BBC Radio Drama ‘Old School Ties’

by Laura Lai/ Review

Inspired most probably by the beautiful school ties of Maverick and Goose from the movie the ‘Top Gun’, I came across the BBC Radio Drama ‘Old School Ties’ by Sue Eckstein, where the main character, Christopher Nichols – a popular comedian – read in the school gazette that his old colleague and friend, William Hennessey, died.

            The story is that Chris and William were both pupils in a religious – oriented college and, with time, they lost contact. Motivated to know the reason why his colleague and best friend died, Chris returns to the college, as there were no other point to start from, particularly looking for Father Dominic, whom he finally met and learned the reason why his best friend died.

The whole drama seems to me artistically built on oppositions. From the very beginning the listeners follow the story of an alive and a dead character. In his endeavor, Christopher is confronted with the rigidity of the college – father answering his call, who constantly repeats him that ‘I’m afraid we cannot give out personal information about any of our pupil, past or present’, but he finds Father Dominic, who was not exactly the Gregorian – music lover, but a lover of punk and rock. This drama unfolds further marvelously around other oppositions: that of hope against despair, of late or never too late, and it ends with looking forward from the top of the Green Village heal.

This drama story, as well as the friendship story of Maverick and Goose, touched my heart. It reminded me of my student years and of my colleague and best friend, Andrea. Both of us very good quality human beings, with a lot of common sense, respecting each other; it was a honest and fair friendship with nothing selfish, nothing ulterior, and no competitions among each other, but every time very happy for each other’s grades. Years – long we took the bus together, sat next to each other in the class and after class – when time allowed both – we worked together. And we had never ever had the slightest dispute. I remember that day when I left for a student conference and she didn’t, but she was invited to some colleagues of ours. When I returned she said to me ‘you have no idea how jealous they are on you being so beautiful!’ But she was not and she never joined those people ever again.

            Similarly to Chris and William we lost contact as she moved to another country from another continent. It was the time of no mobile phones, no WhatsApp, of incipient internet, but of the writing letters. In drama and in movies there must always be a dramatic moment. But in real life two good quality people, once colleagues and best friends can very well be very much alive and happy!

BBC Radio Drama ‘Fair Game’

by Laura Lai/ Review

The BBC Radio Drama ‘Fair Game’ by Dave Simpson is a psychological drama of great technicality, particular the character arches. It is the story of Tom – an employee in a company and of Sue – a new employee in the same company.

From Sue’s first working days Tom is pressuring her into his unfair game, as they were both married. The first time they go out, Sue did it more from politeness as she was the new employee, but Tom was focused on assessing her happy marriage to her husband and with lies about his life and by inculcating some doubts in Sue’s mind, he was pursuing psychologically his goal. But Sue tells her husband about this evening. The climax of this story is a conference weekend. Tom arranges with another colleague to be alone with Sue the whole weekend. Sue realized she was set up and Tom’s wife, Helen, discovered that her husband was trying to cheat on her again. The end is surprising and moralizing.

The story of this drama must have been inspired from other such harassment stories at work place. I personally never understood how characters like Tom can be so confident that the other one is not noticing his psychological tricks. Although the beginning of Tom and Sue’s story may sound familiar to many women, the ending differs from case to case.

In this drama, Sue was honest with her husband, Michael, and Tom’s wife, Helen, was already considering the divorce. But the situations can be very different: Sue and Tom, for example, could be single, and Sue not liking Tom; or one of them married, etc. etc. Tom learned that not everybody is interested his unfair games. But do characters like Tom ever learn their lesson?

A Great Political Comedy vs. A Bad Political Joke. And the Freedom of Speech (I)

by Laura Lai/ Comment

During the recent campaign for the European elections there was an incident involving most probably an opponent of BREXIT and the President of the new BREXIT Party, Nigel Farage, the later being attacked with a milk shake. Furthermore, on 13^th of June 2019 – almost a month after the BREXIT Party won the European elections in the United Kingdom – a British comedian, Jo Brand, told the audience in a comedy show:

‘I’m kind of thinking why bother with a milkshake when you can get some battery acid? (Laugther) I’m not going to do it. It’s pure fantasy, but milkshakes are pathetic. (Laughter)’

And to this particular way of thinking and of fantasizing reacted the British Prime Minister Theresa May, comedian and podcaster Konstantin Kisin on BBC Breakfast program, Nigel Farage in an interview for The Sun, and many other people calling the Nigel Farage radio show on LBC, where a young man, a victim of an acid attack, was invited to speak in the very beginning of this show. Jo Brand apologized and the British Metropolitan Police stopped investigating this ‘inflamatory’ joke for many Britions, as incitement to violence.

However, the questions remain: Wasn’t it freedom of speech in a democratic country? Does freedom has limits? If it does, what that might be? Can anybody claim that it can assess the harm already done by suggesting such an idea? How could such a substitute for the milkshake have crossed somebody’s mind, when politicians are traditionally attacked with eggs to express disapproval? Isn’t it democracy that encourages the difference of opinions and toleration of all kinds of diversities, and discourages any form of violence?

I subscribe to those considering this joke as being a bad one and not funny at all, although on the spot there was an impressive laughter from the audience. To my opinion this joke had no place either in an already long-time boiling British society on the issue of BREXIT or in an already violent world, which does not need inspiring ideas on ways to harm somebody with whose views we may happen to disagree. Therefore, I do not think that milkshakes are pathetic. In general, I think it is pathetic to be a human being – as opposed to an animal – meaning endowed with reason and with ability to speak, to be educated and blessed to be born both in a democratic society and in such a technological era and not to be able to formulate logical, coherent, competing and very articulate counter-arguments in a democratic political competition, but to lower your human dignity to throwing to people, especially that people communicate each other their agreements and disagreements through speech.

            There is no doubt that freedom of speech is the core of all democracies. This bad joke of a British comedian brings back to public attention this old question of freedom of speech. I recall that in 2006 a Danish cartoon writer was attacked, a few years later the French cartoon writers were murdered. United Kingdom, Denmark, France these are all examples of old democracies. Indeed, according to the theory of democracy, any censor attempt of a state makes the state less democratic.

            But I would first pause on what freedom is, in general. Although every time I had to choose – as a political science student – between political history and political philosophy, I have always chosen the former for its character of a constantly unfolding story, I have never missed any of the political philosophy classes. I actually have never missed any of my political science classes. I remember that at some point one of the courses was about John Rawls – American Professor of Political Philosophy at Harvard University – political philosophical ideas.

His idea was that each individual is free in a democracy, but that one’s freedom should not prevent somebody else from enjoying its right to freedom. It is quite hard to apply such an idea in day-to-day life, when a smoker has its rights on a terrace and so is a non-smoker, for example. And it is challenging in finding a working solution for both sides. Democracy recognizes the rights of both, accommodates both views and requires discussing to find a working solution. Therefore, according to my understanding of Rawl’s view the individual itself need to establish some lines not to cross, in order for somebody else to enjoy its freedom, but the democratic state can also settle some guidelines – a set of laws – and establish whether or not a line was crossed. In the case of Jo Brand’s joke, the British Metropolitan Police wanted to investigate this joke as ‘instigation to violence’ because the United Kingdom as a state has laws against instigation to violence.

A Great Political Comedy vs. A Bad Political Joke. And the Freedom of Speech (II)

by Laura Lai/ Comment

The fact of having laws like the one against ‘instigation to violence’ does not mean that the state is authoritarian and that it does not allow freedom of speech. It does allow it, but it watches – as a state does – over the ways the freedom of speech is expressed, particularly formally and in public space. Comedians like Jo Brand and all public figures, in general, have a public platform attended by large audiences. This comes with a certain responsibility in choosing the expressed words while exercising one’s right to freedom of speech, because the public platform and the large audience is also a privilege to be able to bring a change – in better, not in worse – or to make the public think, ask itself questions – in a constructive way, not a destructive one. Therefore, I disagree with Kisin’s view that a comedian does not know whether a joke was bad or good, but after it was said, because of the responsibility that public figures should make prove of while speaking, let alone the fact that all humans think while or before they speak. Kisin may also be right, but analyzing the reaction of the audience that laughed at this joke, one might say that it was a good one. Then analyzing the general reactions to this joke, it looks like being a bad joke.

‘Yes, Prime Minister’ is an example of a highly appreciated and very funny 1980s British comedy. It identified things that are ridiculous about politicians in or about certain political processes. Comedy does that by definition: it makes fun of the arrogance, of the hypocrisy, of the stupidity etc.  I personally find ridiculously complicated the European Union decision-making process. And I would like to make this a laughable part for everybody, without suggesting any ideas. The script writers of ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ must have counted on both the public and the politicians having a sense of humor. Many from the audience have reflected on the topics and asked themselves if politics was really that way. And we all had a healthy and good laugh with this comedy, without being provided ideas about how politics should be. Nigel Farage declares himself to be a politician with a sense of humor. In an interview for the Sun he declares not having any problem being ‘cartooned, mocked to make the subject of all kinds of jokes. I don’t really mind. In fact, to be honest with you, I quite enjoy most of them.’ But he perceives this bad joke of Jo Brand as a possible future threat to his security.

And when a politician or a citizen feels intimidated to express its point of view, in this case on what’s best for Britain, this also raises questions about a country being democratic, without the state having censored anything. The initial reaction of the British Metropolitan Police using the law against ‘instigation to violence’ was intended to actually watch over citizens’ right to freedom of speech (and Nigel Farage has his right to freedom of speech, too), without being intimidated with ideas of violence, so that the United Kingdom to continue to be a democratic country, where both supporters and opponents of an idea or a vision to be able to freely express their points of view.

All in all, it is not human typical behavior to react by throwing things at people, but to articulate words and make out of them great arguments. Democracy is about supporters and opponents of an idea or a vision. Democracy encourages the differences of all kinds, including the difference of opinion. Democracy tolerates differences of all kinds, including the difference of opinions. And when in a political race within a democracy, it is exactly democracy that encourages the battle of ideas and of the arguments.

 One knows a politician who makes good use of technologies to promote its achievements and its vision? Democracy offers its opponents the same possibility to make use of technology, too – maybe the very same platform! – to come with a better idea, a more elaborate argument and even a greater vision. This can be constructive and beneficial for everybody. But democracy is not toleration of any physically or verbally violence. Having laws watching over our lives in a society means that we do not live anymore in a state of nature where everything is allowed, but in a state of law, where one is free as long as its freedom does not overlap with somebody else’s right to enjoy its freedom.

Creative Writing Exercise #6

TOP GUN: FROM TRUMP TO TARANTINO

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

When I was a student, I was studying all Political Sciences’ subjects in English mainly with American professors: the courses, the seminars, the presentations, the papers – they were all in English. And I was learning from Quentin Skinner – the philosopher. Now that I’m not anymore a student, although still studying as one, I’m learning from Quentin Tarantino – his video writing master classes, his writing tips, interviews, etc. First, Quentin Skinner, then Quentin Tarantino… Life unfolds alphabetically?! If it so, then I'll get to ‘W’ from ‘Writings' Publishing’! Well, at least it looks like I kept the habit of learning from the best.

In a writing advices collections Quentin Tarantino says that the best written script is from his point of view ‘Top Gun’, directed by Tony Scott and Joseph Kosinski. He considers the writing sub-version (or subversion) as being at an art level. And I consider the writing sub-version as being very interesting now that I understood what Tarantino means by it. For my work-in-progress that is a political drama on BREXIT I can’t use this technique, because I try to be so objective that the reader to find it impossible, if possible, to guess which side I am on this political topic.  However, the technique of the sub-version dialogue is brilliant! It makes two stories – a visible one and a-between-the-lines one, also visible, but one must be Tarantino to see it – unfolding simultaneously and chronologically. Fascinating!

But it is not from Quentin Tarantino that I’ve got to ‘Top Gun’ – a movie I watched two or three times, because I do so with movies I like (‘Schindler’s List’, ‘Titanic’ etc.). At this one I like the way the story of a top fighting pilot student, Maverick (Tom Cruise), is presented. On the one side I’m watching the learning and brilliant student, his competition with other brilliant students (Iceman (Val Kilmer), for example), his beautiful friendship with Goose (Anthony Edwards), and his love story with Charlie (Kelly McGillis). And the soundtrack of this movie is sensational! From a documentary counting 7 things viewers may not know about ‘Top Gun’, I learned that the love story was completed at a later phase. Anyway, all different aspects of Maverick’s life are so well combined that I have the whole picture of Maverick as a student, who – on the other side – goes … global by engaging in a pilot fight with Russian top fighting pilots. Following this fight, Goose died. Then I followed the downfall of a young man and brilliant student wounded by his tragic loss. And I watched him rising again at the end of the movie, when he showed up at the graduation ceremony, Iceman being among the first to give him a friendly welcome.

            It is due to Donald Trump that I remembered this great movie, ‘Top Gun’, because I’m a subscriber to the ‘White House Newsletter’. The U.S. President Donald Trump has recently participated to the graduation ceremony of the Air Force Academy, where he delivered a speech. Chronologically, I first heard the speech, then remembered ‘Top Gun’, and last but not least came across Quentin Tarantino’s illuminating remarks on the-in-between-lines story unfolding as an artistic magic trick.

            And I thought: How would that be if the end of the movie ‘Top Gun’ – when Maverick shows up at the graduation ceremony – would overlap with Donald Trump’s discourse at this year Air Force Academy Graduation Ceremony? Inspired by what was really said on this occasion, here is the way the overlapping would sound with the U.S. President Donald Trump taking the floor:

            ‘Thank you! Please! You just like all those brand new, beautiful airplanes that we’re                         buying!

(Laughter)

Hello, Air Force Academy! It’s been a long time since I’ve been here. And what a place! (…) I’m thrilled to be here with all of you as we celebrate the incredible class of 2019!

(Audience cheers)

And you truly make America proud. You make all of us proud. Thank you very much! Great job! Great job!

(Applause)

And I want to thank Secretary Wilson for the introduction and for her two years of service as the first graduate of this academy. And I want to thank three other remarkable former cadets….’:Iceman!

(Applause)

‘I thought you’re younger than that!

(Laughter/Applause)

Thank you! Great job! Respected by everybody.’

Maverick! Where are you Maverick? Please stand up! Get up Maverick!

(He stands up/applause)

And Goose! I would like everybody to stand up and pay respect for his tribute by taking a moment of silence.

(There is a moment of silence)

Goose, we applaud you! We salute you all!

(Applause)

‘And that is what your time at this great academy has been all about: preparing you to do whatever it takes to learn, to adapt and to win, win, win. (…) Over the past four years that’s just what you’ve done. You’ve worked. You’ve preserved – persevered. You’ve excelled. You’ve done so many things that nobody else can do. And in the end, you’ve come up on top. (…)’

(Applause)

When the Holocaust is not a Rock Star… (I)

by Laura Lai/ Essay

When the Holocaust is not a rock star only 45 percent of the Americans can name one concentration camp, and across Europe half of those more than 7,000 interviewed people in a public opinion poll (from Sept. 2018, with more than 1,000 respondents from Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Poland and Sweden) answered that they know a fair amount about the Holocaust. In France, for example, 20 percent of youngsters aged 18 to 34 has never heard of it; 12 percent of the young Austrians did not hear of it, and 4 out of 10 Austrian adults have never heard of it. In general, 1 in 20 Europeans have never heard of the Holocaust and one in twenty adults in Great Britain do not believe that Holocaust actually happened. What is the Holocaust? How can genocides be prevented?

            The Holocaust was genocide. Etymologically this word is made of two Greek words: holos, which means ‘complete’, and kaustos, which means ‘burned’. It seems that the word ‘genocide’ itself – defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.’ – did not exist before the Holocaust. This word was first formulated in 1944 by a Polish (of Jewish origin) Lawyer, Raphael Lemkin (1900 – 1959). He combined the Greek word geno (meaning ‘race’ or ‘tribe’) with the Latin word cide (meaning ‘killing’). The Holocaust was a mass genocide during the Second World War, targeting the European Jewish population with the precise purpose of annihilation: Until the end of the war it is said that 2/3 of the European Jewish population was annihilated, meaning around 6 million people.

            Nowadays, almost 76 years after the end of the Second World War, 50 percent of the respondents could say how many Jewish victims were, and 8 percent consider the number as being exaggerated. It also means that 8 percent cannot believe that people are capable of such a mass murder against other people.

Within this ignorance framework genocide happened again. It happened in Asia (Cambodia) in the '70s and it had 1,7 million victims. It happened again in Europe, in ex – Yugoslavia between 1992 and 1995 targeting the Muslim population of Bosnia – Herzegovina and it was called ‘ethnic cleansing’. It happened in Africa (Rwanda) in 1994, when in three months – from April to July – 500,000 Tutsi minority were killed by the majority and ruling Hutus. North and South Sudan civil war and Darfur are other examples of genocide usually called ‘mass slaughter’, and the list of examples from across the world can, unfortunately, go on. Recent events in Sudan’s capital Khartoum brought again an alarming number of victims.

When the Holocaust is not a Rock Star… (II)

For a maximized image, please click on the cartoon.

by Laura Lai/ Essay

Genocide – be it ‘Holocaust’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘mass slaughter’, ‘racial killing’ etc. – happened and can happen again anytime anywhere. Nobody can guarantee that genocide will not happen again. But we can diminish the probability for it to happen again. How can genocide be prevented?

            On the one side, 2/3 of the respondents (and 80 percent of the Poles) consider commemorating the Holocaust, for example, helps ensure that it will not happen again. Therefore, commemoration is one suggested stream.

            When a tragedy happens to a family or to a group of families, people usually say or think that whatever we do, nobody will bring back to the family(ies) their dear lost ones. Indeed, the caused sufferance is so deep, that everything we do can only comfort the family(ies) or those who survived. And one of the ways to bring some comfort is for as many as possible of us to pay respect by commemorating. What is commemoration? It is remembrance. People usually take a moment of silence, bring a flower, participate in a march, or give a pure thought.

            Another stream is to find, to prosecute and to convict those responsible for the sufferance caused by the genocide. This ‘making of justice’ – as we generally call it – is also meant to comfort the families who lost dear members and those who survived, who may or may never overcome the loss or the experience depending on their strength. The fact that the guilty ones were found, prosecuted and sentenced gives an insurance thought of relief that it will not happen again. And it does not happen again, at least not with the same guilty ones since they were caught and sentenced. But when genocide happens again in different parts of the world and in different cultures, it means that the death of those who were previously victims of other genocides was in vain and that we learned nothing from history – about which it is generally said that it tends to repeat itself.

            On the other side, UNESCO  considers that education could play a major role in preventing further genocides and it is a top priority for its Education 2030 Agenda. It starts from the assumption that having a public forum where youngsters can discuss past genocides can shape them to become more responsible citizens with more respect for human dignity and more tolerant to people’s racial, ethnic, religious, social, etc. differences. Therefore, education is another stream for preventing further genocides. The idea of a public forum is great, but when we are several billion inhabitating this planet and genocide can happen anywhere, anytime and its victims can be any group, we can only hope that as many as possible from the several billion can show up and discuss on this public forum about the past genocides, in order to diminish the general level of ignorance on the genocide topic.

            Advocating for remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust genocide and approaching education as the main stream for preventing further genocides is also what the U.S.Holocaust Museum is doing. But although the museum has free entrance, 80 percent of American respondents said that they never visited the museum, although 58 percent of them think that Holocaust genocide may happen again. Supposedly no youngster wants to be looked by the others as a museum freak, but rather as a common ignorant and if de facto visits to the museum are difficult – whatever the reasons of each of us – maybe should genocide remembrance museums come to its public by virtual visits and online streaming of its conferences and discussions. Interactive questions can make interested youngsters and adult people satisfy their curiosity by learning new things and finding new answers to their old questions, if any (given the fact that either the Holocaust or any other genocide is not a rock star). When 93 percent of students think that about genocide we should learn more in schools, virtual materials can be of a great help and so could be some history knowledge contests awarded with visits to concentration camps. However, every conference, event, trip to concentration camps, they all cost money.

                An initiative of the U.S. Congress, which passed on the 9^th of May 2018, called the S.447 ‘Justice for Uncompensated Survivors’, brought Polish people to streets in massive demonstrations. It refers to the return of lost properties to the rightful owners or their heirs. What caused this major demonstration in Poland – where during the Second World War functioned the biggest concentration camp – was the paragraph on heirless property: ‘in the case of heirless property, the provision of property or compensation to assist needy Holocaust survivors, to support Holocaust education, and for other purposes’. Demonstrators’ argument was that the property(ies) of those heirless become the property of the state. When something becomes the property of the state it means that it is a common good; it is the property of the whole society. Supposedly that the phrasing of ‘for other purposes’ in the paragraph on heirless property of the U.S. Congress document S.447 ‘Justice for Uncompensated Survivors’ implies also preventing genocide-related educational events, as well as educational trips to the concentrations camps in Poland, then demonstrating against it means that the society can provide alternative financial sources to finance genocide-prevention education, but usually finding alternative funding sources is difficult.

To sum up, commemorating and genocide-prevention education are two main streams, which go together, in preventing future genocides. Although, in general, funds allocated to education differ from one country to another, this public opinion poll’s results show a high level of ignorance on a topic of a general interest. And finding alternative funds for a mass-scale genocide-prevention education is not easy, because genocide is a concert of the death, which does not charge tickets to collect money, but it charges lives fee. What other streams preventing future genocides can possibly be? Public forums of a discussion and of a brainstorming character can also be supportive. 

Creative Writing Exercise #5

DELICIOUS RECIPE: 'FOODBALL'

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

Ingredients:  training, discipline, physical strength, creativity, strategy, patience, teamwork, spontaneity and a shot of strong coffee.

Mix equal parts of training, discipline and physical strength and blend on high for 45 minutes. Take the mixture out of the blender and leave it to rest for 15 minutes. Then add one shot of strong coffee, a bunch of chopped creativity and a bunch of fresh strategy, constantly whisking until all the ingredients are combined. Put the mixture back in the blender, pour as much patience as it is necessary, then season it with juicy passes and mouth-watering goals, and blend again on high for the next 45 minutes. When ready put the mixture in a nice round shape. 

Meanwhile melt teamwork in a bain marie. I also like to add a pinch of spontaneity, because it gives the mixture a stronger taste for winning. Pour it on the nice round shape blended mixture. Finish with sprinkling love of football. Serve this with a side boiling public.

It is a healthy mixture for all genders and all ages, and it goes perfectly with coffee, beer or hot chocolate.

Enjoy your meal!