Malik, Music & Me.

I've never had a serious love affair with music. There I've said it. I've always wanted to but it's just ...never happened for me. 

I enjoy music certainly, I have my favourite artists and have, in the past, attended concerts or gigs. I'm not saying that I'm impervious to music - it's more that I very rarely manage to connect meaningfully to it regardless of how much I want to. With very few exceptions, I go to concerts when someone chooses to take me to one and my catalogue of preferred artists is small, unfocused and uninformed. I rarely choose to listen to music over spoken word podcasts or go to a concert over a night at the theatre. I'm bemused, although envious, when people can lose themselves in music, naturally feel and follow a beat or return from classical concerts flushed with happiness and emotion.

Thankfully, however, there are the odd exceptions. This won't improve my image but I'll admit that musical theatre songs almost always work for me - although that's probably because they're so lyric centric. Jazz and old Torchsongs hit me where it matters and so make up a vast majority of my iTunes collection. Yeah, when I find what works for me I never let it go. Which is why I instantly bought both of Sixto Rodriguez's albums when I first heard them and continue, over a year later, to listen to them on a constant loop. I've gone alone to his concerts and bought the DVD of Searching for Sugarman, the documentary that brought him back to our attention. And it's why I can't stop thinking about the recent suicide of the director of the film Malik Bendjelloul. 

I think that for many people a particular song is important, not just for the music itself, but for its connection with an emotion, event or person. The way in which I was introduced to Rodriguez was incredible enough to create all those lasting connections for me instantly. I went to a Secret Cinema event, where you don't know what you're seeing, and it was a preview of Searching for Sugarman. We were at the beautiful Troxy in East London and it was packed. The film, in which Bendjelloul uncovers the amazing story of Rodriguez's iconic status in South Africa was responsible for bringing the singer-songwriter back to fame, delighted the audience. The soundtrack was Rodriguez's music and, by the end of the film, you loved him and his music. So when, in an outstanding finale, the real Rodriguez came onto the stage and played a concert you felt like a hardcore fan who'd waited forever for this opportunity to see him live. People were crying, surging forward and running close to the stage to touch the icon himself. Behind a curtain, just left of the stage, was the quiet, humble man responsible for making all this happen. Bendjelloul had chased this story for four years, using his iPhone when he ran out of money and never giving up. He'd told an amazing story beautifully and given Rodriguez the opportunity of a lifetime. 

Midway through the concert, exhilarated and joyous, I confidently drew back the curtain and reached out to Bendjelloul. Although enjoying the success of his film, he was defiant about ensuring Rodriguez got the lion's share of the attention and accepted my praise humbly. This was before the film shot to fame and won an Oscar so he was conscious about networking and, although I'm in no way a big fish, when I pitched the idea of the film becoming a stage musical he eagerly swopped cards with me and we began an email correspondence on the idea. Of course the film took off massively and he set off on a huge tour and heaven's knows what else. There was a big dip in communication but then, after a while, he got back in touch. He was busy and had next to no time but he just sent a sweet, polite email to let me know why he'd gone quiet and to thank me for my support. Him being so nice was the icing on the cake - there was nothing I didn't love about the film, the music and the people. 

Since that night I've found that listening to Rodriguez's music gives me that rare feeling of emotions bubbling up, memories of the night, the atmosphere of the larger story associated with the film and the first time Rodriguez stepped onto the stage. I'm not always conscious of the separate aspects of course, just of the overall feeling of wellbeing, excitement and connection when the music starts. I've taken the album on long drives, train trips, listened while working on hard projects...it's a great companion. I've started listening more closely to lyrics, understanding the metaphors and the aspects of songs I rarely stick with long enough to notice. Although Malik is not responsible for the music itself he is irretrievably tied up in my experience of it and so, when I heard that this young, handsome, ambitious, talented, humble man had died I was shocked. When I heard it was suicide, due to depression, I was beyond words. 

Look, there's recently been a spate of high profile suicides and early deaths and a lot of debate about whether the public outpouring of emotion is misplaced and phony due to the fact that, for the most part, we didn't even know these people personally. I don't have a clear opinion on this either way. I do think it's a bit ridiculous to mourn so publicly for a stranger but I'm also aware that these people were still presences in our lives, and those who seemed young and untouchable, so shock and sadness is a natural response. I knew next to nothing about LeWren Scott or Peaches Geldof but I was still saddened by their deaths. I didn't know Malik either, I met him but I didn't know him. However I felt, and still feel, a sadness on a different level for his death. My thinking is full of cliches such as 'such a waste', 'he had so much going for him' and on and on. Of course I know nothing about his personal life or his experience of depression. Regardless I haven't stopped thinking about him. Perhaps it's as simple as a man I met, whose hand I touched and who was nice to me committed suicide and I can't understand why. Maybe it really is just a normal human reaction to that simple fact. Maybe it's because his work affected me so much and I'm mourning the impossibility of more of this. Or maybe it's just that he was a young man who, despite achieving what so many only dream of, was so desperately unhappy. 

Whatever the reason may be I know that he made his mark on the world and in my life. Either way it seems fitting that as I wrap this article up, having listened to Rodriguez's albums while writing, the song I Think of You is playing. 

To you, Malik.

Why I'm not 'Family Guy's' target audience

Last year I wrote an article on the whole Seth MacFarlane at the Oscars furore*. It was, if it had to be said to ultimately swing a certain way, fairly supportive of MacFarlane's performance. It wasn't that I enjoyed it particularly, just that nothing about it was particularly surprising or unexpected and, for that reason, I found the hyped up public backlash following it completely ridiculous. 

The truth is I hardly knew anything about MacFarlane before the Oscars. I didn't know what he looked like or what his style was bar the one piece of his work I'd seen (and not really liked) Ted. I suppose I'd seen odd moments of Family Guy through friends and flatmates being fans but I'd never really being pulled in by the programme in any way. So I educated myself a little and started watching American Dad and Family Guy. The former I warmed to quite quickly. I didn't find it laugh out loud funny or particularly scintillating viewing but I enjoyed the characters, the story lines, Roger the alien's many disguises and the absurdity of the arguments and beliefs of the super patriotic Stan Smith. I 'got' the point of the series and Patrick Stuart was a bonus. 

Family Guy felt like the same programme but with less of a clear point and a lot more crassness, crudeness and unnecessary smashing of taboos. I saw the same 'jokes' being played out over and over again. I saw the humour getting lazier and lazier with the writers resorting to jews, homosexuals or trans people being, not only part of the joke, but the punchline itself. The joke always seemed to be on a minority group, someone with a disability or considered 'freaky'. The point at which a flashback was so shocking I switched the TV off immediately I realised I'm not Family Guy's target audience (Lois tells Peter she doesn't want him to babysit incase it ends up like the last time she left him alone with the kids. There's a flashback to the two of them standing by a graveside crying while Peter bemoans the fact that he shook, and killed, his son.). 

This is okay. We can't all be fans of every TV show. I appreciate that, for many, the pure shock factor is enough for this show to be hilarious. I also know that a lot of people believe the show is intelligent satire, a commentary on the negative aspects of our world rather than becoming a contributor to them. No, despite the fact that, for me it's tacky and upsetting, I wouldn't dream of judging whether or not Family Guy is 'funny' or 'should be broadcast'. These things are subjective and it's the fact that we're all so different that has resulted in such a rich variety of entertainment shows being created. 

Still, I was bothered about what it was I found so troublesome about this programme. I've probably watched the entire series now and, although I've rarely laughed out loud, I've found moments I find amusing, entertaining or clever. I certainly think, though not all that easily shockable to begin with, I've become inured to much of what bothered me in the first place (not that I'm sure I'm pleased about this). Keeping this in mind, realising that it's pretty easy to watch and becoming familiar with the characters and aspects of the show I do like, I couldn't work out what was still bothering me about the show, what was leaving me with a bitter feeling after each viewing. Then I read this paragraph in the novel Beautiful Ruins** (about a musical comedian doing his first show at the Edinburgh Fringe) and it put its finger on exactly what I felt about Family Guy. I don't think this revelation will bother Seth MacFarlane much, nor do I think that it should be applied to everything in order to discover its 'worth'. I don't think that everything has to be 'beautiful', but I do want art and entertainment to, in some way, elevate itself from pure crassness. 

At the other end of the bridge, Pat came across a little quartet - cello, two violins, electric piano - kids playing Bach over the Thames for change. He sat and listened, trying to catch his breath but awestruck by their casual proficiency, by their simple brilliance. Christ, if street musicians could do that? What was he doing here? He'd always felt insecure about his own musicianship; he could chunk along with anyone on the guitar and be dynamic onstage, but Benny was the real musician. They'd written hundreds of songs together, but standing on the street, listening to these four kids matter-of-factly play the canon, Pat suddenly saw his best songs as ironic trifles, smart-ass commentaries on real music, mere jokes. Jesus, had pat ever made anything...beautiful? The music these kids played was like a centuries-old cathedral; Pat's lifework had all the lasting power and grace of a trailer. 

*http://tinydanser-mytheatreblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/seth-macfarlane-at-oscars-sexist.html
**Beautiful Ruins, Walters, Jess, Harper Perennial, p. 159

Seth MacFarlane at the Oscars - Sexist Schmexist.

This is my late addition to the Oscar furore. I've been scribbling thoughts down since the night but I found it hard to pull all the strands together with the cacophony of crazy opinions whirling around out there in the ether. Human beings love a bit of hysteria don't we? Hype, hysteria...for some reason we'll use any excuse to turn into sheep and blindly follow the flock. Or we're extremely vocal in opposing the hype, thereby immediately becoming part of it. Either way, through a combination of facebook, twitter, reddit, blogging, radio, opinion TV shows and more, the Western world is insistent upon asserting our right to free speech at absolutely every turn. 

In fact it's the idea of free speech that seems to cause controversy from all quarters. With half of us clinging onto this right for dear life and the other half getting more and more sensitive to language and opinions expressed in the media it's, frankly, all starting to get a bit silly. This is why, more than anything else, once again the topic most debated after the 85th Academy Awards was not the content of the winning films but the performance of its host Seth MacFarlane. 

I'll say right here that I'm not an advocate of entirely free speech. Or at least not the decision to use it regardless of the consequences. I've written before about how unnecessary it seems to purposely create bad feeling, offence or else solely for it's own sake. I know others believe that it's important to have the option to do that and, while I respect their opinions, for me it's just as horrendous to purposely upset and target others for no real gain as it is to stifle their speech.

Having said this I really think it's time that people stopped laying in wait ready to take offence. I don't think every comment needs to be deconstructed to see whether it's possible to infer a negative intent from it, I don't think that people should be attacked for accidentally or purposely utilising a word that doesn't fit into others' definition of 'acceptable' and I don't think that making the discussion of appropriate language a subject for academic debate really helps change anything at a grassroots of society level. On that note I understand that catching people out early helps to expose and pinpoint potentially harmful ideas before they become lodged in society's subconscious. I just think we need to stop being quite so didactic. 

I think Seth MacFarlane, on the whole, sucked at the Oscars. I don't think he held his own, I thought his humour was crass and juvenile and yes, he talked about women in a pretty ignorant way. But this man is famous for creating Family Guy and the movie Ted. Both can also be described using the adjectives above. What exactly were people expecting? That he was going to suddenly morph into a sycophantically sweet, highbrow, suave Hollywood host? There were so many other options they could have gone with if that's what they wanted. It's too late to feign surprised outrage now. 

As is usual with the web there is already so much out there to try to deal with in this blog so, to directly address a few things in more detail, I'm using one of the many anti-MacFarlane articles that went viral soon after the event. This one is from BuzzFeed*, was viewed by over 700,000 people and I found it on a friend's facebook wall under the title 'horrific'. For me it's a clear example of how our society seems to garner so much of it's information and opinions in the guise of badly informed hype. 

9 Sexist Things That Happened at the Oscars

1. The Boob song happened

Yes, the boob song was crap. It wasn't funny, it wasn't original and yep it seems a bit to weird to talk about boobs rather than the fact that the films were innovative pieces of art with heartrending stories and strong actresses. But, to be fair to MacFarlane, he's a comedian, he's not there to say what everyone else is saying and it was framed as a joke, as a bad decision to perform at the Oscars, in a scene that drew to attention his juvenile humour. Plus, why all the outcry over men objectifying women? Do we not devote hundreds of pages both online and in magazines to photos of Ryan Gosling's naked torso? Do we not flock to the cinemas to see beautifully sculpted males in topless roles? I can assure you that the first time I saw a film with Brad Pitt in it I was shocked he could actually act because all I'd ever seen, heard or read about him in mainstream media focused on his face, torso and lovely little bum. How would we feel if it'd been a song about penises in film? Would it still be sexist? If no then...why not? If yes then relax, it could've just as easily have been penises if a woman was hosting. But we chose a man so, y'know, deal with it. 

2. The Prospect of George Clooney getting with Quvenzhane Wallis was discussed. 

No it wasn't. This is what Seth MacFarlane said, "To give you an idea just how young she is, it'll be 16 years before she'll be old for Clooney". That was it. Now once again YES IT IS A TASTELESS JOKE. But, and I swear this'll be the last time I say this, that's the style that we accept Seth MacFarlane brings to his performances. So on that basis what's the big deal? It's not an actual suggestion that George Clooney has ever, will ever or should ever take a nine year old to bed. I'm sorry to have to say that but that's essentially what everyone freaking out is insinuating. If anything it's a joke on Clooney. Hence why, immediately afterwards, it was him to whom MacFarlane 'apologised'. It was a comment on how his girlfriends are way younger than his age. It was making fun of George Clooney, a Hollywood stalwart, and to infer anything else from it is ridiculous. Seriously. Try to articulate exactly what you think Seth MacFarlane was suggesting. 

3. There was a 'joke' about domestic violence. 

Sigh. He said "Django is a movie where a woman is subjected to violence, or as we call it, a Chris Brown and Rihanna date movie". So everyone is making a big hullaballo about - 'Domestic Violence isn't funny'. Of course it's not funny. MacFarlane wasn't suggesting we laugh at the idea of Rihanna being beaten up. He was drawing attention to how ridiculous it is that Chris Brown, a known abuser, has a successful career and a continued relationship with the same woman. You know what's worse than making a joke about Chris Brown? Perpetuating his career, producing his albums, promoting his performances, selling his songs, publishing interviews with him. If a man can publicly be known as having attacked his girlfriend and maintains a career in a high profile industry where he, like it or not, appears as a role model and has great influence then that's when we should worry. 

4. Jennifer Aniston got called a stripper. 

Jennifer Aniston and Channing Tatum came on stage and MacFarlane said 'Of our next two presenters at least one is honest about being a former exotic dancer'. And Channing Tatum used to be an exotic dancer. Soooo...not sexist. Because Channing's a guy. So rather than calling Aniston a stripper he was simply bringing up the fact that one of them definitely was a stripper. Not really funny either. A bit weird. But not sexist. 

5. Seth MacFarlane made fun of women for dieting. 

So? They do. He said, "For all those women who had the "flu". It paid off. Looking good." I think it was entirely unnecessary but it's not a lie. The scrutiny of women on the red carpet at the Oscars is huge and, for that reason, women do crazy stuff in Hollywood to try and look good. I think men probably do too but it's not as widespread or obvious. But why not make fun of it? In the big wide world it is a little bit silly. 

6. He also said 'Zero Dark Thirty' was evidence that women are difficult. 

He didn't 'say' that. He made a joke about it. That doesn't mean he thinks it's true. It probably means the opposite. The humour in the joke came from the fact that it's a super heavy movie about torture, so to boil it down to that explanation is both ridiculous and amusing. Lots of us laughed. We were all female. It was one of the better jokes actually. Couldn't make that joke about a guy. The lead role is a lady.

7. And then he talked about the Kardashians having facial hair. 

BOMBSHELL! I'm not going to defend him here. That's mean. Not funny. Unnecessary. I can't think of a way not to take that personally either for the Kardashians or for women in general who are selfconcious about possibly having facial hair. Don't perpetuate the idea that something about a woman in unnatural or ugly. And there's not really another way this could have been taken. 

8. There was this questionable joke about Jack Nicholson's house.

They said there was going to be an orgy at Jack Nicholson's house. This was either a completely random joke or it's been suggested that it was an allusion to the fact that Roman Polanski raped a girl at Jack Nicholson's old house. There's not really enough evidence to assume the latter so it seems silly to get offended on the basis that it 'might be'. Also I don't think it's sexist. Rape is pretty bad so I don't think we can assume he was condoning it which, I think, is probably the only way it could be sexist.

9. MacFarlane said it was fine that no one could understand Selma Hayek, because all they want to do is look at her. 

He was calling her beautiful but he was also kind of suggesting that she had no other discernable use or skill so yes I can see that this would have been sexist if it was actually what he said. What he actually said was, "Well we have finally reached the point in the ceremony where either Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz or Selma Hayek come on stage and we have no idea what they're saying but we don't care because they're so attractive. Please welcome Selma Hayek." You know Javier Bardem's a guy right? Right? 

I think it's clear that a lot of MacFarlane's jokes sucked. There was a bit of an unevenly weighted focus on women and their appearances which I'm glad has been flagged up. However in responding so melodramatically to his performance what critics have actually achieved is to create lots of copy and content for magazines and the internet, to draw attention to the Awards ceremony and MacFarlane that's better than any paid for publicity could ever manage and, essentially, hand power over to him to continue to garner attention, unearth his supporters and raise his profile doing exactly what he's doing. 

*http://www.buzzfeed.com/hillaryreinsberg/sexist-things-at-the-oscars

OSCARS: STICKS AND STONES EH?

Sticks and stones. I'm not going to recite the old rhyme. We all know it. This, therefore, makes it all the more mystifying to me that we seem so loath to apply it to our own lives. Why, in a world full of so many tangible things that can hurt us, are we insistent upon taking offence at words?

Yes, language can hurt. I'm not denying the power of words. As someone hoping to make a living from writing and speaking words that'd be, at the very least, a stupid thing to do. I know that books and plays have moved people so powerfully that they've sent facist dictators and communist countries into panics of censorship and burning, I know that blasphemy and swearing are offensive to many people and I totally agree that it's appropriate to teach children to use words wisely. Like I say, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be boundaries, that words should be used willy nilly or that we relax the rules so as to attempt to diminish the potential power of words. What I'm saying is that 'taking offence' at jokes and the way in which people choose to express themselves is pointless, limiting, antisocial and downright childish. Not everybody in the world is articulate. Whether it's due to education, society, communication difficulties or a generation thing, everybody makes a verbal faux pas at some stage. It doesn't mean they don't mean well.

There are 7 billion people alive in the world. We span all ages, races, genders, religions and political ideals. We are not all going to agree. That's a given. I'm going to find something funny that Ahmed in Iran is going to find blasphemous. Ahmed is going to find something important that Oscar in Australia will write off as mere twaddle. And Oscar is going to find something sexy that Valerie in the US is going to find revolting. Some of you are going to find the fact that I used the generic name Ahmed for an Iranian man just a little bit racist. Probably. I'm sure someone will. What I don't understand is how, knowing this, we still race to debate, discuss and demand apologies after any joke or comment is made that can't be immediately identified as a non-offensive, all-inclusive statement.

I watched the Oscars. I saw Chris Rock made a speech about how easy it was to earn millions of dollars doing funny voices for animations. I laughed. And laughed. Rock took a risk, said something quirky, honest and with good humour. In doing so he lit up the stage, provoked a reaction and livened up the night. I identified. Working in the arts, though it has its challenges, doesn't exactly stack up next to the trials and tribulations of a brain surgeon. Let's remember that and not take ourselves too seriously. That doesn't diminish the skills, talent or commitment of the actors who make us smile and laugh at the animations we flock to see in our millions. But apparently some 'believe that Rock overstepped some boundaries in dissing fellow actors while presenting an award meant to honor their work'. Translated: Some people can't take a joke.

I'd actually say that I'm fairly conservative. I wouldn't say I 'rock the boat'. So when Billy Crystal glibly said “I loved that movie (The Help)…when I saw it, I wanted to hug the first black woman that I saw. Which from Beverly Hills is about a 45 minute drive", a little bit of me went all Guardian reader panicky. 'Can he say that?' 'Isn't it racist?' 'Is he undoing all the good work that's happening this moment by Hollywood paying homage to black actors?' No, no and no. You know how when you have a really close friend, you can say anything to them and they still know you love them? Yeah. That's kind of what's happening here. Why does Crystal need to tiptoe around the subject of race? He already said he loved the movie. His joke, if we're going to really investigate it, says that he feels positively towards black people. Also, if we're saying it wasn't funny, that's fine. It's fine because at least it was based in truth. Beverly Hills is not known for it's high population of black people. That's a comment my sister made recently whilst standing in Beverly Hills. That's something I, coming from a very multicultural part of London, noticed immediately when spending a week there. 45 minutes is an exaggeration of course but that's what comedy is. Taking the truth and exaggerating. Embellishing. So what's the issue? According to the twitter/blogger sphere:

@kimkane1 It bothers me that none of the writers stopped to think about the feelings of the other black actors and actresses in the room. It bothers me that some in the audience were so de-sensitized that they laughed out loud.

@thewanderingjew: Will Billy Crystal apologize for the racist joke? #oscars

@SALLevation: #BillyCrystalRacist #ThatsAll

@ch3ryl: @billycrystal shows his age in making a #racist joke about wanting to "hug a black woman" post The Help re: @OctaviaSpencer #oscars

emsmiley: So, according to #BillyCrystal, there are no black people in Beverly Hills...racist much?? #oscars" Very uncomfy moment.

'Billy Crystal controversially joked that he wanted to 'hug a black woman' after The Help' The Daily Mail

There are black people still very much considered a lower class in South Africa. There are murders and corruption of black people happening in England. There are hate crimes taking place against black people in America. There are kids suffering from race related bullying. So tell me why Billy Crystal's vaguely amusing but admittedly sub-par joke based entirely in truth, and in no way hostile, is in any way distasteful, disruptive or dangerous to our society. Please, tell me.

PS I like how Brande Victorian put it: 'Maybe I’m naive but I actually saw that joke as more of a commentary on the lack of black women in Hollywood—you know the very issue we’re screaming and kicking about every day...Overall, I think people are being a little too sensitive about Billy Crystal’s routine last night and we’re starting to find anything that touches on race to be racist. Pretty soon that double standard of black people being able to crack jokes about white people, but white people not being allowed to say anything about black folks is going to come back and bite us—hard.' **

* http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oscars-2012-Chris-Rock-Offends-with-Animation-Joke-255179.shtml
** http://madamenoire.com/141224/billy-in-blackface-racist-oscar-routine-isnt-a-big-hit/