Top 10 Best Moments from Game of Thrones Series 4

Season 4 is over and y'all have 10 months to wait for the next portion of Game of Thrones. Normally very bleak and often very frustrating, nonetheless this season was packed with suprises, character development and some truly delicious moments. Here is my countdown of the top 10. 

10. Pod, Brienne and a little bit of Hot Pie. (not a porno (yet))

Game of Thrones is famous for its quirky double acts (Tyrion and Bronn, Jaime and Brienne, Arya and the Hound) and the combo of Brienne of Tarth and Podrick Payne was such fun. I think I speak for everyone when I say that adorable scene with Hot Pie explaining about the gravy and bequeathing Brienne with a direwolf-shaped biscuit was a little bubble of happiness in the otherwise miserable world of Westeros. 

9. daario kills the champ 

I don't like Daario - and let us not mention Daenerys after a season of the worst decision making of all time - but you have to admit, Minister, he's got style. 

8. The hound loves chicken.

A moment of silence for our (presumably) fallen brother, Sandor Clegane. Besides giving us some swell quotes - "what the fuck's a Lommy?"; "Lots of people name their swords", "lots of c*nts" - the character really sparkled when he got a whiff of cooked chicken. That hanger (hungry anger) right there.






7. Valar Morghulis

Arya is my gurl. Her and needle are going on a little adventure to Braavos and I cannae bloody wait. She's so going to return with an army of waterdancing Syrios and win everything. 



6. Stannis becomes useful. 



(this amazing gif is from shitroulette on Tumblr)

Lezbehonest, Stannis so far has been a mopey piece of dull sandwich. I'm just talking from a  show perspective, here, I know the Mannis has a lot of bookreading fans. Apart from getting Melisandre to put leeches on people's penises and getting Melisandre to bear murderous shadow creatures from her vaj, Stan has done nowt but look like a surly teenager at a family gathering the whole time. FINALLY, though - it only took four series' - Stannis rocks up at the wall to lend a hand to the real fight of Westeros. 

I would also like to lump episode 9 'The Watchers on the Wall' into this moment. Wasn't that just awesome? Giants. On Mammoths. 

5. The demise of poor Joff. 

DON'T LIE. You loved to hate Joffrey I AM THE KING Lannister *ahem* Barathean. He was such a fantastic bad guy, the epitome of a spoilt brat. "The things he did shocked me. Do you think I'm easily shocked?" said mother Cersei. No Cersei, no we do not. 

He went down in style, though, showing us all what a fabulous little asshole he was. 



That swagger. 

4. Oberyn will be your hero, baby. 

There will forever be a hole in my heart for the sexy Prince of Dorne. I don't really want to talk about this much because I've got a bit of a headache from recent events (sorry) but, that moment when he says "I will be your champion". :')



3. Tywin has an unconventional father's day.

The demise of the Lannister patriarch in Episode 10 was juicy asf. After hearing straight up from his daughter that she had been having kids with her own brother (although come on, he definitely already knew), Poor old Tyty gets murdered by his other son on the shitter. Farewell, Charles Dance, you were the shit. 




2. Littlefinger shows Lysa where to go. 

Probably the most satisfying death of the series, this scene is just perfect. The way he dispassionately just saunters right up to old lactating Lysa, says to her "I've only loved one woman my whole life...your sister". BURN. Just such unabashed Littlefingerness. The internet plummeted into a moondoor of hilarity with that unfortunate lady. RIP Lysa, you weirdo.  

1. Tyrion's speech

I swear after watching Tyrion's trial speech every single person was like .....WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT. He just lost it. And it was bloody marvelous. "I've been on trial my whole life!". You go, Tyrion!  YOU CAN BE MY LION <3

So, do you agree with my list? Comment below what you would put on there. 

Avril's Hello Kitty is as Bad as Marrying That Guy from Nickleback

Avril Lavigne’s new music video for the song ‘Hello Kitty’ has been branded racist, but if you ask me that’s not the only way it’s offensive.

not sure if this is the Exorcist or what

The video showcases Lavigne frolicking around, pointing at the camera aggressively, and pretending to play guitar. Already, what’s to like here? Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse, there are allegations that it uses its Japanese girls and theme to perpetuate cultural stereotypes.

Said Japanese girls consist of Avril’s four backing dancers, all dressed the same, with the same wigs, who at one point Avril, with great hilarity, takes a photo of as though they’re her imaginary friends. They have the same expression; she’s thrilled; they are indifferent. The independent has described the dancers as “four props” who are “robotic, expressionless, and made up to look completely interchangeable”. You can’t really argue with that summary.

But I do take issue with the use of the word prop. Since when have backing dancers ever had back stories or deep, nuanced personalities? Normally, they tend to be homogeneous just so the singer stands out, kind of like bridesmaids.

This controversy echoes the reaction to another recent music video, Lily Allen’s Hard Out There, which featured black backing dancers. Similarly, these dancers were argued to be used as “props” for the white lead singer. Here, Allen is clearly satirizing average music videos - “if you can’t detect the sarcasm then you've misunderstood” she sings. I’m not sure Avril, or whoever was in charge of her car-crash video, had considered any layer of meaning beyond I’M EATING SUSHI AND DRESSED LIKE A CUPCAKE. 

Besides the girls, the stereotyping of Japanese culture - the Hello Kitty, bright colours, sushi etc. – is perhaps problematic.   But, it has to be said, cultural appropriation in the music industry isn’t just limited to Avril’s Hello Kitty and Gwen Stefani’s Harajuku girls. Remember Jai Ho? When Pussycat Dolls thought it would be fun to wear bindis and dance all Bollywood. Was that racist or just stereotyping? Or perhaps it’s ‘celebrating’ the culture, as they would probably call it. A euphemism for commodification? Perhaps. Is Katy Perry’s Black Horse video, along with allegedly being islamophobic, dissing Egyptians? WHERE IS THE LINE DRAWN?

I personally would draw the line at Lady Gaga’s #burqaswag, which encouraged her fans to don a hijab, essentially trivialising such a contentious issue. What I would really like to see is how other cultures would stereotype America. Would the dancers be obese, wearing McDonalds uniforms?

But anyway, Avril’s response was as immature as you’d expect “RACIST??? LOLOLOL!!!” the 29-year-old brayed, “I love Japanese culture”. Thanks Avril, that’s settled then. The video’s not intentionally racist, it’s just really stupid. But anyone expecting something intelligent to go alongside a song with the lyrics “major rager OMFG” needs to be tortured with Clockwork Orange therapy of watching that video on loop.

It is up in the air whether Lavigne’s video was racist, but it is 100% certain that it is bad. 

This article is also featured in InQuire

Subway Sensationalism and other Islamophobia

BIG SHOUTY HEADLINE. SUBWAY HAS REMOVED PORK FROM 185 BRANCHES. THEY ALSO ARE NOW ONLY SERVING HALAL IN THESE BRANCHES. EVERYONE FREAK OUT!

The proposed end of the world is upon us, Muslims have finally taken Subway. Well, actually, 185 out of their approximately 1500 UK stores sell all-halal meat (that's around 12%) and have replaced pork products, such as bacon rashers, with turkey substitutes. 

If you don't know what halal meat is, (click here for a better explanation/more details) it is the Islamic process of slaughtering meat by draining the blood entirely from the animal. The animal must not be harmed prior to slaughter (so, that rules KFC out), and must be killed quickly. It is also turned to face Mecca and the name of Allah or a prayer is spoken in order to thank God for the meat. For those with limited imagination, it's probably where James Cameron got the inspiration from for the grateful slaughter scene in Avatar. 

Anyway, here is how the likes of the Daily Mail and the ever-ridiculous Britain First has sensationalised this practice and are using it to create hatred towards Islamic customs. The Daily Mail wrote 

"Traditionally in halal abattoirs the throats of the animals are cut while they are fully conscious - an act many campaigners say is inhumane and needlessly cruel."

Although said campaigners have mysteriously* (*conveniently) not been named, I would also like to question the apparent "inhumanity" here. Firstly, there is no evidence that halal slaughter is more painful than conventional slaughter (please do read Mehdi Hasan's thoughts on this, here). The halal-slaughtered animal "quickly loses consciousness" from having its throat slit, whereas in other slaughter it is essential that it is rendered unconscious with a shock before death. Now, I'm not here to debate whether being electrocuted or cut is a more painful way to go - the fact is it is slaughter and it can never be nice. Moreover, the Subway meat is going to be stunned prior to halal slaughter, so why are you whining, exactly?

What I'm concerned with is that these so-called animal rights defenders don't seem to care that barn-laid chickens have their beaks removed at birth, for instance, or that in battery farms they have absolutely no room to flap their wings, and can barely do that because they're bred to be top-heavy and are generally disabled. I don't see anyone crying over the conveyor-belt slaughter process which 'conventional' slaughter thinks is fine, or the animal cruelty battery animals in particular face. I apologise for ranting, but if you're so bloody worried about animal rights become a vegetarian. Animals are consumed on a systematic basis and that is a fact.


But, I don't see the DM, or any of these people who allegedly care about the poor halal-slaughtered animals, giving a shit about any of this. That's because compassion for animals in this scenario is just a facade for Islamophobia. We can witnessa similar sort of proud nationalism and Muslim-smearing in campaigns like this banned BNP video, which dehumanises Muslims to an un-precendented and frankly disgusting level:

(If you want to get through the video, probs best to turn the sound off, that child singing haunts my nightmares.)

But it's not just nutters like the BNP who are hating on Muslims. 'Respected' Atheist Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) has been waving the flag for ages, what with his previous scoff at the numbers who have been to Oxbridge, he recently (5th May '14) retweeted a really informative post. I was unable to embed said tweet, but here's the picture. 




I suppose this represents the entirety of Muslims in Science presently? Great that you have used such an unbiased, logical, professional argument there. It looks like it's been put together on photoshop by me, for god's sake - only I wouldn't be seen dead using Comic Sans. But, I digress. 

To me, halal meat tastes no different to any other meat, so I cannot comprehend the outrage of people who object to its use in supermarkets, Pizza Express or Subway. And, as for the dreaded loss of pork, why not go to the other 1,315 stores which still sell it. But, I understand for the likes of Britain First, the BNP, UKIP and the Daily Mail, it is the principle. "They come over here, they eat what we eat!" amiright? Well, tell that to the 33,000 or so other *American* Subways in countries all over the world. 



Get more deets from Subway right here.

Why YOU Should Vote UKIP

I'm sick, tired and frankly bored of all the UKIP hate floating around the internet and other media outlets nowadays. THEY'RE JUST SAYING WHAT EVERYONE'S THINKING, GUYS. I've decided to compile a list of all the reasons one should vote UKIP (if you're not an immigrant or a benefits scrounger - we don't want your dirty votes!)

26 GAZILLION people want YOUR job

You know the drill: they come over here, taking all our jobs! High unemployment is happening because of The Foreigners (not the cuts or the international financial crisis), don't you know. Yes, the rumours are true. THE FLOODGATES ARE OPEN and Britain is literally going to fill up of WAVES of people wanting your job, using your NHS and creating crime EVERYWHERE. They will not contribute to the economy in any way, by paying tax, becoming doctors, teachers, police etc. They will probably kill your children. (P.S. Nigel Farage's German wife is exempt from this, he bagsied her) 

Leader Nigel Farage is just like Any Other Politician

Not to be mistaken for Toad from Toad Hall, Nige went to a private school just like David Cameron. So that shows he really is capable of running the country, and sympathise with the lesser-privileged, just like David Cameron has been. Farage has even tried to outdo the tories with his expenses, having claimed £2m of taxpayers' money on top of his usual salary. This attribute is not to be mistaken for in any way being similar to people cheating the benefit system, as politicians are above the law. Even better, he's an ex-Wall Street banker. Cool! 

UKIP are committed to spending more on military - just what we need. 

Ever thought to yourself 'there aren't enough warships in the world'? Or, better yet, 'what the devil happened to the good ol' glory days of the British Empire? Rule Britannia!' Well, UKIP are right up your street, my patriotic friend. All that money we save spending on trade and all that sort of tosh in Europe will be better spent on Her Majesty's fleet. 

This poor actor had to sit down with a cup for a photograph, all thanks to EUROPE, the bastards.

UKIP don't give a shit about climate change

FINALLY someone who doesn't want to save the planet with pesky renewable energy like wind turbines.

They are the more socially acceptable version of the BNP!

If you've ever just sat there and thought 'I'd really like to announce my affinity with the BNP or the National Front, but they're not very cool nowadays' well - problem solved! All those ethnic minorities truly should be sent back to 'Bongo Bongo Land' or the 'Black Country'. Because all black, Asian and other groups come from one of these places, and they're all ruining everything. But, UKIP aren't racist, (they're xenophobic - duh) so you won't be saddled with that inconvenient label. 

They really do hate gay people

I know what you're thinking, I can't believe this government let gay people get married! I've had it up to my neck with all this political correctness - what about the church's feelings? And gay marriage really was to blame for the floods.

Finally...Fear is the best way to make policies

As the UKIP website says (27/04/14) "These are anxious and troubled times". There is historically no better way to garner voters for a small party than by scapegoating minorities in a time of crisis. Remember the National Socialist Party (Nazi for short) in the '30s? They had the same idea. That turned out alright, didn't it? 

Noah: A Provocative Experience That Will Probably Annoy You

"I don't think it's a religious story. I think it's more of a mythical story that belongs to everyone" said co-screenwriter and director Darren Aronofsky on the eccentric, rambunctious blockbuster Noah. This disclaimer makes room for the audacious artistic license demonstrated throughout the film - from giant stone angels to Ray Winstone's heretical antagonist hitching a lift on the iconic ark like a bewildered head louse.

Biblical stories are by definition monumental, and often strangely dark. This is perhaps what drew acclaimed director Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan) to such a project.  But, when watching, it is important to try and ignore the religious backstory, impossible as this may be. Noah is a fantasy as ambitious perhaps as any societal fable, which draws its roots in the bible but only for inspiration. Its main goal, the director and cast maintain, is to entertain.



And entertain it does. Epic battles, surreal dream sequences and miraculous Terrence Malickian montages contribute to this film's soaring beauty and atmosphere.

And yet I am  ambivalent about Noah. As with previous Aronofsky work, it makes for an epic and visceral experience. It's a blockbuster in its scale and its price tag, but there's little family friendly here. From the traumatic, hellish vision of human sin - with its brute squalor and wrenching of live animals limb from limb - to the consequent portrayal of the final victims of the flood, howling as they cling to a wave-lashed mountaintop, the film is implicitly disturbing.

As we can witness in The Fountain, Aronofsky flits between profound despair and spiritual enlightenment. Among sublime damnation is sublime salvation. A particularly poignant sequence occurs during the battle for the ark, where the stone giants (or fallen angels) battle the hoards of humans who want in on the whole not drowning gig. When the stone giants are killed, a golden light, their soul, sours to heaven with a booming explosion. In one shot, we see this and the camera cuts to its journey out of space, into complete silence. This is one of the rare moments in Aronofsky's work which is truly astounding and awesome to the word's true meaning.



However, the film also has its failings. The character of Noah himself is a complete bellend. His first offence is to sing in the opening twenty minutes, reminding the unfortunate of actor Russell Crowe's stint in Les Miserables. Moreover, without wanting to give much away, the biblical patriarch struggles to interpret his divine duties, and ends up an alcoholic sociopath. Though his invention of drinking may be appalling to religious groups, it is one of the rare parts of the film which is based in biblical text. Noah did get absolutely swashbuckled, and wouldn't you if you had survived- and taken part in - the death of the majority of humanity?

The supporting female cast, however, carry Crowe's unlikeable character. Jennifer Connelly (who also stars in Aronofsky's breakout Requiem for a Dream) brings empathy and raw, ugly emotion to her performance as Noah's wife Naameh, who is in fact unnamed in the bible (no comment). Meanwhile Emma Watson - and I'm conscious of churning out the predictable 'she's really matured since Hermione' - was honestly truly striking as adopted daughter Ila.This performance grounds the film.




While I'm discussing the cast, despite all the mythical elements of the film,it was evidently considered too far-fetched to include any sort of racial diversity amongst them. I guess the question as to 'where did other ethnicities appear from?' goes as unanswered as 'how did the human race continue from one family (without a lot of incest)?' Oh, sorry Ari Handel (co-screenwriter) we're thinking on a 'mythical plane'.

To an extent, Noah questions the wrathful, tyrannical and arguably unjust God of the Old Testament. What kind of a God finds it acceptable to put the death of children in someone's hands to test their faith (the story of Abraham springs to mind)? What sort of a God Creates but does not guide its Creation, and allows suffering? Especially if you consider that the story of Cain and Abel - which is referred to as a kind of prologue to the film, and permeates it henceforth - the fratricide which the omnipresent God foresaw and did nothing to prevent. These sort of questions are raised by Ray Winston's descendant of Cain, but he is the resident bad guy of the story so we assume he is wrong. The swarming masses are evil devils, aren't they? Is it not easier for us to dehumanise the masses than to realise the colossal genocide here?

Noah seems to resonate with the contemporary concern of Climate Change. The earth turning on us due to our own sins is a transparent allegory for such present day anxieties. If you've seen 2012 (and if you haven't - don't) the boat in that is a more literal manifestation of the ark in modern day.  As an audience, we like to think of ourselves as the divine elite of Noah's family - they are the sympathetic everyman (but not because they're whitewashed, Ari).But what if we're the sinners? Noah attempts to raise this question when the eponymous character decides all of humanity would be better off dead. But 'attempts' is the key word here: where Aronofsky often triumphs in a perfect, insular story focusing on one idea, in Noah the task seems too big, too blockbuster, to be satisfying.




If you watch Noah, you can call it ridiculous, sublime, offensive, but - you cannot deny - it is provocative.

No one knows what it means! But it's provocative, it gets the people goooooing

No Makeup Selfies: Stop Being Ass Hats

Originally I was tentative about posting a picture of myself barefaced and claiming it was for cancer awareness. Like that weird KONY thing (which I have seen people draw comparisons to) I thought it was something that would pass, and was confused about the motivation behind it. I didn't want to just do it because everybody else was.

What changed my mind was the simple fact that the campaign made £1million overnight. How could anyone now deny its usefulness or criticise the #nomakeupselfie? 

If you know anything about charities you will know that awareness is a major part in making money. If people know about something, they are more likely to know to donate (obviously). That's why advertising in general is a thing: it makes money. 

All obvious so far, but you'd be surprised how many people don't get this. 

I find the same sort of people who criticise charities for spending money on adverts, and not specifically that which they are trying to raise money for, are those who are criticising the no makeup trend. 

What they don't realise is that awareness is so, so vital to charities. 

For those who say 'well why not just donate, why do you have to proclaim it to the world?' I say: well I'm glad you're so altruistic, but not everyone is. Amazing if you already do donate, but look how many people have been peer-pressured into donating and being a source of advertisement for cancer charities, who may not have otherwise. 

Another niggle for 'haters' was the fact that people were using the guise of cancer awareness as an excuse to fulfill their own narcissim. This is why it is important to mention the reasoning behind the lack of makeup in your pictures, people. The selfies of women looking glorious without makeup (perpetuated by a fair amount of celebrities) perhaps reinforced this viewpoint. Of course you don't want a hideous picture of yourself out in the world, but looking flawless - in dimmed lighting with perhaps just a smidgen of concealer - isn't helping to dispel that irritating ideology that makeup is unnatural and women are tricksters for wearing it. I like to think this is why I didn't want to look so amazing in my own pic...

Furthermore critics are questioning the 'bravery' it takes for women to upload pictures of themselves without makeup. I'm going to go out a limb and proclaim that it is frankly chivalric - it's certainly cool for once to be bombarded with images of women who aren't looking 'perfect'. 

Let's remember that those going through chemotherapy do not look their best. 

The no make up selfie has raised a middle finger to critics anyway. The campaign has now garnered over £2million and I am very proud to be a part of it. 

Text BEAT to 70099 to donate.

Had to wrangle Beyonce in some way, sorry

Film Review: Shame

Released in 2011, Shame is the second feature film directed and co-written by Steve McQueen. It stars Michael Fassbender as sex addict Brandon, and Carey Mulligan as his sister, Sissy. As you may predict the plot centres around Brandon's secretive and lonely existence in New York city, which is disrupted indefinately when his sister comes to stay. 

As blunt as its title, Shame is a film about the simultaneous complexities and primalities of human emotion. From its opening sequences we are confronted with nude shots of Fassbender, we share his most intimate moments, from masturbating to urinating. Brandon suffers silently from an overwhelming lust, which seems to derive from an intrinsic sense of emptiness in his life. I have never witnessed a film which can possess such a dichotomy of the (mutually dependent) graphic and subtle. Yes it's very base, it's very visceral - there is, predictably, a lot of crude sex - but this is told with such style that you can see there's a deep sadness in Brandon's past and present.

An omnipresent theme in postmodern American art, the disappointing nature of the American Dream is alluded to, with Carey Mulligan’s melancholy rendition of ‘New York, New York’. This scene was apparently shot with three cameras in real time and in one take, with Fassbender never having heard Mulligan sing, his reaction being completely authentic. The camera hovers on Sissy for an uncomfortable time span, forcing us to watch her in many ways pathetic state as she gazes to an off-screen presence and laments slowly, poignantly and painfully. It then mirrors this stare at Brandon, and through such matched juxtaposition we see that they are the same, brutally unhappy parts of one whole.

The reason for the siblings’ unhappiness is never revealed in the film, instead we are given random mismatched pieces of their past in the form as subtle as Sissy flinching when a man moves towards her wrist, to Brandon’s unexplained scarring on his back. We don’t need to be told explicitly what mutual horror they faced in their childhood – it is manifested in what they do, how they appear and perform, as well as through the beautiful cinematography throughout. 

Something that caught my attention stylistically throughout the film was the use of a blue colour palette whenever Fassbender’s character is alone in shot, and he is isolated as such frequently. Blue here contrasts with the vapid gold and yellows of the city, casting Brandon as cold, lifeless, alone. It encapsulates that bitterly ironic feeling of being alone amongst masses.  

Moreover, more indie elements of Shame include McQueen's use of long takes. It really unsettles the edit-trained viewer (including myself) for a shot to last longer than normal, or worse, for a shot to continue to frame someone's face when they are listening to the other person talking. McQueen uses whole scenes made of one shot. The most impressive is when Brandon goes out for a run and a tracking shot films a couple of minutes of him just running, clearly frustrated, until he leaves the shot at a crossroads and we (the camera) do not follow him. This is irritating for us, the viewer as we are so spoilt in cinema at having multiple, privileged viewpoints of the action. The director removes this privilege and tells us that no, you are just a voyeur, you can't have everything you want, this is the film as I want you to see it. It's refreshing.  

As with many indie films also, you're left thinking 'well, what was all that about?'. Shame is bleak, graphic and grotesque often, and its ending is so open. Once again destroying conformities: we do not get a satisfying narrative ark; I'm not convinced the characters develop throughout the film apart from becoming more angry and twisted. There is no sympathetic character, and there is no resolution (sorry if that's a spoiler). And yet, I felt moved.

Chill the Bugger Out About The Royal Charter

It seems absurd, even profane, to be writing an article for a newspaper recommending the regulation of newspapers. At its best journalism can reveal political and social corruptions and injustices in an impartial format. But at its worst so-called ‘journalists’ can be ruthless, unethical parasites: phone-hackers, celebrity-chasers, liars.

The issue of press regulation emerged recently due to the phone-hacking scandal and consequential Leveson Inquiry.  The result of this is that the press has been weighed, measured and found wanting a royal charter.  Granted in October, the new royal charter will oversee a regulation of media organisations. 

Newspapers have inevitably made a racket about this. Like petulant toddlers, The Mirror, the Daily Mail and the Express have reeled out the sensationalist hyperbole: “THE DEATH OF FREEDOM!”Of course, the concept of a state-controlled press is frightening, connotative of Soviet Russia or Communist China. But haven’t we witnessed a whole other end of the spectrum, with journalists of zero integrity hacking into the phone of murdered schoolchildren in the name of  ‘press freedom’ and that ubiquitous, self-righteous concept: the ‘freedom of speech’?

The charter has been labelled “bonkers” by former BBC Chairman Lord Grade. In almost the same breath, he conceded that “the press...has brought this situation on itself”. With the risk of sounding like a parent or primary school teacher, the press really have brought it upon themselves. Thanks Rebekah Brooks, you’ve ruined it for the rest of us decent journalists.

As you probably know by now, Brooks and Andy Coulson are among the defendants charged as a result of the Leveson Inquiry. The charges against them are of conspiring to hack phones, committing misconduct in public office and perverting the cause of justice. 

But these are not isolated incidences of individual indecency in the British Press. Recently the Sun (a paradigm of media excellence, I am aware) deigned to allot a miniscule corner of their newspaper to ‘clarify’ that there is no evidence of 600,000 ‘benefit tourists’ invading the UK. Following in similar footsteps, the Daily Mail – the newspaper which appears to speak the loudest against press regulation - on November 7 admitted that it had completely  coined out of thin air that ‘Gordon Brown had claimed more than £316,000’ in expenses. Making things up and pretending they are facts is not freedom of speech. It is deliberate manipulation which is as problematic, in its agenda-instilled, scaremongering propaganda, as state control.

To address frenzied concerns for the government interfering with the press – they already have been. From David Cameron being text buddies with Rebekah Brooks during the 2010 election campaign, to Tony Blair dining with the former Sun editor, it is an ugly truth that politicians have been getting into bed (maybe not literally) with press leaders frequently in recent years. So, besides press freedom, is there an underlying motive behind such newspapers’ hysteria? Chris Huhne in the Guardian, put it quite aptly: “If the Sun could not make up fictional stories when accuracy is too boring, time-consuming or costly, how would it make money?” How, indeed.

Contrary to these hysterics, the press charter will not establish its regulation in a tyrannical, George Orwell-esq melee of censorship. Rather the idea is to arrange a body which certifies the independence of pre-existing self-regulators. That is, newspapers nowadays are required to self-regulate, but the royal charter will be able to oversee whether this is being done legitimately.

Ultimately, something needed to be done. Whether the royal press charter is effective is yet to be discovered, but we’re hardly going to wake up in a totalitarian state.  So calm down, people.

Enough with the Caveman Culling

Culling has hit the headlines recently, and various species have topped the undesirables list. it seems to be fashionable across the globe to shoot first, ask questions later. From the Japanese randomly killing dolphins, to Australians going all out on sharks, I’d like to make a radical proposal to stop this madness.

In Norway the new fad is to kill the wolves, despite 80% of population wanting to keep the species in their high numbers. The problem is with farming: it is claimed that sheep are killed by these animals. However, around 1500 out of 2 million Norwegian sheep are killed by wolves a year, and these small numbers are compensated for. A much higher proportion of their deaths is predicted to be the result of some dumb sheep thing like falling down a crevasse. Moreover, wolves supposedly present a danger to human life. Remarkably, for a somewhat foreward thinking, humanitarian country, the proposed culling in Norway still seems to think of the wolf as the big bad creep out of a Brothers Grimm fairytale. In reality they affect humans very little: no one’s been killed by a wolf since 1800.

These animals, which have called Scandinavia their home for thousands of years, are facing extermination by ignorance and fearmongering. Absurdly, farmers have said the animal ‘contributes nothing’. Well besides balancing the ecosystem what do you expect wild animals to contribute to the human world? It’s like saying ‘hamsters are shit bankers, so to hell with the lot of them’. And quite frankly I think this statement is rash, existentially wolves may ‘contribute’ more than economics can measure. If it wasn’t for wolves, what would people get tattooed to represent their spiriuality? Jokes aside, if people do not pay attention to this ridiculous occurance its existance will only snowball, and these majestic creatures will become extinct.

Similarly the Hufflepuff mascot is being culled by our meat obsession. Not to go all Morissey on you, but the British badger is effectively being killed so we can kill other animals. It’s not even working. The aim of the policy is to prevent TB spread in livestock. The randomised culling however has led to the remaining badgers spreading to TB areas and catching the disease, so the problem has just been aggravated. My only suggestion in this line of thinking, for a completely successful British cattle-farming, is to kill every animal apart from the ones we want to eat. In fact, kill all the cattle too because 94% of bovine TB spread is due to herd-to-herd transmission. If we’re going to roll with this fists first attitude, why not go the whole hog?

One could argue that it is a survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, world. If the Dodo was too stupid and fat to survive, that’s not our problem. The issue I take with this reasoning is that it’s regressive and insulting to humanity: have we not evolved beyond the carelessness of survival techniques such as these? Aren’t we intelligent enough to realise when something is destructive – and what’s more, ineffective – and found a logical and peaceful way around it? It’s like we haven’t made any progress since we were hairy cavemen and ladies thrusting spears at woolly mammoths.

To me, culling is an unnatural, nonsensical and lazy policy which does not belong in the modern world.

The Mail versus Miliband

“The man who hates Britain” was the headline the Daily Mail used to describe Labour leader Ed Miliband’s father. By extension, we are supposed to infer, the shadow minister hates Britain too.

What evidence did the Mail use to spearhead this damaging sweeping statement? Ralph Miliband, a 17 year old Jew fleeing the Holocaust, recorded in a private journal that he sometimes wished Britain would lose the war due to its overwhelming nationalism. He probably never thought anybody would see it. How many of us have written ridiculous, cringe worthy things in a diary in our teens? And yet this is the central argument for the Mail’s attack on the man. Ralph went on to serve in the British Navy, risking his life for a country he allegedly hated, when he didn’t have to.

Of course the diary of a 17 year old who just escaped the holocaust is credible evidence for judgement of his entire life’s beliefs. But the Mail does not stop there! It furthers this ‘evidence’ with the fact that Ralph spoke out against the Falklands war. Well there it is! Anyone who disagrees with a war is, by default, a Britain-hater. So anyone who disagrees with the Iraq war is unpatriotic and worthy of a post-mortem public shaming I suppose.

The pompous refusal to apologise for this unfounded slander does not come as a surprise. It’s not news that the Daily Mail is ridiculous. Nor is this the first time the newspaper has unleashed unsubstantiated attacks on public figures. Stephen Fry recently received the brunt of the Mail’s hatred when he deigned to speak against Vladimir Putin’s anti-gay laws by calling to cancel the winter Olympics in Russia. Stepping around any blatant homophobia, the Mail proceeded to unleash a tirade of nonsensical critiques of his bullying nature and the fact he should have called for a boycott of all Russian music instead, making what is possibly one of the most absurd arguments in human publication.  (Article here)

Take a glance at history and it doesn’t get better. The 1960s  and 70s Mail was a minefield of anti-immigration racism (Enoch Powell has the right idea!), misogyny (blocking women’s pay rises) and general anti-progress propaganda. So not much has changed then. The newspaper’s founder, Viscount Rothermere, was a well known Nazi-sympathiser, which for a start makes its allegations against Miliband’s dad hypocritical.

Nowadays - concerningly the most popular online British news publication - the Mail Online is peppered with sensationalist nonsense. A glance at the ‘headlines’ on Sunday 6 October and all they could muster was a story about drunken women taking over an “ENTIRE” – yes, shouty capitals - train carriage. How unladylike! I can’t imagine that has ever occurred before, this is newsworthy stuff! Groups of male drunkards would never behave in such a way, particularly not in the football season. Perhaps the most offensive aspect of the Mail Online is its ‘Femail’ section. Ladies, skip the News, Science and other important, manly issues and let your little minds think on fashion, beauty, and celebrity instead. Words fail.

Mehdi Hasan, political editor for the Huffington Post, unleashed a rant on a recent Question Time which has been viewed on YouTube almost half a million times. He said “who hates Britain more? It isn’t a dead Jewish refugee from Belgium who served in the Royal Navy, it’s the immigrant-bashing, woman-hating, Muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay baiting Daily Mail”. I couldn’t put it better myself.  

Why Beyonce's Latest Album Makes Her a Modern Day Feminist

While I have always seen Beyonce as a strong figure of female empowerment, from Destiny’s Child’s Independent Woman and Survivor to Run the World, others have been less certain. I have read many conservative opinions of her ‘over sexualised’ dress sense amongst criticisms that she is being appropriated by the masculine music industry to represent feminist ideals in order to sell records to women.

I’m calling bullshit.

My reasons being, her newest, suprise-released album, Beyonce, is her most earnest revelation of female empowerment to date.

Pretty Hurts is perhaps the most explicit example of feminist ideas throughout the album, criticising the shallow and problematic nature of Western culture’s obsession with physiognomy. The video accompanying the song exposes this through an American beauty pageant, the epitome of vanity. Beyonce sings ‘it’s the soul that needs the surgery’, suggesting it is this ideology of female outward perfection which needs to be altered as it is regressive.

***Flawless is a homage to feminism, pumped with aggressive assertions of empowerment: ‘bow down bitches’. This is accompanied with the insistence that ‘Yonce is not just Jay Z’s ‘little wife’, perhaps a reference to her much-criticised decision to name her 2013 tour ‘The Mrs Carter Show’. ***Flawless seems a heated affirmation that she ain’t defined by no man *clicks fingers*. The borderline martial imagery is also manifested in Superpower, where a vision of people power questions society. 

The album’s sampling of a speech by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is also a brave moment. The speech discusses various experiences of the modern woman, and paradoxes the modern feminist is confronted with. Beyonce seems to recommend a reform of societal thought, not to value women for their looks or relations to men but for their actions.

Referring back to the conservative view of Beyonce being sold through objectification, the album does anything but shy away from these constructions. Songs such as Rocket, ‘Yonce, Drunk in Love, the subtly titled Blow, and Partition are all sexy as hell. From performing for Jay Z in the Crazy Horse strip club, to the fragmentation of the female body through close up, the videos accompanying these songs all conform to various examples of the male gaze.

Alone, these songs do not suggest a feminist message - indeed they are the types of songs other female artists, such as Rihanna (Pour it Up), churn out consistently. However it is the consciousness of the feminist argument, within other songs on the album, which casts Beyonce as a much more nuanced and intelligent artist. The aforesaid Adiche speech mentions how women cannot be sexual beings as men can. I would argue that these songs experiment with female sexuality to question such conservatism.

I’m sick of the argument that women who dress in a revealing manner cannot be feminist, as it’s for the attention of men. How do you then explain the primarily female audience at Beyonce’s concerts? Is she being objectified then? What if – and this is a radical premise –women just like feeling sexy. In fact, the sultry French passage in Partition translates (admittedly less glamorously) into English as ‘men think that feminists hate sex, but it’s a very stimulating and natural activity that women love’. There is a misconception, which Adiche addresses, that to join the feminist club you must A. hate men and B. veto sexuality. This assumption is beginning to be eroded, thanks to feminism’s inception in popular culture, of which Beyonce is a strong example.

Beyonce is not the perfect feminist, whatever that may be. But she is a real, nuanced human being, a strong, empowered woman who is a role model to millions. Her album charters real female experiences, with Heaven touching on her miscarriage, Blue about the unconditional nature of motherly love, and Jealous and Mine reflecting on the complexities of marriage.

Yet it is Grown Woman, the album’s finale, which encapsulates the spirit of the entire artwork. That line ‘I can do whatever I want’ transcends the song because it is what Beyonce has been saying in every song. She can so what she wants: she is Beyonce. She can be a seductress, mother, revolutionary, and businesswoman. And with this message she is speaking to all women: we can have it all. We don’t have to worry about whether being sexual compromises our ethics, or being a mother and wife makes us less ‘feminist’, to me that is not what feminism should be about: rather it is choice. To me, the message here is that we don’t have to be restricted by an unattainable ideal. We can have it all. 

Film Review: Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain

‘Death is the road to awe’ a Mayan priest whispers at the summit of a great pyramid. The last man, struggling to sustain his only companion, a dying tree of life, voyages through space in a bubble. A star fades, wrapped in the death-lock of a nebula.

These are moments which punctuate visionary feast The Fountain. Darren Aronofsky’s third feature film sits firmly among the writer/director’s greats, including Requiem for a Dream , The Wrestler and Black Swan. However it is little known and wildly overlooked, with takings of half its $35 million budget and critics sneering left right and centre. Ultimately this is a great cinematic tragedy - it really is a work of consummate beauty, a -see-before-you-die deal.

Often described as a tri-narrative tale, the film explores three parallel stories from the past, present and future. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz play the central protagonists in each narrative: a conquistador hunting the Tree of Life for his Queen to the historical backdrop of the Spanish Inquisition; and a space man, Tom (a homage to no less than Bowie’s Major Tom) the Last Man, seeking salvation in the collapse of a star. But the central story is that of Tommy and Izzi, a modern day couple whose lives are haunted by her terminal cancer. Although originally startling in the sense that we are not often confronted with this sort of narrative, it’s refreshing, and as the story unfolds the connections and parallelisms create a combined message.  Izzi and Tommy’s tale permeates and encompasses the film, with Tommy’s memories of Izzi projected within Tom’s storyline, and the plot of the conquistador and Queen being a story Izzi has written for Tommy to help come to terms with her death. Although the fragmentary and ambitious non-linearity of The Fountain is indeed as disorienting to watch as it is to describe, they each run with parallel themes and are inter-connected through graphic-match editing, aesthetic motifs and ecclesiastical iconography.

The message this film emanates is encapsulated in the words of the Mayan Priest. Death is the road to awe. Aronofsky’s work is profoundly focused on the idea perhaps more basely referred to in The Lion King as the circle of life: death is a natural process, one we all must face. This idea blooms throughout the film as Tommy, after a struggle as a neuroscientist to prevent his wife’s death, fails and gradually becomes at peace with himself. The conquistador, on discovering the tree of life finds he has interpreted its powers erroneously – rather than raising him to immortality as a man he meets a different fate. And Tom reaches Xibalba and witnesses, as Izzi has reiterated earlier in the film, that the most exquisite death of a star creates new life.

The Fountain is at times bleak, dealing with raw human emotion and universal experience. Centrally the film focuses on death and mankind’s relationship with our mortality. At some point, everyone has to consider and accept the fact that they will die; while this is agonizing for Tommy who insists ‘death is a disease’ to be cured, Izzi embraces the life she has left. This is the mastery of Aronofsky’s film: its immeasurable scale – narratives scattered across time and space, enormous life questions – is countered by its intimacy. The storyline is surprisingly uncluttered with the aforementioned strand of Tommy and Izzi dominating screentime, undiluted by other characters. Extreme close-ups physically enhance this immediacy, with almost intrusive zoom on the face, lips and neck involving the audience in their relationship.

Stylistically as ever Darren Aronofsky pays intricate attention to detail. Izzi is - without exception – dressed in white throughout the film, a dramatic contrast with Tommy who is shot in dark, low-key lighting and black costumes. Aronofsky plays with this chiaroscuro throughout, particularly in a bath sequence in which Izzi is the brightly lit central focus of the shot; Tommy lingers on the sidelines, in darkness, a visual expression of the regressive nature of his attitude to death.

A reflection of the film’s limited budget (for Hollywood standards), Aronofsky as ever uses creative techniques to replace expensive CGI. The shots of Xibalba – the Mayan underworld - as the spaceman hurtles into the dying star are in fact the work of macro-photography of undersea micro-organisms. The use of the infinitely miniscule to represent the infinitely colossal is an exquisite, inspired idea which in this context not only works but has deeply philosophical implications.

The double act of Weisz and Jackman is remarkable. Both performances are beautifully convincing and, accomplished with the aforementioned intimate cinematography and poignant screenwriting from Aronofsky, the bittersweet nature of their parting is all the more severely felt, as if it were a direct blow to the viewer as well as the characters onscreen. Indeed, the film encapsulates the agonizing hopelessness which accompanies loss. Tommy’s frustration at his inability to save his wife is deeply relatable, a heart-heaver. Jackman’s performance is particularly distinguished as Tommy strives in desperation to achieve the unattainable and cure death. His pain is that of every person as it is an innately human response to riot against the ending of our lives, or that of our loved ones.

An adventure across spirituality of all planes – Christianity, Buddism, Mayan – but also in science, philosophy, The Fountain manifests the human urge to gaze at the sublime, to wonder. Head on it might be a tale of darkness and morbidity, but ultimately The Fountain urges us to celebrate the life we have rather than fight the inevitability of death. 


Originally published in No-Wave Magazine.