My take on Bigotgate.

I’d like to start by making the point that the Gordon Brown gaffe now being named as “bigotgate” has been blown out of proportion, mainly by the media but also through sites such as twitter.

I’ve seen a number of responses to what has happened, many more sensational than the last. Firstly, there’s the Murdoch angle. I label it the Murdoch angle because The Sun and Sky are doing most of the Tories dirty work when it comes to spinning. It’s no secret that The Sun has changed allegiance to the Conservatives and Murdoch is doing all in his considerable power to see us return to the dark days of Tory government. I haven’t written anything about the Murdoch Press thus far as I was outraged by the reporting of last weeks debate by Sky News. I was so disgusted by their blatant Tory bias that I felt unable to coherently write about what I was witnessing without resorting to expletives or libelous language.

Bigotgate has been a field day for Murdoch industries and I wouldn’t be surprised if there have been tears of Tory joy over Gordon Brown’s gaffe. They certainly have done their part to fuel the incident and blow it out of proportion in an attempt to further smear Brown’s public image. Take for example the gagging of a poll which showed a smidgen of support for Brown.

The opposite angle to this is that in defence of Brown. I’m thinking in particular of an oversensitive article by Milena Popova. People have the right to be offended by whatever has that affect on them and I’m sure Popova has her reasons for being offended but was what Gillian Duffy said really bigoted?

Gillian Duffy raised a point on immigration, in particular the number of Eastern Europeans in Rochdale. Let’s make it clear, it is perfectly acceptable to tackle the issue of immigration. It is a major issue in all policy making. Throughout her discussion with Gordon Brown, Gillian Duffy spoke intelligently with knowledge of party policies and has been let down by the unfortunately comedic sound bite of her saying “Eastern Europeans, where are they coming from?” which it is not fair to judge her on. In her defence I cannot see how anything she said could be considered bigoted. Immigration is there to be tackled and if people are afraid of talking about it then as a society were are entering dangerous territory. Here are some facts on Easter European immigration.

We must remind ourselves that Gillian Duffy is a self professed life long Labour voter, precisely what the Tories are targeting. It is no secret that David Cameron et al want to swing Labours core vote their way. Is it any surprise then that Gordon Brown calling one of his own core voters a bigot was leapt on by the right wing press?

It must also be highlighted that Gordon Brown tried to steer away from the subject of immigration when challenged by Duffy, probably because Labour policy on immigration, while they “recognise people’s legitimate concerns about the impact it can have on communities”, takes a slightly different angle to that of Duffy. There is not much on cutting back on immigration as so much as putting more controls in place. I think our diverse society is something we can be proud of in this country with race relations constantly improving. That is not to say that for people like Gillian Duffy it should not be a concern.

It seems Gordon Brown doesn’t like the subject of immigration being addressed and to me this is a reflection of the uber-politically-correct movement we have seen during this Labour government. To mention immigration or to be concerned by the opportunities available to the British population is to be racist. This is ridiculous. British people have every right to feel aggrieved if job opportunities are being taken by immigrants just as the population of any other country would have the same right. Writing this I am actually wincing at the thought of me coming across very Daily Mail. I think this a result of the overly cautious, easily offended society we have become under this Labour government. It’s about time we were able to tackle issues such as immigration head on and allow people to voice their opinions as they have a right to do.

Also, I’d like to put to bed any notion that Gordon Brown is alone in his dual facades. Do you really think no other politician moans about the public after having met them? I cannot for a second believe that David Cameron says nice things about the “hoodies” he has met once he gets back into his Jaguar. Remember, and I don’t like defending politicians, but we are allowed to say what we like about them but they can’t say what they like about us, but I guess that’s the price they pay for getting into a position where they need our votes.

As a final point I’d like to highlight two more concerns. Firstly, whether he was right to say what he said or not, do we really want a man who will say something that will land him in hot water while wearing a microphone, leading our country? And secondly as the Murdoch machine keeps rolling and getting stronger with every day I just hope the general public are intelligent enough to see through the bias and vote for what is best for them and not what suits Rupert and co. I’m sure we are, aren’t we?

A fairly middle of the road article about a fairly middle of the road story.

Loach and Leigh.

Apologies for not writing in over a week. My page view graph has flatlined at zero and such objective feedback is hard to take and makes me embarrassed.

I’ve been lazy over the Easter period, I predicted it happening.

I am back into working ways now and have spent the morning reading articles and highlighting relevant points and including them in my reflective journal. I’ve read two lengthy interviews with Ken Loach and Mike Leigh, both of which have been very useful. I would like to find more critical analysis of some of their film, as opposed to simple reviews.

I related what Loach and Leigh said in the interviews to my own work and have come up with some thoughts, I guess, in response to some of the critique of my short films.

Optimism is long term. The characters are in the here and now, living in the moment and I’m giving the viewer a glimpse of that. To portray them with optimism would only seem contrived and fake. Humour and harnessing the amazing human capacity for people down on their luck to be funny is one way to break up the pessimism or realism. It is important this is not perceived as trite or cheap as it’s pivotal to avoiding creating stereotypical characters. An individual reacting with dry humour to bad situations keeps them human and realistic.

I think I need to continue writing and exploring script ideas and ideally try to keep the scripts as loose as possible to allow for improvisation. This feels like it could be difficult as I am not working with professional actors but with friends and people around me. Loach is well known for using people who aren’t actors in his work, though those people are always from the area he is filming and have a lot in common with the characters of his films. It may be difficult to find such characters at an art school, keeping in mind that my disillusionment with art school is partly what’s driven me to create this style of work.

I need to focus on the humour in my writing, not just for comic relief and definitely not to appease the smiley-happy brigade but, as I said before, to maintain a realistic human feel to the characters, to make them more three-dimensional and not stereotypical. In my critique a few weeks ago, the mature German Phd student who leads my group and speaks brilliant English, used the word silhouette instead of stereotype. I liked this as it made me realise I need to ensure my characters are not simply outlines but are fully rounded entities.

This reading of Ken Loach and Mike Leigh has been invaluable on a number of levels. Here are two quotes from each man that I have picked out from the interviews.

"It’s a mark of how much the right wing has triumphed that people just associate strikes with inconvenience."

- Ken Loach

"I do this because my job – and this is what all artists do whatever the medium, because all art is based on improvisation and order – is to start something that grows all over the place and then figure out how to shape it into something that’s coherent."

- Mike Leigh on negotiating with actors as creative collaborators

Not a total disaster for a first post in a while.

Manipulating Class.

I’ve been reading “Class, Self, Culture” by Beverley Skeggs. The following is my reaction to what I’ve gained from it in relation to my own artistic practise exploring British society and the class system. Excuse me, if I repeat or reiterate points highlighted by Skeggs. This is partly to organise my own thoughts and reflect on what I have learned.

Class does still exist. It is not talked about as frequently or in the same way as it has historically. It has taken on a different guise. It is now represented by a number of things; location (geographically or for example a local estate within a community), political alignment, culture and lifestyle. It is to be noted however, that this representations are formed not by who they relate to but by other social groups to re-affirm their own self image. Such class identities are constructed to limit mobility. That is to say, the middle-class (authoritative) will enhance their own value by constructing and repeating negative values they assign to the working-class. It must therefore be understand that any negative representation of the working-class is an attempt by the middle-class  to attribute value to themselves. As Skeggs says; “making oneself tasteful by judging others tasteless”. This is done through the authorisation and institutionalisation of class symbols, suiting the middle-class who occupy the positions of political authority within institutions.

The repetition and institutionalisation of the constructed values attributed to the working-class highlight the fragile position of the middle-class and their “authority”. These efforts to keep the working-class in a fixed place can challenged through the critique of the middle-class and the questioning and devaluing of authority.

The creation of classed symbols and class representations acts to maintain class divisions.

As a point separate to Skeggs but in line with current affairs I would like to highlight the proposed Labour policy to allow football fans a greater chance of having a say in the running of their football clubs. Under this plan fans will be allowed a stake of 25% in their club combating the recent worsening feeling of football fans to the owners of their clubs. It will provide fans with the power to prevent takeovers and the purchasing of controlling shares from businessmen who may not fully appreciate the heritage of a club and its meaning to the fans. Examples can be seen now at Manchester United and Liverpool. The Tories have dismissed this as gimmicky and I’d have to agree it is a gimmick. But could it be a gimmick that will work? I don’t expect the Tories to understand football, which has long been the working man’s game. Could this move by Labour to reinforce what would be seen as their core vote potentially work for them? The importance of football is not to be underestimated in Britain and with the timing of the election so close to the World Cup, could the increased interest in football in this country potentially swing some votes Labour’s way. I’m not sure yet what long term effects such a policy would have on the game but it’s safe to say if it gives power to the fans who, of late, have had a raw time of it, then it could just be a stroke of genius. That is to assume that football does have a great enough importance to large sections of society. I’d like to hear other people’s thoughts on this.

I hope I don’t sound like a class-warrior. Please get involved and share your opinions.