogville after having had to have sex with him, to ensure her passage and as his rightful 'bonus' in the economic transaction. The town's people had decided she was not to leave; they had become dependent on her thraldom; there was to be no way out for her. The new socio-economic status quo demanded that she be an inescapable part of the town's self-regulated, libertarian capitalist structure.

In an American context, the similarities with that nation's slavery experience is clear and the juxta-positioning of enslavement and the emancipatory process- which amounts to a direct call of action for Equality not just economically but 'humanistically'- is being directly addressed in this scenario.

Also the process [and subsequent short-comings] of democracy is faced head-on; the township runs on the principle of consensus which, on paper, looks like a wonderful mechanism to enjoy and apply for the equitable running of a community. But does it work in a fair way? The validity and 'fairness' of this concept of consensus as opposed to the vitality of constructive ''dissent' is one that is receiving much philosophical attention at the moment- notably from Jacques Rancière amongst others- and it's failings are laid bare in this film. Putting aside the peer pressure complexities inherent in the democratic process of achieving a viable 'consensus,' it is clear that fair and just decisions are not always reached by this political process. In this case, it is a process that produces a result that is anti-freedom and equality; Grace's liberty is not just at first restricted, but eventually eroded at an ever quickening pace until she is nothing more than an economic and sexual chattel [and in the case of Tom Edison Jnr, her 'protector' and would-be lover, an emotional filter and intellectual self-determinator].

In this way, the ethics of Fraternity, based in the practise of consensual democracy, can seem to a flawed façade to the truer, baser nature of the participating citizens. The idea of community takes on a distinctive American tone here, directly related to the philosophies of John Locke, whose basic premise was that communities were only viable if property owning men came together to protect their individual interests as a self-serving group. As such the purpose of society was solely to enhance [and of course protect] the enjoyment of property; the only legitimate political power was one that served this end. This is core to the frontier spirit of the 'American Ideal,' and tellingly Dogville is clearly a former frontier town, with its now spent mine and sense of being by-passed, quite possibly for good.

Liberty- and by default individual freedom- is as such ironically compromised in this republican democracy of cantonic consensus. What on the surface appears to be the workings of a successful regime of anarcho-communism, is nothing less than the machinations of a society which celebrates the actions and rights of the individual, but only of course, if that individual citizen is in a place of power. In Dogville's situation, this is bestowed on those inhabitants who were born and raised there; everyone else is an outsider and therefore powerless. The similar process can be seen in contemporary western societies where immigration is concerned. Migrant workers are welcomed and tolerated if they keep their head downs and do the work the indigenous population don't want to do; but step out of those strictures….

Working through this, the film is a neat critique of the lopsided view of America's take on liberty. The European tradition is much more aware of the fact that individual liberty is only one facet of the political spectrum that's makes a 'good society.' The pursuit of personal liberty cannot be an absolute one, because at some time or another, the prosecution of one person's liberty [aka as 'rights'] relies on a constraint on the liberty of some other individual[s]. Personal liberty comes with a social responsibility for the benefit of all; as Richard Tawney, the leading inter-war socialist neatly put it, 'every man should have his liberty and no more, to do unto others as he would that they should do unto him.'

In this way, the citizenry of Dogville's application of liberty, as applied through their democratic Mission Hall institution, is not just very one sided, but a sham.


Summary Justice
The climax of the film is a brave, shocking, thrilling and- for me-an immensely satisfying conclusion. It unfolds in the last twenty minutes and if you make it that far into the film [in much the same way you may have made it to the end of this review/analysis :)], it is well worth the wait.

It turns out that Grace is the daughter of a leading local mobster in the city [James Caan]. Tom Edison Jnr, finally realising that Grace's presence in the town had the potential to disrupt and perhaps taint his own life plans of being a writer and- of course perhaps more importantly, his position as 'moral' leader of Dogville- decides to contact the mobster and tell him where she is hiding. He dutifully turns up to try and persuade his daughter to return with him [she is clearly being groomed to be his successor]. At first Grace refuses; she initially refuses to see no wrong with what the towns people have done to her, their actions were of course, 'beyond their control.'

Her father tells her she has an arrogant, hypocritical take on human society, precisely because of her liberal 'façade,' and that true justice is handed out by the likes of him; that rapists, murderers and thieves are sanctioned by him cleanly and effectively without resort to rancour or the smokescreen of consensus.

She at that point appears to experience an epiphany; she begins to realise just what she has been through and how debilitating the lifestyle and morality of the towns people has become, for them, as citizens and human beings. They have not just degraded her but, more importantly, they have degraded themselves.

As she gets out of her father's limousine, she realises what has to be done. She tells the gangsters to kill everyone, including the children, and burn the place to the ground. She takes a handgun, and without fuss, executes John Edison Jnr herself.

The issues dealt with here are many and complex, and warrant many hours of discussion. Is the summary judgement handed out by the gangster and his daughter barbaric, or is it another aspect of the American Way, the application of natural law by the powerful? This is after all the way American foreign policy has shaped up so far in the twenty-first century in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps soon in Iran. This absolutism of justice, seen through the prism of individual liberty assessed and applied through consensus democracy, perhaps really does come back to bite the citizens of Dogville on the bottom , and arguably rightly so.

The actions of Grace and her father are therefore clearly of a revolutionary nature; they are, through the exercise of dissenting judgement operating through an interest beyond their insular, personal needs; they do this by, quite literally, entirely erasing Dogville from its already tenuous place on the world map.

Could such a film have been made by an American? I think not. It is a brave and challenging- if shocking- finale and one that should be soundly applauded for its lack of neoliberal-pleasing restraint. In fact the film was criticised at the Cannes festival for its 'lack of humanism' and it certainly ruffled some libertarian feathers- particularly those across the Atlantic who saw it as anti-American- although it went on to win a number of awards, was voted the eighth best film of the noughties by The Guardian, and was in slant magazines top 100 films of the decade.

The film- despite its length which may well be its greatest weakness- is a wonderfully well written, remarkable critique of the republican values of equality, freedom and community, and a timeless comment on the fragile state of the American concept of liberty, for it is as truly relevant now- if not more so- to the current socio-political shape of the US, as it was in the depression times portrayed in Dogville.

Thursday 5 August 2010

Modern Science Is Now A Pseudo Religion

It has become increasingly the case over the past 30-40 years that many branches of science have come to demand, as a bare necessity, complex [and thereby expensive] machines and systems to further their research. Notable examples are CERN's accelerator, JET and Hubble. In fact these immense projects are so big they require multi-government finance and collaboration to support them. Gone are the days of a individualist genius like Einstein, working in an academic lab to further our collective knowledge.

As such, science has become inextricably linked to Big Business. It is fully incorporated into the free market, fundamentalist capitalist complex. It is no longer a disciple looking to further human knowledge; it has shareholders [and individual reputations/media profiles/book sales]to think about.

Money matters to science now. Not debate, open-mindedness and the pursuit of truth. As such, any scientists and researchers that wish to challenge existing scientific beliefs that are in effect, written in tablets of stone by the scientific establishment- such as the Big Bang and Evolution, two 'scientific' theories that are actually barking mad when looked at rationally- get short shift from said establishment. The prevailing staus quo must not be questioned; funding cannot be affected by any signs of challenges to existing theories that are reliant on megabucks for their perpetuation as establishment givens, and which have been sold to the public as immutable truths.

Huge [egoistic] personal and corporate reputations [aka share value] rely on it. And so instead of debating openly and with a mature approach- one in line in fact, with their own vaunted scientific method- to ascertain whether there is any merit in these alternative theories and views, the scientific establishment take a leaf out of the neoliberal book to which they have become so politically aligned, and actively obstruct the publication and promotion of unacceptable counter-ideas, pillory and debunk said alternative ideas in their own journals that dominate the market [much as Murdoch does in popular media], whilst denying the targets of their discrimination a right to reply.

This is of course identical to the approach of the religious authorities before the Reformation and the Enlightenment. The contemporary scientific establishment is no different from them; they have become just as much a part of the wider economic and socio-political establishment as the Church did in medieval times- the church of course they so despise [yet secretly admire and copycat the techniques of] and waste no opportunity to attack as the basis of un-scientific mumbo-jumbo; again, with true neoliberal hypocrisy.

The techniques are also identical to those used by neoliberalism over the past thirty years; establish a position of power- use propaganda and falsified information, to create self-sustaining myths in society that support said power bases position as the only game in town: There Is No Alternative- actively suppress by whatever means possible any sign of dissent to this model and above all, protect the income/funding stream.

This ideology is ingrained in scientists from school/university onwards. It is an ingrained position; the scientific establishment is right; it always is; who are you to question it? To do so means you must be an idiot. Go away and realign yourself with the sheep.

Myth of course, pure myth. the science of the Enlightenment is as blinkered as any it has kidded itself it would replace. The Great irony. But a dangerous one for the advancement of human knowledge. How so much less advanced, how much original thought and humanity improving discoveries have been lost, by a forced conformity to the Old Theories held in such awe by the scientific establishment and their unthinking lackies, with such religious fervour?

There are signs things are changing; the 21st century is shaping up to move on and the ridiculous, comfort blanket theories of Old are being increasingly dismantled...but it's still going to be a struggle. Take your blinkers off, and join it.