Career opportunities.

So, I've come full circle. Last we spoke I was bemoaning the fact I was unemployed. Shortly after writing that blog I went on the dole for a period of about 3 weeks, before I found work as a fundraiser for a charity (During my brief stint as a dole mole I received the princely sum of £33.10).

Well great! I'd found a job that paid well and did well, what's not to like? Well, as it turns out, quite a bit. I was paid by an employment agency, but worked for the charity, which meant any confusion over wages was simply batted between the companies- 'go ask the charity' 'oh go ask your agency'.

The charity, as a charity, is fantastic, I support what its trying to do, and what it stands for. However, the way it made me feel and behave as I went about raising funds for them was terrible. It was, essentially a sales job, but instead of selling a product, I was selling the moral high ground. Going door to door is surreal, you see into a lot of lives and a lot of houses. The salient points I got from the 6 weeks or so I worked there is this:

people with no money, while the most eager to give, cannot afford to give it- it was heartbreaking to see people with so little trying to push coins or notes into my hand (something I couldn't accept both by law and principle)

People with some money fell into two categories- they were either eager to share, and some of the most warm hearted people I've ever met (I still have a stubby beer given to me by the second person I ever signed up, I keep it to remind me people aren't pricks), or, they completely hate the fact that inequality means someone is disturbing them while they're trying to watch TV.

People with loads of money, almost to a fault, were either dismissive, angry, or I couldn't get past their huge metal gates to ring their doorbell.

So the job reaffirmed a few things I already suspected, people with less are more eager to share it. But while my job often seemed to 'target' people with less, ('There's some good council estates here' was a phrase often heard) if I were to ever help people with less, directly, by giving out the charities number, for example, it was seen as a waste of time- 'you've given out more numbers than you've collected'.

In short, the main aim of working for the charity, was to sign people up to donate. Fair enough. But if you don't sign up enough people in the amount of time given, on your bike- during my stint there, 5 people 'had their assignment ended'- e.g. they were sacked. I myself had something of an epiphany on a bus to work on Monday morning- I'm doing a job I don't enjoy. Is it worth it?. To which I decided it wasn't, got off the bus, walked home n quit.

Working for a charity in such an aggressive, sales capacity was not good for me. I often caught myself becoming judgemental towards people who didn't donate. Who the fuck am I to judge anyone? I don't donate to charities every month, I give cash as and when I choose. But if someone says that to me or my colleagues on a door suddenly they're tight bastards?

The hypocrisy I was exposed to, and part of, was overwhelming. For example, many of my colleagues had other experience, working for other charities- one said 'I miss working for *cancer charity*, you pretty much just had to talk about kids with cancer and they gave you money, it was easy, I made a fortune in bonuses.'- Surely, that is not a remark from someone who is driven by charity, that is a remark made by someone driven purely by money. And a lot of people are. And that really pisses me off.

I think the overlap between business and charity is scary, and the mentality it inspires strange, as though the very idea of charity becomes a commodity, a way for people to write off real taxes and mental guilt. Because we live in a very unfair world, you don't need me to tell you that. But when someone knocks on your door and tells you its unfair, then offers you a chance to make it less unfair in exchange for money, something isn't right.

What I'm really getting at here is, question everything. If someone is homeless, it's great to help them, never stop helping people. But as soon as you ask 'why is that person homeless?' suddenly you're opening a can of worms. Philanthropy is fine, but never question what creates such inequality in the first place? Fuck that.It boils down to having a personal philosophy. Mine is that people should all have the basic things they need to survive and thrive. That's easy to dismiss as 'starry eyed dreaming' but why settle for less? As a species we're a pretty incredible bunch, and we shouldn't write it off as 'That's just the way it is' (No matter what the great 2pac says).

If you want to feel better about something, do something!

And that, ladies n gents, is why I quit working for a charity. Weird eh?

Here's the soundtrack to my jobsearching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZOrkPIZ1JU

Oh and I really, really will write about something film related next time.

New Years grumble.

Happy new year! Right, thats over, let's get on with it. From the 22^nd December to this current date (12/01/16), I have been unemployed. A grand total of 3 weeks. And its, well, shite. This is the first time I've been searching for a job and seem unable to find one. This is the big difference between being on holiday and unemployed, and it's something a lot of channel 5 documentaries (amongst others) need to realise. I'm not doing this because it's some sort of doss or cop out, I want to work, and it's not available. So, when Im not applying for jobs or making some sort of heinous veg soup (potatoes are awesome!!), I try and keep my mind occupied. Today I was flicking through the usual dross on TV, when I found myself past the horror channel (usually the freeview point of no return) onto BBC House of Commons Live. And this is when it got strange. This isn't my first experience of the channel, an innovative idea of broadcasting to the nation what our government gets up to, and how the day to day running of the country is handled. So at about 2.30, over some toast, I caught the debate on 'Affordable housing'. Now, Im 21, a long way off getting on the property ladder, but that's no reason I cant aspire to owning my own 'little bit of land' Of Mice and Men style.

So, settling in for some political battling, I was kinda shocked to see only around 50 MPs had bothered to show up. If I didn't show up to a days work serving drinks, in the House of Commons bar, for example, I doubt my employers would look kindly on it. But nevertheless, I watched a few of these MPs, such as Stephen Hammond, talk about affordable housing as though it is a dirty word. My understanding of the bill as it stands, is that high value vacant property, is to be sold by local councils, and the money gained used to pay for more affordable housing. Okay, so on the face of it that seems reasonable. BUT WAIT! Why are these high value properties not being rented by the wealthy who can afford them? Because they're waiting until the Council is essentially forced by the government to sell them, at a reduced rate, so they can either sell them on, or rent them out again for a higher price than the council rents them. Remember when the Post Office got sold for way less than it was worth to a lot of George Osbournes mates who made a fortune? Yeah. That. But with houses. So that bill will be passed, with many long worded amendments that I couldn't quite grasp. And why should I? None of the information broadcast at half 2 on a Tuesday was meant for me, an unemployed graduate living in the north of England. Surely the only conclusion I can draw from the half hour of live government I was able to stomach is that a room of 50 odd bored, listless looking fuckwits, decide on important things like how 'affordable' it'll be for me to keep a roof over my head in the coming years.

Add to that the death of David Bowie (a man who's life was made for the analysis suggested in my first blog), junior doctors on strike (which I support, the disparity between the pay and working hours of a junior Dr vs an MP is sickening), and a proposed tube strike, we've a lot going on in 2016.

Don't worry, my next post will be a film review (probably.)

As a nice lil sum up, and sorta seasonal vid, here's a scene from 'It's a Wonderful Life'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ne13Zft9Q

THIS PAGE CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS FOR SPECTRE, DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM.

Right? Phew. Well then, what did you reckon? I came out of the cinema pretty happy myself, it was a well rounded Bond film, with all the stuff you'd expect, and some nice nods to the Bond heritage.

I must admit, I'm a huge James Bond fan in general, I've seen em all, read most of the books, even collected these magazine things when I was 12 (does anyone remember those, was it just me?). So yeah, I'm a fan. But as you know, this is about killing, or at least examining your heroes in greater detail, so I'll start where it's easiest. Ian Fleming. The writer of the original novels, a spy in his own right, who, it's pretty obvious from the books, was sexist n racist. That's agiven, he was a product of his time, Connery described him as 'a terrific snob', and also had a huge pre internet porn collection.. So yeah, something of a 'sexist mysoginist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war'-(see what I did there?). But his books sold millions, JFK put one in his top 10 they are trashy, and shouldn't be taken seriously. I enjoy them because of what they are: pulp fiction. They were so successful other spy writers tried to talk him down- John Le Carre, who wrote the huge doorstop book 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' said 'Bond isn't a spy, he's a global assassin'. Which still sounds cool. Anyway, I'll come back to Fleming, on with reviewing the film.

Daniel Craig. Despite weird internet sites set up before his casting dead set against him, Craig has been, in my mind one of the best incarnations of Bond. In Spectre, he is given chance to add a little humour, which is no bad thing, and generally does a good job of playing the spy. I mean when he's escaping Blofelds lair, he kills about 15 guards and made it look easy. Normally I'd pick something like that apart, but while I was watching it in all its cinematic glory I was just thinking 'WOOO YEAH, GET SOME!'. Which brings me to Christoph Waltz, who if anything was born to play a Bond villian, especially one with as much pedigree as Blofeld. He's suitably nasty, and driven by revenge. Perfect, I look forward to seeing him in the future. (I also like the nods to Dr. No, the first Bond film, in both some dialogue, and Waltz's costume). In fact, the cast was brilliant all round, even Bill

'Exposition' Tanner.

Lea. Lea Seydoux. She's purty. And in Madeleine Swan we finally have a Bond girl who's a relatively rounded person rather than a bikini clad bimbo. I could rattle on for a while about Bond girls, and think I will:

Unlike Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale, Madeleine doesn't fall to pieces and scream a lot when there's a fight (how good is the train fight?!?), she finds the heaviest thing to hand and smacks the guys fighting Bond (played ably by Dave Bautista) in the back with it. I would've cheered if not for the fact in the next second she gets knocked out by a punch that made some of the audience gasp. So Bond is on his own? No! Madeleine comes to his rescue, wielding Bond's gun that he managed to drop.

Obviously the fact I have a bit of a crush on Lea, whether its in French art films, Mission Impossible 4, or a blink and you'll miss it cameo in Inglorious Basterds, I was always going to like her Bond girl. But the writing of her as an infinitely more fierce and independent character: 'If you touch me, I'll kill you', made it very easy.

So yeah, those are the things I liked, the casting, the costume, the set pieces, even a lot of the dialogue- 'Now we know what C stands for'. Where it fell down a little was plot... But then plot has never been a Bond films strong point. And just while I'm picking holes, when Madeleine is rescuing Bond with his own gun, she empties it firing at Hinx. Now, she's already proved she knows her way around firearms in the previous scene, but clearly the director, armouror or whoever, doesn't, because, as most gun savvy folk will tell you, with a Walther PPK, the slide locks back when the last round fires. (a great example of this is seen in the Frost n Pegg film Paul, when Jason Bateman delivers a beautiful line-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9WLi-QTrSA NSFW language, poor quality vid :/ ) Instead, the gun clicks, Madeleine looks down bewildered, and promptly gets strangled and has to be rescued by Bond. That sort of thing irritates me a little, but only cos I'm a closet gun nerd.

In Skyfall, the production did have to shoehorn in some product placement for Heineken- 'I just have to hack this really dense code.. Bill? Bill are you drinking?'

'Yeah, why?'

'Is that really apropriate?'

'Shut up Q, I'm going through a divorce.'

In Spectre it wasn't quite as blatant, which made for a nice change. They can make as many godawful adverts using Bond as they like, just stay out of the films.

What did everyone else think? Is it a fitting 'relaunch'?

Fleming is probably spinning in his grave at the idea of a black Moneypenny and a Bond girl saving Bonds life. Which is good. As I said I could happily ramble on about Bond for a good while, so I think I'll devote some separate posts to more specific Bond themes. (I'm thinking best fight scenes and top 5 Bond girls? Christ it's sounding like buzzfeed...)

P.S I'm pretty certain Ben Whishaw as Q is my new style icon. Forget Craigs suits, that always seem kinda too tight... Im gonna rock knitwear and a parka. At least more than I already do.

Days in the life of an Arts Graduate.

So, this is that blogging thing eh?

Whenever I even hear the word blog, I can't help but think of the words of an old history teacher I had, he said 'There's noone writing a blog who doesnt have an axe to grind'. And as I sift through the world of blogs, from fashion to food, sport to sex, I see he has a point. But is that such a bad thing? I reckon being passionate about something, within reason, is good. I mean, people get all sorts of mad about sports, and so be it. Me, I've lots of things I'm passionate about, too many if anything.So this will be a place for my ramblings, if you find any of them interesting, let me know.

So, without further whatsit, here's my first publication on my blog:

Killing your heroes.

Forever and a day, we've had heroes. For the Ancient Greeks it was the mythical heroes like Hercules and Perseus. Nowadays its more likely to be Kanye West, Katy Perry etc. For me, in my teen years, I had plenty of heroes, mostly dead, mostly political.

First and foremost was Che Guevara (yes, that bloke from the T shirt.) I read as much of the literature he wrote as I could, and I loved the idealism he shows in the Motorcycle diaries, a mix of gap year style travelling and political awakening. At 15, I even enjoyed his straight laced advice on armed insurrection in 'A Handbook to Guerilla Warfare', and as a film fan enjoyed Che: parts one and two directed by Steven Soderbergh.

So Che was a good writer, soldier, and committed himself fully to his ideals, even dying for them- his last words apparently being 'Shoot coward, you are only killing a man'. However, right wing commentators have condemned Che as 'brutal'. Satre described Che as 'the most complete human being of our age', but it is known he ordered numerous executions in the wake of the Cuban revolution. As for the endless bastardisation of his image to be used to sell everything from cigarette lighters to bikinis, that's more of another sick joke of history- a fierce opponent of Imperialism and Capitalism used to sell all manner of shite and fuel the industrial complex he sought to oppose.

But this is what I'm beginning to realise, and is part of the inspiration for this blog, is that so many heroes, and the idea of having heroes in general is flawed. I'm not going to the length of adding references to this, as most of the things I mention are only a google away.

So let me 'kill' a few more heroes- George Orwell, a fantastic writer, oft quoted, his works of literature are essential reading for any left leaning schoolboy, was almost certainly anti-Semetic (just read 'Down and Out in Paris and London').

Hunter S. Thompson, wonderful, brilliant, talented headcase, hit his first wife Sandy on several occasions.

Joe Strummer, lead singer of the Clash, had various affairs, not limited to sleeping with bandmates girlfriends.

Steve McQueen, 'The king of Cool' was majorly homophobic.

Jack Kerouac, king of the beats, another fantastic writer, denounced his early work in a haze of alcohol, saying 'Its not my fault if certain undersirables and communists take so much from my work'. I suppose Keroaucs eventual self destruction gives weight to Sick Boy's 'unifying theory of life' that 'You get old, cannae hack it anymore and thats it'.

I guess the axe I want to grind is don't blindly worship, ironically take some advice from Joe Strummer- Question everything! I have posters of Joe Strummer on my wall, and will continue admiring him for his music and style. I'll still enjoy Steve McQueen films cos he was so fucking cool. I'll still read Kerouac, Thompson and Guevara because what they write is beautiful. I'll still defer to Orwell when arguing against totalitarianism or imperialism. But people being talented doesn't excuse them from coming under the same scrutiny we give to our villains.

Especially now, with genuinely horrible people seemingly in charge- a collection of pig bothering, Eton educated, out of touch old fuckwits sat in government- that have been democratically elected.... we need some more heroes.

But I guess there are still some awesome people out there: Just look at Bill Murray dressed as Hendrix