The Talented Mr Ripley at the Stephen Joseph Theatre

“The Faction,” an “imaginative,” “contemporary,” and “dynamic,” ensemble performed an adaptation by Mark Leipacher of Patricia Highsmith’s The Talented Mr Ripley at the Stephen Joseph Theatre today.  Sadly, the promise of a “stripped back aesthetic, combining an inventive ensemble physicality with a rigorous interrogation of text, bridging the gap between the classic repertoire and new writing,” failed to fill more than 20% of the auditorium for the matinee.

I thought the cast was excellent but the production fell between two stools; a “visceral reimagining” of the original and a stand-alone crime drama for first time viewing. As the former, it disappointed. The in your face eroticism was gratuitous (Highsmith knew her readers had imaginations and teased us accordingly) whilst the main males, Tom, Dick and Peter all came out as committed homosexuals, presumably to a chorus of Arts Council cash registers.  Most importantly, Tom, played by Christopher Hughes, fine actor though he is, presented the character as somewhat hapless and rather buffeted by events. There was little to admire in his Tom Ripley. Highsmith’s Ripley, on the other hand, is calculating, ruthless and completely without conscience yet outwardly utterly charming – the archetypal psychopath. There is something in Highsmith’s Ripley that many males might like to have been themselves, albeit in the privacy of their dreams or, at least, beyond the detection range of politically correct vigilantes. Christopher Hughes’ Ripley was more to be pitied, particularly during his frequent slightly hysterical monologue commentaries.  As a stand-alone drama, I imagine that the complexity of the plot, the inability of some of the actors to project their voice to the back of the hall and the frequent use of nudge nudge theatrical metaphors made the basic story difficult enough to follow, never mind getting to grips with the psychology of the main characters. Our friends, who had not read the book, were perplexed.  All round, at £28 per ticket despite the “the generous support of Arts Council England,” we were grateful that the pre-theatre lunch at Lazenby’s in Scarborough, once again, had not disappointed.

Reducing The Chances Of Being Blown Up In The Air

Travelling out of Paddington Station in the early 1970s one could not miss a huge piece of graffiti on a brick wall to the North of the track:

“WHY ARE 90% OF PRISONERS WORKING CLASS?

BECAUSE 90% OF THE WORKING CLASS ARE CRIMINALS.

PHILIP.”

Thus confronted, most passengers would have probably just smiled or shrugged at the irony, as appropriate, and got on with the crossword.  I don’t remember a media campaign to expunge the hateful message.  But when Michael O’Leary said, “males of a Muslim persuasion” should be profiled at airports, because “that is where the threat is coming from,” the uproar, from all media quarters, was instantaneous.  Sara Tor in the Times was particularly horrified and, in wearily reminding us that she had made these points many times before, reiterated; “not all Muslims are terrorists,” and “not all terrorists are Muslim.”  Quite so Sara but it seems to me undeniable that amongst the portion of the population that calls itself Muslim there is a lot of terrorists – people with a homicidal distaste for other religions and cultures. A lot of people believe that, for a given sample size, you are more likely to find a terrorist in the Muslim slice than any other religion or readily identifiable social group, young Swedish blondes or silver-haired grannies for example. “Ah,” you say, “but the people who murder other people in the name of Islam aren’t Muslims, they are Muslim Terrorists.” It’s a nice distinction but I’m not sure it is entirely relevant and I am reminded of a sketch  from Beyond the Fringe in which the distinction between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter” is being discussed.  When asked the difference, Jonathan Miller I think it was, explains that it is awfully difficult to tell, particularly if one is being disembowelled by one at the time.

I don’t like Michael O’Leary and particularly resented his smug lectures on Brexit but on this one I think he has a point.  With limited resources it makes sense not to spread them evenly but to concentrate them in the most likely target areas.  This will offend some but, more likely, please a majority who will be reassured that our law enforcement services are doing their absolute best to prevent a bloody outrage.

Banging On About Defence

I have read a few of Max Hastings’ books and quite enjoyed them but his Europhile politics leave me cold.  Equally, his views on defence in general and air power in particular bear unmistakable prejudice.  However, in a short diary piece yesterday, he was gloomily on the money over the prospects for the forthcoming defence review.  Ever since 1966, he notes, “we have been served grandiloquent rhetoric and smoke-and-mirrors accountancy, designed to maintain the fiction that we can “punch above our weight” while slashing soldiers rations.” (Sailors and Airmen’s rations, it seems, would be fair game).  Depressingly, he goes on, “politicians know that they risk no electoral penalty because voters care only about the Household Division; the RAF’s Battle of Britain memorial flight; sufficient Scottish soldiers to perform at the Edinburgh Tattoo; and the SAS.”  Perhaps a better air example would have been the RAF Aerobatic Team, the Red Arrows, but this is Mr Hastings piece, although we get the drift.  However, few could argue with his conclusion that, “the latest review will be another charade, of which the victims are not Britain’s foes, but instead our real defence needs.”  Quite so, as I have said before.

It is an inconvenient non sequitur, grandly virtue-signalled by those who should know better, that the UK will fulfil its defence obligations if only it should spend 2% of its GDP thereon.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Firstly, 2% is probably an entirely arbitrary figure dreamed up at NATO HQ to fulfil some historical goal or communique.  It is a political declaration most likely based upon what, despite their vulnerability, even the Belgians might grudgingly stump up to insure against being trampled over again. It has nothing to do with what we need to do the job. Historically we spent a lot more of our GDP on defence before being seduced into cashing in the peace dividend (several times over).  Secondly, we don’t actually spend all that money on people and kit and a significant percentage is made up through creative accounting, pensions, for example, to please the bean-counters.  Finally, and most significantly, the threat has not diminished since the peace dividend was cashed in.  Far from it and the diversity of things that could harm us is, if anything, is more concerning than the relative stability of the Cold War confrontation.  Why should we feel, now, that 2% should be enough?

The problem is that our defence expenditure does not seem to be linked to what our foreign policy, such as it is articulated, might require us to undertake.  The arbitrary 2% may or may not be enough – take your pick and take your chance!  Incongruously, Conservative governments have not been very good at providing what the armed forces need, often quite the contrary.  Fortunately, when stretched, the armed forces have been able to “punch above their weight” but that convenience wore thin long ago.  Nowadays, we are told, we cannot even field and support a fighting Division – a parsimonious bottom line of Cameron’s defence butchery.  This is a truly a truly pathetic condition for a nuclear capable member of the Security Council and so-called principle ally to the USA for coalition operations, to find ourselves.  It really is simple: if we cannot afford the defences necessary to uphold our foreign policy then we need to change our foreign policy accordingly.  It is not a chicken and egg – the job of Government is to define the policy.  Then Government has the inescapable responsibility give the armed forces the tools they need and trust them to finish the job.

So, as the skirmishing of the new defence review begins let us hope, at the outset, that the terms of reference will indeed link defence posture to policy.  When it suits, governments can make grand commitments: climate change, overseas aid spending and pensions triple lock, for example.  So talking of locks, why cannot we lock our defence posture to our foreign policy?  If it is politically convenient to make grand gestures on becoming carbon neutral surely, as the first duty of government, we can expect them to make a similar, but meaningful, long-term pledge on our future security?