Not even dodgy storylines and even dodgier costumes can stop fans adoring the belting vocals and timeless hits of The Meatloaf Rock Opera, says Liz McMahon
Tribute shows face a similar challenge as film adaptations of classic novels: they must stay true but also pull in the punters. Star of the show, The Dead Ringer from Hell has been described as the “Meatloaf We Will Rock You”. It certainly squats in the same genre. It is a smorgasbord of all things Meatloaf and some things which are decidedly not.
Hollis plays the Meatloaf role and is disconcertingly referred to as Ringer by the cast for the entire performance. Hailing from New York, Hollis has had 20 years in the business and is savvy enough to own the production company funding this show. He has an amazing voice which does Meatloaf justice.
His health, unfortunately, is slightly perplexing. He even admitted that he was not sure whether he most resembled a fat pirate or a member of the Scissor Sisters. At points it did seem as though he may have a hernia; as he knelt on his knees to belt it out, it was touch and go as to whether he was getting up again.
Ringer is supported by The Dead Bettys; three sisters, one of whom, Ginger (Helen Hawthorne), is romantically embroiled with the aforementioned. All three women had a fine set of pipes and knew how to use them. Several duets with Ringer were spine-tingling and hair prickling, especially old favourites like I Will Do Anything for Love.
Their costumes were slightly budget. Ginger’s older sister, CC, looked shockingly like a cross between Linda Barker and Bonnie Ratit. Their choreography was also sadly the wrong kind of Chippendale.
The Wolfpack were Ringer’s pleasantly-talented supporting band. Guitarist Eddie Reid’s 35 years of experience showed and it is not surprising to learn he has shared a stage with the likes of Free and Kris Kristofersen. The music heart-thumped and foot-pumped. The company seem to know their strengths and Reid’s solos were fantastic.
It is fair to say Rock Opera might be a slightly aspirational label. An unkind observer may go as far as calling it Rock panto. The songs were first-rate but the narrative was embarrassing at points. In the first half, the thwarted love story between Ringer and Ginger was just a bit awkward but in the second half it took a surreal turn gratuitously involving a hypnotist and Elvis Presley. Unlike Meatloaf himself, whose performance in The Rocky Horror Picture Show was legendary, the cast found it difficult to oscillate between music and drama.
However tempting it may be to pick holes, it is important to return back to the intention of Ringer and his ensemble. This performance may not be a dramatic masterpiece where the audience truly believe in its pathos. Nevertheless, it is a whole lot of fun. Only a killjoy would be able to deny themselves the pleasure of head bobbing and hand clapping to the magic of You Took the Words Right out of My Mouth and Bat out of Hell.
The audience at The Orchard were truly inspiring. They were diehard Meatloaf fans and even Ringer commented at the end: “I want to party with you guys!” They knew the words, got up and boogied and there were even some potential moshers in the front rows. One particularly dedicated fan had bought a box clearly with the prior knowledge that he would need some space to rock out and that is exactly what he did. His bat moves were mesmerising.
The Meatloaf Rock Opera is a feel-good night of merriment. Think less Carmina Burana and more another kind of Nutcracker.
Saturday, 2 May 2009
Friday, 1 May 2009
Keith Pointing- The Inkspot Monologues
Bromley writer Keith Pointing’s latest book, The Inkspot Monologues, tackles the trite subject of relationships in a manner which is far from old hat.
He merges words and images to exhibit the true dysfunctionality of modern post-millennium courting.
Keith’s drawings are called ink blots as they bear a loose resemblance to the blots used in tests by therapists.
The Rorschach technique was originally employed to catch out reluctant psychos too wily to be fooled into admitting their dark desires.
A patient is shown an inkblot and asked what it immediately makes them think of. Their response is supposed to tell the therapist something enlightening about their state of mind.
The technique has been the victim of much mimicry and skepticism. Keith’s aim is not to question its credibility but to use it as an innovative medium to poke fun at human behaviour.
Keith said: “My intention was to use mainly the Rorschach idea to parody relationships rather than the technique.
“We all have relationships, both romantically and in, of course, everyday social interactions, so the subject is universal and something that we can all relate to.”
Whilst Keith is not expecting to change anyone’s perspective on the course of true lurve, he is keen to promote graphic fiction beyond the under-five market. Yes, believe it or not, adults too can enjoy pictures with their prose.
He approaches his aim with self-deprecating affability calling his work “Mr Men for grown-ups”.
He said: “Publishers have largely been late in waking up to the potential of the book as a creative medium using words and images for adult fiction, unlike the USA, the Japanese and the French who all have their own unique genres. However, things are changing as, for example, the graphic novel sections of British bookshops are growing each year.”
Don’t jump to conclusions and think Keith was inspired to use the ink blots whilst on the therapist’s couch himself. His reasons are far more logical.
“We are hard-wired from birth to read a human face into minimal random shapes and marks, which is why we think we see a man in the moon, and knowing this gave me an idea,” Keith said.
“After playing around with some black and white drawings, I saw the potential of using Rorschach to entertainingly explore funny visual and verbal ideas around personalities.”
The Inkspot Monologues are voiced by Alice and Jack: two individuals who have kissed more than their fair share of frogs and now find themselves in couples counseling.
It is a dual narrative where they take in turns to disclose the dirt on their past beaus, each time explaining the main flaw which effectively drew the dalliance to a close.
Their confidences are complemented with an inkspot which visually conveys exactly what was so unbearable about their exes.
As they reveal their relationship histories, including Dominic with his knicker fetish and nymphomaniac Natalie, it is wonder Jack and Alice have not given up altogether.
Bearing these scathing caricatures in mind, Keith is keen to point out his book is not a personal exorcism.
He does admit, however, creating his text did involve analysing people’s quirks and foibles and what we seem to search for in a romantic relationship.
“Some say all artists' works are self-portraits, suggesting there could be something of me in all the drawings,” said Keith.
Taking his honesty into account, it is possible everyone who reads the text will confront some images, which remind them, albeit in a diluted manner, of uncomfortable situations they had hoped to forget.
He merges words and images to exhibit the true dysfunctionality of modern post-millennium courting.
Keith’s drawings are called ink blots as they bear a loose resemblance to the blots used in tests by therapists.
The Rorschach technique was originally employed to catch out reluctant psychos too wily to be fooled into admitting their dark desires.
A patient is shown an inkblot and asked what it immediately makes them think of. Their response is supposed to tell the therapist something enlightening about their state of mind.
The technique has been the victim of much mimicry and skepticism. Keith’s aim is not to question its credibility but to use it as an innovative medium to poke fun at human behaviour.
Keith said: “My intention was to use mainly the Rorschach idea to parody relationships rather than the technique.
“We all have relationships, both romantically and in, of course, everyday social interactions, so the subject is universal and something that we can all relate to.”
Whilst Keith is not expecting to change anyone’s perspective on the course of true lurve, he is keen to promote graphic fiction beyond the under-five market. Yes, believe it or not, adults too can enjoy pictures with their prose.
He approaches his aim with self-deprecating affability calling his work “Mr Men for grown-ups”.
He said: “Publishers have largely been late in waking up to the potential of the book as a creative medium using words and images for adult fiction, unlike the USA, the Japanese and the French who all have their own unique genres. However, things are changing as, for example, the graphic novel sections of British bookshops are growing each year.”
Don’t jump to conclusions and think Keith was inspired to use the ink blots whilst on the therapist’s couch himself. His reasons are far more logical.
“We are hard-wired from birth to read a human face into minimal random shapes and marks, which is why we think we see a man in the moon, and knowing this gave me an idea,” Keith said.
“After playing around with some black and white drawings, I saw the potential of using Rorschach to entertainingly explore funny visual and verbal ideas around personalities.”
The Inkspot Monologues are voiced by Alice and Jack: two individuals who have kissed more than their fair share of frogs and now find themselves in couples counseling.
It is a dual narrative where they take in turns to disclose the dirt on their past beaus, each time explaining the main flaw which effectively drew the dalliance to a close.
Their confidences are complemented with an inkspot which visually conveys exactly what was so unbearable about their exes.
As they reveal their relationship histories, including Dominic with his knicker fetish and nymphomaniac Natalie, it is wonder Jack and Alice have not given up altogether.
Bearing these scathing caricatures in mind, Keith is keen to point out his book is not a personal exorcism.
He does admit, however, creating his text did involve analysing people’s quirks and foibles and what we seem to search for in a romantic relationship.
“Some say all artists' works are self-portraits, suggesting there could be something of me in all the drawings,” said Keith.
Taking his honesty into account, it is possible everyone who reads the text will confront some images, which remind them, albeit in a diluted manner, of uncomfortable situations they had hoped to forget.
Comedy review: Russell Brand – Scandalous, The O2, Greenwich ***
Russell Brand’s Scandalous tour not only lives up to its title – covering Sachsgate in detail - it’s also packed with the skewed, clever observational hilarity the comic is famed for. Liz McMahon shares highlights from the show at The O2.
The build up to Brand’s arrival on stage served as a montage of his disrespectability. News report after report merged together to convey the overwhelming controversy which seems to emanate from the comedian’s pores.
Russell Brand emerged on stage around half an hour late to a frenzy of applause. His appeal to women cannot be questioned when he has them fulfilling every stereotype and literally throwing their underwear at him.
It must be hard for him not to take advantage of his position and he said he was open to sexual relations with any woman between the age of 18 and death but he is not into corpses. Clearly he has some limits.
He was an interesting mix of intense narcissism and vulnerable self-deprecation. He was open about his mental fragility and admitted it is very much part of what makes him who he is.
He talked of when the self-obsessed “news” on a constant reel in his head actually became a reality. This was a funny way of approaching the inevitable: Sachsgate. He apologised but also poked fun at the audience for paying money to see him, “after what I’ve done!”
When his comedy was observational it was at its best. Upon analysing his media coverage, he has since realised, in the midst of the furore, he was getting dressed “like something out of Vegas” to go to the dentist.
And he showed us the coverage to prove it. He ridiculed his own attire, arguing leggings were not a manly enough to aptly describe his bottoms- testosterousers was far more appropriate, apparently. It seems it was a statistical inevitability Brand would eventually fornicate with the star of a sitcom’s granddaughter. Andrew Sachs was just caught in the cross-fire.
His handling of the debacle was laboured. He seemed to be apologising and would then rip it away with a quip like “I turn slags into celebrities!”
He also tackled the sticky subject of the Video Music Awards which he presented in a disastrous fashion. His justification was Americans do not “get” him. His first joke stating the US had better not be too racist to vote for Obama after they had allowed a retarded cowboy to run the house of white for eight years was famously met with stony silence. After this he had to pretty much make up the rest of the ceremony ad hoc.
He saved some of the VMA links he could not use especially for the audience. If Americans found his first comment below the belt, it is unlikely they would have liked to have gone down there again for Michael Jackson and paedophilia.
The show lagged when Brand resorted to reading hate-mail he had been sent post scandals. Yes, the show was called Scandalous so perhaps one gets what they ask for. By resorting to regurgitating the bizarre and deranged comments he received, he gave them more coverage than they deserved and it was lazy comedy.
There were many belly laughs. He painted a hilarious picture of himself waiting to meet the Queen while standing next to James Blunt after the Royal Variety Performance. He managed to juxtapose his perverse sexual thoughts with the curt instructions he had been given on protocol and his scathing impersonation of Blunt. It was at points like this he had the audience in the palm of his hand.
He made a couple of comments about “The Daily Mail” which became somewhat of a euphemism for the conservative press who had previously bayed for his blood. His attitude shows recent incidents have left their mark, not only on his act but also his sense of humour. There is a slight resentment there. One might say he is almost a Caliban of celebrity culture. He gained his celebrity by being what the public wanted- “edgy” and offensive. Indeed: “You taught me language; and my profit on’t is, I know how to curse.”
He finished the show with some tips on cunnilingus involving a kazoo and Bruce Forsyth. The physical gyrations which accompanied his advice will be something which may haunt several bedrooms for years to come.
The audience were permitted a wondrous surprise glimpse of Jack Black and I Love You Man star Jason Segel. They performed Dracula’s Lament from Forgetting Sarah Marshall while Brand quickly got changed. The formidable crowd then had to pretend to be the stadium audience for the upcoming sequel. This was cheeky but no-one seemed to mind.
When Russell Brand’s comedy was scandalous, the show was brilliant. When he wasted time talking about his recent misdemeanours, it was somewhat lacking. He needs to get over it now and get back to observing life’s idiosyncrasies with the verbose acridity only he is capable of.
The build up to Brand’s arrival on stage served as a montage of his disrespectability. News report after report merged together to convey the overwhelming controversy which seems to emanate from the comedian’s pores.
Russell Brand emerged on stage around half an hour late to a frenzy of applause. His appeal to women cannot be questioned when he has them fulfilling every stereotype and literally throwing their underwear at him.
It must be hard for him not to take advantage of his position and he said he was open to sexual relations with any woman between the age of 18 and death but he is not into corpses. Clearly he has some limits.
He was an interesting mix of intense narcissism and vulnerable self-deprecation. He was open about his mental fragility and admitted it is very much part of what makes him who he is.
He talked of when the self-obsessed “news” on a constant reel in his head actually became a reality. This was a funny way of approaching the inevitable: Sachsgate. He apologised but also poked fun at the audience for paying money to see him, “after what I’ve done!”
When his comedy was observational it was at its best. Upon analysing his media coverage, he has since realised, in the midst of the furore, he was getting dressed “like something out of Vegas” to go to the dentist.
And he showed us the coverage to prove it. He ridiculed his own attire, arguing leggings were not a manly enough to aptly describe his bottoms- testosterousers was far more appropriate, apparently. It seems it was a statistical inevitability Brand would eventually fornicate with the star of a sitcom’s granddaughter. Andrew Sachs was just caught in the cross-fire.
His handling of the debacle was laboured. He seemed to be apologising and would then rip it away with a quip like “I turn slags into celebrities!”
He also tackled the sticky subject of the Video Music Awards which he presented in a disastrous fashion. His justification was Americans do not “get” him. His first joke stating the US had better not be too racist to vote for Obama after they had allowed a retarded cowboy to run the house of white for eight years was famously met with stony silence. After this he had to pretty much make up the rest of the ceremony ad hoc.
He saved some of the VMA links he could not use especially for the audience. If Americans found his first comment below the belt, it is unlikely they would have liked to have gone down there again for Michael Jackson and paedophilia.
The show lagged when Brand resorted to reading hate-mail he had been sent post scandals. Yes, the show was called Scandalous so perhaps one gets what they ask for. By resorting to regurgitating the bizarre and deranged comments he received, he gave them more coverage than they deserved and it was lazy comedy.
There were many belly laughs. He painted a hilarious picture of himself waiting to meet the Queen while standing next to James Blunt after the Royal Variety Performance. He managed to juxtapose his perverse sexual thoughts with the curt instructions he had been given on protocol and his scathing impersonation of Blunt. It was at points like this he had the audience in the palm of his hand.
He made a couple of comments about “The Daily Mail” which became somewhat of a euphemism for the conservative press who had previously bayed for his blood. His attitude shows recent incidents have left their mark, not only on his act but also his sense of humour. There is a slight resentment there. One might say he is almost a Caliban of celebrity culture. He gained his celebrity by being what the public wanted- “edgy” and offensive. Indeed: “You taught me language; and my profit on’t is, I know how to curse.”
He finished the show with some tips on cunnilingus involving a kazoo and Bruce Forsyth. The physical gyrations which accompanied his advice will be something which may haunt several bedrooms for years to come.
The audience were permitted a wondrous surprise glimpse of Jack Black and I Love You Man star Jason Segel. They performed Dracula’s Lament from Forgetting Sarah Marshall while Brand quickly got changed. The formidable crowd then had to pretend to be the stadium audience for the upcoming sequel. This was cheeky but no-one seemed to mind.
When Russell Brand’s comedy was scandalous, the show was brilliant. When he wasted time talking about his recent misdemeanours, it was somewhat lacking. He needs to get over it now and get back to observing life’s idiosyncrasies with the verbose acridity only he is capable of.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Responsible Investment: what some have seen as a revolution in a bio-degradable cup may actually be an unlikely way out of the recession.
Responsible investment should not be underestimated: it does not only have a green or liberal agenda. It could play a vital role in future proofing the economy and pension funds big and small are slowly waking up to the immediate importance of future investment.
It is not just industry giants who are flexing their ethical muscle in the market. Established in 1991, The Local Authority Pension Scheme (LAPS) Forum currently boasts 48 members and the combined assets of over £95bn. Pamela Bruce, of Lothian Pension Fund, says: "Being part of the LAPS forum involved signing up to the UN principles of responsible investment. Hermes votes for us based on our portfolio interests. Through the forum, we have a more significant voice regarding issues such as climate change."
In Head of Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Business at Hendersons George Latham believes in the current investment market, clients are very interested in environmental, social governance. He has witnessed funds focused on responsible investment still making money. In the face of recession, this is no mean feat. He says: "The issues involved in SRI will remain involved. While the investment banking world may be in difficulty, the investment managing world is still fairly well invested."
Duncan Exley, of Fair Pensions says: "ESG issues can create risk and opportunities. Responsible investment is something you do regardless of ethics." Fair Pensions' most recent report indicates certain key pension schemes are developing means of assessing and monitoring risks. There is more engagement with fund managers and investee companies.
Companies who have signed up to the UN Principles of Responsible Investment are committed to the concept of future proofing. Gold stars are awarded to top performers: F&A, Insight, Hermes and Aviva. Fair Pensions' most recent analysis of the top 30 pension providers saw a 22% increase in engagement with the UNPRI. Their next report is due out this month and it will be interesting to see whether this is still the case. Especially when top banks such as Citibank, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan and most recently Merrill Lynch have disbanded their SRI research teams.
Whilst some key pension funds are putting policies in place to manage long term risks and maintain accountability, Mr Exley fears there are still thousands who are not taking heed and have no apparent track record of future proofing themselves. An initial hurdle to overcome is how SRI is still widely perceived. Many are confused by what it means and perhaps rightly so. Mr Exley said: "You ask six people and you get six different answers."
A popular perception of SRI is simplistically the "screening out of bad things in favour of good things." Indeed, if this is all it boils down to, it seems not many people are interested. Rather than labeling fund managers mercenary, the problem with this definition is the subjectivity of morality. It is incredibly difficult to create blanket policy based on the criteria of what is right and wrong. People's ethics are multi-faceted and what one outwardly projects is not always what they inwardly feel.
SRI is evolving and it must employ some kind of progressive and cohesive message which appeal to the mainstream. In a Darwinian manner, SRI has already adapted to suit its context many times over. It has religious roots in the Quaker reaction to the slave trade and Wesley's Methodist sermon, 'The Use of Money'.
Much more recently, it developed a political agenda regarding human rights violations. Its philosophy encouraged divestment with South Africa during the Apartheid era and established the Sudanese Task Force in 2006 in response to the genocide in Dafur.
To have relevance now, SRI needs to strike a careful balance between some kind of contemporary angle and prosperous longevity. It needs to affect the current quarter whilst exhibiting valuable investment prospects in the long term.
Fund managers may feel SRI concentrates predominately non-financial issues. Mr Exley argues against this, claiming its focus is on areas which are not yet financial such as responsible lending, restrictions on climate change and ESG. He says: "We are concerned the fire-fighting after the financial crisis has led to a fire sale where companies have ended up selling their fire alarm at the same time."
Hendersons have tried to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water by focusing their attention on long term thematic trends and industries of the future. Responsible investment does not need to be some kind of philanthropic indulgence. Investing in education, healthcare, social housing and cleaner energy provides sustainability. There will always be a need for these areas, however our society develops. Companies who are heavily involved in "bad" energy face increasing hikes in taxation and stifling amounts of regulation. They are therefore likely to experience huge loses in the upcoming years. For once an old adage may truly prove to be the case: slow and steady wins the race.
Mr Everly believes one reason why some pension funds have been so slow in seeing the benefits of responsible investment is due to them delegating too much responsibility to fund managers who only operate in the short term. He feels there needs to be a change in the way fund managers approach contracts. He says: "Fund managers will look at a three year contract as just that but some issues within a pension scheme will build up for decades. 10 years ago, subprime lending was not a risk and climate change certainly wasn't viewed in the way it is now."
In a bid to look towards the future, Mr Latham is also quick to point out recent errors of the past: "Companies who have been well invested in corporate responsibility have been less affected by the recession. If one considers RBS two years ago, it was obvious they were weak on corporate responsibility and governance. More conservatively managed banks such as HSBC and Standard Charter haven't emerged unscathed but they are in a far better position."
He adds: "There is a strong correlation between good management and social responsibility. A focus on short term running and cutting corners can only expose a company to risks and shocks. In 2001 BP was seen from the outside as a strong competitor with good short term profits. Nevertheless, their maintenance and health and safety were not secure. They were too busy looking towards the next quarter and half term profits to see what culminated in 2004/5. In comparison, BT's strong management team has led to a sustainable profit growth."
Fair Pensions' research has found a majority of fund managers' management of ESG is limited to governance issues only. Climate change and other social concerns should irrevocably influence how investors behave. If it does not now, it will. The next 15 years will be rife with physical, regulatory and legislative changes affecting how all companies operate. Those who wait for the government to tell them what they have to do, risk missing a very important boat.
It is not just industry giants who are flexing their ethical muscle in the market. Established in 1991, The Local Authority Pension Scheme (LAPS) Forum currently boasts 48 members and the combined assets of over £95bn. Pamela Bruce, of Lothian Pension Fund, says: "Being part of the LAPS forum involved signing up to the UN principles of responsible investment. Hermes votes for us based on our portfolio interests. Through the forum, we have a more significant voice regarding issues such as climate change."
In Head of Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Business at Hendersons George Latham believes in the current investment market, clients are very interested in environmental, social governance. He has witnessed funds focused on responsible investment still making money. In the face of recession, this is no mean feat. He says: "The issues involved in SRI will remain involved. While the investment banking world may be in difficulty, the investment managing world is still fairly well invested."
Duncan Exley, of Fair Pensions says: "ESG issues can create risk and opportunities. Responsible investment is something you do regardless of ethics." Fair Pensions' most recent report indicates certain key pension schemes are developing means of assessing and monitoring risks. There is more engagement with fund managers and investee companies.
Companies who have signed up to the UN Principles of Responsible Investment are committed to the concept of future proofing. Gold stars are awarded to top performers: F&A, Insight, Hermes and Aviva. Fair Pensions' most recent analysis of the top 30 pension providers saw a 22% increase in engagement with the UNPRI. Their next report is due out this month and it will be interesting to see whether this is still the case. Especially when top banks such as Citibank, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan and most recently Merrill Lynch have disbanded their SRI research teams.
Whilst some key pension funds are putting policies in place to manage long term risks and maintain accountability, Mr Exley fears there are still thousands who are not taking heed and have no apparent track record of future proofing themselves. An initial hurdle to overcome is how SRI is still widely perceived. Many are confused by what it means and perhaps rightly so. Mr Exley said: "You ask six people and you get six different answers."
A popular perception of SRI is simplistically the "screening out of bad things in favour of good things." Indeed, if this is all it boils down to, it seems not many people are interested. Rather than labeling fund managers mercenary, the problem with this definition is the subjectivity of morality. It is incredibly difficult to create blanket policy based on the criteria of what is right and wrong. People's ethics are multi-faceted and what one outwardly projects is not always what they inwardly feel.
SRI is evolving and it must employ some kind of progressive and cohesive message which appeal to the mainstream. In a Darwinian manner, SRI has already adapted to suit its context many times over. It has religious roots in the Quaker reaction to the slave trade and Wesley's Methodist sermon, 'The Use of Money'.
Much more recently, it developed a political agenda regarding human rights violations. Its philosophy encouraged divestment with South Africa during the Apartheid era and established the Sudanese Task Force in 2006 in response to the genocide in Dafur.
To have relevance now, SRI needs to strike a careful balance between some kind of contemporary angle and prosperous longevity. It needs to affect the current quarter whilst exhibiting valuable investment prospects in the long term.
Fund managers may feel SRI concentrates predominately non-financial issues. Mr Exley argues against this, claiming its focus is on areas which are not yet financial such as responsible lending, restrictions on climate change and ESG. He says: "We are concerned the fire-fighting after the financial crisis has led to a fire sale where companies have ended up selling their fire alarm at the same time."
Hendersons have tried to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water by focusing their attention on long term thematic trends and industries of the future. Responsible investment does not need to be some kind of philanthropic indulgence. Investing in education, healthcare, social housing and cleaner energy provides sustainability. There will always be a need for these areas, however our society develops. Companies who are heavily involved in "bad" energy face increasing hikes in taxation and stifling amounts of regulation. They are therefore likely to experience huge loses in the upcoming years. For once an old adage may truly prove to be the case: slow and steady wins the race.
Mr Everly believes one reason why some pension funds have been so slow in seeing the benefits of responsible investment is due to them delegating too much responsibility to fund managers who only operate in the short term. He feels there needs to be a change in the way fund managers approach contracts. He says: "Fund managers will look at a three year contract as just that but some issues within a pension scheme will build up for decades. 10 years ago, subprime lending was not a risk and climate change certainly wasn't viewed in the way it is now."
In a bid to look towards the future, Mr Latham is also quick to point out recent errors of the past: "Companies who have been well invested in corporate responsibility have been less affected by the recession. If one considers RBS two years ago, it was obvious they were weak on corporate responsibility and governance. More conservatively managed banks such as HSBC and Standard Charter haven't emerged unscathed but they are in a far better position."
He adds: "There is a strong correlation between good management and social responsibility. A focus on short term running and cutting corners can only expose a company to risks and shocks. In 2001 BP was seen from the outside as a strong competitor with good short term profits. Nevertheless, their maintenance and health and safety were not secure. They were too busy looking towards the next quarter and half term profits to see what culminated in 2004/5. In comparison, BT's strong management team has led to a sustainable profit growth."
Fair Pensions' research has found a majority of fund managers' management of ESG is limited to governance issues only. Climate change and other social concerns should irrevocably influence how investors behave. If it does not now, it will. The next 15 years will be rife with physical, regulatory and legislative changes affecting how all companies operate. Those who wait for the government to tell them what they have to do, risk missing a very important boat.
Sharia Funding- friend or foe?
Originally sharia banking in the UK was disregarded as a small enterprise catering for a religious niche market. Now Britain's Islamic banking sector is bigger than Pakistan’s, according to Financial Services London. As dissatisfaction with the western banking system hits its peak, there is a growing trend of non-Muslims investing in sharia-compliant schemes.
The Islamic Bank of Britain's marketing director Steven Amos says: "Our core business will always be Muslims, but the number of non-Muslims is really picking up. We've had increased interest and it's one of a number of reasons why we're insulated from the credit crunch."
Ian Yearsley, a retired journalist and Christian lay preacher who lives in south-west London, recently opened a savings account with the IBB. It appealed to him because it pays on a profitshare rather than interest basis.
He says: "It is an ethical and sensible way to invest my money. It should be remembered that there was a prohibition against usury, or earning interest, among Christians in the Middle Ages."
The UK has been providing sharia services for 30 years but, along with the fact it was not directly affected by the subprime lending disaster, recent government support and regulations have allowed it to prosper. When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown said he wanted The City of London to be the "gateway to Islamic finance" and, unlike some of his other aims, this seems to be the case. One recent survey found UK trade with Arab countries had risen 60% in the last six years.
The Sharia Home Purchase plan, launched in Scotland by Islamic Bank of Britain this month, is the latest example of how sharia funding is slowly and steadily starting to take the UK by storm.
Tariq Masood, chairman of the Glasgow-based Islamic Finance Council, says: "IBB's entry into Scotland is a key growth indicator for the UK's Islamic finance industry and a huge step forward for Scotland's ethical retail community."
If this seems unrealistic, a look to countries where this type of banking is more established provides definitive evidence. In Malaysia, a quarter of all Islamic banking is carried out by non-Muslims.
The growth is not restricted to the UK either. The International Monetary Fund says the number and reach of sharia-compliant financial institutions worldwide has risen from one institution in one country in 1975 to more than 300 institutions operating in more than 75 countries today. A study carried out by the Banker magazine revealed, over the past year, sharia-compliant assets across the globe have grown by almost a third to more than $639bn. If Islamic finance continues to grow at a similar rate, it will have broken through the $1trn mark by 2010.
Whilst there is clear evidence of prosperity within sharia funding, there are several concerns which are likely to grow in prevalence as it becomes more mainstream. Organisations face difficulties in judging whether their schemes truly abide with sharia law. Banks like HSBC employ a panel of expert scholars to ensure this is the case but there is little continuity between boards. With no tangible document readily accessible to all, what one person may claim is acceptable, another could vehemently object to.
At present there are only around 260 scholars who reportedly know enough about Islamic finance to be deemed experts so the market could experience a shortfall. This will probably only be temporary though as 55 educational institutions now offer courses in Islamic finance. This may also become an area which attracts non-Muslims in the future. The more people who have an intricate understanding of sharia principles, the more likely it will be for some kind of objectivity to develop.
Marshall Sana, Islamic expert at the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, believes shariah funding is failing to live up to the ideals established over 30 years ago. He says: "Sharia finance is actually a distortion of Korannic teachings, and was not widely practiced by Muslims until the 1940s."
Some Muslims believe sharia funding, as it exists today, is merely western funding under a different name. Website www.islamic-finance.com fears sharia organizations are not really engaging in risk-sharing practice at all. They argue a client who defaulted in their "rent" would still eventually face the same consequences as they would in an interest-based mortgage. They believe if banks were required to share profits and losses with their clients then this would lead to the most responsible type of investment.
Sharia banking operates on a couple of principles which should make it extremely different to western banking. It prohibits any involvement with alcohol, gambling, pornography, human cloning, arms and ...pork. Although this just sounds like an extreme form of socially responsible investment, the twist is it refuses to have any involvement with interest and forbids investment where the debt to equity ratio is over 30%, ruling out significant sections of the market.
However, an ancillary clause states the banks can invest in prohibited areas as long as they take up less than 5% of the company’s activities. Amendments such as this could make one worry how far Islamic funding may experience an Orwellian "rule revision" as it continues to prosper.
Website contributors Haitham al-Haddad and Tarek el-Diwany share the concern: "Far from being part of the solution, our industry may soon become part of the problem."
There is a realistic possibility Islamic insurance may benefit from government SRI funds because of its responsible and co-operative principles. Nevertheless the Islamic funds' reliance on the oil industry could prevent them from being perceived as wholly ethical. With investors becoming increasingly aware of the importance of future proofing, this dependency could eventually become a toxic association.
Mohammed Abdul-Haq, global head of HSBC Amanah Private Banking, justifies investments in oil by sharia-compliant funds. Oil investment, he says, will remain one of the stark differences between ethical funds and Islamic funds.
Sana is also critical of some of its central ideological tenements: "It has inequality built into it, between woman and men and Muslims and non-Muslims. If you look at the literature and you look at the internal dialogue, the end is supremacy. The end is controlling institutions. It's setting up an Islamic economy and an Islamic economy is to be the world economy."
Despite these problems, no sharia-compliant financial institution has failed since the start of the current crisis and there are several reasons why Islamic funding has fared better in the wrath of the credit crunch than its western counterparts.
Humphrey Percy, chief executive of Bank of London and the Middle East, says: "Our balance sheet is still growing as a result of our increasing deposit base and more parties willing to look at Islamic finance as an alternative way to invest because they see it as competitive as well as ethical."
Although they do not produce ridiculously high returns in any one year, over the past decade they have delivered consistent results. Whilst the global markets may be down by more than a third from their peak, the Dow Jones Islamic Financials Index has lost 7% over the same period and actually rose 4.75% in the most recent September quarter.
Sultan Choudhary, commercial director of IBB, says: "We are not insulated from the credit crisis, but we are not as affected as the other banks because we do not have the exposure in terms of toxic assets. We are also not exposed to wholesale funding, as Northern Rock was. We have assets from shareholders and deposits."
These are not empty words. IBB has been operating as a retail bank for over four years, and has attracted over 40,000 customers. IBB's annual report for 2008, published last month, showed a 10% rise in customer numbers and a deposit increase of 15%. This takes their overall assets to £158m. They also managed to reduce the £6.9m loss they experienced in 2007 by 15 % to £5.9m.
The immediate future for sharia funding in the UK is the accomodation of sukuks. There has been a call for these Islamic bonds to help fund London 2012. Currently the market is estimated to be worth $24bn. Kitty Ussher, the City Minister and Economic Secretary to the Treasury, says she is "hopeful" that the UK would issue a sovereign sukuk in the wholesale sterling market in 2009. The HM Treasury has pushed ahead with the remaining enabling legislation which is published in the Finance Act 2009. This prepares the government should it decide to go to the market later in 2009 or in early 2010.
Words to know...
Riba- a dirty word in Sharia funding- it means interest
Sukuk- an asset backed bond
Mushraka- the co-operative partnership between two parties, usually the bank and the client which involves profit and loss sharing. Profits are shared as per an agreed ratio whereas the losses are shared in proportion to the capital/investment of each partner
The Islamic Bank of Britain's marketing director Steven Amos says: "Our core business will always be Muslims, but the number of non-Muslims is really picking up. We've had increased interest and it's one of a number of reasons why we're insulated from the credit crunch."
Ian Yearsley, a retired journalist and Christian lay preacher who lives in south-west London, recently opened a savings account with the IBB. It appealed to him because it pays on a profitshare rather than interest basis.
He says: "It is an ethical and sensible way to invest my money. It should be remembered that there was a prohibition against usury, or earning interest, among Christians in the Middle Ages."
The UK has been providing sharia services for 30 years but, along with the fact it was not directly affected by the subprime lending disaster, recent government support and regulations have allowed it to prosper. When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown said he wanted The City of London to be the "gateway to Islamic finance" and, unlike some of his other aims, this seems to be the case. One recent survey found UK trade with Arab countries had risen 60% in the last six years.
The Sharia Home Purchase plan, launched in Scotland by Islamic Bank of Britain this month, is the latest example of how sharia funding is slowly and steadily starting to take the UK by storm.
Tariq Masood, chairman of the Glasgow-based Islamic Finance Council, says: "IBB's entry into Scotland is a key growth indicator for the UK's Islamic finance industry and a huge step forward for Scotland's ethical retail community."
If this seems unrealistic, a look to countries where this type of banking is more established provides definitive evidence. In Malaysia, a quarter of all Islamic banking is carried out by non-Muslims.
The growth is not restricted to the UK either. The International Monetary Fund says the number and reach of sharia-compliant financial institutions worldwide has risen from one institution in one country in 1975 to more than 300 institutions operating in more than 75 countries today. A study carried out by the Banker magazine revealed, over the past year, sharia-compliant assets across the globe have grown by almost a third to more than $639bn. If Islamic finance continues to grow at a similar rate, it will have broken through the $1trn mark by 2010.
Whilst there is clear evidence of prosperity within sharia funding, there are several concerns which are likely to grow in prevalence as it becomes more mainstream. Organisations face difficulties in judging whether their schemes truly abide with sharia law. Banks like HSBC employ a panel of expert scholars to ensure this is the case but there is little continuity between boards. With no tangible document readily accessible to all, what one person may claim is acceptable, another could vehemently object to.
At present there are only around 260 scholars who reportedly know enough about Islamic finance to be deemed experts so the market could experience a shortfall. This will probably only be temporary though as 55 educational institutions now offer courses in Islamic finance. This may also become an area which attracts non-Muslims in the future. The more people who have an intricate understanding of sharia principles, the more likely it will be for some kind of objectivity to develop.
Marshall Sana, Islamic expert at the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, believes shariah funding is failing to live up to the ideals established over 30 years ago. He says: "Sharia finance is actually a distortion of Korannic teachings, and was not widely practiced by Muslims until the 1940s."
Some Muslims believe sharia funding, as it exists today, is merely western funding under a different name. Website www.islamic-finance.com fears sharia organizations are not really engaging in risk-sharing practice at all. They argue a client who defaulted in their "rent" would still eventually face the same consequences as they would in an interest-based mortgage. They believe if banks were required to share profits and losses with their clients then this would lead to the most responsible type of investment.
Sharia banking operates on a couple of principles which should make it extremely different to western banking. It prohibits any involvement with alcohol, gambling, pornography, human cloning, arms and ...pork. Although this just sounds like an extreme form of socially responsible investment, the twist is it refuses to have any involvement with interest and forbids investment where the debt to equity ratio is over 30%, ruling out significant sections of the market.
However, an ancillary clause states the banks can invest in prohibited areas as long as they take up less than 5% of the company’s activities. Amendments such as this could make one worry how far Islamic funding may experience an Orwellian "rule revision" as it continues to prosper.
Website contributors Haitham al-Haddad and Tarek el-Diwany share the concern: "Far from being part of the solution, our industry may soon become part of the problem."
There is a realistic possibility Islamic insurance may benefit from government SRI funds because of its responsible and co-operative principles. Nevertheless the Islamic funds' reliance on the oil industry could prevent them from being perceived as wholly ethical. With investors becoming increasingly aware of the importance of future proofing, this dependency could eventually become a toxic association.
Mohammed Abdul-Haq, global head of HSBC Amanah Private Banking, justifies investments in oil by sharia-compliant funds. Oil investment, he says, will remain one of the stark differences between ethical funds and Islamic funds.
Sana is also critical of some of its central ideological tenements: "It has inequality built into it, between woman and men and Muslims and non-Muslims. If you look at the literature and you look at the internal dialogue, the end is supremacy. The end is controlling institutions. It's setting up an Islamic economy and an Islamic economy is to be the world economy."
Despite these problems, no sharia-compliant financial institution has failed since the start of the current crisis and there are several reasons why Islamic funding has fared better in the wrath of the credit crunch than its western counterparts.
Humphrey Percy, chief executive of Bank of London and the Middle East, says: "Our balance sheet is still growing as a result of our increasing deposit base and more parties willing to look at Islamic finance as an alternative way to invest because they see it as competitive as well as ethical."
Although they do not produce ridiculously high returns in any one year, over the past decade they have delivered consistent results. Whilst the global markets may be down by more than a third from their peak, the Dow Jones Islamic Financials Index has lost 7% over the same period and actually rose 4.75% in the most recent September quarter.
Sultan Choudhary, commercial director of IBB, says: "We are not insulated from the credit crisis, but we are not as affected as the other banks because we do not have the exposure in terms of toxic assets. We are also not exposed to wholesale funding, as Northern Rock was. We have assets from shareholders and deposits."
These are not empty words. IBB has been operating as a retail bank for over four years, and has attracted over 40,000 customers. IBB's annual report for 2008, published last month, showed a 10% rise in customer numbers and a deposit increase of 15%. This takes their overall assets to £158m. They also managed to reduce the £6.9m loss they experienced in 2007 by 15 % to £5.9m.
The immediate future for sharia funding in the UK is the accomodation of sukuks. There has been a call for these Islamic bonds to help fund London 2012. Currently the market is estimated to be worth $24bn. Kitty Ussher, the City Minister and Economic Secretary to the Treasury, says she is "hopeful" that the UK would issue a sovereign sukuk in the wholesale sterling market in 2009. The HM Treasury has pushed ahead with the remaining enabling legislation which is published in the Finance Act 2009. This prepares the government should it decide to go to the market later in 2009 or in early 2010.
Words to know...
Riba- a dirty word in Sharia funding- it means interest
Sukuk- an asset backed bond
Mushraka- the co-operative partnership between two parties, usually the bank and the client which involves profit and loss sharing. Profits are shared as per an agreed ratio whereas the losses are shared in proportion to the capital/investment of each partner
Friday, 20 March 2009
Paul Greengrass talks at Olive Till Memorial Film Debate, Goldsmiths
Bourne Ultimatum director Paul Greengrass speaks to Goldsmiths film students
4:30pm Tuesday 17th March 2009
By Liz McMahon »
When Paul Greengrass visited Goldsmiths to talk to film students last week, Liz McMahon also went along to hear the director's stories and insights into his successful career
On March 11, Stuart Till invited Greengrass to speak at the sixth Olive Till Memorial Debate at Goldsmiths College. The annual debate is an opportunity for film students to listen to inspirational directors and ask them questions about the industry.
Last year, the guest speaker was Danny Boyle fresh from directing the Oscar-sweeping Slumdog Millionaire. This year Paul Greengrass took a break from directing his new film on post-war Iraq, Green Zone, to come and share his thoughts with the next generation of filmmakers.
Born in leafy Cheam, Surrey, raised in Gravesend and educated at Queen's College Cambridge, director Paul Greengrass could be said to have led a charmed life. Nevertheless, he could not be accused of shying away from contentious issues.
In fact, his CV reads like a potted history of events in the past 25 years which have shocked us to the core and ultimately altered society irrevocably.
He stepped into Granada in 1977 and had the good fortune to learn the art of meticulous filmmaking from John Slater.
Describing him as an “eccentrically posh prep school master”, Greengrass recalled one of the first conversations he had with him.
In the wake the of the Munich Air Crash, Greengrass had gone into Slater's office and been ignored for at least five minutes. Slater then spun round in his chair and demanded that Greengrass put his hand in the trim-bin. Greengrass' consequent quizzical expression impelled Slater to pull the trims out and throw them at him, screaming: “Unless you learn to get physical with it, feel it, live it, sleep it, shag it, you are not working with film.”
When considering his most acclaimed works: The Bourne Trilogy, United 93, Bloody Sunday and the Stephen Lawrence documentary to name but a few, it is clear how these words of wisdom stuck with Greengrass and his unique attitude to filmmaking: “Films used to be daunted by posh Hampstead people wanting to write about dinner parties. Oiks like me wanting to write about real events could get blacklisted at the BBC.”
His journey into the mainstream seems to even bemuse him. He begun to direct World in Action in the 1980s and this experience gave his work the edgy observational feel that has become his trademark. The fact that this style has started to become commercially popular is coincidental.
“My style is rooted in observational documentary pieces,” he said.
“It was an accident to make commercial pieces. Initially I was puzzled - but cinemagoers’ perception of reality is this. This is what mainstream image making is today.”
Greengrass’ success at the box office has allowed him to muster coverage for his more obscure films.
Film course lecturer Robert Smith posed several key questions to Greengrass, eliciting enlightening responses.
Do you write alone?
I had no formal training in writing screenplays. The truth is I wrote because no-one would give me a job. I don't believe that you should divide disciplines; in the US they are very good at multi-tasking. Making film a 360 degree activity. When you write a script, you don't want someone to come and take it off you.
When I think about your techniques I see edgy camera shots, multiple angles, fractured space and seamless environment. How would you describe your style?
A key question a director must ask is- how do I want to unfold reality? Do I want to know what's happening or do I want to be God? In a conventional shooting, actors will work from a crafted scene that will go through obvious steps. First it will be written and then the stage directions will be added. The example being that the vicar enters his home and confronts an axe-wielding murderer.
An alternative approach is to have the vicar outside the door but no one knows what is going to happen. By this I mean that you create a series of uncertainties. Everyone has their own private goals, the vicar's wife knows that she is going to grab something from the table for instance, but you don't know how everyone is going to react. You speak to people separately and don't tell them all the components.
When filming the Bourne Trilogy you shot in several extraordinarily busy places such as Waterloo Station and Medina, Tangier. How did you ensure the public did not disrupt the action?
First of all, the people we had arranging the sets were fantastic. Without them, nothing would have been possible. Also, although the film was undoubtedly a commercial piece, I still wanted to incorporate an anti-authority, counter-culture theme.
The Bourne Ultimatum could be seen as an exercise in making money and I wanted to stay true to my roots in some sense. This led me to construct action sequences in incredibly public places. The orthodox way of doing this is to lock down the area. If a director does this then it is very easy for the walls around them to get higher and higher and they become very insulated. I wanted to fight this kind of comfort zone.
At Waterloo the main crew were five miles away and it was literally only a handful of us that actually went to the station. We could only shoot from 10am to 4pm. We would set up a decoy at one end of the platform and then nip down to the other side until the public clocked on to the fact they had been duped. It was an entertaining game of cat and mouse.
The car chase in New York was actually much quicker to catch on with the public. On the night we had shot it, doctored versions started to appear on You Tube with various music tracks! Everyone wanted to close off the tunnel but Dan Bradley created what he and I call the 'Go-mobile' and we decided that it was fast enough to shoot with normal traffic on the road. It was frightening though. Even I was going ‘eek’ [he covers his face with his hands, laughing]
Tell us about the journey from script to editing.
There is always tension between a writer and a director. One or the other will get on top. If you want to be director, always be on top. In Britain, I think we still access films too much through script. The difference is here films are things that are written rather than things that are made. Words are getting less and less important in commercial features. A film is as much to do with what's not written as what is.
A screenplay is the first act of direction and direction is the first act of writing. They are not a separate activity and must therefore act in unison. When directing a film, the closest relationship I have is with the editor. I have always been more interested in how to put sequences together. The screenplay is only the first part of the elements that leads onto the concept.
Technology is taking us there. Writing is still fundamental but there is less of it. On an Apple mac today you can create a collage generating material. It doesn't just have to be in the written word. Theme, narrative and so on will always be important but increasingly the art of a screenwriter is going to be less about word and more about space and image.
How do you stay true to yourself?
I maintain authenticity by creating a writer's view of the event. I ensure that there are stakeholders to the drama; I try to decentralise power while retaining it all. First and foremost, I concentrate on the people about whom the drama is being made. I also need to empower the actors to play their roles with high-definition improvisational freedom.
There is also the missing element we can never understand. In Bloody Sunday it is the soldiers crossing the line; in United 93 it is what happened in the air; there is a need to recreate events that we all approve of. We use drama to unlock what ultimately can't be knowable. I know I'm staying true if I am supported by all those involved in the film. I have only ever lost Dwayne Brooks on Stephen Lawrence.
In United 93, I ensured all the variables were in place. We had 44 passengers, a professional crew and the same plane. This allowed us to make many deductions. We realised things we had assumed happened, such as something falling down the aisle, would not have actually been logistically possible.
There was a clear mission statement: there will be different messages encoded in this event. It is not told from one perspective. It does not have a 'let's roll out the troops' mentality. I wanted to reach a metaphorical truth through the stakeholders.
Lastly, what is your advice to filmmakers in 2009?
Go out and have the most fantastic bloody fun. In 1977 you couldn't just go out and make a film. Now you can make it on your phone. Next thing you know you're on You Tube every night. Make make make make. It's not about being a director or writer; it's about saying what you want to say. The hardest thing is to listen to the voice inside you and work out what you want to say. You need to focus and understand ‘all I'm going to do is solve the problems of making what I want to make’. Time, space, money and inner-will will meet in a matrix and you must solve it.
4:30pm Tuesday 17th March 2009
By Liz McMahon »
When Paul Greengrass visited Goldsmiths to talk to film students last week, Liz McMahon also went along to hear the director's stories and insights into his successful career
On March 11, Stuart Till invited Greengrass to speak at the sixth Olive Till Memorial Debate at Goldsmiths College. The annual debate is an opportunity for film students to listen to inspirational directors and ask them questions about the industry.
Last year, the guest speaker was Danny Boyle fresh from directing the Oscar-sweeping Slumdog Millionaire. This year Paul Greengrass took a break from directing his new film on post-war Iraq, Green Zone, to come and share his thoughts with the next generation of filmmakers.
Born in leafy Cheam, Surrey, raised in Gravesend and educated at Queen's College Cambridge, director Paul Greengrass could be said to have led a charmed life. Nevertheless, he could not be accused of shying away from contentious issues.
In fact, his CV reads like a potted history of events in the past 25 years which have shocked us to the core and ultimately altered society irrevocably.
He stepped into Granada in 1977 and had the good fortune to learn the art of meticulous filmmaking from John Slater.
Describing him as an “eccentrically posh prep school master”, Greengrass recalled one of the first conversations he had with him.
In the wake the of the Munich Air Crash, Greengrass had gone into Slater's office and been ignored for at least five minutes. Slater then spun round in his chair and demanded that Greengrass put his hand in the trim-bin. Greengrass' consequent quizzical expression impelled Slater to pull the trims out and throw them at him, screaming: “Unless you learn to get physical with it, feel it, live it, sleep it, shag it, you are not working with film.”
When considering his most acclaimed works: The Bourne Trilogy, United 93, Bloody Sunday and the Stephen Lawrence documentary to name but a few, it is clear how these words of wisdom stuck with Greengrass and his unique attitude to filmmaking: “Films used to be daunted by posh Hampstead people wanting to write about dinner parties. Oiks like me wanting to write about real events could get blacklisted at the BBC.”
His journey into the mainstream seems to even bemuse him. He begun to direct World in Action in the 1980s and this experience gave his work the edgy observational feel that has become his trademark. The fact that this style has started to become commercially popular is coincidental.
“My style is rooted in observational documentary pieces,” he said.
“It was an accident to make commercial pieces. Initially I was puzzled - but cinemagoers’ perception of reality is this. This is what mainstream image making is today.”
Greengrass’ success at the box office has allowed him to muster coverage for his more obscure films.
Film course lecturer Robert Smith posed several key questions to Greengrass, eliciting enlightening responses.
Do you write alone?
I had no formal training in writing screenplays. The truth is I wrote because no-one would give me a job. I don't believe that you should divide disciplines; in the US they are very good at multi-tasking. Making film a 360 degree activity. When you write a script, you don't want someone to come and take it off you.
When I think about your techniques I see edgy camera shots, multiple angles, fractured space and seamless environment. How would you describe your style?
A key question a director must ask is- how do I want to unfold reality? Do I want to know what's happening or do I want to be God? In a conventional shooting, actors will work from a crafted scene that will go through obvious steps. First it will be written and then the stage directions will be added. The example being that the vicar enters his home and confronts an axe-wielding murderer.
An alternative approach is to have the vicar outside the door but no one knows what is going to happen. By this I mean that you create a series of uncertainties. Everyone has their own private goals, the vicar's wife knows that she is going to grab something from the table for instance, but you don't know how everyone is going to react. You speak to people separately and don't tell them all the components.
When filming the Bourne Trilogy you shot in several extraordinarily busy places such as Waterloo Station and Medina, Tangier. How did you ensure the public did not disrupt the action?
First of all, the people we had arranging the sets were fantastic. Without them, nothing would have been possible. Also, although the film was undoubtedly a commercial piece, I still wanted to incorporate an anti-authority, counter-culture theme.
The Bourne Ultimatum could be seen as an exercise in making money and I wanted to stay true to my roots in some sense. This led me to construct action sequences in incredibly public places. The orthodox way of doing this is to lock down the area. If a director does this then it is very easy for the walls around them to get higher and higher and they become very insulated. I wanted to fight this kind of comfort zone.
At Waterloo the main crew were five miles away and it was literally only a handful of us that actually went to the station. We could only shoot from 10am to 4pm. We would set up a decoy at one end of the platform and then nip down to the other side until the public clocked on to the fact they had been duped. It was an entertaining game of cat and mouse.
The car chase in New York was actually much quicker to catch on with the public. On the night we had shot it, doctored versions started to appear on You Tube with various music tracks! Everyone wanted to close off the tunnel but Dan Bradley created what he and I call the 'Go-mobile' and we decided that it was fast enough to shoot with normal traffic on the road. It was frightening though. Even I was going ‘eek’ [he covers his face with his hands, laughing]
Tell us about the journey from script to editing.
There is always tension between a writer and a director. One or the other will get on top. If you want to be director, always be on top. In Britain, I think we still access films too much through script. The difference is here films are things that are written rather than things that are made. Words are getting less and less important in commercial features. A film is as much to do with what's not written as what is.
A screenplay is the first act of direction and direction is the first act of writing. They are not a separate activity and must therefore act in unison. When directing a film, the closest relationship I have is with the editor. I have always been more interested in how to put sequences together. The screenplay is only the first part of the elements that leads onto the concept.
Technology is taking us there. Writing is still fundamental but there is less of it. On an Apple mac today you can create a collage generating material. It doesn't just have to be in the written word. Theme, narrative and so on will always be important but increasingly the art of a screenwriter is going to be less about word and more about space and image.
How do you stay true to yourself?
I maintain authenticity by creating a writer's view of the event. I ensure that there are stakeholders to the drama; I try to decentralise power while retaining it all. First and foremost, I concentrate on the people about whom the drama is being made. I also need to empower the actors to play their roles with high-definition improvisational freedom.
There is also the missing element we can never understand. In Bloody Sunday it is the soldiers crossing the line; in United 93 it is what happened in the air; there is a need to recreate events that we all approve of. We use drama to unlock what ultimately can't be knowable. I know I'm staying true if I am supported by all those involved in the film. I have only ever lost Dwayne Brooks on Stephen Lawrence.
In United 93, I ensured all the variables were in place. We had 44 passengers, a professional crew and the same plane. This allowed us to make many deductions. We realised things we had assumed happened, such as something falling down the aisle, would not have actually been logistically possible.
There was a clear mission statement: there will be different messages encoded in this event. It is not told from one perspective. It does not have a 'let's roll out the troops' mentality. I wanted to reach a metaphorical truth through the stakeholders.
Lastly, what is your advice to filmmakers in 2009?
Go out and have the most fantastic bloody fun. In 1977 you couldn't just go out and make a film. Now you can make it on your phone. Next thing you know you're on You Tube every night. Make make make make. It's not about being a director or writer; it's about saying what you want to say. The hardest thing is to listen to the voice inside you and work out what you want to say. You need to focus and understand ‘all I'm going to do is solve the problems of making what I want to make’. Time, space, money and inner-will will meet in a matrix and you must solve it.
Friday, 6 March 2009
The Baxter
The Baxter 1/5, Released 2 March on DVD, cert 12
A Baxter, apparently, is the term used for the man who is the proverbial nice guy. He plays the game, jumps through the hoops and always loses out in love to the guy with issues who finally comes to his senses.
This is the first of The Baxter’s many problems. Attempting to give a specific name to an identity we have probably already come across in life gives a strong and irritating sense this film has ideas above its station.
Along with the new-name-for-old-concept niggle, The Baxter also tries to break rom-com mould with little success.
Michael Showalter - who wrote and directed the film - plays Elliot Sherman, a Harvard Business School graduate who has made a comfortable life for himself working for the second best accountancy firm in the city. The only problem he has experienced in his ordinarily unremarkable life is he always loses out in the love stakes.
We don’t need to take his word for it though; we can watch a cheesy little montage which marks his pathetic track record with the ladies thus far. Rather than feeling any sense of sympathy for the protagonist, ‘grow some’ is the only phrase that comes to mind.
The film begins with Sherman being jilted at the altar and then spans back two weeks to explain how he got there in the first place. Herein lies yet another problem, as is it is pretty obvious why he was dumped and we don’t really need to sit there for an hour and a half to discover what we already knew.
We go back to the point where he is just about to ask his plain but kooky (she reads the dictionary for pleasure) temp Cecil Mills (A sweet Michelle Williams) to a classical concert. Slap bang in the middle of his question, Caroline Swann (Wooden but sexy Elizabeth Banks) sashays into his life. Pretty, successful and clearly hungry to settle down, she takes him by the scruff of the neck and they embark on a whirlwind romance lacking any of the whirl and much of the wind but does result in a big, shiny ring.
All seems rosy for this mismatched couple until they have a meal with her family and photo albums from yesteryear rear their ugly head. Suddenly Elliot is confronted with the image of Caroline’s childhood sweetheart, Bradley (Natural comic actor Justin Theroux), who has cheekbones you could shave your legs on. As well as being intimidated by his chiseled affability, Elliot is also concerned by the fact his fiancé has never mentioned this apparent love of her life before.
He confronts her just before they are going out around her old stomping ground. She puts his mind at rest by claiming she had not seen any point in mentioning her past beau since he had run off to somewhere remote to study caves, or something weird like that.
Elliot breathes a sigh of relief, they go out and (you’ll never guess where this is going) Bradley turns up in the bar. He does have a girlfriend but she sneezes and admits to allergies so clearly she will be metaphorically culled from the proceedings at the first opportunity.
The rest of the plot pans out as one might expect and we are again reminded why Elliot is The Baxter. Ending back where the film began would not be sufficient though - There is a twist. But by the time it arrives, it feels more like a weak hump in the road. Does Elliot grow some? In the most un-profound way possible.
What do we learn from watching The Baxter? He may be the one who is unlucky in love but, due to the film’s predictability and failed genre bending, it is the audience that feels the true pain of loss (87 mins of their life to be exact)
A Baxter, apparently, is the term used for the man who is the proverbial nice guy. He plays the game, jumps through the hoops and always loses out in love to the guy with issues who finally comes to his senses.
This is the first of The Baxter’s many problems. Attempting to give a specific name to an identity we have probably already come across in life gives a strong and irritating sense this film has ideas above its station.
Along with the new-name-for-old-concept niggle, The Baxter also tries to break rom-com mould with little success.
Michael Showalter - who wrote and directed the film - plays Elliot Sherman, a Harvard Business School graduate who has made a comfortable life for himself working for the second best accountancy firm in the city. The only problem he has experienced in his ordinarily unremarkable life is he always loses out in the love stakes.
We don’t need to take his word for it though; we can watch a cheesy little montage which marks his pathetic track record with the ladies thus far. Rather than feeling any sense of sympathy for the protagonist, ‘grow some’ is the only phrase that comes to mind.
The film begins with Sherman being jilted at the altar and then spans back two weeks to explain how he got there in the first place. Herein lies yet another problem, as is it is pretty obvious why he was dumped and we don’t really need to sit there for an hour and a half to discover what we already knew.
We go back to the point where he is just about to ask his plain but kooky (she reads the dictionary for pleasure) temp Cecil Mills (A sweet Michelle Williams) to a classical concert. Slap bang in the middle of his question, Caroline Swann (Wooden but sexy Elizabeth Banks) sashays into his life. Pretty, successful and clearly hungry to settle down, she takes him by the scruff of the neck and they embark on a whirlwind romance lacking any of the whirl and much of the wind but does result in a big, shiny ring.
All seems rosy for this mismatched couple until they have a meal with her family and photo albums from yesteryear rear their ugly head. Suddenly Elliot is confronted with the image of Caroline’s childhood sweetheart, Bradley (Natural comic actor Justin Theroux), who has cheekbones you could shave your legs on. As well as being intimidated by his chiseled affability, Elliot is also concerned by the fact his fiancé has never mentioned this apparent love of her life before.
He confronts her just before they are going out around her old stomping ground. She puts his mind at rest by claiming she had not seen any point in mentioning her past beau since he had run off to somewhere remote to study caves, or something weird like that.
Elliot breathes a sigh of relief, they go out and (you’ll never guess where this is going) Bradley turns up in the bar. He does have a girlfriend but she sneezes and admits to allergies so clearly she will be metaphorically culled from the proceedings at the first opportunity.
The rest of the plot pans out as one might expect and we are again reminded why Elliot is The Baxter. Ending back where the film began would not be sufficient though - There is a twist. But by the time it arrives, it feels more like a weak hump in the road. Does Elliot grow some? In the most un-profound way possible.
What do we learn from watching The Baxter? He may be the one who is unlucky in love but, due to the film’s predictability and failed genre bending, it is the audience that feels the true pain of loss (87 mins of their life to be exact)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
