I note my previous blog was about the First World War and regret, therefore, that this one briefly treads that same ground.
This is an extract from a book called Myths & Legends of the First World War by James Hayward. In the opening chapters, Mr Hayward talks about the rumours, legends and false-sightings that swept across Britain as the war ground into action from August 1914.
It seems that things reached such a pass that many legitimate, pro-British activities, were caught up in a net of suspicion. Consider the following:
"At this period [Sep 1914] the disease [spy mania] attacked even naval and military officers and special constables. If a telegraphist was sent on a motor-cycle to examine and test the telegraph poles, another cyclist was certain to be sent out by some authority in pursuit. On one occasion the authorities dispatched to the Eastern Counties a car equipped with a Marconi aparatus and two skilled operators to intercept any illicit messages that might be passing over the North Sea. They left London at noon: at 3 they were under lock and key in Essex. After an exchange of telegrams they were set free, but at 7pm they telegraphed from the police cells in another part of the country, imploring help. When again liberated they refused to move without the escort of a Territorial officer in uniform, but on the following morning, the police of another county had got hold of them and telegraphed: "Three German spies arrested with car and complete wireless installation, one in uniform of British officer."
Wednesday 27 April 2011
Friday 15 April 2011
OH WHAT A LOVELY WAR
A couple of days ago I went to see the fine, Trevor Nunn production of Terence Rattigan's play 'Flarepath' at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket.
The play is about a love and duty during wartime and is set in a boarding house very near an aerodrome for a squadron of Wimpeys (Wellington bombers).
The finish is with a slightly reworded (for the RAF) version of the WW1 song, "I don't want to join the army, I don't want to go to war" and this led me to remember another version of this song, this time contemporary with WW1, but very much a woman's version.
Sadly, I don't remember all the words but here are some of them:
"Monday, I wake up with a soldier;
Tuesday, I wake up with a tar;
Wednesday, I go out with a young boy scout
Thursday, a hussar
Friday, I tie-up with the Navy
- I've always liked the look of something blue.
But on Saturday I'm willing,
if you have got a shilling
to make a man of any one of you."
Or something like that.
The play is about a love and duty during wartime and is set in a boarding house very near an aerodrome for a squadron of Wimpeys (Wellington bombers).
The finish is with a slightly reworded (for the RAF) version of the WW1 song, "I don't want to join the army, I don't want to go to war" and this led me to remember another version of this song, this time contemporary with WW1, but very much a woman's version.
Sadly, I don't remember all the words but here are some of them:
"Monday, I wake up with a soldier;
Tuesday, I wake up with a tar;
Wednesday, I go out with a young boy scout
Thursday, a hussar
Friday, I tie-up with the Navy
- I've always liked the look of something blue.
But on Saturday I'm willing,
if you have got a shilling
to make a man of any one of you."
Or something like that.
Friday 1 April 2011
ARS GRATIA ARTIS
Do we need the Arts Council at all? Indeed do we, in this year of cuts, even require a Ministry? Let's free Art and Culture from government control!
For me there has always been an inherent contradiction in the notion of government supported 'arts' (taking the broad meaning of that word to include performance, creative, applied and so on). There was a time when this implied, for example, that there was a statutory requirement that bodies even as grand as the Royal Opera House were required in return for their Arts Council grants, to ensure some of their seats (of course the ones in the 'gods' whence no one can see anything) should be cheap enough to encourage broad attendance by the public.
But this argument hardly applies now and it certainly doesn't seem to apply to that uber-government event, the Olympics where even the cheapest seats, for example for the heats of the Graeco-Roman wrestling are, when transport costs are added, out of the reach of many.
There are other arguments - I saw one in the Standard yesterday evening - that point out that the anticipated cuts in Arts Council grants will result in the demise of over 200 theatre companies. I wonder, if considered holistically, whether this is true? Will individuals desist from assuming the motley because Whitehall has withdrawn the King's Shilling? No; no more than schools will give up the school play or colleges and universities will halt revivals of "Charlie's Aunt".
The majority of the failing and fading theatre groups are, I would argue, failing and fading because they are 'experimental', often another term for 'unwatchable', and while I have no argument at all with those who wish to mount shows of this type, I see no reason why such events should not be supported by the altruism implicit in the concept of Cameron's "Big Society" rather than by the Ministry.
I am not a great believer in other people of whatever cultural background or enthusiasm, expressing themselves at my (i.e. the taxpayer's) expense. Also, while I do agree that some theatre or show seats should be cheaper than others, I would leave this to the commercial and social judgment of impressarios because there's another side of that coin.
Even if seats were one pound each, there are a lot of events where I would happily not be present and I am sure that holds true for everyone (albeit the events themselves may differ - it's this that supports the cultural milieu). In other words, price/money is not the issue. Many football matches are sell-outs at high prices and many are half-empty with low prices. And doesn't it annoy you when it's discovered that Wimbledon tickets, or Michael McIntyre tickets or Glastonbury tickets or, for all I know, tickets to watch Carlos Acosta perform his grand pliés are going for many times face value on the black market. Certainly when I hear such a thing, I am cross that the venue or operator - inevitably a taxable entity - is selling its wares too cheaply.
In fact one could argue that a sell-out event has been priced too lowly.
Many would say that the 'Arts' should not be about money - and I would agree. But they are about money as far as the government and, by derivation, the population of today is concerned.
In Paris, in its mind the capital of a more egalitarian state that Britain, entry to museums is not free except one day a week (Tuesday from memory). No one thinks this stray or unfair. In England, that major celebration of cultural identity, the Notting Hill Carnival, does not receive government grants and no one thinks this strange or unfair.
So if we want to be 'experimental' with Arts and Culture, let's experiment with cutting all but the bare minimum of State involvement. The results would, I promise you, be very exciting for the culturally attuned and for the Treasury's accountants!
For me there has always been an inherent contradiction in the notion of government supported 'arts' (taking the broad meaning of that word to include performance, creative, applied and so on). There was a time when this implied, for example, that there was a statutory requirement that bodies even as grand as the Royal Opera House were required in return for their Arts Council grants, to ensure some of their seats (of course the ones in the 'gods' whence no one can see anything) should be cheap enough to encourage broad attendance by the public.
But this argument hardly applies now and it certainly doesn't seem to apply to that uber-government event, the Olympics where even the cheapest seats, for example for the heats of the Graeco-Roman wrestling are, when transport costs are added, out of the reach of many.
There are other arguments - I saw one in the Standard yesterday evening - that point out that the anticipated cuts in Arts Council grants will result in the demise of over 200 theatre companies. I wonder, if considered holistically, whether this is true? Will individuals desist from assuming the motley because Whitehall has withdrawn the King's Shilling? No; no more than schools will give up the school play or colleges and universities will halt revivals of "Charlie's Aunt".
The majority of the failing and fading theatre groups are, I would argue, failing and fading because they are 'experimental', often another term for 'unwatchable', and while I have no argument at all with those who wish to mount shows of this type, I see no reason why such events should not be supported by the altruism implicit in the concept of Cameron's "Big Society" rather than by the Ministry.
I am not a great believer in other people of whatever cultural background or enthusiasm, expressing themselves at my (i.e. the taxpayer's) expense. Also, while I do agree that some theatre or show seats should be cheaper than others, I would leave this to the commercial and social judgment of impressarios because there's another side of that coin.
Even if seats were one pound each, there are a lot of events where I would happily not be present and I am sure that holds true for everyone (albeit the events themselves may differ - it's this that supports the cultural milieu). In other words, price/money is not the issue. Many football matches are sell-outs at high prices and many are half-empty with low prices. And doesn't it annoy you when it's discovered that Wimbledon tickets, or Michael McIntyre tickets or Glastonbury tickets or, for all I know, tickets to watch Carlos Acosta perform his grand pliés are going for many times face value on the black market. Certainly when I hear such a thing, I am cross that the venue or operator - inevitably a taxable entity - is selling its wares too cheaply.
In fact one could argue that a sell-out event has been priced too lowly.
Many would say that the 'Arts' should not be about money - and I would agree. But they are about money as far as the government and, by derivation, the population of today is concerned.
In Paris, in its mind the capital of a more egalitarian state that Britain, entry to museums is not free except one day a week (Tuesday from memory). No one thinks this stray or unfair. In England, that major celebration of cultural identity, the Notting Hill Carnival, does not receive government grants and no one thinks this strange or unfair.
So if we want to be 'experimental' with Arts and Culture, let's experiment with cutting all but the bare minimum of State involvement. The results would, I promise you, be very exciting for the culturally attuned and for the Treasury's accountants!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)