#selfie

Over the last few weeks we have seen the "no makeup selfie" flood social media in a cancer research campaign. I must admit that i was initially one of the cynics questioning how taking a selfie could possibly benefit cancer research. Moreover, the countless photographs taking over my facebook news feed was starting to hugely irritate me! Of course there are many girls out there who have posted the selfie just to demonstrate how good they look without makeup with very little consideration to the cause. However, the benefits that this craze has had for creating publicity and raising donations cannot be ignored.

The campaign has raised over £2 million for cancer research; a huge achievement! What's most impressive is that this craze was not organized by anyone involved in the charity or media but grew naturally from ordinary women. It demonstrates how in the connected world we live in, individuals have the power to do incredible things!

Gibson, a lecturer at Nottingham Trent, commented, "This campaign has captured the imagination. Very rapid communication like this has never been faster in human history, but you have to be careful". She warned of the dangers of the campaign that the message might be lost in transit. However, surely in a campaign like this the message doesn't always have to be clear? Half of the success of the campaign has been in getting people talking about it; about the selfie, the cause, and the donation. The questioning and communication is what has raised the profile and made this craze quite so successful.

Moreover, there are successes of this campaign on a more personal level which must be considered. Many girls have commented on how difficult it was to take a natural picture, without makeup and countless filters. My friend and i ourselves joked that we only deem a picture of us fit for public consumption after we have covered it with 2 filters. It is therefore refreshing to see so many young women daring to bare their faces and risk criticism in the name of cancer research. Perhaps it will spark a new trend of women loving themselves rather than feeling the need to hide behind photo shop and inches of makeup. Natural beauty.

Sources: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26683817

Jon Richardson: Nidiot?

Nidiot: noun a person who is or should be happy and deliberately screws it up.

I spent the evening at the opening night of Jon Richardson's new Nidiot tour. He was obviously nervous and who can blame him? Kings Lynn presented him with a tough crowd· it was a small theatre and the people who filled it were, on the most part, quieter and less interactive than Richardson would probably have liked. Attempting to banter with the front row was a painful experienc which Richardson succeeded in making the best out of:

Richardson: what did you do today?
Audience member: went for a walk
Richardson: where did you walk?
Audience member: general area

And later after hearing the audience member had been for a pint:

Richardson: what beer did you drink?
Audience member: just ordinary beer

Richardson styled it out with a rant about the guys depressing nature and some jokes about the general fen accent but one has to wonder why such a boring guy chose to sit on the front row to begin with!

Then there was the incredibly annoying woman on the balcony who clearly fancied herself a comedian in her own right shouting advice and providing "sound effects". Richardson would that she was trying to be helpful but they weren't really getting on. If he hates people nearly as much as i do, and he professes to, there was more truth than comedy in that statement.

The act in general was a bit unpolished and scrabbled together in places; Richardson himself admitted that he had sworn too much. However, both of these are forgivable considering it being the first night of the tour. Despite the slight roughness around the edges Richardson's natural charm and wit shone through to make it a clever and very funny routine.

A particularly successful section of the routine came when Richardson read letters from K ins Lynn's local paper. This may not work so well in more "average" venues but in Kings Lynn, where the letters included a eulogy to a beloved spade and a letter of complaint about an uneven wall, it provided a comical look at local life and revealed just how accurate fen stereotypes are! 

The second half of the act was largely devoted to his new relationship and girlfriend. Although part of my heart breaks that his girlfriend is not me, it was lovely to see him be so obviously happy. However, he joked that this happiness may prove career ending and it must be observed that he has become seemingly less bitter, cynical and generally less angry than when he was single. Clearly love has softened him up! My only hope is that he doesn't completely stop hating people as a result of his new found love because some of Richardsons best material has sprung from the disgruntled old man within.

It is Richardson's quirky individualism and quick witted responses to slip ups and events which stole the show more than the  rehearsed jokes. He is a naturally likeable man and his awkward laughter and occasional nervousness gives you the urge to hug him. He has also developed into a very skilled comedian and once the wrinkles of the first show have been ironed out Nidiot will be a truly brilliant tour.

If you have not yet purchased tickets for Nidiot, grab them while you can, it is selling out fast. Its a laugh packed show, from one of the most talented comedians currently around,  which would be a serious error to miss.

Dont be a Nidiot, make sure you're in one of the audiences.

Ukraine: Is World War 3 looming?

I'll be the first to admit that the chaos in Ukraine is far from easy to understand. Comedian Adam Hills quipped that the news stories on Ukraine should begin like the t.v show 24 with "previously in the Ukraine" in order to provide some sort of summary. In the Last Leg he offered a 'simplified guide' to events in Ukraine:

"Here's a simplified guide to what's going on in the Ukraine: The people of the Ukraine staged an uprising against President Viktor Yanukovych, now he disappeared leaving the way for jailed opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko to come out of jail and stake her claim for the top job. Meanwhile, former boxer Vitali Klitschko announced he would run for President, and Yanukovych finally surfaced in Crimea. Even that's still confusing. Now lets put the whole thing in British terms. Imagine David Cameron was jailed for doing a dodgy gas deal and Ed Miliband became Prime Minister. Then in a few weeks time there was rioting in the streets because Miliband signed his own dodgy deal with France so he disappears in a helicopter, Cameron is released from jail and Miliband finally shows up in Aberystwyth . Then just as things couldn't get any weirder Frank Bruno throws his hat into the ring. That's basically what has gone on in the Ukraine!"



So where does Russia come into this? Yanukovych has close ties to Russia and was attempting to improve Ukraine's relationship with it at the expense of membership with the EU. Therefore, after being evicted from government, he issued a statement via Russian media insisting his right to the position. Meanwhile, Putin claims that he has a right to protect the interests of the Russian minority in Ukraine.

We have now seen "a slow-motion invasion on the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians and 'normalizing' the situation that western nations so recklessly fueled in Kiev" (Yuhas).

Ukraine has now mobilized its forces and Putin is sending more troops over; Crimea is now under complete Russian control. Yesterday, we witnessed Russia issue Ukraine with an ultimatum: surrender or face an assault.

So what has the West done? Obama has had a "90 minute" phone call with Putin warning that he has broken international law. All military cooperation between Russia and the US has been suspended and it appears that Russia is now in direct opposition with the US and the EU. Meanwhile, Cameron is planning sanctions against Russia to ensure it "pays significant costs for violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine, after Mosko assumed control of Crimea." Currently, both America and Britain are denying that military action is an option. However, that is something which is highly likely to change if Putin extends his forces further out of Crimea into Ukraine.

In 1994, both Britain and the US signed the Budapest Memorandum treaty which technically means that if Russia invades Ukraine, Britain and the US have no choice but to go to war. Moreover, Russia's actions over Crimea has been widely compared to the Nazi's actions concerning Austria which sparked World War 2. If therefore, Russia did invade Ukraine, it is not a stretch of the imagination to imagine  large scale war erupting.

What would this war look like?

It is difficult to imagine whether or not World War 3 would look like World War 2 for example would there be another blitz? The biggest concern is that World War 3 would be a nuclear war which would leave casualties far and wide and for many years to come. I would like to believe that even given the eruption of World War 3, nuclear weapons would not be used. However, it is likely that were Russia or America to believe that they were drastically losing the war, they would resort to the use of their nuclear arsenals to finish it once and for all. Moreover, if the powers that be concluded that the use of a nuclear weapon would end the war fast and with less casualties than a drawn out bloody war, the temptation to use such weapons would certainly grow. This is a particularly terrifying thought as a nuclear war would, realistically, be the final war. Very few would survive.



However, we must remember that it was only a few months ago that WW3 over Syria appeared inevitable. Currently, Putin is insisting that military force against Ukraine will be a last resort and the West is very keen to use diplomatic means rather than force to resolve the situation. As it stands, there is every chance that the whole situation will blow over, as it has with Syria, and we can once again continue our peaceful, secure lives.

Unfortunately, the future of our security rests in the hands of a man like Putin.



Sources:

The Last Leg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26248275
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/ukraine-crisis-russia-crimea-commentary-analysis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10672417/Ukraine-crisis-as-it-happened-US-puts-military-cooperation-with-Russia-on-hold.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/crimea-crisis-david-cameron-sanctions-russia-ukraine

The Book Thief: Will it steal your heart?

In the preface to his novel The Stand, Stephen King wrote:

"Movies, after all, are only an illusion of motion comprised of thousands of still photographs. The imagination, however, moves with its own tidal flow. Films, even the best of them, freeze fiction- anyone who has ever seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and then reads Ken Kesey's novel will find it hard or impossible not to see Jack Nicholson's face on Randle Patrick McMurphy. That is not necessarily bad... but it is limiting. The glory of a good tale is that it is limitless and fluid; a good tale belongs to each reader in its own particular way."

If you have not read The Book Thief by Markus Zusak then the first thing you should do is put this down and pick it up. Like on most occasions when a beautiful piece of literature is produced for the big screen, Percival's adaption of The Book Thief does not do it justice. There is much that is missed out, which is necessary in order to fit into the 130 minute running time, but leaves a lot of the tale untold. The character of Max in particular is hugely underdeveloped in this movie, we see little of his thoughts, dreams and complexities. Anyone who wishes to truly understand the magic and intricacy of the story, and to live the events along with the characters,  should take a leaf out of Liesel's book and read it.



Accepting then, for the moment, that a film adaptation will never successfully portray the wonder of the story in written form, I shall attempt to review this movie as independently as possible.

Geoffrey Rush was perfectly cast as Hans and, as always, did a fantastic job. He was warm, and likable, with twinkling eyes, the perfect portrayal of a friendly step father to an abandoned child. His performance of despair after realizing he had put his family in danger was incredibly heart wrenching and powerful and definitely deserving of awards. Sophie Nelisse too should gain credit for her strong performance as Liesel. Her German accent however, like with many of the characters, is rough and almost painful to the ear. The accents in general in this movie sound like an amateur drama group at a secondary school rather than a Hollywood blockbuster!



To begin with, Rosa (Emily Watson) and Hans are almost one dimensional, and Rosa verges on the pantomime. However, it is possible that Percival was attempting to show us them through Liesel's eyes, as a scared child in an unfamiliar environment. As the movie goes on, and Liesel becomes closer with Rosa, she becomes far more likable and the depth to both her and Hans grows. This is important because the ending would have nowhere near as much impact without the characters finally receiving that dash of reality.

The touches of wartime Germany were powerful and touching, portraying the people as just the same as the British, seeking protection in Bomb Shelters, singing and telling stories to keep morale up. The film deliberately avoids too much focus on the Nazi movement itself, focussing on the war time struggles of the every day people. This has been criticized by many such as Bradshaw who writes, "It's a worryingly lenient and obtuse approach to history and historical evil, which are smothered in feel good tragi-sentimental slush." Yet, in there scarcity, the scenes which do zone in on the Nazi's then, stand out as far more dramatic. We, along with characters, are jolted out of a focus on the small everyday,  and reminded of the worse horrors occurring outside of the street. The book burning scene in particular serves as a grim reminder of the Nazi regime, as books such as H G Wells The Invisible Man are piled on a bonfire while the crowd sings about destroying communists and Jews. The arrest of a German man after his birth certificate revealed he had Jewish heritage also served as a reminder of the brutal, no tolerance attitude of the regime and the march of the Jews through the street with their yellow starts pinned dismally to their chest, gives the first real mention of the holocaust in the film.

The film therefore makes some way to answering the question, how did ordinary people in Germany allow the holocaust to occur and the Nazis to control? Fear obviously is one factor. But the film demonstrates how easy it was for ordinary people to focus on the problems in their own bubble of life, their own streets, only faced with the real severity of the outside situation on rare occasions.

The handling of death in the movie was so nearly done well. The biggest issue of it was the way the cameras fell through the clouds during his opening narration, giving the appearance of Peter Pan or some other Disney movie. However, Death's narration at the end of the movie was hauntingly perfect and there is little criticism I can make there.



This adaptation has been criticized for being too soft to deal with the hard issues in the novel. Indeed, it might have benefited from being a certificate 15 to allow a more real portrayal of the material. Writing for the Guardian, Macnab argues "The swirling John Williams score and unabashed sentimentality don't help a film that would have benefited from taking a tougher approach." However, what the film does do is create a beautiful tale of strength and heroism in small acts and every day people, which is "swirling" and "sentimental" enough for children, yet dark and hard enough for adults to enjoy too.

Few viewers will regret watching this movie, it is heartwarming with a touch of the tragic. However, to really fall in love with this tale, please, please, pick up the book.

Sources

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/the-book-thief-film-review-dark-material-but-this-film-plays-like-a-typical-comingofage-story-9158494.html
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/28/book-thief-review-film-markus-zusak
King, Stephen (2011) 'Preface' in The Stand USA: Anchor