Bolivia for Sale

8238629769_2dd67cf459_c[1]

Photo Credit to Sandra De Souza: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandra_de_souza/

This is pretty much the aftermath of last weeks Top Gear and Damian Lewis dancing to Gangnam Style on Jonathan Woss’s show. As much as it is apparently about Homeland, spending week after week wondering if a pseudo-American ginger man is going to be killed is equivalent to having a warm cup of milk after a long day. So lets put aside the already well known stereotypical American fear of a terrorist blowing their own arses up (and blowing theirs up as a consequence) and put the limelight on a more pressing and relevant matter: the true impacts of neo-liberalism.

Bolivia for sale illiterates the reasons why we should question the means of development and foreign intervention. Please have a watch:

You, Me And Everyone We Know ))><((

This was a film shown at a lecture hall yesterday. It was certainly contemporary; and even amongst us, there were some mixed reviews. It was surreal, dark, funny but plot-less.  I take joy in understanding the characters, the psychology behind their actions as an excuse to analytically judge another human being without feeling guilt for doing so. Personally I think this film maker took their artistic license a bit too far for my own liking. It’s probably a film makers ideal film in terms of it’s abstract nature but personally it lacked substance. It was even slightly disturbing, especially with the internet romance between little Robby and the museum curator and their eventual meet up. Although I did find it amusing in a dark way, I felt wrong for even laughing it. Perhaps that was the aim of the film to feel: happy, uncomfortable and enlightened simultaneously; but in all honesty I don’t what the goal was. As a member of the audience that really bugs me.  I have to say Robby was easily my favourite character, he was brilliant and I would not mind having a little brother like him.

Not a fan I’m afraid. I do like my indie films. Talking about good indie films: there is one called the Third Star starring the wonderful Benedict Cumberbatch. I’m also a fan of Fish Tank.

Another review on the topic: http://magnoliaforever.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/review-me-and-you-and-everyone-we-know-2005/

Brighton Festival 2012

An arts, theatre and film festival in the heart of Sussex: Brighton. This picture is from a play called Interiors which I am eagerly anticipating to watch… will try and score some free tickets if I write a review for the Badger or any other magazine who would give me the job. Otherwise the tickets are reasonably priced, the cheapest being £10.

The festival will be between the 5-27th of May.

Here is the link to the website for some more information: http://brightonfestival.org/about/

I love this film so much!

I feel like I could kind of relate to her, I mean nothing so crazy and glamorous ever happened to me but I’ve got my heart broken when I just left home and got myself in a horribly sticky situation. And fucked up my chances of getting into university to do what I really want to do at the time because instead of revising I was just fucking about and being a complete naive twit about everything. Men just annoy me sometimes, especially those old men that take advantage of your naivety. I feel like a wise owl after all that drama 🙂

Bokeh in Movies

View original post

A ‘Shame’ to miss the ‘Vue’

It Could Be Simpler

You must have been strapped to a chair in a 50ft ditch with headphones glued to your head not to have heard the particulars of Steve McQueen and Abi Morgan’s saucy sex addiction creation ‘Shame’. Now I’m no stranger to a ‘risqué’ choice in my cinematic adventures, only last week I watched a re-showing of ‘Carry on… up the Khyber’.

But Sid James would have found difficulties with just adjusting his hat and expressing a tongue in cheek “Phwoor…  Core blimey” during these graphic sexual scenes. The crippling sex addiction the main character Brandon (Michael Fassbender) struggles through manifests itself in endless streams of seductions, porn, prostitutes and special alone moments. At times I sat in the cinema uncomfortably aware that I was watching Fassbender’s endless ‘Happy endings’ whilst surrounded by strangers.

The portrayal of sex crazed Brandon by Michael Fassbender was nevertheless faultless and entertainingly believable. He displays…

View original post 466 more words

Shame- the controversy

A brilliant film always creates a stir, even the mention of it in our communal kitchen fuels a lively debate. The question of whether sex addiction is an actual medical condition is well, in itself, questionable. I feel really annoyed by every negative review I see about the film, I am that passionate of a fan. And yes, it is again another film with Mr Fassbender in it, this is not obsessive behaviour just he’s in everything at the moment! I love anything with flawed, interesting and mysterious characters. Characters that make me go, so what happened to them once the film has finished. Perhaps that mentality has led to my  addiction to House, the Rose and Doctor romance (in Dr Who) and Cumberbatch’s edition of Shelock Holmes. I have only recently got my head around indie films for that reason.

The main problem is that people feel uncomfortable talking about sex in general, so talking about sex addiction as a disorder someone could suffer from is extremely difficult for society to comprehend. I have came across the argument that sex addiction is an excuse to be promiscuous; and that the film is justification for ‘sleeping around’ and it objectifies women. But if Brandon was a woman instead (no I don’t mean Fassbender dressing in drag!), I mean if the main character was a woman would the film be so controversial? Perhaps it is the audience’s pre-conceived discrimination of women that makes them so taken back by the sexual nature of the film. Personally I blame the easy access of porn and how most men have compared the film to ‘soft porn’. The character fulfils some people’s fantasy of being able to ‘pull’ whenever they wanted and being ‘adventurous’ in the bedroom which I guess is the selling point of porn; but that is not what the film is solely about! Yes people comparing the film to porn makes me want to punch them too! It’s people like them that undermine the integrity and seriousness of a very real problem that people suffer from.

Hats off for everyone who participated making this film Steve McQueen, Carey Mulligan and Michael Fassbender especially, even if it is seen a taboo is some people’s eyes- it still an important issue that had to be addressed; it most certainly put their careers on a very fine line.  My defence for this film just shows how good I think it is! If you haven’t watched it yet, you should.

If you don’t trust my word: http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=131&title=shame_film_review&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

The King’s Speech at the Theatre Royal, Brighton

My review for the university newspaper: The Badger. (BADGER, BADGER, BADGER….MUSHROOM, MUSHROOM) 

Considering the recent release of the film adaptation of the play, it is hard to not draw a comparison to the works of the award winning actors: Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush. The adaptation was so well received that it was nominated for various film awards around the world, where Firth won a Golden Globe for Best Actor as his part of Bertie (more known as King George VI to the clergy) and Geoffrey Rush won Best Supporting Actor at the British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA) as his role as Lionel Logue.

 

It was evident that the film did influence some of the technical layouts of the play, the sheer number of set changes was incredible. Some, admittedly, were clever and allowed two scenes to run simultaneously, in turn creating a sense of flow to the play which would have probably not been achieved otherwise. But the appearance of props on the character’s cue went beyond clever to being purely pretentious, it was not entirely necessary and occasionally distracted one from the play itself.

 

Despite the difficulty to watch the play without scrutinizing it’s variations from Tom Hooper’s directions, I became absorbed by the relatively light-hearted deliverance of the same story. Being at the disadvantage of coming to the theatre with a tainted slate of expectation, I understood the film to be a dramatic and seldom struggle of a lonely individual. The play does tackle the relationship between Lionel and Bertie in a similar manner; and certainly does contain the same intensity of character development but it also shows Lionel as a more colourful, vibrant character. Hyde took full advantage of the live audience, allowing us to engage fully with Lionel’s sense of humour that brought a refreshing ease to tense situations. This allowed the audience to see how Lionel was able to crack Bertie’s defensive shell that he hid behind for most of his life, and of course the gradual formation of their invaluable friendship.

 

Edwards portrayed the struggle, anger and frustration faced by the Prince-to-come- King as convincingly as Firth did in the film. The minimalistic set (despite it’s technical nature) gave little distraction to Edwards emotional articulation of the King’s defensive nature after years of sheltered hardship behind what Queen Elizabeth described as the, “…gated royal fortress.” Hyde’s ability illustrate Lionel as he’s true easy-going self perfectly complimented Edwards’ Bertie. With such excellent interpretations of both characters from Hyde and Edwards, I believe that the relationship between Lionel and Bertie felt stronger and more sincere than what was developed on the silver screen by Rush and Firth.

 

Another positive variation of the play from the film was the greater emphasis of Hitler’s conquest within continental Europe. Churchill seemed to have a greater impact in the play than David’s unconventional love affair with Wallis Simpson; although it can be argued that the were both interlinked and led to the eventuality of Bertie becoming King George VI. Personally, the film bore too much significance upon David’s relationship with Simpson and did not clarify the political climate at the time, especially with the appeasement policy that Lord Chamberlain was following at the time. The play understood the political turbulence and made the audience understand that it too was an issue that the King as his duty had to address. In result, this added more stress and desire for him to speak ‘properly’ and inspire his people at a time when war was seemingly inevitable.

 

In conclusion, the play was brilliant. And like the film it did not fail to please, it in fact added another dimension which would not be logistically possible through the medium of film. I enjoyed the political undertones of the play bubbling underneath the character development successfully carried out by Edwards with aid of Hyde’s Lionel. The film shines a gloomy, darker light on Bertie’s life. In contrast, the play indicated that his stutter did not define him as an individual. It instead made the audience aware of his sense of responsibility, pride and bravery despite the ill-treatment he endured from his family.