For all its faults & Braggery I owe it an enormous debt: where I first saw Laurie Anderson, followed Messiaen through the woods annotating birdsong, more recently there were the valuable programmes on Humph, Jarvis, J.G. Ballard.
Of course, there'd be nothing to gripe about if the decision was to try something else - a new format, greater diversity. But it's unlikely, isn't it?
The SBS didn't patronize the viewer, didn't make culture 'trendy', didn't employ TV heads to gesture exaggeratedly as if that was the only way to guarantee the viewer's attention for more than 5 minutes.
Cameron & Clegg sling insults at Gordon Brown as the House of Commons declines into a version of Big Brother. Could either of them do any better? Has British politics itself basically run aground?
I don't suppose Belgium's much better - but I'm pretty glad to be across the Channel these days.
4 comments:
I felt that the SBS had totally lost its way, broadening its remit to such an extent it ceased to be an arts magazine in any meaningful sense, so I can't say I'll miss it as I think it died long ago.
As for British politics -- yes, I do feel we're at the end of something. For the first time in my life I might not vote -- not at all -- which I used to think was an outrageous dereliction of duty. But thinking back to that brilliant Baudrillard book In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities, maybe he was right after all and apathy is our last weapon against the political classes.
"The strategy of power has long seemed founded on the apathy of the masses. The more passive they were, the more secure it was. But this logic is only characteristic of the bureaucratic and centralist phase of power. And it is this which today turns against it: the inertia it has fostered becomes the sign of its own death. That is why it seeks to reverse its strategies: from passivity to participation, from silence to speech. But it is too late . . . Everywhere the masses are encouraged to speak . . . Nothing shows more dramatically that the only genuine problem today is the silence of the mass, the silence of the silent majority."
The sense that all politicians have their snouts in the trough (see today's expenses revelations) is also extremely damaging. Britain is a dismal place to be at the moment . . .
Yrs cheerily,
Walrus
I'm beginning to wonder whether politics - in any meaningful sense - is possible in the U.K.. The way the press acts & the influence it wields makes just about anyone in their right mind steer clear of a life in Office.
While I'm no defender of anyone in any party, I think there are double standards: let's examine journalists' 'expenses' or the kinds of accepted Conference expenses invoiced for by Doctors & other professionals (the sign your name in on day one and then scarper off to the beach syndrome).
The press have such a watertight excuse - we publish in the public interest (disguising the fact that they have their own agendas, owner's political preferences etc. and that - ultimately - they'll publish anything that will shift copies).
And then, sadly, political debate panders to what they think will appeal: slinging insults, sound-bite thinking, 'macho' attitudes. I suppose that's why The Apprentice has such success? Be a bastard like Sugar and you must be Important.
What a joke.
As for silence - I like that (but can see the dangers). I hear that Blair is apparently starting up some world-saving scheme centred around religion. I'd be more impressed if he announced he was taking a vow of silence for the next thirty years to reflect upon the complete mess he has contibuted to (at home & abroad).
*
what about K. Waldrop? D'you know his poetry?
I'm really enjoying the Selected.
*
Bit cheerier now
The C.
Yes, it does very much feel as if the Press is determining the agenda -- which makes things even worse, really.
Perhaps it's just a sign of age to become rather jaded about politics. I remember when I was young my father was very down on politicians ('all feathering their own nests' etc) and I was idealistic enough to defend them and say no, dear father, things are going to change in this country now that, er, Tony Blair . . . oh, it's too depressing to recall one's optimistic youth!
I am ignorant of Keith Waldrop, but to remedy this I have just read "Will to Will" and an excerpt from A Shipwreck in Haven, which contains the wonderful line "I have tried to keep / context from claiming you" -- good stuff!
W
I got my job in Belgium the day Blair was elected. I remember the elation in the streets of Bristol - a carnival atmosphere. On the Today programme a new straightforwardness in the answers to questions. (Before anyone thinks of electing Cameron, think back to the sleaze of the Thatcher & post-Thatcher years ...).
And then ... it all went horribly wrong.
There's a good Diary in a London Review of Books I probably chucked the other day where someone recalls a fresh-faced Blair delivering some copy. All the secretaries were wowed by his charisma.
However, charisma isn't enough - or, in the wrong hands, downright dangerous. You began to realise that Blair could sound sincere about utterly incoherent/unjustifiable policies. That manic look in the eyes of the religiously deluded. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
(Waldrop is really good - everything so far is joy to read.)
Cheers
The C.
Post a Comment