Wednesday, 28 November 2012
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
This isn’t Romneysia, Mitt knows exactly what he’s doing
It’s just a week before the biggest political event… in four
years. Only eight swing states and possibly only a handful of independent,
undecided voters separate President Obama and Mitt Romney. Calculations
have been made to show that an unprecedented draw, at 269 Electoral College
seats apiece, is quite possible.
How did we get to this point? Just a month ago, President
Obama was climbing to an almost unassailable poll lead in the wake of the
infamous ‘47%’ MotherJones video. On
4th October, one forecasting site estimated
he had an 87.1% chance of winning the election. Obama’s campaign had front
loaded much of its campaign funding into attack ads that got their point across
before Mr Romney had a chance to establish his own image (much like Bush Jr did
to John Kerry in 2004). Despite a weak economy, the 47% video appeared to
confirm everything the Obama campaign had said, and the game seemed to be up.
Now it’s all to play for again. This is largely down to an
almost catastrophic first round debate performance from the President. Since
then he has recovered slightly, but there is no doubt that in round one he was
trounced. What Mitt Romney did was to pull an incredibly predictable trick and Mr
Obama should have been far better prepared for it.
In effect, he lied. Ok so it’s more ambiguous than that. It
depends on which comparison you want to make. Either its October 2012 Mitt vs
Republican primaries Mitt; or, October 2012 Mitt vs Massachusetts governor Mitt.
I have previously argued
that Mr Romney instinctively sits on the liberal side of his party: His record
as governor shows that he pre-empted ‘Obamacare’ and was willing to use tax increases
to close a deficit. However, since Ronald Reagan, neo-conservatism has captured
the American right, turning the GOP into a viciously ideological, inflexible
and aggressively uncooperative party. To win the vote, Mitt Romney had to tack
right.
Now he’s tacked back. Secure in the knowledge that the
Republican base will be energised to come out against a black, ‘socialist’
President, he’s now appealing to independents. Mr Obama was left looking
woefully unprepared in the first debate. He and his team arrogantly assumed
that Mr Romney’s policies were so illogical that they could be easily
dismantled by the Commander in Chief on live television. Instead, the President
was left chasing a shadow as Mr Romney planted a flag on the centre ground. He
literally built an elephant-shaped castle there.
The President has recovered: He could barely conceal his
glee at unveiling ‘Romnesia’
as the illness of forgetting all your own policies (the video is well worth a
watch, particularly for the ending). Frankly, Mr Obama’s recovery should never
have been required; he should never have been left so floundering. Mr Romney’s
move was incredibly telegraphed: By the very nature of the American political
system, a candidate is required to win the base in primaries and then win a
small number of independent voters in key swing states. The President should
have been briefed that Mr Romney would suddenly change his tone.
The ‘Romnesia’ attack is effective and also hilarious, but it
may be too late. With so little time left, there is only a tiny fraction of undecided
voters left to play for and Mr Romney has gone some way to closing the gap with
his shift in position. The President is right to paint Mr Romney as someone who
sails whichever way the wind is heading; forgetting his own positions and
making things up as he goes along. For a candidate who labels himself as a
decisive businessman, Mr Romney has been dangerously scatter-brained in his positions.
For his part, he also made an arrogant assumption that the ‘I’m not Obama’ line
would get him into the White House.
Despite this, the election is in my opinion, Obama’s to
lose. Notwithstanding a poor record of delivering on his promises, he has
enough to boast about and he should do so. Unfortunately, it is difficult to
convince people of his record by saying ‘if I hadn’t done this stuff, you’d be
worse off, trust me’. However with ‘Frankenstorm’ Hurricane Sandy tearing into
New York, the incumbent has a chance to draw attention away from the vicious
partisan scrap and onto his (hopefully) decisive leadership as President. If
Obama performs well enough in the next week, Romney won’t even have a chance to
connect with voters, whatever stance he decides to take.
And what if Mr Romney wins? The most dire prediction is of a
Zomney apocalypse.
Hurricane Sandy makes this slightly more plausible.
Read more from Iain at Catch21.com and following him on twitter @IainWaterman
Labels:
Barack Obama,
election,
GOP,
Hurricane,
Mitt Romney,
neoconservative,
New York,
Romnesia,
Sandy,
US,
Zomney
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Does British politics need rebranding? (Part II)
Occupy: Politics still matters to some people |
The British political process continues to alienate ordinary
people. Few people think politicians represented their interests, and even
fewer trust what they say. Voter turnout
is low, and even lower among young people. Just over a week ago, I sat on the panel
for a debate on how to rebrand politics. There was undeniably a consensus in
the audience that the political system is innately elitist, and was
disconnected from the problems of ordinary young people. Against this, Shaun
Bailey, an advisor for David Cameron, argued that it was up to the individual
to be the change they wanted to see. He was right to point out that our system,
compared to others in the world, is relatively uncorrupted, accountable and
participatory.
The debate was easily able to identify some of the symptoms
of the ‘illness’ of democracy. Indeed, the causes too are being more frequently
discussed in the public sphere: Labour MP Gloria de Piero has conducted a study
that concluded,
amongst other things, that the public feel alienated due to a lack of
‘ordinary’ people in politics. In the first
part of this article, I argued that since party democracy is a zero-sum
game, it discourages honesty and cross-party cooperation; I believe this is
innate to the modern system, and it makes politics both exciting (for those
interested) and impregnable (for those who are not). Turning to American
politics, it has been argued
that the two-party democratic system there is responsible for the increasingly
extreme policies of at least one of the parties (guess which). Let’s be thankful that as yet, the Labour and
Conservative parties have not yet been tempted on to the extremes of the
divide.
There is relatively little debate however over what can be
done to reconnect democratic politics with those whom it claims to represent:
the demos. This is partly because few people are looking at the problems, and
even fewer people have any ideas as to how to cure them. The issues are
inevitably complex and widespread, but here are a few suggestions.
Let’s take the core tenet; that the public feels alienated
from politics and the political process. This is partly an issue of education –
educational standards need to be raised, and young people have to be instilled
with the idea that politics matters and affects them. It is impossible to
ignore the fact that a (largely) left-leaning audience at the debate were in
contention with an advisor to a conservative Prime Minister. Educational
standards will raise the ability of ordinary people to get involved themselves,
hold MPs to account and make better informed decisions, so satisfying one half
of the argument.
Undoubtedly though there have to be some changes to the
system as well. One proposition I have is through devolution. The more
localised power is, the more the public would see how decisions affect them –
people would care more because they would see more clearly how an elected
candidate influenced the local area. At
the current time, we have MPs, who represent a constituency but may find their
interests conflict with national ones. We also have elected councillors, but
who have relatively little power.
A small change such as allowing councils to keep a higher
proportion of the income and business taxes they raise, rather than sending it
to the centre, would give more local incentive for growth and job creation. It
would also make local politics more important, and the public would have more
of a say over local prosperity. Issues such as house building would therefore
be decided locally and with local needs accounted for. Local debate would be
more active because the issue would be between local growth and employment in
local companies versus local environmental issues, rather than local versus
national needs and benefit. Councillors would also be held accountable. The
government should restart the regional development fund to ensure poorer areas
did not fall behind.
A re-energising of local politics would hopefully have the effect
of drawing in more local, ‘ordinary’ people into politics. In any case, the
public would feel that their MP or councillors were more representative of
their interests if more powers were devolved from the centre. In a similar
vein, the election of mayors in cities might encourage people to take interest
in the political process out of pride of wanting their city to do well. This
may well lend itself to personality politics and more Bojo copycats.
Nevertheless characters like him are refreshing to see, and he connects with
people, despite being an old-Etonian. Elected councillors and mayors can step
out of the partisan political process and be accountable solely on their local
successes.
The devolution of these powers would mean there was more to
play for in local elections, and hopefully this would mean more vigorous
marketing campaigns, more effort to engage local people and more substantial
local debates coming to the fore.
This suggestion is by no means perfect. What I mean to do is
look practically at what can be done to stimulate public engagement and connect
politics with people, rather than simply condemning the system and those who do
nothing to change it. Shaun Bailey is right – people do have the power to
change things, but equally that comes with the recognition that change does
need to happen. So let’s get round to changing it.
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
Does British politics need rebranding? (Part I)
Occupy London: Some people still get passionate about politics (©Max Nash/PA Wire) |
My fellow panellist Shaun Bailey, who came from a council
estate to having the ear of the PM, told the crowd “you don’t know how good
you’ve got it” and came close to being heckled. He argued that compared to
other, far more corrupt systems of government elsewhere in the world, we in
Britain had the power to really change things for the better, but it was down
to the individual to do this. The murmurs of discontent were understandable
from an audience who sees the current system as synonymous with the highly
stratified society we live in. When a teenager in the riots gets six months for
swearing at a police officer, is it any wonder that London’s politically
aware young people get mad when David Cameron backs Andrew Mitchell over
pleb-gate?
Of course, both sides are correct. Politics does need to be
rebranded and reinvigorated; it needs to be more representative of society, and
matter more to more people. Undeniably however we are also blessed with a
(relatively) uncorrupted system in which citizens can make a difference. Labour
MP Gloria de Piero has conducted a study into why people
‘hate’ politicians and identified some core problems. She argued that the man
in the street did not believe that politics particularly affected him, or that
he could really change anything or get involved. She also said that people did
not see politics or parties as representative of the public.
The latter problem is already well known; governments on
both sides (but particularly on the right) are always keen to get more people
from business into politics, in an attempt to break the cycle of career
politicians. But how to do this? Party politics is not an overly appealing
prospect for top business chiefs used to the freedom of dynamic private sector
businesses. The former of Ms de Piero’s issues could simply be a matter of
marketing. However I think both are symptoms of a bigger problem in our party
political system.
Unfortunately, this problem is not likely to change very
fast. British politics is a zero-sum game. The winner gains power for five
years and has control of policy. It is therefore in the parties’ interests to
do whatever they can to work against the other. Through this, complex issues
are given black and white answers. Answers that should require nuance become a
simple choice of ‘us versus them’; parties promise one thing, and then find
that the reality makes their actions more complicated. Politicians defend their
failure if they are in power, or condemn success when they are in opposition.
All sides come out looking like liars.
I would obviously not make a good politician; I’m probably a
bit too honest for my own good. I think if we saw a bit more honesty from
politicians however, a bit more willingness to admit mistakes, and a bit more
cooperation across the parties, the public may think that they are less out for
self gain and more working in the interests of the country. The effects may not be as damaging as
politicians would fear: An interesting article from Matt Paris has argued
how the cliché ‘a week is a long time in politics’ is only really applicable to
a select clique of interested observers. For Joe Bloggs, ten years is a more
appropriate length of time to judge parties on. The conclusion is that things
such as ‘pleb-gate’ or departmental cock-ups like the West Coast rail franchise
affair may not be noticed by the public as much as everyone in the inner circle
fears. To draw a tangent, you could argue that if politicians were more down to
earth and honest, they could gain more in their successes than they lost in
popularity from their failures.
So we come back to the issue, and perhaps the solution – how
to get more ‘ordinary’ people into politics; how to make more politics more representative
and prevent the majority from feeling isolated. There seems to be cross the
board agreement on this need. But neither ‘ordinary’ people nor business chiefs
are going to be interested in playing the party game when it’s so messy and
mired in slander.
In part two of this discussion, I will look at some more
practical measures to draw in young people and the population as a whole,
things like devolution, elected mayors and media. Finally I will look at how
the nasty side of politics can actually be turned into a strength: Politics is
exciting and you only have to look back a few decades to see how invigorated
and passionate young people used to feel about politics. Maybe it could just be
an issue of connecting politics with young people in a way that they find
exciting and appealing.
Read more from Iain at: http://www.catch21.co.uk/blog
Read more from Iain at: http://www.catch21.co.uk/blog
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
David Cameron bites back
Hands up who liked David Cameron’s speech to the
Conservative conference? I have to put up my hand actually, despite the
ridicule I will get from many readers. I was also quite impressed by Ed
Miliband’s speech though, so maybe I’m just fickle. As that may be, I thought
both speeches and conferences had their good points and bad points; which makes
them fairly reflective of the parties themselves. Supporters of both sides
(except the Lib Dems) have reason to be happy with their leader’s speeches.
Despite the good ideas I saw
in Mr Miliband’s speech, it was Mr Cameron who I thought really lifted the bar
and laid the ground for a (relatively) epic two and-a-half year battle going
into 2015.
Conservative commentators have largely been satisfied
by Mr Cameron’s speech. I was impressed by the clarity of the argument from a
leader who has hitherto struggled to define himself during his premiership. Mr
Cameron needed a good message with good delivery to steady a party that has
been rocked (along with his leadership) in the past six months. Unlike his
counterpart, he relied on notes, but as No. 10 duly noted; “he’s Prime
Minister, he doesn’t have days and days to practice and memorise a speech –
like you do in Opposition”. From behind the podium, he perhaps looked more
Prime Ministerial than Mr Miliband’s walky-talky performance.
After Mr Miliband’s attacks, Mr Cameron needed to come out
fighting. This meant that he was seen as reactionary by some, but he could not
have let Mr Miliband’s accusations go unchecked, or else look weak. His
response was to effectively line up all of Labour’s attacks and
‘misconceptions’ and deal with them one by one; simultaneously he was able to
clarify his brand of Toryism and land some good blows on Labour.
The central tenet of Mr Cameron’s speech was well summed up
by the following lines:
“We don’t preach about one nation but practise class war. We
just get behind people who want to get on in life… They call us the party of
the better-off: no, we are the party of the want-to-be-better-off, those who
strive to make a better life for themselves and their families – and we should
never, ever be ashamed of saying so.”
This message will do little to placate the disgust of Labour
supporters towards the Tory’s economic policies but that was never the aim.
Labour commentators constantly argue that “everybody” can see that the
Coalition’s economic policies are failing, but unfortunately the public are
equally, if not more, distrusting of Labour’s economic record. Instead, Mr
Cameron attempted to deliver a unifying message to all those conservative,
liberal and independent voters disenchanted with the government, but equally
less keen on the opposition. If you’re a Labour supporter and you watched it
and hated it, then that’s not really surprising.
The speech also included some genuinely moving words on how
the Paralympics affected Mr Cameron, as a father of a deceased disabled son, as
well as an attempt to clarify the ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ image with,
amongst other things, a recommitment to the NHS. But the real message remained
the neat explanation of how conservative values are the answer to the current
economic situation. Undoubtedly Mr Cameron’s best line was his ‘Labour is the party
of one notion – borrowing’ pun. Ignoring the fact that a recession has meant
that borrowing has gone up, Mr Cameron stuck to his guns and backed George
Osborne to continue the party’s task of taking the ‘tough choices’ for the
country.
Indicative of this was the ‘sink or swim’ message Mr Cameron
used to justify the difficult decisions that he has taken for Britain. This was
a message that certainly needed repeating after the past six month of gaffes
and incompetence that has come close to ruining the image of the government.
But it was the personalised version of this message, the one targeted at the
individual, those so called ‘strivers’, which I think is strongest declaration.
Labour should be wary of this message; in defining this
target group Mr Cameron has also found a level of clarity at a critical point
two years before the election. In backing the ‘strivers’ Mr Cameron also sums
up the other big party policies: Welfare reform to guarantee no benefits
claimant will be better off staying on benefits; devolution of the education
system; tax breaks and loans to small businesses – given out in a ‘Dragons Den’
style.
The narrative is clear: Mr Cameron reiterated that the
country is suffering short term pain for long term gain, that this was needed
in order to survive in an ever more competitive world, and that Labour are too
irresponsible for the job. I have previously commented on the good ideas that
came out of Mr Miliband’s speech; Mr Cameron now has found his central message,
and has two years left in government to put any good ideas into effect. If he
would just fire Andrew Mitchell then supporters may see things looking up.
See more from Iain at: http://www.catch21.co.uk/2012/10/david-cameron-bites-back
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Labour gain the momentum
Ed Miliband makes his brilliantly delivered speech at the conference. ©Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire |
So what’s the verdict on Labour? The conference had its
highs and lows, and some very interesting statements and omissions for the politically
interested to obsess over. As a fiercely independent, politically aware,
middle-class young person who voted for the Liberal Democrats last election, I
rather enjoyed being courted by Ed Miliband in his big ‘One Nation’ speech. Even
the Telegraph had to admit, the speech was flawlessly delivered. Quentin Letts
of the Daily Mail said Ed looked constipated in the way he walked around the
stage. Others made flattering, but not especially welcome, comparisons to Tony Blair
at his best.
If nothing else, Mr Miliband should get a big bounce in his
personal polls, which hitherto have had him eating David Cameron’s dust,
despite the crashing popularity of the PM’s party. Some may say he even looked
Prime Ministerial. Certainly, Labour can begin to build some momentum from
this, and why bother with policy specifics when the current government is so
unpopular?
‘One Nation’ – the theme of Mr Miliband’s speech, seems a
very blurry concept. Amongst all the opaque-ness there were a few specifics.
There was the usual ‘we’ll put the ‘N’ back in NHS’ from Liam Byrne and ‘we won’t
cut the police’ from Yvette Cooper, but there was also some genuinely new stuff
too: Top of the list was undoubtedly Mr Miliband’s unveiling of the ‘Forgotten
50%’ policy – to plough money into vocational qualifications and private and public
apprenticeship schemes. Not only is this badly needed, but it signals a break
from New Labour’s focus on getting 50% of young people into university. Another
was Mr Ball’s very good suggestion to spend the 4G windfall on new homes. The
Coalition will be kicking themselves that they didn’t think of that first.
Both are also indicative of the finely balanced message of
the conference. On the one hand, the party could not be too specific about what
it would do in 2015, since no one knows what the state of the economy will be
then. Yet neither could it ignore policy ideas entirely. ‘What we would do now
if we were in government’ was therefore the middle ground. A nice bit of political
manoeuvring if I do say so.
Yet when the conference finished, I was still left feeling a
little unsatisfied - policy is still too thin on detail to come across credibly.
‘We’re conducting a policy review’ has become the stock detail-avoidance answer
of Labour ministers recently, and this has to be improved. On the penultimate day of the conference, the story
broke that the Virgin vs FirstGroup rail franchise process had been torn up,
and three civil servants suspended for supplying ministers with bad sums. Maria
Eagle, Shadow Transport Secretary led the inevitable vanguard against her
opposite number Patrick McLoughlin, who has redder roots than most in the
Labour party. ‘Shambles’, ‘humiliation’ and ‘incompetence’ were words bounded
about, but when the equally inevitable question came back, ‘we’re conducting a
policy review’ was the go-to answer. Ms Eagle added that she always checked over the sums of the
civil servants who worked for her.
© Dave Thompson/PA Wire |
Moreover, you can’t help but take ‘One Nationism’, that warm
and fuzzy concept, with a pinch of salt when Unite union chief Len McLuskey
begins and ends his speeches with ‘comrades’. The irony is almost cringe-worthy
when a union leader refers to a Liberal-Conservative coalition as ‘ideologues’.
Ed Balls was brave to stand up in front of the unions and say that he would not
repeal the 1% wage increase cap. This will add to Labour’s economic credibility,
but most other Labour ministers were all too eager to soak up the easy applause
with a ‘no to cuts’ agenda.
Much of what was said was empty politicking. The beauty of
being in opposition is that you don’t really have to be too detailed in what
you say. But for all Labour’s criticism of Coalition indecisiveness and
U-turns, it would have been refreshing for them to cut the crap and lay down a
bit more of a blueprint.
As Martin
Ivens has argued, it is perhaps in labour’s interest to remain a bit vague.
With the current crisis and the Coalition’s lack of popularity, Labour could
get in just on that. But across the Atlantic another (if entirely opposing)
party is learning the lesson that an opponent’s economic record may not be
quite enough to get you elected; especially when the opponent’s leader is more
popular than yours.
Labour showed that they have some good ideas for getting the
country moving again; it would just be nice to see more of them.
Labels:
Conference,
Ed Balls,
Ed Miliband,
Lab12,
Labour,
One Nation,
Speech
Monday, 24 September 2012
FILM SPECIAL
✯THE CAMBRIDGE FILM FESTIVAL REVIEW✯
Or the highly contested, generally divisive, utterly disorganised thoughts and opinions of Oliver Wallington, regarding Cambridge's 32nd Film Festival. Plus the winners of this year's hallowed O.C.T Awards.
LUCKY LUCIANO |
Every year, The Cambridge Arts Picturehouse, Anglia's go-to Cinema for intelligent, unpredictable, Independent-friendly programming opens it's doors to Britain's best kept Cinematic secret. The Cambridge Film Festival.
Along with several outdoor screenings around Cambridge and a partnership with The Cambridge Buddhist Centre, Tony Jones; the festival Director and Founder and his team of willing minions, combine forces every year to create a festival that reflects the unique tastes and interests of one of Britain's most culturally diverse cities.
The Festival that once championed the early short films of the then unknown director Christopher Nolan, that only last year welcomed international stars Paddy Considine and Gary Oldman for intimate audience Q + A sessions, and that continues it's long-running reputation as the only festival to always show the U.K. premiere of Woody Allen's latest work, is now in it's 32nd year, and it's building momentum.
This year, the team revealed a wonderfully curated selection of current and nostalgic features, focussing on Catalan Cinema, New German Cinema and the work of old stalwarts Francesco Rossi and Alfred Hitchcock, along with the usual abundance of thought-provoking Documentaries and a full programme of local and international Shorts and MicroCinema projects (Low-budget, high-quality feature films), not to mention the mysterious and revelatory Tridentfest. Obviously, your humble reviewer couldn't see everything on show, as often features overlapped and so I was forced to make the uncomfortable, but understandable decision to forego the occasional Period-set, Contemporary German future-classic in favour of some little known Dutch documentary about two octogenarian ex-prostitute twin sisters who still like to wear matching outfits, spank old men and occasionally, whilst giggling maniacally and voluptuously, fondle massive dildo's in public.
After-all that's the beauty of a well programmed festival, stark variety and difficult selection decisions.
So here is my experience, complete with a brief summary of the films I caught, a briefer summary of the films I didn't and your very own Official Cromer Terrace Awards, which will be presented to the winners in virtual format and probably ignored. But that doesn't matter.
The festival opened with Woody Allen's follow-up to last year's hugely successful, award-winning Midnight In Paris, the multi-stranded To Rome With Love which follows several unconnected characters through Italy's beloved capital, encountering frustrated Opera-singers, inexplicably famous pencil-pushers, self obsessed and sexually virulent Actresses and disapproving father-in-laws. Typically this is a capable, if unspectacular affair from Allen, with a sprawling narrative structure and some utterly useless characterisation, however, everything is lifted by the sheer hilarity on show. In fact, despite the tried and tested structure of the stories and the vignette style of the storytelling, Allen still grinds out some truly surprising laughs with most of the cast performing capably and with Penelope Cruz, Roberto Benigni, Ellen Page, the tenor Fabio Armiliato and Allen himself most impressive. Not as tight or as congenial as Midnight In Paris but probably funnier.
TO ROME WITH LOVE |
Meet The Fokkens was a surprisingly touching affair (in more ways than one), a beautifully shot documentary that charts the lives of Dutch twin sisters who look back on their careers in the Prostitution Industry with more than a little nostalgia, as we follow the retirement of Louise and Martine Fokkens we are immersed in a world of sex and violence, the ramifications of which stay with you long after the laughter has stopped.
Another highly anticipated feature was Walter Salles' On The Road, a beautifully shot, wistful adaptation of Jack Kerouac's landmark novel, which successfully captures the grungy, low-fi atmosphere of the New York Beat culture and features stunning performances from Viggo Mortensen, Garrett Hedlund and our very own Sam Riley. As frustrating as it's gentle pacing might be to some, the pure credibility of the visuals, the atmospheric direction and the rambling, rhythmic quality of the script makes this an unmissable book-to-screen adaptation for any fans of that period.
ON THE ROAD |
War Witch (Rebelle), Kim Ngyens stunning exploration of child-soldiers in brutal African conflict is a shocking and visually stunning journey into the heart of human darkness, with perfect central performances, utterly flawless direction and a truly artistic visual sensibility, this is one of the most unique and upsetting films I've ever seen and justifiably takes the Audience Award for best feature film (and the Official Cromer Terrace Award for Best Festival Feature, more on that later.) Another surprise delight was Dax Shepard's frivolously tongue-in-cheek comedy caper Hit And Run, a comedian whose exposure in this country is relatively limited, Shepard writes, produces, edits and Co-directs this little cat-and-mouse story of an attractive young couple in witness protection, who inevitably find their past lives catching up with them, ultimately resulting in a violent and hilarious showdown between Shepard's sardonic slacker and Bradley Cooper's riotously exaggerated Rasta-Mobster. Lots of cars, explosions and fist-fights and lots of rather well choreographed laughs as well, look out for it.
WAR WITCH |
Call Me Kuchu is a harrowing documentary that explores the terrifying lives of homosexual Ugandans in a country ruled by fanatical Christianity and a government that decrees homosexuality illegal. Following the lives of several brave men and woman who want to change this, Call Me Kuchu takes you to some very dark and upsetting places without ever loosing sight of what is important, i.e. the freedom of the Ugandan people. Morgan Spurlock, the director of Super Size-Me returns with Comic-Con a delightful documentary observing the trials and tribulations of 5 separate Comic-Con faithfuls, littered with amusing and insightful contributions from industry legends Stan Lee, Frank Miller, Kevin Smith and Joss Whedon, Spurlock explores the changing nature of the traditionally Comic-driven convention whilst simultaneously humanising every man, woman and child who likes to dress up like their favourite characters from Mass Effect, Star Trek or Batman to heart-warming, often knowingly hilarious results.
CALL ME KUCHU |
Audiences cued through the building for the always completely sold out Surprise Film - the identity of which is known only to the Festival Director until the lights dim and the credits roll... This year Rian Johnson's highly anticipated time-travelling sci-fi thriller Looper was unveiled to a packed screen1 and greeted with a unanimous hum of excitement and anticipation. A sprawling CGI-heavy action-er with Joseph Gordon-levett as the 'Looper' of the title, who waits for unknown criminal forces from the future to transport unwanted elements, bagged and tagged, for a clinical execution and disposal process. This methodical operation goes awry when he discovers that his future self (Bruce Willis) has been sent back for execution at his own hand, Looper is a relative return to form for Johnson, after the disappointment that was the overly quirky Brothers Bloom, but sadly shows none of the visual ingenuity that was promised by his excellent debut, 2005's noir-ish high-school murder mystery Brick.
LOOPER |
Finally, the "True Surprise Movie" as Festival's International Programmer, Verena von Stackelberg
described it, was the equally highly anticipated Leos Carax film Holy Motors. A well-recieved Cannes 12' Palme D'or contender, Carax's disturbing, looping, visceral opera of surreal visuals and inexplicable musical numbers is a messy, violent exploration of spirituality and identity, creating a perpetually dusky futuristic French landscape through which travels Denis Lavant's constantly transforming central character, undergoing a series of mysterious 'appointments' that will see him transform from a withered old street dweller to a terrifying Fagin-esque pimp to a ruthless assassin and plenty of other grotesque incarnations along the way. The audience is left to try and unravel the mostly unexplained happenings, grasping for any clues amongst the characters many varied interactions, wondering if the truth is hidden beneath layers of surreal narratives or if it is simply a journey through some kind of terrifying interpretation of reincarnation. Never-the-less, it's a stunning and unforgettable cinematic journey and a beautiful way to close yet another fantastic Cambridge Film Festival.
HOLY MOTORS |
Of the films I sadly missed; several are recommended, via trusted co-cinema obsessives, most notably the Winner of the Audience Award for Best Short which was Dylan's Room, along with the Documentary that took the Audience Award for it's category Big Boys Gone Bananas! along with the following films; Untouchable, Lucky Luciano, 5 Broken Cameras, Grandma Lo-Fi, Yossi and Totem.
In conclusion then, we thank the Cambridge Film Festival for their stunning work in programming such a varied and intelligent selection of films, The Cambridge Arts Picturehouse, The Cambridge Buddhist Centre and various outdoor spaces for hosting such a brilliant event and we congratulate everyone from Project Trident who was involved in the planning and execution of our hallowed Overall Best Festival Film Award... TRIDENTFEST. Read on to find out more...
O.C.T. Awards
(The Official Cromer Terrace Awards)
As promised from the outset, Cromer Terrace presents it's Official Cromer Terrace Awards or O.C.T. Awards as they are now referred to by the kids on the streets. The Awards are divided into 3 categories: Overall Best Festival Film, Best Festival Feature and Best Festival Documentary. Unfortunately due to insufficient funds, the award's given out are intangible or as the dictionary puts it, "Incapable of being realised or defined" - So you'll just have to take our word for it. The Award winners will be informed of their accolade and permitted to store said intangible award in any modestly priced container.
Winner of OVERALL BEST FESTIVAL FILM
THE PROJECT TRIDENT TEAM |
The highly anticipated festival of local films from local filmmakers, with noteworthy submissions from legendary local filmmakers Carl Peck, Andrzej Sosnowski, Simon Panrucker, Ryd Cook, Christian Lapidge and Tom Martin (among many others), TridentFest is the film festival baby of the notorious Project Trident team, all championing low-budget, high-quality filmmaking and collated for this hilarious, disturbing tour-de-force of various different cinematic ideas. Complete with audience interaction, prizes, demonstrations and interviews, Tridentfest isn't just a festival of brilliant locally sourced films, but also a unique opportunity to get fully immersed in the world of emerging filmmakers, with short comedic sketches, beautifully shot music videos, hilarious horror-spoofs and mock-umentaries... this truly is a tour-de-force of unique local talent and something that sets The Cambridge Film Festival apart from it's more elitist contemporaries.
Facebook: www.facebook.com/projecttrident
twitter: @ProjectTrident
Website: www.projecttrident.com
2. WAR WITCH
Winner of BEST FESTIVAL FEATURE
As reviewed above, Kim Nguyen's wonderfully visceral, sickeningly violent, utterly breathtaking odyssey into the dark, tragic world of child-soldiers in Africa, follows a 12 year old girl's attempts to master her 'witchcraft', escape a series of cruel, abusive leaders and get to grips with her demons. The fact that Nguyen chooses to literally show her demons as menacing, whispering, white-pupiled, pale-skinned corpses just adds to the utterly absurd nature of such a brutal conflict, without distracting from the very real atrocities on show. Stunning.
3. CALL ME KUCHU
Winner of BEST FESTIVAL DOCUMENTARY
Once again, as reviewed above, Katherine Fairfax Wright and Malika Zouhali-Worrall have created a truly unforgettable documentary that reveals the secretive, oppressed existence of a select group of homosexuals in Uganda, fighting for their rights as Africans and as human beings. A deeply upsetting film that despite several gut-wrenching twists and some frankly, hilarious contributions from irate local Christians, never forgets the plight of it's central characters and it concludes on a somber yet hopeful note that will motivate anyone to want to discover more.
Facebook: www.facebook.com/CallMeKuchu
twitter: @callmekuchu
Website: www.callmekuchu.com
Oliver Wallington is a London + Cambridge-based Artist, Filmmaker, Writer and Musician, to get his reviews of notable FILM and ART attractions subscribe to Cromer Terrace or follow him on twitter @WallingtonArt. Special Thanks go to Ellie Wallington, George Smith, Sam Vasili, Peter Bryan, Lindsey Kennedy and Lozza Anderson for accompanying me to the Festival and unknowingly informing my opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)