Academic Blog Mk Five: Do Humans Dream of Sheep?

ok so in class there had been a whole mention of Ridley Scott's masterpiece 'Blade Runner' so I thought that seeing as this was primarily a film blog before (and will be again) that I could do a little analysis of the film. Now I sorta talked in an earlier blog about technophobia in film and how especially in the genre of science fiction, we get very different views on how technology will affect humanity. Not just how it will affect us in our everyday function but how it will change what it means to be human. Or not change it, there's varying situations put forth in many different films.

'Blade Runner' though stands quite clear on the side of the argument that 'yes, technology will change humanity'. This is quite clear as the narrative constantly throws the out the question of "what is human and what is technology". In fact the title of Dick's book is that very question. Do androids dream of electric sheep? If they do what does this inherently mean? Does the ability to dream make us human or is the soul something that can be replicated in a computer.

Sean Redman puts forth an argument in the book "The Blade Runner Experience" that the film purposefully creates a binomial opposition between nature and technology or in more specific terms, Humans and Replicants. Stating that nature is banished from the visual style giving only the dark foggy streets of the city as an indicator of this. This style clearly indicates a dystopia that would seem to be a product of the technology that has been implicated in society.

But at the same time the film sits on the fence by constantly addressing that technology can be the same as nature, therefore adding a little bit of technophilia to the narrative. The sparkling lights and intoxicating feel of the same dark city show that it clearly is not all so gloomy.

It could be argued that the film warns of both the dangers and benefits of technology but ultimately does not show which is the greater. This is probably best seen in the ambiguity and heated debate over "Deckard's" true nature. The fact that this one key fact can still put in ambiguity plays to the ultimately ambiguous answer the film gives to the question. By the end we still don't know what is "human" and what is technology.

Though "Blade Runner" is not the only film to deal with these issues and in the next blog ill be tackling "Gattaca".

Academic Blog Mk 4: One Second Photo

Here on the interblag we tend to (as producers of content) create very important online identities. I think anyone who has ever been on a chat room or forum can clearly see the alter egos some people portray on the web. Anyone can say they are...well anyone. This is why so many celebritiy twitter accounts seek some sort of vaildation. I remember in the glory days of myspace, high school students would make up fake profiles of teachers to slander them (and im sure people still do that on facebook). But that said, it is easy to pretend to be someone else on the internet but how do you communicate who you are in the real world?

Just signing up to a facebook account we asked to basically define who we are in a short amount of space and in most cases that definition comes via a profile picture.

However this "Definition" of ourselves is usually altered or at least manipulated in some way to present the most attractive view possible. BBC News reported a study contducted on Facebook porfile pictures and found some very interesting results you can read on the link. One being that men were 50% more likely than women to have their profile photo retouched. I can't be the only one who finds that suprising?

When I look at my own choices though at what I choose to display on public profiles, I can't pretend they are not carefully chosen to present me in a good light. I'm fairly certain most people would find the same. But is the carefully selected photo of ourselves really who we are or just what we think other people would like to see?

Academic Blog Mk Three: High 'Tech' Anxiety

Technophobia is just another one of those topics that draws my attention especially in film. When you think about how many times science fiction uses technology as a catalyst to destruction or the very antagonist its self, you tend to see that technology will ultimately destroy us. Or it will be our Savior. This is a classic dichotomy in the science fiction genre, technology (and science) will either doom us or create the needs to save us. If you look back at the golden age of science fiction film there is a clear reflection of the anxiety in society over nuclear science and technology. One example of this would be "Them!" (1954) which featured a nest of radioactive ants caused by atomic fallout. In the height of atomic testing it's clear to see why there was an anxiety over the effects atomic testing was having at the time. A counter to this though would be "The beast from 20,000 fathoms"(1953) where nuclear science saves the world from a giant dinosaur.

Personal computers, video games, the Internet and many others have been used as plot devices in cinema to play off the inherent anxiety we have over technology. The more our lives become dependent on something the more nervous we become that it will fail us or worse, actively turn against us. We see this in films like "The Terminator"(1984) and "The Matrix"(1999) where advanced technology has destroyed all human civilisation. Though the impact of online social media hasn't really been explored in science fiction...at least not to the point where the world is a post apocalyptia because of it. Digital media in science fiction always seems to serve as a background device, just an extra problem in dystopian world that pacifies the populous. "Gamer"(2009) is a good example of this where the concept of "Second life" is taken to an absolute extreme.

So basically what I'm trying to get at with this is that if we look at the reflection of technology in science fiction we kinda get a glimpse into out collective fears. This is nothing new because...well...all art is a reflection of some feeling we have as a society.

Anyway that's all I got for this week, I think there was just too much running through my head to fit into a post without it being an essay. anyhow till next time.

Be Seeing you

Academic blog Mk Two: the mis-information highway

It's that item again for the second in the new installment of blogs and this time I've decided to have a look at the credibility of of online sources of information (in relation to the reading on trust and trasperancy). This topic has always been an issue for me, especially when trying to get the latest news on films and TV Shows one can see the pure amount of bull spread by supposed "inside sources". Sure entertainment news is already a muddy mess of mis-information without the aid of the Internet, take the British tabloids for one. The internet is full of these kind of rumors though, whether it be that some celebrity has died or what a new episode of a TV show will feature. Another blogger on Helium.com suggests that these rumors come about through a few different ways but only one of those really pertains to the Internet. Todd Pheifer (the blogger in question) says that the questionable standards of fact checking on the net are to blame. Though while this is true some of the information that is pure fiction reported on the web is not always verifiable.

The one example that keeps coming to my mind is from when "Terminator: Salvation" was in pre-production and a rumor was reported about the film's apparent ending. While at the time the "spoiler" was largely rejected at being so ludicrous it just could not be true. That no sane film maker could possible use this proposed ending. However the rumor was actually true and it was only the bad reaction from the leak that got the producers to scrap this part of the script.

I guess what I'm trying to get at in this is though there is that even with trust earned from news sources there will always be times where secrets are leaked and not only because there is too much information available and if every piece of news from an unnamed source was not published well...let's just say we'd have a pretty terrible terminator film on our hands (though some would say it's terrible anyway).

Well that's all I've got to say on that matter for now, oh and for those coming here for the film reviews I promise I'll get one up soon.

Academic Blog Mk One: The anti-social media.

Basically for those who do tune in regularly, there will be one new segment placed on this blog due to it being a requirement for a Media subject. Simply, instead of making a new blog for my academic scrawlings I thought it would be much easier to host them on here. So expect a weekly installment....

To kick things off I thought I'd address a little statement that really interested me last Monday in class. When a correlation was made between the current habits of consuming food and consuming media. That both, which were a perhaps a family event (especially things like dinner) have become a more individualised or isolated activity. I can say that I rarely sit down and eat dinner together with my family...or any meal for that matter at home. In the same regard we also consume our media separately in different parts of the house. I never watch television in the living room, I do it on my own in my study.

What made intrigued by this is the issue of which was the byproduct of which. Was I in here because I didn't like eating with my family or because I didn't like the television they watched. Then something sprung to mind from a few years back when iPods where all the rage in the schoolyard. A Current Affair (or Today Tonight, I don't rightly remember which) ran a story about child psychologists suggesting that the new technology was causing anti-social behavior. That children during lunch time where just plugging in the headphones and not having any social interaction. I then initially blew it off as technophobia (which I still believe it is) but now I can see that it does have some validity. Well at least the concept that the consumption of media is become more isolated.

Now...I do believe that if I had no computer and only one television in the house I'd probably be watching it at dinner time. However I don't think being isolated in my study is such a bad thing. My family hasn't broken down, I'm fairly close to them and spend more time doing more meaningful things with them than watching Television.

So...I guess my point here is that while ACA might say that technology will cause us all to be anti-social I believe the opposite and that it can actually create more social interaction. providing we do actually get out of the study at some point.

So that's it first in this series...and stay tuned for my next non-academic blog on "Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World".

"Predators" or "How 80's action returned"

I love 1987's "Predator". I mean love it. I have since I can remember. Even "Predator 2" was awesome. In my view that is. Since 2004's "Alien vs. Predator" both franchises have taken a tail dive into pure exploitation (AvP:R) and lost all the cinematic glory that they once had. "Predators" restores all the menace and fear the interplanetary hunter once carried, while also bringing something new to the table. So from here on in....Spoilers

The film starts off badly. And I mean really badly. Our main hero "Royce" is freefalling, for no explained or apparent reason. He freaks out and finds he can't open a parachute he's wearing before a light goes on and the chute automatically opens. Landing in some trees, the chute rips apart and Royce falls to the jungle floor. Cue title card. Literally the opening on this almost made me laugh just due to the sudden cut to the title card which then cuts back to basically where we were before like nothing happened. Anyway soon Danny Trejo falls from the sky and threatens Royce when suddenly Gatling gun fire appears. Royce flanks our Russian character and the trio are greeted to our token female character, Isabelle. Eventually a group forms with more of the cast running into each other with an African RUF fighter and our death row inmate (Stans) found fighting each other. Also our Yakuza character (Hanzo) is stalking the group. Edwin (Topher Grace) completes the cast and plays the totally normal guy who has no idea why he's there. The group does alot of searching and walking before realising something is very wrong. They do alot of walking and Edwin saves our Russian friend from a deadly flower and earns his protection in return.

Eventually they reach a cliff and see a group of planets in the atmosphere that really shouldn't be there. Now concluding that they are screwed they are attacked by a sorta dog like creature with tusks. We finally get some shooting happening before a whistle blows and the attack dogs are called back. The group looks around to find that Danny Trejo has disappeared but are able to hear his cries for help. They find him sitting in a field injured with his back facing them. Royce realises it's a trap and the group departs before it is revealed that a predator is mimicking the cries for help. Royce decides to follow the alien attack dog trails which lead the group to a encampment where one of the alien hunters is tied up. Turns out this is a trap and our African member is killed. The Russian looses his mini-gun due to a plasma caster exploding it. The group flee and fall down a hill and into a lake (much like we've seen before). Our Token Female has a go at Royce for leading them into a trap and he turns it back on her asserting that she knows what's hunting them. She recounts the story of Dutch's team from 'Predator' and the group decide to trap the hunters themselves. Here we get some character development and very funny lines but they notice that something is out there avoiding the trap they've set. Edwin is sent out as bait and is chased by another alien creature when Laurence Fishburn's Noland shows up to save the day.

Noland leads the group to his hideout which is in some sort of crashed ship. The group rests and it becomes clear that Noland is insane with him talking to voices in his head. Noland sheds some light on the situation stating that they come every season and hunt in threes and that also there is a blood feud between the smaller hunters and the larger ones. He also lets on that there is a ship near the predator encampment and that he has been watching them all along. That night Noland turns on the group and tries to kill them using smoke but Royce shoots something which causes part of the ship to explode alerting a near by predator. Noland runs off and is killed (or more vapourised) by the predator. The group escapes but Edwin gets lost in the ship's hallways, alerting the group they find him trapped and leave him there but the Russian goes back for him due to the whole deadly flower thing. The predator hot on their trail catches the Russian by stabbing him through the chest, however there just happens to be an anti-personal mine on his stomach. Things go boom and the group escapes through tunnels to the surface where two other predators are waiting.

Stans jumps one of them and the group runs off. Stans then gets thrown to the group and has his spine ripped out. Yay gore! The Yakuza assassin decides that he will stay behind in a grassy field and attempt to fight with a samurai sword. Here the movie starts the become kick ass with Hanzo fighting off and killing the second predator in a damn sword fight! However Hanzo is also killed and now we are left with three. Edwin is caught in a trap designed to maim, Isabelle wants to carry him along with them but Royce believes it will slow them down way too much. This causes the group to part ways. Royce makes it back to the camp and frees the tied up predator from before hoping that it will help him get off the planet. It does and programs the ship to auto pilot back to Earth. Meanwhile Isabelle and Edwin get trapped in a net and our last "bad" predator drags them back to camp. They are chucked into a hole cave thing and the "good" predator starts up a fight with his alien blood feuding brother. Seeing two predators beat the crap out of each other is worth seeing this film but eventually the good one is decapitated. Aww. The ship starts to take off apparently with Royce onboard but is self-destructed by that last "bad" predator.

While in the hole Edwin attacks Isabelle with his scalpel, poising her with the neurotoxin still on the blade from the deadly flower. Edwin reveals he is a serial killer and feels at home with the monsters on this planet. Royce shows up (not dead obviously) and pulls them out of the hole. Edwin goes back to playing innocent before attempting to sneak up on Royce, however this fails and Edwin ends up with a scalpel through his chin. Royce uses Edwin to set up a trap attaching something like 10 grenades to Edwin's chest and leaving him in the middle of the camp. As the last predator finds Edwin the grenades explode and Royce ignites a ring of gun powder he had placed around the camp, using the fire to mask his heat signature. He starts to smash the hunter with a bone, getting in some well timed strikes. However the creature switches to an audio mode and locates his heartbeat. The tide of the fight changes and Royce is beaten into submission...but Isabelle is starting to regain control of her limbs and uses her sniper rifle to distract the predator by...well shooting him in the chest. The alien hunter now distracted, launches some blades at Isabelle which pisses Royce off. Going nuts he attacks and beats the crap out of the creature eventually decapitating it. Now the fight is over the two survives share an embrace. Come morning, cages are being dropped onto the planet with Royce and Isabelle determined to find a way back home.

And that's it. 20 years in the making and let me say this was not a disappointment, sure it's not as good as "Predator" but it's damn close. The cast could have been better but they work out well. There are some problems but overall it's an atmospheric auctioneer that really captures the feel of the previous two films. Also the music is almost exactly the same as the original which is awesome. I give it 4 out of 5 "Spines ripped out".

so untill next time...

Be seeing you


On a side note that scene in the trailer where 20 lasers are on Royce NEVER HAPPENS.

Stalling...or Mini-reviews.

ok so I haven't been to cinema lately. or watched a bad film....per say. So I thought that because it seems unlikely I'll get out to the cinema this week or watch anything terrible that I'd give a few small recap of some awesome films I got to finally see over the last couple of weeks.

Black Dynamite - 2009

This faux blaxploitation flick is the most awesome thing my eyeballs have viewed since "Equilibrium". Funnier than any film Ive seen in a long long time and full of film cliche's that lovers of the exploitation genres will adore. However that said I can see how some people might not find this funny, it's a certain type of humor and if you get it you're awesome as well. Anyway check it out.

5 out of 5 Ninja stars.



A Film With Me In It - 2009

Another comedy if been trying to see for ages. Dylan Moran is the main attraction here in this black as black comedy. Other than that it's a fairly by the numbers comedy which for the price I got it at was well worth it.
However this not in the style of Moran's other work (IE Black Books) and may seem a little dissapointing if that's what you were expecting (I was). Still worth the watch and is fairly short so even if you find it boring at least it wont be three hours long.




The Rookie - 1990

This film seems to be fairly forgotten amongst the classics of Clint Eastwood with many not remembering it due to it's cliche' story. However just say "The one where Eastwood gets raped" and I'm sure it will peak interests. Yes a villianess in this film does rape Clint but that's not important, what is though is the fact that Raul Julia is in this. Also Charlie Sheen burns down a bar and shoots a dog....interested yet? see it but don't expect too much of it and you will enjoy. Totally worth seeing a plane chase Clint on the ground.


Scorpio - 1973

This typical 70's spy thriller vehicle for an ageing Burt Lancaster is actually quite satisfying. While normally I would have dismissed this film I was intrigued by the presence of then French superstar Alain Delon...who is awesome. He gives a cool slick performance as usual and Lancaster gets the job done but overall the film is needlessly confusing and boring in parts. Nothing really happens and when it does you feel quite conflicted on which character you should be supporting. However if you like Delon it's well worth seeing.


There's a few others I've seen but seeing as I plan to go to the cinema this week hopefully I'll have a new review up in a few days.

Stay tuned for my review of "Predators"

Be Seeing You