Archive for Uncategorized

 Sicario 2: Soldado (2018) 

JoshBrolin

Josh Brolin in Sicario 2: Soldado. Photograph: Allstar/Columbia Pictures

Sicario: Day of the Soldado (original title)
15 | 2h 2min | Action, Crime, Drama | 29 June 2018 (UK)
Director: Stefano Sollima
Writer: Taylor Sheridan 
Starring
Benicio Del Toro, Josh Brolin, Isabela Moner, Catherine Keener, Jeffrey Donovan, Elijah Rodriguez, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Matthew Modine, Shea Whigham

Sicario 2 is a bleak film. It breathes hopelessness. The subject matter is the failed U.S. war against the Mexican drug cartels as in Sicario 1. The Spanish word “sicario,” means hit man or contract killer. It’s difficult to know if the government agents or the cartel gangsters are being referenced. Perhaps it describes both. In Sicario 2 what few rules there were have been torn up as the drug cartels have smuggled ISIS terrorists over the border. One kills himself and takes out members of a US border patrol and another makes it across to take part in a bomb attack on a crowded supermarket.

US secretary of defense (Matthew Modine) orders a dirty war. The man for the job is obvious – Matt Graver (Josh Brolin). He has few moral qualms and likes to get the job done. Matt has a plan – divide and rule. He wants to get the cartels fighting each other and plans murder and kidnapping to provoke that. Alejandro Gillick (Benicio Del Toro), a US black-ops ally with a grudge against the cartels is reactivated to help.

The main part of the story centres on the kidnapping by the US black-ops team of Isabel Reyes, played by Moner (the daughter of a Cartel leader) and the fall-out from that. Another story that intersects concerns another teenager Miguel Hernandez (Elijah Rodriguez), a Mexican-American boy with a family on both sides of the border who joins a gang of human traffickers. Sicario 2 emphasises the profitability of human trafficking and the cartels involvement. This depiction of crime, terrorism and migration has proved uncomfortable for some in the US as it may resonate with those who want to build a wall to keep people out!

There aren’t any conventional heroes in Sicario 2. It’s clear that this war will go on and on with brutal inhumanity the norm on both sides. This is underscored by the score by Hildur Gudnadottir. It’s relentless and fills you with dread and foreboding. The Beast from Sicario (2015), written and Performed by Jóhann Jóhannsson, is played over and over again.

The ending was unconvincing and out of keeping with the tone of the Movie and the likely actions of those inhabiting this shady, amoral world. Far happier than I expected though still depressing!

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

­Who I am

­

whoareyou

Click on image to buy the book!

The following article first appeared as the ‘Foreword’ for:

Who Are You: Philosophy, Physics, and Eastern Mysticism (Paperback – January 5, 2018): Chandran Tattvaraj

It is re-published here with the author’s consent. The original title was ‘Who I am’ and we have reverted to that here.

Who I Am

How long have we been questioning who and what we are; where we’ve come from and where we’re going? Perhaps throughout our existence we have questioned the very notion of ‘self’. Ideas of this self are there to read in Eastern religious and philosophical writing, and in the West, was philosophically enshrined with Descartes: I think therefore I am. But long, long before Descartes, religious philosophers had contemplated the nature of the ‘self’ and within the self – the ‘soul’…that there was (is) something intrinsic to us that also seems to be apart from ‘us’ – a part and apart simultaneously.

When I was a child I was fascinated by two mirrors placed near opposite each other in the family’s bathroom. The reflected images disappeared into infinity and thus timelessness. Maybe this triggered in my developing mind an idea of eternity…and an idea of an alternative reality – for I could see many ‘me’s seemingly projected into the future and into a kind of reflected past. As I recall now I can see/feel myself wishing to step into those multiple ‘other worlds’. Ten years later or so, on one of the few occasions I took LSD, I was aware of passages within the space, the air, surrounding me…Had I the wherewithal, I could have turned into these passages, or corridors and entered a world normally hidden from (or by) my ‘normal’ perception.

In medieval time in England it was thought there was a powerful connection between things and the names of those things. That everything naturally had a name that was somehow bestowed and fixed. The bond between this name and the thing was irrevocable. Now we think: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But we live in and are trapped by our language and thought. The self and our idea of who we are comes to fruition along with understanding both the concept of self-hood and our gradual understanding of our-selves – a paradox from birth that develops and changes through time. We physically and mentally grow into ‘being’. We slowly join the unfolding narrative of the world. As unfolding selves we receive and are affected by the scientific, cultural, religious, fairy-tale narratives of the ‘main characters’. They tell us who we are, what to do, how to behave and what to think. We are seeds scattered into the ground…healthy or rocky.

We are born into a world that seems locked into time and space…a concrete world of ‘reality’. And we are given the ability to perceive this world through our senses in a consensual manner. But is there an ‘out there’ a ‘world’ that exists extraneously to our mind’s perception? Our brain collapses the ‘out there’ (the waves and particles of light photons) into the world we live in and deem ‘real’. Of course in one sense it is so very real…run a blade across your skin and you’ll feel pain and see blood flowing. But the mind that perceives and ‘holds’ our thoughts…the thoughts that perceive the world we grow into has no definite location (there are areas of the brain that correspond to certain elements of the mind…but under given circumstances these can be changed and/or re-routed) – and further, the thoughts themselves have no location or indeed space. You cannot grasp a thought and though it may re-appear as a memory in the ‘future’ its existence feels completely ‘out of time’. Yes we seem to experience the passing of time (and we can look into a mirror or view old photographs to verify this) but that too is seemingly an illusion. But. Let me state, this illusion and all that the brain creates is a necessity for us to exist in this illusory world. No wonder we have constantly asked those enduring questions and the shortest and the most effective and relevant being: Why?

What kind of trick has been played upon us frail humans…and even beyond this trick there being dealt a false trump card – a card that has given us the desire and need to discover who and what we are and where we are, where we are going and ultimately if we were created by some unknown supreme being. We frail humans given cards of nobility and poetry but also fear and violence. Each is dealt his hand…by chance, by providence, through DNA?

I think therefore I am – yet I am aware that I am thinking – therefore I am ‘we’ – both the thinker and the observer. And because I think in English: I think therefore I am English and all that I am aware of through this inherited language. And everything I think comes from where? I think therefore it is I that think. Or: I think unbidden thoughts therefore I am me and something ‘other’? We seem to be a paradox. That’s the nature of the trick.

When we dream – who is it that dreams? Who is it in the dreams? Who creates the dreams and sets the play in motion?

For many people it is enough to live and die – to work and play…some struggle some seem gifted by ‘fate’. Some folk give their lives to ideas and some are tortured and killed for having these, or indeed contrary, ideas. That is how strongly we are caught in our language, in our being. O I truly admire those who have died and suffered in the name of beauty or truth or spirit. But how odd it all seems too. That some men should dictate to others how they might feel, think, believe, say, write and act. When nothing is, indeed, quite how we think it is. The ancient Eastern religions understood this and now modern ‘cutting-edge’ science seems to be verifying these ancient beliefs. There’s more to us perhaps than even we thought.

If this life is a trick, a game…whose rules are we playing to? Is there a reason for us to be here. What is our true nature. There is the argument that we are ‘one’ (non-dual) and that we exist without time and matter. An idea that we are drops of the ocean or fragments of a hologram – all belonging and connected to the whole. In this sense we have been tricked into an earthly state of division and unique personality. When I talk with people about this there comes the idea of ‘re-birth’ (reincarnation) and that our mission, if you will, is to ‘escape’ from captivity of the flesh. That our essence is something beyond and eventually apart from who we are (or who we think we are). On the one hand I see the logic and even justice to this and on the other hand I see cruelty and lack of justice. Most of us are destined to relate as the ‘I’ – and we create our life story correspondingly. The idea of re-birth seems to be the loss of each personality (but maintenance of the ‘spirit’). Who we are is annihilated – and yet some part of ‘us’ carries on. Is this the ‘divine spark’ the droplet of the divine ocean. But if there is no connection between that droplet and my perception of ‘me’ – why would/should I care? Are ‘we’ but fading dreams of another?

How cruel to birth us into this material world with senses to experience it – and to feel its love, hate, warmth, cold, benevolence and cruelty and yet also be locked within a ‘secret’. This secret being that we are NOT truly part of this earth and that we must – through lifetimes of repeated existence – find a way off and out of this material plane! Were I the playwright of such a play I might congratulate myself on its playful and clever conceit. But discovering one is but a fictional character with no life beyond the page…well…I might feel somewhat misused. Especially as my appearance on the stage is so brief and apparently futile.

My father used to say to me: There is only one thing worse than dying for ever and that is living for ever. Here is the great conundrum. This conundrum seems rarely to be challenged. Is there any connection between this earthly existence (the test) and the existence ‘as one’ (connected to all and everything and perhaps The Godhead) beyond time, space and matter? There certainly seems much credible (and incredible!) evidence for existence beyond this life but the nature of that also seems poorly transmitted. It maybe that we enter a lighter consensual reality, amidst others we relate to…a more spiritual place (for some) but dark and heavy for others…who perhaps maintain much of their earthly existence. Maybe we’re being given spurious information as but yet a further test?

The nearest I get to understanding another life beyond the mystical glances sometimes obtained in the beauty of nature…or through music or a piece of sublime literature or art is within my dreamscapes. In dreams it seems as if there is a natural narrative…everything ‘makes sense’…it is us and we comprehend our seemingly natural environment. It’s only on waking that our dreams might seem very strange. And then they begin to fade despite our best efforts to resurrect them or keep the narrative going. It’s like reading a story and the last few pages have been ripped out. Dreams make sense even when nonsense. It really is another reality. It is REAL or as real as this reality. Only waking from a dream does it seem odd or different. Of course there are those who can hop in and out of dream-states and even travel beyond into the astral realms. Or somewhere. Another avenue of reality? A place where our conscious mind (and/or spirit) goes on death? Do dreams offer an insight into the connection between this world and the ‘other’?

These days we can slip into virtual reality. A time seems fast approaching when being in virtual reality might be as common as falling asleep and dreaming. Though we might become masters of our movement in VR land it is not a ‘consensual reality’ but rather a reality created by both humans and machines. I can imagine all sorts of wonderful experiences and the most frightening too. In a future world, grossly over-populated we might enter VR to see, smell and experience nature. But who knows what might have been designed to roam through those lands too. VR certainly can but make us consider what THIS reality is. Like self-induced other realities it will be ‘real’ at the time of experiencing. The mind can be fooled and sometimes quite easily. And the mind can be manipulated too. If we create a VR that transforms the human experience are we creating a VR within a VR. If we can create effective virtual reality who’s to say THIS life isn’t a ‘virtual reality’!

Were we created in God’s (or The Great Creator’s) image? If so – what a disappointment we must have been and still are. I immediately think of us the ‘sons and daughters of God’ creating our own reflections – ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and Robots. Here again the whole notion of consciousness might be forced vehemently into our collective consciousness. The idea – say – that consciousness is received by humans (and not self-created) seems interesting in that the future might see robots obtain their own consciousness. If the reaction to this is – never!…well, that would mean that only the human organic brain (or an animal’s?) can tune into radiating, and yet personal, consciousness. Consciousness is also said to be whole (oneness) but if we receive consciousness we do so in personalised packages. Are we bundled up and packaged pre-birth? If it is the will of the sender that determines who and/or what receives consciousness then why not robots? At the moment robots are fairly ‘primitive’ and yet there has already been a case of robots creating their own language. If humans did come from apes and were subsequently to receive the consciousness we have now – then why not highly sophisticated robots? Of course all this is but scratching the surface. But as an aside there have been experiments with humans where simple choices have been offered (left/right on/off) and their brain reactions monitored. These experiments seem to show quite large gaps between the brain deciding what to do and consciousness deciding what to do! In other words our consciousness (decisions seemingly made in the ‘present’) lagged behind the actual brain decision by seconds. This would mean our ‘present’ is in an eternal ‘past’. Not only that of course but it would suggest all is mapped out and we’re here just for the ride…though we have been tricked (once again) into thinking we are masters of our own fate. Maybe robots of the future though highly evolved will always lag behind their programming? Maybe robots will feel tricked.

If we are beyond time, space and matter (the soul nature) then again we have been tricked into believing we have a beginning and an end. And yet the beginning is hazy and comes together through our perception of time and self and unfolds in retrospection. Most of our perception of ourselves is retrospective. There is also the sense of deja vu (or deja vecu) that haunts us…Do we re-live our life over and over – and if so for what purpose? The world we live in seems to have constant birth and rebirth – as in Nature. Yet we and our surroundings SEEM to be eternal. Others may die (like a leaf/flower/cow/dog or even fellow human) but surely not us. The Sun will one day burn out but can we (do we) perceive of Earth’s ending? And the universe in which we live perhaps has no boundaries and ‘just is’. Like puppets we gaze up into the sky at night, our strings lost into the blackness…Our helplessness and lack of understanding is full of pathos. Why were we tricked so?

What is the antidote to our existence in this world that both is and isn’t? For me it is the art and act of creation. If all was created by The Great Creator – the original creative act – then being creative is truly a spark of godliness. Life can be cold, hard and cruel but we have shown throughout our time on this earth that we can rise above hardship and persecution, above torture and even walk to the gallows with our heads held high. There is something in us that is greater than ourselves.
My own philosophy of life and death draws on the ideas and communications of others (both alive, dead and perhaps beyond the ‘veil’). At death our consciousness/spirit travels on and alights at another place of consensual reality. In this place we flock together with like minds – some others are drawn to the heavy earthly states – some are light and finely tuned. Thus we begin the next stage of our journey. Perhaps this journey involves the ‘release of ourselves’ – the ‘release of attachments’…though we continue to learn we also learn to give up. Gradually we will indeed become ‘one’ – leaving the unique self behind. By becoming ‘one’ we will no longer be aware of time, space or matter…we will no longer fear the loss of ourselves and loved ones…as we will be melded into a greater and all-encompassing love. As I write these words I feel panic…I am attached to the poetic in this life and the connection to others. But being melded with love and being ‘one’ will not – I trust – mean the loss of anyone or anything but rather the gaining of a higher connection and higher ‘love’. Poets, mystics, philosophers, religious thinkers and perhaps even each one of us has at rare times had an in-sight into the greater-ness that we are normally so unaware of. Maybe we’ll get to comprehend the ‘Great Trick’ that has been played on us – maybe we’ll laugh out loud and understand the very true nature of who we are and what we are for. In the meantime we can but dream…we’ll continue viewing the stars above and continue making enquiry. And we’ll continue asking: Who am I?

I hope and trust you will enjoy the essays that follow…and that you might step back from this stage for a while and view from the wings…view the actors so caught up emotionally in the play. Maybe you’ll catch a glance of the playwright him/her/it self viewing from the balcony and maybe you’ll catch a wry smile on that playwright’s face. After all, the playwright knows the trick that’s been played all along. And we are but the stuff that dreams are made on.

Tim Bragg (copyright 2018).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Love, Simon (2018)

lovesimon

Love, Simon is a ground-breaking film aimed at a mainstream audience

PG-13 | 1h 49min | Comedy, Drama, Romance | 16 March 2018 (USA)
Director: Greg Berlanti
Writers: Elizabeth Berger (screenplay by), Isaac Aptaker (screenplay by) |
Stars: Nick Robinson, Jennifer Garner, Josh Duhamel

Simon Spier (Nick Robinson) is a 17-year old with a secret. Simon has “a perfectly normal life” in all ways but one: Simon is gay. The emphasis should be more on the perfect thant the normal in that last phrase though! His parents (played by Josh Duhamel and Jennifer Garner)are a loving, understanding couple and he even gets on well with his Sister! Problems that many teenagers grapple with are absent from this film.

This does enable the film to focus on the central theme but it is at the expense of realism. Love, Simon has one scene where Simon imagines a college life which includes highly choreographed group dancing to a gay anthem. The rest of the film isn’t so divorced from reality but it isn’t too far off.

Love, Simon isn’t gritty. It’s very vanilla, family-friendly and a PG-13. Warning: There is gay kissing but nothing beyond that! There isn’t much depiction of straight sex either! Everyone is fairly well-behaved!

Don’t get me wrong though, the film is entertaining and well written. It engages your interest in the central mystery very well. Simon sees a posting on a school gossip forum from another student ‘Blue’ who says he is gay but nervous about ‘coming out’ openly. Simon spends much of the movie trying to figure out who this might be. The audience is carefully kept in the dark with Blue’s postings being read by different voices throughout the film, depending on who Simon suspects he might be at a particular point.

There are also some great supporting roles. I found the vice-principal (Tony Hale) very funny, the drama teacher (Natasha Rothwell) engaging and out-and-proud classmate Ethan (Clark Moore) a good counterpoint to Simon.

At heart Love, Simon is a rom-com. I went with my daughter to see it at a special screening and I think that the main audience for it will actually be teenage girls.The film may be criticised for it not confronting issues of homophobia head-on but it’s not that kind of movie – it isn’t dark and it’s aiming at communicating to a mainstream audience. It’s a groundbreaking film which deals with an important issue. It’s better than a lot of teenage films of the same genre as it has good humour, a clear plot and does make you think about how difficult it could be for a teenager dealing with their sexuality in a society which can still be unaccepting of difference.

Editorial note: Love, Simon is based on Becky Albertalli’s 2015 novel was called Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda.

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

 

Leave a Comment

Darkest Hour (2017)

darkesthourposter

Click on image to buy

Hitler is at the height of his power in 1940. His forces are pushing aside opposition in France and Belgium and the British are retreating. An invasion of Britain is a real possibility. It’s not just the ‘other side’ the new wartime leader Winston Churchill has to worry about either. Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup) and Halifax (Stephen Dillane), think that the best hope is a deal with the Nazis and and are plotting (seemingly with some approval from the King, George VI, at least at first) to undermine Churchill’s cabinet.

Churchill is the hero of this film and his many faults are downplayed. There is reference to his poor judgment and Galipolli and we do get a taste of his ruthless streak when he sacrifices troops like disposable pawns.

His extreme political views on certain topics are not referenced. As far on as 1937, then aged 62, he justified mass genocide of indigenous peoples on the grounds of white supremacy, announcing to the Palestinian Royal Commission: “I do not admit […] that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.

“I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”

That was nothing new for Churchill. In December 1910, aged 36, Churchill wrote to prime minister Herbert Asquith warning of the “unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes” (general terms then used to describe the mentally ill and impaired).

Their rapid growth, he asserted, together with the “steady restriction [of the] thrifty, energetic and superior stocks” (folks like himself, of course), constituted “a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate.”

He argued that they should be “sterilised” or “segregated under proper conditions so that their curse died with them and was not transmitted to future generations.”

As home secretary in 1911 he brought the artillery on to the streets of east London in a somewhat onesided battle to deal with Latvian anarchists in the siege of Sydney Street.

In 1910 he ordered the military into Tonypandy to support local police and authorities in quelling disorder and the strikes of the miners.

When Iraqis and Kurds revolted against British rule in northern Iraq in 1920, Churchill, then secretary of state at the War Office, said: “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes. It would spread a lively terror.”

In the 1926 General Strike Churchill edited the government’s newspaper, the British Gazette, and used it to put forward his anti-union and anti-Labour views.

Before the War he even had a good opinion of Fascism and Hitler.

He wrote to Mussolini: “What a man! I have lost my heart! […] Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world […] If I were Italian, I am sure I would have been with you entirely.”

As late as 1935 he wrote of Hitler: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”

In 1943, a famine broke out in Bengal and up to three million people starved to death. He bluntly refused any aid, raging that it was the Indians’ own fault for “breeding like rabbits.”

Of course these views, which jar with our values today, were far from unusual at the time. The past is another country. That’s not to say that there were not many even then who would have had an opposed view. There were. Let’s hope that some of those who go to see the film take a closer look at the history behind it.

He was certainly a bastard but to use the Sumner Welles phrase he was “our bastard” – at least during the War. He is described as the one UK politician who frightened Hitler and, perhaps, that is true. He was also, in my view, right on the likely outcome of appeasement.

The film does present Churchill as the contradiction he was. This is brought out in scenes with his long-suffering wife Clemmie (Dame Kristin Ann Scott Thomas) and family as well as scenes with his secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James).

An underlying theme of the film is the power of language and the importance of oratory. There are many scenes where we see Churchill mobilise the English language and send it to war (as Halifax puts it). Oldman’s Golden Globe-winning performance is forceful and effective and Churchill’s speeches have lost nothing of their persuasive and stirring qualities through his delivery.

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Leave a Comment

Blade Runner 2049

bladerunner2049Directed By: Denis Villeneuve
Written By: Michael Green, Hampton Fancher
In Theatres: Oct 6, 2017 Wide
Runtime: 164 minutes
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

Blade Runner 2049 is certainly a worthy sequel to the original for many reasons, including it’s stunning visuals and cinematography.

CGI is used only when really needed and it’s convincing even to the well trained eye.

The lighting used in the film was absolutely superb and in places it all felt very real an atmospheric but yet still different, showing a dystopian world.

There are a number of moral issues with Artificial Intelligence that the film touches upon and it left me asking myself what humanity actually is and how humans have an ability to completely and knowingly discard their humanity. This even when furnished with the knowledge that an artificial intelligence would highly likely seek/cherish humanity in it’s quest to be more human.

I could not help but notice that there was a critical message about the human pests ruining the environment with their throwaway culture. This manifested itself in the plot in a subliminal way.

Another re-occuring theme in Blade Runner 2049, is a retreat from the outdoors to inside, possibly setup as a pointer to humanity’s lack of respect for the outdoors.

I didn’t tire of the pace in this 2h 43m film and slowing things down really did seem to demand more attention from the viewer.

All of the actors and characters played out perfectly, with a good script.

The only criticism I could possibly make about this masterpiece, is that it would have been nice to have seen more of the residents that inhabit this dystopian world.

It certainly is a film that I would love to see again, just to make sure there wasn’t anything I missed, especially on the philosophical front, though not at the Reel cinema in Burnley, as the experience was marred by a broken bass speaker!

Reviewed by Chris Barnett

Leave a Comment

 My Leonard Cohen

Assembly Rooms (Venue 20)
19:45 Aug 16-27 1 hour
20 minutes

myleonardcohenRight from the get go I knew I was going to love this show. Stewart D’Arrietta and band started with two of my favourite Cohen songs – Everybody Knows and In My Secret Life. For me Leonard Cohen was a poet, a philosopher and a modern day prophet. A compassionate, exceptional and inspiring man.

Outside in the queue one of the staff had said two things – that the band were all Scottish and that Stewart sounded like Leonard Cohen. If he meant that the band were all Scottish and excluded Stewart (who is Australian) he was right on that score. As to Stewart sounding like Leonard, well he doesn’t. He has his own unique and very good voice. The whole show is a celebration of the life and work of Leonard Cohen but it isn’t an attempt to duplicate how he did things.

That’s true of the music too as there were some impressive rearrangements. It made you listen with a fresh perspective and it’s a tribute to the music that it can be reinterprated in such different ways and yet still stay true to the core.

Phil Alexander on piano-accordion probably had a lot to do with that. Incredibly talented as was the lead guitarist. In fact all the band brought something to the table – very much an ensemble effort.

Some reviews are mixed because those who expected a slavish copy of the music will be disappointed. If you go along knowing that some exceptional musicians are bringing their energy and style to a body of work then you will be delighted. I was thinking of the criticism of Bob Dylan when he was asked why he covered some many folk songs and why he didn’t do more of his own. His response was: “I like to think I make them my own”. Stewart and the rest of the band are, I think, adopting this approach!

As people left the hall they were still clapping and calling out congratulations to the band. I was among them.

Reviewed by Patrick Harrington

Leave a Comment

JUST FESTIVAL: 100 Years of Balfour

St. John’s Church, Princes Street
Aug 15-16, 18-19
17:15
1 hour 20 minutes

balfour

The seeds of the Palestinian conflict were sown by Balfour

This production forms part of the Balfour Project – a commemoration of the Balfour Declaration of November 1917 which pledged British support for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine whilst also promising to protect the rights of the existing indigenous Arab population. Contradicting, as it did the promises already given to the Arabs in 1915, the Declaration sowed the seeds of a future conflict with us to this day. The audience was presented with a meticulously-researched and balanced production based on original documents, leaving it spellbound throughout. Talulah Molleson, as the Voice of History, provided moving and beautifully sung vocal interludes. The commitment and sincerity of all who took part were obvious. We were left in no doubt that British duplicity and their subsequent abandonment of their promises to the Arabs are at the root of the current plight of the Palestinians. Running out of ideas of how to control the violence between Arabs and Jews, the British withdrew in 1948, handing over the problem to the United Nations, which in the aftermath of the Holocaust was strongly supportive of Zionist position (the Zionist Movement for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine was founded in 1898). The U.N. decided on Partition, resisted unsuccessfully by neighbouring Arab states, giving the newly-established state of Israel the first of its many opportunities to expand its borders.

The story was told imaginatively and was easy to follow – no mean feat given the complexity of the issues involved. Britain’s motives were mixed. As an imperial power she was fighting alongside France and Russia against Germany in Europe – yet her greatest imperial rivals were – France and Russia! Indeed Britain and France had almost gone to war in 1898 over France’s resentment at British dominance in Egypt. A Zionist presence in the region would help to check French ambitions. The Sykes-Picot secret Agreement of 1916 (effectively promising French dominance in Lebanon and Syria in return for British in Iraq and Palestine) was an attempt to pre-empt similar disagreement after the war. And how ironic that at the same time as fighting alongside the most anti-semitic regime in Europe (Russia) the British should be promoting Zionist interests!

100 Years of Balfour did not shirk difficult issues. I was particularly impressed by the emphasis given to the opposition of Edward Montagu, the one Jewish member of the British cabinet, to the Balfour Declaration – on the grounds that it was likely to promote anti-semitism in other countries as well as cause insuperable problems in Palestine itself. But the needs of War, not least the support of Jewish interests in the United States, and British imperial concerns came first.

 

Reviewed by Henry Falconer

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »