My favourite film of 2017: The Levelling

‘The Levelling’ was my favourite of the year by a country mile. You wouldn’t believe it was the feature film debut of its director and writer, Hope Dickson Leach because the film has a level of elegance and depth that many directors fail to reach in their entire careers. It’s rather short, at slightly less than ninety minutes, but it effortlessly delivers more emotion in that time than most films can hope to achieve.

The plot of the film is rather simple. A young woman who has made a life for herself in a city is brought back to her rural roots when her brother dies. It’s in this simplicity that the film thrives by becoming an intelligent study on grief and loss. Ellie Kendrick is a force of nature in her portrayal of  the protagonist Clover. In many ways, she is more cultured and modern than her father, Aubrey. She can accept that the death of her brother was suicide but is far less able to grapple with it than she would like to admit.

Clover’s journey to try to understand the death of her brother, Harry is oddly detached. It’s maybe a coping mechanism that comes from when her mother died. She was at boarding school and Aubrey wouldn’t let her come back. Detachment may be one coping mechanism, her other is the demonization of her father. She has long blamed him for how he handled the death of her mother and now she blames him for the death of Harry.

Blame is not in short supply in this movie. Even if honest conversation is. It’s not a criticism of the film, it’s what makes it so brutally honest and excellent. In the shadow of a suicide, people often don’t really talk. They view it as an abstract because by doing that the rawness of it is somewhat diluted. Aubrey deludes himself by calling it an accident but Clover also deludes herself by pretending like she doesn’t blame herself.

Leach’s characterisation is done to perfection so that no character fits neatly into the role of villain or hero. One can’t help but notice though that a lot of what Clover carries on her shoulders could be attributed to problematic masculinity. Aubrey kept his daughter away when his wife died to protect her because he attributes strength with quietness. The expectations of masculinity are then thrusted onto Harry who is unable to cope and turns to suicide.

There is no way that Harry could win. The family farm that his father was handing over to him was already failing. Their home has already been ruined by a flood. They’ve been relegated to a caravan for months because the insurance won’t pay out. None of this is his fault but he’s expected to sort it all out without help and without showing emotion. Clover has escaped to the city but Harry never had that option. Or at least he never saw it as a potential avenue. That would be to admit failure and that is impossible for him to concede.

Clover must deal with the fear and guilt that if she had been there then Harry would still be alive. This obviously isn’t her fault and yet these feelings are obviously felt by those around her. The only other character that we get to know a lot about is a friend of Harry’s, James. Harry doesn’t like Clover very much. It’s obvious that he feels that she’s betrayed Harry in some way by not being around. It is also quite clear that Clover doesn’t really trust James.  

A lesser filmmaker would have had a plot twist in which James killed Harry. Instead their relationship is shown to have been as complicated and sincere as the one between Clover and Aubrey. It’s left ambiguous as to whether James and Harry were together. James called himself Harry’s best friend though he talks far more like someone that has lost the love of his life than a best friend. It is obvious though that James was a rock for Harry.

It’s a scene between Clover and James which makes ‘The Levelling’ my film of the year. Too often a narrative is created that suggests homophobia is done with now and that people can come out freely. Only this past month, Richard Hammond waxed lyrically about how effortlessly it seemed to be gay now in a way that only a straight, privileged white man could. Leech quietly and forcefully fights back against that in James.

James had a fight with Harry on the night that Clover’s brother killed himself. At one point, he’d get a black eye from Harry. Later on Harry would call him something in anger. James tells Clover that he can’t remember. He obviously can. My guess is that it was some gay slur. Interestingly, it’s one point that Clover doesn’t push. I couldn’t help but wonder if for all her professed progressiveness, she didn’t want to know about James sexuality. Because of her unwillingness to delve deeper, whatever the slur was, James will most likely carry it to his death. It’s not unlikely that he’ll spend his entire life in this village and that he’ll be forever in the closet.

Leach has delivered one of the best films I’ve ever watched in ‘The Levelling.’ It shows the English countryside to be beautiful but also doesn’t shy away from the brutality that rural life can be. There is grace and beauty in this emotional, true to life tale that will stay with you long after you’ve first watched it. I can’t wait to see what Leach does next because if this is what she’s capable of in her first feature film, the future looks incredibly bright.

Is Ireland going to have elections before Christmas?

What is the crisis threatening to bring down the Irish government?

It is all related to a police corruption scandal that goes all the way back to 2007. Sergeant Maurice McCabe acted as a Garda whistleblower. (The Garda is just the name of the police force in Ireland). In 2008, he alleged that corruption and malpractice was apparent in his division, Cavan—Monaghan. It eventually led to an independent review being launched in February by senior counsel Sean Guerin leading to the publication of the Guerin report. Even before the report was published, then Garda commissioner, Martin Callinan was forced to resign.

When the report was released publicly in May 2014. It was so critical of how the then justice minister, Alan Shatter had handled the situation that he resigned. (It’s really important to note who takes over from him – Frances Fitzgerald – as we’ll be coming back to her later.) It also argued than a far more extensive investigation was needed to further investigate McCabe’s allegations. It resulted in the O’Higgins Commission being established.

The O’Higgins commission would conclude in 2016 that McCabe had ‘acted out of genuine and legitimate concerns’ but did not find any evidence that supported claims of corruption though it did agree that not all victims were given the best treatment by the Garda force. It also attempted to rehabilitate Shatter suggesting he’d taken concerns ‘very seriously’.

You’d think that would be it all settled but no, this Irish edition of 'House of Cards' was given a new season when it was revealed that our whistleblower, McCabe, was subject to unfair allegations meant to smear him and dilute the veracity of his claims by the lawyers representing the new Garda commissioner, Noirin Sulivan.  This led to another investigation being launched this year in February which is referenced in the media as either the Disclosures Tribunal or the Charleton Tribunal. In September, Sulivan would step down as Garda chief arguing that their were too many investigations that were getting in the way of her ability to be a successful commissioner.

What’s this got to do with the Irish Government?

Remember Fitzgerald who took over as Justice minister? Well she’s now Tanaiste which is the Deputy Prime Minister. It came out on Friday that she had email correspondence which would suggest that as Justice minister, she was aware of a plan by the Garda to discredit McCabe.

The Fine Gale party is currently governing Ireland as a minority government. It is able to survive as it is a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with the second largest party, Fianna Fail. They have called a no confidence motion for today (Tuesday 28^th November) which would result in the government failing and elections before Christmas. However, Fianna Fail have said if Taoiseach (that’s the Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar gets rid of Fitzgerald then they’ll stop the no confidence motion.

It appears that Varadkar is not willing to push Fitzgerald to go and Fianna Fail are not willing to back down. Things appeared to look even bleaker for Fitzgerald on Monday evening when two more emails came to light showing that she was aware of the practices being carried out to discredit McCabe. It’s led to many in her own party beginning to suggest, off the record, that she should go to allow the government to continue. She argues that since the Charleton Tribunal is already existing, and she is due to give evidence in January, she has no reason to step down.

Frances Fitzgerald

Will it lead to elections before Christmas?

If Fitzgerald doesn’t resign then almost certainly yes. My instinct is that she’ll resign at some point this morning before the motion can be enacted. There is very little appetite for new elections from the public or even from any of the parties. The polls show that it’d only result in a very similar result to the current situation. It’s also being reported that business leaders within Ireland are against an election right now because they worry it’ll weaken Ireland’s hand as they attempt to reach a deal with the UK over the border question. Taken together, it seems incredibly unlikely that she’ll manage to stay on but then if politics of late has proven anything, it’s that anything can happen.

What really happen to Gareth Williams - the spy found dead in a sports bag?

the world of John Le Carre, deaths by the security services are usually carried out to look like accidents. It makes sense, they don’t want any fuss. An important agent or scientist that needs to be deposed of, in the cause of national security will therefore be made to look like a travel accident, heart attack or suicide. The reader, and the public by large, want something else. They enjoy scandal with their intrigue. They want to believe that the world of National Security is one of high espionage and high stakes. 

It is why the death of Gareth Williams in the Summer of 2010 enthralled the nation. Williams was found naked decomposing in a padlocked sports bag in an empty bathtub in a locked flat. The police arrived around a week after he died. At that point, they were convinced that foul play had taken place. This story would probably have made the news regardless of his profession but the fact that he worked for MI6 solidified it. It could easily be the plot of an airport novel.

For the next two years, the British public would eat up scandalous tales that the tabloid press were throwing out. Like seagulls on the seafront pier, they happily gorged on anything without much though. Stories that could not be at all verified – such as the allegation that Williams enjoyed crossdressing and had thousands of pounds worth of women’s clothing – were thrown out to further satisfy the needs of a hungry readership.

Of course, it also helped to delegitimise Williams in the eyes of the public. Though ‘The Sun’ and its ilk would never come out with it fully, its inference was clear. This man engaged in fetishes. He was not normal. His death therefore could have been a tragic accident and there was nothing more to see here. The press don’t mind doing that, they do it often enough. They’re quite happy to throw an entire group under the bus if it sells. There was no foundation for the crude way that they treated Williams. They happily painted a picture of a sexual deviant using the fact that his search history showed mild interest in bondage and his supposed crossdressing as evidence. Never mind that there is nothing at all connected between those two activities or that there is anything deviant either. It gave the tabloids enough to discredit Williams.

The story had moved on from the fact that he was a secret service agent to the fact that he had strange sexual fantasies. One really must marvel at the power of the press. A spy is found in a padlocked holdhall in an empty bathtub. His phone is found to have been wiped and the actual bag has no fingerprints of Williams anywhere on it. The key to the lock is underneath the bag. All evidence in those initial assessments points to foul play. However, the press was able to formulate a juicer story on far less evidence that somehow discounted the notion of foul play in the eyes of many.   

Having said that, the initial coroner, Dr. Fiona Wilcox would eventually conclude that it was most likely criminally motivated. She did however state that she didn’t have enough evidence to conclude this for sure which resulted in the investigation being reopened.  It would however conclude that it was most likely a tragic accident.

It’s not entirely unfathomable that it was an accidentaldeath. In the first inquest, Williams’ landlady would give evidence that one night in 2007 she was awaken at around half one in the morning by Williamscalling for help. He’d managed to tie himself to his bed and couldn’t get out. She, along with her husband, helped him out and they never spoke of it again. However she believed it was probably more to do with a sexual fantasy than escapology. Then again, people often explain the unexplainable by using their own frame of reference so perhaps explaining it away as misadventure was easier than believing her lodger was an able spy.

Whatever the truth, this story will continue to run. In 2015 his death was again questioned in the British press. The Daily Mail would suggest that MI6 were angered when Williams accessed confidential data on Bill Clinton. Then again, this was just as Hillary was beginning her Presidential run so it is entirely possible that this story was completely fabricated to make the Clinton’s look bad. Later that same year, a former KGB agent would claim that Williams death had came at the hands of Russians who wanted to protect a source they had in GCHQ.

In the end, the enigma that was Gareth Williams will likely never be fully decoded. A undeniably intelligent and bright light whose candle became unlit in the strangest of circumstances. It was enough to result in a TV series, London Spy, being created based on him. That is unsurprising considering how interesting the story was. It’s just unfortunate that it was real life and not just a work of fiction. Williams was not an interesting character brought to life by an impressive novelist. He was a man with a family who have had to suffer not only the loss of a son and brother but also the constant invasion of the press hungry for a good story.

Who will be the next Prime Minister?

Okay so before we get started, I don’t think Theresa May will be out on her ear anything soon. However given the fact that she did have a particularly disastrous conference speech, anyone who had knives at the ready might be tempted to strike. Even if she isn’t ousted in the next couple of days, I don’t think she’ll be the PM at the announcement of the next General Election. It’s with that in mind that I’ve created a list of those most likely to succeed her.

9. Ruth Davidson. 

She’s marked herself out as the hero of the Tories in a lot of senses. She’s a fan favourite, along with Johnson, at party conferences. This is quite a good sign because if any of the public ever vote on the next leader, it’ll be members of the party. The route to her ever being Prime Minister is hard to imagine though, never mind being the next one. She’d have to be an MP and currently she isn’t. The decision to leave Holyrood to run at Westminster comes with its own political challenges. She’s successfully won the position of leader of the opposition at the Scottish Parliament, she has no real incentive to make the move anytime soon.

8. Jacob Rees-Mogg.

 I’m fully aware that saying ‘this absolutely will not happen’ is a surefire way of predicting what will happen in politics as of late but I’m pretty confident in asserting Rees-Mogg will not be the next PM. He’s benefited from publicity as of late and did come first in a poll of members earlier this year for Conservative Home. This poll had the benefit though of being purely hypothetical and it’s unbelievably unlikely that this would transpire to actual support. His outdated views on marriage and abortion would confine the Tories to defeat in a General Election and the Party may be many things but electorally suicidal is not one of them.

7. Dominic Raab.

 Raab has the makings of a Golden Boy for voters. He supported Brexit for one. Much earlier on in his career as an MP, he argued against ‘positive discrimination’ that was adversely affecting white men applying to the Foreign Office work experience scheme. He’s also quite handsome and performs well on TV. Then again, he is a bit young - he only joined the commons in 2010. That has its bonuses in a campaign though. He lost some support among fellow Tory MPs when he jumped ship from Johnson to Gove during the last leadership contest in 2015. My money says he waits out his Prime Ministerial ambitions for an election cycle or two.

6. Amber Rudd.

 She’s Home Secretary, was a remainer and unfortunately is probably just too linked to May to be seen as a viable alternative. I think that’s unfair and her gender definitely plays a role in that which wouldn’t be as issue if the current PM was a man. Before the last election, there was a general feeling that she’d been over promoted but proved the doubters wrong during the campaign. She performed well at the debate and was very prominent in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Manchester and London. She would definitely face an uphill battle to even get nominated for the leadership contest given her Remainer credentials. Then again she’s a more liberal candidate than many which could see a rise in her chances. One additional issue is that she only won her seat by 346 votes. It would be a monumental upset if she were to win the leadership contents only to be unseated at the General election.

5. David Davis. 

I’m not going to lie, before Brexit I had little idea as to who this man was. However he’s now a powerful player in the Brexit negotiations and has been seen as somewhat of an ally of May. It’s this, along with his genuine desire for Brexit, that has makes his name consistently come up in talks about the next leader. Then again, the relationship with May isn’t all rosy given the fact she might hold him responsible for talking her into the ill fated election campaign. My instinct is that he doesn’t particularly want the top job and that Brexit is really what is close to his heart. If he can be convinced that another leader will let him plough on with Brexit then I imagine he’d settle for that.

4. Philip Hammond. 

He’s the Chancellor, aligned with business interests and very much the face of soft Brexit in the cabinet. Compared to Davis and Johnson, he’s far less often talked as a contender for PM. However an interesting story published in The Spectator in late June floated the idea of Hammond as a caretaker PM. This option would stop a grueling leadership contest. In truth this is an option that most  Tory MPs would like as they know that they can ill afford a hostile and long internal battle. The problem is that Hammond is just too light on Brexit for many Leave MPs. Given this scenario is probably the only one that leads to Hammond being PM, it’s unlikely to come to fruition.

3. Jeremy Corbyn. 

It’d be remiss to mention the Labour leader. Ironically, perhaps he gives May some twisted sense of hope that her predicament is only temporary. Corbyn after all was almost booted out too and fought an incredible fightback. Unfortunately for her, it’s unlikely her party will ever let her run another election campaign as leader. This is actually why I think the odds of Corbyn being the next PM are unbelievably low. It’s an incredibly high possibility he’ll be PM after the next General Election but chances are that he’ll be facing someone other than May.

2. Boris Johnson. 

The former Mayor of London and current Foreign Secretary. His name recognition is so high that if Cabinet Members was a round on Pointless, I’m pretty sure he’d be mentioned more times that May herself. However being recognised isn’t always an advantage. We’re all aware that being seen as a laugh doesn’t necessarily transfer to votes and whilst he’s guaranteed a standing ovation at a Conference, he doesn’t inspire confidence as a leader in as half as many people. Not only that but a lot of MPs who have talked shit about Johnson won’t want him as the big boss man because it’ll dampen their political futures.  Whilst conventional wisdom holds that he’ll be the next leader, I can’t help but think he’ll be the political version of always the bridesmaid and never the bride. After all everyone is talking about how embarrassing and pitiful May is after her coughing fit but in my eyes, it's far less pitiful than having a supposed ally stab you in the back right before you make your move to PM. Then again, I guess the silver lining is that if he does run again, it would be hard pressed to have as disastrous non-campaign as his first one. 

1. Damian Green. 

He is probably the closest thing to an ally that Theresa May has. They trust each other a lot and May has granted him quite some power. He’s the First Secretary of State and Cabinet Office minister. When she can’t do PMQ, he stands in. In the absence of a deputy, he is for all intents and purposes hers. He’s very much an outsider but if the Party did decide against a leadership contest but weren't keen on Hammond then he’d a good shout for a compromise candidate. It could also work to appease May and give her a somewhat dignified exit. The problem is he’s not seen as very electable and that could put a lot of people off. Then again we live in a time of political upsets and I'd suggest a little flutter on Green as an outsider. 

Who is Kathy's 'Old Friend'?

It’s fair to say that ‘Eastenders’ has had quite a time of it as of late. I mean Kush has a heart attack  one day and is walking around the square. Not to mention that Johnny has went from being shot around four days ago to working in the pub again. It’s caused a bit of commotion among fans that perhaps the realism which makes up a crucial part of its appeal has been lost.

The storyline with Max does seem to have gone all a bit ‘House of Cards’ with Fi and Josh just being revealed to be siblings yesterday. The show has been pushing the identity of their mystery Dad hard over the past couple of weeks and even I – a self-confessed superfan – was at a bit of a lost as to why.

But there is an old saying that good things come to those that wait and I think we might be about to discover that’s true. Another storyline that the soap has embarked on as of late is the crisis of identity that Kathy Beale has been facing.  These two storylines seem to be converging now that viewers saw a mystery man leave flowers signed mysteriously as ‘an old friend.’

I had my suspicions that these two revelations in one episode may be connected and so I took to Wikipedia. One of the best things about the fact ‘Eastenders’ is a long running drama is that it can have legacy characters and reinvest in storylines that seemed to be closed years ago. It appears that they may be doing that very thing with Kathy.

Back in 1986 – when I was but a twinkle in my mother’s eye – James Wilmott-Brown arrived on the scene.  His backstory is what makes me think he’s the father of FI. He was an area manager for the brewery that at the time managed The Queen Vic. It wouldn’t be all that surprising if she followed her father’s footsteps into the management of pubs.

His connection to Kathy is all together far more sinister. According to Wikipedia, it appears that he went on to open a rival bar in Albert Square known as The Dagmar. He hired Kathy and romantic liaisons seemed to be on the cards even though she was married to Pete Beale. One night she had a fight with Pete and then goes to James’ flat. He tries it on and is rebuffed but goes on to rape her.

Wilmott-Brown was eventually found guilty but it irrevocably damaged her marriage to Pete. (Wikipedia says that Pete could never convince himself that Kathy wasn’t somehow guilt which makes me think he’s a massive knob but that’s neither here nor there really.) It would therefore feed into the exploration of identity that ‘Eastenders’ has been exploring that Kathy has to face the return of someone she thought she’d dealt with decades before.

This may all turn out to be the ravings of a deranged fan but I hope not. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that ‘Eastenders’ is at its best when it remembers its history. Part of this is embracing older characters but it’s also exploring the past of its characters. It’s entirely believable that people who we long since thought were gone from our lives return with consequences we didn’t expect. It’ll also keep it engaging for younger fans who thought that they knew longstanding characters only for that to be blown out of the water. That in turn will lead to living room and workplace conversations from older fans to younger fans explaining the history of Kathy that we never knew. All of this will help create a buzz around the show.

 It has been hinted that the identity of the mystery flower giver will be revealed tonight so we’ll know either way soon enough.

God and gays don't mix, right?

Tim Farron has quit his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats citing the suspicion he faced regarding his religion. 

Interview after interview put his views on gay sex front and centre. Sometimes he tried to dodge the question, other times he stressed that he could act secularly as a politician.

Can you truly be a committed Christian and in support of gay rights? It's something that I've struggled with for a long time. Growing up Catholic, coming out was compounded by the question of my faith. 

I remember as I was figuring out how I felt, I was confiding more and more in two teachers. They genuinely wanted to help and at one point, I think they realised I needed more support. That resulted in my pastoral care teacher calling me down and though she was kind, she also said that the ethos of the school made it difficult for them to offer specific support. 

About a year later, things got rough when I came out properly. During that time, religion was the predominant reasoning behind the push back to my coming out. 

I have to say my experiences of priests though had been generally positive. At one point, I tried confessing my sins to my local priest. In hindsight, he probably didn't want to hear in quite exacting detail how I'd lost my virginity with 'Like a Virgin' blasting. He was entirely professional throughout though and when I was done, offered a conciliatory tone. There was no sin in feelings he argued, only the act. 'If you stumble then just ask for forgiveness and God will be there for you'.

He was undoubtedly being kind. But the problem was I didn't want to be forgiven. I had to hide the glee in recounting my coming out story. I knew I wanted to go again. And again. 

That's the problem in a nutshell really. It's probably the reason Farron is stepping down. It's trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Just how can you hate the sin and not the sinner when the sinner sees that sin as fundamental to their character. 

Then again my faith has been fundamental to me too. I've felt myself come back to it time and time again. Coming out as Christian can be as difficult as coming out in a religious environment and in a limited way, I can empathise with Farron's evident anger that people haven't taken his faith at face value. I sense that he's frustrated people seem to think his faith make him homophobic. 

I think though that he's not fully appreciating the experience of faith that LGBT individuals often encounter. It's hard not to pick up on an implicit homophobia when you're being taught in a class - funded by the state - that children can't be brought up as well by a same sex couple as mixed sex one. 

The Christian Church is a broad one though and acting like they all have the same approach to homosexuality is ignorant. St. Mary's Cathedral on Great Western Road is an excellent example of a faith community that is incredibly welcoming to all. 

Farron's departure is sad if he felt that it was related completely to reaction to his faith. It points to a society struggling to reconcile religion and liberialism. Rejection of the more archaic and extremist elements of the Christian faith should be heralded as progressive but I do feel that a place for faith remains in our society and it would be sad for that to be removed completely. 

Postmodernism stole my love of words. For a while.

It's been a while since I last sat down and put words to paper. Electronically anyway. Part of that is that I've been busy but it's also more than that. Over the last couple of months, the idea of writing hasn't been as comfortable as it once was.

Writing is a comfort blanket for me. The words knit together in a powerful collage that becomes more snug than a brand new IKEA duvet. When the world seems to be dashing incoherently yet definitely downwards, writing acted as a reprieve. It demands consistently and insists on a narrative that can be easily digestible.

But in the last couple of months, I've felt a change. It's hard to truly encapsulate what I mean. Nothing has really moved yet in a sense, it's as if heaven and earth have switched places.

The power of words to free me from the constraints of my reality had gone. It just wasn't fun anymore. Before it felt like language was the tool to end all tools. It was the leatherman of communication. It had so many beautiful, unexpected variants that continued to surprise even though you'd owned it for so long.

But then someone took the leatherman and instead of appreciating its beauty and utility, merely used it to brutally and barbarically stab someone to death. Of course, the leatherman is innocent in this. It's merely a multi-tool but by being used in such a horrid way; its beauty is intrinsically stained. More than that, the danger of it is for the first time, manifest. 

In a way I feel responsible. Like a child that harmlessly wants to play in the garden but in doing so leaves the back door open for a burglar, I think I've let down language. Pushing at its edges, laughing at how constructed it all was. Highlighting without any malicious intent, the vacuum of meaning that lies in the abstract. 

And as we stood playing hide and seek with simile and metaphor, Trump slipped into the house. He and his team pillaged every unlocked room. 

It would be an alternative fact to say he did that alone. We are bored of experts after all.

Combine arrogance with ignorance and the result is terrifying. When none of the rules apply anymore, nothing makes any real difference. Actions don't have consequences when those actions are washed away on account of their emptiness.

And in all that, words had lost their magical touch to me. Words were just words with arbitrary meanings that could turn on a dime. 

But then to hell with it, that's completely missing the points. It's not like words ever did have concrete meaning from somewhere divine. They just had what we gave them. 

And that's still true now. Even if these words are now being used to mean the opposite of what they did before. The trend before was to string them together as a tool that would be in turn used to create order.

Now the reverse is true. Words are now assembled by ruthless architects hoping to create most complex route in the myriad of dead ends of a maze. And do you know what, well good for them. 

They can use the words in whatever which way they want to. I don't mind. I'm going to keep on writing. The game might have changed but if we're playing with no rules surely I can play by the old ones.

Why we need an ‘Exclusively gay’ moment

This week, the world continued to astound in all the wrong ways with the Russia saga continuing to pour on in the States and alt-right candidates such as Milo being nominated as Glasgow Uni rector, a short rest bite did appear in the middle of the week. The live action remake of ‘Beauty and the Beast’ would feature an ‘exclusively gay’ scene.

Now for a film that has had me, shall we say, slightly worried about its ability to convey the greatness of its original; this news made me far more amenable to the film. Now of course, the cynic can say that this is the total point – the pink pound is notoriously powerful and since being gay is less controversial now, films can capitalise on it without much controversy.

I’m sure that is a factor but I’m sure it’s very small compared to the legitimate, sincere reasons for its inclusions. The film is a watershed and it’s not even a particularly revealing scene. The sexuality of Lefou will be revealed because he dances with a man, not a girl. It’s incredibly important for a company like Disney to take this bold step, especially at a time like this when hard fought civil rights are being questioned on all fronts.

Guy Lodge expresses in the Guardian that he isn’t all impressed by the choice of Lefou to be the first irrefutable gay character in the Disney franchise. He notes the villainous nature of the character as well as his unrequited love for a straight man being hardly ‘the recognition that gay viewers have been waiting for.’

But I think he misses the point here, personally I think it’s brave to make Lefou a gay man. Gay people, just like their straight counterparts are complex people. We love and hate, often follow political agendas which are not liberal and see our sexuality as one facet of ourselves. Lefou, in the film version, does come around to the beliefs of our protagonists and therefore will not project the idea of gay people as villainous but will allow for a well-developed character.

Lodge makes the good point that Disney has indeed had a long history of appealing to the LGBT audience through coded language. Many of the animated films resonate with young children who feel different but don’t though why. I always had a visceral reaction to ‘The Fox and the Hound’ and when I was younger I thought it was scary. Now, watching it I think it’s because something inside me, even at that age, resonated so strongly with Tod. Him being ostracised from a world in which he so desperately wants to belong was so powerful to me. As was the fact that he would go on to find happiness even though it wasn’t how he had imagined.

But that time of coded messaging deserves to be in the past now. Lodge talks about the characters that minority audiences deserve and I argue that we deserve open ones. It will not be an easy decision for Disney to make. They appeal to a large family audience and this twitter poll, by the conservative Glenn Beck, shows that many will boycott the film just because it has a gay character. 

Part of me can understand that. Parents just don't want to explain this lifestyle to their children, in many cases it comes from a unwillingness to discuss sexual relations in general rather than any specific homophobia. 'They'll learn in their own time.' But the truth is that some children will be brought up in a homophobic environment which rejects the notion of same sex attraction. Oftentimes, well meaning people will talk about how 'they don't mind but they don't want it thrown in their face'. But the world is full of straight people throwing that lifestyle in the face of children. As these children approach puberty and begin questioning their sexual orientation, it can be incredibly confusing. Coded messages in films only perpetuate the idea that being gay is the 'love that dare not speak its name'; a taboo that should only be discussed out of sight and under the cover of darkness.

Hopefully though, this is a watershed moment for Disney. Perhaps by tipping their toes in the water, they will find that a community is waiting patiently to be embraced. A community that wants to share its stories of princesses that want to be princes without hidden messages or backhanded illusions that it’s okay to be different. We deserve films that say loudly and clearly, we exist and we are here.

A gay music video porno - what more could you want?

A couple of weeks ago, artist Brendan MacLean made a fun, explicit music video about gay semiotics called 'House of Air'. It’s strangely poppy and upbeat all the while unrelentingly visually representing various kinks.

No question, it’s pornographic in nature. Though in a weirdly non-sexual way. The depiction of urophilia – that’s being peed on if you’re not up on the lingo – is done in such a matter of fact way I felt like I was in a sex education class. Well, if I’d ever had any meaningful lessons on sex education, anyway.  

MacLean has written an excellent article for the Guardian, which I heartily recommend. His link to the youtube video is now null and void as Youtube have removed the video this past week. I don’t think this is much of a surprise, it cites its rules on pornographic and sexual scenes and in all fairness, you don’t get more sexual than someone being shat on. (Apparently though, the poo wasn’t real)

What I don’t really get is the outrage. He's received multiple death threats over this. I honestly can't think of a bigger over reaction since Taylor Swift and Tom Hiddleston broke up. It was uploaded with the age explicit tag and no one has ever argued that it is inappropriate for children. It isn’t aimed at them. So the whole 'what about the children' argument doesn't really ring true. The video is a tongue in cheek look at an important issue – gay semiotics.

Especially back when the original essay - 'Gay Semiotics' - that the video is based on was produced, the need for a secret code for gay men was high. A way for communicating desires outside the mainstream and behind the back of an ignorant and regressive system of laws. It’s the same reason that the language polari was used as late as the sixities by British gay men to discuss their sexual urges.

Hal Fischer released the essay in 1977 with labelled pictures so that no one was confused. It is very breezy and to the point in its nature but incredibly important in documenting an integral part of the gay identity. The video by MacLean does a service to the community by ensuring that we do not forget the history of our community and the coping mechanism that were devised to survive in a less forgiving time.

Then again, the deep seated hatred that MacLean has been subjected to since releasing the video suggests that we’re not as forward thinking and open as we’d like to believe. I’ve already referenced the upbeat, friendly vibe of the music video and I imagine that this is the key reason that so many were up in arms. It is crystal clear that zero shame is present in the video, it is a celebration of semiotics and sex.

Regardless of the backlash that he’s received, he and his team should be proud of themselves – and I think they are. They’ve created a video which is fun and empowering. I’m under no illusion that I’m lucky to be alive and living in a city that is open and tolerant of my sexuality. However a pervasive heteronormativity often filters through and it’s wonderful to have videos like this that challenge that. A reminder that we do have our own culture and one that we should be proud of!

The video is here and I cannot recommend giving it a watch more. Probably wait until you’re home though if you’re at work, with kids or on public transport.  

Prejudice through ignorance is no excuse

We often see the level of prejudice and kindness of a person as interconnected. The received wisdom being that as the former increases, the later will decrease. We like to believe that we are friends with people that are free from bigoted views such as homophobia, sexism and racism. And ourselves, well we’re definitely beyond such low mindedness.

But are we? It’s a fact that stereotypes abound and that we’ve probably used at least one. The difference between calling the French moody and all immigrants workshy might seem stark but really they’re only different ends of the same spectrum. One that places generic feelings above all else. An angry man on Question Time, a couple of weeks ago, who seemed angry enough to storm the gates of the Bastille himself raged against facts because of the experiences he had seen and heard himself. I got uppity as I watched him, rolled my eyes in disbelief and tweeted my outrage at him. The irony that I was using him to reinforce my beliefs about angry old white men went right over my head for quite a while.

More than ever, people are dissenting from the voices of experts and looking for people that will speak their mind and be the voice of them – the people. Who doesn’t want to think that they’re part of the majority? And we all have public figures that we think take our views and distill them in a beautifully conveyed message that would be the envy of even Moses and his commandments.

Katie Hopkins is one of those people. And she expertly exemplifies that whole spectrum thing. Hopkins is a bit of a regular on This Morning, she’ll come on for a segment which is somehow hotly controversial but also pretty pointless and seem to divide the nation. Sometimes she does things akin to a stereotype about the French, probably tongue in cheek and harmless. Like that time when she got on the TV and was making ridiculous claims about not letting her children play with kids with certain names.

Now, most people watching that knew she was talking utter garbage. Children don’t choose their own names so how can it be an indication of their behaviour. And yet she was also theatrical and a little bit funny. It was such a low stakes debate that it didn’t really matter that she was being completely out of order. Plus, whilst she was pushing it to the absolute limits, the whole judgement on a name is not a new phenomenon. I’d definitely heard more than one snide, offhand comment from a teacher along the lines of ‘of course they’re called that’.

The problem is that when Hopkins has the legitimacy to go on and spout rubbish about names then she also has the legitimacy to talk about things far more dangerous than names. Like in December when she had a go at the NHS funding drugs that would prevent HIV. She acted innocent, asking for someone to explain why they were funding it when surely this was just an expensive way to increase other STI. It didn’t matter that none of that makes sense, that it’s documented that more routes for protection do not increase other infections. In black and white, it seemed to add to five so why on earth would it actually be equal to four?

Prejudice is being beaten down in our society in many different regards but it still seeps through in a few ways. Hopkins is an example of that, the frankness that she expounds allows her to bulldoze the rules against prejudice that generations before us have carefully created. This frankness is second only to one other emotion that trumps the normal protocol that protects against bigotry.

Fear and uncomfortableness is the one that reigns supreme in allowing people to indulge in deep rooted prejudices that sit in the back of our heads. It’s most clear in the horrible discrimination faced by Muslims who only want to live their lives but are targeted by people who have turned to hate through fear. These feelings of fear and uncomfortableness are often the catalyst for discrimination against people that are HIV positive.

Like I said in the beginning, people don’t fit into neat categories. Especially in regards to dealing with illnesses. It’s totally natural to be afraid of illness. Often in fear, we say and do things that we will later regret. No one thinks that they’re fighting for the cause that will be remembered as narrow minded and backward. Fear corrupts in a way even stronger than power because it doesn’t bend to anything remotely sensible. It relies on misinformation and darkness because in the shadows, insecurities can transform into massive monsters. Only too often fear of the illness will bleed over to people will the illness.

Compassion is always important. By understanding that most people are prejudiced through ignorance and fear, it’s easier to reach out and change opinions. It needs to be a two way street though. Ignorance makes people more comfortable in voicing opinions which don’t stand up to reason. I’ve heard people say without batting an eyelid that ‘they’re not prejudiced, they’re just uncomfortable’ being in the same gym as someone that was positive. This isn’t okay. It puts an irrational insecurity above the very real emotions of another person. We should be allowed to use the same gyms as you without feeling apologetic all the time. We have nothing to be ashamed about. The prejudice that exists in the air is impossible to absorb though so you spend a good amount of time questioning absolutes that you know to be true.

I remember drinking with a guy and explaining undetectable means untrasmittable. After I’d set out in detail that you could never get HIV from a person with an undetectable viral load he told me that whilst he knew that now, he suffered from hypochondriac so couldn’t possibly sleep with a positive individual. It was as if this somehow insulated him from his bigoted standpoint.

Holding views like this don’t make you a bad person but they are wrong. We need to challenge ourselves before we start preaching to others and the best way to do this is to confront our own prejudices and bigotry. By doing this we can break down stigma and get to a place where we can confront people’s prejudices without any blame being thrown about and reach a society where people are judged on their actions, not how they look or their disabilities. Once we’ve done that, we also must be ready to call out people for being prejudiced when they are. Even if they insist that they’re not really or that they have their own reasons. Bigotry is bigotry and whatever the reason its wrong. When we are able to admit that, we can save ourselves from the shackles of self hate it inevitably creates.

Conflicted

Conflicted feelings. They are the worst. And I’ve been full of them this week. Every time I look at the news I can feel myself breaking in two like a Kit-Kat.

The most powerful example of this was on Thursday when Obama gave Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It was brilliant to watch and warmed my heart after that press conference the day before. The way Obama surprised him and then Joe teared up and they all hugged and had the best time. But then a little sinister voice in my head wouldn’t let the good times sail by without exception.

The thing is it all came off very best pals. You could basically hear them scream ‘You were the greatest’, No, you were the greatest’. Obama even granted him it with distinction. Don’t get me wrong I one hundred percent believe Biden has been an exceptional Vice President but if Bush had given this honour to Cheney then I’m under no illusion that I’d be screaming my discontent from the rooftops. Then again, Biden never shot anyone with a rifle whilst serving so he probably deserves it more.

Then over the weekend, civil rights icon John Lewis announced he wouldn’t be going to the inauguration next Friday. Again my heart was rallying in support for Lewis’ idealism. Trump, to him, is not a legitimate President and so he will not be attending the swearing in. Now I completely agree with him that ‘the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton’. However, Trump still won the majority in the electoral college and that – as seemingly unfair and illogical as it is – is the only criteria that he needs to be a legitimate President.

American democracy is founded on a system of checks and balances so for the democracy to work; every part has to its job. For me, it is important that congress use the appropriate and formal frameworks in place to challenge the policies of Trump. Congress must watch him like a hawk and if he does anything which threatens the legitimacy of the office then they should impeach him. But to cry foul and not engage in institutions and ceremonies from the very beginning threatens your legitimacy when something tangible comes up. It will be easy to label you as nothing more than an obstructionist hell bent on bringing an innocent man down.

Even writing that paragraph brings to the fore that discontented feeling within me. As I type I can literally hear my body scream ‘but actually being obstructionist is exactly what the Republicans did to Obama.’ And it is absolutely true. Obama was ridiculously hounded throughout his first term. They demanded that he prove that he was born in America. Not to mention that you’ll find no shortage of small minded behaviour from the Grand Old Party over the past eight years. Mitch McConnell once even filibustered his own bill when the Democrats attempted to work with him. Not to mention the blatant refusal to engage with Obama’s supreme court nomination this past year because they were playing out the clock in the hope of a Trump presidency.

Of course, that’s exactly what happened. The genuine compromise candidate in Merrick Garland will be thrown to the wind and by February, we will no doubt have a conservative with a horrid track record on women’s right as the nominee. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t even say this as a moral argument. Twain’s advice on arguing with a fool comes to mind – don’t do it because they’re more experienced and will win. If both parties decide to play the obstructionist game, then absolutely no one wins but the poorest and most vulnerable suffer the most.

Obama, perhaps the best politician of his time, completely gets this. It was bittersweet watching his farewell address. In all that he said, I could find myself cheering him on. Part of me feeling guilt that I may not have fully appreciated what I had before I lost it. Even in a mostly sentimental speech he reminded us that everyone – even if the middle aged white man – has challenges to face and that we move forward as a society when we recognise that.

The contrast between the outgoing President and the incoming one is startling. Trump’s press conference on Wednesday was one point in the week that I did not feel conflicted at all. As it went on, I only became more anxious at what awaits America over the next four years. Regardless of his feelings towards a particular news organisation, he cannot refuse to take their question. If he continues to do this as President, it is an obvious threat to American democracy. It was a shocking moment and the surprise from the assembled press was visible even through a television screen. Added to that was the presence of Trump supporters who would loudly clap and boo when required.

The truth, though, is that this man will be the President on Friday. Action will be needed to reduce his ability to reduce his harmful behaviour. ABC news asked the question that the CNN reporter was denied. It is small acts of defiance like this that must be taken. It will require everyone to do their jobs and ensure that they are not being undermined. If they are then we must all work to protect them.  

Fearing Infection

Illnesses and diseases are, by their very nature, not very nice things. They cause pain and stop people from achieving their full potential. They’re also quite scary, especially when you throw in the fact that most of the time we don’t actually know much about them. Nothing sparks more panic than an illness that’s contagious. Think about the images of men and women in protective white suits and restrictions on travel when another mass panic grabs the world.

On a more local level, we’ve probably all become a little bit paranoid in the winter months, making silent note of anyone that has a pervasive cough and tactically deciding not to sit beside them. Those people seem ill and are having a rough time of it. t’s perfectly sensible that we don’t want to get sick. That being said, we don’t regularly single these people out or point blank refuse to sit beside them if need be. This is, however, the case for people with sexually transmitted infections.

In Britain especially, sex is something of a taboo subject. It’s a subject matter that’s often characterised as shallow and seedy. A thing that should only be talked about with close friends and otherwise never discussed. Make it about STIs and people stop the discussion all together. Silence though, is one of the worst things that can happen. Not talking about something is a sure way to make a scary thing gain momentum. In the darkness, it grows and grows and grows. Ideas about how people get it move from fact to fiction. Suddenly, it’s only a certain type of people that get the disease.

The Terrence Higgins Trust knows this only too well. They’re a charity that campaigns on various issues regarding the prevention of HIV and promoting safer sex. Founded after the death of Terry Higgins, one of the first men who died from AIDS in the UK, it sought to humanise the issue at a time where the British press were labelling it as a gay disease. While thirty years on people in Britain very rarely die from AIDS, the stigma around gaining HIV is nonetheless still very much prevalent in our society. It was only last Summer that the Daily Mail freaked out about Prep being available on the NHS, calling it a lifestyle drug. The language may not be as blunt as back in the eighties but the meaning is obviously the same. People that are more promiscuous are the type that are likely to get HIV and if they do become positive then they'll have deserved it.

If we pause to think about it, this level of subtle, implicit shaming around STI bounds. Often, we’ll hear people discussing if someone is clean. They never talk about whether they’re not, but it follows that if the person isn’t then they’re dirty. It creates an idea that people with HIV are less worthy than people without it. Quickly, this leads to no one wanting to identify as having HIV for fear that they’ll be alienated from their peers. The stigma of any STI and especially HIV is perhaps the most dangerous element now because it hides the light and stops people from seeking out the help and support that they need.

It’s important to get checked regularly and fortunately testing is available in a multitude of ways. Sandyford is the sexual health clinic and whilst it might appear scary, it really isn’t. However, if you’re still not entirely comfortable going there then you can always speak to your GP and have your bloods taken in your local practice.

We’re all hoping that every test we ever take will come back as negative, but don’t fear the results. Even if you find that you’ve tested positive for HIV, it’s not the end and you will not be left alone. Not only does the NHS have excellent support systems in place, but wonderful charities such as the Terrence Higgins Trust will be there to support you.