So, the pitch from every side at the moment seems to be, "Support my preferred leader or Tony Abbott will be our next prime minister."
Not sure how to break this to you folks, but he stands a pretty good chance of that regardless of whose face is on the ALP's posters.
If you really want to prevent it, you might want to try articulating your policies a little better instead of letting the media and the opposition set the agenda.
21 February, 2012
Dear Canberra Press Gallery 2 - or, Haven't we heard all this before?
In June 2010, I wrote this:
Now I know what some of you must be thinking,
“But Bill! There really was a leadership challenge happening. Julia Gillard successfully challenged Rudd just a few days later. You were wrong.”
Well, yes and no. I stand by my observation that the Gillard challenge began as a media concoction. What is observable is that rumours of a challenge to Rudd’s leadership had been rife in the media for months – long before anyone began to take it seriously. Leadership speculation is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. If you say that speculation is increasing about the leadership of the party, that in itself increases the speculation. It’s true just by virtue of saying it.
I’ve already described how to manufacture a leadership crisis. Say what you’d like to think is happening and let human nature do the rest. It’s school-yard stuff really. Here’s how you might do it…
“So, PM, do you have a response to what X said about you?”
- Why? What did X say?
“Oh? So you haven’t heard?”
- Heard what?
“Oh, never mind. It’s probably nothing.”
- What’s probably nothing?
“Well, I didn’t hear it myself, so I can’t be sure.”
- Can’t be sure of what?
“Well, I just overheard Y talking to Z and apparently Y was saying that X reckons you’re a bit of a wobblebottom.”
- X called me a wobblebottom?
“‘A bit’ of a wobblebottom. But I don’t know, I just heard Y say so. Wondered if you had a response.”
Meanwhile...
“So X, what’s this about the PM saying you called him a wobblebottom?”
- What?
“The PM reckons you called him a wobblebottom.”
- Why on earth would the PM think I called him a wobblebottom?
“Buggered if I know. Go figure!”
- Well if that’s what the PM takes me for after all the loyalty I’ve shown, then the PM really is a wobblebottom.
Later...
“It’s true.”
- What’s true?
“X. He called you a wobblebottom.”
- X really called me a wobblebottom?
“Yep. Told me directly.”
- After saying it to Y?
“Dunno. ’Spose so.”
- X is a good minister and has always been supportive. He was probably just blowing off steam.
“Maybe. Still, it’s not a good look if you let him get away with that kind of thing. People will question the strength of your leadership”
And, as Mr Ellis would say, so it goes.
Having got their change of leader in 2010, the press gallery is bored again. After filling columns about Julia Gillard’s voice, hair, partner, dress sense, and even her earlobes, they’ve run out of trivia and now they want to write it so that the Gillard prime ministership was all a dream – like that season of Dallas.
It does appear that after months of relentless media agitating, the rumours of a Rudd challenge are finally beginning to grow legs, with several Labor MPs willing to comment one way or another. This does not prove that the whole, banal soap opera was not fomented by media who would rather report personality politics than stuff that’s actually happening.
When a heavily edited video of Kevin Rudd swearing in frustration was leaked onto YouTube last Saturday night, it was fascinating to look at twitter and watch everyone claim it as proof of their own narrative. The kind of spinning and re-spinning that used to last a week, all came one after another in less than an hour. When the story broke, the angle was that this would be damaging to Rudd. Therefore, it must have been leaked by those who are out to damage Rudd. Within ten minutes, it started to become evident that it would not be as damaging to Rudd as first predicted. Without missing a beat, it was then claimed that since it wasn’t damaging him as much as expected, that meant that Rudd himself must have leaked it in order to gain sympathy and make it look like Gillard and her backers were trying to smear him. Naturally, everyone took it as confirmation of an ongoing leadership struggle.
It seems a large chunk of the current crop of journalists honestly think that this is how it’s done. It doesn’t matter if it’s relevant, it doesn’t matter if it’s important, just keep it simple enough for people to talk about. Don’t blame the 24-hour news cycle. 24-hour news should mean more time for policy analysis, not a ravenous appetite for salacious trivia. There is little noticable difference between the news coverage of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd and that of Shane Warne and Elizabeth Hurley. That's a problem because unlike the cricketer and the actress, Gillard and Rudd do things that actually effect people’s lives - not that you’d know it if you watch the news.
Leave the fluff to these folks...
Dear Canberra Press Gallery,Obviously, that was too much to ask.
Look, I know you’re bored. I know Kevin Rudd isn’t the kind of prime minister who whacks himself in the eye with a cricket ball, or confesses infidelity, or tells the opposition leader “I’m going to do you slowly,” or makes a fawning goose of himself in front of royalty, or goes out of his way to be seen cheering any kind of sporting event... So I know that’s rather boring for you, but this is the beat you chose, so could you try reporting about things that are actually happening, rather than the things you wish were happening?
Now I know what some of you must be thinking,
“But Bill! There really was a leadership challenge happening. Julia Gillard successfully challenged Rudd just a few days later. You were wrong.”
Well, yes and no. I stand by my observation that the Gillard challenge began as a media concoction. What is observable is that rumours of a challenge to Rudd’s leadership had been rife in the media for months – long before anyone began to take it seriously. Leadership speculation is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. If you say that speculation is increasing about the leadership of the party, that in itself increases the speculation. It’s true just by virtue of saying it.
I’ve already described how to manufacture a leadership crisis. Say what you’d like to think is happening and let human nature do the rest. It’s school-yard stuff really. Here’s how you might do it…
“So, PM, do you have a response to what X said about you?”
- Why? What did X say?
“Oh? So you haven’t heard?”
- Heard what?
“Oh, never mind. It’s probably nothing.”
- What’s probably nothing?
“Well, I didn’t hear it myself, so I can’t be sure.”
- Can’t be sure of what?
“Well, I just overheard Y talking to Z and apparently Y was saying that X reckons you’re a bit of a wobblebottom.”
- X called me a wobblebottom?
“‘A bit’ of a wobblebottom. But I don’t know, I just heard Y say so. Wondered if you had a response.”
Meanwhile...
“So X, what’s this about the PM saying you called him a wobblebottom?”
- What?
“The PM reckons you called him a wobblebottom.”
- Why on earth would the PM think I called him a wobblebottom?
“Buggered if I know. Go figure!”
- Well if that’s what the PM takes me for after all the loyalty I’ve shown, then the PM really is a wobblebottom.
Later...
“It’s true.”
- What’s true?
“X. He called you a wobblebottom.”
- X really called me a wobblebottom?
“Yep. Told me directly.”
- After saying it to Y?
“Dunno. ’Spose so.”
- X is a good minister and has always been supportive. He was probably just blowing off steam.
“Maybe. Still, it’s not a good look if you let him get away with that kind of thing. People will question the strength of your leadership”
And, as Mr Ellis would say, so it goes.
Having got their change of leader in 2010, the press gallery is bored again. After filling columns about Julia Gillard’s voice, hair, partner, dress sense, and even her earlobes, they’ve run out of trivia and now they want to write it so that the Gillard prime ministership was all a dream – like that season of Dallas.
It does appear that after months of relentless media agitating, the rumours of a Rudd challenge are finally beginning to grow legs, with several Labor MPs willing to comment one way or another. This does not prove that the whole, banal soap opera was not fomented by media who would rather report personality politics than stuff that’s actually happening.
When a heavily edited video of Kevin Rudd swearing in frustration was leaked onto YouTube last Saturday night, it was fascinating to look at twitter and watch everyone claim it as proof of their own narrative. The kind of spinning and re-spinning that used to last a week, all came one after another in less than an hour. When the story broke, the angle was that this would be damaging to Rudd. Therefore, it must have been leaked by those who are out to damage Rudd. Within ten minutes, it started to become evident that it would not be as damaging to Rudd as first predicted. Without missing a beat, it was then claimed that since it wasn’t damaging him as much as expected, that meant that Rudd himself must have leaked it in order to gain sympathy and make it look like Gillard and her backers were trying to smear him. Naturally, everyone took it as confirmation of an ongoing leadership struggle.
It seems a large chunk of the current crop of journalists honestly think that this is how it’s done. It doesn’t matter if it’s relevant, it doesn’t matter if it’s important, just keep it simple enough for people to talk about. Don’t blame the 24-hour news cycle. 24-hour news should mean more time for policy analysis, not a ravenous appetite for salacious trivia. There is little noticable difference between the news coverage of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd and that of Shane Warne and Elizabeth Hurley. That's a problem because unlike the cricketer and the actress, Gillard and Rudd do things that actually effect people’s lives - not that you’d know it if you watch the news.
Leave the fluff to these folks...
16 February, 2012
06 February, 2012
The Best of the Best-ofs: Morrissey
Every one of these compilations will contain Suedehead, Every Day is Like Sunday, The Last of the Famous International Playboys and The More You Ignore Me, The Closer I Get. After that, it becomes a question of who compiled it, what label it’s on, and which phase of his career he wants to remind people of at the time. What all of these collections remind us of, in their own strange way, is how Morrissey can be both a neglected treasure and (dare I say it?) devious, truculent and unreliable.
“Suedehead” The Best of Morrissey - 1997
You know it was the mid-90s because it was named after the best-known single. Released by EMI at around the same time as the underrated Maladjusted was released on another label, which suggests they exercised a contractual option, this is probably as good a compilation as you could expect at the time. It features all the notable singles, the rare cover of The Jam’s That’s Entertainment and the UK version of Tomorrow, which features an early fade of the vocal and the curious piano coda. It was the first album to include the singles, Pregnant for the Last Time and the duet of Interlude with Siouxsie Sioux.
At all stages of his career, Morrissey has tended towards self-parody – sometimes deliberate, sometimes unintentional. This collection avoids that tendency better than most.
For: First compilation, includes several non-album tracks.
Against: Seemingly minimal involvement from Morrissey himself, currently out of print.
The Best of Morrissey - 2001
Released right in the middle of his exile from recording, this North American release manages to avoid the problem of Morrissey’s mid-90s label-hopping and includes material from his time at EMI, BMG and Mercury. As such, it’s the only collection to include selections from the whole of Morrissey’s solo career at the time of release.
It’s a genuine best-of, featuring singles, album tracks and rare B-sides such as Hairdresser on Fire and the brilliant Sister I’m a Poet. It’s nice to see the inclusion of underrated singles like Sing Your Life and Alma Matters, despite conventional wisdom saying they were forgettable. Do Your Best and Don’t Worry is a curious choice when there are better songs to represent the Southpaw Grammar album but it’s nice that it’s included at all, as well as the Maladjusted-era B-side, Lost.
For: Broad selection
Against: Difficult to find in some areas
Greatest Hits - 2008
Firstly, Greatest Hits is nothing of the sort. It’s mostly a collection of what you might call the comeback years, but adds Suedehead, …Sunday, …Playboys and The More You Ignore Me, licenced from EMI. The pop sheen of these earlier songs jars with the edgier production of the newer work. Two previously unreleased tracks, All You Need is Me and That’s How People Grow Up were later included on the Years of Refusal album. Although all the other tracks are bona fide chart singles, I Just Want to See the Boy Happy and In the Future When All’s Well don’t stand up among Morrissey’s best or his greatest hits. It would have been better to leave the EMI-era stuff out completely and make it a true 21st century compilation.
Also, Greatest Hits has been given the everything-as-loud-as-everything-else mastering treatment which is almost tolerable on the recent tracks but does nothing for the earlier ones which had a bit of subtlety.
Greatest Hits comes with the option of a short bonus live CD recorded at the Hollywood Bowl, which makes it a slightly more attractive option for people who have all the music on the main disc already. The special edition also came with a weblink to register for “A very special Morrissey release,” which hasn’t eventuated.
For: Collects all the hits of the comeback years, bonus live disc.
Against: Brickwall mastering, not actually his greatest hits.
Very Best of Morrissey - 2011
It’s promoted as an overview of the classic years, which is both a euphemism for the EMI years and an implication that the years since have been less than classic. A message from Morrissey on a fan site lamented the possibility that this might be his first album not to chart on release. For this, he blamed EMI’s distribution which is a fair point, but the other factor is that there’s very little new here. Obviously, you’re not supposed to expect anything new from best-of compilations but we should expect a new collection to do a little more than, to quote the classics, slip them into different sleeves.
It does have the advantage of being selected by Morrissey himself and it’s a typically idiosyncratic mix. The usual hits are there but the singles from Your Arsenal are left out, but the two grungiest tracks from that album, You’re Gonna Need Someone On Your Side and Glamorous Glue are included, the latter being released as a single to promote the album. Kill Uncle is ignored completely but the melodramatic B-side from the same era, I’ve Changed My Plea to Guilty is featured. Three other B-sides including Girl Least Likely To (written with Andy Rourke) and the full nine minutes of Moon River make the list. It’s interesting that Moz has chosen Break Up the Family from Viva Hate, when he hasn’t shown any particular affection for the song previously. Curiously, only one track is included from Vauxhall and I, despite it being regarded as one of his best works. There is the US versions of Tomorrow and My Love Life, with the latter having a later fade. As with the reissue of Bona Drag (see below) the concluding verse of Ouija Board Ouija Board has been cut out entirely.
The attraction for fans who already have all of this already is the solo version of Interlude (identical to the duet version, but with Morrissey singing the entire song) and the option of a bonus DVD with remastered videos, four of which have not previously been available on DVD.
The album has an interesting flow to it, mostly starting out with the rockers, moving on to polished pop and concluding with torch songs. It really would be a great collection if not for the fact that it covers the same material as many others.
For: Decent remastering, compiled by Morrissey, bonus DVD.
Against: Haven’t we heard all this before?
If you had to choose one, choose…
Well, not Greatest Hits because it isn’t. Other than that, they all do the job well. “Suedehead” is the closest to an actual greatest hits. It was deleted just prior to the release of Very Best Of but there are still plenty of copies around. The Best Of gives what it probably the most objective overview and I’m very tempted to choose that one. Very Best Of has the advantage of being the one Morrissey has been the most closely involved with, so you might as well get that one. At least it will make him happy. Or perhaps not.
Suedehead from "Suedehead" The Best of Morrissey
Suedehead from The Best of Morrissey
Suedehead from Greatest Hits
Suedehead from Very Best of MorrisseySee also,
Bona Drag - 1990
With a new album due and not enough material to fill it, Bona Drag became a compilation of the singles and B-sides that Morrissey had released every three or four months in 1989 and 1990. There was already ample precedent for this in Morrissey’s career. The Smiths albums Hatful of Hollow and The World Won’t Listen were both collections of non-album tracks. At the time of release, Bona Drag was completely redundant to anyone who had been buying the singles but today, it stands as a collection of some of Morrissey’s best work. This was a time when many of his B-sides were as good as anyone else’s A-sides. The lyrics of Interesting Drug are probably more relevant now than they ever were. My one complaint is that the beautiful Will Never Marry is faded early and we miss out on the minor key coda.
World of Morrissey - 1995
1994’s Vauxhall and I was regarded as a triumphant return to form and Morrissey was reinstated as a national treasure, so it’s typically contrary that he would follow it up less than a year later with this bizarre, slapped together collection. There was close to enough non-album material since Bona Drag to fill an album, but rather than do that, World of Morrissey is padded out with three tracks from the live album Beethoven Was Deaf and album tracks from Your Arsenal and Vauxhall and I.
It’s a worthwhile sampler if you can find it going cheap, but otherwise pretty pointless.
My Early Burglary Years - 1998
Another North American release, this collection immediately scores points for being the first album release to include Nobody Loves Us, one of Morrissey’s best ever songs which was criminally hidden on the B-side of the unremarkable single, Dagenham Dave. (It has since been added to the expanded edition of Southpaw Grammar.) An excellent collection of rare tracks including the live version of T-Rex’s Cosmic Dancer, plus a couple of album tracks from Southpaw Grammar. Unfortunately, as with World of Morrissey, the version of Jack the Ripper is the live version available on Beethoven Was Deaf rather than the much rarer studio version.
Swords -2009
Morrissey clearly saved up a lot of songs during his seven years without a record label – enough to make this full album’s worth of B-sides and bonus tracks from the singles released off You Are the Quarry, Ringleader of the Tormentors and Years of Refusal. Most of them are just as good as, if not superior to those albums. The exception is Sweetie-Pie, which is unlistenable, but Ganglord, Shame is the Name and Good Looking Man About Town are excellent.
As with Greatest Hits, a carrot for those who bought all the singles is another short live disc, this time recorded in Warsaw. The sound quality of this live disc is pretty awful but this is almost refreshing in a way, now that most live recordings are so polished as to make you wonder. Predictably enough, the live set focuses on Moz’s recent albums but two interesting inclusions are Why Don’t You Find Out For Yourself and You Just Haven’t Earned it Yet Baby.
Bona Drag - 20th anniversary edition - 2010
There’s something awfully meta about a remastered, expanded, anniversary edition of an album that was really only a company-pleasing stopgap in its day. There are six additional tracks added but what is not mentioned is that several of the original tracks have been changed as well. Piccadilly Palare has gained a third verse that was edited out of the original, although this is not the “no Dad,” version which has been posted on some fan sites. The entire “table is rumbling” section has been cut out of Ouija Board Ouija Board and the ambient guitar strums have been chopped off the intro of Suedehead. Sadly, the full-length version of Will Never Marry has not been restored.
Of the bonus tracks, most of them are worthy additions, especially The Bed Took Fire and the demo version of Please Help the Cause Against Loneliness, which was written for Sandie Shaw. The problem is that by tacking these tracks on the end of the album, it ruins the end of Disappointed. The self-deprecating “Goodnight, and thank you,” had been the perfect conclusion to the record. I don’t know why Let the Right One Slip In has been included. It’s a nice enough song, but all the other bonus tracks come from the same era as the rest of Bona Drag while …Slip In is from the Your Arsenal sessions.
Suedehead from Bona Drag 1990
Suedehead from Bona Drag 2010 remaster
31 January, 2012
Eye of Newt
A criticism of not just Mitt Romney but all the candidates, past and present, in the Republican primaries is that it’s an incredibly negative campaign and that no one is offering a positive vision for the future. They all say they have a positive vision for the future but when asked to quantify it, the positive vision seems to be to dig up Ronald Reagan and the future is 1986.
Then Newt Gingrich said something that most definitely qualifies as a vision for the future. He said that by the end of his second term (and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t mean a Grover Cleveland style second term) there will be the first permanent colony on the moon. The need or purpose for such a base isn’t clear to anyone but the two pieces of speculation are that it’s either about minerals or that we’ve stuff this planet up so much that it’s time to look for alternatives.
Anyone who knows me knows there are few greater supporters of space exploration. The return is far greater than the investment and the investment is a pittance compared to many other escapades. The shuttle program could have continued for a few more years (or better still, a replacement developed) for the amount of petty cash that was lost in Iraq. That’s not hyperbole – I’m talking about actual petty cash that actually went missing. Having said that, the first question regarding a moon base is, Why? Even some of the people who have already been there say that a return to the moon is pointless. Been there, done that, let’s go somewhere new.
Here’s an even more interesting question: What if such an outlandish idea had been proposed by, oh let’s say, John Kerry, or Howard Dean, or Dennis Kucinich? Or even Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul? Do we really need to imagine how much they would be mocked for it by the right wing? Would it not surely have destroyed their campaigns even sooner? Yet (and I know I’ve said this before) Newt Gingrich is still being taken seriously. Why? Is this fair and balanced?
We report, you decide.
Then Newt Gingrich said something that most definitely qualifies as a vision for the future. He said that by the end of his second term (and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t mean a Grover Cleveland style second term) there will be the first permanent colony on the moon. The need or purpose for such a base isn’t clear to anyone but the two pieces of speculation are that it’s either about minerals or that we’ve stuff this planet up so much that it’s time to look for alternatives.
Anyone who knows me knows there are few greater supporters of space exploration. The return is far greater than the investment and the investment is a pittance compared to many other escapades. The shuttle program could have continued for a few more years (or better still, a replacement developed) for the amount of petty cash that was lost in Iraq. That’s not hyperbole – I’m talking about actual petty cash that actually went missing. Having said that, the first question regarding a moon base is, Why? Even some of the people who have already been there say that a return to the moon is pointless. Been there, done that, let’s go somewhere new.
Here’s an even more interesting question: What if such an outlandish idea had been proposed by, oh let’s say, John Kerry, or Howard Dean, or Dennis Kucinich? Or even Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul? Do we really need to imagine how much they would be mocked for it by the right wing? Would it not surely have destroyed their campaigns even sooner? Yet (and I know I’ve said this before) Newt Gingrich is still being taken seriously. Why? Is this fair and balanced?
We report, you decide.
27 January, 2012
A picture is worth a thousand words…
Most of them wrong.
This photograph of the prime minister and opposition leader being whisked away from a function yesterday when protests got ugly, went viral within minutes of it being released. Some published it completely. Others, including the ABC’s news home page cropped it to focus on Julia Gillard and her bodyguard.
Reports were quick to highlight how weak Gillard looks in this picture. They mentioned how she is clutching onto the security guard, “visibly rattled,” or “clearly distressed,” or some similar description. That certainly is the first impression of what was happening during this particular hundredth of a second of the fracas. The problem is that it’s all projection.
Have you ever had your photo taken in the middle of falling over? Or moments after a fall? I’m guessing not, but if you did, you’d probably look a little frightened and helpless yourself.
What we also know about this moment is that Julia Gillard lost a shoe while being rushed to the car and that moments later she stumbled almost to the ground. She was already the only person in the whole group wearing a skirt and heels, losing the shoe would make anyone additionally wobbly, she quite understandably loses her footing for one moment and… SNAP!
I suggest that you possibly wouldn’t look particularly dignified or statesmanlike in the same situation, regardless of how calm you might actually be. Unless you would, give the woman a break and cut out the patronising crap.
This photograph of the prime minister and opposition leader being whisked away from a function yesterday when protests got ugly, went viral within minutes of it being released. Some published it completely. Others, including the ABC’s news home page cropped it to focus on Julia Gillard and her bodyguard.
Reports were quick to highlight how weak Gillard looks in this picture. They mentioned how she is clutching onto the security guard, “visibly rattled,” or “clearly distressed,” or some similar description. That certainly is the first impression of what was happening during this particular hundredth of a second of the fracas. The problem is that it’s all projection.
Have you ever had your photo taken in the middle of falling over? Or moments after a fall? I’m guessing not, but if you did, you’d probably look a little frightened and helpless yourself.
What we also know about this moment is that Julia Gillard lost a shoe while being rushed to the car and that moments later she stumbled almost to the ground. She was already the only person in the whole group wearing a skirt and heels, losing the shoe would make anyone additionally wobbly, she quite understandably loses her footing for one moment and… SNAP!
I suggest that you possibly wouldn’t look particularly dignified or statesmanlike in the same situation, regardless of how calm you might actually be. Unless you would, give the woman a break and cut out the patronising crap.
25 January, 2012
THE LOVE WE MAKE - Paul McCartney (2011)
There are many stories surrounding the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 that deserve to be told. This is not one of them.
I’ll admit that I had written that line long before I put the disc in the player. The blurbs and promotions give the distinct impression that this “chronicle of Paul McCartney’s cathartic journey through New York City in the aftermath of 9/11,” is a shameful attempt to use an atrocity as an ego trip. Indeed, the promotional material stops just short of claiming that Paul McCartney came to heal America just as the Beatles had (apocryphally) helped America to get over the Kennedy assassination.
Fortunately, the film itself is nothing like what the descriptions suggest. Shot in grainy black and white by Albert Maysles (of Gimme Shelter and early films of the Beatles in the U.S.), it’s a genuine fly-on-the-wall account of the lead up to the Concert for New York City on 20 October, 2001. There is no commentary, either direct or implied and there are clearly no situations contrived for the benefit of the film. The events that prompted the concert are only mentioned during snippets of conversations, although there is an interesting moment when McCartney ponders how an avowed pacifist should react to the attacks.
The film also isn’t cut to be too flattering to McCartney either. Moments after gladhanding people on the street, he’s shown in the car saying, “Right, get me out of here.” There are of course all the usual shots of fan mobbing and references to the Beatles, but it’s a refreshingly candid portrait of McCartney.
Things get interesting at the venue where we see Paul planning arrangements, instructing musicians and somewhat nervously presenting his idea for the new song, Freedom, and confessing to its corniness. We also see how even some of the most famous people in America can be reduced to gibbering fanboys in the presence of The Beatle. There are no complete musical performances. That's fair enough since it's not what the film is about, but if that's what you were hoping for, you'll be disappointed.
Although The Love We Make is far better than expected, there is still much of it that is suspect – such as why Paul would hire a film crew to document his contribution to the concert, and why release it to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the attacks? While the film is not quite as self-serving as I thought it might be, McCartney is not completely innocent of trying to make it all about him.
That would be forgivable if proceeds from this DVD went to the Robin Hood Relief Fund, as the proceeds from the concert and album did. However, there is nothing to suggest that this is the case. As such, The Love We Make is better than it looks, but approach with caution.
Feature: * * ½
Extras: None
Audio: Dolby stereo, Dolby 5.1, DTS
I’ll admit that I had written that line long before I put the disc in the player. The blurbs and promotions give the distinct impression that this “chronicle of Paul McCartney’s cathartic journey through New York City in the aftermath of 9/11,” is a shameful attempt to use an atrocity as an ego trip. Indeed, the promotional material stops just short of claiming that Paul McCartney came to heal America just as the Beatles had (apocryphally) helped America to get over the Kennedy assassination.
Fortunately, the film itself is nothing like what the descriptions suggest. Shot in grainy black and white by Albert Maysles (of Gimme Shelter and early films of the Beatles in the U.S.), it’s a genuine fly-on-the-wall account of the lead up to the Concert for New York City on 20 October, 2001. There is no commentary, either direct or implied and there are clearly no situations contrived for the benefit of the film. The events that prompted the concert are only mentioned during snippets of conversations, although there is an interesting moment when McCartney ponders how an avowed pacifist should react to the attacks.
The film also isn’t cut to be too flattering to McCartney either. Moments after gladhanding people on the street, he’s shown in the car saying, “Right, get me out of here.” There are of course all the usual shots of fan mobbing and references to the Beatles, but it’s a refreshingly candid portrait of McCartney.
Things get interesting at the venue where we see Paul planning arrangements, instructing musicians and somewhat nervously presenting his idea for the new song, Freedom, and confessing to its corniness. We also see how even some of the most famous people in America can be reduced to gibbering fanboys in the presence of The Beatle. There are no complete musical performances. That's fair enough since it's not what the film is about, but if that's what you were hoping for, you'll be disappointed.
Although The Love We Make is far better than expected, there is still much of it that is suspect – such as why Paul would hire a film crew to document his contribution to the concert, and why release it to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the attacks? While the film is not quite as self-serving as I thought it might be, McCartney is not completely innocent of trying to make it all about him.
That would be forgivable if proceeds from this DVD went to the Robin Hood Relief Fund, as the proceeds from the concert and album did. However, there is nothing to suggest that this is the case. As such, The Love We Make is better than it looks, but approach with caution.
Feature: * * ½
Extras: None
Audio: Dolby stereo, Dolby 5.1, DTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)