Srebrenica - a solemn pause

Salt Lake City

 

Ken Burns Civil War Documentary.....

I was initially rather sceptical about a free month's Netflix trial, yet when it arrived on my computer courtesy of my family - I was delighted to see Ken Burns famous (American) Civil War series there in its entirety! I first saw this ground breaking series in Canada in the early 1990s, when staying with a pal from university in some remote corner of Nova Scotia. The American PBS channel were showing it every night at some absurdly late hour, and it became a nightly ritual that we'd get back to his parents house every evening in time for the next instalment. I knew almost nothing about the American Civil War then, it was all new - and utterly compelling. Years later I saw a set of DVD discs on Ebay of it, and bought them expectantly, but when they arrived they were scratched ad unplayable! I sent the discs back, and have waited to see the series again, until now!

Burns and his team did an amazing of telling the story of the American Civil War militarily, biographically, politically, socially, racially and culturally through an carefully edited series of contemporary diaries, articles, letters and papers, voiced by great actors; to the accompaniment of archive photos of people and places; set to the most perfectly executed sound-track, and interspersed with 'talking heads' commentary segments.

The series is basically a straightforward chronology of the conflict, charting the origins of the conflict, it developments, key movements, battles and strategies, until the final Union victory, and the assassination of Lincoln. It examines the main strategies, such as Lee's invasion of the North, all the main battles (famous names such as Antietam, Wilderness, Gettysburg, Bull Run), key incidents within those battles such as "Pickett's Charge" at Gettysburg; it looks at all the main characters, Grant, Lee, Sherman, Longstreet, Forrest, MacLennan, Hill, Lincoln and Davis etc, and of course the emerging importance of the legal status of slavery as a war aim for both sides. All of this is hugely informative, and provides the uninitiated with a crash-course in the every aspect of the era from social customs to military technology.

As the series returns to the same diarists over-and-over again, its possible to chart the course of the war from individual perspectives too. Southern and Northern voices are both represented in this, as are the views of both back and white people affected by the conflict. Mary Chestnut, in the Southern aristocracy was an avid diarist in the war, and her 'voice' is a remarkable historical document, as the Sam Watkins, a Union soldier and writer who recorded 'his' war too. By the end of the series these voices become familiar, and almost as close to the viewer as if they had been interviewed. Morgan Freeman's voicing of Fredrick Douglass' words is brilliant too - amazingly powerful in fact. 

The talking-heads are interesting too. They feature a retired Congressman, the historian Barbara Fields, and Shelby Foote the Southern Writer. They each pull in different directions in their comments too, the politician wants to see the conflict as part of the great American narrative, Fields is a sharply incisive academic historian who wants to emphasise the centrality of racial injustice as a central theme in American history, and while Foote is no apologist for the Confederacy itself, he certainly wishes to rescue the historical voice of the average Confederate soldier. Foote's contributions are in fact highly memorable, as he drawls from a vast array of anecdotes, told in the first person as if he had been a participant!

Obviously the causes of the conflict are a huge source of division even today. The Confederacy claimed to be fighting to protect states rights, not primarily to defend slavery (although of course these two things merged in practise), while the North began by fighting to save the Union, but ended up tangled-up in a fight to end the evil of slave-holding. Fields and Douglass are persuasive in their analysis of the centrality of racial questions, but Foote adds an important side note when he intones, "The average southern soldier wasn't a slave-holder" - he was fighting for his state's independence. In many of these questions Burns allows a variety of perspectives to be heard, and one wonders if that would be the case today; or whether if he was making it today he would have to be far more one-sided. For instance, Mary Chestnut's diaries of the ruin of the Old South, left decimated by the Northern Armies of Sherman and Sheridan, are well-written and moving. Sherman's terse commentary of his battering of the Confederacy in his 'March to the Sea' campaign, adds weight to

the sympathy that one cannot help but feel when a first-hand account of war, and decimation of towns, cities, homes, farms and families, is read. This especially the case when the reading is accompanied by mournful music, and photos of the ruins. Then however we are immediately reminded that Richmond was devastated because it was the capital of a slave-empire, the symbolic embodiment of a system of grotesque evil. The we are diverted again by Abraham Lincoln's assessment that the while horror of the war was a divine judgement on whole the USA for the sin of slave-holding.

The haunting music isn't in fact a piece from the 1860s, but a far more recent tune called Ashokan Farewell. It so wonderfully frames the awful scenes of the dead, the injured and the fallen that it became highly sought after, following the release of the series, apparently.

After having amazed by this series back in 1992, I was interested to see how it would stand up after all these years (and my acquisition of a degree in American history!) All I can say is that I thought it was wonderful to see it again. Powerful, instructive, and very moving - and highly relevant today.  The horror and sadness of war are powerfully and profoundly displayed here. 

Huge, (really huge!) amounts of ink have been spilled commenting on this series, some lauding it, other criticising it. One or two of those criticisms are probably valid; but they do not detract from the overall brilliance of this tremendous series, which certainly is worth watching at least twice.

Book Notes: Molotov's Magic Lantern by Rachel Polonsky

The Russian writer Danil Granin used the word 'tosca' to describe the villages outside Novgorod, writes Rachel Polonsky. Russian-English dictionaries, suggest that there is no direct English equivalent for this word but Polonsky goes on to say, tosca a word which "besides melancholy, contains shades of yearning, nostalgia, even anguish", (p158).

Molotov's Magic Lantern is a book which is overflowing with tosca, positively brimming with it in fact. It's a book without a plot, and without any central characters, and almost no dialogue! It's really a stunningly written travel book, in which the author immerses herself in the, cultural, political, economic and literary history of each place she visits. The way that she does this is so compelling, absorbing and Russian, that the reader is made to feel that they have been touched by these places too.

Polonsky's travels begin in Moscow, where she was living. The flat she rented in the 1990s was however no ordinary dwelling; but a former Nomenklatura residence, reserved for the upper echelons of the Soviet hierarchy, throughout the seven decades of communist rule. The list of people who lived at 'number 3', reads like a roll-call of the cream of the Old-Bolsheviks of Lenin's revolutionary party, like Trostky and Vishinsky; through to latter characters such as the deposed Krushchev. Most significant for the book however is the fact that Vyachaslev Molotov, and his wife Polina, lived in the flat above Polonsky's; from his reign as Stalin's Foreign Minister, until his death in 1986. What's more, Molotov's flat was largely unchanged from the days when he negotiated the non-aggression pact with Hitler, signed the death-lists in the great purges, or flew off to Yalta with Stalin. Most fascinating of all, his library full of his heavily-annotated books was present too; and which Polosnky delved deeply into. The purges, gulags, The Lubyanka and the death squads of the NKVD reached deeply into "number three".

In succeeding chapters, Polonsky travels around the part of Moscow in which she lives, then down to the Sea of Azov, through the strange history of the traditional Russian banya, up to Murmansk and Barentsburg, and out through Tunka into Siberia. In each of these places she digs deeply into the lives of the people who have lived there, and into the political and literary figures who forged history and responded to it. One reviewer called it a 'delicious celebration of Russia.... from Pushkin to Putin." My knowledge of literature is very poor compared to my understanding of Russian history and politics; which I studied at university. So while most of the historical-political references made sense to me; some of the literary illusions were harder to follow. Nevertheless, when describing the physical, political, cultural and ideological landscapes in which the writers she follows operated, Polonsky evokes such profound moods that even the more obscure references are swept up into the whole. Some scenes, such as her exploration of the abandoned Stalinist scientific research centre where the ideologically Stalinist,  but Scientific charlatan Trofim Lysenko operated, are vivid:

Here, where biology once grew freely as a natural science, Stalin's favourites degraded into an ideological farce. Not all the Lutsino dachniki were natural scientists, some were in the social sciences. On the way back from the Biostation, I took the loop in the road that leads past dacha No.7, whose grounds are grander than most in the colony. Said to have a parquet floor, the dacha was given to Andrei Vyshinsky to mark his years of scholarly service to the Soviet state.... [but this was only] his reserve dacha, and visits of the chief prosecutor were rare. I had found Vyshinsky in Moscow, amongst Molotov's books and here he was again, at his property in the country. (p125)

Vyshinsky was the legal mind behind the great purges, show trials and horrors of Stalin's 30s. He was the person, who as head of the USSR's legal system declared that legal representation for the accused was bourgeois and corrupt. 

The historical references never seem to stray far from the gulags, and the purges, of course. When they do, the toska inevitably returns with a throwaway comment such as, "this is before he was arrested in 1937, tortured by the NKVK and shot in 1939", and could refer to a peasant, a politician, a writer, actor, scientist, doctor or soldier. When Polonsky follows the route of the exiles from Moscow/Leningrad out into Siberia, the sorrow of Russian history from the Okhrana to the Cheka, the NKVD, GUGB etc. is powerful.

I went to Russia during Gorbachev's era - and the country left a permanent impression on me. Although by then the communist system was ailing; the party itself had lost the will to impose itself upon the largely reluctant populace any longer; it was possible to still 'smell' the past - and imagine the state terrorising its own. The body of Lenin was still on display in Red Square, though Stalin's had been removed. Driving past the Lubyanka, was still enough to cause the tour party to shudder and imagine Beria and his ilk arriving to commit their crimes against humanity. This book is so evocative and stirring, that it is almost like a visit to Russia, in the mind; from the reading chair. For anyone who has an interest in all things Russian this is a tremendous read.

Book Notes: White Mughals by William Dalrymple

In "White Mughals", William Dalrymple once more delves into the history of India, his adopted home, and place he clearly loves deeply. He has spent decades exploring the cultural, religious, economic, political and military history of that vast and infinitely complex country. I say "once more", in that I have previously written here about the way that Dalrymple's books have been a gateway for me into the unknown world of Indian history, in books such as The Last Mughal. However White Mughals was written before most of the Dalrymple books I have reviewed on this blog.

Dalrymple sets out in this book to celebrate a lost world of pluralism and tolerance, in which the people of India, and the incoming waves of British settlers, intermingled, intermarried and moved freely between cultures, religions, languages, dress, customs and so forth. This book is set in the late 18th Century, when attitudes were yet to harden into the sort of religious and cultural fundamentalisms which later divided India. India itself in this period was not a united country, but a series of 'kingdoms', which jostled for power. Alongside this, were foreign armies, such as the French vying for colonial influence, along with "the Company". The Company in question, of course, was The East India Company, one of the strangest organisations ever to pass through the pages of history. While formally a private company, it had tradesmen, diplomats, governors, and standing armies through which it negotiated with governments and acted more like a state than a business. From Calcutta to Hyderabad, the cities were ruled by two authorities, the King and the "resident", the Company chief, in a governmental palace. 

The central story in this enormous book is of the romance between the company resident in Hyderabad, Major James Kilpatrick and Khair un-Nissa, a teenage beauty, reputedly a direct descendant of Mohammad. Dalrymple goes to inordinate length to set the political and cultural scene before he gets to this main storyline. At times, in the opening chapters, the detail becomes overwhelming, with little structure to hang it on. I pressed on with reading it on the strength of his other books, and was glad I did, because it gets better as it progresses.

The Kilpatrick-affair was a major scandal at the time, because while many British people in India lived their whole lives there, and took on facets of culture; Kilpatrick seemed to reject many aspects of his heritage and thoroughly embrace Indian life. He was accused of seducing, of even raping the girl; charges of which he was cleared; the truth is that he so loved her that he actually risked his entire career in order to marry her; even formally converting to Islam in order for the wedding to go ahead. 

While the Kilpatrick family are the central spine running through the book, across several generations; the narrative exposes and explores an amazing array of facets of Indian and British life in this period such as; relations between the sexes, religious views, festivals and practices, trade, travel and transport, politics and colonialism, health, medicine, agriculture, architecture and language. Of course, as it comes from the meticulous research and wonderful writing of William Dalrymple, all this serves as a remarkable window into another world.

The story of the children of Kilpatrick and Khair un-Nissa is traced through a remarkable archive trail of letters and documents in England where they grew up and lived, married and flourished. This intergenerational story, full of heartbreaks and tragedies, is a remarkable one worth telling. The book though ends with a lament for the lost age of tolerance in which English settlers would learn the languages, smoke the hookah's, ride elephants and keep harems of local women (!). By 1860, says Dalrymple, harder forms of trade, colonial aggression, and closed cultures would drive wedges between cultures, races, religions and people which would set a trajectory which would culminate in the violence of the post-Colonial partition of India.

Of all Dalrymple's book, I think this one might be the one I have enjoyed least. It's still a very, very good book from which I have learnt huge amounts. However, it isn't as gripping as The Return of The King or The Last Mughal, and does get bogged down in unmanageable detail in the first few chapters. Wading though that is worth it, though, for the hugely insightful wealth of things which follow. I am very much looking forward to Dalrymple's forthcoming history of the East India Company, which he is currently researching.

Book Notes: Paul by Tom Wright

Tom Wright's biography of Paul (also known as Saul of Tarsus, Saint Paul or Paul the Apostle) is a brilliant read. I took it on holiday a few weeks ago, and couldn't put it down. One doesn't need to be a fully-signed up devotee of every nuance of Wright's sometimes controversial interpretations of Paul's theology to get a huge amount from this book either.

Wright has done a brilliant job at piecing together the known facts about Paul into a seamless narrative which takes into account his background, training, work, "zeal", transformation on the Damascus Road, periods of silence, the development of his circle, churches, ideas and mission; the Acts narratives and epistles. If working all that into a coherent story wasn't an achievement in itself, Wright adds a layer of complexity to this, by interacting masterfully between the biblical story and theology, and the historical and cultural background in which it is set.

Paul emerges from Wright's treatment as both a more human figure and more sympathetic figure than many previous attempts to understand him. Luke's account is so action packed, and Paul so 'heroic' that it is only when we engage with his letters and how he was processing his challenges and struggles, that the man himself comes into focus. Wright's view that Paul endured a long and painful Ephesian imprisonment, which wounded, humbled and matured the 'later Paul' is highly probable, and adds great light to some of his subsequent 'flesh-thorned' words. The struggles with the shifting loyalties of some his churches, both to doctrine and to him personally are likewise woven into the story of this vulnerable, driven, brilliant man. Wright's speculations about Paul's inner struggles (is my mission all worth it, will there be anything to show for it?), are as he admits, extrapolations from the evidence; but not far-fetched or ludicrous ones, and all add to the drama, and indeed pathos.

The insights into Paul's theology, of course revolve around Wrights angle on the so-called 'New Perspective'. However, there is much, much more to the ideas woven through  this book than that. Wright might somewhat overdo rehearsing his contentions that justification by faith is a badge by which to identify those loyal to Christ, rather than a method of achieving reconciliation with God; and his debunking of gnostic soul-only visions of other-wordly non-physical salvation; but that repetition aside, it is tremendous. From time-to-time, critics have appeared who have attempted to drive a wedge between the message of the four gospels and Paul's gospel. In some ways, this book might actually form the perfect rebuttal to those critics. Wright has done a stunning job of demonstrating the deeply, profoundly and completely Jewish/Old Testament saturated world-view of Paul, both before and after the Damascus Road transformation. Another theme that Wright expands on rather well are the debates surrounding the transmission of this message about Jesus the Jewish Messiah into the Gentile world of Greeks and Romans. Paul's insistence that Gentile believers did not have to become culturally Jewish in order to have table fellowship with what might today be called 'Messianic-Jews' is profoundly explored, alongside  the Acts narratives of disputes, and the relevant combative sections of the epistles - notably those to  the Galatians and Romans.

What makes this book even more pleasing is the fact that Wright's easy prose enables the reader to easily immerse themselves in the cultural, religious, doctrinal, political world of the 1st Century without feeling as if they are working too hard! I continue to have some reservations about whether we really have completely misread Paul through the eyes of Luther- and if Wright isn't over-compensating rather a lot to any error there; but that doesn't change the fact that this book has brought the world of the New Testament alive in my understanding and imagination like few other reads. It is well indexed by topic, author and scripture too, making a resource to which I can return again and again. 

Five sides of Mostar

Mostar is a place with a unique atmosphere. The predominantly Muslim eastern city is studded with the minarets of mosques while Catholic church spires reach skyward on the west. This is the point at which two ancient civilisations meet. Communist era brutally-functional concrete architecture remains across the city, a reminder of the days of Tito's Yugoslavia. Bomb damaged and bullet strafed buildings remain throughout the city, where the Balkan wars of the 1990s feel more recent than in the tourist hot-spots of the Croatian Coast. Then, a whole range of new, post-war buildings, like the Mostar Hotel rub shoulders with all of the above. A place once visited, never forgotten. 

Film Notes: Camera Buff

Like many people I first came across Krzysztof Kieślowski through his later work such as The Three Colours Trilogy, made after his move to France from his native Poland. Only later did I stumble across his earlier, rougher films such as the Decalogue series, made in the drabber environment of Soviet-era Polish communism. This film, Camera Buff, comes from amongst these earlier pieces, made in 1979.

The first striking think about the film is that it is a period-piece for its time. The Soviet-era architecture, cars, clothes, and factories are obvious. What then hits the viewer is the social-economic setting of the film. The obvious heavy-industrial context, with wheezing factories belting fumes from their modernist chimneys, is the backdrop for a series of relationships which too are located in time and space. The deadening bureaucracy which controls the factory is typical of the era, as are the depictions of an adequate but basic life in the stagnant command-economy. Over all these relationships lurks the chubby party-boss, whose role is to oversee all the people and operations in the plant and the town for the party-state, and to protect the sacred Marxist-Leninist ideology. All this dates the film in the Cold-War era of the East generally, but what is even more interesting is that in 1979, it was obviously acceptable to portray the party boss interfering and censoring the film in a way which would not have made it to the screen in 1970, let alone before 1951.

The film itself concerns Filip Mosz, a factory worker deftly played by Jerzy Stuhr, who gets a film camera with which to record the life of his first child, who is born near the start of the film. The camera is obviously a scarce resource, and the party demand that he use it to film the jubilee of the factory in which he works. This is successful, and leads to the establishment of a small film unit at the plant, making party-approved pieces - but Mosz's slightly artistic takes on everyday life gain wider plaudits, much to the anxiety of the party.

The tension between art and political control forms only a sub-plot however. The main theme is the obsession of the artist, and the way in which it takes over his life, causing great strain within his marriage. The lens through which Mosz increasingly lives his life becomes that of an observer, and recorder of life; not a full participant in it. This process is seen as even when not filming, he views scenes in his life and marriage - as if through a lens; forming a square with his hands to imagine how the scene would appear on film; to the increasing distress to his wife (Malgorzata Zabkowska as Irka Mosz). His cinemtographical exploits also unintentionally damage colleagues on the way too, a price he seems willing to accept for his art.

In one sense the film points to the way in which art and creativity provides a meaning for a man in an empty, drab, and highly controlled world. If the bleak nature of the vast monoform flats in which he lives, and the dispiriting nature of his work as a buyer for a factory in a command-economy which was unresponsive to his needs; was the problem, then Mosz found his outlet in capturing things as beautiful, natural and innocent as pigeons on the wing, or road-menders toil. However, Camera Buff now looks strangely prophetic in the sense that in the mobile phone/social media era there seems to be a strong pull (dare I say it, especially amongst the young!) (I know, I'm an old fart), to film and observe life and the world - rather than fully participate in it. I love my camera, and for a long time took it everywhere, but I was away that sometimes capturing an image was at odds with enjoying experiencing the reality of it. Banksy, in his own inimitable style views it like this:

In 1979, Krzysztof Kieślowski imagined it like this:

Film Notes: For The Love of God

I have to confess to being a bit of a history nerd. Having spent several years studying it, accumulated countless books and an insatiable reading habit, I find the past utterly absorbing. It's common to hear politics, ethics, education, nationalism or multiculturalism being described as 'a battleground of ideas', but every historian is equally aware that our view of the past is every bit as contentious. We are all aware of "Black History Month", which has grown steadily in significance, as the once accepted racism which erased Black people from our historical consciousness has been increasingly rejected. Historians once looked for great themes and great men (yes, it was usually just men!); many these days look for "usable pasts"; which are often little more than selective trawls for evidence with which to weaponise history for contemporary polemics.

Religious history, has of course been subject to both these trends. Biographies of saints and martyrs have been produced to stir the devotions of the faithful; while the memory of atrocities committed in the name of "belief a", are kept alive by the adherents of "belief b".

What we make of the history of the church, is then something of great importance, and not just for history geeks like me. How the history of Christianity is handled is a significant marker in the current battle of ideas. Of course some Christians want to paint a picture of unbridled progress and blessing; while some atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, wish to portray every aspect of the church's record as being fundamentally malign.

Perhaps only the foolish, unwary or brave would step into this vast field of two millenia of contention! Certainly the aim of presenting a fair and balanced picture of the church's moral and ethical record, which is neither a Hitchensesque hatchet-job or a series of 'lives of the saints' hagiographies is a bold one. However, this is exactly what CPX (The Centre for Public Christianity in Australia) have done in a 90 minute film entitled "For The Love of God: How The Church is Both Better And Worse Than You Ever Imagined". Fearing the worst, I watched this film with some trepidation, but they have really pulled it off, it is a great piece of work.

 

Filmed with high quality production values, CPX presenters John Dickson, Justine Toh and Simon Smart, are filmed in locations around the world, where Christians have made an impact for good or ill; and assessed the history. They tell stories such as massacres in the Crusades perpetrated on innocent Muslims in the name of Christianity, to Martin Luther King Jr's noble quest for Civil Rights; from Christian failures to oppose Nazism, to roots of Western charity and philanthropy in the early church as it was persecuted by Roman Emperors. The story telling is enhanced by dramatic readings of historical texts, and segments of academics discussing and assessing the meaning of the stories.

Wonderfully put together, well-researched, and presented in a lively style, the film itself is compelling viewing. The analysis is fascinating too; as they seek to assess where the church has gone wrong and where it has made a contribution. John Lennox, the noted Christian professor of Mathematics at Oxford describes the 'shame' of some of the things done in Northern Ireland in the name of Christianity. On the other hand Rowan Williams explores the way in which many disputes driven by other factors such as land, power, or resources have gained a religious veneer or justification; but were not inherently caused by clashes of belief.

The treatment of Colonialism is quite remarkable. Coming from Australia the film begins with the damage done to Aboriginal people by the white settlers, who brought everything from land-seizures to new diseases to Australia; sometimes justified in the name of Christianity. Yet, they also show that it was Christians who almost uniquely rejected a racist hierarchy of races, because they couldn't accept social-Darwinism, as their faith told them that all people were made in the image of God. Likewise the role of William Carey in India is examined, and not just in term of his exemplary work in education, and development. His long campaign against 'Sati' (widow-burning) can be seen as either imposing western values on India; or as a bold step towards the equality of the sexes, and thoroughly in line with the idea that basic human rights are universal, not allocated by the powerful; or awarded in response to capacity or contribution. This, likewise is an idea which only became embedded in western culture when Christian ethics replaced Greco-Roman morality in which things such an infanticide were almost de rigueur.

Robert Woodberry's thesis that Protestant missionaries have left a massively positive contribution towards social and economic flourishing in virtually every context in which they operated, is also given a well-deserved hearing.

Equally fascinating was the (perhaps not immediately obvious) subject of character. The weight of evidence that the ancients, despite all their philosophical sophistication, saw humility as despicable; was very well explained. The Christian view of the cross of Christ. the humiliated God, was radically counter cultural; and leads directly to so many of the values which we in the west assume are universal, but actually are rooted in Christianity.

Finally the filmakers ask us to examine the record of the church, as it stands up against the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. The obvious point that Jesus' ethical teaching commands great respect isn't laboured, but rather what is observed is that where the church has stuck to his words and example, it has been beautiful; but where it has veered off into contemporary cultures, it has looked ugly. Central to this discussion is Jesus' charge to his people to "love their enemies". This main thesis is explored through a charming musical metaphor, which I won't explain, but will leave you to enjoy on the film.

The film can be viewed as a single 90 minute "Cinema Cut" or in several shorter episodes; 1) War and Peace, 2) Rights and Wrongs, 3) Rich and Poor, 4) Power and Humility. It can be rented or purchased online, for streaming or by buying the DVD from https://www.publicchristianity.org/fortheloveofgod/ from where free clips, and study guides for groups or schools can also be downloaded.

This honest film leaves little room either for Christian triumphalism on one hand, or mud-slinging anti-Christian polemics on the other. In that sense, CPX have done a remarkable job in opening up a sensible discussion in which the very real contributions of Christian ethics, and Jesus' teaching can be  seen alongside many of the sins of the church. As such the film will perhaps contain surprises for people on both sides of that debate. There is some uneasy viewing for Christians, especially on the Crusades and the Nazis; while some secularists will be alarmed at the extent to which so many of the values we celebrate in the western liberal tradition have distinctly Christian roots, and were pioneered in history by Christians. Furthermore, many of them are grounded in Christian beliefs, and sustained by them, and indeed inseparable from them.

CPX are to be congratulated on the way in which they have stepped so nimbly across this historical minefield, and produced such a stimulating, thought-provoking film, which is both visually stunning and academically rigorous.

Film Notes: Son of Saul

Son of Saul, is without any doubt, the most horrific film I have ever seen. It left me numb,and in shock, while my wife felt physically sick. Watching it is something of an endurance test for the viewer - and yet despite this, it has won countless accolades including the Cannes Grand Prix, and the 2015 Academy Award for best foreign language film. What is it that made the film juries, and the countless critics who's scores accumulate to 95% approval on the Rotten Tomatoes meta-critic site, so endorse this appalling spectacle? There are several reasons:

The first is that this is a film about truth. The action takes place over two-days in the heart of the Nazi's death-camp at Auschwitz. Using the best first-hand account of how the industrial scale murder-factories looked, were run, staffed and organised, the details of the story-line might be fictitious; but they are rooted in truth. Life in the camps has been depicted before, in films like Schindler's List,  where the viewer thought for a moment that they were going to be asked to watch a mass murder by gas; but are spared at the last second. Likewise, I've seen disturbing depictions of the labour-camps before; but Son of Saul, is set right in the heart of the killing. László Nemes might just spare us the sight of the asphyxiations themselves, but he does not spare us the victims screams - and hopeless banging on the gas-chamber doors.

The central character, Saul Ausländer (Géza Röhrig), is a Hungarian Jew. imprisoned in the death-camp. Primo Levi, in "The Drowned and The Saved", his Auschwitz memoir, describes the various roles prisoners were given. The useful like him, were put to hard labour, others were selected for medical experiments, while others were condemned to what he called "The Gray Zone", that is joining the Sonderkommando. These most wretched of souls gained a few months of life, by running the death-machine. Saul, was a Sondercommando, and we first meet him herding fellow Hungarian Jews to their death, taking their possessions for the Nazi's, hauling out the naked bodies from the gas-chambers, and scrubbing them clean for the next train-load. This is so intense, so incomprehensible, that it is hard to watch. However, the fact that this happened, as recently as in my parents' lifetime, means that it has to be faced.

The second reason that the film has been so lauded is the extraordinary cinematography. In interviews, László Nemes has described shooting the film in a messy way, all from human-eye-level. The fact that the narrow depth of field means that the main characters faces are in focus, but the background is constantly out, is also remarkable. It creates initially a sense that Saul has his head-down, trying to avoid seeing, what is all around him; the eye-level filming drawing the viewer right into the hell. The strangely muffled sound-track adds to this curious sense of the recoiling-self seeking to protect itself through a form of cognitive dissonance. This technique also allows the filmmaker to allow the horror of the gas chambers to appear on screen - while seeking to avoid the gratuitous, or prurient details the focus of the shot. Saul, has to help remove the naked corpses of the newly-slain from the gas-chambers. Yet, while the bodies are dragged, with no ceremony or dignity whatsoever; László Nemes places them just beyond the focal length of his cameras. The result is visually striking, absorbing and deeply, deeply disturbing.

The third, and most important reason that Son of Saul resonates so powerfully with audiences and critics, is that it is ultimately a film about humanity. The underlying narrative is that the Nazis denied that the Jews were human; and treated them in accordance with this twisted view - and as a result lived in complete denial of their own humanity. I was sickened by the way the Nazis called the dead "pieces", unable to face up to, or even comprehend what they had just done. I believe it was Auschwitz survivor Rabbi Hugo Gryn (1930-1996), who says that he never once asked "Where God was in Auschwitz"; but was constantly asking, "Where is humanity?". Despite the loss of his liberty, dignity, morality, hope and the abject denial of his humanity, Saul, of the Sonderkommando, holds onto one tiny shred of his personhood. Without spoiling the plot, Saul is determined to find a Rabbi, amongst the prisoners, and give a proper burial to one small dead Hungarian-Jewish boy from the holocaust. This one body, like that of the 'unknown soldier' of WWI, comes to mean much more than just itself; but a representative of wounded humanity. Saul's bewildering desire to commend his 'son' to the earth and to God, is a powerful portrait of a man clinging to some shred of humanity, while living in a hell-on-earth. The one thing with which he will not be parted, is his desire to give one little human the right departure, and to commend him to God with some dignity. 

That beautiful, yet minute thread of light, is the only hope found in this horrendous depiction of evil. I'm sure that watching it was the right thing to do. I don't think I could watch it again though.

Film Notes: Rome, Open City

Sometimes when films are billed as "classics", or "unmissable" they fail to live up to the hype. My Mum is likewise always suspicious when the reviews of a book use the word "achievement"in the publisher's blurb. Roberto Rossellini's "Rome, Open City", is somewhat weighed down with heady reviews, which both elevate expectations and make objective appreciation of the film difficult. 

The film, made in 1945, concerns the Nazi occupation of the city during the latter stages of The Second World War - after the decline of the Italian Fascist State; and during the Allied Invasion of

Italian territory. The ruthless rule of the Nazi occupiers is depicted, along with the exploits and sufferings of the Italian Catholic and Communist resistance movements; as they joined forces against a common foe. Marcello Pagliero and Aldo Fabrizi lead the cast as the communist resistance leader, Georgio Manfredi and Catholic Priest (and document forger, and resistance messenger) Dom Pietro, respectively.

Without giving away to many spoilers, Rossellini uses these characters (their lives, loves, families, etc) to write a a fictional account of life under occupation - which is based on real events. It is a tale of live, loss, betrayal, cruelty, death, defiance, painted against the backdrop of the inevitable destruction of the Third Reich.

Old films, especially those which date back this far, can seem desperately slow and contrived to contemporary audiences. Rome, Open City shows its age, but isn't slow or clunky; but is absorbing and moving - mostly due to the compelling acting of characters like Anna Magnani (as Sora Pina - embroiled in the struggle, as she is marrying into the Resistance), and Maria Michi (as Marina Mari), struggling with drug addiction, compromised loyalties, and treachery. The acid test for me in so any films is whether the plot and characters and good enough to make me care about the outcome. Rome, Open City passes this test absolutely.

Two aspects of the film will trouble contemporary audiences. The first is the bizarre staging of the

Nazi head office, with offices, torture chambers and drinking clubs being three adjacent interconnected rooms. Perhaps such a strange place existed (almost anything is possible); but it did look rather odd - even if it facilitated easy scene changes. The second is that the two most sadistic Nazi villains, Harry Feist as Major Hartmann and Giovana Galletti, as Ingrid; are to varying degrees portrayed as homosexuals. This is obviously going to be interpreted today as the stereotyping of a minority community in overtly evil terms, and summarily rejected. Perhaps though it can be interpreted within an Italian context in 1945 in slightly more sympathetic terms, (while we would want to avoid endorsing such stereotyping obviously). I think the filmmaker is referencing the decline of the Roman Empire which is characterised as being decadent in its power - with the final throes of the Nazi Empire in Rome, - using cultural mores from the 1940s as a device. Many viewers today, are still going to find that aspect troublesome however.

Rossellini brings his film to a climax, which is something akin to the New Testament gospels. As Manfredi is tortured in front of Dom Pietro; his sufferings and wounds (which he chooses to bear, rather than betray his fellow resistance fighters), save lives, and are deliberately filmed in a way which evokes the passion of Christ. (Spoiler alert!) Prior to the torture scene (which earns the film a (12) certificate - but which might disturb many an adult), the Nazi commander expressed his total confidence that a Nazi torturer could beat an Italian resister - on the basis of racial superiority. The fact that he then betrays no-one is not referenced, but the unspoken implication of the fallacy of racial theories thunders though the end of the film. Evil is once again trounced, not by superior fire-power but through redemptive suffering. This aspect of the film is powerful and profound.

The film, it is often claimed, was written in order to re-brand Italians in the wake of their calamitous experiences in the war, under Mussolini, Nazism, and Allied occupation. Rossellini wanted to make a film in which Italians were 'good', and who suffered for their goodness, alongside the other victims of Nazism. Tales of the French Resistance were well-known at this point, and the sufferings of the Jews and others in the camps was soon to come to light too. Rossellini wanted to make sure that the world knew that there were Italians too, who were suffering in order to redeem Europe from evil. Historians have made much of the fact that in order to achieve this he downplayed the role of the Italian fascists, and over-estimates that of the Nazi occupiers. Perhaps so, but nevertheless he achieves his goal of producing a gripping, sympathetic reading of Italian resistance to Nazism and Fascism.

On a personal side-note, my Grandfather fought in the Second World War, and spent the final part of it, guarding POW's in various camps in the UK, including one in Scotland. He told me that while some of the POW camps were high security, the job guarding the Italians was easy. In general, he said, the Italian POWs were relatively content to be there, had no desire to escape, let alone fight any more; and shared the universal opinion that Mussolini was a fool, best avoided until peace came. I suspect my grandfather would have understood Rossellini's remarkable film, better than me.

Book Notes: From Anger to Apathy - The British Experience Since 1975 by Mark Garnett

In this fast-paced, lively and hugely enjoyable book, Mark Garnett (a politics lecturer somewhere or other), takes the reader on a rollicking roller-coaster tour through British politics and culture covering almost five decades in a mere four hundred pages. In his tour de force, Garnet ranges easily between tiny details of stories, elections, characters and incidents on one hand - and generalisations about the country as a whole on the other.

Rather pleasingly, Garnett refuses to be drawn into the standard stereotypes that trap lazier historians; the most obvious is that (a) the 70s were a ghastly time to be alive, with strikes, three-day weeks, rampant inflation, and the Northern Irish troubles; and that (b) Thatcher then came and screwed up our previously wonderful nation. Such poor, but oft-invoked shoddy readings of history fail to satisfy the reader simply on the grounds of lack of internal consistency! Garnett is instead, suitably tough in his analysis of everyone.

His overarching argument (if there really is one), is that Britain has changed since the 70s, and while some of these changes have been good - many are to our detriment. While he paints a bleak enough picture of 70s Britain, he doesn't do it in a 2-dimensional way, but is rather more sympathetic to an age in which there were stronger community, class, union, family and social bonds holding people together.

The layout of the book is interesting too in that the material isn't arranged strictly chronologically, but in themes' with the themes being addressed in a logical order which does represent the times. The anger of the 70s, of the class-conflict and economic and social strife, and the racial riots which filled the headlines, boils over into the early 80s, and on to the miners strikes and poll-tax riots; but we find the anger levels lower at the start than the end of the period. In turn Garnett examines "Fear" (Cold War, Foot and Mouth, Millenium Bug, Aids); Charity Faith and Hope (Live Aid, and Secularisation), Greed (were the 80s really more greedy than other eras?  - not really!), Lust (sex, morality and scandals) and finally Apathy - where he leaves us. Here he is really bleak in his outlook, alleging that we have become stultified consumers, radical post-modern consumers, staring bleakly at moronic 'reality' TV shows, detached from 'reality' itself. He's not that impressed with our democracy, New Labour or the Iraq War either.... but then again, who is, these days?

The book is not just stimulating and sometimes surprising in its various assessments of people movements and ideas; but hugely enjoyable to read too. There were many events detailed here, which I vaguely remember, from childhood - nicely summarised and explained here too. It would be hard to imagine anyone agreeing with everything Garnett has to say, he's simply to much of a maverick to interpret all the events he discusses through a singly party-line; but I defy anyone not to find this book absorbing, gripping and thought-provoking.  

Book Notes: The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism by Dan Cohn-Sherbok

As readers of this blog will be aware, over the years, I have read about and reflected often on the Shoah, the Holocaust of the European Jews in the 1940s. You can read some of these posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Until now, however, I have never read anything which really tries to examine the Holocaust as part of the long history of Anti-Semitism in general, and the role of Christianity within that. The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism by Dan Cohn-Sherbok is exactly that. As a book reviewer who is part of the Christian faith, my response to such a work is simply this: read it and weep.

The first half of the book is divided by eras, with a mass of information on Anti-Semitism gathered under heading such as "The Greco-Roman World", or "The Church Fathers" or "Medieval Anti-Semitism". As the latter half of the book moves into the modern era, and so presumably sources become more abundant, the material is subdivided by nations, and specific historical incidents, such as Nazism, and post-Nazi Europe. While there are some criticisms to be made around the margins of the book; the main theme and thrust of what Cohn-Sherbok amasses here is as undeniable as it is disturbing. The litany of libels, pogroms, expulsions, murders, demonisations, and all manner of hate-crimes recorded here, is shocking. What is appalling, and disgusting, is how many of these were committed in the name of the Christian religion - at times with the collaboration of church leaders. While many people will be familiar with the accusation that the papacy was morally tarnished by its dealings with the Third Reich; what is perhaps less known is how far this was a part of a trend which reared its ugly head at regular, sorry intervals throughout history. This is truly grim reading.

The quibbles I had with a few aspects of the book, should not be, in any way whatsoever, seen to be detracting from the importance of the central thesis it contains: that Jewish people have been systematically mistreated  in the name of Christianity from Britain to Russia via most most points between them. They are however worth noting in passing, inasmuch as this is a book review, not a historical essay. The first is that there is a dreadful lack of referencing in the book. Even whole inset paragraphs, attributed to an array of writers, are not referenced! In terms of historical writing this is poor, not just in terms of fact-checking, but also further reading.

The element I struggled most with however, was Cohn-Sherbok's repeated assertion that the New Testament documents are intrinsically Anti-Semitic, because of the theological premise that God's salvation is found uniquely in Christ, and that He is the fulfilment of scripture; the implication being that to reject Christ is to reject YWHW. Furthermore, Christ's battles with the religious authorities of his day, referred to as 'The Jews', whose false legalistic righteousness is contrasted poorly with those who repent and follow Christ - is interpreted as a pro-Gentile anti-Jewish text, which prepares the way for prejudice and violence. There are numerous problems with this. The first is that the context of these documents is a largely Jewish early church wrestling with these questions amongst themselves; whilst being persecuted by the Jewish authorities of their day. They were no more anti-Semitic than Jeremiah or Amos were as they warned Israel and Judah about their apostasy back in the Hebrew Bible in centuries "BC". Likewise the righteous who appear in the gospels in contrast to the religious leaders were categorically not gentiles, but the poor from amongst Israel. That such texts were misappropriated by Anti-Semites for thousands of years, is not in any doubt; what I am not convinced by is the suggestion that these texts in any way justify any form of Anti-Semitism. Whilst someone reading these words in the context of The Spanish Inquisition might have read them that way, is possible; but what I can say is that being brought up on these texts in the post-Holocaust era; I never found even the slightest inference of prejudice in them. In fact, in the conservative church in which I grew up, the age-old slander that the Jews were "Christ-killers", was never even allured to. Rather, at communion services, we were constantly told to reflect on our own unspeakable sinfulness; for which Christ offered his own life on the cross.

We must be able to debate and discuss ideas, with rigour; without hating, or despising, or persecuting people. That distinction is under increasing threat in today's world. In a couple of places, Cohn-Sherbok seemed to come close to implying that to critique Jewish theology was essentially racist. The charge that 19thC Higher Criticism, and the application of techniques such as form and redaction criticism, were Anti-Semitic, because they undermined trust in the Hebrew Bible, I found very odd indeed. For a start such methods were applied to the New Testament as well, casting doubts (for instance) into the Pauline authorship of Ephesians; so singling out literary critical methods as prejudice-inducing, is misplaced. Another problem, is that while Cohn-Sherbok amasses a case against Christianity, he muddies the waters by including the writings and actions of many westerners who are far from Christian; Voltaire, Wagner, Marx, Hitler and Hegel for a start. This does not negate, his argument but confuses it a bit. Finally, there is inadequate discussion of the nature of church-state-identity relations in the 'Christendom' era; which explains why Judaism was seen as intolerable. Historians of these era, have shown that religious compliance was a matter of loyalty and identity more than belief and conviction; and that all dissenters (such as the Anabaptists) were brutally suppressed along with the Jews. Now, this does not, justify the evil actions of the perpetrators, any more than it mitigates the suffering of the victims. It does suggest however that the historical processes were more nuanced than Cohn-Sherbok's 'Christians have always hated Jews' thesis allows.

But please note; these quibbles do not detract from the central thrust of the book; that Jewish people have suffered appallingly, across the centuries, and across cultures; suffering many persecutions at the hands of those who claimed to be Christian. The main sections of this book are as disturbing, as they are essential reading.

The conclusion of the book, after an especially harrowing account of the Holocaust (but a weak attempt to implicate Christianity in it); is a really interesting essay. In 'towards reconciliation', Cohn-Sherbok writes about shifts in Christian thought which have reduced tensions between the two-faiths; despite such a long history of misunderstanding, prejudice, and bloodshed between them. Helpfully these include (i) official denunciations of Anti-Semitism from church bodies and Synods, (ii) a theological rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus of Nazareth - a very rich area of research and now common currency in the church, and (iii) alternatives to strict 'replacement theology' being proposed, not least by Messianic Jews today and (iv) Christian theological responses to the Shoah, such as Jurgen Moltmann's Crucified God, which while distinctly Christian in nature and Trinitarian in structure, suggests profound ways of engaging with the presence of God in a world marked by unrestrained and demonic evil such as the death camps. Perhaps less helpful, were the suggestions that Christians should dilute their theology into a Jon Hick style plurality, or Liberal Anglican disdain for proclaiming Christ to the whole world. Obviously the threats or bribery which sought external compliance with Christendom, are as unacceptable as they are redundant; but the UN Declaration on Human Rights (Article 18 - Freedom of Religion), was written in response to the terrors of the 30's and 40s, and applies to all. Increasingly, of course, the context of the Christian witness to Jewish people is that of Messianic Jews, who join the debate about whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish Messiah, from within the Jewish people - and that looks a lot more like the New Testament anyway.

As I write, the Labour Party in the UK is involved in a bitter internal dispute about Anti-Semitism. The suggestion that the radical left's unquestioning commitment to the Palestinian cause, and the large Muslim vote in the English cities, is fuelling such a problem is made almost daily in the press. Six years ago I went to the Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. Deeply moved, walking above the stelae above ground, we then went below to see the records where the names of every known Jew who perished at Treblinka, Sobibor, Birkenau, Ravensbruck, Auschwitz and the rest, are kept. Even then, I shuddered at the enormity of it. After reading The Crucified Jew, I suspect that the feeling would be greatly amplified; standing as I do, in a faith which has been so deeply implicated in their suffering over the centuries. Now, I am not personally responsible for the pogroms, any more than the Jews of 13th Century England caused the death of Christ. Nevertheless, we are branches on trees with very deep roots; defined by and both united and divided by our respective histories. The weight that presses down on us is therefore not so much personal guilt, more the sense of responsibility to prevent such things ever happening again to anyone of any creed. It was possibly the greatest of the all the writers to have escaped from the camps, Primo Levi who wrote; "It happened, therefore it could happen again; this is the heart of what we are saying." Indeed it could.

This is disturbing reading. Sometimes though, I think we need to be disturbed.

Film Notes: Of Gods And Men

I picked up this DVD for a quid, in a sale of old LoveFilm stock. In the days before Netflix and downloading was a thing, postal DVD services were popular; but their demise led to some amazing deals. I'd heard that this was a 'film worth watching' and without knowing much about it at all, picked it up on the off chance. It turned out to be a deeply sad, very moving, and rather profound film.

The setting is Algeria in 1996, as the government start to lose control of the state, and Islamist militants cause misery and chaos in their quest for an Islamic revolution. In a remote corner of the country a small Roman Catholic monastery had functioned for years. Alongside their own rituals, and devotions, they served the community and provided healthcare and support. The film depicts them as being very much part of the community, in which they served; sharing life, hospitality and friendships across the religious divide.

The central plot of the film is whether the monks should abandon the monastery and flee, either to a safer monastery in Africa, or indeed back to France; as Islamist atrocities take place with ever increasing frequency - and in ever closer proximity to them. They face, essentially, a decision to run away from their calling, or to face death for it. The Muslim villagers certainly do not want the monks to leave - but to face up to the threat of the extremists alongside them. The discussions around the small monastery table in which they debate this decision are amongst the best moments in the film. One monk, determined to stay, says to a younger colleague (who wants to leave), "we already gave up our lives, when we decided to follow Christ". Strong stuff indeed.

As the film draws to a climax, the monks with sorrow and resolve, face up to the inevitability that as non-Muslims in an Islamist take-over, they are doomed. With their songs, liturgies, and around the eucharist; they re-affirm their faith even as the dark clouds gather around them.

This is actually a true story. Which possibly explains why there is more detail about the two monks who survived the ordeal; than the mystery about the deaths of the rest of those who did not. We see, finally, the sad group being led away to their deaths; and a caption reading that nothing is know about who murdered them. 

Lambert Wilson gives a really strong performance as the head monk, alongside Michael Edward Lonsdale as Luc - the medical brother, It's a slow film; in that the rhythms of life in the monastery which have survived generations are depicted. It's not an action film, in that the plot develops as much in the brooding tension and the monks' response to it; as in the actual civil war. That kind of cinema is far harder to write and produce than action; but it is done very well indeed here.

The film is a stunning protest against religious extremism, religion violence and intolerance. This message, along with the context of the last monks in an ancient monastery in Muslim lands, is somewhat reminiscent of William Dalrymple's stunning book, From the Holy Mountain. Although set further east, amongst the Orthodox and Coptic churches, not the French Catholics of Algeria, the extinction of these people and orders is a parallel story; and very worth reading.

The monks in this film share a 'Last Supper' together, waiting to face death, as Christ did before them. One wavering monk faces up to this with the biblical quotation, ''no servant is greater than his master'- in other words, if martyrdom was good enough for Christ himself, who am I to demand anything more? With their faith and integrity intact, they are then led away.

FORB (freedom of religion and belief), as enshrined in Article 18 of the UN Convention on Human Rights; is under more strain then in 1996 when these awful events occurred. Tragically, CSW (the Christian charity that works for freedom of religion for all people, of all faiths or none) reports that this is increasingly the case in Algeria. Click here to read more.