A (very picture-heavy) summary of the production cycle that I can forget about until 3 weeks before the exam, panic, and then learn to death.
It seems like everyone and their mother is talking about sexual assault and harassment in the celebrity world recently - Harvey Weinstein accused of harassment by over 60 women, Kevin Spacey fired from House of Cards after a reported assault in 1986, Louis C.K. admitting to making women watch him masturbate into a pot plant... the list goes on and on. All of the celebrity scandals inspired a #MeToo movement, where people flocked to Twitter to tell their own 140 character story. Although the public fallout following the Hollywood scandals has been immense, people seem to be focusing on shaming big-name celebrities and forgetting about the every-day events in the lives of you and I.
This article, published today by the BBC, gives a member of the general public a voice to speak out about her experiences with sexual harassment. Martha Hammock, the only female chef at a Derbyshire Premier Inn, claims she was made uncomfortable by messages sent by a co-worker, including asking her opinion of a 'penis-shaped bottle'. As with countless victims of Hollywood, Hammock came forward and complained to head office about the behaviour. However, instead of the news coverage and public support the former receives, Hammock says that the company suspended her the day after reporting the events. A letter she received gave work-related reasons for her suspension, and a spokesperson insists that an investigation is ongoing, and that her suspension on full pay is in no way related to her complaint.
Although both sides of the story are given, it is obvious that the reporter is on Hammock's team regarding the incident. The article uses several emotive quotes, reinforcing Hammock's consequent discomfort and suffering - "it feels like I am dying" is a particularly powerful statement that drives the severity of the situation home to the audience. I'd like to believe that the reporter wholeheartedly believes the victim's account of events, but perhaps due to the BBC's own history of sexual harassment, rape, pedophilia and necrophilia accusations their staff have been warned to keep their noses clean.
The fact that sexual assault exists at all is disgusting, and the numerous named perpetrators in Hollywood (should the accusations against them be proved true) deserve everything they get as far as I'm concerned. Celebrities are role models for many people, and notable people committing these obscene acts paves the way for their followers to do the same. I'm sick to death of reading the words 'sexual harassment' in the news, but I know it's necessary to call these people out, to keep impressionable people in the public for citing them as their influences into their own vile behaviour.
Last Thursday a few of our A2 Media class were invited to visit the BFI Southbank London Film Festival, and were given the opportunity to watch a early-release screening of Andy Serkis' Breathe. Far from the rushed nightmare of a journey I'd expected of the travel up to Waterloo, we arrived at the centre relatively unscathed and with the same number of students we'd left with. This success stayed with us for the rest of the trip, creating a relaxed atmosphere for the day that was a relief after the bustle of the college week.
Breathe is the heart-wrenching tale of Robin Cavendish (Andrew Garfield), an upper-middle-class man who meets the woman of his dreams as she waves him on during a cricket game. The well-spoken, clean-cut couple venture to Kenya, where Cavendish starts up a tea-broking business and his wife Diana (Claire Foy) becomes pregnant. Before the baby is born, however, Cavendish falls ill and is diagnosed with polio, given only three months to live.
The plot follows the family's struggle to cope with the diagnosis, the symptoms and Cavendish's forecast untimely death. Through the lows (when the disease robs him of the use of any muscles from the neck down, Cavendish begs to be left to die) and the highs (the family and their friends become a celebrated group into the development of modern disability aids) the audience are held captive by the tension, the love and the intense emotion that threatens to tear the family apart but ultimately brings them stronger together. Though I didn't cry during the film, I may or may not have reached for a tissue as the credits rolled.
The most remarkable thing about this film, however, is not the wondrous script by William Nicholson. It's not Andrew Garfield's Oscar-worthy portrayal of Cavendish, and his ability to convey so complex a character with nothing but his speech and facial expressions. It's not the gorgeous lighting that enhances warm and touching moments with soft yellows and oranges, nor the understated yet powerful soundtrack. This film was based on a true story, and produced by the real-life Robin and Diana's son Jonathan Cavendish.
We were privileged enough to attend a Q&A with the producer afterwards, and his devotion to his family was clear in how passionately he talked about every aspect of the film. Garfield and Foy's performances, he said, were like seeing his parents on-screen, reliving their past in such a romantic and touching way. The premiere was also attended by a representative of Rotary GBI, a non-profit organisation which has made huge contributions to the research and prevention of polio. The disease has reduced by 99% over the last 30 years, from approximately 350,000 cases to only 37 reported cases in 2016.
The film has also caught the attention of others, giving audiences an emotional insight into the lives of the disabled rather than just statistics (which, on their own, often mean very little). Garfield has voiced his own thoughts on the issue, saying "it's a crime the world isn't more accessible to disabled people". Films like this, with controversial or unusual topics, get people talking, and this can help raise awareness and support for the issues raised (in this case, disability and its effects) through discussion and film promotion alone.
The plot follows the family's struggle to cope with the diagnosis, the symptoms and Cavendish's forecast untimely death. Through the lows (when the disease robs him of the use of any muscles from the neck down, Cavendish begs to be left to die) and the highs (the family and their friends become a celebrated group into the development of modern disability aids) the audience are held captive by the tension, the love and the intense emotion that threatens to tear the family apart but ultimately brings them stronger together. Though I didn't cry during the film, I may or may not have reached for a tissue as the credits rolled.
The most remarkable thing about this film, however, is not the wondrous script by William Nicholson. It's not Andrew Garfield's Oscar-worthy portrayal of Cavendish, and his ability to convey so complex a character with nothing but his speech and facial expressions. It's not the gorgeous lighting that enhances warm and touching moments with soft yellows and oranges, nor the understated yet powerful soundtrack. This film was based on a true story, and produced by the real-life Robin and Diana's son Jonathan Cavendish.
We were privileged enough to attend a Q&A with the producer afterwards, and his devotion to his family was clear in how passionately he talked about every aspect of the film. Garfield and Foy's performances, he said, were like seeing his parents on-screen, reliving their past in such a romantic and touching way. The premiere was also attended by a representative of Rotary GBI, a non-profit organisation which has made huge contributions to the research and prevention of polio. The disease has reduced by 99% over the last 30 years, from approximately 350,000 cases to only 37 reported cases in 2016.
The film has also caught the attention of others, giving audiences an emotional insight into the lives of the disabled rather than just statistics (which, on their own, often mean very little). Garfield has voiced his own thoughts on the issue, saying "it's a crime the world isn't more accessible to disabled people". Films like this, with controversial or unusual topics, get people talking, and this can help raise awareness and support for the issues raised (in this case, disability and its effects) through discussion and film promotion alone.
Wading through all of the news stories about sexual assault, toxic masculinity and Las Vegas shootings, though all are very relevant topics, I thought I'd search for something a little different. A little more upbeat, perhaps. Well, sorry guys, but I didn't find it.
Instead I opened this article to read about Noel Conway, a 67-year-old retired lecturer who suffers from motor neurone disease and has been told he is unlikely to live beyond the next 12 months.
Motor neurone disease is a condition which affects the nerves in the brain and spinal cord. Gradually signals from the nerves stop reaching the muscles, leading to weakness and wasting. Other symptoms can include muscle cramps and spasms, pain and discomfort, speech problems and breathing difficulties. There is no cure, and the disease is ultimately terminal. Because the US are difficult and like to confuse everyone, their term for motor neurone disease is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS (remember that ice bucket challenge circling Facebook in 2014?) but both are synonymous conditions. Although it is considered a relatively rare disease (with up to 5,000 adults affected in the UK at any one time) it is still debilitating and can lead to an abominable quality of life.
Conway appealed to the high court for the law on assisted dying to be changed to allow him a 'peaceful and dignified' death. He was ruled against by three judges, though his case was supported by Humanists UK.
“I am told the only option I currently have is to effectively suffocate to death by choosing to remove my ventilator, which I am now dependent on to breathe for up to 22 hours a day. There is no way of knowing how long it would take me to die if I did this, or whether my suffering could be fully relieved. To me, this is not choice – this is cruelty.”
Assisted dying is legal in Switzerland, Canada, Columbia and various states in the US, but in the UK it is treated as a criminal offence to aid in someone's attempt to end their life. Though Conway's illness is terminal, and will only get worse over the coming year, the law forbids him from choosing when to end his life, and passing peacefully and safely rather than suffering in a 'zombie-like condition'.
One of the topics I am studying in Sociology is crime and deviance, so this story was immediately relevant to my interests as it posed an interesting question on whether acts deemed as 'criminal' are always evil and condemnable, and whether perhaps the terms of the law needs to be revisited in order to aid in cases like this, where a man so obviously suffering is being denied a dignified death. However, I ultimately decided to write about this story as it relates strongly to the upcoming film Breathe which I was given an opportunity to watch at the BFI last week. Both stories revolve around men with debilitating diseases (Conway with MND, Andrew Garfield's depiction of Robin Cavendish with polio) and their struggles to cope with their diagnoses. Both men consider suicide, and Cavendish only succeeded in an assisted suicide because a physician saw how much suffering he was enduring and broke the law to end his pain.
Assisted suicide is a bit of a grey area in my opinion, and I'm not sure where I stand on it. On one hand, cases like Conway's should be handled gently and empathetically, and I believe he should have the chance to pass away while still mentally sound in order that not only he is spared the pain of the progression of his illness but his family are spared the sight of a loved one's suffering. On the other hand, I think if assisted suicide was legalised across the board, I'm a bit too cynical to not consider the possibility that a handful of medical professionals might abuse their position of power, or adopt an 'angel of death' role which does more harm than good. I've been having this debate with myself for a couple of days now, and I still can't decide how I feel.
Religion and artificial intelligence. Two fascinating topics of conversation, two equally terrifying realities. This article from the Independent, written by technology editor Andrew Griffin, combines the two in an article written about the recent advances in AI technology.
My coursework this year centres around technology, science and the future, and this article seemed like a perfect introduction to this year's blogging analysis (and a possible source to be quoted in my research investigation). The quote in question is from Elon Musk, a pioneer in groundbreaking technology worth $21.3 billion dollars as of August 2017, whose current projects include building a hundred-megawatt lithium ion battery, developing an 'underground hyperloop' connecting Washington DC to New York and distributing clean-energy Tesla cars (some of which are self-driving) across the US. For a man who has given his life and soul to technology, his words are unsettling.
I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I had to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful with artificial intelligence. I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish. With artificial intelligence we’re summoning the demon.
To balance out the sensible words of Mr Musk, the article announces the founding of an organisation called Way of the Future. Led by Anthony Levandowski, the man responsible for Google's first self-driving car, the non-profit religious organisation 'appears to be something like a church devoted to the worship of artificial intelligence'. Griffin writes a sardonic account of the announcement with what little details have been released to the public - we're not even sure if the 'robot God' even exists yet - using a mocking tone and the stark contrast between Levandowski and Musk to express his cynicism of the new organisation. Though the details of the article are mostly factual, the simple introduction to the piece - 'Silicon Valley engineers are worshipping robots as gods' - sets up a narration just as ridiculous as its opening sentence.
This article intrigued me due to its title - since the late 19th century the key concepts of science and religion have been at war with each other (thanks, vague Sociology knowledge) so to see them together, along with the recognisable company name, was of immediate interest. Personally, although I know AI is, and will continue to be, a valuable development in our society, I can't help agreeing with Musk as to the dangers of artificial intelligence - especially not when robots are creating their own language to communicate, sex robots are in development and films like I, Robot keep being released and fuelling my nightmares.
People always talk about the western media being self-centred and ignorant of global issues, and I think this story makes the point particularly well. This article is from the 9th August last year, and was tucked away on the BBC News website under a niche section called 'Asian News'. It details the story of an Indian woman, Irom Sharmila, who has been protesting against security laws in Indian by undertaking a hunger strike for sixteen years.
Yes, you read that right. 16 years.
People in western countries undertaking short-term hunger strikes are reported on, with news institutes sympathising for the protesters and providing support towards their causes. I hadn't even heard about the Indian security laws until I came across this article, never mind this dedicated woman. The movement she had been so passionately protesting was the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which gives Indian soldiers authority to arrest people without a warrant, and even shoot to kill in some circumstances.
Not only did her protest go unnoticed by a proportion of the western population until recently, the Indian laws prevented her actions from gaining national traction by holding Sharmila under a law that makes attempting suicide a crime. Instead of listening to her protest, authorities made the decision to keep her in custody in a hospital, being force-fed in an attempt to keep her alive. She was released from custody in 2014, but re-arrested two days later when she refused to end her hunger strike. In August of last year, after sixteen years of no action being taken, she decided to break her fast by tasting honey (symbolic in India, as in history it has been given to a baby once being born, thus by making honey her first taste of food she symbolised being 'born again'). The only reason she broke her fast, the article says, is so that she is lawfully allowed to take part in local elections and protests in order to make her point a different way, in the hopes that her voice will this time be heard.
The way the Indian authorities have treated Sharmila is, in my opinion, barbaric, and reminiscent of the forceful treatment of the suffragettes in the early 20th century. Instead of being given the recognition that she needed to gain traction in society from the start, news reporters only began to show interest and report on her protest in 2014, 14 years after the beginning of her fast. It reflects poorly on the governing institutions in Asia, as well as representing women of colour as powerful individuals.
I chose this story as it ties in well with many other people's reports on the Woman's March in Washington this weekend, where many women showed their power and distain for the presidency and government by protesting in the masses (it is estimated that over 500,000 people turned up). Although both Sharmila and the Woman's March aimed to get their views heard by the authorities, the difference between their campaigns are drastic - Sharmila used peaceful, non-invasive methods of protest, while in Washington, although the Woman's March used peaceful techniques of using banners and chants to get their points across, the day before, isolated groups of activists opposing Trump used violent methods of protest, including setting fire to cars and demolishing storefronts. In my opinion, although peaceful protests often do not gain the same amount of media attention as violent techniques, protesters are far more likely to be taken seriously if they act rationally and in unity, rather than taking violent actions not unlike the techniques the police and government use that they are so ferociously protesting.
The story of the 200 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by a terrorist group was spread across every newspaper in 2014, and the news coverage continued as several of the girls managed to free themselves or were rescued from their captors over the next few months. Almost three years later, this story from the Daily Mail has reported on another girl who has been found by soldiers after she was seen wandering in the forest, and has been identified as one of the girls who were taken in 2014.
The terrorist group responsible for the kidnapping, Boko Haram (founded in 2002), is a militant Islamist group stationed in Nigeria which promotes a division of Islam which makes participating in Western culture (for example, voting in elections, and wearing Western-style clothes) forbidden. While its violent campaign began in Nigeria, they have extended their campaign over the years to neighbouring states. It is unusual, given the number of terrorist attacks over the past year, and the recent refugee intake by European countries, that a conservative institution such as the Daily Mail would choose not to comment on the Muslim influence of the group, as the traditionally right-wing approach towards practising Muslims is to condemn them and brand them all as terrorists. Upon reading this article I was surprised to find a marked absence of politically-charged Islamophobic comments, given that Boko Haram could be seen as the perfect example of the terrorists that the right-wing make Muslims out to be.
This news story comments on both the issue of racism and religion, and their view of children (in particular, girls). Although not much is explicitly stated about the girls, the context leaves the misogynistic views of Boko Haram implied, by referring to their kidnappings in 2014 which branded the Nigerian girls as inferior and indeed inhuman. The article comments on the slow disbandment of the terrorist group as members give themselves up to the government and the army, which could be seen as a positive representation of these particular people as they see 'the error of the ways'.
In my opinion, this story reports as positively as it could on the discovery of another free girl, and the partially successful actions of the government to break up the group. It uses facts and figures to enhance readers' understanding of the issue in Nigeria. However, a failing of the article is its lack of representation of the majority of the girls who it is unsure whether they are even still alive. This unfortunately represents the state of the media and general public - we have become desensitised to reports of terrorist attacks in non-Western countries due to their frequency, and events such as this and the many terrorist attacks in the Middle East are often skimmed over or ignored completely unless they directly threaten or concern us (like the terrorist attack in Paris in 2015).