the morality maze

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8112630.stm

'mistakes were made over the treatment of Susan Boyle' - tell us something that we don't know Mr Cowell. Is it not a case that if you play with fire then eventually you are going to get burnt?


For years we have watched as show such as 'Britain's Got Talent' and 'X Factor' have churned out an array of acts that have been laughed at for 'believing' that they have some talent. Should these talent shows take more responsibility for the effects caused to these people that are arguably very vulnerable?


Arguably there is a huge difference between giving criticism to some aspiring stars who turn up for an audition and what is currently taking place on the so called reality television in this country.


The main case in point in the press at the moment is, of course, Susan Boyle. This is a woman who has been a semi recluse for years and clearly has difficulties with social interaction that could suggest for her to be placed on the autistic spectrum. Questionably, the show exploited this vulnerability to make the show interesting - shocking the audience with the image of an unattractive person who, shock alert, can actually sing (because anybody who knows anything about modern pop music can tell you that only the beautiful people have good voices).


This was bad enough and of course has made a lot of press, but a character that put this exploitation of the public in context for me was a young man who came on and attempted to do Keepy-Uppies on stage. Now this kid was obviously not the brightest, he wasn't very good at keepy uppies, but for some reason he thought that he was. Now, surely the honest thing to do would be to send this kid on his merry way and tell him to keep practising. Not for the 'BGT' producers who decided to let this boy go on stage in front of hundreds of people, not to mention the millions at home, and make a fool of himself. Something that has surely led to a great deal of teasing and bullying when the lad got back to school.

The question is should shows be allowed to take advantage of people who wrongly believe that they have a talent in this way? Do we need to put a stop to the shows? bring in rules on responsibility and limits on what they can do? Or is everything fair game in the name of entertainment?

the digital britain report

So the Government is waking up to the idea that you can't just ignore the digital revolution, but what do they propose to do?

The main issues that have stood out to me:

Firstly, Broadband internet is to be made accessable to all at a minimum speed (hurray). A retro Labour socialist ideology in the digital age? Gordon Brown actually likened the need for internet to that of electricity, water and gas. Does this mean you will be able to keep downloading movies when you go bankrupt because it is a staple resource that can't be cut off?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8093054.stm

Secondly, Due to the fact that the ability to download/ watch programmes online has affected the profits of commercial companies there is a suggestion that the licence fee should be shared by the BBC with other broadcasters. So, ITV has made cut backs to local news coverage due to a lack of funds - should they be given licence fee money to fund these programmes?

ITV spends a lot of its budget on reality shows, sports and soaps that are arguably lowest common denominator broadcasting, which makes them a lot of money in advertising sales. Would ITV not just decide that they can put more money into this type of programme and allow the license fee to take care of shows that they feel do not have as much commercial value? Would this lower the quality of television produced?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8102179.stm

28 days later (2002) / 28 weeks later (2007)

I originally avoided watching these films as I felt that it would just result in me spouting my annoyance in another British director selling out to Hollywood. Needless to say I have enough annoyance factor in my life without needing to pay for the experience.

I eventually succumbed to watching them due to teaching a module on British Cinema and searching for a Hollywood influenced British film. This I found, but much, much more as well.

Clearly, Danny Boyle has made a conscious decision to produce a genre film with all the special effects, action, narrative points that would appease your general Box Office botherers. The film gained a lot of press for the amazingly grand scenes of a deserted London filmed using crane shots and featuring ruins and abandoned vehicles, which must have been a relatively expensive shoot. This seems to have been financed by a surprisingly high level of product placement - a number of shots of various Pepsi products are forced on the viewer at the beginning of the movie. The most hilarious of which sees Jim (Cillian Murphy) gulping down Pepsi when he emerges from a coma at the beginning of '28 days' giving the connotation that Pepsi will be there for you when you need it most. I believe, and hope, that this over the top advertising is Danny Boyle's way of mocking product placements while still running of with the money. This, I think, is a very important point as while both films are both financed in part by 20th Century Fox they feature a great deal of attributes associated with British film.

Both films feature naturalistic performances by British actors who all have history in making realist British films. The acting purposefully avoids being melodramatic, which mustn't have been easy when zombies start attacking on mass. Another major British realist element would be the documentary style camera work used to shoot many scenes - making the viewer a participant in the action taking place.

The major thing that makes this film stand out from your usual American horror genre flick though is the surprising depth of the films. The messages and values here being concerned with the dehumanisation of society in extreme situations; punctuated by the cold and calculated way characters are dispatched when they become infected. The juxtaposition is obvious in the films between those who are out for self preservation and those who will sacrifice all for others. The gripping points being the attempted rapes at the military base in '28 days' and the story surrounding Robert Carlyle's character Don in '28 weeks' - from the moment he makes his shocking decision in the opening scene to the tense and astounding interplay with his wife later on.

I would have to say that I made a mistake in not seeing these films at the cinema - 2 films that really draw together what you want from an entertainment film and a thought provoking drama. excellent stuff. now for the prequel - 28 seconds later.