It has been ten years to the day since I wrote this entry; ten years since, sitting in my old room at uni, I learned that London had won the right to host the 2012 olympics. I remember being elated, but of course, I could never have guessed back then that I would eventually be living in London at the time of the games, or that I'd have a partner who would play at the closing ceremony. It is truly astounding how things turned out. And, needless to say, I still look back on that event with great fondness, especially the ceremonies - hell, you know how obsessed I am with happy and glorious.
I can't help thinking how different it could have been. If Jaques Rogge had exclaimed 'paris' instead of 'london', none of that would have happened. Of course, I'd probably still be living in London with Lyn, but Stratford would still be an unregenerated urban wasteland; we'd not have all those memories of Olympic glory; the pararchestra would never come about; and Happy and Glorious, quite possibly the greatest television moment ever, would never have been created. No doubt we'd be debating whether to bid again, and I'd be protesting vociferously on here that we could not afford it amid all the cuts.
No doubt a lot will be said today about 'Legacy', or the lack of it: already the beeb is reporting that tessa Jowell has branded the legacy a failure because there are still too few people involved sport. But I think today should be about reflecting on how different it might have all been, perhaps going over a few happy memories; and sparing a thought for paris, who came so close and now have the bidding process to go through all over again.
A couple of days ago, I came across talk of the creation of a musical based on James Bond. As a Bond fan, my initial reaction was to balk at the idea. 007 is a cold-blooded government assassin - he does not sing. To make him do so would completely change his image, turning him into a family-oriented bit of fluff with nothing to do with the character Fleming created. It would ruin the whole Bond phenomenon.
Yet, while that is true, you could say that for the franchise to survive it must evolve. Indeed, it has always evolved: every few films, a new actor is cast, bringing something new to the franchise. That is how it has survived for over fifty years, and how it built such an extraordinary cultural niche for itself that bond escorted the queen to the olympics. There is something special about this character, and part of his success stems from his ability to change with the times; would not this musical idea just be another phase in that evolution?
Mulling this idea over yesterday afternoon, I answered that with a firm 'no': James Bond does not, and should never be forced to, sing. However, this morning, cuddling up to Lyn just before I got up, I realised something: a major aspect of the franchise is it's music. Every time a new bond film comes out, there is always debate over who would do the theme song. I laughed at myself for not realising it before: the obvious plan would be to create a stage show from the existing bond themes. In that moment, my attitude to the whole idea changed. I love most bond theme songs, especially Nobody Does it Better and live and let die. If creating this show from the bond themes is indeed what they are planning - and, let's face it, that would be the logical thing to do - then I would certainly be up for it. It might deviate from the phenomenon Fleming created, but, handled correctly and written wel, it could be awesome.
Let me get this straight: I just turned on the news to hear that, at a time when tens of thousands are suffering due to benefit cuts, Osbourne now wants to cut inheritance tax on homes up to a million quid. At a time when people are starving due to lack of money in the state sector, he tories want to take even more out of it in order to give wealthy families a tax break. How greedy do you have to be to think that that is in any way moral? Yet that piece of shit CaMoron has called wanting to pass on your home a human right in today's Times. How dare he speak of human rights?! What about the right of people to not starve? what about the right to independence? He can't afford to renew the ILF, but he can afford to give his rich pals a tax break. He can't even use his usual (flawed) justification that cutting tax encourages investment. How dare he preach to us and try to justify his greed-based politics as something noble? The arrogance of this subhuman p'tahk astounds me. I'm now quite serious in calling for something to be done to remove this group of scumbags from power.
[Edited 04/07/2015 at 19:48:00 - added a bit]
Waiting for a taxi, showered and shirted
Ready for a big day, a big meeting, a day with the potential to be great.
Feeling like a proper writer, going to meet his producers
Then, one last email check: ''sorry matt, change of plan''.
A postponement, not a cancellation. Not a major set-back, really
But still a deflation.
And all you can do is take your shirt back off.
It has been a long, busy day. As well as volunteering at school and helping out at the Rix centre, I recently applied to become an equalities champion. These are voluntary positions where one advocaes for the rights of a given minority, in my case disabled people. I will be working closely with GAD. I went to a training session on it today, and, voluntary though it may be, it's quite involved; it will certainly keep me active. Sitting at the training session in woolwich town hall, I felt like I was back at school: the concepts we had to cover were not that neglegable, and being in a more or less classroom setting made me quite nostalgic. A good day then, marking the start of something which promises to be very interesting indeed.