FROM BOMB TO BOMBSHELL TO ALICE AND KICKING - PATRIARCHAL WAR GAMES

Entering summer madness mode aren't we?  The heat may not have reached the UK, but we are on fire so many other ways. The former Brexit banker known as Farage is creating a stink because banks didn't want his money because, in playground speak, they didn't like him.  I'm sure it's more complex than that, not that the papers would or could tell all, possibly because he knows some of the publishers anyway.   And men get emotional about money.  And any former banker is never a former banker. They always think in asset and liability terms.   Bottom feeders, focusing on the bottom line.  Tis a pity this story won't release more about Farage and his money, where it came from etc., but then that really would be opening up a can of worms, something no bank wants to happen.  

But to more serious news, just watched Oppenheimer, which suggested that nuclear bombs will end the earth. Nope the earth will end us. The earth is on a tilt, something to do with water, I read somewhere, the Antarctic is dissolving which is awful but the 'powers' are pleased because then allegedly they are able to drill for oil,  and volcanos are exploding more, and everyone is still intent on going to Greece, Turkey, southern Italy in the summer, with their families despite the fact it will be too hot to go out after a certain time and if you don't get sunstroke, skin cancer you may just dehydrate and faint as I did one year in Turkey (not even mad dogs went out that year in the mid day sun - just nutty English women..).  See summer madness for you. 

Anyway, back to bombs.   Extraordinary performance by Cillian Murphy, and the supporting cast, but he is the mainstay of each frame.   The bomb is not the star of the show, just a catalyst.   Downey Junior plays a politician to perfection.  Vindictive and patient hiding in the shadows, was a line that stung the audience, but then it was a Richmond audience and I am sure there are a lot of those who look out for the shadows and many who are in them.  Politicians came out of it very badly, as in Hollywood films they always do - as do lawyers who are not the main character, and bankers.   They know who the bad guys are.   In fairytale land only the 'good' people will leave and all the horrid people will suffer unimaginable suffering and then disappear. Poof. Although that's subjective and based on perception and politicians, religion, certain media etcetera, do everything in their power to smudge, distort, blur that perception, so that in the end you don't trust anyone.  Which was their game plan in the first place. 

Chris Nolan really does not know what to do with his female stars. He wastes them, even in what I feel is his best film Inception, they are used sparingly, objectified to the point of being ornaments on the sideboard.  Florence Pugh, in it only four times, although over exposed in three, is wasted and still manages to be amazing.  Emily Blunt, again under used is brilliantly brittle.  Downey Junior, away from his Iron Man, superb as a malevolent opportunist as is the case in politics.  Fascinating to learn Hitler allegedly didn't want to invest in research into the atomic bomb as he viewed it as a Jewish weapon.  Oppenheimer was complex but then genius are complex. It is the shallow puerile ones, as this film illustrates, who wait in the shadows deciding to drop the bomb. The government did everything they could to trash Oppenheimer's reputation, but the scientists who are collegiate (a concept quite alien to  politicians and politics for that matter) banded together despite their differences, which were obviously academic. The bigotry overwhelmed their greed for power. 

So when I went to see Barbie (full house, lots of men there surprisingly but all under 30) I was expecting puff candy floss pink. A film which celebrated women, where men played the bit parts.   The media played up to the patriarchy in the 'real world' and focused on Ryan Gosling's fab performance as Ken who only exists when Barbie plays with him.  A bit like Henry VIII only being remembered because he has six wives.   In Barbieland, the women were in charge of everything, everything was pink, there was no eating, just pretend, no drinking, just pretend, no waves or water, just pretend, and women could be anything they wanted to be. Just pretend.  No cellulite and no flat feet.  Helen Mirren did a wicked take as a narrator.   There was a feminist soliloquy which everyone clapped - the girls did and some of the boys although they know the world is still resolutely patriarchal.  The most revealing thing was - and I was shocked by this - I know Ken. I have dated Ken. I have been taken back to Ken's Mojo Dojo Casa House.    OK, not admittedly anyone as attractive and buffed as Ryan Gosling, but definitely plastic and shallow.   In fact I know a lot of Kens. Or rather I knew. One unnervingly behaved so much like the Ken when he was at his most plastic, he was nothing more than a doll to be toyed with. And I loved the swipe at Pride and Prejudice. Clever.   

And then I saw Alice in Wonderland in Kew Gardens which was amazing.  I interviewed the writer and director and Alice and Mad Hatter, and told them about The Intelligent Gardener, my take on Alice who decided to not go down the rabbit hole and write her own narrative, taking on the narrator with big boots on. Real kick ass.    Every production has strong characters. Sometimes its the protagonist, sometimes its the anti hero, sometimes its 'the other guy' who steals the scene.   In this one it was the Queen of Hearts. She is so angry.  Like raging Queen.  Brilliant.  In the original the King is simpering, but in this one he comes across between Boris Johnson (big belly) and City Trader.  He is still brow beaten by the Queen. In fact there are a lot of angry women in Alice in Wonderland, and a lot of afraid men.  Which brings me nicely back to Barbie and Openheimer, where oddly it was just the same and all the men are puerile war mongers and women angry queens.  And some of the men are too. 

SPIRIT OF SUFFRAGETTE - ALIVE AND KICKING

 Men are afraid because women are angry and women are angry because women are afraid. Just that when men are afraid they punch and kick and when women are angry they cry.   So it looks like the reverse.   Being feminine is being empathetic and angry.   I thought of all those things when I attended an event at the Museum of London Audley Square Spirit of Suffragette meet.   Fascinating meeting the panel for a lively and embracing discussion on women's voices.   I also thought back to one of my first journalist gigs at the BFI, to celebrate, oddly enough, the suffragette movement.  Barbara Castle, then minister for education, was there, signing copies of her recently published autobiography. She was autographing books, as women some of whom had brought their little dogs queued to speak to and have their books signed, but the dogs they brought were taking gulps of her Gin and Tonic.   I looked down and said I would get her another one, which I promptly did, waiting patiently for her to finish. She turned, clapped her hands on her lap which was her way, and said 'what can I do for you young lady?"  

I told her, "my name is Sarah Tucker, I'm writing a piece for the Londoner's Diary, Evening Standard..."

I asked questions, she gave straight answers. I asked further questions, writing down what was pertinent to the suffragette movement, and thanked her.   She looked at me.  

"You been a a journalist long?" she asked. 

Shit, what have I done. 

"Erm, only a month or so."

"Don't change. You are good. You're a listener. You listen and ask good questions. Don't lose your femininity.  A lot of female journalists think they need to be tougher and nastier than the men. They don't. Being a woman is more than enough."

I was so taken aback, I didn't get her to sign a copy of her autobiography.   And so I thanked her.  

I looked at my book and thought, no, I'm gonna ask her.  I went over to the lectern, from which she was just about to give a speech before the film started, and I asked her. She took the book and looked at me.  Returned it to me and then I thanked her and walked away.  On the bus I phoned in filing the copy.  And then I opened my book.  In it read the words 'Dear Sarah, Never let it be a man's world, Love Barbara Castle'.

I would add, never let it be a puerile man's world.   Never forgotten her words, or the spirit of her words. Doesn't matter how you do it, but always subvert the patriarchal, misogynistic narrative in the way you live, work, speak, write.   And keep hold of your drinks when little dogs are around.

THE STYLE (ISH) SCREAMERS

 I attended a Harry Styles concert this week. I didn't have a daughter in tow, I went by myself as it was my 59th birthday and wanted to treat myself.   I came away feeling a bit like David Attenborough going into the jungle for the first time, and being surprised by what I found.  Harry is a very handsome man, good singer, with a penchant for dungarees which gives him the feel of an Andy Pandy with sparkles.   In this case, loads of sparkling hearts.   He bounced about the stage like a tigger, engaged and cared for the audience - on my night helping a girl to 'come out', and someone needed water in the audience.   Everything was very well orchestrated.  The musicians were on point, sufficiently trendy, cool or whatever the word is for trendy and cool at the moment, and the warm up bands - Mila Diaz (I think) who was like an Alannis Morisette both in style and lyrics (talking break ups) and Wet Leg who everyone seemed to know. They were across between Bjork and Coldplay.  Really liked them, but boy the lyrics.  And then Harry who was on for two hours, with four encore tracks.   But it wasn't him that blew my mind, it was the audience. 

They screamed.  They sang verbatim to the warm up songs (Angels Robbie Williams, Bohemian Rhapsody Queen) and knew every single word of every single one of Harry's tracks.   Sometimes I was unable to hear him because the audience of 80,000 strong women, many of whom I am told will attend two or three times this week at Wembley, were screaming so much.   Think Elvis Presley/Beatles/Donny Osmond fans.   Wet Leg did a screaming song before hand and the audience showed they had lungs on them. 

Very pleased I went. If anyone wants a good scream and not feel alone.  Wants a powerful DGF vibe - go see Harry.   Just take the boas, cowboy hats and sequins, and if you are one of the few blokes there, go as they did, dress as a banana.  Lots of banana blokes there.  

PRETTY IN PINK OR JUST WEAK?

 BARBIE is out soon, and looking at femininity and feminism and all things pink I find of interest.   I bought a magazine called PINK in the supermarket as it was for a child audience and wanted to see what little girls were being fed. Free gifts of mermaid slime, barbie playing cards and barbie mobile phone holder.  Pink stickers.   And teddy bears, and Ariel and Snow White and Encanto (a bit more kick ass) and a bit about dollhouses, and hello kitty, and Frozen II (more kick ass).  I found out my Frozen II name is Lady Willow Sparkling Forest.   Yeahhhh.   I am so Lady Willow Sparkling Forest!  

 I was always a tom-boy, climbing trees, and being outside in the countryside, having more fun with the boys than the girls, because they had more fun.   The girls played with dolls, were inside, sitting quietly, or bitching, the boys were outdoors, running, getting mucky and being dangerous. That IS more fun.   I am still very much that way. My dad brought me up really as a boy, saying 'give in give in' before I had hit the first ball on the tennis court.   My dad's philosophy was never ever give in. My mother's 'you will need support from a man' which sort of conflicts with dad's philosophy.   In the end I chose dad's because it is better, stronger, enabling and for me, right.   I'm a feminine female, love colour and nature and 'the stuff of experience rather than the experience of stuff'.  I still think men have more fun, and as a mother (a role I loved), had much more fun without being married than I ever would have, being married. I suppose again that is different for all women.   I think there would be times when it would be useful to have a man about, but I have an invisible one, who appears when I need the plumbing done, or the electricity fixed or some such.  But best still to learn how to do it yourself.   And learn to do stuff. Fly, drive better, swim better, paint better.   Live better.   I am still in a way that Tom-boy climbing trees and being outside in the countryside, having more fun with the boys than the girls, because they still are, more fun. 

WHY DON'T YOU....DO SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING INSTEAD...

When there are so many more serious things going on in the world, it is oddly reassuring how people are still interested in the petty politics of day time TV.  Probably because issues such as climate change, global recession, mass gun killings, AI destroying the world,  are rather overwhelming.  TV is small fry and soap opera even more so when the characters are allegedly 'real'.  There is nothing real about television.  Tell - lies - vision after all shows us in plain sight we are complicit in an illusion these presenters are our friends, whom we know and like and relate.  We do not know them. They do not know us.  They are as connected to us as royalty and politicians.  In other words, they are not, they are simply paid handsomely to convince us they are.  

Top of the 'empathy' pile are those who work on day time TV, but it is these same folk who tend to be the most ruthless, nastiest pieces of work in the industry.  Ive been told this by many people over the years, who worked in the industry in front of and behind the camera, at all times of the day, and told me those whom appear the loveliest tend to be the exact opposite.  These shining firmaments of goodliness are allegedly the most malignant, malevolent to those who work with them.  I've always thought it must be the pressure of appearing so calm and lovely all the time. 

I have been interviewed a few times on morning and daytime TV.  This was some decades ago, and even then I heard how one presenter had a long standing, wide spread reputation of being an utterly shitty human being - treating everyone who they didn't consider their equal or above their pay grade like a serf.  I was interviewed by them a few times.   

There was another presenter on morning TV who also had a reputation for being lovely who I also found was the antithesis of how they wished to appear.   

It is not so much day time TV is not a happy place to work, it is more to do with so many people want to work on it, so they put up with appalling behaviour in order to maintain the status quo. There is a degree of ruthlessness in daytime TV presenters more akin to the characters on a FX trading desk than a smiling happy clappy place where everyone feigns kindness and empathy. They protect a brand of integrity and honesty, but that is what it is - a brand. At least on a trading floor you are able to be your money fixated self.  

When I met them, I liked Ferne Britton and I liked Eammon Holmes.  They are too long in the tooth to care about what those in TV will or won't do to them.  The rest care, and that makes them easy to manipulate and to buy.

The final denouement came with Nadine Dorries talked about Schofield abusing 'authority, power and trust', and I thought she was talking about her mate Boris Johnson.   

TV land is a microcosm of politics, everyone pretending to be something they are not, wanting to maintain a brand so they maintain and enhance their viewing and voting figures.   They are liars - playing a part - or actors, which sounds so much more acceptable doesn't it. They all lie big, huge, massive.  All of them. And we, the viewer and the voter are complicit in the lie.  I watched PS being interviewed.  Presenters do have influence on contributors, so they are able to get people moved if they so wish.  Whether they chose to use it or not is another matter, but I know it does and has happened.  

The media are relentless, but I remember having lunch with a senior tabloid newspaper editor once who said the most he regretted in life was causing the death of someone who they had written about.  This person wasn't famous, and this editor had no doubt he - he was a reporter at the time - had triggered the death.  His editors argued that the person was vulnerable anyway, in which case they should have taken that into account.  PS has put himself in the spotlight and is aware of the consequences of doing so. If you accept the acclaim you accept everything else.  I am told he thinks he will be spat at.  That says more about the people who choose to do so than it does about him, but it also reflects a all embracing self pity that fails to recognise why people dislike him - and that is unconnected with the runner incident but is connected to his behaviour towards them and others.  

He is also aware of the consequences of lying.  He has interviewed enough of them over the years to identify the repercussions, but perhaps it is always a case of feeling you have risen too high to fall.   Some in society do appear to have reached that level.   

PS knows how to play the media, he has had decades of experience, and the 'hate' may have been generated by years of people who feel they have been mistreated by him.  What's that comment 'don't kick people on the way up coz they will kick you on the way down'.  The hate may just be the kicking PS has given to others on the way up, which has nothing to do with this particular incident, but to do with the arrogance which allowed him to believe he could get away with it. I don't know. Person who is free from sin, throw the first stone and all that, as one of his colleagues said.  Although I doubt any one in that world abides by that rule.  We have become a culture of stone throwers, encouraged by the media, politician, even religion, actually especially religion, to do so. I've done it in the past, feeling they've given me the stones to throw.  There must be a lot of other day time presenters who are concerned they will receive the same treatment when their star falls.  If PS knows how to play the media he knows how to play the audience. He's not a victim of hate. He is a victim of his own narcissism and conceit.  The upside is that he knows his daughters love him unconditionally.   They are the important and innocent ones as well.  To be loved unconditionally sustains when you feel there is nothing left.  And he isn't poor.  

As for watching daytime TV, decide to vote in the only way the Exec producers and the presenters understand. Best to turn off and, as that BBC1 Saturday morning show would tell me every week, when I was a teenager,  'Why don't you just turn off your TV and do something much more interesting instead'....  

INCREDIBLY PRIVILEGED TO BE HOLDING A WORKSHOP AT THIS AMAZING VENUE IN OCTOBER - PLEASE COME!

  https://www.hawkwoodcollege.co.uk/event/humour-lateral-thinking-oct/

WHAT DOES GOOD LOOK LIKE - HEGEOGRAPHY - OR JUST HOW YOU SEE THEM

At the beginning of meetings or any sort of project I would ask this question. What does good look like, so that expectations were managed by all those involved and we all knew what would make each other happy.  Of course, that might change during the course of the project but as long as it was communicated (and usually it wasn't) then things went fine. 

Take this and turn to writing about someone.  What does good look like?   I see good as writing an appraisal of someone's achievements - identifying the good in them, or identifying the flaws in them, which may be one and the same.  Good is also relative just as the same quality may be regarded by some as a weakness and others as a strength.  Being generous and spend thrift, lazy or chilled out, focused or nit picking, the words say the same but the value is different.  

I've had just such a challenge.  On the first draft of a biography, I was told I was making someone appear much better than they are (hegeogaphy), but if that is my perception, that is my perception. Perhaps as a travel journalist I've always been encouraged to look at the positive, focus on the positive and view the flaws as things which are human, rather than 'bad'.   Also 'bad' is such a loaded word.  And relative. 

The person I've recently written about came from a family of grafters who encouraged the same and he led life at full pelt.   Someone like that is at times bound to crash and burn.  And I don't want to go down those rabbit holes, because the flaws are mundane, the achievements are not. Perhaps like my travel writing I have chosen to see the best in this person rather than the worst, making up for what I am sure will be the remit of other writers more akin to seeking out something to attack.  I would still rather see and seek out the good rather than the bad.  It's a quality I like in myself.