By Chris Evans and Lianne Jones
History is a favourite genre for many people as it evokes reflection and encourages an audience to think about a significant event from yester year that they wouldn’t necessarily think about otherwise. It comes as a complete package with a ready made plot and ready made characters set for a filmmaker to use as they wish.
However, basing a film on historical content is not always problem free and there are many issues that need to be considered.
The issue of historical accuracy in films is one that can cause much debate as historical events are interpreted in different ways by different people, in turn when they are made into films it becomes an issue of how the historical event should be presented. Portraying the event from a certain view point over another can cause problems as the bias of the filmmaker can be questioned, inevitably causing much controversy.
In addition, a film ultimately has to engage its audience and in order to create an enjoyable cinematic experience it is often necessary to create an adaptation which differs or excludes things that actually happened. For example, the director of Valkyrie, Bryan Singer, revealed in Australian newspaper the Herald Sun that they left out an event where von Stauffenberg (portrayed by Tom Cruise) refused morphine when recovering from his wounds. Singer decided not to put this in as he felt there would be a negative reaction to portraying Cruise like this. This shows how filmmakers have to make concessions to help present the story in a manner which the audience will react positively to.
Another problem with using history in films is the complexity of the real-life characters involved in the original events. Again, this is something that affected Valkyrie as there was a lack of ambiguity about the motives of Stauffenberg et al, the film very much showed the plotters as fighting against the evil of Hitler’s regime, it made no mention of what kind of Germany they wanted to create if the plot was a success. While it can be argued that the film was made in this way in order to make people aware of the heroic efforts of the plotters, it fails to dig deeper into the original characters, as many films do.
There is often a tendency to use films based on historical events as an educational tool, and while this is beneficial as it gives some visual relief and insight to something that may be difficult to understand from a textbook alone, it also poses some problems. Due to the nature of films and the limited length of the end product, it is difficult to present a historical event from every angle that would need to be shown in order for the film to be completely objective. Filmmakers therefore often have to compensate and present just one side of the argument, this then limits the film as an educational piece.
Films such as Schindler’s List and The Boy in Striped Pyjamas are often referred to for educational purposes but, they only highlight a small aspect of the holocaust, and in both cases, the films were based on a novel (although Schindler’s List is also biographical) and consequently they are not entirely factual.
Looking at more modern events we can see that there have been films made about the events of September 11th, these have often been based on survivors testimonies. However the question is raised over whether these films are politically biased as to recount such an important event in American history without an inherent bias would be an extremely difficult task. Basing such films on testimony is also problematic as survivors of such a horrific event will naturally be biased against the perpetrators and the film may then fail to consider an event such as September 11th on a wider scale.
Finally, we are all familiar with historical films carrying the phrase ‘ based on a true event’, and this can also be restrictive to a filmmaker as it ties them more to the facts of the original story and offers little room for leeway. Without this phrase however, they are free to roam a little bit further and to explore a more creative approach regarding the historical event. Whether this phrase is used or not also has quite a dramatic impact on how audiences react to the film and how they choose to interpret it. Perhaps the content and messages would be far more hard hitting if the film is ‘based on a true event’.
Historical films are definitely an essential genre of film but, as we can see, they can be extremely difficult to produce as there are many issues that can cause interference. They are a challenge for filmmakers as they try to get the balance right between historical content and entertainment, all the while remembering that ultimately they have to sell their product and appeal to as wide an audience as possible. This means history is no easy subject.
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Monday, 20 April 2009
Britain's attack on film piracy crime
We are all familiar with the dodgy DVDs sold down the local pub by those Knock-off Nigel’s and the illegal downloads on the Internet but, few of us stop to contemplate the effect of film piracy and the impact it can have upon the industry we love and the professionals who work within it.
According to FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft) film piracy generates approximately £200 million a year at street prices for criminals and the total loss to the whole audio visual industry through copyright theft is as much as £486 million. These figures are immense and can deliver some devastating blows to the film industry.
So why do people opt for film piracy? Well, aside from the fact that many people don’t fully comprehend the consequences, the main reasons are that it offers a cheap way for people to enjoy films, meaning they don’t have to break the bank or sacrifice their want for entertainment, many people also partake in film piracy as a means of income and others do it to put themselves ahead, so they can consume new films before they’re even widely released.
Whilst it is understandable that people buy pirated DVDs because they can’t afford to buy official DVDs or see the film in the cinema, the issue needs to be considered on a wider scale. It may be the case that we have the public benefiting from cheap entertainment but, this has a negative impact on the film industry and affects the revenue it generates. If we consider that the entertainment industry is one of the fastest growing, even in a time of recession, then having its revenue affected by piracy can be damaging to the economy as a whole. This will eventually come full circle and have a further negative impact on consumers.
With this in mind, it is important to put a stop to film piracy and to protect the revenue the film industry generates.
In December 2008, film and television industry professionals took a stand against piracy as they called to the government for action against illegal online file-sharing. The UK producers, directors and writers involved in the action included Sir Alan Parker, Kenneth Branagh, Ken Loach, Lynda La Plante, David Heyman, Richard Curtis, Jim Sheridan and John Madden amongst many others. In their letter, available to view at Timesonline, they revealed that: “In 2007, an estimated 98 million illegal downloads and streams of films took place in the UK, while it is believed that more than six million people illegally file-share regularly,” and requested that the government take the issue seriously and show their support “by ensuring that internet service providers play their part in tackling this huge problem.”
Recently, further attempts have been made to tackle film piracy and these have reaped positive results. In March, the UK’s largest illegal DVD factory was closed down following a major investigation and raid on a commercial printing operation in Wembley, London. During the raid, a significant number of printing plates used to produce DVD covers were seized and four people were arrested in connection with the operation. This action is among many others that have taken place all over the UK since January, including: 5,000 counterfeit DVDs being seized from a garden shed in Surrey, a Londonderry shopkeeper being fined £200 for selling counterfeit DVDs, seven men and two women being arrested in a Glasgow counterfeit DVD factory raid where police recovered an estimated £350,000 worth of DVDs and over 100 DVD burners and then 30,000 counterfeit DVDs with a street value of over £90,000 and 150 DVD burners were seized in two separate raids in Lewisham, London.
This month we have seen the fight against piracy hit a wider scale as four people in Stockholm have been convicted, ordered to pay £3million in damages and sentenced to one year imprisonment each for breaking copyright law during their involvement with The Pirate Bay, the world’s most high-profile file-sharing website.
Also in this month’s news, we have seen the uproar caused by the leaked film download of X-Men Origins: Wolverine being reviewed before its cinema release. Fox News columnist, Roger Friedman, parted ways with Fox after posting his own review of the downloaded film and according to BBC News online, Wolverine actor Hugh Jackman is ‘heartbroken’ because of the pirated leak.
To draw on another example, we can see the potential affects piracy can have on retail if we consider Woolworths and Zavvi and how they have fallen victim to the recession, perhaps if piracy weren’t so rife, companies such as these would stand more chance of survival.
These examples emphasise the extent to which film piracy is at large and, in the case of Hugh Jackman, Zavvi and Woolworths, it shows how professionals and even retailers are affected.
The authorities are of course constantly on the lookout for piracy but, attempts are also made to reach out and discourage people before they become too involved.
For a long time, the film industry have targeted consumers with harsh advertisements telling them that piracy is a crime and comparing it to stealing a car and such like. Now, they have changed tactics and are adopting a softer and more appreciative approach to film fans. The new adverts hold a positive message and thank the cinema goers for supporting film and television in the UK. This is a very interesting technique and time will tell if it is any more effective than previous advertising messages.
All things considered, I feel piracy is still a huge issue and the potential it has to damage the economy is immense. More needs to be done to make people aware of the effects of film piracy and perhaps consumers need to be educated about it from a younger age to discourage them from becoming involved. The strong stand against film piracy must continue to grow if the UK film industry is to prosper.
According to FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft) film piracy generates approximately £200 million a year at street prices for criminals and the total loss to the whole audio visual industry through copyright theft is as much as £486 million. These figures are immense and can deliver some devastating blows to the film industry.
So why do people opt for film piracy? Well, aside from the fact that many people don’t fully comprehend the consequences, the main reasons are that it offers a cheap way for people to enjoy films, meaning they don’t have to break the bank or sacrifice their want for entertainment, many people also partake in film piracy as a means of income and others do it to put themselves ahead, so they can consume new films before they’re even widely released.
Whilst it is understandable that people buy pirated DVDs because they can’t afford to buy official DVDs or see the film in the cinema, the issue needs to be considered on a wider scale. It may be the case that we have the public benefiting from cheap entertainment but, this has a negative impact on the film industry and affects the revenue it generates. If we consider that the entertainment industry is one of the fastest growing, even in a time of recession, then having its revenue affected by piracy can be damaging to the economy as a whole. This will eventually come full circle and have a further negative impact on consumers.
With this in mind, it is important to put a stop to film piracy and to protect the revenue the film industry generates.
In December 2008, film and television industry professionals took a stand against piracy as they called to the government for action against illegal online file-sharing. The UK producers, directors and writers involved in the action included Sir Alan Parker, Kenneth Branagh, Ken Loach, Lynda La Plante, David Heyman, Richard Curtis, Jim Sheridan and John Madden amongst many others. In their letter, available to view at Timesonline, they revealed that: “In 2007, an estimated 98 million illegal downloads and streams of films took place in the UK, while it is believed that more than six million people illegally file-share regularly,” and requested that the government take the issue seriously and show their support “by ensuring that internet service providers play their part in tackling this huge problem.”
Recently, further attempts have been made to tackle film piracy and these have reaped positive results. In March, the UK’s largest illegal DVD factory was closed down following a major investigation and raid on a commercial printing operation in Wembley, London. During the raid, a significant number of printing plates used to produce DVD covers were seized and four people were arrested in connection with the operation. This action is among many others that have taken place all over the UK since January, including: 5,000 counterfeit DVDs being seized from a garden shed in Surrey, a Londonderry shopkeeper being fined £200 for selling counterfeit DVDs, seven men and two women being arrested in a Glasgow counterfeit DVD factory raid where police recovered an estimated £350,000 worth of DVDs and over 100 DVD burners and then 30,000 counterfeit DVDs with a street value of over £90,000 and 150 DVD burners were seized in two separate raids in Lewisham, London.
This month we have seen the fight against piracy hit a wider scale as four people in Stockholm have been convicted, ordered to pay £3million in damages and sentenced to one year imprisonment each for breaking copyright law during their involvement with The Pirate Bay, the world’s most high-profile file-sharing website.
Also in this month’s news, we have seen the uproar caused by the leaked film download of X-Men Origins: Wolverine being reviewed before its cinema release. Fox News columnist, Roger Friedman, parted ways with Fox after posting his own review of the downloaded film and according to BBC News online, Wolverine actor Hugh Jackman is ‘heartbroken’ because of the pirated leak.
To draw on another example, we can see the potential affects piracy can have on retail if we consider Woolworths and Zavvi and how they have fallen victim to the recession, perhaps if piracy weren’t so rife, companies such as these would stand more chance of survival.
These examples emphasise the extent to which film piracy is at large and, in the case of Hugh Jackman, Zavvi and Woolworths, it shows how professionals and even retailers are affected.
The authorities are of course constantly on the lookout for piracy but, attempts are also made to reach out and discourage people before they become too involved.
For a long time, the film industry have targeted consumers with harsh advertisements telling them that piracy is a crime and comparing it to stealing a car and such like. Now, they have changed tactics and are adopting a softer and more appreciative approach to film fans. The new adverts hold a positive message and thank the cinema goers for supporting film and television in the UK. This is a very interesting technique and time will tell if it is any more effective than previous advertising messages.
All things considered, I feel piracy is still a huge issue and the potential it has to damage the economy is immense. More needs to be done to make people aware of the effects of film piracy and perhaps consumers need to be educated about it from a younger age to discourage them from becoming involved. The strong stand against film piracy must continue to grow if the UK film industry is to prosper.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Everyone is Twitter crazy
It seems that Twitter is all anyone is talking about lately and the journalism world is no exception.
According to the Press Gazette, editor of businesszone.co.uk Dan Martin, has announced that he is only going to be accepting PR pitches via twitter next Monday and Tuesday in an attempt to eradicate the irrelevant press releases that find themselves clogging up his inbox.
If the experiment works, Martin has said he will consider using only Twitter permanently.
Sending copy this way will limit the space to only 140 characters, meaning that the message will have to be punchy and attention grabbing if Martin is to pay any attention to it. This will require some good journalistic skills and might prove to be an interesting challenge.
It's nice, though a little strange, to see how much everyone is embracing social networking lately and how they are using it to go about their business too. I think it is a sign of the times and an indicator of where our future lies... in Facebook updates and Tweets.
According to the Press Gazette, editor of businesszone.co.uk Dan Martin, has announced that he is only going to be accepting PR pitches via twitter next Monday and Tuesday in an attempt to eradicate the irrelevant press releases that find themselves clogging up his inbox.
If the experiment works, Martin has said he will consider using only Twitter permanently.
Sending copy this way will limit the space to only 140 characters, meaning that the message will have to be punchy and attention grabbing if Martin is to pay any attention to it. This will require some good journalistic skills and might prove to be an interesting challenge.
It's nice, though a little strange, to see how much everyone is embracing social networking lately and how they are using it to go about their business too. I think it is a sign of the times and an indicator of where our future lies... in Facebook updates and Tweets.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
CGI vs. stop motion but, which is better?
Stop motion vs. CGI... the debate continues... ok well, maybe I’m exaggerating (there's probably nobody else debating this apart from me)and maybe your everyday cinema goer doesn’t give a damn about stop motion (or even CGI for that matter) but, they should! It seems that stop motion is a dying form and it’s such a terrible shame.Ok, so let’s settle the differences: stop motion involves physically moving an object a small amount between frames to give it the illusion of movement when the individually photographed frames are played in sequence and CGI or Computer Generated Imagery, involves using 3D computer graphics to create the special effects that cause all the ‘ooh’s’ and ‘aaah’s’ in the cinema. It is also used for characters and objects in film.
CGI is something we are faced with a lot of the time when we go to the cinema, it a form that allows things to be achieved on the big screen that could never have been achieved before. It is an excellent tool in film making and yes, I am a fan but, I don’t think it has the ability to create the image that a stop motion animation can.
Stop motion may be a long and pain-staking process but, the end product is definitely worth it. Let’s take a look at Tim Burton’s Nightmare Before Christmas, this was filmed using stop motion alone and has such a unique and beautiful look about it that sets it apart from other films.
Tim Burton is of course a die-hard fan of the art form, saying: "There is an energy with stop-motion that you can’t even describe. It’s got to do with giving things life, and I guess that’s why I wanted to get into animation originally." (see http://minadream.com/timburton/Animation.htm)
I can really see where Burton is coming from, The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride (his two big stop motion successes) do have an energy and feel about them that is somehow different to CGI but, sadly most movie makers will opt for CGI over stop motion every time.
My argument is that we just don’t see enough stop motion in the cinema (seemingly apart from that brought to us by Burton) and we need to see more of it. Yes CGI is easier and quicker but, it would be such a shame to see stop motion die out completely. It’s a wonderful art form and creates a great image on-screen so, it would be nice to see the studios embracing it a bit more in future.
Monday, 16 February 2009
The best and worst valentine and date movies
February is upon us and with it comes a day we dare not forget....yes, you guessed it... Valentines day is here again.
With love in the air and sweet nothings on the breeze, I wanted to find out just which films would be a hit with the ladies this valentines and which films they love to cosy up to with that special someone.
Romantic comedies are the obvious film of choice for this time of year but, do the ladies agree? Kayleigh Jones, 18, thinks romantic comedies are the perfect choice, she said: "even though they’re usualy girly, there’s at least something in there for the guys but, there aren’t many movies that appeal to both genders that could be deemed romantic." and Lisa Matthews, 23, feels the same, saying: "Romantic comedy...comedy for him and romance for me," but, it seems that rom-coms would not be the first choice for all women.
Becky Gant, 21, said: "The best genre would be period dramas, stuff like Pride and Prejudice is always really romantic because of it’s setting," but Maria Hooper, 21, would prefer an action: "I think a chick flick would be the usual date film as it has romance in it. But personally I would find it quite uncomfortable as I would know that the male would not enjoy it - especially my partner. But something such as a ‘light’ action film that both of you enjoy would be acceptable."
Kate Bowles, 23, and Charlotte Hayden, 22, have other ideas and think a horror would be better. Kate said: "I agree with horror though. I’ve always thought that was a good genre of film for a date - gives you an excuse to act scared so that he puts his arm around you."
Comedy is a good option according to Hannah Sullivan, 23, Deb Harford, 23 and Laura Dowling, 20. Hannah said: "A comedy is definitely the best to see because then you can laugh together and remember the jokes afterwards. Plus it keeps the other half interested."
So with the best genres sorted it was time to turn to the worst and what women would really hate to watch on valentines or on a date. Maria said: "I think the worst film to watch on a date /valentines would be a horror. A film that completely spoils the occasion and a really gruesome action film! A film on a date/Valentines needs to be selected carefully for the occasion so as not to spoil each other’s moods," both Lisa and Hannah agree. However, Kayleigh thought a war or action would be a bad choice and Charlotte said: "Any kind of crap slapstick comedy and/or meaningless comedy would annoy me. For example Anchorman."
It seems the ladies have very conflicting ideas about what makes a good or bad movie for Valentines day or for a date so, it really does depend upon the people and not the film.
Here’s what the ladies recommended for this Valentines:-The Notebook, First Knight, Bridget Jones, Ghost, Dirty Dancing, He’s Just Not That Into You, Yes Man, Defiance ... Men...please take note!
With love in the air and sweet nothings on the breeze, I wanted to find out just which films would be a hit with the ladies this valentines and which films they love to cosy up to with that special someone.
Romantic comedies are the obvious film of choice for this time of year but, do the ladies agree? Kayleigh Jones, 18, thinks romantic comedies are the perfect choice, she said: "even though they’re usualy girly, there’s at least something in there for the guys but, there aren’t many movies that appeal to both genders that could be deemed romantic." and Lisa Matthews, 23, feels the same, saying: "Romantic comedy...comedy for him and romance for me," but, it seems that rom-coms would not be the first choice for all women.
Becky Gant, 21, said: "The best genre would be period dramas, stuff like Pride and Prejudice is always really romantic because of it’s setting," but Maria Hooper, 21, would prefer an action: "I think a chick flick would be the usual date film as it has romance in it. But personally I would find it quite uncomfortable as I would know that the male would not enjoy it - especially my partner. But something such as a ‘light’ action film that both of you enjoy would be acceptable."
Kate Bowles, 23, and Charlotte Hayden, 22, have other ideas and think a horror would be better. Kate said: "I agree with horror though. I’ve always thought that was a good genre of film for a date - gives you an excuse to act scared so that he puts his arm around you."
Comedy is a good option according to Hannah Sullivan, 23, Deb Harford, 23 and Laura Dowling, 20. Hannah said: "A comedy is definitely the best to see because then you can laugh together and remember the jokes afterwards. Plus it keeps the other half interested."
So with the best genres sorted it was time to turn to the worst and what women would really hate to watch on valentines or on a date. Maria said: "I think the worst film to watch on a date /valentines would be a horror. A film that completely spoils the occasion and a really gruesome action film! A film on a date/Valentines needs to be selected carefully for the occasion so as not to spoil each other’s moods," both Lisa and Hannah agree. However, Kayleigh thought a war or action would be a bad choice and Charlotte said: "Any kind of crap slapstick comedy and/or meaningless comedy would annoy me. For example Anchorman."
It seems the ladies have very conflicting ideas about what makes a good or bad movie for Valentines day or for a date so, it really does depend upon the people and not the film.
Here’s what the ladies recommended for this Valentines:-The Notebook, First Knight, Bridget Jones, Ghost, Dirty Dancing, He’s Just Not That Into You, Yes Man, Defiance ... Men...please take note!
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Are video game to film adaptations really a good idea?
By Chris Evans [edited by Lianne Jones]Video games have a torrid history of being made into movies, there have been very few successful adaptations; commercially or critically. This is a problem that has been apparent since one of the first game to film conversions appeared with Mortal Kombat and such like. However, we have seen more success recently with the Resident Evil and Silent Hill films.
One of the key problems with turning a video game into a film is dealing with the fans of the game. Gamers are similar to many other die-hard fans of other entertainment types. You will see fans of a specific film up in arms when a remake is announced; this applies in a similar way with gamers. A large proportion of games which are made into movies have this die hard group of fans, and for them, if anything is slightly different in the film version of their game, well then they will be in uproar.
This was seen with Doom. The games in the series focus on a demonic invasion of Mars by legions from Hell but, the film took a different perspective on the story by introducing human biological engineering and doing away with the darker more evil aspects of the story.
The decision by the film makers to ignore the story and setting of the games meant that their target audience was turned away from the film. It must also be noted that the film wasn’t very good; the inclusion of a first-person sequence where the audience was treated to a view solely of The Rock’s gun barrel was not a good cinematic decision. While it was an attempt to garner the support of the gaming audience, it turned them away as the sequence felt artificial. Likewise for the every day moviegoer, it was something too artificial that altered how the audience interacted with the film.
The issue of interactivity between the audience and the film has long since been a problem when it comes to making a film based on a game. The trouble is that games are all about the interaction between the gamer and what they are playing. Creating this sense of interaction in a film is near impossible, and for this reason many gamers are dismissive of a cinematic interpretation of a game.
Non-gamers can also be dismissive of a film that has been based on a game and they can feel isolated when watching it. Games often come with a story and sense of place that can only be understood when someone is actually playing.
Games which have been transformed into films, such as Silent Hill and Resident Evil, have created a long standing narrative over the series of the games. Looking at the film conversions of these games is interesting; the Resident Evil movies have moved away from the settings of the games with a key sequence in the latest movie taking place in Las Vegas.
This change of setting means that people who are not interested in the games are more likely to pay attention to the movie. In this way the Resident Evil movies have made a conscious effort not to isolate a wider audience.
We have seen through films such as Hitman that not all game to film adaptations are able to avoid isolating their audience. The problem with the Hitman movie was that it failed to deviate away from the games to gain a new audience, and also failed to stay true enough to the franchise to maintain the support of the fans.
Transferring a game into a film is a much more challenging task then creating a movie based on a book. Attempting to create an enjoyable and critically successful film that is based on a game requires great skill from the makers. The different aspects present in a game, be it the story or the interaction with the player, cannot be readily transferred onto the big screen but, despite the difficulties, the number of poorly received game to film adaptations and the heavy criticisms of pretty much every adaption made, the studios continue to churn them out and ready them for the crossfire of comments from both film and game fans alike. There have been a few successes amongst the rubble of bad adaptations so, there is some hope for this type of film and as both industries evolve and develop their relationship, we are more likely to see improvements and more successful ones beginning to appear.
One of the key problems with turning a video game into a film is dealing with the fans of the game. Gamers are similar to many other die-hard fans of other entertainment types. You will see fans of a specific film up in arms when a remake is announced; this applies in a similar way with gamers. A large proportion of games which are made into movies have this die hard group of fans, and for them, if anything is slightly different in the film version of their game, well then they will be in uproar.
This was seen with Doom. The games in the series focus on a demonic invasion of Mars by legions from Hell but, the film took a different perspective on the story by introducing human biological engineering and doing away with the darker more evil aspects of the story.
The decision by the film makers to ignore the story and setting of the games meant that their target audience was turned away from the film. It must also be noted that the film wasn’t very good; the inclusion of a first-person sequence where the audience was treated to a view solely of The Rock’s gun barrel was not a good cinematic decision. While it was an attempt to garner the support of the gaming audience, it turned them away as the sequence felt artificial. Likewise for the every day moviegoer, it was something too artificial that altered how the audience interacted with the film.
The issue of interactivity between the audience and the film has long since been a problem when it comes to making a film based on a game. The trouble is that games are all about the interaction between the gamer and what they are playing. Creating this sense of interaction in a film is near impossible, and for this reason many gamers are dismissive of a cinematic interpretation of a game.
Non-gamers can also be dismissive of a film that has been based on a game and they can feel isolated when watching it. Games often come with a story and sense of place that can only be understood when someone is actually playing.
Games which have been transformed into films, such as Silent Hill and Resident Evil, have created a long standing narrative over the series of the games. Looking at the film conversions of these games is interesting; the Resident Evil movies have moved away from the settings of the games with a key sequence in the latest movie taking place in Las Vegas.
This change of setting means that people who are not interested in the games are more likely to pay attention to the movie. In this way the Resident Evil movies have made a conscious effort not to isolate a wider audience.
We have seen through films such as Hitman that not all game to film adaptations are able to avoid isolating their audience. The problem with the Hitman movie was that it failed to deviate away from the games to gain a new audience, and also failed to stay true enough to the franchise to maintain the support of the fans.
Transferring a game into a film is a much more challenging task then creating a movie based on a book. Attempting to create an enjoyable and critically successful film that is based on a game requires great skill from the makers. The different aspects present in a game, be it the story or the interaction with the player, cannot be readily transferred onto the big screen but, despite the difficulties, the number of poorly received game to film adaptations and the heavy criticisms of pretty much every adaption made, the studios continue to churn them out and ready them for the crossfire of comments from both film and game fans alike. There have been a few successes amongst the rubble of bad adaptations so, there is some hope for this type of film and as both industries evolve and develop their relationship, we are more likely to see improvements and more successful ones beginning to appear.
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Horror remakes and sequels
Horror and thriller films have a terrible habit of rising from the dead and coming back to haunt us as sequels and remakes are constantly floating in and out of the cinema.
It’s enough to make you scream really…not the content but, the concept; it seems sometimes that filmmakers just don’t know when enough is enough and when a horror or thriller should be laid to rest.
So what am I talking about exactly? Well, let’s take the SAW series for our first example.
When SAW was released in 2004 it took everyone by storm; everyone was talking about it as they were both repulsed and intrigued by the idea of it. When Saw II and III came out in 2005 and 2006, we all wanted to see how the gore could progress…naturally. Then SAW IV hit our screens in 2007 and it started to feel like the series was being stretched a bit too far, although this sequel did give us an insight into the methods behind the madness. When SAW V was announced, it all started to seem a bit ridiculous; Jigsaw and his accomplice were both dead so where could the story possibly go now? Well the studios managed to push it even further and I have no doubt we haven’t seen the last of the SAW sequels yet.
In 2007 we witnessed the train crash that was psycho Michael Myers gracing our screens once again in the remake of Halloween and now we are facing another possible remake gone wrong as Friday the 13th brings Jason back to the cinema next month (though I’ll reserve judgement on this one…for now) and we have just been enlightened with the re-imagining of My Bloody Valentine in 3D, which was just laughable as a slasher horror.
Sometimes the remakes work but, they really are in the minority. The Ring (2002) was a decent remake of the 1998 Japanese original and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) was a gripping rehashing of the original 1974 version (though I’m sure critics would argue the original is better) but, these really are lost amongst the majority of poor remakes and sequels.
Horror’s and thriller’s are usually really good the first time around, we can just look at the Hammer Horror classics to see that but, the problem is that all too often they get overdone and then the audience gets bored. We’re in a modern age now and so we need modern horror films with the ability to scare us, it’s just no good rehashing all the old stuff because we’ve seen it all before.
It’s enough to make you scream really…not the content but, the concept; it seems sometimes that filmmakers just don’t know when enough is enough and when a horror or thriller should be laid to rest.
So what am I talking about exactly? Well, let’s take the SAW series for our first example.
When SAW was released in 2004 it took everyone by storm; everyone was talking about it as they were both repulsed and intrigued by the idea of it. When Saw II and III came out in 2005 and 2006, we all wanted to see how the gore could progress…naturally. Then SAW IV hit our screens in 2007 and it started to feel like the series was being stretched a bit too far, although this sequel did give us an insight into the methods behind the madness. When SAW V was announced, it all started to seem a bit ridiculous; Jigsaw and his accomplice were both dead so where could the story possibly go now? Well the studios managed to push it even further and I have no doubt we haven’t seen the last of the SAW sequels yet.
In 2007 we witnessed the train crash that was psycho Michael Myers gracing our screens once again in the remake of Halloween and now we are facing another possible remake gone wrong as Friday the 13th brings Jason back to the cinema next month (though I’ll reserve judgement on this one…for now) and we have just been enlightened with the re-imagining of My Bloody Valentine in 3D, which was just laughable as a slasher horror.
Sometimes the remakes work but, they really are in the minority. The Ring (2002) was a decent remake of the 1998 Japanese original and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) was a gripping rehashing of the original 1974 version (though I’m sure critics would argue the original is better) but, these really are lost amongst the majority of poor remakes and sequels.
Horror’s and thriller’s are usually really good the first time around, we can just look at the Hammer Horror classics to see that but, the problem is that all too often they get overdone and then the audience gets bored. We’re in a modern age now and so we need modern horror films with the ability to scare us, it’s just no good rehashing all the old stuff because we’ve seen it all before.
Monday, 26 January 2009
The female stereotype
Stereotypes are an integral part of films and this can often be seen to have a negative effect due to their misrepresentations of groups or individuals.
Women are frequently stereotyped on the big screen and we can all identify what these stereotypes are; we have the house wife, the super mum, the femme fatale, the sex kitten, the career-driven business woman, the dumb blonde and the girl next door – on the surface such stereotypes may not seem damaging but, when you consider that we are bombarded with such images in our film consumption on a regular basis, certain problems can arise. These stereotypes put women into very simplistic categories which can in turn perpetuate inequality and even cause the representations to be taken on by some as a reality.
Such stereotypes are accentuated in films such as Legally Blonde where Reese Witherspoon’s character is the typical dumb blonde, in Pulp Fiction and Double Indemnity where Uma Thurman and Barbara Stanwyck both play the roles of stereotypical femme fatales and in The Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep falls into the category of the tough career-driven business woman.
We are also all too familiar with the weak and unintelligent female roles presented to us in the horror genre in particular. Women often play the helpless victim, screaming and trying to run away from the killer before falling over or running somewhere where they are obviously going to find themselves trapped and defenseless. It is hardly an inspiring stereotype to be presented with.
Body Image.
Women are also often stereotyped in films as being perfect, thin and beautiful, which can create a huge array of problems as society can accept this image of women as the ‘norm.’ Women will then often want to conform to such an image to feel attractive and if they can’t achieve their goals, their self-esteem and confidence can be damaged by it.
Maria Hooper, a journalism student writing a body image dissertation, said: “women aspire to look like what they see in films but, they don’t realise that it’s a distortion which can be damaging to their self-perception. From my own personal view, men are not always attracted to the image of being thin but, women feel obliged to look sexy for their man and then self-reflect on their own image and may take drastic action.”
The ‘Male gaze.’
This stereotype of perfect, thin and beautiful women on the big screen leads on to the notion of the ‘male gaze’ whereby female protagonists are the object of desire and are on screen just to be looked at by men.
Laura Mulvey is heavily associated with the ‘male gaze’ theory in film. She comments that there are two distinct modes of the ‘male gaze’ (particularly in 1950’s and 60’s cinema); ‘voyeuristic’ and ‘fetishistic’, again reinforcing that female protagonists are on screen purely for the pleasure of male eyes.
This is evident in many of the early Bond films; the female characters are all helpless and need to be protected by Bond (another common female stereotype), their purpose is merely as an object of desire for Bond and also for male audience members.
The camera angles used on women in films is also an indicator of the ‘male gaze.’ The camera shots often show segments of a woman’s body, this will sometimes start at the shoes and legs before trailing up the rest of the body and the camera will often linger on a female protagonist, encouraging a voyeuristic gaze. These techniques objectify women in films and reinforce them as a stereotypical image of desire.
Challenging the stereotype.
In recent years, however, we have seen attempts to challenge these stereotypes and to create a more positive image of women. The concept of women as strong, confident and independent protagonists has begun to emerge in many films. We can look at Uma Thurman’s character of The Bride in the Kill Bill series, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu as Natalie Cook, Dylan Saunders and Alex Munday in Charlie’s Angels and Angelina Jolie as both Lara Croft and Jane Smith in Mr and Mrs Smith, to see prime examples of strong women in films.
All of these characters wield weapons and behave more akin to a male protagonist than a female. They are independent and set out to fend for themselves without the help of a man to protect them.
Despite the fact that the characters mentioned above are moving away from the stereotypical roles of female protagonists, they still retain some stereotypical aspects. All of the characters still simulate the ideal of perfect, thin and beautiful objects of desire and despite them acting out a more male role, they still wear sexy attire and are therefore satisfying the ‘male gaze.’
The objectifying and lingering camera shots are also still frequently found in films, meaning that women are still in their roles to be looked at by male protagonists and audience members.
The future of stereotypes?
So where are stereotypes going to end up? Well women’s roles in films have changed a lot over the decades and attempts have been made to reform female characters, as I have acknowledged but, is there any room for further change?
I think we need to see more strong women in films so it’s not so much of a random occurrence and we need to have less objectifying camera angles, though that is something that is not likely to change unless we get more of a ‘female gaze’ appearing in films.
There needs to be much less emphasis on thin and beautiful women but, that is a stereotype that cannot just be blamed on the film industry and must be tackled on a much wider scale.
Perhaps the ultimate answer is to have more female director’s in the industry as there is an obvious lack of them at the moment. This would likely readdress the balance of male vs. female, not only on-screen but, off-screen as well and would give women an opportunity to defy the stereotypes we have grown so used to seeing.
Women are frequently stereotyped on the big screen and we can all identify what these stereotypes are; we have the house wife, the super mum, the femme fatale, the sex kitten, the career-driven business woman, the dumb blonde and the girl next door – on the surface such stereotypes may not seem damaging but, when you consider that we are bombarded with such images in our film consumption on a regular basis, certain problems can arise. These stereotypes put women into very simplistic categories which can in turn perpetuate inequality and even cause the representations to be taken on by some as a reality.
Such stereotypes are accentuated in films such as Legally Blonde where Reese Witherspoon’s character is the typical dumb blonde, in Pulp Fiction and Double Indemnity where Uma Thurman and Barbara Stanwyck both play the roles of stereotypical femme fatales and in The Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep falls into the category of the tough career-driven business woman.
We are also all too familiar with the weak and unintelligent female roles presented to us in the horror genre in particular. Women often play the helpless victim, screaming and trying to run away from the killer before falling over or running somewhere where they are obviously going to find themselves trapped and defenseless. It is hardly an inspiring stereotype to be presented with.
Body Image.
Women are also often stereotyped in films as being perfect, thin and beautiful, which can create a huge array of problems as society can accept this image of women as the ‘norm.’ Women will then often want to conform to such an image to feel attractive and if they can’t achieve their goals, their self-esteem and confidence can be damaged by it.
Maria Hooper, a journalism student writing a body image dissertation, said: “women aspire to look like what they see in films but, they don’t realise that it’s a distortion which can be damaging to their self-perception. From my own personal view, men are not always attracted to the image of being thin but, women feel obliged to look sexy for their man and then self-reflect on their own image and may take drastic action.”
The ‘Male gaze.’
This stereotype of perfect, thin and beautiful women on the big screen leads on to the notion of the ‘male gaze’ whereby female protagonists are the object of desire and are on screen just to be looked at by men.
Laura Mulvey is heavily associated with the ‘male gaze’ theory in film. She comments that there are two distinct modes of the ‘male gaze’ (particularly in 1950’s and 60’s cinema); ‘voyeuristic’ and ‘fetishistic’, again reinforcing that female protagonists are on screen purely for the pleasure of male eyes.
This is evident in many of the early Bond films; the female characters are all helpless and need to be protected by Bond (another common female stereotype), their purpose is merely as an object of desire for Bond and also for male audience members.
The camera angles used on women in films is also an indicator of the ‘male gaze.’ The camera shots often show segments of a woman’s body, this will sometimes start at the shoes and legs before trailing up the rest of the body and the camera will often linger on a female protagonist, encouraging a voyeuristic gaze. These techniques objectify women in films and reinforce them as a stereotypical image of desire.
Challenging the stereotype.
In recent years, however, we have seen attempts to challenge these stereotypes and to create a more positive image of women. The concept of women as strong, confident and independent protagonists has begun to emerge in many films. We can look at Uma Thurman’s character of The Bride in the Kill Bill series, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu as Natalie Cook, Dylan Saunders and Alex Munday in Charlie’s Angels and Angelina Jolie as both Lara Croft and Jane Smith in Mr and Mrs Smith, to see prime examples of strong women in films.
All of these characters wield weapons and behave more akin to a male protagonist than a female. They are independent and set out to fend for themselves without the help of a man to protect them.
Despite the fact that the characters mentioned above are moving away from the stereotypical roles of female protagonists, they still retain some stereotypical aspects. All of the characters still simulate the ideal of perfect, thin and beautiful objects of desire and despite them acting out a more male role, they still wear sexy attire and are therefore satisfying the ‘male gaze.’
The objectifying and lingering camera shots are also still frequently found in films, meaning that women are still in their roles to be looked at by male protagonists and audience members.
The future of stereotypes?
So where are stereotypes going to end up? Well women’s roles in films have changed a lot over the decades and attempts have been made to reform female characters, as I have acknowledged but, is there any room for further change?
I think we need to see more strong women in films so it’s not so much of a random occurrence and we need to have less objectifying camera angles, though that is something that is not likely to change unless we get more of a ‘female gaze’ appearing in films.
There needs to be much less emphasis on thin and beautiful women but, that is a stereotype that cannot just be blamed on the film industry and must be tackled on a much wider scale.
Perhaps the ultimate answer is to have more female director’s in the industry as there is an obvious lack of them at the moment. This would likely readdress the balance of male vs. female, not only on-screen but, off-screen as well and would give women an opportunity to defy the stereotypes we have grown so used to seeing.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Journalists welcomed into family courts
Press Gazette have reported that Justice Secretary Jack Straw has announced that family courts will be opened up to journalists from next April in an attempt to make them more transparent.
This change will mean that journalists will be able to sit in on all divorce, custody and care proceedings unless stated otherwise but, will obviously be subjected to certain reporting restrictions.
Press Gazette writes: '"He told the Commons: "Many argue that the current provisions to safeguard privacy and confidentiality go too far - leaving family courts unfairly open to accusations of bias or even injustice."
"The overall effect of these changes will be fundamentally to increase the openness of family courts while protecting the privacy of children and vulnerable adults."'
This is a huge change for the journalism industry and for the family court environment, I'm sure a lot of people won't be happy about the proposal but, it does seem a good move towards letting the general public know more about what goes on in court.
This change will mean that journalists will be able to sit in on all divorce, custody and care proceedings unless stated otherwise but, will obviously be subjected to certain reporting restrictions.
Press Gazette writes: '"He told the Commons: "Many argue that the current provisions to safeguard privacy and confidentiality go too far - leaving family courts unfairly open to accusations of bias or even injustice."
"The overall effect of these changes will be fundamentally to increase the openness of family courts while protecting the privacy of children and vulnerable adults."'
This is a huge change for the journalism industry and for the family court environment, I'm sure a lot of people won't be happy about the proposal but, it does seem a good move towards letting the general public know more about what goes on in court.
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Blink 182 set for comeback?
Mark Hoppus, former bassist of Blink 182, has revealed on his site, 'hi my name is mark', that Travis Barker's near-fatal plane crash has put a whole new perspective on things.
He wrote: "In the midst of everything else that has happened lately, Tom, Travis, and I have all spoken together. First through a number of phone calls, and then a couple of weeks ago we all hung out for a few hours. they’ve all been great, very positive conversations. We’re just reconnecting as friends after four years of not talking. It’s a good thing."
He added: "Obviously the first question for a lot of people will be “does this mean a blink-182 reunion?” the answer is none of us know. We haven’t talked about it at all. Right now it’s just good for the three of us to see one another, reconnect, and let the past be the past. The events of the past two months supersede everything that happened before. Life is too short."
This is a positive step for the former bandmates and fans can only hope that good things will come of this.
A Blink 182 reunion? Please say it's so!
He wrote: "In the midst of everything else that has happened lately, Tom, Travis, and I have all spoken together. First through a number of phone calls, and then a couple of weeks ago we all hung out for a few hours. they’ve all been great, very positive conversations. We’re just reconnecting as friends after four years of not talking. It’s a good thing."
He added: "Obviously the first question for a lot of people will be “does this mean a blink-182 reunion?” the answer is none of us know. We haven’t talked about it at all. Right now it’s just good for the three of us to see one another, reconnect, and let the past be the past. The events of the past two months supersede everything that happened before. Life is too short."
This is a positive step for the former bandmates and fans can only hope that good things will come of this.
A Blink 182 reunion? Please say it's so!
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Monopoly the movie
The Hollywood Reporter have revealed that Universal will be turning the much loved family money game Monopoly into a film...yes, you heard me right.
Ridley Scott has been unveiled as director and Pamela Pettler is set to pen the script.
The Hollywood Reporter writes: "'Monopoly' marks the latest Hasbro property to look to pass go and head to the big screen. Board games and branded properties have become more attractive as studios look to mitigate risk by finding built-in audiences."
They add: "Universal is working with Hasbro on several projects as part of a long-term development deal. Platinum Dunes is producing its feature adaptation of "Ouija Board," while the maritime classic "Battleship" is also in development. Elsewhere at Hasbro, Paramount this summer is set to release Stephen Sommers' feature based on its "G.I. Joe" character. And "Trivial Pursuit: America Plays" is now airing as a syndicated television program. "
I've heard of video games taking to the big screen but, never board games so, it's hard not to question what this madness is all about. It will be interesting to see where they take the plot for such films.
Ridley Scott has been unveiled as director and Pamela Pettler is set to pen the script.
The Hollywood Reporter writes: "'Monopoly' marks the latest Hasbro property to look to pass go and head to the big screen. Board games and branded properties have become more attractive as studios look to mitigate risk by finding built-in audiences."
They add: "Universal is working with Hasbro on several projects as part of a long-term development deal. Platinum Dunes is producing its feature adaptation of "Ouija Board," while the maritime classic "Battleship" is also in development. Elsewhere at Hasbro, Paramount this summer is set to release Stephen Sommers' feature based on its "G.I. Joe" character. And "Trivial Pursuit: America Plays" is now airing as a syndicated television program. "
I've heard of video games taking to the big screen but, never board games so, it's hard not to question what this madness is all about. It will be interesting to see where they take the plot for such films.
Monday, 10 November 2008
Death at a Funeral remake
Variety have announced that Chris Rock is looking to remake the 2007 British comedy Death at a Funeral in an Urban American context.
The remake will follow the plot lines of the original film with secrets being unveiled and strange situations unfolding at a family funeral.
Rock will both star in and co-write the film with writer Ayesha Carr.
No one has currently been named as director but, the project production is planned to begin next spring.
My personal opinion is that this probably won't be half as good as the original because of the American context. The beauty of Death at a Funeral was that it was packed with British humour, I'm just not sure it will translate to Urban America very successfully.
The remake will follow the plot lines of the original film with secrets being unveiled and strange situations unfolding at a family funeral.
Rock will both star in and co-write the film with writer Ayesha Carr.
No one has currently been named as director but, the project production is planned to begin next spring.
My personal opinion is that this probably won't be half as good as the original because of the American context. The beauty of Death at a Funeral was that it was packed with British humour, I'm just not sure it will translate to Urban America very successfully.
Friday, 7 November 2008
Smith and Spielberg to re-do Oldboy?
Variety have announced that Steven Spielberg and Will Smith are in talks to join forces for a remake of Oldboy (2003).
Dreamworks are currently attempting to secure the film rights and if they succeed, Universal will be named as distributor.
I am not entirely sure that a Spielberg and Smith adaptation of a film like Oldboy will really work but, I guess we will have to wait and see.
Dreamworks are currently attempting to secure the film rights and if they succeed, Universal will be named as distributor.
I am not entirely sure that a Spielberg and Smith adaptation of a film like Oldboy will really work but, I guess we will have to wait and see.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Zombies of the future
It appears that evolution has not escaped our zombie friends; recently they seem to have been blessed with the ability to run which, of course, makes life a hell of a lot easier for them but, it's a bit of a frightening concept for the rest of us.
Ok, so zombies aren't real but, they are so set into our consumption of modern horror that I can't help but pick up on how much they have changed.
The traditional notion of the zombie (as seen in the likes of Romero’s ‘Night of the Living Dead’) is of an un-dead moaning corpse with a bit of a fetish for flesh and/or brains. They drag themselves along looking for their next victim and fleshy feast but, they never pick up great speed in their quest which has always made them pretty easy to get away from.
Now they have this new tendency to break into a swift run in pursuit of their victims which turns them into a whole new and more foreboding enemy. Admittedly they are still a bit stupid (I’m sure we would all be if we found ourselves in their predicament) but, they’re altogether not so comical now that they can give chase.
This idea has got me musing about what else they might have hidden up their blood-stained sleeves for their race to evolve…perhaps they will start climbing, swimming or driving zombie vehicles. Maybe they could even learn to fly, use a gun or invent some new piece of technology especially for them to eliminate the living (but, I suppose that would spoil their flesh-eating fun).
It seems that I’m not the only one who has noticed this sudden change in the speed and dexterity of the un-dead, actor Simon Pegg has today written an article for the Guardian after seeing Channel 4’s Dead Set with its sprinting corpses. Take a look at his article here.
Although zombies running in Dead Set and in films like 28 Weeks Later (they aren’t technically traditional zombies as they are infected but, they are very zombie-like nonetheless) moves us away from the conventions of the horror genre and causes avid fans to moan, I must admit that this new breed of flesh-eating threat does add a lot of excitement and edge for the viewer. It could entice a whole new audience into watching zombie flicks because they know it's going to be more frightening for them.
It seems to me that the zombies of the future will most certainly be a force to be reckoned with.
Ok, so zombies aren't real but, they are so set into our consumption of modern horror that I can't help but pick up on how much they have changed.
The traditional notion of the zombie (as seen in the likes of Romero’s ‘Night of the Living Dead’) is of an un-dead moaning corpse with a bit of a fetish for flesh and/or brains. They drag themselves along looking for their next victim and fleshy feast but, they never pick up great speed in their quest which has always made them pretty easy to get away from.
Now they have this new tendency to break into a swift run in pursuit of their victims which turns them into a whole new and more foreboding enemy. Admittedly they are still a bit stupid (I’m sure we would all be if we found ourselves in their predicament) but, they’re altogether not so comical now that they can give chase.
This idea has got me musing about what else they might have hidden up their blood-stained sleeves for their race to evolve…perhaps they will start climbing, swimming or driving zombie vehicles. Maybe they could even learn to fly, use a gun or invent some new piece of technology especially for them to eliminate the living (but, I suppose that would spoil their flesh-eating fun).
It seems that I’m not the only one who has noticed this sudden change in the speed and dexterity of the un-dead, actor Simon Pegg has today written an article for the Guardian after seeing Channel 4’s Dead Set with its sprinting corpses. Take a look at his article here.
Although zombies running in Dead Set and in films like 28 Weeks Later (they aren’t technically traditional zombies as they are infected but, they are very zombie-like nonetheless) moves us away from the conventions of the horror genre and causes avid fans to moan, I must admit that this new breed of flesh-eating threat does add a lot of excitement and edge for the viewer. It could entice a whole new audience into watching zombie flicks because they know it's going to be more frightening for them.
It seems to me that the zombies of the future will most certainly be a force to be reckoned with.
Monday, 3 November 2008
More zombies from Romero
I am disheartened to hear that George. A. Romero will be bringing yet another zombie horror to our screens.
After the disaster of Diary of the Dead, I had hoped that Romero might lay his zombies to rest but, that is not the case.
Island of the Dead (this is thought to be the title) will tell the story of a group of Islanders off the coast of North America, who have to fight a zombie epidemic and look for a cure to save their un-dead relatives.
Images from the new film have been released to USA Today and BloodyDisgusting.com as a 'Halloween treat.'
The film is thought to be due for release in 2009 and we can only hope that it's better than Diary of the Dead.
After the disaster of Diary of the Dead, I had hoped that Romero might lay his zombies to rest but, that is not the case.
Island of the Dead (this is thought to be the title) will tell the story of a group of Islanders off the coast of North America, who have to fight a zombie epidemic and look for a cure to save their un-dead relatives.
Images from the new film have been released to USA Today and BloodyDisgusting.com as a 'Halloween treat.'
The film is thought to be due for release in 2009 and we can only hope that it's better than Diary of the Dead.
Friday, 24 October 2008
A completely pointless but amusing study
Psychologists have carried out a study which has found that holding a hot drink can make people feel more friendly towards others.
The Guardian writes: "Holding a warm cup of coffee was enough to make people think strangers were more welcoming and trustworthy, while a cold drink had the opposite effect, a study found."
"The warmth of a drink also influenced whether people were more likely to be selfish or give to others, researchers report in the journal Science. A team led by John Bargh at the University of Colorado set about testing whether hot and iced drinks influenced perceptions of others after noting how frequently "warm" and "cold" are used to describe personalities."
This seems a rather random study and while it is amusing, it is probably a bit of a waste of time. Once again it seems that the money used for these kinds of studies would be better spent elsewhere, especially in our current climate.
However, on the positive side, we now have a new, cheap and easy way to get on someones 'warmer' side, give them a hot drink and all will be well.
Take a look at the full article at the Guardian.
The Guardian writes: "Holding a warm cup of coffee was enough to make people think strangers were more welcoming and trustworthy, while a cold drink had the opposite effect, a study found."
"The warmth of a drink also influenced whether people were more likely to be selfish or give to others, researchers report in the journal Science. A team led by John Bargh at the University of Colorado set about testing whether hot and iced drinks influenced perceptions of others after noting how frequently "warm" and "cold" are used to describe personalities."
This seems a rather random study and while it is amusing, it is probably a bit of a waste of time. Once again it seems that the money used for these kinds of studies would be better spent elsewhere, especially in our current climate.
However, on the positive side, we now have a new, cheap and easy way to get on someones 'warmer' side, give them a hot drink and all will be well.
Take a look at the full article at the Guardian.
Monday, 6 October 2008
Mosley attempts to change the face of journalism
I am outraged to hear that Formula One chief Max Mosley is attempting to change the way journalism works in this country.
Reports say that he has launched a bid to re-write English privacy law so that editors are required to inform the people who they're writing about before the article is published. The person in question then has the chance to request an injunction against the article.
Press Gazette writes: 'Mosley is arguing that English law is in breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to privacy, by not requiring editors to inform people that their private lives are being written about.'
Whilst I agree that everyone has a right to privacy, I don't feel there is any need to go to such extremes as practically gagging the press. There are plenty of options available for those who feel they have been wronged by the press without having to jeopardise the freedom of speech our press have in this country.
Mosley was awarded £60,000 in damages against the News of the World earlier this year after their reports that he was taking part in a Nazi-themed sex orgy in London were rejected in court. That is a higher amount of damages than is usually awarded for a case of invasion of privacy but, Mosley doesn't seem content with that as he is now trying to completely reform the newspaper industry as we know it.
If his bid is successful, we will be subjected to a far more restricted press, much like that found in other countries. I don't think the possible effect of this has quite been contemplated on all parts and so we can only hope that the bid is unsuccessful and that we can retain the freedom of our press.
See the full story at Press Gazette.
Reports say that he has launched a bid to re-write English privacy law so that editors are required to inform the people who they're writing about before the article is published. The person in question then has the chance to request an injunction against the article.
Press Gazette writes: 'Mosley is arguing that English law is in breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to privacy, by not requiring editors to inform people that their private lives are being written about.'
Whilst I agree that everyone has a right to privacy, I don't feel there is any need to go to such extremes as practically gagging the press. There are plenty of options available for those who feel they have been wronged by the press without having to jeopardise the freedom of speech our press have in this country.
Mosley was awarded £60,000 in damages against the News of the World earlier this year after their reports that he was taking part in a Nazi-themed sex orgy in London were rejected in court. That is a higher amount of damages than is usually awarded for a case of invasion of privacy but, Mosley doesn't seem content with that as he is now trying to completely reform the newspaper industry as we know it.
If his bid is successful, we will be subjected to a far more restricted press, much like that found in other countries. I don't think the possible effect of this has quite been contemplated on all parts and so we can only hope that the bid is unsuccessful and that we can retain the freedom of our press.
See the full story at Press Gazette.
Friday, 25 January 2008
Good news for contraceptive pill users
The Guardian online have today released an article about how taking the contraceptive pill reduces the chances of women getting ovarian cancer.
See the full story at Guardian Unlimited.
This is a positive step towards changing people's attitude towards the contraceptive pill which has caused much controversy as people have tried to weigh up the pros and cons of taking it over the years.
It is believed that the pill can protect women from ovarian cancer for up to 30 years after they stop taking it. The Guardian writes: "Those who take it for 15 years cut their risk by half."
This is undoubtedly good news but the new research doesn't go into much depth about the risks concerned with taking the pill, which women need to be aware of before they make their decision. This is especially important at the moment with talks of the contraceptive pill being made available over the counter so I think more needs to be done to make women aware of what exactly the pill is all about and the pros and cons it carries with it.
See the full story at Guardian Unlimited.
This is a positive step towards changing people's attitude towards the contraceptive pill which has caused much controversy as people have tried to weigh up the pros and cons of taking it over the years.
It is believed that the pill can protect women from ovarian cancer for up to 30 years after they stop taking it. The Guardian writes: "Those who take it for 15 years cut their risk by half."
This is undoubtedly good news but the new research doesn't go into much depth about the risks concerned with taking the pill, which women need to be aware of before they make their decision. This is especially important at the moment with talks of the contraceptive pill being made available over the counter so I think more needs to be done to make women aware of what exactly the pill is all about and the pros and cons it carries with it.
Thursday, 24 January 2008
Faltering under the spotlight
It's sad to see how many 'celebs' seem to be falling apart in the spotlight at the moment.
First we had Britney shaving off her hair and now pulling all kinds of crazy stunts and then we have Amy Winehouse taking drugs and risking her life.
Now we discover that Heath Ledger is dead, and it's suspected that it may have been because he couldn't handle the fame (although we won't know the results from the autopsy for a good few days yet).
It's such a shame to see these young people crumbling under the persona they have created for themselves and to see that the fame and fortune doesn't seem to be bringing them any happiness whatsoever.
I think there needs to be some kind of revision of how the media handle celebrity culture. It has improved a great deal since the 90's and the 'hounding of Princess Diana' but, we're a long way from allowing these people some privacy. None of us want to see celebrities ruining their lives because of their inability to copy with the fame and the pressure.
A lot of them would benefit from the Katie Melua or the Johnny Depp approach, both of whom pretty much stay out of the spot light and in Depp's case...well... good luck to the journalist who tries to pursue him!
First we had Britney shaving off her hair and now pulling all kinds of crazy stunts and then we have Amy Winehouse taking drugs and risking her life.
Now we discover that Heath Ledger is dead, and it's suspected that it may have been because he couldn't handle the fame (although we won't know the results from the autopsy for a good few days yet).
It's such a shame to see these young people crumbling under the persona they have created for themselves and to see that the fame and fortune doesn't seem to be bringing them any happiness whatsoever.
I think there needs to be some kind of revision of how the media handle celebrity culture. It has improved a great deal since the 90's and the 'hounding of Princess Diana' but, we're a long way from allowing these people some privacy. None of us want to see celebrities ruining their lives because of their inability to copy with the fame and the pressure.
A lot of them would benefit from the Katie Melua or the Johnny Depp approach, both of whom pretty much stay out of the spot light and in Depp's case...well... good luck to the journalist who tries to pursue him!
Monday, 21 January 2008
Video game rumoured to hit the big screen
Rumour has is that the hit video game Tekken is preparing to hit our screens in movie form. Director Dwight Little is thought to be taking on the project.
The film, which is due to start production in February, will tell of Jin Kazama as he enters a secret martial arts tournament and discovers the great power he holds. Jon Foo, Andy Serkis, Susie Amy and Sienna Guillory are rumoured to be starring in the movie.
This follows in the footsteps of the recent release of Hitman, another game to movie adaptation, which didn't really make the grade.
A book to screen adaptation is one thing but, perhaps trying to do the same with a video game is a bridge too far. The interactive narrative in game play just doesn't translate as well onto the big screen.
Tekken should be ready for release in 2009 in the USA, we will have to wait and see whether it will be a success or whether fans of the original game and cinema-goers alike wish that it could have been left as it was in game format.
Read more at MovieWeb.
The film, which is due to start production in February, will tell of Jin Kazama as he enters a secret martial arts tournament and discovers the great power he holds. Jon Foo, Andy Serkis, Susie Amy and Sienna Guillory are rumoured to be starring in the movie.
This follows in the footsteps of the recent release of Hitman, another game to movie adaptation, which didn't really make the grade.
A book to screen adaptation is one thing but, perhaps trying to do the same with a video game is a bridge too far. The interactive narrative in game play just doesn't translate as well onto the big screen.
Tekken should be ready for release in 2009 in the USA, we will have to wait and see whether it will be a success or whether fans of the original game and cinema-goers alike wish that it could have been left as it was in game format.
Read more at MovieWeb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)