Gonzo Pro Bono

I was recently impressed by Floria Sigismondi's new film 'The Runaways.' I went into the cinema knowing nothing of the film's subject, a trail blazing 70's girl group, other than what the Telegraph had informed me. Seeing that it had received a myriad of stars I decided to give it a try and its mixture of sex, drugs, rock n' roll and troubled teenage angst left an indelible impression. This was mainly because it presents female sexual empowerment in purely feminine terms. While there was plenty for men to masturbate over it is clear that this was not the director's intention. For a start, it presented lesbianism in frank terms as a positive, perfectly healthy and normal sexual instinct with no angst or stigma attached - a message driven playfully home in a masturbation scene involving a shower head.

Crucially however, the girls' sexual identities and promiscuity's were not made the main focus of the film. Joan Jet (Kristen Stewart), the driving force behind the band, is undoubtedly a complicated teen in terms of both sexuality and addictions; yet within the film her drive to succeed is the main focus and it overshadows any of her personal issues. Moreover, her gender is not wielded as some sort of apology or justification for either the success or failure she encounters: it simply has nothing to do with it. The film shies away from ideas of female exploitation: as I watched it I felt that this could be the story of any young rock band gone wrong - nowhere did it imply that it was just because they were girls.

Throughout watching the film, a passing comment made to me by a middle aged man in response to a performance by girl band 'Marina and the Diamonds' kept ringing in my ears: 'To me, there is just something wrong with all-girl bands.' I of course railed at this comment while recognising a certain truth within it. Why is this? Well, music, especially rock music does tend to be an homage to the phallus, and all-girl groups are of course missing this essential appendage. But more than that, girl groups present a threat. This is highlighted by the girls abhorrent manager Kim Fowley in the film, who comments that The Runaways represent female rockers that are no longer just limp groupies hanging on the arms of their boyfriends - they are up on stage screaming about aggressively f**king them.

This may not quite be the vision of feminism that Germaine Greer visualised but to me it represents a form that is almost genderless thanks to its vehicle - rock and roll. This industry is all about sex - whether you are male or female, the only difference is how you are selling it as a woman. Are you Beth Ditto putting a finger up to the world in a naked cover shoot or are you Cheryl Cole or Sarah Harding fawning around on velvet willingly acquiescing to male fantasies. 'Girl's don't play electric guitar' Joan is told. Joan puts a finger up and does it. Yet the band doesn't make it - they burn out amidst destructive in-fighting.

Why don't girl groups make it to the big time? Could it be something to do with the barrage of 'no you can't?' Or is it more to do with the sense of propriety and responsibility that is eventually forced upon women - lead singer Cherie is made to feel guilty about not being at home to nurse her alcoholic father who has disappointed her at her at every turn of her life. Would a son have been put under the same pressure? Is there maybe a reflection of the expectations placed upon women in general society in this f**ked up biopic? Maybe, maybe not - this is my reading only. The film itself invites no such reading. It is a frank, honest and gender politics devoid piece of art that left me wondering why all biopics about women couldn't be the same.

So of course the big issue dominating the media and dinner table conversations across the land this week is Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Britain. From David Cameron utilising it to bolster and shamelessly promote his ‘Big Society;’ to Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis’ harnessing the issue to hone her Paxman skills in an argument with Baroness Warsi; to Dara O’Brien unabashedly mocking the Pope-mobile on Mock the Week. Of all of these people I think the general population is probably most with Dara. And is this indicative of the ‘aggressive atheism’ that in Cardinal Walter Kasper’s opinion is rife within this ‘third world’ country?

Maybe, but frankly this shouldn’t be seen as an insult, with the amendment of ‘secular’ for ‘atheist’ within the discussion. Modern Britain is one of the most religiously tolerant of all countries across the globe. This is not to say that we have always warmly embraced peoples of varied faiths and cultures, but we have generally tolerated them and been happy to include them in our society where they do not threaten us. This tolerance extends to people of different sexuality’s and although slow to take up the baton, we now legally allow homosexual marriage. This is an issue that Benedict has particularly strong opinions about, claiming that the sanction of homosexual marriage is nothing more than an expression “of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man.” Benedict would argue that true freedom is to be found in faith and compliance to religious doctrine.

In Britain, we dismissed Catholic dogma back in the fifteenth century and we moved significantly away from Christianity altogether after the Enlightenment and the subsequent development of science and reason. Did this lead to anarchy? Are we imprisoned by our false sense of freedom? Some may argue yes, but most will wholeheartedly argue no. We British are now a largely secular people, and indeed, proudly so. Our secularism allows us to view people more clearly as they are, to tolerate other faiths as an expression of culture and tradition that is to be respected but not necessarily believed. In this country, we are not ethnically cleansing our lands and banning our citizens from expressing their beliefs through their dress as the largely Christian France is doing to the Romany people and Muslim women respectively.

In Britain we feel strongly about the rights of our citizens and this is based in a belief in human rights, tolerance and general decency - not on the words of a holy book. Now, this is of course a generalisation and cannot account for all of Britain’s historical relations with people’s of different faith - lord knows we have committed some atrocities in the past. However, it remains that today’s Britain is a largely tolerant and progressive society and this is founded in a secularism that respects and does not dismiss people. Our belief in humanity is stronger than our belief in any one god and this may be interpreted as an aggressive stance, but it is one to be defended.