Day: 12 March 2015
Interview: Dylan Moran
Dylan Moran is not only a comedian who started his career at the age of 20, but also starred in several well known films such as Notting Hill and Shaun of the Dead. When not touring all over the world and being declared “the greatest comedian, living or dead,” by French newspapers, he lives in Edinburgh with his wife and two children. The Mancunion talked to him about his music taste, his perception of comedy and how the countries he has encountered on his tours have changed his perspective on comedy.
The obligatory question in the beginning—what do you think of Manchester?
I really like Manchester, I’ve been in Manchester a lot of times, I performed in the dancehouse. I had a really good time there and Manchester people are really friendly. It’s weird because I go up and down the country, it’s hard to remember a particular place.
You’ve mentioned in other interviews that you enjoy Manchester music, especially Joy Division.
As a teenager, I listened a lot to the Bootleg Vinyl LP. Sometimes, they were made from concerts and I was completely obsessed with Joy Division when I was fifteen. So I had all of their bootleg stuff on vinyl and I had the band before they were Joy Division called Warsaw, I had their EP which was quite good. I was amazed by them as a fifteen-year old in the country. But I never saw them live, I only saw New Order live.
Does the music you listen to influence you when you’re writing your shows?
I do like listen to music sometimes. It can be very helpful, especially if you don’t want to be too aware of what you’re doing. Because you’re not overthinking what you and I sometimes think of stand up because a lot of stage talk is better, I find anyway, when you play around with different ways rather than to do something that you’re actually doing. It can sometimes freeze you when you think too much about everything. When you’ve got too many ideas and can’t concentrate on them, it sort of helps to organise how to do it rather than to do what you’re doing.
What does normally keep you on track when you’ve got too many ideas for a show?
It is actually quite tricky, you know, because in the end, it’s sort of a surrender, you have to give in to one of them. If you’re constantly trying to find the best idea, it’s like playing chess against yourself because you’re trying to do the next move, but you can skip over the unnecessary moves. Sometimes what happens is that you go directly into a voice, a character voice or a piece of dialogue. You have to stop thinking, that’s the key, you have to stop thinking. Pure rationality is not going to get you there. Even as a mathematician you have to dream and let your mind wander, you have to let go.
How did your perception of comedy change over time?
When I was young, I didn’t analyse or think about comedy. I don’t analyse it too much now either, but I think just being older and watching people talk in a room, at dinner parties or at weddings. What you’re doing is all tribal stuff, you’re sharing stuff with a group, just like one monkey is communicating with another monkey. That’s really it.
Your comedy often exposes people’s beliefs or strong convictions, such as vegetarianism or catholicism in Ireland. What do you believe in or what gives you strength?
I believe in a lot of things. Community and shared values and taking your stance for what you believe in. Wherever you’re from in the world and wherever you go, you have to have a belief in something. As humans, we’re believing machines, believing factories.
Do people often confuse your stage personality with your real personality?
Probably. I don’t worry about it too much. I don’t examine too closely how that works because that would be overthinking it again.
What do you do before you go on stage?
Well, it depends, sometimes I worry or think about it too much. I don’t worry about it, but I try to remember everything and that usually doesn’t work. I usually don’t remember everything I want to remember anyway. Sometimes the best thing is to ignore it and just go on a walk and then suddenly be on stage and you know, all comes out.
Did performing in different countries change the way you perceive comedy?
Absolutely. When I’m in a different country, I try to know a little where I am. I really enjoyed my show in Lithuania, where I just came from. Going into other countries changes my experience on everything. All of your assumptions about other people change and you’re forced into engaging with people you really have to try to understand the people. I always talk to them about who they are and why they are that certain way. It makes you look at what’s going on around you and changes your perception
Dylan Moran will perform at the Lowry at Salford Quays on March the 15th and at the Opera House in Manchester on March the 19th.
University of Manchester eighth best in UK
The University of Manchester is now the 50th most reputable university in the world, placing eighth in the United Kingdom, according to the Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings 2015, revealed on Thursday.
Behind Oxbridge, Imperial College London, UCL, LSE, University of Edinburgh, and King’s College London the University of Manchester has returned to the top 50.
The University of Manchester has climbed up the rankings over the past six years. In 2011 the university was placed in the 61 – 70 range, in 2012 in the 51 – 60 range, and last year dropped back to the 51 – 60 range after a brief stint at 47 in 2013.
The university’s reputation score is now 5.3, which is broken down into 4.5 for teaching reputation and 5.6 for research reputation. The University of Manchester is the last university to be given a place as any institution placed below 50 is only given a range. Any university below 100th place is excluded from the rankings.
Behind the Georgia Institute of Technology in the United States, Manchester’s 5.3 score is only marginally behind Georgia Tech’s 5.4. The seventh British university is King’s College London in 31st place with a score of 8.1
Analysis of the rankings shows success across the board for British universities with the University of Bristol entering the rankings for the first time this year in the 91 – 100 range, whilst Durham University and the University of Warwick have move from the 91-100 band to the 81 – 90 grouping.
The United Kingdom is the second best represented country in the rankings, following the US but ahead of Germany. The UK has more universities in the top 50—with eight—than Germany has in the whole top 100, with six.
Oxford and Cambridge have both climbed two places to second and third respectively, remaining behind Harvard, while the University of Edinburgh has climbed 17 places from 46th to 29th but is the only Scottish institution in the top 100.
The top six group of US and UK universities have strengthened their lead over other universities. Despite the shuffling of the top six’s order, the top six universities—Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, MIT, Stanford and UCB—have remained the top six for the past five years.
The largest gap between institutions appears between UCB in sixth with 60.0 and Princeton with 35.0 in seventh place. The rankings are designed so that the institution in first place, this year Harvard University, receives a score of 100 and all others are scored in comparison.
The University of Manchester is celebrating yet another success after rising to 38th in the Shanghai Jiao Tong University rankings this year, which are based upon the number of academic achievements at each university. The Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings, however, are a measure of how academics around the world view universities’ teaching and research.
In addition, the university also came 52nd in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings this year with an overall score of 64.5, which made it the eighth-best British university overall in the world this year.
According to the Times Higher Education rankings this year, the University of Manchester is the eighth most reputable and best university in the United Kingdom, but its reputation in the world at 50th is two places higher than its overall score which ranks it at 52nd.
The Times Higher Education Reputation Rankings report points to the century of collaboration between UMIST and the University of Victoria, which combined to form Britain’s largest single university in 2004. It also notes that there are more than 500 degree programmes with more than 39000 students. The University of Manchester also has 25 affiliated Nobel laureates, which makes it the fourth-highest in the United Kingdom and 23rd highest in the world.
A University of Manchester spokesperson said: “We are pleased that academics around the world have ranked The University of Manchester in an improved 50th place. This is further support for our vision of making our institution one of the top 25 research universities in the world by 2020.”
Students’ Union elections smash turnout records
Over 13264 students have voted in the University of Manchester Students’ Union (UMSU) Executive elections, smashing the national record of 11501 set by the University of Nottingham last year.
Last year, just 5997 University of Manchester students voted in the election, causing some commentators to talk of a crisis of apathy within the UMSU.
This morning, the number of votes cast stood at 9680. Having hit 12000 at 3pm, the decision was taken to extend the voting deadline to 5pm due to a technical fault, meaning that tonight’s final total is likely to be much higher.
This now means that whoever gets elected to the 2015/16 Executive will command the largest mandate ever held by a UMSU sabbatical team.
Reacting to the news, a spokesperson for University of Manchester Students’ Union said: “We are absolutely over the moon with the turnout so far. Manchester students have made history by taking part in the biggest Students’ Union election ever in the UK.
“12000 votes is beyond what we originally hoped for and we couldn’t be prouder of the student body today. The candidates have all worked so incredibly hard over the last few weeks and they should all be congratulated on their amazing efforts.”
Conor McGurran, Campaigns and Citizenship Officer of UMSU, said: “The incredible turnout for this year’s elections is testament to the unbelievable work that the staff at the Union have put in. The Student Voice team in particular have worked tirelessly to get students involved in choosing their representatives for the next year.
“The candidates and their supporters should also be congratulated for running some fantastic campaigns, and the positive tone of this year’s races has been really encouraging.”
He added further: “The impressive turnout is indicative of the direction that the SU is moving in, with a dedicated staff team that strives to empower students to have a stake and a say in their Union.”
Voting is now closed. The Mancunion can reveal that 61.3% of votes were cast in the last two days of voting.
Live: Hookworms
2nd March
Sound Control
7/10
The world is ending, and Hookworms are on hand to provide the soundtrack, with an almost post-apocalyptic nature to their sound’s take on psychedelic noise rock. The churning bass lines and futuristic synth pointing to a not too distant future in need of help.
While they make no illusions as to being the band that can provide help, they do make some great tunes to make up for it. Opening their evening at Sound Control with ‘Away/Towards’, the band introduce a heavy build up, edging carefully along slowly, subtly increasing tempo easing the crowd in to the performance. This teasing tempo continues through to their next few songs. Each gradually raises the energy in the room, subtly encouraging the crowd to move with the music, as does the accompaniment of screeching vocals that echo out to perfection and a loud bass that cuts strong through the rest of the sound.
All these elements give their sound a full tone that entrenches each song into a post-apocalyptic cry for help. Throughout the performance they delicately play with the mood of the crowd. Reducing the energy to an almost still silence before once again inching their onlookers back up to high levels of energy. This toying with the crowd only furthers the intensity of each peak and the ferocious nature of the crowd. These Leeds boys have been bashing about for the past five years and know how to get people going, rarely lingering on the same tempo for more than half a song with the crowd riding a rocky wave of high and low tempos.
The end of their performance was marked by a lack of an encore, dispensing with tradition whilst leaving the crowd wanting more. But the band had said all they wanted to say, and no part of it was traditional.
Opinion: “Tonight, Matthew, I’m going to be…”
Being in a tribute band must be a pretty sweet deal. It really doesn’t sound that difficult to create one. There are only two essential requirements: you have to fund the overheads, and you have to incinerate your own artistic ambitions. Spiritually and financially, these are not easy obstacles to overcome. You may also have to throw your dignity onto the fire, since tribute bands are perhaps the most maligned professionals in the music industry.
But once you’ve got that out of the way, it’s plain sailing all the way to the bank. For each show, you can take temporary ownership of a vast pre-existing fan base, enough of whom will always pay to see you, regardless of the legacy of the band you hope to imitate. (For instance, Nickelback have a tribute band.) You get to take a shortcut to deification without the need for the whole ‘being a musical genius’ part. Theoretically, if all goes to plan, you’ll get all the things people start rock bands for: sex, glory, high quality drugs, and zero responsibility. The prospect of modelling your own life on someone else’s is an easier pill to swallow when that ‘someone else’ parties 24/7.
The only catch is that you have to get there first, or else weed out the competition. I’m not sure if there’s even one Steely Dan tribute band yet, but imagine if there were two—they’d be eternal nemeses. Steely Flan would sever the brakes of Steely Scam’s tour van. Steely Scam would spike Steely Flan’s drinks. In the world of tribute bands, competition is minimal in number, but it’s fierce, because your rival is literally going to be exactly the same as you.
You’d think the crowds for tribute shows would be replete with nostalgic old people. You’d be wrong. For one thing, I’ve been to my fair share of tribute shows. Probably more than my fair share, given that I’m only 21. The first gig I ever went to was to see ‘The Bootleg Beatles’. This was against my will—I was 9 years old, and had but a thin grasp on the concept of what music actually was.
I also believed that the four men before me were the actual Beatles. If fooling a 9-year-old is any kind of high water mark for the success of a tribute band (and I think this is a realistic aim), then the ‘The Bootleg Beatles’ were the tits. Having young children and misinformed people believe that you are the genius responsible for the set of songs you’re playing might just be the most gratifying aspect of being a tribute artist.
I also recall going to a Green Day tribute shortly after the release of American Idiot, the band’s commercial heyday. ‘Green Bay’ were living proof that your idols don’t have to be retired or dead before you inherit their identities. This must be an existential minefield: Do ‘Green Bay’ age concurrently with Green Day, or are they frozen in time as the 2003 incarnation? And if ‘Green Bay’ were to totally succeed in their goal of emulating Green Day, wouldn’t that override the ‘Green Bay’ members’ need for their own original personalities? I don’t know. It depends how deep these guys go.
You’d hope these bands were actually nurturing an intense love for their icons, rather than cynically riding someone else’s gravy train to success. I’d also hope to see more than just costume-baked mimicry. I want to see some authentic spiritual commitment in my tribute bands. I want to see a worthwhile duplication of the essence and lifestyle of the original band. When I stumbled across ‘Fleetwood Bac’ at a festival, I remember thinking: I hope these guys are going full method. I hope the fake McVies in ‘Fleetwood Bac’ are getting divorced, and I hope the rest of the fake members are all sleeping with each other.
As it happens, ‘Fleetwood Bac’ were brilliant. I’ve been told that ‘The Bootleg Beatles’ were brilliant, too. At their best, tribute bands are more than glorified karaoke singers: tribute bands are groups of actors submerged in the roles of their heavily studied heroes. They do their homework, and they never break character on stage. In fact, I’d sooner call members of tribute bands highly skilled method actors than musicians.
Regardless of this scant consolation, I can’t help but picture a barren music industry 100 years from now, fresh out of modern icons and perennially stalked by the living ghosts of Paul McCartney and John Lennon touring eerie renditions of ‘Yesterday’.
Live: Pond
26th February
Academy 2
4/10
It’s fair to say that I had high hopes for Pond’s live show; their recent album Man It Feels Like Space Again has been one of the most exciting releases of this year so far. In addition to this, Pond shares several band members with fellow Australian psychedelic band Tame Impala, albeit their sound comes across as a little more rugged and less polished (this has always been part of their charm though). As such, Pond had the potential to perform a great gig, allowing them to expand off their album material (and some of its imperfections) and really play something special.
Disappointingly, their Manchester show felt rather uninspiring. What was hoped would be a blur of psychedelia, with the band expanding from their repertoire or extending their songs, was not to be. Instead the resulting show was a bit jarring and headache inducing. Pond took to the stage and rattled through their set rather sloppily without really adding anything to their material.
To dispel slightly from this pessimism: I’m not saying that this ‘Heroic Shart’ of a gig was a complete failure, as there were some highlights. Newer tracks such as ‘Sitting Up On Our Crane’ and ‘Holding Out For You’ sounded brilliant, and ‘Giant Tortoise’ from Hobo Rocket packed all the energy of its album recording.
The audience was a similarly mixed bag to the set; whilst you could almost sense the disappointment in some swathes of the rather dazed looking crowd, a section in front of the stage were going crazy. Clearly some were enjoying the show.
Personally I loved the softer and more intelligent approach that Pond took on their recent album, and so the jagged and rowdier approach that Pond took at their gig was not for me. Perhaps this was simply due to a case of wrong expectations, but it couldn’t help but feel a little bit disappointing none the less.
Live: Years & Years
27th February
Gorilla
5/10
How much electronic music is too much electronic music? After spending three years in Manchester I would’ve thought the trendsetters might’ve abandoned ship and found themselves a new sailboat to jump on. Incorrect. It seems as though electronic is staying firmly fixed for the foreseeable future, especially after a band such as Years & Years continue to tighten their unique grip on it.
The group have garnered critical acclaim for their ‘alternative’ take on electronic music, however if their recent live show is anything to go by it is difficult to see what’s so different about them. What Years & Years offer is a saturated poppy-sounding energy that will probably sell a healthy amount of records and will inevitably capitalise on the direction the industry is currently heading.
The familiar-sounding ‘Desire’ and their new release ‘King’ are radio-friendly, dancefloor-ready hits that encapsulate the energy and essence of the band, and go down well with the crowd (as do most of the songs). After winning BBC’s Sound of 2015 their following has strengthened quite impressively, as is evident by the sold out show and by the huge reception they receive after each and every song.
The prestige of the title has brought along with it a huge pressure which now pushes the band to follow in the footsteps of past winners including Adele, Sam Smith and Jessie J. The lead singer Olly Alexander is visibly overwhelmed by the response, however lacks no confidence in proving his worth.
His vocals are the only unique characteristic of the band, and shine on a trio of new acoustic songs midway through the set. Clearly influenced by contemporary R&B, his tones are reminiscent of an early Justin Timberlake, or the ranges of Michael Jackson on ‘Human Nature’, however the execution on a whole is a little lacklustre.
They certainly have a long way to go before reaching superstardom. However, their lead’s distinct vocals might just keep this steady ship sailing towards higher tides.
Interview: The Subways
It’s almost been 10 years since the release of The Subway’s first album Young For Eternity but a decade further on the band still seems to have the same youthful exuberance and energy that made them so appealing in the first place. The band have come a long way since winning Glastonbury’s unsigned bands competition and making their breakthrough but they have kept their signature sound that made them popular in the first place. Their self-titled fourth effort has been released with some classic rock riffs mixed in with poppy choruses which has given the album a certain kick. And although it has a hard hitting rock sound, the pop influences can be heard: “Songs like ‘Black Letter’ and ‘Twisted Game’—I think they really play with phrasing. We love pop songs and we’re always trying to sneak in a poppy melody here and there in each of our songs but I think, as we were in total control on this album, we allowed the frantic and the crazy to come through,” says Billy.
The album was self-produced which is always a bold step, but it seems to have paid off for the band. “I think we really just wanted to make an album in a situation where we felt comfortable and completely in control. After making three albums with three amazing producers we learned a lot and decided that we wanted to take the reins. It does mean that the album has a rawer quality to it and I think that reflects who we are when we’re onstage,” reflects Billy. The album does seek to reflect on their experiences and ultimately it’s who they are: “The album has a sense of ‘we’re doing this on our own, this is us 100 per cent, loud and proud’ about it. There’s a song called ‘We Get Around’ that talks about how alienated we feel in the music industry, about how we feel separated from all the cliques and fads—I guess that’s an overriding message.”
The album certainly reflects their stage presence. You won’t witness a Subways show that doesn’t feature front man Billy and bassist Charlotte jumping around like lunatics with a real sense of joy in what they’re doing. “Whenever we write our songs in the rehearsal studio, we’re always imagining how they will sound live onstage. We really wanted to get that live feel represented on the album, so hopefully that’ll translate to the stage—it seems to be working so far!”
It’s easy to see how their songs can be converted so well to a stage show since it’s almost impossible to resist the urge to want to bang your head and sing along with songs like ‘I’m In Love And It’s Burning Through My Soul’ and the up-beat ‘Good Times’.
Despite the up-beat tempo and melodies, there is still emotion coming through probably most noticeably in ‘Taking All The Blame’. It’s a song about Billy and Charlotte’s old relationship in which the contrast between Billy’s rough voice and Charlotte’s more lullaby-like vocals makes for a wonderful, pain-riddled pop song. Having the contrast between male and female vocals used sparingly but very effectively is one of the many things that give The Subways uniqueness. “Considering the fact that most bands consist of four or five guys, all clad in leather jackets with slick hairstyles, we are different from the norm. I bet you can name ten bands straight away that consist of all men. There is a horrible overarching patriarchy in the music industry, particularly in rock—sometimes we play festivals and Charlotte is the only female to appear on the stage all weekend—and I think we offer a voice for females, which all-male bands don’t. I really hope girls are seeing Charlotte rock out onstage so that they go home and ask their parents for a musical instrument for their next birthday present. Not enough is made of the fact that rock is dominated by men, who also tend to write songs about lording it over women. Charlotte and I like to play on that with our vocal-sharing.”
With now four albums to their name and an array of big songs, The Subways are about to tour the UK and they will bring their roaring sound to Manchester Academy 3 on the 24th of March.
Interview: Twin Peaks
Many teenage bands, whilst bashing away at instruments in their mum’s basement, desperately dream of leaving their home town behind and getting the adoration that comes from being an international rock band. Most people would say that this is just a pipe dream, that such bands are never going to make it and that if they’re ever going to make it, it won’t be with their childhood friends. If you’re guilty of having this view or have maybe even barked it at a younger sibling, there is a band out there that provides a glimmer of hope for garage rockstars.
Twin Peaks, four 20 – 21-year-olds who met in a Chicago high school, formed a band and are now touring the world together. Starting from humble beginnings bashing out music together, guitarist Cadien Lake James and bassist Jack Dolan both recall having a big influence on one another from an early ages: “Me and Jack were both writing songs in elementary school and I remember I’ve got a broken 8-track CD player that we recorded our first record on. I can’t scroll down enough, it has a broken button but there’s a song that we recorded in 6th grade ‘Just Tonight’.
“I remember he just sang me some words and a melody in a hallway in elementary school and I started out with some chords behind it, and we recorded it at the crib. I can’t get to it now—but yeah, we’ve been showing each other songs since like fucking forever now.” Jack adds, “throughout high school I was putting stuff out under my own shit and Cadien was doing the same thing, and I know Clay was doing the same thing as well. It’s always been an individual thing at first that, y’know, comes together once we put it into the band pool.”
Such humble beginnings are a world away from a band that is now touring the world, living the teenage garage band dream. Their lives are undeniably unique, even from bands in similar positions, due to the youth of everyone involved. Whereas most people their age are at school or still living with their parents, these guys have been out seeing the world, growing up on tour, living out of suitcases and sleeping in buses. They’re the first to recognise this privileged position as Cadien is quick to point out.
“There’s definitely moments in your day where… I mean, the other day we were standing around and I think Clay was like ‘Man, most people our age…’ we don’t really live the same lives as anyone else that is our age, which is something that you don’t really realise while you’re doing it, but you have these moments where its very, like, surreal, like being out here and stuff like that. Most of our friends are in school, or not in school, so it’s interesting for sure.” Cadien is quick to point out that this does also have some unexpected consequences: “Clay was saying that he’s slept with any given one of us more times than he’s slept with any girl ever.”
Growing up in Chicago together the band has clearly had a lot of influence from the local music scene. With the band being mates with the two other local heroes from Chicago, The Smith & Westerns and The Orwells. These guys have grown up with the rock and roll lifestyle affecting their outlook on life, the psychedelic influences of their music being informed by their relationship with drugs. This relationship is born from the romanticised view of drugs presented by music.
As Jack says: “Everyone knows that The Beatles took acid, and Hendrix and stuff. Like, when I think about why I wanted to do that sort of thing I was definitely trying to get creative and stuff like that. But I think it depends on who you are—everyone can have a different experience or response to it.” Cadien adds to this, “for me there’s certainly been trips that have changed my attitude or perspective on life, and that informs the way I talk about things. Before I was even smoking much pot I was writing shit that had some trippy parts just from listening to music with that influence too.”
From meeting these guys it’s easy to see why they’ve been able to go for so long. They’re childhood friends having the time of their life touring the world together—and they don’t seem done yet. They’ve got their eyes on getting bigger and better together and you can’t help but feel a bit jealous of the life that they live together. They’re best mates hanging out together, creating music that they love. And though the road might be hard, they’ve got the right company to face it with.
The harder they fall…
Very recently the nation witnessed an accident. The rise in injury lawyers has made suffering an accident like the one I’m talking about a hugely profitable business.
With that in mind, the 56-year-old victim must have been delighted by the 4.6 million witnesses. The payout for falling backwards down three steps would no doubt cover a trip to the Balearic Islands, or a nice new car. The problem, however, is that the victim, as we all know already, is Madonna, and she is very, very famous.
You see, when a normal woman in her mid-50s falls over in the street, people help her up, in my experience. In the case of Madonna’s dive though, the overwhelming response of the country, myself admittedly included, was to howl with laughter. We condone our laughter with the knowledge that her famous bones, cast in gold, cannot break and her private medical care will cover the cost of any injury.
It doesn’t matter that it’s an actual woman on the stage, because as far as we are concerned, it may as well have not even been a real human.
What her fall evidenced to me, after I had composed myself, was that we love a celebrity to fall from grace so much that it overrides any sense of human decency.
This says a lot more about us than the famous. We want our celebrities to fulfil two incompatible roles in our lives; we apparently want role models who never break character, but also dehumanised actors in a 24/7 human zoo. So if any A to C listers happen to pick up this edition, something like that would be perfect.
A perfect example of this can be seen in this week’s edition, or any edition, of The Daily Mail. The headline, ‘David Walliams looks forlorn as he is pictured for the first time leaving his London home following ‘split from model wife Lara Stone”, personifies all that I have just said. Ramming a camera into the face of a recently estranged man is absolutely fine; it’s all just good entertainment.
My flippant use of ‘man’ there illustrates my point. David Walliams is not a man as far as we care, he is a specimen to be investigated. If we recognized him as a human being we wouldn’t need to be told that he ‘looks forlorn’. Of course he does. He might well be heartbroken. It’s as if the nation needs reminding that he is sad because they’re waiting for him to deliver a classic catchphrase.
It is easy to attribute this to The Daily Mail in isolation. It is true that it is a newspaper that thrives on the dehumanisation of the famous. However, it also sells in its millions and that is because the Great British public can overlook their morals in favour of catharsis like this. The truth is that the bigger they come, the harder they fall, and we just love tuning in to watch.
Catharsis is exactly what it seems to be. It is as if we have been sold a lifestyle we can’t be a part of. Excluded from the realm of the rich and famous we sit back comfortable and wait. We bide our time. Then, when they make a mistake, we pounce, pursue, and dissect every square inch of their lives.
We’ve had to invent new platforms to fulfil our ravenous appetite for embarrassment and weakness. Britain’s Got Talent, The X Factor, in fact all ‘get famous quick’ programmes, are a conveyer belt of faceless people to shred to pieces. We now devour celebrities so quickly that we have turned inwards, to the non-famous seeking entry to the club, in order to boost our supplies of subjects. We reel out the bewildered, and we don’t need to know their backstory, just like we don’t need David Walliams’.
Perhaps the bigger they come, the harder they fall just isn’t true. If they are big names that we are exploiting, that is all the better, but if not then everybody is becoming fair game.
Perhaps one aspect of solace for those that we ridicule however is that we have a two minute memory. Like a goldfish eternally surprised by its fishbowl, we lap up public humiliation and spit it out before moving onto the next unsuspecting victim. What one day is a front-page scandal is, in truth, lining litter trays the next.
Remember when Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi, or Sir David Attenborough called the Queen a fascist tax dodger? Me neither. The first is long forgotten and the second never happened. The difficulty distinguishing between what is a scandal of national importance one day and what is fictitious nonsense illustrates the danger of investing in scandal. Similarly what at one point was an issue billed to destabilise the monarchy’s public approval, is confined to being a dinner party reference nobody remembers or laughs at.
It works both ways. Michael Sheen is currently being lauded for a viral video depicting his impassioned speech on the NHS. For a week he will be a hero of the left. After that, unless he cultivates this moment, he will once again be an actor like any other.
Whether it is positive or negative press, our obsession with celebrities runs deep within us, but is wholly superficial. It is like the fast food of entertainment. Quick, disposable, and deeply damaging to both us and them. Us and Them is a binary that serves to dehumanise people who are in fact pursued non-stop and to exhaustive lengths in order to fulfil our demand for stories. The effect on us is to forget both ourselves and our morals more and more.
We like to think we are all just indulging ourselves a bit. That sound benign. A glance to the internet following Madonna’s fall, a look at the vitriolic laughter, however, says different.
Sluts, bitches, and the LGBT+ community
If you’ve ever taken the time out of your week to watch RuPaul’s Drag Race (you should), been to Canal Street, or spent time with the LGBT+ community, then you will have noticed the issue of the gendered slur.
In our modern society, gendered slurs have completely lost all form of acceptability they once had. A slur has never been acceptable but gendered slurs have been tolerated more than others for a long time. We luckily live in a world where there is a marked decrease in the use of these terms because of their use to marginalise women.
Unfortunately, something odd seems to have happened in the LGBT+ community. In the LGBT+ community, gendered slurs seem to have lost their gender. It’s common to hear self-identifying men calling each other bitches, sluts, and whores within the community—it’s not even strange to hear a man calling another man ‘butch’ derogatively. Some may say that the loss of gender in these slurs is a good thing and it’s perfectly fine to have slurs that can apply to everyone and, indeed, men can be slutty bitchy whores.
It’s quite rare though that you would hear a member of the LGBT+ community calling a straight man—other than a very close friend—a gendered slur. Perhaps it’s because of the potential to get a punch from an emasculated man. Yet you would hear it being used against a woman.
Herein lies the major issue of degendered slurs in the LGBT+ community—they may seem progressive and perhaps they are—but the issue is that they’re not degendered outside of the LGBT+ community.
Calling a man a bitch is emasculating because he is inferring from the slur that he is being called a woman too. Calling a woman a slut is offensive because it supposes that a woman’s sexual promiscuity is somehow worse than that of a man—so much so that it does in fact deserve a separate word.
It’s not a problem with a close or an ideal solution, in fact it’s more of a question: Is the use of degendered slurs in the LGBT+ community marginalising to women? I would say that it probably still is marginalising, merely because of the fact that outside the LGBT+ world, the words carry marginalising weight. But then I ask myself where does progress start?
I suspect that the innate ability of LGBT+ people to avoid calling straight cis-men whores and sluts should also be innately extended to doing so with straight cis-women. Yet, LGBT+ people often do call women sluts and dykes and I think this evidences the fact that we’re subconsciously still aware of the gendered nature of these slurs, and it is only within LGBT+ safe spaces that they have lost that.
‘Jihadi John’ and The pull factors of terrorism and the push factors of Western society
We all agree that terrorism is wrong, but few question the causes of terrorism and whether external factors are to blame. If the ‘world is our oyster’ here in the UK, why is it that British citizens are turning to extremism to find purpose and fulfilment?
The UK has a counter-terrorism strategy–CONTEST–and part of this is the ‘Prevent’ strand. This involves trying to stop individuals from becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism. Considering that it’s estimated that IS gained around 6000 new recruits since the US and UK began drone strikes in Iraq and Syria, it’s evident that there are faults in our strategy.
Mohammed Emwazi, or as the media have titled him, “Jihadi John,” is the Kuwaiti-born Briton believed to have taken part in the brutal murders of hostages by IS. He was actually educated at the Quintin Kynaston Community Academy in North London, and then furthered his studies, graduating from the University of Westminster in 2009 with a degree in computing. The school stated that Emwazi was “never suspected of being radicalised at school”.
Most people believe in teaching their children and those they have influence over about the rights and wrongs of society from a young age. Whilst giving children freedom to explore their opinions and determine as young adults what they think about the world, parents and teachers should be educating their children about real issues.
Emwazi’s parents said they had no knowledge of their son’s radicalisation and last heard from him in September 2013 when he said he was partaking in humanitarian work in Syria. By no means am I saying they’re to blame, as I recognise that young people are influenced by their environment, but generally I think those recognising they have role model status in a young person’s life–whether that be a parent, a teacher, a friend or social worker–should make an effort to contribute to their development.
I remember as a young girl in 2001 watching the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York, and being completely astounded as to who would do such a thing and why. Terrorism and its causes had never crossed my mind. I’m not suggesting that parents should give their children nightmares about IS beheading innocent people, but giving information on such atrocities would surely play a part in discouraging radicalisation.
I don’t know how someone with an aspiration to engage in horrific acts of terrorism can conceal such a desire to the point that noone suspects radicalisation. I do not believe that his particular place of education is solely responsible for Emwazi’s choice to promote violent extremism, but education generally and the lack of personal and one-to-one development with staff and students surely plays a part when such decisions go unnoticed. Individual, as well as collective, development in education should thus be encouraged by the government.
Terrorist communication and advancements of networks is a consequence of the increasing growth of the virtual world, and despite liberty advocates claiming there’s a ‘security state’ being created, this is an important window of opportunity that has opened up for terrorist groups to interconnect globally. A virtual world where like-minded people can be influenced into thinking terrorism gives their life a true purpose is something the government should actively discourage through highlighting the endless positive and fulfilling opportunities individuals can do to contribute to society.
It’s worrying that British citizens see the ‘pull factor’ in groups such as IS, but equally it’s of paramount importance to consider ‘push factors’ out of Western society for minorities. Emwazi claims to have been ‘harassed’ by security services in the UK (as he has been on their watch-list for some time, apparently) and if this is a contributing factor then as The Guardian reports, the agency must answer some ‘serious questions.’
One of the statements made by an IS terrorist last year said that the group “love death more than life”. This is contrary to everything the West apparently stands for. Britain, home to one of the most long-standing democracies in the world and somewhere which actively promotes equality and human rights, is also somewhere which has allowed intelligent young people with promising futures to join a perfectionist group which hates everything about the West.
Many will say this is brainwashing and denotes problems with Islam in general. IS do not represent Islam, and I dismay when people make these uninformed and offensive arguments against the whole faith. Of course, what terrorists think they are doing is the will of Allah, but most would argue that true religion is never about violence; therefore, criticising Muslims for the acts of one group is just like criticising all Christians because of the one extremist who massacred 91 people in Norway in 2011 (which most would find absurd).
What astounds me is how someone described a relatively hard-working individual, who was intelligent enough to gain a degree, has ended up being recruited by a terrorist group. The media hammers down our throats that terrorism is wrong and that terrorism is a real threat to UK citizens, but if we really want to see change, we should question whether our culture encourages radicalisation.
In conclusion, I don’t know what went on in this man’s mind, but as well as condemning his actions, we should also look at the causes, and ensure that people are well-educated on the issues surrounding terrorism; that efforts are made to include and help to integrate suppressed minorities in society; and that our government and security services doesn’t operate in a way which acts as a ‘push factor’ for those most prone to radicalisation.