“The imitation game”

Review  by Elena Pistolaki

With over a hundred nominations in movie awards around the globe, the “Imitation game” has surely intrigued and accomplished to draw the attention of millions of viewers. Based on Andrew Hodges’ 1983 biography “Alan Turing: The enigma”, the movie narrates the story of the mathematician Alan Turing, who encrypted, along with his team, the so-called unbreakable codes of Germany’s World War II Enigma machine, shortening the war by two years and saving by that millions of lives. His life though ends with suicide, after being convicted to “gross indecency”, accusations that refer to his homosexuality and was subjected to chemical castration, in exchange of not being sent to prison.

The opening scene puts us in 1951, when two detectives investigate the mathematician after an apparent break-in at his apartment. During his interrogation process, Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) tells off his time working at Bletchley Park. With flash-backs, that are being put strategically inside the narration, the director opens a window to Turing’s childhood, showing the bullying he was subjected to during school time and even his first romantic feelings, directed to Christopher Morcom, a classmate who sparked his interest in cryptography. The story goes on when Turing visits the Bletchley Park to take part in a highly classified program. He, along with his colleagues – Hugh Alexander (Matthew Good), John Cairncross (Allen Leech), Peter Hilton (Matthew Beard) and Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley) – try to encrypt the machine Enigma, a machine that was used by the Nazis to deliver coded messages about future attacks. Throughout this attempt, Alan Turing is being presented as an extraordinary person, of high intelligence but with an inability in social interaction and communication. Despite his “weird” character, Benedict Cumberbatch achieves to make Alan Turing not only likeable but also respected for his persistence and his intelligence. The script also contributes in forming this impression. Short but dense and meaningful dialogues depict exactly the brilliance of his mind, which was already ahead of his time.

The achievement of Turing and his team had been classified for more than 50 years and as a result, no one was recognized for his contribution during his lifetime. “Nora (Grossman) and I felt very passionately that there must be a way to honor a man who was so disrespected at his own time”, said Ido Ostrowsky about the point of view that he and his co-producer shared. In the attempt to capture the essence of Turing’s story, most of the scenes were shot at real places, in London mostly, which Alan Turing had visited and also the selected cast consists of British actors. One of the director’s (Morten Tyldum) little notes is that the camera never rises above Turing’s eye level, indicating and reminding that the whole story is being presented by his perspective.

After various difficulties that Turing and his team had faced, moral dilemmas and obstacles from his superiors who tried to degrade the whole project, they managed to encrypt the notorious Enigma machine. So far, the whole plot was built around the decoding of the machine, creating an atmosphere of agony and suspense. Nevertheless, other, minor themes occurred through this narration. The presence of a woman in the investigation team and the difficulties she had gone through in order to participate, depict the social discrimination that women went through in those years. Although Joan Clarke had passed the intelligence test, she could not participate in the program, until Alan Turing convinced her father that she wouldn’t work with men. He even proposed to her, in order to maintain her in the group, when her family asked her back home because she wasn’t married. And she accepted, despite the fact that she knew about Turing being homosexual. Seen from this angle, Clarke played a significant role in Turing’s life and Keira Knightley managed to transmit this complex but carrying emotional relationship to the viewers, without creating a doubt about its credibility and purity.

The investigations about Turing were conducted through the whole story, only to reveal that in the end, he was accused of indecency, due to his homosexual preferences and was convicted to chemical castration, as a form of punishment. It is estimated that around 49.000 men were convicted of consenting same-sex relations under the British gross indecency law, which was only repealed in 2003. So as the movie comes to its end, raises the issue of a man, who not only was recognized and honored for his tremendous contribution to humanity but instead, was deeply mistreated and humiliated due to his sexual preferences. The producing team has accomplished its goal. The movie depicts in the most modest and credible way the story of a man, whose extravagant and brilliant mind contributed to the ending of the war but not only was never recognized for that but in a cynical way punished for his nature, leading to his suicide.

Boyhood is Overrated. Is The Academy loosing its credibility?

Deniz Yazıcıoğlu

Every year, the same debates gain heat after the Oscar nominations are announced. Oscar´s show every year that they lack of appreciacion of real art in motion pictures and cannot really pass across the borders f USA. But just like everything, art is being commercialized. Despite accepting the fact that The Academy Awards is like Hollywood’s advocate, every year they dig their own grave of credibility. Boyhood is a good example of how Oscar’s are degenerating every year and it is a pity to see the Academy’s diminishing role in the movie sector.I never watch a movie just because it is nominated for Oscars, because, I always thought that the release dates and marketing strategies and also the technical advancements used in the movies actually sells it. What I mean is, it’s rare for a movie that is released months before the Oscars will win or a movie that wasn’t marketed. Boyhood (2014) by Richard Linklater was a perfect example that proved me right. It was a bland movie about a six-year-old Mason Evans, growing up until he is eight-teen. It analyzes the topics of boyhood, adolescence, family and friend relationships through the six year of his life. What makes this movie different is it’s technical aspect, which is the casting, it stays the same. Yes, it is a production achievement because, despite the fact that it was filmed in six years, it did not loose continuity. Besides this reason, I believe that it is highly overrated. Boyhood has been nominated for: Best Director, Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Film Editing and I have something to say for all of them. First of all, I developed an eye for the technical aspects of movies. According to my erudition, there was nothing special about the shots at all. When I think of some cult movies and the other nominees like the Grand Budapest Hotel, I find nothing special about the compositions achieved. It lacked of close-ups and interesting angles that would have made the movie interesting and heart full. Maybe better techniques might have made the lusterless and uninteresting scenario a bit more understandable, but it even lacked of that. The scenario also lacked a message. Yes, it’s true that realist movies or any other movie doesn’t need a message to be successful but according to what this movie is trying to say, I didn’t feel connected to the character at all. As a twenty-one year old, my childhood is not that far away and this makes me more critical at this sense. I remember my childhood crystal clear, and even I get more thrilled from the stories I have when I tell them. The scenario lacked interest and feeling so much that it lost my attention very easily. Just spending more then ten years and filming with the same cast is not enough for a movie to be successful. Yes, it is a technical accomplishment; it truly is because it is very hard to keep track of the continuity of every aspect of production as well as the cast’s acting. For this feature, they do have a right to be nominated for best editing. When we look at the over all editing, it is a success because you never feel like you are watching a movie that was shot in twelve years and this is a great accomplishment. The character’s acting, at the other hand, doesn’t change as well which adds to its success. All this brings us to the question that : Who is The Academy? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) is an organization dedicated to motion pictures. It was formed at 1927, Beverly Hills USA. It is consists of more than 6000 motion picture professionals that are mostly based in the States. A list of names of who all members are all not published but the board members of the branches are listed on their website. According to a report published at 2012 on LA Times “Unmasking the Academy: Oscar voters overwhelmingly white ,male” the members are 94% white, 77% male, 86% age 50 or older, and, 33% of members are previous winners or nominees of Academy Awards themselves. It´s lack of diversity has always been a problem throughout the years and the nominations of Boyhood reminded me of these discussions. How can we expect appreciation of arts in cinema from a corporation based in America and consist of mainly white males that are governed by the publicity director of Paramount Pictures?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys-mbHXyWX4

Jane the Virgin’, a confrontation between two worlds that will make you laugh out loud. A revolution of comedy genre

A criticism of ‘Jane the Virgin’, a CW series

Georgina Boixereu Vozmediano

This 2015 is going to be the Jane the Virgin year. This January the show has renewed for a second season in the USA, and the main actress of the series, Gina Rodríguez, has been awarded with theGolden Globe to the Best Actress in Television Series Musical or Comedy. Seen the success thisshow has had, Canal Plus España has decided to start emitting it this past January the 24th. From then on, we have been able to see the first three chapters, but it has been enough to see that the success it has had is hugely deserved.

This series has become very popular and the critics are really positive. For example, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes has given a 100% ‘fresh’, which means that all the reviews that have been made (a total of 46) are positive. This website also shows the opinion of the audience: an 85% of users liked the first season, and they gave 4.2 over 5 points to the show. Another example comes from theTime magazine, which praise the rhythm and “sense of play” that the series has, and concludes that Jane the Virgin “is the keeper of this fall season”. But, taking into account that lots of comedies are made every year, why is this so interesting? What is different in this series and what makes it special?

First of all, although this series is a comedy, it is far from being a usual comedy. We could say that this series is similar to Devious Maids as the characters, the situations and even sometimes the style are alike. But there is a big difference between these two series, and that is the taunt point that wraps everything in Jane the Virgin. We can neither compare this show to a typical comedy like Modern Family, because the kind of humour is very different. In Jane the Virgin they don’t try to make you laugh with jokes or elaborated dialogues but with possible and real situations, although they are not common at all. These situations are based in a confrontation between two worlds, two ways of seeing life that are personified in the two main characters of the series: Jane Villanueva and Rafael Solano.

So we have, in one hand, Jane Villanueva, who is a good, kind and religious woman whose objective is not to commit the same mistakes her mother did (have a baby very young, not having an structured family…). Jane represents the world of de goodness, innocence and devotion to god. In the other hand we have Rafael Solano, who is rich, owns a hotel and was a Playboy in the past. Rafael represents the world of the parties, the misspending and the high class. The relationship between these two characters is the main point of the series, and although there are minor characters who also play an interesting and important role, Jane and Rafael make this story a kind of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. That is a man and a woman coming from two opposed worlds, from two opposite classes who will fall in love. As in Shakespeare’s play, people near these two characters won’t allow their love to end happily… But what firstly seemed an impossible love ends being something, at least, possible.

Maybe the image that defines best the relationship between the two main characters, and the relationship between these two worlds, is that while Rafael is drinking a cocktail in a luxurious party in his hotel Jane is working as a waitress. But not only the social class makes the difference between these two characters, their ideas related to sexuality or family are also very different. Jane is a virgin and religious woman who doesn’t say a lie and will never betray his family as she loves them like nothing else. Meanwhile, Rafael has a Playboy past, has problems with his father and doesn’t even love his wife.

But if one thing is different between this series and ‘Romeo and Juliet’ is that the story we are talking about is nothing but a comedy. Of course it has some romantic moments and dramatic scenes, but there is always a point of humour. This point of humour usually comes from the ideas of Jane, as his religious and spiritual thing clash with the society she lives in and makes the dialogues and situations really funny.

But how real is the plot of this series? How real are those two worlds we are talking about? Maybe we need to think about the America of Hollywood and then think in the America of workers. The America of Hollywood is a world full of champagne, beautiful dresses and a party every weekend. The other America is a world full of work, savings and problems to pay the bills. This series mixes up these two worlds with a funny and addictive result which leaves no one indiffent.

Disconnected in an interconnected world – Men, women & Children

Harneet Bahal

In today’s day and age, we’re all wired to our laptops, cell phones, social-media accounts, texting and tweeting to hundreds of strangers whom we have never met and never will. The innocence of childhood words such as ‘like’, ‘share’ and ‘friend’ have been tarnished in this prevailing cyber culture that has turned real life into a second-rate existence. It is this complex world that Jason Reitman’s movie, Men, Women and Children, seeks to explore and understand.

Adapted from a 2011 novel by Chad Kultgen, Men, Women and Children seeks to show how 21st Century lives are dependent on the web. Teens get bombarded with adult material unimaginable to their parents at the same age, while grownups are infantilized and lured into digital arenas of fantasy and irresponsibility. There is a teenager who becomes insensitive by porn, a girl who is badly influenced by pro-anorexia forums and another who values her self worth on the basis of the number of followers she has on social media. Their parents on the other hand, are no better. They are having online affairs, conspiring to profit from their children’s exploitation, and are using technology to monitor their children’s every action. Jason Reitman’s film spans across six linked storylines in which numerous disturbed individuals from the same Texan section of society struggle with the desolation of love and sex in our modern, interconnected world. In essence the film is about the way technology is ruining out lives and how it has murdered intimacy.

Jason Reitman’s fifth film is an interesting yet failed attempt at tyring to tackle the issue of cyber culture and to set it to rest. The film is both a melodramatic exaggeration of the reality of web addiction, and also a cautionary warning. The movie begins unfolding with a series of loosely connected tales of the characters lives on the dangers of extreme mobile, social media and internet use. Men, Women and Children is a film which wants to make an imposing and deep statement about where society stands today. It seeks to emphasize how modern technology has affected human relationships by showing how the tools which were designed to bring people together have instead driven them futher into their own individual bubbles of video games, pornography and social media. However, even though this film has a potentially interesting premise, Reitman’s diagnosis of today’s internet culture is preachy and similar to all other movies based on the same themes. Nearly all the characters created in the script are unlikeable and uninteresting and so it becomes difficult to worry about what happes to them during the course of the movie. One remarkably good feature of the film is the standout tech contribution with smoothly incorporated pop-up graphics like texts and facebook messages, which feels smart and fresh.

Based on the tightly constricted character outlines, it would be unfair to say that there is a weak link among the actors of the film. The (bad efforts) squanders the efforts of a strong and telented cast which struggles to make this movie worthwhile. Adam Sandler particularly stands out and shows that he has the makings of a fine dramatic actor. Strong performances are also delivered by the adolescent cast from the likes of Ansel Elgort and Kaitlyn Dever whose storyline goes beyond the stereotype of the virtual world.

Men, Women and Children is an inflated display of an atomized society but it is not as perceptive, honest or spirited as Reitman’s earlier, better films such as Juno or Young Adult. This film brings forth the question of where exactly the director of such brilliant movies in the past is going so wrong, and if in a desperate attempt to direct something profound about social issues he is getting lost in clichés. In the past, Jason Reitman has proven to be an impressive social satirist and an empathic storyteller, yet he fails to grasp this movie with the strong and affirmative grip he usually has.

For an understanding of how vastly the internet affects our lives today one can simply view a Youtube compilation simply showing the sheer panic people experience when they cannot get a mobile signal or internet access. Our world has reached the point where one cannot survive a few minutes without glimpsing down at their cellphones or taking a ‘selfie’ to share on social networking sites. There are sharp moments of alienation and fear throughout the movie, especially those moments which expose how our attachments to the virtual world are destroying our relationships and are turning us into a race obsessed with the internet. As several characters are sent wheeling towards disaster at the peril of cyber culture, the filmmakers want the audience to shake their heads at the screen in self realization of the similarity of the characters to each one of us. In one of the opening scenes of the film there are around fifty high school students walking along the corridors during recess and every single one of them is either talking or texting on a phone. This movie introduces us to individuals world over who are searching for compassion in a cold tangle of technology and serves as a wake up call to the ways technology is ruining our relationships and expectations.

Men, Women and Children talks about a world we are very accustomed to and this isn’t the first time a movie has used the themes of cyber culture and technology as it’s storyline. As a film dedicated to the concept that even though today’s society may be more personally connected, it has never been more emotionally disconnected as it is in this technological era. There are flashing moments during the film when we do not feel superior to the characters but recognize them. It reiterates that we may recognize such characters when walking down the street, across the restaurant or maybe even in ourselves and even the film does not pass on this message in the best of ways, it is an important message to remember nonetheless. In an age where we’re more connected to others than ever, why are we all still so lonely? Through Men, Women and Children, Reitner’s answer to this question is clichéd and predictable. In the end, although there is a basis for subject matter to be discussed within the narrative of Men, Women and Children, due to its presentation the message gets lost in the noise.

The Hobbit – The Battle of Five Armies

Leah Ring

A children’s tale destroyed by the modern age of commercialism

The Hobbit was first published in 1937. It was a children’s fantasy story based around the character of Bilbo Baggins, a quiet and unassuming hero. J.R.R. Tolkien created the world of Middle Earth while working as professor in England. Here The Hobbit and subsequently the Lord of the Rings were born. The Hobbit is a classic adventure story written specifically for children, whereas The Lord of the Rings is a complicated trilogy aimed at an older audience, something Tolkien dedicated seventeen years of his life to.

The Hobbit follows a pattern similar to many older children’s tales. Bilbo Baggins shies away from adventure his whole life, remaining safe and secure in his own home until one day he leaves to find the world. This represents the coming of age of all children, when they eventually have to face the real world and discover it for themselves, away from the security of home.

The novels were extremely popular when first released but J.R.R. Tolkien’s name reached new fame when writer/director Peter Jackson created The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring in 2001. The trilogy was an enormous success. In 2012, the first of three films entitled, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was released. This short book was split to create three films of epic length, with enormous budgets and a star studded cast. It is close to impossible to compare these to the 300 page children’s classic that Tolkien wrote in 1937. The Hobbit was told from Bilbo Baggins childlike point of view, something that has been lost completely in the big budget Hollywood productions that have been created.

Characters have been added, stories extended and Hollywood has seeped into this children’s tale, with romance and action being first and foremost to the film. Special effects and graphics play a major role, rather than the story itself. Since the first film’s release new editions of the original book have been released, keychains with actor’s faces on them, book bags, figurines, all kinds of everything is for sale with “The Hobbit” brandished across them. Three films, each of almost 2 hours and 30 minutes in length were created to portray a book just 300 pages in length.

The last of the three films, The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies was released in cinemas last December. It made $54,724,334 its first weekend in the box office and the Hobbit mechanise was a top seller this Christmas. This brings into question the film and novel industry. Has this novel and its beauty, innocence and simplicity been lost completely in favour of commercialism and profit? The multi-million dollar brand began as a simple novel in the 1930s and it is an example of the modern world. Everything has become a business opportunity. Nothing now is just a book, just a story, it has all become larger. This is not the only example of this, Harry Potter and the Chronicles of Narnia are huge profitable brands now. Art is no longer just art, a children’s tale is no longer just something to be told and enjoyed but now represents a business opportunity.

This brings into question the beliefs and hopes of the author when they first produced their work. J.R.R.Tolkien was willing to allow his book become a film, illustrated by the fact that he sold the movie rights for The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit to United Artists in 1969, but he was only willing to sell under the right circumstances.

In 1957 three American businessmen proposed an animated version to J.R.R. Tolkien. He said, “I should welcome the idea of an animated motion picture, with all the risk of vulgarization; and that quite apart from the glint of money, though on the brink of retirement that is not an unpleasant possibility,” (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter No. 198) however he found their offer did not portray his books as he had wished.

However J.R.R. Tolkien’s only living son, Christopher Tolkien, told the French newspaper Le Monde in July 2012, “They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25, and it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film.”

He feels that his father would not have been happy with the manner in which his books were dealt with and what they have become.

“Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time,” Christopher Tolkien said, “The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away.”

Christopher Tolkien forced Warner Bros to stop making Lord of the Rings slot machines, and has prevented the creation of an amusement park. The Tolkien family do not wish to release any of the author’s work to Warner Bros to allow them to create more films.

Writer-director Peter Jackson’s decision to turn J.R.R. Tolkien’s children’s novel The Hobbit into an epic trilogy to compete with his The Lord of the Rings adaptation seems an unnecessary one, something some belief was driven by profit.

Bryan Bishop of The Verge wrote, “When The Desolation of Smaug is at its best, you can almost glimpse the sleeker, more straightforward adaptation of The Hobbit that could have been,” explaining what this children’s adventure tale had the potential to be.

Even the more liberal of thinkers feel the latest adaptation of Tolkien’s work has gone too far. It seems it is no longer Tolkien’s Middle Earth, but a new world created by Hollywood and driven by profit.

The Bloody (and naked) Game of Thrones

Amy McCready

Fire-breathing dragons, sword fights to the death, scantily clad females and lots of sex. This may seem like the perfect formula for a television show targeted at pubescent teenage boys, but the show that’s had the world talking for the past 4 years has created fans of all ages and equally both genders. The Game of Thrones phenomenon has had its buzz revived recently as the season 5 premiere on April 12^th draws closer and there is little change to the extent of some fans’ obsession with the show; based on George R.R Martin’s unfinished fantasy novel series. Last year, a Belgian maths teacher threatened his unruly class with spoilers, if they continued to misbehave, “I’ve read all the books,” he told the class. “If there is too much noise, I will write the name of the dead on the board. They are enough to fill the whole year and I can even describe how they die.” Bit of a far-fetched disciplinary action, but apparently it worked. With explicit scenes set in brothels, beheadings, and a ‘red wedding’ that disturbed viewers around the world –Let’s not elaborate on that- it really is no wonder that the successful show and Martin, the mind behind it, have been subjected to scrutiny from worried spectators over the effect this will have on younger generations; who will continue to watch this adult fantasy series no matter how hard parents may try to prevent them.

It is evident that we live in a media-defined world. In today’s culture, people are exposed to a vast number of representations distributed through different media forms which affect their ideology, their sense of self and views upon the universe. So much so, that there is a tiresome but needed ongoing debate concerning whether on-screen violence has any connection to real-life violence and unintentionally influences viewers’ behaviour into being aggressive and possibly harmful. A large portion of viewers begin an episode of Game of Thrones with a sort of nauseating apprehension over the inevitable brutality to come in the next 50 odd minutes of television, I am guilty of feeling as such. So why does this gruesome fantasy world appeal to myself and so many others? “It has been at times exaggerated, and exaggerated beyond what I personally find comfortable” admitted Elio Garcia, founder of the popular and aptly named GoT fan site ‘Westeros’. “With that said, I’m sure it’s part of what appeals to some of the viewership.” Oberyn Tyrell, one of the most popular characters from the last season was given the grotesque honour of having the most explicitly stomach-churning on-screen death most viewers have ever seen; the scene temporarily traumatized the world but fans returned to their sofas for the following episode, with uncertainty and excitement for what was to come next. In my defence, I took a brief hiatus from the show as a result of this hideous, mind-blowing scene (excuse the pun) but it didn´t take too long before I felt the buzz that the rest of the world did to see the fate of our favourite Tyrion and co; I guess I’m addicted to the thrill.

Sex has been a key feature in the show from the offset, with an abundance of prostitute characters functioning like furniture on a set, it is also frequently shown in scenes where it seems unfitting or unnecessary. “It’s often there not as an organic thing, but as simply a part of the way pay cable does business.” Garcia commented. “Consider how much of the nudity is provided not by lead actors in the course of character or plot-developing interactions, but by nameless extras, many of them drawn from the pornography industry.” A surprising reaction, perhaps, since Garcia must undoubtedly be an avid fan of the fantasy series. As a heterosexual female viewer I definitely don´t tune in to see naked females but I must confess; I´ve almost developed an immunity to their presence, like they are meant to be a part of the backdrop. This is a personal approach that I´m not proud of but I´m still passionately opposed to the underlying theme of rape. Maybe Garcia´s viewpoint suggests that the vast majority of fans tune in for the complexity of the characters and the diverse story lines; choosing to look past the gore and debauchery?

Even if this is the case, organisations devoted to protecting young people from indecent media exposure are still opposed to this excessive nakedness and bloodshed and are concerned with the possibility of desensitization and the encouragement of female objectification. Miranda Suit, co-founder of Safermedia, a UK charity which aims to reduce the harmful effects of the media, has expressed her worries over negative influences on young girls from these sexual female portrayals within the show. “What are they learning from some of these storylines? That what most men want is their body and handing it over is one of the easiest ways to get their attention. This does a great disservice to both men and women.” This fear of “handing [their bodies] over” is likely reinforced by the uncomfortable impression GoT gives, that if you are female, no matter what age, you are a sexual object there to be used by the dominant male.

But what does Mr George R.R Martin think of all of this? He is, after all, the mind behind the story; is he aware his exploration of sex seems to only satisfy male desires? No, not at all, quite the contrary in fact. The some-what questionable self-proclaimed “feminist at heart” has fought back at angry letters claiming his graphic descriptions of sex acts are disturbing and unnecessary. “I can describe an axe entering a human skull in great explicit detail and no one will blink twice at it. I provide a similar description, just as detailed, of a penis entering a vagina, and I get letters about it and people swearing off”. “To me being a feminist is about treating men and women the same,”he added. “I regard men and women as all human – yes there are differences, but many of those differences are created by the culture that we live in, whether it’s the medieval culture of Westeros, or 21st century western culture.”. This is undoubtedly a hypocritical statement to anyone who has ever watched a single episode of the series. Martin continues to brush off scrutiny by claiming sex is just an act of human nature and should be explored within television; avoiding the taboo area of rape that is so prevalent on the show.

“Some vivid representations of violence may not have negative but positive effects in the revulsion they invite us to feel, for example at certain kinds of assault, or military power, or bullying.” (Branston and Stafford, The Media Student’s Book, 2010). The pair of academics highlight the important and often ignored fact that audiences are vast and varied and not everyone reacts similarly to the same things; their viewpoint can also be applied to GoT’s gratuitous nudity and rape connotations. If television programmes and films were consistently positive and one dimensional then young viewers would be less informed about the shitty goings-on in the world and would forgivably find it harder to cope in negative situations. What needs to be remembered, however, is that young teenage viewers do not necessarily trust what they see on-screen, they are film & TV-literate, and often highly critical consumers. These ideas give myself, and other worried viewers some comfort. Game of Thrones will, without question, continue to be brutally and sexually explicit, but young viewers can watch the show knowing the world of Westeros is to be pitied and found shocking. Such horrible events take place within the show that very few fans will wish they were a part of it and I certainly am thankful to be here in the 21^st century, but the show is entertaining; through its dynamic range of characters and lack of predictability. It deserves its influx of success.

Cinema is more than an entertaining plot

Amelie Martinez

Criticism of THE FRAME (2014) by Jamin Winans

Going to the cinema sometimes feels like a waste of time. Watching the last trendy movie seems to be a good idea but you almost always eventually end feeling disappointed by the emptiness of the script, having wasted two hours of your short life as a human-being. However, Cinema appears to be considered as the 7th Art, and you still don’t understand why.

The Frame is the kind of movie that makes you understands why. This is a movie like I’ve never had the chance to watch before. You might find the initial story a little bit simple, however as the film goes on you become strangely obsessed and fascinated by what the American director Jamin Winans succeeds to propose. And here bumps into your mind the reason why Cinema is not that overrated.

Alex is a hearted criminal, working for a dangerous cartel while Sam is a first aid worker with a difficult past. These two strangers get to meet each other in a really puzzling way which makes their lives change radically. In this movie, time and space are shaken, bringing us into the confines of a world that is ours but that we do not recognize anymore. Difficult to say more without spoiling, what is certain is that this film is both intriguing and fascinating.

Jamin Winans is a young director which has made himself a name thanks to the movie INK (2009) a science fiction fantasy production relating the story of a creature stealing child’s soul in order to join a group responsible for creating nightmares. What both movies have in common, which is also the director’s stamp, is the creation of a world inside our reality. This world is always a little bit strange and dark and full of supernatural elements. Creating a transfigured reality allows the director to make the viewer question his knowledge about his own environment. In The Frame, the two characters seem to be true in their behaviors and reactions, making the identification to them easier and leaving the frontier between reality and fiction even more blurred. This process is current in the audiovisual world, we could mention the British television anthology Black Mirror which will is to create a complete different world and plot for each episode. Every time, imagination goes over logic and traditional cohesion.

More than the creation of a new world, Cinema is also the place where aesthetic can become a tool as well as the very first material of the cultural production. When we take the example of Terrence Malick’s movies for instance, as the Tree of life or To the Wonder, these productions could be considered as more enjoyable from an aesthetic perspective than for their simple plot. Some people will tend to say these films are more beautiful than interesting or entertaining. However, we could ask ourselves to what extent does a cultural product has to focus on the entertaining capitalist industrial purpose rather than the aesthetic artistic side. Moreover, beauty doesn’t mean lack of meaning, sometimes both being commingled. Nevertheless, The Frame seems to manage combining both by entertaining the viewers with deep characters and spectacular scenes, while offering a significant beauty in its visual at the same time.

Watching the trailer of The Frame won’t allow you to learn more about the movie itself, and that’s one of the main point of Jamin Winans’ approach but also one of the main features of the 7th Art. The viewers have to understand, think, interpret and evaluate the production by their self. At the end of the movie, you are left without any answers, as if you had to discover the truth by yourself, or as if there wasn’t any way to be sure of anything. This process has often been seen in movies such as Shutter Island (Martin Scorsese, 2010) or Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010). In this sense, The Frame questions the viewer about destiny and free will but also brings concepts such as love or human-nature. The idea of cinema as a mean to think is even literally brought by the character of Alex in Jamin Winans’ movie when he says: “Nothing is a miracle, not if you look close enough.”

As Jamin says, ” With The Frame, the basic theme is (…) the existence of God. If God exists, why does it appear that He’s abandoned us? With so many horrible things going on in the world, how can you possibly justify the belief in a benevolent God? That’s a big thing that’s haunted me my entire life. Being called a science-fiction or fantasy filmmaker wouldn’t offend me at all — that’s what I’ve been doing. But I’d rather someone saw one of my films and thought, ‘That’s, you know, a Jamin thing.'” His will is to be recognized for his capacity to use cinema as a way to transfigure reality and question life, and not for having created a mere good plot.

This kind of production contradicts Theodor Adorno and Horkeimer theories stating that the cultural industries, phenomenon of late capitalism, were engendering products designed to satisfy the growing needs of mass capitalistic consumers for entertainment. Adorno specifically mentioned that the term “cultural industry” was chosen over “mass culture” in order to distinguish it from something that could have been spontaneously stemming from the masses themselves.

Eventually, we can’t compare a deep philosophical Terrence Malick movie and the last Sex and the City as we are not evaluating the same elements (according to the Cultural Studies, Sex and the city would have to be understood on a sociological scale, saying something about our society). However, movie such as The Frame makes us question the opposition between cinema as an Art or as another product for the Cultural Industry. Maybe the key is that these new types of movie are a combination of both.

The ‘Son of a Gun’ of Australian Films

Rochelle Bath

Written and directed by Julius Avery, Son of a Gun is an aspiring Australian crime drama made to compete in Hollywood that unfortunately misses its mark. Set in the gold mines, beach resorts and skanky motels of Western Australia, the film tells of young JR (Brenton Thwaites), locked up for a misdemeanour, becomes the apprentice to the country’s most feared armed robber Brendan Lynch (Ewan McGregor). After surviving the horrors of imprisonment thanks to the help of Lynch and his crew, JR’s debt persists into the real world and he quickly learns the chess-like life of the criminal domain. If you lose control of yourself, you become the pawn of a dangerous and inescapable game. Avery having won international awards for short film Jerrycan back in 2008, his feature debut in larger projects like Son of a Gun hasn’t received such acclaim. In this critique I will argue why Australian film writers and directors, like Avery, have failed to use the unique platform of Australian art to instead trend towards replicating that Hollywood touch. I will use Son of a Gun to detail how this has occurred and explain why Australian films should stick to focusing on making films for Australian audiences rather than world audiences, such as American audiences.

Australia’s unique Film industry

The culture of filmmaking in Australia is very different arena, compared to other countries. We aren’t known for our film making and the market is a perfect replica of this. Our first major film outbreak, that I can remember as a child, was the Crocodile Dundee movies that illustrated the complete opposite to what society was really like in Australia. I believe Australians only watched it because they wanted to primarily have a laugh and to see how the directors wanted the rest of the world to see Australia. In recent years, Australia has produced many exceptional movies, including Animal Kingdom (2010) and The Square (2008). Yet, nothing has really dinted global film platforms. In contrast, we are one of the world’s biggest illegal downloader’s of films, TV series and games. Surprisingly, Australians lead the world in the most illegal downloads for the TV series Game of Thrones when its fourth season was released in April last year. What this indicates is that Australian’s do not trust their own film industry and instead reach out to others.

Avery’s aspirations for stardom

In saying this, Australian film writers and directors are recognising this trend and adapting their work to suit profitability. According to The Australian newspaper, Son of a Gun is a clear example of the issues facing local films. Avery is un-Australian in his ambition and clearly wants to contend with the American crime thrillers on their own terms. Difference is he doesn’t have the budget to really compete in such an industry. Look at hot shot crime dramas like The Equalizer (2014), The Gambler (2014), and Baby (2015). All of which have the budget, the cast, the setting and a concrete platform for the films to easily make box office. On a positive note, the film features a number of Australian aspects both creatively and strategically. For instance, the landscape is definitely on cue with the beautiful portrayal of Australian beaches, rustic gold mines, dirty pubs and uninviting motel scenes. It also demonstrates the Australian culture of swearing, mullet haircuts and 4 wheel-driving to perfection! These “Aussie” features of the film make it attractive to Australians because it is both familiar (for those who know country culture) and interesting (for those who are not familiar with country culture). For audiences outside of Australia, Son of a Gun presents something unusual and in some forms exotic. This makes it attractive to them also. However, there are several times when Avery’s vision is influenced by his ambitions to make it big in Hollywood. And this ultimately affects the film’s rawness, per se. The drawn out relationship fiasco between JR and Tasha (Alicia Vikander) and the cliché action scenes are an explicit example of this. Without this Hollywood touch, Son of a Gun could have advocated a fresh country crime thriller, sweeping the film industry both in Australia and other parts of the world. Adding to this, many reviews have so far compared Son of a Gun to the US film Starred Up (2013), saying it’s just another take but given greater focus on what happens outside the prison. This is another pattern Australian director’s take in trying to gain stardom in the global film industry.

An underlying paradox in Australian filmmaking

Now I don’t blame Australian directors for adapting their work to suits American audiences for productivity purposes, but I’m frustrated when they do this and create unrealistic representations of Australia. Lucky for Avery, this hasn’t been as noticeable to other films such as the 2008 film Australia which was absolutely ridiculous! However, a paradox does lie at play here. Australians don’t trust Australian films, so they aren’t watched and as a result they don’t create a sufficient market for producers. Australian films are therefore altered to suit (mainly) American audiences, because that way producers can cash in from both American and Australian viewers as they then trust it. In saying this, I believe the urgency towards genre filmmaking in Australia is slightly misguided and going completely unnoticed. Yes, it is great for directors, like Avery, who are receiving their golden ticket to the higher society of Hollywood, and for producers who can make low-budget films that can be sold internationally. Yet, the paradox continues to occur. We aren’t embracing the talent of our own genre films, and this is subsequently changing the style and the market of Australian filmmaking.

Despite these critiques, Son of a Gun provides a clenching thrill ride with revelations, wit and no small amount of heart that will establish a promising future for Avery as a director. His fruitful use of the West Australian landscape upon a storyline of a subtly different kind of Australian criminal scene, is very enjoyable. His efforts entering into a difficult industry is most commendable. However, it ends like so many other Australian films: unwatched, unnoticed and under-appreciated.

Humanity vs. Money

Yasin Akar

Imagine that you have suffered but survived a depression and want to turn back to your work. Once you start, the company realize that they can run their business without you. What would you do?

In the Belgian movie Two Days, One Night you will follow Sandra (Marion Cotillard) that face the situation mentioned above. She has 16 colleagues that she has to convince to vote for her stay and not for their annual bonus of 1,000 Euro. During a weekend her journey begin with visits of every colleague because at Monday morning the voting will be declared – if she stays or not.

With her husbands support Sandra’s aims become to make her colleagues understand her horrible situation. Once Sandra has knocked on some doors and spoke to some, she realizes that it will not be easy to convince people to abstain from their bonus. Sandra will also understand that her reality is always not like others and that she is not the only one that suffers in life. Most of her negative colleagues argue about their economic situation and their need of bonus in order to survive.

We always talk about humanity and how people should treat their fellows, as they want to be treated. Does humanity disappear when money is included in the situation? This movie could be monotonous for some people but is has a message. A message that is given by famous film-makers Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne, more known as Dardenne brothers. Dardenne brothers that write, direct and produce films together have won Palme d’Or twice, which make them special as only six other directors as Alf Sjöberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Bille August, Emir Kusturica, Shohei Imamura and Michael Haneke. Palme d’Or (Golden Palm) is the highest price you can earn in the Cannes Film Festival, and if you have won it twice it is stating that you are a remarkable director.

Dardenne brothers normally cast unprofessional actors but for Two Days, One night they made an exception and let Marion Cotillard play the main character. Cotillard is known as a price winning person since she has won a BAFTA, Golden Globe and César, which makes her professional and well known. Cotillard was even nominated for Oscars for her role as Sandra in Two Days, One Night. With these circumstances, having award winning directors and actors you could expect that this movie will be spectacular. This film is only one of Dardenne brothers popular movies, to mention others like: Rosetta (1999), The Son (2002), The Child (2005) and The Kid With a Bike (2011).

In Two Days, One Night you can observe that Dardenne brothers have a special point of view that can also be seen in their other films. They often use hand-held cameras and the way the story is told is unique. There are no other bi-subjects or an enormous deep in Two Days, One Night. To be clear, it is about a woman’s struggle to not get unemployed. Maybe this is what makes Dardenne brothers unique and different from other directors. The recognition factor could be the reason why the movie succeeds because every woman could stand in Sandra’s shoes or every husband could be the supporting man.

The movie lead you to get to know 16 different families that summarize very well the communities we live in. There are families that have economic, personal or relational problems. We are getting to know people that are compatible, selfish or aggressive during the movie. Two Days, One Night touches those important social issues we have on a brilliant way. It makes you to start think when most of movies nowadays don’t. The society Sandra lives in exists in our life and you will wonder during watching the movie what would happen in “real-life” when the movie actually reflects the real life in an appropriate way.

But, in real life how would you react? Would you react as a selfish person that doesn’t care of someone else or as a human? Does money actually make you happier than helping others? This movie with its simple story evokes many questions about life and the society we live in. You can’t even blame people that want their bonus instead of making their co-worker satisfied. In our society there exists, as inhumanity, economical issues. Who would you blame then? The company? Sandra herself? Sandra that wanted to take suicide when she could not fight more? It doesn’t matter who you blame, in the end it will deal with the battle between humanity and money. And you should always try to be the one that choose humanity because we are human and not consisted of money.

As Peter Bradshaw and Xan Brook argue in The Guardian I agree that this movie treat topics like solidarity and hope. In fact, when Sandra is strolling from door to door she carries her hope with her and expects solidarity from others. In some cases she has to show solidarity and satisfy others hope but it is not easy when you think that you have it worse than others. One common question that Sandra had to answer and made me wonder a little bit was if other colleagues were going to vote for her or not. This means that people are always thinking collective and doesn’t want to be odd and always be suitable. The contradictory is though that we think collectively but not acting for everyone’s best. If people were collectively thinking everyone would vote for Sandra’s best.

The conclusion will then be that, we should give credit to Marion Cottilard and Dardenne brothers. Last but not least, no credit to humans because money will compete humanity in this type of world.

‘House of Leaves’ by Mark Z. Danielewski: The Book and the House, by themselves

Marc Montull

When presenting his ‘House of Leaves’, Mark Z. Danielewski often remembers an anecdote, which somehow defines what the book is and what it is not: “I was in a museum when a man approached me and asked if I was the author of ‘House of Leaves’. He had not read the book but wanted to thank me because her daughter had recently attempted suicide and once in the hospital she only asked for one thing: a copy of ‘House of Leaves’. He told me that after reading it she reconciled with the world and decided to live”.

Danielewski’s book may have saved a woman’s life, just how art does. ‘House of Leaves’ can be thereby many things, from a neo-gothic fiction to a postmodern construct, but at the end it goes beyond all these: it is a huge story of life and love, written and designed to be at the same time a book about books, pure metaliterature.