When Power Trumps Mercy

I share the sadness of the killing of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, the pointlessness particularly, the barbarity as well and the heartlessness above all.

I don’t agree with the death penalty anywhere for any reason so I have a basis of bias from the start. It doesn’t work, it isn’t decent and it is a grand hypocrisy to decry and sentence a person because of the horrific nature of their crime and then commit as horrific a one ourselves. It’s a grotesque nonsense.

The way that this has been handled by Indonesian authorities, particularly the judiciary and the Presidency is troubling. There has been in the last months a callous disregard, even a chest thumping glee and the series of inchoate acts by them which almost seemed to be arrogant and immature at times. My observations on what has troubled me in this matter:

• The dramatic, muscular demonstration of force when the prisoners were transferred to the execution site in the army vehicles
•  The lack of acknowledgement of the rehabilitation of the two men over the ten years of imprisonment
•  The discourtesy of not responding to approaches made to the Government
•  Having a warship circling the prison island after the transfer of the men
•  Initially saying those being executed could not have their chaplains with them at the end
• The gloating and insensitive appearance of the Indonesian Attorney General at Nusakambangan after the executions boasting that they were ‘more perfect than the last’ (executions).

There are two matters before the justice system in Indonesia arising from the Chan/Sukumaran cases. One is that the President was not acting in accordance with the Constitution in the ways he approved the executions and dealt with clemency pleas. The other is that of alleged corruption by and in the courts where the judges that sentenced the Bali nine duo to death, allegedly asked for more than $130,000 to give a prison term of less than 20 years rather than death. Pretty serious stuff.  If the first matter is proven then the President would likely be asked to review the pleas accordingly BUT no point anymore and anyway he has said any outcome would not be made retrospective which is awfully convenient isn’t it? If the second matter is proven then one would think that any judgments made by the people accused would have to be overturned and trials either declared as mistrials or retried. The best that can be achieved would be that the two Australians would receive a pardon or a posthumously commuted life sentence.

Here’s the odd thing about the death sentence in this case and I might just be a bit dense. Those who supported the death penalty said that if the drugs they were carrying had have made it to Australia and got out to the community it could have caused death and harm. That is absolutely undeniable but it’s a pretty big if and I wonder if it makes one bit of sense to put someone to death when the harm did not occur. Not only did not but would not because the AFP knew about the stash, knew who was doing it and knew when they were leaving the country. They took their ill-judged step to tip off the Indonesian’s presumably to have the smugglers detained and to avoid any chance of the drugs getting to Australia. Job done, ends achieved if you’ll pardon the unfortunate phrase. Will we now execute someone who plans a murder but is caught beforehand? Maybe we’ll give lethal injections or the chair to a would-be hijacker who is caught at the airport before he gets on the plane? The point of apprehension and a rock solid case is that it prevents the planned crime. Of course you would imprison or rehabilitate these kinds of offenders but to off them when they haven’t done the worst is baffling.

Finally there is a dichotomy in a President having a tough stand on drugs which is fair enough but whose country has no harm-reduction strategies for users in its platform. Surely finding ways to get people of drugs is a good way to impact the ‘business model’ of traffickers and smugglers. It might also be worthwhile getting drugs out of the prisons where they can be purchased openly and cheaply. Indonesia has about 60% of its prison population continuing drug users and a hefty proportion are HIV positive because of the exchange of used syringes.

But how does Indonesia handle this? Not with compassion or assistance but by having some of the world's harshest laws against the trafficking but also the consumption of drugs. Effectively there is no difference under Indonesian law between dealers and users and those laws seem to be more and more draconian and yet the problem is not going away. You have to wonder if the publicity of executions and the tough talk is more attractive (and more politically important)than helping the drug industry to wither away. What kind of President wouldn’t rather act to see his most vulnerable citizens be well and drug free rather than pursue headlines, appear tough and prop up short sighted policies and politics?

Reality check: Not one person will stop buying, taking or smuggling drugs because of what happened on that desolate island on Tuesday night. President Joko has established himself now as a play thing of his enemies, they bark he responds. People will die in the streets of Indonesia, others will continue to buy and sell in Bali and the pockets of the real mongrels in the prison and judicial system will continue to be lined. That’s where the scourge of drugs in Indonesia is. For most of the last ten years it was never in Andrew Chan or Myuran Sukumaran’s hands. They made a stupid mistake and then they did better.

More than can be said for the process and the President that killed them.  When power trumps mercy!

My deepest sympathy to the family, friends and legal teams of those we've lost.

Review: x + y equals a Good Film

x + y

 

Cast: Asa Butterfield, Sally Hawkins, Rafe Spall, Eddie Marsan, Jo Yang, Martin McCann
Director: Morgan Matthews
Screenwriter: James Graham
Rated: M        111 minutes

A film with Sally Hawkins, Rafe Spall and Eddie Marsan just has to have a head start on most other films surely. If you are doubtful, run along to see the wonderful ‘x+y’.
 

Asa Butterfield who starred in the equally wondrous ‘Hugo’ and the ineffably fine ‘Boy With the Striped Pyjamas’ adds to the talented cast as Nathan, a teen prodigy who finds himself as part of the British team competing in the International Mathematical Olympiad.

Nathan is somewhere on the autistic spectrum (will we ever get a film about someone on the autism spectrum who is a bit dull or not particularly ‘special’?) and has issues with intimacy, change and competition. His world cracks further when his dad Matthew is killed in a car crash where Nathan is the passenger. The closeness and trust he had with his father isn’t matched with his mother Julie. The poignancy of Nathan and Julie’s distance is gutting.
 

Into Nathan’s life comes the potty –mouthed cynical Martin delightfully played by Rafe Spall. We learn he was once a maths prodigy himself and had a go at the IMO too, but now he has multiple sclerosis, a selection of demons and a fondness for the bottle and a fading career to contend with. He coaches Nathan well though and gets him into the competition and the care of the somewhat overbearing coach Richard (a terrific turn by Eddie Marsan). Oh and Richard was Martin’s bête noir back in the day and delights in reminding Martin of what a disappointment he was/is. Nathan goes off to Taiwan for the competition, meets the delightful Zhang Mei (Jo Yang) from the Chinese team and some of Nathan’s self-containment starts to slip.

Asa is compelling as Nathan, hardly having any dialogue for the first half of the film and very small amounts in the second half. The gift of his acting is that he conveys so much without words, behind the stillness and when he does speak every word has meaning and often huge impact. There are many more experienced older actors who could learn from this young man about character and conviction, impact and depth. The scenes with Zhang Mei are lovely counterpoints to Nathan’s imperviousness and the ill-fated romance makes one totally on side of the couple. Similarly poor Julie’s heartache in not being able to engage with Nathan and ‘feel’ his affection is beautifully unbearable (tissues required).

My only criticism is that the film goes one storyline too far with Julie and Martin but while inauthentic it's not unbearable.
 

This is director Morgan Matthews first feature but he previously made a documentary called Beautiful Young Minds about (did you guess, clever clogs) Olympiad competitors. He does a really good job taking the factual into fiction, adding the ‘meat’ of the back story and Nathan’s growth.  I read that the character of Nathan is loosely based on Daniel Lightwing, one of the documentary’s protagonists.

 

There are references and allusions to patterns in Nathan’s outlook, the film’s structure and in some ways the script is clear throughout the film in its symmetry. It has a rigour that could have been eased up a bit but overall it’s all realised exceptionally well and convincingly. Add to this the strong visuals, especially the shots in Taiwan and the slightly off kilter perspectives to presumably match Nathan’s world view, make for an almost poetic package. I also loved the wistful (although occasionally humorous) songs credited to Mearl, nice touch.

It’s a joy to watch the cast in this story and it’s a delight to watch a good idea developed into a credible and charming film. I looooved it.
 

4 out of 5

A Different ANZAC story

I have been a pacifist for the majority of my life. I don’t ‘get’ militarism and it makes me sad to contemplate that in the 21^st Century a military response is still the reflex response to conflict between nations or sometimes even within. One of the happiest times in my school life was when  I was in the school brass band for a couple of years (trombonist, still love the bones)but it all became less happy when to be a member of the band you had to also be in the army school cadets. I played along with that for a few months, went on a bivouac or two, was roared at and humiliated by some loud voiced bullies, but eventually quit both the cadets and the band.

I was at school in the 60s and 70s as the Vietnam War was being waged and was left to wonder why we were there and left to wonder if it went on how likely it was that my birthdate would pop up in the macabre marble ‘lotto’ and I’d be conscripted. It was a dirty pointless war and I’d be a conscientious objector. There’d be a clash of my ethics, pacifism, with my morbid fear, jail.  Would I run away and hide or top myself (what a dichotomy to choose not to go off and kill and yet take my own life because of fear)? Ah well it was a fleeting dilemma because thank goodness Gough put an end to the pointlessness and ended both conscription and our involvement in Vietnam.

Being a child of the 60s and 70s I also saw the decline in Anzac Day. Our Vietnam folly was partly to blame, most of the population disagreed with it and many of the old diggers from previous wars disparaged it. To our shame the soldiers returning from Vietnam were shunned, scorned and vilified. Very few people turned out to witness the Anzac Day marches/marchers and many doubted it would last beyond the mid-70s and many thought good riddance.  

And then we grew up.

And then we wondered how we could be so dumb, so unfeeling, and so reckless.

There are two men in my family, my mother’s uncle William and my father’s brother Douglas that I know of who went to war. William enlisted in 1916 and Douglas in 1940 so two men, different wars.

I knew Uncle Doug’s story from talking to him and from what he had told my father. He had been to the Middle East and saw the horrors of New Guinea during his five years of service. He wasn’t reluctant to talk about his service (at least to me) but I didn’t ask him too much such is the pious piteousness of we pacifists. Gosh he was a good man, a kind man and he served his country well. I always remember once asking him for advice if I should ever be called up and he simply grinned and said ‘Don’t go’.   

I knew nothing about Great Uncle William except that his name was on the war memorial in Wangaratta, listed as A. Bull because he was known in his family by his middle name Angus (not uncommon in the first half of the 20^th Century). With the centenary of Gallipoli and the coming commemorations of centenaries of different battles in WW1 I wondered about him.

The National Archives are a mine of information and that was particularly so for my research on William, ‘Bill’, Angus. I got to know a stranger whose story is simple and sad.

W.A. Bull was born in 1886 and grew up just out of Wangaratta. He was a hard worker and that work was mostly on farms where he was diligent and attentive, much loved in his family and much admired by his mates. The quiet simplicity of a bush life, when modern Australia was but 100 years old, a population of not quite five million, many of Ned Kelly’s family and victims were still alive and Australia had only been a Federation for a bit over a dozen years, was shaken up by events on the other side of the world. The other side where few had travelled to but many of the population had travelled from or were descended from those who had. School wasn’t compulsory yet so it was the lucky few who could read and write, it was a hot, dry country with no air-conditioning, no flush toilets and food came from the land not from the supermarket freezer. The newspapers brought the story of Gallipoli to the citizens of Australia and a year later William enlisted to join the army. He was on his farm in Tarrawingee, a town many of you may never heard of.

After a period of training in Wangaratta and Seymour William boarded the HMAT Shropshire, along with fellow servicemen of the 37^th Battalion at Station Pier Port Melbourne on September 25^th 1916 for the six week journey to Britain. I wonder what was on his mind as he left a tiny, tiny hamlet in country Victoria to board a huge ship and seeing places like Durban on route before arriving in Plymouth on November 11th.

On the 16^th November he was ‘marched into 3^rd Division Amalgamated Training at Battalion Hurdcott on the Salisbury Plains near the village of Fovant. This training was described as ‘long, intensive and thorough’ much of which was under the personal, exacting and relentless control of Major-General John Monash. The 37^th Battalion set foot in France on November 23^rd 1916.  At this time William would still have been engaged in his training at Hurdcott and imagining where his military career was about to take him in the next wave of the 37^th to be transferred to Europe, most likely just after Christmas. On the 17^th November he was ‘marched out’ to 10^th Training Battalion in Durrington.

His Christmas Day was likely uncomfortable and unpleasant because on Boxing Day 1916 Private William Angus Bull was admitted to Lucknow Isolation Hospital Tidworth ‘dangerously ill’. He was transferred to Fargo Hospital the following day. His parents John and Annie were sent a telegram advising them of his illness. He was diagnosed with cerebro spinal meningitis and sadly passed away on January 2^nd 1917. I was born 40 years and 27 days later.
William is buried in Tidworth Military Cemetery nearby.

He never married.

He had no children.

He left behind a grieving father and mother, two loving brothers and a sister. His brother, my grandfather, would find every subsequent Anzac Day a painful, heartbreaking reminder of his older brother’s death. That gives the day meaning, that makes it matter.

I think of my great uncle willing to give his life for his country, maybe even looking forward to getting ‘stuck in’, a bit trepidatious sure, perhaps even scared but willing.  But instead he ends up in a far off country, in a hospital, in pain, dying and no doubt cared for by kind and compassionate medics and nurses but without his mum, without a wife or partner, no child to think of, his mates probably ready to head off to France or the Front. I wonder if he was lonely, I wonder if he cried.

A few years back I visited that strange place Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plains. Little did I know that only a few miles from where I wandered William had trained and passed away about 80 years before. I am pleased to know his story and I will remember him. On 2^nd January 2017, God willing, I hope to stand with some of the family in front of the war memorial and acknowledge the centenary of his passing.

So all ANZAC stories are not stories of heroics on the field; some are smaller stories but they matter too. And that’s why Anzac Day has meaning.

I once stood at the military cemetery in Cambridge and also at Arlington. The white crosses and white tablet headstones, those thousands of memorials, the sad sea of white, those rows of grief and broken hearts are each a mark of a single person and a single story. They are called ‘memorials’ because we have to remember.

I wonder if we can ever remember to not have to lay another cross or plant another stone.

I wonder what world we might have today if all the William Angus Bulls had have lived.

I just wonder about it all.

Lest we forget.    

Review: A Little Chaos is Very Smoooooth

A Little Chaos 

Starring: Alan Rickman, Kate Winslet, Matthias Schoenaerts

Directed by: Alan Rickman

Screenplay: Allison Deegan

Rated: M           117 Minutes

 

Alan Rickman is a gem of an actor, I saw him on stage in 'Private Lives' and he managed to make the whole thing sexy, and now likes to direct. Mind you his languorous acting style might be more of Alan than we thought for it has taken him seven years to return to directing after his debut 'The Winter Guest' back in 1997. I guess you can't rush some things.

 

So we find ourselves in Louis XIV's France in 1682, mostly at Versailles where Kate Winslet gets to furrow and burrow as the landscape designer Sabine De Barra. The widow is brought in by Chief Garden guy Andre Le Notre (Matthias Schoenaerts) to transform a sludgy, muddy section of the massive Palace gardens into an exciting geometrically underpinned amphitheatre. She's a woman so her undertaking is far from welcome and the film follows some of the undermining that goes on. It doesn't help that her plans are vivacious and innovative in a time of entrenched (even possibly mandated) mundanity. Sidebar: I think it's highly doubtful there were any women working let alone in such positions back 'then', after all this is the time of the classically defined ladies - a woman paid NOT to work.

 

There be a lot going on in that Court and Palace let me tell ya', hot bed of gossip and intrigue doesn't quite cover it. Good fun and a little bit shocking too.

 

Rickman (who also has a fine, purse lipped, turn as Louis) captures the period well especially the frivolity that ensued and manages to finesse the somewhat mannered script (I felt even a little too 'modern' at times) into a neat tale and almost pitch perfect. There's not much new here but there is a lot to enjoy. I saw Rickman's stage experience in the visuals; the aspect ration is tight and limiting but enables him to move scenes through in a theatrical style. Even the blocking and settings are as though on a theatre stage. Let me tell you a lot of the movie is simply beautiful to look at. I think the magnificence would have been enhanced if done on widescreen; the camera could have roamed widely and really given us something spectacular. Maybe the participation of BBC Films demands a 'TV' aspect but with widescreen TV now I'd have thought that was a bit old fashioned.

 

There is a magic, stunning scene where Sabine comes into a salon full of women attached to the Palace and they talk about 'stuff' - it is moving and wonderful, a delightful moment. 

 

On beauty I must say Kate Winslet is gorgeous in this film, there are some shots of her that make you want to shout out 'oh my god', seriously. I've always thought she was above the pack but in this one she is stratospheric. And that's before her finely tuned and convincing portrayal of a woman with a fair amount of sadness and good reason to just stay at home and not face the world. Then she comes into the world of the noble and the rich (well seemingly rich, actually they were pretty broke) and try to find acceptance. Sabine brings a little chaos to rigidity and certainty which Kate delivers perfectly.

 

Matthias Schoenaerts does well in the role of Le Notre but it's not great. He was terrific in 'Rust and Bone' but I'm not sure he gave enough in this one. Not to say he wasn't good, just not good enough and to be fair it could be that the role is a little simply drawn, not exactly a 'deep' character although I'm sure such a man would have a bit going on.

 

This is a visually stunning film, well directed although it could have been bigger and better viewing wise. It avoids the overstatement and grandeur as an excuse for camp or d-r-a-m-a to match the scale. It once or twice wanders off the point but is mostly tight and confined and this is the strength Rickman brings. It made for a rewarding and rich experience with a nice glimpse into a story supposedly based on historical characters and facts (debateable).

A good movie to enjoy in a comfortable cinema with a nice snack and a refreshing beverage. Sit back and let it was over you - makes for ideal movie going.

 

Cheers - Salut!

 

3 out of 5

 

 

Review: Love Is Strange...This Film Is Sweeeet

Love Is Strange

Starring: John Lithgow, Alfred Molina, Marisa Tomei and Charlie Tahan
Directed by: Ira Sachs
Written by: Ira Sachs and Mauricio Zacharias
Rated: M     114 Minutes

How about those gays eh? They always have such exciting friends, actors, writers, artists. With those friends they’re always have fabulous dinners and parties and always manage to get the best seats at the theatre or invites to opening nights at exhibitions or ‘happenings’. Their families are always eclectic and supportive, although there is the mouthy and judgy sister and dad seems a bit oh-I’m-not-sure-about-all-this.  And boy do they know how to dress! It’s all so fun, even with the drop of angst and pathos Disneyland really should open GayLand so we can all get a bit of that.

Well at least according to movie makers.

‘Love is Strange’ gives us the story of artist Ben (John Lithgow) and music teacher George (Alfred Molina) who get married after 40 years as a couple. Making it legal and making them happy; oh good times.  Strangely the school George teaches at decides getting married is just not on for their highly respected and much loved staff member so they sack him. Bit of a stretch no? Oh well it gives a good stepping off point at least so let’s just go with it, feel a bit miffed and start rooting for the underdog so we can all get through this together.

The dismissal causes somewhat of a financial squeeze, especially in the high priced New York apartment scene and so they have to sell their West Village home. George looks for somewhere affordable, stays with neighbours (a couple of gay coppers) while Ben moves in with his niece Kate (played by the wonderful Marisa Tomei) in Brooklyn. The moving in requires Ben to take a bunk with the obligatory troubled teenaged son Joey (Charlie Tahan). Kate's a writer and Ben is always around, a constant distraction, Joey needs his 'space' and of course no one 'gets' him, while George is too old to couch-surf and can live without all the hot young bods constantly partying around him. As this all plays out what becomes evident is how neither is complete without the other, they are the epitome of a 'couple'. So when the system forces them apart what made them a great team becomes clearer, And this is where the film shines, where it gives us its heart.  

Ira Sachs has directed thoughtful and funny, sometimes moving story of a loved up and caring couple. They just happen to be two older blokes but, apart from the necessary nods to a same sex relationship, that is really neither here nor there and is not amplified to any extent. This is a story of a union, a loving unit overcoming physical separation. It tells us family is a safety net while at the same time being a troublesome smothering force and a swag of complexity when everything else militates against us.

And, I think Ira and co-writer Mauricio Zacharias have given us a reminder about resilience. 

This is a quiet, gentle film with sweet and sure performances from Lithgow and Molina. There is no yelling, no shrillness, it whispers and speaks to us; there is no shouting or speaking at us. And there is a bit going on that catches up with you later when you think about the movie. Ben and George have one kind of relationship but look over here at the relationship between Kate and her hubby Elliott (played in a rather odd, non facially expressive way by Darren E. Burrows). The men just want to be together, they need to be, the niece and husband seem to be a couple together out of habit, of expectation. Interesting.

I want to mention Charlie Tahan as the troubled teen Joey. This could have been a clichéd performance of a slightly underwritten character but Tahan turned it from a closed-in and confounding young man with a broken and yearning heart, wanting the 'more' of life that he can't quite get clear in his mind. Ben isn't his saviour by any means, nor his soul mate, not even guiding light. BUT he did make a difference and the exquisitely underplayed denouement is heartbreakingly beautiful thanks to Charlie's acting.

This film could have gone in so many different directions and could have ended up as a campy, cloying gay rom com. It did not and was not, thank goodness.

Go see it and feel that little bit uplifted for at least the rest of your day.

Do you ever wonder though about the young gay bloke who works as oh I don’t know a baker perhaps and does his work, goes home, maybe has an occasional fling but mostly lives a quiet life at home and with his friends and workmates, isn’t into any ‘scenes’. He doesn’t hide his sexuality, isn’t at all bothered by it and no one else seems bothered by it. Ever wondered who’s making the movies for him to relate to, to see himself portrayed in? Or is it only ‘interesting’ or ‘valid’ when difference is ‘noticeable’ or somewhat ‘more’?

Just sayin’.

3 out of 5