Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Social Network (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t know about Facebook. On any given day, at least 250 million active users log on to Facebook and spend over 700 billion minutes per month updating their status, posting pictures or playing casual games. So dominant is this social network, the name itself is both a brand and a verb. Who would have thought that sharing inanities about what we’re currently thinking, eating, reading, watching with our friends would garner such interest? In the new movie The Social Network, director David Fincher sets out to show how, from the very humblest beginnings, Facebook became the juggernaut that it is today.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
Debbiereadsbook (1110 KP) rated An Unlocked Mind (Secrets #2) in Books
Apr 24, 2019
awesome follow up!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted the audio file of this book.
Rob is TRYING to be better person than the one who nearly ruined his brother’s life, he really is. But it’s hard when no one will help you. A visit to the opening night of Secrets is just what he needs. Til a demonstration has him running. But he returns the next week, and runs straight into Vic, along with giving Vic attitude. Rescuing the obnoxious little git wasn’t in Vic’s game plan for the evening, but he can’t leave Rob walking in the pouring rain. After depositing Rob at the train station, he never expects to see him again. Although, something about Rob calls to him, it really does. When Rob starts turning up every weekend, Vic begins to look forward to his visits. Then Life throws Rob under a bus and Vic knows this is his chance to get into Rob’s head, and for Rob to get out of it.
This is book 2 in the Secrets series, but you don’t NEED to have read/listened to book one first, but I think you should. It’s bloody good!
As is this one!
Vic isn’t what I would call a Dom Dom, his speciality is getting a sub out of his head, rather than floggers and whips. And he KNOWS something is eating away at Rob’s mind, he just needs to unlock it. But to do THAT, Vic needs to get to know Rob, on his weekly visits to London. When Rob loses his job in Manchester, Vic offers him a lifeline, under strict terms that Vic lays down. And Rob, desperate for help and starved of any real human interaction, jumps at the chance.
Rob did some things as a younger man, that come back to haunt him, that STILL haunt him. A conversation with his mother turns his brother against him, and Rob is suffering that guilt so bad, it’s a dead weight on his shoulders. Meeting Vic, though, lets something free in his soul, something he had been so afraid to admit before. Something his mother would not approve of. Something he so badly needs, it brings him to the brink of his limits and budgets and his money runs out faster than it should. But Vic? Vic gives him a chance, so long as he sticks with the rules, and those RULES are what Rob needs, He needs to find himself again, deep within himself, before he can forgive himself and to make amends with his brother, should his brother want to.
What I particularly loved about this one, was the lack of the physical BDSM stuff that usually comes with these books, I mean I LOVED the lack of it. Oh don’t get me wrong, this is a sexy book, and it has a crazy amount of heat but there is a distinct lack of floggers and paddles. This was very much a MENTAL book, as in Rob needed to get out of his head so bad, and Vic knew just how to do that.
Rob is, quite simply, a wreck at the start of this book, and it’s a long while before Vic can get him to admit what’s eating him the most. That is: what he did to his brother. But when the FULL picture comes clear, I cried for Rob, I really did. He felt so bad for something he did not do, it messed his head.
Vic, being the most laid back Dom I have quite possibly EVER come across, is just the man for Rob, just the Dom to get to the bottom of his pain and release it. Rob calls to his soul, he really does. But not immediately. It takes a little time for Rob to worm his way in, but once he does, Vic is all in.
I NEED to listen Rob’s story now though! I need to know what a little shit Rob was, and how Rob was affected by what happened, I really do. So, books one and two of Collars and Cuffs are nicely lined up for when I’ve got time.
Joel Leslie narrates this one, as he does book one. I cannot, CANNOT fault the narration of these books, this one especially. Leslie pours so MUCH into Rob, and to Vic to, but to a lesser extent. The emotion pouring out of Rob when he finally breaks down and tells Vic all made me cry, great wrecking sobs that I have no doubt might NOT have come had I been reading.
Leslie is, quite simply a Master at his craft, and coupled with the work of Wells and Williams, I can only give this book. . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Rob is TRYING to be better person than the one who nearly ruined his brother’s life, he really is. But it’s hard when no one will help you. A visit to the opening night of Secrets is just what he needs. Til a demonstration has him running. But he returns the next week, and runs straight into Vic, along with giving Vic attitude. Rescuing the obnoxious little git wasn’t in Vic’s game plan for the evening, but he can’t leave Rob walking in the pouring rain. After depositing Rob at the train station, he never expects to see him again. Although, something about Rob calls to him, it really does. When Rob starts turning up every weekend, Vic begins to look forward to his visits. Then Life throws Rob under a bus and Vic knows this is his chance to get into Rob’s head, and for Rob to get out of it.
This is book 2 in the Secrets series, but you don’t NEED to have read/listened to book one first, but I think you should. It’s bloody good!
As is this one!
Vic isn’t what I would call a Dom Dom, his speciality is getting a sub out of his head, rather than floggers and whips. And he KNOWS something is eating away at Rob’s mind, he just needs to unlock it. But to do THAT, Vic needs to get to know Rob, on his weekly visits to London. When Rob loses his job in Manchester, Vic offers him a lifeline, under strict terms that Vic lays down. And Rob, desperate for help and starved of any real human interaction, jumps at the chance.
Rob did some things as a younger man, that come back to haunt him, that STILL haunt him. A conversation with his mother turns his brother against him, and Rob is suffering that guilt so bad, it’s a dead weight on his shoulders. Meeting Vic, though, lets something free in his soul, something he had been so afraid to admit before. Something his mother would not approve of. Something he so badly needs, it brings him to the brink of his limits and budgets and his money runs out faster than it should. But Vic? Vic gives him a chance, so long as he sticks with the rules, and those RULES are what Rob needs, He needs to find himself again, deep within himself, before he can forgive himself and to make amends with his brother, should his brother want to.
What I particularly loved about this one, was the lack of the physical BDSM stuff that usually comes with these books, I mean I LOVED the lack of it. Oh don’t get me wrong, this is a sexy book, and it has a crazy amount of heat but there is a distinct lack of floggers and paddles. This was very much a MENTAL book, as in Rob needed to get out of his head so bad, and Vic knew just how to do that.
Rob is, quite simply, a wreck at the start of this book, and it’s a long while before Vic can get him to admit what’s eating him the most. That is: what he did to his brother. But when the FULL picture comes clear, I cried for Rob, I really did. He felt so bad for something he did not do, it messed his head.
Vic, being the most laid back Dom I have quite possibly EVER come across, is just the man for Rob, just the Dom to get to the bottom of his pain and release it. Rob calls to his soul, he really does. But not immediately. It takes a little time for Rob to worm his way in, but once he does, Vic is all in.
I NEED to listen Rob’s story now though! I need to know what a little shit Rob was, and how Rob was affected by what happened, I really do. So, books one and two of Collars and Cuffs are nicely lined up for when I’ve got time.
Joel Leslie narrates this one, as he does book one. I cannot, CANNOT fault the narration of these books, this one especially. Leslie pours so MUCH into Rob, and to Vic to, but to a lesser extent. The emotion pouring out of Rob when he finally breaks down and tells Vic all made me cry, great wrecking sobs that I have no doubt might NOT have come had I been reading.
Leslie is, quite simply a Master at his craft, and coupled with the work of Wells and Williams, I can only give this book. . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Lee (2222 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2020 (Updated Jan 8, 2020)
With media currently showing us scenes of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein as he shuffles into court, expecting sympathy while his victims continue to try and rebuild their lives, along comes the timely release of Bombshell. Based on a high profile #MeToo scandal, Bombshell gives us a look deep inside the heart of Fox News, and tells the explosive story of the women who fought back against the powerful man who created it.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) begins by giving us a whistle-stop tour of the Fox News building - the floor layout, who is located where, how various news teams operate, who some of the news anchors are. We learn about the second floor, where the man at the centre of the scandal to come, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), has his office and where Rupert Murdoch and his sons all fit in. It's a lot to take in right off the bat, so don't turn up late for the movie and make sure you're paying attention!
It's 2016, and the presidential campaign is in full swing. Megyn is preparing for the Republican debate hosted by Fox News, where she is planning to fire off a controversial question at Donald Trump regarding his treatment of women. There's a bit of an upset (literally) earlier in the day though, when Megyn develops a nasty stomach bug, presumably from someone tampering with the coffee bought for her on the way to work, and she very nearly doesn't make it to the debate, which we assume was the desired result. She manages to get out her question though, resulting in the kind of rage tweeting from Trump that we've now become so accustomed to, backlash from Trump supporters and paparazzi turning up at the holiday home where Megyn is taking a short break with her family.
Meanwhile, Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is meeting with lawyers regarding the sexist comments that she regularly receives both on air from her male co-anchors, and off air from people like Roger Ailes. She also feels that her demotion to a less popular daytime show is the result of her reluctance to 'play ball' with Ailes. We see the uncomfortable story of Rudi Bakhitar, fired for politely declining the sexual advances of her employer, and the lawyers advise that Gretchen will need to gain further evidence from other women before they can file a harassment suit against Ailes.
The harassment and treatment of women and what they have to endure at Fox News, just to try and come close to the same level as their male counterparts, becomes increasingly apparent as the movie progresses. Short dresses, wide angle shots and transparent news desks in order to see their legs and hold viewer attention - it's the kind of thing you might only casually notice while watching a show, but eye opening and shocking when you see the orders being given in the control room to switch to a certain camera, and the women being told off screen how they should look and dress. Even though you know it's only a matter of time before Carlson gets the support she needs in order to get justice, there's obviously a lot of tension and drama that needs to play out before we get there.
In order to highlight and demonstrate the treatment off camera, particularly from Roger Ailes, we are introduced to up-and-coming journalist and new employee Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie), who is a fictional character. Kayla beings by working for Gretchen Carlson, but is keen to progress to bigger things and, despite warnings from Gretchen that she should stay close to her, takes a job on Fox's number one program, The O'Reilly Factor. Along the way, Kayla forms a relationship with her co-worker Jess Carr (Kate McKinnon) and manages to find her way into the office of Ailes, where we get to see him at work in a very creepy and uncomfortable scene. As news of Gretchen's lawsuit breaks, a slow trickle of former victims begins to come forward, while Megyn remains noticeably tight-lipped about an encounter she had with Ailes 10 years ago. It's clear that somebody like Megyn has enough power to make the lawsuit a lot more viable.
For me, Bombshell is all about the performances. Charlize Theron wears simple prosthetics, and underwent voice coaching in order to play the role of Megyn Kelly convincingly, and she is outstanding, as is Nicole Kidman. We get to live the trauma and the ups and downs of Margot Robbie's character along with her in the movie, earning her a supporting actress BAFTA nomination this week (against herself, for Once Upon A Time In Hollywood!). John Lithgow, who I found to be brilliant as Winston Churchill in The Crown, has once again bulked up in order to portray Roger Ailes, and succeeds in making him seem human, and at times humorous, while still portraying his darker, weaker and more creepier side.
Outside of the performances, I found Bombshell to be a fairly average movie. What happened in the space of just a few days in real life, seems to occur over weeks in the movie and I felt the trailer covered off the majority of the story in a pretty tight and more intense few minutes, with the movie just a more stretched out version of that. Still, Bombshell is definitely a good movie and, as I mentioned right at the start, more important and relevant now than ever before, so it deserves to be seen by all.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is an interesting piece. Originally commissioned for a 30 minute documentary piece, Peter Jackson found so much footage and so many stories to tell that he managed to extend it into a feature length production.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
I'm going to skip over most of the massive fiasco that was Cineworld's handling of the screening. The issue came from them under estimating how popular it would be. With people interested in history and people interested in the processes used that meant a lot of viewers and unsurprisingly they sold out the small screen and had to move it to a bigger screen. So many people turned up that there were even seats allocated in the first five rows which never normally happens.
The footage and narrative that were put together for this were excellent. Things that never occurred to me before were brought to the screen with a lightheartedness and humour that off-set the horrors of war. For example, it had never occurred to me how soldiers in the field dealt with the toilet situation. Holes in the ground are the obvious conclusion, but I had never seen the images of the giant hole with a log suspended over it where you'd all hang out (literally) to get some relief.
The technical side of films are not something I know a great deal about, but the basics were explained in the Q&A afterward. Old film runs at a different frame rate to new film. (Yes, I know anyone with the technical knowledge is screaming in pain at my description here but you'll have to deal with it!) So all the film had to be lengthened to be used. This meant feeding it into a computer that would extrapolate the missing frames to make everything work. The quality was then enhanced and colourised.
When the film itself is presented it starts in black and white and changes to colour soon after. That moment brought goosebumps. Footage like you've never seen before, AND on the big screen. It made an amazing impact.
The voice overs during the film were all cast to match the regional accents of the soldiers, which was an incredibly nice touch. As well as the voices all the sounds had to be recreated and honestly they fit so well you'd have assumed they were "live".
Here's where I get to my "however" moment.
It was interesting, the sound effects were brilliantly done, and bringing unseen footage to the big screen was a massive accomplishment, especially to do it in a sensitive way... however... I personally wasn't a fan of some of the film outside of the story it was telling.
As I mentioned, the production was only supposed to be 30 minutes long. I can understanding why they made it longer but as a "film" it did begin to drag. It perhaps would have benefited from being a short series as opposed to one long documentary.
Seeing it outside of this screening you would have also missed out on many of the fascinating facts that we discovered during the Q&A at the end. It's entirely possible that the sound effects would have gone completely unnoticed as they feel so realistic. Combining the Q&A style dialogue and the documentary would have been interesting and you would have been even more in awe of what they achieved.
This screening was presented in 3D. You by now will know I have mixed feelings about 3D. I don't think the effect in this instance really added anything to it. The impressive nature of the file footage was what the film needed to concentrate on.
On that point, and as previously mentioned, the archive footage had to be dubbed and they went to a lot of effort with casting and hiring lip readers to stay authentic, which was brilliant. But I also felt that the effort was diminished by the quality of the audio. Not that it was bad, but that is was in fact very good. The stories that were recounted over the footage was wonderfully done. My issue was with the lip-synced scripts. The audio track was a stark contrast to the footage. Restoration can't change the fact that the footage is old and still grainy. Having a modern, perfectly clear track over the top didn't make it feel real. I can't help but think that those sections would have been improved if the audio had been "aged" to match with what we were seeing.
Lastly I come to what I realise is in essence most of the documentary. The restoration. During the showing in close up footage the faces of the soldiers seemed to distort as they moved. I imagine that this is the computer generated frames working with the actual footage. It became increasingly difficult not to notice this happening and I found it rather off putting. The colourisation felt strange at times, perhaps because I expect war to appear more drab because of the way cinema usually portrays it. That wasn't something I found to be constant though, some blended in while watching and just a few frames stood out. There's no denying its initial impact though, that transition was possibly the most effective bit of the whole production.
What you should do
I know I've been critical of a lot of things there and I've only given it 3 stars but you should definitely see They Shall Not Grow Old. The story it tells is undeniably incredible and important. If I was only judging the documentary on its own I would have given this 5 stars.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Panopticon in Books
May 13, 2017
This is my all time favouurite book.
Jenny Fagan stated in an interview in 2013 that prior to writing the novel The Panopticon (2012) she had one question, ‘is it possible to achieve autonomy?’ Fagan explores this question throughout her novel with the character of Anais Hendrix. I would also suggest that the author is metaphorically exploring whether Scotland can achieve autonomy as an independent nation. Autonomy, in relation to the individual, is self-governance- or being able to decide for oneself
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
Mothergamer (1521 KP) rated the PlayStation 3 version of Assassin's Creed III in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
So after a long hiatus, I finished Assassin's Creed III. Did I like the game? Yes, definitely. Did I love it? Not so much. First let's get the good things out of the way. I really liked that there was a new world to explore and a great part of history to be involved in; the Revolutionary War. This made for a lot of interesting missions, side quests, and battles. I did like the new costume designs for the game and I definitely liked the new weapons. I did like seeing quite a few historical faces in the game and some of them had some pretty good missions. The story was fairly interesting especially towards the end when further details are revealed answering a lot of questions from the previous game. While I did wish for more city exploration, I did enjoy exploring the frontier areas because it was new and there was some interesting things going on out there.
Now, let us get to the parts that I found mildly disappointing and the parts that were so infuriating they got A LOT of swearing from me.
1.Connor Is A Wooden Boy: Connor while an interesting character, came across as wooden and I wasn't really feeling the passion from him or any emotion really. Even when he was supposed to be angry, it just came across as angst filled teenager. Shouldn't he be angrier about some of the things that have happened? I mean I know I would be full on raging if half the stuff he survives in this game happened to me. Speaking in a flat monotone in every situation is just not working for me. I also wish they had done a bit more with the story about Connor's tribe because it seemed like they were just a blip of a plot point and not much else which was a little disappointing. There's also this sense of Connor just being along for the ride and even as a full fledged assassin he doesn't really get to shine, so his story seems lost and smacks of missed opportunity. Bottom line, the pacing is off and that's never good when your main character doesn't feel like he's the main character to you.
2. The damned lock picking: Really, how hard is it to have decent controls for lock picking the chests you find in the game? I suggest that all those game developers go play all the Thief games so they can see how it's done. There is no excuse that late in the game for shoddy controls. Hold both buttons down, swirl around to find the correct "signal" and realize that you have the skills of a drunken monkey when you can't get the damn thing open. Also file under "the right signal my effing ass" because it was ridiculous.
3. Paul Revere's Midnight Ride Mission: Yes, they did their research and yes, it was cool they had that in the game. However, never have I wanted so badly to shove a historical person off a horse. Having to constantly ask the man for directions while he yelled at me, "More to the left! No, more right!" made me seriously consider handing him over to the enemy. It was only for a minute, I swear.
4. THE DAMN NAVAL BATTLES: There is a good reason why that is in all caps. There is no real learning curve here. It's pretty much a learn or sink your ship situation here. While I get that the ships can't turn on a dime just like real ships from that era; the controls are pardon my French, utter shit. Not only are they clunky, there are some questionable load times for firing the various cannons and lord help you if you end up getting turned around and smashing on some rocks. One of the naval battles was so damn infuriating, my husband Ron had to step in and finish it for me. Yes, it was that bad.
5. The Chasing Lee Mission: This was the final mission in Connor's main story and it made me want to tear my hair out and scream out my frustration. I did scream in fact. Many times. First there's the optional objectives of don't shove anyone while you're running, followed by don't let any of the British soldiers touch you. So instead of oh I don't know getting to shoot murdering bad guy in the face, you have to run an obstacle course full of people, things, and a burning ship like you're an Olympic marathon champ. Then we factor in, how Lee is only five steps away from you but you get the desynchronization message if you don't get closer to him. At one point I was standing right IN FRONT of him in the burning ship; I could have had him right there, but because it wasn't part of the "story" he took off running and I got that message. I finally did finish that mission and the payoff for it wasn't really worth it; trust me.
6. Desmond Got Screwed Over: While I understand that Desmond's story was ending; the way they sent him off left no real resolution for him and it seemed as if they were just tired of him. Desmond needed a proper send off with some actual closure; not an ending that screamed, 'Hey, we're kind of bored and tired of this guy, so we're getting rid of him okay? 'Kay, see ya!'
Those were the big things that really disappointed me and made me nuts. My thinking was I couldn't believe they spent three years working on this game and this is what we got. I loved the previous Assassin's Creed games and I was genuinely excited for this one, but there were many things that disappointed me. While I liked the game and I did like the ending (not the thing that happened to Desmond because that was some bullshit), I didn't love it. It felt like perhaps they rushed a bit or just didn't test things out fully to make sure they worked right (I'm looking at you, lock picking controls team) or they couldn't be bothered. I'm not expecting perfection, but after working on something for three years, you better be able to deliver the goods. This is just my take on it, if you want to try it out by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect stellar, because that is not going to happen. Expect kind of good, but not great, and fun to play through once.
Now, let us get to the parts that I found mildly disappointing and the parts that were so infuriating they got A LOT of swearing from me.
1.Connor Is A Wooden Boy: Connor while an interesting character, came across as wooden and I wasn't really feeling the passion from him or any emotion really. Even when he was supposed to be angry, it just came across as angst filled teenager. Shouldn't he be angrier about some of the things that have happened? I mean I know I would be full on raging if half the stuff he survives in this game happened to me. Speaking in a flat monotone in every situation is just not working for me. I also wish they had done a bit more with the story about Connor's tribe because it seemed like they were just a blip of a plot point and not much else which was a little disappointing. There's also this sense of Connor just being along for the ride and even as a full fledged assassin he doesn't really get to shine, so his story seems lost and smacks of missed opportunity. Bottom line, the pacing is off and that's never good when your main character doesn't feel like he's the main character to you.
2. The damned lock picking: Really, how hard is it to have decent controls for lock picking the chests you find in the game? I suggest that all those game developers go play all the Thief games so they can see how it's done. There is no excuse that late in the game for shoddy controls. Hold both buttons down, swirl around to find the correct "signal" and realize that you have the skills of a drunken monkey when you can't get the damn thing open. Also file under "the right signal my effing ass" because it was ridiculous.
3. Paul Revere's Midnight Ride Mission: Yes, they did their research and yes, it was cool they had that in the game. However, never have I wanted so badly to shove a historical person off a horse. Having to constantly ask the man for directions while he yelled at me, "More to the left! No, more right!" made me seriously consider handing him over to the enemy. It was only for a minute, I swear.
4. THE DAMN NAVAL BATTLES: There is a good reason why that is in all caps. There is no real learning curve here. It's pretty much a learn or sink your ship situation here. While I get that the ships can't turn on a dime just like real ships from that era; the controls are pardon my French, utter shit. Not only are they clunky, there are some questionable load times for firing the various cannons and lord help you if you end up getting turned around and smashing on some rocks. One of the naval battles was so damn infuriating, my husband Ron had to step in and finish it for me. Yes, it was that bad.
5. The Chasing Lee Mission: This was the final mission in Connor's main story and it made me want to tear my hair out and scream out my frustration. I did scream in fact. Many times. First there's the optional objectives of don't shove anyone while you're running, followed by don't let any of the British soldiers touch you. So instead of oh I don't know getting to shoot murdering bad guy in the face, you have to run an obstacle course full of people, things, and a burning ship like you're an Olympic marathon champ. Then we factor in, how Lee is only five steps away from you but you get the desynchronization message if you don't get closer to him. At one point I was standing right IN FRONT of him in the burning ship; I could have had him right there, but because it wasn't part of the "story" he took off running and I got that message. I finally did finish that mission and the payoff for it wasn't really worth it; trust me.
6. Desmond Got Screwed Over: While I understand that Desmond's story was ending; the way they sent him off left no real resolution for him and it seemed as if they were just tired of him. Desmond needed a proper send off with some actual closure; not an ending that screamed, 'Hey, we're kind of bored and tired of this guy, so we're getting rid of him okay? 'Kay, see ya!'
Those were the big things that really disappointed me and made me nuts. My thinking was I couldn't believe they spent three years working on this game and this is what we got. I loved the previous Assassin's Creed games and I was genuinely excited for this one, but there were many things that disappointed me. While I liked the game and I did like the ending (not the thing that happened to Desmond because that was some bullshit), I didn't love it. It felt like perhaps they rushed a bit or just didn't test things out fully to make sure they worked right (I'm looking at you, lock picking controls team) or they couldn't be bothered. I'm not expecting perfection, but after working on something for three years, you better be able to deliver the goods. This is just my take on it, if you want to try it out by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect stellar, because that is not going to happen. Expect kind of good, but not great, and fun to play through once.