Gustave Flaubert once said, “Life is so horrible that one can only bear it by avoiding it. And that can be done by living in the world of art.” If the world of art is as escapist as Flaubert’s observation makes it sound, then what is the purpose of social commentary in art? There is no value in changing the world if one can always simply evade it, which reduces instances in which art reminds us of the world to an unproductive, self-indulgent cynicism.

Such might be the contention with Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar’s latest film I’m So Excited! Though touted by Almodóvar himself as a “very light comedy,” its uncharacteristic cheekiness does not come without some irony, as the premise of the film consciously parallels the current economic crisis in Spain. A flight from Madrid to Mexico City must make an emergency landing in Toledo because there is a malfunction with the landing gear. As it turns out, the airport in Toledo is the obsolete product of an investment scam, forcing the plane to fly aimlessly in circles until someone can reach the control tower and give clearance for landing. Meanwhile, the pilots have instructed the stewards to keep the passengers completely distracted and entertained. It is not long before the Economy Class has been sedated and the Business Class served cocktails spiked with mescaline, to which both the stewards and the pilots also help themselves.

The satire is painfully obvious, beginning from a close-up shot before take-off of a passenger’s newspaper headline that reads “Top Ten Financial Scandals.” The inability to make the emergency landing is caused by one of these scandals, for that matter. The plane is Spain – feel free to insert any Western country in economic recovery – guided circuitously by incompetent authorities whose only objective at this point is to gloat nihilistically in their excesses and keep their subjects ignorant, even though peril remains imminent for all. During an orgy in Business Class, one passenger desperate to lose her virginity settles for a comatose man in Economy Class: the rich are screwing the poor. Considering the director’s history of unabashed play with homosexual stereotypes, the fact that the ridiculously flamboyant stewards are the culprits of the ruckus onboard caricatures the tendency to invoke irrelevant social issues as a scapegoat for economic woes. As the opening title card states, “Nothing in this film bears any relation to reality,” and that chain of cause and effect is perhaps one instance in which we do not take the disclaimer with a grain of salt.

Of course, even though the pilots speak half-seriously of the stewards’ diversion as if it were a surreptitious scheme, everyone – at least in Business Class – is fully aware of the situation and yet consciously surrenders to decadence. This aspect, if any, is the redeeming genius of the film, more important for how it mirrors the viewer than how it does present day Spain. Almodóvar knows he is not fooling his bourgeois audience with this sickeningly feel-good farce. Everyone is aware of the underpinning social issues and yet experiences a “very light comedy” in which they can comfortably indulge, not nearly caustic enough to rouse any indignation.

However, in the spirit of faulty economic recovery, the check Almodóvar writes to compensate for a jaded social critique bounces. The humor is tepid at best, but for the most part as enervating as the political aspect of the film. It is the director’s first predominantly comedic film since 1988’s Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, but whereas that film and its precedents used black comedy and stylized camp as their primary schtick, I’m So Excited! seems to prefer the innocuous low comedy of a modern Hollywood film. From contrived one-liners such as “I got blown more than an air mattress,” to a clairvoyant passenger that senses death in farts and reads people’s fortunes through their genitals, the humor can barely appeal even to a base sense of shock (especially for someone who has seen any of Almodóvar’s other films).

The writing in general for this film is unfortunately just as mindless and hackneyed. There are two brief vignettes outside of the monotonous vacillation between cockpit, stewards’ room, and Business Class. One, an opening scene featuring Antonio Banderas and Penelope Cruz as runway attendants, is completely irrelevant to the plot; the other, a chance encounter between a passenger’s wife and his mistress, is related to a principal character but still manages to be equally irrelevant. They divert from the insular setting of the airplane no more effectively than the rococo can divert from a shoddy satire.

Though following upon one of Almodóvar’s masterpieces, The Skin I Live In, I’m So Excited! is arguably the director’s worst film.

★★

If you want to find any more of his material, follow the links below:

https://www.facebook.com/ajimalmusic?…
http://ajimal.tumblr.com/
https://soundcloud.com/ajimal
https://twitter.com/ajimalmusic

Check out the event here: https://www.facebook.com/events/508802392510933/

See more of the band here: http://www.rubin.im

On Wednesday 1st March 2013 UCLU took the decision to close its services and functions in order to celebrate International Workers’ Day. Whilst the decision was welcomed by some it provoked questions from others, most notably the UCL Provost, Malcolm Grant. Grant wrote in his email newsletter that ‘This is the first time I can recall that facilities provided by and for students at UCL have been closed by their own Student Union, especially during the examinations period when demand is high.’ His letter provoked a rather public war of words played out in UCLU’s ‘What’s On’ emails and blogs as well as the Provost’s next newsletter.

When questioned on the increasingly hostile communication between the two parties, Edwin Clifford-Coupe – UCLU Education and Campaigns Officer – is clearly unimpressed. He told Pi, ‘The Provost can include what he wants in his newsletter, although it sees to me that, as he comes towards the end of his term, his relationship with UCLU is becoming less and less constructive. The sections on UCLU are used for political point-scoring; see how he quoted directly from our website about the May Day closure but did not link to it, giving students only half the story. I hope the next Provost will be less confrontational in his communications.’

On whether the decision to close UCLU was right, despite criticism, Clifford-Coupe remains adamant, arguing that it was important to thank Union staff for their hard work, ‘especially leading up to what will be a complex period of organisational transition from 6 to 10 full-time officers.’ He also states that ‘Closing the union also highlighted to staff and students that it was International Workers’ Day, provided us with the opportunity to observe the day at the same time as workers around the world, and allowed us to explain the day’s significance to the community.’ He added that, ‘Staff feedback was generally positive, but with a recognition and appreciation of the fact that we are a membership organisation and that it is clearly a busy time for those taking exams.’

However, the day caused further controversy thanks to a Macmillan charity cake sale organised by UCL student Louisa Townson. The event, which was marketed as a way to provide UCL students with coffee and food on campus whilst UCLU cafes were closed, led to a blog post from Clifford-Coupe which attracted much media attention due to his use of the word ‘scabbing’. In the post, the ECO criticised the organiser’s choice to offer Starbucks coffee, writing that ‘Volunteering your time to raise money for charity and help your fellow students is good; allowing a corporation to cynically get on board so as to advertise to students, while it apparently cannot accord its staff a paid lunch break, is scabbing, and you should stop that. Reject Starbucks’ offer, and I will come and join you.’

The blog post caused outrage amongst some students, especially Townson herself. When asked her how she felt after the post, she told Pi, ‘Appalled. Shocked. Hurt. Upset. You get the idea. To people of the politics of the UCLU sabbs, Scab is the lowest of the low; vile and insidious people.  He may as well have used the C word, given the offence associated with such a term. And for what? Organising a charity event using donated coffee so I wouldn’t have to pay for it all from my own pocket. I’m still waiting on an apology.’

Whilst an apology for the blog post may not have arrived, Clifford-Coupe has indeed tried to clarify  his intentions. He has admitted that ‘use of the word “scabbing” was regrettable, not least because it should be reserved for those who go to work while others are on strike, which was of course not the case on Wednesday.’ He went on to explain to Pi that ‘I hoped it would be understood that I was describing the action of taking free coffee from Starbucks as “scabbing”, not describing individuals as “scabs” (which I understand is a subtle nuance). I was also hoping my intervention would be constructive, hence why I offered to join the stall if they rejected Starbucks’s coffee, but I understand my use of that word predicated against my blog being taken constructively. The ‘scabbing’ comment was solely related to Starbucks, not to Macmillan or the event in general.’

Townson also criticised the lack of support she received from UCLU, other than that from the VSU and Medical and Postgraduate Students’ Officer Dante Micheaux. Clifford-Coupe has since responded to this criticism, arguing that he only knew about the event one day before and had not been contacted. As a registered charity, UCLU cannot legally help to fund other charity events.

The event did offer other non-Starbucks coffee at the event though Towson argues that she chose to publicise the fact that Starbucks coffee was on sale because it would sell better. She adds that, ‘I also asked: Planet Organic, Yumachaa, Tinderbox, Tap Coffee etc. Many couldn’t facilitate us at such short notice, others couldn’t afford to.’ Clifford-Coupe though, remains convinced that it was the wrong choice to use the company: ‘For me, using Starbucks’s coffee unfortunately and unnecessarily undermines the good work that the charity stall did to raise money for a vital charity. Starbucks are an international company which avoids tax, busts unions and breaks strikes… They are on a PR drive and, unfortunately, I think that their involvement in the fundraiser was cynical.’ He suggests that, ‘The organisers have said there was other coffee on offer; I would have stuck with that.’

With regard to the ECO’s explanation of his blog post, Towson remains skeptical: ‘I would hope that a paid, elected student representative would give more thought to the consequences of the words he uses. Similarly, there was no need to publish a *blog* to ask me to reject Starbucks coffee – I do have an email address and a contactable Facebook account. The action of publishing before speaking to me made it clear that his priority was point scoring as opposed to a good natured offer to help.’

It is not all conflict and controversy to come out of the event though. Townson succeeded in raising £825 for the charity. Townson said, ‘I’m just so grateful to everyone who baked, bought and donated to this event. This money will go such a long way with Macmillan.’

Tension is mounting regarding the University of London’s decision to remove the full-time elected officer positions from ULU. Whilst ULU president Michael Chessum has pledged to fight the changes, some students have pledged their support for the reforms and have set about trying to ensure Chessum does not get his way.

Pi can reveal the contents of a letter addressed to UoL senior management sent today from 14 students from UCL, KCL and Birkbeck College which argues that the current sabbatical officers should be sacked as soon as possible in order to prevent protests against the changes over the summer. The letter, which includes signatures from an ex ULU student trustee, UCLU Conservative Society President Matthew Corner and the UCL student Peter Minnis who led the campaign for the resignation of ULU Vice-President Daniel Cooper, comes as a further blow to ULU’s elected officers.

The letter congratulates staff involved with the ULU decision, arguing that the full-time officer elections at ULU ‘are counter-productive, and that the actions of the sabbatical officers and the ruling group of ULU “senators” alienate students, damage the reputation of the University and waste public money.’ The letter goes on to list problems facing ULU, including the poor turnout in the elections which the signatories believe have led to ‘extremist politics’. Referring to Chessum, Cooper and their supporters, the signatories state that ‘To call these people “Marxists” is a slur on the great historian and economist Marx. They are mostly middle-class anarchists who claim to represent the “working classes” but who are so busy pretending to speak on behalf of the dispossessed that they drown out the voice of struggling students who just want a good education. The sabbatical officers then spend their term in office making statements that please their tiny band of 700 or so supporters, rather then improving services that would please the 120,000 student body.’ It goes on to label them ‘inexperienced, naive and quixotic’ and calls their behaviour ‘childlike’ and ‘anti-social’.

The letter ends with several requests of the UoL senior management. The first request asks that the full report is published on the UoL website immediately whilst the second calls for student services to be preserved. It also argues for improved communication and a ‘minimum service level’ to be guaranteed by the University across all UoL colleges.

Perhaps the most controversial request is the final, which asks that ‘the current sabbaticals have their roles terminated quickly to prevent ULU becoming a centre of protest over the summer. Many students find the regular presence of protesters around ULU intimidating.’ This is likely to be seen as a direct challenge to Chessum and Cooper, who are currently trying to fight the changes. However, the changes would only see the pair lose their jobs if they continued in their respective positions until the 2014-2015 academic year. The signatories of the letter, on the other hand, suggest that the two should not be able to continue in their roles after this academic year.

It is not the first time the two political sides have clashed. One of the lead signatories, Peter Minnis, was responsible for the campaign to oust Daniel Cooper after his refusal to lay a wreath on Remembrance Day back in November. The letter mentions this affair specifically, stating that ‘the refusal to accept a petition calling for an impeachment referendum against Daniel Cooper’ as well as ‘the refusal to publish adequate details surrounding the annulled election results of the London Student editor’ have ‘demonstrated that ULU is plagued with a culture of incompetence, secrecy and contempt for the student body at large.’

Without a doubt, this will not be the last that UoL students hear from both sides before any changes come into effect. Whether the senior management take on board any of the letter’s suggestions though, is more uncertain.

Are you against the reforms being made to ULU? Or agree with the letter sent to senior management today? Get in touch with writeforpi@pimedia.org.uk or president@pimedia.org.uk if you’d like to write a comment piece for Pi.

The University of London’s academic governing body, Collegiate Council, voted this morning to reform the University of London Union (ULU) following an exhaustive eight month review.

The most drastic change to be made is the removal of the elected full-time officer positions, currently held by former UCLU sabbatical officer Michael Chessum (President) and Daniel Cooper (Vice-President). The reforms would also see the annual £750,000 (roughly) currently paid to ULU redirected to student services within individual Colleges and Institutes. The changes would come into effect from summer 2014.

The swimming pool, gym, shops, cafes, bars, venues, and the administrative support for inter-collegiate sporting events would all stay in tact. The report also recommends a ‘pan-London body to represent students on a wide range of issues in the capital, including transport and housing.’ The building in Malet Street, London WC1 that currently houses ULU will be retained and refurbished as a student centre, with all permanent staff transferred onto the University’s payroll.

The news has provoked strong criticism from many students though a significant number of students have declared their approval. UCLU Conservative society president Matthew Corner told Pi ‘I welcome the decision to close ULU. It wasn’t representative, most didn’t care and the services and activities will remain anyway.’ UCL student Hannah Dawson tweeted that ‘ULU tore itself apart with the elections/London Student thing this year. Never mind all the bad press from Remembrance Day.’ On the other hand, Ben Towse – UCLU Postgraduate Students’ Officer elect – argued that ‘Bosses have no right to determine the future of our union. Terrible precedent, threatens every SU in the UK. VCs [vice-chancellors] would love to get their hands on SU services, hike prices, reduce wages & pocket profits, while sidelining our representation.’

Others objected to the decision but accepted that ULU does face serious problems. Layth Hanbali, current Chair of UCLU, said it was ‘Laughable UoL think they’re more representative than ULU, although has to be acknowledged there are real democracy problems at ULU’.

It has certainly been a difficult year for ULU, with controversy surrounding the London Student elections and the now infamous ‘Poppygate’, in which Vice-President Daniel Cooper refused to lay a wreath for Remembrance Day. Most recently, ULU saw the editor of the London Student, Jen Izaakson, face a vote of no confidence from the ULU Senate, though the motion did not pass.

The future of the London Student newspaper seems bleak considering the position of editor is a full-time officer position. However, Izaakson told Pi that ‘One of the reasons that the University at the last review said it would continue funding was because of London Student being valuable and hopefully it can continue, in some form, whatever remains of ULU.’ Her views on ULU itself are less hopeful. ‘It’s a shame the Union is closing. Hopefully, there’ll be some sort of fightback that can consolidate something decent being left but I think this year has been a wasted opportunity. ULU has been squandered by Michael Chessum and Daniel Cooper. Currently with the state ULU is in, many students won’t bother fighting for it to stay because what does it really offer them? As one recently elected Gen Sec at ULU college next year told me this week: we needed giants this year to transform and salvage ULU and what we got instead were mice.’

Current ULU President Michael Chessum has pledged to fight changes.

The report from the University of London cites ‘the long-standing problem of low turn-out in elections’ as a reason behind the decision, arguing that it undermined ‘the legitimacy of the representational role’ since ‘typically, fewer than 2% of the electorate have voted in recent elections.’ This year did see an increase in the proportion of students voting in the ULU elections, with 2492 votes counted overall, up from last year’s 1175 total votes counted. However, it still only amounts to just over 2% of the University of London’s 120,000 students.

It remains to be seen whether the summer of 2014 will see ULU in such a drastically different form. ULU President Michael Chessum has pledged to fight against the reforms: ‘It’s not that we won’t go down without a fight – we simply won’t go down’.

The Human Rights Film Festival may not be the first festival to enter anyone’s consciousness around awards season, if they are even aware of it at all. Containing mostly documentary-style films relating to the abuse of human rights, this low-key occasion is distinctly overshadowed by the simultaneously timed events which showcase the glitz and glam of Hollywood. The 19 films coming from 16 countries contain material on such subjects as witchcraft, immigration, sex trafficking and terrorism. This may seem like a heavy-duty night out for those planning an evening of cinematic relaxation, however it is not all doom and gloom; these films really do represent many facets of human existence, including the positive ones.

The festival itself was set up by the charity Human Rights Watch and its aim is to bring to light worldwide human rights atrocities through storytelling. The charity hope that engaging narratives and subject matter will incite empathy from audiences.

The festival contains a host of films from all over the world; particularly impressive was the inclusion of The Guardians which won the prestigious Oscar for Best Documentary. As a documentary lover myself I was particularly impressed by this accolade. Opting for something a little more under the radar, I went to see Alias Ruby Blade: A Story of Love and Revolution. This film is essentially a love story- the only one to be included in the festival- however with its ultimate purpose being to highlight human rights, the love story is woven into the context of the liberation of East Timor. This in essence sums up one of the great benefits of this festival: before this I had had no idea that East Timor itself even existed yet I came out with knowledge of the whole history of its hard fought battle for independence, without feeling bored. The film is an entrancing montage of clips from interviews, journalism archives and the personal records of its central character Ruby Blade. It is her own tale of the revolution as an Australian visitor to Timor who becomes a central figure in its fight against Indonesia for independence. As such it is a particularly relatable tale told by an outsider, who begins by looking in and eventually becomes a part of the revolutionary movement, a journey which mirrors that of the viewer. I found myself drawn into the film willing the Timorese on in their battle for liberty. Without giving away the ending, there is great uncertainty as to the current status of one of the main characters, a fact which is held until the end and then climactically exposed. This creates a great point of tension, propelling the narrative of the film forward in a quest for its revelation.

The intrigue and tension created by the film is not overshadowed by the human rights maltreatment that clearly runs throughout it; it stands on its own as a great piece of cinema, a love story within a story of a people’s love for their country. Therefore I would argue that though you might deem this festival not for you – perhaps you feel that the cinema should be an escape to an alternate reality- I would urge you to look a little closer. Alias Ruby Blade… allowed me enter into the world and story of the East Timorese; the idyllic landscapes and a tale of love and revolution in a place so different from my own experience. And that can be just as good a form of escapism as watching the latest Hollywood heartthrob fighting the bad guys.

Rating for Alias Ruby Blade: A Story of Love and Revolution: 4 Stars

‘Light Show’ is at the Hayward Gallery until 6th May

Produced and Presented by Nadira Amrani
Filmed by Mikko Makela and James Watson
Edited by Mikko Makela

Production and Editing: Mikko Makela
Filming: Mikko Makela and James Watson
Presenting: Nadira Amrani

 
The Bride and the Bachelors is at the Barbican Centre until June 9th

Presenting and interviews – Nadira Amrani
Filming – Mikko Makela and James Watson
Editing – James Watson