The Namesake is super, man

It's no secret that I saw Superman Returns six times last year (and that's not including DVD viewings). I own both Spider-man films, eagerly await the next, and have all but the Joel Schumacher Batman outings.

It's not that I particularly like men in tights, though some may suspect otherwise; or that I have a hero complex, any more than most men.

I suppose I identify with these stories that are, essentially, the stories of immigrants.

Sent from far away places, living with alter-egos, battling with the duality of identity - on the one hand plain and inconspicuous, on the other colourful and foreign - superheroes (powers aside) are your regular, run of the mill, second generation immigrants.

Meera Syal went as far as claiming that Superman himself was Indian in her comedy sketch show, Goodness Gracious Me. NHS glasses, kipper tie..? Where else, she asked, could a man run faster than a train?

It's another Mira (though spelt slightly differently - Mira Nair) that reminds us of this fact. And it's on a train that her new film, The Namesake, begins. It ends the same way and in-between fills its two and a bit hours with, what critic Mark Kermode calls, "issuetastic family drama."

This, from the film's synopsis:

When the the Ganguli family moves from Calcutta to New York, they embark upon a lifelong balancing act to meld into a new world without forgetting the old. Though parents Ashoke and Ashima long for the family and culture that enveloped them in India, they take great pride in the opportunities their sacrifices have afforded their children. Paradoxically, their son Gogol is torn between finding his own unique identity without losing his heritage. Even Gogol's name represents the family's journey into the unknown.

Though I might rather relate to the Super side of Superman, his alter-ego, and that of the unfortunately named Gogol Ganguli, strike a more notable resemblance.

In The Namesake, Gogol's experiences were very much like mine. I cringed watching him bring home a white girl to meet his parents, flinched as she put her hand on his during dinner and squirmed as she planted an awkward kiss on his father's cheek. We just don't do that, my mum says.

I wondered what it must have been like for her, being born in India, coming over to England as a child and raising children of her own - 'neither here nor there'.

I wondered how she must have felt when I, like Gogol, disappeared into the surrogate family of my girlfriend, my work and my country.

Like all second-generation immigrants, I suppose, Superman himself is torn between two cultures - taught to respect his Kryptonian heritage, whilst embracing his undeniable Americanism.

The actor who plays Gogol Ganguli (Kal Pen) was, incidentally, in Superman Returns. It was a non-speaking role... You notice these things when you watch a film several times!

The Namesake was brilliant. I urge you to see it at least once.

• The Namesake [Fox Searchlight]

Death of a celebrity

In the eastern Indian city of Patna protesters are burning an effigy that is said to resemble the organisers of Channel 4's reality TV show, Celebrity Big Brother. It looks very much to me like a standard, two plank wooden frame, cloaked in a burning white salwar kameez. Now, I've met John de Mol, co-founder of Endemol, the production company behind the Big Brother franchise, and he is definitely a jeans/sports jacket kind of guy.

Some four thousand miles west and Patna's favourite Bollywood actress, Shilpa Shetty, sits under the surveillance of de Mol's creation - the Big Brother house - caught by the lens of 36 surveillance cameras and the attention of the world's media.

Shetty, 31, is the unwitting subject of a racism row. Her treatment by fellow housemates has generated a record 30,000 viewer complaints and has sparked a national debate on bullying, class and race.

Whether you think her tormentors are racist or not, Shetty has been on the receiving end of some sort of sinister bigotry. And its origins, whether in cultural ignorance, jealousy or arrogance, is a story that needs to be talked about: it is the story of racism in this country.

The name calling, the back stabbing, the bitching, is not unusual in a television show of this nature. But it has become a vehicle for an issue that is as uncomfortable to discuss as the show is to watch.

Does Big Brother reflect society? And if so, are we a racist nation?

Shetty's biggest opponent in the Big Brother house is former contestant Jade Goody, who left series three in 2002, nominated by the public, denounced by the British tabloid press and met with a crowd of booing protesters. Since, she has returned to television, relauched her career and amassed a not inconsiderable fortune.

It's interesting, as a subplot to this series of Big Brother, that we may be witnessing a turning of the tide against the post-Heat notion of celebrity; that we are fed up with what is being celebrated; that it is no longer intelligence, artistry and achievement.

It is predicted that Jade will be the next contestant to leave the Big Brother house. When she does I suspect she will be met with another booing crowd, and that we may see another burning effigy.

Tony Blair rocks out.

• George Bush and Tony Blair sing 'Endless Love'

The Michael Jackson Porn Collection

"You need to write in your blog," she said. "That's what you need to do." And it was those words, from an estranged, and indeed, strange friend over the Atlantic that tonight compels me write. I had called her in the post-Celebrity Big Brother buzz when, after watching such C-list luminaries as Channel 4 racing tipster, John McCririck and former Mrs Rocky, Brigitte Nielson, I felt a sudden need to exercise what was left of my A-grade personality before the Tube sucked away the remainder. Unfortunately, first choice recipient - and one of few friends my own age - was otherwise engaged - and so it is with you, lucky runner-up, that I share my thoughts this evening.

You, dear reader, round off my otherwise 'square of friends', into a perfect circle. My social life, you see, tends to coincide with university holidays when student types - all hair and no money - are back in town for their jollies. December therefore was a particularly busy month. Now, somewhere a fat lady has sung, the window of goodwill between Christmas and New Years has swung shut, and students are back to the all work/no play drudgery of University life. In their absence I prowl the Internet message boards, looking for the human connection suddenly withdrawn from my life.

I never find it. But I did return to a message board that I'd come across in researching an earlier post that quietly exudes a peaceful sense of community amongst its 1000+ members. They're all committed to their cause, passionate about their subject and abide by the simple rules of their community: never say "Wacko Jacko." They are the members of the Michael Jackson Discussion Board and eagerly debate (though admittedly only one side of) the King of Pop's upcoming trial. They've gathered an archive of 500+ and surprisingly balanced articles on the subject and it is a minor detail from a major document that I'd like to share with you.

The Smoking Gun, God knows how they do it, have got their hands on some sealed documents from the case against Michael Jackson. They have, of course, unsealed them and put them online. It turns out that hell-bent District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, so busy with actual cases against actual criminals, had no time to write a new document and instead copied and pasted entire paragraphs from a 1993 case against Jackson that, although settled out of court, is worth noting, two Grand Juries failed to indict.

However, what's new ten years later is the discovery of - shock horror - pornography under Jackson's bed. A couple of items don't count, in my estimation, as porn, though they appear on the police inventory as such. The first, the dubious sounding, "Chop Suey Club" is described in Sneddon's document as containing "photos of nude young boys." While it may sound to the uninitiated like some Asian rough trade volume, the book is actually by famed fashion photographer Bruce Weber and available on Amazon. (Check it out.)

The second, "Poo-Chi," detectives wrote, contained "photographs of female groin area." Officers, they only look like the female groin area! The volume is the, um, inventive work of Mayumi Lake, who photographs underarms and knees to create the illusion that you are looking at a woman's nether region. Very funny, Mr Jackson. Though we didn't expect you to have a sense of humour.

Funnier still and perhaps more unexpected is the actual porn discovered in Jackson's bedroom and the thought with which I'd like to leave you agiggling tonight. Amongst such mainstays as Swank, Club, and Couples was a Director's Cut DVD of the Hustler produced documentary, 'Pimp's Up, Ho's Down.'

And if you're surprised by Jackson's taste, consider the black fedora, the single white glove and the sequined socks and it all begins to make sense. Cha'mone!

A Ham Sandwich

Argh! Michael Jackson is driving me crazy! And not like in the Eighties when he rocked the suburbs with his infectious grooves, driving a rainbow hued generation Off the Wall and moonwalking to the discothèques. This time, twenty years from Thriller, his latest record might be criminal, as he faces ten charges of child molestation, abduction and conspiracy, as read to him yesterday at his arraignment in Santa Maria, California.

He is again everywhere, and the sensational coverage of this case, although not yet a trial but already that of the century, has driven me to use my blog as an occasional alternative news outlet and since, as I’ve just seen, CNN enlist an expert panel of entertainment moguls, television presenters and Loyola State University law professors, I might offer my ‘expertise’.

CNN’s expert panel spoke with an assumption of Jackson’s guilt and yet dedicated a segment of the show to defending his prosecutor, District Attorney Tom Sneddon against charges of unfair practice, even advising that we not judge the D.A., as he has been unfairly represented by the media and Jackson’s interchangeable lawyers. Well, the King of Pop has hardly been treated like royalty by CNN and other such news outlets.

I have to go, but before I do I just want to remind you – because CNN won’t – that Jackson, or anybody facing trial, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that an indictment is just a formal accusation arising from a Grand Jury, having been presented evidence by the prosecutor only. There is a saying, ‘you can indict a ham sandwich,’ but I would still advise that you presume its innocence.

HIStory Continues

Hey, just a quick post to update you on the Michael Jackson story. I wrote the following a few days ago as a comment to the previous post regarding those allegations but thought I'd bring it here to the fore, as rarely do people read replies to entries:

"Of course, Michael Jackson should be presumed innocent, but the legal eagles and other such ‘beacons’ of justice involved in this case should not be presumed guilty of orchestrating a conspiracy against Jackson and his right to a fair trial. Sadly, in a week in which a new allegation of child abuse against Jackson has been reported by the media I suspect this is the case.

"The reported incident took place in L.A. twenty years ago and if, as CNN reported, the alleged victim is now eighteen years old, Jackson may be guilty of molesting an unborn child. These new complaints were brought to the police by the familiar team of lawyer Gloria Alred, professional critic of Jackson’s lifestyle, currently working the daytime TV circuit, and Carole Lieberman, the same Beverly Hills psychiatric who filed last year’s allegations and counselled the new alleged victim, helping him recover repressed memories of the assault. It’s a small world, but one in which surprisingly the numbers work in Jackson’s favour. According to a study conducted by the National Crimes Against Children Laboratory, only one in three accusations of child abuse leads to indictment. And incidentally, when this new claim involving Jackson was uncovered by the LAPD as a hoax it was reported with far less zeal.

"The claim’s dismissal could have gone unnoticed altogether, leaving a potential jury pool thinking that third strike means out for Jackson – guilty by association right? Where there’s smoke there’s fire? Not quite. The allegation and its timing suggest that Jackson is an open-season target for those with a get-rich-quick-scheme in mind. After all, he still represents deep pockets. Oh, and while all this was going on, did something happen in Iraq?"

And this just in: The sordid details of the actual charges were leaked to ABC News today, most probably by Jackson's prosecutor, Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon, whose case against the singer suffered a blow yesterday when it was reported that the boy's testimony was 'shaky' and 'inconsistent'.

The coincidental leakage of a child psychologist report in all its horrid, tabloid worthy detail and the graphic images it conjures (just imagine Michael Jackson naked sans make-up) will inevitably taint the jury pool if the case goes to court. We must remember of course, while the media might forget, that these details allegedly took place, and that word is very important. Too often the boy is referred to in the media as "the victim" rather than "the alleged victim." And very few media outlets are commenting on the statement in the report in which the psychologist told the alleged victim that he could get money if he won a lawsuit against Michael Jackson. And so the story continues...watch this space.

While you do that why not use your other eye to read this rather brilliant editorial from the anti-corporate, politically aware arts magazine, popCULTmedia, The Slow Murder of Michael Jackson: Fear and the Sexiness of the Undead?

The Father Michael Jackson Paid Off

Since being home from University for Spring Break television has sadly been some of the best company I’ve had, and for the most part the stimulus for my blog musings. Tonight’s entry is no exception, as last night’s viewing compels me to write on an issue I have thus far refrained from discussing, and that is the child molestation case against Michael Jackson.

Child Sex Sells

It is an issue that last night the BBC raised with the usual sensationalism that surrounds child sex hysteria that, like regular sex before it, is selling like hot cakes and is sure to draw in the crowds. Throw in arguably the world’s most famous most living man and you’ve got yourself a ratings winner. But like most products boasting appeal but lacking substance (think luxury items – chocolates, perfumes, Schwarzenegger movies) the pointedly titled The Boy Michael Jackson Paid Off was exquisitely packaged with deftly edited archive footage, a remixed Jacko soundtrack and (thankfully tasteful) dramatic reconstructions, but ultimately lacking the hard facts to make the tagline, “Is Michael Jackson a lost child or a paedophilic man?” a real conundrum.

The documentary come crime saga come music video dealt with the first of two allegations concerning child sex abuse and Michael Jackson, its recurrence perhaps the only reasoning for serious trial for both prosecutors’ –the Santa Barbara District Attorney trying Jackson and the salacious media prematurely hanging him. Otherwise it told a story that not only seemingly exonerated Michael Jackson but proved him a twice victim of extortion – the scams of this and the last century. You might be forgiven for believing he was guilty of these charges, considering the erroneous media coverage, but you’d be wrong.

From the Dentist’s Chair

Michael Jackson may in fact be guilty of poor judgement, having made himself vulnerable to such charges by not addressing his penchant for the bedtime company of small children since the 1993 allegations, but he is no paedophile. Those allegations, and the subject of the BBC programme, sprung from a sum of child custody, Hollywood aspiration and dodgy dentistry and went public when a private settlement with Jackson was not reached. That original settlement of a movie deal was solicited by dentist and aspiring script writer, Evan Chandler, the estranged biological father privately accusing Michael Jackson of molesting his son, Jordan. When that deal was not met the accusations went public, and as Evan Chandler had promised in a secretly taped telephone conversation, “I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June [the mother] will lose custody of the boy and Michael’s career will be over.” When Dave Shwartz, Jordan’s stepfather and the other half of that conversation asked how his plan might help the boy, Evan replied, “That’s irrelevant to me.”

Although ‘the boy’ admitted to sharing a bed with Jackson he had never himself accused the star of any sexual misconduct. That was until Evan performed dental work on his son, during which he decided to intravenously administer sodium Amytal, a psychiatric drug unusual in baby-tooth extraction but known to provide false memories. Evan then took Jordan to a child psychiatrist who was required to file a report with the authorities, a criminal investigation began and the media had something of a field day.

HIStory Repeating

The first case of child sex abuse involving Jordan Chandler, hence the title of the documentary, was settled out of court when it became clear to Jackson and his lawyers that justice might not prevail, not without an agonising ordeal. The LAPD had invested millions of dollars in their investigation, interviewing scores of children all over the world, not one of whom accused Jackson of any wrongdoing, despite the zealous and maverick techniques of detectives: they told interviewees that other children had admitted to it when they had not. A humiliating strip search was then issued on Michael Jackson and photographs were taken of his body but they did not match the description Jordan had given. And although a plethora of ‘witnesses’ had appeared before the court of public opinion, on television and in the press, none agreed to testify against Jackson and when Evan accepted the out of court settlement the LAPD reluctantly announced that no criminal charges would be brought against Michael Jackson citing a lack of evidence.

Despite being investigated by the Department of Children’s Services and dropped, the same district attorney from the 1993 case Tom Sneddon jumped at the chance to pursue claims that arose after the Martin Bashir documentary, Living with Michael Jackson was aired in February last year. In his final year of service before retirement Sneddon, having been ridiculed by Jackson in a 1995 song that accused him of “brothering with the KKK”, could not contain his excitement at an initial press conference where he jokingly encouraged the media attention that might improve California’s failing economy. The excitement wore off when Sneddon twice asked the presiding Superior Court judge Clifford Anderson for more time to gather evidence.

This time however Michael Jackson is going to court. But when you consider the history of the previous case, for which Evan Chandler actually hopes to sell the movie rights, and the history of the current accuser, who has twice previously claimed that her son has been abused to receive out-of-court settlements, we might wonder why the media is seriously asking if Michael Jackson is a paedophile. He might be an idiot most of the time but he is not as Bad or as Dangerous as his album titles would have us believe. And I certainly hope he is not HIStory.

Progress?

When we were last here I proclaimed the car "the ultimate symbol of freedom", and while that might be true for us in a capatalist society where car salesman is king (I'm referring to the Car King showroom in town), freedom holds a different meaning for the people of Ghana, focus of a BBC 4 documentary playing in the background as I write this.

It was from Ghana, a former British colony, that the Atlantic slave trade began; the selling of men and women to European plantation colonies in North America became an enterprise, and a new nation became the capital of the "free world." It was also Ghana that in 1957 became the first state in sub-Sahara Africa to gain political independence from European colonial rule. Despite being well endowed with natural resources, Ghana remains heavily dependent on the West for financial and technical assistance. A dependence that a talking head from aforementioned documentary understands to be a new form of slavery: "We now lean on the western world," he said. "If they don't bring you your food, your vehicle, you're in that same position...you hear ol' massa's voice."

We don't have to worry about food; most of us at least have access to a vehicle. Our leaders have set their sights beyond such issues, beyond the clouds even. The BBC 4 documentary was not so much about Ghana's national history - I got most of that from Encarta. It was about an issue affecting an inordinate number of Ghanians. It was investigating the affects of the Apollo 6 space shuttle landing in the country. "It seemed that American progress," the talking head continued, "was a disease for the people of Ghana."

A Leap of Faith

Just to tease, I'm sitting here, clad in a hand towel, dripping wet and smelling of Radox shower gel. It might calm you somewhat to know that, if I was ever "in shape", I'm certainly mishapen now, resembling most closely a hairy, small breasted woman in the early stages of pregnancy. (Feeling a little morning sickness?) I'm typing this now since I get the bulk of my good thinkage done in the shower.

It being a leap year, the date today, according to your Sunday paper/Casio/Katie Price calendar, is February 29th, and the last time you'll read that for another four years. Big Brother MSN reminds me that now's the time for "my woman to make an honest man of me" since global law states that women may only propose to men in leap years.

This leap year will mean something special for the more than 3,000 gay couples married in San Francisco since the city's new mayor, Gavin Newson, decided to defy state law and allow such weddings. Outside of "everybody's favourite city" there won't be much honest man or woman making for the same sex couples that threaten, what George W. Bush calls, "the most fundamental institution of civilization". This from a President, a little behind the evolution scale, who we understand is quickly learning to use tools but is oblivious to the fact that you can't legislate against a person's pursuit of happiness the way you could in the "grand ol' days" of the Jim Crow south. His call for a constitutional amendment to "protect the sanctity of marriage" is monkey business, to say the least, and I hope that Mr Bush is denied his request and the thousands of happy couples wed in San Francisco City Hall this month do not become a phenomenon of the leap year.