Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
NOTE: Although I will do my very best to not give any spoilers during this review it is going to be quite detailed. Therefore if you want to enter the film with literally NO IDEA of what may happen then this review is not for you. However if you want an outside opinion on the plot (not the plot in detail as that would make this one big Wikipedia style spoiler-fest), characters and other areas of the film then please read on!!
Plot: I’ve heard many many different opinions on the plot of this Prince of Persia film. I cannot approach it from the point of view of a gamer (because this is essentially a live action video game to movie adaptation) so I shall therefore talk about the plot of the film from the point of view of the average cinema goer who’s only foray into Prince of Persia games came in the form of one afternoon of pressing arrow keys on a keyboard whilst playing some archaic form of the Prince of Persia when it was still on floppy disk. The story centres on poor orphan turned Prince, Dastan, who was taken from the streets when a boy by the King and welcomed into the royal family. I’ll admit the reasons behind this act of generosity are shaky at best. I can’t quite see a King being impressed by a ragamuffin and then taking him in as his son as a result. But I suppose it is so because the writers wrote it and it helped the plot and therefore I chose to accept it and move on (though I admit it was with little grace). Fast forward fifteen years and Dastan along with his two Princely brothers (next in line to the throne Tus and military orientated second son Garsiv) and Uncle Nizam are planning to attack the sacred city of Alamut. The reason is that spies think that Alamut are providing weapons for enemies of Persia. However there is something much more precious than weapons in Alamut. Princess Tamina, who appears to be the monarch which rings strange with me as I assumed that if a person is monarch they are a King or a Queen…not a Princess, cannot defend the city and her armies soon fall to the Persians. A marriage alliance is to be created with Tus and Tamina to solidify the bond between the two kingdoms (it is mentioned that Tut already has many wives and on several occasions it is hinted that he has “more than enough”). However when the King arrive things take a sinister turn and Dastan is forced to go on the run from his own family. With no one to turn to except the beautiful and very treacherous Princess the question is; will Dastan ever be reconciled with his family and will he survive the film? I thought that although there were a couple of silly moments throughout the general plot of the film was very well written. There were several amazing action sequences which really kept the film going but with those excluded the plot still held my attention and made me want to keep watching until the climatic and, in my view, completely right and worthwhile, end. Not for the deep thinkers or lovers of beautifully crafted scenes of well acted emotion and internal struggle but great for the sword fight, epic battle, desperate quest loving cinema goers out there.
Plot: 8/10
Characters
Prince Dastan: Jake Gyllenhaal – I have never been a Jake Gyllenhaal fan. Indeed I don’t really like him all that much. However in this film I did enjoy his performance. This might have something to do with the fact that his role needed very little acting. It was all jumping from roof top to roof top, sword fights and visually spectacular CGI scenes. I went to see the film with a friend and she pronounced him “delicious” although I don’t see it myself. The fact that he isn’t exactly well cast in terms of looks (let’s face it Princes of Persia were not tanned white guys) I didn’t really notice that and it certainly didn’t lessen my enjoyment of the film. As for the character himself I didn’t find anything (except for his strange adoption into the Royal family) to annoy me with the character or his portrayal. Nice work from Gyllenhaal all told.
Princess Tamina: Gemma Arterton – Yes she has been in nigh on every action film this year. But her role in Prince of Persia is so much better than in Clash of the Titans. She gets a chance to actually act and she shows something I haven’t seen her do before: witty. She is very very good at it as well. She and Gyllenhaal, whilst not sharing much romantic chemistry, do mocking and verbal sparring very well. I like her anyway but I like her more after seeing this. As for the character Tamina is a very religious Princess set with a sacred duty to defend a mysterious dagger which if used correctly has power over time itself. Great performance…shame about the lack of romantic chemistry though.
Nizam: Ben Kingsley – I haven’t seen many Ben Kingsley films but I really enjoyed him in this. He plays the morally dubious Uncle very well. You’re never quite sure where you stand with Nizam and Kingsley gets that across beautifully. Nizam is the advisor to not only the King (who is his brother) but also his nephews and we see him advising Tus and the King often during the film. Can’t complain about Kingsley…never can if truth be told.
Tus: Richard Coyle – I didn’t even know anything about this character or the actor who plays him until I watched the film. He may have been in the trailer. He may not have. Either way I love him. The performance is subtle in many ways. Tus is the Crown Prince, next in line for the throne, and as such there is a lot of pressure on him to behave like a King in the making. However he has a lot of counsel from his brothers and Uncle and at several points he doesn’t seem to know what he should do for the best. This comes across very well and I will certainly be looking out for Coyle again in the future.
Garsiv: Toby Kebbell – Another played down character which I really enjoyed. Garsiv is nothing like either of his brothers. He is very much a military man and given the choice between attack and talk he will always attack. Like with Kingsley I was never sure until towards the middle of the film which side Garsiv was on and this “it could go either way” portrayal was done very well.
Other mentionable characters include: Sheik Amar played by Alfred Molina who is an ex slave turned ostrich racing entrepreneur who provides excellent comic relief throughout the film, Seso played by Steve Toussaint who has one of the best action scenes in the film and is another ex slave who is a master of throwing knives and the various Hassansins who include; Gísli Örn Garðarsson, Claudio Pacifico, Thomas DuPont and Dave Pope who all conducted brilliant action roles and were very frightening.
Characters: 8/10
Visual Effects: Spectacular is a word I rarely use when describing films but the use of CGI was spectacular in this film. Every action sequence could almost be passed for real (and indeed unless you’re looking for the signs of CGI they could be without doubt thought to be real) and some of the created back drops, fight sequences and of course the use of the dagger when turning back time were brilliant to look at.
Visual Effects: 9.5/10
Soundtrack: Usually I will only mention the soundtrack if it is truly something to talk about but at several times in the movie I found myself marvelling at the music created to accompany the film. Scenes were enhanced a hundred fold by dramatic music or, in the inverse, quiet, calm music could be used to show the mood of the characters slipping into something more intimate. The theme song, sung by Alanis Morissette, called I Remain was a nice surprise as well and I stayed through the credits to listen to it. Another great score from Harry Gregson-Williams (think Narnia and Kingdom of Heaven soundtracks).
Soundtrack: 10/10
Conclusion: This is a film for action fans. It could also be a film for those who like fantasy and also for those who like something historically based. As I like all three it is perfect for me. I feel one of the main reasons that critics aren’t loving this film as much as I did is because they’re taking it far to seriously. This isn’t a drama. This is an action/adventure movie with a big helping of fantasy which is great to loose yourself in for a couple of hours. A billion times better than the devil incarnate showing in the next screen (Sex and the City 2…*shudders in horror*) and definitely worth a view.
Overall: 9/10
Virgin School
I am incredibly skilled in the art of finding strange TV shows and documentaries to watch. It began with Sex: How to do Everything and continued with a series of similarly strange programs (the highlight of which may have been “Hairy Women in which we meet…well…hairy women who moan about shaving. Lots. Or maybe The Sex Inspectors where couples get told they shag wrong and have to have lessons and be watched continuously by “sexperts” watching through cameras installed in the couple’s home…but I digress). However today I came across the greatest of TV phenomena. It truly is the oddest, most disturbing and possibly the least productive to mental health program of all time.
Virgin School.
We meet a guy who is called James. Now James is twenty six years old and still a virgin. I know. I don’t understand why they’re making a program about this either. So what if James is still a virgin? Surely it’s better for him to be twenty six year old virgin than a twelve year old father of four with eight S.T.I’s and a reserved spot in the dole cue for when he (inevitably) needs it in future life? James is going to learn to have sex. From a school. Which teaches people how to have sex. I know. However I thought to myself that I would give this show a chance. And share my thoughts with you. Throughout. Candidly.
I will post as I watch and label the point in the video in which everything happens. The show is 48 minutes long. This should be good.
3:32: His MOM is on the show. His Mom. She describes her son as “not having that John Travolta Saturday Night Fever strut down the street.” Please tell me who you know who “struts” down the street whilst trying to imitate John Travolta? I must go and find them, video them, post said video on Youtube and most of all I must laugh at them. A lot.
3:56: “it might end with James having sex with one of the coaches” WOAH. Okay. So basically James is going to go to this school where they will teach him to have sex. He will then have sex with his teacher. Surely this is not promoting anything good? I am not in the least bit surprised that this school is based in Amsterdam. Anything goes there. Including, it would seem, twenty six year old virgins who clearly think they have something to prove.
4:25: We meet the founder of this sleazy school of fucking who’s name is Marion. If I saw Marion on the street I would probably think she was a mother of two with a nice husband, perhaps a grandchild, good income (possibly retired). The sort to sip Pimms in her backgarden and plan her daughter’s wedding. Oh no. This lovely lady has founded a school which promotes “better and more love” in her words. No Marion. No. You’re promoting the idea that being a virgin is shameful and you should go to a school to rid yourself of this appalling stain on your character.
4:41: Carla, the intimacy coach, is another woman from the same mould as Marion. She looks like a mother figure. Not a MILF figure. Bridgit, the sex coach, reminds me of Samantha Jones from Sex and the City. Ageing yet still up for it. She seems more the type to run this outfit. If I were a male twenty six year old virgin I’d rather shag Bridgit than Marion or Carla. Just saying.
6:09: James has gone shopping for last minute essentials for his trip to Sex School with his Nan. I’m starting to wonder how he can possibly be a virgin still with his Nan and Mom all but promoting his going out and shagging his way round half the fifty year old women in Amsterdam. Well, I’m sorry, but that’s what it is, isn’t it?
6:41: Ah. He told his Nan he was going to Amsterdam on a confidence class. Did he consider the fact that this show is going to be on TV and is now on Youtube? They’re being followed by TV cameras. I think his Nan might maybe possibly want to see the footage of her grandson on TV. Poor old Nan. She’s in for a bit of a shock methinks.
10:24: Carla just announced she doesn’t have sex with the clients. Good because she seems quite nice and I don’t think I would continue to think she was really nice if she were bent over a bedside table being shagged (probably badly) by poor virgin James. It would put a dampener on our relationship I think. Might make things awkward. I bet Bridgit has sex with clients.
11:50: Aww. This is sweet. They’re sitting on a bed and she’s stroking his hair. Fully clothed and everything. Okay yes I know she’s basically being paid to do it but she seems very nice. Carla this is. James seems a little like a lost child. It’s getting a bit creepy now. But still a bit sweet. Poor James. He got overwhelmed and had to stop.
13:47: His Mom is back and she’s talking about James having learning difficulties when he was younger. He got bullied too. I’m sorry and maybe I’m being a little harsh here but I don’t think it makes going to Amsterdam and paying to be taught how to have sex and then finally having sex with one of your instructors okay. It’s not really is it?
16:17: School reunion role play. Carla still the teacher here. It’s kind of sweet but in a very weird sort of way. She’s pretending to be a girl called Julie and he’s trying to make the moves on her. Things are hotting up. They’re on the bed. James has holes in his socks. I thought his Nan bought him new ones? Obviously not. I hope I don’t see Carla naked.
17:58: Carla is topless. After that James bottled it. I don’t know why. She’s not bad for fifty eight.
19:52: A transition piece about James being a paper boy. More sob stories basically. Apparently his low self esteem makes it difficult for him to do…well…anything.
21:19: “I’ve never really been into women” This explains a lot James. Have you considered men? This isn’t even me taking the piss. Has anyone EVER considered that maybe James isn’t an awkward, woman hating, sex craving looser. Maybe he’s just gay and he doesn’t know it and it’s making him all of those things because he doesn’t understand. Yeah. Of course no one thought of that. Of course not because that would MAKE SENSE.
22:32: Carla has her vagina out. It’s not being filmed. Thank God. Instead we get to see James’ slightly surprised face as he watches her explain all the bits and pieces. Lovely.
23:36: James calls the size of his penis his “greatest fear” and complains that he feels smaller than everyone else. Doesn’t every man have that niggling thought in the back of his mind?
24:46: They’re making him thrust whilst fully clothed and watching himself in a mirror. He must also grunt whilst thrusting. What madness is this?
25:27: James is naked.
26:40: Marion just announced in a voice over that Carla is meant to represent the mother. At the same time her voice over is being applied to a video with Carla touching James’s penis. These people have obviously been reading too many Freudian psychology books.
29:12: “There is something growing in him.” There’s something growing Carla, but it’s not in him…
30:51: Carla has taught him all she can. He must now move onto the sex coach. You remember her? Yeah, the saucy one. Bridgit. It was quite sad to see James and Carla say goodbye. I thought she was going to cry. But at the end it did look like he was hugging his Mom goodbye…which is ever so wrong.
32:04: James is speaking to his friend Dave about his reservations about loosing his virginity. James. You’re going to fuck a woman who is getting paid to teach you to fuck properly and she is going to pretend you are the best thing in the world or she’ll get fired. What’s there to worry about?
32:46: Oh God. Carla, Marion and Bridgit are sitting in a circle chatting about James’ penis size, comfort with vaginas and his general experience. They seem like nice enough people but I can’t help thinking of the witches from Macbeth. Hubble bubble, toil and trouble ladies…
33:54: Bridgit and James have been emailing for a week. Just general stuff. “How are you? Tell me more about yourself. Will you suck my dick when I next see you?” Fine, I may have made the last one up. But really. This is not a date James. She’s not a nice girl you can settle down with and have 2.5 children. She. Is. Getting. Paid. To. Shag. You.
35:20: James and Bridgit are in their first session. Her boobs are out and she’s only been on screen for three seconds. I already like her. I don’t know why. Something to do with how she doesn’t feel the need to explain herself. I like that. She knows what she does and she knows how it probably seems to people and she doesn’t give a fuck. She might take one in the line of duty but she certainly doesn’t give one.
36:25: So now we hear that James has never had an orgasm. Bridgit will sort that out for you mate.
38:09: She sorted it out for him.
40:31: To be entirely fair to this programme James does seem so much more confident now. In another one of his sob story transition pieces to camera he talks about how he’s pleased he’s doing the program and he doesn’t care if people laugh when they see the documentary because it’s helped him. Fair play to the boy. The way he talks, moves, everything about him seems much more like a man of twenty six than a twelve year old now. Maybe this program isn’t all whoring and role playing?
41:15: God bless the boy. His last session with Bridgit where he might have sex with her and he’s bought her flowers. Tulips. Pink.
42:40: James is doing a “sexy” dance as he undresses. I want him to stop. Now.
43:56: “If it’s not special then it’s still an achievement.” Oh James. What has this program done to you? First crap sexy undressing dances and now the belief that sex doesn’t have to be special. Sex is supposed to be special. Or else it’s just you shoving a piece of you into another person and that is not the point.
44:34: HE’S DONE IT. James the virgin is a virgin no more. The question is was he right to loose it this way?
45:55: James is leaving the program now his course is complete and he’s having a little cry. It’s sweet in an odd sort of way.
46:35: “I realise that sex isn’t everything. There are couples out there who live on love and it can be like that. Love doesn’t have to be sexual.” Well done James, you have redeemed yourself in my eyes. Of course you’re saying this after you’ve shagged a lady who gets paid to shag people just like you every couple of weeks but ah well…
The program ended by telling us that although James has not had sex since his steamy encounter with prosti…I mean, sex therapist Bridgit he has found a job at a local cinema and is now in steady employment. So what did I think of this Virgin School? Well. I don’t think I should judge. I mean I don’t totally agree with the principle of it. I don’t agree that people should feel ashamed of not having sex. I don’t feel they should need to go to a place and pay to be taught how to shag and then to be shagged. However I do agree with the confidence boosting nature of the program. It was apparent in James throughout that he was learning and growing as a person. So there’s two sides to the coin I think. Although I bet sex Goddess Bridgit is thanking her lucky stars for her position as chief sexy sex pot. Even if she does have to shag everyone who comes through the door…no pun intended. Or maybe there was. I guess we’ll never know.
Against Homophobia
Today is the International Day Against Homophobia. I know that I have written here about sexuality before but in this blog post I really want to go more in depth not only into my own feelings about homophobia but also about its history.
The word homophobia was first used (or at least first credited to be used) in a speech by George Weinberg, who was a psychologist, and was the first to use it as the term in which it is now known (as a phrase referring to an aversion to homosexuality). However its first outing in print was in May 1969 in a copy of American tabloid Screw. In this article the word homophobia was used in the context of referring to heterosexual men fearing that others may think they’re gay. What does this prove? That even at its very origins homophobia was something which was shrouded in a veil of ugliness and prejudice.
Religion has, of course, not helped the fight against homophobia. Judaism describes ‘a man lying with another man’ as an ‘abomination’, many of the different denominations of Christianity denounce homosexuality as a sin, all Islamic sects disapprove of homosexuality, the highest temporal Sikh authority (Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti) claimed that homosexuality was “against the Sikh religion and the Sikh code of conduct and totally against the laws of nature”. With such influential negative opinions of homosexuality it does beg one question. If God, any God of any religion, is supposed to be loving of all their creations why then do they condemn their children because of who they fall in love with? Why is it right to preach love and kindness with one voice and yet with another almost simultaneously cast out individuals because of their sexual orientation?
Robert Mugabe, leader of Zimbabwe, has openly waged an all out war on homosexuality. Laws have been introduced banning the practise and he once announced, “If you see people parading themselves as lesbians and gays arrest them and hand them over to the police!”. In 2009 research by the ILGA (International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association) found that 80 countries around the world consider homosexuality to be illegal. What is more, five of those countries (Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen) carry the death penalty for homosexual activity. Since 1979 (when the Islamic Revolution in Iran occurred) the Iranian Government has executed more than 4,000 people charged with homosexual acts. With facts and figures such as these I for one begin to wonder what kind of a world we live in.
This is what it comes down to. People are being persecuted for who they love. Men and women the world over are suffering because they love someone. What right has anyone to condemn a person over such a personal thing? Love is supposed to be the most beautiful thing in existence and yet what have we become but a society in which we condemn that which we do not agree with. Who has the right to say who a person can or cannot love? Not me, nor you, nor in my mind any single person, group, organisation, government…it’s all the same when it comes down to it.
So I will end with this. I don’t care if you are gay or straight. I don’t care if you haven’t decided yet. I don’t care if you’re bisexual. I don’t care if you cross dress or you’re transsexual. You are a human being. You have the right to love whoever you want to love and be happy. Nothing and no one will ever change that. I beg you all to have a thought for those who have suffered and even died for their sexuality. One day I hope that everyone will be free to love regardless of prejudices. But until that day I for one will not stop fighting for equality. Yet I am just one person. So, I hope to see you beside me on the battlefield.
Robin Hood
It’s been a long time since I did any sort of review on here (I think the last time was Alice in Wonderland?) but after seeing Robin Hood last night I thought it was about time I did something new! I’ll divide the review into sections just to make it easier to read and also easier for my simple brain to process.
*NOTE* Although I have tried very hard not to include any spoilers in this, if you wish to enter the cinema with no clue about what may happen in the film I would not recommend you read this. It’s purpose if to give a starting idea as to what the story is about as well as a basic overview of characters. Although I don’t give away any major plot points this review is definitely not for you if you don’t want to know a little more about the film. You have been warned!!
Plot: First off if you’re a traditionalist and you think that the legend of Robin Hood should not be changed under any circumstance then this film is NOT for you. This is, like Alice in Wonderland, a re-imagining of a classic. Personally I thought it was rather clever. The problem with faithful adaptations is that you know what happens exactly and that can sometimes take away from the movie, especially if it’s not a well made movie! By changing the plot they’ve essentially made a new premise which is based on a well known story. The plot itself is centred around an archer who is fighting for King Richard (the Lionheart) in the Crusades. This archer, called Robin Longstride, has become more than a disillusioned with the Crusades, thinking that those who are fighting in them have become Godless. A series on events (which I won’t reveal as that would ruin the first forty five minutes of the film!) lead to him taking on the persona of Sir Robert of Locksley. From there the adventure begins. Unlike the traditional Robin Hood story this doesn’t concentrate on the Robin who is devoted to the King and serves him. In fact the King plays a very small part in the film (why will be revealed when you watch it) and indeed the ‘take from the rich to give to the poor’ aspect is barely present. Whilst Robin’s story is being played out in the Holy Land Lady Marion’s is being played out in Nottingham. She is the consummate practical woman. She practically rules the lands her husband owns whilst he is away at war (yes, she is married from the beginning of the film…but to who?! My lips are sealed…) but debt, theft and bad fortune means Locksley is barely hanging on by the skin of it’s teeth. All in all the plot is a very interesting, new and rather bold stroke from Ridley Scott and the writers…but I think they pulled it off wonderfully. This movie set itself up for a sequel and I imagine if the takings at cinema and home release are pleasing that is what we will get in two or three years time.
Plot = 9.
Cast and Characters:
Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) – I have never been a Crowe fan. Indeed, I have a confession to make. I didn’t like Gladiator. I know, I know, you can lynch me later. I cannot think of a single Russell Crowe film I have watched and enjoyed. This changed with Robin Hood. The character Longstride goes from extreme circumstance to extreme circumstance in the film and Crowe plays it beautifully. He doesn’t create a completely selfless and devoted Robin, nor does he play a brutish and harsh one. Instead he balances the warrior and the man of justice well and creates a character that I like throughout.
Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett) – Marion is probably my favourite character in this film. She is played beautifully by Cate Blanchett. I went to see the film with a friend and afterwards we praised the idea of making Marion a woman of the same age as Robin and not fall into the trap of casting a much younger woman to play the role. Blanchett plays Marion with maturity and strength as well as vulnerability at times and it was pretty much the best performance in the film, even at times outshining Crowe!
Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) – There is a very real danger that Mark Strong is becoming typecast as the consummate bad guy of Hollywood. You know what? Good. He plays an excellent antagonist as the brutish, cruel and heartless French sympathetic who gains King John’s trust only to secretly have ulterior movies. The saying goes that every man has a monster within and, as a result, every monster has a man within. Not so with Godfrey. Pure evil and fascinating to watch.
King John (Oscar Isaac) – This was a very interesting portrayal of John. Usually John is shown as a bumbling, heartless bad guy with no thought for anything but his own power and wealth. I think Robin Hood did a good job of showing there was much more to the King than meets the eye. It’s focus on his humanity and the fact that as the youngest of the royal family he was always placed in the background and overlooked explained why he did a lot of what he did. Very well played by Isaac who I’d only seen before in Agora opposite Rachel Wiesz.
Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Allan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle) – These three were the Merry Men and merry they were indeed. They brought some comic relief to a lot of areas in the film (for example, at being asked why he was called Little John, Durand replied “What are you trying to say? I’m proportionate!”) as well as support for Robin and Marion. The idea of having these three instead of a large band of men was a good one as they don’t get lost in the crowd and I was able to take interest in and form a bond with the characters (one of the problems with Clash of the Titans was the band of men following Perseus was so large I barely noticed when some of them died!)
Other mentionable characters were Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) who was hilarious as the slightly morally lacking man of the cloth who became a staunch supporter of Robin and Marion, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Eileen Atkins) who showed us to some extent why King John behaved the way he did, Sir Walter Locksley (Max von Sydow) was fantastic as the blind father in law of Lady Marion and provided some emotional moments as well as a little comic relief at times, and the Sheriff of Nottingham (Matthew Mcfadyen) who played a disappointingly small role and yet whenever he was on screen he played his part well and the make up used to make him look much older than usual shocked me at first – very convincing!!
Cast and Characters: 10/10 – no complaints!!
Final Thoughts: I truly and honestly loved this and cannot recommend it enough. I liked how when I was in the cinema I saw people of all ages, whether much older than myself or the same age and everything in between. It was nice to see that the film had drawn such a diverse crowd of people and I believe that this is one of the reasons that the film is going to be a success. It is universally appealing (unless you’re a staunch legend lover who doesn’t want to see something which twists the story) and although it was a very long film (141 minutes which is 2 hours 21 minutes) the length felt right and I think I can safely say this is a sprawling epic which, in my eyes, matches the golden years of Gladiator. Crowe and Scott and back.
Final Score: 9.5 / 10
Right to Vote
It is a sad fact that the right to vote was something which had to be fought for. By 1832 those who owned households which were worth more than £10 were given the right to vote. Soon after that, in 1867, country labourers were given that self same right. It was only in 1918 that women (over the age of 30) were given the right to vote and it was not until 1928 that women from the age of 18 upwards were allowed the right. The truth is this; people fought long and hard, and even died, so that individuals, both male a female, could vote.
Today I believe I sampled what I will call the “fight”. Granted, I did not risk my life and all in all it only lasted less than an hour. But you can judge me later. For now I will tell the story.
To begin you must be told that my father is about as anti-Labour as you can get. I don’t know why. He’s a very private man so I doubt I ever will. He was very old when he had me (to put it in perspective he has other children from his first marriage in their late thirties) and my brothers and therefore he seems to most to be more of a grumpy old grandfather figure than a Dad. I have always handled him particularly well (I have a knack with grumpy people, possibly because I can often be one) but there are some matters on which he will not be contested. Politics is one of them.
Due perhaps to his anti-Labour tendencies he has supported the Conservative party for some time. Now, as a man who is retired, part of a not very well off family and decidedly from the lower classes I find that incomprehensible. Despite every word to the contrary the Tories’ policies indicate that they are for the rich. Damn the poor. So why does my Dad, who definitely comes into the latter category, support them? I think it’s just because they are the direct opposition to Labour and he therefore thinks they are right. I however am a Liberal supporter. This is for no other reason than I think their policies are ones which may benefit me in the future. Selfish perhaps but I think a good reason to support them.
When father heard about my not planning to vote Tory the problems kicked off. “If you vote Liberal you’re out of this house!” was a favourite, closely followed by, “I’ll never talk to you again if you vote Liberal!” I think he said all of this because he still thinks, like many backward people, that a vote for Liberal is a wasted vote. I can see what his thinking might be. I vote Liberal, as usual Liberals don’t stand a chance, the vote is lost from the Conservatives, strengthening Labour’s hold on the voters and before you know it BAM Labour are in power for another few years. It’s twisted thinking I know but I can see how it came about.
However my father forgot something when he threatened me. I am his daughter. I am every bit as stubborn as he is and every bit as strong willed. So I did the only thing I could think of. I left the house. At this point it was ten o’clock at night and in our quiet little street most people were watching TV peacefully in their front rooms when I stormed into the street, sat on the kerb and proceeded to perform what I am going to call (in an effort to appear grandiose) a protest. A silent, peaceful and very cold protest (it was rather freezing outside and I didn’t have a coat).
Now my area is one of peace. Within minutes a girl sitting on a kerb in the dark drew attention, especially with the slamming of doors and raised voices proceeding it. No doubt they thought I was drunk, or a drug addict or something terrible. I didn’t really care. What I did care about was my principles. My Mom came outside and begged me to come in. I said no. I looked over to my left and realised my position gave the church going family opposite a good view of me sprawled across the pavement. Good, I thought. Let them see. Let them think what they like. It was then I realised I was in for the long haul.
Forty five minutes, a very cold arse and extremely blue fingers later Dad beckoned me inside. The words “Get in, you can vote for who you like, just don’t tell me” were his approximation of an apology. If you knew my father you would know that from him that was an on the knees begging for forgiveness sort of gesture. My pride was sated and my principles preserved.
I know, I’m no Emmeline Pankhurst. But what I hope this experience of mine conveys is this; no matter who you are, what you’re doing or where you are you must always stick by your principles. Yes it can be hard. Yet, at the end of the day, principles and morals are some of the most important things we have. Without them we are much diminished as human beings. So, as a result of my sticking to my guns I can sleep tonight safe in the knowledge that I have stood up for what I believe in. See you all May 6th.
