Washington Post confirms identity of 'Deep Throat'

According to a CNN Breaking News alert that just landed on my desktop, Washington Post has finally confirmed the identity of 'Deep Throat', the infamous source of leaks that led the Post's reporters to the unveiling of the Watergate scandal and the political assassination of Richard Nixon.

'Deep Throat' is former FBI official W. Mark Felt.

Vanity Fair identified Felt as the source earlier today and the Washington Post just confirmed that information.

Books, films, endless articles, magazines, speculation, rumours etc. It's over.

France says 'Non'

Me Against the Keyboard - Special Report,
PARIS.

I finally get the chance to report from the front line, as the results of the exit polls confirm what my sources at TF2 and PCF have told me based on their advance exit poll results, i.e. a 55% win of Non.

I have been invited to a "referendum soireé", with referendum dress code (green if you are in favour, red if you are against, yellow if you are undecided) as well as cooking code (you bring food that has the colour of your choice as above). There are about 30 people around, many of them quite cute, most wear red as they are supporters of PS/PCF. I have decided to wear blue with red letters and green stripes so everyone likes me.

People seem to be really polarised and engaged with what's happening and the Ministry of the Interior reports a massive turnout of more than 72%. I look outside the windows and it's raining hard. It's a stormy night for France and for Europe.

For a political scientist of European politics and of civic behaviour this is a fascinating experience, and an even more fascinating result. Over the next few weeks and months we will have the chance to explore some of the implications and key issues posed by today's referendum, and by the whole process of the European Constitution.

My preliminary analysis is this:

1. This is a failure of the Socialist (PS) leadership to get their act together. If you look at the breakdown of the votes per party it's really straightforward: we always knew that Front National, the Extreme Gauche and the PCF (Communist Party) will vote against the constitution (c. 97% of their voters did) as we knew that UDF and UMP will vote in favour (c. 80%). The big question was what will the Socialists do, and early analyses by the Ipsos/DELL exit polls show that PS voters were split with 56% voting Non. If, say, there was a 10% swing for Oui within PS, then France would be ratifying the referendum.

2. The political impact of this result is the equivalent of an 8 Richter scale earthquake. Chirac will reshuffle his Cabinet (and fire his Prime Minister), while the Socialists are gonna go through one of their biggest crises in recent times. Some actually argue that that was precisely the purpose of the referendum for Chirac; and the Socialists only played his game (although he would have preferred to win it overall).

3. Forget the EU as you know it. From tomorrow morning France's position in Europe is weaker; the Anglo-Saxon axis (which includes most of the new members from Central and Eastern Europe) have achieved a victory; Tony Blair must be the happiest man alive as he won't have the impossible task of selling the Constitution to the British people.

4. Finally, and this is surely the most important and fascinating thing of all, the French public's response to the referendum/constitution was a symbolic act of resistance; they have rejected, for one more time after the 2002 Presidential Elections, the mainstream political parties and ideas (this was not a battle based upon the left-right cleavage, but upon the centre-periphery one, both in terms of political space and in those of geographical space: Paris and big urban cities voted in favour of the constitution while the rural world largely rejected it). It's fascinating; while i sympathise with the criticisms of the constitution as ultra-liberal and not-green-enough, the constitution itself fell prey to the public's disaffection with traditional forms and institutions of politics - with the current status quo.

People are desperate to express their disappointment; they don't get many chances to channel their frustrations through the political process (or when they do it usually doesn't matter because of globalisation and deregulation) so they took the only chance they had to reject the establishment, but -as a friend said - in a nihilistic way, since they don't seem to favour any alternatives; they just want to reject the current reality.

It is the responsibility of the politicians to drop the arrogant discourse of "no alternatives" and offer feasible and positive political alternative solutions and programmes. Otherwise, today's earthquake will soon feel like a pleasant memory.

More dreams coming true: Roland Garros

Me Against the Keyboard - Special Report,
PARIS.

How can you top visiting Kennedy Space Centre, Universal Studios, DisneyWorld, Wimbledon and the Athens Olympics? By visiting Roland Garros, of course. I literally grew up watching the French Open with my family - the number one tennis tournament in the world - a true event. As a massive Steffi Graf supporter, I can recall most of the finals of the 1980s and 1990s; seeing the names of all winners sculpted on the sides of Court No. 1 today was, as you can imagine, an unforgetable experience.

Parisian weather was kind enough to allow us to watch the last two sets of Petrova (7) v. Bovina (12) (7-5, 3-6, 6-4) before starting to pour down heavily. We then enjoyed Haagen Dazs ice-cream (the Roland Garros equivalent of Wimbledon's strawberries-and-cream) and indulged in some obscenely expensive shopping from the official merchandise shop.

Meanwhile, while we were watching the Petrova/Bovina battle at Court No. 1, we heard jeering of unprecedented duration and intensity (i've been watching tennis for 20 years and i've never seen/heard anything like this). People in Court No. 1 got up in the middle of the point to go outside and watch what was happening. Believe it or not the jeering intensified and continued for what seemed like ages; it felt like being in a Manchester United / Arsenal final with the referee having given 3 unfair penalties.

Anyway, apparently what happened is that the chair umpire of the Nadal/Grosjean match at the Philippe Chatrier court refused to review a call. As a result of people's reaction the match stopped (!!!) for at least 10 minutes and then jeering continued after every point.

If you don't believe me have a look at the BBC Report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/4591425.stm

(sorry links feature not working right now for some reason)

Paris Calling...

MATK will be reporting live from Paris as French voters head to the polls for one of the most important referenda in the history of Europe.

I'll also try to slot Roland Garros in my schedule, so watch this space for live coverage.

Review: Downfall (Der Untergang)

There are some films that shake you so much that it takes days to process and review them. I'm still reeling from yesterday's morning screening of Oliver Hirschbiegel's Downfall (original title in German: Der Untergang). Along with Goodbye Lenin! which i watched in late 2004, this is one of the best films to come out of Germany recently.

You will definitely not "enjoy" this film in the traditional sense of the word; it's shock and awe - a traumatic experience. I cannot believe that they've only rated it 15. Yet, you MUST watch it. It's no less moving and important than Schindler's List and The Pianist, indeed its messages are probably more intelligent and thought-provoking than either of those two (great) films.

+ Bruno Ganz. Best. Male. Performance. Ever.
+ the entire cast and crew. Magnificent uncut shots. Claustrophobic environment, excellent score, cinematography, set and costume design.
+ The substance (see below).

- Although death and suicide are central to the film's plot, I worry that the substance of the film may drown into the absolute gore it depicts, and thus either glamourise death or just lose focus.

Focusing on the last days of Hitler and of the 2nd World War this is by no means a "war" film. While it's very skillfully filmed this could just as well have been a stage play because it is the script and performances that matter. We literally watch the downfall of a man and of a leader: the loss of hope, sanity and power (in that order) but we also watch (and that's the most shocking thing of all) the absolute loyalty that he demanded and received by his immediate environment even after his death (and there is no more absolute than people commiting suicide on his name). What is it that produced that absolute loyalty in the first place?

There's nothing explicit in the film (apart from the scores of suicides and homicides - warning! do not EAT before the bloodbath- err.. i mean the film!). The actual meaning of Downfall is very subtle and has to do with the social and psychological factors that led to the rise of Nazism. It's also a study of how humans behave under extreme conditions of stress; the film is very claustrophobic and unpleasant but its messages are absolutely essential for humanity if we are to avoid similar disasters.

Representing Hitler (or any other dictator) as pure evil - as a caricature out of The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars - is an irresponsible and easy way to address a serious problem, because it de-humanizes that individual; it surrounds it with an aura of myth; and thus reassures the public that that was an one-off, it can't happen again. The problem is that it can (and i'm sure to some extent in various countries around the world it has)! I'm not saying that Hitler was not a monster, but as many have now said he was a "human monster"; one of us. We all have bits of good and evil in us in different proportions. Those authors, politicians, theorists and filmmakers who present good and evil in black-and-white terms essentially promote ignorance and intolerance; people automatically consider themselves to be 'with the good guys' and don't actually question their own actions. Which is what Hitler and the Nazis did!!! Thus, evil is not (only) to do morally bad things, but also to judge and pigeonhole humans and actions as black and white, because the following step is to fall into the trap of carrying out the exact actions which you have just condemned.

Ismail Merchant, 1936 - 2005

I just heard some very bad news. One of my favourite filmmakers and role models, producer, director, master chef and connoisseur of life, Ismail Merchant, has just died of stomach ulcer.

There isn't much point in me reciting Merchant's contribution to world cinema (and cooking!); it's not the 40 years of collaboration with my favourite director James Ivory that drew me to him; it's not even the BAFTA fellowships, the Guiness World Records and so many other awards; the countless masterpieces on film (including Howards End, The Remains of the Day, A Room With a View, The Bostonians, Surviving Picasso, Maurice, The Europeans etc etc); or the awesome cookbooks and filmbooks that lie on my bookshelves. It's Merchant's spirit and his will to survive and look ahead no matter what difficulties, problems and set-backs he faced; it's his cosmopolitanism, humanity, wisdom and sense of humour developed on trips and trials around the world that made him a great human being.

A couple of years ago, Merchant was giving a live interview on BBC Online. I submitted my question, which was essentially asking when are we going to have a Merchant Ivory take on the 21st century or the future (in the film-making sense of visual and narrative style etc). It was a well-intended question. The BBC interviewer however completely twisted the meaning of the question (mis)interpreting it as a criticism for the fact that Merchant Ivory have mostly produced period films (costume dramas). Merchant was understandably upset and replied that the spirit and lessons of the films are timeless and it doesn't matter when the actual plot takes place (he gave the great example of Howards End - the struggle of the social classes, of the two Englands, was not a property of the early 20th century, it's ongoing). In a similar way, I'm sure Ismail Merchant's own spirit will live on for a very, very long time and take my word, the world will one day discover the beauty and humanity of his - and Ivory's and Jhabvala's - work.

Black day.

Ismail Merchant, 25 December 1936 - 25 May 2005
R.I.P.


Links:
Rediff report
The Times' Obituary (to be published tomorrow)
Merchant Ivory Productions
Merchant's filmography on IMDb

Updating Democracy: Youth Engagement and the Internet

A new report by the e-Volve Foundation concurs with the findings of my own survey released a few weeks ago, namely that: "Traditional ways of engaging civically are coming to an end".

The report commissioned by PACE (Philanthropists for Active Citizen Engagement) is entitled "Power to the Edges: Trends and Opportunities in Online Civic Engagement". It focuses on four aspects of online civic engagement and presents a series of trends (rise of online activism, collaborative networks etc) which it then analyzes in terms of challenges and opportunities for democracy.

Along with the recent Pew report on the future of the internet, this is one of the most comprehensive and perceptive reports i've seen lately.

Its conclusions are really consistent with the findings of my own survey, conducted in December 2004, which I presented to the 55th annual conference of the Political Studies Association (full text of the paper is available here; for appendices and questionnaire please email me).

The study (entitled "Democratic Engagement and Media Uses Amongst the Internet Generation"), which picked up some national publicity in the Times Higher Education Supplement and the Daily Echo, found that while young citizens may not have experienced traditional forms of political participation, they are keen to participate; they respect and treasure democracy and are developing a portfolio of activities, attitudes and values that should lead to reframing of the debate on civic disengagement.

Some indicative results include:

- 70.6% of the young people surveyed see democracy as highly or extremely relevant to their lives. In a separate question 70.5% answered that democracy is quite or extremely “important to them”.
- 52.5% of respondents see political participation as a civic duty (as opposed to an activity based on personal interest).
- When asked to evaluate an extensive list of current affairs and policy issues, most respondents show a wide variety of interests in public policy. Their “own career prospects” tops the list with an almost unanimous response (87.7%), while the state of public services such as the National Health Service (79.8%) and education standards (80.9%).

The two main implications of the study's findings are:
(a) in our effort to understand civic engagement we are using the wrong analytical tools; i.e. we try to 'measure' online civic engagement via measurements that are firmly rooted in the offline model of politics (party membership, effect on voting etc);
(b) subsequently, the common claim that young people are apathetic is misleading (or according to the newspapers quoting me, "a myth"); while young people may be apathetic towards 19th century political processes, they are very keen to engage with 21st century issues and political tools.

While the study does not claim to be representative of British public opinion or Generation Y as a whole, it treats Bournemouth Media School as a case study of a non-politicized, media-savvy, new-UK-university department; and as such it offers some very important and interesting lessons.

Paper Abstract:
For many years, scholars studying civic attitudes and political engagement in Western democracies have been arguing that we are facing a “civic malaise” of apathy (cynicism towards democracy) and disengagement (lack of active participation), especially evident as an inter-cohort effect amongst the young. This paper presents the results of a large survey (n=487) conducted amongst undergraduate students in Bournemouth. It is shown that the argument that young people are disengaged is misleading; while traditional forms of political participation that shaped generations from universal suffrage to the era of defreezing social cleavages are declining, the internet generation is engaging into new and alternative forms of community-building and engagement. Seven out of ten participants stated that democracy was “highly” or “totally relevant” to their everyday lives and “quite” or “extremely important” to them personally. An extensive examination of their attitudes towards specific issues and policies shows that young people can indeed make cognitive and affective links between complex set of policies. The role of the news media, and of the internet in particular as a tool of awareness, in young people’s everyday life is reinforced through this study. Our findings imply that we should reframe the debate on youth engagement so as to capture new forms of civic engagement (and efforts to overcome the increasing democratic deficit) and conceptualise the new legitimisation dilemmas that these may cause.

Full text available here:
http://www.psa.ac.uk/2005/pps/Gerodimos.pdf

The study was supported by the Centre for Public Communication Research (CPCR) at the University of Bournemouth.

Research Seminar: Dickens and Victorian Soap Opera

In yesterday's research seminar, which I was delighted to host on behalf of the Centre for Public Communication Research (CPCR), Prof. Bob Giddings delivered a fascinating presentation entitled "Soft Soaping Dickens: Dickens and Victorian Soap Opera".

As those who have listened to him before would know, Bob has a unique ability to keep the attention of his audience by the mere power of his words, rather than visual aids, PowerPoint etc.

The topic of Bob's talk was the forthcoming BBC1 mini series "Bleak House" adapted from Charles Dickens' novel by Andrew Davies, one of the most important screenwriters of recent years whom Giddings interviewed for the purposes of his research (Davies has adapted several classic and contemporary novels for TV and cinema, including massive popular hits and critically acclaimed programmes such as "Pride and Prejudice", "Middlemarch" and "Bridget Jones' Diary"; my own favourite Davies work is the Emmy- and BAFTA-award winning BBC trilogy "The House of Cards"/"To Play the King"/"The Final Cut" based on Michael Dobbs' novels).

The series will be broadcasted by BBC1 in September, twice a week, and has been scheduled to follow EastEnders so as to target a younger audience. Bleak House was originally serialised in 1852 (in 18 monthly parts for the printed press).

According to Bob, Dickens hated lawyers and detested the Law; he worked for a lawyer after leaving school and didn’t like that at all; subsequently, in ‘Bleak House’ he paints a …bleak picture of the legal profession. The book contains fascinating plots including a murder investigation and is, according to Giddings, "one of Dickens' greatest novels".

Apart from everything else, Dickens novels have been regarded as "the soap operas of their day"; while commending the BBC's project, Giddings rejects the 'soap opera' claim and puts forward the argument that actually there are several differences between the two genres, which he illustrates through a forensic examination of the two genres' features.

The cast of Bleak House includes stars of Holby City, EastEnders and X-Files with a background in drama and soap-operas. Moreover, the twice-weekly 30' format and the scheduling so that the programme followes EastEnders would indeed indicate an effort to adapt Dickens for a more female / working-class audience (which is traditionally the core audience of soap operas). Yet, Giddings is quite enthusiastic about the prospect of the novel reaching different audiences and notes that each medium has its own merits; he argues that Bleak House is "the stuff of television...".

Going back to the era that the novel was serialised, Bob presents several slides of advertisements appearing in the printed press of the Dickens era: the ads promote up-market products and services, meaning that the audience reached/targeted by these publications is high-end. Thus, he rejects the argument that Dickens was creating soap operas; his novels do contain melodrama, moral polarisations and social realism but are structurally and substantially different to soap-operas.

In order to prove that last point, Giddings reviews the main elements of soap-operas (repetitiveness, importance of relationships over plots, targeted audiences etc) and concludes that they differ significantly from Dickens novels, e.g. the former are characterised by lack of structural closure, whereas the dynamic of Dickens novels always leads to a denouement/catharsis. A key feature of Dickens novels is that most characters end up being connected or related in some way, with all the threads being gathered at the end.

Finally, Bob reviews the prices/revenues and sales of those original serialisations and concludes that we’re talking about (a) a massive audience and (b) a massive fortune: the Bleak House serialisation sold c. 40,000 copies per month in a 28 million Britain when the Spectator sells c. 25,000 copies in a 60 million Britain, while that number should be multiplied by 5 or 6 so as to calculate the actual readership given that in that era people used to read in groups/families.

Following the presentation, the plenary discussion focuses mostly on the claim that serialisation equals "soft-soaping" and also the search for the contemporary equivalent to Dickens.

After all that, everybody's looking forward to watching the series on BBC1...

F1 Monaco Grand Prix

Well done Kimi Raikkonen for winning Sunday's Monaco Grand Prix, one of my favourite events of the year. While I'm a Renault supporter and am obviously in official 3-day mourning for the under-the-weather performance of Alonso and Fisichella, I have to recognise Kimi's talent - he deserves to win a World Championship at some point (but not this year please); I can't really support a team (i.e. McLaren) which includes Montoya in its ranks.

Meanwhile, the governing body of Formula 1, FIA (Federation Internationale de l'Automobile), decided to change the qualifying regulations one more time. This is becoming a joke: regulations are changed every week; BAR is cheating; the post-2007 future of Formula 1 is uncertain; the teams can't change tyres which means that Ferrari is practically out of competition (about time? nah, don't be mean!!); the teams can't refuel the car after the qualifying sessions, which takes out a significant part of team strategy / intrigue; the second qualifying session is not televised, etc etc. All this mess shows lack of leadership, vision and perception.

FIA is conducting a very extensive and important survey ("the most ambitious survey in Formula One history" in fact) about the new regulations. I just completed it and would strongly recommend that you do too. Your Formula 1 Needs You...

CPCR Summer Research Workshop

On Wednesday, 18 May 2005, the Centre for Public Communication Research organised the second workshop for PhD students (the previous one was held in March).

(btw, have a look at our cool new site - new corporate logo designed by yours truly!)



The Workshop featured the work of three PhD students: Waraporn, Antti and myself. Each presentation was followed by an extensive discussion / Q&A session (also known as 'grilling'!), which proved really helpful to all presenters.

Here is a summary of my notes:

The first presentation is by my Thai friend Waraporn Chatratichart who is researching 'The effects of politicians' images on the decision-making processes of pre-voters in Bangkok'.

Waraporn starts her presentation by discussing young voters’ behaviour and comparing voter turnout in Western Europe, South Africa, the UK and Thailand. In terms of media exposure Waraporn notes that television is usually the main source of political information, although according to opinion polls first time voters did not follow the last election campaign on television or on the internet. Overall, recent evidence suggests lack of information or understanding of politics, and of how government works, amongst the young.

The conceptual framework at the heart of Waraporn’s research is that of ‘celebrity politics’ (Street 1997), including how politics relates to popular culture and how politicians and strategists make use of show-biz tactics. She then examines the case of a Thai politician who appealed to the younger generations by building a ‘pop’ image. Several scholars (e.g. Postman, Franklin) have criticised that practice and argue that we should make judgements according to ideas and policies rather than image.

Waraporn discusses a definition of ‘image’ as well as key conceptual models such as the Elaborated Likelihood Model (ELM) and Putnam’s social capital and life satisfaction model. The key research question is: “to what extent, and how, do politicians’ images affect young people’s decision-making processes in both high and low involvement groups?”. In order to do that she will focus on variables such as acquisition of political knowledge, perceptions of knowledge, effects of knowledge etc. Her target audience is 15-17 year-old students. In terms of Methodology, Waraporn is planning to carry out a quantitative survey as well as focus group discussions.

After a short coffee break, I'm on. I have entitled my presentation "The Internet as a Public Sphere: Youth Civic Engagement Online", which is quite abstract and broad for a PhD thesis title and is likely to change. My key research question is: "how does the internet affect civic engagement amongst young people?".

I start my presentation by explaining the main stimuli for my research, i.e. recent claims about: a structural democratic deficit; a cultural crisis of participation amongst the young; and a political communication dominated by top-down spin rather than symmetrical consultation. My 'hypothesis' is that if the internet is an embedded part of young people's everyday life, and assuming that we want to make democracy an embedded part of their life, there should be great opportunities (and possibly challenges) facilitated or created by that interaction between technology and politics.

I then present the main conceptual models that I have developed during my first two years: one examines the various aspects of online civic engagement (awareness, discussion, mobilisation); the second examines the conditions required for the use of the internet as a deliberative public sphere (applying Habermas' criteria); the third model maps the interaction of cyberculture and activism via three post-9/11 case studies (Iraq War, 2004 US Election, Asian Tsunami).

Following on from that, I present my primary research methods and report on the progress so far. My research design includes a large survey of 487 Bournemouth Media Schools (which has been completed - early findings available here), content analysis of engagement sites along with focus group user evaluations (in progress), and online interviews with bloggers (to be completed in July).

The final presentation comes from my Finnish friend Antti Ylitalo whose working title is “UK Press Representation of Third Generation (3G) Mobile Phones in 1997 – 2005”. The broader issue that Antti was originally interested in looking at was the images of Finnish companies in the English press. He then focused his research lens by looking at the UK Press’ representation of 3G mobiles.

Antti briefly reviews the main features of the three generations of mobile phones and focuses on the evolution of 3G technology. The main questions at the core of Antti’s doctoral research are:
- how has the UK Press viewed 3G mobile phone manufacturers and operators in the different stages of the development of 3G? What has affected this press coverage?
- how have companies presented themselves?
- are different companies treated differently (market share, geographical issues etc)
- how is 3G development in the UK compared to other nations and how accurate is the image created by the press?

Antti’s preliminary research has focused on collecting and reading press releases and corporate reports from six international mobile phone manufacturers and six UK operators (1997 – 2005). He has also collected and read print-media articles (post-1989) on 3G technology. Moreover, he has contacted all companies asking them for suggestions. Last but not least, he is now conducting his literature review.

In the next few months Antti will be conducting his data collection on published articles and he will also be talking to journalists and practitioners.

Research Workshops will return next academic year (2005/06) so watch this space for more news.

The Conservative Party and Leader Selection: Flexibility v. Legitimacy

After three successive (big) election defeats, the Conservative Party is considering changes to its leader selection process. For decades Conservative MPs had total control over the process, but William Hague introduced a new system whereby MPs voted in the first rounds until there were only two candidates, who then sought the vote of all party members. That system produced Iain Duncan Smith over Michael Portillo / Kenneth Clarke and many Tories think the sytem doesn't work. The average profile of a Conservative Party's member (i.e. registered in local associations around the country) is basically older, white, straight men, which means that their choice of leader is likely to be different from the country's (i.e. median voter's to use Downsian terminology) preference.

Under new proposals, the grassroots would vote in the first rounds of the process (via the Conservative National Convention), limiting the choice to a few (two?) candidates; the parliamentary party (i.e. MPs) would have the final say.



This problem is far from procedural and is far from being exclusive to the UK's Conservative Party. Across liberal democracies political parties are introducing a grassroots vote as a way to "democratize" the election of the party's leader, and potentially of the future Prime Minister or President. The Greek Socialists (PASOK) inaugurated and expanded that new approach to selecting the leader by not only including members, but also "friends" of the party (i.e. those who do not carry a card or pay membership fees but wish to participate). In a mini-coronation style, George Papandreou took over by Costas Simitis with over a million votes (although there was no challenger), which could be good news for the proponents of the new approach.

Yet, it's not all good news for the transfer of power to party members (especially as party memberships are declining around the world). The selection of a party's leader is one of the most crucial functions of politics and to a large extent shapes the direction of the party. After studying politics for several years (the study of politics being an almost futile attempt to locate and map power) the only firm conclusion I've reached is that a party leader is safe as long as s/he has the prospect of increasing the number of seats (for opposition parties) or retaining workable majorities (for governing parties); while many argue that the power of the Parliament has been declining, there is nothing more powerful than a bunch of MPs who fear about their careers. The political assassinations of Margaret Thatcher and Iain Duncan Smith (and the overnight coronation of Michael Howard) demonstrated the power of Westminster corridors.

Political parties are living organisms and they need the flexibility to adapt to a changing political environment and political culture. That flexibility could mean dumping a leader or opting for one who is not very popular with the grassroots (because the grassroots themselves are not usually representative of the median voter, swing voters or of emerging generations).

There is obviously a moral dilemma here - should a political party opt for a popular leader who may be the 'lite' version of the party's own values and ideas (and who could guarantee the survival and growth of the parliamentary party); or should it go for someone who is firmly rooted in the party's core ideology? It's easy to jump into conclusions depending on your own preferences: I may prefer to see someone like Michael Portillo as Conservative Party leader, rather than David Davis (and, thus, would support selection by MPs); yet, I would also prefer to see someone like Robin Cook as Labour Party leader, rather than Gordon Brown (and would thus support an electoral college that is as broad as possible going deeply into Labour grassroots and possibly disaffected Labour voters). Thus, our own choice of selection system may be shaped by personal/temporary preferences. It is quite difficult to detach oneself from the contemporary headlines and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each system.

Links:
BBC Online's report.

The Conservative Party

50th Eurovision Song Contest

i've been waiting for SOOOOOOOO many years for this: Greece has just won the 50th Eurovision Song Contest. Living up to my reputation as a geek (not to mention as a gay guy) i've been watching 'the Eurovision' religiously since i was (very) little, noting down scores, favourites etc. I've been to Eurovision parties - i've hosted Eurovision parties. And I've voted. Every time something happened and Greece lost. Not tonight though...



Elena Paparizou's "My Number One" became Europe's number one. I have to say that through the years Greece has presented much better songs (e.g. 'Anixi' by Sofia Vossou in 1990) and i didn't really think that 'My Number One' would do it, but it was quite an average playing field this year.

The other songs i liked were from:
France
Norway,
Croatia
Serbia/Montenegro,
Latvia

Cannes Awards

One of the top favourites in this year's Cannes Film Festival won the Palme d'Or. Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne's film "The Child" won the top award, while another favourite of the critics - Jim Jarmusch's "Broken Flowers" - got the Grand Prix (second best). Michael Haneke who was expected to walk away with the top prize, only got Best Director for "Hidden".

I have to say, although i love Cannes and everything it stands for, and i usually agree with the jury's choices, the Dardenne brothers' previous winner, Rosetta (which won the 1999 Palme d'Or), is probably one of the worst films i've ever seen; as was Haneke's Funny Games, which the critics loved.

On the contrary, i'm very much looking forward to watching Jarmusch's "Broken Flowers", as well as Gus Van Sant's "Last Days" (about the death of Kurt Cobain). Van Sant (who is one of my favourite directors) won the 2003 Palme d'Or for Elephant (which is one of my favourite films ever).

More information and a full list of the awards is available at the official Cannes site.

Review: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

I just watched Revenge of the Sith and, as promised, MATK is one of the first blogs in the world to review it.

Before the detailed review (which will include spoilers and you may want to avoid it until you watch the actual film) let's cut to the chase:
this is what you prayed for and much more. By far the best episode of the prequels, a worthy prequel to the classic series, indeed of equal value to the originals (and this comes from someone who grew up with, and treasures, the originals). In short, Lucas has done it again and it's all there: the action scenes, the 'dark' scenes, but above all the political scenes - this is one of the most political films i've ever watched: power, treason, good v. evil, alliances, democracy v. empire, leadership v. tyranny etc.
Much darker than any other episode (including Empire Strikes Back) it is simply disturbing.



[SPOILER ALERT! Don't read beyond this line if you haven't watched it yet and want to watch it]

+ Hayden Christensen gives the best performance of the series - i mean let's be honest with ourselves, acting wasn't a particular strength of either the original trilogy or indeed the other two prequels. We are helpless as we watch his transformation from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader: a physical, mental and psychological shift performed flawlessly.
+ Ewan McGregor finally gets there; as if by osmosis he seems to be young Alec Guiness.
+ Ian McDiarmid (Chancellor Palpatine) is the other acting revelation of the film; he can only be compared to Ian Richardson's ruthless Prime Minister Francis Urquhart in the BBC series House of Cards. The scene that Palpatine lectures Skywalker on the power of the dark side is one of the best scenes of the trilogy.
+ The action scenes, sets, special effects are perfect - THANK YOU GOD: we are spared the torture of kitsch w*nk such as Jar Jar Binks etc. Kitsch is kept really at a minimum.
+ John Williams. Can that man surpass his own brilliance? Well, he does it again. Wlliams' score for all six episodes I think will go down in history as one of the best orchestral pieces of music ever written (in the history of classical music). His music is no less shockingly good than Mozart's Requiem and Beethoven's Symphonies (and this comes from a MASSIVE fan and student of classical music).
+ I kept the best bit for the end. As I said above this is one of the most political films i've ever watched - a true political education on violence, authority and propaganda. The film features lines that could have been written by David Frum (Bush's ex-speech writer, who coined the phrase "axis of evil"). Revenge of the Sith is a bold, direct and obvious metaphor about the current political situation in the United States and in the world. I personally found some of the political stuff that's included in the film shocking.

- Natalie Portman is the only disappointment of the film - her acting is just too obvious and her lines don't exactly help.
- Continuity alert! When Portman lands at the lava planet before the final duel she's not very / obviously pregnant. At the end of the scene she has a massive tummy and is ready to give birth.

Overall, this is a worthy end to the Star Wars saga that will compulsively force you to watch the originals. Then the prequels. Then the originals. Then the prequels. Then the originals...

coming up on MATK...

- review of 'Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith' on the opening day (Thursday 19th)
- review of the inaugural Northern Ireland Graduate Conference with photos
- coverage of Eurovision (Saturday)
- coverage of Monaco Qualifying and Grand Prix (this weekend)
- the latest from Cannes, including the Palme d'Or
- a report from the CPCR PhD Summer Workshop (a.s.a.p.)
- a review of the forthcoming research seminar on 'Dickens and Victorian Soap Opera' by Prof. Bob Giddings (next week)
- live coverage of the French Referendum (oh yes, i'm so going to Paris)

i need a secretary.
to do my job.
so i can blog!

you know you love it...

thanks to MP for spotting it...

OII Seminar: Intellectual Property and Spyware

On Thursday, and while i was in Oxford, i attended a very interesting seminar at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII); the seminar was entitled "An Information Ownership Approach to Understanding Spyware" and was given by Prof. Dan L Burke (University of Minnesota).

The key question raised was whether we can use the intellectual property framework to tackle the issue of spyware. Burke considered different definitions, advantages (yes apparently spyware does good for some) and disadvantages of spyware and adware, along with issues of consent and the grounds for potential objection.

Prof. Burke applied copyright, trademark and patent laws onto claims against producers of spyware so as to understand what legal tools users have against those methods.

The (fascinating and telling) conclusion of Burke's study is that it is almost impossible for a user to make a claim against spyware producers given that we do not own either the operating system (OS e.g. Windows), the browser (e.g. Internet Explorer) or the software (e.g. email software) which is affected by spyware. Companies such as Microsoft lease those programmes to us; thus, we cannot sue spyware-nasties for any damage inflicted upon our use of the software because we don't own it in the first place - we don't owe the trademark, copyright or patent of these products; and we can't sue software providers either because it's not their fault - only the Microsofts of this world can sue spyware producers for damages.

The only thing we actually own in the whole process is the physical space within which spyware attacks take place, i.e. the hardware, which becomes the battlefield. And here comes the shocking bit: Burke argues that we may be able to seek compensation by resorting to an almost ancient law entitled "trespass to chattels" (wow that sounds very legal). In other words, it's like having your house burgled and the contents of your house damaged. If you don't own the copyright to your house's contents, the only thing you can sue for is trespassing your space, and the equivalent to computers is trespassing your hardware. How weird, geeky, cool and un-common-sensical is that?

The broader and more fundamental issue raised by Burke's presentation is the assymetry and gap between the existing legal/constitutional framework and emerging/future technological applications that really challenge the former.

If you are into this sort of thing have a look at the following sites, which are excellent resources on the issue of Law and the Internet:

The Berkman Center for the Internet & Society, Harvard Law School

Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society

[by the way if the two sound similar that's probably down to Lawrence Lessig!]

and a bit of an anecdote: there was a guy in the seminar whom i was SURE i had seen before. American, in his 60s, somewhat eccentric guy but with a certain stature / aura around him. When i exited the seminar room, I asked William Dutton (Director of the OII) "who's that guy? i'm sure i've seen him before". And he said: "that's Ted Nelson. He invented hypertext"...

[by the way, I had seen Nelson before, at last year's Association of Internet Researchers Conference in Brighton, Sussex].

Review: Venue 9

Not only the best Venue compilation ever; by far one of the über-best über-dance über-compilations ever. 10 classics, including three of my personal favourite dance tracks (3, 5, 6). Along with Maggie's Touch, the definitive soundrack to 2005.



Tracklist:
1. Flash Brothers – Amen
2. O.C. feat. Nick Beman – Not even Winds
3. A’ Studio feat. Polina – S.O.S.
4. Dave Seaman – My own worst Enemy
5. Viton & Stel – Nightmare
6. Shiny Grey – Why
7. Interstate – I found you
8. Randy Katana – In Silence
9. Ian + Vassili – Apres la Pluie II
10. Danny C - Razorblade

Out from Planetworks.

i love May...

I think May is my favourite month after all. May is a blogger's Eden:

- my birthday
- the Cannes Film Festival
- Monaco Grand Prix
- Roland Garros (French Open)
- Eurovision Song Contest
- nice spring evenings (favourite time of the day)
- the first glimpses of summer (not if you live in England but anyway).

The Power of Nightmares

Adam Curtis' excellent documentary "The Power of Nightmares", originally broadcast on the BBC a few months ago, is been shown at the 58th Cannes Film Festival and has already raised a few eyebrows.

BBC report here.

For all the latest from the Festival see BBC reporter's log.

from Belfast to Oxford...

Following last weekend's 'excursion' to Belfast for the Inaugural Northern Ireland Graduate Conference (watch this space for more info on that very interesting event plus photos), which went fine and which i thoroughly enjoyed due to the hospitality of my friend and PGN colleague Lyndsey Harris, i'm off in a few hours to Oxford for some fieldwork. I will be visiting the Oxford Internet Institute (one of the leading research hubs on e-democracy in the world - the sort of place i'd work for - in my dreams).

There i will be meeting Prof. Stephen Coleman (whom if you are not familiar with you must have just landed from Venus) and my friend and fellow-blogger Janelle Ward. Janelle is doing some really exciting work on web content analysis as part of the Internet & Elections project, while Stephen is always doing something really exciting so i'm quite looking forward to that.

I'm also planning to attend tomorrow's OII seminar entitled "An Information Ownership Approach to Understanding Spyware" by Prof. Dan L Burk (University of Minnesota) which, although not directly related to my PhD topic, i find quite interesting.

i have to say, as much as i love travelling and going away on conferences and fieldwork, i do miss a nice and quiet weekend at home with a little bit of reading and a lot of sun. Haven't had that for almost 2 months now since i've been away for most of the time...

i guess if i want to make it to Oxford in 6 hours or so i'd better get a bit of sleep, don't you think?

p.s. just came back from Prezzo an uber-trendy Italian restaurant in Bournemouth where i (officially) celebrated my 29th birthday along with 16 close friends (i'm, like, the Queen with 3 birthday celebration dates!!). I think my friends know me a tiny bit too well since most of them got me various types of posh chocolates (which i absolutely love - argh!! double time on the treadmill then) and one of them also got me a book which noone knew i was actually planning to buy shortly. Open book - i am, that is...

The Revenge of the Lucas

i have such a good hunch for this film, i think it's gonna be great.

today's BBC Online review confirms the good vibe:

When the final scenes roll with characters and locations familiar from the original 28-year-old film, you'll certainly feel that the series has been brought to a worthy close and that the maligned Episodes I and II retrospectively make a little more sense.

Associated Press writer David Germain called the film "a bloodbath" and the consensus is that this is the darkest of them all.

Star Wars is the only cultural product that I know of that combines absolute elegance (as in the empty minimalistic and futuristic sets) with absolute kitsch (e.g. posters for Episodes I, II; animal creatures etc). Let's hope that Episode III is more about the former rather than the latter...

to stand or not to stand?

In yesterday's Time/CNN.com, Joe Klein (The Natural, Primary Colors) wrote a polemic against 'the Hillary option' for 2008's presidential election (read here).

I have read Klein's book on the Clinton presidency (as i've read most books and memoirs on the Clinton presidency - perhaps i should do a special feature on this blog at some point) and found it informative and fairly balanced. Yet I was surprised and disappointed that a serious progressive/liberal commentator such as Klein should come out against Hillary (whose own book, Living History, is one of the best books i've ever read - a true political education).

Clinton will be facing opposition from two sides now: the entire circle of right-wing bigots who hate her guts for being (a) popular/successful, (b) a Clinton and (c) a woman; and from those in the Democratic party who "like Hillary" but do not want a candidate that will "polarise the country" (yeah right, we saw how successful Kerry was). I reckon the latter are worse than the former in that they mask their conservatism as electoral concern (hmmm.. that rings a few - Big Ben - bells).

It's funny. In this blog's very first post back in November I wrote:

[The election result] is so bad at so many levels; you don't need to be a political scientist to see the impact on the structure, culture and discourse of politics. We are essentially moving back to the 1950s / 1980s into a right-wing, religious consensus. It's very likely that the next Democratic candidate will try to move to the right in order to attract those "swing" voters, but that would essentially equal accepting a right-wing consensus.

As for the internet, believe it or not, the battle has already started... or indeed the battle never ceased!

Research Seminar: Citizenship and Reality TV

Valentina Cardo (University of East Anglia) was the guest speaker at yesterday's research seminar organised by the Centre for Public Communication Research (CPCR) and chaired by my colleague Dr Darren Lilleker. The seminar was entitled "Towards a New Citizenship? The Politics of Reality TV" and was based upon Cardo's recent paper for the annual PSA conference (the full text of which is available here).

Due to other commitments i left before the event was over but i still managed to keep notes of Valentina's talk and some of the plenary discussion that followed.

PRESENTATION STARTS.

Valentina starts her talk by reviewing the dawn of reality TV programmes and direct audience participation via voting (many argue that we’ve been witnessing a “voting addiction”). She examines a series of examples (Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, Pop Idol, Vote for Me!, Jamie Oliver’s School Dinners).

Her research looks at the link between reality TV and citizenship, raising important questions of participation, consumerism, dumbing down etc. By studying reality TV we can learn a lot about identity and participation in the public sphere. Her case study is Big Brother (BB) upon which she applies a series of research hypotheses (e.g. Does BB encourage public participation?).

According to Ofcom, multichannel households favour Reality TV over any other programme; fragmentation of audiences and channels along with a significant decline in the viewing figures of current affairs programmes on terrestrial TV have also been found.

Cardo then reviews the literature on the role of the media (television in particular) and democratic participation. There is a considerable amount of literature looking at citizenship and the mass media / culture; yet there is a gap in that body of work, which does not address highly popular genres such as reality TV.

Looking at its advantages for citizenship, reality TV could potentially: provide information and increase understanding of the world, reflect cultural identity, stimulate interest in the arts, support a tolerant society by projecting different role models.

A key feature of BB is that it focuses on ‘ordinary people’ in ‘real life’ situations. BB features include group tasks, rewards, responsibilities, managing budgets, living with restricted resources, sharing and delegating. Valentina cites the work of Prof. Stephen Coleman (Oxford Internet Institute) on the gap between the ‘real’ world of the BB House and the world of the House of Commons. A key claim of BB’s producers is that the programme is a form of direct democracy (“who goes, you decide!”). The continuous process of nominations and evictions creates a feeling of participation and public scrutiny.

Furthermore, Valentina notes that the ‘diary room’ provides participants with access to, and the means of questioning, authority. Also, discussions during the programme focus on socially and politically relevant issues, such as bullying, binge drinking, immigration, homosexuality etc.

In conclusion, Cardo argues that a systematic and critical reading of reality TV (in this case BB) can offer interesting and useful lessons about the practice of citizenship outside of the formal/established borders and participation in an alternative (but perhaps equally important, and certainly very popular) public sphere.

The democratic TV that gives people ‘choice’ obviously reinforces and confronts cultural values and practices (e.g. Public Service Broadcasting etc).


PRESENTATION ENDS.


PLENARY DISCUSSION:
[Please note: this is not an accurate and word-for-word transcript of the discussion, merely an attempt to summarise the main points raised].

RG: The dawn of reality TV programmes has led to a significant rise in pop knowledge of group psychology; we (think we) know more about the human condition and about individuals and how groups react under pressure (is that a good thing or a bad thing ?)

Q: Participants are selected and the programme is edited so a lot depends on programme control and editing.

VC: Definitely, the selection/manipulation process is a significant caveat. Re, lessons on public psychology it is a very interesting area (although this specific research has limited resources).

BR: Very complex processes that do go on in the House are simplified and polarised by the producers (e.g. posters, fights, screaming etc), although indeed there may be interesting lessons about public psychology.

Q: The selection process is interesting in understanding the process of control.

VC: Tension between the way this programme wants to be framed to the public as non-manipulative (e.g. the narrator does not add ‘subjective’ comments and value judgments, they merely describe what’s happening) and what’s actually happening behind the cameras.

FC: One of the differences between BB and other reality TV programmes is the selection process itself. In the former case the selection process is less transparent, and it would be interesting to know whether participants in different shows have different motivations.

VC: Absolutely. The other important thing is that everything and anything is documented in BB, although the selection process is less transparent.

FC: Would there be merit in the programme’s producers promoting voting (given the trend)?

VC: That could potentially alienate the very audience that the producers are trying to approach.

DL: It is a motivational thing. The two target groups (BB-engaged and Westminter-engaged people) have different motivations.

RG: Absolutely but it’s more than that. As Coleman argues in his paper there is a massive cultural gap between the two ‘sides’, those who engage almost exclusively with Big Brother and those who engage almost exclusively with Westminster. If you belong to the latter it’s very un-cool to belong to the former, and vice versa. The challenge is to bridge the gap between those two completely different (but important) worlds.

NOTES END.

Paxman v. Galloway 0-1 (or 'How a Top Journalist Lost the Plot')

Although I spent most of Thursday night / Friday watching the election results i missed the following, unprecedented dialogue between leading BBC journalist and Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman (admittedly an institution of British journalism) and newly-re-elected independent MP George Galloway (who due to his consistent anti-Iraq-war stance left the Labour Party and eventually unsitted a Labour MP).

I've been following British politics for many years and i can honestly say i haven't seen anything quite like this (transcript available from BBC website). It is, in one word, priceless and I urge you to read/watch it in its entirety (it's not that long anyway, since the interviewee eventually left the studio).

The dialogue (which could only belong to a Greek tragedy) starts thus:

JP: We're joined now from his count in Bethnal Green and Bow by George Galloway. Mr Galloway, are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: What a preposterous question. I know it's very late in the night, but wouldn't you be better starting by congratulating me for one of the most sensational election results in modern history?
JP: Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few black women in Parliament?
GG: I'm not - Jeremy - move on to your next question.
JP: You're not answering that one?

Read/watch the rest...

I usually enjoy Paxman's programmes but on this occasion this was a major lapse of judgment and good for Galloway for standing up. Scrutiny and deliberation is one thing; personal attacks and disrespect (esp. coming from a leading anchorman) is quite another.

My supervisor, Prof. Barry Richards, has written a very interesting paper entitled Rottweilers Savage Democracy about that very trend of aggressive journalists attacking politicians, and the effect that this process may be having on democracy and public opinion.

Thanks to Thomas Lefebvre for flagging up the dialogue and the transcript.

Roman@30 Charity Appeal

As promised, here are the details of my 12-month charity appeal.

Campaign Title: Roman@30
Target: £500
Timeframe: 06-May-2005 to 06-May-2006
Charities Supported: WWF-UK, Médecins Sans Frontières-UK
Gift Aid UK Applicable: Yes (28% tax-bonus on UK tax-payers' contributions)

Ways to donate:
- Online (see below)
- By cheque/cash (contact Roman for details)

Webpages and Links / Buttons:


Zone1 (WWF-UK)


Zone 2 (MSF-UK)

Please feel free to copy/paste those buttons on to your own blog/site/homepage and link to my charity pages (via www.justgiving.com). Every pound donated can really change people's lives.

29... i like it...

29 feels good.

(it's funny. i have the same birthday as Tony Blair. He just won a third term. Top that for a birthday present!!)

off to Belfast now for the Inaugural Northern Ireland Graduate Conference, back on Sunday.

as a way to celebrate my last 365 days in the 20s I will shortly be launching an online charity appeal (with a target of £500) closing on May 6th, 2006. The money will be donated to an internationally established NGO (UNICEF and/or an environmental NGO such as WWF, Greenpeace or FoE)- details to be confirmed. So, please, hold those credit cards of yours, i really don't need anything (oh well, a man perhaps, Brad Pitt preferably!). Please, please save your money for this effort. It will really be worth it.

election night...

here it comes.
my third election night in the UK (after the 2001 General Election and 2004 European/Local Election).

For the second time in my time here i headed down the road to my local polling station and cast my vote.



Election day is one of the biggest cultural differences between Greece and the UK. In Greece, the election is *the event* of the year - political party rallies, flags, speeches, ads, posters etc are everywhere; elections take place on a Sunday when people have nothing else to do or talk about; 80-85% of the electorate turnout; all major TV and radio stations do a blanket coverage of election day from 6am till 6am the morning after with rolling live reports from all major cities and party headquarters and endless panels of politicians, academics, experts, pollsters etc.

In Britain, things are much calmer: 60% of the electorate turn out to vote, on a Thursday, usually after work; the media schedule goes on as usual during the day; election coverage starts at 21:55, i.e. five minutes before the exit polls. Four or five key people (David Dimbleby, Fiona Bruce, Andrew Marr, Peter Snow, Anthony King) discuss the exit polls and then you have the declarations from individual constituencies.

There are massive differences in the electoral and party system. But the most surprising difference is in the identification of voters and the physical aspects of voting. When I voted for the first time in Britain last year, I was quite shocked when noone asked for any ID. Similarly today, i just walked in with a scrap of paper sent to me postally (i.e. could have been someone else voting on my behalf). That polling card is not even compulsory! They confirmed my name and gave me a ballot which had four names on it (in greek general elections you get c. 30 massive sheets that you need about 10 minutes to go through and 20 minutes to fold; you then need to seal the envelope by licking it etc). In Britain you put an X with a pencil (!!) and then just throw the bare ballot into the ballot box...

Anyway, it appears that Tony Blair will win an historic third term for Labour (my prediction is a comfortable majority of 60+ seats). I also think that this is going to be the Liberal Democrats' election; although the electoral system does not favour them they should have significant gains. I was quite disappointed to find out that the Green Party did not field a candidate at my constituency (Bournemouth West). Perhaps i should go for it in 2009! LOL...

The 2001 General Election map looks like this: [click pic to see full size]


Visit the Centre for Public Communication Research's special election commentary.

Exit polls results to be announced at 22:00 BST. See BBC Online News for more info.

Review: The Interpreter

While in Greece, I also watched Sydney Pollack's The Interpreter - for the second time in a week.

Political thrillers are one of my favourite movie genres, and Pollack is a master of the genre (having directed films such as The Firm and Three Days of the Condor - by the way I just realised Pollack exec-produced Searching for Bobby Fischer, to which I referred a few days ago). Nicole Kidman is obviously one of my favourite actresses ever and The Interpeter is a slick, enjoyable film (although not flawless).

+ The suspense scenes (bus, appartment, UN HQ) are an excellent homage to Hitchcock and the 1970s masterpieces of the genre. The UN building looks beautiful and is the perfect setting for a film like that.
+ The film has a very retro feel overall (e.g. use of yellow Courier New fonts for the poster / title; the way the UN building is shot - and the building itself - is very 1950s/60s), which i think works really well.
+ Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn do their best given the weaknesses of the script, and they have quite good chemistry.

- The love story just doesn't work at all. The dialogue and overall direction of the romantic scenes is quite unsuccessful, which i have to say is consistent to Pollack's track record (he's much better doing suspense and intrigue rather than romance; Havana was a disaster).
- The ending is a bit silly, very Hollywood.
- The plot itself was probably too straightforward for a film like that. I wouldn't have minded watching something similarly complicated to De Palma's Mission Impossible.

I went to The Interpeter with high expectations of a masterpiece political thriller and in that sense it was a bit of a let-down. Overall, this is an enjoyable flick and a good night out but probably just that.

Review: Angels and Demons

After reading The Da Vinci Code, which i ...consumed within three days, and following the recommendation of a trusted friend, i read Dan Brown's prequel to the Code, i.e. Angels and Demons.

I deliberately timed reading this book as the recent conclave drew to a close, since this is essentially a conclave thriller. As with The Da Vinci Code, this is an unputdownable rollercoaster that almost made me miss my flight at Heathrow (in Heathrow; i started reading this in the departures' lounge and almost forgot that i was there to catch a flight!!).

The key elements are similar to the Code: the secrets of a beloved city (Rome); religious conspiracy and speculation mixed with sophisticated theosophy/philosophy; and a good old nail-biting man-hunt in real time and real space.



What i loved about this book is that someone FINALLY incorporates into pop culture the argument i've been trying to make for a few years now, i.e. that religion and science are not necessarily contradictory. I really enjoyed reading Dan Brown's thoughts on the issue (skillfully covered as a 'debate' between the Illuminati, the Vatican and CERN). We're so arrogantly certain of our achievements and of our powers, we forget we actually know shit. Evolution and Intelligent Design; the Bible and Einstein's theory of relativity; Adam and St/Eve; God and Nature; matter and anti-matter. We think we know what's going on, we try to put boundaries between the physical and the metaphysical (and exorcise the latter), but let's be honest, this distinction is artificial - it's only there to assist our conceptualisation of the universe (or to marginalise those who claim/have extra-ordinary experiences).

Anyway, theosophy aside, this is obviously a gripping book.

Yet, i did find certain elements of the narrative quite annoying:

- Dan Brown's tendency to exaggerate the dire situation in which the hero/ine are during the fight scenes (e.g. - i'm paraphrasing - "he knew he had lost the battle", "he had played his last card and had failed", "she knew it was over", "he knew he was staring at death", "if she knew what was coming up she would have wished to be dead" etc) only to overturn that situation and lead to a happy ending. Doing that once or twice may go unnoticed. Yet, Brown does that all the time throughout the action scenes and it just looks like cheap writing to me.

- The amount of plot twists can only be compared to 24 (the only reason i stopped watching 24 was the fact that they resorted to so many twists and turns so as to fill the time). Our knowledge about the key characters (apart from Langdon and Vittoria) goes through at least, like, four changes in the good/bad axis. By the end of it you stop trying to predict who's the good guy and who's the bad guy; you just don't really care about anyone anymore. In other words the author desperately tries to surprise you via character/plot twists (which is also what happened in the Da Vinci Code, but in smaller scale) and that works against the book's overall impression. I felt that the plot could have been contained in a 450-page book (rather than 620 pp).

Overall, however, this book was a worthy prequel to The Da Vinci Code, the absolute airport read; and the best promotion for a trip to Rome.

tick-tock, tick-tock

24 hours left in the safety of '28'...
i can still claim to be in my "late twenties"...
not for long...
29 on friday
then... 365 days left...

but hey, i'm not complaining, i've had a good ride. the 20s have (mostly) been great fun and i'll consider myself lucky if i reach 30 in 366 days.

30?!

f*cking hell. scary sh*t.

Review: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

While in Athens i finally got the chance to watch Brad Silberling's Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. This is an enjoyable little film best watched with children at Christmas.

+ It's official. Jim Carrey is a chameleon. I know many people can't stand him; i've had my own doubts, although at The Truman Show we saw the other side of his acting skills. In Lemony Snicket, Carrey completely transforms according to Count Olaf's impersonations and he's a pleasure to watch.
+ The supporting cast including Merryl Streep (enough said) and Timothy Spall.
+ Make-up, costume and production design, cinematography, special effects, music (Thomas Newman, i mean hello). The film was nominated for 4 Academy Awards and won a well-deserved Oscar for Achievement in Makeup.
+ The script and performances were witty, very black humour, kind of Addams Family thing.

- The plot was a bit predictable and the narrative itself was a bit boring.

All in all in terms of content this is probably your typical DVD film, although the technical/visual aspects of the film are best enjoyed on the silver screen.

Maggie's touch...

And so i'm back from Greece after a great, great week full of experiences and a (Greek) Easter that attacked my senses: sounds, tastes, sights and smells!

Topping that week was visiting the studios of Nitro Radio and the show of uber-cool DJ and friend Maggie Haralambidou. And, yes, going live on national radio.



Nitro is one of the top commercial radio stations in Greece and Maggie's programme is the chart-topping prime-time flagship slot. Maggie and I have been in touch (inside joke) for several years, mostly via the net - Kiss FM and now Nitro Radio - and I finally got the chance to watch her work magic on those FM waves up close and personal (funny coincidence: the new Nitro studios are a few blocks away from my Athens home). Take my word, she's even sexier in person than she is in her **hot** cd photos. She could almost turn me. Just about.

I was quite shocked when Maggie said "i'm getting you on air in a few minutes" but, hey, my vanity beat my dignity so there i was chatting live to the #1 DJ in Greece.



The studio itself was much smaller than i had imagined, but very cosy - also due to the hospitality of the fabulous Evi, Maggie's long-time assistant.

Maggie's first ever cd (a compilation appropriately entitled "Maggie's Touch") is out now from PlanetWorks. It's simply one of the best dance compilations of the last few years with some AWESOME tracks; it could literally be considered as the soundtrack of 2005.

Photos and more posts on recent developments to follow.