Saturday, May 13, 2006

Robin Hood, the ultimate proof of Doctor Who's success

The recent revival of Doctor Who has been nothing short of a phenomenal success, not least because of the way it has proved there is still such a thing as the family audience. And the ultimate sign of that has been the commissioning of another major series aimed at that audience. Robin Hood began shooting last month and is just the latest telling of the classic stories.

Starring Jonas Armstrong as Robin Hood, it will also feature all the classic characters - the Sheriff of Nottingham, Marian, Guy of Gisbourne, Little John, Much, Will Scarlet, Allan-a-Dale and a character called "Roy". No sign of Friar Tuck though, but maybe that will change when the finished show appears. Nor is there a Saracen, one of the more recent additions to the legend.

For those surprised at this, you've probably never seen either Robin of Sherwood (known in the US as Robin Hood - now that really makes it easy to separate from all the other versions doesn't it?!) or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. You can find out more about the various screen adaptations at the blog Robin Hood, whose most recent post takes a look at Robin of Sherwood.

Recently I acquired the DVDs of the series and I have to say it's one of the best I've ever seen in the genre. There are many fantastic moments in it, but probably the most spectacular of all is the climax of the second series.

Spoiler warning



Robin, Marion and Much are being pursued by all the Sheriff's men. They have reached a mountain top but cannot keep on running, so turn to stand.



Robin and Marian's longbows can easily hit the advancing forces...



...causing the Sheriff to withdraw his soldiers so they are out of range.



Robin and Marion keep on picking off those who are sent forward, but Robin realises it is only time before they are encircled and run out of arrows. So he tells Much...



...and Marion to go while he stays to cover his retreat. Meanwhile the Sheriff has sent men along the valley to attack from behind.



Seeing the others leave, the men cautiously advance but pause when they see Robin still standing there.



Robin fires further arrows, killing each time, including the soldier the Sheriff has hidden behind.



Robin takes his last arrow to his bow and slowly raises it...



...and fires it off high.



Robin exchanges long distance glances with the Sheriff, knowing the time has come...



...then turns to face the crossbow troops who have reached him. With no arrows left, Robin breaks his longbow and faces the Sheriff below.



He stands motionless as the Sheriff orders them to fire.



All the soldiers release their arrows.



The look on the Sheriff's face says it all.

This is perhaps the only time to date that I'm aware of any version showing Robin dying in action. Most legends refer to his dying in old age, firing one last arrow to determine where he would be buried. But Robin of Sherwood was always prepared to take bold twists and yet still remain faithful to the original stories. It even found a way for the series to continue when the original Robin actor, Michael Praed left the series to appear on Broadway as the following brief sequence shows...



Elsewhere a stranger in a hood is summoned to a river by Herne the Hunter, the embodied spirit of the woods who has watched over Robin.



Herne tells the stranger that he is to be "my son" and gives him a longbow.



The outlaws regroup in the forest to have Marion confirm the tragic news. They later perform prepare a ceremony in Robin's memory.



Each fires a flaming arrow into the water, starting with Nasir and then Tuck. As each does so, they remember their times with Robin in a series of flashbacks.



Next Will Scarlet fires his arrow, and after him so does Little John.



Much fires his arrow and then Marion fires hers.



Silently the hooded figure emerges behind them and fires a seventh arrow into the water.



The outlaws turn to ponder just who this stranger is...

The full series is now available on DVD.

Friday, May 12, 2006

New visitors to this site

I've just noticed on Tracksy.com that there have been a lot of visitors to this blog lately, so I'd just like to acknowledge them.

Firstly there have been a lot coming from my comment on Iain Dale's Diary: Question Time Tonight: I Feel a Live Blog Coming On (or on the comment posting page itself) coming to my live blog of Question Time. I can only assume a lot of them have also visited Mars Hill's live blog of the same event - do you have stats Paul?

The other main topic of interest has been the AUT/NATFHE marking boycott, its impact on students and levels of opposition to the boycott. As well as many visitors from the educationet message board, there have been many searches including, in no particular order, the following:

*AUT "university of london" exams on Google
*AUT strike "University of Kent" -ac.uk on Google
*aut marking on Google
*blog AUT NATFHE marking boycott on Google
*aut "jacqueline berry" on Google
*aut natfhe boycott on Blog Search
*kat stark - nus women's officer on Google

(Searches for Kat Stark, the NUS National Executive member-elect who authored a pro boycott letter in circulation, also bring up Chris Doidge: Becoming More Like...Me: A Students' Union or a self–obsessed one? by a University of Warwick student critical of her stance. The subsequent comments are some of the longest and thoughtful about the problems many students' unions face in connecting with their members.)

So a very big "Hello" to all the new readers and I hope many of you stay around!

Alarm bells Minging... and who's running the show?

Statler doesn't have much experience actually on the stage eitherFollowing on from earlier, I've noticed that the Daily Telegraph has it even worse for Sir Menzies Campbell with "I'm sorry for my poor showing, says Sir Menzies". Amongst the highlights:

Sir Menzies Campbell has been forced to apologise for his poor performance as Liberal Democrat leader.

Some of the party's MPs fear that they will have to replace him within the year, it emerged last night. They gave Sir Menzies, 64, until the party's autumn conference "to get his act together" even though he was elected only two months ago.
...
Last week's local election results were a disappointment, with the party gaining two seats overall. One MP said the party was "hitting the panic button" over the threat from David Cameron, the new Tory leader.
...
But some Lib Dems are now privately convinced that they will have new leader within a year, with Nick Clegg, 39, the so-called Lib Dem answer to David Cameron and the party's home affairs spokesman, as the frontrunner.

"Ming will be gone within a year," said one Lib Dem MP.

Some Lib Dems fear that the idea that Sir Menzies's experience would outshine the youthful energy of Mr Cameron is proving mistaken. One MP said last night: "I just think he is not physically up to it."
And most intriguingly there are serious questions about just who is setting direction for the party, if there is one at all:

Sam the Eagle often tries to set his own stamp on the way the show is going
Another, on the Left of the party, bitterly complained that Lord (Paddy) Ashdown was pulling the party's policy strings by virtue of the Right-leading CentreForum think-tank.

He cited ideas of ditching the party's traditional opposition to tuition fees as one such potential policy reversal, but complained that Sir Menzies was not giving direction.
Could he return sooner than people expected?The criticism of Campbell has been quite high profile and public before and it seems it's getting to be yet another Groundhog Day. The Lib Dems are criticising the leader for underperforming and demanding he raise his game, otherwise they will depose him. And old leaders are emerging from the shadows. Could we see the Lib Dems come full circle and bring back the leader who they so brutally deposed?

Lib Dems to take action about Campbell

The Liberal Democrats "are going to try to improve their leader's performances at Prime Minister's Questions". Though they officially deny it, can we hear the alarm bells rining in Lib Dem HQ?

Can the Lib Dems raise the money?

This Muppet was a minor player at first but later rose to importance - will others get the chance to do so?The Liberal Democrats could still be in huge trouble. And members like Daniel Snowdon could find that instead of having the chance to shine in the future, they may have to be the ones who have to sort things out now.

It seems possible that every single member of the Liberal Democrats will have to pay £30 to clear the party's debts when it returns the major donation from Michael Brown:

Backroom boys don't always get things right
The party's legal status is that of an unincorporated association, in effect a club of its 73,000 members. No committee or individual is responsible for any financial liabilities. Nor is any insurance policy.

The Lib Dems are not rich. The party has no significant assets, and no large sums of spare cash. It has a deficit on its pension fund, which it will have to make good over the long term. The party's London headquarters, an Edwardian mansion, is rented from the Church Commissioners.

A legal expert said: "Where there is a shortfall, it is the members of the association who have to dip into their pockets. There is potentially unlimited personal liability for the members."
If this does come to pass then it doesn't matter whether or not Sir Menzies Campbell can raise his game - he needs to raise the party's balances and fast. Will every single Liberal Democrat pay up £30? It could be a nightmare to pursue this and in the meantime the Lib Dems would still be sinking fast. So how could the Lib Dems raise the money in the interim? Could they get John Cleese to do some big events to raise some funds?

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Question Time live

As I promised, here is the blog of Question Time tonight. I'll be updating this post throughout the night as it works better than posting lots of separate thoughts.

You can find my pre show comments on the panelists here. By the way I was once in the Question Time audience in October 2003, when it came from Stratford and the panel contained Boris Johnson, Clare Short, Susan Kramer, David Aaronovitch and an evangelical Christian reverend. All audience members were asked to submit two questions on current events and we were told that the topics picked would reflect the number of questions submitted on them, making the show audience driven. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for my nerves, my question about whether the Anglican Communion is worth keeping together (I think so) was not called to kick off the show.

I've also noticed that Mars Hill has decided to do a live blog of the show, so people can compare a Conservative and Labour take. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

So here goes:

22:35 - Initially my screen is unstable but it rapidly clears!

22:35 - The move to London is blamed on "the turmoil" and "the reshuffle".

22:35 - Question 1. Blair has made his Cabinet Ministers pay for their mistakes. When will he pay for his mistakes?

Michael Heseltine - He thinks Blair is down to his last fifteen months and has made unrecoverable errors. "No recovery scenario." He didn't sack all his Cabinet members. Hezza gets confused as technically Clarke was dismissed as Home Secretary but withdrew himself from the government.

Hazel Blears - Tries to answer a different question. Then makes a weak attempt to claim Blair is a successful Prime Minister to much booing - "we'll have to agree to disagree" - before rattling off the usual statistics. This is the woman Blair trusts to rebuild the party? (Dimbleby: How long do you give him?) She's wandering around the point and has Hezza trying to draw her out.

The audience - "Blair doesn't think he has done anything wrong, will never say sorry, will never admit a mistake."

Piers Morgan - The funniest moment in politics was the Labour line on the local elections - that voters are angry with losing Blair too early! "He reminds me of Basil Fawlty... 'am I the only sane one left around here?'" He thinks Blair's legacy will be the Iraq War.

Menzies Campbell - Ducks the issues around the war and intelligence at this point - a good move to stop him looking like just a foreign affairs expert. He expects Blair to go on his tenth anniversary. Then he drifts back onto foreign affairs to raise the issue of Iran and question just why the Foreign Secretary was moved. He also reminds us of how Geoffrey Howe was moved from the Foreign Office to be Leader of the House and went on to help bring down Thatcher.

Morgan points out that Blair's backbenchers were very quiet at PMQs yesterday.

The audience - One refers to "Tony Brown"! He suggests usurping Blair will put Labour back into control by the Left of the party and confine it to opposition for generations.

Another thinks Brown will just be the same as Blair. Another, a Labour member, speaks up to remind that many Labour members will not campaign whilst Blair is still leader. Blears nods. Dimbleby raises Blair's comments about finding support in the party when going round the country but the member hasn't met Blair yet! Blears acknowledges concerns but tries to downplay them and play the "this doesn't concern the public" card. But Morgan asks why has nearly every Cabinet post now got a new face? Blears responds with the "things are better than they were ten years ago" card rather than actually answer the question. She can't answer the question about the reshuffle.

Another audience member is a lifelong Labour voter wondering why the Labour leadership is so blind to what the public want and why the Cabinet can't realise they must replace Blair or lose the election.

None of the audience who've spoken so far seem to be pro Blair staying.

22:54 Is it right a man past retirement age should keep his salary, house, title and Jaguars without his job?

Campbell first! He thinks age is not an issue! He thinks the only reason for keeping Prescott was that sacking him would have led to a Deputy Leadership election (I'm not convinced this is the case - George Brown was a Deputy Leader outside government) and that might lead to a Leadership election.

Heseltine bats aside Prescott's silly attacks. He compares Prescott to a head of a public company or permanent secretary who would have to resign if they brought their companies/departments into ridicule.

Blears again tries to answer a different question. On the job she claims there is one there, with Prescott chairing a range of Cabinet committees. Interestingly she claims the party not the government pays her salary - is she wrong or has there been a change from earlier post holders? She also claims Hezza and Prezza have a lot in common. But Dimbleby, to wide applause, points out that she's not answering the question at hand about Prescott's current lack of job!

The questioner - He thinks Prescott needs to spend more time with his family.

Another audience member wonders if Prescott knows something about Blair that the latter doesn't want revealed.

Morgan: "What Prescott's been regenerating certainly isn't housing!" He tries to suggest Prescott's actions are those of a Conservative, and that Prescott should remember he's the one Socialist in the government. He thinks Blears' toughest job is defending Blair but defending Prescott, and calls for a sacking.

23:02 - Does the lack of clear Conservative policies mean Labour will win the next election?

Heseltine talks about the need to change the party, starting by first ensuring that it has changed so that people will actually listen to it. He's also flagging the "A-List" of candidates as another stage, and the production of policies is another stage. He's strong that policies cannot be produced overnight and that the job of Opposition is to expose the problems of government.

The questioner notes Cameron doesn't seem to have anything to say when pushed.

Campbell is asked if Cameron is a threat to the Lib Dems, given the poll ratings. Campbell tries to go with "Cameron says different things to different audiences" and suggests eighteen months may be too long to come up with policies, suggesting that oppositions should suggest alternatives now. He seems to be relishing a fight against Cameron "on Liberal Democrat ground". Do other Lib Dems share this? He says that to offer yourself as a serious alternative government you should offer serious policies. So where are the Lib Dem ones?

An audience member claims that Cameron is just like Blair. The Lib Dem watching with me thinks this is a Lib Dem member... until they say the Lib Dems will never be in power! Another, clearly Conservative, is glad about a realignment that will put Labour back on the left and the Conservatives on the centre right.

Morgan is surprised to be agreeing with a lot of what Cameron is saying and what he is doing. Morgan is an avowed Brownite and tries to claim the economic record for his hero. Doesn't he remember that Brown handed over interest rate control to the Bank of England.

Blears goes with the need for policies to be taken seriously, but gets interrupted by Morgan with "how big a wake up call do you need?" She's rattling of a load of things that don't inspire me.

Another audience member asks how one can trust Cameron without knowing what he's about.

23:11 - Dimbleby announces future venues. Next week they're in Canterbury, my old stomping ground.

23:12 - Dodgy intelligence led to the Iraq War and relates to the 7/7 bombings. Having been out all day I'm totally out of the loop on this story.

Campbell makes some informed points and raises concern about financial priorities given the numbers of people sympathetic to Al Quaeda in the UK. It's a good contribution but Campbell is not thought lacking on defence matters. This alone is not going to reassure people.

Blears points out that much of this is "in the benefit of hindsight" which is a difficult term. She points out the amount of spending has increased heavily since 9/11. However she's yet again being asked directly by Dimbleby in an attempt to focus her on various points such as whether she resents what the committee say. Campbell points out that hindsight helps people learn for the future.

Going to the audience one member calls for an end to the Iraq occupation and no invasion of Iran. Another calls for a public inquiry into the circumstances.

Morgan, "I don't know how intelligent you have to be to work in intelligence services"! He asks Blears directly if the invasion of Iraq may have made 7/7 happen, and the above audience member shouts out for her to answer. She says the evidence is not there that it would not have happened. Things are getting heated. Another points out that huge numbers opposed the war and the government ignored the will of the people in the name of imposing democracy.

Heseltine points out that Blears was a minister at the Home Office before quoting the report published today being harsh on that department, citing the excuse of insufficient resources, before asking Blears directly if requests for more resources were asked for and whether requests were turned down. He seems to have found a crucial point. As a former Defence Secretary he points out that the issue of Muslim fundamentalism was known about in the mid 1980s.

Going to the audience one suggests the tabloid press have stirred up problems.

Campbell reminds the audience that Blears was once set on an exercise to reconnect the government with Muslim communities - and nothing was heard about it again. He suggests it's not hindsight but precaution needed.

23:26 - Is hijacking the planes a legitimate way to claim asylum.

Morgan says no, this is unacceptable. He says that this is raising resentment and the British citizen has a right to ask why they are not receiving all the benefits of the hijackers. He has sympathy with those fleeing the Taliban but cannot accept hijacking the planes.

Heseltine wonders what would have happened in the 1960s and 1970s if Russians had hijacked a plane to flee to the west. Morgan feels it cannot be condoned under any circumstances, and also that Afghanistan is now a very different place from when they fled.

Blears thinks the government took the right action despite the judicial criticism as a balance of rights. When asked what will happen if the government wins the appeal they will deport the hijackers.

Morgan continues to dominate the show by pointing out that accepting any hijacking sends a message that hijacking is acceptable.

One audience member asks "if human rights have gone too far".

Campbell takes a self-confessed potentially unpopular stance and argues that human rights can never be devalued for any individuals without leading to others' rights being undermined.

Heseltine points out the human rights convention dates from the 1940s as an encouragement to eastern countries. He argues most asylum is economic migration not fleeing persecution and suggests that this needs dealing with.

And that's it. I think Piers Morgan came out best and Hazel Blears worst tonight. Maybe Morgan will one day find popularity to rival Ian Hislop!

Five years ago today

On May 11th 2001 I sat my last exam to date - a two hour paper for the History module Britain in the Age of Mass Democracy 1918-1997 at the University of Kent. (In case anyone's wondering, my subsequent courses since then have all been coursework only.) The exam lasted from 0930 until 1130 and took place in a sports hall.

Who'd have thought that exactly five years later I'd be at a sports hall for exam related purposes? Some things never change!

Who's keeping tabs on Peter Hain?

A recent search that brought someone to this blog was "peter hain" "women only shortlists" on Google. What's surprising is the ISP - nics.gov.uk, located in Belfast - i.e. the Northern Ireland Executive.

So a) Who is using the computer system whilst the Executive and Assembly remain suspended?

b) Who is trying to find out Peter Hain's stance on women only shortlists? It couldn't be whatever's left of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition could it? Or has the prominent Feminist Democratic Unionist Rhonda Paisley finally got a job working for her father's party?

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

The Question Time panelists

Ignore my flatmate's comment on my last post - it's sorted now and the blog will happen.

Question Time have now announced the panel for this week's show. We have:

Hazel Blears, the newly appointed Labour Party Chairman (*) and Minister without Portfolio. This time last week she was a minister at the Home Office "responsible for crime and security under Charles Clarke". Not only does she come with such a ringing deparmental recommendation, she was also appointed by Tony Blair without consulting Gordon Brown. So she must be the perfect person to rebuild party unity and confidence between the sides.

(* Since in past some of the regular readers have argued that the term "Chairman" is sexist, how do you feel about it being used for a Labour party figure?)

Michael Heseltine, the former Deputy Prime Minister and now head of the urban regeneration taskforce, building on his one time experience as effective "Minister for Liverpool" when he personally pioneered the government's regernative efforts after the early 1980s riots. Currently in the news for his row with John Prescott about just what the latter is actually doing, "Hezza" is in a rare period when he is not constantly in the news just for attacking the Conservative position on Europe.

Which is the better image of him?The image you've all been hoping to see againSir Menzies Campbell, apparently the leader of the Liberal Democrats. His predecessor was stabbed in the front by colleagues when the party started flatlining in the polls and Campbell was elected in the hope he could take the party forward. But instead the party failed to advance in the local elections - which is failure for a party that relies on local government gains to survive - and one can reasonably ask if getting rid of Charles Kennedy was a good move. Can Campell use his appearance to start to "raise his game"?

Piers Morgan, former editor of the Daily Mirror and famously far less popular than his nemesis Ian Hislop. Morgan was brought down over the printing of forged photographs, undermining confidence in our troops, but last week launched First News, a newspaper for nine to twelve year olds. Is this what years of competing with The Sun has led to?

It's far from a light weight panel, but I think Labour could do with a more heavyweight represenative. And is it really going to help protray Campbell as a dynamic forward looking leader by having him debating on a panel with a man whose political limelight ended a decade ago?

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...