What a difference a day makes.
Yesterday the Liberals were in full attack mode (and their supporters in full party mode) with suggestions both Rudd and Swan should resign.
Now it all seems to have turned to poo.
The problem is that the email supposedly sent from Rudd advisor Andrew Charlton to OzCar Manager Godwin Grech seems to be completely fake.
Woops, as they say.
Last night Rudd announced a full enquiry into the matter by the Auditor General - a pretty strong step to take. Today he upped the stakes even more by bringing the AFP into the case, and asking them to investigate who wrote the email (if any) and whether any charges should be laid relating to impersonating a public official.
The Libs - and Turnbull - are now in full retreat. Turnbull is denying having a copy of the email - which is a bit odd since on Wednesday he told Charlton that he knew there was documentary evidence of it (was he just guessing?). And given that Turnbull on 4 June asked Rudd and Swan six questions about Grant in Question Time, he can hardly claim he was only acting on newspaper reports - because at that point there hadn't been any.
This whole thing smells a lot like the Canuck Letter of the Watergate affair. In that case a letter was forged and sent to the press suggesting that the Democratic Party Presidential candidate Ed Muskie had made jokes about French-Canadians. The FBI found that the letter was written by those involved in Nixon's dirty tricks campaign that was at the centre of the whole Watergate Affair.
Here we have an email read out to the press (not actually given the the press, just "read out") that is apparently by a Rudd staffer. Turnbull has used this email as the basis for his whole accusations against Rudd and Swan.
So when did Turnbull first hear about the text of the email? Given the line of questioning on 10 June, it would be reasonable perhaps to suspect it was before that date. Either that or Turnbull was just asking questions about an unknown ute for no reason whatsoever. You know, just wondering...
This has backfired on Turnbull very quickly. 24 hours ago it was Rudd whose credibility was on the line. Now Turnbull needs to step up and tell us all he knows. That is, unless he thinks it's OK to demand the PM resign purely on the basis of stuff that's been made up.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
OzCar...For want of a nail?
From little things big things grow. The question is, will the revelation by Treasury official Godwin Grech that the Prime Minister's office had contacted him about John Grant and the OzCar scheme lead to anything.
The Opposition will say it means Rudd has lied to Parliament - a serious breach. Last Wednesday Turnbull went full bore on Rudd about the matter. I admit I criticised him for it. Here are Rudd's responses:
Mr RUDD—The honourable member refers to a declaration of my pecuniary interests concerning I think an electorate vehicle, and that declaration has been there for some time. On the question of any representations concerning his company or any others, I will have to seek information and provide the honourable member with an answer. I am unaware of that, but should there be any further anything further to add I will do so.
Mr RUDD—I refer the honourable member to my answer to his first question, ... Secondly, I am unaware of any representations being made on behalf of this individual concerning the program to which the minister refers. I said in response to the honourable member’s first question that if there is anything further to add to that then I would provide him with an answer....
...
My recollection is that this is the only car dealer who has made such a representation to me; that is the occasion that I recall. If representations were subsequently made by my office concerning that particular dealership, it would be consistent with the representations that were made to me at that time. That is the sum total of my knowledge of it. If there were further to add to it, I would provide it to the honourable member rather than simply having the honourable member stand at the dispatch box and make insinuations.
...
On the question of the special purpose vehicle, let me say in response to some of the insinuations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition: I have been advised that neither I nor my office have ever spoken with Mr Grant in relation to OzCar; (2) neither I nor my office have ever made any representations on his behalf; and (3) I have not been aware of any representations on his behalf made by anyone in the government, including the referral referred to before by the Treasurer’s office.
So the language is (as you would expect) all couched in "I am advised" terms. So technically if someone from his office has made representations on his (Grant's) behalf, then technically Rudd has not lied to Parliament.
But it is not a good look.
But there is also the problem that Treasury cannot actually find any email from Rudd's office to Treasury on the matter. All they have is Grech's recollection that he thinks he had received one:
My recollection may well be totally false and faulty - but my recollection, big qualification - is that there was a short email from the PMO [Prime Minister's Office] to me which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant. But I don't have the email."
But while lying to parliament is bad - corruption is worse. And that's where this story gets a bit of a problem for the opposition. Because while the Treasurer's office (and perhaps the PMs office) may have asked Treasury to advise Grant on what he could do with OzCar, and while Grech knew Grant was a friend of the PM there isn't any suggestion that Grant has been given preferential treatment, or any access to credit, or any money. So where's the corruption?
Turnbull can call on Rudd to resign all he likes. But he's going to have to actually produce an email that shows Rudd asking for rules to be bent (or indeed broken), or even implying that he or his office would like the rules to be bent or broken.
If all he has is Grech saying he did spend more time dealing with Grant's enquiries than he did others, then the opposition has got very little. If he thinks anyone thinks it's special that a Public Servant might make sure he is very thorough in his dealings and advice with someone he knows is a friend of the PM, then they really need to wake up and smell reality.
There is nothing wrong with that. So long as no preferential treatment is given in terms of bending rules or guidelines (or indeed laws).
Thus far there is absolutely no suggestion that has happened.
Maybe big things from this will grow; but not without a lot of fertiliser (and I expect both sides will be employing that in the coming weeks).
Also - expect a censure motion against Rudd half way during Question Time on Monday. Thus far Rudd hasn't bothered to answer such motions as yet. I think he will this time.
UPDATE:
Rudd has denied any email has gone from his office to Treasury on the matter, and has brought in the Auditor General to do a full independent inquiry into the issue. That is a big move by Rudd, and suggests he is very confident nothing improper has occurred.
Usually in such cases it is the opposition calling for the Auditor General to get involved, and the Government saying no need etc etc.
Will be interesting to see how the media reports this.
The Opposition will say it means Rudd has lied to Parliament - a serious breach. Last Wednesday Turnbull went full bore on Rudd about the matter. I admit I criticised him for it. Here are Rudd's responses:
Mr RUDD—The honourable member refers to a declaration of my pecuniary interests concerning I think an electorate vehicle, and that declaration has been there for some time. On the question of any representations concerning his company or any others, I will have to seek information and provide the honourable member with an answer. I am unaware of that, but should there be any further anything further to add I will do so.
Mr RUDD—I refer the honourable member to my answer to his first question, ... Secondly, I am unaware of any representations being made on behalf of this individual concerning the program to which the minister refers. I said in response to the honourable member’s first question that if there is anything further to add to that then I would provide him with an answer....
...
My recollection is that this is the only car dealer who has made such a representation to me; that is the occasion that I recall. If representations were subsequently made by my office concerning that particular dealership, it would be consistent with the representations that were made to me at that time. That is the sum total of my knowledge of it. If there were further to add to it, I would provide it to the honourable member rather than simply having the honourable member stand at the dispatch box and make insinuations.
...
On the question of the special purpose vehicle, let me say in response to some of the insinuations that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition: I have been advised that neither I nor my office have ever spoken with Mr Grant in relation to OzCar; (2) neither I nor my office have ever made any representations on his behalf; and (3) I have not been aware of any representations on his behalf made by anyone in the government, including the referral referred to before by the Treasurer’s office.
So the language is (as you would expect) all couched in "I am advised" terms. So technically if someone from his office has made representations on his (Grant's) behalf, then technically Rudd has not lied to Parliament.
But it is not a good look.
But there is also the problem that Treasury cannot actually find any email from Rudd's office to Treasury on the matter. All they have is Grech's recollection that he thinks he had received one:
My recollection may well be totally false and faulty - but my recollection, big qualification - is that there was a short email from the PMO [Prime Minister's Office] to me which very simply alerted me to the case of John Grant. But I don't have the email."
It appears that Grech told this to journalist Steven Lewis yesterday, which has led to the story. The problem is if there is an email - where is it - I seriously doubt Treasury would destroy any evidence of such a document on its server. So who was the email from? Was there an email or was there actually a phone call and Grech has got it mixed up?
The suggestion by the opposition is that the email came from Rudd's advisor Andrew Charlton. The problem is Charlton today put out a statement referring to a conversation he had with Turnbull Wednesday night at the annual mid-winter media ball, where Turnbull said he was lying about not having contacted Treasury over the matter. In his statement Charlton says the following conversation occurred:
TURNBULL: Andrew, integrity is very important in a man's career. That is why I encourage you, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the pressure, not to lie.
CHARLTON: Thank you for that advice. I don't feel any pressure to lie.
TRUNBULL: This whole Ozcar issue will be very damaging for you. Let me just give you some friendly advice. You should not lie to protect your boss.
CHARLTON: I have not.
TURNBULL: You know and I know there is documentary evidence that you have lied.
CHARLTON: There is not.
Now if there actually is documentary evidence you have to wonder what Charlton is doing. Rudd, for his part, has stated that he stands by his statements in Parliament.But while lying to parliament is bad - corruption is worse. And that's where this story gets a bit of a problem for the opposition. Because while the Treasurer's office (and perhaps the PMs office) may have asked Treasury to advise Grant on what he could do with OzCar, and while Grech knew Grant was a friend of the PM there isn't any suggestion that Grant has been given preferential treatment, or any access to credit, or any money. So where's the corruption?
Turnbull can call on Rudd to resign all he likes. But he's going to have to actually produce an email that shows Rudd asking for rules to be bent (or indeed broken), or even implying that he or his office would like the rules to be bent or broken.
If all he has is Grech saying he did spend more time dealing with Grant's enquiries than he did others, then the opposition has got very little. If he thinks anyone thinks it's special that a Public Servant might make sure he is very thorough in his dealings and advice with someone he knows is a friend of the PM, then they really need to wake up and smell reality.
There is nothing wrong with that. So long as no preferential treatment is given in terms of bending rules or guidelines (or indeed laws).
Thus far there is absolutely no suggestion that has happened.
Maybe big things from this will grow; but not without a lot of fertiliser (and I expect both sides will be employing that in the coming weeks).
Also - expect a censure motion against Rudd half way during Question Time on Monday. Thus far Rudd hasn't bothered to answer such motions as yet. I think he will this time.
UPDATE:
Rudd has denied any email has gone from his office to Treasury on the matter, and has brought in the Auditor General to do a full independent inquiry into the issue. That is a big move by Rudd, and suggests he is very confident nothing improper has occurred.
Usually in such cases it is the opposition calling for the Auditor General to get involved, and the Government saying no need etc etc.
Will be interesting to see how the media reports this.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Oscar is always wrong (except when it's right) Part VI (b): 1998
Back on April 30 I dealt with the Best Picture nominees for 1998. I said I would get around to dealing with the other categories "next week". Errr...Whoops.
Oh, well let us get on to the categories:
Best Actor:
Winner: Roberto Benigni, (Life is Beautiful)
Nominees: Nick Nolte (Affliction), Edward Norton (American History X), Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters), Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan)
Should have won: Jim Carrey (The Truman Show)
My God what a terrible selection. Benigni perhaps is the worst actor to have ever won the Best Actor award - and look who he beat as well! Nolte, Norton, McKellen, Hanks. That's as strong a field as you could ask for. Out of those four, Norton would probably get my vote, even though to be honest, I think he is a much over-rated actor, and his performance even more over-rated. His performance as a a neo-Nazi is not a patch on the work done by Russell Crowe years earlier in Romper Stomper.
But there was one person missing who gave the best performance of the year - another comedian who was moving over to the dramatic side of cinema. Jim Carrey in Peter Weir's The Truman Show. The film bizarrely didn't even get a nomination for Best Picture (I made it runner-up, but to be honest part of me thinks it should have won the gong). I'm not sure why it was so badly snubbed by the Academy, but it was certainly the most prescient film of the year.
Actually I think there are some flaws with the film - the premise is a bit too hard to believe - but there are none with Carrey's performance. This is course was not the first time Weir had taken a comedian and turned him into an actor. In 1989 he did the same thing with Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. (Unfortunately both Williams and Carrey have gone on to be "serious actors" in films working with far less talented directors than Weir).
Carrey is charismatic as the eponymous Truman, but not too funny that you think he is the same guy from Ace Ventura or Dumb and Dumber. He is able display the sadness - the loneliness - required of the character without becoming mawkish. As the only person not aware that he is a living TV show, Carrey is not allowed to appear to be "fake acting" like the others around him - and throughout the film Carrey does indeed seem to be the only one who is real, just as is the case with Truman.
The film's success certainly is due to Weir's talent, and that of screenwriter Andrew Niccol (who would go on to write and direct Gattaca), but without Carrey's performance it would all be a joke.
Carrey of course is now stuck in a bit of a netherworld of not knowing if he is funny or serious. His work in The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was excellent, but no one will want to ever see Number 23 again. Regardless of his career since this film, he certainly hit all the right notes, and he gets my vote.
Best Actress:
Winner: Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love)
Nominees: Fernanda Montenegro (Central do Brasil), Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth), Emily Watson (Hilary and Jackie), Meryl Streep (One True Thing)
Should have won: Cate Blanchette
The first thing I think when I look at this list is One True Thing?? What's that? I have absolutely no recollection of it.
Then I think, geez, they really stuffed up this one.
Sometimes the actress doesn't win the award, the role does. That was certainly the case here. William Goldman has argued that whoever played the role of Viola in Shakespeare in Love would have won Best Actress, and I agree completely. I mean think about it - she gets to play a man, she gets to be the first Juliet, and she gets to fall in love with Shakespeare and cure him of writer's block. Gwyneth actually didn't do a bad job at all (I like her performance -I think we mostly think of her horrible acceptance speech when we think of why she shouldn't have won the Oscar).
But there is absolutely no doubt that the performance by Blanchett that year was one for the ages. In the time since it has only grown in stature - let's be honest, the only reason there was a sequel is because everyone wanted to see her in the role again.
Blanchett is able to convey so many emtions, and such a growth of character over the course of the film. She goes from almost coy school girl to supreme ruler, and despite the change her performance is centred and logical. We believe her as Elizabeth in all her stages.
Unfortunately the film was directed by Shekhar Kapur, who is an absolute hack. The following scene is a great example of Blanchett's performance and Kapur's inability. Half of the time we see Blanchett from some bizarre angle looking down on her head, the other half we are peering at her through a crowd. It is as though Kapur arrived late to the set and had to sit in the back row.
Such angles happen throughout the film, and it is further tribute to Blanchett's performance that she was able to overcome such poor direction.
Speaking of direction...
Best Director:
Winner: Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan)
Nominees: Roberto Benigni (La vita è bella), John Madden (Shakespeare in Love), Terrence Malick (The Thin Red Line), Peter Weir (The Truman Show)
Should have won: Peter Weir
Firstly, let's get rid of Benigni. A disgrace really. Let's put in Steven Soderbergh for his fantastic work in Out of Sight.
It's fair to say Spielberg really wanted to win this one. And admittedly he does do some great work - the landing at Normandy, and the final battle are excellent; incredible, really. But he starts and ends with a mawkish piece of shite involving the old Private Ryan going to the graveyard. Plus he spends ages showing the set up of how important Ryan is - the whole letter office and then General Marshall reading the Abraham Lincoln letter, and so on. And the fact is, despite all of this set up, by the time we get to Ryan, we don't really give a damn about him anyway. Maybe there's some deeper meaning there, but I doubt it.
Terrence Malik is a brilliant director - and I actually think his battle scenes are at time more intense than those shot by Spielberg. But the whole is a bit all over the place, and so I can't reward him.
Now Peter Weir however, doesn't put a foot wrong in The Truman Show. The first person hired to direct the film was actually the screenwriter Andrew Niccol. He had never directed a film before, and he pretty much knew he wasn't going to end up being the director, and so he got a great deal struck whereby he was on a "pay or play" deal - ie they would pay him even if he didn't end up directing the film. And once the budget got over $80 million, there was no way a first time director was going to do it.
So the studio got Peter Weir. The first thing he did was to get Niccol to re-write the script (16 times apparently). If you read one of the early drafts you see it is a very different film - and has a much bleaker ending. Weir's involvement also got Carrey on board.
The best thing Weir did however was to makes use of a multitude of different camera angles to replicate the hidden camera aspect of Truman's life. He also replicates the look of a television show in the opening act, and also creates a sinisterness in Christoff's control room, when he could have easily gone for the look of a standard TV studi control room. Actually perhaps the best thing Weir did was bring out great performances from the entire cast - Carrey, Laura Linney, Ed Harris are just outstanding.
Weir has had a great career - he has been nominated for Best Director 4 times (he should have more - and I'm putting him down already for another nomination for his next film The Way Back). He deserves at least one win. This one, in a year of great work by some great directors, is only apt.
Oh, well let us get on to the categories:
Best Actor:
Winner: Roberto Benigni, (Life is Beautiful)
Nominees: Nick Nolte (Affliction), Edward Norton (American History X), Ian McKellen (Gods and Monsters), Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan)
Should have won: Jim Carrey (The Truman Show)
My God what a terrible selection. Benigni perhaps is the worst actor to have ever won the Best Actor award - and look who he beat as well! Nolte, Norton, McKellen, Hanks. That's as strong a field as you could ask for. Out of those four, Norton would probably get my vote, even though to be honest, I think he is a much over-rated actor, and his performance even more over-rated. His performance as a a neo-Nazi is not a patch on the work done by Russell Crowe years earlier in Romper Stomper.
But there was one person missing who gave the best performance of the year - another comedian who was moving over to the dramatic side of cinema. Jim Carrey in Peter Weir's The Truman Show. The film bizarrely didn't even get a nomination for Best Picture (I made it runner-up, but to be honest part of me thinks it should have won the gong). I'm not sure why it was so badly snubbed by the Academy, but it was certainly the most prescient film of the year.
Actually I think there are some flaws with the film - the premise is a bit too hard to believe - but there are none with Carrey's performance. This is course was not the first time Weir had taken a comedian and turned him into an actor. In 1989 he did the same thing with Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society. (Unfortunately both Williams and Carrey have gone on to be "serious actors" in films working with far less talented directors than Weir).
Carrey is charismatic as the eponymous Truman, but not too funny that you think he is the same guy from Ace Ventura or Dumb and Dumber. He is able display the sadness - the loneliness - required of the character without becoming mawkish. As the only person not aware that he is a living TV show, Carrey is not allowed to appear to be "fake acting" like the others around him - and throughout the film Carrey does indeed seem to be the only one who is real, just as is the case with Truman.
The film's success certainly is due to Weir's talent, and that of screenwriter Andrew Niccol (who would go on to write and direct Gattaca), but without Carrey's performance it would all be a joke.
Carrey of course is now stuck in a bit of a netherworld of not knowing if he is funny or serious. His work in The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was excellent, but no one will want to ever see Number 23 again. Regardless of his career since this film, he certainly hit all the right notes, and he gets my vote.
Best Actress:
Winner: Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love)
Nominees: Fernanda Montenegro (Central do Brasil), Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth), Emily Watson (Hilary and Jackie), Meryl Streep (One True Thing)
Should have won: Cate Blanchette
The first thing I think when I look at this list is One True Thing?? What's that? I have absolutely no recollection of it.
Then I think, geez, they really stuffed up this one.
Sometimes the actress doesn't win the award, the role does. That was certainly the case here. William Goldman has argued that whoever played the role of Viola in Shakespeare in Love would have won Best Actress, and I agree completely. I mean think about it - she gets to play a man, she gets to be the first Juliet, and she gets to fall in love with Shakespeare and cure him of writer's block. Gwyneth actually didn't do a bad job at all (I like her performance -I think we mostly think of her horrible acceptance speech when we think of why she shouldn't have won the Oscar).
But there is absolutely no doubt that the performance by Blanchett that year was one for the ages. In the time since it has only grown in stature - let's be honest, the only reason there was a sequel is because everyone wanted to see her in the role again.
Blanchett is able to convey so many emtions, and such a growth of character over the course of the film. She goes from almost coy school girl to supreme ruler, and despite the change her performance is centred and logical. We believe her as Elizabeth in all her stages.
Unfortunately the film was directed by Shekhar Kapur, who is an absolute hack. The following scene is a great example of Blanchett's performance and Kapur's inability. Half of the time we see Blanchett from some bizarre angle looking down on her head, the other half we are peering at her through a crowd. It is as though Kapur arrived late to the set and had to sit in the back row.
Such angles happen throughout the film, and it is further tribute to Blanchett's performance that she was able to overcome such poor direction.
Speaking of direction...
Best Director:
Winner: Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan)
Nominees: Roberto Benigni (La vita è bella), John Madden (Shakespeare in Love), Terrence Malick (The Thin Red Line), Peter Weir (The Truman Show)
Should have won: Peter Weir
Firstly, let's get rid of Benigni. A disgrace really. Let's put in Steven Soderbergh for his fantastic work in Out of Sight.
It's fair to say Spielberg really wanted to win this one. And admittedly he does do some great work - the landing at Normandy, and the final battle are excellent; incredible, really. But he starts and ends with a mawkish piece of shite involving the old Private Ryan going to the graveyard. Plus he spends ages showing the set up of how important Ryan is - the whole letter office and then General Marshall reading the Abraham Lincoln letter, and so on. And the fact is, despite all of this set up, by the time we get to Ryan, we don't really give a damn about him anyway. Maybe there's some deeper meaning there, but I doubt it.
Terrence Malik is a brilliant director - and I actually think his battle scenes are at time more intense than those shot by Spielberg. But the whole is a bit all over the place, and so I can't reward him.
Now Peter Weir however, doesn't put a foot wrong in The Truman Show. The first person hired to direct the film was actually the screenwriter Andrew Niccol. He had never directed a film before, and he pretty much knew he wasn't going to end up being the director, and so he got a great deal struck whereby he was on a "pay or play" deal - ie they would pay him even if he didn't end up directing the film. And once the budget got over $80 million, there was no way a first time director was going to do it.
So the studio got Peter Weir. The first thing he did was to get Niccol to re-write the script (16 times apparently). If you read one of the early drafts you see it is a very different film - and has a much bleaker ending. Weir's involvement also got Carrey on board.
The best thing Weir did however was to makes use of a multitude of different camera angles to replicate the hidden camera aspect of Truman's life. He also replicates the look of a television show in the opening act, and also creates a sinisterness in Christoff's control room, when he could have easily gone for the look of a standard TV studi control room. Actually perhaps the best thing Weir did was bring out great performances from the entire cast - Carrey, Laura Linney, Ed Harris are just outstanding.
Weir has had a great career - he has been nominated for Best Director 4 times (he should have more - and I'm putting him down already for another nomination for his next film The Way Back). He deserves at least one win. This one, in a year of great work by some great directors, is only apt.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Newspoll: ALP 53 - LNP 47
A good Newspoll for the Liberals - if by "good" you mean worse than the last election, and one which would see the ALP increase its margin.
Now obviously compared to recent results this is good. But they still have a long way to go. To see just how far, go over to the ABC website where you can use this wonderful "Election Calculator" devised by "Election Guru" Antony Green. It's a bit rough in that it estimates what would happen if the swing was uniform (which it never is), but you can break it down state by state if you want.
If this poll was replicated in 2010, the ALP would win 88 seats (a gain of 4), the LNP would win 59, and the three independents would keep their seats (which they always will). To see the struggle the Libs have, going by the calculator, the Libs need to get the ALP vote down to 50.3% before they take the lead.
So the Libs need to somehow get 3% off the ALP two party preferred. But if the ALP vote went the other way and increased by say only 1% to 54%, then the ALP would win 8 seats and have an overall victory of 92-55. That's a fine margin of error for Turnbull and Co. Everything would have to go right for them to even have a hope of winning.
Also of note is some excellent analysis done by "Aristotle" on the Oz Election forum. He compares the averages of the last four Newspolls with the averages of the first four done after Turnbull became leader:
Primary votes:
First four polls: ALP 42.8; LNP 38.3; GR 10.3; OTH 8.6
Last four polls: ALP 43.0; L-NP 38.3; GR 10.3; OTH 8.4
Two Party Preferred
First 4: ALP 54.8; LNP 45.2
Last 4: ALP 54.7; LNP 45.3
So basically it's gone back to where it was when Turnbull first came on the scene; no change. Business as usual folks, move on, nothing to see (yet).
***
Question Time today was good for seeing Julia Gillard have fun with Christopher Pyne (and The Australian). But the rest was rather dry.
It was also note worthy for the absence of any real questions by Turnbull to Rudd. I don't think Turnbull knows what to do at the moment. I think he is just hoping to get through the next week and a half without too much bother (most likely the debate on the Emissions Trading System will be put off), and then over the recess he will try and formulate a strategy (and possibly a rejig of the front bench - no need to worry as much about pleasing the hard right, now that Costello has gone).
***
In the last week of the 2007 election, in a moment of absurd desperation John Howard and Peter Costello appeared side by side on Today Tonight. It was excruciating TV. Howard said the two of them "were mates" and also:
I like Peter as a bloke. He's very bright. I mean, he's a seriously intelligent person. And he's also very funny. Peter's got a natural talent for wit and humour, which is much greater than mine. I mean, I'm lousy at telling jokes.
Yesterday when asked to respond to Costello's announcment that he was leaving politics, Howard said this of his mate:
"He was treasurer in a government which left Australia better able to weather the financial storms of recent times than virtually any other nation. That is something of which he and all other members of that government should be immensely proud."
And that was it.
Never has praise been fainter. You'd hate to see what Howard has to say of his enemies.
Now obviously compared to recent results this is good. But they still have a long way to go. To see just how far, go over to the ABC website where you can use this wonderful "Election Calculator" devised by "Election Guru" Antony Green. It's a bit rough in that it estimates what would happen if the swing was uniform (which it never is), but you can break it down state by state if you want.
If this poll was replicated in 2010, the ALP would win 88 seats (a gain of 4), the LNP would win 59, and the three independents would keep their seats (which they always will). To see the struggle the Libs have, going by the calculator, the Libs need to get the ALP vote down to 50.3% before they take the lead.
So the Libs need to somehow get 3% off the ALP two party preferred. But if the ALP vote went the other way and increased by say only 1% to 54%, then the ALP would win 8 seats and have an overall victory of 92-55. That's a fine margin of error for Turnbull and Co. Everything would have to go right for them to even have a hope of winning.
Also of note is some excellent analysis done by "Aristotle" on the Oz Election forum. He compares the averages of the last four Newspolls with the averages of the first four done after Turnbull became leader:
Primary votes:
First four polls: ALP 42.8; LNP 38.3; GR 10.3; OTH 8.6
Last four polls: ALP 43.0; L-NP 38.3; GR 10.3; OTH 8.4
Two Party Preferred
First 4: ALP 54.8; LNP 45.2
Last 4: ALP 54.7; LNP 45.3
So basically it's gone back to where it was when Turnbull first came on the scene; no change. Business as usual folks, move on, nothing to see (yet).
***
Question Time today was good for seeing Julia Gillard have fun with Christopher Pyne (and The Australian). But the rest was rather dry.
It was also note worthy for the absence of any real questions by Turnbull to Rudd. I don't think Turnbull knows what to do at the moment. I think he is just hoping to get through the next week and a half without too much bother (most likely the debate on the Emissions Trading System will be put off), and then over the recess he will try and formulate a strategy (and possibly a rejig of the front bench - no need to worry as much about pleasing the hard right, now that Costello has gone).
***
In the last week of the 2007 election, in a moment of absurd desperation John Howard and Peter Costello appeared side by side on Today Tonight. It was excruciating TV. Howard said the two of them "were mates" and also:
I like Peter as a bloke. He's very bright. I mean, he's a seriously intelligent person. And he's also very funny. Peter's got a natural talent for wit and humour, which is much greater than mine. I mean, I'm lousy at telling jokes.
Yesterday when asked to respond to Costello's announcment that he was leaving politics, Howard said this of his mate:
"He was treasurer in a government which left Australia better able to weather the financial storms of recent times than virtually any other nation. That is something of which he and all other members of that government should be immensely proud."
And that was it.
Never has praise been fainter. You'd hate to see what Howard has to say of his enemies.
Monday, June 15, 2009
16 June, Happy Bloomsday, you literary tragics
My favourite quote about Ulysses is from George Orwell. In a letter he wrote while working on his novel A Clergyman’s Daughter, he said: “When I read a book like [Ulysses] and then come back to my own work I feel like a eunuch…”Every June 16, as the literary world stops to celebrate (or not) Bloomsday, discussions abound on the merits of Joyce’s masterwork. Generally the feelings are rather opposed. In one camp are those who think it is a greatly overrated heap of ramblings by a drunk Irishman who is altogether rather too pleased with himself and his word play abilities and rather too neglectful of small matters such as plot. What the hell happens? they cry. A Jewish bloke called Bloom wanders around Dublin, gets pissed, ends up in a brothel and takes this other bloke called Dedalus home for a cup of tea while his wife is upstairs thinking about the fact she’s been cheating on him. Nothing happens! There aren't any plot twists, the are no reasons for moving from one chapter to the next. And what’s with all the Catholic and religious imagery and metaphors; the talk of sex and organs and bodily functions? One chapter is set in a library with a bunch of uni students talking about Hamlet ferfuckssake ! Who gives a toss?
And then there are those who think it is the greatest novel ever written.
I am certainly in the later camp. It is not my favourite novel, but begob there is scare a sentence on any page that I don’t wish with all my might that I had penned. To me it is to novels like sitcoms are to Seinfeld. After watching Seinfeld, you wonder how could anyone do another sitcom about single people. And yes in some ways How I Met You Mother is more fun and easy to watch, but it doesn’t have the genius. Though at least they’re trying; when you see something like Two and Half Men, you realise the writers have just pretended a show like Seinfeld never existed.
I came to Ulysses through Bloomsday. In 1992 I was a third year Economic student who had a passion for literature that well exceeded my having actually read anything. I had heard about Ulysses, but had never got close to opening a page of it. I knew the aura in which it was held and thus it intrigued me. I felt I needed to know this book – in much the same way as I felt I needed to know more about history. And so when my best mate told me our local pub – the Wellington Hotel in North Adelaide – was having a Bloomsday dinner complete with an Irish Stew cooked in Guinness for about 8 hours, well how could I turn that down?
The night was a wonderful affair, we were by far the youngest in the place, but that mattered little –we felt good being there; the vibe was jovial and the Guinness was plentiful (the stew, amazing). There were some readings of the novel as there must be at such occasions. The one I recall was from the ‘Cyclops’ chapter – a marvellous passage where an observer at Barney Kiernan’s pub lists off all the great Irish heroes – including Christopher Columbus, Charlemagne, the Last of the Mohicans, and (my favourite) The Man that Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo. Hearing this long list of absurd names in an out of context reading opened Ulysses for me. For you see, I had no idea the book was funny.
A favourite passage from the same chapter involves a group of men talking about the funeral of an acquaintance of theirs, Paddy Dignam. One of them (Alf) hadn’t heard the news, and can’t believe it, because he is sure he saw him a few minutes ago:
- Don’t you know he’s dead? says Joe.The conversations are real and wonderfully convey the hubbub and half heard sentences amidst the noise of a pub after work. Without description Joyce conveys the entry of someone into a group at a bar – you can imagine quite easily Bob Doran coming into the circle with a pint in hand, asking “Who’s dead” without Joyce actually describing that is what has happened. And the “whatdoyoucallhim’s” is a type of writing not seen in the 19th Century, but which is now everywhere. It’s writing that is real – yeah with an Irish accent, but it is full of conversations and chit chat as much as description.
- Paddy Dignam dead? says Alf.
- Ay, says Joe.
- Sure I’m after seeing him not five minutes ago, says Alf, as plain as a pikestaff.
-Who’s dead? says Bob Doran.
-You saw his ghost then, says Joe, God between us and harm.
- What? says Alf. Good Christ, only five… What?… and Willie Murray with him, the two of them there near whatdoyoucallhim’s… What? Dignam dead?
- What about Dignam? says Bob Doran. Who’s talking about…?
-Dead! says Alf. He is no more dead than you are.
- Maybe so, says Joe. They took the liberty of burying him this morning anyhow.
Ulysses is a novel for those who adore character above all else. If Dan Brown is your ideal, then avoid this at all costs. And I don’t mean that in a snobby way. If you were to meet someone who said they love film and that their favourite movie of all time was Die Hard you would hardly suggest they check out some of the early films of Truffaut. There’s nothing wrong with Die Hard (it’s a great action film in fact) but it has as little in common with, say, Jules et Jim, as The Da Vinci Code has with Ulysses.
If you like to disappear into other worlds to escape reality, then perhaps this isn’t for you either. For while Ulysses does construct a world, it is hardly nice in a way that for example is the Highbury of Emma. Ulysses reveals the thoughts we think but wouldn’t say out loud; the things we hear but quickly forget; the things we see that trigger memories we wish we could forget. Ulysses reveals a world full of humour, bitterness, sadness, loss, pain, cruelty, love, loneliness, futility and death. Orwell said it was Joyce showing us the world without God. Which, while I might not agree with, certainly gives a decent enough impression of the novel’s tone.
Joyce asks a lot of his readers. The problem with Joyce is that he writes assuming you will read all the words. Dan Brown and Bryce Courtney can be read quickly – you can skip a sentence, a paragraph and not lose track. Even Dickens or Austen allow you to skip the odd sentence. But reading Joyce is as demanding as reading poetry – skip a line in a poem and you might as well have not read any of it. Much is the same with Joyce (though saying that I must admit to having skimmed a lot of the ‘Oxen of the Sun’ chapter – it is rather a bit of a bore for me – but in skimming the pages, I know I am missing out; I’m just prepared to accept it). Joyce stretches the limits of the language and of what a novel can be to breaking point (in his next novel, Finnegans Wake, he would break it – and it is poorer for it) – so pay attention, son.He asks a lot, but (for me) the rewards are plentiful. The first half of the novel is as close to perfection as I could ask. The ‘Wandering Rocks’ chapter with its labyrinthine structure is perhaps my favourite – though the humour and spite of ‘Cyclops’ always gets a re-read; and then there is the beautifully rendered sadness of ‘Hades’ featuring Bloom in a carriage with some men on the way to Paddy Dignam’s funeral, and we read of Bloom’s thoughts as he recalls his father’s suicide and his only son’s young death, all the while the anti-Semitism of the men softly simmers around Bloom.
The novel also ends with the truly great soliloquy of Molly Bloom. The infamous last chapter of 60 odd pages and 8 unpunctuated sentences.
The stream of consciousness Joyce employs always reminds me of a Jackson Pollock painting. To the sceptical it seems gibberish; simple; almost childish. And truly like doing drip paintings, nothing is easier to write than stream of consciousness. All you need do is spew out random thoughts. But just try it yourself, and you will find that while nothing is easier than to write stream of consciousness, nothing is harder than to write it well. Far too many young wannabe authors have filled their pages with excruciating rubbish, not realising that you can only discard the rules once you have mastered them.
Joyce was a master of rhythm and meter. His writing is lyrical and worth savouring. I hate books with long chapters, and yet Molly’s words flow so smoothly that the pages pass without reference to time.
When I was at uni, I was part of a Literary Club that used to put on a reading every Bloomsday. I played the role of Joyce – providing a narration in between the readings to give some context to each excerpt to be read out. It always finished with me reading the last 4 or so pages of Molly’s soliloquy. It’s almost impossible to read out loud phrases where Molly is remembering her life and not feel a deep sense that Joyce has truly got inside the head of this woman, and has created a real being:
… and O that awful deepdown torrent O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and the pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.
It is a weird book. Parts frustrate me; parts dazzle. It is perhaps the only novel where I can recall individual chapters. It’s the only novel where I really don’t like two chapters - ‘Oxen in the Sun’ and the long, absurd ‘Circe’ which account for about 200 pages, and yet still think the whole is better than anything else written. I can forgive those two chapters because of the brilliance of the others
.
But as I have said, it is not my favourite novel – it is perhaps not even my favourite Joyce novel - I prefer to read his earlier A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (and I recommend you read that book before this one, as Ulysses is in many ways a sequel). I don’t like the characters here as much as I do those in say David Copperfield, or Emma. And yes, it is true it lacks a plot that keeps you turning the page. And yet…. and yet…and yet… none of this takes away from its greatness. You might as well criticise Picasso’s “Guernica” because it’s not as bright and sunny as Van Gough's “Sunflowers”.I probably haven’t converted anyone to Joyce, or even touched on his greatness. Those who think it unreadable will no doubt continue to think so; those who could think of nothing worse than reading a book that asks that you concentrate will no doubt not feel any great desire to pick up and start the journey with Bloom as he walks around Dublin on 16 June 1904. But if you are to pick it up, don’t be reverential or scared. Heck feel free to hate the thing. Feel free to shake your head and put it back on the shelf with a “not for me” shrug. But don’t be overawed by it – get the student’s version so you can go to the footnotes and find out what the heck “Ineluctable modality of the visible” means. Don’t worry that you haven’t read The Odyssey, and so you won’t get that when Buck Mulligan refers to the ocean as “the snotgreen sea. The scotumtightening sea” it is a parody on Homer’s reference of the Aegean as “the wine-dark sea”.
Ignore the stories of Joyce spending two days reworking one sentence – you don’t have to spend two days reading it – a chef takes a lot more time making the meal than you do eating it. Just remember - it’s only a book; I think it’s the best ever written, but I could be wrong.
Though of course, I’m not.
Like Orwell, Ulysses makes me feel like a eunuch. I spend half of the time marvelling at the passages, and the other half sighing and wishing and thinking and wondering, “if only I could have written that”.
Costello gives it up
Well in a bit of a surprise, Peter Costello today announced he wouldn't be seeking re-election.
Rudd rather graciously gave him a chance to make a statement on indulgence before Question Time. As usual, Costello delivered a speech full of humour, but ultimately rather lacking in anything about which you could remember.
On the 3rd June, during Question Time, Julia Gillard delivered a very prescient summation of Costello's career:
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for Blair for his question. I know that he takes an interest in question time every day. What is different today is that we have seen an uncharacteristic interest in question time by the member for Higgins, who interjected during the last question: ‘Is that it?’ Interestingly, it is exactly the same question people are asking about his political career. We will wait for the answer; we will know that very soon.
And yep, that is it. A career that never rose to the top - forever to be Howard's second banana. Forever to be the man who when offered the crown, turned it down.
In his speech today Costello said that he thought "It is just possible that both sides of the dispatch box are happy with the announcement I've made." The reality is the ALP will be sad to see him go. His 18 months of indecision has cruelled the leadership of Brendan Nelson, and also Turnbull. Now Turnbull will get clear air.
So this is good news for Turnbull - but also a test - he doesn't have any excuses now.
But let us leave Costello with the man who had him pegged some 14 years ago:
Mr KEATING —We know what he said. He said the same sort of thing the shadow Treasurer said before Christmas when he advocated—
Mr Costello —What did Beazley say?
Mr KEATING —Don't be too noisy over there. You are so macho! Twice you have had a chance to take the opposition leadership. The first time you rang your friend next to you and offered it to him. This time you sat overseas while John got it from Hawks Nest. When I told our caucus last year that you were a low altitude flier I was right, wasn't I?
Mr Atkinson —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order—
Mr KEATING —Underneath that barrel chest of yours is a caraway seed for a ticker.
Rudd rather graciously gave him a chance to make a statement on indulgence before Question Time. As usual, Costello delivered a speech full of humour, but ultimately rather lacking in anything about which you could remember.
On the 3rd June, during Question Time, Julia Gillard delivered a very prescient summation of Costello's career:
Ms GILLARD—I thank the member for Blair for his question. I know that he takes an interest in question time every day. What is different today is that we have seen an uncharacteristic interest in question time by the member for Higgins, who interjected during the last question: ‘Is that it?’ Interestingly, it is exactly the same question people are asking about his political career. We will wait for the answer; we will know that very soon.
And yep, that is it. A career that never rose to the top - forever to be Howard's second banana. Forever to be the man who when offered the crown, turned it down.
In his speech today Costello said that he thought "It is just possible that both sides of the dispatch box are happy with the announcement I've made." The reality is the ALP will be sad to see him go. His 18 months of indecision has cruelled the leadership of Brendan Nelson, and also Turnbull. Now Turnbull will get clear air.
So this is good news for Turnbull - but also a test - he doesn't have any excuses now.
But let us leave Costello with the man who had him pegged some 14 years ago:
Mr KEATING —We know what he said. He said the same sort of thing the shadow Treasurer said before Christmas when he advocated—
Mr Costello —What did Beazley say?
Mr KEATING —Don't be too noisy over there. You are so macho! Twice you have had a chance to take the opposition leadership. The first time you rang your friend next to you and offered it to him. This time you sat overseas while John got it from Hawks Nest. When I told our caucus last year that you were a low altitude flier I was right, wasn't I?
Mr Atkinson —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order—
Mr KEATING —Underneath that barrel chest of yours is a caraway seed for a ticker.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A Song a Year: 1990, "Black Velvet"
When I think back to 1990, to be honest I don't think of any song in particular. It was an odd year - as often is the case with a year at the start of the decade, it still wasn't ready to let go of the previous decade.
Here's the list of the Top 20 selling singles of the year:
1. Nothing Compares 2 U - Sinead O'connor
2. U Can't Touch This - M.C. Hammer
3. Vogue - Madonna
4. It Must Have Been Love - Roxette
5. All I Wanna Do is Make Love to You - Heart
6. Opposites Attract - Paula Abdul
7. How am I Supposed to Live Without You - Michael Bolton
8. Unchained Melody - Righteous Brothers
9. Girl I'm Gonna Miss You - Milli Vanilli
10. Love Shack - The B 52's
11. Hold On - Wilson Phillips
12. Don't Know Much - Linda Ronstadt featuring Aaron Neville
13. Black Velevet - Alannah Myles
14. Ride On Time - Black Box
15. Mona - Craig McLachlan & Check 1-2
16. Joey - Concerte Blonde
17. I Need Your Body - Tina Arena
18. Crying in the Chapel - Peter Blakeley
19. Janie's Got a Gun - Areosmith
20. Blaze of Glory - Jon Bon Jovi
There's a nice smattering of fading 1980s acts, one hit wonders and 80s hair bands.
An odd year. And let's be honest, any year that has Milli Vanilli, Craig McLachlan and Michael Bolton in the charts is not a year you really want to revisit.
1991 was when the 90s really started for music - that would be the year of Nevermind and Achtung Baby. But 1990? A bit of a black hole really.
It was also my first year of university. I was living in a boarding college in North Adelaide, and the charts were not that important. When you start university, and you've come from the country, you don't want to listen to music that you could hear on your local 5MU radio station. Going to uni is about broadening your mind. And so when I think back to 1990 it is more about the music I really got introduced to that had previously passed me by - bands like The Clash, Neil Young, Violent Femmes, The Doors, Living Colour, REM. Even Simon and Garfunkel are more emotive of 1990 for me than say, Black Box.
Most of the music from that year that I can recall is that which was heard at nightclubs, but again, it was all rather ephemeral, and I was never induced to buy any CDs. I only recall them now because I downloaded the list, and had lots of "oh yeah that song" and "nup, can't remember that one... oh that song - never knew it was called that". I mean does anyone ever stand in the shower and sing "Ice Ice Baby", or "Pump Up the Jam", or (God help you if you do) "How Can We Be Lovers"?
So 1990 didn't do it for me musically. But there are still some connections. I knew a girl who every now and then used to sing for no discernible reason a couple lines from "Groove is in the Heart" in a high pitched voice, and "Unchained Melody" is hard to forget - especially because Ghost was one of the first movies that I saw with my girlfriend (and now wife) (the first movie was Pretty Woman... the things you do when you're young and in love). And a couple friends also at uni used to like reworking the words to "It must have been love" from:
"It must have been love, but it's over now"
to
"It must have been f*cked, that's why it's over now". (ah such joys of undergraduate humour)
I have picked Alanah Myles' "Black Velvet" as my song of the year for a couple reasons. Firstly my wife owned the tape and so it got a fair bit of play in her room or car, and also at the end of the year she and I with a group of other students from the college went on a houseboat trip on the River Murray and "Black Velvet" for some reason seems to be linked with that trip.
Alannah Myles is also a nice example of the link with the 80s. She is a great one hit wonder. In the US her first song "Love Is" got to number 36; this, her follow up, made it to Number 1. She never made the charts again.
Her style is also much more 1980s than the 1990s - she is more Melissa Etheridge than Alanis Morrisette. She has the big hair that was as favoured by the male singers as much as the women in the 80s; and it is a song that is not too bad, but hardly one that has you wishing there were more like it today - pretty much my feelings of just about all music from 1990.
Here's the list of the Top 20 selling singles of the year:
1. Nothing Compares 2 U - Sinead O'connor
2. U Can't Touch This - M.C. Hammer
3. Vogue - Madonna
4. It Must Have Been Love - Roxette
5. All I Wanna Do is Make Love to You - Heart
6. Opposites Attract - Paula Abdul
7. How am I Supposed to Live Without You - Michael Bolton
8. Unchained Melody - Righteous Brothers
9. Girl I'm Gonna Miss You - Milli Vanilli
10. Love Shack - The B 52's
11. Hold On - Wilson Phillips
12. Don't Know Much - Linda Ronstadt featuring Aaron Neville
13. Black Velevet - Alannah Myles
14. Ride On Time - Black Box
15. Mona - Craig McLachlan & Check 1-2
16. Joey - Concerte Blonde
17. I Need Your Body - Tina Arena
18. Crying in the Chapel - Peter Blakeley
19. Janie's Got a Gun - Areosmith
20. Blaze of Glory - Jon Bon Jovi
There's a nice smattering of fading 1980s acts, one hit wonders and 80s hair bands.
An odd year. And let's be honest, any year that has Milli Vanilli, Craig McLachlan and Michael Bolton in the charts is not a year you really want to revisit.
1991 was when the 90s really started for music - that would be the year of Nevermind and Achtung Baby. But 1990? A bit of a black hole really.
It was also my first year of university. I was living in a boarding college in North Adelaide, and the charts were not that important. When you start university, and you've come from the country, you don't want to listen to music that you could hear on your local 5MU radio station. Going to uni is about broadening your mind. And so when I think back to 1990 it is more about the music I really got introduced to that had previously passed me by - bands like The Clash, Neil Young, Violent Femmes, The Doors, Living Colour, REM. Even Simon and Garfunkel are more emotive of 1990 for me than say, Black Box.
Most of the music from that year that I can recall is that which was heard at nightclubs, but again, it was all rather ephemeral, and I was never induced to buy any CDs. I only recall them now because I downloaded the list, and had lots of "oh yeah that song" and "nup, can't remember that one... oh that song - never knew it was called that". I mean does anyone ever stand in the shower and sing "Ice Ice Baby", or "Pump Up the Jam", or (God help you if you do) "How Can We Be Lovers"?
So 1990 didn't do it for me musically. But there are still some connections. I knew a girl who every now and then used to sing for no discernible reason a couple lines from "Groove is in the Heart" in a high pitched voice, and "Unchained Melody" is hard to forget - especially because Ghost was one of the first movies that I saw with my girlfriend (and now wife) (the first movie was Pretty Woman... the things you do when you're young and in love). And a couple friends also at uni used to like reworking the words to "It must have been love" from:
"It must have been love, but it's over now"
to
"It must have been f*cked, that's why it's over now". (ah such joys of undergraduate humour)
I have picked Alanah Myles' "Black Velvet" as my song of the year for a couple reasons. Firstly my wife owned the tape and so it got a fair bit of play in her room or car, and also at the end of the year she and I with a group of other students from the college went on a houseboat trip on the River Murray and "Black Velvet" for some reason seems to be linked with that trip.
Alannah Myles is also a nice example of the link with the 80s. She is a great one hit wonder. In the US her first song "Love Is" got to number 36; this, her follow up, made it to Number 1. She never made the charts again.
Her style is also much more 1980s than the 1990s - she is more Melissa Etheridge than Alanis Morrisette. She has the big hair that was as favoured by the male singers as much as the women in the 80s; and it is a song that is not too bad, but hardly one that has you wishing there were more like it today - pretty much my feelings of just about all music from 1990.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)