Review: 'Glamour of the Gods' at the National Portrait Gallery

Marilyn Monroe

Clark Gable and Joan Crawford

An usually sunny evening last week saw me visit the National Portrait Gallery to see their current ‘Glamour of the Gods’ exhibition. On Thursday and Friday evenings, the gallery is open until 9pm as part of their ‘Late Shift’ concept. After arriving early, we had the chance to look round the BP portrait prize show, which contained work by some seriously talented artists and portraits which were slightly less engrossing. Nevertheless, a great start to a perusal of the main event, for me at least.

‘Glamour of the Gods’ is a surprisingly small exhibition, but one that does its job perfectly. The portraits present a beautiful and lingering impression of some of Hollywood’s most illuminating stars from the 1920s to the 1960s. The women and men in the predominantly black and white showcase have become icons not just of the screen but in the worlds of fashion, beauty and art.

We are the privileged viewers of a portrait of Mary Pickford which was later published in US Vogue in 1920. Clark Gable and Joan Crawford’s chemistry dazzles, bouncing around the eggshell blue walls of the exhibition room. Vivien Leigh oozes the poise which is decidedly un-Blanche. It’s all here, and both lovers of cinema and filmic amateurs will appreciate what the pictures represent.

The blurbs that sit beside the images offer a more rounded, telling story. They convey the youth of the actors and actresses and the pressures that they faced in the roles that defined them.

What shone through to me though was the pointed synthesis between sex and vulnerability- the fear and the longing in the eyes of the female actresses. My only criticism of this exhibition is in its title. This isn’t about glamour, but about sex. And no portrait demonstrates that better than Ernest Bachrach’s image of Marilyn Monroe. Captured whilst filming Clash by Night in 1952, Monroe couldn’t appear less glamourous or more coquettish.

Haider Ackermann

This blog is a topical concoction of sorts. Sporadically written during university holidays when I'm working for free and more regularly kept up when I'm in my studying routine, I can only say that this post is one of those "now that I've thought it, and thought about it, I have to say it right now" type of pieces. So here goes...

Haider Ackermann. AW11. Wow... great shapes, fluid drapery, luxe fabrics and daring, daring cut-outs all meant that this collection made one of the big, if not the biggest, impacts of the season. I think the pictures probably say it all, but I just wanted to post this to remind myself and others that it's not only the household-name designers that get it spectacularly right. Independent Belgian brands have a lot to say as well, and I for one will be listening forthwith.

Snippets from my many musings on the "Phone-Hacking Scandal"

THE salient facts are these: On Monday 4^th July, the Guardian revealed that, in 2002, the journalists at the New of the World, under the editorship of Rebekah Brooks, hacked into the voicemail of murdered teenager Milly Dowler. At the time of the hacking, Milly Dowler was missing, and in the then-paper’s quest to produce revelatory stories, they began listening to and subsequently deleting messages so that more messages would filter through, thus producing more stories. As if this act wasn’t disgusting in itself, the missing messages understandably gave Milly’s family hope that she was still alive.

Over the next week, it came to light that Milly’s voicemails were just the tip of the iceberg. In jailed private investigator Glenn Mulcaire’s notebook, a further 4000 names were found, predicted to be potential victims of hacking. These included the parents of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, murdered in 2001, along with the families of soldiers killed at war and victims of the 7/7 bombings in London.

As a result of these abhorrent claims, advertisers began to pull out from the News of the World; an unforgivably tarnished brand now associated with criminality, immorality and disturbing insensitivity. The newspaper, part of News International, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, was quickly axed, and in a matter of minutes, 200 innocent journalists found themselves unemployed because of the repercussions of despicable acts committed years before: they were guilty by association.

But what made it possible for Murdoch to see this situation as being resolvable by the culling of an entire newspaper? How is it conceivable that law-abiding journalists should pay the price for the erstwhile work of a newsdesk from a different generation?

Something had to give, and publicly so. The obvious target for culpability was Mrs Brooks, the ex-editor who currently occupies the role of Chief Executive at News International. It appeared that she, the remnant of the criminal regime which once permeated the News of the World, was responsible for authorising the hackers to do their dirty work. However, Brooks remained in her position whilst the current staff of the newspaper were told to pack their bags.

Whilst the Murdochs must ultimately take responsibility for the News of the World’s closure, it must be accepted that the Guardian’s approach to publishing these exclusives allowed the paper’s brand, and not the guilty individuals, to face the chop. By pursuing the newspaper, the small number of executives and journalists to blame for the scandalous hackings were allowed to walk free, whilst the public face of the press crisis, as constructed by the Guardian, took the hit.

This was a week ago, when I began to write this piece. Now, I sit typing wondering whether what I write will be outdated tomorrow, as this extraordinary story continues to unfold at pace. Five minutes ago, Rebekah Brooks was arrested and now questions are being asked as to whether or not the News of the World need ever have left our newsstands at all. Possibly not, now that the true faces of the whole debacle are in custody. It would appear that Rupert Murdoch thought that sacrificing the paper would save Brooks, his protégée and priority. Not so. It now remains to be seen how long Murdoch and his son and employee, James, evade the clutches of justice.

The Tragedy of Macbeth

The following piece was written whilst I was on a work placement with Express & Echo, Exeter's local daily paper. It was published by the Echo in June 2011.

FILM FANS are in for a treat this summer, with a new version of Macbeth due to preview at the Phoenix Arts Centre in Exeter on the 30th June.

Devon-based Producer Mike Berenger’s film adaptation of The Tragedy of Macbeth, one of William Shakespeare’s most notorious and bloody tragedies, has been shot entirely in the Austrian Alps. It is described as “a chilling tale of glamorous celebrity and consuming passion, of shared courage and reckless ambition.

“It is the story of two young lovers seduced by their own wild desires, intoxicated by fame, fortune and the irresistible allure of false promises.”

Starring Marek Ovarec and Hannah Taylor Gordon as Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, the film promises to show the drama and suspense of Macbeth in all its glory.

Mr Berenger, who founded his own production company, Shakespeare Films, said “We wanted the first screening to be in Exeter because that’s where it all began.

“I was working locally with Greg Browning, the film’s Co-Producer, and we made quite a few films together. The idea for Macbeth was born from visits to the European Shakespeare Days in Murau, Austria. The energy was so great, I wanted to get involved.”

After a year’s organisation, Mr Berenger and his team, including Director Daniel Coll, shot The Tragedy of Macbeth in just 15 days in the winter of 2009.

Despite lengthy planning, filming did not run entirely smoothly. Mr Berenger added “We were shooting in sub-zero temperatures which often reached -15 degrees and the schedule was very tight. Our team of 48 people from all over Europe made sure we got everything done.”

Mr Berenger, who is now living in Whimple, near Ottery St. Mary, finished post-production on The Tragedy of Macbeth in January. At its Phoenix debut, the film aims to attract audiences from across the Exeter area with its fresh take on a classic play.

“The film was born in the area and offers a new way of looking at Shakespeare” said Mr Berenger. “It’s twilight-esque and captures the essence of love being all-consuming.”

“This is an completely new way of enjoying Shakespeare’s work and we hope that viewers of all ages find it entertaining. It is also designed to engage children and definitely has an educational value. By holding on to the original language and the structure of the story, but retaining the gripping drama of the play, we hope that youngsters find it accessible.”

The film’s soundtrack is composed by Simon Lloyd and Sam Clark, two musicians in their early twenties, which gives some indication of the vibrancy and innovation which can be expected from this adaptation.

Tickets for the Preview Screening of The Tragedy of Macbeth, including a Q&A with the producers, can be purchased by going to www.exeterphoenix.org.uk and cost £5.50 (£4.50).

Big Brother's Big Mouth: In the wake of the SuperInjunction scandal

THE relationship shared by celebrities and journalists has always been a tempestuous one but 2011 has seen more than enough tension between the two camps. Hot on the heels of Wikileaks and the phone-hacking scandal comes a new set of dramas surrounding the now ubiquitous super-injunction.

Within the last few weeks, we’ve seen the courts severely tested by the morals involved in approving these pieces of legislation that deny the press from reporting an individual’s private affairs. We’ve seen our freedom of speech restricted and national press manipulated. And for what? For the sake of protecting the identity of a high-profile public figure.

It should be asked why, and even how, certain people are permitted certain privileges above others. These injunctions are a valuable coup for the figures that obtain them and enable the retention of lucrative sponsorship deals, not to mention the prevention of public humiliation for themselves and their families. It would seem that super-injunctions are yet another tool that, whilst they do have their alternative functions, are designed to protect the fortunes and reputations of philandering males for whom one partner is not quite enough. The saga which has now unfolded around Ryan Giggs, Imogen Thomas and John Hemming, the MP who used parliamentary privilege to name the married footballer in the House of Commons, is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Ryan Giggs

Imogen Thomas

But are these injunctions defensible? The furore that has emerged since the outing of Giggs would suggest that these are debatable issues. Predictably, more and more polygamous men are coming out of the woodwork to defend celebrities’ rights to legal privacy. None other than Hugh Grant entered the row arguing that private matters should remain private matters regardless of the individual’s public status. He appeared to forget that it was the publication of Ryan Giggs’s private matters that gave him the image of being a likeable family man in the first place, something that has made Giggs millions in sponsorship deals in addition to his footballer’s salary. Would Giggs have sought an injunction giving him complete privacy, making both positive and negative press illegal? Of course not. This is a gross abuse of public trust which leaves the press subject to enforced bias, as demonstrated with aplomb by the Daily Mail, who published a family-friendly story on Giggs the day before he was confirmed as the adulterous footballer in question.

However, whilst the super-injunctions saga involving numerous actors, TV personalities and footballers has proved to be fantastic fodder for the countries’ gossip columns, people are beginning to understand the wider implications that this case has brought to light. Over the weekend we learnt that a banker named Giggs on Twitter no less than six hours after his injunction was awarded. Following another 75,000 tweets about the footballer, legal and policing authorities are beginning to wonder how on earth they are to go about bringing so many supposed law-breakers to justice. Twitter has been a global community and unofficial news wire for those in the know for a while, but it took a case of this magnitude and with this unprecedented level of public interest to reveal the power of engaged Twitter users. It would seem that Twitter and its collective users have single-handedly undermined the justice system. Are the ordinary public now above the law?

John Hemming MP

Twitter

In an increasing number of cases, the answer has to be ‘yes’. Twitter has 200 million registered accounts worldwide, and adds 460,000 to that number daily. Critics embroiled in the row over super-injunctions have unashamedly pronounced that it is near impossible to bring individual Twitter users to justice, let alone stop them revealing the guilty information in the first place. In many ways, the courts should be thankful that, despite the sinister and downright outrageous actions that celebrities have sought to cover, the power of Twitter as a subversive threat to the law has been unmasked through such relatively trivial cases. Concerns are now arising for what could come next, and how to prevent it. What is to stop people naming rape victims, publicising information about those under the witness protection system and ultimately prejudicing juries? Can a trial ever be considered ‘fair’?

One can be reasonably sure that whilst Giggs and Thomas were holed up in a hotel enacting one of their many sordid encounters, they didn’t even consider their families, let alone the idea that they were sowing the seeds of one of the biggest debates on global privacy, freedom of speech and justice that we have seen for many years. Of what the future holds, nobody can be certain. It took an issue of such moral outrage to expose just how individuals can and will wield power to correct what they see as the injustices in our modern world. This Pandora’s box of questions must be brought under control, because what the righteous public may choose to do next is anyone’s guess.

Feminism- A Man’s Word?

Are you a feminist? If not, why not? Are you ideologically opposed to gender equality, or are you a woman who has been made to feel ashamed about feminism by a man?

I’m not going to write this piece apologetically- I am a feminist and proud- and you should be too. Men have done a tremendous job of making women feel like feminism is for no-one but shaven-headed, briefcase-brandishing ‘lesbians’, and it’s about time women stood up and put the record straight.

For a start, there’s nothing wrong with being a skinhead, homosexual working woman. But the problem is, men have characterised feminists in such a way that the concept isn’t one that appeals to women any more. Women who endorse feminism feel increasingly belittled by men who like nothing more than stereotyping them for their own benefit. Of course, ladies, men are going to be reductive about feminism, but that doesn’t mean you have to believe it.

Increasingly, working women are realising that they can’t ‘have it all’, and no, they won’t see as much of their children if they devote most daylight hours to their career. But housewives can be feminists too, because feminism is a belief, not a lifestyle choice. Feminists shouldn’t be an endangered species; everyone should be one. It seems like the root of the problem is that men and women have forgotten what feminism is. Modern notions of feminism, conveniently informed by men, involve ‘dykes’ and ‘pitbulls’, and no woman wants to be labelled as something she doesn’t believe she is, so she rejects any notions of feminism, even if she does believe in what it actually stands for. Feminists, as Mary Wollstonecraft would have us believe, support equal rights for women and fair access to education, and yet so many of us dismiss the idea embodying these values.

Dragon’s Den entrepreneur, Deborah Meaden, recently denounced feminism, stating “I'm not a feminist. I consider my position in the business world not as a woman but as a person”. I find it astounding that such high-profile figures, role models even, are embarrassed to call themselves feminists. It is feminism that allows her to enter boardrooms, feminism that supports her status as a person. Her entire notions of self, the basis of how she considers herself are grounded in the work that feminists did for women nearly 200 years ago. If we are ever to close the gender pay gap, if women are ever to be considered and the political, social and economical equals to men, then we must stop listening to the men who tell us that feminists are ‘butch’ and start truly recognising the pioneering intelligence of our female ancestors.

The Pill- a woman's world?

Firstly, apologies for my prolonged absence! April was taken up by a busy internship at Vogue, and now I'm in the throng of university exams. This blog will return in all its glory on the 24th May 2011.

Family Planning Clinics are the sexually-active, seventeen-year-old female’s saving grace. They are a sanctuary of safety where, unbeknown to many a male of a similar age, women are given comfort, liberty, and perhaps most importantly, choice.

In the early sixties the combined oral contraceptive pill, simply known as ‘the pill’, was introduced. With what I would hope should be an obvious effect on the concept of ‘creation’, the pill also transformed female culture and the lives of women as it was rolled out across the world.

Of course the pill is widely available beyond the Family Planning Clinics of Britain and to women of all ages. But living during a time where the consumer is king and all manner of contraceptives are available over the counter, it’s easy to understate the difference that the pill made for couples and women in particular. Do women, on their mad morning dash to the nurse’s room, really understand what the consequences of a frenetic one night stand once were? Do we know how lucky we are?

I would argue no. Despite the condom’s induction in the late nineteenth century, the pill gave women autonomous control over their bodies, and the ability to submit to their carnal desires, rubber or no rubber. The liberating effects of the pill were dramatic, as women were able to protect themselves from pregnancy of their own volition.

But men have a right to be anxious. The degree of independence that the pill permitted gave women an unprecedented amount of power to wield. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but condoms are mutual. You know if he’s wearing one, and you’re well within your rights to refuse sex if he isn’t. However, as far as my limited research has informed me, guys just don’t get and often don’t trust the pill.

And with good reason. The culture of women abusing the power that the pill allows them exists and is breeding. Sadly, as if sex isn’t enough of a weapon, it’s not unheard of for women to control their fertility through erratic and deceptive use of the pill. Some admit to using men to provide children, saying they’re on the pill when they’re not, others even get pregnant to ensure a permanent connection between themselves and the father of their child. Whilst the pill undoubtedly represents a huge advancement in the fields of medicine, technology and women’s rights (more people have taken it than any other prescribed medicine in the world) one might be hard pushed to establish a basis upon which the pill furthered sexual equality. After all, surely sexual relationships are more equal when both the male and the female have tangible control over their contraceptive choices.

For many men, the pill is just too invisible to trust and condoms are just fine, thank you very much. We should credit the male species with the intelligence to realise that enhanced sexual pleasure perhaps isn’t worth it when an unplanned pregnancy is the alternative option, and if men refuse to wear condoms, then we can refuse intercourse.

It most commonly argued that the pill meant that preventing pregnancy was in a woman's hands; she could take the pill at her discretion, without anyone knowing and without depending on a man. But since when were condoms the sole responsibility of the male sexual partner? Perhaps the real issue was that women did not know how to have their say in the bedroom and the pill gave them that voice.

As for where that leaves the pill, I would be the first person to advocate that the little white tablets have made sex a more enjoyable experience for those in long-term, healthy and trusting relationships. The pill is a tool and a symbol of female emancipation, but it wasn’t invented so that women could sleep around easily and frequently and it certainly wasn’t supposed to keep men in the dark. However, a wider choice of contraceptives that take the pressure off women to have sex without condoms definitely has positive implications. With or without the pill, responsibility should be the first thing on everyone’s minds- there’s no excuse for relying on the Family Planning Clinic any more.