5 soundtrack songs meme

I thought this one up while walking the dog in the rain. List 5 songs used to great effect in a soundtrack for T.V. or film.

1. The West Wing - Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits: This track is used at the end of The Two Cathedrals (The West Wing series two finale) and underscores the poignancy and tension of the whole episode.
2. American Gigolo – Call Me by Blondie: The song and accompanying opening shot of Richard Greer driving sets the film up perfectly.
3. American Beauty – Don’t Let It bring You Down by Annie Lennox: Well judged use of a gorgeous rendition of Neil Young’s classic.
4. To Live and Die in L.A. – Dance Hall Days by Wang Chung: Don’t know why but this just works with Friedkin’s underrated thriller capturing the 1980s West Coast zeitgeist. Wang Chung were also commissioned to write the score.
5. The Wire – Way Down in the Hole by The Blind Boys of Alabama: Each series of The Wire uses a different version of Tom Waits’ classic for the opening credits and this is my favourite.

You are tagged if you want to have a go.

Right diagnosis, wrong prescription

There is an interesting article in Christianity Today suggesting that it is time for Christians to reassess their perpetual outrage. The author, Christopher Hays, argues that many artists court attention by producing offensive material in the hope that people will respond and therefore generate valuable publicity. Hays rightly argues that Christians are too quick to react with outraged comment and this simply serves the purposes of those they attack:

To rise above the billowing waves of culture, the latter-day Voltaire need only to offend a small-but-vocal subset of Christians. But unlike Jonathan Edwards's angry God, the Christian culture rages ineffectually, merely providing sound bites for the familiar stories in the mainstream media.

By overreacting when some hack misrepresents the biblical story, however, we send the message that the misrepresentation is more surprising and controversial than the genuine article.

Though I think Hays’ gets the diagnosis right, that Christians too readily take offence and then take to the blog, Facebook page or tweet, I believe his prescription for the problem misses the mark. Hays’ argues that Christians should simply ignore the controversial:

A thought experiment: Imagine if every Christian leader who was invited to comment on the next Dan Brown book simply said, "Why are you calling about this? You know his books are fictional, they're boring to anyone informed, and they're kind of poorly written." No facts, no offense taken—no story.

While many Christians crave the catharsis of rebuttal, a passage from Proverbs balances this sentiment against the wisdom of stoical restraint: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes" (26:4-5).

While this might be a good response for some attention seekers, I want to argue for a more creative response. Not to protest and condemn, nor to ignore, but to positively engage with the controversy. Take Philip Pullman whose novel The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ Hays specifically cites. When the book was published Christians reacted creatively by reviewing the book and noting it’s strengths and weaknesses. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s review of the book is a good example of this more positive approach and is more powerful for its measured tone. ++Rowan has been happy to discuss Pullman’s Dark Materials work with the author, taking the opportunity to respectfully challenge the caricature of Christianity presented by Pullman. In fact, it was in response to ++Rowan’s observation that the church in Pullman’s trilogy had no Jesus and cross that Pullman wrote The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ.

For several years I have been involved with colleagues in running a series of courses reflecting on how Christians engage with controversial portrayals of Christianity and Jesus. We have sought to explore the opportunities afforded by engagement rather than protest. Partly this is because many Christians in their swiftness to react have missed the point; the Life of Brian and The Last Temptation of Christ are a couple of notable examples we examine. Primarily we are keen to show how the more controversial works raise issues and questions that give the church a tremendous opportunity to engage and witness. When Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code came to the screen many churches used it as an opportunity to invite people to explore the claims made by the film and to present an alternative understanding of the issues, including the nature of the gospels, the formation of the canon of scripture and early church history.

So yes, Christians should be slower to react with predictable outrage. But rather than ignore the controversies, I would encourage Christians to engage with the issues raised and explore creatively alternative responses.

The Social Network

Not since Closer have I seen a film with such an unpleasant cast of characters, only this time the film was worth watching.

The Social Network recounts the origins of Facebook and the legal wrangles over who invented and contributed to developing the social media phenomenon. The genius of Aaron Sorkin’s script and David Fincher’s direction is that such an obnoxious group of individuals could make compelling viewing. The story of Facebook is recounted in a non-linear montage of scenes mainly focusing on legal depositions between the protagonists. This could have been both confusing and boring, however, no one makes people talking at breakneck speed in small rooms more interesting than Sorkin. We are taken into the world of Facebook from three different perspectives and the ambiguities about who is telling the truth and what really went on are never resolved and the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions.

The central performances from Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg and Andrew Garfield playing his best (only) friend Eduardo Saverin are convincing and the recognition coming the way of the actors is well deserved. Justin Timberlake is impressive with his portrayal of Sean Parker, founder of Napster, and he commits wholeheartedly to making Parker as unpleasant as possible. The supporting actors are all up to the mark and Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins, who claimed Zuckerberg had stolen their idea, captures a sense of arrogant entitlement perfectly. All of this simply reinforces feelings of admiration and disgust that such a group of individuals could have made themselves so unimaginably wealthy.

At the end of a very enjoyable couple of hours I was left with one overriding thought that we forget at our peril. Everyone involved in Facebook is looking for the best way to make the product as successful and ubiquitous as possible. So those of us who complain when Facebook changes privacy settings, location information or links to other companies, products and services need to remember that these guys aren’t in it to serve our interests. Zuckerberg and co. aren’t interested in creating a social network, they are interested in making Facebook the biggest beast in the digital jungle and the message of the film is that they are prepared to do whatever it takes to achieve that end.

Now I’m off to double check those privacy settings on my Facebook profile.

Migration watch

In August 1972 the murderous dictator Idi Amin gave the Asian population in Uganda 90 days to pack their bags and get out of the country. Amin had accused the Asians of being bloodsuckers leeching off the Ugandan economy and stirred up the majority black African resentment against them. Some 50,000 Asians were forced to leave and of those about 30,000 who were British passport holders came to Britain. Many arrived with little money, having lost savings and businesses in Uganda, and they had hardly any possessions. 

Britain didn’t exactly welcome the Ugandan Asians with open arms. Cabinet papers disclosed in 2003 reveal that the Conservative government at the time tried to find a remote island where they could be settled. Ministers were worried about race relations and feared that the country would be inundated with immigrants from other African countries. The Ugandan expulsion took place only four years after Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘rivers of blood speech’. Yet, the influx of Ugandan Asians proved to be a positive experience for Britain with many of them establishing and building successful businesses and making a significant contribution to the community. This is a story of how our nation has been enriched by the presence of those who, however begrudgingly, we received in their time of need.

On Thursday the Office of National Statistics publishes a report on migration levels under the last government. Some organisations have already been given access to the figures including Migration Watch. I’d be surprised if you haven’t heard of Migration Watch and their Chairman Andrew Green as they tend to be quoted and interviewed whenever immigration is in the news. Now I don’t know why Migration Watch were given advanced access to the ONS figures but I’ve read how they have interpreted them and not surprisingly the Daily Mail ran the story. Green always claims that his organisation is simply presenting the facts and rejects any accusation of racism or being anti-immigration. However, I can’t remember one single story or statement produced by the organisation that presents immigration in a positive light, though there are a few rather grudging acknowledgements of the need for some population movement in and out of the country.

Green contributed an article on the ONS statistics, again published in the Daily Mail, and in it he rails against what he sees as a conspiracy to silence debate on the subject of immigration: Labour are accused of an immigration conspiracy and of gross incompetence; employers’ organisations of colluding to keep a supply of cheap labour; the middle-classes are guilty of enjoying exotic restaurants and cheap domestic help; the BBC is condemned for having a multi-cultural bias. Green praises the present government’s immigration policy although he warns the Conservatives that their Liberal Democrat Coalition partners ‘can be expected to make difficulties’. There is an insightful response offered on Migration Watch’s  and Green’s statements by Michael White. In his article, White dismisses Green’s claim that this was all a deliberate government conspiracy and challenges the spin that he has placed on the ONS findings.

My fear is that we are now trapped in a vicious spiral when it comes to public debate and political discourse on the matter of immigration. Our politicians seem convinced that taking the toughest of stances is a vote winner, despite the fact that businesses and universities are warning of the potentially damaging consequences of severe restrictions on immigration. I would cite the infamous Question Time debate (Oct 2009) featuring Nick Griffin of the BNP when the three main political party representatives tried to outdo each other in declaring how strong they were on this subject. It was the one part of the programme where Griffin looked at ease as the others scrapped over his turf. I hear virtually no one today in the political arena speaking positively about the benefits of immigration, nor of the contribution being made to the economy and wider society by those who have made this country their home.

So I wait to see what tomorrow’s Office of National Statistics report says about immigration and then I will watch to see how the facts are spun and selectively presented to fit the wider political narratives. But I’ll also be thinking about those in our communities who already face hostility, suspicion, resentment and violence because they are immigrants and I’ll be remembering these words:

‘You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt.’ Exodus 22:21

Peddling

Over the last few weeks our news bulletins have been full of reports from North Africa and the Middle East as in country after country people have risen up to challenge the rule of autocrats. In some countries change is coming remarkably quickly and relatively peacefully, but for others the process will be long and painful. Few  rulers in the region can sleep easy at night with the knowledge that their regime might be the next to topple. Some will employ every weapon at their disposal to cling to power and suppress the will of the people; if that means shooting and bombing unarmed women and children then so be it.

So what does our Prime Minister do at this momentous time in world affairs? He jumps on a plane and flies to the Middle East with a quick stop off to glad hand Egyptian leader Ahmed Shafik and talk about how inspired he has been by the protesters. Then it’s back on the plane and on to Kuwait. Is this a trip to encourage democracy; to demonstrate to the brave people standing unarmed in front of tanks that they have the support of the wider international community? No, it turns out this is a business trip and part of the business is making money out of selling arms. David Cameron is in Kuwait with a bunch of arms manufacturers, euphemistically referred to as the defence industry. Meanwhile over in Abu Dhabi the British defence minister Gerald Howarth has been supporting British manufacturers at the region’s largest arms fair. Apparently there are over 90 British companies doing business at this jamboree, selling everything from crowd control equipment to the latest fighter planes.

No doubt the usual platitudes will be trotted out in support of the defence industry’s lucrative business. ‘If we don’t sell the weapons then someone else will’ and ‘Our economy depends on the contribution of arms manufacturers’ are two of the most frequently employed arguments. Here’s what the Prime Minister came up with in support of his trip to Kuwait: ‘My view is that you cannot expect every country in the world to provide for its own defence and so it is perfectly logical and sensible that there should be a trade in defence.’ The problem is that our country has been trading with dodgy regimes who have a track record in suppressing their own people by any means available including the weapons our country has sold them. If that were not the case then why has our government recently had to revoke arms export licenses to Libya and Bahrain? If you want to see who we’ve been doing arms business with in the region then check out this map.

An opportunity has been handed to our Prime Minister and government to stand shoulder to shoulder with those crying out for freedom and the opportunity to elect their own leaders. Instead, in one of the crassest moves of international statesmanship, our Prime Minister portrays himself as a grubby back street trader hawking and peddling his wares in one of the most volatile regions of the world at the most uncertain of times.

A prayer for the Middle Eastern and North African countries facing unrest and uncertainty.

O God you are in the midst of us
and we are called by your name.
As the foundations of our society
are shaken and our future is uncertain,
may we be given the grace to trust in you.
May we find our refuge and strength in
your eternal changelessness,
today and for ever. Amen.

Cooked - a culturally revealing advert meme

Thought this was an interesting meme set up by Clayboy: If you were a media or cultural studies teacher, which current TV advert would you pick for a challenging reflection on our cultural values?

I’ve picked the Thomas Cook advert featuring Jamie and Louise Redknapp. The advert ran last year but I’m sure I’ve seen it quite recently. Here are some of the issues and questions raised by the campaign.

• The use of young, attractive celebrities from the worlds of sport and entertainment to promote a product. Interesting that Jamie’s football skills are referenced but not Louise’s singing!
• You would never know that the Redknapps have a young family because they tell us ‘we are at our best when we are on it (the holiday)’. They are on holiday without their children.
• The location could be anywhere with sun, sand and surf with no sense of a specific place.
• There are no cultural reference points nor is there any encounter with the local population. Enjoy the climate and location without having to engage with the local community. 
• ‘We fantasise about it’, ‘we shop for it’, ‘we lose weight for it’. Consumerism, body image and escapism.
• The advert suggests leisure is a serious matter involving important choices; it needs research, careful planning and preparation.

Here's the advert.

Now watch the mashup



As Clayboy said, if you want to have a go consider yourself tagged.

To be continued… Bible Year 2011 (8)

Excellent podcast by +Stephen Cottrell on the importance of the Bible. Here is the full text and it is always worth listening to him speak.

I have to confess to feeling slightly irritated by the Radio 4 insistence that the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible is an important cultural event. You know, all that stuff about the incomparable prose of the Authorised Version, its indelible mark upon the English language. Well, all that is true. It is impossible to understand European literature and art without some familiarity with the Bible. It has indeed shaped our culture and our laws.

But the reason we are celebrating this anniversary is not primarily about the form of the Bible, however beautiful, but its content. The Bible is vital and central because it is God’s word, not faxed down from heaven, but inspired by the Spirit, the indispensable record of God’s dealings with his people, written by the people themselves, a record of God’s activity in history, God’s ways and God’s heart and supremely God’s revelation of his self in Jesus Christ who is God’s word made flesh and then the beginnings of the Christian church and the story of how we are formed as God’s people today.

The Bible, which is a great library, a collection of books within a book,  enables us to meet with God and to know God. That is what we are celebrating in this year of the Bible. That is the reason we are encouraging people to open their Bibles. And here it doesn’t really matter which translation you are using. What matters is letting the word of God into our lives and through us into our world. The word that was made flesh in Jesus Christ is made available to us through the written word of scripture and now God wants to write that same word in our hearts.

Sometimes I rather provocatively say to people, I would like to make a change to the Bible. It is this, a simple addition, right at the very end: ‘To be continued  until that great day when we see the Lord face to face.’ The great promise of scripture, the great Christian hope is that  God wants to write his word in our hearts, and we need to listen and brood upon that word so that we can learn to be his people. What was revolutionary about the King James Bible 400 years ago was that it put the scriptures into everyday language and into the ears and hearts and hands of ordinary people. That is also the challenge for us today.

Further details about  Bible Year 2011 in the Diocese of Chelmsford can be found here.