TWEET

Sunday, 31 October 2010

THE M. R. JAMES TRILOGY

0 comments
Last night I visited  the Lowry for a performance of two of M.R. James's classic ghost stories  performed by Robert LLoyd  Parry.   


Confusingly, only two stories are performed, not three.  The trilogy reference is to the fact that there are in fact three shows being performed at the Lowry.  Three of the major ghost stories are performed at each show so no performance uses the same text.   This did confuse the audience on the night including myself who waited for a third story but alas this was not to be.


Lloyd Parry was excellent and really did bring the stories to life pardon the pun.   I particularly enjoyed his rendition of "A Warning to the Curious", the story of an archaeologist who is haunted by the guardian of an ancient treasure.  Dressed in tweeds and waiscoat and  enunciating the clipped R.P. of the 1930s, LLoyd Parry really was the part.  Both stories were told by candlelight in an intimate confines of the Stage Theatre which added greatly to the spooky atmosphere.


During the performance Lloyd Parry frequently paused to imbibe whisky, or was it cold tea?  I hope it was the former.  I note that the programme sports an advert for whisky.  Try and catch The M.R. James Trilogy if you can.  A real Halloween treat.
 Bookmark and Share
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 30 October 2010

A2 ENGLISH LITERATURE: ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA

0 comments
kim-cattrall-antony-and-cleopatraKim Cattrall is a ‘finely gauged’ Cleopatra at the Liverpool Playhouse. Photograph by Tristram Kenton
Janet Suzman was a dazzling Cleopatra nearly four decades ago. Now she directs her own daringly intelligent, challenging and occasionally puzzling production. It starts with a great, rolling, sonorous grunt of a snore. Antony, that “triple pillar of the world”, lies sleeping, sprawled on the floor, his head lolling on Cleopatra’s lap, mouth gaping wide. He is bare-chested and his once-powerful muscles saggingly expose a man well past his prime. The queen of Egypt bends to rap his skull with her knuckles: does she want to wake him for the pleasure of lovers’ play or because his abandoned, noisy body disgusts her – or a little bit of both? This unsettling ambiguity is the only constant in their playful, passionate, bitter encounters. Kim Cattrall and Jeffery Kissoon are cleverly cast, since each carries an aura from a previous role that lends lustre to the part they play: he as the great warrior Karna from Peter Brook’sMahabharata and she as Samantha, Sex and the City’s love ‘em and leave ‘em, 40-something vamp. Does Cleopatra love Antony or does she love the fact that he is one of the three most powerful men in the Roman empire?
  1. Antony and Cleopatra
  2. Playhouse,
  3. Liverpool
  1. Starts 8 October
  2. Until 13 November
  3. Box office:
    0151 709 4776
  4. everymanplayhouse.com/
For these two, the personal can never be untangled from the political since every move they make is overshadowed by the threat of Rome – literally, in Peter McKintosh’s soaring set with its towering stone walls, iron girders, glass walls and overhanging gantry looming above and around the glittering oriental lamps and sumptuous fabrics of the Egyptian court. Octavius Caesar, in Martin Hutson’s riveting interpretation, is Cleopatra’s dark-suited, nervy, uptight counterpoint. In his buttoned-up Roman way, he, too, loves Antony, praising his military virtues with a starry-eyed admiration. Although he coldly calculates Antony’s destruction, this pursed-lipped Caesar weeps helplessly at the news of his idol’s suicide and, having wiped clean the sword on to which the old soldier fell, he reverently tucks his bloody handkerchief into his breast pocket, as though it were a precious relic.
It is at the point of death that Kissoon’s Antony is most ridiculous and most sublime. By this point, Cattrall’s Cleopatra has been so finely gauged, so quick to switch between histrionics, coquetry and calculation (when Antony is absent she settles spectacles on her nose, a chair at her desk and busies herself signing papers of state) that we still cannot tell whether she loves him or not. The result is that Antony’s extreme grief at the fake news of her supposed suicide, instead of being a dramatically ironic expression of tragic and ennobling love is so ridiculously bathetic (especially when contrasted with his raw cry of pain on hearing of the death of his friend Enobarbus) that the press-night audience laughed. More shocking than the sound of the laughter was the realisation that it was appropriate, a sort of emotional palate-cleanser to prepare for the end. Antony the soldier having been bested in battle by Caesar, it is now the turn of Cleopatra the seductress to be spurned by the self-satisfied Roman. Both have been defeated by the new order; there is no place within it for their messy complexities. It is death that brings them grandeur; united in death, they rob Caesar of the triumph of his conquest. But even this efficient Caesar turns to his advantage. As he orders the lovers to be buried together, attended by “solemn show”, his eyes slide from side to side as if surveying the reactions to his magnanimity – he is using the funeral to win their friends to his side.
Suzman’s production takes a great risk by harshly depicting a world where politics is as important as passion and, for the most part, it pays off. Some other directorial choices, though, were not so effective. In particular, why cast the unfortunate Mark Sutherland as Octavia? This bizarre piece of cross-gender casting made a burlesque of Antony’s marriage to Caesar’s sister and gave a far too literal reading to the idea of Roman virtues being masculine. Although Ian Hogg’s Enobarbus and Aicha Kossoko’s Charmian were both splendid, others of the cast seemed too young and inexperienced, as if the acting budget had been blown on the leads. Overall, like Shakespeare’s serpent of old Nile herself, flawed but fascinating.Bookmark and Share
Enhanced by Zemanta

GHOST STORY CONVENTIONS

6 comments



I remember reading the ultra-scary "The Woman In Black" many years ago and then watching a TV version and then a stage-play.  All were equally frightening especially in terms of their "pay-offs".  I  would highly recommend all versions but the stage play really does have the capacity to connect on a visceral level.  

From the Telegraph:

Telegraph ghost story writing competition

Susan Hill, the celebrated author of haunting tales, invites Telegraph readers to enter an exclusive writing competition - and outlines the art of the ghost story

By Susan Hill
Published: 12:18PM BST 29 Oct 2010
Comments
The ghost story is having a new lease of life. It was at its most popular in the Victorian and Edwardian eras, before being overtaken by the horror story, which began to thrive with the horror film. But think of coffin lids opened slowly by a skeleton hand and mummified corpses – and laugh. In piling it on so thick, horror quickly became comic.
A good ghost story is never funny. It is too near to us. Perhaps in order to find it convincing we must believe that it could possibly happen. I do not know of any “true” horror stories, but there are thousands of true ghost stories, beginning with those told by the flickering firelight in the caves of prehistoric man. Every region of the British Isles has its local ghost stories, and every country and culture has its repeated tales.
To be any good, a ghost story needs a structure, characters, a narrative line (dialogue is optional). Above all, the ghost must have a purpose. It may be revenge for harm suffered. It may be to explain some past incident. It may be to protest, to offer information – the whereabouts or contents of a will, a murdered body or the identity of a killer.
I have never written a ghost story merely to evoke a shudder. I cannot see the point in simply making people afraid. I want to do more. I want the reader to ask questions, to ponder, to be intrigued and to create an atmosphere from which the story will emerge.
Atmosphere is essential to a ghost story. How does it come about? By evocative description and a sense of place – perhaps the traditional empty, haunted house at night. Buildings are important. But a deserted office block at night in an empty city centre could be a place full of ghosts.
One of the finest ghost stories ever written, M R James’s “Oh, Whistle, and I’ll Come to You, My Lad”, is set in a small Suffolk seaside town – supposed to be Aldeburgh – to which a university scholar has gone for a holiday. His hotel is old and half empty but he is asked to take a room with twin beds. He walks along the shingle beach at twilight. There have been archeological excavations during which graves have been uncovered and ancient bones disturbed. And so it begins. After reading it you may never be able to sleep alone in a room with twin beds again.
The other James – Henry – was also a master of the ghost story. He wrote several short ones and one long masterpiece, The Turn of the Screw. The title indicates what the form needs to do – ratchet up the tension almost unbearably slowly.
Weather is the writer’s best friend. The sudden chill breeze whistling down the chimney or a howling storm are wonderful tools to help one establish atmosphere. Time of day is important too – twilight is as good as midnight.
Yet a ghost story can take place on a brilliantly sunny day, or a calm evening. Kipling’s great story about ghostly children in a garden is set at the end of a summer’s day; several of Edith Wharton’s magnificent short ghost stories take place in fine English summer weather.
One of the best modern ghost stories I know breaks every rule, in that it is not, and is not intended to be, frightening: A S Byatt’s “The July Ghost” is profoundly moving and sad, and it raises many questions.
The ghost story is alive and in better shape than it has been for a long time. I hope many of our finest writers may be challenged to take it up. There is plenty of room.
* We are delighted that the novelist Susan Hill, Andrew Franklin, Managing Director of Profile Books, and Lorna Bradbury, Deputy Literary Editor of The Daily Telegraph, will be the judges of this ghost story competition.
* The winner will have his or her story published and illustrated in The Daily Telegraph Saturday Review, and will receive a unique specially bound copy of The Small Hand by Susan Hill.
* All entries must be 2,000 words or fewer, and the deadline for entries is November 20. A shortlist of six stories will then be selected and published on telegraph.co.uk on December 4, and the winning story will be published in The Daily Telegraph on December 11.
* Please post your 2,000-word story to Lorna Bradbury at The Daily Telegraph, 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0DT. The envelope should clearly be marked “Ghost Story Competition”. Alternatively entries can be emailed to lorna.bradbury@telegraph.co.uk. Please paste your story into the body of the email, and clearly mark your email “Ghost Story Competition” in the subject line.


    Enhanced by Zemanta

    A2 ENGLISH LITERATURE: ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA

    0 comments
    Antony and Cleopatra, Liverpool Playhouse, review
    The production has potential, despite it being Sex and the City star Cattrall’s first major role in Shakespeare. Rating: * * *
    By Charles Spencer
    Comments
    Back in 1973, at the susceptible age of 18, I saw my first Antony and Cleopatra with Janet Suzman starring as the queen of old Nile. She knocked me for six and her Cleopatra still glows in my memory as one of the greatest Shakespeare performances I have ever witnessed.
    Now Suzman is directing the play herself, with Kim Cattrall, so fondly remembered for her performance as the sensual Samantha in Sex and the City, tackling this most demanding of roles.
    Cattrall isn’t in the Suzman class yet. Especially in the first half, her lack of Shakespearean experience shows. This is her first major role in Shakespeare and Cleopatra is a hell of a place to start.
    She often misses the pulse of the verse, and she has a tendency to shout stridently. But in her elegant gowns and with her hair dyed black she is a splendidly alluring queen, even when she puts on reading glasses in a production that stylishly combines ancient and modern. And if she is not yet the mistress of Cleopatra’s infinite variety, she grows in stature throughout the performance and in the great last act becomes extraordinarily moving.
    Right from the start she captures Cleopatra’s wit, especially in her dealings with her handmaidens, Charmian and Iras. But there is a disappointing lack of sexual spark in her relationship with Jeffery Kissoon’s battered Antony, an old campaigner who has run to seed and is first discovered snoring loudly in a drunken stupor at Cleopatra’s feet.
    I’m not asking for the frantic bouts of simulated oral sex that notoriously accompanied one RSC production, but it would be a much stronger evening if there was a sense of the addictive passion that has turned Antony, one of the three most powerful men in the world, into “a strumpet’s fool”.
    But if the first half sometimes seems alarmingly tepid, the production really catches fire after the interval.
    Kissoon is deeply moving as he bids farewell to his troops for the last time, and seems to penetrate the very heart of grief and shame when he realises that Cleopatra has led him to defeat yet again. His bungled attempt at suicide is both comic and unbearably sad — which is exactly as it should be.
    Cattrall, too, begins to scale the dramatic heights as she mourns his loss and transforms a vainglorious old roué into a god in perhaps the most transcendentally beautiful verse Shakespeare ever wrote. I suspect her shaky start was due largely to first-night nerves and the performance will become richer and deeper as the run progresses. Among the supporting cast in Suzman’s production, spectacularly and atmospherically designed by Peter McKintosh on a split-level set, there is especially strong work from Martin Hutson as a priggish, unexpectedly comical Octavius Caesar and Ian Hogg as a cynical but finally touching Enobarbus.
    This isn’t a great Antony and Cleopatra yet but it has the potential to become one if Cattrall works on the verse and Kissoon responds more ardently to her charms.
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Wednesday, 27 October 2010

    AS MEDIA STUDIES, EXAMINATION PAPER, ANALYSIS SHEET

    0 comments
    Bookmark and Share
    How to Analyse and Approach MS1 in the Examination Paper

    AS MEDIA STUDIES GROUPS A AND B

    0 comments
    Image via WikipediaNotting Hill and PowerPoint presentation contents and marking frame

    Group A ignore the reference to Wednesday and the questions on Notting Hill.


    g
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    MEDIA STUDIES: INSTITUTIONS - THE POPULAR PRESS

    0 comments
    The Guardian looks at the new paper on the block. It's called "I" for "The Independent" in short apparently.



    View original
    guardian.co.uk

    i lives up to its name - it’s a digest of its big brother, like an upmarket Metro

    Independent's i newspaperView larger pictureThe Independent’s i newspaper. Click for larger cover image“It’s a red-letter day! i is all you need”. That front page boast in today’s launch issue of Britain’s first new national daily title in a generation reads oddly when it arrives alongside The Independent itself.
    If i is all we need, then what are readers to make of the Indy itself? That boast illustrates the problem of a paper published as a condensed version of its parent.
    But let’s get beyond that obvious problem of newspaper cannibalism to consider the content in the 56 pages of i.
    It begins with an Independent trade-mark poster-style front page with several cross-reference blurbs, and opens into a couple of pages of news-in-briefs.
    I couldn’t see the point of the page 2 top-to-bottom picture of Jeremy Clarkson (no caption, no reference in adjacent copy) until I read further into the “news matrix” and discovered a story about him on page 9. Rather bizarre.
    We reach the “opinion matrix” on page 12, with one-paragraph “lifts” from commentators and editorials of papers in Britain and abroad. Opposite is devoted to Johann Hari’s Indy column.
    After a page reproducing blogs and tweets and a people page (with an awful pun catchline, Caught & Social) comes the final opinion page and we go back into several more pages of short news items from home and away.
    The spread is given over to TV listings with a hard-to-read guide in what looks like the equivalent of 6pt type. After that is a run of features pages, leading off with a goodish piece on Mel Gibson.
    There are four pages of arts reviews, five pages of business - with the obligatory “business matrix” digest - and eight pages of sport plus a page of puzzles.
    Well, that’s the skeleton. But the overall effect of i - the look, the pace and content taken together - strikes me as a sort of upmarketMetro, or even a British-style USA Today.
    Indeed, there were also overtones of Today, the British title launched in 1986 by Eddy Shah and closed down in 1995 byRupert Murdoch because of its failure to make a profit.
    i is what it says on the tin: a paper for time-poor people dashing between home and work. It is pleasantly designed, bright, colourful without being garish, easy to read, and fast-paced.
    In essence, it is pop paper with serious or, at least, semi-serious content. I say that because it is difficult to regard very short items, even when they deal with serious topics (such as Iran’s funding of the Afghan president and Haiti’s cholera outbreak) as serious coverage.
    That, of course, is the point of the exercise. It is the belief of the Indy’s senior team - especially managing director Andrew Mullins and editor Simon Kelner - that there is an audience for a paper that offers nuggets of information.
    My hunch, on the basis of this first issue, is that the cross-over from full-strength Independent to decaffeinated i will not be too great. The differences between the two papers - Big I and Little i - are greater than the similarities.
    But the fact that it resembles Metro is more of a problem. Will people rushing to work take the trouble to stop and pay 20p for it rather than pick up their free Metro?
    Then there is the most obvious problem that faces the whole print market: can any paper supplant the enthusiasm among young people to consume their news and opinion online?
    I wish it well, of course. It would be wrong to rain on the parade of any publisher and editor willing to launch into this dismal market. (Full disclosure: I write a weekly media column for the Indy’s stablemate, the London Evening Standard).
    But I would be surprised if it can locate that mysterious young audience that, for a variety of reasons - mainly cultural and technological - have turned their backs on print.
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    MEDIA STUDIES: REPRESENTATION AND SEXUALITY

    0 comments
    An interesting take on this issue from Sue Perkins writing at  the Queerty Website.



    If Gay TV Characters Weren’t So Stereotypical, How Would We Recognize Them? / Queerty

    image
     
    If Gay TV Characters Weren’t So Stereotypical, How Would We Recognize Them?

    Sue Perkins, the lesbian British comedian who is not related in any way to Tony Perkins, read all 226 pages of the BBC’s report on the portrayal of gay characters on television, and she’s got a suggestion: it’s the soap operas that need to start offering up more accurate representations of ‘mos if any minds are going to change.
    The report, which made our radar for revealing how many straight Brits have a problem with the way gays look on the tube, also showed gay audiences were a bit fed up with the stereotypical characters they usually see under the LGBT banner. Which is the problem Perkins — who was outed in 2002 on I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here! by ex-girlfriend Rhona Cameron — has. Writing inGuardian op-ed:
    Although the BBC and Channel 4 fare well in this report, there is much left to do. The responsibility must fall on the biggest hitters – soap operas. Watched by millions of middle Englanders week after week, they could change the perception of gay people where it matters most. In 1987, EastEnders’ Barry and Colin shared a chaste mouth-graze. In 1994, Brookside’s Beth and Margaret locked lips. Coronation Street discovered lesbians this year. If gay history had evolved as slowly and timidly as television portrayed it, then the first drag queen would be tiptoeing out of the primordial ooze around about now.
    What saddens me is that the same issues keep arising. For gay men, it’s the predominance of the camp cliche. For lesbians, despair at the outdated butch-femme stereotypes. Gay women generally are under-represented, unless you count the number of times the word “lesbian” or “dyke” features as a lazy comic’s punchline.
    There’s no real mystery that television writers are “lazy” and network execs “dumb things down,” because that is how the industry works, at least according to some antiquated model that says viewers will only tune in if we give them caricatures. Which is why we’re usually presented with the gay BFF, always there to shop or gossip.
    When gay characters stop cat-hoarding, scatter-cushion throwing and compulsively shagging — when we’re just sitting around paying bills like Average Jos – then middle England, and the Queer Nation, will be happy.
    And as we all know, Average Jos are themselves accurately represented by the over-sexed, money-obsessed, impossibly-thin characters also seen on television.


    Enhanced by Zemanta

    MEDIA STUDIES: REPRESENTATION AND SEXUALITY

    0 comments

    Gay roles on television need to be real

    LIP SERVICEThe up-coming BBC 3 series, Lip Service. Photograph: BBC/Kudos/BBC / KudosLast week saw the publication of the Corporation’s “Portrayal of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People on the BBC”, a document only marginally more anticipated than the local phone directory. It runs at a mammoth 226 pages and, having read all of it, I can say with certainty that this is one dossier no one could be accused of “sexing up”.
    Let me begin by saying that whatever conclusions I draw, they will be incorrect. I will have said the wrong thing, sold out, screwed over the sisterhood or dissed my brothers. I’m simply not capable of representing the diverse and dizzyingly rich panorama of gay existence, and neither, it transpires, is television.
    Although the BBC and Channel 4 fare well in this report, there is much left to do. The responsibility must fall on the biggest hitters – soap operas. Watched by millions of middle Englanders week after week, they could change the perception of gay people where it matters most. In 1987, EastEnders’ Barry and Colin shared a chaste mouth-graze. In 1994, Brookside’s Beth and Margaret locked lips.Coronation Street discovered lesbians this year. If gay history had evolved as slowly and timidly as television portrayed it, then the first drag queen would be tiptoeing out of the primordial ooze around about now.
    What saddens me is that the same issues keep arising. For gay men, it’s the predominance of the camp cliche. For lesbians, despair at the outdated butch-femme stereotypes. Gay women generally are under-represented, unless you count the number of times the word “lesbian” or “dyke” features as a lazy comic’s punchline.
    As compensation we have gay-centric dramas; the excellent Sugar Rush and the groundbreaking Queer as Folk. Maybe the up-and-coming Lip Service on BBC3 will join those ranks. But surely, in order for true ground to break, there has to be a middle way – something between the tepid sexlessness of the soaps’ queer couplings and the separatist universe of the US show The L Word, in which the characters are like something out of the Barbie Lesbian Range: the tennis pro with detachable miniskirt, the hairdresser with blow-drier.
    For me the solution is less “L” word than “I” word. Issues. Gay characters are a gift because they can deliver the shock value that soap operas are hardwired to. But surely, by normalising rather than pathologising gay culture you please not only gay respondents, but the 19% of heterosexual viewers that the report reveals are still squeamish about our presence on their screens.
    When gay characters stop cat-hoarding, scatter-cushion throwing and compulsively shagging — when we’re just sitting around paying bills like Average Jos – then middle England, and the Queer Nation, will be happy.

    The fee for this article has been donated to Families Together, providing information and support for families with LGBT children.Bookmark and Share
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Sunday, 24 October 2010

    MEDIA STUDIES: INSTITUTIONS AND GENRE

    0 comments

    Lies, paranoia and jealousy on the internet’s social networks inspire Hollywood

    Easy A - 2010 Emma Stone stars in Easy A, the most critically acclaimed of the recent clutch of movies inspired by internet use among young people. Photograph: ScreenGem/Everett/Rex Featur When a schoolgirl from Michigan contacts a New York photographer through Facebook to ask if she can use one of the photographs on his site to make a painting, it sounds like a sweet and simple request. In the hands of the producers of Catfish, however, the story unspools in quite another direction.
    This documentary-thriller, which opens in Britain in December, is the latest in a string of US films to focus on the sinister possibilities of internet communication. Together, they explore the dramatic opportunities of a medium that has all the appearance of intimacy but which by-passes the intuitive safeguards of face-to-face human contact.
    Made by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, Catfish has been dubbed “the best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never directed” by the Financial Times and uses the techniques of reality TV to draw audiences into a web of deceit. Is the young girl from Michigan the artistic prodigy she claims to be? What are her motives and why will her enigmatic elder sister only communicate online?
    These key questions about identity and misrepresentation are echoed in the screenplays of the films Trust, starring Clive Owen, and Chatroom, starring Aaron Johnson. Both plots pivot on the gullibility of those vulnerable people who go online searching for companionship.
    In Trust, directed by former Friends star David Schwimmer, Owen plays the father of a girl who is targeted on the internet by a sexual predator. Speaking at the Toronto Film Festival last month, the actor admitted he found the storyline troubling. “It’s a very tough subject and as a parent myself it was very close to me,” he said. “A large portion of the film is how a family is ripped apart really, the huge sense of loss and pain, I thought it was a very tough, brutal look. It’s not a cliché version where everybody comes together and we all love each other and stagger through it, it ruptures them and tests them. As a parent I found the idea of that very, very upsetting and that’s why I wanted to do the film and explore the real horror and pain of that.”
    The online world is just as dangerous in Enda Walsh’s screen adaptation of his play Chatroom. Here, the plot revolves around five teenagers who use the internet to escape from their real-life problems. One of them, the disturbed William, played by Johnson, emerges as the natural leader of the group but begins to play a devious virtual game.
    When Hollywood wakes up to the latest idea, whether it is to revisit the legends of the ancient world, to feast on teenage vampire horror or to dramatise the pitfalls of the internet, all the film-makers turn together, like a shoal of fish, to face the new direction. So Friday also saw the British release of the internet-based comedy Easy A, starring Emma Stone. This is a critically acclaimed high-school take on the perils of online fibbing and it tells of 18-year-old Olive, played by Stone, who is persuaded by a friend to make herself more interesting by inventing a secret lover.
    The pretence quickly backfires and Olive becomes an outcast in her own school. The story, written by Bert Royal, is recounted in flashback on a webcam and the internet becomes both a useful tool for storytelling and a potentially dangerous amplification of the daily deceits of adolescence. The film is also a clever reworking of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, the 19th-century novel about rumour and shame that, in a neat twist, is also being studied in class by the young cast of Easy A.
    This new appetite for using the internet as a plot device is clearly a response to the growing significance of social networking sites. Mike Goodridge, editor of Screen International, sees it as an obvious move. “It is only natural, bearing in mind the key demographic for social networking is also the demographic that film-makers need to reach,” he said. “It started out with the use of the web in film as a symbol of modern paranoia, like in the 1995 thriller The Net, but filmmakers have now had to respond to the fact it is a big part of lots of lives.”
    He also points out that a successful French film has already covered much of the same territory as Easy A. The 2008 teen comedy, LOL, takes the text and chatroom acronym for “laughing out loud” as its title and tells of the tribulations of a girl whose boyfriend decides to provoke her by letting her know he cheated on her over the summer.
    “This film was a huge success in France,” said Goodridge. “It is good about the way that kids use text and the net to communicate to each other about everything.”
    The box-office popularity of the acclaimed The Social Network, released here this month, is added proof that the film industry is alive to the significance of the virtual world that many potential cinemagoers inhabit. In the hands of director David Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, the breakdown in the working relationship between two fledgling businessmen, Facebook founders Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, assumes the proportions of a modern tragedy, a kind of computer-age version of the 1956 oil saga, Giant.
    Sorkin takes us back to the – fictitious – moment in 2003 when a recently jilted Harvard University student, Zuckerberg, has the idea of rating the attractiveness of female undergraduates online on an interactive page he calls FaceMash. Using a computer algorithm supplied by his best friend, Saverin, Zuckerberg manages to crash parts of Harvard’s computer network due to the popularity of the site.
    Identical twin members of the university rowing team, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, and their business partner, Divya Narendra, then approach Zuckerberg to help them create a site they call Harvard Connection. Legal wrangles and alleged treachery then chart the journey that will take this site on to becoming, first, TheFacebook and finally Facebook, with its 500 million users across the globe.
    Gavin Smith, editor of the New York magazine Film Comment, sees the movie as part of a somewhat belated response to the spread of social networking and really just a new setting for central elements in any human drama: friendship, betrayal, hope and disappointment.
    “If you look at it this way, this film is really just an online updated version of The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre,” he said this weekend.
    The Social Network is so far from a celebration of the virtual world that many in the computer industry have reacted with irritation. For some technology enthusiasts and computer geeks, the film is an unwarranted attack on the values of those who enjoy talking to each other online and making the most of the connections the world wide web affords. In the Guardian Andrew Clark also argued that the film’s documentary style was deliberately misleading.
    “There’s something insidious about this genre of scriptwriting,” he wrote, adding that he was not convinced that “a 26-year-old businessman really deserves to have his name dragged through the mud in a murky mixture of fact and imagination for the general entertainment of the movie-viewing public? … I’m not sure whether Mark Zuckerberg is a punk, a genius or both. But I won’t be seeing The Social Network to find out.”
    Controversy has also dogged the release of Catfish, which has provoked similar claims that the film uses documentary techniques to entice its audience. Schulman and Joost say they began to film Schulman’s real-life brother, Nev, who is at the centre of the film, and had no idea the project would turn into a disconcerting journey into the darker side of the web.
    The September edition of Time magazine carried an article by Mary Pols that warned readers away from the notion that this presented the typical face of social networking. The renowned critic Roger Ebert, reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times, has defended the film, however, by underlining his belief that “everyone in the film is exactly as the film portrays them”.
    Perhaps the most up-to-date take on the web as a potentially deceptive form of communication comes at the end of Easy A, probably the film that has received the widest critical acclaim of the bunch. In the final scenes, as Emma Stone’s Olive makes unsuccessful attempts to untangle the web of lies she has spun among her friends and enemies at school, she realises that privacy may be the best policy.
    Before the credits roll, she tells her webcam that she likes her potential boyfriend, Todd, and that maybe she will lose her virginity to him one day – but it will be no one’s business but her own.Bookmark and Share
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    MEDIA STUDIES: HORROR FILMS

    0 comments
    Bookmark and Share

    What’s the most inventive death in horror movies?

    Scene from A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) Death by bed in A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). Photograph: PR @alexito Bill Pullman being buried alive in a coffin full of blood in The Serpent and the Rainbow. With a tarantula on his face. It’s the little details that count.
    @Sokket The bed eating a victim in the original Nightmare on Elm Street
    @mcragg Scream. Death by catflap.
    @theythinkitsallover Meaning of Life – exploding fat man.
    @gembird My favourite is the one in The Happening where a man starts his lawnmower and then lies down in front of it so it chews him up.
    @Sipech I think drowning in sand in The Omen. It made me aware of a phobia I never realised I had. Surely, the worst possible way to die.
    @ATG66 I’ll never forget the scene in Dr Phibes Rises Again where the man is trapped by a huge scorpion statue that pins his arms with huge nails between its claws. The only way out is to get to the key that is in a vase. The man breaks the vase open to unleash hundres of scorpions, which then proceed to sting him to death as he’s trapped, unable to move … awesome!!
    @Fumblebuck Arthur Lowe’s daintily surgical decapitation (under anaesthetic, while asleep in bed next to his drugged wife) by Vincent Price and Diana Rigg in Theatre of Blood, culminating with the maid finding Lowe’s head the next morning stuck on top of a milk bottle on the doorstep!
    @CaptainDeadly The mouth in the stomach biting the doctor’s arms off in John Carpenter’s remake of The Thing.
    @neil886 Theatre of Blood! Of course! Robert Morley being fed his “babies”, and Eric Sykes’s walkie-talkie commentary on his own impending death.
    @startchoppin Not sure if RoboCop counts as horror but Emil’s death, where he literally liquifies on impact, has always gone down well in these parts.
    @misma Being eaten alive from the inside by slugs in Slither.
    @grahamw How about the scene in which Sam Neill murders his wife’s former lover using only a feather and an old shoe he finds in a bin in Possession? Utterly revolting …
    @AbelWhittle The death of Pat and her friend 12 minutes into Suspiria (1977). A celebration of style over substance. Argento shows his true misogynist self in these few minutes of depravity as he rips the heart from one woman and leaves the other hanging, sliced by sheets of glass, high above the beautifully decorated floor of an art deco building. Wonderful.
    @PatriciaSB Ray Liotta being fed his own brain in Hannibal.
    @MrArchitect Death by being filmed (and impaled by the camera) in Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom.
    @YummieMummie I do have a soft spot for the decapitation scene in The Omen.
    @EnthusiasticKnights Deaths by cats in The Uncanny.
    @DrGiggles Body turned inside out by head being pulled inwards via hand through rectum (Society).
    @leoniebahri In Happy Birthday to Me a character gets killed by having a shish kebab shoved down his throat.
    @maid2 The Company of Wolves. The mono-browed huntsman/werewolf aims a karate chop at Angela Lansbury and her head sails off, shattering against the wall like a porcelain doll. Surreal, symbolic, weirdly beautiful and almost upsettingly abrupt all at the same time.
    @Bartel Dracula: Prince of Darkness – the count is killed by running water (a rare use of this arcane piece of vampire mythology).
    @jadders2010 My personal favourite would be from The Fountain in which Tomas drinks the sap of the tree of life before bursting into flowering shrubs, eventually being consumed by the ground.
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    A2 ENGLISH LITERATURE: ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA

    0 comments
    |

    kim-cattrall-antony-and-cleopatra Kim Cattrall is a ‘finely gauged’ Cleopatra at the Liverpool Playhouse. Photograph by Tristram Kenton

      Janet Suzman was a dazzling Cleopatra nearly four decades ago. Now she directs her own daringly intelligent, challenging and occasionally puzzling production. It starts with a great, rolling, sonorous grunt of a snore. Antony, that “triple pillar of the world”, lies sleeping, sprawled on the floor, his head lolling on Cleopatra’s lap, mouth gaping wide. He is bare-chested and his once-powerful muscles saggingly expose a man well past his prime. The queen of Egypt bends to rap his skull with her knuckles: does she want to wake him for the pleasure of lovers’ play or because his abandoned, noisy body disgusts her – or a little bit of both? This unsettling ambiguity is the only constant in their playful, passionate, bitter encounters. Kim Cattrall and Jeffery Kissoon are cleverly cast, since each carries an aura from a previous role that lends lustre to the part they play: he as the great warrior Karna from Peter Brook’s Mahabharata and she as Samantha, Sex and the City’s love ‘em and leave ‘em, 40-something vamp. Does Cleopatra love Antony or does she love the fact that he is one of the three most powerful men in the Roman empire.
    For these two, the personal can never be untangled from the political since every move they make is overshadowed by the threat of Rome – literally, in Peter McKintosh’s soaring set with its towering stone walls, iron girders, glass walls and overhanging gantry looming above and around the glittering oriental lamps and sumptuous fabrics of the Egyptian court. Octavius Caesar, in Martin Hutson’s riveting interpretation, is Cleopatra’s dark-suited, nervy, uptight counterpoint. In his buttoned-up Roman way, he, too, loves Antony, praising his military virtues with a starry-eyed admiration. Although he coldly calculates Antony’s destruction, this pursed-lipped Caesar weeps helplessly at the news of his idol’s suicide and, having wiped clean the sword on to which the old soldier fell, he reverently tucks his bloody handkerchief into his breast pocket, as though it were a precious relic.
    It is at the point of death that Kissoon’s Antony is most ridiculous and most sublime. By this point, Cattrall’s Cleopatra has been so finely gauged, so quick to switch between histrionics, coquetry and calculation (when Antony is absent she settles spectacles on her nose, a chair at her desk and busies herself signing papers of state) that we still cannot tell whether she loves him or not. The result is that Antony’s extreme grief at the fake news of her supposed suicide, instead of being a dramatically ironic expression of tragic and ennobling love is so ridiculously bathetic (especially when contrasted with his raw cry of pain on hearing of the death of his friend Enobarbus) that the press-night audience laughed. More shocking than the sound of the laughter was the realisation that it was appropriate, a sort of emotional palate-cleanser to prepare for the end. Antony the soldier having been bested in battle by Caesar, it is now the turn of Cleopatra the seductress to be spurned by the self-satisfied Roman. Both have been defeated by the new order; there is no place within it for their messy complexities. It is death that brings them grandeur; united in death, they rob Caesar of the triumph of his conquest. But even this efficient Caesar turns to his advantage. As he orders the lovers to be buried together, attended by “solemn show”, his eyes slide from side to side as if surveying the reactions to his magnanimity – he is using the funeral to win their friends to his side.
    Suzman’s production takes a great risk by harshly depicting a world where politics is as important as passion and, for the most part, it pays off. Some other directorial choices, though, were not so effective. In particular, why cast the unfortunate Mark Sutherland as Octavia? This bizarre piece of cross-gender casting made a burlesque of Antony’s marriage to Caesar’s sister and gave a far too literal reading to the idea of Roman virtues being masculine. Although Ian Hogg’s Enobarbus and Aicha Kossoko’s Charmian were both splendid, others of the cast seemed too young and inexperienced, as if the acting budget had been blown on the leads. Overall, like Shakespeare’s serpent of old Nile herself, flawed but fascinating.

    Enhanced by Zemanta

    MEDIA STUDIES: INSTITUTIONS - THE MURDOCH EMPIRE

    0 comments

    Rupert Murdoch hits back at opponents of

      News Corp bid for BSkyB

    Rupert Murdoch delivering Thatcher lectureChairman and chief executive of News Corporation Rupert Murdoch delivering the inaugural Baroness Thatcher lecture. Photograph: Arthur Edwards/ReutersRupert Murdoch has hit back at rival UK media organisations opposed to News Corporation’s bid to take full control of BSkyB, branding them “small thinkers” trying to place “restrictions on growth”.
    Delivering the inaugural Baroness Thatcher lecture last night, Murdoch, the News Corp chairman and chief executive, said this was an “issue for my company”.
    Murdoch did not talk directly about his company’s bid to take full control of BSkyB, the satellite TV company in which it already holds a 39.1% stake. An alliance of media owners, including the Daily Mail & General Trust, Telegraph Media Group, BBC and Guardian Media Group, which publishes the Guardian, has called on business secretary Vince Cable to block the deal on public interest grounds.
    However, it was clear what he was aiming at in the following passage of the speech: “We must celebrate a culture of success. The rise to prominence is too often accompanied by a surge in cynicism by the traditional elites.
    “I am something of a parvenu, but we should welcome the iconoclastic and the unconventional. And we shouldn’t curb their enthusiasm or energy. That is what competition is all about. Yet when the upstart is too successful, somehow the old interests surface, and restrictions on growth are proposed or imposed. That’s an issue for my company. More important, it’s an issue for our broader society.
    “These are the small thinkers who believe their job is to cut the cake up rather than make it bigger.”
    Murdoch also said that one of the factors that would help make Britain successful in the 21st century would be “corporate and technological sectors that thrive on change, and use the freedom of the market to innovate and grow”.
    The media mogul made a veiled reference to the phone-hacking scandal that has engulfed his Sunday tabloid, the News of the World.
    “Our new world is one of modern mass communication, phone and text, without limit. Democracy will be from the bottom up, not from the top down. Even so, a free society requires an independent press: turbulent … enquiring … bustling … and free,” Murdoch said.
    “That’s why our journalism is hard-driving and questioning of authority. And so are our journalists. Often, I have cause to celebrate editorial endeavour. Occasionally, I have had cause for regret. Let me be clear: We will vigorously pursue the truth – and we will not tolerate wrongdoing.”
    Murdoch and other News Corp executives have maintained there is no evidence of widespread phone hacking at the News of the World.
    He insisted earlier this month that it was limited to the paper’s former royal editor, Clive Goodman, who was arrested for intercepting voicemails left on mobile phones belonging to members of the royal household in 2006. Andy Coulson, who is now David Cameron’s communications director, resigned as News of the World editor when Goodman was jailed in January 2007.
    Murdoch also made the case for the continuing importance of traditional journalism, while admitting that bloggers have a role to play.
    “It would certainly serve the interests of the powerful if professional journalists were muted – or replaced as navigators in our society by bloggers and bloviators,” he said.
    “Bloggers can have a social role – but that role is very different to that of the professional seeking to uncover facts, however uncomfortable.”
    Bookmark and Share
    Enhanced by Zemanta

    Saturday, 23 October 2010

    MEDIA STUDIES: INSTITUTIONS - THE MURDOCH EMPIRE

    0 comments
    Bookmark and Share

    Rupert Murdoch - World Economic Forum Annual M...Image via WikipediaRupert Murdoch and BSkyB: how powerful would a takeover make him?

    Rupert Murdoch wants to own all of broadcaster BSkyB. If he gets his way, the shape of British media could change forever, according to a leaked report. See what the data says
    • Get the data
    Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB graphic View larger picture
    Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB broken down. Click image to get graphic. Illustration: Finbarr Sheehy for the Guardian
    Rupert Murdoch is keen to buy up the rest of BSkyB - he presently controls 39.1% of the company which is increasingly dominating British broadcasting.
    memo signed by a coalition of British media companies, including the Guardian, asks Business secretary Vince Cable to refer the proposed takeover to Ofcom.
    So, if Murdoch succeeds, just how powerful would he become in the UK? According to a confidential report from respected media analyst Claire Enders to Vince Cable - subsequently leaked to media site BeehiveCity - it would substantially change the British media landscape.
    Allowing the deal to go through would amount to Britain's 'Berlusconi moment'
    You can download the leaked report at the site and it includes tonnes of data and a damning final verdict on the proposed takeover.
    The key points are, according to Enders:
    Products currently separately offered by BSkyB and News Corp titles may be combined in bundles… Strategic initiatives of this nature could lead to a much more rapid decline in competitor newspaper circulations than we have assumed, boosting News Corp's newspaper market share above 40% by 2014…
    …Stories from Sky News (especially video) will presumably be carried more and more frequently on News Corp websites … Progressively, News International papers and BSkyB channels, particularly Sky News, may merge into one stream of fact and opinion. If this occurred, plurality would decline, even if the combined organisation continued to maintain newsrooms that are nominally separate…
    …The loss of the independent BSkyB shareholders will allow News Corp greater opportunity to influence, tacitly or otherwise, the editorial coverage of Sky News and other BSkyB channels…
    The final point is perhaps the most serious:

    We believe … that there is a risk of a reduction in media plurality to an unacceptably low level
    We've extracted the key data from the report for you below - plus a list (probably not exhaustive) of News Corporations' operations, from the group's website. We've visualised it above (click on the image to get the graphic).

    Enhanced by Zemanta