I'd heard a while back, in some film magazine or other, that the next young adult book series to get the Hollywood treatment would be Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games trilogy. This generally passed me by, and in favour of weddings, iPads and Nintendo 3DS, I largely put it in the back of my mind. It was only during the trailers before the latest Mission Impossible, that I was reminded that on March 23rd, "The World Will Be Watching". I love needless hyperbole like that. Take for instance, Breaking Dawn; we were told it was the "movie the world is waiting for". Of course, I would find it hard to believe that "the world" really means just that. I'm not sure starving kids in Ethiopia, or battered citizens fighting corruption in Syria would be falling over each other for a ticket. But indeed, The Hunger Games would seem to be the next movie event of great global importance. Again, I'm not sure the world really will be watching, only to paraphrase the tag line of the television event in the book. But regardless, I knew I would be watching.
And why? Because it reminded me for all the world of Battle Royale, one of the starkest, blackest, cynical and bloody films I have ever had the unashamed pleasure of watching. But I knew that I had to experience the book first. Not necessarily the whole trilogy, which consists of The Hunger Games, Catching Fire and Mockingjay, but at least the first, which is of course, the source material for the screenplay. So, read the book I did. Well, download the audiobook I did. And listened intently to 11 hours of unabridged story. I had to do my research, you see.
At the risk of aligning myself with all of the 14 year old girls on the planet, I liked the book. Very nearly loved it. It is full of intrigue. The plot is in itself very stale, but it is not the plot but the way it unfolds, carefully, thoroughly and with a great deal of sympathy for our unfortunate lead character, Katniss Everdeen. Poor Katniss, forced to compete in an annual gladiatorial contest in which there is only one victor, tells her story in the first person. Her journey from her impoverished, downtrodden district, to the decadence of the ruling Capitol, to becoming a player in the popularity contest quite reminiscent of today's television talent shows, is played out with such detail and careful consideration that you genuinely care for the characters that are certain to be killed before the last chapter. It's bleak and satirical, make no mistake, and deeply cynical in places. Of course, we've seen crap like this before, but it is in the execution of the storytelling that makes the book an engaging story. That and the inevitable love triangle that is given much more importance in the midst of impending death, but hey, it is for teenagers after all, right?
It is in the execution that the film completely falls wide of the target. Characterisation which is sorely needed in order to understand the motives of certain characters is missed almost entirely in favour of pacing. Katniss' mentor, Haymitch, played with a certain wit by Woody Harrelson, is a drunk with no explanation for it. Of course, anyone who had read the book will understand that being a mentor for kids from the losing district has taken a heavy toll on his sanity, and he spends most if his time off his face to deal with it. In the film it is barely acknowledged, leaving him a drunk, unreasonable grouch. Same goes for Katniss' greatest friend outside the arena, Cinna, the stylist. Her rapport with him in the book is the most valuable, and the most touching. In the movie... Well, you get it by now. Even the odd expositional line here and there could have fleshed out supporting characters without clogging up the film. The idea, I suppose, is to cut to the chase, and let the games begin. However, this takes well over an hour, and during this time nothing very much of grave importance happens.
I could go on, detailing every moment in the film, where is falls just short of what the book was aiming for. On the whole, the film is essentially a very quickly produced, rushed effort, in order to snag the teen audiences in another literary based film trilogy. It is a shame, since there was so much potential in the book to make a truly great film. In the end it's a condensed, watered down shadow of the source material. It's sure to be the most successful film this year, but that owes more to the massive hype and marketing that Hollywood is best at.
With time, effort and careful consideration, this film could have been the moving,haunting and harrowing piece of cinema it deserved to be. I'm hoping that with the sequels, the lessons are learned and a much more worthy adaptation of the story of Katniss Everdeen will result.
That's not to say, however,that I hated the film. In fact, I enjoyed it. Despite the slow start, it's exciting and compelling once the games begin. The poverty of the districts is very briefly introduced, in favour of the huge speciall effects laden sequences in the decadent Capitol. Some visual effects are quite shonky, and they jar a bit with the rest of the film, but, the dystopian vision of the book is well portrayed, if perhaps a little too reminiscent of The Fifth Element in places.
My final word? If you haven't read the book, then read it first. But the film will inevitably disappoint you. It's probably best, however, to see the film before the book.
Monday, 2 April 2012
Thursday, 15 December 2011
A Message to the BBFC.
I'm writing to you today to inform you that in my opinion, you are all so very full of it. I'm referring of course, to your U-Turn regarding the rejection of Human Centipede: Full Sequence for a certificate. In your original press release, link below for your reference, the board was convinced that said film should never be granted a certificate, however many cuts were made.
Just to be clear on this, I quote from the new release: "“The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the unacceptable content runs throughout the work, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.”"
"cuts are NOT a viable option".
"unacceptable content runs THROUGHOUT the work".
And believe me, having been privy to an uncut version of this work, which I watched in order that I write this email as informed as possible; I have to agree. This film should never really have seen a flicker of daylight. Ever. Very few films in UK film history have earned rejection by the BBFC, and none so more deserving of that than Human Centipede: Full Sequence.
But it is the press release that followed that caused me grave concerns with your board. Link below again for your reference. In it you stated that a not-unanimous decision was made to grant this abhorrent film a certificate, pending 32 cuts. Unless those cuts were of a total of 87 minutes, I don't see how this could possibly be an acceptable option. Especially given the board's steadfast decision to reject the film earlier in the year. This is a particular quote that concerns me greatly:
"The cuts total 2 minutes 37 seconds and address all the concerns raised when the Board refused a classification on 6 June 2011, including those relating to sexual violence, graphic gore and the possibility of breach of the law relating to obscenity."
Given your earlier stance that the unacceptable content runs THROUGHOUT the work, and that therefore no cuts could possibly solve the issue of the obscenity of the film, SOMEHOW the decision was made, with one abstention, (and hats off to Mr Lemos for having the strength of will to hold fast to a decision) to grant an 18 with cuts.
So I think you can guess where I'm heading in this correspondence. What changed? How can anyone take the BBFC seriously as a body which is in place to protect us from damaging (and you called the film damaging) works from being unleashed into the UK public; when after rejecting a film on very justifiable grounds indeed, the board backs down. Having seen this film uncut, I can tell you that the scenes and shots you have ordered cut will make, and have made, no redeemable alteration to the disgusting, immoral and pornographic violence of the film from start to finish. Tom Six clearly made this film to shock, disgust and repulse everyone who sees it. I'm sure some will discuss it as a post modern satirical take on the way we have accepted violence in society, taking pleasure in it, and all that other navel gazing bunkum, but the truth is, that's not what Tom Six wanted, and this film is not fit for human consumption. What could possibly be interpreted as entertainment in this film? Nothing. Not a thing. All the worst outrage triggers are there- child abuse, indecent assault, murder of the elderly, pregnant and newborn alike. Even if those scenes were removed, there is no escaping that the acts will have happened. For instance, removing the unfortunate accidental death of the baby won't trick audiences into thinking it never happened. Not since the cuts to the film have been publicised. No amount of trimming here and there will remove the overall horror from minute 1 to 87.
So, again, my question is, why the U-turn? What persuaded you to relent? Why did removing insignificant elements of this wholly and consistently disgusting film go from being unviable to acceptable?
I expect you believe that a classified DVD of this film in the UK is going to dissuade the public from finding and downloading the rejected version? The truth is, the public want to watch what they want to watch. They'll find the means to do it, with or without a coloured number in a circle on the box. You should have stood by your original decision, because now, your latest action makes you look like a board that can be browbeaten into submission, into condoning an irredeemable anthology of inexcusable gore and depravity.
See, I would understand if it were a cut to remove an imitable technique from a kids film, or to replace a swear word with a less obscene one, but what you must realise is this is a film that is reprehensible throughout. Of course you realise that, you said it, in a press release yourselves. Not only that, but here is a film that will be more accessible the children. I not care what you think you know about 18 certificate films won't be shown to kids. Have you seen adults these days? A lot of them are pricks. For the same reason as you would never allow an MPAA style rating system, because you know lazy parents would rather take their kids to see an R rated movie than hire a baby sitter, parents won't always shield their little darlings from what they are watching. This is how it will go: "well, we let little Tiffany watch The Inbetweeners with us, that went okay, and this film is an 18 too, so I suppose it will be fine".
I'm sure you're aware that idiots out there use classifications not as an indication of strength of content, but of general quality. They will compare the "18" to, say, Fight Club, and think, "it must be the same". And then the little munchkins will either see it from the corner of the living room, or get hold of it and watch it in their bedrooms, on their DVD players or their XBoxes.
Sure, kids get access to a lot of adult material. The average 12 year old today has seen more porn online than you or I have ever seen. This is precisely why it's important to carefully consider just who could see this work, The Human Centipede: Full Sequence. It is fair to expect the public to use the ECI and make their own decisions, but guess what? Nobody I know seems to be aware. Nor do they care that it does. They just look at the pretty coloured symbols, and like chimps,they build expectations based on the connotation that the number and colour represents. In the case of this film, allowing the public to make that judgement is like giving a loaded gun to a child.
Don't let this film go. I implore you to reject again. If this film gets a BBFC certificate all it will mean is after this point, anything will go. You will find it harder and harder to justify cutting anything again. Or rejecting. Film makers will turn the publicity of their "rejected-oh-no-wait-no-it's-not" into free marketing. It will generate increased searching for the Holy Grail of that cut version. And in the case of a film like this, which until recently you at the BBFC decreed should never be classified for exhibition; increased searching and watching of such a work can only cause more damage in the end.
I have never been so histrionic or horrified about anything until now. Aside from my objection to your "12a" guidelines, a huge commercial cop out in my opinion, I have never EVER wished a decision by the BBFC be repealed. I do now.
I'd love to know why the change of standard. BBFC, you disappoint me.
Craig Jenkins
Aged 28
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2011/06/bbfc-rejects-the-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2011/10/the-british-board-of-film-classification-bbfc-has-awarded-an-18-classification-to-a-cut-version-of-the-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence-following-32-cuts/
Just to be clear on this, I quote from the new release: "“The Board considered whether its concerns could be dealt with through cuts. However, given that the unacceptable content runs throughout the work, cuts are not a viable option in this case and the work is therefore refused a classification.”"
"cuts are NOT a viable option".
"unacceptable content runs THROUGHOUT the work".
And believe me, having been privy to an uncut version of this work, which I watched in order that I write this email as informed as possible; I have to agree. This film should never really have seen a flicker of daylight. Ever. Very few films in UK film history have earned rejection by the BBFC, and none so more deserving of that than Human Centipede: Full Sequence.
But it is the press release that followed that caused me grave concerns with your board. Link below again for your reference. In it you stated that a not-unanimous decision was made to grant this abhorrent film a certificate, pending 32 cuts. Unless those cuts were of a total of 87 minutes, I don't see how this could possibly be an acceptable option. Especially given the board's steadfast decision to reject the film earlier in the year. This is a particular quote that concerns me greatly:
"The cuts total 2 minutes 37 seconds and address all the concerns raised when the Board refused a classification on 6 June 2011, including those relating to sexual violence, graphic gore and the possibility of breach of the law relating to obscenity."
Given your earlier stance that the unacceptable content runs THROUGHOUT the work, and that therefore no cuts could possibly solve the issue of the obscenity of the film, SOMEHOW the decision was made, with one abstention, (and hats off to Mr Lemos for having the strength of will to hold fast to a decision) to grant an 18 with cuts.
So I think you can guess where I'm heading in this correspondence. What changed? How can anyone take the BBFC seriously as a body which is in place to protect us from damaging (and you called the film damaging) works from being unleashed into the UK public; when after rejecting a film on very justifiable grounds indeed, the board backs down. Having seen this film uncut, I can tell you that the scenes and shots you have ordered cut will make, and have made, no redeemable alteration to the disgusting, immoral and pornographic violence of the film from start to finish. Tom Six clearly made this film to shock, disgust and repulse everyone who sees it. I'm sure some will discuss it as a post modern satirical take on the way we have accepted violence in society, taking pleasure in it, and all that other navel gazing bunkum, but the truth is, that's not what Tom Six wanted, and this film is not fit for human consumption. What could possibly be interpreted as entertainment in this film? Nothing. Not a thing. All the worst outrage triggers are there- child abuse, indecent assault, murder of the elderly, pregnant and newborn alike. Even if those scenes were removed, there is no escaping that the acts will have happened. For instance, removing the unfortunate accidental death of the baby won't trick audiences into thinking it never happened. Not since the cuts to the film have been publicised. No amount of trimming here and there will remove the overall horror from minute 1 to 87.
So, again, my question is, why the U-turn? What persuaded you to relent? Why did removing insignificant elements of this wholly and consistently disgusting film go from being unviable to acceptable?
I expect you believe that a classified DVD of this film in the UK is going to dissuade the public from finding and downloading the rejected version? The truth is, the public want to watch what they want to watch. They'll find the means to do it, with or without a coloured number in a circle on the box. You should have stood by your original decision, because now, your latest action makes you look like a board that can be browbeaten into submission, into condoning an irredeemable anthology of inexcusable gore and depravity.
See, I would understand if it were a cut to remove an imitable technique from a kids film, or to replace a swear word with a less obscene one, but what you must realise is this is a film that is reprehensible throughout. Of course you realise that, you said it, in a press release yourselves. Not only that, but here is a film that will be more accessible the children. I not care what you think you know about 18 certificate films won't be shown to kids. Have you seen adults these days? A lot of them are pricks. For the same reason as you would never allow an MPAA style rating system, because you know lazy parents would rather take their kids to see an R rated movie than hire a baby sitter, parents won't always shield their little darlings from what they are watching. This is how it will go: "well, we let little Tiffany watch The Inbetweeners with us, that went okay, and this film is an 18 too, so I suppose it will be fine".
I'm sure you're aware that idiots out there use classifications not as an indication of strength of content, but of general quality. They will compare the "18" to, say, Fight Club, and think, "it must be the same". And then the little munchkins will either see it from the corner of the living room, or get hold of it and watch it in their bedrooms, on their DVD players or their XBoxes.
Sure, kids get access to a lot of adult material. The average 12 year old today has seen more porn online than you or I have ever seen. This is precisely why it's important to carefully consider just who could see this work, The Human Centipede: Full Sequence. It is fair to expect the public to use the ECI and make their own decisions, but guess what? Nobody I know seems to be aware. Nor do they care that it does. They just look at the pretty coloured symbols, and like chimps,they build expectations based on the connotation that the number and colour represents. In the case of this film, allowing the public to make that judgement is like giving a loaded gun to a child.
Don't let this film go. I implore you to reject again. If this film gets a BBFC certificate all it will mean is after this point, anything will go. You will find it harder and harder to justify cutting anything again. Or rejecting. Film makers will turn the publicity of their "rejected-oh-no-wait-no-it's-not" into free marketing. It will generate increased searching for the Holy Grail of that cut version. And in the case of a film like this, which until recently you at the BBFC decreed should never be classified for exhibition; increased searching and watching of such a work can only cause more damage in the end.
I have never been so histrionic or horrified about anything until now. Aside from my objection to your "12a" guidelines, a huge commercial cop out in my opinion, I have never EVER wished a decision by the BBFC be repealed. I do now.
I'd love to know why the change of standard. BBFC, you disappoint me.
Craig Jenkins
Aged 28
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2011/06/bbfc-rejects-the-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2011/10/the-british-board-of-film-classification-bbfc-has-awarded-an-18-classification-to-a-cut-version-of-the-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence-following-32-cuts/
Friday, 18 November 2011
I got mad at the BBC
Just because I could. TV is awful these days. Luckily, UK Gold shows repeats of programmes I have always really enjoyed, for instance 2.4 Children. Sadly, it reminded me that the BBC of today can't hold a candle to the awful shit that we pay our TV licence for.
Hence this rant to their complaints department.
"Please, just stop. Stop the incessant dross that spews forth from your television centre. Stop allowing the continuity announcers from revealing the outcome of every episode of Eastenders. The papers do a good enough job of revealing every single development in TV soaps, so there's no need for you to do it too. Sometimes I like to watch a show to see what unfolds, not be told before the theme music even begins. Mind you, Eastenders has become so depressing, unrealistic and mean spirited that it's probably best not to have to wade through 30 minutes of drivel each night.
BBC Three is the worst channel you have ever created. Nothing but offensive humour and car crash reality TV "documentaries" that make me want to punch a kitten full in the face with rage. In the unlikely event you do commission a great show, it's pushed into the late slots, and shown quickly in double episodes. Talk about blink and you miss it.
I know iplayer is a great way to catch up on your programming, but excuse me if I want to watch TV on an actual TV set, the one I paid for to use for the specific purpose of watching television programmes. I have no wish to watch a single program on a computer monitor, thank you very much.
On a further note, please sack Christ Moyles. He's an offensive, self centred man who has not evolved his material beyond 1998. Also, the same is true of Ricky Gervais. Each time you show a series of his, you are complicit in perpetuating that soulless, callous bully's mediocre "satire" career. I would rather see every minute of every day of every channel's programming replaced with repeats of 2.4 Children. You remember that series? It was brilliant, and no sitcom, save for Outnumbered has come close to the wacky brilliance of that show. Even "improvised" middle class kids getting Hugh Dennis in a paternal lather is wearing all too thin.
Remember when the BBC used to show Ren & Stimpy? Or broadcast Blue Jam? You used to be ground breaking. Now you're just formulaic, stale and cliched. You've spent far too much time worshipping Steven Moffat while he single handedly destroys Doctor Who by turning it into a convoluted mess that even Douglas Adams would turn away from, and not enough encouraging decent, worthy program's to join your line up. If I see another newsreader do the cha cha for Children in Need for yet another year I swear I'm going to lose it. However.
On the subject of Radio - Radio 1 is AWFUL. Radio 2 is good. Radio 4 and 4 Extra are brilliant. Perhaps consider remaking everything that ever broadcast on Radio 4 into a TV series? Oh, wait. That's been going on for decades. But it's not all bad news. Think about it, it could be worse. You could be ITV. Not even ITV wants to be ITV."
I'm not holding out for a reply, I'll be honest.
Craig.
Hence this rant to their complaints department.
"Please, just stop. Stop the incessant dross that spews forth from your television centre. Stop allowing the continuity announcers from revealing the outcome of every episode of Eastenders. The papers do a good enough job of revealing every single development in TV soaps, so there's no need for you to do it too. Sometimes I like to watch a show to see what unfolds, not be told before the theme music even begins. Mind you, Eastenders has become so depressing, unrealistic and mean spirited that it's probably best not to have to wade through 30 minutes of drivel each night.
BBC Three is the worst channel you have ever created. Nothing but offensive humour and car crash reality TV "documentaries" that make me want to punch a kitten full in the face with rage. In the unlikely event you do commission a great show, it's pushed into the late slots, and shown quickly in double episodes. Talk about blink and you miss it.
I know iplayer is a great way to catch up on your programming, but excuse me if I want to watch TV on an actual TV set, the one I paid for to use for the specific purpose of watching television programmes. I have no wish to watch a single program on a computer monitor, thank you very much.
On a further note, please sack Christ Moyles. He's an offensive, self centred man who has not evolved his material beyond 1998. Also, the same is true of Ricky Gervais. Each time you show a series of his, you are complicit in perpetuating that soulless, callous bully's mediocre "satire" career. I would rather see every minute of every day of every channel's programming replaced with repeats of 2.4 Children. You remember that series? It was brilliant, and no sitcom, save for Outnumbered has come close to the wacky brilliance of that show. Even "improvised" middle class kids getting Hugh Dennis in a paternal lather is wearing all too thin.
Remember when the BBC used to show Ren & Stimpy? Or broadcast Blue Jam? You used to be ground breaking. Now you're just formulaic, stale and cliched. You've spent far too much time worshipping Steven Moffat while he single handedly destroys Doctor Who by turning it into a convoluted mess that even Douglas Adams would turn away from, and not enough encouraging decent, worthy program's to join your line up. If I see another newsreader do the cha cha for Children in Need for yet another year I swear I'm going to lose it. However.
On the subject of Radio - Radio 1 is AWFUL. Radio 2 is good. Radio 4 and 4 Extra are brilliant. Perhaps consider remaking everything that ever broadcast on Radio 4 into a TV series? Oh, wait. That's been going on for decades. But it's not all bad news. Think about it, it could be worse. You could be ITV. Not even ITV wants to be ITV."
I'm not holding out for a reply, I'll be honest.
Craig.
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
I am back!
Well, it's been quite a while, has it not? "where the fuck have you been?" I hear you all cry, silently. Well, to begin with, I only got married, didn't I? So, now Sophie and I have settled down in a nice little married quarter, with some real nice neighbours. Whom I now go to slimming club with. And I have lost a stone since attending. I also finished the LET course at Sultan, with a couple of awards: one for highest overall course score, the other for the highest academic achievement. I even got a fine crystal wiskhy decanter for it.
But now? I'm on HMS Dauntless. Two weeks jive been there, and in the first day I learned more than I cared to know about stripping down a Wartsila engine, in just the first day. Basically, it's a wreck. The whole ship has system faults and design faults and all array of other flaws, that it's a shame we asked BAE Systems to build the Type 45s on the cheap.
Anyway. Whatever. I just got my iPad today and I'm so pleased, so I decided to blog, even though I have nothing really to say. For now, at least. I do have a whole hell of a lot of crap bouncing around in my head which I have a whole bunch of opinions and feelings about, yet, getting them down into a coherent blog entry is easier said than done.
So in the meantime, take care, be good, and watch this space.
Craig.
But now? I'm on HMS Dauntless. Two weeks jive been there, and in the first day I learned more than I cared to know about stripping down a Wartsila engine, in just the first day. Basically, it's a wreck. The whole ship has system faults and design faults and all array of other flaws, that it's a shame we asked BAE Systems to build the Type 45s on the cheap.
Anyway. Whatever. I just got my iPad today and I'm so pleased, so I decided to blog, even though I have nothing really to say. For now, at least. I do have a whole hell of a lot of crap bouncing around in my head which I have a whole bunch of opinions and feelings about, yet, getting them down into a coherent blog entry is easier said than done.
So in the meantime, take care, be good, and watch this space.
Craig.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Who cares? We all do!
Haven't blogged in a while, so here goes.
Phew, a lot has happened since I last ventured into the 'blogosphere', hasn't it? The News of The World was brought down (by Twitter, so they will have you believe) amidst the phone hacking revelations; Just yesterday a single sicko laid waste to scores of innocent people, mostly teenagers, in Oslo, and today, Amy Winehouse was found dead at the age of 27, in her Camden home. Also, if you didn't notice, there is a huge drought killing thousands in Somalia. But I can't blame you for having no knowledge of that, since the media saw fit to bury that.
But this is my point, what is "news worthy?" Well, for starters, Kate Middleton is not. Not her wedding dress, which is now on public display in some museum or whatever (I couldn't care less); her schmoozing around the world with her hubby, or even her plain Jane posh totty sister Pippa, who managed to score more screen time during Wimbledon than any of the players.
What annoys me most about Kate "I'm a commoner, didn't you know" and Prince William, is that now they've rubbed shoulders with the hoi-poloi of the elite and the rich of LA, Canada, Ascot and Wimbledon, they have decided to take some time "out of the public eye". Um..... No. This is your job now. To parade around the Commonwealth, bringing false smiles and sentiment to the unwashed masses. I wouldn't mind but, as you know, they haven't exactly been helping out at homeless shelters or kissing terminally ill babies, but pandering to politicians, celebrities and a paying audience. And it's not as if they've been doing it for very long. They've only been married since April, and already they want to take a break from their civic duties.
But what is newsworthy cannot be judged on how tragic it is when compared to other events. Case in point: the current furore concerning Twitter, regarding the coverage of the Oslo slaughter and the untimely demise of Amy Winehouse. The general concensus from most idiots on there today has been something along the lines of - and I'm paraphrasing here - "OMG like so Amy Winehouse is dead, so what, she was a druggie so who cares, why are the news all going on about this because I know that 90 dead Norwegian kids is far more tragic."
Luckily, the response from the sensible half of the Twitter population is one I share. It is this: First of all, you must realise that nobody has dropped the situation in Oslo to focus on the Amy Winehouse story. Secondly, for an online population who tweet incessantly about EVERYTHING that Justin Bieber does/says/eats/wipes his nose on, whining about so-say "trivial" news is not something they have a license to do. Thirdly, and finally, the coefficient of tragedy in comparison to other tragic events happening concurrently is not a useful way in which to judge whether it should be in the news or not. Nor is its inherent inevitability. I mean of course, that just because Miss Winehouse was on and off the wagon, and engaging in self destructive habits is not an excuse to effectively cry "Who cares, she pretty much deserved it."
The implication being that these idiots would probably devote their time to online mourning of Amy Winehouse if it was an otherwise slow news day. But because many more people died on another land mass died undeservedly, they are accusing the press of taking their eye off what they deem to be the more "important" news story. Sorry Amy, but your death couldn't have come at a worse time, we simply cannot care.
But do any of these people have any idea how many Somali children died today? Of course not. Because they are picking and choosing the news they want to care about, which is precisely what they are currently bemoaning. What they need to realise is that they can care about it all, at once, and no news story takes prevalence over another. Mourning Amy Winehouse and sympathy for the Oslo massacre victims are not mutually exclusive.
But try to tell these people that this is the case, and you get nowhere. In reply to one 19 year old from North Carolina who lamented that the news had dropped the Somalia drought coverage in favour of the Amy Winehouse story, I said that no one has buried a thing, the news is always available if you want to read it, and to have a little more faith. It pains me to see someone so young have so much bitter cynicism. Her reply to me, of course, was more succinct: "Who the FUCK are you?" Nice. And then I was blocked, but only after being referred to as "that white guy" in her tweets. Pleasant.
In all honesty I haven't really thought today's blog through, but I felt the need to lay some things to rest. You cannot trivialise anyone's death, no matter who they are. Just because something else happens in the news, it does not mean we should ignore what happened before. Every death that occured this weekend, whether in Oslo, Camden or Somalia, is unjust, unfair, and equally tragic. No one has the right to put an editorial value on anyone's life or death.
- Craig.
Phew, a lot has happened since I last ventured into the 'blogosphere', hasn't it? The News of The World was brought down (by Twitter, so they will have you believe) amidst the phone hacking revelations; Just yesterday a single sicko laid waste to scores of innocent people, mostly teenagers, in Oslo, and today, Amy Winehouse was found dead at the age of 27, in her Camden home. Also, if you didn't notice, there is a huge drought killing thousands in Somalia. But I can't blame you for having no knowledge of that, since the media saw fit to bury that.
But this is my point, what is "news worthy?" Well, for starters, Kate Middleton is not. Not her wedding dress, which is now on public display in some museum or whatever (I couldn't care less); her schmoozing around the world with her hubby, or even her plain Jane posh totty sister Pippa, who managed to score more screen time during Wimbledon than any of the players.
What annoys me most about Kate "I'm a commoner, didn't you know" and Prince William, is that now they've rubbed shoulders with the hoi-poloi of the elite and the rich of LA, Canada, Ascot and Wimbledon, they have decided to take some time "out of the public eye". Um..... No. This is your job now. To parade around the Commonwealth, bringing false smiles and sentiment to the unwashed masses. I wouldn't mind but, as you know, they haven't exactly been helping out at homeless shelters or kissing terminally ill babies, but pandering to politicians, celebrities and a paying audience. And it's not as if they've been doing it for very long. They've only been married since April, and already they want to take a break from their civic duties.
But what is newsworthy cannot be judged on how tragic it is when compared to other events. Case in point: the current furore concerning Twitter, regarding the coverage of the Oslo slaughter and the untimely demise of Amy Winehouse. The general concensus from most idiots on there today has been something along the lines of - and I'm paraphrasing here - "OMG like so Amy Winehouse is dead, so what, she was a druggie so who cares, why are the news all going on about this because I know that 90 dead Norwegian kids is far more tragic."
Luckily, the response from the sensible half of the Twitter population is one I share. It is this: First of all, you must realise that nobody has dropped the situation in Oslo to focus on the Amy Winehouse story. Secondly, for an online population who tweet incessantly about EVERYTHING that Justin Bieber does/says/eats/wipes his nose on, whining about so-say "trivial" news is not something they have a license to do. Thirdly, and finally, the coefficient of tragedy in comparison to other tragic events happening concurrently is not a useful way in which to judge whether it should be in the news or not. Nor is its inherent inevitability. I mean of course, that just because Miss Winehouse was on and off the wagon, and engaging in self destructive habits is not an excuse to effectively cry "Who cares, she pretty much deserved it."
The implication being that these idiots would probably devote their time to online mourning of Amy Winehouse if it was an otherwise slow news day. But because many more people died on another land mass died undeservedly, they are accusing the press of taking their eye off what they deem to be the more "important" news story. Sorry Amy, but your death couldn't have come at a worse time, we simply cannot care.
But do any of these people have any idea how many Somali children died today? Of course not. Because they are picking and choosing the news they want to care about, which is precisely what they are currently bemoaning. What they need to realise is that they can care about it all, at once, and no news story takes prevalence over another. Mourning Amy Winehouse and sympathy for the Oslo massacre victims are not mutually exclusive.
But try to tell these people that this is the case, and you get nowhere. In reply to one 19 year old from North Carolina who lamented that the news had dropped the Somalia drought coverage in favour of the Amy Winehouse story, I said that no one has buried a thing, the news is always available if you want to read it, and to have a little more faith. It pains me to see someone so young have so much bitter cynicism. Her reply to me, of course, was more succinct: "Who the FUCK are you?" Nice. And then I was blocked, but only after being referred to as "that white guy" in her tweets. Pleasant.
In all honesty I haven't really thought today's blog through, but I felt the need to lay some things to rest. You cannot trivialise anyone's death, no matter who they are. Just because something else happens in the news, it does not mean we should ignore what happened before. Every death that occured this weekend, whether in Oslo, Camden or Somalia, is unjust, unfair, and equally tragic. No one has the right to put an editorial value on anyone's life or death.
- Craig.
Monday, 6 June 2011
Time to complain again.
Dear Sky. This is not in fact a sky installation complaint, but given that it's nigh impossible to get through the customer complaints pages without being directed to a useless information page, I have had to make my following request to you in this fashion.
Yet again, I receive mail from you, addressed not to myself, but a "Mr C Jenking". My name is Mr JENKINS. See that "S" there? It's not a "G". I recall a time when I noticed this mistake before, and kindly requested that you amend this spelling error. It clearly has not happened, and I am indeed getting tired of asking. I would very much like for you to correct this, and change my account name to "CRAIG JENKINS", as that is, indeed, the very name of the person who holds this account. As for Mr Jenking, I can't tell you where he lives, or that he does indeed exist. He probably doesn't. I just find it a little insulting, especially given my diction over the telephone, that one of your Sky employees, on the day I decided to join your subscribing brotherhood, decided quite arrogantly that I should be known as C JENKING. I know what my name is, I've had it since birth, and I happen to rather like the noble surname of "Jenkins." Please see to it that my name is changed, to the correct spelling of my name (and yes, spelling of names is very important), or else I shall have to claim that Mr C Jenking is the rightful account holder, and you shall need to track him down before a single bill is paid again. Or perhaps in the spirit of giving, I shall have pay my bill to "SLY TV" or make cheques out to "Mr Rupert Burdoch".
Thank you so much in advance for your effort and cooperation,
Mr Craig T Jenkins.
Saturday, 21 May 2011
It's the end of the world.
So it's the last day for all Humanity. Harold Camping's warning to us all that the Rapture is occuring today has been met with mass hysteria, spontaneous conversion, confession of sins, and floods of frightened citizens the world over streaming into churches to attend services of prayer and repentance for their sins. The internet has seized under the sheer weight of Facebook, Twitter and blog posts as friends and family say their final goodbyes to loved ones far from reach. From my window I can see the Righteous ascend skyward; their earthly clothes left scattered in heaps below them as they rise toward the heavenly light to be embraced by their eternal God. I can hear the trumpets. It's coming this way, and I reckon I only have a short time to finish this, my final post, before the Heavenly Father scoops me up to his ethereal bosom. I turn on the TV and every channel is simulcasting an address from his holiness the Pope, bestowing a final blessing upon the world and offering his prayers to those who will be left behind, that they will not suffer when Satan's hoard of soldiers rise up for dominion over the earth and the wicked sinners. The Dalai Lama has already issued a statement renouncing his faith as folly in light of the amazing but frightening events that are occurring as we speak.
There's looting in the streets as the atheists, in panic, steal what they can in preparation for their long hunker-down while they await the final days to come. I see Muslims crying, screaming skyward at the realisation that their faith was misplaced, and they come to terms with the inevitable death that awaits them, with no entry into Allah's kingdom. These are truly the last days, and I pray I will ascend rather than to face to great sadness and tribulation which will befall those that will remain to defend themselves from the great Evil to come. But that doesn't matter, since the tremors have already started, and I fear it won't be long before the ground cracks open beneath us, in a great yawn that will swallow us all.
May God have mercy on us all.
YEAH RIGHT!!!!
There's looting in the streets as the atheists, in panic, steal what they can in preparation for their long hunker-down while they await the final days to come. I see Muslims crying, screaming skyward at the realisation that their faith was misplaced, and they come to terms with the inevitable death that awaits them, with no entry into Allah's kingdom. These are truly the last days, and I pray I will ascend rather than to face to great sadness and tribulation which will befall those that will remain to defend themselves from the great Evil to come. But that doesn't matter, since the tremors have already started, and I fear it won't be long before the ground cracks open beneath us, in a great yawn that will swallow us all.
May God have mercy on us all.
YEAH RIGHT!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)