Who would be Senator David Norris when Lucy comes a callin’? May 4, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture, Ireland, Media and Journalism, media.trackback
Last night, just prior to Lost as it happens, I happened to catch Livin’ with Lucy. Lucy Kennedy, for it is she, is a presenter whose chosen task is to go and live with a celeb of one sort or another for a couple of days. We are not told really whether she moves in lock stock and barrel, despite the fact that she is seen in the closing moments lugging a suitcase (somewhat overly large) away from her new domicile. The blurb on RTÉ claims:
In a six part series, Lucy will travel to her guests’ houses and literally live in their spare room, eat their breakfast and follow them around during their daily routine - all with a camera crew in tow. Over the course of 48 hours, Lucy will leave no stone unturned as her quick wit, natural charm and complete lack of tact means her questions will go where Pat Kenny fears to tread.
If only. If only. Although one has to love the ‘literally’. What if she didn’t literally live with them? The list of future interviewees inspires… well nothing close to confidence. Behold ye mighty and despair at the following list:
Samantha Mumba, Brian McFadden, Jade Goody and Senator David Norris.
Anyhow, this week it was Senator David Norris, next week it is Brian McFadden of… of… remind me again… Nah, on second thoughts don’t.
Lucy is typical of a certain sort of meeja person, visible not merely in Ireland, but also the UK. Larger than life, hearty laugh (mostly at her own ‘jokes’) and an occasionally sensitive side carefully calibrated so that it shines intermittently between the jokes. Pensive looks once in while. A serious tone in the voice. It’s not just laughs you know.
But wait. It is, y’know. For “her quick wit, natural charm and complete lack of tact” means that she asks the difficult questions. The hard questions. The questions about sex. Oh yes.
Which means that the further question as to whether we learn anything from her sojourn with Senator Norris is moot. Well we discover that he has in his bedroom whips and from a reasonably careful study of the footage what appears from a distance to be a fine collection of icons (Russian, Byzantine - who cares? They’re not commented on, that wouldn’t constitute ‘questions [that] will go where Pat Kenny fears to tread‘. Nor is his rather lovely house and contents, a place that appears to have a fine collection of items that transcend materialism. It’s not that kind of a show… the provenance whip is the source of great fun and frivolity. A souvenir from Texas should you be curious). She enquires as to whether the Senator has had a threesome… I didn’t catch the answer. Prurient interest or crucial information? You decide.
He is on his own admission a Senator who happens to be gay, and apparently the first openly gay politician in the world. That I kept watching was a tribute to his own good humour and nature rather than any intrinsic quality to the documentary. So much left unsaid. What of his seemingly long-suffering partner? We are not told, other than that he (the partner) doesn’t like younger men. Good stuff. But personality is a bit more than that, isn’t it? Does the partner find the spotlight difficult? Or a blast? Again, we are not told. He too appears good-humoured, and from the array of camera people (or men, since it was all men), he’d certainly want to be.
Indeed as an insight into what makes Norris tick it was shallow to the point of evaporation. There was some talk of the Hirschfield Centre, but not enough. We learn about his plans for his funeral, or at least what he told her. I’m not buying it, but then I’m a cynical soul. Little enough of activism over the years, or causes close to his heart. We see him at an awards ceremony, I didn’t catch what it was for. And that was sort of the style of it. Dip in, dip out. Giggle about gayness.
Oddly there is something to be said for that, in so far as it provides a normative example. There will be many who will give three cheers for his cheery optimism, his uncalculated openess. Or is the openess calculated? Is it a facade which allowed him to smoothly place himself within the general affection of the nation. Despite or because of? I cannot tell. We do not know. That he is a good thing is unquestionable, both personally and in societal terms, but we’re not getting any real insight as to why he is, or how that came about.
And Norris in person is a genuinely lovely man with an enthusiasm and appetite for life that would put people half his age to shame (64, should you be interested). He’s actually considerably more political than you’d guess from this with a strong and continuing interest in various issues, not least of which is a nuanced support for the cause of Palestinian independence. Being gay in Ireland. Being a representative for Trinity College Dublin in the Senate. Being David Norris. These are big issues in a society like Ireland that has transitioned to a very open social environment relatively rapidly across his lifetime.
But none of this was addressed seriously, or even unseriously. What of his cultural life? We see him tapping away rather well on a piano. More than that? Uh-uh. His accent, a most fascinating creature, which somehow comprises an underlying Dublin tinge despite the Church of Ireland on poppers overlay would be worthy of investigation in itself. Are we told? We are not.
So, not so much living with David, as dropping by for a cuppa. Not enough. Not half enough.
apparently the first openly gay politician in the world
Whaaaa? Not even close. As far as I know (although I’m certainly open to correction) the first, at least in the modern era, was Harvey Milk who was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 and assassinated by homophobic colleague Dan White the following year.
Actually I just found a list on Wiki of a few others from 1977 or earlier:
United States
* City Councillor: Nancy Wechsler, Jerry DeGrieck (Ann Arbor) - came out 1973
* City Councillor: (out when elected): Kathy Kozachenko (Ann Arbor) - 1974
State legislators:
* Massachusetts: Rep. Elaine Noble - elected 1974, came out 1974 after election
* Minnesota: Sen. Allan H. Spear - elected 1972, came out December 1974
Netherlands
* Gay member of Parliament: Coos Huijsen - came out 1977
Not King Billy then?
Yes, I did wonder when he said that Wednesday. It is possible that he meant the first openly gay Senator in a national Senate.
Well, there’s a fair distance between “first openly gay politician” and “first openly gay Senator in a national [sic] Senate”… I’m inclined to think he simply got it wrong.
Garibaldy, I did say modern era
In fairness to him I can’t recall the sentence construction at this remove (actually I can’t quite recall any full sentences in the programme, but that’s a different story!). So it could indeed be down to my misinterpreting it. One way or another it was along the lines of either politician or Senator. And yes, I’d put good money on the thought that he was wrong and I’d think you’re right.
I’ll see your King Billy, and I’ll raise you Alexander the Great.
Norris … hmm. He’s an odd fish. I’d agree that he’s a much stronger progressive voice across a range of issues - notably foreign policy - than he’s often given credit for. At the same time, I can’t help but find him incredibly irritating at times. I find him far less witty than he appears to find himself. It’s particularly grating whenever he turns up on some newspaper review on the radio, where he seems to think that speaking loudly over everyone else on some irrelevant point is a substitute for having an informed opinion on any subject.
Sorry, pet hate, but I think it’s probably fair to suggest that the blame for the programme’s containing nothing but lightweight froth might not just be laid at RTE’s door alone.
I said King Billy rather than a classical figure because the Glorious Revolution marks the start of the modern era. All depends on your perspective of what constitutes modern I guess.
I thought his partner dumped him a while back? I was at some event that stupidly asked him to talk and he informed us of some ex from Israel or something and how he was all bitter about it. It didn’t seem to quieten him down or make him introverted.
The man has gone from gay rights campaigner to bingo hall announcer gay caricature.
Oh I get the irritation issue and the bingo hall announcer, having been subjected to Norris turned up, as Spinal Tap would put it, to eleven. Signal often gets lost to the noise of an essentially decent man. It’s scary stuff when you’re the one he’s talking to… particularly on a serious subject. But then that’s why the show was so frustrating. A serious analysis of the man, which didn’t descend into self-regarding laughter on the presenters part (or allow him to wriggle off the hook) would make for a much more interesting show. For instance, why no engagement on the issue of how his persona(e) came about?
Oh I get the irritation issue and the bingo hall announcer, having been subjected to Norris turned up, as Spinal Tap would put it, to eleven. Signal often gets lost to the noise of an essentially decent man. It’s scary stuff when you’re the one he’s talking to… particularly on a serious subject. But then that’s why the show was so frustrating. A serious analysis of the man, which didn’t descend into self-regarding laughter on the presenters part (or allow him to wriggle off the hook) would make for a much more interesting show. For instance, why no engagement on the issue of how his persona(e) came about?
because working to ban cluster bombs is trivial eh DM
And that, in fairness to Norris, is central to his politics, whatever the razzmatazz. I genuinely understand why people raise the issue of his persona(e), but there is more to him behind it/them…
Part of the downside of the television age is that people’s views and any positions they may take on issues are viewed almost entirely through the prism of their persona and how they come across visually. We know little about many of the major figures of history, and even the most recent who have been available that availability was highly constrained and I wonder if we are any the worse for that. Paraphrasing Sorkin if we’d had television 60 years ago this country doesn’t elect a man in a wheelchair. And so we’re seeing the evolution of the semi-permanent political elite of Miliband and Cameron. And we’re moving in the same direction here.