Fight club?

A film that on first view seems slightly offball becomes on second more noticeable for the inner conflict between what a man wants to be and who he really is. In this case the vulnerable office nerd believes he wants to be more like the decadent sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll anti hero and sometime leader of men as portrayed by his Brad Pitt alter ego.

Pitt's 'half' rejects all that is beneficial about the west and thrives in its outer margins, primal, selfish. The real guy is vulnerable and seems trapped in dead end work and a life without meaning.

The film fits into a broader narrative of a victim male, emotionally castrated and unsure of who or what he should be.
Alright, it's a long time since I've seen the film but this is more to do with white male identity (almost).

An article by a female doctor (Who's feminising medicine? Dr. Liz Frayn.http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA652.htm ) explained an emergency situation carried out entirely by female staff quietly and efficiently ie. without the macho posturing of us blokes. Point taken but they were probably all lesbians anyway. However, it does point to the starring role that men liked to play at certain times - hero, suave, cool, hard, in command, whatever.

A half remembered newspaper article/story about a man and woman sailing crew was of particular interest. The man quit, feeling hugely inadequate as his partner carried on without him in what was quite an arduous event. I'm unsure as to the ending but the point illustrates the man being less than heroic, chivalrous even - and 'beaten' by a woman. He may have been coming down with the flu though.
Likewise, Helen MacArthur proved that the sisters can indeed do it for themselves, thankyou very much.

Okay, so they are not quite there yet with football but maybe it's only a matter of time.

I'd say it brings up a question of identity or a searching for a new one. The slightly self conscious celebration of St. George's day, no doubt enjoyed by many but largely a jumping on the back of the success of St. Patrick's day (the patron saint of Guiness?) (5), a desperate attempt to gain some civic pride for others and perhaps undermine the BNP. However the artificiality of the celebrations matched the brief outpouring of 'patriotism' or shared national experience that was Euro 2004.

Perhaps the Iraq war, Rover fiasco and other failed notions of national pride have cooled some of this much hyped but short lived enthusiasm. A climate of uncertainty fuels an increasingly cynical population led by an admittedly 'terrified of the future' prime minister. Though most likely to return New labour to power come May 5th. as none of the contenders are anything special.

In some respects Blair's election will likely match that of Bush, his buddy through the good times, inasmuch as that any decent contender should have knocked Dubya flying out of the ring. Trouble is, with little more than a few cells between them they both preferred to shadow box on the ropes. A triumphant George could indeed thank his worthy opponent for a tough fight -where the contestants largely agreed on the main issues.

If you can liken the US presidency to a lightweight champion of the western hemisphere boxing contest then Good ol' Blighty's election is what? - 'can you spot the difference between these three pictures?' or a bit of pantomime maybe (as in - your credibility? - behind you!). At least Michael Howard put a bit of spunk in his stride - shame he seems to be doing politics by rote though still largely the highlight of an otherwise dull election campaign which is opportunistic and gaffe prone, superficial and barely connected.

Public cynicism with politicians is understandable. Pretty much like shopping in a supermarket the special offers don't quite seem to be the ones on the shelf somehow.
A jittery elite cannot really identify with anything too strongly as all the traditional repositories for the national faith have been undermined - the spirit of St. George invites tension that a 'squeaky' prime minister can't deal with. Saint George becomes a trademark shadow of his former values - all his noble traits are tainted with the mark of an abuser or a self doubter and the symbolism is just a little too hot to handle for some, particularly with the misguided Iraq venture lurking in the background.

If Bush is an oilman then Blair surely does aid the legal profession, albeit with all the prissy legalesse of a school prefect. Crude parallel, fair enough. Oil itself may play a minor role in the equation but the west was mainly involved in finding a mission.

Blair should be terrified. The increasing regulation in more aspects of our daily lives, work or at home thwarts innovation and inspiration to progess - something of a requirement in a modern economy and one that in the future will have to deal with perhaps the rather more real perils of the slowly rousing dragon that is China. Couple this with the high level view that the world we are living in is facing eco-doom then it is little wonder that people switch off, batten down the hatches and face inwards. This deludes us from the real problems we face today.

In a society where the elite are reluctant to invoke the values of heroes past, and instead choose to elevate the mundane and celebrate the weak . . . for being weak, it becomes a little difficult to see who are our heroes or role models.
I have to argue that no such thing should exist for us. Maybe it is part of an english character trait - always bringing a man or woman down but it does encourage people to look for leadership elsewhere other than within themselves.

At a not too recent discussion group involving Socialist Workers Party supporters, I asked whether the speaker was called Cliff. The barely concealed glee this question caused surprised me but, no, it wasn't 'Cliff '. 'Is Cliff like your Lenin?' got a foolishly reverent nod of the head.
I had to think about this one. Lenin,a hero of the left and to some, a god. To be honest it was a view I once had, but it represents a weakness. A belief that some one that we can look up to will appear as a saviour; that we can ride on the back of the endeavours of others and perhaps claim we were there.

As a one time wannabe communist I'd read various of Lenin's work but must admit to being a bit non-plussed determining who was who and getting lost in the plot. During a period of disarray I read 'Lenin' by David Shub, a selective biography (1969 reprint). This was a real eye opener and put flesh to the bones of a remarkable man. An ordinary human being albeit one with a singular drive. Lenin though capable of genuine warmth was no hippy. He could bare a grudge, often made mistakes, was guilty of under and overestimating situations and capable of commanding vast forces.

According to other accounts(2) he had his romantic flings, his thoughts may have been influenced by syphillis and then there's the sealed train and 'collaboration with the enemy' (which kind of makes allegations against George Galloway look like chickenfeed. I'd take money from Michael Moore seeing as how it's offered(3).
Although Lenin's biggest impediment was the backward nature of Russia - largely peasant based agriculture and a very small industrial base. Coupled with a lack of dynamism in Left wing circles in more advanced capitalist nations.

Lenin was a chancer, a bluffer and a hero. My favourite thought of him is declaring his outfit the majority - bolshevik - when they were anything but in size. Methinx he meant in influence. A little bravery and conviction go a long way.

Despite Stalin's attempt to cultivate links with the spirit of Leninism and claim some continuation of his methodology his vision of the road to socialism started collapsing at inception (4).

Lenin's dying words were to not trust Stalin. Whatever, the man died a long time ago in different circumstances and there are no more Lenins anymore.



W.W.J.D?

Around about the same time as coming across Shub's 'Lenin' a very good friend brought back a wristband from the states (although not a tacky plastic bangle). The letters on it stood for 'what would Jesus do?' and the wristband was widespread. This is interesting because it signifies a move away from worshipping of god(s) to considering doing the decent thing. Maybe it is more indicative of the collapse of the church in its most recent role as the spirit of the nation and as moral guide or the difference between good, honest ground level christians and the higher clergy and adherents. The Bible itself warns against false prophets and . . erm? 'social chauvinists'. Maybe they should take a leaf or two out of their own book.

Maybe the Bible is based on a typograhical error. What if god and devil turn out to be merely corruptions of the words good and evil?

. . . . . . ,



Lovers and fighters?



(2) See Kollontai, 'Lenin' by Robert Service.
(3) Somewhere in 'Dude, where's my country?'
(4) I am no expert on Soviet affairs. Try The Soviet Union demystified for starters. http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w13/msg00272.htm
(5)http://www.bombardier.co.uk/stgeorgesday.php