The Commissar

.

Last night at our socialist film club we showed the 1967 Russian film, “The Commissar” by Alexander Askoldov. This is a truly great piece of art, but is perhaps slightly inaccessible for those more used to the Hollywood conventions of film making.

The film was a political disaster for Askoldov, being made both on the 50th anniversary of the October revolution, and also completed immediately after the six day war in the Middle East. He was never allowed to make another film, expelled from the Communist party (CPSU), and exiled from Moscow.

Instead of an heroic piece of “Soviet Socialist Realism”, the movie about a Red Cavalry unit during the civil war shows them in a very unglamorous light. What is more it is very sympathetic to the interpretation that the Soviet Union failed the Jews - a politically unacceptable message to the CPSU after Russia's allies in the Middle East had just lost a war to Israel.

Top Russian star, Nonna Mordyukova, plays Klavdia Vavilova a Cavalry Commissar who is pregnant by her lover, another soldier who has been killed in action. Because she has been in the saddle for the last three months, the doctors have told her she is too late for an abortion, so while she has the baby she is billeted on the family of a poor Jewish tailor, played by the brilliant Rolan Bykov.

Suddenly she is taken out of the energetic maelstrom of war, and finds herself in a family leading a slow paced small town life. The movie does not shy away from the fact that the Red Army commandeers a private room for her, as an officer, although this means that three adults and several children of the Jewish family have to share one room.

Slowly she becomes acclimatized to family life, and has the baby – the child birth scenes are especially brilliant and certainly this must be the most imaginative use of cavalry and field artillery in cinema! In her civilian clothes and with her baby she is ashamed to meet her former comrades.

But then the Red Army pulls out of the town, and she must stay behind with the family while they await the advancing white army: the Jews fear a pogrom. As they huddle in the cellar the family keeps their spirits up with the simple pleasures of singing and dancing. But as Bykov asks whether the Jews will ever be safe in the world and can their be an “international of kindness”, Mordyukova replies that the important thing is not the “international of kindness” but a workers’ international that will free humanity not through kindness but through steel determination and discipline. Her words seem like a foreign language to the family.

We then have a flash forward to the holocaust, as the Jews of the town are herded together, and we have a vision of Jews in the uniforms of the Nazi death camps.

Later, the Commissar watches the white armies entering the town, and in a desperately moving scene she abandons her baby so she can rejoin her regiment to stop this rising tide of fascism. The film ends with the Red army advancing across the battlefield, but the abiding memory are the words of the Jewish mother, when they find that the Commissar has abandoned her baby: “What sort of people are they?”

This is not a good film to watch if you want easy reassurance about the Russian revolution, but is a fantastic celebration of the human spirit and parental love. It also shows that war is unspeakable, even when it is just.

It is also worth mentioning the extraordinary score by Alfred Schnittke.

The paradox of the Soviet Union is that such challenging and intelligent cinema came from Russia during this period, but also that the Communist Party would ban such a humane artistic work for being off message.

This is England

.


My God yes, this is England: not the only England, but one England among many. It is certainly an England I have lived in.

What Shane Meadows does brilliantly is capture and express a specific time and place, and root his story in the real experiences of working class life. Skinheads rejoiced in how the English often see ourselves, as hard drinkers and fighters, brave men who “can meet with Triumph and Disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same.” It was a youth sub-culture born of cultural impoverishment, but also rebellious, exuberant and cheeky. Being a skinhead meant being part of a gang that approved of you, and the values of being a skinhead were generally ones celebrated in English culture (I am not saying that is a good thing!) This is underlined by the frequent references to the Falklands war.

Thomas Turgoose turns in a fantastic performance as Shaun, the troubled 12 year old brought into a local gang of skinheads, attracted by their camaraderie, and the way they boost his self esteem. What the film does very well is show how precarious and out of control life is when you are young, as the gang changes around Turgoose’s character, and the bond of loyalty to the gang becomes more sinister and explicitly racist.

Stephen Graham as Combo, the racist skin just out of nick is electrifying. The review in the Guardian described Combo as “deeply objectionable”, but that soooh misses the point. The truth is that anyone who has ever been in a youth sub-culture has had mates like Combo. Older men who, like Peter Pan, shelter from life’s disappointments by being the respected elder in the gang. He is objectionable from the point of view of a Guardian journalist, but from the point of view of a 12 year old on a council estate, Combo is quite glamorous.

The contradiction that Combo was both a violent racist, but also conscious of the multi-racial origins of Skin culture was convincing. Back in the 1970s I had friends very sympathetic to the NF who would listen to ska music, and thought Desmond Dekker was like unto a God. This is part of a very contradictory world view that understands class grievances, but articulates them through racism. So there is an ambivalence about black people who share the same class experience.

Indeed, in the late 1970s and early 1980s most (white) working class teenagers knew people in the NF. I found the NF meeting in a tatty pub completed convincing, and I liked the way the film showed the NF as reasonably attractive for these alienated lads, while at the same time most of the skins saw through it as a pile of shit.

There are some lovely touches in the film. The fact that combo only has a provisional driving licence is comically deflating in an understated way, and the indignity for Shaun, that DMs don’t come in children’s sizes!

There were some things I was not too sure about. I think the film tried too hard to explain why Combo was a loser, whereas I think the audience could have been trusted to work that out without the Oprah moments. I am also not entirely sure that skins in 1983 were listening to ska so much , as opposed to the Cockney Rejects and Angelic Upstarts. There was also a political problem, that in 1983 the NF would not have been talking about Englishness, but Britishness, and it would have been the Union Jack, not the Cross of St George behind the NF speaker.

But generally, this is a great, and very English, film.

Socialist Film Club

.
Having a regular socialist film night has proven very useful to the left in Swindon, not only as a sociable way of keeping comrades in touch and generating some discussion, but it has also allowed us to organise joint events with other organisations, such as the Climate Change Action Network, Stop the War Coalition or even animal welfare activists, where out interests coincide.

We are just planning our programme for the next six months, and these are the films we have chosen.

it is often difficult thinking of films to show, especially as some very good films are only avialable in Region 1 format (USA) and the pub we show them in doesn't have a licence to show region 1 films. if you have any suggestions for future movies we would be very pleased, especially short documentaries by activists.

11th June - Commissar
Made in 1967 but banned in Russia for the next two decades for depicting anti-semitism, Askoldov's only film as a director is a beautiful, poignant meditation on war, religion, childhood and human nature. In it, pregnant Red Army commissar Klavdia Vavilova stays with an impoverished Jewish family during the 1917-22 civil war.

9th July - Ghosts
Famed documentary filmmaker Nick Broomfield's second feature film is a dramatisation of the events in which 21 Chinese illegal immigrants were drowned whilst fishing for cockles off the South East coast in February 2004. The title refers to the term the Chinese use to describe white westerners, but it equally applies to the legions of poorly paid, non-British workers who provide for British restaurants and supermarkets.

13th August - Battle of Algiers
Powerful, dispassionate account of the Algerian war of Independence which generated huge political and aesthetic ripples. With its gripping documentary-style realism providing a very believable immediacy, it’s a compelling indictment of colonialism. Aided by Morricone's score it's a film that grabs you by the scruff of the neck and doesn't let go. Could be 1957, could be 2003, 2004... 2007

10th September - North Country
A fictionalized account of the first major successful sexual harassment case in the United States -- Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines, where a woman who endured a range of abuse while working as a miner filed and won the landmark 1984 lawsuit.

8th October - Venezuela - Journey with the Revolution
A journey into the heart of the Venezuelan revolution. Meet the midwives, nurses, doctors, housewives, teachers, gay and disability activists, who are transforming Venezuela. Visit health clinics, soup kitchens, land committees,education and micro-credit programmes… The excitement of the revolution is contagious. If you want to find out what a revolution is, this is the film for you.

12th November - Iluminados por el fuego
A wonderful Argentinian film, directed by Tristán Bauer and loosely based on the real experiences of some young Argentinian soldiers that fought in the 1982 Falklands war. A deeply moving and poignant story

Our Sufferings in this Land

.
On Monday our regular socialist film night in Swindon was lucky enough to be visited by Ed Hill from Bristol, who introduced his documentary Our sufferings in this land , which is currently DVD of the month for This Week in Palestine.
I have known Ed since we were both active in the anti-poll tax campaign in Bristol. I am pleased that we had 18 people there to watch the film, and it generated some good discussion, as well as practical suggestions for supporting the palestinians.

I have to say that as someone who has visited the West bank myself, this film is the best account I have seen for revealing the day to day oppression of Palestinians, and is also full of practical advice for activists. It doesn't assume any prior knowledge of the history or the current situation, but neither is it patronising. I strongly recommend that you buy a copy, and once you have watched it pass it round your friends.

In autumn 2005, Ed visited Palestine on a two-week olive harvest trip organised by Zaytoun (the U.K. cooperative that imports Palestinian olive oil) and the International Women’s Peace Service.

As well as visiting Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the group stayed in two small rural towns in the West Bank working with the farmers harvesting their olives. Ed also visited the northern town of Tulkarem to deliver money raised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign - Bristol to an orphanage there.

Using a pocket video camera, Ed has recorded his experiences and his film aims to present a complete understanding of the history, politics, geography, and culture of Palestine. It dramatically explains the construction of the Separation Wall, the checkpoints, the Apartheid system of passes, separate road networks, the continual military oppression and the creeping ethnic-cleansing, together with the spirited culture and resistance of a brave people.

Through interviews with farmers, teachers, activists, and ordinary people, woven together with the story of the trip, Ed presents an understanding of Palestine as a case-study which unlocks an understanding of world politics and the hypocrisy of politicians and the bias of the daily media. He encourages everyone to visit Palestine and his conclusion is that one cannot rely on anyone else for solutions - everyone has the power to make a difference.

This documentary film is a valuable resource in exposing Israel’s daily suffocation of the Palestinian people, and is an excellent tool in opening the eyes of those who are not aware of the suffering that the Palestinian people endure on a daily basis.

The DVD is available for purchase online at the film director’s website .

Sunshine: in space no one can hear you shout "rubbish"....!!

....



I was brought up on a diet of sci-fi, horror, westerns and musicals (they don’t make ‘em now do they now?). So I was curious about the new sci-fi film by Danny Boyle/Alex Garland, Sunshine. The reviews have been mostly good and critics have been applauding the fact there’s a return to a more cerebral and thought-provoking take on the genre as opposed to the dumbed-down eye candy with cheesy lines such as, “may the force be with you”.

Well, the trouble with Sunshine..? Where to begin… It is a sumptuous, stunning and visually beautiful film to watch. The sun was clearly the scene stealer. There’s a juxtaposition between the brilliance of the sun with its golden rays on the top deck of the spaceship but deep in the bowels of the ship where the crew live, it is cold, dark and claustrophobic. The story revolves around 8 scientists who are on a mission to save the sun as it is on its last rays. There’s a nuclear bomb strapped to the ship and they have to navigate it into the sun. You kinda know they are doomed as the ship is called Icarus II and we know what happened to Icarus…

The mission is going well and then…they get the “distress call” from Icarus I who disappeared into the void 7 years previously. At this point, I would say there should be a do’s and don’ts for sci-fi reminiscent of the scene in Wes Craven’s Scream where one of the characters reads out a list of do’s and don’ts for horror. Top of the list for sci-fi is never, under any circumstances, answer a distress call. Haven’t they watched Alien and Event Horizon?

There’s a philosophical debate about whether they should answer the call and the decision is left to physicist Capa (Cillian Murphy, a Boyle favourite). He mulls it over and thinks it is best to answer it (Doomed!). The debate is rather leaden and steals liberally from Star Trek – Wrath of Khan and Spock’s Benthamsque line about, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. Oh dear! Oh dear! A common theme throughout the film was the morality of self-sacrifice but even that seemed confused and rather stilted. And the dialogue is totally unrealistic, which is a shame because Alex Garland is a good writer (though his novels have never translated well on screen.)

There was curiosity and an obsession with watching the blinding dying sun through various filters, and religious connotations being made. The scientists lived and dreamed the sun. I was half wondering when someone would come out with a line like, “Put out my hand and touch the face of God…” in a John Wayne style.

But biggest failure of Sunshine is that you don’t know what kind of film it is trying to be. The aim is to drop a nuke into the sun to save humanity but what does the film hinge on. Is it sci-fi, horror – “haunted house transported to space”, spiritual/religious experiences – "mysticism in the orange glow", an exercise in “madness”, and/or an old fashion morality tale? Because I don’t think Boyle or Garland know either. It is a mish-mash of ideas and mixes up genres. It is not straightforward and simplistic in storyline. It tries to be too clever by half and misfires rather like Icarus II.

The second half of the film has been described as like the film Event Horizon and it includes an interloping murderous sunburned demon who chases the rest of the crew around the ship (it also reminded me of a storyline from the sci-fi series, Space 1999). Crew in peril, someone has sabotaged the computer, oxygen levels are falling fast rather like my concentration at this point and it doesn’t look good for any them. It is at this point you take bets about which actor is high in the pecking order and will be left to the end.

Another touch of Alien is where Cillian Murphy is in a space suit looking out for the demon a la Sigourney Weaver style.

The other problem is that there is no characterisation, the characters don't interact with each other and the acting is utterly flimsy. They coulda called in their lines by telephone and nobody would have been the wiser although this makes the acting better than in Event Horizon where the performances could have been texted in and nobody would have noticed. I was expecting someone of Cillian Murphy’s calibre to have flexed his theatrical muscle. But no, he was a walking somnambulist.

Overall the film lacked suspense, fear and drama. There was probably more drama in the script conferences than in the film. If you are going to mix genres then you have to be clear about where your storyline is going and not leave it hanging in the air. There is some clever camera trickery such as freeze framing, close-up visuals of eyes with the sun rays reflected off them and long range outside shots of the expansive spaceship with the sun as a backdrop that creates a spectacular chiaroscuro effect .

There is nothing new under the sun but if you are going to indulge in a “cut and shunt” of ideas then you got to show subtly, cohesion and imagination. Sunshine leaves a lot to be desired for. It hasn’t the lyricism or creativity of Kubrick’s 2001 or Tarkovsky’s Solaris (admittedly I fell asleep half way through). All of these films, including Sunshine, are best viewed on the big screen.

Personally if you want to see a good cross over of horror and sci-fi then go and rent/buy Alien (the Ridley Scott one and not the shoddy sequels). It tells a simple story yet is compelling, atmospheric and scary. There is suspense and fear and I would argue a good critique of capitalism and the art of cynicism.

“Wind that Shakes the Barley”,

Last night I finally caught up with the “Wind that Shakes the Barley”, and I have to say I was disappointed and I consider the film to have been wildly over-praised. Perhaps because any film showing a British army of occupation will be well received during the context of the Iraq war.

Stylistically, I have a problem with the way Loach rather clumsily seeks to educate the audience, with dialogue and indeed whole scenes inserted just to inform. For example when the character played by Cillian Murphy rather incongruously explains Sinn Fein’s election victory to a British officer. Loach could have achieved much stronger artistic effect by simply filming the story about two brothers who ended up on different sides in a civil war, without breaking off every few minutes for a history lesson.

But as loach has consciously set out to make a political film, then he must be judged on both the politics and the artistic content. The interaction between the two starts with loach’s choice to make the film about a rural IRA unit, away from the centre of action, and the major players. Of course great insight can be achieved by looking at the effect of major historical events on ordinary people, but Loach’s choice causes him some problems. Firstly, there is no sense in the film of the enormous, almost feverish ferment in Ireland during this period, a good introduction to which can be found, for example, in C Desmond Greaves’s book “Liam Mellows and the Irish Revolution”.

And shifting the centre of action to a rural location also means that the key turning point happens off stage: the attack on anti-Treaty forces in Dublin’s Four Courts by the Free State army with British help in 1922, and the subsequent execution of IRA leaders, Liam Mellows, Rory O’Connor, Joe McKelvey and Richard Barrett. In the film, the first act of civil war we see is anti-Treaty IRA men shooting Free state soldiers – a reversal of history. We get a clear idea in Loach’s film of what was driving the pro-Treaty camp, but the strategy of the anti-treaty forces remains opaque. (they had sought to provoke a British reoccupation that would reunite the republicans, and restart the war of independence, without the stranglehold of the Treaty) This is despite the fact that Loach clearly feels more sympathy with the anti-treaty forces.

This is a weakness of Loach’s decision to film the story from the point of view of the rank and file, had he instead made a biography of, for example, Liam Mellows or IRA chief Liam Lynch, the politics would have been much clearer, and without the need for clunky explanatory inserts.

Loach also imposes some of his own politics onto the historical account. For example, watching the Wind that Shakes the Barley gives the impression that the division between pro and anti treaty forces was also influenced by those who were in favour or opposed to a socialist workers’ republic. In fact many of the anti-Treaty forces – after all backed by Éamon (“Labour must wait”) de Valera, were simply nationalist patriots.

Loach also reruns, almost word for word, the debate from “Land and Freedom”, showing a court case where an Irish republican court rules punitively against a small landlord, in favour of a tenant. This starts an argument about whether social justice must wait on military victory. However, this makes the mistake of identifying the small scale farmer or shop keeper, with the big capitalists. In fact, as we see today in Palestine, national oppression forces a common interest between employers and workers, simultaneous to their differing class interests.

Another missed opportunity,in the current context, is that the republican movement seems to have only two strategies - militarism and capitulation. It is not hard to draw contemporary relevance, and as Loach was determined to introduce political debate between his characters, then some discussion of alternative strategies of resistance apart from militarism might have been interesting

The “Wind that Shakes the Barley” is worth seeing, but it is not as good as it has been built up.

London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival

The 21st London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival is happening between the 21st March until the 4th April 2007. The excellent Shortbus (John Cameron Mitchell) is being shown on the 30th March. Check out the films as there are lots to choose from and there are also other events ("Generations of Love" launch) as well.

David Lynch: hideously weird...

"A woman in trouble" (tagline to Inland Empire)

When I watch a David Lynch film it always sends me into a semi-hypnotic state combined with that whacked out hallucinatory head trippy feeling. I like David Lynch and have done so since I watched that disturbing oddity Blue Velvet back in 1988.

It is of consequence that the two favourite painters of this cult indie film director are Francis Bacon and Edward Hopper . Hopper with his cityscapes and landscapes that smack of utter loneliness’ and alienation. People in his paintings never seem to connect or show any physical closeness. Lynch creates Hopperesque townsvilles that reflect a kind of edgy normality but dig deeper and you will see the influence of Bacon with the seedy underbelly of life which represents distress, violence, raw anger, and emotion. Towards the end of Inland Empire there is a scene strongly reminiscent of Bacon’s Head.

Inland Empire, rather like Lynch’s previous film Mulholland Drive, has the Hollywood theme throughout. Hollywood, the place where “stars make dreams and dreams make stars. Or conversely where dreams are tarnished and destroyed. Where the character played by Laura Dern is seen staggering along Hollywood Walk of Fame puking up blood after being stabbed.

The story revolves around an actress played by Laura Dern (a Lynch favourite) who is visited in her gloomy and creepy Louis XIV house by a “neighbour” (Grace Zabriskie… another Lynch favourite who played Laura Palmer’s mum in Twin Peaks). The scene is unnerving as the camera close-ups lingers on the expressive faces. The neighbour tells Nikki that she will land a part based on a Polish story, an old tale “about marriage” that will end in a “brutal fucking murder” and that if “tomorrow is today you will be sitting over there”…...

If you are looking for linear narrative then you will be disappointed as Lynch creates his films out of ideas. A kind of stream of consciousness with visual flair. Nikki the actress gets a part in a film where she finds out it was made before by a Polish film company but something dreadful happened to the leads. The viewer is pushed head first rather like Alice in Wonderland down into the trippy labryrinth of the story. Nikki the actress becomes Susan Blue (the character she plays in the film).

Another device of Lynch is changing identities or to be technical, photogenic fugue. It is a familiar device as Lynch used it in Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway. Is Nikki really Susan or is Susan really Nikki? Is this a film within a film? Who are the women who appear with Susan/Nikki and lip synch and dance along to the song “Locomotion”?

There is also parallel story about the two Polish leads in the original doomed production. What is real and not real? The Lynchian devices are apparent such as eerie low level noise/music, demons, time travel, low level orange/red lighting, warnings of eminent danger, blood red curtains, theatres, endless doors with Axx nn written on them (incidentally Axxon N. was a murder mystery story which never got off the ground for Lynch), time portals, fuzzy and disjointed camera shots. The only difference I found is that Lynch uses close-ups much more.

The film is a little under 3 hours but hey, I forgive Lynch as I was rooted to the chair. It absolutely makes no plot sense and I have given up trying to understand the meaning of Lynch. I just go with the flow. I remember spending days trying to figure out Mulholland Drive. That is what I like about Lynch there is no beginning, middle or end and no straightforward story. You can see the influences Lynch has on, whether consciously or not, other writers and directors (The film Donnie Darko and telly drama Desperate Housewives are just two examples… well, even more so since Lynch favourite Kyle “Agent Cooper” MacLachlan joined Desperate Housewives..)

Rather like Inland Empire, you never truly get it but it is 3 hours of spectacular Lynchian invention with no denouement except more weird and whacky dance routines at the end.

I don’t have a clue at what the rabbits set in a 1950s telly “comedy” (including canned laughter) represent…….

Babel

Last night I went to see Babel, the Oscar winning Mexican and American film directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu.

It really is an extraordinary movie, combining artistic integrity, a gripping plot and thought provoking political content. The high quality of the result is the effective combination of these elements.

The film uses the interrelated stories of four families, from Japan, Morocco, the USA and Mexico, who are all impacted by a tragic shooting. Attention shifts from one story to the next: what works really effectively here is that, for example, the Japanese story deals with grief, so by the time the other stories reach dramatic conclusions with death and danger, we are already emotionally conditioned to be deeply moved, which jolts you out of the complacency that we usually feel about screen violence.

There is also a strong exploration of the relationship between the developed world and the developing world. The vibrancy and vitality of Mexican culture is counterposed to middle class American suburbia, but then the economic and power imbalance is forcefully brought home at the border. This is all nicely understated, as with the genuinely traumatic identification we have with the cute white children lost in the desert, but then casually a US border policeman asks the Mexican nanny if she has any idea how many Mexican children die making the crossing. The cultural and economic gulf is further brought home because the only two occasions where the timeline differences between the stories becomes explicit also bridge between the two worlds.

The story is occasionally melodramatic, and occasionally seems derivative, but the acting performances are universally excellent, and overcomes any objections. Rinko Kikuchi’s portrayal as a deaf mute girl dealing with grief is utterly convincing, and had some resonance for me with Julliette Binoche’s role in “Three Colours, Blue”, but with the added brilliance of how Rinko shows the vulnerability, insecurity and also joy of being a teenager.

Gustavo Santaolalla won an Oscar for the musical score, which is completely deserved. The music effectively underpins the emotional intensity, and there are some brilliant set pieces, such as Rinko's drug expereince.

Anyway, it is a great film. See it of you can.

An Inconvenient Truth

Some 80+ people packed the pub back room last night for our Socialist Film Club, who had joined up with the Swindon Climate Action Network (SCAN) to screen “An Inconvenient Truth”. Interestingly, it was our socialist group who organised this, with the help of SCAN, and not the Green Party, who in my experience are an entirely electoral organisation.

The film was much better than I was expecting, and quite alarming to learn that if the Greenland ice sheet melts sea levels will go up 20 feet, flooding the homes of over 100 million people world wide, and goodbye London.

I was also surprised at how likeable Al Gore came over, he has a patrician charm about him, and it is easy to see that he is related to Gore Vidal.

What I thought was excellent was the way the film set up a compelling case for urgent and immediate action, but carefully explained that there was no need for panic. The technology and measures to halt climate change already exist, and what is missing is the political will. It also showed that the cumulative effect of small individual actions (such as unplugging your phone charger when not in use, and turning of your PC overnight) do actually make a difference.

About 20 people stayed behind afterwards for a discussion, and there was an interesting exchange of views about lifestylism, and a healthy recognition that for many working people using cars is essential. There were some very optimistic young people who confident that over the next ten years we can totally change common sense views about energy use, and make a neutral carbon footprint a completely normal expectation.

The Flags of our Fathers

.
.

Clint Eastwood's new film is built around the most iconic image of victorious soldiers raising the flag.

Good idea, perhaps, but he used the wrong picture and the wrong flag! (It is a symptom of our cultural domination by the USA that the equally iconic image of Russian soldiers hoisting the red flag over the rubble of the Reichstag is rarely seen in Britain)

The second world war has taken on a mythic status, as seen in the films of Steven Speilberg, etc. And the generation, like my father, who fought in that war, are regarded as the heroes, the good soldiers who fought in a clearly justifiable war.

But there was more than one war. There was a war to keep the British colonies, and there was a war between the Japanese empire and the British Empire and USA to determine which brutal superpower would dominate Asia. This is the war that Clint Eastwood celebrates.

Let us remember the other flag of our fathers, and the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who enlisted to fight in the other war, the war against facism. Many soldiers in the British army who wanted to fight Hitler were diverted by the bosses to serve Britain's own sordid imperial interests in the Far East, but at the same time there WAS a people's war here in Britain - a popular mobilisation that overthrew Mussolini and Hitler. There was a war in Europe against fascism, a just war.

The defeat at Dunkirk had destroyed the authority of the Colonel Blimps and chinless wonders who wanted an unpoliticised "professional" army, and instead for the first time since the Putney debates at the end of the English revolution the British army were involved in democratic debate about war aims, and what they were fighting for. An unoffical soldiers parliament was convened in Cairo, the first act of which was to demand the nationalisation of the land and banks; and every army unit had an official political education programme, and the education officers were often CP members.

It as become fashionable in recent years to twin together Hitler and Stalin as equally terrible tyrants. What a travesty. The Soviet bureucracy was brutal and undemocratic, but they were not fighting to promote racial supremacy and they never created an industrial process to destroy human beings and turn them into lamp shades. Were the crimes of the Soviet bureaucracy worse then the crimes of the British government during its own industrial revolution?

The victory of the Axis forces would have thrown the human race into a dark barbarism beyond our most fevered nightmares. Fascism was halted in the Streets of Stalingrad by the Red Army, and the hundreds of thousands of partisans who harried the fascist armies, in the Ukraine, Belorus, Italy, France and elsewhere. But let us not forget the paradox that for those brief few years Churchill and Roosevelt also fought fascism, and young men from Britain and America were the people's soldiers.

I am Cuba

This Monday we showed Mikhail Kalatozov’s 1964 film, “Soy Cuba” (Я - Куба) at our Swindon Socialist Film Club. There were 18 people there, including some new faces, although I feel a bit guilty that we didn’t make enough effort to talk to people afterwards. I think we are al a bit tired at the moment, as there is so much political stuff going on.

Soy Cuba is probably the most visually beautiful film I have ever seen, certainly comparable to the best cinematography of Hollywood’s masters like James Wong Howe. The interplay of influence with Hollywood is also interesting, for example the famous 10 minutes single take from Hitchcock’s Rope (1948) was technically interesting but not artistically satisfying. The opening 10 minutes of “Soy Cuba” include the most extraordinary single take that sweeps from overhead through partying holiday makers and takes the shot underwater! Indeed the film is so visually rich that it is almost intoxicating. There is also a scene where three rebels are captured by Batista’a army, and in conscious tribute to Stanley Kubrick’s Spartacus, each says “I am Fidel!” Allegedly Scorcese watched Soy Cuba to learn techniques used in "Goodfellas", and the opening sequence of "Boogie Nights" would also seem to be influenced by it.

(Actually, not only was the film visually intoxicating, the event was in a pub so it was literally intoxiciating as well. In tribute to the film's theme I thought the occasion merited breaking out a Romeo y Julieta Churchill, which i think is the best smoke of its size)

Soy Cuba uses the technique of four almost wordless short stories. The first of which is extremely clever – showing a glamorous and lusciously decadent nightclub, and allowing us to enjoy it long enough before revealing that it is a brothel, and then taking us into the life of one of the prostitutes. In a brilliant touch the American businessman who buys the girl also insists on buying her crucifix, against her wishes, a rape of her cultural identity. As the Sex Pistols said, “Cheap holidays in other peoples’ misery” (Brilliant and worth watching)

The other three stories concern a peasant farmer evicted from his land, urban student revolutionaries, and finally the process that leads a peasant to join Fidel’s army. The film concludes with a sweeping march of Fidel’s army.

It is certainly a great film, but I am not sure how satisfying it was as a political event, It is a bit long and too arty for some tastes, and some people went to the bar for the second half. Some other people complained it was a bit propagandistic. But in truth it is no more propaganda than most Hollywood fare, but it cuts against the grain of our common sense expectations. What is more, the picture it paints of Batista’s Cuba and the crying need for social justice was true

Your years of plenty are over!

...

What a brilliant film! Last night in Swindon we showed “Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei” as part of our regular socialist film club screenings. It is marketed in English as “The Edukators”. About 19 or 20 people came along, with some younger folk, but also some established activists, and there was a good discussion afterwards. I cannot praise this film enough.

The first thing to say is that it is genuinely entertaining, with witty dialogue, an unusual storyline, and absolutely magical acting. You can view a trailer here (without subtitles) English language trailers (well subtitles anyway) can be seen here. The scenes in the mountains also remind you what a staggeringly beautiful country Germany is. The film deals with three young anti-capitalist activists, who have an imaginative and downright illegal way of waging the class struggle, based upon individual direct action. As they say: “Jedes Herz ist eine revolutionäre Zelle” (Every heart is a revolutionary cell.)

One of the good things about the movie is that is shows both the exhilaration and risk involved in direct action, but also reveals how the logic of events take the participants further than they want to go. It also interweaves an extremely moving and well acted love-triangle story, though I did get a literal sense of déjà vu seeing the brilliant Daniel Brühl playing exactly the same scene with a girl and bottle of wine on a Berlin rooftop as he did in “Goodbye Lenin!”

In an amusing example of life imitating art, the film has actually inspired direct action against the rich in Germany, as reported in Indymedia. (see also the report in the newspaper front page shown here)

There is also a peculiarly German theme developed about the changing role of generations, and the responsibility the older generation have for the world we live in. The obscenely rich businessman with whom they develop a relationship reveals that he used to be a leading member of the socialist SDS when he was a youth. This allows the film to include some quite convincing debate about the individual responsibility for capitalists for the state of the world, which comes over as genuine and uncontrived. (a very considerable achievement!)

The Wind That Shakes the Barley

Reuters "Ken Loach's new film on the 1920 struggle for independence from Britain in rural Ireland teaches lessons on conflicts like today's war in Iraq, the director said as he showed the film in Cannes on Thursday. Loach, who has sparked controversy with his political films before, was greeted with much applause as he showed his historic tale "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" during the competition for the main Palme d'Or prize.

Loach said his story of two brothers fighting against British rule some 90 years ago shed light on a conflict that was not much talked about today, but which could help explain the current situation in Northern Ireland and conflicts elsewhere. "I think a story of a struggle for independence is a story that recurs and recurs and recurs ... There are all these armies of occupation somewhere in the world, being resisted by the people they are occupying," Loach told reporters.

"I don't need to tell anyone where the British now unfortunately and illegally have an army occupation. And the damage and the casualties and the brutalities that are emerging from that," the British director said in reference to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. "My view is that this was an illegal war ... It's an appalling scar on our government's record and clearly on the American's."

Loach said his film was not anti-British but showed people had more in common with those in the same social position in other countries than with those at the top of their own. "

I'm really looking forward to this. Whilst I thought 'Michael Collins' was excellent the fact that Loach's film will deal with the extraordinary ordinary people rather than the celebrated figures is a really welcome change - and one that was used to brilliant effect in Roddy Doyle's "Star named Henry" allowing the story to explore themes without the distraction of the personal foibles of the great men.

I'm also hoping it's going to spark some real debate about what's happening in Ireland today as most of the left seems to either be stuck in the dogmatic phrases of the past or completely ignor the situation as it stands now.