Thursday, 20 July 2017

Gender Politics Amongst Time Lords

Peter Capaldi well and truly set the wheels of fan speculation into motion when he announced that he would be hanging up his sonic screwdriver and leaving his role as the twelfth incarnation of Doctor Who. The names of usual favourites who are deemed desirable by fans such as Richard Ayoade, Stephen Merchant, Kris Marshall and Ben Whishaw were thrown around. However, there was an overwhelming number of fans who were putting names of female actors into the mix too. So, would audiences be on board with a female doctor?

On July 16th the BBC announced that Capaldi would be passing the Time Lord torch to Jodie Whittaker, best known for her roles in the ITV drama Broadchurch and the film Attack the Block (2011). Most people will politely state that the casting of a female lead 'divided fans', but I will bluntly say that it shone a bright light on the misogynistic attitudes of a proportion of fans of the show. According to this group within the Doctor Who fandom, 'the show was over' and many planned to boycott it as there was no physical way that the Doctor could be female. Was their disdain over the biology of the Gallifreyans, or was there something more deep rooted? On paper it seems as though there would be no problem that an alien being with the ability to time travel and take on a human form would be able to appear as either male or female. And, if they explained why Christopher Eccleston's Doctor had a Mancunian accent, then it's highly likely that the writers will provide an explanation as to why the Doctor's thirteenth form is female. It also seems likely that certain, disgruntled fans are hiding their misogyny behind this "it's just genetically impossible" excuse.  However, it doesn't seem as though all of these angry fans are hiding their displeasure behind the veil of genetic impossibility. There was a high number of to-the-point people that took to Twitter to slam the show simply for casting a female. Yes, you read that correctly, in 2017 people got angry just because a female actor was given a role.

Hours after the BBC announced that Whittaker would be playing the Doctor, The Daily Mail posted an article that showcased twelve sexually explicit stills of her, taken from the 2014 drama The Smoke. Whilst most media outlets were reporting on, and some even celebrating, her casting, The Daily Mail thought it more appropriate to delve into her filmography and remind the world that the thirteenth Doctor once bared her body and sexuality in front on the camera. Well, how dare a woman choose to bare her body for her work! It's a good job that everyone's favourite news source shamed her through an article that was veiled as an informative piece of writing about her career. Without particularly mentioning any of her roles in which she wore clothing. Presumably after some backlash, the article was later edited to feature nude stills of previous Doctor Who actors to give it a 'look, she's just like her predecessors' twist.

Despite the mass reports of Doctor Who fans displaying a sexist attitude, it still seemed as if the majority of people were completely in support of a female Doctor. It simply seemed as if there were hordes of misogynists because a decent amount of people decided to give a damn and call the few anti-Whittaker fans out on what they were saying and managed to blow up social media in doing so. Alas, the questions still lingers. Why do these groups of people feel this way about women? The Doctor Who demographic won't necessarily be full of people who were raised in a time when gender roles were enforced, so why can't they accept a woman as their Doctor? Is it because women are still very much 'Othered', they don't rule the hegemony so we should disregard them, right? Wrong. We may not be able to pinpoint the exact reason why people reacted badly to this particular news, but no one need lose an sleep over the matter, as every misogynistic fan that turns their back on the show will be replaced by a young girl with a sonic screwdriver.


Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) will mark the third attempt at a Spider-Man franchise within the past fifteen years. Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy, starring Tobey Maguire as the titular character, spanned between 2002 and 2007 and, despite not being masterpieces, put the character and his story on the map for the millennial generation. Then, only five years later, Marc Webb rebooted the franchise with the rather promising The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) and its sequel The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), both starring Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Sony planned to build an entire franchise based on Garfield's Spider-Man, one that would compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But, after poor reception to the second film and the script laying in developmental hell, their plans were killed when the MCU announced that they would be incorporating their own Spider-Man (Tom Holland) into Captain America: Civil War (2016). So, in the hands of the MCU, will Spider-Man: Homecoming be a success or another film for the spidery scrap heap?

Fresh from his superhero debut in Captain America: Civil War, Peter Parker is having a difficult time living the life of a normal teenager and is desperate for Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) to contact him with details of his next Avengers-style mission. However, Stark has other plans for his protégée and isn't quite ready for the 'training wheels' to come off. But, when Peter discovers a new threat to New York in the shape of Adrian Toomes/Vulture (Michael Keaton), he finds himself reaching for his spider suit within his mentor's go ahead.

When looking at a third Spider-Man franchise, the concept of dabbling with yet another origins story is a double edged sword. Will audiences be tired of hearing about how the costumed hero came to be, or will they disconnect if they don't know? Spider-Man: Homecoming could have easily fallen into the typical Spider-Man origins film formula, but it doesn't. And it doesn't matter, and this is down to Tom Holland. From the opening scenes of the film, in which Peter Parker is both narrating and filming the battle from Captain America: Civil War on his mobile phone in a truly millennial fashion, whilst simultaneously joining in the action, Holland gives his audience the truly playful Spider-Man that fans of the comic have been waiting for. He oozes likability, charm and comedy, yet at the same time he is still able to convey Parker's vulnerable side and that underneath the Spider-Man suit there is a wet-behind-the-ears 15 year old boy. As much as he emphasises the man in Spider-Man, Peter is still a teenager who is finding his feet as a superhero and this is what makes him so appealing, each time he is knocked down, he gets back up and tries again.

In his first MCU outing, Peter Parker is pitted against Adrian Toomes' alter ego, the super villain Vulture. As with a few of the other antagonists that have appeared within the MCU, Toomes is an individual who has been affected by the events of the previous films and is harbouring a grudge. Originally employed to salvage the site of the Stark Tower after the Battle of New York in The Avengers (2012), Toomes and his company are soon dismissed when Stark assembles his own committee for damage control and decide to steal what Alien matter they can from the site before they leave, in order to build and sell weapons. The fact that previous MCU films act as catalysts for future ones is a clever twist, as is Keaton's conflicted Toomes; who is trying to do what right for his family by doing wrong. The casting of Keaton shouldn't only be applauded due to his sinister performance, but also because it was a touch of genius as his performance of Vulture is something that completely juxtaposes one of his most famous roles; Batman. Other great performances come from Jacob Batalon as Peter's hilarious and kind hearted best friend Ned and the rather underused Zendaya as Michelle, an incredibly blunt, sharp talking classmate of Peter's.

Despite bravely forgoing an origins story and succeeding in doing so, the remainder of the script isn't exactly revolutionary and proceeds to carry on with the typical superhero film formula of the good force vs the evil one. The final battle wasn't anything that audiences wouldn't have seen before and it wasn't particularly the most thrilling piece of cinema, but it was justified for the film. Would it make sense for a new hero such as Spider-Man to take part in an Avengers style battle? No. But, despite these criticisms the film still has a leg to stand on.

Spider-Man: Homecoming, despite being part of a greater franchise, is definitely able stand up on its own two feet. It doesn't rely on the crutch of being part of the MCU to make it a great film, it just is. Granted, it doesn't break any new ground in terms of the superhero genre, but it's still a captivating watch and it goes without saying that Tom Holland is the reason that this film works as well as it does. Spider-Man will return in Avengers: Infinity War (2018), as well as an untitled sequel in 2019, and this film will leave you in absolute anticipation of his return.



Wednesday, 5 July 2017

NARS: Animal Ethics in Reverse

At the end of June 2017 the French cosmetics giant NARS Cosmetics announced that they would be giving up their title as a cruelty free brand in order to test on animals. Surely, in this day and age, cosmetic brands should be working in the opposite direction to this? Doesn't it make sense for cosmetic companies to invest in ways to ensure that their products are safe to use whilst simultaneously eliminating the need to punish animals to do so?

The reason for their venture into such an archaic practice, you ask? Why that's simple; money. In China it is a legal requirement that all cosmetics companies test their products on animals in order for them to be brought to market. Therefore, all of the American and European brands that are sold there, such as MAC Cosmetics, Benefit, and Estée Lauder, test their products on animals in order to sell their products. China will have appealed to NARS as it has a steadily growing cosmetic market. Between 2010 and 2015 sales of cosmetics grew from 88.9 billion RMB (£9.9 billion) to 204.9 billion RMB (£22.8 billion), practically guaranteeing a brand as well established as they are a profit from the get go.

In February of this year the American cosmetics company Stila withdrew from the Chinese market and regained their status as a cruelty free brand. They pulled their products from Sephora China and changed their website to state that they point blank do not test on animals. Stila never made a song and dance about why they left the Chinese beauty market, but it could be argued that the matter of ethics came into play. So, with the scientific advancements in toxicology testing that we have today, shouldn't more companies follow Stila in looking to go cruelty free? Or is the loss of the Chinese market too much to ask?

I went cruelty free around the beginning of 2013, I had been a vegetarian for years and never even thought about the animals that were suffering for my products as I was too busy worrying about the ones that were being used for food. Animals, primarily; rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, and mice, are forced to eat or inhale substances everyday for 28-90 days to document the long term effects of products. They are then killed in order to see if any internal damage has been obtained. Despite that fact that I'm not a vegetarian anymore, when I do it meat I make sure it's well sourced, I still care a great deal for animals. I'm not going to guilt you with images of rabbits and mice that have been tortured in the name of beauty, I'm just going to leave my points here and let you consider your stance on animal testing.

However, I can safely say that I will be discarding each and every piece of NARS make up that I own. I am aware that my actions as an individual will have no impact on NARS Cosmetics and their ethics, or the fact that they will now profit on animal abuse. But, unlike NARS, I am willing to stand up for what is right.

Are you going to join the NARS boycott?


Friday, 30 June 2017

Wonder Woman Review

It was only last year's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016), the second entry in the DC Extended Universe, that first introduced us to Princess Diana of the Amazons (Gal Gadot). Better known as Wonder Woman. During the midst of the chaos that was caused by the fallout of Batman and Superman's differing ideologies, Wonder Woman, who had spent the majority of the film posing as her alter ego Diana Prince, stepped onto the battlefield and showed the boys how it's done. The intrigue and enigma that surrounded this character can be seen as one of the few highlights of Dawn of Justice, but can Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman (2017) save the faltering DCEU?

Wonder Woman tells the story of Diana, a princess who lives on the hidden island of Themyscira, with the rest of the Amazons, who were created by Zeus to protect the human race. After saving the life of pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), who tells the Amazons of the Great War, Diana travels to the battlefront of World War I as she believes that the god Ares has returned and started the war in a bid to destroy mankind. Wonder Woman brilliantly mixes fantasy with history, in a similar bid as Marvel's Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) did, seeing an other worldly character in the midst of a historical battle is something that can easily be seen as overtly out of place. However, Jenkins manages to perfectly blend the boundaries of reality and fantasy.

The narrative itself does give in to the standard superhero formula that viewers around the world have come to expect from films such as this; the hero is established, the hero follows their moral compass and decides to help fix a problem, the hero ultimately overcomes their obstacles and is victorious. However, it is extremely difficult to overly fault Wonder Woman for following this narrative structure as it still has its own twists and turns as well as making up for it in so many other areas. Most noticeably the performances. Gadot brings a perfect blend of grace, intelligence, fortitude and beauty to her role. She delivers an incredibly likeable Wonder Woman to her audience and wins them to her side in no time at all. The same can be said for Pine's Steve Trevor, he brings a great deal of life and soul to a character-type that is usually reserved to simply be a love interest for the protagonist. And, despite playing two almost polar opposite characters, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine is real and absolutely brilliant to watch. They are brilliantly, and comically, supported by Ewen Bremner, Saïd Taghmaoui and Eugene Brave Rock.

One of the most refreshing things about Wonder Woman is seeing a female lead at the helm of a superhero film, especially during this current age of 21st century feminism, as this is a first for either DCEU or the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Diana also doesn't fall into the naive "woman out of time" role, despite being in a completely different world and culture she maintains her composure and isn't afraid to stand up to Steve's army superiors when she believes that their actions are immoral, and goes as far as to state that they should be more like the Amazonian Generals, who fight alongside their women instead of standing at the sidelines.

A final factor that can also be viewed as refreshing, especially for the DCEU, is the quality of the action sequences. Man of Steel (2013) and Batman v Superman were both guilty of rather rushed, messy fights scenes. Something rather shocking when you come to think of how much of a lover of slow motion shots Zack Snyder is. So, it's extremely pleasant to see such extremely graceful yet sleek action shots, espiecally those involving the Amazons, whose movements are juxtaposed against their sluggish enemies.

Long story short, Wonder Woman is the first decent entry into DC's shared universe and will hopefully set the standard for Justice League (2017) and its other successors. If Wonder Woman is anything to go by, there is hope for the DCEU yet.



Friday, 23 June 2017

GLOW: Episode 1 Review

Over the past few years Netflix has taken the world by storm and is changing the way that we view our films and shows with its original content. We've seen success after success, and viewers have become accustomed to high quality content. On June 23rd they presented us with a new show exectuively produced by Jenji Kohan, the creator of Orange is the New Black; GLOW. Set during the 1980s, it follows aspiring actress Ruth Wilder (Alison Brie) as she auditions for the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling as a last chance bid to save her career. Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling, GLOW, did you get it?

The first episode starts during an audition in which Ruth appears to deliver an epic monologue for a male role by 'mistake' to her casting director, who is quick to point out that she's reading the wrong part and that the only words that she has to deliver are meant for the bubbly secretary; "Sorry to interrupt, your wife is on line two." After her brash attempt at an audition falls through and she graciously turns down an offer to perform in porn, Ruth agrees to follow a tip off about a role that leads her to the conception of GLOW.

It's story is something a little different; this isn't women in a typical environment, it's women who have been employed to kick seven bells out of each other. In the 1980s. GLOW's narrative flow might be something that has been done before; it's a show about the plight of one woman and her supporting characters, but there is a certain je ne sais quoi characteristic to it that still makes it seem so shiny and new. It promises us characters that won't be walked all over against a backdrop of a time in which women were overly sexualised and walked all over (particularly in media, anyway). 

The Pilot does a great job at fleshing out its protagonist, we get to see the different sides of Ruth; her strength, her humour, her vulnerability and her tenacity. When her friend Debbie (Betty Gilpin) suggests that she should give up on her acting career to get married and have children Ruth only becomes more driven to pursue her true ambition, and when she is denied a place in GLOW she doesn't go home to cry and eat her feelings, she wears her duvet like a cape and practices Hulk Hogan-esque wrestling moves and catchphrases. Besides Ruth, we also get a decent glimpse at a diverse bunch of women who have also joined this budding television show, all of whom leave us wanting to know more. From the meek and mild to the insane and angry, GLOW offers a platter of fantastical wrestlers. However, in the midst of all the oestrogen, is the absolute scene stealer Sam Sylvia (Marc Maron). Sam is the mastermind behind GLOW, the main source of wisely cracked lines and the definition of risqué. He is clearly unafraid to push the limits and boundaries of the women in his employ and everyone will want to stick around to see what the repercussions of his actions are.

Overall, GLOW's first episode gives its all. It proudly screams "GIRL POWER" at the top of its lungs and serves us with (lady)balls to the wall characters, an awesome soundtrack, rather glamorous wrestling and enough drama and comedy to shake a stick at. Oh, and a lot of heart. Don't forget heart... Or cunt punches. Expect those too.



Saturday, 17 June 2017

Trips to Tragedy: Dark Tourism

Have you ever found yourself interested in macabre? Possibly wanting to visit somewhere associated with it? Then you will want to look into the concept of 'dark tourism'. Dark tourism is defined as "tourism that involves travelling to places associated with death or suffering" and Chris Lloyd's short film, Trips to Tragedy: Dark Tourism, explores the obsession that most people have with visiting places that have tragic pasts. The film explores specific cases such as people visiting Cromwell Street in Gloucester to see the house in which Fred and Rose West killed and buried their victims and the Welsh village of Aberfan, in which 116 children and 28 adults were killed when a spoil tip collapsed into homes and a school in 1966. The most intriguing thing that Chris explores in his film, after the concept of dark tourism itself, is the moral complications that it causes. Is it acceptable for tourists to visit places such as these and furthermore, is it acceptable for businesses to profit off them?

For me, there are different levels of dark tourism. Not all dark tourists are out to fulfill some form of sick kick. For the past 70+ years people have visited sites of tragedy such as the holocaust camp Auschwitz and the city of Hiroshima, which was destroyed by the atomic bomb. These sites may fall under the dark tourism umbrella, but at the same time they are sites of historical importance which people can visit for educational purposes as well as to pay their respects. However, there is definitely a more corrupt side to the matter. For example, Trips to Tragesy: Dark Tourism sees Chris meet a man who is running an actual bus tour around Bridgend, the town in which 26 people killed themselves as part of a suspected suicide cult. Not only is making money off the suicides incredibly wrong, but creating a tourist hotspot when there are still people grieving for those who died is rather disrespectful.

Can it be argued that we all have at least an inner dark tourist? For me, my dark tourist spot comes in the form of 77 Barton Street in Macclesfield. I have been a massive fan of Joy Division since I was in my early teens, and as I grew older I began to understand and appreciate their music more and more. I became enthralled by Ian Curtis' lyrics and always wanted to know what influenced him and where his ideas came from. Only we'll never truly know. On May 18th 1980, after battling epilepsy and depression, Curtis hanged himself in the kitchen of his home on Barton Street. So, what possessed me to visit this place? Was it the fact that Curtis lived there? Or was it the fact that he died there? I don't really know how to put the reason for my visit into words. I suppose that being near the place that Ian Curtis, whom is an icon in my eyes, spent his last moments gave me a sense of being close to him. Interestingly enough, the issue of morality comes into play once again as a super fan allegedly purchased the property in 2015 and plans to turn it into a Joy Division museum. Is this something to be celebrated? Or is it an act of disrespect? Curtis left behind his wife and daughter, so how would they feel about having their former home, and the place that a member of their family commit suicide, turned into an attraction that someone else will use to earn a profit?

Ultimately, dark tourism and an interest in the macabre is something that has been engrained in human history for centuries. Roman citizens would flock to see Christians being savaged by lions, and prior to the invention of television people would seek entertainment in the form of watching executions. So, perhaps in today's society that in no way condones actions such as these, dark tourism is the 21st century answer to getting our fix of morbidity.

I would like to thank Chris for getting in touch and sharing his film with me. Make sure that you go and watch it here and let us know your opinions on dark tourism.

You can find Chris on Twitter here.

Blogger Template Created by pipdig