Review: The Story of Stuff

I was pleased to see that an excellent little film about capitalist production has been turned into an illustrated book The Story of Stuff.

The people behind the project have a number of really interesting instructional videos at their website, like this one on the connection between profits, environmental degradation and the shape of the electronics industry.



These videos are good resource because they're easy to watch, easy to understand and, although their message is radical, it's not conveyed in a shaking fist, red in the faced algebraic dogma of hate.

When the presenter Annie Leonard says that the corporations "get the profits but everyone else pays" with their health, with their environment and economically it's a key point of anti-capitalism but we can get so used to these kinds of messages being delivered in specific language and full of sound and fury that when you have a light and smiley presenter it would be easy to miss the message.

It would also be easy to think that just because the videos (and now book) focus on specific problems and specific solutions that it's going to fall back on to ethical consumerism. But, like Annie says, "we are not going to shop our way out of the problem" and goes on to talk about political solutions to a fundamentally economic problem.

Oh, and there's one last refreshing thing about them. They may deal with big problems and look at them in a global way but they don't feel obliged to end every piece to camera force feeding us a ready packed solution. I know some people will find that a weakness, along with the lightness of tone, but to my mind sometimes less is so much more.

French cuisine (chapter one)

As you know I'm in France. I like the various similarities and uncertainties that go with being on unfamiliar terrain. Without wanting to get too Pulp Fiction about it, it really is the little differences that get you. One of the things I've been hankering after for a while was a chance to sample the French version of our English national dish - the kebab. I finally got my chance and was not disappointed.

The shop itself was bathed in frenetic disco lights and pop music even though it was still early afternoon. It was also packed with French/Turkish people, which would be unusual in England. The menus were in both French and pigeon English, confirming my opinion that the English abroad are creatures of habit, and I'm one of their kind - although I'm pretty certain they didn't really sell 'frozen bread' at 25 cents.

So, to select a kebab. Almost every alternative came with the option of additional cheese. That threw me a bit, but it turned out I needn't have worried as this was a huge slab of fried cheese that was to be slapped straight on top of whatever you'd ordered. A vital component of your daily salt and fat requirements no doubt.

I also saw with interest that a chips in pitta, or chip butty to you and me, was simply called a 'Belgian'. Combined with their delightful buns this must make Belgium a nation of admirably simple tastes.

The menu all seemed very familiar, despite a little light renaming going on, and I plumped for a 'kefte' - large spicy balls of lamb. After some haggling I managed to negotiate garlic sauce, which is apparently known as blanc.

The first thing of note was that the salad was tucked into the bottom of the bread with meat on-top. So while UK kebabs are designed so they can be mainly eaten out of the pitta their French counterparts are designed to be less messy eaten sandwich-style out of a fluffier, more delicate pitta.

My companion had the civilised version, ie vegetarian and with a plate, while I had paper, tray and very moist, tasty spiced meat. It was interesting to see that the salad came with a very French style dressing, even with its blob of blanc on the side.

Despite being denied the pleasure of picking apart the kebab with my bare hands I have to say my kefte was absolutely delicious and extremely filling. I could have done without the disco lighting but the kebabistas were fun and the whole experience well worth while. If you're ever near Dijon station make sure you stop by for, at the very least, a Belgian.

Books for Christmas

I was asked to do something on 'books for socialists', and I'd like to, but that sort of thing takes me a very long time and I'm never happy with the result because you're bound to miss something or other.

However, as a prequel to that as yet unwritten post I thought I'd highlight a few books slightly off the beaten track that are well worth a read.


My first pick is The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates by Adrienne Mayor.

I have a semi-secret obsession with the history of the Roman Empire and in particular its dissenters and opponents. Mithradates was arguably Rome's greatest enemy who not only relied upon the wealth and size of his own Empire against Rome he also used propaganda, insurrection and ideas of liberation.

Mithradates was at the height of his power during the most turbulent of times in Roman history with revolution in Spain, a mighty civil war with it's Italian allies and then, famously, the Spartacus revolt - all of whom were either directly funded or abetted by Mithradates and found his presence an inspiration.

Indeed many of Mithradates' top military advisers were Romans and the anti-Roman uprisings in the East saw the Poison King as a liberating force against imperialism itself. This book is a brilliant account of the man, the politics of the time and the unprecedented decades of opposition to Roman rule that Mithradates provided.


Next up I'm choosing Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences by Cordelia Fine

Fine's book is a exceptionally well researched book examining how science has been put to work trying to justify existing gender divisions in society. It's thoroughness is extra-ordinary, but for all the rigour I found Fine's book surprisingly readable.

For those who have a liking for Ben Goldacre's pursuit of 'Bad Science' Fine's book should feel like familiar terrain. How a combination of lazy journalists, biased funding and wrong headed thinking allows it become a 'scientific fact' that woman are genetically predisposed for ironing, low pay and doing the washing up.

For those, like me, who are interested in the subject of gender it's a vital tool in understanding the ins and outs of how the scientific explanations for gender difference are often fatally flawed.


Next we have Tiny Acts of Rebellion: 97 Almost-Legal Ways To Stick It To The Man by Rich Fulcher (of the Mighty Boosh)

You've got to have a bit of light relief at this time of year, but why not combine the chuckling with this little handbook of the social civil war.

There's nothing I like better than surreal, highly negative, ways of gaining your revenge upon the class enemy and, while Fulcher's book may not stand up to a rigorous Marxist analysis, it certainly makes a very valid contribution to the world.

Talking of humorous books anyone that would like to donate to this blogger a seasonal gift of Stewart Lee's How I Escaped My Certain Fate it would be most appreciated.


For a bit of a change of pace You Cannot Be Serious!: The 101 Most Infuriating Things in Sport by Matthew Norman looks extremely interesting.

Any hate list where Hitler comes in at place 99 does make you curious what on Earth could fill the first 98 places in front of the most evil man of the twentieth century.

There's nothing more delightful than reading the pet hates of an obsessive in any field - sport in particular. You can read the authors explanation here of why he wrote the book, but I think that he's found an acceptable outlet for making barely concealed political points by writing about sport is wonderful.


Lastly I think it would be remiss of me to miss out two of the most talked about economics books of the year. Jilted Generation: How Britain Has Bankrupted Its Youth by Ed Howker and Shiv Malik and The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

The Spirit Level in particular has been extremely successful at popularising the economic case for social justice, or is that the social case for economic justice? Probably the latter. Both books are free of the outdated and dogmatic language that so often holds the left back, but are rooted in a very serious left economic analysis.

One of the things I particularly like about these books, apart from the fact that lots of people have read them, is that they have provided such accessible and modern accounts of why we can't aim to just get back to business as normal. That there has to be a fundamental shift in how we view the economy and what it's for.


Obviously this is not an attempt to define a book of the year, in fact it basically reflects the kind of things that gets onto my reading list. But they all come highly recommended from me anyway. Feel free to suggest your own, or tell us what you'll be reading this Winterval.

Review: Coming to England

With the little micro-ripple of gossip that Floella Benjamin may stand for selection to be the Lib Dem London Mayoral candidate I thought it was probably time to review her book Coming to England.

Now, I'm of an age that I remember the deep and transfixing crush I had on Benjamin watching her on Playschool as I grew up. Her irrepressible energy and warmth that she displayed on the box also runs through this book like an iron thread, and I have to say it's a great read.

Intended, I think, for younger people trying to cope with the immigrant experience and to explain a bit of the history of how some came to this country, and what that was like for them, it's a simply written account of Benjamin's childhood in Trinidad and the great wrench it was to come here as a child.

I'm not sure what I was expecting when I opened Coming to England but I certainly was not prepared to devour the whole thing in one sitting nor to find myself wiping away tears as she recounted in a clear and concise manner the veil of sadness that descended upon her life.

As she described the joy of her early family life you are reminded that she is not exactly one of life's cynics. Whether she's describing the food, her siblings or even the toilet she manages to bestow the glow of fond remembrance on it all. Frankly, if the whole book had been like that I would not have been disappointed, but her feelings when first her father left them behind to go to England and then her mother left the kids too leaving them split up between two strange households would melt the coldest heart.

I wouldn't want to ruin the book for anyone who's intending to read it but we eventually progress from Island life to England where her troubles are far from over. The racism Benjamin encountered as a child may not have dulled her spirit but to find yourself hated, even in church, for being something that you didn't even know you were a year before must have been a devastating experience.

Now, of course, she's a baroness but whatever I might think of the people she's chosen to affiliate to I found this book a real education. Not because it necessarily told me facts I didn't know already but because it painted so vividly how it felt to live them.

Review: Romanitas

My interest was piqued when I saw a copy of Sophia McDougal's Romanitas in the, soon to be closed, Crofton Park library (thanks Labour Mayor!). Based on the idea of an alternative history where the Roman Empire survived into the 'modern' world Romanitas is one of those fanciful 'what if' novels that can work out so well.

McDougall's writing chipped along nicely enough to keep me reading to the end, but this was despite my better judgement. I was by turns annoyed by the book, then annoyed at my annoyance and then went back to being just plain narked at the wasted opportunity of such a great idea.

The thing is if you're going to imagine a world where we took a different fork in the road you can't introduce things that make no sense, you really shouldn't just import loads of liberal assumptions from today's world because the point is to take us into a world where Roman minds interact with modern technology and you mustn't swap between Romanisation and modern ways of speaking when it suits you, the writing was far too sloppy.

I'm all for suspending disbelief, which is why I felt occasionally churlish for not being too forgiving, but an alternate history that contains magic? I mean why? Can we, in all honesty, say that if the Roman Empire had lasted another millennium and a bit some people would have developed weird powers for no reason, or is the author saying that magic was real in Ancient Rome?

Add to this the magic was basically a lazy device to get the main characters out of fixes and defined every single significant moment of the book. As such every plot turn relies upon the author saying "And poof! they escaped in the nick of time."

I'm all for the fact that there are cars, planes and TV's despite the fact that the industrial revolution may well not have happened under the Roman system. The Romans discarded many technical innovations (like water wheels) because they had no need of them due to the amply available slaves.

Why spend time, energy and resources on labour saving devices when labour is so plentiful and cheap? In this sense Roman society was a profoundly conservative one when it came to technology but not engineering - but transporting Rome to today would make no sense if you then make time stand still so yeah - give the Praetorian Guards rifles, take your best shot.

What does irritate me however was the profoundly liberal view that many of the characters had towards slavery. Certain characters see slavery as a moral ill that can simply be unproblematically disbanded. A potential future Emperor, who hopes to abolish slavery if he ever gets the chance seems to think that slavery is some sort of bad manners and the economic centrality of slavery under Rome is not mentioned even the once.

Personally I think if someone from a powerful family had plans to abolish slavery they might have thought about how this might be done, at least in passing. The fact is that if the Romans at any particular period had decided to do away with slavery their entire economic system would have collapsed and the Empire ceased to exist - anyone who sought to challenge it's existence (almost always slaves) understood that the Empire and slavery were of a piece and inseparable.

However, as it turns out, in the book slaves don't seem to have much of an economic function anyway as the only slaves we seem to come across are runaways. So we don't even have this to help us gain a sense of place. We're certainly given no notion as to why those who oppose slavery do so, or where they get these ideas that are so out of step with mainstream Roman thinking.

Also the research seemed a little sloppy to me. We have crucifixion, the praetorian guard and a bit of poisoning but, it seems to me, that Roman society makes up more than that.

For example one character is put on trial for killing his wife - this means that the status of Paterfamilias must have gone as a husband is no longer entitled to do with his wife and kids as he pleases - no doubt reforms instituted by Sylvia Pankhurstius. Fine, but at least give us a character saying "Oh, you can't do that sort of thing these days!"

If you're in a forgiving mood Romanitas might be tolerable - but then again it might put you out of sorts altogether. I'm not sure I'll be bothering with the sequel Rome Burning, which actually makes me a little sad as, done well, it could have been glorious.

Review: Four Lions

I was going to make a joke about films bombing, but then I thought that might be in bad taste so instead I'm going to review Four Lions (trailer), the Chris Morris black comedy about a cell of Islamic terrorists whose plans to commit a suicide bombing go hilariously awry.

It's very good.


As a fan of writer and director Chris Morris I expected it to be funny and full of bleak juxtapositions, what I hadn't expected Four Lions so strangely moving at times.

Four Lions beautifully seduces you into the world of the buddy movie, with glorious moments of fun and mundanity like that pictured, when the cell are on the way to commit their ultimate outrage, and joyously sing-a-long to 'Dancing in the moonlight' on the radio. It serves to undermine the idea that terrorists are inhuman, remorseless fiends that have society at their mercy.

But these moments can be shockingly cut short by death, or horror or rage. Or plain stupidity. These are not comic ra-ra-radicals, like Woolfie in Citizen Smith, they intend to really commit murder, and act accordingly. The genius lies in allowing the characters to glimpse their own contradictions, and then carry on regardless.

Morris has described it as the Dad's Army of terrorism, and I think that description fits very well. When their car breaks down it gets blamed on the 'fact' that "Jews invented spark plugs" but the looks of self doubt are enough to give the game away.

One of the great things about this film is that it is a comedy not a thesis on Islamic terrorism. It does not tell you what to think which may come across as amoral or confused to some but I think it comes from the real respect Morris has for his audience.

If you've not seen Four Lions yet, do go, but don't expect it to reinforce your comfort zones. For me the best parts of the films were those that left you unsettled, like when one cell member tells another that he thinks that maybe what they are doing is wrong "but perhaps I'm just confused" or the extraordinary, disturbing ending which leaves you oddly uplifted and yet uncomfortable as you confront the idea that the people who do terrible things are indeed just that, people.

Review: Why Vote Green

Shahrar Ali's Why Vote Green is a well written and interesting book that's worth picking up if you get the chance. I certainly found it a readable and thoughtful read and am happy to recommend it to anyone.

Of course, there are flaws that are worth exploring. I thought it was far more of a book about Shahrar's reasons for being a Green than a clear account of why people should vote Green. That's only a minor problem, and probably one of the reasons I enjoyed it. Personally I'm not in need of rereading Green Party policy again so if I'm the intended audience then excellent.

The second problem I suppose is the academic style. This is something I'm less of a fan of because whilst it's lovely to see Marx and Ghandi and the like in print I've never been a fan of this kind of selective quoting to create weight by association.

Having said that the Marx quote that "the more we find value in external things the less we find value in ourselves" was new to me and, I think, grappling towards the profound.

Shahrar does have a habit though of using six syllable words when clearer language would be more precise, but that aside I would not want to give the impression this was a difficult book to read, far from, it flowed very well.

There were also a number of points that are worth highlighting. I thought his emphasis on the environmental and, specifically, climate change refreshing. It's the most important issue of the our times and there has been precious little discussion of the topic in this election - even from the Greens. This helps redress some of that imbalance, if in a modest way.

Where I disagreed was on his idea of what Green Party politicians are. Whilst I do think the Greens are striving for a more ethical form of politics I totally reject the idea that we're some sort of special, incorruptible breed apart. I think this is unrealistic and untrue.

For example on page eight Ali says that "It is in this spirit of the Green Party to be selfless in one's politics, to put oneself to the service of others, to treat all equally" or on page nine "attainment of our goals for the sake of humanity is our reward in itself, not the false identification of our ego with that potential success..."

Now perhaps Shahrar is a member of a different Green Party from the one I'm a member of (although he attends the same conferences as me) but I don't believe lack of ego or selfless sacrifice are so much more in evidence than in other parties. People work hard for little reward or praise in all parties and the best of us do it because we want to promote our politics not promote ourselves - but to paint any political activist as a paragon of virtue is to set the bar unnecessarily high.

The fact that we are activists not saints is no shame on us. If someone goes home early from leafleting or feels the sting of pride when they win an election - well, that's fine by me. I think this kind of moralism is a little counter-productive to be honest and it doesn't really reflect the majority opinion of members about themselves anyway.

All of this aside I found the book interesting because of its flaws as well as its virtues and am really pleased Shahrar had the time to write it. We need more books like this, from a variety of authors, but without the 'why you should vote' handle which became more of a hindrance than a help by the end.

Review: Henry Moore

Yesterday I went to see the Henry Moore exhibition at the Tate (which continues until August 8th). This is a fantastic collection of the artist's sculptures and drawings that takes us through a journey from his early luxurious works through his development into a harder edged style which seems to be heavily influenced by his experiences during the war.

Moore's voluptuous works beg to be fondled and licked. Their curves seem perfectly molded for the hand as well as the eye.

Indeed you might be fooled by the galleries constant signs saying that we were not to touch the objects that Moore thought his work should be regarded from afar as some sort of aesthetic wonders. In fact he felt it was essential to touch his work and he'd hoped that people would sit on and lounge across his work.

I've not been to Harlow for a while but certainly it used to be the case that his priceless art works were open to all in the public squares where young people were frequently seen perched atop these multi-million pound objects. I've heard the council has moved them out of sight which, if true, is a real shame as Moore saw his art as something that should physically interact with the community, not stand aloof from it.

Moore's easy abstract style feels like it has welled out of his subconscious conjuring up images both dark, erotic and strong. He once said that he'd refused all psychoanalysis because he'd feared it might disarm his artistic urges rooted as they were below the surface of his mind.

What I hadn't realised is that how clearly influenced by the war his development was. His drawings in the bomb shelters are deeply moving and quite unexpected. After delving into the depths of fear of those days his work moves away from obsessions of maternal and onto darker and more violent themes.

This is certainly an exhibition that's well worth visiting if you're in London over the next few months. Moore's place as one of the UK's most highly regarded British artists is well earned and here we see a wonderful snap shot of his work.

Review: Crap at the Environment by Mark Watson

I've just finished reading Crap at the Environment by comedian Mark Watson and I have to say I really liked it. It's a light foray into Mark's personal journey to be a bit less rubbish at harming the environment and, in the process, he creates a small movement of like-minded people who help each other to be less useless.

It's a natural response to think sometimes what can one person out of billions do that really makes a difference. Also living a kind of pure eco-monk lifestyle just seems unrealistic to most well adjusted people. Some people, I think understandably, take these two facts (that they are just one person and that most of us aren't cut out to make huge, fundamental changes to our lives) and say, well I wont do anything then.

Mark's book is a response to that which says "Well, no, actually making little changes for the good is better than doing nothing." Almost like a support group for the partially committed Mark set about reducing his carbon footprint.

In fairness he was coming from quite a high level as he was taking lots of internal flights, avoiding public transport like the plague and not really caring about how much waste he created. The upside to his very large carbon footprint was, of course, there was lots of room for savings. Some of them hurt but in fact most of his savings ended up improving his quality of life, much to his surprise.

It's an interesting read in the way that he wrestles with whether making changes to your own life means anything, or whether we should be fighting for political change. He grapples with the way that people were at different levels and how to satisfy the hard core environmentalists without scaring off those who are just starting to think they might like to do a little something to contribute.

One of the most interesting areas he tackles is his own lack of knowledge and how he found himself a de facto spokesperson for the green movement just by publicly trying to learn more about it. He doesn't resolve any of these issues, but it's to his credit that he recognises the problems without letting them slow him down on his quest to be less rubbish.

Anyone who knows a great deal, or even a medium sized deal, about carbon footprints probably wont learn much detail from this book and there are plenty of well informed places to do that (like The Economical Environmentalist by Prashant Vaze) but what you might find useful is how to approach certain issues from the perspective of a 'normal' person.

Political activists of all kinds can be quite intimidating in many ways and also odd, because they end up speaking in particular ways and assuming all kinds of knowledge that most people don't have. When you combine that with trying to make concrete changes in your community or lifestyle that's a big gulf we might be potentially creating between ourselves and the majority of people.

Mark's attempt is to disarm the guilt people feel by admitting from the word go that none of us are perfect and, in fact, most of us are a bit rubbish. This is a breath of fresh air. He worries it might be letting people off the hook, so that we feel a small change is enough - but that self-doubt is itself something we could learn from. I enjoyed it anyway.

Review: Blind Summit Theatre's 1984

Frankly, I do not remember the last time I saw such a good play, let alone one that was a fresh adaptation of the classic 1984. Cards on the table: I didn't think it was possible to make a satisfactory stage version of Orwell's classic; I was completely and utterly wrong.

The production was held in dingy Battersea at the BAC and is on until Jan. 9th, do go - you wont catch anything this good again for a long time, so don't miss it.

This is actually the second time I've seen a stage adaption of 1984, the last time was in the 90's and it was something that still has me seething with rage just to remember it. When you have people who can't act performing a version of a story written by someone completely at odds with the subversiveness of the material, well, it tends to get to me - and I only saw the first half.

This version was quite different. For a start, whilst there are deviations from the book they are uniformly improvements. That's right. Improvements. For example, whilst 1984 is a brilliantly written book... not many laughs in it are there? This play is bloody funny.

There are wonderful layers in the play with the cast playing an agit-prop troop of State sponsored actors playing the cautionary tale of two thought criminals with basic props and puppets. Yes that's right, I said puppets. Orwell forgot to write them in didn't he? Well Blind Summit Theatre have amended George's schoolboy error.

For a story that is centrally about the hidden inner life of party workers in a totalitarian state I think there are some elements that are very hard to bring to life outside of the pages of the book. The hate and love those workers feel for the party that defines them and deforms them simultaneously.

The way that sexuality and personal deviation become political by the very acts of making personal choices outside the realm of the social orthodoxy. How an insistence on controlling every aspect of someone's personal life turns the simple act of saying "I love you" into a world shattering act of rebellion.

I won't spoil the plot for you but I will commend the highly stylised performances of all the cast but particularly on the part of Gergo Danka (O'Brien) and Julia Innocenti (Julia). That said the puppet work and exciting use of visual effects illustrating the story telling was a real joy to behold.

If you'd have told me that the audience would have been rolling around laughing through much of the play I'd have been dubious to say the least - but it happened, and I don't think it detracted fromeither the seriousness of the material or the horrors of the second half.

Whether you have or have not read the book, and whether or not you liked it, if you can get to south London, go see this play - it's so, so good.

Review: Frida Kahlo Viva La Vida

Wednesday night I went to see Frida Kahlo; Viva La Vida a one woman show at the Oval House, opposite the famous cricket ground. Despite the fact I had to 'play' Rockerfeller getting shot as part of some light audience participation I have to say it was blindingly good.

Gaël Le Cornec was mesmerising as the Mexican painter whose tempestuous passions burn a hole through her life. Whether it's her politics, her lovers, her art or the tragic accident that shapes much of her story Le Cornec overwhelms by force of personality.

Told from the end of Kahlo's life during the day of the dead celebrations you might have thought the show would be maudlin or full of nostalgia for good and bad times past. Far from it. Kahlo is portrayed as full of life, still railing against the injustices of the world and her failing body, experiencing the past with as much vivid emotion as any of her paintings.

But it is not simply the performance that made this such a exceptional show. The direction and set are used exquisitely to summon up the past. I found the inventive use of colours and music to be particularly striking in a way I've never quite seen before, although I could have done without the smoke machine.

One interesting aspect of the play is that although it revolves around Kahlo's reminiscences it does not feel like a historical tour of her life. For me that was a strength, although I wonder what it would have felt like to those who know nothing of the painter's life. I suspect the play would still be immensly enjoyable, although possibly a little more surreal and confusing - which is not necessarily a bad thing if it leads more people to discovering Kahlo's life and works.

Plays like this, in small theatres with small casts (in this case of one), can so often be a disappointment, this was not one of those occasions. In fact if small productions were always just half as good as this it would be a wonderful thing. Frida Kahlo Viva La Vida runs until 7th November.

Review: District Nine

As I left the cinema having watched District Nine the woman behind told her partner “I’ve never been to a film that made me want to puke and cry at the same time.” I have sympathy with her but she’d clearly not seen Tim Burton’s atrocity of a remake of Planet of the Apes. Worst – film – ever.

However, when it comes to District Nine we have a powerful film, well executed and inventively playful with what must now be a genre of ‘alien space juggernaut hovering overhead as the city beneath trembles’.

The film sees a host of strange looking alien creatures arrive, bedraggled and helpless, at Johannesburg where the locals welcome them with the open arms of those who know the whole world is watching.

They might take the aliens in but that doesn’t mean they don’t need to house them in anything but shanty town conditions of ‘District Nine’ an obvious echo of the infamous episode in ‘District Six’ where the apartheid regime ethnically cleansed an entire part of the city, but let’s get back to the film.

Lead actor, Sharlto Copley, does an incredible job in his role as fascist scum bag, who through some unfortunate circumstances begins to sympathise with the aliens. We see the casual brutality of otherwise normal seeming men against those who they see as a species apart from themselves, less than animals, simply a problem that has to be managed in the most efficient way possible.

I wont go into detail for those yet to see the film but while there is a substantial amount of gore and violence (hence the puke remark) it is by no means a slasher / effects film. There is a genuine core narrative to the film that is well worth following.

It is very effective as a pulling apart of racism, authoritarianism and the dehumanisation of others. It’s also a bloody great sci-fi film with lots of cool aliens and stuff. As long as you have a strong stomach you will, like me, give the film five stars.

Review: 1066 - the battle for middle earth

I watched 1066 - the battle for middle earth last night, all about the last time England was successfully invaded from the eye view of the 'ordinary people' who took part in those events. The first episode dealt with the invasion of the north by the 'Vikingers'.

I'm generally inclined towards this sort of thing so I can't say I regret watching it, but it was rather thin. I don't think it was full of glaring historical inaccuracies (although there was a field promotion to 'housecarl' at one point which seemed unlikely) but the amount of information it contained was minimal to say the least.

We never properly saw either King Harold (Hadrada or Godwinson), which may be accurate for soldiers in a modern army but when the forces were only around 8,000 strong it seemed like a deliberate and strange artifice when the decisions that they took would have had life and death consequences on the heroes of our tale. Our boys seemed to be positively shunning their poor leaders.

Secondly, whilst there were hints of some sort of social stratification going on in the English army historically both forces were riddled with strict social relationships that would have defined every aspect of the participants lives, and what sort of war they had. I'd have liked to have seen that explored rather than summarily glossed over.

For example at one point two groups of English soldiers meet on the way north and to much excitement one has with it 'wife men that are not our wives'. Were these slaves, captives, prostitutes, good time girls, what? All we know is the women seemed generally happy to be there and were up for anything as long as you had a hunk of bread spare.

For something that was over an hour long I came away feeling quite disappointed that there was not even one aside that told me something about the events I didn't know before and I don't regard myself as an expert on the period in any way.

I can't fault the acting, narration or the budget which seemed more than adequate but the tale they told just didn't seem up to the job, particularly when it was implied that Harold marching north to meet the Viking army was a mistake that let the Normans sneak in - surely history would have condemned Harold had he let the Vikings run riot unhindered?

Review: Design for Dishonour

Earlier today I went to see the excellent Medals of Dishonour exhibition at the British Museum. Well worth taking a look if you're in the are in the area.

Essentially it is a collection of medals from down the years made in order to dishonour the object of their ire.

So, for instance, there were two medals that had been made in Holland that depicted Cromwell and Fairfax (one medal each) as a devil and a fool respectively when you turn it upside down. Apparently they were not keen on the break up of 'universal monarchy'. I guess they had to get used to it.

Usually satirical they often show that the sensibilities of those in the past were not so delicate as we sometimes imagine. The image of a finance minister defecating coins will stay with me for some I suspect although I'm sure Steve Bell would have liked it.

I got the impression that in many ways these medals, which would have been easy to distribute and required little literacy to understand, were the forerunners of newspaper cartoons. Indeed the styles were often very similar.

As a rhetorical device awarding some Minister a medal for services to the English (when that notable was French) is both funny and effective. Despite the ribald nature of many of the exhibits I can't remember the last time I enjoyed myself so much in a museum, and I quite like them as a rule.

Do go see the exhibition, it's one room full of jolly and entertaining politics from the past, plus its entirely free. Not to be sniffed at!

Devil in a blue dress

Radio Seven is broadcasting Devil in a Blue Dress and I really wanted to flag this up for people. Walter Mosley's classic detective novel had been made into a film with Denzel Washington in the starring role but as is so often the way it never quite lived up to the book. Partly because, in my opinion, the casting didn't quite get Denzel's right hand man, Mouse, quite right.

This radio version is read by Paul Winfield who has a lovely bourbon gristle in his voice. Of course no production will ever be as good as the book, but it's nice to hear it read with a smile in the reader's voice.

I'm not sure what it is about Walter Mosley's books that I love so much - possibly the mixture of cynicism, hard bitten poverty and moral center. Maybe it's the tight writing and authenticity. As someone might have said once; authenticity, once you can fake that you've got it made.

Devil in a Blue Dress was Mosley's first book of dozens, many featuring the same core characters of Easy Rawlins and Mouse, two black toughs who are always finding trouble whether they're looking for it or not.

This first book finds Easy, a war veteran, laid off from the Los Angeles aircraft factory and down on his luck. Along comes the opportunity to make easy money - but it turns out easy money comes at a price.

The books explore race, gender, poverty, the nature of the state, a changing political landscape and the character of fear. However, whilst there's plenty of political reasons to enjoy these books (and the radio play of course) actually it's the mellow smokey taste of the narrative that makes them such a joy.

Gold star quote; "You said don't shoot him, right? Well I didn't. I choked him. If you didn't want him killed, then why did you leave him with me ?"

Review: Waiting for Eric

Bloody brilliant I reckon. Funny, touching and a celebration of the solidarity of community, friendship and family. Plus it has Eric Cantona in it - what could be better? Well, maybe an extra car chase... but no - excellent!

I do have a couple of criticisms but at its heart this is an extremely worthwhile and watchable film. Warning: I saw it with an Australian who told me afterwards that they found it difficult to follow the accents / slang in places. So if you're not English you might have trouble with the fact they speak in Manchester.

Secondly, there are some less than plausible moments, and I'm not talking about the magic Eric Cantona appearing to a dog eared postman. But I can suspend disbelief and the essence of the film, where a man is at the end of his tether with no one to turn to and on the verge of cracking up summons up inner strength to survive is inherently strong.

As always Loach is at his best when the performances are tres relaxed. Drawing on those reserves of social realism has seen him through many a great film and this is no exception but here we are treated to a sprinkle of fairy dust to go with the toughened gristle of hard lives lived.

It's essentially a fun film, which I certainly wouldn't say of other Loach greats like Bread and Roses or Land and Freedom. Walking into the cinema I didn't for a moment have that sinking dread when about to watch something 'worthy' and was not disappointed. It's nice to have your politics sugar coated sometimes and this was playful enough to please a packed audience the whole way through.

Review: Francis the Holy Jester

I've not been to many premiers of plays by Nobel Prize winning writers on the life and times of medieval saints. Not many at all. But then Dario Fo is no ordinary playwright and Francis of Assisi was no ordinary Saint.

Last night I took myself down to the Italian Cultural Institute to see the first public performance in English of "Francis the Holy Jester" and I have to say it was superb. Translated and performed by long time Fo collaborator, Mario Pirovano, we were treated to a classic mix of history, passion and laughter.

Pirovano's performance was energising, taking on, as he did, the parts of Francis, wolves, peasants and Popes with equal gusto. His relentless humour was infectious and the ad libs and asides well genuinely affecting.

Dario Fo's play gently paints Francis as a simple man who founded the first anti-war movement and who pioneered environmental thinking which led to his status as patron saint of animals. The play makes a convincing case and, as a confirmed cynic, I found myself unexpectedly inspired by the idea of this man who confronted authority in the cause of peace and against social injustice.

One episode sees Francis undergoing trials and tribulations trying to gain audience with the Pope in order to be "allowed" to preach the gospel in the language of the people, including the provincial languages. His hilarious encounter with Innocent III (the Warrior Pope) dressed in rags and covered with dung emphasises the authoritarian power of the church and their fear of the people.

There are dates around various parts of the country and I'd recommend seeing this very modern history lesson. When Francis tells us that "in order to get people to listen, you must talk to the animals" he says more about the power of allegory when inspiring political ideas than a hundred tomes by much respected radical academics.

Review: Watchmen

"It's too late for mankind... it always was." Lines spoken on Mars by a naked glowing Blue superhero to his ex-girlfriend as the Earth is hours from nuclear holocaust... oh it sent lovely shivers down my spine it did.

Watchmen is dark and grisly, dealing with the chunky themes of the inevitability of death, imperialism and what it is to be human. Or then again it might just be people in funny costumes running about - actually it's probably a bit of both, and consciously so.

Before getting into the themes there were a number of little things I noticed that indicated this film is not quite like others. The amount of unabashed full frontal male nudity for example. There's also a whole heap of back story that no one bothers to spell out (which I personally found a blessed relief). Added to that it treats the audience as if it knows some history without bothering to explain anything at all, nice.

For example some of our heroes help Nixon win the Vietnam War and our plot opens as he is serving his fifth term as President. Quite rightly, as an 18 certificate film, it never once indicates that these might not have been the actual historical outcomes nor does it try to spell out what the implications for these things might have been for the Cold War. Thank the gods!

We enter the film proper with society on the verge of obliteration due to an all too human and believable cause. One "hero" has been assassinated but no one knows whether this is the government, a Latin American communist or a simple incidence of law and disorder.

As the tension builds and the threat of nuclear war increases most characters seem fallible and flawed, dwarfed by the size of the global problems. Only Dr Manhattan - the one superhero with actual (and overwhelming) powers seems up to the task of averting the annihilation of the human race, and he seems to be losing interest in the whole lot of us. What's clear is that even if humanity escapes this time around, a lot of people are gonna get hurt.

I've not read the originals so have no idea how faithful the film is but it certainly seemed to me an intelligent film that explored the murderousness of our world and how good people find themselves committing terrible deeds. I also suspect it examines the genre of the superhero - which I'm certainly no expert on. However, if the Comedian isn't Captain America's darker, truer brother I'll eat my spandex hero costume, overpants and all.

Anyway, I went into the cinema expecting a 7 out of 10 and came out having well exceeded my modest expectations. This sort of film often disappoints me but then, perhaps, this isn't the sort of film I thought it was. With a complex morality and rugged pace I found it deeply satisfying - if I have a disagreement with the film it's political one that should in no way reflect badly on the film.

Don't read this para before seeing the film:

When it comes down it, it is the plans and schemes of clever men that set in motion the perfectly executed, if horrific, salvation of humanity. Where social forces exist they are either powerless or completely disinterested in their coming fate. Whilst, unfortunately, that side of things might ring true to life there are no supermen out there to avert disaster. It's either us or no one. Probably the latter.

Review: Quantum of Solace

Apparently Fleming's short story Quantum of Solace is about James Bond attending a tedious dinner party, and that's it. No shootings, no quips as some naughty evil doer is dispatched in a grisly manner, no oddly shaped henchman with unique methods of offing his master's enemies.

Thankfully I only found that out tonight *after* having watched the film, after all Daniel Craig's Bond is constantly being touted as getting back to the original 007 but it seems they weren't tempted to set the entire thing around some polite conversation and profiteroles.

Whilst Casino Royale introduced a grittier, more dangerous Bond who no longer relied on gadgets Quantum's Bond takes that up one notch. I don't think there's a single special gadget (unless you count his swanky phone I suppose) and the deformed henchman had to make do with an embarrassing haircut to emphasise his inner evil.

The politics of the whole thing was pretty bizarre really. Firstly we're dealing with the vicious "Greene Planet" organisation who's dastardly plan to conserve the world's resources is actually a cover for trying to monopolise them for their own ends. Secondly whilst we have the CIA backing a coup attempt in Bolivia (this is purely fiction of course) we have the plucky MI6 agent to thank for the protection of Latin American democracy. Umm, ok.

The action is fast and furious - although it seemed more in the spirit of the Bourne Identity than new Bond, but it still gets your blood going. I certainly like Bond having an emotional depth that he's never seemed to possess before, although I hope he doesn't start getting all weepy and talking about not getting a bike for Christmas in future films.

When Fleming wrote the books he had in mind the Commandos he knew during his wartime intelligence service and you can see that Bond fits that role far more snugly than a more nuanced but less robust spy. The two Craig films are the only ones I've ever been tempted to see at the cinema and I've not been disappointed so far even if the fantasy spy seems to bear little relation to the actual work of British Intelligence, but then who wants to watch a film about paperwork?

Review: Mark Steel's What's Going On?

It took me two days from receiving Mark Steel's new book What's Going On? to finishing it and passing it on. I'm always excited when Mr Steel produces something new, if it's books or radio I'm right there, TV less so as I tend to forget when things are on.

"What's Going On?" essentially entwines three running stories together in a very personal, funny and, at times, heartfelt way. Essentially we get the story of Mark's travels through the downs and further downs of the New Labour government, his gradual and painful separation from his long term partner and the just as painful divorce from the Socialist Workers Party, an organisation Mark had been a member of for something like two decades.

Most of the reviews I've seen have been good and the appreciation on Splintered Sunrise is particularly worth reading. Mark's old mukkas in the SWP have been less effusive in their praise though, which does tend to fit the pattern that socialist reviews have a tendency to tell you more about the party line than the book or film they are reviewing.

I mean I don't think Alex Callinicos in the Socialist Review would have said Mark "evinces a kind of grandiose ignorance" of the anti-war movement this time last year. I'm sure he would have been evincing something quite, quite different. But whilst Alex may think "The only principle one can detect here is that the SWP is always in the wrong" you should not believe it for a minute. Not just because it's just factually incorrect, in that Mark praises the SWP a number of times throughout the book, but because he's at his best when in full rant mode against New Labour, the petty mindedness of bosses or the thousand other insanities of capitalism.

When I first started reading Socialist Worker, in 1995, Mark Steel and Paul Foot used to alternate each issue and it was these two brilliant columnists that kept me reading what could otherwise be a turgid, formulaic mess. I hope it isn't any disrespect to Foot that every issue I used to turn immediately to page eleven (I think) and a little thrill would go through me if it was a Steel week. Since then I've always sought him out whenever he appeared at a media outlet near me.

Actually, John Molyneux used to have an ABC of Socialism column which I found very useful for my political education, and I shouldn't forget to mention that I've always been a bit of a fan of Tim Saunders who now also cartoons for the Independent - so there were other things in SW that appealed. What all of these had in common were that they were conveying radical ideas in a fresh and interesting way. They thought rather than simply regurgitated.

Sadly, as Mark notes in his book, as time went on that tendency of socialist humanism seemed to wane and another tendency - that had always been present - that of dogmatic and puerile insistence that everything was always fantastic began to dominate. The weird thing about those who make out we should all be constantly, unblinkingly enthusiastic is, if your situation doesn't seem to be that great, you end up thinking you're just rubbish. So a tactic intended to motivate actually ends up demoralising activists whose local area can never match up to the unfeasibly glorious picture that is being painted for them.

These sections of the book are probably highly enlightening for those who don't know the inner workings of a hard left party, although for me it was like a nostalgic trip back to an abusive relationship where every positive had to balance against more and more negatives until, in the end, you have to say it doesn't matter how many years you've put into this - it's got to stop. In that sense when Mark parallels his relationship with the party to his ex-partner there is a real insight there. Walking out isn't simple by any means, you're changing your whole life.

What's Going On is an excellent book, although I will temper that by saying I've enjoyed his previous books more - and I think that's because some of the subject matter isn't as close to the bone for both him and me. I left the SWP sometime before Mark, around 2002-3 I think, but for very similar reasons and the experience of leaving is an interesting one. At first you worry that you'll be unable to continue politically, and indeed many do just drop out but, as your eyes begin to clear, you realise what bullshit that is.

As you begin attending broader events, with more open minded agendas you start to realise that whilst the SWP provides its recruits with training in a fantastic set of skills (or at least it used to, maybe it still does) it also force feeds you many bad habits that you need to unlearn. You also notice how normal people, with left wing ideas, are suddenly a lot more interested in talking to you!

So I was really pleased to see Mark speak earlier in the year at the Green Party spring conference and I hope he'll be speaking at other green events in the future, as well as on a whole range of other campaigning and left field platforms. For refugees from hard left organisations that contact with independent minded activists is so invaluable. You begin to realise that having the wrong grandiose strategy for overthrowing international capitalism is so much worse than saying I don't know where we go from here, let's try whatever comes to hand.

But whilst it takes some time to deprogram yourself there comes a moment when you look back and think, as Mark does, Christ if I was like that why on Earth couldn't I see it? Or is this something completely new? As is often the case with this sort fo thing - it's probably a bit of both.