"The Spirit of '45", the 99%, back then

The Spirit of '45

So glad to see Ken Loach back on track. "The Spirit of '45" is a moving documentary and a crystal-clear tribute to the British people that, together, were capable of leaving behind the scourge of the II World Wars, and along with the '45 Labour government rebuild the country. A new England under a new vision: a fair and united society. Tories, Republicans, Merkel fans, PP voters... all right-wing devotees, as well as Tony Blair or Zapatero nostalgics, 80-90s socialists, you should stop reading right now. This is going to give you hives (skin rash).

Loach doesn't care about the possible (obvious) criticism he has/is going to face. I assume he's got so used to the accusations of being heavily biased that he probably doesn't waste a single second to read critics opinion (who cares about the right-wing opinions anyway? we all know they are all crazy). After all, "Spirit of '45" is the next step of a director who has always had a coherent political speech, something showed in his long filmography. 

As expected as well, Loach is not interested in portraying a flamboyant, state-of-the-art documentary. He combines footage from the vast British archives with contemporary interviews, many of them people who were there and, with their answers can define how dramatic was the situation after the war, how the changes arrived with the labour government. The film is not the most dynamic, but on the other hand, is powerful and determined to get its point exposed: there's an URGENT NEED of another SPIRIT OF '45.

Co-operation, solidarity, unity, support, but also nationalisation of any economic-productive sector that was pivotal for society, and the creation of a welfare system (health, education, subsidies). Does it sound familiar to you? Yes, that's the same social protection system our despicable politicians in Europe are trying to destroy. Or the national health program Republicans from the States would qualify as evil (meaning communist, of course). Keynes against the "market law", now updated into an even more criminal version, Friedman's privatise-everything (that serves to my only benefit) law, packed with shameful speculation. Sorry, but like Loach, I have decided it makes no sense to waste my time trying to be more "polite/tolerant" with the people who are the reason of the disaster we are in now. Let's say it out loud and clear: we have enough of criminals who are there just for their own greed. 

Let's go back to the documentary then. It's so evident Loach is trying to tell us we can't give out hope today. Yes, the bastards are everywhere, and extremely powerful and the situation is extremely difficult. But was it worse than 1945? Don't think so. And then, the 99% of Great Britain decided it was time for a change, a revolution. And so came the change. Loach rediscovers history to show it's time for another revolution. That we can fight and succeed.

I personally missed the voice of young people, believing it would have been nice to confront the current generations with the memories and thoughts of the elders. Also I'm kind of dubious of the last-minute attack to Thatcher. Don't get me wrong, Thatcher can't be condemned enough, but it's kind of tricky the way it is exposed. She introduced the criminal (sorry liberal) economic policies in the country, trying to dismantle the Welfare System. But Loach doesn't take the time to explain how the monster arrived to Downing Street, and she wasn't alone. What about John Major? And Blair? Aside from that, a documentary to watch and think about it.

SCORE: 7/10

"London: The Modern Babylon", the roaring city

London: The Modern Babylon
Beefeater In-Edit 2012, Chapter V

A wonderful way to end this 10th edition of the In-Edit Festival. A genuine premiere, with the presence of director Julien Temple who was kind enough to answer some questions of the audience and chat a little after the film, but mostly a really remarkable documentary that reveals an impressive, titanic work of a director who has a tremendous, rare talent for combining visuals, music and ideas brilliantly.

I can only imagine how monstrous has to be the task of selecting bits from 120 years of history of a city like London, just to summarize them and try to offer a complete portray from such a vibrant place. Sure Temple spent never ending tones of time at the British Film Institute’s archives. Tracing London’s chronology in this exhaustive way must have been exhausting. But what it is worse, it could have been exhausting and not very rewarding. Tones of footage, interviews, pieces of movies, etc, etc, doesn't mean an interesting film. On the contrary, and being honest, it could have been a very boring stuff without an inner coherence or a direction. But Julien Temple, and that's why "London: The Modern Babylon" deserves to be highlighted, knows where he wants to go with his film.

Because this documentary is not a pleasant postcard of a city, willing to export its beautiful locations, investment opportunities or exciting attractions. Don't expect a "London welcomes you for the Olympics" kind-of-film. The film is an absorbing statement on social change, transformation. It's a vital process, one that dates back from the British Empire, suffers and evolves dramatically with the two World Wars, welcomes and rejects the recurrent migratory waves, struggles with shameful politicians (always Thatcher) and wannabe leaders and reacts, regularly, with violence, and social angst, against injustices. As Madness' Suggs describes wisely “People get taken in and become part of the city itself and change the city. And that’s the whole point. The place keeps changing.”

If something has to be criticised, it should be the considerable effort the films requires from the spectator, or at least the non-Londoner. More than two hours of imagery, music and clipping structure, with a (logic) slower beginning about the early 20th century. But I assure you it is worth the effort. Temple, a master of film edition, is capable of capturing the vitality of a city in all its forms and builds a narrative conformed by several layers, a well-taken, vivid collage, full of humanism. Its an extraordinary example of what we call "collective memory". Parallelisms between time periods and relevant dates (mostly tragic) abound, so the idea that city life is cyclical permeates in your mind. "The London Mob" arouses throughout the history of the place. A structure is built, then is fought, battled. Then London begins again.

Another factor I believe its worth highlighting is how Temple's puts his focus in ordinary people. With the exceptions of a few opinions, Londoners are the ones who develop the city's story. The clarity of mind of Hetty Bower, incredibly vital despite her 106 year-old is shocking and uplifting. From waving goodbye to soldiers on World War I to taking part of the Battle of Cable Street against Edward Mosley fascists to support today's Occupy movement in just a killer sentence: “They’re asking for the basis of our society to be questioned, and I think that is correct.” Through the eyes and voice of people like Hetty we are told a story of poverty, much suffering, surveillance, and a common brave spirit of getting active and fearless to react, to fight for change.

Temple doesn't doubt to establish an obvious correlation between the bursts of social creativity (in the arts, music, etc) and the political-revolutionary moments. London was an empire, hippy, punk, romantic, multicultural. But it always was, and still is, about the people who live there and shapes it, no matter where they come from (migration is the other recurrent topic here). Suggs (again) defines it better than anyone on the film: “The good old days? “There were no good old days. London doesn’t belong to anyone. It’s whoever’s on the go at any given moment." That's what Temple shows in "London: The Modern Babylon", and it's a fascinating lesson to be learnt.

SCORE: 7,5/10

"A Good School", sad learnings from high school

A Good School- Richard Yates

It already happened to me when I read, then reviewed "A Special Providence". The emotion of having another book from master Richard Yates, being engaged by it while devouring it, and once the times come for the analysis, finding it a minor piece from the author.

Being honest, I'm pretty sure that sort of (minor) let down is the consequence of Yates being responsible of two undeniable masterpieces of modern contemporary literature: "Revolutionary Road" and "The Easter Parade". "A Good School" cannot compare with these two amazing novels. But still, we are in front of another very solid work, and of course, really recommendable.

Yet another factor in these aforementioned let down could be the lack of originality on the premise and development of the novel. How many remarkable books have been constrained into the walls of boarding schools? Salinger and Tobias Wolff to name just two unmissable authors. But that judgement would be a bit unfair. Yates, as expected from such a unique writer is capable of transmitting something completely personal to the book: a genuine sadness. In my imaginary world of music and literary connections, The National composed "Sorrow" for Richard Yates. 

From the very beginning, the reader will have the feeling student William Grove is some sort of Yates' alter ego, something that is almost confirmed at the end of the novel. And from page one, the chronicle of the high school years at the Dorset Academy are marked by sadness. Despite II World War has a direct effect on the students, wouldn't say this is a dramatic book, because Yates style, always using the perfect sentence, without wasting words and letting the reader "fill the gaps", avoids digressions and unnecessary floridnesses. No, the sadness I'm referring its primarily intrinsic to the characters, to the Academy as a whole. 

Yates gives space to various stories to evolve within the novel. Professors trapped into their damaged bodies and hearts, kids that doesn't seem to fit anywhere else, aspirations that are truncated or were just impossible, and the threat of constant failure, finally becoming a reality for the institution. The Dorset Academy is an isolated microcosms, that for a while seems completely separated from real world. But this will hit the place hard in the end, mercilessly. William Grove's story there is one of frustration and lost until he finds his own place: the school newspaper. But this is not a heroic tale of growing up, our leading character finally manages to surface and find his own way almost alone, almost creating a world of his own, full of deadlines and writings, inside of the Dorset small universe.

I can't clearly point out what's lacking on "A Good Novel". The stories seem to converge one final tragedy, that Yates solves again with an incredible, clinical precision, taking benefit of the journalistic sub-plot of the book, and then ends. My guess is that he just wanted to capture a glimpse of, a slice of life, teenage years that abruptly ended, forced by major circumstances and a fated destiny. Or maybe he was just trying to look back to those formation years without any anger or desolation. As I said, recommendable as everything Yates wrote, but far from his masterpieces.

SCORE: 6,75/10 

"A Special Providence", the wars of Richard Yates

A Special Providence- Richard Yates

I believe Richard Yates is one of the best writers the world has had. So it’s no surprise “A Special Providence” is a very good book. But there’s a problem: it’s written by Richard Yates. With an author like him, you don’t expect just a very good book. You expect greatness. And in that sense, this work is a minor piece.

Of course, a minor piece from Yates is still better than 75-80% of the books you’ll read on a year. His masterful prose, always focused and powerful, flows without any superficiality or unnecessary ornament while it touches you deeply (Yates is, in my opinion, one of a handful writers able to destroy you completely when you immerse yourself in his prose without forcing any dramatic spring). But with “A Special Providence” he only achieves on less than half of the book.

What Yates attempts with this book is intertwining two stories that are depending on each other, on what it seems a quite autobiographical work (and poignant, very personal demons). One is Robert Prentice’s life as a soldier in the II World War, drafted after being graduated from high school. Yates runs from any of the usual heroic portraits of the soldier, the camaraderie or any supposed value the army has. Instead he draws a grey picture of logical incompetence, confusion (he aims to be an illustrated, smarter than average soldier), and growing frustration as the desired glory or honour he seeks never arrives, with a final turn towards a sort of despondent resignation.

The other is Alice Prentice’s, his mother, tale of misery, impossible dreams to fulfill and the need to keep cheating herself. The clash between social and artistic aspirations and the depressing reality is (Yates’ trademark) merciless and absorbing. We suffer her economic burdens, we hurt with Alice’s idealisation of plans that are pending of a very thin line, and we feel devastated when they finally crumble. In a way the two stories are pretty similar, their aspirations and their place in the world is equally elusive and cruel for them. But there’s no balance between the two. I found Alice’s part much more absorbing and compelling. Maybe is because the army and war have been used as a topic too many times in literature, and despite Yates unheroic approach it is not very original. Or maybe, the blurred character Robert is makes it too distant for the reader to emphasize with.

As anything coming from Richard Yates, I will definitely recommend you to read “A Special Providence”. Just don’t expect to find another “Revolutionary Road” or “The Easter Parade”.

SCORE: 6,5/10