"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."

‘1984’ is a British film released, a little too coincidentally, in 1984, which is based upon George Orwell’s novel of the same name. The story follows Winston Smith living in Oceania; a country run by a totalitarian government. Citizens are under constant surveillance by the ‘thought police’, who’s job it is to uncover and punish ‘thoughtcrime’; any disapproved thoughts of members. Winston is an antihero who keeps a secret diary of his thoughts, thus committing ‘thoughtcrime’, contrary to the aims of the Party which rules Oceania and their supreme figurehead, Big Brother. Winston lives for a few months in happiness and relative freedom when he meets Julia; a sensual, free spirited woman. Winston rents an apartment for them to stay together in the apparently proletarian area, however they are caught by the thought police, and it is revealed that the proprietor of the apartment was in fact a member of the police. The couple are separated and Winston is taken to the Ministry of Love, where he is tortured and brainwashed by O’Brien, a high ranking member of the Inner Party. Finally, he is taken to Room 101, where he is subjected to the “worst thing in the world”, this being a cage full of rats, something that has haunted his thoughts previously. He is then restored back to physical health and released, where he sees Julia who has also been brainwashed by the Party. They exchange a few unemotional words about how they have betrayed each other, and then a video of Winston confessing his crimes is played with him saying “I love you” to Big Brother, thought earlier to be aimed at Julia.

I have not yet read the novel but I would like to as to compare similarities and observe differences within the film. Orwell has created this dystopian world which would have been highly disturbing to read at the time, and in ways still is today. I think the most powerful and shocking scene was the torture of Winston and how they succeed in brainwashing him, implying just how powerful this Party is. The story mirrors the idea and reality of corrupt governments and dictatorships in various countries but not to as great an extent.



The Party in the novel/film imposes ‘antisexualism’ amongst citizens in order to eliminate personal sexual attachments that diminish political loyalty. Julia describes the Party’s idea as “sex gone sour”. During her and Winston’s love affair, Winston suffers recurring ankle inflammation, an Oedipal allusion to sexual repression. Also, O’Brien tells Winston that neurologists plan to extinguish the orgasm entirely; the mental energy required for prolonged worship requires authoritarian suppression of the libido. In partnership with this ‘antisexualism’, censorship is heavily displayed in the film/novel, especially within the Ministry of Truth, where photographs are doctored and public archives rewritten to rid them of ‘unpersons’ and in according to the Party’s rules.

Julia and Winston's encounter after they have been brainwashed and 'restored' back to physical health:

"I betrayed you," she said baldly.
"I betrayed you," he said.
She gave him another quick look of dislike.
"Sometimes," she said, "they threaten you with something — something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' And perhaps you might pretend, afterwards, that it was only a trick and that you just said it to make them stop and didn't really mean it. But that isn't true. At the time when it happens you do mean it. You think there's no other way of saving yourself and you're quite ready to save yourself that way. You want it to happen to the other person. You don't give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself."
"All you care about is yourself," he echoed.
"And after that, you don't feel the same toward the other person any longer."
"No," he said, "you don't feel the same."

"Mr Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it"

This week there was a screening of Orson Welles’ 1941 American drama film ‘Citizen Kane’. I was looking forward to seeing it as I’d always been intrigued after hearing it referenced in other programmes, namely one time in The Simpsons. The film is based loosely around the life and legacy of William Randolph Hearst, portrayed as Charles Foster Kane; an American newspaper magnate. The story is told through narration and flashbacks, and revolves around a newspaper reporter’s attempt to discover what significance Kane’s last word before he died, ‘rosebud’ held.

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect when watching the film, but I enjoyed the way Welles’ decided to set it out; a series of flashbacks and interviews with the people closest to Kane, which included his second wife Susan Alexander, his personal business manager Mr Bernstein, his best friend Jedediah Leland, and lastly his butler Raymond. I loved the fictional estate of Kane’s called ‘Xanadu’, which looks like something out of a horror film where kids would never dare to go trick or treating. The estate claimed its name from a real ancient Mongolian city, and in the film it was described as being the world’s largest private estate, “cost: no man can say”. In relation to the film, it represented the excess of lavish lifestyles such as Kane’s, and their inability to spend their money wisely, gradually becoming disconnected from the ‘norm’ of the everyday world. It seems to me to represent a need to distance oneself from the rest of society to make the difference in power and wealth more obvious to other citizens; he created his own prison to live in. Massively wealthy individuals often become greedy and self involved, thus being portrayed as living in an oversized house often alone or with only a butler for company. Kane was not alone at the start of the film but he drove his wife out towards the end, adding to his misery and loneliness.



The way that Kane came into power and wealth is important for the film’s focus. He was born into a poverty stricken family, but then changed when the ‘world’s third largest gold mine’ was discovered on an assumed to be worthless property that his mother acquired. He is forced to leave his mother when she sends him away to live with guardian Walter Parks Thatcher, where he is educated and protected from his abusive father. At 25, he enters the newspaper business and takes control of the New York Inquirer, hiring all of the best journalists, some who worked for the Chronicle beforehand, his newspaper’s main rival. The film focuses on Kane’s downhill; the way he pushes his loved ones away and manipulates others to get what he wants. The relationship between him and his first wife disintegrates, and a ‘love nest’ scandal with his soon to be second wife, Susan Alexander, is uncovered. With his domineering personality he forces her into an operatic career which she has no desire or talent to be in, and gradually destroys his relationship with her, forcing her to leave him.

At the end of the film, it is revealed to the audience that ‘Rosebud’ was the name of a sled from Kane’s childhood; a time before he was taken away and gained all of his wealth. The sled is burnt in the furnace along with Kane’s other belongings, thought to be worthless, and they are left with no answer to their question. I thought the way that his last word related to his childhood where he was part of a poor family was highly significant; this suggests that Kane was perhaps at his happiest when he was a child and had no fame or wealth. The film is wrapped up with a rather pleasant moral that you don’t need fame and money to be happy, and suggests that if you have those things your life might be on a downward spiral as Kane’s was.

Quote of the film by the reporter Thompson:

“Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything... I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a... piece in a jigsaw puzzle... a missing piece.”

Germinal

Regarding 'Germinal', just reading the back made me understand what Chris meant when he talked about the indepth imagery within the book's description. The insert they chose to put on the back cover as a teaser reads:

"Buried like moles beneath the crushing weight of the earth, and without a breath of fresh air in their burning lungs, they simply went on tapping."

The description used is so powerful you can almost picture yourself amongst the characters; inhaling the dirt into your lungs and struggling to breathe. Any writer that manages to portray this kind of imagery surely has talent, and would surely have to considering the uncompromisingly harsh and realistic portrayal of a coalminer's strike in 1860s France. The title itself refers to a month in the French Republican Calendar, being a spring month. 'Germen' is a Latin word meaning 'seed' and therefore reflects in the novel a hope for a better future amongst the miners.

I will be frequently blogging random updates on how I am finding the novel, and also talking about my favourite descriptive passages or chapters.

We're on a train called history!

My efforts to get ahead in the second year at Uni seem to be failing me miserably so far. I thought I would be clever and download ‘Germinal’ to watch; only to find that it was in French. Fine, that’s what subtitles are for, right? Only, not when they are in another language too. I might give it a watch anyway, pictures are supposed to tell a thousand words so perhaps I can work it out. Secondly I was eager to grab the books mentioned in the lectures as quickly as possible, only to find that they are out of stock for the mean time, however I have managed to pick up my copies of ‘Germinal’ and ‘Ulysses’ after reserving them from the bookshop. So I will be attempting to read those as quickly as possible so I can get blogging about them!

For now, I will go over what we have learnt so far in the lectures. The first lecture back was taken by Chris, and the main focus was socialism, alienation, and the Young Hegelians. I think the most important thing to note about German philosopher Hegel was his thought of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which basically translated to the starting point (intellectual proposition), the contradiction (a reaction to that proposition), and the resolution (the resolved conflict). This theory was adapted by Marx who said “Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways – the point is to change it”. He went on to use the same structure as Hegel, but instead talked about idealism, materialism, and instrumentalism. Idealism translated to ‘you are what you think’, materialism to ‘you are what you eat’, and finally instrumentalism to ‘you are what you do’. He placed these economic factors into Hegelian context by saying that they are internal contradictions which drive the development of prosperity. Both Marx and Hegel see the state as the vehicle of historical change; an instrument for the domination of one class to another.

Hegel famously stated “The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk”, meaning that philosophy comes to understand a historical condition just as it passes away; philosophy cannot be prescriptive because it understands only in hindsight. In Greek and Roman mythology Glaucus is the symbolic owl of Athena, often referred to as ‘owl of Athena’ or ‘owl of Minerva’. It is seen as a symbol of wisdom in Roman myths because the owl is capable of seeing in the dark and is awake at night when it is seen as the ‘norm’ to be asleep.

Quote of the lecture: "National debt sits there like an economic fact" - Chris Horrie

Banks, banks, and more banks. I officially know everything there is to know about them, or that’s how I felt after Tuesdays lecture anyway. Investment banking, central banks, retail banks, you name it, we covered it. A term I did find quite interesting sounding was ‘quantitative easing’, and as I’m not too sure about what it is I decided to find out. Apparently it refers to the creation by a central bank (covered those) of a predetermined quantity of new money as the start of a process to increase the country’s money supply. Ok, so basically it’s where we print new money so as to ensure that we have more than enough? My research goes on to reveal how interest rates are decreased in order to INcrease the money supply, and this will only happen if we are lacking in money and therefore unable to stimulate the economy.

Another thing that Chris covered in the lecture was talking about Keynesian economics, and how they believe that debt is not a problem. Founder of this concept John Maynard Keynes believes that the solution to the depression was to stimulate the economy by a reduction in interest rates and government investment in infrastructure. This would result in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment, involving more income and spending etc etc etc.


Another interesting point that Chris did mention was how he believes that the city is run by greed and fear. He was talking about the stock market, and how people invest their money into various shares out of greed of gaining profit, however when their shares are doing badly they quickly move them around out of fear. I think when there is money involved greed and fear are generally the only two words that surround it, a greed to gain more, and a fear to lose it all.

Our first lecture back...

For our first lecture back Chris delved straight back into politics and the law etc etc, with topics from Jacobitism, and Presbyterianism, to cartoon drawings of Gordon Brown depicted as a pig in The Independent, and John Major’s secret romps with Edwina Currie. For the moment I will start with the former topics, exploring Jacobitism first of all, as I had never heard of the term or been aware of the movement prior to the lecture.

So, Jacobitism refers to the political movement dedicated to the restoration of the Stuart kings to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. The term was coined from the Latin form Jacobus of the name of King James II and VII. The movement was a response to the removal of James II and VII in 1688 when he was replaced by his own daughter Mary II, along with her husband and first cousin (?!) William of Orange. After that, the Stuarts resided on the European mainland, however occasionally they attempted to regain the throne with the help of fellow countries France and Spain. The primary seats of Jacobitism were Ireland and Scotland, and in England the movement was the strongest in the north. Many people supported Jacobitism because they believed parliamentary interference with monarchical succession was illegitimate. Many Catholics hoped that the Stuarts would end discriminatory laws, whilst others belonging to various allegiances became involved in military campaigns. Jacobitism is celebrated on June 10th, known as White Rose Day, and its emblem is the White Rose of York.

A brief paragraph on Presbyterianism now, which refers to a number of different Christian churches conforming to the Calvanist theological tradition within Protestantism. It typically emphasises the sovereignty of God, that is, the right to exercise the functions of the state. The religious group evolved primarily in Scotland, and the few members found in England can trace a Scottish connection somewhere in their family tree.

As for Gordon Brown and Edwina Currie, I think I will leave them for my next blog to be written very soon!

Nothing to do with Journalism, but hey it's an article none the less...

To be 15 again. The younger sister of my best friend Mark is having a party and I can hear the music perfectly. You were about to be shocked then, that I could hear it from wherever I was, the sad fact being that I’m only one door away. But that’s not the point. Sitting in the bathroom listening to their topical conversations and girl’s screaming, probably being chased by boys no doubt makes me nostalgic for the days when I was that age. I can’t see them but I can picture the party now, girls parading around in short skirts and tops, lusting over boys that probably don’t really care. Boys, swooning about like they own the place, can of Foster’s in one hand, fag in the other, because they’re hard, you know. Not to mention the music. God. I admit I do still listen to some of the stuff I can hear, but at a party? No no. Just to cut in quickly and prove my point, I just heard one girl shout ‘Emily how many people have been in your bra tonight!!?’ Ahh, the wonders of being 15. Listen to me, acting like I’m a mother of two or something, when in actual fact I’m only three years older, and probably none the wiser. I still parade about in skimpy outfits, the only difference being I wouldn’t be flattered by guys staring or wolf whistling at me, in fact I hate that. Another thing I must touch upon because it’s the single most eventful part of a party is the drama. Oh, the drama. You have to love it, as long as you’re not involved, that is. For the 15 year olds one door away I can tell you now the drama will consist of who kissed who, who got too drunk and wrecked the house, who had a fight with who (over a boy, probably), who had a fight with who (over a girl, probably). I remember the innocent days of who kissed who at a party, a few years later you lose that innocence and it becomes who fucked who, pardon my French. Since when did that start to happen at parties? It becomes who could be pregnant, who cheated on who, who’s having a sex change. Well, maybe not that far. I’d give it another few years. All in all, nothing really changes, but as you get older house parties become less frequent, it’s all about the pub now, the boring, atmosphere-lacking pub. How I miss a good house party. Somewhere down the line girls favoured flashing their IDs at bouncers rather than flashing their boobs at a house party. How times change.

Belated Blog!

I wrote this on the 26th of March but I hadn’t got round to posting it yet, it had just been lying around in my word files. So, here it is:

I read in a book today that storytellers are “keepers of wisdom; they weave spells which feed the human soul.” What an imaginative quote. I must say I automatically went to reference that, and I will tell you what book it was from, but I won’t do it the Harvard way like I am so inclined to do. I am taking it as a good sign however, that I felt the urge to reference; my brain must be embracing this university way of thinking well. Anyway, the quote is from ‘Creative Novel Writing’ by Roselle Angwin. As smart as I sound quoting books in my blog I’ll admit that I read this in the first paragraph of the first page, but I’m working my way through it. The reason for my

I had my tutorial with Angus today, which I thought went well. Although there wasn’t much work to look at article wise because we haven’t really had much to submit, he said that my style of writing and forming a sentence in an article was “absolutely right”, so I’m happy with that. I may regret this but I also mentioned to him about starting a second blog for his side of the course where I’ll write an article or two every week so he can look at my progress. A good idea, we’ll just see if it’s carried out as well as it was thought up. I hope so.

A topic of my own...

Rather than turn to writing about previous Journalism lectures, I have decided to blog on a topic of my choice today. We all know that on the 22nd of March, just two days ago, Jade Goody lost her battle with cancer. I realise how tedious it got for everyone; a new story about her every day without fail on the cover of every tabloid newspaper, with headlines such as 'Jade's final wish', 'Jade's last word', 'Jade struggles on' etc etc. But to put up with the masses of stories we did have to read about we have to look at the reasoning behind her decision to make her story so public. Jade wanted to raise as much money as she could for her two sons, so as to enable them a secure future with good education. She believed that to do this she could, in a sense, use the media to make the money, by selling her story and doing interviews and photo shoots for the papers. This meant that journalists would be prying into her life constantly, wanting more and more up to date stories to write about. But was her decision a good one? Certainly for her sons futures it was, but we can ask the question, did Jade lose all her right to privacy when she made this decision to sell her story? Did she deserve to be left alone to deal with her cancer more than she was? Some can argue that the moment she chose to go public with her ordeal was the moment she lost all of her privacy rights, and I agree. Jade should, and probably did, realise that she would be followed and snapped up until her death. If she hadn't chosen to be open with her story then I would understand if she had a problem with being harassed by the paparazzi, but hers was the opposite choice, so I disagree with anyone who thinks it was unfair of the newspapers to follow her relentlessly.

OK! Magazine was accused of making a huge misjudgement after publishing a tribute edition which was said to contain the 'final words' of Jade. But, this was all published before she had died, so how could they be final words?? The magazine edition even had a black border around the front page with a sub-headline ''in loving memory 1981-2009". Mildy humorous it may be, thinking of the editors sitting around in their office, unable to stand one more day of waiting for the ball to drop, so to speak, Jade's friends and family were less than happy to hear about this tribute turned obituary. The Press Complaints Commission received complaints about the edition, and is making an initial assessment of whether an investigation is necessary after friends said it was "bloody disgusting", and "all that was agreed was a tribute. This is clearly an obituary, they got it totally wrong."

I think that her idea to use the media for her family's gain was a positive step, but with that she had most likely gained enemies through her constant updates in the news. From talking to people about it I know that reading her stories, although saddening, has proved tiresome over the last few weeks, but for Jade all that mattered was her family, and I think she used the media to her full advantage.

Jonathan Swift

So this is my separate blog on the poet Jonathan Swift, who became Dean of St. Patricks in Dublin. A Modest Proposal is one of many of his works that he is famously remembered for; its full name being 'A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents of Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public'. It is a Juvenalian satirical essay written and published in 1729. The essay seems to suggest that the poverty stricken Irish may ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich men and women. Here is a quote I found from the proposal:

"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

Where this quote is both humorous and fairly disturbing, Swift is in fact using this extreme way of writing as a metaphor for the can-do spirit of the times that led people to devise a number of illogical schemes that would supposedly solve social and economic ills. Some scholars have argued that Swift's idea was inspired by Tertullian's Apology, which was a satirical attack against early Roman persecution of Christianity. The difference between these two being that Swift was addressing the Anglo-Irish situation in the 1720s, but perhaps he saw some similarities between the two situations. A good similarity voiced by James William Johnson was that they both have central themes of cannibalism and eating babies, and both share the same final argument; "human depravity is such that men will attempt to justify their own cruelty by accusing their victims of being lower than human." Both authors imply an ironic justification by ownership over the subject of sacrificing children - Tertullian whilst attacking pagan parents, and Swift whilst attacking the English mistreatment of the poor Irish.

Overall, Swift's writing relies heavily on metaphorical use and irony, in an attempt to get his point across of the seriousness of poverty related problems in the 18th century. I have to say that Swift's methods, although dramatic, are effective, and help raise issues to people about the economic and social troubles.

Evolution of the UK State

Last week in our Politics lecture for Journalism we learnt about the evolution of the UK, and something that particularly interested me was the mention of Oliver Cromwell, who is, as Chris liked to describe him, "up there with Hitler". Cromwell was an English military and political leader best known for his involvement in making England into a republican commonwealth, and for later becoming Lord Protector (a head of the state) of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Cromwell was one of the commanders of the New Model Army which defeated the royalists in the English Civil War. He dominated the Commonwealth of England, conquered Ireland and Scotland, and ruled as Lord Protector from 1653 until his death in 1658. His New Model Army was described by Chris as "the Taliban meet the Nazis", leaving what they were like only to the greatest of imaginations.

Another topic in the lecture that I found amusing was the discussion of national days for various countries, for example Independence Day for America. The national day we have is November 5th, bonfire night, of course when Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. It is fairly strange that we would celebrate an event that could have been potentially fatal, and if I may take another quote from the lecture, "burning Catholics...that's what our country's all about." Again it does seem strange that our country's national day is based around an act of conflict, the Catholics vs. the Protestants. Also in this period of 1688, King William of Orange was brought over to Torquay and agreed never to rule without parliament, and agreed he would be a Protestant; this was the Act of Settlement 1688.

Something else that we were told to blog about is Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal, which I will do a separate blog about, so this lecture blog is to be continued...

Economic Concepts

In our previous Journalism lecture we learnt about economic concepts such as empiricism and a priori thinking. I have been led to believe that empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises solely from experience. It is one view out of several explaining how we know 'things', and our theory of knowledge, or epistemology. Empiricism discounts the notion of innate ideas; a philosophical doctrine that suggests the mind is born with knowledge and ideas, meaning that our minds are not 'blank slates' at birth, as early empiricst John Locke claimed.

An example I thought about which can help to explain empiricism is the 'black swan theory' I learnt whilst studying Sociology. This theory dates back to the 17th century, where people thought that all swans were white because they had seen no different. This then changed when a group of explorers saw black swans, thus changing the knowledge people had. This can be related back to the idea of empiricism, as people only believed what they assumed was correct until they saw differently, applying to the statement 'I won't believe it until I see it with my own two eyes.'

Empiricism emphasises those aspects of scientific knowledge that is closely related to evidence, and it is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than relying on a priori reasoning, intuition or revelation. The term a priori is used to distinguish different types of knowledge, justfications or arguments. It is independent of experience, for example the statement 'All bachelors are unmarried'. A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or emprical evidence, for example 'Some bachelors are very happy'. A priori differs to empiricism because it makes no reference to experience. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."