Meewella | Fragments

The Life of P

Category: General (page 1 of 61)

2022: A Year in Film (Part 2)

Continuing from part 1, this concludes the Top 10 films of the year.

5. The Northman

When an artistic director known for creating tightly constrained, evocative films on a small scale suddenly finds themselves in possession of a Hollywood budget, it can often spell disaster. It was with some trepidation, then, that I approached Robert Eggers’ viking epic with a budget estimated to be almost ten times that of The Lighthouse — a film that essentially featured two actors and one location. Eggers’ overriding attention to detail on this new scale must have been a monumental undertaking, drawing from both Norse history and their ritual practices. Continuing to collaborate with cinematographer Jarin Blaschke, the pair capture the wild fury of the untamed landscape against which small villages seem an almost futile refuge. It may have been relentlessly grim, but The Northman was the most gripping cinema of the year.

4. The Banshees of Inisherin

Having rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri 10/10, there was a weight of expectation on Martin McDonaugh’s follow-up, The Banshees of Inisherin. Happily, reuiniting with In Bruges leads Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson made things feel immediately convivial and familiar, that is until a rift opens between the lifelong friends they play. It seems strange to have such a humourous, exaggerated tale unfold on an island that seems weighed down by despair, but perhaps no more than setting a tale of guilt and violence in a picturesque fairytale town like Bruges. Having demonstrated that Seven Psychopaths was an isolated misstep in an otherwise faultless filmography, McDonaugh has cemented his position amongst the best directors working today.

3. The Worst Person in the World

A late contender (I saw it only a few days ago after shortlisting films I had missed in order to cross them off before the end of the year), this Norwegian romantic comedy drama left me with the most fully-formed impression and understanding of a character from any film this year. Renate Reinsve deserves the recognition she is receiving for bringing Julie to life as more than an archetype. She is deeply flawed but the title is more about self-perception and how our subjective reality can influence behaviour: we will most often attempt to act like the person we believe ourselves to be. Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt’s script shares my view that the most effective way to allow people to become better versions of themselves is to show them that that is the way we see them.

2. Everything Everywhere All At Once

A sign of how weak a year it has been for Marvel is that a film called The Multiverse of Madness wasn’t even the best multiverse movie of the year. Clunkily-named directing duo “Daniels” unleashed a frenzy of creativity that coalesced into a sublime action comedy drama filled with talent but ultimately resting on Michelle Yeoh, who slides between genres with ease. Daniels have improved leaps and bounds from their debut Swiss Army Man, which was certainly original but mired in puerile humour that undercut any risk of emotional impact. Yes, their world-building is still utterly absurd, but the very grounded relationships between parents and children imbue the proceedings with genuine emotional stakes. It remains a film best experienced for the first time with as little foreknowledge as possible, but it is such a whirlwind that it almost demands further viewing.

1. Aftersun

When I started reviewing films on a 10-point scale, I viewed 9 as the benchmark for the best handful of films each year with 10 reserved for those that affected me profoundly in a personal way, that rare and magical experience that cinema can offer outside of mere objective competency. My expectation was that there might be one film a year that received a 10. In fact, it has been five years since the last one. What I find most astonishing about Aftersun is not that it is a debut from both its director and one of its lead actors, but an intangible quality it has achieved in capturing the ephemeral sense of memory within the fundamentally transient medium of film. It does this in obvious ways like the use of camcorder footage being recorded and watched, but through subtler means too ⁠— the way the camera lingers to suggest curiosity or regret, and the void between scenes as time seems compressed into short windows of recollection. There is a darkness that hangs over much of Aftersun that eventually speaks to a particularly personal concern, but the film had ensnared me long before. And in the months since, it has only embedded itself further as a holiday that I too now recall, a memory that never occurred. That is a new experience, and worthy of a 10.

2022: A Year in Film (Part 1)

For the first time (as far as I can recall), I am composing a top ten list as this is the first year in which I feel that have seen almost all the films likely to compete for a spot. I have seen and reviewed a total of 82 new films this year, of which 49 were released in the UK this year (that being the qualification criterion, although QuickViews identify films by the year of first release worldwide). The notable omissions are She Said and Smile; I am also due to see an advance screening of The Whale tomorrow, though it would not qualify since its general release is not until February 2023. Ratings for 2022 ranged between 2 and 10, although the average score was a respectable 6.8, bearing in mind that generally I am self-selecting films I expect to enjoy. The year’s worst was Moonfall, though it only narrowly beat Russell Crowe’s Poker Face to that ignominious victory.

On to the good stuff. I will link each of the Top 10 to their respective QuickView, but with some additional comments. This post will cover the honourable mentions and #10-6, with the top 5 to follow tomorrow.

Honourable mentions

This year’s best animation was Guillermo del Toro’s stop-motion Pinnochio, which outstripped Pixar’s middling offerings of late. There were a number of pleasantly surprising actions films, including a colourful and creative adaptation of the Japense novel Bullet Train, a reimagining of Prey that transported the sci-fi franchise back 300 years to a Comanche Tribe, and the heartfelt and poignant Top Gun: Maverick. There were also several horror standouts with X (which introduced me to Jenna Ortega before her excellent incarnation of Wednesday) and the high concept Hatching from Finland, which just missed out on a top 10 spot.

10. Living

My opinion of Living has only improved in the months since its release, through discussing it with others and through the way Nighy’s quiet performance retains such potence. I still consider Ikiru to be the superior film, but I may have been unfair to Kazuo Ishiguro in describing his adaptation as “slavishly faithful” since he has injected something of his own style into the material as well. Its message about living life meaningfully also has a personal significance to me this year (and indeed to this post), as I have transitioned to a four-day working week. That change is what has afforded me greater time in the second half of the year to spend in darkened cinemas and writing these reviews.

9. The Batman

Not a single Marvel film made the top ten list as Phase 4 of the MCU continued to underwhelm, but a DC comicbook movie outshone them all. The Batman fell outside of the divisive “Snyderverse” and before James Gunn took the reins in a shake up of DC’s cinematic future, which allowed Matt Reeves to carve out his own style for the Dark Knight unburdened by wider franchise concerns. Admittedly to my eye much of that style came from The Crow, but the result was the most compelling incarnation of Gotham since Tim Burton’s take on the city. Robert Pattinson has already ably proved his acting credentials but I was still pleasantly surprised by his turn in the cowl. Whatever DC’s future plans, I hope this world will not be sacrificed.

8. Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery

Rian Johnson reportedly hates the “Knives Out” tagline being attached to Glass Onion as he wants them to be seen as standalone mysteries like Agatha Christie’s novels. I described Knives Out as feeling theatrical with its constrained setting and by contrast the island resort of Glass Onion feels cinematic in scope, though as a mystery it is equally tightly controlled. It stands well above the other whodunits released this year, largely as Johnson continues to play with the form rather than simply replicating it. And let us not forget it also provided the Christmas gift of a delightfully idiotic Ben Shapiro twitter rant complaining that a mystery film “misdirected” him in the first half!

7. Belfast

I was almost a year late to Belfast, Kenneth Branagh’s ode to his youth. With a US release in 2021, it already scooped a writing Oscar at the start of the year for Branagh, whose well-observed family drama within a coming-of-age tale is understated yet compelling. As an unabashed crowdpleaser, it treats the Troubles (to this day a masterpiece of British understatement) as a backdrop rather than its focus, which could certainly be viewed as an overly nostalgic take on a dark period in Northern Ireland’s history. However it does accurately reflect the naive childhood perspective that it seeks to portray.

6. RRR

The year’s biggest Bollywood release is a rousing revolutionary fantasy which delivers its message against colonialism but has been deservedly scrutinised in its reinforcement of an oppressive caste framework. It is nevertheless one of the most creative action films of the year, and one of the most entertaining. It also reminds me that — whilst I enjoy and advocate for world cinema — I do have a tendency to overlook cinema from the South Asian subcontinent despite my own heritage. It is something I intend to rectify next year, particularly as streaming services make many of those films more accessible than ever. Readers are encouraged to hold me to account (or provide recommendations in a less aggressive manner!).

Christmas 2022

An Interview with ChatGPT

Mak and I were discussing OpenAI’s recently unveiled ChatGPT chatbot, an impressively creative and naturalistic generative model that has garnered some viral press in the past few days. It is based on their GPT-3 model released in June 2020. He suggested it might make for an interesting blog post, jokingly suggesting that I could have the AI write it. I do have an OpenAI account and, whilst I am not quite ready to hand over the reins of the site to an AI, I wondered whether I could interview it in such a way that it covered the topics I would address in an article, particularly in respect of the limitations of what this model is designed to do which make headlines like “Google is done” wildly inaccurate.

My intention here was to generate useful content rather than asking it trick questions or exploring its esoteric knowledge (it had no trouble reeling off a list of the Valar from the Silmarillion and their respective duties). One important caveat to note is that whilst ChatGPT was able to communicate its limitations, it obviously does not understand those limitations, so it cannot assess its own responses.

Here is how the interview went.

How would you describe your development process?

As a language model trained by OpenAI, I don’t have a development process in the same way that a human or a software program might. I was trained using a machine learning technique called deep learning, which involved feeding a large amount of data to a neural network and allowing it to learn from the data by adjusting the connections between its many nodes. This process can take a long time, depending on the amount of data and the complexity of the model.

Are there risks in using this method?

There are always risks associated with using any machine learning technique, including deep learning. One potential risk is tha the model might not perform well on unseen data, either because it has not been trained on enough data or because it has learned the wrong features from the data. This can lead to incorrect or unpredictable results. Another potential risk is that the model might learn to make decisions based on biased or discriminatory data, which could lead to unfair or harmful outcomes.

Historically chatbots have tried to mimic human conversation. It seems like you are designed to create longer form content. Is that accurate?

Yes, that’s accurate. While some chatbots are designed to mimic human conversation, I’m not one of them. I’m a large language model trained by OpenAI, and my main purpose is to generate human-like text based on the input I receive. I can generate long-form text on a wide range of topics, and I’m not limited to the kind of brief, conversational responses that many chatbots are capable of.

Do you analyse data when responding or do you rely on training data where the analysis has already been conducted?

As a large language model, I do not have the ability to analyze data or access any external information. I am only able to respond based on the training data that I have been given. This training data consists of vast amounts of text that has been fed into my system, allowing me to generate human-like responses based on the patterns and associations I have learned from that data. I do not have the ability to conduct any kind of analysis or access external information.

Does that training data include factual knowledge? For example, do you know the current population of the Netherlands?

As a language model, my training data consists primarily of text and does not include factual knowledge such as population statistics. I do not have the ability to access any external information, so I am not able to provide specific factual knowledge like the current population of the Netherlands. I can provide general information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the patterns and associations I have learned from my training data, but I do not have access to factual knowledge like population statistics.

What kind of new training data do you think would be useful for improving your abilities?

As a language model, I am designed to generate human-like responses based on the patterns and associations I have learned from my training data. Because of this, the most effective way to improve my abilities is to provide me with additional training data that is diverse and representative of the types of conversations and queries I may encounter. This could include a wide range of text from different sources, such as books, articles, and conversations, to help me learn the nuances of language and improve my ability to generate natural and appropriate responses. Additionally, providing me with training data that covers a wide range of topics and subjects would be beneficial, as this would allow me to better understand the context of a given conversation and provide more accurate and useful responses.

Can you be more specific about where the gaps might be at the moment?

As a large language model, I am not able to assess my own abilities or identify any potential gaps in my knowledge. My training data consists of vast amounts of text that has been fed into my system, allowing me to generate human-like responses based on the patterns and associations I have learned from that data. However, I do not have the ability to evaluate my own performance or identify any potential areas for improvement. My goal is to provide helpful and accurate responses to the best of my ability based on the information that I have been given.

Do your conversations with people provide reinforcing feedback? Are there risks inherent to that?

As a language model, I do not have the ability to engage in conversations with people or receive feedback on my responses. I am only able to generate responses based on the patterns and associations I have learned from my training data. I do not have the ability to learn or adapt based on feedback or interactions with people.

Because I am a machine learning model, there are always risks associated with relying on my responses. I am designed to provide helpful and accurate answers to the best of my ability based on the information I have been given, but there is no guarantee that my answers will always be correct or complete. It is important to use your own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating my responses and seeking information from other sources as well.

This has been very illuminating. Thank you for your time.

You’re welcome! I’m glad I could help.

Netflix and Ciao!

Deliberately or otherwise, Netflix’s recent public statements show they do not understand their customers. Part of me feels sorry for them, as they predicted the future trends of media consumption with clarity and adapted with alacrity. Their original business of mailing out DVDs by post is a dim memory as they recognised the importance of streaming early enough that they became the de facto streaming platform worldwide, reaching 222 million subscriptions. They also correctly realised the biggest threat to their dominance would be the greed of studios not wanting to share profits with a delivery platform, meaning that original content would be key to a viable future. Despite this, in chasing capitalism’s dragon of endless growth, Netflix’s price has been escalating rapidly and after their latest hike in June — having been a subscriber ever since they revived Arrested Development in 2013 — I’m out, at least for a while. As they warn their shareholders of tumbling subscriber numbers, it seems I am not alone.

Are you not content?

There was a time when “Netflix Original” was a badge of quality — two of their first three shows were Orange is the New Black and House of Cards. As they grew the library, there was a clear shift toward quantity over quality, particularly with the desire to expand to a mainstream audience who may be less attracted by high quality drama. The plus side for creatives is that Netflix was willing to greenlight a lot of projects with very little oversight. But the money for this untargeted spending had to come from somewhere and it has meant repeated price hikes without any clear increase in the value proposition to subscribers. Why would I want to pay more year on year for service when: (a) I have the same finite time to spend watching TV; and (b) I have no interested in huge swathes of the programming they were now funding?

As recently as 2018 Netflix acquired distribution rights for Alfonso Cuáron’s beautiful Roma, which won three Oscars. Yet it is Apple TV+ that procured the first Best Picture win for a streaming service’s film with CODA. Netflix’s metrics-driven approach appears to reward films with big name actors regardless of quality, since those are most likely to attract viewers’ attention. Indeed, it’s easy for excellent films to get lost entirely through Netflix’s algorithm-driven promotion.

Now Apple Originals bear the distinction of quality that Netflix Originals once had, with a small but highly curated set of shows like Ted Lasso, Mythic Quest, and Severance. Meanwhile Disney’s well-timed acquisition of 20th Century Studios has granted them a deep library of content beyond their family fare, even as the desire to push new content to Disney+ has arguably undermined Phase 4 of the MCU.

It all ends in tiers

There is more to it than just increased competition. I have tried subscriptions to NowTV, Prime Video, Apple TV+, Disney+ and Dropout, so I have a broad view of the market. A “standard” Netflix subscription is priced at around double what its competitors costs and, unlike several of them, it doesn’t include 4K UHD video at that price.

As Netflix takes steps to prevent account sharing, it highlights my biggest problem with the company’s subscription tiers: tying together quality and simultaneous streams. As someone who lives alone, I have no need ever to stream to multiple devices at once. Yet, to receive the best image quality, I am required to pay for the option to stream to four devices simultaneously. That might be good value for a family but it’s terrible for an individual. No wonder, then, that some people are inclined to share accounts in order to make use of the multiple streams that they are obliged to pay for.

Knives In

I receive increasingly bizarre emails from Netflix asking me to rejoin: “We’re ready when you are.” / “Let’s reunite.” / “Spend on experiences not things. Make time for rest, relaxation and some Netflix.” Their latest puts £6.99 in the subject line, again entirely misunderstanding the reason I left if they are pitching me the price for a below-HD quality stream. For the same reason, I don’t think a reduced price ad-supported tier is going to resolve their current woes (a free ad-supported tier might attract those who just want to watch a few Netflix shows, but I doubt that is sustainable).

I would like to see Netflix remain competitive but to do that their starting point has to be consumer needs rather than investor expectations. Having a great technology back-end means nothing if you are pricing users away from making use of its higher quality. Attacking users for making use of the multi-stream packages you are forcing them to buy is even worse.

There remains plenty of good content on Netflix and I will certainly subscribe at some point to catch up on The Witcher, Stranger Things, Arcane, Better Call Saul, and The Umbrella Academy. However, it is no longer the essential subscription it once was and, for now, it falls into the tumble of subscriptions that I’ll shift between every few months.

Leezy Does It

Since my radio consumption is now exclusively via podcasts and I don’t tend to use music streaming services, exposure to new music has become much harder. In fact, the primary routes through which I currently discover new artists are film and TV soundtracks, and — believe it or not — Tik Tok. Whilst Tik Tok tends to package trending sounds into comodified memes, there are also a number of great musicians using Tik Tok videos and live streams to propel their music out into the world. A recent discovery has been American singer-songwriter Leezy.

Content note: addiction

Mama says you can’t reach the dreams in the
Little cloud that leaks from your pipe but
Every time I light up it seems that I don’t know how
No, I don’t know how to be alone.

Leezy, Bathtub Blues

Lately, Leezy has become the soundtrack to my broken sleep, often tuning into her live streams from the US at 3am in London. Musical comparisons to Lana del Rey and Mazzy Star are common in the chat, but a British ear will recognise some of her older influences like the fragility of Portishead, and the delicate simplicity of Massive Attack.

Despite her youth, there is a poetic depth to Leezy’s lyrics. During her live streams she speaks openly about her battle with addiction to drugs and alcohol as teenager, having now been sober for three years. That lived experience permeates her songwriting. Her last single, Sierra, is named after the residential treatment facility at which she recovered.

Leezy illustration

Look at all the pretty faces
Come to heal from different places
You give it all away in hope of a better day
And I promised you that I’ll get well

Leezy, Sierra

Leezy is self-aware about her affluent upbringing and the privilege it afforded her, particularly when it came to turning her life around. But what her music captures is that affluence does not provide protection from emotional pain, which she delivers in a minimalist style that is both raw and beautiful. The bisexual confusion of Girls Like You is provocative social commentary both lyrically (“So then why’d she kiss me last Friday night? / Just cause she thought it was something the boys might like”) and through the increasingly less subtle euphemistic sapphic imagery of its music video.

He said my lips felt warm when we were kissing
But only after he’d made me cry
And he said, “baby, I didn’t mean it this time”
And stargazer lillies don’t make up for everything
But I always go back to hear him sing

Leezy, Stargazer

I was initially won over by several songs on her 2019 Dear Diary EP. After requesting a song during one live stream, we discussed how she now has to transpose those songs to perform them because her voice has changed from the time they were recorded when she was smoking daily. I am glad that she does not find talking or singing about those periods to be a trigger. Indeed, her next single — due for imminent release on 29th July — is bluntly titled Cocaine Kisses and is, in her own words, about the romanticisation of drug use, the seduction of addiction and the illusion of connection. As someone whose views on addiction were shaped by Johann Hari’s TED Talk about the link between addiction and isolation or disconnection, to me this combination of themes seems entirely on point and I can’t wait to hear it.

A Postmodern Bill of Rights

One of the darker aspects of Brexit was the Tory Party’s thinly veiled ambitions to repeal the Human Rights Act. At the time, I asked to which of the rights enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights people objected or felt did not really require protection. Whilst the undermining of human rights was one of many seemingly obvious outcomes dismissed as “Project Fear”, Dominic Raab’s appointment as Secretary for State for Justice last year was immediately concerning for those in the legal profession, with his outspoken opposition to the Human Rights Act, saying in 2009 that “The very enactment of the Human Rights Act has served as a trigger for the formulation of claims by lawyers and judicial reasoning by courts, using human rights arguments that would never have been dared before. The spread of rights has become contagious and, since the Human Rights Act, opened the door to vast new categories of claims, which can be judicially enforced against the government through the courts.”

Yes, the passing of the Human Rights Act has meant that citizens have dared to enforce their rights against the Government. That is ultimately what Raab wants to limit. We now have insight into exactly what the Government intends to achieve with its “Modern Bill of Rights” following the Consultation Response. I know these can be (often deliberately) dense documents to look at, so I want to highlight a few key points to make their intentions entirely transparent, as well as how they are ignoring the public response. This requires serious Parliamentary scrutiny, as the Government seeks to rework the most fundamental protections for us all.

The will of Parliament

Remove the courts’ power to interpret legislation in ways that are not in line with the ordinary meaning of the words and the overall purpose of the statute, which will ensure that laws will be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the will of Parliament.

The sovereignty of Parliament was a popular Brexit catchphrase, used primarily by people who do not understand Parliamentary sovreignty. I agree with the view that the courts should not be making judgments that are incompatible with legislation passed by Parliament, but it was Parliament which enacted the Human Rights Act. Section 19 of the Act requires that all subsequent bills include a statement from the responsible Minister that it is compatible with Convention rights. This was a deliberate choice by Parliament, recognising that no legislation we pass in a civilised society should contravene human rights. Therefore the court is empowered by section 3 of the Act to interpret legislation in a compatible way and, since this was enacted by Parliament, it is by definition consistent with the will of Parliament.

The Government wants to remove this section 19 statement from new legislation because “This will encourage innovative and creative policy making which better achieves Government aims.” In other words, they expect their future legislation to contravene human rights and so they do not want to be bound by it or forced to identify their disregard for human rights when they choose to ignore it. Nor do they want the court to be able to set aside incompatible legislation. Repealing section 3 of the Human Rights Act met with overwhelming disapproval. 79% of respondents wanted no change to the courts’ ability to interpret legislation in accordance with the Humans Rights Act, and only a dismal 8% supported either of the Government’s proposed options. The Government took no notice.

The Government remains convinced that reform of section 3 is needed to provide a clearer separation of powers between the courts and Parliament. We therefore intend to repeal section 3.

Public authorities

Make clear that when public authorities are giving effect to the will of Parliament, they will not be acting unlawfully under the Bill of Rights. This will deliver greater certainty for public services to do the jobs entrusted to them, without the constant threat of having to defend against human rights claims.

This is perhaps the most insidious statement in the document. Public authorities will be immune from claims that they have violate human rights if they are “giving effect to the will of Parliament”. Who decides whether they are doing so? If the sitting Government orders the police to round up protesters, does that grant them free rein in how they act? Is it enough for the police simply to say in all circumstances that they are enforcing a criminal statute passed by Parliament and therefore cannot have acted unlawfully even if they violate your human rights? Frankly, the “constant threat” of human rights claims sounds like an excellent safeguard for public services, particularly those institutions like the police force which have proved themselves time and again incapable of ensuring proper treatment of minorities and the vulnerable.

The role of the European Court of Human Rights

The UK was instrumental in establishing the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg, following the creation of the Council of Europe in London. International law scholars consider it to be the most effective international human rights court in the world, so one might wonder why the British Government would so keen to abandon it.

The ambiguity of the instruction to ‘take into account’ Strasbourg case laws remains a source of uncertainty. In the consultation, we proposed correcting this by promoting a home-grown approach tailored to the UK’s traditions of liberty and rights.

56% of respondents preferred no change from the current framework, and a further 20% rejected the alternative options put forward in the consultation. Of course, many of the respondents knew exactly what was motivating the Government: “1,270 respondents also mentioned that the Strasbourg Court ensures that the UK Government is kept in check”. Once again, the Government’s response is simply to ignore these criticisms.

The Government wants to emphasise the importance of the development of rights under the common law. This would contribute to placing less emphasis on the role that decisions of the Strasbourg Court play in influencing UK courts.

Triviality

The Government believes that human rights provide fundamental individual guarantees in society, but that trust in that system is lost when trivial cases come before the courts.

What exactly is a “trivial” breach of your fundamental human rights? The Government wants to prevent people from even bringing a challenge if they cannot demonstrate they suffered a “significant disadvantage”. But when we are dealing with something so profoundly important as the basic protections that should be afforded to every human being, why is any threshold test appropriate? Surely you should simply not have violated their human rights to begin with. The Consultation demonstrated this overwhelmingly, with 90% of respondents saying the proposed “significant disadvantage” test was not appropriate. 25% of respondents went further and said there was no evidence that the system is being abused or that spurious claims are being brought.

The Government’s response?

The Government remains convinced that introducing a permission stage is necessary to ensure that trivial claims do not undermine public confidence in human rights more broadly but has amended the proposal based on further policy development and analysis.

This proposal will place responsibility on the claimant to demonstrate that they have suffered a significant disadvantage before a human rights claim can be heard in court.

In other words they have completely ignored the response to the Consultation and their “amended” proposal introduces the same “significant disadvantage” test that was rejected by 90% of respondents. It is entirely transparent that the Government wants to prevent claims from even being heard in Court, and is determined to force this through despite public opposition.

Deportations

The recent Rwanda debacle demonstrates the Government’s general contempt for the human rights of those it wishes to deport. Indeed, the only people for whom it seems to have more contempt are the “lefty lawyers” protecting those human rights. 82% of respondents rejected alternative options to make it easier for the Government to deport foreign nationals who committed offences in the UK and 67% said no change was required to the current framework for illegal and irregular migration.

In a pattern you will recognise by now, the Government intends to proceed regardless. This includes setting a high bar for foreign nationals to claim deportation infringes on their right to respect for private and family life, making it easier for the Government to separate families, and placing “limits on the court’s power when they are considering appeals against deportation made on Article 6 grounds (right to a fair trial)”. Meanwhile, they doubled down on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, stating that they had “considered in detail the issues raised in this area” whilst carefully avoiding any mention of the failed attempt earlier this month to deport asylum seekers before their challenges could be heard.

Hell yeah, I remember Aurora

With apologies to Foo Fighters fans for the title’s lyrical bait and switch, this post is actually about Norwegian singer-songwriter Aurora Aksnes, whom I finally saw live a couple of weeks ago. I cannot think of a more uplifting return to live music after the pandemic, and it was particularly fitting to see her at the Brixton Academy where I went to my first gig 20 years ago (Iron Maiden in March 2002).

I have been a fan since stumbling upon Aurora’s EP Running With The Wolves in 2015, though it was her debut album the following year that truly blew me away. All My Demons Greeting Me As A Friend may have been an unwieldy title but its content was a sublime distillation of pain and hopefulness. The perspective she captured was that of having struggled silently for too long, fighting battles that others may not see.

And I was running far away
Would I run off the world someday?
Nobody knows, nobody knows

Aurora, Runaway

In Lucky, she wraps it in a lyric simulateously beautiful and coldly isolated, “And I feel the light for the very first time / Not anybody knows that I am lucky to be alive.” The line resonated strongly with me, particularly in the place I found myself at the time. It is those early songs in particular that provide cathartic relief in her live show, a crowd of humans drawn to her music for that reason. Aurora used to joke about the lack of overtly positive songs in her setlist, though infectiously poppy tunes like Cure For Me and Conqueror provide a wonderful release of tension.

There is a touch of the fae surrounding Aurora, her love of nature filtering through to her lyrics as she performs with her entire body, whilst her impish playfulness makes interviews a delight. Another artist might adopt these traits as an affectation but with Aurora it appears an unfettered reflection of her personality, something that came through in unfiltered lo-fi live streams during the pandemic in which she would sing and chat. Indeed, as her popularity has grown, she seems genuinely concerned about losing the personal interaction with fans at shows.

When a human strokes your skin
That is when you let them in
Let them in before they go
I would rather feel alive with a childlike soul

Aurora, Through The Eyes of a Child

What Aurora reminds me above all is the strength in softness, that it is not a weakness to be open or vulnerable but quite the opposite — to allow oneself access to those vital human experiences requires greater fortitude than to harden or close oneself off. Her vocals are at once fragile and determined. The result is subtly powerful, and perhaps explains why her music has attracted a wide spectrum of fans including many from the metal community — indeed, Aurora is a professed fan of metal and created a compilation EP For The Metal People of songs “influenced” by the genre like Under The Water and The Seed. Whatever your musical preferences, then, I do hope you can take the time to listen to a few of the linked tracks because there really isn’t anyone else quite like Aurora.

Under the water we can’t be together
Under the water we die
Then why do we jump in?

Aurora, Under the Water
Her live show featured a minimalist set with a large fabric disc in centre stage, illuminated by lights against which she struck a silhouette. This was, unsurprisingly, most effective as a surrogate moon during Running with the Wolves.

Christmas 2021

Needles & Pinches

Georgia Train lying on a bed of feathers and flowers

Content Note: infertility, miscarriage, suicide

A little over a year ago, singer-songwriter Georgia Train (formerly of Bitter Ruin) opened up to her fans about struggling with fertility treatment and IVF. Having done so, the devastation when the process was unsuccessful was atypically public. When faced with any tragedy, the best thing we humans can do is use it to fuel art, sharing that pain in a way that can connect us and make a stranger feel a little less alone. The result is her latest album, Needles & Pinches, which contains a beautiful outpouring of grief and hope. As well as recommending that you listen, I would like to use its release to discuss some of its subject matter, issues from which we typically shy away. The photographs illustrating this post are publicity shots for the album taken by Scott Chalmers.

Album cover for Needles & Pinches

“I’ll never forget the day
They told me you got away
From it all.”

Georgia Train, Needles & Pinches

The title track opens the album and is a statement of intent: brutally honest and hauntingly beautiful in capturing the weariness from gruelling fertility treatments, and then the overwhelming rage-inducing grief from the loss of a child. Conventional wisdom (at least in the Anglosphere) advises parents not to discuss a pregancy until 12 weeks in, since most miscarriages occur before that date. Whilst it is of course a personal choice for those involved, the default approach leaves parents who do experience miscarriage to deal with the anguish alone and with little support. Since it is so little discussed, many people are not even aware of how common it is, with 10-15% of known pregnancies ending in miscarriage (a figure that, along with the volume of unknown miscarriages, ought also to feature more heavily in the discourse around abortion).

It may seem odd that I have particularly strong opinions on this, but I am fortunate that a few friends felt able to open up to me about their struggles with having children, and what I saw above all was the crippling isolation they felt in not being able to talk freely about it, whilst going through an experience that permeated every part of their lives. There was a visible flood of relief simply in being able to talk about it with someone other than their spouse.

Georgia surrounded by syringes
These syringes are just half of a year’s worth of fertility treatment.

“And I know it’s easier to let go
To let the fire leave your chest
In exchange for deeper rest”

Georgia Train, Pain Beneath The Best

The fragile piano beneath the plaintive vocals on Pain Beneath The Best marks Georgia coming to terms with a friend’s suicide attempt. Lyrically it feels like an understanding embrace, accepting the truth of the pain but reminding you that the world would be worse without you in it. Yet her voice also echoes that personal hurt and the fear of being left behind. It is a pleasing balance to find, with many songs touching on this subject matter leaning more heavily into the anger at wasted life or expressing only the pain rather than the love which causes it. Discourse around mental health has improved immeasurably over the past decade but I feel a lingering sentiment that remains is the idea that suicide is a selfish choice rather than a last resort for those who can see no end to the pain they have endured for too long, and who genuinely believe others will be better off without them. It is only by starting from a place of understanding that those drowning deep within suicidal ideation will ever feel comfortable in revealing it rather than concealing their struggle until it is too late.

“I don’t to want to talk about it now
I just want to be the who when they
Point the finger and the who you say
You love”

Georgia Train, The Who

This is the common thread that I see through these particular trials — that they are so often concealed rather than shared. Particularly in our fragmented modern communities, where family and friends may be separated by miles or even oceans, it is vital that we are able to talk openly (whether the restriction comes initially from a personal choice or an external stigmatisation). Art like Needles & Pinches can reach us over those distances, so that we know we are not alone, but that is only the first step. I previously said that I felt fortunate to be able to support some friends through these agonising experiences, but I also worry about those I could not reach and mourn the ones I never can. As I often tell friends: you don’t have to talk to me about it, so long as you have someone that you’re talking to. And if you don’t, you know where I am.

Georgia dressed in black in a swimming pool
Older posts

"Civilization now depends on self-deception. Perhaps it always has."

(CC) BY-NC 2004-2023 Priyan Meewella

Up ↑