In Michael Buble's version of the song (and Engelbert Humperdink's before him), "Quando, Quando, Quando" is the annoying repititious question that doesn't seem to have an answer:
".....Tell me when will you be mine
Tell me quando quando quando
We can share a love divine
Please don't make me wait again
When will you say yes to me
Tell me quando quando quando
You mean happiness to me
Oh my love please tell me when
I can't wait a moment more
Tell me quando quando quando
Say its me that you adore
And then darling tell me when ..." etc etc
What I just wanna know is - when will ABC's Q & A find a way to actually live up to the second half of its name, and finally get some answers from their celebrity panelists? All too often in recent weeks the show has started with promise, with the look of a well matched panel ( in the sense that they look capable of holding their own in a good debate) only to sink quickly into the type of ideological posing which passes for political exchange these days.
Don't get me wrong - I'll keep tuning in to see if its improving, but I have to confess that the turn off time is getting shorter. I gave up at about the 10 minute mark this week.
Come on Tony (or whoever is speaking into your earpiece) - can't you shorten the leash a little? If they can't answer the question in the first 20 seconds (or at least look like they're on the path towards it) it's time to call a halt and re-direct. Here's a hint - every time a politician says "Tony, let me just say this...." you should know we're in for a rant which probably won't answer the question.
And every time anyone speaks out of turn, their mic should be muted - or demerit points awarded - or something. Q & A started off so well as a model for informed and civilised conversations - lately it's little more than a forum for appalling manners and narrow interest groups.
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Sunday, 29 May 2011
Carbon Cate
There's a bunch of people getting upset that Cate Blanchett (an actor who makes lots of money (apparently)) and Michael Caton (who is also an actor, but I'm betting doesn't make nearly as much money) are about to share their view on the proposed carbon tax in a series of advertisments. Of course, we haven't yet seen these ads, but we're led to understand that these two artists (I'm referring to their real jobs here) are broadly in favour of this new tax thingy.
From the clamouring news headlines, it appears that the main thing Cate & Michael have done wrong so far is (gasp!) develop an opinion and have the commitment to publicly state it. I am reasonably sure that's still OK 'round here, but from the press this is getting you could be forgiven for thinking that it's not. What is really confusing is that there's also a view that because these people are actors/performers/artists, then that automatically precludes them from having opinions of their own. Worse still that these two are successful actors ( & therefore wealthy as well, but I think that's another part of the debate).
Sorry, but you've lost me there - I thought one of the primary reasons for art was to challenge, question and reflect the society in which it exists. Truly great art is often possible of transcending society and time. So how does shutting our artists up help us? How does accusing them of having selfish agendas help develop the debate? (and didn't the Nazis try that approach?)
Seems we've lost track of what art & artists are really all about, and we've perhaps gotten it confused with entertainment. Yes, I'm sure there's a difference, and in a world which is obsessed with disposability, in which consumerism now extends to everything, it seems to me that the best thing about art is that it might occasionally have the capacity to NOT be disposable. (Hah! - even when Andy Warhol tried to make disposable art, he couldn't!) That it might have that transcendant quality. That it might make us better people.
It also beggars belief that because someone does a certain job for a living then they can't have a publicly held opinion on something else. Wow, that kinda blows that whole "democratic freedom of speech " concept out of the water, doesn't it?
From the clamouring news headlines, it appears that the main thing Cate & Michael have done wrong so far is (gasp!) develop an opinion and have the commitment to publicly state it. I am reasonably sure that's still OK 'round here, but from the press this is getting you could be forgiven for thinking that it's not. What is really confusing is that there's also a view that because these people are actors/performers/artists, then that automatically precludes them from having opinions of their own. Worse still that these two are successful actors ( & therefore wealthy as well, but I think that's another part of the debate).
Sorry, but you've lost me there - I thought one of the primary reasons for art was to challenge, question and reflect the society in which it exists. Truly great art is often possible of transcending society and time. So how does shutting our artists up help us? How does accusing them of having selfish agendas help develop the debate? (and didn't the Nazis try that approach?)
Seems we've lost track of what art & artists are really all about, and we've perhaps gotten it confused with entertainment. Yes, I'm sure there's a difference, and in a world which is obsessed with disposability, in which consumerism now extends to everything, it seems to me that the best thing about art is that it might occasionally have the capacity to NOT be disposable. (Hah! - even when Andy Warhol tried to make disposable art, he couldn't!) That it might have that transcendant quality. That it might make us better people.
It also beggars belief that because someone does a certain job for a living then they can't have a publicly held opinion on something else. Wow, that kinda blows that whole "democratic freedom of speech " concept out of the water, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)