Skip to main content

Day: 10 October 2011

Top 5: Intimidating monologues

5) Taken – Upon finding himself on the other end of the phone from his child’s kidnapper, Liam Neeson (you know, the guy who mentored Obi-Wan Kenobi and Batman) coolly explains at length that not only is he expertly trained for this exact situation but also “…I will find you, and I will kill you.”

4) Full Metal Jacket – Gunnery Sergeant Hartman welcomes his ‘maggots’ to their first day of marine corps training with an improvised, expletive-ridden brow-beating. It speaks volumes for this scene that the least profane quote I can offer is: “How tall are you, Private…? 5”9? I didn’t know they stacked shit that high!”

3) Taxi Driver – The hairs on the back of my neck stood up when watching Robert DeNiro’s career-defining portrayal of the sociopath Travis Bickle, as he stares into the mirror and delivers the line “You talkin’ to me?”

2) Dirty Harry – When Clint Eastwood’s Detective Harry Callaghan apprehends a serial killer within grabbing distance of their weapon, he slowly raises his .44 Magnum, “the most powerful handgun in the world”, and asks: “Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?”

1) Pulp Fiction – “…And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.” Samuel L. Jackson’s wide-eyed recital of Ezekial 25:17 is not only the conclusion to one of my favourite scenes in cinema, but is also the last thing any criminal wants to hear. Unfortunately for them, it probably will be.

I Hate…

I can hear it already: “a film student who hates Tarantino?? Who is this buffoon? How could he possibly talk such rubbish?” Well, shut up, valued reader, and I’ll tell you. Firstly, every Tarantino character talks like Tarantino (i.e. a sarcastic, drawling, bit-of-a-dick). This is fine for characters like Mr White, or Vincent Vega (characters from Tarantino’s only two good films), but when you get to Uma Thurman’s appalling Bride in Kill Bill, the result is laughable. The only reason Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction worked so well was because the dialogue flowed readily in these seedy criminal underworlds. It flows less eloquently from the mouth of a sword wielding psycho bitch intent on killing the population of China. And as for WWII Jewish resistance fighters… “Oh but it’s a homage!” I hear you scream. “They’re homages to the forgotten cinema genres!” Bollocks. The only way Death Proof (the dead hedgehog at the bottom of Quentin’s cinematic compost heap) is a homage to “Grindhouse Cinema” is in its scratchy film effects, which are just fucking irritating. Now, I genuinely like Quentin’s first two films. In fact, this is what I hate most about him. The fact that a young director, who once showed so much promise, could get so caught up in his own fan boy image that he now thinks he can film whatever trash he considers “retro” and expect standing ovations at Cannes, just because he’s Quentin fucking Tarantino, makes me want to vomit all over my keyboard. So he made two decent films. Michael Bay made one decent film, I still hate his guts. (For more of my views on Michael Bay, I can usually be found crouching in a puddle of my own spittle and loathing just outside the UMSU.)

The Multimedia Revolution

As technology progresses media intertwine, and nowhere is this better expressed than in the development of film. Colour, CGI and 7.1 surround sound replace monochrome, monster suits and a live band. There is always intellectual value to great film, but for most entertainment lies in escapism – so how does big cinema better appeal to such an audience? Having already absorbed music and visual art into film, the future will see it take the key property of the latest artistic medium: the interactivity of video games.
There are already trends towards such a fusion. We see video turning towards audience interaction through the likes of television and YouTube – scaling it up to the big screen isn’t a huge leap. Likewise, games are becoming increasingly cinematic, with devices like quick time events across lengthy cutscenes. Even in action-oriented games plot is taking a leading role.
The question is not whether film and video games will merge, but how they do so. Currently, ambiguity and reliance on convention allow movie-goers to easily project themselves into the leading role of a movie but in games the freedom with which one can control protagonists voids this necessity. Assimilating the best of each form would give scripts room to develop novel and fantastic plots without sacrificing the hyper-realism of film, but will we see the budgets to construct vast non-linear storylines? And film is watched by scores at once – could audiences interact within the new medium, even working as a group to bring the plotline to its conclusion? Would we see contrarian cinema whose patrons enjoy being pushed along a linear path, forced to see things from outside their own perspective? I’ll leave that to the producers to decide. But the similarities between film and games are unavoidable.

Comedy at the Oscars

As Will Ferrell so eloquently put it, “A comedian at the Oscars is the saddest, bitterest, alcoholic clown”. Mr Ferrell aside, the internet has become a plethora of commentators moaning about the lack of comic films that are honoured by the Academy Awards. One declares that, ‘There are a lot of great comedies out there — movies with the sole purpose of making people laugh. But the academy doesn’t tend to see it that way.’ He then provides a list of ‘comic’ films that didn’t make the nomination lists, such as The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Wedding Crashers.

Herein lies the issue. Comedy is incredibly subjective. I cannot think of one comic film that is universally liked or considered well-made. A lot of people may think Knocked Up is hilarious, but that doesn’t mean it should win an Oscar. Although it makes many people laugh, it also leaves many people out in the cold. The institution would become a mockery.

I think it’s refreshing when comedians like Jim Carrey and Steve Carell leave their MTV Movie Awards at home and undertake more serious roles. They demonstrate some versatility and are instantly more likeable when they aren’t cracking jokes all the time. In 1997 it was a pleasant surprise to see Robin Williams playing a dignified and touching part in Good Will Hunting, for which he won an Oscar.

It is also naive of said internet whiners to claim that Oscars never go to comic performances. Did they not see Whoopi Goldberg in Ghost?  Arguably, Heath Ledger as the Joker in The Dark Knight was humorous, in a dark and twisted sort of way. Therefore, the Academy has shown its funny bone in select cases where the comic performances have been truly outstanding. If members of the comedy world haven’t made films that reach this level of unanimous enjoyment which have been achieved in the past, then they’ll just have to settle for presenting the awards show instead.

Your Arts Cinema

The Odeon doesn’t love you. It says it does, but don’t be fooled. If you were stumbling home through the Printworks after a night out it’d probably pretend not to know you. It hangs out with Pure, Chiquitos, Lloyds Bar – and you know what they’re like. Pretty, maybe, with all those bright lights. Vacuous too. Every night, spewing more meaningless noise than a preppy fresher at pre-drinks. Don’t get me wrong, the Odeon can work for you. Just make sure to keep a healthy level of scepticism. When it says the hot dogs are delicious, 3D is worth it, Avatar is a masterpiece, just raise an eyebrow and ask the question. “Really?”

Cornerhouse sits near the end of Oxford road, by Oxford Road Train Station. It grew up as an adult cinema, before repentance and a Dog the Bounty Hunter-esque conversion turned it into Manchester’s premier art house cinema. These days it’s a fantastic place to go, with contemporary art galleries, a wide selection of specialist books and magazines and, of course, the most interesting selection of cinematic releases in town. On top of that, it has a classic a film matinee and every March it also plays hosts the excellent ¡Viva! Spanish and Latin American film festival.

The point about Cornerhouse is it’s yours. And like your libraries and your community centres it’s criminally underused, but so important. Don’t believe the stereotype – you don’t have to be a pretentious dickhead to go there, just curious. If you’re bored of trashy TV, Facebook and the Odeon, why not give it a chance. It’s your arts cinema after all. Ask for your student discount. You never know, you might just fall in love with the place.

Review: Perfect Sense

Imagine a world where your chemical senses are lost one by one, until all your perceptions are gone. Perfect Sense tells the story of a chef and a scientist who fall in love while an epidemic sweeps through the human race (think Notting Hill meets 28 Days Later.) There’s no explanation for the outbreak, and it’s not clear if anyone can stop it. Heavy stuff.

 

Smell and taste are the first senses to go. In a scene which is both disgusting and superb there is a moment of hunger: the world appears to have gone mad, and people start indulging in slabs of butter, fish heads and raw meat, flowers, shaving foam and toothpaste. This weird binge shows a realisation from the masses of their disappearing senses and, with it, comments on the over-indulgence of our society. Eating out is no longer about the taste or smell of food, but about the temperature and consistency, the texture and how it feels on the tongue. Chew on that for a moment. Oh wait, but it gets worse. Hearing suddenly becomes a distant memory. We see a club without music, music without sound and a sense of darkness descending on the world.

 

This film contains brilliant and moving performances from Ewan McGregor and the beautiful Eva Green. Theirs is a story of love and life going on against attack, in a world filled with anger, rage and hatred. We are shown a story of human resilience in an impossible situation. You lose your senses when you fall in love. Is the apocalyptic backdrop simply a metaphor for this?

 

Perfect Sense comments on a lack of appreciation that society has of life. In a world where two movements exist side by side – those who want to take everything they can (riots anyone?) and those believing that life will go on somehow – this film will leave you thinking, “my god, what if this actually happened”.  Throughout, the film carries strong moral messages about appreciating nature, love, life, the self and others. This film will split opinion: it will either make you want to kill yourself or go out and hug a tree. Some will savour the experience; the rest will spit it out.

Review: ‘The Debt’

John Madden’s outstanding espionage thriller is a triumph. Three young Mossad agents travel to 1960’s Berlin in an attempt to capture war criminal Dieter Vogel (Jesper Christensen), “The Surgeon of Birkenau”, and bring him to trial in Israel. This juxtaposes with their story thirty years later, when a dangerous secret from their past threatens to surface. The pace of the film is thrilling, building the intensity with every clever scene.

Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas portray the operatives. As we follow them though their ordeal in Germany, their devotion to this mission becomes increasingly clear, as do the strains that it puts on them and their relationships. The story demands exceptional performances from these young actors, and I assure you that you won’t be disappointed. Chastain’s portrayal of a young Rachel as a woman whose strength outdoes her years, but whose character is laced with emotional vulnerability, is flawless. Csokas and Worthington play Stephan and David respectively, and deliver strong performances as the male leads. Helen Mirren, who plays Rachel thirty years on, achieves impressive symmetry with Chastain’s character, maintaining the theme of emotional instability. Another standout performance comes from Jesper Christensen who depicts war criminal Dieter Vogel. He conveys a sense of pure, calm, sinister evil that sends shivers up and down the spine throughout.

Artistic camerawork coupled with a chilling soundtrack work to create a dark yet inviting atmosphere. The audience is drawn into a world that flits between bleak Berlin and modern Israel, also visiting Ukraine at one point, a world that is not easy to take yourself away from. The intensity of the film is palpable, one identifies with the characters and their situation. We, like them, become immersed in the mission and its outcome.

I cannot recommend this film enough, it is a veritable must-see. Films such as this do not come around very often, and if you get the chance to get away from your busy student schedule for a couple of hours, seeing this in the cinema would be a worthy investment. Finally, at the end of this shower of praise, one question remains… Oscar?

Preview: ‘Puss In Boots’

The trailer for this film makes me sad. Puss in Boots swaggers towards the camera to the sound of crap music, and all I can think is ‘why? Why, Dreamworks? Wasn’t it enough to just kill Shrek. That barrage of sequels was horrible. It was brutal, like something out of American History X. It gave me nightmares for years.’ And you know what? On top of all that, Puss in Boots was always a crap character anyway.

The problem is that the original Shrek was so excellent. Too excellent. Dreamworks found itself a winning formula: concealing ice-dry wit and clever pop-culture references in a children’s film, meaning that parents wanted to see the film almost as much as their children. It was immensely entertaining to everyone. But Shrek started something it couldn’t control. It split the atom of kids’ entertainment.

Dreamworks started using the Shrek formula whenever it could. Churning out film after film with the same tired references and recycled scripts. Before long, the world of children’s animation had become a more artistically barren place than it was before. It’s sad, and the same thing that happens in the music world all the time; remember when The Arctic Monkeys first appeared, then ten seconds later the lead singer of every band sounded like they grew up in Sheffield.

Maybe it will save itself, this film. Maybe it’s the point at which the Shrek franchise gets back on track. But it looks, at the moment, as though it’s just another marker for Dreamworks’ gradual decline into creative homogeneity. I’m just glad we’ve got Aardman and Pixar. Because you know what, they might just help me avoid animation’s winter. Right now, I’ll just stick to Toy Story. And it’s sequels.

Live: Death From Above 1979

6th October 2011

Academy 1

8/10

The huge backdrop looming over the Academy 1 stage tonight tells you pretty much everything you need to know about Death from Above 1979’s history to this point; zombified, cartoon versions of drummer Sebastian Grainger and bassist Jesse Keeler are depicted emerging either side of a gravestone reading ‘DFA 1979 2001-2006’, and indeed it’s a visual summary with all the subtlety and restraint of the band’s musical style.

Announcing their arrival with an utterly brutal rendition of ‘Turn It Out’, the Toronto duo are clearly hell-bent on making up for lost time, tearing through material from their only record to date, 2004’s You’re a Woman, I’m a Machine, with a level of aggression that borders on the disturbing. Eschewing the conventional insistence on rock music being centred around the electric guitar, DFA rely simply on a blistering rhythm section, along with the occasional smattering of synth, to create an effusive blend of raw punk and slick funk rock  that has tonight’s audience moshing and dancing in equal measure. With no new material to air – and, indeed, no indication as to whether any has or will be written – the eighty-minute set is fleshed out with a slew of early EP material that’s sadly lost on large swathes of the crowd, and unsurprisingly it’s the big hitters that truly set the room alight – ‘Blood on Our Hands’ inspires a manic singalong, with ‘Black History Month’s slithering bass proving irresistibly danceable and the riff from set highlight ‘Romantic Rights’ threatening to tear a hole in the roof. They might not record any more music, they might not even be friends, but there’ll be an item less on many a bucket list after tonight – an incredibly vital performance for a band that once, by their own admission, seemed dead and buried.

You’ll be there for me?

It’s happened. They’ve done it. Friends has ditched Freeview, bailed on E4 and moved on to the much swankier and more exclusive, Comedy Central.

News of this move was broken to the nation back in February last year so it’s been something we’ve been anticipating for a while but that doesn’t make it any less heartbreaking.

Freeview is standard for student houses but Sky or Virgin, where Comedy Central resides, is for the privileged only.

Now its replacement, Scrubs, is all well and good but when you got in from uni after traipsing through the rain and sweating it out on a Magic Bus it was nice to know you could switch on E4 for a double (or even triple!!) bill of your favourite American chums.

That comfort is now exclusively reserved for those shelling out on cable TV.

What do we do now?! How do we get by on a day-to-day basis without a generous helping of Joey and they gang? I wish I had an answer for you, I truly do. I’m just going to go back to my box set and pretend that the whole sordid switch over never happened instead.

You might have mail

The Postal Project Tour is a UK touring postal exhibition that was displayed within our very own John Ryland’s Library in Deansgate last week. Jade Blood and Melanie Alexandrou, the curators, warmly invite visitors to become a mail-artist as part of their ever-expanding project. The Project encourages post enthusiasts to collect addresses of people they wish to mail-swap with and then create their own postal art in the ‘mail-making section.’ And this all in the spirit of the Free for the Arts festival, a weeklong series of events that seeks a unique and meaningful experience with its audience, asking nothing from them except participation and engagement.

Walking in and out and the various nooks and crannies of the Library, along the Hogwartsian corridor beneath the fan-arches, the Postal Project leaps out in its surprising location just before one enters the Reading Room for long hours of post-less labour. And participating in this surprise visitor encapsulates that special feeling you get when a hand-written letter comes clattering through the post-box a hundred times-fold. There are various homemade stamps, empty postcards, pieces of scrap paper, a real authentic typewriter all just inviting you in to create. The project is ‘interactive’ without the touch-screens and computers and graphix that we’ve all come to associate with the word. The main focus of the exhibit is the pin board, filled endlessly with smile-inducing postcard art. The whole exhibition offers up a sense of community and personality through the ancient art of handwritten mail, and all this achievable simply through leaving your stamp (apologies for the pun) on the Postal Project.

The Postal Project is the perfect medium through which to creatively connect people from a distance, without relying upon the, dare I say, impersonal nature of the internet. So if you’re meandering around Deansgate, chatting to your friends on your interactive Blackberry and you spy John Ryland’s, take a look inside. You might just be inspired to become part of the Postal Project.

A class above the rest

Whilst innocently sat in a lecture, on Marxism, expecting to be told lots of ‘Marx wasn’t looking for a Utopia’ and ‘Marx thought it would be nice if there were no poor people’ I heard something from the lecturer that made me listen.

“Just being here, in this university, makes you middle class.”

Now, I am not looking to start a debate on whether we live in a classless society, or whether some of us have caviar for dinner and some of us climb out of the mine and tuck into a bowl of gruel.

My first thought was, ‘does it?’ At the time, I had been at University for six months, and coming from a very Northern, working class background myself, experienced a bit of a culture shock in those first few weeks. I found myself picking up the lingo, saying dinner instead of tea to avoid any confusion. I read books instead of watching Coronation Street and ate butternut squash on more than one occasion. But does this make me middle class?

Sat in said lecture, I thought, how can I have been working class for the past twenty years, and now, because I am sat in a room with a desire to learn new things, I am middle class? My parents don’t live in gated communities; have fat pension funds or holiday in the Caribbean. And therefore neither did I.

I don’t deny that my motivation for being at university is to make a better life for myself. I’d like to be able to put money aside for a pension and live in an area where I don’t go to sleep hearing Jeremy Kyle’s most recent guests argue over who ate the last tin of beans and sausage.

But I am proud to be working class. John Lennon once said that “A working class hero is something to be, if you want to be a hero well just follow me.” And I am following John, all the way to a caravan holiday in Skegness.

A night on the tiles: students sleep rough to raise money for the homeless

Manchester medical students spent the night on the streets of Manchester to raise money and awareness for the homeless. Medical students belonging to HomED, a student charity aimed at encouraging engagement with the homeless, set up camp in front of the Oxford Road chaplaincy from 6pm to 6am. They offered soup in exchange for donations.

The sleep-out raised money for Cornerstone, a drop-in centre serving the Moss Side area, which provides food, clothes, entertainment and education for the homeless. HomED also aims to draw attention to the need, from a medical perspective, for greater social interaction with those living on the streets.

The average life expectancy for the homeless is 42 years, due to a high rate of substance abuse, mental health issues and suicide. The lack of a fixed address prevents most from registering with a GP, resulting in a reliance on A&E.

The evening also saw the medics providing food and company for those in need; as one homeless man and two women without a bed for the night joined them. The organisers said they were pleased with the response. Apart from the money raised by participants in the sleep-out, there was a regular flow of donations from passers-by.

‘Prior to the event we had raised about 140 pounds,’ said Ellen Morsman, chair of HomED, Manchester. ‘Then on Sunday morning our total stood at £500 pounds. Since the weekend it has jumped up to £660 and I have high hopes over the next few weeks/months we will reach our target of £1000.’

In addition to fundraising schemes like the sleep-out, medics also arrange clothes and food collections for around Christmas, and organise activities which clients might not normally be able to enjoy, such as the pantomime or bowling.

The society is hoping to widen its membership. ‘This year we’re trying to become a student union society, rather than just being a medics’ society,’ Morsman said. ‘There’s no real reason why it should just be a medics’ charity; we want to try and expand it and get more students involved.’

National Hindu Students Forum

Writtten by Roshni Shah and Raj Basu

 

At the National Hindu Students Forum (NHSF) Manchester, we believe it is important to be a part of the local community. As the biggest Hindu society in Europe, we want to be able to do our best to use our resources to help those who are less privileged and need help.

In Manchester, we have various programs throughout the year organised by the NHSF Sewa Team. Sewa means selfless service, and our Sewa is raising money for our local, Ancoats-based charity, Mustard Tree and our national charity, Manav Sadhna.

We kicked off the year with a bang. Our first major event of the year was Sewa Day on the 25th September, which was part of a global event. Over 50 society members took part to make it a successful day. We went down Mustard Tree, who help the homeless, unprivileged and women in need. We helped them out with activities which they normally do not have the numbers to carry out.

We also planted a tree in Whitworth Park to help the environment, in the hope that we will plant more during the month to come. We hope to continue this success with events during the current Community and Student Action Week and Sewa Week in February. Find us on facebook at http://www.facebook.com/nhsf.manchester

The extravagance of staying in

Tight shirts and short skirts flock to the cash points and then onwards to the bars of Fallowfield. Another big night. Once again – not to be missed. And of course, every one is coming out. Well, everyone apart from the stay-inner.

Down a quiet suburban road, in a room unstained by fake tan and lip gloss lies the creature that does not go out, but curiously stays in. Not the staying in that follows the statement “I’m going to take tonight off”, where the participant is found spread out like a Jabba the Hutt on the sofa in its comfiest slippers, using a slice of Domino’s to spoon Ben and Jerry’s down its gullet and squealing with delight as it watches mean girls for the billionth time. I’m talking about staying in as in sitting at your desk and doing something incredibly foreign to most students – getting shit done.

The stay-inner will be sat at their desks knowing that if they start taking care of this studying business earlier than later, then they can ensure that they will be familiar with the texts, have a good grasp of the key concepts and be prepared to ask any questions they have on some of the more advanced topics. Resisting the temptation of having a pint with your humorous, yet delinquent, friends to ensure that you have read a chapter of a book written by a revered, yet dull as a pack of ready salted crisps, old git is not an easy path to take.

“Woah, woah, woah! Staying in? What about my social life? What about the 90p red bull flavoured afterbirth I could be drinking? What about the bog bowl that won’t be wiped clean with my face? What about the pictures of me staring unconsciously into the hollow lens of a camera that won’t be smeared over my online profile? What about the kebab that won’t be fired out of my arse?”

I’m afraid by staying in you will have none of those amazing things. You will just have to be satisfied with expanding your knowledge of the world, deepening your understanding of the universe and learning what will one day enable you to use your creative powers to help further push the human race to the stars.

The point of the first world and moreover civilization is so that society offers services for us for the things that that we don’t want to do; like take care of the goldfish we flush down the toilet (and the other non-goldfish objects we flush down there). We have a layer of abstraction that gives us the time to be able to do productive, intelligent activities that flex us as owners high-functioning cranial matter.

However, the same freedom to spend our time as we please also allows us to indulge in what is essentially primal functionality – going out of the house to a club (leaving the cave and heading to the communal fire pit), socialising with friends (sniffing the rectal regions of same species companions), dancing to a temporally consistent noise (performing the some precoital rutting) and then trying to secure someone to share an awkward feeling with the next morning (ensuring the continuation of your genetic makeup).

All of which seems rather silly and pointless to the stay-inner, so they buy a tweed jacket, sew on some leather elbow patches and start pursuing the life of an intellectual.

But their agoraphobic crusade comes at a most damning of costs. In the brave struggle to become educated, they will no doubt end up completely alienated from everyone know and more worryingly far less aware of the current state of the kebab in the Greater Manchester area. You can’t tell someone a “legendary story” of how last night you stayed in and found some great material for that literature review due in two weeks time

Years later at their desk job working for Mega Corp Inc. whilst escaping the tyranny of the other half and the disappointment that are their offspring, they will wonder whether it was worth taking the hard road of working at university. Whether they should have enjoyed the prime of your life, deposited their body fluids around town and done anything but their degree. Then as they begin to drift off on their leather office chair, day-dreaming about that cute undergrad they almost had a thing with and all that could have been; the years of caffeine abuse from overworking on coffee catch up with them and their heart is thrown into a violent thumping. The sporadic jolts strain their pulmonary artery and in one final bulge their heart explodes. All they leave behind is a suited corpse of a nothing being – maybe they should have tried a better balance of both work and play.

‘Free university’ founded in Liverpool

A free university is being established in Liverpool as a protest against the current state of the country’s higher education system and a plea for its reform.

The Free University of Liverpool is the culmination of work by a committee of activists, artists and academics currently employed by formal education institutions who have come together to try provide an alternative for students whose current system they see as increasingly susceptible to marketisation.

From this month the project will open its doors to students to allow them to begin a six month foundation degree and a further additional three year BA in what the creators have termed “cultural praxis”, meaning the study of culture from radical, critical perspectives.

Functioning on a voluntary basis, the staff will rely on financial support from monetary donations to fund the renting of space in community centres and art venues to books to fill the university’s own library. Pledging their time and expertise to create the project, they hope it will encourage a fightback “against the ConDems ruining of civil society” and a vision for a fairer, more progressive education system.

The committee said, “The overall mission of the university is to engage in an education that is not for-profit but for the public good. At the Free University of Liverpool we are free of that particular kind of disease and we plan to keep it that way.

“The current system perpetuates injustice. That’s been the case for many years since the decision was made to move higher education to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and introduce into it for-profit models.

“The ConDem government want to take that a step further and create a tiered higher education system that includes elites who charge top dollar and look down at everyone else competing and a struggling set of cut-throat universities that work much more like businesses. Unless government policy is repealed and the selling of education to the markets is reversed we’ll keep on with the project in some form or other.”

Although the courses will not be formally accredited, through the granting of the status of University by the Privy Council and the validation of degree awards the project is finding an increasingly large amount of international academic support.

Already the university has attracted a host of scholars and artists who have agreed to hold lectures, seminars and workshops. Distinguished professor David Harvey and social theorist John Holloway are some who will offer their time for free over the course of the next few years.

Lisa Newman, a PhD candidate at the University of Manchester, will be another such visiting scholar. She said, “I think it’s important to create a method of education that focuses on exchanges of ideas and skill building and exists outside of economic and financial structures. I feel that there is often a sense of ‘buying’ one’s education in tuition-based schooling, and this sets a bad precedence for approaching other non-commodifiable experiences in life.

“This project could set examples for not only new ways of learning, but new ways of teaching through creating a curriculum based on participants’ interests rather than a standardized syllabus. I think this is an important project to create anywhere and encourage more to start.”

The committee say that although they can not offer financial support due to “contradictions if you seek or accept funding from sources you are fighting against” the course will appeal to people from any background who agree with the university’s aims and will focus on their needs and desires.

What force for change it will encourage and whether it will be able to fully engage with a broader range of people including those from lower income backgrounds will be something that remains to be seen over the next few years.

Sadiq Khan event gives Labour faithful reason to be cheerful

In a week where Ed Miliband’s keynote conference speech was met with decidedly mixed reviews, and opinion polls saw the Conservatives regain the lead for the first time in a year, one might have expected Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan to have been somewhat subdued on his visit to the University of Manchester Students’ Union last week. He was, however, defiant. “I’m only interested in two polls – the one last May, and the one in 2015.”

Khan took to the stage with the kind of steadfast optimism that was distinctly lacking in the run-up to the party’s autumn conference in Liverpool. Despite his cheerful disposition, the Labour Party is undoubtedly at an ideological crossroads which will shape Ed Miliband’s leadership. Faced with the possibility of his party “never being forgiven” (according to Unison General Secretary Dave Prentis) by union members if they fail to back the planned pension strikes in November, or the risk of alienating the Blairite wing within his party – and a considerable number of potential voters – if he does back the strikes, the fledgling leader looks set for a defining chapter in his political career.

In response to a question from The Mancunion, Khan – a key ally of the younger Miliband brother having run his successful leadership campaign – was clear that any strike action would represent “a failure on both sides”, particularly whilst negations are ongoing. The same response attracted chants of “shame” during Miliband’s speech at the Trade Union Congress in September.

Khan’s refusal to be drawn on the issue of union dissent demonstrated a more considered approach to policy making, as part of the party’s new three year policy review; indeed, Ed Balls has forbidden all members of the Shadow Cabinet from making pre-election promises. Our visitor was clear that the party could not afford to “over-promise and under-deliver… because then the public won’t believe us.” Yet critics fear that without any firm policies in place, Labour will struggle to communicate their new ideas to the electorate as they seek to regain voters lost between 1997 and 2010.

It has been widely suggested that Labour’s first year or so in opposition has been marred by an atmosphere of apology which has prevented the party from making significant gains on the Tories, even considering the gargantuan scale of planned spending cuts. Much of this criticism has been levelled at Miliband – both in the national press and, perhaps more worryingly, from his own supporters, many of whom feel the party should be doing more to propose an alternative to the coalition’s budgetary agenda. Whilst Khan was keen to emphasise the importance of “getting back in the game” he explained that Labour now have to “earn permission to be heard” and believes that Ed “apologised for the right things” at the recent conference.

Despite the gloomy outlook, Labour HQ feels that this new attitude to opposition shows a more reflective and measured side to the party, something which was lacking in Gordon Brown’s administration. Khan himself was quick to denounce “cheap party politics,” and welcomed a return to “a more phased approach to policy making.” With current forecasts suggesting that the Coalition are likely to serve a full five-year term, the party has time on its side but cannot afford to rush this vital transitional period.

In response to a seemingly unconvinced questioner, Khan argued, “I always support Ed’s ideas” – merely hinting at irony in his tone. However, Miliband has come under excessive criticism of late. After only a year at the helm and with little in the way of a tangible policy programme, the leader could hardly be said to look Prime Ministerial, despite seizing minor victories on issues such as the phone hacking scandal.

The political rumour mill does, however, provide the Labour faithful with several glimmers of hope – including suggestions that former Blair ally Lord Falconer, ex-Shadow Chancellor Alan Johnson and Ed’s brother (and defeated leadership rival) David Miliband could all make swift returns to frontline politics. If such political heavyweights do get behind Miliband, we may see a far stronger Shadow Cabinet taking on the Coalition come 2015.

Since the close of polls last May, Labour has increased its membership substantially by over 60,000 people. A third of these members are under 25, and Khan stresses that these figures support his claim that “Labour can win in 2015.”

But can Labour really bounce back? Let us not forget – the party was embarrassed in 2010, and it will take a unifying leader to reassert Labour’s status as a natural party of Government. Blairite-Brownite divisions still run deeply within the party, and Labour must solve its internal problems and unify the backbenches before they can fully focus on converting a still sceptical electorate.

With well over three years to go until the proposed 2015 election, Labour is certainly in no hurry. But the way in which Miliband & Co. handle the ‘union problem’ over the next few weeks will be a vital litmus test for their long term ambitions.

Guess who’s back? Back again – Putin’s back!

Vladimir Putin has one almighty CV. A former KGB agent, ex-President, and current Prime Minister of Russia, Putin has the look of a man with the conceivable ability to slam a revolving door. There would be little surprise if he were airlifted via helicopter into the Kremlin astride a growling Harley Davidson with some unruly political opponent in a headlock.

As such, the recent announcement of the ambitious 58-year-old’s intention to once again run for the Russian presidency in 2012 – inexorably taking the reins from his protégé, Dmitri Medvedev – was hardly a bolt from the blue. The news stemmed from the recent United Russia annual congress, where a beaming President Medvedev proceeded to welcome Putin to the stage amid rapturous applause.

Should he win the election (as some believe is inevitable), it would be Putin’s third stint at the presidential helm – and with recent constitutional changes, he could be set to hold the position for as long as 12 years.

But how should the international community react? By shaking their collective heads despondently? Shrugging indifferently? Or applauding enthusiastically while struggling to prise the lid off their official PuTin pickled cabbage?

Thus far, the worldwide reception has predominantly been lukewarm – a few blithe words from certain quarters rejecting the oxymoron of a ‘managed democracy’, but little in the way of outright condemnation. Why the indifference? Of course, Putin has been a key player on the world stage for well over a decade, and one can only admire the audacity of a man who is willing to shake hands with Fidel Castro and Condoleezza Rice at virtually the same time.

However, the significant monopoly he holds over Russian politics is causing some unease. Putin’s United Russia party is the predominant political force in Moscow, with its’ rejection of traditional left and right-wing ideals in favour of pragmatism earning the party a comfortable 315 of 450 seats in the State Duma. Clearly, therefore, many will be delighted to see his return – with the obvious exception of protestors, ‘dissidents’ within United Russia and high-profile liberal nemeses such as former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov.

No amount of Putin-branded t-shirts can cover up the more undemocratic elements of his premiership – namely, accusations of censorship, limited freedom and the elimination of high-profile rivals. It’s precisely these factors that have strained relations with the West and prompted accusations that Russia could be reverting back to its grainy-pictured Soviet days. Although the prospect of scarlet posters demanding that grain quotas be tripled by November emerging from St. Petersburg seems unlikely, the imposition of an authoritative long-term leader (possibly until the year 2024) does prompt some nervous sideways glances.

Another cause for anxiety in the corridors of the UN is that Putin, the master of persuasion, is notoriously unyielding when it comes to international discussion, making it all the more difficult to address the aforementioned problems. David Cameron’s recent trip to Moscow gave us a glimpse into the slippery nature of dialogue with Vladimir; setting out with the intention of tackling the poisoning of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, the Prime Minister instead came away with confirmation – from Medvedev himself – that yes, Cameron might have got along quite nicely in the KGB if he had actually been recruited. So at least one burning question had been laid to rest, but perhaps it’s not quite the indicative, fiery sermon of democracy which we hope Russia is aspiring to.

Speaking of President Medvedev, what will become of the man described as Robin to Putin’s Batman once he stands aside for The Great Man? Medvedev had previously shown glimmers of liberal reform, claiming that he would, “strive to protect civil and economic freedoms.” Alas, his ties to Putin are binding, and few reforms have been enacted.

Putin himself looks set to maintain his popularity for a while yet – especially if current criticisms of him give way to tangible improvements. But why is Putin adored by so many Russians? It seems that our answer will ultimately be found in the history textbooks of the mid-2040s. He might even still be the President by then.

Rudderless EU is stifled by bureaucracy

Considering our geographical position, it seems bizarre that we in Britain are so ready to snigger at the ongoing Eurozone debt crisis. We might be removed from the mainland – separated from Calais by the protective moat which we call the English Channel – but long before the conception of the Channel Tunnel, the futures of Britain and its major European counterparts were inextricably linked.

From the establishment of the ECSC in 1951, to the creation of the Euro, prosperity through liberal economics and free trade has been the European Union’s driving force. Not content with economic co-operation, there are an increasing number of Europhiles on the continent who are keen to engender closer political integration; however, the severe economic difficulties which have engulfed Europe have served to highlight the fact that any real increase in the political power of the EU’s institutions is still a long way off.

On the face of it, one would think that the onset of a massive debt crisis would provide our representatives in Brussels with the perfect opportunity to show that they have the ability to fight to help improve the lives of ordinary Europeans without prejudice or favour shown to individual member states.

However, top EU politicians such as President Herman Von Rompuy, who are calling for more power to be handed to various EU institutions, are putting the cart before the horse. The EU has been, and continues to be, a primarily economic union, and if they want to increase Brussels’ political clout they not only need to show greater leadership during this current crisis, but they must reduce the ludicrous layers of bureaucracy that leave the EU open to so much ridicule from the tabloid press and others.

The EU’s biggest ‘white elephant’ is a monthly event which sees the entire European Parliament travel to Strasbourg at a cost of £160 million per year. This charade is even protected by articles embedded in EU treaties. As long as the EU is prepared to waste such an extraordinary amount of money purely to stroke France’s ego, even the most absurd tabloid claims will continue chime true.

Another stumbling block to further political integration is the complexity of EU institutions. There are five different Presidents of the EU and a plethora of political institutions, including  the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission – four entirely distinct, if similar-sounding organisations. Until this organisational hotchpotch is reformed into one simple, efficient system which is seen to positively impact upon the day-to-day lives of European citizens, there will never be a groundswell of support to give more political power to EU institutions.

Whether the leaders in Brussels have the will or political skill to push for positive reforms to solve these endemic problems is currently unclear. It would, however, be a good start to take the lead in tackling the current economic crisis – something which they have categorically failed to do thus far. Before we can even begin to consider giving up further powers, the leaders of the European Parliament are going to have to step up and be more vocal on streamlining operations in Brussels and eradicating such wasteful jaunts as Strasbourg.

My Political Hero: Christopher Hitchens

Nobody has better encapsulated the vitality of Christopher Hitchens’ contribution to modern political discourse than the novelist, Joseph Heller. “Christopher Hitchens is a remarkable commentator. He jousts with fraudulence of every stripe and always wins. I regret he has only has one life, one mind”, he lamented. Tragically, his remarkable life looks set to be cut brutally short; the 62-year-old is currently undergoing a punishing regime of treatment for oesophageal cancer. He has said that he will be lucky to be alive in five years time. As such, this seems to be an appropriate time to look back at the impact of arguably the greatest polemicist of this or any generation.

Like myself, Hitchens was a PPE student. During his time at Balliol College, Oxford, he turned to socialism, to some extent in response to what he saw as the horrors of the Vietnam War and the escalating race to stockpile nuclear weapons. This was the start of a complex political journey during which his philosophy would be in constant development. Whilst it may sound like an oxymoron, Hitchens now considers himself to be, “a very conservative Marxist”.

I am no ‘conservative Marxist’ (there can’t be many of those around, after all); but Hitchens is my political hero not because I necessarily sympathise with the myriad of views which he has so eloquently espoused, but rather for the way in which he conveys his fierce intelligence and searing honesty through the pages of his essays, and during often-ferocious debates. No political philosopher that I have ever read (perhaps with the exception of the late John Rawls) sets out his argument so logically, forthrightly, or with such vigour.

Hitchens’ genius lies in his determination to challenge long-held orthodoxies time and time again. Where most are prepared to accept the status quo, Hitchens is constantly questioning himself and others. His scathing 1995 critique of Mother Teresa argued that, far from being a saintly figure, Teresa was “no friend to the poor” – merely a tool manipulated by the Catholic Church to further political ends. Perhaps this controversial point of view was infused by his long-standing atheistic point of view. Whilst he has been accused of being particularly anti-Catholic, Hitchens is equally dismissive of all organised religion, describing it as, “the main source of hatred in the world”. Indeed, he opened his seminal work God Is Not Great by branding Christianity, Islam and Judaism collectively as, “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children”. Strong stuff, indeed; Hitchens does not hold back, but even when I vehemently disagree with his analysis I cannot help but respect his tremendous conviction.

Over the past decade, Hitchens has collided with the mainstream once again, this time by publicly and fervently arguing the case for the war in Iraq. It was over this issue that he perhaps came in for the most criticism – yet, even for the staunchest of opponents to the war, he reasoning was more persuasive than most. A masterful orator, Hitchens met his match during a debate with George Galloway, a leading critic of the war. Galloway’s characterisation of him as a “drink-soaked, former Trotskyist popinjay” would have fatally wounded many, but not Hitchens. “I can still hold a Martini without spilling it”, he responded in print. Christopher Hitchens does not only possess devastating logic – he has a sense of humour, too.