AudioBoo - Policies and Power.

A bit of a political rant.

Hidden Meanings?

Warning: Political blog post!!

In a recent blog post i  bemoaned the fact that the British Prime Minister,  David Cameron, had falied to say something to the face of the person that his words were directed to.
As it happens, DavidCameron did do just that and very recently too. But  i feel he also had an ulterior motive on that occasion too.

It happened, as so many things do, in the USA.
David Cameron visited there recentlly and in the course of his visit mentioned the fact that he considered in UK to be "the junior partner" in the, often quoted, "special relationship" between the UK and the USA.

Now, anyone with a sense of realism, has known that this has been the case for many years, probably even decades now. And, on this occasion anyway, i fully agree with David Camerons comments. It is something that has needed to have been said for many of those years, or decades that i mentioned.

I fully accept that nobody wants to admit that their influence in the world is not quite what it was. But, us Brits do need to realise that we don't have an Empire these days and that most of the world is not painted red on maps anymore. For better, or worse, those days are long gone.

Yes, the UK is a nuclear power and that does make us a member of a pretty exclusive club. But, even our nuclear status is really a throwback to an earlier age.
I believe that the UK's status in the world is really an historical one. If it were not for the UK's past influence and vast history, would we still be sitting at the worlds top table? I'd like to think so, as i am a patriot (honest). But, i'm not sure we would be. Especially, if table places were based on face value.

And, this brings me to pondering on what, i think, David Camerons comments might really mean.
I may well be wrong and probably am. But i think they are a signal to the world and especially the USA, that things might be about to change, as far as the UK is concerned.

If we are no longer an equal partner in that "special relationship", we will no longer feel the need to fully support anything that the USA says and does. The UK will also not have to try and effectively punch above our weight in other ways either.

I can see two military aspects to this and without really giving it much thought either.
Firstly:
It was announced this week that funding for the updating of part of the UK's nuclear deterrant, was to be changed. Any funding would have to come from existing budgets and not as extra funding from the Government.
In my opinion, this paves the way for the Ministry Of Defence to say that they cannot afford this money and therefore, we will not be updating this nuclear option. Especially, as we are not now the world force that we once were.
Secondly:
If this admission had been made, when it could have been. many years ago. Would the UK now be involved in conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Just think how many hundreds of lives and how many billions of pounds could have been saved?
And all for a little bit of humility and realism.

Say It To My Face.

I'm afraid that i'm going to have to get a little political with you all. Well, partially anyway.

This week, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been in the news because of comments he has made about certain countries & their policies.
Firstly, whilst in Turkey, he compared Gaza to a "prison camp".
Then, whilst in India, he said "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world."

Now, what David Cameron said may well be correct, i'm not going to dispute that. My point is about where he actually made the comments in the first place and why he made them where he did.

Why did he talk about Israel/Gaza whilst in Turkey & about Pakistan whilst in India?
It seems obvious to me & many others, that it was done purely to please the people he was talking to at the time.
I wonder whether David Cameron would have made those same remarks if he had been in Israel, or Pakistan respectively? I doubt it somehow.
And that is the main point of this post and it applies in both diplomacy and in personal life too.

If you have something important to say about somebody, whether that be a country, or an individual. At least have the decency and the courage, to say it to that persons face. Don't just say something to please the person that you are talking to. Say it to the people that it concerns & to the people who you are actually talking about.
If you do, i will have far greater respect for you.
Say it to my face, or don't say it at all.

Death Of The Movie Star?

I saw a piece in my newspaper this morning about the new film "Avatar" & the fact that it is already on course to become one of the biggest grossing films of all time.

But, as with all of these blogs & indeed my vlogs, thinking about this article led me on to thinking about another aspect of the film business.

What do you actually call a motion picture these days? Is it a 'film", or is it a "movie"?
This is one of those questions that pops up in my head whenever i refer to a motion picture.

As you can see from the beginning of this blog, i've started off by saying "film". This is probably because i'm British & this is what we still tend to refer to a motion picture as. Even in these days of American culture seemingly taking over the world, the term "film" is still hanging on by it's fingertips in the UK.

But, what is the correct term & does it really matter anyway?
Well, for me at least, it does matter. I, like a lot of people, spend an increasing amount of time online & a lot of that time is spent conversing with people from the USA. Now, as i'm sure we all know, the Americans always refer to motion pictures as "movies".

So, where did the word "movie(s)" come from in the first place?
Well, according to Dictionary.com (a very valuable website & one i have to use far too often), as expected the word "movies" is a shortened form of "moving pictures". And according to the site, the word "movies" was first used in around 1912.

The word "film" can be used to describe the actual filming process itself, what the motion picture is recorded onto & also the finished product. Apart from several other unrelated definitions too.

So, i'm going to make a unilateral decision & say that, in future, we should just use the term "movie(s)" to save us all a lot of confusion & debate.
Just think how much shorter this blog post would have been, if i hadn't felt the need to clear this up first!

Anyway, on to the main feature. As they would say at the movies.

As i was saying, the movie Avatar has already grossed over $745 million, or £460 million. So, it is well on it's way to becoming only the fifth movie in history to gross over $1 billion.

There is nothing too remarkable about this, i suppose. Especially as the director of the movie, James Cameron, is resposible for highest grossing movie of all time, Titanic ($1.84 billion btw)

But, what is different about Avatar though, is that it's "stars" are all, with one exception, relative unknowns. The exception being Sigourney Weaver, who is hardly the biggest movie star in the world. Although she's still a fine actress in my opinion.

Apparently, James Cameron wanted to concentrate on getting the technology correct, to enable the movie to be shot in 3D. This, as you can imagine, cost a lot of money ($237 million) & probably didn't allow too much to be spent on signing up "A" List movie stars.

So, is this the beginning of the end for the "A" List movie star? After all, if a movie can become one of the biggest grossing of all time & without the draw of any of the big name stars, will this send a message to other directors & movie production studios?

Yes, i accept that the 3D aspect of Avatar is a big draw in itself & i know of several people who have seen the movie more than once, to enable them to see it in 3D. But, i also know of people who have been to see Avatar, more than once, for no other reason than that they thought it was brilliant.
But, nobody appears to have been put off going to see Avatar by the lack of big star names.

Too often these days, any new movie seems to be more about the star names involved & less about the actual movie itself. For, me at least, this can be a big turn off. I don't go to the movies to see a star name, i go to see what i hope will be a good movie.

We all have our favourite movie stars. Just as we all have our favourite authors, or musicians. But, we soon stop buying, reading, or listening when those favourites stop producing good material.
I think, with the movie industry in particular, there has been far too much substandard material produced over recent years. With far too much reliance on big star names to try & attract us to go & see that substandard material.

Maybe another aspect of this is the actual cost of making a movie, when you have to pay top dollar to get an "A" List star, or stars to sign up?.
Avatar cost $237 million to film, without any of those big star names. Would that movie ever have been made if it was felt a big star name was needed? Could the cost of have justified? Or, would the production values have been lessened by the need to pay top dollar for that star name, or names?

Hopefully, in my view anyway, the huge success of Avatar, which i haven't seen by the way, will make movie makers sit up & take stock.
Maybe now is the time to start concentrating on original story lines & production values, rather than on those big star names? Or, on sequels & tired remakes?
Or, maybe, in these credit crunch times, the big movie stars will have to take a pay cut?

I don't expect many people will moan about that?