AS A SPECTACLE Danny Boyle’s offering was without doubt theatrically brilliant – however, what it was doing opening a festival of sport is beyond me. Half of its subject matter would have been lost on a good three quarters of the globe; not to mention a similar quantity of the British people who have long since stopped being taught their country’s history.
The bucolic opening, underscored by Beethoven’s 6th symphony (what else?)[1] reminded me of the opening landscape of the Shire, ala Peter Jackson. The emergence of the 19th century foundry ogre with its four puffing chimneys spewing forth, and a cigar smoking Isambard Kingdom Brunel, looking with personal satisfaction upon the unfolding monster, suggested the Industrial Revolution as a necessary evil created by greed from the pastures of this green and pleasant land - which brought untold misery to the people, many of them, suitably attired, and present throughout.
We British do like to dress up and perform, and the volunteers who took part in this piece of theatre will now, no doubt, all be looking for an agent. So we can now look forward to thousands of wanna-bees, having put on the grease paint, and now not wishing to take it off – especially after the reviews.
Perhaps the most bizarre feature, and the one which has upset Aidan Burley, a Conservative MP, and probably led him to call the whole enterprise "leftie multicultural crap", was Boyle’s tribute to the NHS.
The sight of ranks of NHS beds with bouncy children being admonished by what we today call their “carers” was almost surreal in the context of the opening ceremony to an Olympic games. Yet there it was in all its glory – a pastiche of Soviet like proportions praising state health care. This occurrence carried with it a testament of Boyle’s left-wing credentials, however inexplicable, to the outside world.
BOYLE’S POLITICIS ARE left-wing. This does not mean that, creatively speaking, he cannot escape its clutches in his work, as he has already proven. But he has deliberately chosen to display his politics on this occasion, which has led of course to criticism from the likes of Aidan Burley.
Mr Burley is a fool who should have kept his mouth shut. Now his chance of reselection may be in the balance. This does not mean that the foolish MP was wrong in his judgement, but merely naive in sharing it with the British public on Twitter.
He later tried to dissemble without success – it is not the first and it will not be the last that an MP has embarrassed himself or herself on this social networking sight. Like the demented egos they are, politicians and celebrities believe that their opinions on the most banal of subjects are expectantly awaited by the public – and you know what? Sadly they are!
The latest mouth to open in criticism of the opening ceremony on political grounds comes from across the pond.
That right-wing American talk show host has added his weight to Mr Burley’s views on Boyle’s perfunctory[2] adaptation of British history from the rural and industrial to state patronage. Limbaugh calls such intrusion the "honouring socialism and collectivism" by Danny Boyle.
While not wishing to associate myself with the Burley-Limbaugh outpourings, and with no parliamentary seat to defend; I would say this. The directorship of the opening ceremony was given to Danny Boyle by the last Labour government[3] who fought to get the London Olympics. His ability to do the job should never be in dispute. His professionalism has been very well proven by his results –based purely upon creativity in theatre or film.
Political avowals such as those in support of the NHS or women’s suffrage have no part in an Olympic opening ceremony, however overwhelmingly and entertainingly they are presented. However subtlety are such creative protests woven into the ceremony, they should be left outside of G20 meetings.
What Danny Boyle has done is to sneak, via his reputation, his left-wing message onto a world stage. He did indeed honour the state without any reference to the state’s dependence on the collection of people’s taxes to pay for the NHS.
THE OPENING CEREMONY was worthy of its reviews on purely artistic grounds. It was indeed better than Beijing, which truly exemplified the totalitarian spirit. Beijing cost more, and left us at the time of our selection for 2012, wondering whether we could better the state funded spectacle. In the end we beat it ideologically and surpassed it artistically.
We should be proud of these Olympics, but we should not allow, in the future, political ideology to become the purpose of an Olympic opening ceremony as it appears Danny Boyle has presented us with, via the most spectacular of opening displays.
However grandiose and subtle it may be to the ordinary people; the opening ceremony must remain politically neutral. Only in ideologically driven counties like China, can the odour of political supremacy govern, through whatever means, the Olympic successes.
It is interesting that China praised the opening ceremony. Perhaps it was because they were able to see what only the likes of Aidan Burley could. After all, China more than any other nation knows all about "honouring socialism and collectivism".
Boyle’s theatrical masterpiece captivated all parts of the political spectrum on a night when all we wanted was to be entertained – and entertained we were. But we were also drawn into the magnificence of the ceremony, while either ignoring or not noticing the socialist message that was woven throughout.
Aidan Burley was wrong (if only for the sake of his career) to be so outspoken so soon after the event when the viewers wonder was at its zenith, and calls for a knighthood for Boyle was gaining widespread support. When will politicians control their appetite for peddling their opinions on social networks? It only ends in them complaining about taking what they said out of context; and how they have been misunderstood.
This piece of theatre was a 90 minute left-wing tainted extravaganza. My one objection was, as I wrote at the beginning of this piece – what on earth was it doing heralding in a sporting event? I believe its grandiosity impacted more than did the clever and understated propaganda intended by its creator: and for this alone Danny Boyle deserves our congratulation.
[1] Well a more fitting musical backdrop would surely have been – Vaughn Williams?
[2] Yes, I do know that Mr Boyle took a beginners course in the history of Britain from 1700 to 2012. But it was researched merely as a piece of theatre that was only meant as a backdrop to a far important event.
[3] Here I am indeed guessing
No comments:
Post a Comment