Sarah Montague (for it is she, 15 minutes in (RealAudio)) : “Sean Penn, we’ve discussed your new film, now tell us about your politics, you’re known for your strong views, you’re opposed to the Iraq war, you’re opposed to the way America’s dealing with Iran … why aren’t your films more overtly political ?”
SP: “There’s nothing more political than to be proactively human …”
SM: “And your project for Iran is to .. to get the way that America – the administration – President Bush’s administration – is dealing with it changed. What would you have them do ?”
SP: “Understand that people are people everywhere … shared humanity that we all have …”
SM: “But President Bush wouldn’t say that”
SP: “Yes, he would lie that way … spin and fear … people give in to letting killers kill”
SM:
“Sean Penn, it took a long time, but we got there in the end. Thank you.”
James Naughtie (for it is he, 20 mins in (RealAudio) : “You will know that Norman Mailer is dead … well last year he wrote a book about the trials and tribulations of George W. Bush … here’s a reminder of what he said …”
The late NM: “Bush uses “evil” as a narcotic …”
JN: “And there’s plenty more where that came from – you can hear the whole thing on our website”
This may not be a verbatim transcript. But it “illustrates a wider truth”.
(See also Ry Cooder, Burt Bacharach, Randy Newman, John Prine, Patti Smith).
Havesack: I’m sorry let me clairify. I thought the point of the original post was the bit about IRAN.. not the rather boring sounding film. I certainly wouldn’t say as a transcript its “appalingly bad”
It certainly matches the real version more than well enough to show up the post on the front page for the bizarre confection it is.
I come here to debate. I enjoy it. But I can’t really try and argue with the special version of Today broadcasting only inside Laban’s head!
David Gregory:
Yes David, Reg Hammer is my real name.
VERBATIM!
SM: I spoke to Jaun Sean Penn and asked how he first came across the book.
SP: The cover of this book caught my eye. *swallows* In black and white. Picture of the bus that’s the this this central kind of physical character erm in the movie. And there was something familiar and something erm longing about it. And. So I read it and then I picked it right back up and read it again because I thought I had just seen a movie by accident.
SM: Now we should say this story that caught you. In a way erm it’s not an obviously cinematic story. In that its a such a solitary journey. It’s It’s It’s a young man. 22 years old. Who basically drops out gives all his money to charity. And goes off on a quest. A mission.
SP: Ahwellbut yes you you You said it just as it responded to it, is that I it’s not an obviously cinematic story. And I never liked obvious cinema. So finally there was something here that I really saw as a movie I wanted to see
SM: Because this was is the true story of Christopher McCandless. And well Tell us what he did. What he was after that that caught you at least.
SP: Erm this was a a I I I think that I I don’t apologise in saying that the film as well as erm erm my best sense of Chris’ life and the way that John presented it was er an an unapologetic p- persuit of authenticity. And So that er played out against er the kind of majestic landscape of the er er the back roads of the United States up into Alaska was just too good to be true for a movie.
SM When you watch the film there’s an anti-consumerist message that comes accross, but it struck me that you are .. you are known also for your politics. You are known for your stong views about your opponents you are opposed to the Iraq war. You are opposed to the way America is dealing with Iran. Why have you not chosen to use your films in a more overtly political way?
SP: Well I don’t know that there’s anything more overtly political than to be erm proactively human. Erm I’m I’m er er again I would say I’m not interested any in in in er the word politics as an academic notion. I think that its got to be erm something that’s a certain quality of life for people. erm For one individual as this story is focused on er er or for all individuals for every country for every family for everybody. And and that’s what politics ought to be about, it’s really a one issue world. It’s quality of life.
SM: Is that one of the reasons that you chose to go to Iran? Because er I mean You went to Iran I suppose almost as a journalist didn’t you?
SP Erm well some would say I went as a journalist *laughter*
SM Did you come across stories there that you thought I could make into a film?
SP: No. Erm a film the I the the notions of films to me are not something that I that I kinda…erm I I don’t analyse it. Its really Its its similar to somebody going out every night in search of love and once every five years you might stumble on something that you can feel that way about.
SM: And your project for Iran is to to get the way that America the Administration President Bush’s administration is dealing with it changed. But what would you have them do?
SP: My project is is to to cut through some of the the the meaningless kind of erm spin that has has numbed people from understanding that people are people everywhere and to be able to go there and report back some of the you know very shared humanity that that we all have no matter where we are coming from
SM: But President Bush would say that he’d just say “Look at the leader President Ahmadinejad this is somebody who is a danger to the world.”
SP: Yes, he would lie that way saying that because he doesn’t even recognise that Ahmadinejad is only a very a fraction a leader there. You know. This is This is all a kind of spinaphere (?) and and its never been properly debated er as Iraq was not properly debated and w in the meantime the damage that is being done in the way these things are being approached. Prior to any kind of military engagement is to make erm life so much cheaper in the first place that people give in to letting the killers kill
SM: Sean Penn thank you.
SP: Thangyew
Well that’s another coffee break devoted to this one. Back to the point. Basically what appeared on the Today programme and what B-BBC poster Laban thought he heard and then posted are two totally different things.
Doesn’t this do the cause of B-BBC damage?
Of course it does. Going to update the original post Andrew?
Reg: Brilliant name!
So the “wider truth” that this illustrates is that Laban sees bias where there is none…
Perhaps Andrew could “stealth edit” the front page?
NR,DG etc.
Where is the problem? Penn was ostensibly on the programme to talk about his new film. For some reason the BBC interviewer steered the conversation onto the subject of politics, specifically the current US government, and got the sort of responses which (by her own admission) she was obviously expecting. The assertions made by Penn were barely challenged. It amounted to little more than Sarah Montague saying; “Let’s not bother about the movie, wouldn’t you rather have a quick rant about George Bush?”. I heard the segment as it went out and honestly could not see what the point of it was other than as a criticism of the US.
============
DG: ‘Perhaps Andrew could “stealth edit” the front page?’
I think you’ll find that ‘Biased BBC’ is rather more honest than that. They also give a pretty much unfettered right to reply.
Unlike some organisations I could mention.
If you compare this bit from Laban’s article:
SP: “Understand that people are people everywhere … shared humanity that we all have …”
SM: “But President Bush wouldn’t say that”
SP: “Yes, he would lie that way … spin and fear … people give in to letting killers kill”
to David’s transcript, then you really have to ask yourselves who is being biased in this instance? Laban or Sarah Montague?
Well that’s another coffee break devoted to this one. Back to the point. Basically what appeared on the Today programme and what B-BBC poster Laban thought he heard and then posted are two totally different things.
Doesn’t this do the cause of B-BBC damage?
Firstly the “wider truth” jibe – this is used ironically as it was a term kicked around (by lefties) after Piers Morgan’s fraudulent Mirror pictures of abuse in Iraq – and Dan Rather/Mary Mapes’ bogus story about George Bush’s service in the Texas Air National guard.
Now, with all this “coffee break” time you’ve devoted to transcribing Toady show interviews can I ask – have you clicked the “Patti Smith” link?
Because if you had, you might then understand that this latest Biased-BBC piece is written in the same spirit as that one.
Don’t you think that your contributions to this thread have done damage to the BBC’s cause?
Anonymous
Oh I see! I thought this was B-BBC… I didn’t realise we’d be getting a sort of Laban’s Greatest Hits on the front page.
What a fool I’ve been!
Anonymous
Oh I see! I thought this was B-BBC… I didn’t realise we’d be getting a sort of Laban’s Greatest Hits on the front page.
What a fool I’ve been!
Perhaps if you’d taken 2 seconds to click the link Laban provided for you, you might not have wasted your coffee break time doing all that transcribing.
@Anonymous:
Oh I don’t know in the end it was useful. I learnt that B-BBC is no longer about actually discussing “bias” at the BBC but is in fact a “comedy” site.
And I also discovered one more example of people who lean to the right just not being very funny.
Laban, the reason Marcus Brigstocke exists.
David Gregory: can you ever imagine the “Today” programme inviting on the “BNP ballerina”. They ask a few anodyne questions about her dancing then give her an open mike to condemn the UK’s hopeless immigration policies, cooing with approvement in the background. Thought not.
I know it’s long gone but do you remember Frederick Forsyth’s Saturday Essays on the Today programme?
Presumably not, or you wouldn’t have asked that question.
Oh I don’t know in the end it was useful. I learnt that B-BBC is no longer about actually discussing “bias” at the BBC but is in fact a “comedy” site.
Why shouldn’t humour be used by the bloggers? Makes a change from some of the hilarious commenting by the Beeboids
And I also discovered one more example of people who lean to the right just not being very funny.
Maybe you should stick to Brigstocke/Hardy/Steel et al. then epecially if they don’t need to be explained to you. As you’re a Beeboid you’ll undoubtedly be on their wavelength.
Sarah-Jane:
I know it’s long gone but do you remember Frederick Forsyth’s Saturday Essays on the Today programme?
Bad example – why is Forsyth no longer on the air? According to former Toady editor Rod Liddle he was sacked as BBC higher-ups disliked his right-wing polemics. Will Self was sacked at the same time “for reasons of symmetry and expediency”.
Anonymous – as you would expect Forsyth was also pretty forthright about why the slot went – and I’m not going to disagree with Liddle’s assessment – but the question was ‘Can you ever imagine…?’
I merely answered the question that was answered.
If people kept away from the hyperbole we would have a much tougher time of it.
The questions and statements are too often ‘never’ ‘ever’ ‘name one’…
Re-read Jack Hughes’s post – can you imagine the BNP ballerina being treated in a Penn-like manner by SM? Saying that “once upon a time I heard a right-winger on Today” doesn’t answer Jack Hughes’s question.
Yes, you are right, it doesnt strictly answer the question because “Right-winger given regular slot to say whatever he wants without foreplay” is far more than jack was trying to imagine.
(If you are going to paraphrase my posts use singular quotation marks pls 😛 )
When did you last hear a BNPer on the Today programme? Were they treated like Sean Penn?
Anonymous… could you pick a name? Something? Makes it a bit easier to have a conversation.
Anyway, as I said earlier this whole interview takes a bit of a “body swerve” to discuss Iran etc.
But I did think it was interesting. And much more interesting than the stuff about the movie.
And if you are going to go down the politics route (on the Today programme? What a shock!) then SM puts a tough question and the Bush point of view at the right point.
Humour on blogs is great. But in this case… well I think it damages the cause of B-BBC.
To a casual reader like me and apparently Oliver… well we both got needlessly exercised by something that wasn’t real, just totally imaginary.
Now a post that simply asked why this interview took this turn in the first place… that would have been interesting.
Anonymous – the original comment was based on giving someone’s political views airtime on the basis of their celebrity, which is why I picked Forsyth, not on whether his ‘rightwingness’ is of a similar degree to Sean Penn’s ‘leftyness’. I am reasonably confident that the comment ‘BNP Ballerina’ was made because it sounds quite cute, rather than because it is specifically about the BNP.
No where do you want to move the goalposts to next?
Humour on blogs is great. But in this case… well I think it damages the cause of B-BBC.
Personally, I think humour is a good tool to use on this blog. Laughing at the BBC and the antics of its minions is an ideal way of undermining al-Beeb’s self-importance and pomposity.
I am reasonably confident that the comment ‘BNP Ballerina’ was made because it sounds quite cute, rather than because it is specifically about the BNP.
I’m reasonably confident that in addition to its alliterative qualities Jack Hughes’ comment chose the BNP as a counterpoint to Penn’s flaky politics. When it comes to getting tea, biscuits and a cosy non-confrontational chat on the Toady show we know who’d get what out of Penn and the Ballerina.
No where do you want to move the goalposts to next?
Since I’m fixing on Jack Hughes’ point I don’t see how I’m shifting the goalposts.
@ rob:
Yes, he wrote one of the great anti-war novels (though if you name a great PRO-war novel, I’ll be impressed)
Have you ever come across Devil’s Guard? That’s decidedly pro-war. And Sagittarius Rising; although it’s autobiography, the author seemed to feel he rather gained by the experience, and it’s the supposedly autobiographical nature of normanmailer’s efforts that lends them their moral authority. Then there’s De Bello Gallico. And Beau Geste. One could probably go on.
Mailer, if he is remembered, will go down as the author of a one great novel (The Naked And The Dead), a couple of good ones (The Executiuoner’s Song, Ancient Evenings)
You’re kidding, right? AE is the one with an unnatural act on pretty well every page. My favourites are the ones where the narrator contemplates the anus of a lion longingly and thinks about buggering it, “but I did not dare”. At one point, IIRC, Pharaoh jerks off onto the ground and then talks to his expended semen. You know, the way you do. Call me old-fashioned, but no novel that features snatches of dialogue between a man and his jism is going to enhance its author’s literary reputation in the long term.
I’m with Martin Amis on this one. You’ve only really arrived if your name enters the language as a noun or verb. Boycott. Hooligan. Czar (Caesar). Amis’ proposal is that “to normanmailer” become a verb. If you’ve read Ancient Evenings you can probably guess what Amis proposed it should mean. “See that bird over there? I normanmailered her up the back the other night, the dirty bitch.”
GB, thanks for the tips. Yes I am familiar with ‘Sagittarius Rising’ though as you say it’s not really a novel.
I’ve never heard of ‘Devil’s Guard’, I’ll have to look into that, but thanks for rising to the challenge.
‘Call me old-fashioned, but no novel that features snatches of dialogue between a man and his jism is going to enhance its author’s literary reputation in the long term’
lol!! I take your point, though ‘Ulysses’ isn’t shy of talking sex. But thanks for your reply, I burst out laughing in the office…
“No where do you want to move the goalposts to next?”
TWO goal-post removers?!
Is someone trying to put John Reith out of a job?
Ronald (re: Penn’s movie): Try ‘a deluded idiot who tries to live rough in Alaska for spiritual reasons, and dies’
IMO the protagonist’s feeble grasp of reality and inability to cope with survival conditions say quite a lot about the Liberal mindset.