Another hat

I have a Notebook in The Times today, which you can read here. I've written about two topics: Arts Council England's refusal to give £174,000 towards subsidising some concerts celebrating the 150th anniversary of Elgar's birth; and speeding police:

[A]rts subsidy is not about making possible performances that the public want to hear. It is, in reality, a conspiracy to take money from us through our taxes and to spend it on the tastes of a tiny clique.

And Elgar, with his mass popularity and his unforgivable sin of patriotism, is anathema to the cultural commissars who run the arts subsidy racket.

So while £174,000 for Elgar is a no-no, “commissioning 50 new, specially made ring tones, for all the telephones on the Arts Council system, [which] celebrates the relocation of the south west regional office to Southernhay in Exeter” is a yes-yes.

***

Motoring organisations are in a huff that only 354 of the 90,000 policemen and women caught on camera speeding or jumping red lights have been punished. Only 0.5 per cent of police have been fined or given points, compared with 84 per cent of the rest of us.

...Paul Smith of Safespeed argues that: “It’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us.”

Hello? Of course it’s a different rule for them. They are the police. Can you imagine the outcry if they trundled along at 30mph rather than chasing after criminals? Isn’t the real complaint that they don’t get to crime scenes quickly enough?

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

al Jazeera English - the best, by far.

Iain Dale is spot on in his estimation of Al Jazeera English:

I had assumed it was just Arab propaganda, but boy was I wrong. I sat transfixed for an hour as I watched story after story about world affairs without a hint of any kind of bias. This wasn't your typical soundbite reporting, it was indepth stuff from around the world.

I wrote much the same thing when it first started, and I have been hooked ever since. It really is superb - and manages something which the BBC finds impossible: to be unbiased in its coverage of Israel. Yes, Hamas et al have their coverage. But Israeli spokesmen are asked proper questions and not treated as war criminals. It's called even handedness - a concept entirely alien to the BBC.

It's by far the best news channel on TV.

But  there is, of course, a big difference between the English and Arabic versions of Al Jazeera.That's another story...

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

Bad films. Bad, bad films.

The two most discerning film critics I know - they work as a team - are Alex and Harry Solomons. That they are my nephews is irrelevant. They have impeccable judgement, and are regulars at their local cinemas.

They saw Pirates of the Caribbean last weekend, and their strongly expressed view is that it is the worst film they have ever seen. You have been warned.

They have, however, not seen The Family Stone, which is the worst film ever made - a film so nauseatingly, formulaicly cloying that, as I was watching it, I would happily have committed an act of violence on the person of anyone involved with the film.

And while we're on the subject of the worst films ever made, here's a trivia quiz. Which actress has been in two of the 3 worst films ever made?

The films are - as if you need me to tell you! - A Stranger Among Us and Shining Through.

The answer:

Melanie Griffith.

A Stranger Among Us was so preposterously stupid, and so shockingly badly acted, that I spent the entire film in a mix of embarrassed laughter and awe-struck admiration that such drivel could ever have been contemplated by a studio. Ms Griffith plays a NYPD detective (that alone would be enough to make the film preposterous) who goes undercover into the NYC Hasidic community to hunt down a murderer and falls in love with the rabbi.

Let me run that by you again, since the human brain cannot absorb such a concept in one go. Melanie Griffith - Melanie Griffith! - plays a NYPD cop who goes undercover as a Hasidic Jew, no one notices she isn't entirely kosher, and she and the rabbi get to make beautiful klezmer together.

The other film, Shining Through, is a Nazi double, triple, quadruple, I lost countuple 'thriller' in which she starred with Michael Douglas and was so mind-numbingly dull that when I realised, some half an hour into it, that I left my oven on, walked home to turn it off, walked back to the cinema, turned to my friend and asked 'what's happened?', she replied: 'nothing'.

There can, of course, be no debate as to these three worst films ever made. But if you have contenders for spots 4 or up, do please post a comment.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (10)

A good man forced out by lesser men

To coin a phrase: there are two sides to every story.

On the one side, Graham Brady disagreed with the recent speech by David Willetts and the anti-grammar school comments of David Cameron added in interviews later. His response was to write a piece in the New Statesman, which was temperate and clearly reasoned. At no point did he criticise either his leader or David Willetts. He followed this by publishing figures obtained from the Commons Library which showed that "GCSE results are significantly better in areas that have an element of selective education – with ethnic minority children benefiting most."

At every stage he behaved decently and properly. He played the ball, not the man.

But there's another side to the story. His restrained contribution to the debate was dismissed as "delusional" by Mr Cameron. His conversation with the Chief Whip was spun by the Cameroonians:

A spokeswoman for Mr Cameron said: “Graham has been severely reprimanded by the Chief Whip and told to stick to his brief.”

Mr Brady is now expected to lose his portfolio in next month’s reshuffle.

He was then subjected to a further day of hostile briefings by the Cameroonians.

At no point were his arguments even considered, let alone dealt with. They played the man, not the ball. Not that anyone should be surprised at Mr Cameron's tactics or behaviour. Jeff Randall, writing in The Daily Telegraph, said he would not trust Mr Cameron "with my daughter's pocket money":

To describe Cameron's approach to corporate PR as unhelpful and evasive overstates by a widish margin the clarity and plain-speaking that he brought to the job of being Michael Green's mouthpiece...In my experience, Cameron never gave a straight answer when dissemblance was a plausible alternative, which probably makes him perfectly suited for the role he now seeks: the next Tony Blair.

Dissembling? David Cameron? Last year, defending his refusal to sack Boris Johnson, he said:

This is the Conservative Party. We are not New Labour, we don't mind if people go off message. We love it, actually. 

Anyone who thinks spin and Stalinism will vanish with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is, one might say, delusional.

Mr Brady resigned yesterday. Principle is a rare thing in the 'we are more New Labour than New Labour' Conservative Party of today. Had he chosen, Mr Brady could have kept his mouth shut from the beginning and no one would have thought the worse of him for that. Instead, he spoke up for his constituents, and for the opportunity for all children who would be able to benefit from an academic education to have just that.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

The real antisemitism underlying the boycotters

One of the more unpleasant aspects of the existence of Jewish communal organisations is that they are subjected to outbreaks of antisemitism. Some of it is physical, some verbal. 
 
The website of the Board of Deputies has this statement as its current main post: 

LONDON - (16 May 2007): A delegation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews recently met with Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett to discuss a range of issues including nuclear proliferation in Iran, the humanitarian situation in Darfur, antisemitism in the Ukraine and in the Arab media, and the next UN World Conference Against Racism. 

The delegation was headed by Board President Henry Grunwald, QC, Vice President and Chairman of the International Division Flo Kaufmann, Vice Chairman of the Division, Alex Brummer, Chief Executive Jon Benjamin and Public Affairs Officer Nadia Lipsey. 

...On the subject of Darfur , Mr Grunwald mentioned the recent launch of Darfur: A Jewish Response published by The Pears Foundation, and the particular resonance of this issue amongst the Jewish community, given their experience of the Holocaust. Mr Grunwald expressed the hope that the Government would continue to urge the international community to intervene in Darfur and to support sanctions against . The Foreign Secretary said she had raised these concerns during discussions on Darfur at a recent UN Security Council meeting.

An unexceptional statement, albeit one well worth making, with - as it is properly described - "the particular resonance of this issue amongst the Jewish community". 

To some, however, such words feed other thoughts. By 'some', I mean antisemites.

JCI (Jewish Community Information) is a service provided by the Board of Deputies. The site has a 'contact us' facility. As you might imagine, not all the comments which are received are, to put it mildly, healthy. But even these can be instructive. Controversy is raging at the moment about the push for various boycotts of Israel. The NUJ has already voted for one. On Wednesday, the UCU will vote on an academic boycott. It seems a near certainty that the union - a merger of the 3 old academic unions - will vote in favour of a boycott, given the hard left stance of the old NATFHE and the make up of the new UCU executive. 

Those arguing for a boycott seek to present themselves as opponents of Israeli government policy rather than antisemites. Yes, it should go without saying that it is perfectly possible to oppose the policies of the Israeli government without being antisemitic. I do it myself. And it is, at least in theory, perfectly possible even to be anti-Zionist and oppose the very existence of Israel without being an antisemite. 

But do not be fooled about what is going on. Some of those supporting a boycott are clearly the ‘useful idiots’ of the antisemites; they are not themselves antisemitic but are too blinded with hatred for to realise the real nature of their allies. But it is - and I'll put it no stronger than this - quite remarkable how many of those who call for a boycott, on whatever grounds, turn out to be plain old antisemites. 

On Saturday, JCI received an email from one Pamela Hardyment, reacting to this stance on Darfur . And it is, as I say, instructive. Her email gives the game away, exposing how much of the support for a boycott is suffused with antisemitism, pure and simple: 

From: Pamela Hardyment 

Sent: 26 May 2007 13:53

Subject: Darfur

Ohmigod

You are worried about Dafur!!!!!!!!!!! Yet you have in a wonderful Nazi like killing machine (thousands of palestinians have died or are incarcerated in camps, including Gaza and the West Bank) backed by the world's richest jews and , you are joking about Darfur aren't you?

Whatever you say, and I don't want to hear what you have to say because it will be the same old rhetoric, we in the UK have had enough of Israel, we (the NUJ of which I am a member) have finally voted to boycott Israeli goods (I have been doing this since 1957 so it just legitimises it and spreads the word, all items with 7.29 in the bar code, Jaffa Carmel, etc) - universities will bring in an academic boycott and architects are now joining in too. It won't stop there, we will do all in our power to make sure that you do not take any more land (you have already taken mine and refuse to pay for it). We can no longer send money to the PLO or Hamas, but we are sending people, we are not afraid of your wall, your evil soldiers (and you worry about one missing soldier, ha!) and will continue. We used to be mild, respected you because of the so called holocaust (a nice round number 6 million, what about the homosexuals, gypsies, deformed, dissenters, they NEVER get a mention and my family were among them)

So yes, we are very angry, we are working against Israel whereas before we supported you, and we will do all in our collective power to make life as uncomfortable for you as you make it for the Palestinians, shame on you, shame on all jews, may your lives be cursed

Yours with no shame whatsoever and no fear

pam hardyment

Ms Hardyment’s sentiments are representative of the underlying views of many boycott supporters. The references to the “Nazi like killing machine⦠backed by the world's richest jews and America”, the “so called holocaust (a nice round number 6 millionâ¦)” and “shame on all jews, may your lives be cursed”, may be more obvious than some of the more sly proponents of a boycott, who are careful to couch their arguments in apparently reasonable language; but antisemitism is antisemitism, whatever the tone in which it is expressed.       

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (32)

Comments

My apologies to those of you who have had difficulty leaving comments. Fingers crossed it's all sorted, so please fire away. Usual rules apply - anything goes so long as it's relevant, and not libellous or offensive (and I decide that - and if you don't like that, tough!).

If by any chance you do still have a problem, please let me know via the 'email me' button. Thanks. 

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

Who cares what Vanessa Mae thinks about the Festival Hall?

How depressingly predictable.

The Telegraph has an excellent article by Rupert Christiansen on the acoustics of the new Festival Hall.  But accompanying it is a slide show: what the Royal Festival Hall means to the stars, based on a project by the photographer, Rankin, which seems to be entirely worthless. The Telegraph gives us the views of ten 'stars', such as Sam Taylor-Wood, Joanna Lumley and Sir Terence Conran. Not one classical musician, to whom the Festival Hall might actually mean something beyond "the coolest place on the planet to listen to groovy music with indisputable in-crowders", "filming Juliet Stevenson and Michael Maloney hopping by in Truly Madly Deeply" and "the bust of Nelson Mandela".

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

Too thick to eat or drink

We are now, officially, too stupid to decide for ourselves what to eat and what to drink. With cheese advertising now banned, this weekend saw confirmation that alcoholic drinks will carry a health warning:

Alcoholic drinks will carry new health warning labels by the end of 2008 under a voluntary agreement between ministers and the drinks industry. The labels will detail alcoholic units and recommended safe drinking levels. Bottles and cans currently have alcohol percentages, but only some state what this equals in alcoholic units. Public health minister Caroline Flint says exactly what the labels will say is not decided, but the warnings will not be as strong as for cigarettes. The measure was first proposed three years ago, but both sides have struggled to agree on a format. It is not known how many drinks firms will sign up for the scheme, but ministers said if the industry did not comply, the government would introduce legislation.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

A new TV network

I suppose you'd call this JewTube. This Jerusalem Post story has the background on www.JewishTVNetwork.com

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

Go to Fidelio - now!

I went to the first night (well, afternoon, to be precise as it was, unusually, a matinee) of the Royal Opera House's new Fidelio. I'm going to try to write about it more fully later on, but for the moment I'll simply say besiege the box office until you get a ticket.

I was initially worried that the production, which updates it to a sort of generic communist/tyrannical modern state might be yawningly trite. Why directors feel the need to change the setting of Fidelio, which works perfectly in its original setting, is beyond me. However, the new production works splendidly, in large measure because of the outstanding singing and acting. I've never come across Endrik Wottrich before but he has just the right heroic voice for Florestan, and I thought Terje Stensvold excellent as Don Pizarro. Eric Halfvarson's Rocco was also pitch perfect. 

But there were two simply astonishing perforances. Antonio Pappano's conducting was at the same time white hot, with a burning intensity, but also tender and subtle. The final scene was simply electrifying. I've been lucky enough to hear Fidelio conducted live by Leonard Bernstein, Colin Davis, and Kurt Masur. All were, in their own way, magical. But I don't recall any other live performance which was quite so intense as Pappanos. Sensational stuff.

As for Karita Mattila as Leonore. Breathtaking. If she doesn't win a best actress award for this - and I mean actress, whether in straight play or opera - something is very wrong. Not only is her voice simply one of the best in the world; she is also an actress of the highest calibre, fit to rank alongside any straight actress.

Book now - you'll thank me for telling you.

UPDATE: Well, not everyone agrees...Jessica Duchen says there was "some nasty stuff in the pit". She's bang on with the horns, which made me wince, but I thought after a shaky overture the actual opera was glorious. And I'm just puzzled how she can write of the Florestan:

Unfocused, tight and lacking resonance, with rapid continual vibrato but no real centre to the tone. A physical match for Mattila, but certainly not a vocal one.

I thought his voice was a real discovery.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)