The Blessed End of Eurovision?

At risk of speaking in bad taste, I have to say that it finally looks as if something good might come out of Israel's war against the citizens of Gaza.  Namely, the collapse of the Eurovision Song Contest.  With the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) refusing to ban Israel from next year's contest, (although, strangely, they had no qualms over kicking out Russia when it invaded Ukraine), four nations have already announced that they will boycott the contest, with more apparently likely to follow.  With luck, the furore over Israeli participation will sound the death knell for this horrendous annual event which, for far too, long, has been allowed to blight our lives in the name of 'entertainment' and 'international brotherhood'.  In truth, it has always been a politically motivated ode to utter mediocrity with little artistic merit.  In recent times it has just become one big gay joke.  Quite literally.  Not to sound homophobic bit I, along I'm sure with many others, find that the turning up of the campness levels to eleven does nothing to make the farrago any more entertaining.  Rather, all it seems to do is to reinforce existing stereotypes about the gay and trans communities.  If nothing else, if the Eurovision Song Contest does breath its last as a result of this issue, we in the UK can at least be spared our annual ritual humiliation when it comes to the voting.  I mean, I honestly don't see why we should keep paying (the UK is one of the main sponsors of the contest) to be pissed on.  It's high time that we told the bastards to just fuck right off.  And this Israel business provided the perfect pretext for doing so - we could have walked out on a matter of moral principle.  So naturally, we haven't taken the opportunity, instead just meekly going along with the EBU in effectively denying what has been, to all intents and purposes, a genocide in Gaza, perpetrated by Israel.

But why are Israel in the European Song Contest in the first place?  Last time I checked, they definitely weren't in Europe, either geographically or by virtue of being a member of the EU.  The standard answer, of course, is that the contest is organised by the EBU, of which Israel is a member.  But again, the question is why?  If they aren't a European country then surely they shouldn't be in the EBU?  But if the EBU and the majority of its membership apparently don't have the balls to kick Israel out, then they should at least have the decency to try and be balanced by inviting Gaza to participate.  Sure, Gaza isn't in Europe nor even a member of the EBU. (although if, as Israel claims, it is still part of their territories, then surely it is), but the EBU long ago set a precedent of allowing outside nations to participate, be they Israel or Australia.  The great thing about such an initiative is that it would give the EBU the moral high ground, while simultaneously guaranteeing an Israeli boycott, thereby resolving the whole issue.  Another bonus is that it would have the likes of the Daily Mail spluttering into their headlines, denouncing it as an appeasement of radical Islam.  You can see the sort of stories they'd run: claiming that the Gazan contestant was really a Hamas terrorist who had murdered Israeli children, or that Gaza planned to win the public vote by whipping up public sympathy by fielding a singer who had suffered multiple amputations as a result of Israeli bombings.  Accompanied, no doubt, by a chorus made up of the badly burned and mangled bodies of dead Palestinian children strung up as puppets and made to dance behind the singer.  I know, I know - poor taste again.  But hey, if the Israeli attacks on Gaza and the EBU's craven refusal to take a moral stance aren't in worse taste, then I don't know what would be.

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969)

Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed (1969) is, in many ways, a problematic entry in Hammer's Frankenstein series. The year of its release is significant, placing the film on the cusp of a shift in Hammer's horror output - while it still has the trappings of their successful period Gothic format, it also looks forward to the next decade, as the studio's output became more sexually explicit and gory, as they tried to compete with the new generation of horror films from the US that had been heralded by Night of the Living Dead (1968).  Ironically, at the very moment that Hammer was winning accolades like the Queen's Award for Industry for the financial boost the success of its horror films globally had given the British economy, the very formula which had served it so well beginning to lose its popularity with audiences.  Consequently, the studio's then owner, Sir James Carreras, realised that if the films were to continue to compete successfully in a changing marketplace, then new elements had to be introduced.  Which is why, at his instigation and over the objections of both stars and director, the infamous rape scene was inserted into Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed.  The scene feels as jarring today as it did in 1969, completely out of character for Frankenstein - as played by Peter Cushing he was always amoral and obsessed with proving his theories, but his interest in women was always peripheral and he always seemed asexual.  Whilst he might use blackmail and intimidation to gain the compliance of those he forced to assist him, sexual assault, like using direct violence, would simply seem too crude to a man of Frankenstein's sensibilities.

Of course, Hammer's Frankenstein films had never been as consistent as their Dracula movies.  Unlike the latter, they never really formed a coherent and consistent series of films, with continuity noticeably lacking between the later entries.  While the first two, Curse of Frankenstein (1956) and Revenge of Frankenstein (1958), form a distinct sequence, with the latter a clear sequel to the first, the third entry, Evil of Frankenstein (1964) abandons their continuity and gives Frankenstein and his monster a whole new origin story told in flashback.  (This was undoubtedly down to the fact that while the first two were bankrolled by Columbia, the third was backed by Universal, who seemed to want it to fall more in line, stylistically and thematically, with their own earlier Frankenstein series).  Both Frankenstein Created Woman (1967) and Frankenstein Must Destroyed seem to be entirely self-contained stories with no obvious links, other than Cushing's Frankenstein, to either each other or the earlier films.  The character of Frankenstein himself was also not entirely consistent over the course of the films, starting as an amoral over reacher in the first two, although still retaining some redeeming human characteristics, by the third he seemed somewhat more worldly, complaining not only of the injustices visited on his work by the authorities, but also their misappropriation of his physical possessions.  In Evil, at least as far as his relationship with his assistant was concerned, the Baron seemed less misanthropic and possessed of more of a moral compass than usual, (the true villain is the hypnotist who uses the monster for his own murderous purposes, to Frankenstein's disapproval).  By Frankenstein Created Woman, he's regained some of his earlier steeliness, but has developed a sardonic sense of humour (as demonstrated in a court scene) and retains some the slightly more compassionate side glimpsed in Evil.  But by Frankenstein Must be Destroyed, apart from his hubris, the Baron seems devoid of virtually any normal human characteristics or emotions.  he has, in effect, become the monster, (something foreshadowed in the opening scenes of a scientist being decapitated by a figure with a scarred face, which turns out to be a mask which, when removed, reveals Frankenstein's face).

Which latter point at least links it thematically to some of the earlier entries in the series: at the end of Revenge, his brain has been transplanted into nw body, while Frankenstein Created Woman opens with a frozen Frankenstein being thawed out by his assistants (echoing scenes of the monster being thawed out from blocks of ice in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman (1943) and House of Frankenstein (1944)).  Indeed, the peroccupation with identity and the monster appearing human rather than grotesque are also themes carried over from Frankenstein Created Woman, with Frankenstein having used the life energy of his executed assistant to revive the assistant's dead girlfriend, leaving her with a crisis of identity in the earlier film, while in Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, one scientist's brain is transplanted into another man's body, again resulting in questions of identity.  So, even if tonally somewhat different from its predecessors, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed has a clear themsatic line of descent from them.  Ultimately, Frankenstein Must be Destroyed emerges as a strong entry in the series in spite of the disconcertig elements imposed upon it, with Terrence Fisher, as ever, directing masterfully and a strong cast, led by Cushing and including Simon Ward and Veronica Carlson, delivering equally strong performances.  The biggest criticism that can be levelled at the film is that it is overlong, due largely to the insertion of the rape scene and the late addition of a series of scenes involving Thorley Walters' bombastic and bumbling police detective, which distract from the main narrative and slow down the pace.  One can only assume that the studio felt that it needed these lighter toned scenes to try and moderate the otherwise relentlessly grim tone of the main narrative.

Along with the previous year's Dracula Has Risen From the Grave, Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed marks the peak of Hammer's Gothic period.  The films that followed, even those with Gothic themes and settings not only had noticeably lower production values, being produced on much shorter schedules, but also significantly upped the sex, gore and violence.  It is notable that for their next Frankenstein film, Horror of Frankenstein (1970), Hammer decided to go back to the beginning and effectively remade Curse of Frankenstein, but this time as a black comedy, with a new young, swinging and sexy Frankenstein in the form of Ralph Bates.  Not surprisingly, it was a complete misfire and for their final entry in the series, Frankenstein and the Monster From Hell (1973), Hammer brought back both star Peter Cushing and director Terrance Fisher.  But by this time the horror scene had decisively moved on and, amongst the acres of bare bums and boobs on display Hammer's contemporaneous lesbian vampire 'Karstein Trilogy', or the swinging London of their present day Dracula films, it felt decidedly old fashioned.

Losing the Plot?

'Is Trump losing the plot?' seems currently to be the question on the lips of many US political commentators.  Well, have I got news for you guys - we're way past the point of asking that question.  It's been patently obvious to any sane and rational person that the Orange Shitler is completely off his trolley since the day he took office in January.  Lat's face it, he was patently insane during his first term, but the US media seemed incapable of communicating this truth.  Until now, that is.  Finally, they are starting to dare to whisper that he might be, well, exhibiting symptoms of senility.  Again, not shit.  Their problem is that they've spent so long attempting to normalise his behaviour, even during his first term, that it has become increasingly difficult for the media to acknowledge that they were wrong and by covering up for the Mango Mussolini, they have done the US electorate a severe disservice.  But why have they previously been so keen to try and characterise the Trump administration as being somehow 'normal'?  Perhaps it is because so much of the US media is owned by billionaires who, even if they aren't publically conservative-leaning, see Trump as an ally in their attempts to subvert those democratic processes they see as harmful to their own interests.  Maybe it is simply fear - fear that if they don't curry favour with the fat bastard then he'll use the full force of the state to intimidate them.  In either case, they are neglecting their duty to speak truth to power, the main function of any media in a democracy.

But it isn't just the US where we see this happening - just look at the way in which the British press are going out of their way to normalise not just Nigel Farage but, increasingly, also the mortgage fraudster and convicted thug turned 'citizen journalist' and extremist rabble rouser 'Tommy Robinson'.  Despite the fact that, to be frank, the kind of views they are known for espousing are basically fascist, they are now presented to us a legitimate political players.  It's not just the usual suspects, the right-wing millionaire owned print press, who are culpable here:  the BBC's current chief political correspondent Chris Mason, for instance, seems to have a major league crush on Farage, praising him and giving Reform UK an easy ride whilst simultaneously launching assault after assault, often on the thinnest of evidence, at the government.  I'm not saying that the government shouldn't be held to account, it most certainly should, but I'd expect the BBC's overall political coverage to be just a little more balanced and consistent in its tone with regard to the different political parties.  I mean, it isn't as if we don't already have right-wing TV news channels that give regular platforms to the likes of Farage, so we surely don't need our national, publicly funded, broadcaster to jump on that bandwagon as well, do we?   But if they don't we'll have the various Farage mouthpieces, like the Telegraph, bellowing that they are all a bunch of lefties and should be shut down.  Are we getting to the stage, I wonder, when we have to storm the offices of these rags, waving flaming torches and shouting 'Kill the monster'?