History In The Making

So the Oscars ceremony was yesterday and lo and behold, Daniel Day-Lewis became the first person to receive the 'Best Actor' award three times, previously for his leading roles in 'My Left Foot' in 1989 and 'There Will Be Blood' in 2007, as well as 2013 for his role as Abraham Lincoln in the blockbuster 'Lincoln'. Having only recently seen 'Lincoln', the impact of Daniel Day-Lewis's acting of Lincoln is still vividly imprinted on my mind for its sheer competence and ability to pull off such a strong character with such success. Tipped as being the biggest film of 2012/2013, one can see why - with great casting (Tommy Lee-Jones is spectacular in his supporting role), in depth analysis on the personal life behind Lincoln the politician, showing the struggles, turmoil and great deal of grief both he and his family endured for the fight for a united country and emancipation.

Having studied the American Civil War, Lincoln, and the topic of the abolition of slavery being my dissertation topic at University, I felt like I had a good understanding as to the role of Lincoln in this situation. Watching Daniel Day-Lewis acting as Lincoln, you could see that he was in his zone acting to the utmost of his abilities with great effect. No matter what reviews were given on the film as a whole, whether it be of people saying it was too long winded, boring or just an extended documentary on the life of Abraham Lincoln in the later stages of the American Civil War, no one can deny the ability of Daniel Day-Lewis to control his character as being a central figure in the film, his calmness within the role as a whole, and the amount of empathy he receives from the audiences through his staggering performance of arguably the most influential man in American History.

I do have one minor issue with the film though. The film started after the Emancipation Proclamation was introduced by Abraham Lincoln in 1863 - this is significant because, from what I have read and learnt previously, before 1863, Lincoln had his mind set on winning the Civil War at all costs and not really focusing on abolishing slavery until the end of the war, if that. It was only when the Civil War extended longer than he anticipated and when it became apparent that it was only going to be through the abolishing of slavery (or for the meantime show he was opposed to human slavery as an institution) that the Civil War could be won, and by which foreign support could be provided, leading to the ultimate port blockades to prevent supplies going to the front line for the Confederate forces. The film showed none of this 'previous mind-set' Lincoln had and focused solely on his fight for emancipation and the passing of the 13th Amendment - the abolition of the slave trade in the free world! I would compare it to the film 'Amazing Grace', featuring Ioan Gruffudd, Albert Finney, Benedict Cumberbatch and Michael Gambon, where it shows the fight for abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire. However, the one thing Amazing Grace shows that Lincoln didn't was slavery in full effect as well as the overall effects of slavery on politician, priest and women alike. It was as if to understand the full story of Lincoln, told and untold throughout the film, you needed to have brushed up on your pre-Emancipation Proclamation American History. Nevertheless, the film should be awarded the highest praise, and Daniel Day-Lewis's Oscar is most well deserved.

On to another history orientated film, this time a musical, not just any musical, but Les Miserables. With an outstanding cast of Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Helena Bonham-Carter, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Eddie Redmayne, it was definitely going to be one of the films to watch of 2012/2013. Set in the time of the French Revolution during the Nineteenth Century, the musical shows how lives are changed for the characters Jean Valjean and Javert from inprisonment and imposing law, to family, to love and ultimately death. In my opinion, Hugh Jackman did an incredible job playing the part of Jean Valjean, a previous prisoner of 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread who turns a new leaf and becomes the master of a factory and mayor of his town. I already knew that Hugh Jackman could sing (better than Russell Crowe at least) through his performance at the Tony Awards a couple years back with Neil Patrick Harris

 *cue youtube link* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgivKET0Mrs

However, his performance in Les Miserables was quite mind-blowing, nearly on par with Daniel Day Lewis's in Lincoln. To hear that Anne Hathaway got an Oscar for 'Best Supporting Actress' was astonishing as well considering her character was only in the film for the duration of half an hour, there or thereabouts. Nonetheless, it was a performance to be proud of and one which deserved praise of the highest accord. It has to be said that never has a film needed more of a comedic interlude then Les Miserables did. This was duly dolled out in the shape of the class act duo Thenardier and Madame Thenardier (played by Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter). The inclusion of their humorous scripting was what was needed to keep the movie entertaining. Not only did they work wonders as a partnership but they gave something different to an otherwise serious and provocative musical. Sacha Baron Cohen's line 'You stole our courgette' was one of the more comedic additions to the musical, even if it was a bit childish.

As much as I love Russell Crowe for his acting in Gladiator, Robin Hood, A Beautiful Mind, and Master and Commander, I wasn't so sure on his singing ability whilst playing the part of Javert in Les Miserables. For instance, every time he was hitting a high note in his solo's the camera would inadvertently lift up 50 meters or so, possibly to spare his blushes to show he couldn't reach the notes. Nonetheless, acting wise I think he played the part well, though one can say he did sing better then Pierce Brosnan did in his rather drab performance in Mamma Mia.


Thus ends another blog entry from myself, I hope you enjoyed this latest one and thank you for reading it!

Jonathan Whitehead

Even spinach won't help Pope-eye now!

With Pope Benedict XVI deciding to resign his post as a leader of the Catholic Church this week, the media and people a-like have come out in full force regarding their opinions of this news, some positive, some negative. As Pope Benedict XVI was the first Pope to resign from his post in over 600 years, for the majority of the Catholic following around the world, this news came as a shock.

*cue video of woman reacting dramatically* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19Rqre1deuM

The resignation has also sparked a multitude of meme's to be created in its legacy, my favourite of which is linked below!

In all honesty, my reaction to the Pope resigning was somewhat muted as I understand that he is old, frail and is verging on collapsing at any moment. To think that Popes are any different from the rest of us in regards to their human nature and ageing process is near on absurd. Coming to the assumption that on the basis that as Pope, and the leader of the Catholic Church means he should marry himself to leading the Church until his dying breath is being unrealistic. So, in my opinion, it is unfair to disregard a person's health and strengths to 'fit the role', so as to fulfil their status and commitment to the Church as a whole.

Whilst we're on the notion of the Church and people's relation to it, I thought that I would take this opportunity to comment on my own notion of Religion and the importance of your own spiritual journey, regardless of the pressure placed on you by society or family.

I got taken to one of these Religious talks last week on how we can incorporate God's love for us within our own lives and within family. The speaker, of respectable background, spoke of how no matter what we do or have done in the past, our family would be there to love us wholeheartedly. He spoke of an unconditional love which God has for us so that he sent his only son down from Heaven to teach the world of his love and compassion for one and all. We then got split into smaller groups to further our discussions regarding the talk and our own personal views on Religion and our relationship to God, both spiritually and within our everyday life. I took up the point of questioning what made us Religious, what made us part of God's family. I have always questioned the effectiveness of Religion upon society, and the capacity for one Religion to have such a firm belief there is not only just a God and an afterlife, but also seeing their God as being the most righteous and believable. I questioned whether we can call ourselves Religious by the mere notion of going to Church every Sunday, or whether it is through our day to day lives, how we treat and regard other people, how we believe in our heart of hearts that something greater is out there leading us on to a better life. Or is it all of the above? Is it good to have your doubts? Does it make you a bad Catholic if you go to Church and not join in on the ceremonies because you are questioning your faith? Is it a waste of time to go to Church if you are in such a mindset? These are the questions that I have been asking myself a lot recently.

I have been brought up in a Religious household since birth, I have been baptised, confirmed, travelled to Lourdes on two back to back years at the end of my School years, and been on a Faith Conference for a week to help build a better relationship with God and Christianity. At School, I found a sense of rest-bite knowing that I could turn to Religion to resolve any issues I had within myself surrounding my faith. At Lourdes, I saw an eclectic range of Catholics and visitors coming to help those in need, strengthen their faith or just take in the scenery as was the case with some of them. There was a situation I found myself in during my time at Lourdes which led to me starting to question the respectability of wholeheartedly calling yourself a Catholic. There was a man in the middle of the street, stranded in a broken electric wheelchair calling out for help and hoards of people just walking past him as if everything was alright with the world. Upon asking the man what had happened, he told me he had been calling out for help there for near on 20 minutes without heed. Furthermore, the next 20 minutes spent helping the man, no one came to offer their assistance in any regard. For this to happen in one of the most profound Christian places shocked and appalled me. In addition, at the Faith Conference I went to in the summer of 2011, it seemed that any discussion in regards to questioning the authority, authenticity or debatable nature of some of the talks and readings given or talked about was almost not encouraged. What is a democratic belief in Religion or God if there is no room for debate and discussion?

In recent years, my faith has faded due to changes in my personal circumstances. With three of my grandparents and my godfather passing away after undergoing a significant time of suffering, all in the years since 2007, all that came as a consequence of these was a questioning of my faith in a God. With two of my grandparents being two of the most religious people I have ever met, and my godfather being a priest all his life, to see them endure the suffering they went through before dying gave me great heartache and no real hope for a better understanding of Religion or of God even, it just made me angry and frustrated. This anger and frustration led to a further questioning of my faith and ultimately led to a great deal of hotly disputed debates between my father and myself. This was not aided in my ability to hold a string of unsuccessful relationships over the course of my four years at University, furthermore questioning my already questionable belief.

So I guess this blog entry was more of a rant than a informative discussion of Religion and the Pope's resignation, but it was something that I needed to get off my chest in one format or another. These are my own views on Religion and I understand other people have different views.

Jonathan Whitehead

Time for a little hide and seek

So as most of you will know, the remains of the late Richard III were discovered underneath a car park in Leicester. After over a staggering 500 years since his death in 1485, the magnitude of this discovery has surpassed many that have gone before. Furthermore, for the jovial members interested in History out there, Richard III can easily be crowned (excuse my pun) champion of the longest game of 'hide and seek' to have ever been played. *cue humorous meme*

So what makes this discovery so significant? Why has it taken over 500 years to discover his body? And the question I keep asking myself... Why build a car park over the top of a previous King of England? (admittedly unintentionally).

On the throne as King of England for a mere two years from 1483 until his death at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, Richard III never had a serious chance in pushing forward plans and implementing his power in as short a time as he was ruling over his lands. Conflict brewed and came to the fore in the years prior to Richard's crowning as King, with battles and skirmishes between his Father (Richard Plantagenet), Uncle (Edward IV) and their 'enemies of the state' Henry VI and Henry Tudor (later to become Henry VII). Consequently, Richard III was placed on the crown in a country riddled with turmoil, corruption and deceit. Rebellions were effective ways to reduce the power, influence and support of Richard's aristorcracy and gentry. Thus, Richard's brief and short-lived stay in power was suitably predictable, given the state the country was in come the time of his accession to power, the length of his stay in power was merely going to be determined by how effective his army and supporters were in derailing any negativity or backlash surrounding possible revolutions or uprisings.

So why is this discovery so significant?

In terms of honorary duties, being King of England obviously has its significance with regards to reputation, past culture, and notion of royalty. Hence, the media outcry of recent days regarding his burial remains. In addition, his death marked the end of the War of the Roses, a conflict fought between the House of York and the House of Lancaster over sporadic years between 1455 and 1485. During this time of upheaval and suppression of power, the significant inability to gain any real notion of power, status and reputation bypassed the trivial bystanders level of approval and was brought significantly by military power and success.

Furthermore, Richard III was popularised through William Shakespeare's play of an identical name. This play, written in 1592, was to bring forward the history of not only the effects of the War of the Roses, but also the extended circumstances surrounding Richard III's family, notably his two young nephews who were said to have been murdered by Richard's own ruling after he succeeded the throne. What this play did, in turn, was to publicise what role Richard III had in changing the course of history, in a way in which the general populous could recognise the overwhelming state of conflict he got placed into, the role he played in attempting to remain in power for as long as possible, and most of all the significance of his death.

Jonathan Whitehead