LET'S GO TO THE MOVIES

Je suis un obsessionnel. Désolé. Donc, what am I to do? Am I foolish to be so anxious and preoccupied with the thought of Trump being once again elected to the presidency of the United States, and for the Labour Party of United Kingdom failing to achieve a majority in Government, despite indications by the polls.

I note the various newspapers continue to have sections of their daily publications devoted to other matters (culture, lifestyle, travel, sport and several other headings) beside news and opinion. These categories have as many column inches devoted to them as any other.  So, clearly most of the readership is quite happy to look beyond the front pages, assuming these pages do reflect the political concerns of the moment. The BBC News does flash up some of the newspapers’ front pages from time to time and there are tabloids that headline gossip and supposedly sensational headlines involving what some people consider ‘celebrities’.

There are also a number of other distractions on BBC iPlayer, such as An unflinching look at Picasso’s legacy and Dame Judi Dench explores the countryside. There is as well the BBC Proms with music in all sorts of guises, e.g. Fantasy Film Music, Vivaldi’s Four Seasons, Bollywood, Beethoven’s Ninth, Dee Dee Bridgewater, Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev, Northern Soul, and the list goes on. Displacement activity abounds on the smallish screen, with Prime, Netflix, Disney etc. and there is BBC Sounds and a variety of radio stations from around the world on the internet, such as KPFK in Los Angeles and NPR (National Public Radio). The airways are full of activity. There is an infinite variety of stuff to see, read and hear.

Despite all that I cannot rid my mind of anxiety over what might happen in 2024. Apart from the 24^th July to the 11^th August, just over two weeks of the Paris Olympics, there will be two very significant general elections, one of which is fixed for the 5^th November. It is also Guy Fawkes Day in the UK. Is it an omen that the United States elections should fall on the day of a failed treasonous conspiracy 419 years in the past? Will the Capitol go up in smoke and yet again be invaded? Will there be a new government in the United Kingdom by then? What will be the way of the world?

I cannot help but think should the Labour Party fail to form a new government in 2024, the likelihood of Trump being once again elected president of the United States is probable.. The possible effects of what little influence a left of centre government in the United Kingdom might have on the American electorate could make a difference, given that European States seem to be leaning towards the right. Any change in that trend would be some sort of catalyst towards a more civilised approach to government. I say this despite the current malevolent retrograde rhetoric coming from Suella Braverman to American electors. This is a woman who dreams of razor wire fencing and exiles to Rwanda. But I digress. I must get back to other matters.

I noted in the New Yorker an article by the film critic Richard Brody, What to see in the New York Film Festival’s First Week.  In it, he speaks of a short film put together by Fabrice Aragno, who was Jean-Luc Godard’s last assistant:

Jean-Luc Godard died in September, 2022, at the age of ninety-one. In his last years, he was working on an adaptation of the 1937 novel “False Passports,” by the French writer Charles Plisnier, and conveyed his work materials—storyboard-like collages, a bit of live-action footage, and audio clips—to his assistant, Fabrice Aragno, with explicit instructions for their editing. The result is the nineteen-minute film “Trailer of a Film that Will Never Exist: Phony Wars” (Oct. 2-4), which plays like a distillation and an elucidation of Godard’s last decades of work.

Richard Brody is the author of the book “Everything is Cinema: The Working Life of Jean-Luc Godard” and is apparently currently working on a book about the lasting influence of the French New Wave.

I have only read this one article by Mr Brody and I’m sure he knows a lot about Cinema, Godard in particular, but I have a slight problem with The French New Wave. In my view there is no such thing as The French New Wave. It should be referred to as the European Film Renaissance. There is no doubt that French Cinema contributed a great deal to the quality and artistry of world film, but there were a number of other film makers in Europe who made significant contributions.  On top of which there were films made in 1960 in the United States which were of significance, if only at the box office.

It more or less took off in about 1959 with Les 400 Coups, but Room at the Top was released prior to that, as was Tiger Bay, and Billy Wilder’s Some Like It Hot. There was Hiroshima Mon prior to that, as was Tiger Bay, and Billy Wilder’s Some like it hot. There was  Black Orpheus, but also I’m All Right Jack, Look Back in Anger. and Our Man in Havana. In 1960, in Britain there was The Angry Silence, The League of Gentlemen, Peeping Tom, Sons and Lovers, and Saturday Night and Sunday Morning.

The Italian cinema was of significant influence. We have: Michelangelo Antonioni with La Notte and L’Eclisse, Il Deserto Rosso and Blow Up; Federico Fellini with 8½, Juliet of the Spirits, Amarcord. Fellini was already making a mark in the 50’s with I Vitelloni and La Strada; Vittorio de Sica’s Two Women and even earlier films such as The Bicycle Thief.

So it was not just the French cinema of the sixties, great as it was, that has a lasting influence. Cinema in Europe was dealing with a great many issues with great style and artistry. A great number of movies have been made across the world and many countries have in effect, influenced each other. Indeed, the Japanese influence on Italian/American film has been enormous, particularly so far as popularity at the box office is concerned. Fistful of Dollars (Yojimbo), Magnificent Seven (Seven Samurai) and The Outrage (Rashomon) are instances in point.

In effect there is no one particular influence on the making of motion pictures. The art of telling stories is varied and there are great filmmakers in all parts of the world.  It is only a matter of melding sound and images. I say that as if it’s the easiest thing in the world, but it is far more difficult to do than one can imagine. It starts with show and tell. Early silent cinema was a sequence of moving images with the occasional cue card of text describing a scene and depicting speech to clarify a narrative. Most of the ‘dialogue’ was in the acting. As Norma Desmond so ably points out, “We didn’t need dialogue. We had faces”.  Images were accompanied by music, usually from a pianist behind or beside the screen. Certain musical themes became associated with specific sequences in the film.  The movement of the story line was carefully constructing by the editing. How the sequences of images came together was of supreme importance in order to convey the story and give it the necessary emotive quality and meaning.  The acting was initially over-dramatic to get across the subtext of the images. Gradually a better understanding of just how telling an image could be when it is blown up and viewed in closeup or just simply showing the subject. A simple look could be more powerful than a more dramatic gesture. Acting for the camera became a technique all its own.

With sound, came the written text. Dialogue was now taking over, and the manner in which speech was delivered of course had some effect on the style of acting. There was also the matter of underscoring the images on the screen with music or other sound effects. In any event with music that heightened or emphasised the action of the film. Certain phrases and tones continued to be associated with particular emotions and activities. As a result the films from 1929 through to 1935 were very heavy with dialogue and as the writing improved so the character of a particular character was more specifically revealed.  Think of the witty savvy sidekicks of many a hero or heroine.  Think of actors such as Eric Rhodes, Edward Everett Horton, Eric Blore, Helen Broderick, Franklin Pangborn, Alan Mowbray, Eugene Pallette and many others. From the moment they appeared on screen, their very ‘character acting’ impressed and gave meaning.

Gradually dialogue and image became more in tune with each other. Each assisted the other and verbal explanations became reduced. The blend of dialogue/image became more expressive and nuanced, and as a consequence better film-making. So too with the use of music and sound. Film music became a subject of its own, as did the quality of the sound and effects in general. The period of this development from 1920 to 1950 is an extraordinary period for the studios in Hollywood as they attracted wonderful actors, writer, musicians and technicians of all sorts.  The better directors innovated and learned more and more about orchestrating a film and the requirements of production.

As part of this learning process the work rate was phenomenal. Alan Mowbray’s credits alone indicate the output. 8 films in 1931, 14 films in 1932, 8 films in 1933, 9 films in 1934, 6 in 1935, 11 in 1936, 10 in 1937. That’s 66 films in 6 years. Between 1939 and 1944 Eric Blore was involved in 35 films.  Bette Davis was involved in 43 films in 8 years between 1931 and 1939.  By the time she made All About Eve, considered a comeback, she had been in 65 films in the 19 years she had been acting in motion pictures. 

Billy Wilder had written 50 films prior to making Sunset Boulevard in 1950, had directed 8 films Including, Five Graves to Cairo, Double Indemnity and The Lost Weekend, He had won two Oscars, one for writing and one for directing all before 1950, including in 1946 at the Cannes Film Festival, the Grand Prize of the Festival for The Lost Weekend.

William Wellman had made 16 silent pictures in the six years before he made a sound film, Chinatown Night in 1929 and followed that up with 34 films over the next ten years, including an Oscar for A Star is Born made in 1937. This was the first time this story was dramatized on film. It stared Janet Gaynor and Frederick March, with writing credits going to Dorothy Parker, Alan Campbell and Robert Carson. There is a Wikipedia entry under Dorothy Parker which reads as follows:

In 1932, Parker met Alan Campbell, an actor hoping to become a screenwriter. They married two years later in Raton, New Mexico. Campbell's mixed parentage was the reverse of Parker's: he had a German-Jewish mother and a Scottish father. She learned that he was bisexual and later proclaimed in public that he was "queer as a billy goat". The pair moved to Hollywood and signed ten-week contracts with Paramount Pictures, with Campbell (also expected to act) earning $250 per week and Parker earning $1,000 per week. They would eventually earn $2,000 and sometimes more than $5,000 per week as freelancers for various studios. She and Campbell "[received] writing credit for over 15 films between 1934 and 1941"

One should note that in 1934 $1,000 was worth, in today’s value just under $23,000 a week, and her higher earnings would have been equivalent today of over $110,000 a week.

So it’s not surprising that a lot of talent drifted over to Hollywood, with those kinds of salaries being given out. At the same time however, great films were being made, despite the craziness.  By the 1940’s a number of superlative films had been produced. Indeed, in that decade alone were some of the most favoured (British and American) films:

1940:  Fantasia, The Grapes of Wrath. Rebecca, His Girl Friday, The Great Dictator, The Philadelphia Story.

1941: Sullivan’s Travels, The Little Foxes, The Maltese Falcon, Citizen Kane

1942: The Magnificent Ambersons, Casablanca

1944: Arsenic and Old Lace, To Have and Have Not, Meet Me in St. Louis, Double Indemnity

1945: Mildred Pierce, Spellbound

1946: The Stranger, Gilda, The Killers, The Big Sleep, Notorious, It’s A Wonderful Life, Gaslight.

1947: Black Narcissus, Miracle on 34^th Street, Out of the Past.

1948: Letter from an Unknown Woman, Rope, Key Largo, Red River, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

1949: Adam’s Rib, All the King’s Men, White Heat, The Third Man

There were a few standout films being made elsewhere. In 1943 Carl Dreyer’s Day of Wrath and Henri-George Clouzot’s Le Corbeau were made. Also In France, Marcel Carné’s Les Enfants du Paradis (1945) and Cocteau’s La Belle et Le Bête (1946). In Italy Vittorio De Sica made The Bicycle Thief (1948) and in Japan Kurosawa produced Drunken Angel (1948) and Stray Dog (1949).

There are of course accomplished films in every decade. The 1930’s had produced some equally outstanding films: M 1931, Frankenstein 1931, King Kong 1931, City Lights 1931, Duck Soup 1933, It Happened One Night 1934, The Lady Vanishes 1938, and in 1939 alone, Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr Smith Goes to Washington and Stagecoach (which Orson Wells watched over and over before making Citizen Kane).  These were the learning years with sound and the variety of character and style is impressive.

From its creation as a process in the 19^th Century and the skilful development by the likes of the Lumière brothers and Georges Méliès, to present day A/I and digital technology, film had taken hold around the world and nothing will stop it. I would guess the output of film is much greater than it had been in the 1930s and 40s, and the quality is equal to the best of that early era. We are only 6 years away from the centenary anniversary of sound film and the technological changes are astronomical. One could, and some probably already have, make a feature film just using a smart phone. All it takes is the doing.

My list of films, by the way, is taken from a consensus of films as listed on an internet site. I have seen them all, which is why I have included them. Some of you may think my choices are rubbish and may have an entirely different list. Indeed, I do not know if any ‘young’ people, say between 20 and 30 years of age, who would even deign to watch a film in black and white, with scenes that are longer than 30 seconds. In my observation young people are more attuned to film language because they have been weaned on moving image. One can see babies attempting to swipe pictures in books, believing that that is how one moves on. Every image is a touch screen. Why should it be otherwise?  

So one’s relationship with film and the memories of the magic of cinema is a very personal matter. I can easily watch certain films over and over again without any problem, such as Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, All About Eve, The Big Sleep, Now Voyager. There are many films post 1950 which I have omitted that would come within that category, such as 1962’s Lawrence of Arabia and 1967’s In the Heat of the Night. In addition there are a number of Ealing Studio comedies, Kind, Hearts and Coronets (1949), The Man in the White Suit (1951) and The Ladykillers (1955), The Green Man (1956), to name a few. I would add  the 1952 film of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest with its memorable cast.

There are some films which are seasonal and are broadcast on television every year in December, such as The Wizard of Oz, It’s a Wonderful Life, The Bishops Wife (1947), and A Christmas Carol (1951). For me it has to be the version with the inimitable Alastair Sim.

As you can see, I have not mentioned directors. The French nouvelle vague and the ‘Cahiers du Cinéma’ crowd have this thing about the ‘auteur theory’. For me, there are just good directors and they are most of the time good orchestrators in the making of a motion picture. They get the right team together and manage to get them all to perform at their best. This will usually result in a good film. Not always, but 99% of the time. Hitchcock, Curtiz, Capra, Wilder, Wellman, Lean, Jewison, Mackendrick, Renoir, Goddard, Truffaut, Cacoyannis, Costa-Gavras, Wajda, Almodóvar, Bondarchuk and many others have managed to put together some very good collaborators, the best boys, camera operators, stylists, designers, sound technicians, drivers, focus pullers, script continuity, makeup. I will just paste on the crew credits for Lawrence of Arabia as listed on IMDB. It’s an example of what it takes.  But remember there may be kids out there just doing it with a smart phone.

Music by

Maurice Jarre

Cinematography by 

Freddie Young

...

director of photography (as F.A. Young)

Editing by 

Anne V. Coates

Casting By 

Maude Spector

Production Design by 

John Box

Art Direction by 

John Stoll
Anthony Masters	...	(uncredited)

Set Decoration by 

Dario Simoni

...

(uncredited)

Costume Design by 

Phyllis Dalton

Makeup Department 

Charles E. Parker	...	makeup (as Charles Parker)
A.G. Scott	...	hairdresser

Production Management 

John Palmer	...	production manager
R.L.M. Davidson	...	production manager (uncredited)
Tadeo Villalba	...	unit production manager (uncredited)

Second Unit Director or Assistant Director 

Noël Howard	...	second unit director (as Noel Howard)
André Smagghe	...	second unit director (as Andre Smagghe)
Roy Stevens	...	assistant director
Bryan Coates	...	second assistant director (uncredited)
André De Toth	...	second unit director (uncredited)
Ibrahim Fawal	...	assistant director: Jordan film crew (uncredited)
Benchekroun Larbi	...	assistant director (uncredited)
Joe Marks	...	second assistant director (uncredited)
Michael Stevenson	...	second assistant director (uncredited)
David Tringham	...	second assistant director (uncredited)

Art Department 

Fred Bennett	...	construction assistant
Peter Dukelow	...	construction manager
Eddie Fowlie	...	property master
Terence Marsh	...	assistant art director (as T. Marsh)
George Richardson	...	assistant art director (as G. Richardson)
Tony Rimmington	...	assistant art director (as A. Rimmington)
Roy Rossotti	...	assistant art director (as R. Rossotti)
Dario Simoni	...	set dresser
José Algueró	...	assistant art director: Spain (uncredited)
Charles Bishop	...	sketch artist (uncredited)
Benjamín Fernández	...	Draftsman (uncredited)
David Fowlie	...	assistant property master (uncredited)
Fernando González	...	assistant art director (uncredited)
John Graysmark	...	draughtsman (uncredited)
Gil Parrondo	...	assistant art director (uncredited)
Francisco Prósper	...	construction coordinator (uncredited)
Edward Rodrigo	...	production buyer (uncredited)
Emilio Ruiz del Río	...	scenic artist (uncredited)
Wallis Smith	...	assistant art director (uncredited)
Peter Spencer	...	chargehand props (uncredited)
Roy Stannard	...	draughtsman (uncredited)
Tony Teiger	...	standby props (uncredited)
Jose Velazquez	...	carpenter (uncredited)
Roy Walker	...	draughtsman (uncredited)

Sound Department 

John Cox	...	sound dubbing
Paddy Cunningham	...	sound recordist
Winston Ryder	...	sound editor
John Aldred	...	dubbing crew (uncredited)
Geoff R. Brown	...	assistant dialogue editor (uncredited)
Malcolm Cooke	...	dialogue editor (uncredited)
Beryl Mortimer	...	foley artist (uncredited)
Stan Phillips	...	boom operator (uncredited)
Terry Sharratt	...	boom operator (uncredited)
Malcolm Stewart	...	sound (uncredited)
Don Wortham	...	boom operator (uncredited)

Special Effects by 

Cliff Richardson	...	special effects
Antonio Baquero	...	special effects assistant (uncredited)
Martin Gutteridge	...	special effects assistant (uncredited)
Pablo Pérez	...	special effects technician (uncredited)
John Richardson	...	special effects assistant (uncredited)
Wally Veevers	...	special effects (uncredited)

Stunts 

Peter Brace	...	stunts (uncredited)
Ken Buckle	...	stunts (uncredited)
Tim Condren	...	stunts (uncredited)
Bill Cummings	...	stunts (uncredited)
John Dick	...	stunts (uncredited)
Rupert Evans	...	stunts (uncredited)
Keith Fodger	...	stunts (uncredited)
Russell Forehead	...	stunts (uncredited)
Richard Graydon	...	stunt coordinator (uncredited)
Frank Hayden	...	stunts (uncredited)
Geoffrey Last	...	stunt pilot (uncredited)
Rick Lester	...	stunts (uncredited)
Jimmy Lodge	...	stunts (uncredited)
Joe Powell	...	stunts (uncredited)
Nosher Powell	...	stunts (uncredited)
Tommy Reeves	...	stunts (uncredited)
John Sullivan	...	stunt double: Peter O'Toole (uncredited)
Larry Taylor	...	stunts (uncredited)
Dan Wilmott	...	stunt pilot (uncredited)
D.J. Wimott	...	stunt pilot (uncredited)
Terry Yorke	...	stunts (uncredited)

Camera and Electrical Department 

Archie Dansie	...	chief electrician
Ernest Day	...	camera operator
Skeets Kelly	...	second unit photography
Peter Newbrook	...	second unit photography
Nicolas Roeg	...	second unit photography
Ronald Anscombe	...	clapper loader (uncredited)
Steve Birtles	...	gaffer (uncredited)
Peter Carey	...	gaffer (uncredited)
Kenneth Danvers	...	still photographer (uncredited)
Ceri Davies	...	camera operator (uncredited)
Mike Fox	...	focus puller: second unit (uncredited)
Ginger Gemmel	...	camera operator (uncredited)
Claudio Gómez Grau	...	still photographer (uncredited)
Brian Harris	...	clapper / loader (uncredited)
Mark Kaufman	...	still photographer (uncredited)
Kevin Kavanagh	...	focus puller (uncredited)
Tim Murphy	...	rigging gaffer (uncredited)
Len Prout	...	gaffer (uncredited)
Dick Savery	...	grip (uncredited)
Bob Stilwell	...	clapper loader (uncredited)
Alex Thomson	...	camera operator: second unit (uncredited)
Mike Tomlin	...	clapper loader (uncredited)
Felix Trimboli	...	camera operator (uncredited)
Les Wiggins	...	camera technician (uncredited)
Mervyn Wilson	...	focus puller (uncredited)
Kenneth J. Withers	...	focus puller (uncredited)

Costume and Wardrobe Department 

John Wilson-Apperson	...	wardrobe
José Luis de las Heras	...	wardrobe assistant (Spain) (uncredited)
Charles Guerin	...	wardrobe assistant (uncredited)

Editorial Department 

David Bernstein	...	colorist: HDR mastering
Anne V. Coates	...	editorial consultant: 1989 restoration
Roy Benson	...	assistant editor (uncredited)
Ron Diamond	...	dvd menus editor (2001) (uncredited)
Willy Kemplen	...	first assistant editor (uncredited)
Ray Lovejoy	...	assistant editor (uncredited)
Eunice Mountjoy	...	assistant editor (uncredited)
Norman Savage	...	associate editor (uncredited)
Aidan Stanford	...	color timer (2002 restoration) (uncredited)

Location Management 

Douglas Twiddy	...	location manager
Phil Hobbs	...	location caterer (uncredited)
Eva Monley	...	location manager (uncredited)

Music Department 

Adrian Boult	...	conductor: London Philharmonic Orchestra (as Sir Adrian Boult)
London Philharmonic Orchestra	...	musicians: orchestra
Gerard Schurmann	...	orchestrator
Lawrence Ashmore	...	orchestrator (uncredited)
Maurice Jarre	...	conductor (uncredited)
Morris Stoloff	...	music coordinator (uncredited)
Lucie Svehlova	...	orchestra leader: Tadlow re-recording (uncredited)

Script and Continuity Department 

Barbara Cole	...	continuity
Josie Fulford	...	assistant continuity (uncredited)
Lee Turner	...	script supervisor: second unit (uncredited)

Transportation Department 

Peter Middlemiss

...

transportation manager (uncredited)

Additional Crew 

Robert A. Harris	...	restoration produced by / restored by
Stephan Tchamouroff	...	Doctor
Nicole Apoteker	...	production secretary: Morocco (uncredited)
Raif Asharif	...	veterinarian (uncredited)
Barbara Back	...	production secretary: Morocco (uncredited)
Peter Beale	...	office runner (uncredited)
John Breslin	...	dialect advisor (uncredited)
Marie Budberg	...	researcher (uncredited)
Jock Dalgleish	...	liaison officer (uncredited)
John Dunkley	...	office runner (uncredited)
Richard Ford	...	mechanic: Rolls Royce (uncredited)
Hamdan Hamid	...	riding instructor (uncredited)
Noreen Hipwell	...	production secretary (uncredited)
Bert Holliday	...	mechanic (uncredited)
R.C. Hutt	...	military advisor (uncredited)
James C. Katz	...	producer: 1989 film restoration (uncredited)
Mildred McCarger	...	production representative (uncredited)
Grace McCorrey	...	production secretary (uncredited)
Jean Menz	...	secretary: Mr. Spiegel (uncredited)
Hugh Miller	...	dialogue coach (uncredited)
Eva Monley	...	production assistant (uncredited)
Pat Moon	...	production secretary (uncredited)
Pamela Moore	...	production secretary (uncredited)
Maureen Newman	...	assistant production accountant (uncredited)
Anthony Nutting	...	technical advisor (uncredited)
L.E.M. Perowne	...	military advisor (uncredited)
Otto Plaschkes	...	production assistant (uncredited)
Eustace Shipman	...	medical doctor (uncredited)
Norman Spencer	...	assistant: Mr. Lean (uncredited)
Gordon Stebbing	...	assistant accountant (uncredited)
John Sullivan	...	wrangler (uncredited)
Jeremy Taylor	...	horse master (uncredited)
Lew Thornburn	...	representative: London (uncredited)
David White	...	production accountant (uncredited)
Maureen Whitty	...	production secretary (uncredited)
John R. Woolfenden	...	unit publicist (uncredited)

I HOPE YOU KNOW THE SCORE (2)

This is a painting, by Adolph Menzel, showing Frederick the Great playing a flute concerto in Sanssouci, C. P. E. Bach at the harpsichord, Quantz leaning on the wall to the right -  (1852, five years after the meeting with Bach) I post it in addition to yesterday's blog.

 

Middle: Frederick the Great; far right: Johann Joachim Quantz, the king's flute teacher; to his left with a violin and wearing dark clothing: Franz Benda; leftmost in the foreground: Gustav Adolf von Gotter; behind him: Jakob Friedrich von Bielfeld; behind him, looking at the ceiling: Pierre Louis Maupertuis; in the background, sitting on a pink sofa: Wilhelmine of Bayreuth; on her right: Amalie of Prussia with a maid of honor; behind them, Carl Heinrich Graun; the elderly lady behind the music stand: Sophie Caroline; behind her: Egmont of Chasot; at the harpsichord: Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.

 

I HOPE YOU KNOW THE SCORE

There is a new play by Oliver Cotton about to open at the Theatre Royal Bath. It is called ‘The Score’. It is the story of how Johann Sebastian Bach came to compose ‘A Musical Offering’. It is based on an encounter on the 7^th May 1747 between Bach and Frederick II (The Great), at Potsdam, in the King’s palace at Sans Souci. The King had given Bach a single musical theme and challenged him to improvise a three voice fugue. He did, and later developed the theme into a six voice fugue, and sent the score to Frederic as an offering.

 

You can listen to the piece on YouTube with Barthold Kuijken on traverse flute, Sigiswald Kuijken on violin, Wieland Kuijken on viola da gamba and Robert Kohnen on harpsichord, playing at the Old Town Hall, Leipzig.

I have attached the video herewith but for technical reason you may have to go to YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzT_elDRLJM 

Just as Bach’s composition develops into multiple voices, so Mr Cotton's theatrical offering is multi-layered. Johann’s son Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach was a valued member of Frederick’s’ royal orchestra. The King was in fact an accomplished musician and played the flute. Carl was one of the foremost clavier players in Europe, and his own compositions, which dated from 1731, included a number of sonatas and concert pieces for harpsichord and clavichord. Also in attendance at the court were Carl Heinrich Graun, Kapellmeister to Frederick and Franz Benda violinist and composer.

 

Frederick was 28 years old when he succeeded to the Prussian throne in 1740 and had grown up with a particularly abusive father, Frederick William I. An entry in Wikipedia states:

 

During his early youth, Frederick lived with his mother and sister Wilhelmine, although they regularly visited their father's hunting lodge at Königs Wusterhausen. Frederick and his older sister formed a close relationship, which lasted until her death in 1758. Frederick and his sisters were brought up by a Huguenot governess and tutor and learned French and German simultaneously. Undeterred by his father's desire that his education be entirely religious and pragmatic, the young Frederick developed a preference for music, literature, and French culture. Frederick Wilhelm thought these interests were effeminate, as they clashed with his militarism, resulting in his frequent beating and humiliation of Frederick. Nevertheless, Frederick, with the help of his tutor in Latin, Jacques Duhan, procured for himself a 3,000 volume secret library of poetry, Greek and Roman classics, and philosophy to supplement his official lessons.

 

From 1740 on however, Frederick developed his own autocratic style of leadership and militaristic endeavours. He was a devoted reader of Machiavelli’s The Prince. During the second Silesian War, which ended with the Treaty of Dresden on the 25^th December 1745, the city of Leipzig had been occupied by Frederick’s troops. That did not endear the citizens of Leipzig, of which Johann Sebastian was one, to Frederick the Great. 

Thus the meeting in 1747 just under two years later was not exactly without issues, on top of which Johann was having his own quality time with his son Carl. Frederick was 35, Johann was 62 and Carl was 33. Johann was only three years older than Frederick’s father would have been had he lived, and he had only been dead some seven years.  You can therefore begin to appreciate the complexities of the encounter and the ramifications which flowed from it. To produce a play from these circumstances is as challenging as Bach’s answer to King Frederick’s musically themed throwing of the gauntlet.

 

Writing about historical events is never an easy matter. Researching people’s backgrounds and relationships provides the writer with some insight, and being able to see and read actual letters and diaries of the people one is writing about, will give perspective.  Testimony of certain of their encounters with others is of great value; however, there are encounters of which there is no actual record of any kind. Therefore, once one has gathered as much information as one can, the writer can give voice to the situation. It is the informed imagination that provides this voice. Whilst it is not crucial for the reader or viewer to have the same degree of background knowledge, it is sometimes helpful to have a little bit of information.  The work itself however, will stand on its own. It is up to the reader/viewer to interpret the text.

 

Indeed all the writer can hope for, once s/he has let it go, is that there are readers or viewers who understand the text and are able to interpret the various layers explored by the work. Once it is on its own, like all living things, it hopes to be understood. Much of the clarity of a theatrical work, of course, depends on the performance of the characters and how they mesh, clash and interweave across whatever platform that encapsulates the piece itself. It is in itself like a musical offering with all the sounds and speech creating a harmony or discord. It will be sonata or symphony so long as it is co-operative and well-orchestrated.

 

The proposed production of the play will open at the Theatre Royal Bath from the 12^th October 2023 to the 28^th October 2023. It will be under the direction of Trevor Nunn and will have as interpreters, Brian Cox, Nicole Ansari-Cox, Matthew Burns, Doña Croll, Peter de Jersey, Stephen Hagan, Benedict Slater, Eric Sirakian and Christopher Staines. The Composer and Sound Designer is Sophie Cotton, Designer Robert Jones, and Lighting Designer Johanna Town. With such a team, I have no doubt that Mr Cotton’s theatrical offering of The Score will be well worth attending.

 

WHY ARE WE STILL WAITING ?

I have been listening to a Radio Four book of the week “Adam Smith: What he thought and why it matters” by Jesse Norman MP. He values Adam Smith a great deal, and is a firm believer in Smith’s philosophy, particularly as it pertains to economics. 

 

Mr. Norman has served as a Minister of State, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Paymaster General, Financial Secretary and Committee Chairman under Teresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. He is currently Minister of State for Decarbonization and Technology. Mr Norman was educated at Eton College and Merton College, Oxford, graduating with a Second in Classics. Norman pursued further studies at University College London, where he was appointed an Honorary Research Fellow in philosophy, taking an MPhil (Master of Philosophy) in 1999 and a PhD in 2003. His doctoral thesis was titled "Visual reasoning in Euclid’s geometry: an epistemology of diagrams". His book Adam Smith: What He Thought, and Why It Matters (2018), won the Parliamentary non-fiction book award in 2018., and was described as "superb" in the Financial Times.

He is married to Dame Catherine Elizabeth Bingham DBE HonFRS HonFREng. She is a managing partner at a venture capital firm, SV Health Investors. She has a first-class degree in Biochemistry (MA) from Christ Church, Oxford, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. In May 2020 Bingham was appointed Chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, without a recruitment process. Dame Kate's work on the UK's vaccination rollout programme has been praised by scientists and international media, particularly for securing 350 million doses of six vaccines and setting up infrastructure for clinical trials, manufacturing and distribution. Bingham has expressed views on how the UK covid vaccination programme could have been better run and on how UK potential in life sciences could be improved. In January 2017 Bingham received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the BioIndustry Association UK. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the 2021 Birthday Honours for "services to the procurement, manufacture and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines", Bingham was also admitted to the Freedom of the City of London in that year. She was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2023 and was elected an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering later the same year.

 

There is no doubt a great deal of academic and personal accomplishment by Mr & Mrs Norman; however, the distinction between a first-class degree and a second is clearly noted. There can also be no doubt as to who the big earner is in the family and that venture capital and capitalism in general has provided a great deal to the Norman family; hence Jesse Norman’s attraction to Adam Smith’s “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” published in March of 1776, during the Scottish Enlightenment and the Scottish Agricultural Revolution.

 

There was also a colonial revolution going on in America which had begun in 1765, erupted into conflict in 1775, continuing till 1783. Four months after the publication of the Wealth of Nations, the Declaration of Independence (principally written by Thomas Jefferson) was adopted and published in July of 1776. Seven years earlier in 1759 Smith had published The Theory of Moral Sentiments which I have no doubt would have been read by and had some influence on Thomas Jefferson and some others involved in the American revolt.

 

It was a time of conflict throughout the world, much as it is now.  The last battle on Scottish or British soil was the Battle of Culloden in 1746. Smith would have been 23 years old. He published his Theory of Moral Sentiments at the age of 36, thirteen years after this bloodiest of conflicts and it must have still been very much a factor in his experience and thought as it must have taken some time to write. One has to admire his optimism and assumption that his imagined ‘concerned person’ was a reality that could be achieved. 

 

There is no doubt that were all individuals to behave in the manner of Smith’s concerned person, with full faculties of imagination and sympathy, the world would be a better place. Indeed if every capitalist, merchant or politician behaved in this exemplary manner, then the process of levelling up and spreading of the wealth throughout the world would have been achieved long ago.

 

I do not pretend to have read Smith’s works in any great depth, but essentially his view is that we all operate out of self-interest, but a self-interest tempered by sympathy.  Smith was highly concerned about the problems of poverty. He writes:

...poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavourable to the rearing of children [...] It is not uncommon [...] in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive [...] In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age; in many places before they are seven; and in almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality, however, will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of better station.

 

He should have said poverty is extremely unfavourable to everyone in all circumstances.  Between the exercise of self-interest and the exigencies of sympathy for others, there is a Grand Canyon for most people and in particular the very wealthy. The concept that mutual self-interest will result in some sort of wealth distribution is clearly unwarranted. Smith was clearly aware of this as he was extremely critical of what is now called ‘special interest’ (bankers, corporations, oligopolies, guilds etc.). He writes:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

 

I do not understand how, a conservative party, with as firm a belief in laissez-faire capitalism as an eventual cure for all ills, can possibly believe that higher taxation of the rich stifles enterprise. They claim that by allowing them to thrive and increase their profits, they will in effect pay more taxes in the long run. They also claim that by allowing generous tax exemptions for spending profits on expansion to increase profits, they will again be paying more into the treasury. Yet somehow, that does not happen, and governments are reduced to imposing so-called windfall taxes. It doesn’t happen because corporations and ‘special interests’ do everything they can to disguise their profits and avoid paying taxes altogether, until they are found out and exposed for having “unexpected” or even “unearned’ profits.  

 

The conservative party sees this extreme example of self-interest in operation daily, and they still cling to the notion that lower taxation helps big enterprise, which in turn will help the general public. If that is the case why is the National Health Service struggling for funds to replace outdated equipment, outdated buildings, pay all its staff better wages, and recruit more people to reduce the waiting time for treatment?

 

Smith’s publications occurred during times of crisis. His theories have been lauded but clearly impossible to put into practice. Some 160 years later during another time of crisis a certain William Beveridge was part of an inter-departmental committee created by a conservative leaning coalition government to produce a survey of Britain’s social insurance and allied services. The report was published in November of 1942, officially entitled Social Insurance and Allied Services (Cmd. 6404),

The Report offered three guiding principles to its recommendations:

1. Proposals for the future should not be limited by "sectional interests". A "revolutionary moment in the world's history is a time for revolutions, not for patching".
2. Social insurance is only one part of a "comprehensive policy of social progress". The five giants on the road to reconstruction were Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.
3. Policies of social security "must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual", with the state securing the service and contributions. The state "should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family".

Beveridge was opposed to "means-tested" benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate universal contribution in exchange for a flat rate universal benefit. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor (the "poverty trap"). 

There were later attempt to implement some of the recommendations by the Labour Party who came to power in the 1945 general election, most notably the Family Allowances Act 1945, National Insurance (Industrial Injuries Acts 1946 and 1948, National Insurance Acts 1946 and 1949, National Health Services Act 1946, Pensions (Increase) Act 1947, Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949.

The notion of creating a democratic welfare state whilst keeping up with a market-led, capitalist economy is very much part of what most countries in the western hemisphere are about. Various governments along the line have leaned more towards welfare whilst others have bent the other way in letting the “market decide” and for individuals to fend for themselves. Today’s world unfortunately makes it extremely difficult for populations to fend entirely for themselves. The state has to intervene. Smith’s concerned person is no longer an individual, it is the state. Beveridge’s report should be more carefully examined and perhaps a new investigation should bring it up to date. What is necessary is not so much minimum wage legislation, but minimum income legislation. I see entrepreneurs and corporations lauded for their supposed creation of wealth and employment but I see no entrepreneurs or venture capitalists lauded for their elimination of poverty, which, for some reason, is seen as a by-product rather than the main goal.

It is not just about economic growth, it is about ensuring that every human being has the possibility of benefiting from very basic human rights and partaking in the world around them, free to learn, free to work, free from want and disease. That has been the goal for the last 10,000 years. Numerous individuals have come up with strategies and plans to that end, and, still, it would appear, not one of them has succeeded. Why is that?

GOING WITH THE FLOW

Fluid. Is it a liquid, is it something flowing or is it a matter of being adaptable? It is a word that is more appropriate to the thinking or our current political representatives than consistency or immutability. It is the antithesis of being steadfast to the party line.

 

Our current Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps is the epitome of the fluid politician. He has been Minister of State for Housing and Local Government (2yrs 3 months), Minister without portfolio  whilst Chairman of the Conservative party (2yrs 8 months), Minister of State for International Development (just over 6 months) Secretary of State for Transport (3yrs 2 months), Home Secretary (6 days), Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (4 months), Secretary of State for Energy security and Net Zero (7 months) and now secretary of State for Defence (24 days).  

 

He has moved about in the last 13 years like no one else. In the last year he had had four jobs as Secretary of State. He has served under Cameron, Johnson, Truss and Sunak. On many occasions he has been trotted out to defend absurd positions of the Conservative Party and he has managed to obfuscate his way through interview after interview with consummate ease to support whatever the current government wishes to justify. His fluidity and adaptability is without peer in the conservative party, which is why he is invariably put forward as the spokesperson, following clumsy and ridiculous pronouncements by the party leaders. He has come out time and again to put on a brave face, without any concomitant embarrassment one would normally associate with defending the indefensible.

 

During his latest interview he has boldly stated that one must be changeable in controlling public expenditure and keep in constant review any public undertaking instituted by the government. Fluidity is essential regardless of commitment to policy. He may not have stated that specifically, but that is in effect what he implied. There is much to be said for that view. Indeed one has seen it in operation within the leadership of the Labour Party as well as the Liberal Democrats.

 

It is never good policy to be so totally rigid as to not see the alternative available when obstacles crop up, as they invariably do with strict adherence to a position. The battering-ram politician is never capable of fluidity and the possibilities of alternative propositions. It is a matter of going with the flow. The likes of Suella Braverman, Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and others on the right of the party will never adjust.  They are constantly pushing and punching and assigning blame on others for the failure of their blows. The tragedy is that they sometimes succeed; however, with such density comes erosion, and the ravages of time will reduce them to rubble. One would hope that the next general election will do the necessary.

 

As to Grant Shapps he has always managed to flow with the go. He has 5 ‘O’ levels from Watford Grammar School for Boys and a Higher National Diploma from Manchester Polytechnic having completed a business and finance course. He started his working life as a photocopier sales rep, and from the age of 22, in 1990, he had a not too successful career in various business ventures. A short entry from Wikipedia state the following:

Shapps's use of the names Michael Green, Corinne Stockheath and Sebastian Fox attracted media attention in 2012. He denied having used a pseudonym after entering parliament and, in 2014, threatened legal action against a constituent who had stated on Facebook that he had. In February 2015, he told LBC Radio: "I don't have a second job and have never had a second job while being an MP. End of story."

In March 2015, Shapps said he had made an error in his interview with LBC and was "mistaken over the dates" of his outside employment. He said he had "over-firmly denied" having a second job. David Cameron defended Shapps, saying he had made a mistake and it was time to "move on". In March 2015, Dean Archer, the constituent previously threatened with legal action by Shapps, threatened Shapps with legal action.

Please note the phrase “over-firmly denied”. Also note David Cameron’s use of “time to move on”, a phrase used by just about every conservative prime minister since the 2010 election, to cover embarrassing situations. As to over-firmly statements, they are the stock in trade of the politician used to adaptability and the non-denial denial. Sadly, Grant Shapps is not alone in this type of exchange, nor is his party the only party responsible for such rhetoric. It goes with the flow, and whether alone or not, Mr Shapps is extremely practiced in the art of fluidity.

Our current prime minister has spoken frequently of integrity, responsibility, and adherence to codes of conduct. He has clearly fallen short of that initial promise, but do not forget that everything is changeable, and adapting to circumstances, real or imagined, is the name of the game. If the Labour Party and the Liberal Democratic Party seek to dislodge the current government and remove as many of their representatives as possible, they are going to have to adapt their strategies to get around the first-past-the-post obstacles in any number of constituencies. They will also have to provide real meaning for the electorate to gain their vote and show a genuine interest in actual public service as opposed to mere political positions.

A FEW CONCERNS AND OBSERVATIONS

To whom it may concern,

I’m not sure who is the whom I am addressing. I do not know whether or not they may actually be concerned with, or indeed interested in, the matters which I presume them to be concerned with.

Concern is a rather fluid word. Someone who is involved in a concern may be quite happy about the tasks and responsibilities associated with that enterprise. It may be an individual who is involved in the care of others or simply the attribute of a concerned person as envisaged by Adam Smith.   It may also relate to a person/s anxiety, apprehension and unease about their personal situation or the general state of the world around them. 

I could also be grossly mistaken and the whom is someone who is totally unconcerned with any of the above. In which case my opening remark is completely inappropriate. On the other hand it is difficult to imagine any individual who has no concerns or is not involved with anything or anyone. The simple matter of being alive is a concern, and the brain is never completely inactive, unless it has ceased to function entirely. In the absence of death we all have concerns of one kind or another.  So I presume to presume.

I was having breakfast and listening to More or Less on Radios 4.  The claim by Housing Minister Rachel Maclean that the government had built a record number of social rent homes was manifestly wrong, if not an outright lie. By carefully choosing her own definition of ‘social rent’ and massaging certain statistics, she could almost be correct. It was however an extremely misleading claim, if not a complete prevarication. In effect it was a lie, The presenter, Tim Harford demonstrated, with clinical examination and evidence from the Governments own statistical analysis of housing, just how misleading the minister was. He did the same for Liz Truss’s latest claims that her mini budget was correct, with clear analysis showing just how disastrous it was, and how flawed her thinking.

These are matter of concern, particularly when current conservative ministers continue to mislead and prop up disastrous government policy, retreating from critical environmental decisions, all the while claiming it to be in the economic interest of the public.  Having created the current cost of living crisis, they now claim to resolve it by stating that they are holding off implementing net zero commitments, and telling the public that by doing so they are saving the public from additional expenses on cars and boilers.   What kind of insanity is that?

Despite repeated claims that their actions are to support and benefit their poor constituents, it is painfully apparent that every turn by the current Prime Minister and his associates is a scrambled attempt at cajoling the electorate into re-electing a conservative majority. Their only program is to turn the polls around. They do not care what they do to preserve power. This is of concern. Government, it would seem is no longer about public service.

Additional note since yesterday: I have just listened to the Prime Minister being interviewed on the today program by Nick Robinson – The word disingenuous is all that can be applied to Rishi Sunak’s effort to claim he is thinking only of the economic pressures being put on the populace, that he is a new broom bringing about a change in political leadership and that he is initiating a new way forward for the British people. He defies anyone to put forward a better plan whilst claiming Britain has been leading the way forward in carbon emission reduction, and will still meet its net zero commitments. Having been party to creating the cost of living crisis, for which he accepts no responsibility, his current proposals are a connivance to persuade the electorate to turn back to the Conservatives. What is extraordinary is that there are still members within his party who defend his garbage and claim they actually believe in it. So what we get is a lack of frankness, candour, or sincerity. They are being falsely and hypocritically ingenuous; hence disingenuous, which must be of concern.

Mr Sunak had said in his speech, inter alia:

“The proposal for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car. I’ve scrapped it,” he said.

“The proposal that we should force you to have seven different bins in your home. I’ve scrapped it.

“The proposal to make you change your diet – and harm British farmers - by taxing meat. Or to create new taxes to discourage flying or going on holiday. I’ve scrapped those too.”

Herewith sample exchange from interview:

Nick Robinson: “Hold on a second prime minister, you stand up with the authority or prime minister in Downing Street and you say you’re scrapping a series of proposals, and when I ask you about them yourself, you say ‘oh, somebody considered (them) and it was in the appendix of the document’.“There’s nothing to be scrapped, which is why your former environment (minister) says you’re pretending to halt frightening proposals that simply do not exist.”

Mr Sunak said: “I reject that entirely. These are all things that have been raised by very credible people.”

I would ask, raised by which people, where and when?  A complete nonsense. Pretending to deal with things that do not exist. What fantasy prime minister is this? This is straight out of the Trump book of political leadership. Repeat the fantasy. “These are things that have been raised by a lot of credible people, so many you wouldn’t believe, more than ever before”

Indeed, this is even more hideously demonstrated by what is going on in Russia, Hungary, Belarus and most assuredly in the United States and the outpouring of venom by Donald Trump and his supporters’ railings against the entire democratic process and rule of law. The avalanche of threats to judges, officers of the courts, law officers and potential witnesses since he has been indicted is of considerable concern. So much so that the prosecutor has petitioned the court to hold Mr Trump accountable and make him cease his harmful rhetoric.  His MAGA base has been referred to as a dangerous cesspool. He is more than prepared to stoke violence in this pool. The shit hitting the fan has never been more relevant.

On a different note, regardless of political concerns, there are other matters of import to the populace. The Rugby World Cup is in full swing. Twenty nations are represented in 5 different pools. France, Ireland, South Africa, Wales and England are all 2 for 2 at present. This is of concern to a great number of rugby fans across the globe.  The NFL season in the United States has begun. Attempts to spread the popularity of the game will involves 5 games being played in Europe. Two in Frankfurt, Germany and three in London. The Jacksonville Jaguars will be involved in two of the games in London, one of which will be at Wembley Stadium and the other at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, which will also host the Tennessee Titans against the Baltimore Ravens in week 6.

We all have a variety of concerns, to wit family, friends, jobs, daily activities, cooking, shopping, subsidence, home maintenance, teeth, remembering to take the pills, what to drink, staying reasonably healthy, and the list goes on. This is that last day of my four score years and I move on to the next decade wondering if I’ll make it to 2032, by which time Mr Sunak’s deferments on scrapping petrol and diesel cars and gas boilers may have come into effect. It would be nice to find out. Tee hee.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED

There is a YouTube video from 2016 (prior to the 2016 presidential and general election in the United States) in which, the writer, Tony Schwartz describes his views on Donald Trump to the Oxford Union. He predicts exactly what Trump would do in the event of losing an election and many other characteristics of Donald Trump. It is worth another look and should spurn every possible American voter to make every effort to vote against Donald Trump should he be nominated as a presidential candidate. Nothing has changed about Trump exept he has become even more dangerous.