Madness Creates Media, Media Creates Madness (An Essay, perhaps)

This is just a relatively brief theory of how media influences the lives of the Audience in a negative way.

Humans, as organisms, are broken in comparison to our animal counterparts.

Yes, we may have intelligence, but what have we turned it upon? Weapons to kill each other, or the ruthless industrialization of the precious natural world; yes, there are countless benefits to the boundless potential of our brains, but the human mind has created vicious devices and implements it uses freely. We suffer mental illnesses animals are blissfully ignorant to - if you can show me a schizophrenic cat or a bipolar parrot, I'll take a large step back with these hypothesises.

That in itself is bad enough, but the insanities we suffer would be much simpler without a such a bizarre society, or more specifically, a mass-controlling media that glorifies negative states of being. We live in a consumer culture, where the vast majority of art is a designed product created to make a profit, and the media does this by preying on the insecurities and the sicknesses of the mass audience. Artists individually might have no other intention than to express their own disorders, their heartache, or their pain through films, music and art, but the media machine has a very different idea what to do with it.

The moment the 'Artist' passes the 'Art' to the 'Industry', it loses value as an expression and becomes a 'Product'. The Product is then marketed for financial gain, ironically enough cheapening the Artist's persona as it makes him or her wealthier. This is not necessarily a harmful process, it's most likely the personal choice of the Artist to process his Art into a Product, and that's hardly morally reproachable. No, the issue I have with the Art + Industry = Product process is how the Industry packages the Product to appeal to the masses.

To sell clothes, an Industry will dress a drained, malnourished, stick insect of a girl in whatever the latest fashion is (I'm a critic, not a fashionista) and say to the Audience - "This is what you want to wear. If you wear this, you will be successful. You will be beautiful". It goes past creating a fleeting desire in the Audience and creates a personal dependency on attaining that status.

This 'Influence' is undeniable, and in the cases of Products such as video games, films, or books, it's understandable, it doesn't go to the extreme in creating a desire in the Audience that makes them feel as if they have to change themselves for happiness and success. But with fashion and anything cosmetic, it's vicious and deserves nothing more than the Audience's total disdain and disregard. I'll be the first to admit this is an overly idealistic concept to suggest, but it would certainly provoke the Industry into changing its targeting tactics to something that could at least achieve a positive Influence rather than a negative one.

The Industry, through its choice of representatives, encourages disorder. It has created an idea of beauty and happiness and repeated that single, harmful message ad nauseum until the pattern of thought in certain members of the Audience's individual component has become immovable. When the Industry packages a Product, in this case, a human being, they place it onto a pedestal, for a select mass, this becomes the only way to be. To be any other way is simply unacceptable, or so the Industry says.

In no way am I suggesting that individuals who fall for this are suggestible, or mindless cattle shepherded by supermodel dogs and their media masters, the Industry is a clever machine that knows how to Influence the Audience better than anything - it's had a lot of practise. But when it holds this sort of Influence and so heavily promotes a negative body image, it's no surprise that people become disordered and illnesses such as anorexia, bulimia and manic depression are plaguing society.

The media creates a no-win situation. First, the Influence subtly causes the 'Individual' to begin their negative behaviour. This is because of Industry programming, the Individual believes, whether this belief is subconscious or conscious, that if they achieve the promoted image, they too will be happy and beautiful.

This is extremely harmful, unfortunately for the Individual, and a further damning indictment of society. Anorexia has the highest mortality rate out of any other mental disorder, and when the Individual, through personal realization or external guidance, decides to free themselves from the Influence, the Industry lays a gauntlet before them.

For the majority, adverts trying to make you more aware of what you eat, or telling you to look after your weight, watch your sugar or calorie intakes, or to buy this butter because it has less saturated fats in it or whatever unnecessary bulletins they use to guilt trip people into buying their Product are harmless. The Audience thinks "Oh, perhaps I should consider buying Product X instead of Product Y, it's better for me"

The Reformer - an Individual in the process of removing the Industry's Influence - is vulnerable to such messages. It's a constant barrage of information that the Reformer takes as orders, thus creating a new Influence. This can make a reformation of normal human instinct and behaviour difficult, nigh on impossible. I'm not suggesting that the media actively encourages negative behaviours and promotes anorexia and bulimia (Though it's an idea I'm open to) , what I'm suggesting is that it discourages a removal of the Influence it subtly exerts.

The disorders I have chosen to use as examples are not media created. There are examples of them dating hundreds of years back, and it's no post-modernist culture phenomenon. But the Industry certainly creates thousands of false ideas of happiness, a mass illusion it uses to create a dependency on consumerism.

These are just some of my thoughts on this matter. I'm likely to expand upon them in the future, but if you've read this far, thank you, I'd love to read individual thoughts and opinions.

Laurence Braddow

A Wild Buffy Reboot Appeared!

BUFFY: A RETROSPECTIVE (When remakes go too far)

For me, and many others, hours of our young lives and beyond were spent staring fondly at Sarah Michelle Gellar delivering some karate – flavoured justice to the evil undead, supported by a wise cracking cast of witches, Watchers and peroxide blonde vampires. The show was new, it was original, and for a lot of adolescents, the show was the first introduction to some of the darker themes of life we’d yet to experience. When news recently surfaced about a reboot of the series in film format that didn’t involve Buffy’s beloved creator Joss Whedon, fans were in uproar – myself included.

Buffy, though stereotypically nineties from its original cinematic debut in, well, the nineties, evolved into a landmark cult series, with heartbreaking narrative, definitely sarcastic humour, and a liberal dose of pop – culture references. When the series began it had a lot of stigma to rid itself of, thanks to 20^th Century Fox’s severe mutilation of Whedon’s original screenplay. It was catastrophically misinterpreted by the director, who saw it as a comedy, perhaps a spoof, of how culture at the time saw vampires. It went from a brooding, dark piece to a broad comedy about horror movie clichés.

Fortunately, the character was given another chance, this time in series format. Seven series, one spin-off and several examples of merchandise, it came to an end with a glorious finale that gave Buffy the farewell she deserved. The ending was suitable, and while it was sad to see the show come to an end, it was acceptable.

The reason it holds such a deep place in the hearts of its fans is because it was an exploration through costumed metaphors of teenage anxiety. Much like every horror film made since the 1990’s, Buffy was made for teenagers. We could identify with the changes the characters faced, the relationships they screwed up, and the demons they fought – even if Buffy’s battles were more external than those of most teenagers.

Speaking bluntly, rebooting it is much like digging up a grave, forcing the corpse into a dress, slathering it with makeup and expecting it to pass off as a supermodel – though it just might have the same amount of bones on display, it’s just not the genuine article. Even if Whedon was playing a part in the reboot, it’d still feel wrong, when its original audience said their goodbyes to the character so long ago.

Unless it turns out to be the second coming of horror cinema, I won’t go and see the new film. Not through any self-righteous protest or boycott, simply because I said goodbye to the show and its characters so long ago. The time to make a movie from the franchise was at the end of Angel’s last series and abrupt cancellation, rather than almost eight years after the closing of the original series.

I only hope that the remake will do Whedon’s creation justice out of his hands, and maybe it’ll hold as dear a part of the younger’s heart as the original did mine. If anything it has the potential to revive interest in the original series, and that’s a positive in my opinion. In conclusion, the remake is a small tragedy, but nothing to fret over. After all, it can’t do anything to alter the memory of the original series in the minds of those who love it.

Vampires Suck (And so will this movie...)

This is the trailer for ‘Vampires Suck’, yet another puerile satire along the lines of Epic Movie, Superhero Movie, and Scary Movie. I’m not saying those films aren’t funny, in a dumb teenage sort of way, but they certainly aren’t witty.

The trailer certainly doesn’t make this one out to be any different. It’s just making all the Twilight jokes the entire internet has already made (and only on a slightly larger budget, I’d guess). The point I’m driving at is that making fun of Twilight is like making fun of Britney Spears or some other poor, stupid individual.

Yes, we can make several jokes at its expense, but it’s hardly a challenge, is it? The poor writing and simplistic characters make it an easy target. Not only that, but holding true to the Britney Spears analogy, it’s probably made more money than any of us ever will.

If you look at previous vampire spoofs-using Dracula: Dead & Loving it by Mel Brooks as an example, which was particularly ingenious-there really is a lack of imagination in the humour. I’m not trying to defend Twilight, not at all-this article is as much an assault on the poor quality of the entire phenomenon, but when the movie that spoofs your franchise looks this terrible, it’s a clear indicator of the quality of the original product.

Vampires Suck just doesn’t have anything new to work with. There are only so many jokes you can make at the abysmal character development and hackneyed storylines of Stephenie Meyers’ abortive attempt at an undead saga. She’s made millions of dollars of off something a real writer would consider a basic frame for a novel, and I don’t begrudge her the money, I just weep for the people who’ve been suckered in by that drivel.

I suppose in essence it’s not Vampires Suck’s fault that it looks so bad when the subject matter itself is more like a spoof than an actual story. Twilight is a parody that forgot it was a parody and tried to make something serious of itself, which would make Vampires Suck a spoof of a spoof.

In my humble opinion, this film will go unnoticed. But in slightly happier news, this looks rather excellent-

http://www.youtube.com/user/SonyPicsUK?v=e5dSEMV7EUg&feature=pyv&ad=6519465916&kw=the%20social%20network

Expect an article dedicated to this fantastic looking piece of cinema very soon.

-Laurence Braddow

BioShock 2 review

A FISTFUL OF PLASMIDS

The trouble with reviewing a game as established and epic as BioShock 2 or its older brother is chiefly this-where do you even start?

There is so much scope for analysis, even right from the beginning. Do I elucidate just how deep and stylish the decaying utopia of Rapture is? How much things have changed in the game’s incredibly complex world in the decade between games? Or how real the experience feels, despite the fact that you’re playing as a reanimated Frankenstein’s monster that can hurl thunderbolts, fireballs and freeze enemies in their tracks with glacial blasts?

I suppose then, the best starting point and the key figure in all of those factors is how you, the player, experience them. And that, fellow explorers of Rapture, is Subject Delta.

Standing roughly eight feet tall with a fistful of Plasmids (The game’s genetic superpower themed upgrades) and a drill for an arm, Delta is different from the Big Daddies 2K familiarized us with in the first aquatic instalment. He’s the first Big Daddy, and he certainly means business. Delta is on the hunt for his own Little Sister, taken from him a decade ago at the same time he supposedly dies. Since his demise, Rapture has crumbled into a dystopia torn apart by civil and genetic war, populated solely by the insane mutants known as Splicers, and a new, enigmatic villain has stepped in.

Her name is Sofia Lamb, and she (Not to mention the vast sprawl that is the underwater city of Rapture)is what stands between you and your Little Sister. You’ll have to cross the entire city, face hundreds of enemies and obstacles, all the while collecting Adam-think of it as genetic money you use to buy more power-and ‘dealing’ with Little Sisters.

Now, onto how you go about doing so. As you start, you’re a pretty hefty chap-not many games start you out with inches of steel armour and a drill for a hand. So for the introduction, you’re swatting away wrench-wielding Splicers like flies as they rush at you, becoming mere fodder for your drill. You pick up your first gun, and then your first Plasmid, and the game seems to be ticking along at an even pace until ‘Shock 2 really drops in its ace in the hole.

Say hello to the Big Sister. She’s smaller than you, lighter than you, and ten times as dangerous. The first time you try to claim a Little Sister, she appears out of nowhere, with only the ominous screech of her movement as an indicator. The little girl in front of you says “Big Sister doesn’t want you playing with me” and then you realize-this is what you have to fear as a Big Daddy. It’s like being attacked by a hormonal teenage girl with psychic powers and a giant drill.

She is relentless in her assault, throwing Plasmids at you in rapid succession, and keeping up with you in melee combat. If you take your eyes off of her for a split second, she speeds out of sight only to strike from behind. You’re not the top of the Adam chain in Rapture, she is.

After a short-lived battle, Big Sister retreats-and when you follow her, she drops the ocean on your head. At this point, we’re introduced to one of the plethora of new features 2k have introduced in an attempt to make the sequel stand apart from the original. It’s fantastic, and it does feel great to stomp around as a terrifying Big Daddy on the ocean floor, but all the features combined just don’t do enough.

Yes, we’re exploring new places in Rapture. But it’s still the same city. Still the same aesthetic, still populated by the same A Clockwork Orangeinspired hooligans. Seeing it through the eyes of a Big Daddy who can survive at the bottom of the ocean really doesn’t change that much. It throws morality choices at you every now and then-returning is your dilemma of whether to harvest or rescue the Little Sisters-and they do have an effect on which one of six endings you get. But it has no fundemental effect on gameplay.

Despite the fact that nothing’s really new in everybody’s favourite underwater hellhole, the storyline remains rich and lovingly crafted. Though Rapture doesn’t quite have the eerie impact it did the first time around, it remains a thoroughly enjoyable place to experience, and a truly perfect setting for the narrative.

What I suppose it all boils down to is this-if you’re looking for something new and equally impressive as the first descent into Rapture was, you will be disappointed. Essentially the same weapons and Plasmids prevail, and it doesn’t provide all that much new. But if you love the franchise and you don’t mind retreading old ground to experience an entirely new story, supported by incredible graphics and one of the most fitting, cinematic scores ever to grace the videogame industry, then this comes highly recommended.

Laurence Braddow

BioShock: Infinite Preview

BIOSHOCK: INFINITE PREVIEW

Okay, so it’s not really new, but that doesn’t stop it from being blog-worthy. This ten minute spectacle is nothing short of jaw-dropping, and if it was even possible, elevates the BioShock franchise to a whole new level(quite literally).

It’s no secret that I’m a BioShock nut-when it comes to next gen games, it’s the only one I’d say was my favourite-but it’s no secret to anyone that it massively succeeded. I fell in love with the first game’s atmosphere, and it took me and thousands of other gamers on an unforgettable deep-sea adventure.

By BioShock 2, people were either anticipating it or dreading it, because it would either ruin the so beloved memory of the first game, or build upon the decaying world of Rapture with enough interest to sustain a second trawl across the city. It did neither, because unfortunately it fell prey to its own genius.

Rapture, though still glorious, still terrifying, just… wasn’t as impressive the second time around. The thought of a forced BioShock 3 so soon afterwards was a dangerous concept. Because BioShock is so obviously connected to Rapture, most assumed that it would be yet another descent into the broken Utopia.

They were wrong, and this trailer proves that. This is still BioShock, no doubt about that. But it’s much more personal, much more intimate. As Booker experiences Columbia, he speaks-he’s not a faceless, nameless unfortunate simply wandering around the city by accident, he’s there on purpose.

They’re Plasmids, but not as we know it!

The Plasmids seem to have had an overhaul, with some old favourites returning-like Telekinesis, which now allows you to grab guns out of enemy’s hands and shoot them. Most intriguing is Elizabeth-Booker’s purpose for being in Columbia-she has powers too, and hers augment Booker’s. During the video they’re seen combining them several times in ways that will definitely make for some interesting setpieces throughout.

I’m really looking forward to experiencing Infinite through an actual character. ‘Jack’ Ryan was little more than an avatar, a story device, a sort of viewing window for the player to experience the city. Delta, whilst having a motive and a face-sort of-was still voiceless, and seemed to have no reaction to the world around him.

Booker reacts as Columbia reacts to him. He speaks, he shouts, he seems to be approaching the flying city with the same level of wonderment that we do. So much has changed, and yet the game is still so definitively BioShock. Roll on 2011, because I can guarantee Infinite will breathe new life into the series.

Laurence Braddow

EYR

Students on the National Diploma in Media Production have been preparing for the three day broadcast of Eastbourne Youth Radio, an annual event at the college that gives the college, not to mention several schools in the area, a voice.

The build up to EYR has been a rather tense affair. Students have been placed under an unprecedented amount of pressure in a true industry-mirroring style, yours truly included. The event is a huge opportunity, a long-awaited chance to stretch our wings and gain valuable experience, and most have risen to the occasion admirably, with an expected few lounging behind in a sloth-like refusal to take part.

Amongst the array of deadlines, demands, and awkward sponsors, many have emerged as promising radio talent. Others, like myself, have performed to request without any embellishment, because radio is simply not an area of interest. I have no criticisms of the production; it's enjoyable to work on and well organized, but radio just isn't my forte. I have contributed to the show by working with a sponsor-as most other students have, producing a documentary in a team, and producing one individually.

For the next three days, we'll be spending more time at college than at home. I have no problem with this whatsoever, and I'm anticipating the overnight music shows as I'll get to present something of actual interest to me, but I've only been given a vague idea of what's expected of me until then. Some of us have just been told to turn up and essentially work as runners for the students given the essential tasks.

As a writer by preference, I will do as I do best: write about how well everyone else did, and how professional the entire affair was. Expect another update on Friday, I'm off to write the running order for my music show!

Laurence Braddow

GHOSTED (A preview of sorts)

Fifty media students, at the behest of a proud, well-meaning tutor filed into a classroom last week to watch an exclusive screening of Ghosted, a debut feature film by former National Diploma student Craig Viveiros. The aforementioned tutor has a habit of overhyping opportunities, but this time, it was a genuine treat.

The film isn’t quite finished yet, a few details such as colour grading and sound mixing need attending to before it’s ready for theatrical release. These minor issues do nothing to detract from the story’s incredible emotional impact. It’s a prison drama, but not like any you’ve seen before, with that unique, gritty British feel that lends so much indomitable, undeniable atmosphere to Viveiros’ emerging masterpiece. It’s extremely exciting to see this, as his first feature film, showing so much promise. This is one director the British film industry can expect great things from.

Ghosted never makes a point of trying to challenge our expectations, and yet, that becomes one of its greatest successes. As with any film, we arrive at the typical British prison setting armed with a veritable array of preconceptions, some of which are met by the film’s (sometimes literally) writhing narrative, but never in the way we expect them to be. One obvious example is the token shower scene, an anxiety built upon from the very start as the sinister, predatory prisoner lays his hungry gaze upon young newcomer Paul.

The scene is brutal but leaves the majority of the content to the imagination, remaining tasteful to an extent to avoid lowering the tone of the story. Paul’s violent punishment for refusing his predator is more vividly realized than anticipated, and as he’s seen sinking to the floor, crying, the entire audience feels his pain on a truly personal level. It’s flawlessly done, and hits harder than any huge studio Hollywood attempt.

I want to rave about the genius of the plot, and the fantastic flow of the story, but I feel as if I could potentially ruin the experience for anyone who might read this article and go on to see the film, so I’ll keep the details quiet. I’ll provide a proper review on the film when it’s out, but this is more about the experience of being one of the first people outside of the industry to witness Ghosted.

We had the privilege of talking to Craig and the storyboard artist after the screening. They were both very open and down-to-earth when questioned, providing any hopeful directors with the brutal truth of the industry, naked of any embellishments or starry-eyed naiveté. There was one question I wanted answered, and who better to answer it than the director himself? Nervously in the face of a man who had so modestly shown us a film that was essentially his baby, I asked:

“Where did the idea for the script come from?”

Craig explained his inspiration openheartedly as we all had come to expect – it was an entirely fictional story, but inspired by the very real misfortune of one of his friends, who had been jailed for an entirely unfair reason. Prison, he explained, changes people, people who might have been well-adjusted and happy before going into ‘correctional’ facilities. At Craig’s own modest admission, it’s a social commentary as well as a moving piece of cinema. In my humble opinion, it’s a rather excellent one at that.

-Laurie Braddow