Movie: Love and Mercy

At choir the other night, our choirmaster distributed ‘God Only Knows’, the Beach Boys song.  I’ve always loved this song and its complexity is writ large in the myriad guitar chord changes shown on the sheet music.  As often happens with songs we sing at choir, it’s been stuck in my head ever since, and was even more firmly cemented there after seeing the biopic of Brian Wilson in ‘Love and Mercy’. It’s still on at Cinema Nova (‘Last Days!) but probably won’t be for much longer.

Brian Wilson’s story is told in two intercut storylines, one from 1966 during the taping of Pet Sounds, and the other from the 1980s when Wilson is a heavily medicated shell of a man.  The 1960s thread is shot in Super 16 film and has that saccharine look of American beach movies, while the 1980s vision is sharper and cleaner.  Two different actors play Brian Wilson.  Paul Dano, who plays the young Brian looks quite similar to the real man, but John Cusack playing 1980s Brian looks nothing like him. I must confess that I found it hard to suspend my awareness of the pasty, empty Brian Wilson that we see today when faced with an actor who looked almost Dustin Hoffman-esque.  An excellent story  though, that has you despising the bad buys (and realizing the dangers of power of legal and medical attorney) and cheering for the good guys who in this case are good women.

And just to keep ‘God Only Knows’ in YOUR head too, here’s the film clip.  Having seen the movie, I’m more aware of the studio-engineered complexity of the orchestration which references the contribution of the backing session players, themselves featuring in the coming documentary The Wrecking Crew. I’m also more alert to the redundancy of the other Beach Boys in this film clip and particularly the resentful irrelevance of Mike Love in the right hand corner.

ANZAC Centenary Peace Coalition Forum 3: from ANZAC to Vietnam

peacecoalitionaugust

Two weeks ago I mentioned that I would be attending the third forum presented by the ANZAC Centenary Peace Coalition.  This series of fora has been running throughout 2015 at the Melbourne Unitarian Peace Memorial Church, following a chronological trajectory of the history of the peace movement from the early 20th century through to today.

This third session, hosted by the Victorian Council of Churches, dealt with the period immediately following World War Two through to Vietnam.  Of course, by this stage we’re venturing into living memory.  Many of the audience were themselves participants in these events as part of their life-long commitment to peace activism.

Andrew Hewett commenced with the post-war period.  During the 1950s and early 1960s the peace movement was largely caught up in the politics of the Cold War.  Conscription was introduced for the Korean War, but not for overseas deployment.  It was not a time of militant activity or demonstrations and the Peace Council was strongly identified with Soviet  ideology. The Melbourne Peace Congress was held in 1959 with over 1000 delegates and led to the formation of the Council for International Co-operation and Disarmament.   The Communist Party of Australia and the trade unions provided original grunt and international links.  They were joined by the Peace Parsons, the Unitarian Rev Victor James, the Presbyterian Rev. A. M Dickie and Rev. F. J. Hartley from the Methodist Church.   In 1960 the first CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) group was founded in Melbourne and the Victorian Peace Council was disbanded.  The CND, part of an international movement, increasingly turned its focus to Vietnam.  (See e-Melbourne for a good entry on this).

Michael Hamel-Green, who gained much prominence as a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War took up the story for the 1960s and 1970s.  The CND focused on the Pacific, where nuclear tests were taking place. Some ALP politicians took up the cause (Calwell, Cairns and Uren) and a nuclear-free Pacific became ALP policy.  The introduction of conscription for Vietnam and the extension of conscription for overseas service came as a surprise to many.  In the two years after its introduction (1964-1966) there was initial dissent, particularly amongst teachers, and between 1967-9 there was a shift to non-violent civil disobedience.  The government was reluctant to jail large numbers of objectors.  Between 1970-2 there was mass mobilization, culminating in the May 1970 Moratorium march (interesting video here- look at it!), which 1 in 30 Melburnians attended, blocking the city from William Street to Parliament House.  The Liberal/Country Party coalition government withdrew all combat troops in 1971. (See a 1970 article written by Michael Hamel-Green in all his youthful passion here)

Finally Rev Dr. Sandy Yule spoke about the relationship between Christian Churches and the anti-Vietnam protests.  He was a member of the Student Christian Movement at time, and the Church had had a long-standing presence in the peace movement of the late 1950s and 60s through the Peace Parsons (Revs James, Dickey and Hartley) and through the World Council of Churches’ opposition to the apartheid regime.  The 1948 Christmas Bowl Appeal marked the shift of the churches towards development as a vehicle for peace, as did the Action for World Development inter-denominational initiative. He noted that the churches have a role as a source of peace-making, especially through models of consensus decision making.

The evening finished with questions from the audience.  The masculine dominance amongst the speakers (and the audience-questioners too) was properly noted by an audience member.  The next and final forum, ‘From Military Security to Human Security’ to be held on 26th October, will provide some balance here, with three female presenters (Professor Jacqui True from Monash University; Prof Robyn Eckersley from University of Melbourne and Ass.Prof. Marianne Hanson from UQ).

Celebrating wetlands for Melbourne Day!

Happy Melbourne Day! 30th August. Not a day emblazoned on our consciousness, I must admit. It seems fitting that the RHSV’s Melbourne Day lecture last Friday should focus not so much on ‘founders’ but more upon what was ‘found’ i.e.  the wetland landscapes of  such fundamental importance to the Kulin people who were already here.   Rod Giblett  spoke at the RHSV on ‘Lost and Found Wetlands of Melbourne’  acknowledging the ecological richness of the wet lands surrounding the bay, the crucial part they played in the Kulin diet and ceremony and highlighting the changing perceptions of settlers to these areas that were at varying times embraced as clear, open landscapes, or derided as boggy swamps.

Melbourne is just one of many cities that is surrounded by wetlands. Giblett’s forthcoming book deals with Melbourne as one of a list of other such cities including Toronto, Perth, London, New York and (as we are even more aware of this weekend with the 10th anniversary of  Hurricane Katrina), New Orleans.  The early naval surveyors of Melbourne noted the swamps and coastal landscapes on their early maps. The presence of large bodies of water immediately surrounding Melbourne is obvious on early maps that show little more than the Hoddle Grid and the prominence of the Yarra.

The pastoralists who streamed into the Port Phillip prized  the wetlands for their open meadows of grass, the fecundity of the soil, and the ease of access they promised for grazing.  The large lake of water in West Melbourne known as ‘Batman’s Swamp’ was praised for its beauty. Gordon McCrae recalled the sight of the lake, at the base of Flagstaff Hill  in his childhood:

a beautiful blue lake… a real lake, intensely blue, nearly oval and full of the clearest salt water, but this by no means deep.  Fringed daily all round by mesembryanthenum (vulg ‘pigs face’) in full bloom, it seemed in the broad sunshine as though girdled about with a belt of magenta fire…

In his presentation Giblett took us on a “scenic tour of the highlights and lowlights” of the wetlands that surrounded Melbourne. Batman’s Swamp (where Etihad Stadium now stands) was filled with the soil that came from the levelling of Batman’s Hill, thereby topographically extinguishing Batman from the maps of Melbourne (with the exception of Batman Ave). The South Melbourne swamp was transformed into Albert Park, a recreational lake now lapped by Formula One racing cars.  The name Fishermens Bend has undergone both linguistic transformations (alternating between Fisherman‘s and Fishermen‘s Bend) and geographical shifts,being taken  from a bend in the river  near Coode Island to a development precinct that borders South Melbourne.  The artificial Coode Canal cut off the original Fishermens bend, created Coode Island,  and is now West Gate Park.  Bolin-Bolin swamp in Bulleen (the only one of these wetlands to use its aboriginal name) is now used as playing fields by Trinity Grammar.  There are other wetlands too: the Carrum  and Cheetham  wetlands, both prized for their birdlife, the Banyule flats, and the wetlands that became incorporated into the Botanical Gardens.

Attitudes towards wetlands have changed, swinging from appreciation at first for their beauty to a desire to ‘reclaim’ them once they had been polluted by noisome industries and sewage, or if they hampered development.  The few remaining are increasingly being recognized for their ecological diversity and their function as ‘the kidneys’ of a city. There is a world-wide movement to ‘daylight’ rivers and wetlands that have disappeared through development, especially in Toronto which is rediscovering the Don and Humber Rivers.

RHSV generally podcasts its lunchtime talks, and no doubt this one will appear on the website soon.  It was a fitting Melbourne Day talk (albeit delivered two days early) that reminds us of the use of language in describing landscape and the effects both human and ecological of ‘settlement’.

‘Nail Can to Knighthood’ exhibition RHSV 15 July-18 December 2015

Lady-with-rose-hat-and-MacRob-milk

The Royal Historical Society of Victoria have a fantastic exhibition at the moment that draws on their collection of material about Macpherson Robertson – the source (bless him) of Australia’s oldest, and my very favourite chocolate bar: The Cherry Ripe (now produced by Cadbury)

MacRobertson

Cherry-Ripe-Wrapper-Small

Titled “Nail Can to Knighthood”, this exhibition covers the life of Sir Macpherson Robertson and the significance of his factories in Fitzroy, Melbourne.   Australians, it seems, are always being berated for their lack of philanthropy, especially in comparison with the American tradition, but Macpherson Robinson was a Philanthropist with a capital P, and several Melbourne landmarks associated with the centenary of Victoria in 1934 bear his name to this day.

A child of the goldfields, Macpherson Robertson was born in Ballarat in 1859 to a Scottish father and Irish mother.  The family returned to Leith, Scotland when his father moved to Fiji in search of work and as a photograph in the exhibition shows, this was not a wealthy family at all. To help the family finances, Macpherson took odd jobs, including working in two confectionery factories.  When the family returned to Melbourne in 1874, he started an apprenticeship at the Victoria Confectionery Company.  At the age of  21 he started his own business in the family home in Argyle Street Fitzroy, using a nail can and tin pannikin to boil up the syrup that he poured into moulds and rolled in sugar that his mother wrapped in paper cones.  Macpherson  went on foot to distribute his lollies for sale.  From these humble beginnings (and the original nail can and pannikin are on show), he built up a huge enterprise that dominated the suburb of Fitzroy and made him enormously wealthy.

He certainly had entrepreneurial flair and knew the benefits of good advertising. He realized that the name ‘Macpherson Robertson’ was too long to fit onto a lolly wrapper, and so he shortened it to ‘MacRobertsons’.  Often his advertising and personal interests converged.  When promoting chewing gum (which he brought to Australia after living in America for several years) he spruiked it as being of particular benefit to cyclists.  He established a Cycling School, presided over by “Professor Eckenstein” who had taught no lesser luminaries than the Prince of Wales, the Duke and Duchess of Connaught and Lord Lennox! He was fond of cars and sponsored the Round Australia Competition in 1928, and established MacRobertson- Miller Airlines.  A croquet aficionado himself, he contributed the land from his own estate in Station Street Fairfield to establish the Fairfield Bowling and Croquet Club, and the MacRobertson Shield is still the most prestigious tournament on the International Croquet scene.  He knew how to market his own story as well, with several publications issued during his lifetime that drew on the legend of the nail can.

His philanthropy really hit its straps during 1934, the Centenary of Victoria.  He sponsored the London to Melbourne International Air Race in 1934, Mac.Robertson Girls’ High School, MacRobertson fountain near the Shrine and MacRobertson Bridge.  As you can see, he was not shy in having his name attached to his gifts, and Sir Douglas Mawson likewise thanked him for his sponsorship of the Antarctic Exhibitions of 1929 and 1930 by naming MacRobertsonLand in Antarctica after him.

The RHSV has a wonderful collection of material, supplemented by material on loan from a variety of sources.  As well as the original tin can, there’s a cabinet of lolly samples which are displayed one drawer at a time for conservation reasons, showing the different sorts of lollies produced by MacRobertsons in test-tubes. There’s some fascinating video footage, complete with sound, and I was interested that, considering he left school at such a young age, he had acquired over his lifetime an upper class, albeit completely Australian, accent.  Most intruiging of all was a bust of Macpherson Robertson that turned out not to be as it seemed.

The exhibition will be open until Friday 18th December, Mon-Thurs 10.00-4.00 and Friday 10.00-3.00.  Gold coin donation entry

If you can’t make it, there’s an excellent site (so excellent, in fact that I wonder if it doesn’t pre-empt the exhibition?) at  http://www.culturevictoria.com/stories/built-environment/macrobertsons-confectionery-factory/

‘Across the Seas: Australia’s Response to Refugees. A History’ by Klaus Neumann

neumann

2015, 300 p. plus notes

There’s often a frisson of  defiance among non-Coalition voters when singing  the second verse of our national anthem, the dreadful ‘Advance Australia Fair’.  Irony of ironies, in our national anthem, we declare

For those who’ve coming across the seas

We’ve boundless plains to share

knowing full well that Australia currently funds off-shore detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island  that were deliberately designed to ensure that those who come across the seas do not (by ‘hook or by crook’) share in our boundless plains.

In the introduction to his book, Neumann declares his intention to make the present appear unfamiliar, by drawing attention to both radical differences in Australia’s refugee policy in the past, and at the same time, to identify continuities and parallels in past and present policies.  His account is chronological, commencing with Federation in 1901 and concluding in 1977.  Why 1977? Because it was then, he argues, that the public response to refugees to which we are now accustomed had been fully formed.  I finished reading this book, having read the obituary to Fraser govt Immigration Minister Michael MacKellar that very morning, and Neumann has convinced me that his endpoint of 1977 is an appropriate one.

Continue reading

What would Willis do…..if he were Dyson Heydon?

Since my work on Justice John Walpole Willis, I find myself measuring current events in the judicial/political realm against the criterion of “What would Willis do?”  Justice  Dyson Heydon, the commissioner sitting on the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption  has spent the weekend contemplating whether the fair-minded observer would ‘apprehend’ bias in his initial acceptance to make the Sir Garfield Barwick oration at a Liberal [i.e. conservative] Party function. I wonder what Willis would do were he in the same situation.

Of course, the question is moot as the commissions of a colonial judge in the 19th century and a Royal Commissioner appointed in March 2014 are  completely different.  As a colonial judge appointed by Whitehall, Willis was expected to support the executive government, albeit balancing this against his own professional commitment to the ‘rule of law’. It was this assumption of loyalty to the government that underpinned the whole basis of a colonial judicial appointment.  Appointment as a colonial judge was ‘at pleasure’ (the pleasure of the Queen-in-Council and the British Government, that is) whereas appointment as a judge on the English bench was ‘during good behaviour’ with the judiciary intended to be largely independent of Parliament.

There are those who would argue (myself included) that this particular Royal Commission is, and has been, political from its very inception.  The choice of Royal Commissioner falls to the Prime Minister, and no Prime Minister would appoint a Commissioner that he felt would be inimical to the whole project.

Willis often cited Lord Mansfield as a model, most particularly Mansfield’s insistence on not bowing to popular opinion during the Wilkes trials.  “Fiat justitia ruat caelum” declared Willis, following Mansfield (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”) and Willis frequently declared that he did not seek popularity or the approval of others.  These ‘others’ often tended to be governors and his brother judges. Despite his insistence that he eschewed popularity, many of his most controversial statements fed right into the popular local politics of the day.

In this regard, Heydon likewise looks to black-letter law rather than popular opinion.  Like Willis he, too, dissented from his brother judges.  In 2013 Professors Andrew Lynch and George Williams of UNSW analyzed Heydon’s performance on the High Court and found that he dissented on 40% of the matters on which he sat. Gabrielle Appleby has written a good article on The Conversation website on Heydon as a ‘black-letter’ judge, as does Tom Allard in The Age.  Richard Ackland in the Saturday Paper gives a rather more damning appraisal.

So what would Willis do? Pure speculation and ‘what-if’ery here, but I don’t think he’d stand down. He would see even the raising of the issue as a personal attack, and would turn it around onto his critics, the unions.  He would  almost certainly give a long and learned justification of whatever he decided to do, steeped in judicial and biblical allusions.

What will Heydon do? I have no idea, but I suspect that he won’t stand down either. I may be wrong.

‘Friend or foe? Anthropology’s Encounter with Aborigines’ Gillian Cowlishaw

Cowlishaw

There’s a very interesting recent article on the Inside Story website.

http://insidestory.org.au/friend-or-foe-anthropologys-encounter-with-aborigines

The article reprises many of the arguments and critiques that Cowlishaw has been making for the past thirty years (as this recent article about her shows) but its publication in Inside Story makes it accessible, not just in its language, but beyond the paywall that so many academic journals erect.  In it she argues that recent, postcolonial

wholesale condemnation of the anthropological endeavour has become shallow and moralistic, and an excuse for continued misperception of that complex, contradictory and contentious phenomenon known as “traditional Aboriginal culture.” There is a postcolonial fantasy that wants to achieve redemptive virtue by condemning the past rather than understanding the complex political and social legacy that colonialism created and bestowed on us all.

While acknowledging that foundational Australian ethnographic texts used language that we now find offensive, she argues that ethnography- albeit implicated in colonial policies and practices –  employed anti-racist, anti-colonial and even anti-state frameworks at the time.   Her article is a reflection on the intersection of anthropology and politics, both black and white (she notes particularly the rise of ‘native title anthropology’) and her own development as anthropologist.

It fits in well with the recent Message from Mungo documentary that was shown on NITV this week.  [I must confess that this was the first time that I’ve watched NITV.  It’s a pity that the Recognize campaign advertisements that ran during this program aren’t shown on ABC/SBS (or at least, I haven’t seen them) and commercial stations].  It was easy to mock the accents and demeanour of English archaeologists shown, but the documentary revealed well the range and contradictions between different specialities and world views.

And  Message from Mungo was echoed by last night’s documentary on the reburial service of Richard III’s remains at Leicester Cathedral  in March 2015. The formality of the ceremony was sanctioned at the highest level of state with the Countess of Wessex in attendance and all the pomp and historical clout of the Anglican Church behind it.  It struck me, listening to the choir which included girls and singers whose  lineage was drawn from an empire undreamt of in Richard’s time, that it was a service that would have been completely foreign to Richard himself.  The desire to ‘show respect’ through ceremony sprang from the same urge voiced by those in the Mungo documentary.