Does no one else see the hypocrisy in bidding for the world cup in the age of austerity? I really find it boggling that we bid, and the big guns, Dave 'Running with Scissors' Cameron, Prince William and David Beckham in the deluded hope that anyone gives a fuck about them outside of the home counties. The fools.
More over having got the Olympics was it not greedy to go for the world cup? To be fair Russia has the Winter Games, but it sill seems like a greedy child to have the two biggest sporting events held in the same country in one decade. Madness.
Friday, 3 December 2010
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Soviet Cinema of the 1950s
In this essay I will examine Soviet cinema through the context of official expectation as codified in the doctrine of Socialist Realism. I will establish a chronological dichotomy at the heart of the 1950s in the USSR and so the differing political context of each period will be examined and it's effect on Soviet cinema analysed. I will first look at the socio-political situation in the post war Stalinist period, and then move on to discuss the cinema of the time. Following this I will look closely at two thaw era films, 'Cranes are Flying' and 'BalIad of a Soldier' to analyse the award winning Soviet cinema of the thaw. will argue that while the shift from Stalin to Kruschev did give art and culture more room for expression, that this increase was still heavily curtailed by CPSU control and ideology. I will also show that technical excellence is a feature of Soviet cinema, in terms of cinematography and scale.
In analysing Soviet cinema we must first establish a historical framework in which to examine the themes and issues of the art form. The 1950s in the USSR can be divided into two different periods, with the defining event being the death of Stalin in 1953 which cleaves the decade in two. The period up to Stalin’s death is part of the post-war period 1946 - 1953, which was harsh and brutal for the Soviet people and characterised by use of art as merely a political tool![]()
. This Cold War started in this period and the paranoia and militarism of that emerging conflict was reflected in every aspect of Soviet society,
The period following the dictator's death is defined by Kruschev's speech "On the Personality Cult and its Consequences" and a thaw in the severity of the regime's repression. This manifested itself in the arts with a loosening of censorship, with books such as "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" published which would have unthinkable during the preceding Stalinist period. In Kruschev's speech there are numerous mentions of the sycophancy of Stalinist cinema, even going so far as to describe his experience of the “country and agriculture only from films. And these films dressed up and beautified the existing situation in agriculture.![]()
”
In the post war Stalinist period, Stalin remained as dictator, and his rule was as brutal and capricious as ever, and the promise of material advancement as prophecised by Marxism-Leninism was swept away in the militarisation of the early cold war. In these types of conditions cinema has been a traditional form of escapism, such as depression era Hollywood, yet in this period the Soviet film industry produced a mere 124 feature films![]()
.
The censorship of Stalin and that of the wider CPSU is characterised by Zhdanov. Zdhanov had been instrumental in instigating 'Socialist Realism', so that his legacy in cultural matters that Social Realism is almost interchangeable with 'Zhdanovism'![]()
. At the behest of party luminaries like Zhdanov, violence and murder that were the tools of repression discouraged entrance into the Film Industry, and this led to a paucity of productions experienced in the post war USSR. This was a continuation and culmination of a trend that began in the 1930s during the purges. Repression meant that Soviet Cinema in the post war Stalinist period was rigid and formulaic through the heavy control exercised by the CPSU, and this was exacerbated by the effects of the Great Patriotic War. The conflict caused immense privation in all areas of Soviet society and economy, and this is shown in the Cinema of the period, in both output and by the use of captured filmstock from the Third Reich![]()
. The material circumstances of the post war period were felt by belligerents across the globe (except in the untouched USA), but despite this cinema experienced "A Golden Age" in Japan, and similar vibrancy in the other states such as the U.K. And Italy![]()
.
Post-war Soviet cinema has been classified into a number of genres that share many stylistic qualities, amongst which artistic documentaries and biographies stand as being most indicative of CPSU policy. Artistic Documentaries were neither artistic or documentaries but fictional accounts of the great patriotic war![]()
.
They are notable for depicting Stalin as a character where before he did not appear on screen![]()
, which seems strange given the cult of personality surrounding the Soviet dictator. Stalin was not a charismatic leader, nor was he a physically imposing character which explains his absence from the big screen. Despite this the 'Cult of Personality' was a powerful force. This can be seen in films such as "The Oath" and "The Fall of Berlin" amongst others, in the undiluted praise of Stalin and to a lesser extent the Soviet leadership![]()
. The history they portray is one from the top of Soviet society, particularly of Stalin![]()
; these films are uninterested in the experiences of the Soviet people. The 'Cult of Personality' was highly prominent in cinema![]()
: these films validate Stalin as leader and the CPSU![]()
during the war as if Stalin and STAVKA![]()
were the sole forces that defeated the Third Reich. This arrangement is demonstrated in “The Fall of Berlin”, in which a solider - worker is the ostensibly the focus of the film, but the caricatures and of the leader of the foreign powers and the stylisation of each scene over power his presence. These films are often epic and feature extras from the Red Army which does give an air of authenticity the scripts lacked.
This aggrandisement extended beyond the glorification of 'Papa Stalin' to other fields, so that Russian and Soviet scientists were the geniuses behind the major advances of modern civilization, that Russian authors the greatest without exception and similarly for composers and admirals![]()
. These 'Biographies' were part of the emerging Cold War, and also a reflection of the Russian nationalism unleashed in the Great Patriotic War. The content of these films because of the falsification of events could be tailored to meet Party approval, rather than for artistic or popular appeal which bequeathed to them “a bland uniformity of style![]()
”. These fictional re-tellings of history are the logical extension of the show trials of the purges so that not only society is bent to the will of the party but the history of science and culture itself.
The “Kruschev Thaw” removed these constraints which were linked to the 'cult of personality' in promoting Stalin, and that of false histories to promote non-existent Russian and Soviet achievements but kept in place ideological doctrines as regarded the arts, and by extension cinema. A notable example is that of the winner of the Palme d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival![]()
, Mikhail Kalatozov's “Cranes are Flying”. The subject of the film is the Great Patriotic War, but instead of promoting the “Cult of Personality” 'Cranes are Flying' counts the human cost of that war, this demonstrates the shift that took place during 'the Thaw'.
On a surface level this film is the story of a lovelorn victim of the Great Patriotic War; Veronika's struggle is as much with the misery of war as with her own sadness at her boyfriend's death. There is a clear dichotomy at the heart of the film, that can be applies at a personal and societal level, of those loyal and true, and those selfish and deceitful. Veronika is raped by her boyfriend's cousin, Mark, and out of shame marries him. Mark avoided service through bribery and deceit, whereas Boris, Veronika's boyfriend/fiancée, volunteered. Boris was a hard worker, and is shown at work: strenuous manual labour, where Mark was an artist, seemingly lazy and indulgent, lacking self control. The contrast is clear: Mark betrayed his family and his country whereas Boris was loyal and worthy of Veronika's love. Even Boris's death was selfless and courageous as he saved the life of one who he had fought previously for mocking his relationship with Veronika.
There are moments of sarcasm and dissent directed at the regime, notably when Fyodor Ivanovich says “Comrade Boris, fight to the last drop of blood, and beat the fascists! And we at the plant will meet and exceed our production quotas......We've heard all that before.![]()
” This seems to be outrageous dissent, against both the industrial targets and of the war effort but it represents a deep internalisation of rhetoric, and faced with the service of his only son Fyodor comes across as more a concerned father rather than a 'subversive'. He is also shown later in the film to be a dedicated and high level doctor, who motivates his patients in a manner that would befit a propagandist. The concern of the film at a moral level is against anti-social behaviour, rather than explicitly anti-soviet behaviour. The two are linked however as the CPSU is the state and society, so anti-social behaviour is ultimately subversive.
The cinematography of the film is excellent and owes a debt to the Soviet avant garde of the 1920's, with sophisticated montages, but also to the epics of Soviet propaganda in the massive crowd scenes. These show seemingly the entirety of socialist society, there are lovers, children, parents and grandparents in one seamless shot panning across a fence, a fence that separates the private lives of the people seeing off their loved ones, with the official lives of the Soviet citizens drafted into the Red Army. Another shot shoes Boris racing up the stairs to Veronika, which tracks him all the way circling with him in a piece of cinematography that leaves one breathless even now, with the sophisticated camera work matching Boris's frenetic dash. 'Cranes are Flying' is a continuation of the work of the avant garde rather than a fresh start for Soviet cinema![]()
. The avant garde was halted in it's tracks and so by allowing it to continue 'the thaw' can be seen as reasserting a revolutionary tradition.
Another film that demonstrates the increased freedom of the thaw within the confines of the Soviet system is the 1962 BAFTA wining “Ballad of a Soldier” directed by Grigori Chukhrai, released in the USSR in 1959![]()
. The film like “Cranes are Flying” is film about the effects of the Great Patriotic War on ordinary people, but instead of focusing on the trials of an individual in the face of death and misery, it is a 'road film' where a young soldier travels across the country to see his mother in a distant rural village. The film uses an interesting plot device in that the opening scene tells us of the soldiers death “ buried far from his birthplace, near a town with a foreign name![]()
.” We know the fate of young Alyosha before he even begins the journey which is the core of the film. This never undermines the power of the film and in many ways reinforces the meaning of his journey.
On his journey Alyosha meets a young girl Shura, who is going home to see her pilot boyfriend injured in combat, and they gradually form a friendship which grows into a romantic attachment, so that he protects her from arrest by a corrupt guard at one point in the film. Their relationship is a never consummated but their young passion is a liberating force in the film, compared to the war torn landscape, crammed trains and endless plains. As Alyosha leaves on the final train home to his village Shura says she never had a boyfriend. Alyosha then thinks on the train home that this was really an expression of love and he regrets not reciprocating. This can be seen as mirroring the lack of expression under Stalin and the need for expression now. The film is largely devoid of open sloganeering, but like 'Cranes are Flying' it is concerned with anti-social behaviour, such as that of the corrupt carriage guard or the cheating wife of the soldier Pavlov.
This film owes less of a debt to the avant garde tradition than 'Cranes are Flying' and it has a less stylised look, but does come from that tradition. There are less long tracking shots, and it has a rapidity in the editing that the Kalatozov does not. It intersperses the film with moving landscape shots, which give us a feel of the vast Russian landscape and the sensation of movement, which given the nature of the film is necessary.
IN conclusion the key features of Soviet cinema in the 1950s were ideological correctness, whether it be Stalinist or Kruschevite. The systemic features of Soviet cinema of scale and technical artistry remained constant throughout the period. The use of cinema as a political tool was also a constant throughout the period, although in different guises, so that the blunt use of cinema by the Stalinists is almost unrecognisable to the sophisticated dramas employed in the thaw to promote social unity and harmony.
While not the sole theme of Soviet cinema, the Great Patriotic War was a key subject matter whether as part of a party led propaganda effort as was in the early part of the decade or whether as a cathartic exhumation as in the latter half. The approaches of the cinema of the era shifted as did the internal politics of the USSR; politics led life and art in the worker's state, under both Stalin and Kruschev.
The state demanded propaganda in the reign of Stalin and it got it. Rigid formulaic films were the norm, with repetitive plots and themes. Those films did display some merit in the technical sphere but the resources the larger productions received made this a likely outcome. Red Army soldiers were requisitioned throughout the cinematic history of the USSR, giving battle scenes an impressive scale. This scale was not limited to the Stalinist era, the 1968 adaptation of 'War and Peace' featured a cast of literally thousands of Red Army soldiers![]()
. As films were a consequence of state funding commercial success was less of a goal than in other film industries, which gave Soviet cinema it's artistic nature. Soviet camera work is frequently breathtaking as in 'Cranes are Flying' and 'Soy Cuba', but also in 'Battleship Potemkin'. So the best features of the post-war cinema were a result of Red Army co-operation and the structure of Soviet cinema.
During “the Thaw” the loosening of the ideological constraints produced both an increase in qualitative and quantitative terms, and also to international acclaim for Soviet cinema. The ideological constraints on cinema remained though, and instead of decrying anti-soviet behaviour the emphasis shifted to anti-social behaviour. This was a subtle shift, and the harmonious society that the CPSU envisaged was still promoted in this manner. The protagonists remain loyal Soviet citizens, hard-working and honest.
'The Thaw' itself was not merely a relaxation of cultural control but itself a political tool which was used by Kruschev against the orthodox Stalinists that remained in the upper echelons of the state and CPSU. The liberalisation of culture brought tangible benefits, such as the credibility that Palme d'Or which 'Cranes are Flying' and the BAFTA of 'Ballad of a Soldier' won bestowed upon Soviet cinema and the increase in cinematic output as a measure of socialist growth. Films still were controlled and censored though, so all films released in the period were state approved.
Bibliography
![]()
Mira Liehm and Antonin J. Liehm, The Most Important Art: Soviet and Eastern European Film after 1945, (University of California, 1977) page 48![]()
From Kruschev's speech “On the Personality Cult and its Consequences” from the Guardian series “Great Speeches of the 20thCentury” accessed at 16:22 on 01/03/2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2007/apr/26/greatspeeches![]()
Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society 1917 – 1953,(Cambridge University Press, 1992) page 227![]()
Mira Liehm and Antonin J. Liehm, The Most Important Art: Soviet and Eastern European Film after 1945, (University of California, 1977) page 37![]()
Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society 1917 – 1953,(Cambridge University Press, 1992) page 211![]()
Italian Cinema's Neo-Realist movement actually began during the second world war in which conditions were just as harsh as the USSR, and shares a time frame of roughly 1943 to 1952 which corresponds roughly to the period of post-war Stalinism and as such is an interesting comparison. Introduction to Neo-Realism by Megan Ratnerhttp://www.greencine.com/static/primers/neorealism1.jsp Accessed at 12:00 on 03/03/2010![]()
Natacha Laurent - Deconstructing Stalin in Mikhail Chiaureli’s Kliatva (1946) page 1, From websitehttp://web.uct.ac.za/conferences/filmhistorynow/papers/nlaurent.rtf accessed at 20:10 on 05/03/2010![]()
Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society 1917 – 1953,(Cambridge University Press, 1992) page 229/230![]()
Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society 1917 – 1953,(Cambridge University Press, 1992) page 228/229![]()
Mira Liehm and Antonin J. Liehm, The Most Important Art: Soviet and Eastern European Film after 1945, (University of California, 1977) page 61 - 62![]()
Anna Lawton, Kinoglasnost: Soviet Cinema in our Time, (Cambridge University Press: 1992) page 2![]()
Something which was in many ways necessary following the Great Patriotic War when millions of Soviet citizens collaborated with the Nazis and millions of soldiers saw the material prosperity of the west first hand.![]()
The Soviet High Command during the Great Patriotic War![]()
Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society 1917 – 1953,(Cambridge University Press, 1992) page 240![]()
Mira Liehm and Antonin J. Liehm, The Most Important Art: Soviet and Eastern European Film after 1945, (University of California, 1977) page 66![]()
From the Cannes Film Festival Website, accessed at 16:52 on 08/03/2010 from http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3512.html![]()
Mikhail Kalatozov (dir), Cranes are Flying (MosFilm, 1957), at 22:30![]()
Mira Liehm and Antonin J. Liehm, The Most Important Art: Soviet and Eastern European Film after 1945, (University of California, 1977) page 200![]()
From IMDB website accessed at 21:49 on 08/03/2010 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052600/awards![]()
Grigori Chukhrai (dir), Ballad of a Solider (MosFilm, 1959) 02:41![]()
From IMBD http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063794/ accessed at 13:02 on 08/03/2010
In analysing Soviet cinema we must first establish a historical framework in which to examine the themes and issues of the art form. The 1950s in the USSR can be divided into two different periods, with the defining event being the death of Stalin in 1953 which cleaves the decade in two. The period up to Stalin’s death is part of the post-war period 1946 - 1953, which was harsh and brutal for the Soviet people and characterised by use of art as merely a political tool
The period following the dictator's death is defined by Kruschev's speech "On the Personality Cult and its Consequences" and a thaw in the severity of the regime's repression. This manifested itself in the arts with a loosening of censorship, with books such as "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" published which would have unthinkable during the preceding Stalinist period. In Kruschev's speech there are numerous mentions of the sycophancy of Stalinist cinema, even going so far as to describe his experience of the “country and agriculture only from films. And these films dressed up and beautified the existing situation in agriculture.
In the post war Stalinist period, Stalin remained as dictator, and his rule was as brutal and capricious as ever, and the promise of material advancement as prophecised by Marxism-Leninism was swept away in the militarisation of the early cold war. In these types of conditions cinema has been a traditional form of escapism, such as depression era Hollywood, yet in this period the Soviet film industry produced a mere 124 feature films
The censorship of Stalin and that of the wider CPSU is characterised by Zhdanov. Zdhanov had been instrumental in instigating 'Socialist Realism', so that his legacy in cultural matters that Social Realism is almost interchangeable with 'Zhdanovism'
Post-war Soviet cinema has been classified into a number of genres that share many stylistic qualities, amongst which artistic documentaries and biographies stand as being most indicative of CPSU policy. Artistic Documentaries were neither artistic or documentaries but fictional accounts of the great patriotic war
They are notable for depicting Stalin as a character where before he did not appear on screen
This aggrandisement extended beyond the glorification of 'Papa Stalin' to other fields, so that Russian and Soviet scientists were the geniuses behind the major advances of modern civilization, that Russian authors the greatest without exception and similarly for composers and admirals
The “Kruschev Thaw” removed these constraints which were linked to the 'cult of personality' in promoting Stalin, and that of false histories to promote non-existent Russian and Soviet achievements but kept in place ideological doctrines as regarded the arts, and by extension cinema. A notable example is that of the winner of the Palme d'Or at the 1958 Cannes Film Festival
On a surface level this film is the story of a lovelorn victim of the Great Patriotic War; Veronika's struggle is as much with the misery of war as with her own sadness at her boyfriend's death. There is a clear dichotomy at the heart of the film, that can be applies at a personal and societal level, of those loyal and true, and those selfish and deceitful. Veronika is raped by her boyfriend's cousin, Mark, and out of shame marries him. Mark avoided service through bribery and deceit, whereas Boris, Veronika's boyfriend/fiancée, volunteered. Boris was a hard worker, and is shown at work: strenuous manual labour, where Mark was an artist, seemingly lazy and indulgent, lacking self control. The contrast is clear: Mark betrayed his family and his country whereas Boris was loyal and worthy of Veronika's love. Even Boris's death was selfless and courageous as he saved the life of one who he had fought previously for mocking his relationship with Veronika.
There are moments of sarcasm and dissent directed at the regime, notably when Fyodor Ivanovich says “Comrade Boris, fight to the last drop of blood, and beat the fascists! And we at the plant will meet and exceed our production quotas......We've heard all that before.
The cinematography of the film is excellent and owes a debt to the Soviet avant garde of the 1920's, with sophisticated montages, but also to the epics of Soviet propaganda in the massive crowd scenes. These show seemingly the entirety of socialist society, there are lovers, children, parents and grandparents in one seamless shot panning across a fence, a fence that separates the private lives of the people seeing off their loved ones, with the official lives of the Soviet citizens drafted into the Red Army. Another shot shoes Boris racing up the stairs to Veronika, which tracks him all the way circling with him in a piece of cinematography that leaves one breathless even now, with the sophisticated camera work matching Boris's frenetic dash. 'Cranes are Flying' is a continuation of the work of the avant garde rather than a fresh start for Soviet cinema
Another film that demonstrates the increased freedom of the thaw within the confines of the Soviet system is the 1962 BAFTA wining “Ballad of a Soldier” directed by Grigori Chukhrai, released in the USSR in 1959
On his journey Alyosha meets a young girl Shura, who is going home to see her pilot boyfriend injured in combat, and they gradually form a friendship which grows into a romantic attachment, so that he protects her from arrest by a corrupt guard at one point in the film. Their relationship is a never consummated but their young passion is a liberating force in the film, compared to the war torn landscape, crammed trains and endless plains. As Alyosha leaves on the final train home to his village Shura says she never had a boyfriend. Alyosha then thinks on the train home that this was really an expression of love and he regrets not reciprocating. This can be seen as mirroring the lack of expression under Stalin and the need for expression now. The film is largely devoid of open sloganeering, but like 'Cranes are Flying' it is concerned with anti-social behaviour, such as that of the corrupt carriage guard or the cheating wife of the soldier Pavlov.
This film owes less of a debt to the avant garde tradition than 'Cranes are Flying' and it has a less stylised look, but does come from that tradition. There are less long tracking shots, and it has a rapidity in the editing that the Kalatozov does not. It intersperses the film with moving landscape shots, which give us a feel of the vast Russian landscape and the sensation of movement, which given the nature of the film is necessary.
IN conclusion the key features of Soviet cinema in the 1950s were ideological correctness, whether it be Stalinist or Kruschevite. The systemic features of Soviet cinema of scale and technical artistry remained constant throughout the period. The use of cinema as a political tool was also a constant throughout the period, although in different guises, so that the blunt use of cinema by the Stalinists is almost unrecognisable to the sophisticated dramas employed in the thaw to promote social unity and harmony.
While not the sole theme of Soviet cinema, the Great Patriotic War was a key subject matter whether as part of a party led propaganda effort as was in the early part of the decade or whether as a cathartic exhumation as in the latter half. The approaches of the cinema of the era shifted as did the internal politics of the USSR; politics led life and art in the worker's state, under both Stalin and Kruschev.
The state demanded propaganda in the reign of Stalin and it got it. Rigid formulaic films were the norm, with repetitive plots and themes. Those films did display some merit in the technical sphere but the resources the larger productions received made this a likely outcome. Red Army soldiers were requisitioned throughout the cinematic history of the USSR, giving battle scenes an impressive scale. This scale was not limited to the Stalinist era, the 1968 adaptation of 'War and Peace' featured a cast of literally thousands of Red Army soldiers
During “the Thaw” the loosening of the ideological constraints produced both an increase in qualitative and quantitative terms, and also to international acclaim for Soviet cinema. The ideological constraints on cinema remained though, and instead of decrying anti-soviet behaviour the emphasis shifted to anti-social behaviour. This was a subtle shift, and the harmonious society that the CPSU envisaged was still promoted in this manner. The protagonists remain loyal Soviet citizens, hard-working and honest.
'The Thaw' itself was not merely a relaxation of cultural control but itself a political tool which was used by Kruschev against the orthodox Stalinists that remained in the upper echelons of the state and CPSU. The liberalisation of culture brought tangible benefits, such as the credibility that Palme d'Or which 'Cranes are Flying' and the BAFTA of 'Ballad of a Soldier' won bestowed upon Soviet cinema and the increase in cinematic output as a measure of socialist growth. Films still were controlled and censored though, so all films released in the period were state approved.
Bibliography
Orlando Figes, Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia, (Penguin, 2002)
Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society 1917 – 1953,(Cambridge University Press, 1992)
Anna Lawton, Kinoglasnost: Soviet Cinema in our Time, (Cambridge University Press: 1992)
Natacha Laurent - Deconstructing Stalin in Mikhail Chiaureli’s Kliatva (1946)http://web.uct.ac.za/conferences/filmhistorynow/papers/nlaurent.rtf
Mira Liehm and Antonin J. Liehm, The Most Important Art: Soviet and Eastern European Film after 1945, (University of California, 1977)
Megan Ratner, Introduction to Neo-Realism http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/neorealism1.jsp
Filmography
Sergei Bondarchuk (dir), Destiny of a Man (MosFilm, 1959)
Sergei Bondarchuk (dir), War and Peace (MosFilm, 198)
Mikheil Chiaureli (dir), The Fall of Berlin (MosFilm, 1949)
Mikheil Chiaureli (dir), The Oath (Tbilisis Kinostudia, 1946)
Grigori Chukhrai (dir), Ballad of a Solider (MosFilm, 1959)
Sergei Eisenstein (dir), Battleship Potemkin (GosKino, 1925)
Mikhail Kalatozov (dir), Soy Cuba/I am Cuba (MosFilm, 1964)
Mikhail Kalatozov (dir), Cranes are Flying (MosFilm, 1957)
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Boltonograd
It could be worse. It could be Warrington. It could be Salford.
If it's so bad move. Failing that try and make it better. Don't talk and not do the walk.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Mad Men
I don't really watch TV, mine isn't connected, there is a poverty of programming that I want to watch and adverts really boil my shit. Despite this I have a deep love for Box Sets. Mad Men is one of my favorites, so much so I have series 2 on Blu-Ray(which is reserved for the top notch). I got onto Mad Men when the SweetLady got it for Christmas on DVD (Series1). It was love at first watch.
Scandalously attractive women and the social values of the early 1960's (rampant sexism and misogyny, casual racism and black servitude, massive homophobia and morbid anti-communism) take you unawares, and you realize how valuable the progress of the interceding years has been. For some it may be too much, and for some chauvinists it may be too much to see what they've lost but in my view that counts for Mad Men as a plus. It is interesting to note how quickly one absorbs and enters the world of 60s middle class America.
This contrasts with the glacial sweep of plot development, a pace which is often held against it, in that "Nothing Happens", but that is for me, is its strength. Characters slowly bloom and tensions build without being rushed and hurried. Peggy, one of the leading female characters develops from a lowly sectary and innocent new comer throughout the show. A highly camp, clearly gay character has the emergence of his sexuality drawn out so long it seems that it will never happen, and is the more revelatory when it does.
Christina Hendricks has become something of an icon due to her role in Mad Men. A redhead with a bosom carved by Zeus himself, she is femininity, or at least the 60s idealisation of womanhood: sexual yet proper in her public conduct, powerful yet subservient to her male bosses. The women of Mad Men are a varied lot, whose diversity seems to me to symbolise the journey of femininity in 1960s American and Western European society.
Betty Draper is Don's long suffering wife, a beautiful former model. She is the hausfrau of middle America at once crushed by convention, but at the same time materially rich. Peggy Olson is the rising female ad exec struggling in macho world, symbolic of the journey to a empowered womanhood. Peggy is hemmed in by convention, sexism and religion yet through this adversity struggles on. Joan is the ball busting matriarch of the office, whose bosom and sexuality have a power in the office like that of the sexuality of yesteryear: enthralling and in thrall to patriarchy. So there is the emergent feminism in Peggy, the subservience of Betty, and the sexuality of Joan.
Of course the titan of Mad Men is Donald Draper , an enigma of a man whose poise and talent contrast with a vulnerability lacking in many male characters. He is played masterfully by Joe Hamm. A part of a brilliant cast he stands out amongst the male actors. His part has depths and is developed to the point that I feel I know Don Draper. I admire Malcom Reynolds for example ( I am aware comparing Sci-Fi and for want of a better word period drama but Mal is another male lead with vulnerability like Draper who was developed like Draper) but I don't know him the way I feel I know Don. His back story is complex and detailed filling in slowly as the show progresses.
Scandalously attractive women and the social values of the early 1960's (rampant sexism and misogyny, casual racism and black servitude, massive homophobia and morbid anti-communism) take you unawares, and you realize how valuable the progress of the interceding years has been. For some it may be too much, and for some chauvinists it may be too much to see what they've lost but in my view that counts for Mad Men as a plus. It is interesting to note how quickly one absorbs and enters the world of 60s middle class America.
This contrasts with the glacial sweep of plot development, a pace which is often held against it, in that "Nothing Happens", but that is for me, is its strength. Characters slowly bloom and tensions build without being rushed and hurried. Peggy, one of the leading female characters develops from a lowly sectary and innocent new comer throughout the show. A highly camp, clearly gay character has the emergence of his sexuality drawn out so long it seems that it will never happen, and is the more revelatory when it does.
Christina Hendricks has become something of an icon due to her role in Mad Men. A redhead with a bosom carved by Zeus himself, she is femininity, or at least the 60s idealisation of womanhood: sexual yet proper in her public conduct, powerful yet subservient to her male bosses. The women of Mad Men are a varied lot, whose diversity seems to me to symbolise the journey of femininity in 1960s American and Western European society.
Betty Draper is Don's long suffering wife, a beautiful former model. She is the hausfrau of middle America at once crushed by convention, but at the same time materially rich. Peggy Olson is the rising female ad exec struggling in macho world, symbolic of the journey to a empowered womanhood. Peggy is hemmed in by convention, sexism and religion yet through this adversity struggles on. Joan is the ball busting matriarch of the office, whose bosom and sexuality have a power in the office like that of the sexuality of yesteryear: enthralling and in thrall to patriarchy. So there is the emergent feminism in Peggy, the subservience of Betty, and the sexuality of Joan.
Of course the titan of Mad Men is Donald Draper , an enigma of a man whose poise and talent contrast with a vulnerability lacking in many male characters. He is played masterfully by Joe Hamm. A part of a brilliant cast he stands out amongst the male actors. His part has depths and is developed to the point that I feel I know Don Draper. I admire Malcom Reynolds for example ( I am aware comparing Sci-Fi and for want of a better word period drama but Mal is another male lead with vulnerability like Draper who was developed like Draper) but I don't know him the way I feel I know Don. His back story is complex and detailed filling in slowly as the show progresses.
The brilliant characters are aided by immense production values. Mad Men straddles the period where the 1950s becomes the 1960s, and as such the style sits somewhere in a glamour dream time of sleek dresses and sharp suits. The houses and offices of the series effortlessly evoke the 1960s and it really does 'work'. The minor details, like the introduction of photocopier for example, are that: minor details. Its very very well done and eminently believable. This builds to create one of the great TV shows.
All in all you should watch it. It's cheap on DVD and is engrossing.
Do it.
All in all you should watch it. It's cheap on DVD and is engrossing.
Do it.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Frida
I just watched Frida, the 2002 film with Salma Hayek (Frida Kahlo) and Alfred Molina (Diego Riveria). It's bloody good. It's a thrashing romp through their lives together. Though it really should be called Frida & Diego, as Molina was really the main character on the film. And to his Molina puts in a superb performance. Frida seems to oscillate between painting, illness and sex whereas Molina has a more rounded role.
Diego Rivera was an artist unknown to me before watching this film but afterwards I find his synthesis of socialist grandeur and tradtional Mexican style compelling. This is an example of the anglo-centrism that is difficult to avoid. My dream holiday is to Mexico, and I have read extensively about the country yet I never heard of Rivera. Frida has rectified this (this does not mean I approve of his phillandering).
Despite a slightly limited part Hayek too is excellent. As a native Spanish speaker her dialogue has an air authenticity beyond most biopics. She portrays the sadness and illness in Kahlo's life fully and she is a perfect fit for the role. She is a passionate artist. She is Kahlo.
It has Trotsky in the form of Geoffry Rush too albeit briefly. His appearance is a reminder of the left wing politics of Kahlo and Rivera. The world war and fascism often dominates tales of that time (30s and 40s) yet here the topics are Stalin, the USSR and socialism albeit as a distant development.
As a biopic of one of the great artists, Frida is suitably shot: It is a beautiful film. The opening scene is a taster for the coming beauty, in which a injured Frida lies bleeding as gold dust floats down onto her amid the wreckage of a crashed bus. It was nominated for several cinematography awards and it should have won them all. There are several scenes in which some of Kahlo's paintings are merged with reality to stunning effect. It did win two Oscars, one for "Best Music, Original Score" and one for "Best Makeup". These two feel like sympathy Awards, in the face of the Lord of the Rings and A Beautiful Mind winning the awards Frida deserved more in my opinion.
It's full of tasty sex scenes, with Hayeks fine figure acting as the centre piece in many. The lovelorn tale of Kahlo's life is slightly sanitised, so that the less savoury aspects of Riveria's behaviour are omitted. This helps craft a mainstream film, with a less depressive story than would otherwise have been. Despite this the story is harsh and full of sadness.
It's bloody good and everyone who likes "Art" should see it.
Saturday, 11 September 2010
Monday, 30 August 2010
Gramsci and.the Superstructure
In this essay I will examine the role of Antonio Gramsci in extending the field of 'scientific' Marxist theory from its basis in economic materialism and pre-occupation with the economic, to one that widens its analysis into the 'superstructures' of capitalist society, the key concept of Gramsci in this area being that of 'Hegemony[1].' Indeed such is the acceptance of Gramsci's work on this subject that it has become an important part of Marxist, and wider left-wing discourse, for example as one the key influences of Laclau and Mouffe[2]. This broadening of the theoretical outlines of Marxism brings with it the standard criticisms by orthodoxy of revisionism and reformism, but in the case of Gramsci, by his involvement in the Italian Communist Party(PCI) and by his time in fascist jails seems to avoid these criticisms.
I will begin by outlining Gramsci's origins and upbringings, which are relevant to his later life as a theoretician, and then continue to examine his work on superstructures, and contrast it with the Marxist orthodoxy. I will place this in a socio-historical context of 19th and 20th century Italy which influenced Gramsci immensely and also that of the later 20th century when his ideas gained currency outside of Italy.
Gramsci was born in Sardinia in 1891, on the periphery of the Italian state. His family were poor, and he received sporadic education, and was later granted a scholarship to study Modern Philosophy in Turin[3]. His initial political thought “..was more of a Sardinian nationalist than a socialist[4]”. His concern for the plight of the Sardinian poor, amongst whom he could count himself, was the basis for this nationalist outlook, and this concern for the plight of the poor would lead him to who ever supported this oppressed section of Italian Society[5].
Gramsci studied in Turin on a scholarship and became involved in the socialist movement. He started out as a journalist and political commentator, writing for the Socialist Party (PSI) and later being involved in the organisation as a leading member. In the 'Bienno Rosso' a two year period of increased worker militancy and agitation Gramsci was notable for his involvement in the factory councils movement. The failure of that movement prompted Gramsci, and others, to being the formation of a communist party following the lead of the Bolsheviks. This organisation was repressed by the fascist government of Mussolini and he was imprisoned in 1926 till his death in 1937.
This youthful nationalist's philosophical and political ideas gradually matured as he studied on the mainland. As a student of Modern Philosophy Gramsci was exposed to the works of the great philosophers of the day, both Italian and Foreign, and this exposure broadened his horizons from that of a provincial nationalist to a Marxist. The notable Italian philosopher, Benedetto Croce “whose philosophical thinking and historical analysis had a strong impact on the theoretical development of most Marxists (as well as non-Marxists) of Gramsci's generation[6]” had a strong influence on Gramsci. It was through Croce that Gramsci moved away from the strict materialism that governed orthodox Marxism[7]. Joll goes so far to say that “it is as if a perpetual dialogue between Croce and Lenin was being conducted in his mind.[8]” It is this progression and synthesis of ideas that makes Gramsci such an important Marxist thinker for “such views (strict materialism) practically the norm in many Marxist circles at the time. In Italy they were very common, having mingled with the local positivist tradition...[9]” This rejection of strict materialism is fundamental to his development of ideas relating to social superstructures.
According to orthodox Marxist interpretation of socio-economic relations the root of everything is the mode of production. This is not only applied to modern capitalism but to older systems, from the Roman Empire[10] to Ancient Egypt[11]. The feudal organisation of the middle ages in Europe lead was predicated on the economic obligations of peasant to lord, and of lord to king.
The economic 'base' is the only relevant component of society, so that everything stems from this base; culture, laws, religion, language and any other aspect of society have no other root than the economic system. This interpretation then being based on observable phenomena has the same objective validity as natural sciences, thus it is scientific[12]. This reduces humanity to a little more than a reaction to the economic system, limiting the role of human agency and free-will[13]. The simplification of these ideas prompted the work of several Marxists as Gramsci was not alone in his progression from this crude materialism[14] [15]. Korsch for example states: “...Lenin's materialist philosophy, which forms the ideological basis of this theory(outside forces leading the proletariat), cannot constitute the revolutionary proletarian philosophy that will answer the needs of today.[16]”
Despite his being part of a reaction to the prevailing orthodoxy, though isolated from the contemporary debates of Marxist philosophy, Gramsci's thought was the most significant. This is in part due to going further than any other contemporary Marxist thinker in adding a social and cultural framework to understand social and economic relations. His influence extends beyond that of Marxist theory and informs cultural theory and even right-wing thinking[17]. He was isolated from the currents of intellectual discourse in the fascist jails he spent much of his later life and in so doing Gramsci developed his theories alone, in fragmentary bursts as his health and jailers would allow[18]. These hardships: his isolation, imprisonment from 1926 to 1937 and his poor health did not stop Gramsci developing his theories, and in doing so alone he demonstrated his immense intellect and wide ranging thought.
Gramsci's 'Superstructuralism' starts with his assertion that the superstructures of society had a reciprocal relationship with the economic base, and that through this mutual influence could affect and even change the economic base. The role of law, culture, language, religion and tradition were given a validity by Gramsci that was denied by Marxist orthodoxy. This extension is key in his ideas concerning hegemony, and his consideration of them informs his conception of an advanced capitalist society.
The bourgeois control of society and the modes of production stems from their control and influence in these superstructures. This domination is an active process and struggle, one which creates and maintains, and in turn is buttressed by 'civil society'. Bourgeois control maintains the threat of force, but the ruling class's control is so pervasive and ingrained in social norms and values to the extent that “when the state trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The state was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks[19]”. In this Gramsci is giving the bourgeois control of society a cultural aspect dependent on their hegemony, something which is entirely beyond the scope of strict materialism.
Italy during the 19th and 20th centuries was an ideal example of these processes[20]. According to Gramsci's theory to take power a social group needs to exercise hegemonic control[21], which is exactly what he sees in what he called “the Moderates[22]”, who later became the Liberal Party and were founded by Cavour. This contrasts with the Action Party of Mazzini[23] who “did not specifically base itself specifically on any historical class[24]” and gradually merged into the parliamentary left.
The authority of foreign power in Italy of Austria was based on coercive power rather than hegemonic control, as demonstrated by the “Quadrilatero” which was an area contained by four great Austrian fortresses. Italian nationalism had been developing since the Napoleonic years, and was not related to economic conditions, in that the North and South of Italy despite their economic disparity and political disunity were party to the growing nationalism. This shows the point that Gramsci makes regarding the interrelation of base and superstructure: nationalism emerged despite the differences in the base structures in Italy. The development of Italian nationalism was then parallel to the development of an Italian elite; the unification of Italy was not led by an economic class, but by a state, Piedmont[25]. The “state” is a part of the superstructure and yet through it Italy was united into one economic unit and nation.
Gramsci notes that in Russia the autocracy of the Tsar diminished and arrested the development of civil society, to maintain the exclusivity of autocratic power and privilege[26]. The stresses and strains of the first world war diminished the prestige of the regime and it's ability to use force to maintain its power. With no 'civil society' to defend the extant social structure the Bolsheviks were able to defeat the reactionary forces militarily. In an advanced capitalist country the existence of a 'civil society' necessitates a different strategy to combat the bourgeois control; in this analysis Gramsci explains the apparent contradiction of Marxist predictions of proletarian revolutions[27].
The origins of this analysis lie in the 'Bienno Rosso' in the year immediately following the first world war, which was part of the revolutionary upsurge experienced in Europe at the time. It was felt that ”there was the widespread perception on both the political left and right that a return to the old order was not possible[28].” During this period of ferment the workers of Italy challenged their exploitation, but were unable to turn their actions into power.
The rise in worker activity, and it's failure, led to a reaction which was the emergence of the Fascists, who objected to the perceived weaknesses of the liberal state and the left wing orientation of the working classes. These targets struck a chord with the middle classes and elements of the bourgeoisie who supported the endeavours of the fascists. The working classes despite their actions did not have hegemonic control of society, rather it was the petty bourgeoisie and the middle classes who were represented by the fascists that acted as the hegemonic force, and took control of society.
Following the analysis of the origins of Italian unification as being the result of state action, it follows that the civil society in Italy was weak. This can be seen in the capitulation of the establishment in the face of the fascist march on Rome. This too can be applied to Germany, which was also created through the actions of a nation, in this case Prussia and which was also linked through linguistic and cultural ties[29], and in which “fascist” government was accepted by the elite as a response to crisis[30]. Britian and France too faced poweful workers movements and economic crises, but in these states the elite kept it's nerve and maintained control and hegemony. Britain and France emerged as coherent nation states in the feudal age, where as Italy and Germany were modern constructs: constructs that had weak civil societies and so collapsed in the face of concerted counter hegemonic activity.
That Gramsci is the Marxist the theoretician of 'Superstructures' is by no means a universal statement. While perhaps true in the Anglophone countries, in those countries where German is the dominant language that role is filled by the Frankfurt school, as exemplified by Habermaas[31] et all. The reasons for this discrepancy is in part linguistic, but is also linked to the accidents of history. Gramsci was translated into English in 1971 and this coincided with the rise of the New Left, which took up his ideas as they explain the failures of both 1968 and the Left in the advanced capitalist nations, but also the issues of culture and gender. Had Gramsci been translated earlier or not at all he would have remained merely an Italian Communist (a prominent and important one, but one for the historians of the Italian Left only).
Gramsci's is however the Marxist theoretician of the 'superstructures' in the English speaking world, and as such his work has had a profound influence on many fields beyond that of Marxist philosophy from cultural studies to sociology. His rethinking of the relationship between base and superstructure and his ideas relating to hegemony have been validated by many historical events, such as the USSR which can be attributed to a collapse in hegemony for the Communist Party. Gramsci's ideas on hegemony are now used by right-wing political parties in their quest for power[32], a use which demonstrates the wide applicability of the concept. Gramsci's thought today has relevance where other early 20th century Marxists have none, so that Korsch or Pannekoek for example do not widely inform cultural and political debate[33] where Gramscian thought does. His ideas on the relationship between the base and superstructure, and the reciprocal relationship between them are now seemingly proved through many examples completely disproving Marxist orthodoxy. The absence of interest from Islamic countries that are capitalist shows the power religion can exert over economic structure and organisation.
His upbringing and education in Italy played a formative role in his politics, but so too did practical experience of socialist journalism, worker activism and political party organisation. He was no armchair theoretician and his legacy is tangible in the form of the Communist Refoundation Party in Italy[34], and the Democratic Party[35] which can also trace a lineage to the PCI. His time in fascist jail and the late translation of his work into English meant his writings only emerged some time after his death, so that they appeared modern and fresh when they are a product of the inter-war years. This accident of history propelled Gramsci to intellectual celebrity, as the New Left saw the depth and value of his contributions to Marxism. His prescience and vision are startling to this day and when compared to the dull rhetoric that passes for ideology in the far left today he seems all the more relevant.
Bibliography
Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State
(Manchester:Manchester University Press:1993)
Carl Bloggs, Gramsci's Marxism (Southampton, Pluto Press:1980)
N.I. Bukharin, Historical Materialism - a System of Sociology, 1921
John Fonte, Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America from http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/FonteCultureWar.shtml
Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984)
James Joll, Gramsci (Glasgow, Fontana Paperbacks:1976)
Karl Korsch, The Present State of the Problem of Marxism and Philosophy: An Anti-critique, from http://libcom.org/library/present-state-korsch
Rob van Kranenburg, Whose Gramsci? Right-wing Gramscism from http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/igsn/articles/a09_5.shtml
Paul Ransome, Antonio Gramsci – A New Introduction
(Hemel Hempstead:Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992)
________________
[1]Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State page 112
[2]From SpecterZine Website accessed at 16:21 on 16/10/2009 http://www.spectrezine.org/reviews/laclaumouffe.htm
[3]Paul Ransome, Antonio Gramsci – A New Introduction (Hemel Hempstead:Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992) page 60
[4]Gramsci and the Italian State – Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter page 3
[5]Paul Ransome, Antonio Gramsci – A New Introduction (Hemel Hempstead:Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992) page 60 and 61
[6]Carl Bloggs, Gramsci's Marxism (Southampton, Pluto Press:1980) page 21
[7]James Joll, Gramsci (Glasgow, Fontana Paperbacks:1976) page 23
[8]Ibid page 76
[9]Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State, page 85
[10]The 'Antique Mode of Production' – humans are directly owned by others as slaves to provide labour
[11]The 'Asiatic Mode of Production' This is a controversial theory that holds the state in ancient societies played a significant role in economic matters. An elite based on a large urban capital dominate the small villages that are the majority of the population, creaming off surplus value for their own use, creating large monuments eg pyramids, ziggurats to justify their power.
[12]“If we regard the phenomena of nature which surround us, as well as those of social life, we shall observe that these phenomena by no means constitute a confused mass in which nothing may be distinguished or understood or predicted. On the other hand, we may everywhere ascertain, by attentive observation, a certain regularity in these phenomena.”
from N.I. Bukharin: Historical Materialism - a System of Sociology, 1921 – accessed at 14.07 on 06/10/2009 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/1.htm#a
[13]“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter Into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely [the] relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” From the Preface to K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, with some notes by R. Rojas. Accessed from Marxist Internet Archive at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm accessed on 16/02/2010 at 15:53
[14]Carl Bloggs, Gramsci's Marxism (Southampton, Pluto Press:1980) page 11
[15]Karl Korsch and György Lukács are two other notable thinkers in this category. Yet they remain tied to a social and economic basis for their thought, whereas Gramsci develops a theory which is broader in conception and more elegant in it's designs for praxis.
[16]Karl Korsch, The Present State of the Problem of Marxism and Philosophy: An Anti-critique from http://libcom.org/library/present-state-korsch accessed at 13.13 on the 06/10/2009
[17]This article show this and frames it in the context of 'culture wars in the USA. John Fonte, Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/FonteCultureWar.shtml accessed at 01:03 0n 15/03/2010
[18]James Joll, Gramsci (Glasgow, Fontana Paperbacks:1976) page 73
[19]Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 238
[20]Gramsci wrote about Italian history extensively and his writings on the issue were part of the framework of his ideas. See pages 52 – 120 in Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
[21]“It seems clear from the policies of the Moderates that there can, and indeed must, be hegemonic activity even before the rise to power, and that one should count only on the material force which power gives to exercise in order to exercise an effective leadership.” Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 59
[22]The proto-right of pre-risorgimento Italian poltics, Described in Note 6 on page 57 from Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
[23]A republican group of Italians, who later joined the left. Note 7 page 57 from Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
[24]Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 57
[25]Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) pages 104 and 105
[26]“In Russia the Stare was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous” Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 238
[27]Revolution was meant to occur in advanced capitalist states such as Great Britain and Germany, yet it occurred in the agrarian, non-proletarian states of Tsarist Russia and Nationalist China. Yet Russia and China had weak, barely extant Civil Societies and thus were open to military defeat, whereas Great Britain for example had strong Civil Society which prevented the growth and limited the power of revolutionary movements.
[28]Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State, page 28
[29]There was an economic factor in German unity, the customs union of Zollverein, but it did not cover most of Germany till 1866
[30]Italy in response to the Bienno Rosso and in Germany to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
[31]As exemplified in “The Theory of Communicative Action”, a and “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere”. The former is an exploration of rationality as linguistic, and the consequences thereof. From Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984)
The latter developed 'Media Studies' almost single-handedly. From an article by Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994032,00.html accessed on 16/02/2010 at 17:58. These works are also considered to extend the Marxist Theory of Superstructures and as such can be seen to contest Gramsci's claim to the the Marxist theoretician of the 'superstructures', but there heavy duty intellectualism and dense German prose limit their reach beyond Marxist academia in the anglophone countries.
[32]Rob van Kranenburg, Whose Gramsci? Right-wing Gramscism from http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/igsn/articles/a09_5.shtml accessed at 11:06 on 15/03/2010
[33]A search on the Guardian website reveals 129 articles containing the word Gramsci with 2 for Korsch and 0 for Pannekoek. This is intended merely to show the greater penetration of Gramsci into cultural and political discourse. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ accessed at 11:21 on 15/03/2010
[34]This is the far left remnant of the PCI which split following the collapse of the USSR and the eastern bloc. Website: http://home.rifondazione.it/xisttest/
[35]The mainstream Left in Italian politics. Emerged as a union of various left wing and centrist groups in 2007. Website: http://www.partitodemocratico.it/gw/producer/producer.aspx?t=/prehome.htm
I will begin by outlining Gramsci's origins and upbringings, which are relevant to his later life as a theoretician, and then continue to examine his work on superstructures, and contrast it with the Marxist orthodoxy. I will place this in a socio-historical context of 19th and 20th century Italy which influenced Gramsci immensely and also that of the later 20th century when his ideas gained currency outside of Italy.
Gramsci was born in Sardinia in 1891, on the periphery of the Italian state. His family were poor, and he received sporadic education, and was later granted a scholarship to study Modern Philosophy in Turin[3]. His initial political thought “..was more of a Sardinian nationalist than a socialist[4]”. His concern for the plight of the Sardinian poor, amongst whom he could count himself, was the basis for this nationalist outlook, and this concern for the plight of the poor would lead him to who ever supported this oppressed section of Italian Society[5].
Gramsci studied in Turin on a scholarship and became involved in the socialist movement. He started out as a journalist and political commentator, writing for the Socialist Party (PSI) and later being involved in the organisation as a leading member. In the 'Bienno Rosso' a two year period of increased worker militancy and agitation Gramsci was notable for his involvement in the factory councils movement. The failure of that movement prompted Gramsci, and others, to being the formation of a communist party following the lead of the Bolsheviks. This organisation was repressed by the fascist government of Mussolini and he was imprisoned in 1926 till his death in 1937.
This youthful nationalist's philosophical and political ideas gradually matured as he studied on the mainland. As a student of Modern Philosophy Gramsci was exposed to the works of the great philosophers of the day, both Italian and Foreign, and this exposure broadened his horizons from that of a provincial nationalist to a Marxist. The notable Italian philosopher, Benedetto Croce “whose philosophical thinking and historical analysis had a strong impact on the theoretical development of most Marxists (as well as non-Marxists) of Gramsci's generation[6]” had a strong influence on Gramsci. It was through Croce that Gramsci moved away from the strict materialism that governed orthodox Marxism[7]. Joll goes so far to say that “it is as if a perpetual dialogue between Croce and Lenin was being conducted in his mind.[8]” It is this progression and synthesis of ideas that makes Gramsci such an important Marxist thinker for “such views (strict materialism) practically the norm in many Marxist circles at the time. In Italy they were very common, having mingled with the local positivist tradition...[9]” This rejection of strict materialism is fundamental to his development of ideas relating to social superstructures.
According to orthodox Marxist interpretation of socio-economic relations the root of everything is the mode of production. This is not only applied to modern capitalism but to older systems, from the Roman Empire[10] to Ancient Egypt[11]. The feudal organisation of the middle ages in Europe lead was predicated on the economic obligations of peasant to lord, and of lord to king.
The economic 'base' is the only relevant component of society, so that everything stems from this base; culture, laws, religion, language and any other aspect of society have no other root than the economic system. This interpretation then being based on observable phenomena has the same objective validity as natural sciences, thus it is scientific[12]. This reduces humanity to a little more than a reaction to the economic system, limiting the role of human agency and free-will[13]. The simplification of these ideas prompted the work of several Marxists as Gramsci was not alone in his progression from this crude materialism[14] [15]. Korsch for example states: “...Lenin's materialist philosophy, which forms the ideological basis of this theory(outside forces leading the proletariat), cannot constitute the revolutionary proletarian philosophy that will answer the needs of today.[16]”
Despite his being part of a reaction to the prevailing orthodoxy, though isolated from the contemporary debates of Marxist philosophy, Gramsci's thought was the most significant. This is in part due to going further than any other contemporary Marxist thinker in adding a social and cultural framework to understand social and economic relations. His influence extends beyond that of Marxist theory and informs cultural theory and even right-wing thinking[17]. He was isolated from the currents of intellectual discourse in the fascist jails he spent much of his later life and in so doing Gramsci developed his theories alone, in fragmentary bursts as his health and jailers would allow[18]. These hardships: his isolation, imprisonment from 1926 to 1937 and his poor health did not stop Gramsci developing his theories, and in doing so alone he demonstrated his immense intellect and wide ranging thought.
Gramsci's 'Superstructuralism' starts with his assertion that the superstructures of society had a reciprocal relationship with the economic base, and that through this mutual influence could affect and even change the economic base. The role of law, culture, language, religion and tradition were given a validity by Gramsci that was denied by Marxist orthodoxy. This extension is key in his ideas concerning hegemony, and his consideration of them informs his conception of an advanced capitalist society.
The bourgeois control of society and the modes of production stems from their control and influence in these superstructures. This domination is an active process and struggle, one which creates and maintains, and in turn is buttressed by 'civil society'. Bourgeois control maintains the threat of force, but the ruling class's control is so pervasive and ingrained in social norms and values to the extent that “when the state trembled a sturdy structure of civil society was at once revealed. The state was only an outer ditch, behind which there stood a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks[19]”. In this Gramsci is giving the bourgeois control of society a cultural aspect dependent on their hegemony, something which is entirely beyond the scope of strict materialism.
Italy during the 19th and 20th centuries was an ideal example of these processes[20]. According to Gramsci's theory to take power a social group needs to exercise hegemonic control[21], which is exactly what he sees in what he called “the Moderates[22]”, who later became the Liberal Party and were founded by Cavour. This contrasts with the Action Party of Mazzini[23] who “did not specifically base itself specifically on any historical class[24]” and gradually merged into the parliamentary left.
The authority of foreign power in Italy of Austria was based on coercive power rather than hegemonic control, as demonstrated by the “Quadrilatero” which was an area contained by four great Austrian fortresses. Italian nationalism had been developing since the Napoleonic years, and was not related to economic conditions, in that the North and South of Italy despite their economic disparity and political disunity were party to the growing nationalism. This shows the point that Gramsci makes regarding the interrelation of base and superstructure: nationalism emerged despite the differences in the base structures in Italy. The development of Italian nationalism was then parallel to the development of an Italian elite; the unification of Italy was not led by an economic class, but by a state, Piedmont[25]. The “state” is a part of the superstructure and yet through it Italy was united into one economic unit and nation.
Gramsci notes that in Russia the autocracy of the Tsar diminished and arrested the development of civil society, to maintain the exclusivity of autocratic power and privilege[26]. The stresses and strains of the first world war diminished the prestige of the regime and it's ability to use force to maintain its power. With no 'civil society' to defend the extant social structure the Bolsheviks were able to defeat the reactionary forces militarily. In an advanced capitalist country the existence of a 'civil society' necessitates a different strategy to combat the bourgeois control; in this analysis Gramsci explains the apparent contradiction of Marxist predictions of proletarian revolutions[27].
The origins of this analysis lie in the 'Bienno Rosso' in the year immediately following the first world war, which was part of the revolutionary upsurge experienced in Europe at the time. It was felt that ”there was the widespread perception on both the political left and right that a return to the old order was not possible[28].” During this period of ferment the workers of Italy challenged their exploitation, but were unable to turn their actions into power.
The rise in worker activity, and it's failure, led to a reaction which was the emergence of the Fascists, who objected to the perceived weaknesses of the liberal state and the left wing orientation of the working classes. These targets struck a chord with the middle classes and elements of the bourgeoisie who supported the endeavours of the fascists. The working classes despite their actions did not have hegemonic control of society, rather it was the petty bourgeoisie and the middle classes who were represented by the fascists that acted as the hegemonic force, and took control of society.
Following the analysis of the origins of Italian unification as being the result of state action, it follows that the civil society in Italy was weak. This can be seen in the capitulation of the establishment in the face of the fascist march on Rome. This too can be applied to Germany, which was also created through the actions of a nation, in this case Prussia and which was also linked through linguistic and cultural ties[29], and in which “fascist” government was accepted by the elite as a response to crisis[30]. Britian and France too faced poweful workers movements and economic crises, but in these states the elite kept it's nerve and maintained control and hegemony. Britain and France emerged as coherent nation states in the feudal age, where as Italy and Germany were modern constructs: constructs that had weak civil societies and so collapsed in the face of concerted counter hegemonic activity.
That Gramsci is the Marxist the theoretician of 'Superstructures' is by no means a universal statement. While perhaps true in the Anglophone countries, in those countries where German is the dominant language that role is filled by the Frankfurt school, as exemplified by Habermaas[31] et all. The reasons for this discrepancy is in part linguistic, but is also linked to the accidents of history. Gramsci was translated into English in 1971 and this coincided with the rise of the New Left, which took up his ideas as they explain the failures of both 1968 and the Left in the advanced capitalist nations, but also the issues of culture and gender. Had Gramsci been translated earlier or not at all he would have remained merely an Italian Communist (a prominent and important one, but one for the historians of the Italian Left only).
Gramsci's is however the Marxist theoretician of the 'superstructures' in the English speaking world, and as such his work has had a profound influence on many fields beyond that of Marxist philosophy from cultural studies to sociology. His rethinking of the relationship between base and superstructure and his ideas relating to hegemony have been validated by many historical events, such as the USSR which can be attributed to a collapse in hegemony for the Communist Party. Gramsci's ideas on hegemony are now used by right-wing political parties in their quest for power[32], a use which demonstrates the wide applicability of the concept. Gramsci's thought today has relevance where other early 20th century Marxists have none, so that Korsch or Pannekoek for example do not widely inform cultural and political debate[33] where Gramscian thought does. His ideas on the relationship between the base and superstructure, and the reciprocal relationship between them are now seemingly proved through many examples completely disproving Marxist orthodoxy. The absence of interest from Islamic countries that are capitalist shows the power religion can exert over economic structure and organisation.
His upbringing and education in Italy played a formative role in his politics, but so too did practical experience of socialist journalism, worker activism and political party organisation. He was no armchair theoretician and his legacy is tangible in the form of the Communist Refoundation Party in Italy[34], and the Democratic Party[35] which can also trace a lineage to the PCI. His time in fascist jail and the late translation of his work into English meant his writings only emerged some time after his death, so that they appeared modern and fresh when they are a product of the inter-war years. This accident of history propelled Gramsci to intellectual celebrity, as the New Left saw the depth and value of his contributions to Marxism. His prescience and vision are startling to this day and when compared to the dull rhetoric that passes for ideology in the far left today he seems all the more relevant.
Bibliography
Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State
(Manchester:Manchester University Press:1993)
Carl Bloggs, Gramsci's Marxism (Southampton, Pluto Press:1980)
N.I. Bukharin, Historical Materialism - a System of Sociology, 1921
John Fonte, Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America from http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/FonteCultureWar.shtml
Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984)
James Joll, Gramsci (Glasgow, Fontana Paperbacks:1976)
Karl Korsch, The Present State of the Problem of Marxism and Philosophy: An Anti-critique, from http://libcom.org/library/present-state-korsch
Rob van Kranenburg, Whose Gramsci? Right-wing Gramscism from http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/igsn/articles/a09_5.shtml
Paul Ransome, Antonio Gramsci – A New Introduction
(Hemel Hempstead:Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992)
________________
[1]Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State page 112
[2]From SpecterZine Website accessed at 16:21 on 16/10/2009 http://www.spectrezine.org/reviews/laclaumouffe.htm
[3]Paul Ransome, Antonio Gramsci – A New Introduction (Hemel Hempstead:Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992) page 60
[4]Gramsci and the Italian State – Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter page 3
[5]Paul Ransome, Antonio Gramsci – A New Introduction (Hemel Hempstead:Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992) page 60 and 61
[6]Carl Bloggs, Gramsci's Marxism (Southampton, Pluto Press:1980) page 21
[7]James Joll, Gramsci (Glasgow, Fontana Paperbacks:1976) page 23
[8]Ibid page 76
[9]Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State, page 85
[10]The 'Antique Mode of Production' – humans are directly owned by others as slaves to provide labour
[11]The 'Asiatic Mode of Production' This is a controversial theory that holds the state in ancient societies played a significant role in economic matters. An elite based on a large urban capital dominate the small villages that are the majority of the population, creaming off surplus value for their own use, creating large monuments eg pyramids, ziggurats to justify their power.
[12]“If we regard the phenomena of nature which surround us, as well as those of social life, we shall observe that these phenomena by no means constitute a confused mass in which nothing may be distinguished or understood or predicted. On the other hand, we may everywhere ascertain, by attentive observation, a certain regularity in these phenomena.”
from N.I. Bukharin: Historical Materialism - a System of Sociology, 1921 – accessed at 14.07 on 06/10/2009 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1921/histmat/1.htm#a
[13]“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter Into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely [the] relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” From the Preface to K. Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977, with some notes by R. Rojas. Accessed from Marxist Internet Archive at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm accessed on 16/02/2010 at 15:53
[14]Carl Bloggs, Gramsci's Marxism (Southampton, Pluto Press:1980) page 11
[15]Karl Korsch and György Lukács are two other notable thinkers in this category. Yet they remain tied to a social and economic basis for their thought, whereas Gramsci develops a theory which is broader in conception and more elegant in it's designs for praxis.
[16]Karl Korsch, The Present State of the Problem of Marxism and Philosophy: An Anti-critique from http://libcom.org/library/present-state-korsch accessed at 13.13 on the 06/10/2009
[17]This article show this and frames it in the context of 'culture wars in the USA. John Fonte, Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/FonteCultureWar.shtml accessed at 01:03 0n 15/03/2010
[18]James Joll, Gramsci (Glasgow, Fontana Paperbacks:1976) page 73
[19]Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 238
[20]Gramsci wrote about Italian history extensively and his writings on the issue were part of the framework of his ideas. See pages 52 – 120 in Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
[21]“It seems clear from the policies of the Moderates that there can, and indeed must, be hegemonic activity even before the rise to power, and that one should count only on the material force which power gives to exercise in order to exercise an effective leadership.” Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 59
[22]The proto-right of pre-risorgimento Italian poltics, Described in Note 6 on page 57 from Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
[23]A republican group of Italians, who later joined the left. Note 7 page 57 from Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971)
[24]Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 57
[25]Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) pages 104 and 105
[26]“In Russia the Stare was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous” Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of..., edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (International Publishers, New York:1971) page 238
[27]Revolution was meant to occur in advanced capitalist states such as Great Britain and Germany, yet it occurred in the agrarian, non-proletarian states of Tsarist Russia and Nationalist China. Yet Russia and China had weak, barely extant Civil Societies and thus were open to military defeat, whereas Great Britain for example had strong Civil Society which prevented the growth and limited the power of revolutionary movements.
[28]Richard Bellamy and Darrow Schecter, Gramsci and the Italian State, page 28
[29]There was an economic factor in German unity, the customs union of Zollverein, but it did not cover most of Germany till 1866
[30]Italy in response to the Bienno Rosso and in Germany to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
[31]As exemplified in “The Theory of Communicative Action”, a and “The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere”. The former is an exploration of rationality as linguistic, and the consequences thereof. From Jürgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, trans. Thomas McCarthy, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984)
The latter developed 'Media Studies' almost single-handedly. From an article by Todd Gitlin, professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,994032,00.html accessed on 16/02/2010 at 17:58. These works are also considered to extend the Marxist Theory of Superstructures and as such can be seen to contest Gramsci's claim to the the Marxist theoretician of the 'superstructures', but there heavy duty intellectualism and dense German prose limit their reach beyond Marxist academia in the anglophone countries.
[32]Rob van Kranenburg, Whose Gramsci? Right-wing Gramscism from http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/igsn/articles/a09_5.shtml accessed at 11:06 on 15/03/2010
[33]A search on the Guardian website reveals 129 articles containing the word Gramsci with 2 for Korsch and 0 for Pannekoek. This is intended merely to show the greater penetration of Gramsci into cultural and political discourse. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ accessed at 11:21 on 15/03/2010
[34]This is the far left remnant of the PCI which split following the collapse of the USSR and the eastern bloc. Website: http://home.rifondazione.it/xisttest/
[35]The mainstream Left in Italian politics. Emerged as a union of various left wing and centrist groups in 2007. Website: http://www.partitodemocratico.it/gw/producer/producer.aspx?t=/prehome.htm
Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.5.2
Bank Holidays as a weapon in the Davegeddon
Bank Holidays are amazing. Why aren't we clamouring for more? As,the Davegeddon continues and our rights as Englishmen (sorry if you're Irish, Scottish, Welsh or from some other colonial land) are eroded more and more, Bank Holidays should be a new weapon against this degradation. Days of non production, of social bonding and community spirit, just the kind of pinko commie bullshit Dave wants to eradicate.
I get the impression that daily life on the Cameron household involves much of what Bank Holidays mean for the rest of us. Late rising, alcohol, grilled meats, servants fetching pitchers of gin, telegrams speaking of new wealth gained in colonial wars/finacial markets....
Okay so maybe they aren't.
I get the impression that daily life on the Cameron household involves much of what Bank Holidays mean for the rest of us. Late rising, alcohol, grilled meats, servants fetching pitchers of gin, telegrams speaking of new wealth gained in colonial wars/finacial markets....
Okay so maybe they aren't.
Published with Blogger-droid v1.5.5.2
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Cut this Cut that - The Politics of Coalition
The Dust of the Election has settled.
The Labour Party (RIP) has been cast into the roadside ditch like a cheap L&B carelessly discarded. The Lib Dems are firmly clamped around the teat of the Conservatives, suckling on the meagre concessions gifted to them. They have turned from the young guns bursting at the seems with fresh political vigour to a sexually dysfunctional OAP. Meanwhile the Tories run amok using "cuts" as a tool with which to decimate again Britain, the working class, anyone north of Watford, the diversity of our arts and culture.... The list is seemingly endless. Somehow they can find the funds for submarine based nuclear weapons, but not council houses. Clearly they can control the military, but not a council in control of it's own housing stock. Fucking Bastards.
It's worse as Cameron is out of his depth. The incident regarding WW2 and a complete absence of historical awareness (http://bit.ly/9qn55D) or his auseinandersetzung with Zadari (http://bit.ly/8XSNTo) show a lack of tact and knowledge, much less the wisdom and intellect a successful PM requires. At least if he was competent, likeable and on the ball the assault on the people would be impersonal, an ideological inevitability. Cameron, foolish aristo that he is, merely by being himself makes it a personal offensive against ME. It doesn't help that the cabinet features the failures of the Tory past (Hague and Duncan-Smith), and fucktards like Theresa May and George Osborne. These last two characters should never be allowed outside, let alone form part of the cabinet. Osborne seemingly makes fiscal policy on the basis of games of Monopoly, and May (Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equality) is a mockery of her Equalities role http://bit.ly/9L5WfH.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Auseinandersetzung
The Labour Party (RIP) has been cast into the roadside ditch like a cheap L&B carelessly discarded. The Lib Dems are firmly clamped around the teat of the Conservatives, suckling on the meagre concessions gifted to them. They have turned from the young guns bursting at the seems with fresh political vigour to a sexually dysfunctional OAP. Meanwhile the Tories run amok using "cuts" as a tool with which to decimate again Britain, the working class, anyone north of Watford, the diversity of our arts and culture.... The list is seemingly endless. Somehow they can find the funds for submarine based nuclear weapons, but not council houses. Clearly they can control the military, but not a council in control of it's own housing stock. Fucking Bastards.
It's worse as Cameron is out of his depth. The incident regarding WW2 and a complete absence of historical awareness (http://bit.ly/9qn55D) or his auseinandersetzung with Zadari (http://bit.ly/8XSNTo) show a lack of tact and knowledge, much less the wisdom and intellect a successful PM requires. At least if he was competent, likeable and on the ball the assault on the people would be impersonal, an ideological inevitability. Cameron, foolish aristo that he is, merely by being himself makes it a personal offensive against ME. It doesn't help that the cabinet features the failures of the Tory past (Hague and Duncan-Smith), and fucktards like Theresa May and George Osborne. These last two characters should never be allowed outside, let alone form part of the cabinet. Osborne seemingly makes fiscal policy on the basis of games of Monopoly, and May (Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equality) is a mockery of her Equalities role http://bit.ly/9L5WfH.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Auseinandersetzung
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Portable Crack
In this review I will cover Civilization Revolution on iPhone OS (not iPad). Civ is one of my favourite games of all time - bettered only in the 4x genre by it's spiritual successor "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri". I have only ever played this on my battered 1st generation iPod Touch 8gb, so your experience is going to be better than mine, unless like me you're rocking the original touch, given that model is the lowest specced of all the iPhone OS family.
First things first, this is a poorly coded and unoptimised game. No multi-player, limited save slots, very bad battle scenes and a poorly thought out interface conspire against this title. However despite these clear flaws this game is a triumph, for one reason and one reason alone.
Portability.
I generally carry my Touch where ever I go. It fits in all but the tiniest pocket and is slim and light enough to not weigh one down. Consequently I can play Civilization whenever I feel like it. The Touch does so much more than mere gaming, like Twitter, T'internet and Lasf.fm, to name a few, which only adds to the near certainty of me carrying it with me. It also supports custom soundtracks, with or without sound effects. Crushing the foes of The English to some hardcore Drum&Bass or defending the integrity of the Aztec Empire to some free jazz are experiences everyone should have.
I have a PSP which is perhaps better suited to the complexities of the game with its button based control system, yet the bulk of the PSP means it just will not he taken with me on my travels anywhere like as much as the Touch. That there isn't a version of Civ. Rev. on the system is a travesty that will never be rectified, but given the bulk of even the Slim & Lite's compared to an iPhone and the fact the PSP games don't have custom soundtracks(I can think of 5 that do out of the entire PSP library) it is only a minor inconvenience.
The DS, to be fair to it, does have a version of Civ. Rev. that I've not played. The Sweet Lady has a DS so it's not beyond my reach, but the iPhone OS version was £2.99 – the DS version is a full price retail game, lacking in custom soundtracks in a device that is larger than my Touch.
So I play the iPhone OS version like a crack-head plays the crack pipe when it's dole day. The game-play remains Civ. at its core so I can't stay away. Having Civ available anywhere is bad for my social life and interpersonal relationships, but like all addicts I WANT MORE!
There is so much that could improve the game. So many many small tweaks.
*Multi-player. There are more and more iPhone OS devices in my circle of friends seemingly each month. I can think of ten friends with either an iPod touch or iPhone. Local WiFi or blue-tooth (not for me sadly with my geriatric Touch) multi-player just makes sense.
*Improved Battle Scenes. The animation for these is appallingly shoddy. Advance Wars on GBA had better battle animation and that was in 2001/02. It doesn't take much guys. Animation that would be sub-standard on the SNES is just not acceptable in 2010s. Update it please someone at 2K.
*Increase the save slots. The lowest storage that this game will encounter is 4gb on the lowest 2G iPhone. Ten save slots is just piss poor. Sloppy. Let me allocate a set amount for them. I'd happily set aside at least 100mb to Civ. Rev. for this sole purpose.
*Reduce interface Clutter. There is way too much wastage of screen space, too many icons that could be be steamlined as you can see:
*Port to Android – the hard buttons, trackball/trackpad and tasty OS make Civ a sure fire winner on Android, and the 2.2 update means it would work a treat.
I heartily recommend this game if you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, albeit with a warning relating to its addictiveness.
First things first, this is a poorly coded and unoptimised game. No multi-player, limited save slots, very bad battle scenes and a poorly thought out interface conspire against this title. However despite these clear flaws this game is a triumph, for one reason and one reason alone.
Portability.
I generally carry my Touch where ever I go. It fits in all but the tiniest pocket and is slim and light enough to not weigh one down. Consequently I can play Civilization whenever I feel like it. The Touch does so much more than mere gaming, like Twitter, T'internet and Lasf.fm, to name a few, which only adds to the near certainty of me carrying it with me. It also supports custom soundtracks, with or without sound effects. Crushing the foes of The English to some hardcore Drum&Bass or defending the integrity of the Aztec Empire to some free jazz are experiences everyone should have.
I have a PSP which is perhaps better suited to the complexities of the game with its button based control system, yet the bulk of the PSP means it just will not he taken with me on my travels anywhere like as much as the Touch. That there isn't a version of Civ. Rev. on the system is a travesty that will never be rectified, but given the bulk of even the Slim & Lite's compared to an iPhone and the fact the PSP games don't have custom soundtracks(I can think of 5 that do out of the entire PSP library) it is only a minor inconvenience.
The DS, to be fair to it, does have a version of Civ. Rev. that I've not played. The Sweet Lady has a DS so it's not beyond my reach, but the iPhone OS version was £2.99 – the DS version is a full price retail game, lacking in custom soundtracks in a device that is larger than my Touch.
So I play the iPhone OS version like a crack-head plays the crack pipe when it's dole day. The game-play remains Civ. at its core so I can't stay away. Having Civ available anywhere is bad for my social life and interpersonal relationships, but like all addicts I WANT MORE!
There is so much that could improve the game. So many many small tweaks.
*Multi-player. There are more and more iPhone OS devices in my circle of friends seemingly each month. I can think of ten friends with either an iPod touch or iPhone. Local WiFi or blue-tooth (not for me sadly with my geriatric Touch) multi-player just makes sense.
*Improved Battle Scenes. The animation for these is appallingly shoddy. Advance Wars on GBA had better battle animation and that was in 2001/02. It doesn't take much guys. Animation that would be sub-standard on the SNES is just not acceptable in 2010s. Update it please someone at 2K.
*Increase the save slots. The lowest storage that this game will encounter is 4gb on the lowest 2G iPhone. Ten save slots is just piss poor. Sloppy. Let me allocate a set amount for them. I'd happily set aside at least 100mb to Civ. Rev. for this sole purpose.
*Reduce interface Clutter. There is way too much wastage of screen space, too many icons that could be be steamlined as you can see:
*Port to Android – the hard buttons, trackball/trackpad and tasty OS make Civ a sure fire winner on Android, and the 2.2 update means it would work a treat.
I heartily recommend this game if you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, albeit with a warning relating to its addictiveness.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
General Election 2010 Part One
So it's time to pick a new section of the ruling elite in General Election 2010, which sounds like a EA Sports game: "React to tweets and blogs in this years fun political simulation, with ground breaking online features!" This time around the Liberal Democrats are being included in the party through the TV debates, which are really a political 'Westminster's got Talent'. This is ironic as the only government to ever show any sort of talent was in 1945, and most certainly not since 1979, the fateful year when Satan himself had a sex change, got a handbag and elected as Prime Minister.
So as the Liberals are back on the scene after nearly 100 hundred years seemingly shagging rent boys. There return is kind of inevitable, given the choice on offer by the Labservatives. On one side of the double ended dildo that is "first past the post" we have "The Third Duke of Cuntshire" Lord Smithjizz Twatface and the other Tony Blair's wanking hand. Anyone who isn't Adolf Hitler or Nick Griffin would look good compared to those two, even uncle Joe Stalin - who would at least sort out the manufacturing sector.
The TV debate did just that, with Clegg the LibDem leader coming out on top, while Brown and Cameron were busy seeing who could ejaculate the most over each other's response to the financial crisis, too busy to notice Clegg coming up behind them. There are two more debates to come and much could change in their wake.
Dave Cameron could be seen the same room as Tony Blair finally allowing us to see failures of the cloning process first hand; Dolly the Sheep has a lot to answer for.
Gordon Brown may be pushed over the edge and go mental after being forced into another pointless PR exercise, garrotting a Sun journalist with his tie, then shoving a microphone down Nick Robinson's throat shouting "Soundbite this you smug four eyed fucker" over and over like a mantra of an insane Buddhistt Monk on a quest for vengeance..
Nick Clegg will turn up at the second debate dressed like a forty year old female English teacher, smoking a crack pipe whilst throwing packets of miaow-miaow at the TV audience singing songs from West Side Story.
What is far more likely is Labservative turning on the new boys and either destroying Clegg in a blaze of well argued strongly reasoned political critique which coming from these two vacuous colostomy bags of the political establishment. The other option is that they come off looking worse for picking on plucky Clegg, struggling against the despoilers of our nation. Tune in next week to find out.
Or don't give them the oxygen of legitimacy. Don't watch it. Vote Green!
So as the Liberals are back on the scene after nearly 100 hundred years seemingly shagging rent boys. There return is kind of inevitable, given the choice on offer by the Labservatives. On one side of the double ended dildo that is "first past the post" we have "The Third Duke of Cuntshire" Lord Smithjizz Twatface and the other Tony Blair's wanking hand. Anyone who isn't Adolf Hitler or Nick Griffin would look good compared to those two, even uncle Joe Stalin - who would at least sort out the manufacturing sector.
The TV debate did just that, with Clegg the LibDem leader coming out on top, while Brown and Cameron were busy seeing who could ejaculate the most over each other's response to the financial crisis, too busy to notice Clegg coming up behind them. There are two more debates to come and much could change in their wake.
Dave Cameron could be seen the same room as Tony Blair finally allowing us to see failures of the cloning process first hand; Dolly the Sheep has a lot to answer for.
Gordon Brown may be pushed over the edge and go mental after being forced into another pointless PR exercise, garrotting a Sun journalist with his tie, then shoving a microphone down Nick Robinson's throat shouting "Soundbite this you smug four eyed fucker" over and over like a mantra of an insane Buddhistt Monk on a quest for vengeance..
Nick Clegg will turn up at the second debate dressed like a forty year old female English teacher, smoking a crack pipe whilst throwing packets of miaow-miaow at the TV audience singing songs from West Side Story.
What is far more likely is Labservative turning on the new boys and either destroying Clegg in a blaze of well argued strongly reasoned political critique which coming from these two vacuous colostomy bags of the political establishment. The other option is that they come off looking worse for picking on plucky Clegg, struggling against the despoilers of our nation. Tune in next week to find out.
Or don't give them the oxygen of legitimacy. Don't watch it. Vote Green!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)