First, the wedding. Apart from the unnecessary inclusion of a large number of horses (not all of which seemed to be completely under control at all times - typical), the wedding, and London, looked terrific.
As for the latter, I'm sure it was the high camera angles and absence of cars that gave what I consider a very misleading impression of the city compared to what it looks like on foot. The problems are that the place is pretty flat, and no one ever got to redesign the city to create anywhere much with a long line of sight lined with impressive buildings. For the tourist, it tends to be a matter of working out which Tube route via which to make your unscenic way to the next point of interest, which usually suddenly pops into view when you turn a corner and you're just about on top of it. From recollection, this is particularly a problem with St Paul's Cathedral.
You can say you get the same effect from New York City, but at the same time, being an island, it is a relatively easy matter to get some distance (every tourist does the Statue of Liberty) and see the bit picture. The top of the Empire State helps in that regard too.
But I like cities with a bit of geography: at least some higher points from which you get a bit of an encompassing view. But that's not London. (It is now 20 years since I visited - maybe it is a better place with the vehicle tax, and so on. But despite it having features of great interest historical interest, I just don't think it rates as an overall attractive city. I thought even the parks were kind of dull.)
Anyway, now that I have that off my chest, the main thing about the wedding that impressed me (apart from an elegant and assured looking bride who gave the impression that she was not intimidated by her future role) was the church service itself. It was very robustly and traditionally Christian in a way that, frankly, one does not routinely think of in association with the Anglican Church any more.
Of course the TV coverage I was watching couldn't help but keep reminding us that the guests included an aging couple who had rented a womb to make a baby so one of them could play grand dads without the shuddering inconvenience of actually touching a woman. Personally, the Archbishop of Canterbury asking Elton and partner to leave, and perhaps using a whip to enforce it, could have made the event even better, but I guess I can't have everything.
Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one who liked the service and homily: it got a favourable write up at the First Things blog. Oddly, though, the comments that follow contain the most sweeping condemnations of the event I have read:
The Saxons are a cruel and brutal people, ineloquent and unmusical. A grim and dark race who seem to have never felt Italian sunshine. Throughout history they have persecuted and dominated their neighbors and done great damage to the Faith. Tell me, why are we celebrating their “fertility?”I see Peter Hitchens managed to be a sourpuss about the whole thing too.
Hard to please everyone.
Which brings me to the first episode of the new series of Dr Who. I thought it was pretty good, and actually seemed directed in a clearer, less cluttered way than the first of the Moffat series. The current batch of actors in it are all very likeable in their roles, I think; and as some people noted on The Guardian blog, the BBC seems to have finally improved the music mix so you can actuallyhear dialogue over the blare.
Lets hope the improvements continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment