Siobhan Eardley

World War Two was the most monumental events to occur in the 20th century, and countless films have attempted to re-create the fighting and suffering for those who were fortunate enough to not live through it but wish to learn more about the event that changed the world.

The event that made WW2 nothing like anything modern humanity had seen before was the atrocities committed during the Holocaust, when 6 million European Jews and other minorities were killed by the Nazi regime. As it was such a monumental tragedy, does every narrative need to include images, and/or mentions of the Holocaust in order for the audience to have a full understanding of the monumental war?

Many Hollywood films have attempted to portray realistic depictions of battle. The German forces in these films are predominantly shown as the great evil, the force that we need to be saved from. But we are never given a reason, because it is assumed (and rightly so) that we know why, everyone knows that Nazi’s = evil.

Surprisingly, “historians generally agree that the Holocaust played little part in out communal sensibilities until the early 1960s and 1970s” (Friedman, 292). Yet in contemporary society, it is an integral part in the discussion and representation of WW2, especially in popular media, with films such as The Pianist (2002), Schindler’s List (1993), The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (2008) and more recently The Zookeepers Wife (2017). All these films mentioned do have their merits in telling this tragic story in very different ways, however, some do suffer from over stylization, which is hard to overcome, especially in Hollywood.

(Liam Neeson in Schindlers List, 1993). 

The question is, how do we accurately represent such a horrific event? Is it even possible? To tackle this, I’m going to discuss the series that I think has come the closest to doing so. Band of Brothers aired in 2001 and follows the men of Easy Company of 101st Airbourne Division, throughout 10 hour-long episodes, from their training, D-day and the events afterwards. The length of the narrative allows the viewer to develop a familiarity with the individual soldiers as the series progresses, “privileging his viewpoint through an entire episode […] steadily enriching the ensemble while fuelling our emotional investment in both the individual characters and the unit at large” (Schatz, 77). Although films like Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line focus on an individual, the time constraints of the feature film do hinder the ability to do so.

Band of Brothers had the benefit of casting a relatively unknown cast (although nowadays, I was pointing out faces left right and centre), which aids the audience in getting to know the characters without having a bias towards one actor and another. Each episode focuses on certain characters more than others, and we gradually build up a familiarity with each. Alongside this, each episode begins with talking head interviews of the real men from Easy Company and “the effect of this narrative device is quite stoking, at one personalising the narrative and injecting a sense of documentary realism, while effectively outlining both the dramatic stakes and he thematic subject of the series segment” (Schatz, 77). This also gives a emotional effect that perhaps wouldn’t have had the same impact if we weren’t gaining a first-hand account of the events we are about to see on screen.

Most World War Two narratives attempt to show the audience what it was really like, most notably is the Normandy landing sequence at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan, in which Burgoyne suggests that “the awful violence of war is mitigated and transformed into art in this sequence, choreographed into something almost magical (257). This notion of the ‘magical’ element discussed here points towards some representations of World War Two being inherently problematic, especially when they include images of the Holocaust.

The Band of Brothers episode Day of Days depicts the events of the D-Day landings, as the paratroopers attempt to take a nest of German guns. Numerous techniques are employed in Band of Brothers to focus on the individual. In discussing this, Debra Ramsay states that, these construct “what Tom Hanks refers to as an ‘under the helmet’ perspective of World War II” (3). This under the helmet technique is employed as “no combat cameraman of the time would have focused on individual soldiers the way that the camera does in this sequence” suggesting that, “the spaces of war are thus rendered extraordinary by a combination of the somatic impact of the spectacle of modern warfare, recreated through a spectacular-authentic’ aesthetic, and the display of power emotions by the male soldier” (Ramsay, 4).

The episode features Winters, the commanding officer of Easy Company, we see him and one other soldier, John Hall.  As they land, we get to know Hall through Winters, and although we see many men of Easy Company perish, it is Hall’s death that is most prominent. The close-up on Hall’s bloodied and disfigured face juxtaposed with a shot of Winters’ grief-stricken face allows the viewer to gain some insight into the emotions Winters is experiencing. We cannot intrinsically know what was running through Winters’ mind at this point, however, the way in which the sequence is structured can invite viewers to imagine, rather than truly feel what war is really like.

Bastogne, further along in the series follows one of Easy Company’s medics, Eugene Roe, struggling with a lack of medical supplies during The Battle of the Bulge in 1944. The events take place during Christmas, as the men are surrounded by German forces in a freezing cold forest. Plantinga argues that neither sympathy nor empathy is identification in the sense of ‘sharing’ sensations: we cannot share a character’s fear in war if we haven’t been in a war; we can only simulate the fear” (185). In this case, we can simulate the feelings of the soldiers from the visual cues we are given, the shivering and the general feeling of degradation as the whole thing is set around Christmas, when they should have been spending time with family.

The perspective focusing on a medic is also an effective way to enlighten viewers to another aspect of war. The feeling of hopelessness is ever there, especially when so may men who Eugene treats end up dying in front of him, in quite emotive ways.

In the penultimate episode, Why We Fight, the audience have come to know and grow quite fond of the men of Easy Company, connecting with them on a deeper level than we might have done in episode one, because we know the different personalities and have also seen the horrors that they have all gone through.

As I’ve mentioned previously, World War II was different in that the combat wasn’t the only pivotal part of the war. The events of the Holocaust are a vital part in an understanding of the war and “it has become an effective teaching tool used to dramatize broad lessons about the evils of bigotry and the necessity for tolerance” (Friedman, 294). The penultimate episode, Why We Fight, deals with these issues featuring the last days of the war when the German army were retreating from the advancing allies.

On patrol through the woods, a group of soldiers from Easy Company come across an unseen (to the audience) thing amongst the trees, that appears to be horrifying due to the looks on their faces: “keeping the perspective strictly to the personal level of the men, who have no clue what they have stumbled upon when they first see it, the dreadfulness of the place and the prisoners’ conditions is plainly rendered, without overstatement” (Review: Band of Brothers, 2001) states Todd McCarthy in a review of the series for Variety.

The sheer difficulty to comprehend what they had come across is evident when one of the soldier’s states “we came across this… I don’t know” (Band of Brothers, 2001), which echoes discourses surrounding the Holocaust as an “incomprehensible event” (MacKenzie, 24). The scene that greets Winters and the rest of the men is distressing. The skeletal figures of men with hands through the barbed wire fences “presents what we seem already to know (Gelley, 4).  As we as viewers know what this camp means, but the soldiers in the narrative do not. An element of sympathy is introduced as out assumed knowledge of the Holocaust is measured against the lack of knowledge shown by the soldiers.

They are made aware of the function of the camp as one of the prisoners relates to the German speaking Leibgott that “it’s a work camp for …’Unerwunschter’ I’m not sure what the word means, sir. Uh, ‘unwanted’, ‘disliked’, maybe?” (Band of Brothers, 2001). The distress of Leibgott, Winters and the other men is shown through lingering, close-up shots of their faces. This distress is made even more prominent by the camera slowly circling around them, as the Jewish man begins to break down into tears. The majority of this scene balances the shots of the faces, going from the distressed expression of the Jewish man, to the looks of disbelief, horror and sadness from the soldiers as they react to the information they are being given from the prisoner.

(Leibgott translates for the rest of the  Company). 

Now as I have stated before the issue of representation comes into play again here, as in war “there are “a multitude of stories to tell, and one inevitably left to the next as the writer tried to capture images and moments which would embody the totality of the experience” (MacKenzie, 24). However, it is not the sheer quantity of stories that need to be represented: the pure element of the evil nature of the events, why they occurred and what effect they had on victims is the issue when it comes to representation. Perhaps the most well-known representation of the Holocaust was Spielberg’s, Schindler’s List (1993), yet it has come under a great deal of fire from critics in its limited representation of the Holocaust:

“Schindler’s List was attacked from two directions. Some critics accused Spielberg of failing to confront the true horror of the Holocaust, particularly in the shower sequence, where water, not gas cascades onto the naked women; others complained that he numbed viewers with unnecessary images of violence, such as Goeth (Ralph Fiennes) arbitrarily shooting prisoners from his balcony. In other words, Spielberg was accused of being too realistic and not realistic enough. Such considerations lead to a broader and more fundamental question: what constitutes an ‘authentic’ portrayal of the Holocaust?” (Friedman, 300).

 Going on to suggest that the issue with the film is that it portrays the struggle of the Jewish community through the eyes of a non-Jew, which is what could also be suggested of Why We Fight. But is this intrinsically problematic? Or is it a way-in to becoming enlightened to the suffering that occurred during the Holocaust.

The images of the dead and starving we see in the camp in Why We Fight are perhaps the most striking of them all. In the battle sequences, death is fleeting, someone dies, and the camera may hover for a moment, but after this the battle must go one. However, the shots in the discovery of the camp are slow, panning over piles of dead men surrounding the barracks, other than have been thrown on to the train carriage; suggesting that the weight of the event is something that needs to be reflected upon, because attempting to explain the atrocities committed is nearly impossible.

It is through the experiences of the soldiers that gives the viewer time to reflect on the horror. The whole sequence has a distinct lack of dialogue, cut up by stating things like “look at their arms…like cattle” (Band of Brothers, 2001), showing their attempts to understand the horrors they are witnessing. The shots in the scene linger all the things that cannot be verbally expresses, they can only be witnessed. This is further exemplified when Colonel Sink, on the phone states “We found something I believe you ought to see” (Band of Brothers, 2001).

However, are the images we see on screen too graphic? The element of shock factor to convey the weight of this particular aspect of war raises similar questions that have been asked of Schindler’s List by Friedman, “What are the moral responsibilities of artists who depict violence on the screen? Does showing graphic violence intrinsically encompass shards of exploitation, voyeurism, and aesthetic pleasure?” (300). However, in this case of the graphic nature of scenes we see in Band of Brothers, they are not treated with any amount of disrespect or exploitation in order to gain more of an emotional connection to the soldiers, we are focused on the suffering of the prisoners, the silence helps this the most.

The depiction, shocking as it may be, does not show the entirety of the horrors that were inflicted upon those who suffered during the Holocaust. However, it is a necessary inclusion in the narrative of Band of Brothers, which has such a detailed exploration of World War II.

 By Siobhan Eardley. 

Works Referenced: 

Band of Brothers, HBO, (2001)

Schindler’s List (1993) 

Burgone, Robert. “The Violated Body: Affective Experience and Somatic Intensity in Zero Dark Thirty.” The Philosophy of War Films. Ed. David LaRocca. Kentucky: UP of Kentucky 2014. JSTOR. Web. 

Friedman, Lester D. “’Control is Power’: Imagining the Holocaust.” Citizen Spielberg. Illinois: UP of Illinois, 2006. JSTOR. Web. 

Gelley, Ora. “Narration and the Embodiment of Power in Schindler’s List.” Film Ciriticism 22.2 (1997): 2-26. JSTOR. Web. 

MacKenzie, Scott. “Lists and Chain Letters: Ethnic Cleansing, Holocaust Allegories and the Limits of Representation.” Canadian Journal of Film Studies, 9.2 (200):23-42. JSTOR. Web.

Poyntz, Nick.”Brothers in Arms? World War 2 and Popular Culture.” Teaching History, 119 (2005): 28-29. Web. 

Ramsay, Debra. “Television’s True Stories: Paratexts and the Promotion of HBO’s Band of Brothers and The Pacific.” In Media, 4 (2013):1-16. Web.

The ‘Found Footage’ method of storytelling has been around for a good while now; dating back to, you guessed it the 19th century with novels such as Frankenstein and Dracula (there will come a day when I don’t mention Dracula in an essay on horror, but apparently today is not that day). These novels were often written in a diary format, or composed of letters that have been compiled by the author.

The Blair Witch Project is perhaps the most famous film in the medium, due to its being a cultural phenomenon back in 1999 when it was first released, and it was the first big success of a film of its nature. And is still notirous to this day, having a few of the most famous words in horror history: 

Although many may think that it was the first of its kind, the found footage format of filmmaking has its roots in 1980 with the release of “one of the most controversial films ever made”, Ruggero Deodato’s Cannibal Holocaust. The film follows an anthropologist on a rescue mission to find a film crew who venture into the Amazon to film indigenous tribes. Monroe, the anthropologist, finds the footage the dead crew shot, and it is presented as if we are watching it as Monroe is. Now, I will admit by description is rather vague as I did attempt to watch the film, but I honestly couldn’t make it through because there are scenes that are just too graphic for me.

The film has perhaps the most extensive disclaimer I have ever seen:

“The following motion picture contains intense scenes of extreme violence and cruelty. As distributors of this film, we wish to state with absolute sincerity that by no means do we condone the artistic decisions employed by the makers of this film. However, as firm believers in the constitutional right of free speech, we do not believe in censorship.

Therefore, we are presenting Cannibal Holocaust for the very first time in its uncut uncensored original form, with all sequences photographed by the filmmakers however offensive and repugnant, presented fully intact. What you will see will definitely shock and offend you. Nonetheless, it should be viewed as a disturbing historical document of a bygone era of extreme irresponsibility which no longer exists and hopefully with never exist again”

Initially the phrase ‘definitely shock and offend you’ did make me scoff, because I honestly thought that a horror film made in 1980 would be a walk in the park. Boy, was I wrong. Do yourself a favour and just don’t bother watching this film. I can handle pretty much anything, but this film contains scenes of violent rape and murder, and live killing of animals. It is honestly not worth it, as the reast of the film isn’t that great, the acting is pretty terrible.

Anyway, back to it. Cannibal Holocaust was such a controversial release at the time, because of the sheer explicitness of the film, and because everyone thought it was real. So real that the director was arrested on charges of obscenity and then murder, as the director told the actors to go into hiding a year after the film was released to create authenticity, as soon as the actors resurfaced to give testimony, the charges were dropped, but he was still fined for charges of animal cruelty.

Before The Blair Witch Project there were only eight films of its kind made, after it’s release in 1999, there have been around 150, that’s 150 in the space of nearly 20 years. What made The Blair Witch Project so successful that is inspired so many more filmmakers to create similar found footage films? 

This notion of the authenticity of found footage films is perhaps its biggest draw and the most masterful example of creating an authentic narrative is The Blair Witch Project. The films genesis lies in 1993 when the directors Eduardo Sánchez and Daniel Myrick discovered that some paranormal investigative documentaries were often scarier than fictional horror films, and got to work on the film, initially creating the mythology that would be the basis for the ‘documentary’.

Set in Burkettsville, Maryland, formerly ‘Blair’ the mythology is based on a witch who was murdered by the townspeople, her spirit supposedly continues to haunt the woods surrounding the town, causing the deaths of numerous people from the town.

Heather, Josh and Mike, the three students featured in the film set out to the woods to film a documentary about the Blair Witch, after two days they get lost in the woods leading to them supposedly dying at the hands of the witch, however the ending is left purposefully ambiguous, showing no deaths on screen. However, the events that occur in the last 10 minutes suggest the death of the filmmakers, due to our knowledge of the mythology of the witch.

This mythology is fleshed out even more in the mockumentary that was made by Sánchez and Myrick, and subsequently premiered on the Sci-Fi channel before the film was due to be released. The mockumentary delves deep into the story of the witch, but also contains interviews with the missing student’s family and friends. If this wasn’t enough, there was also a website made providing all these details, with even more pictures of the evidence found with the footage shown in the film, therefore, “The Blair Witch Project does not begin and end with the theatre release; the film is a piece of a broader narrative” (Keller, 72). The website and documentary were so successful that an ex Maryland police officer offered to help in the search for the lost students. Which was only exemplified by the actors being listed as deceased on IMDB.

With the mythology set, the authenticity of the film does not stop there. The shoot in the woods lasted eight days, in which the three actors were pretty much left to their own devices. There was no script written for the film, just a guideline of the basic narrative. Each day the actors would leave the film rolls in a set location found of the GPS by the rest of the crew, and they would be left with food and very small amounts of direction. 

Myrick the co-director describes the film as “not like a normal film: the actors would work the cameras, film each other all the time” they only intervened if they felt they needed to tone it down and when they needed to create the nighttime scenes in which they would shake the tent make creepy noises. Keller suggests that “within the semiotics of the film, the same unstrady images that reveal the presence of the camera also suggests ‘reality television’, a genre of film that lacks the polish of cinematic realism, but signifies the authenticity of the events depicted” (74). 

The aftermath of all this hard work, left cinema viewers stunned by the film, and had them asking, was it all real? It must be there was so much evidence to suggest so, back in the day, if there were official websites on the internet, then it must be true. However nowadays we have learned our lesson and try not to believe everything we see online.  

For me, I watched the film not really believing it was true, but it’s the notion that it might be legitimate that makes the experience so exciting when watching it for the first time. It’s all part of the experience and is a large factor in its success with audiences. Sadly, in 2018, when you do your research, it is very clear it was a fabrication; made all clearer by the sequel Blair Witch released in 2016…but we shall get back to that.

In the (nearly) 20 years since The Blair Witch Project, there have been a plethora of found footage movies, most are horror films, the odd one goes into the realms of science fiction, superhero films and even comedy. Arguably the most famous/successful are films such as Paranormal Activity, [REC] and Cloverfield.

Paranormal Activity kept the tradition of The Blair Witch Project alive by pushing the idea that the footage found features the deceased and could potentially be showing real life events. Cloverfield does suggest this, but the thing that draws the viewer away from the feeling of ‘real life events’ when a giant monster starts crashing through New York, which, we as viewers obviously know did not happen. I am not critiquing Cloverfield at all, as it is simply taking the genre further by exploring different narratives. Paranormal Activity however, I will nitpick (even though I love it).

Paranormal Activity begins like The Blair Witch Project with a disclaimer:

“Paramount pictures would like to thank the families of Micah Sloat and Katie Featherson and the San Diego Police Department”

From the beginning of the film, you expect a Blair Witch Project-esque film, which in some respects, it is, and does it relatively well. However, my issue lies with the lack of effort that is made to make the events seem as ‘real’ as possible. There is little background information relating to apparent events I mean, it would have been cool to list the actors as dead. But I guess the internet must be to blame for this, we are so god at squeezing out information that it would probably seem like a cheap marketing trick to attempt what Blair Witch Project The did.

But, I mean sometimes, they didn’t even try. Like it was common knowledge that there were multiple endings…which makes no sense if it was a ‘found footage’ film. How can they die in two different ways? It immediately takes you out of the ‘real’ world of the film.

Sequels are also a glaringly obvious issue with attempting to carry on the façade. A mere three years after the original film, Paranormal Activity 2 was released. Now, the illusion is broken well and truly, because we then question the chances of someone else connected to filming the events that are linked to the original film; and lemme tell you the far-fetched narratives that are in place so that they can have the excuse of calling it found footage. The first made sense, the second was a bit of a stretch, the third, a little bit more so apart from the fact that they had to change the VHS tapes every, like 8 hours or something silly, the fourth again, is a massive stretch. But, I mean they are still quite scary, one moment in the third one made me well up it creeped me out so much, so I guess they did the job there. I could write so much more about the Paranormal Activity films, that’s for another time, perhaps...

I mentioned the 2016 sequel to The Blair Witch Project, simply entitled Blair Witch earlier. Now, I was legitimately excited for this, I thought, hey, what could go wrong. They could perhaps learn from how great the first film was … but alas, it was not to be. Blair Witch follows Heather’s brother, 20 years after her disappearance. He heads off into the same woods to see if he can find her, because he is convinced that she is still alive in the house. He has a bigger camera crew and has two weirdo locals with him as well.

Now my first big gripe was that the camera continuation was completely off, but I now know that the crew have camera earpieces… which I didn’t even notice, but surely if it was on your ear, like your cheek would get massively in the way.

For me the film failed to capture the sense of desperation that flows through the original. It was down to complete laziness from the directors, to even make it seem the slightest bit authentic. The ear piece cameras and the GoPro are so unbelievably HD and graded, the script is just terrible, the actors are equally bad. You can tell that they had a film crew with them the whole time. Also…they didn’t even bother to shoot it in the same location as the original, it is glaringly obvious that the terrain is in a completely different country.

So we have this:

Versus this: 

Another massive break from the original was that they showed the damn witch and added to the narrative of what happens to you when you encounter her. The mystery has totally ruined and feels a lot more fabricated because elements of the supernatural are shown on the footage.

...... ugh. 

What annoys me most is that they had so much time to think it through and create something that, wasn’t exactly the same (because that would be pointless), but carried on the legacy rather than being tremendously lazy. I mean, the budget for Blair Witch was $5 million in comparison to the modest $60,000 that the original film had. You can see the budget all over the new film, it just looks far too flashy and is another in a long like of below par found footage movies, I mean, they even had a full on premier with all the actors, there was no effort to even let the audience pretend to believe it was real. And to be honest its link to the original just places the original further into fiction.

Most modern found footage films have gone down the route that Blair Witch did, films like As Above, So Below being one of them, which contains so much supernatural stuff that it is so unbeleivable. The biggest rule in this type of horror, for me is don’t show, dont even tell, just leave it to our imaginations, becuse often that is the scariest thing. 

 By Siobhan Eardley. 

 Works Cited:

Deodato, Ruggero. (Dir). Cannibal Holocaust (1980).[YouTube].

Hoad, Phil. “How We Made The Blair Witch Project.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 21 May 2018. Web. 

  Keller, James. “‘Nothing That Is Not There, and the Nothing That Is’: Language and The Blair Witch Phenomenon.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 22, no. 3, Apr. 2000. Web. 

Peli, Oren. (Dir). Paranormal Activity (2007).[Netflix]. 

Rose, Steve. “Cannibal Holocaust: 'Keep Filming! Kill More People!'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 15 Sept. 2011, www.theguardian.com/film/2011/sep/15/cannibal-holocaust.

Sánchez, Eduardo and Daniel Myrick. (Director). Curse of the Blair Witch (1999). [DVD].

 Sánchez, Eduardo and Daniel Myrick. (Dir). The Blair Witch Project (1999). [DVD]. 

Ah, San Diego Comic-Con a wonderful smush of nerd culture, its hard to know where to start really.  I am never one to religiously watch every single panel and I only really get the snippets of information, the trailers that pop up on Twitter, however, this year I decided to watch a few panels. I will admit that this was entirely due to Doctor Who… I just really wanted to see and hear more of Jodie Whittaker. Without further ado, here are my own personal highlights from SDCC 2018!

Everything to do with Doctor Who:

Hall H, where all the biggest shows and films get to present their latest ventures, Doctor Who was easily the biggest thing (for me) to be shown in there. It wasn’t just a chance to get to see the trailer that was inevitably being dropped, but also to see how the new cast interacts, and to generally hear more about the new series.

Series 11 is perhaps the most exciting series since the show began again in 2005. We have a new showrunner, new companions and the first female Doctor. The excitement is unreal. Every time I see Jodie as the Doctor I just well up, I can’t express how important this is for me and for Whovians all over the world (especially the ladies). Everything about the panel was wonderful (although I would have loved to see Bradley Walsh there…I’m assuming he was filming The Chase or something…) finally meeting Tosin Cole, Mandip Gill, the new companions, whilst also getting to know the new showrunner Chris Chibnall and executive producer, Matt Strevens. The dynamic between the panel was lovely to see and hopefully bodes well for the series.

It’s no secret that Doctor Who has one of the biggest fanbases, and one of the loveliest parts of the panel was the compilation people reacting to Jodie being cast as The Doctor, including Meryl Streep and lots of excited fans.

It was revealed that there will be a Christmas Special in 2018 and the new series will air in the autumn, having no two-part episodes, which I am very intrigued by! Another reveal was the design of the new sonic screwdriver, which I am convinced 13 has made herself, because it looks nothing like we have seen before in the Who universe! That was pretty much it for information, aside from the trailer, which looks incredible and so different to anything we have seen, and like I said before I couldn’t help but start to cry a little bit seeing her as The Doctor. Bring on Autumn!

 Steven Universe Panel:

Led by Shelby Rabara, the voice of Peridot, the Steven Universe panel, was just as lovely as the show is. I always love hearing Rebecca Sugar talk about her show, to be honest I just love hearing her voice anyway, it is so relaxing!

At this panel, it wasn’t just the reveals of things to come that stuck out to me. It was the audience questions, which were all so emotionally fueled. The first was a female artist, who after years of struggling found her doorway to the industry by doing work for the Steven Universe comics, who expressed a great deal of gratitude to Rebecca and the show for giving her the chance to do what she loves. Secondly was the big tear-jerker, a mother of a son who has Asperger’s, who wanted to convey the importance of shows like Steven Universe, especially for children like her son. She explained how her son, whilst watching the show with her, expressed that he felt like one of the broken gems featured in the shows narrative. She wanted to thank Rebecca, but also highlight how parents should take and interest and pay attention to the shows their children are watching, because for some, it is a way to express themselves. Steven Universe, is perhaps the one of the best shows that illustrate so many issues that children, and adults go through.

Although the question segment was probably my favourite element of the panel, we were given a sneak peak of the upcoming Steven Universe Movie!!! Which looks amazing and I cannot wait. We were also given an episode to watch, which was a huge treat. All I am going to say is…WHITE DIAMOND!!!

 Star Wars EU News:

Now there isn’t really much in the way of news regarding the Star Wars films, that tends to be reserved nowadays to the Star Wars Celebration. However, there were a few things in the expanded universe that I am so excited for. Firstly, the animated series Clone Wars is coming back!!!

If I’m being honest, I have only seen a few episodes of The Clone Wars, however, I adore Rebels, and hopefully the return of Clone Wars, headed by Dave Filoni will most definitely make me watch the entire back catalouge in time for the premier of the new series.

Aside from Clone Wars, which is exciting, the best reveal for me this year is Queen’s Shadow the Padme Amidala novel by E.K. Johnston. I cannot express how much I wanted this book, to the point where I almost began writing some fan-fiction with the hope of Lucasfilm Press publishing it! 

After her success writing the Leia novels, I was expecting Claudia Grey to pen this one, however she will be busy writing Master and Apprentice, book covering Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Jon Jinn’s adventures before The Phantom Menace! I am so pleased that the EU is fleshing out the prequels, because I was so desperate for them to return to that era; I am so excited to delve into all these new adventures!

That’s all for my highlights this year I only hope for more next year!

Bonus highlight:

Brooklyn 99  x Doctor Who crossover!!

The horror genre has had ties with religion, going back to its roots in Gothic literature. The vampires in Dracula were warded off by religious icons and holy water and possession is often the work of the devil. Religion is often the saving force; the priest exorcises the devil and crucifixes repel the advances of the blood sucking vampires. However, what happens when religion can’t save the day?  

In an increasingly secular society, horror films have changed their representations of religion, either becoming suspicious of it, or scrambling to portray religion as the saviour in horrific situations. Two contemporary horror film franchises, one American, one Spanish show both sides of this. James Wan’s The Conjuring and Balaguero & Plaza’s [REC]. Although these films are wholly different in style and subject matter, this contrast enlightening when looking at how horror can interact with religion.

[REC] is a found footage film, shot by a journalist documenting a night in the life of a Barcelona fire station. They are called out to an apartment block, which is very quickly put under quarantine upon their arrival. Over the course of the film we discover that a deadly infection is spreading around the apartment block, seemingly originating in one of the residents’ dog. From this, the audience assumes rabies, which is a common explanation for zombie movies, and in this case, the horrific and animalistic nature of these ‘zombies’ does not dispute this. On the surface, [REC] appears to be a zombie apocalypse film and it pretty much is, until the end segment of the film.

As the film reaches its climax the filmmakers enter the penthouse to find a room filled with religious iconography alongside newspaper clippings reporting a girl possessed. This immediately switches this film from your typical zombie apocalypse film, alluding to something more sinister. On watching this part for the first time, I just thought that they were trying to give a religious explanation for the infection, it was just a misinterpretation, however on viewing [REC]2 it explicitly connects the infection with demonic possession.

I don’t know about anyone else, but for some reason the film became 100% creepier as soon as they entered the penthouse and saw what looked like a conspiracy theorists obsession, paired with the log of a Vatican agent on old tapes playing in the background. This mystery is completely unexpected and turns the whole film on its head.

But why bring religion into what, on the surface appears to be a mere zombie outbreak movie? The answer can be found in Spain’s political past. Spain was under the control of dictator Francisco Franco from 1936 to 1975. Franco took power after the Nationalist victory in the Spanish Civil war, his rule emphasised conservative values, including putting a great deal of importance on Catholicism, which was the national religion during his rule. Films during his reign were heavily censored, sex, politics and religion were all no-go areas in films made in Spain during this period. After his death in 1975, there was a great change in Spain, with the country becoming more liberal (Scarlett, 113). However, Elizabeth Scarlett in Religion and Spanish Film states that although Spain somewhat abandoned Catholicism, “the motifs of Catholicism were never abandoned” and states that Catholicism is ingrained in the works of Spanish directors (171).

Therefore, [REC]’s religious imagery does not simply contain this to evoke an ominous feeling in the viewer, it is because of the lingering national Catholicism of Spain. However, in this case Catholicism is not presented as the saviour, in fact, it is the very cause of what occurs in the apartment block.

The source of the infection is the girl in the newspaper cuttings who is apparently possessed by demons, the agent kidnaps her and attempts to find a cure for the apparent biological demonic possession, however, this only makes the enzyme mutate and become highly infectious. Andy Willis suggests that for Spain with its religious history, “such references would potentially have great significance for certain members of the audience who might be willing to believe in a potential Vatican inspired conspiracy rather than excepting a supernatural rationale for the virus” (58). Does this belief, therefore lie in the potential distrust that people may feel for religion, as they had been repressed by it for years?

There is only a hint of the religious involvement in the first film, we are presented with mere speculation, however, the sequel builds upon the conspiracy providing more information about the Vatican involvement in the infection, shedding light on the seemingly demonic origins.

We hear the infected people speak in a demonic voice, repelled by items of religious significance, which immediately takes the film into the realm of the demonic and consequently heavily religious. Something that can have a voice and act in such an animalistic manner is wholly disturbing, and although the mystery is being revealed, the eeriness is still there.

Although The Conjuring may seem quite far removed in tone and style to [REC], the theme of demonic possession is at the centre of both narratives. On its release in 2013, The Conjuring was a huge hit, grossing $319.5 million worldwide, $137.4 million of that from the US. What is it about this film makes it so endearing to audiences?

I have always loved a good supernatural horror film, and this is an excellently made one. Yes, it is scary, but for me a well thought out narrative is always what I look for in a horror film.  I was also rather drawn to the characters of Ed and Lorraine, played wonderfully by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. Although the characters of Ed and Lorraine are based on real people I still view the film as a work of fiction, because I don’t believe in mediums, or ghosts for that matter, as much as I would like to.

For others the story may seem completely plausible, if you believe in ghosts, God and the devil. The film is so heavily saturated with religious imagery and the script, written by the Hayes brothers (who are very Christian) are not afraid to admit that The Conjuring is a film heavily influenced by Christian values, if not a light piece of Christian propaganda. In an interview Chad Hayes stated that “we want people after experiencing our movie to question, where are they? Where am I in my own faith? Where am I in my belief? The Lord has authority overall, and so here we are”.

Being party to this information has changed the way I view the film. I must admit I am rather put out by the fact I was drawn into a film filled with this kind of preaching. There is one point where Ed looks worryingly at the father of the haunted family after he says none of the kids are baptised, essentially implying they have set themselves up for possession because they are not part of the church; providing a strange narrative based on the notion that the US is losing its faith.

The basic premise of The Conjuring films is that religion can save the day. I did notice this a lot more on watching the second one, but on re-watching the first one it is so stark. The almost saint-like depiction of Lorraine is perhaps the most apparent, more so in the second film in which she is the almost spiritual guider to the young girl who is being possessed by the demon, she acts as a kind of motherly saviour and martyr, who has suffered greatly due to her God-given gift.

The US is lead by religion, it is seen in every element of their culture, from the puritans to the present day. Politics is saturated by religion and is used to justify so many things for example, the continued control over women’s bodies. Now, with the ever-changing world religion is slowly being rejected by many, mainly the youth of the country, the emphasis on religion is going down. The Conjuring appears to be a comment on this, whilst also desperately attempting to re-ignite the countries faith. But did it work? The success of the film does make me wonder, but were the film goers flocking to the cinema due to the religious nature of the film, or just for the scares?

With two films centered around demonic possession there are interesting notes to make about their countries relation to religion. One that has rejected Catholicism and is therefore suspicious and not afraid to critique it, and the other desperately clinging to religion, attempting to scare the audiences into thinking that God can save you from demons. With all that in mind, religion does evoke such a sense of fear in horror viewers, whether they are faithful or not. I for one, would love to see more mainstream horror films in the vein of [REC], openly critiquing religion, rather than so many narratives where religion is the saviour, when in fact, it causes most of the world’s problems right now.

By Siobhan Eardley. 

Works Referenced: 

Goodwyn, Hannah. “Screenwriters Chad and Carey Hayes on The Conjuring and God”. CBN.com. 

The Conjuring. Dir James Wan (2013).

The Conjuring 2. Dir James Wan (2016).

[REC]. Dir. Jaume Balagueró & Paco Plaza (2007).

[REC]2. Dir. Jaume Balagueró & Paco Plaza (2009).

Scarlett, Elizabeth. Religion and Spanish Film. Michigan. UP of Michigan Press: 2014, JSTOR. Web. 

As I’m doing my research for this piece, I am finding plenty of threads posing the question of whether you should watch anime subbed or dubbed, like there is some almighty anime overlord that will curse you if you do it wrong…with that in mind, I want to start of this piece with a disclaimer: I do not care what people do, to be honest, I am just happy people watch anime full stop really. 

In my youth, anime was a realm that I was often too scared to venture into, mainly because I had no idea what it was really. Toonami was something I always avoided because frankly all I can remember them showing was Dragon Ball Z and that was the most confusing thing to get into. So like most newbies, I began watching Studio Ghibli films, the first one being Spirited Away. It wasn’t even because I wanted to get into anime to be perfectly honest, I had dreams of becoming a famous film critic and I compiled a list of films that the internet told me I needed to watch to be a movie buff. I digress, even though it was dubbed I remember the film feeling so other-worldly and so far apart from anything I had ever seen before.  

Since watching the dubbed version of Spirited Away, I never really put much thought into watching anime with subtitles, I always went for the dubbed, and to be honest, this is probably due to the fact that I haven’t really watched much until now.  I have since been introduced to a lot of anime, and it has all been viewed with subtitles, as I’m watching it with others who have a definite preference for subbed versions of anime.  

I think the biggest and most obvious point to make on the side of the subtitled watchers, is the case of authenticity. Watching a piece of art as it was intended by the creator in its purest form, therefore, those who watch the dubbed version are perhaps not being presented with the film as it should be.

One point that a friend made, actually when I asked him about why subbed is better in some cases was that we can’t really tell if the acting is bad in the subbed, because we can’t really pick it out in a completely different language. On the flip side however, yes you can’t tell the bad acting, but what about the good acting, the subtle inflections that may be added to speech that we can’t really decipher ( I am purely saying this in my case, because I honestly cannot pick up any subtleties in different languages…I don’t know about anyone else). So I guess the solution to this is to watch more and learn?

The funny thing is, is that I wouldn’t touch a live-action dubbed movie with a ten-foot pole, so why am I so inclined to watch an animated film in this manner? To put it simply you can’t really tell with animation, the mouth animation is a lot simpler than the nuanced movements that one would find in a live action movie, which consequently makes live-action dubs being unbearable to watch.

I think the big issue for me in this debate is the ‘dub shaming’ that occur in the anime fandom when certain purists (not all) shame others for watching dubbed. But I am pretty sure these people don’t even think about why one might want or need to watch it dubbed, a lot of the time people are accused of being lay or ‘not a true fan’.

Now I read so quickly this isn’t really a problem for me, but there are some who read a lot slower, so subtitles are a lot harder to take in, or they disappear too quickly for them to read the full thing. Subbed can be a chore if you read slowly. Even though I read super-fast, I do sometimes like to watch dubbed because I feel lazy, also I enjoy doing different things when I watch stuff, like drawing etc., and it is so much easier to follow when dubbed.

Dubbed also makes it more accessible to Western viewers, it shouldn’t really because we should all be accepting of different things, but hey that’s life! Studio Ghibli films employ well-known actors to do the English dub, so it is actually quite cool to hear Cate Blanchett’s voice or something when you are watching a Ghibli film. If it gets more people interested, then awesome; but should we just accept this? Surely it shouldn’t have to be westernized like so many other things, like Ghost in the Shell and whitewashing, why can’t we just handle Japanese things!!

 I haven’t actually come to a conclusion, because like I said I see both sides and partake in both subbed and dubbed viewings. The only real solution I see is that we all learn Japanese. Solved.

Are you a subber or a dubber? Please comment with why it is always interesting to hear opinions I didn’t think of.

You know when you know full well that a film had the best of expectations, that it really tried to do something positive and well thought out… Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is one of those films. It is because of this that I will find it hard to be overly cynical about the film, because I could see what they so desperately wanted to achieve among the messy carnage I was presented with.

Jurassic Park is undoubtedly one of my favourite films of all time, it’s an ultimate nostalgia fest that still holds up as genuinely amazing piece of film-making. It is the perfect mixture of fantastical wonder, tension and adventure that I don’t think any of its predecessors will ever even dream of matching, and god knows how they have tried.

First off, I will say that I do love The Lost World, I find it genuinely great, it’s a fun continuation of the first film and had a plot that made sense (not to forget that it has all the Goldblum in it). The third film, again even though it is majorly flawed kind of made sense. 

This notion of the plot making sense flags up my biggest issue with Fallen Kingdom. Half of it made no sense in relation to any of the other films, there were narrative backstory elements that felt thrown in to make the story more interesting, but it only made me question why we are only hearing about these things now? Like, why on earth would John Hammond pick an island that has an active volcano to store his precious and not to mention expensive creations that he cared so much about on…WHY??? It screams a thrown in plot point, not to mention lazy writing, more than anything it is so frustrating.

Now, I didn’t hate the film, there were elements that I thought were very interesting and well shot, but overall it was a bit of a hectic muddled mess. The first quarter of the film felt so rushed and fast-paced, at times it felt as if the film was reaching its climax, when in fact it wasn’t even half way through yet. It was so packed with stuff. New dinosaurs, new characters, most of which weren’t given enough chance for the audience to grasp what their motives were before they inevitably got picked off by the ever-expanding cast of dinosaurs.

I was genuinely shocked when some of the new cast members appeared, especially with Toby Jones and Rafe Spall, two of my favourite actors working now. However, I just wanted them to immediately stop, I couldn’t handle them. Especially Toby Jones, who it genuinely felt like the director had specifically told him to put on a Donald Trump voice (I’m being legitimately serious). Toby Jones, the only actor I know who can put on a convincing Stokie accent, being reduced to this made me so sad!

Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt as the leading actors were good, they carried on the good work from the first film and I don’t really have a bad word to say about them at all. One thing though, another returning cast member I felt was grossly misused was Jeff Goldblum, I don’t know if it was the script, but it just felt like he didn’t want to be there. It felt like Harrison Ford in The Force Awakens, he just wanted to get it over and done with. There was no hint of the charisma of Ian Malcom, it felt as if he was done with the whole thing, and on reflection he probably is, but I just wanted a bit more energy.

Now I did enjoy the new younger cast members Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda, they were genuinely interesting and funny characters…but damn, I just wanted more of them! It was so frustrating, I read before hand that Daniella’s character, Zia had a line that revealed she is a lesbian, but it was cut for time…which is just so frustrating, I get that it is great that her character is gay, but if you are going to hint at this and even write it into her character, tell us damn it. It isn’t amazing representation if we must hunt for interviews with cast members outside of the film is it?! In any case, Zia was such a great addition to the film and I honestly think, for me it would have fallen so flat with out her presence. 

Speaking of new things, I cannot wait to see what monstrous hybrid dinosaur they come up with in the next film…it is getting painful. How many deadly dinosaurs can we mash together now? You know what I want to see, I want a beautiful, harmless herbivore hybrid. Imagine a Brachiosaurus with a triceratops head…so majestical.

On the topic of Brachiosaurus’, remember that epic moment in Jurassic Park where Sam Neill has to grab Laura Dern’s head, so she can see the Brachiosaurus for the first time? Remember how iconic that was? Moments like that just shouldn’t be attempted to be replicated, but boy, does Fallen Kingdom try, and received an eye-roll rather than a gasp of wonder from me. There is a moment which at first genuinely got me a bit emotional, which was then followed by me bursting into very loud laughter because it was so stupid. It was so dumb, I don’t think I have seen anything so dumb since a gas mask wearing Tom Hiddleston ran into that green smoke stuff wielding a katana to slash some flying dinosaur things in Kong Skull Island.

What is even funnier about it is that, unlike Skull Island, I genuinely think this was meant to be this huge meaningful and deep moment, which for a fleeting second it was, and then it just got out of control. It was too much. Which I think this film did a lot of, there were so many moments where I think the audience got what was going on, or what they were meant to be feeling and then the film just decided to shove it in our faces even more, so it felt forced, and in some cases hilarious.

There were so many elements of this film that I felt were genuinely great though, despite the less than excellent parts. There were some scenes that were shot excellently and nearly captured that element of tension that is so present in the original film, the CGI was pretty awesome and, you know I appreciated seeing some practical effects…I just wanted more.

Speaking of wanting more, I felt that there was a distinct lack of Tyrannosaur in this film. I do appreciate that Blue is pretty much the new dinosaur heroine of the franchise, but frankly it is getting a little bit soppy now. Although I did appreciate the token T-Rex roar as the film drew to a close, it is one trope that will never get old for me.

So overall, I will say that I did have some fun watching this, although my eyes rolled to the heavens far too often. It is a lot of fun if you try not to think about how amazing the original film is, but it is hard to ignore the first film, as so many references to it are made. But like I said at the start of this review, I find it hard to be mad at this film because it felt like they really wanted to make this great, the intention was there, it just didn’t fully deliver in my eyes!

Let me know how you felt about it in the comments, did you enjoy it, loathe it, or were just a solid ‘meh’ about the whole thing? (Also, see if you can guess which scene made me inappropriately laugh out loud…)

Gaming for me is about the setting, if the setting of a game isn’t imaginative or pretty, I find it very difficult to want to invest my time in it, as like most people I am drawn in by beautiful things. However, as shallow as this may sound, the game still must be good.

Now herein lies the problem with a lot of games lately. I have ranted about this before, but I will again. Assassins Creed. Now the second game built the world in a way in which I wanted to explore it because it was interesting and breath-taking, the same with Brotherhood. However, Black Flag set in the Caribbean was so boring. Yes, the sea was pretty, and the boats looked pretty sick on the open waters with a sun set in the back-ground, but there was nothing that stood out, it was a lot of jungle, sand and town. Which sometimes is great, but the story didn’t want me to explore this. I understand that they are constrained to historical accuracy, but certain settings just don’t do it for me.

Skyrim is a very different game in terms of setting, the open world makes you want to discover everything in it, the mountains, the tombs and every settlement there is, because they are fantastical. But also, they are presented beautifully, the change in weather can change the view completely, not to mention how the night sky is absolutely stunning when it is clear. I spent so long just looking at the setting in Skyrim wishing I could document it.

In the last few years photo mode has been cropping up quite regularly. Photo mode allows the players to document their greatest gaming achievements, but also gives the opportunity to create stunning snapshots.

The first time I came across the concept of the photo mode was in the HD remaster of The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker with the camera, which was a side quest item but even then, I spent far too long attempting to get a pretty shot. The HD version added a selfie mode which enabled the viewer to experiment to a certain extent, if anything it just made the whole thing more entertaining (I’ll just point you in the direction of this Game Grumps clip, which is pure hilarity).

The capabilities of photo mode range from simply removing the HUD and adding a filter to full camera capabilities, including depth of field, changing camera angle and being able to get rid of those characters getting in the way of that perfect landscape shot. Most notable photo modes that I have come across so far are Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4, the former being the superior. Both give the ability to capture stunning and unique images showcasing the amazing worlds that have been created. With Uncharted 4, famed for its set pieces, it is the perfect opportunity to really play with the angles.

  Horizon Zero Dawn gives the ability to pose Aloy in so many dynamic ways, which, whilst displaying the beauty of the game adds a whimsicality to the process. I will give an honourable mention to Super Smash Bro’s for the WiiU, because honestly, that can produce the most epic shots mid-battle.  As an amateur photographer, who spends countless day trips and holidays lagging behind the group because I am taking too long snapping away, photo mode is a dream. But is it also a curse?

I have such a short attention span, I see something pretty or more interesting and that is me gone. So, I spend so much time pausing the game and entering photo mode. Whilst I have got some cracking shots, I am not entirely sure it is conducive to the gaming experience.

Gaming is immersive, they are meant to bring you into the world they have created, you are meant to completely succumb to becoming the character you are playing as, especially in such narratively and fast-paced games such as Uncharted 4. So constantly pausing the game and taking a snapshot surely disturbs the fantasy of the game. However, as I mentioned before, it does give you time to appreciate what has been created in the game, and I bet the environmental artists love this tool that enables everyone to appreciate their amazing work.

My mind is not made up on this dilemma, simply because I love photo mode, however I feel that sometimes it is all I want to do. In a game like Horizon Zero Dawn, I haven’t really been able to get into the game as much as I would like and have enjoyed the photo mode more than the actual game at times…

So, I haven’t really been able to settle this discussion, so what are your thoughts? Would you be happier for photo mode to die out, or do you want it in every single game? Comment and let me know!

By Siobhan Eardley.

All images are screenshots I have taken in photo mode on Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4! 

(Here are some more of my favourite shots from Horizon and Uncharted 4... I was desperate to include them!)

The gaming world is a weird one. It has largely been the domain of men for years and years. This has changed over the past ten years or so, with women making up around 48% of people who game in the US. However, only 6% of these women consider themselves as ‘gamers’. Now, this term has begun to irk me slightly. What makes a gamer? What type of games do you have to play to be considered a gamer? Some people don’t consider, say mobile games to be ‘real gamer’ material, when in fact the basic mechanics of these games have their roots in the arcade games of the 70’s and 80’s, like Space Invaders or even Pong. Why, then are mobile gamers dismissed nowadays? Yes, games have become more diverse and complex, but why should the complexness of games you play make you a superior gamer?

There is a whole essay that could be written on the complexities of what makes a good and bad game, in relation to the difficulty, mechanics, graphics etc. but that isn’t really the focus of what I will be talking about. However, it is an overarching theme that keeps cropping up in my experiences.

My first fully fledged gaming experience (that I can remember) was playing on my Dad’s PS1. I played the Croft Manor training level on Tomb Raider 3 repeatedly when I was about 6 years old. I distinctly remember (like many of you, I’m sure) getting so scared at the prospect of locking the butler in the fridge, and it took all my courage to make it through those massive gates of Croft Manor into the main game. I slid down that jungle path, got impaled numerous times on the spikes, then when I finally made it down, the first terrifying obstacle greets me, a rabid monkey. After a near death experience with the monkey, it was on to the portion of the level where the spiked walls start closing in ominously as I had to frantically find my way out of an enclosed space…man they were stressful times. I never got further than that, but as I got a little bit older (maybe 8 or 9) I discovered the wonders of cheats. So, like the little chicken that I am, I used to skip each level after it got too scary for me, whilst having an unlimited supply of flares and med packs.

I never really gave myself much chance, I always gave up when it got too hard, or too scary. But then, in my early teens, when Tomb Raider: Legend was released, I completed the entire game and absolutely loved it. Then they remade the original Tomb Raider and I adored it. At this point I had my own little PS2, I mainly replayed the Tomb Raider games, I had Simpsons Hit & Run, a Scooby-Doo game (which was legitimately amazing) and I played these on repeat. I didn’t really know what games were considered good, I never really had people around me who played games, I wasn’t involved in the culture. But anyway, I happily played my five games over and over again for a good few years.

Now we enter my late teen years. I made friends with a lot of like-minded boys at college, I really loved hanging out with everyone, it was super cool to stretch out my nerdy wings a little bit more without feeling like I was being judged. It was super good times. I gained a lot of knowledge and some great game recommendations. I played so many new games I had never even considered playing before, predominantly, Mass Effect 2. Now at this stage, I was loving it, it is an awesome and super fun sci-fi shooter. Which in some respects it is; but what I didn’t realise was the importance of updates, and because of my lack of knowledge, most of my damn crew died. I remember talking about this with friends and getting this response: “lol it’s a RPG of course you have to update!”. I’m just standing there, like sweet ok… I didn’t know that. But looking back on it, the whole thing just feels so patronising, whether intentional or not. Again, I don’t know if I am putting my own anxieties on these experiences. But we will go into this further along the line.

Time and time again with certain people I have been told what a good game is and what isn’t, giving me instructions on what games I should play etc etc. My opinion never really comes into play in these conversations, and I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that my confidence levels low when it comes to talking about games. But for so long, I have been dictated to, talked at with such confidence, that I have no confidence in my own knowledge or experience. Is this because I am a girl or is this just my personality type? I really don’t know, and I don’t want to make any sweeping statements that make me feel like I am using my gender as an excuse, or a kind of crutch. But it is so hard not to feel this way when there is so much negativity surrounding women in the gaming community.

I have heard countless accounts of women who play online, and as soon as a man hears a female voice, the women get attacked, either because they are apparently letting the squad down, or just because they are female. The gaming community is not welcoming for women. I know it has grown over the years but to say women are treated equally in the community would be a straight up lie.

Gaming is an area that I hold so much anxiety around, especially when talking to men about it. I am so terrified of saying something stupid, ill-informed etc., that I don’t present my opinions, when I do I immediately feel stupid, so I just stay away.

I mean, look at Anita Sarkeesian. She has spoken out about sexism in the gaming industry in her YouTube show Feminist Frequency. Whilst I do disagree with some points she makes, I do think she also makes extremely valid and important ones. She has come under a barrage of abuse for about five years now, since ‘Gamergate’, in which her and other women including game developer, Zoe Quinn, were harassed and abused online. It was sickening. Even mentioning Sarkeesian’s name to any male gamer that I know results in a less than savoury response. A lot of the time they say she is problematic, but I have delved into the dark recesses of the internet to find the facts, and I can’t.

What I have seen is people making up lies about her, but also over exaggerating her actions, everything she does is wrong. Hell, even when Youtuber Boogie2988 made a video clarifying rumours that she verbally attacked him, he straight up explained that she did snap at him, but she then realised she was wrong, and they talked it out for 15 minutes and he said she was very willing to listen to him.  I think the issue here is that she is under so much pressure, she is constantly having to defend herself.  Imagine if you had death threats, imagine if thousands of people questioned literally every move you made for years. You would be a little defensive and on edge at panels such as these…

I really wanted my research on Sarkeesian to be as detailed as it possibly could. But honestly, I just got tired. I got tired of people just blindly making excuses to hate her, it was legitimately exhausting and upsetting to see how far people will go to disgrace someone who doesn’t hold the same opinion as them. The same thing happened with Trump and Clinton. So many people despised Hilary, so many of the attacks against her were based on or at least referenced the fact that she was a woman. I am just so over it, and I can’t believe that so many people that I personally know dislike Anita based on sensationalist rubbish that people have put out about her.  

What gets me down the most, and actually upsets me is that I have heard so much about her from people that I like and respect, that I am so conflicted about her, when in fact I actually like what she does, I don’t always agree with her, sometimes I don’t think she takes certain things into consideration in her critique of certain things, but that is ok. People need to learn that just because you don’t hold the same opinions as someone, doesn’t mean that they are a horrible person. They certainly don’t deserve death threats and years and years of abuse because they critiqued your precious games.

I think I may have digressed ever so slightly…but this highlights how much of a boy’s club the gaming world can be and how some women may feel the same lack of confidence that I do when discussing it.

Going back to the notion I mentioned earlier, about what makes you a ‘gamer’. Now a few years back I wouldn’t have put myself in that category. Why? Because first off, women are placed in that patronising awful ‘girl gamer’ nonsense that I have no time for. Now I am a person who enjoys gaming, and this has nothing to do with the fact that I am a girl. This always happens when something typically ‘belonging’ one of the genders is used by the other, it happens the other way around, for example the, ‘man bun’ or the ‘man purse’; even a mere cold is deemed ‘man flu’. Why do we feel the need to so this? I’m so over it. It just seems to put a kind of stigma on an object which has the same function, it is almost humiliating in a sense.

To be categorised as a girl gamer immediately defines that person as different, other to the gamer. But why don’t we call male gamers ‘gamer boys’ why don’t we refer to purses as ‘lady purse’ or the bun as a ‘lady bun’?? Again, this is delving into a whole other discussion of gender politics that I really don’t have the energy for right now.

It just separates us from the boy’s club even more, fuelling that lack of confidence and making me feel that I will never be able to be classed as a fully fledged ‘gamer’ what ever that damn term means anyway.

One thing that has really got me down recently is thinking back to the amount of times I have been told a game will be too hard for me. I will admit, this may be down to the fact that I say how terrible I am at games, but I can’t help but feel this self-deprecation comes from all the background nonsense that I have just discussed. But I picked up Crash Bandicoot when Dave and I got our PS4. I was super hyped for this, I showed my housemate at the time and he said: “You know that game is really hard”. Now, yes Crash is a damn hard game, it is frustrating, and I have been known to give up very easily, as I mentioned earlier with Tomb Raider. But damn, I have never felt so patronised, there could have been some encouragement there, but no, I got a complete vote of no confidence.

It is this lack of confidence in my abilities that I have constantly faced with male gamers. I’ve been told on numerous occasions that a game may be too hard for me, and to be honest, that just makes me feel worse about my abilities, it makes my confidence in gaming at zero, so I ended up playing the same boring ass games over and over. I pushed through Assassins Creed 3 and now Black Flag because I have been told they get amazing. Well, I have never played a duller game in my life, I have no realised this. There is no challenge, the world is boring, the mechanics are clumsy.

But you know what, I love that I have come to this realisation on my own, without someone giving me their opinion, I am weirdly proud of myself for this. For a while I genuinely blamed by own incompetence on it, and I really felt like I was missing something, or that I wasn’t appreciating some nuance within the game. When, in fact the games are kinda trash. The funniest thing is that I have been told that certain games are the pinnacle of gaming, but I have realised how flawed they are, and for some reason, this just gives me so much satisfaction.

The person who has really transformed how I play games has been Dave. Firstly, by introducing me to The Legend of Zelda, I’ve learned a hell of a lot from that game. The puzzles in Tomb Raider used to intimidate me, but by playing Zelda I have really begun to rise to the challenge. The mechanics of the games are incredible, and it opened a whole new world of possibilities that some popular games just can’t seem to imitate. But it wasn’t just introducing me to Zelda, it is just the confidence that Dave gives me. More recently, we have both started playing Hollow Knight, today was the day I beat a boss that was making me so angry, but the satisfaction of completing it was just a huge middle finger to anyone who has doubted me, but also to that little voice in my head that tells me I can’t do something.

It is these kinds of games, the challenging ones, that have really transformed how I feel about gaming. I have done a complete U-turn in a matter of months. My Twitter bio has contained the phrase ‘terrible gamer’ for quite some time now, and today, I have edited it to simply say ‘gamer’. For me this is huge, because for maybe ten or so years of regularly playing games I have never had the confidence to say to anyone that I am a gamer. But now I do. 

Although it is obvious that we are watching a science fiction film, the elements of the Gothic are startlingly apparent. The Gothic genre has its roots as far back as the 1700’s with Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Ontaro, from that stemmed countless classic Gothic tales such as The Strange Case of Dr. Jeykll & Mr. Hyde and Dracula to name a couple. Although the genre at the time was saturated with ghastly tales of the supernatural, it did have a distinctive scientific influence whilst also containing “anxieties about racial and social degeneration, the threat of going native, and the invasion of Britain by demonic colonial forces” (Davison 222). It is this fear of the unknown, invasive force that saturates Annihilation, bringing it strongly into the realms of the Gothic.

Humans are not able to survive in Area X, they either never return, are killed by the mutated and vicious wildlife that now dominates the environment, or they go insane killing themselves and/or others. What is so interesting about Area X is that it is has remnants of a human world, with familiar landmarks, a small town with houses, a military base, yet they have been altered in a way that makes them seem so alien. What was once their domain has now turned against them and it is spreading, threatening to encompass the entire world. Area X can, therefore, be considered as a Gothic space.

According to the Cambridge Companion to the Gothic, “a Gothic tale usually takes place in an antiquated, or seemingly antiquated space- be it a castle, a vast prison, a graveyard […] a primeval frontier or island. Within this space, or a combination of such spaces, are hidden some secrets from the past that haunt the characters, psychologically, physically” (2). Similarly, Annihilation presents Area X as a terrifying and formidable space that perhaps even effects people prior to even entering it. The film does not hesitate to show how the place can affect the mind, we see its towering oil-like walls from the complex, giving a sense of claustrophobia and dread, especially on the realisation that it is ever expanding.

We learn from the start that Lena’s (Natalie Portman) husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac) was on the previous expedition to Area X, and that he had returned a year later with no warning, appearing to me effected in some way by his ordeal. As the Lena’s team venture into X they come across a video camera which shows her husband slicing open the stomach of one of his team mates, to reveal that his organs are moving unnaturally. Now to begin with, Kane looks surprisingly calm about what he is about to do, as if it is completely normal; however, the recording distills an element of panic in the present team, they all think that their predecessors went completely mad. This horrific act of mutilation immediately transforms the environment into one of intrigue into one of terror and anticipation. What will happen to these women? Will they end up like the men on the expedition before them? This fear is also expressed in the team as they become increasingly nervous about what secrets Area X holds.

As it turns out, Area X is pretty lethal. With strange bear-like creatures roaming the space, human shaped graveyards and the ominous lighthouse. The animals, although having familiar forms, in the seem to have been transformed into otherworldly beings. The huge alligator, the first creature they come across is an albino and has layers of teeth akin to a shark, giving it an overall sense of otherness. The nature that surrounds the team in Area X is altogether uncanny, it is familiar, whilst being ever so slightly different. This even occurs in the plant life, the flora is absolutely gorgeous, a mixture of species of plants that create awe inspiring colours. Even the fungus that has exploded out of the dead body from the previous expedition is hauntingly gorgeous, yet there is awareness that it is actually very dangerous; perhaps providing a hint of what will become of humanity when Area X expands throughout the whole of the Earth.

This threat of invasion is a common trope in Gothic narratives for example, Count Dracula wishes to spread vampirism throughout the UK, the whole world into blood sucking fiends. This invasion occurs first, through the death of humans, in which their bodies grow into fungi. The other two seem more complex. The first being through apparently turning into human shaped bushes that litter the remnants of a town. We see Josie (Tessa Thompson) weave pieces of twigs into her skin, disappearing around a corner and seemingly vanish into the mass of tree shaped people, apparently becoming one of them. These figures are entirely creepy, as they are in the human form, they look like an art installation, they look man made. On the realisation that they are not, they transform into an uncanny graveyard-esque motif. They are purposefully mimicking the human form, but why?

The second form of invasion occurs when Lena, on entering the lighthouse, journeys down into the tunnel formed by the initial crash site of the alien and is subsequently entranced by a mysterious mass. In doing so, it transforms into a metal, humanoid shape which proceeds to mimic her every movement. On eventually blowing it up, we see her escape its clutches. However, the final shot shows her embrace her husband and they both have altered irises, implying that they have been either replaced by, or transformed in some way by the alien. In Annihilation it is not overly clear what the motives of the being is. From the last few scenes it seems that the its motives are to completely transform the earth and replace its inhabitants one by one, firstly in an apparently subtle way by mimicking those who end up making it to the lighthouse and the other with the overall transformation of the landscape, obvious to the human eye.

It is perhaps the lighthouse which provides the most striking of Gothic images in the whole film. Gothic narratives usually have an imposing landmark, usually a castle, or grand house that is shrouded in mystery. The lighthouse is very much the dominant Gothic space in the film. It is the site of the initial ‘crash’, it is where Area X began to expand from. All expeditions are told to get to the lighthouse and explore to find the key to solving the mystery of why Area X has formed. But it is also the site of the most dangerous transformations, of Lena and Kane. Entering the lighthouse means being trapped and transformed by the being. Again, like in Dracula, those who enter are trapped with danger of being turned into something that is not human. This pillar provides a domineering symbol in the film, it is where everyone wants to get to, yet it has such a sinister presence.

Annihilation provides an uncanny environment that has such familiarity, paired with an overall sense of dread that makes it extremely effective as a Gothic work. The themes of an invasive force that is subtle and patient make it feel more frightening than rampaging aliens destroying well-known landmarks. It is a truly beautiful, intriguing, yet creepy film that will leave a mark on future works of science fiction.

By Siobhan Eardley

 Works Referenced:

Conan-Doyle, Arthur. The Lost World. London: Penguin 2007. Print.

Clery, E.J. “The Genesis of Gothic Fiction.” The Cambridge Companion to the Gothic Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. 21-39. Print.

Davison, Carol Margaret. History of the Gothic: Gothic Literature 1764-1824. Wales: U of Wales Press, 2009. Web.

Stoker, Bram. Dracula. London: Penguin, 2003. Print.

Now although this is quite iconic, this is not what I found unique about the film. For me what I found groundbreaking for a mainstream film is the fact that in the first five minutes of the film, we see the main female protagonist masturbating in the bath, which, as the film goes on appears to be part of her morning routine. In popular culture, we see references to male masturbation everywhere, mainly in teenage comedies. However, women are overlooked. Because heaven forbid that women have sexual desire! Open sexuality has long been the realm of men. But shock, horror, guess what. Women kind of like sex. But movies don’t seem to get this. Female characters in film are rarely the active party in seeking out sex, men are a lot of the time the active pursuers. Yet in The Shape of Water, the woman has a clear and active sexual desire, she actively pursues the fish man, she is the initiator in all the romantic elements of the film.

I recently watched the 1984 film Splash starring Tom Hanks and Daryl Hannah, and I couldn’t help but see parallels with The Shape of Water. The roles are kind of flipped in Splash, the woman is the sea creature, the man is the human. However, it is the woman, the mermaid who is quite active in her pursuit of Tom Hanks’ character, Allen. Yet in this film, it isn’t seen as a weird perversion, because on land, Madison (Daryl Hannah) looks like a human. Her desire in the film is presented as cute and naive. She is not human therefore doesn’t know the conventions of courtship that we have set in place, making her seem even more otherworldly. I mean, when we see Madison when she first arrives in New York, on land, she is completely naked leaving the humans who discover her are completely shocked, some disgusted by her open sexuality and others (the men) are excited by it, taking pictures and crowding around her like she is a magical rare being (and that’s without her tail)!

In Making a Splash, Philip Hayward describes the mermaid as a sexual being relying on certain aspects to achieve this, “predominantly, their representation as having the upper body of a young, attractive female; representation as actively in pursuit of human male attention; their seductive vocal skills; and their most complicated sexual aspect; the allure and symbolism of their tails” (98). He also highlights the importance of the modern mermaid being able to switch between forms in order to have sexual intercourse with a human. Therefore, making the sexual desire in these films more heteronormative and not as shocking or perhaps in some eyes perverse.  

Yet in The Shape of Water Eliza is human, her desire is equally as different in her setting, one because of the time-period (the 1960’s) and two because of the subject of her desire. He is not human. He does stand on two legs, has two arms and one head but other than that he is totally alien looking. Even though these films pretty much tell the same tale, of human falls in love with a sea creature, one is seen to be more perverse than the other. Is it because one creature looks more human than the other or, is it the fact that it is a human female who actively sexually pursues the creature? In The Shape of Water, I feel like it is perhaps both. Indeed, when discussing the male mermaid Phillip Hayward suggests that “mermen are symbolically unmanly due to lack of a penis” (151). Unlike their female counterparts, the representation of mermen as sexual beings is nonexistent, unless they turn into humans. Hayward states that mermen in films never have sex with women, in fact, he states, they are often feminized, for example, in the advert, Derek Zoolander features in in Zoolander.

The Shape of Water, in a way very explicitly solves the problem and mystery surrounding the sexual nature of fish creatures. Although the fish man in the film is not a merman. There is a distinct question that went through everyone’s mind when it appears that Eliza has sex with him. This is very quickly answered in a highly entertaining scene with her friend Zelda, who asks the question that everyone is dying to know. The solution is simple, the fish man’s sexual organ reveals itself, leaving Zelda shocked, stating lightheartedly, “Never trust a man”. This is perhaps what would happen in the case of mermen. But why are films so against showing this?  Because it is out of the realms of the heteronormative, breaking into the taboo subject of bestiality?

What then, does this say about Eliza’s desire? Is it perverse? If we were going to be black and white about it, then perhaps. However, it is much more nuanced than that. There was never a point in the film where I thought it was particularly strange. Yes, I have never seen anything like it before, but it was still not weird or perverse to me in the slightest. I found the whole thing rather sweet.

The narrative presents a setting in which traditionally, the monster would be the villain. He is totally otherworldly and highly dangerous. In the film The Creature from the Black Lagoon, which Guillermo Del Toro was hugely influenced by, the creature is dangerous and totally monstrous attacking anyone who goes near him. Yet there is a hint that it does feel an affinity for the woman of the group. In this case, he is the one who captures her, there is no element of courtship or tenderness, he aggressively takes her from the human, male group of explorers. In fact, in an interview with Variety, Del Toro when watching the part where the woman is swimming and we see the creature reach out to her “he thought it was so romantic and exciting that he assumed the two would end up together. He was shocked when they didn’t. “I decided I would someday have to correct that,” he says”.

Del Toro has stated that The Shape of Water is a sort of ‘what if’ narrative. What if the explorer from The Creature from the Black Lagoon had captured and brought the creature back to the US? In this case, the roles of villains are switched. The small amount of sympathy we may feel for the fish man in Black Lagoon is intensified. The villain is now the human male. Richard Strickland feels a complete and utter hatred for the fish man. We see him torture him with a cattle prod with apparent satisfaction, this is only intensified when the fish man bites his fingers off.

So, what is so different about the two monsters. One is traditionally monstrous, non-human and very dangerous. The other is a seemingly normal looking man, but what makes him more villainous? He commits acts in the narrative that made me more uncomfortable than anything that transpired between Eliza and the fish man. One scene, in particular, was when he is having sex with his wife after he had his fingers bitten off and then stitched back on. As he is stroking his wife’s face his fingers begin bleeding, as his wife tries to tell him, he then tells her to shut up and covers her mouth with his bleeding fingers, all the while still (quite forcefully) having sex with her. Funnily enough, the scene that made me most uncomfortable was a heteronormative one. The heteronormative sexual act has here been made uncomfortable and rather disgusting to watch. Which plays of the romantic and tender encounter that Eliza has with the fish man. We, as viewers are made to be disgusted by the heterosexual male’s sexual desire, it is terrifying and abhorrent. Made even more so later in the film where he sexually threatens Eliza.

In the final scenes of the film Strickland’s monstrosity reaches its peak, when he rips his fingers off in front of Zelda in a show of terrifying masochism, which “does not allow for sympathetic identification” as it is a “profoundly disturbing occurrence, one which emanates from both the unexpectedness of the monster hurting himself when his apparent role is to harm others” (Briefel 18). In this final gruesome act, Strickland has stripped any identification that we, as humans may have ever felt with him, and because of the tenderness and humanity expressed by the monster we choose to side with him instead. The fish man only ever hurt others either out of self-defense, or in the case of the cat, out of hunger, however this is quickly rectified as he is able to learn that some creatures are not for eating. We see him understand morals very quickly, while with Strickland we see his morals are non-existent.

It is not just female sexual desire that is explored in this film, it presents the notion that heterosexual male sexual desire in some cases is problematic and that the feminine, which has mostly been ignored in society and in film, is less harmful than the (sometimes) aggressive male sexual desire. The man in this film believes he has a power over women, which is expressed numerous times in an oddly sexual manner. The woman, however, has a sexual desire apparent from the start that does not harm anyone, the film normalized women’s sexual urges and does so in a non-conventional manner.

By Siobhan Eardley

Works Referenced:

The Shape of Water. Dir Guillermo Del Toro (2017)

Briefel, Aviva. “Monsterpains.” Film Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 3, 2005, pp. 16–27.

Gray, Tim. “Love and Danger on the 'Water' Front.” Variety, 10 Jan. 2018, variety.com/2018/film/awards/shape-of-water-inspiration-from-monster-movie-1202659976/.7

10. The LEGO Batman Movie: 

So this has to be the biggest surprise on my list. I didn’t see it at the cinema, as I felt that it was going to be a pale imitation of The LEGO Movie of 2014, like many things I just couldn’t be bothered to pay for something that would be disappointing. However, on the strong recommendation from a friend, I decided to watch it, and oh how I was wrong. The LEGO Batman Movie is maybe (don’t hate me) better than The LEGO Movie...I thought it was funnier, the story for me was better and they really explored the character of LEGO Batman in a way I wasn’t expecting and this is why it has made the list! 

9. The Disaster Artist: 

So I had never seen The Room until the night before I went to see The Disaster Artist, but I highly recommend doing so if you haven’t because I really don’t think anyone would truly get this masterpiece without checking out the original subject matter. James Franco’s performance as Tommy Wiseau is truly captivating, the work that went into making this film as authentic as possible is commendable. They are even brave enough to do a side by side scene comparison to show how much attention to detail has been made. The Disaster Artist, like The Room, is a truly unique experience. 

8. Wonder Woman:

Although Wonder Woman followed the DC habit of having a pretty boring and explosive end fight scene, this was not the defining moment of the film. The whole notion of a female lead as amazing as Wonder Woman was what made it for me. I distinctly remember shedding a few tears as the credits rolled because I just sat through a decent and sometimes amazing film that was lead by a woman. Gal Gadot is a beautiful specimen of an action heroine and is everything I wanted from Wonder Woman. The damn trench scene was incredible and one of the most emotional/badass scenes I have seen in a superhero film. With a stellar supporting cast and a great story, Wonder Woman was everything  I needed. 

7. Thor Ragnarok: 

From one otherworldy superhero to another. Thor: Ragnarok was easily my most anticipated film of the year. Taika Watiti is one of my favourite directors of recent years., I was genuinely concerned that he may have been given the boot by Marvel due to their track record of not really seeing eye to eye with visionary directors. But thank god they took a risk because it really paid off and it was hilarious, beautiful with probably the strongest storyline for Thor...about time. I have always loved Thor and this film is exactly what he needed to finally shine.

 6. Baby Driver:  

I mean, at this point everything that Edgar Wright produces I will adore. Baby Driver was pure Wright, whilst at the same time being totally new and refreshing. The soundtrack and the timing was nothing like I have ever seen and was completely genius. Ansel Engort and John Hamm were truly fantastic. Just an amazing movie all around. 

5. Dunkirk:

I was so intrigued by Nolans latest venture, a war film, after making something completely different, a sci-fi adventure. I recently discovered war films, and this has made it into one of my favourites. I was wondering how Nolan was going to make his stamp on the genre, there was going to be something different about this film, but I was worried that if there was something too weird it would be disrespectful, however, Nolans twist was time, not time travel, but the chronology of the film, it was so interesting and I loved it, it was truly something spectacular and emotional to watch.

4. The Last Jedi:

It wouldn’t be a top ten nowadays without Star Wars. At this point everything Lucasfilm produces, I will at least like. And I loved The Last Jedi. I saw it multiple times and after each viewing, it got better. There were so many issues with it, but these issues were totally outshone by how many other amazing moments there were. Like The Force Awakens, there were moments of fan service and I lapped them up, whilst at the same time, I felt they were necessary for the story. This was perhaps one of the most visually stunning Star Wars films, the music was on point as always because John Williams can do no wrong, it was overall a great new Star Wars film that still made me cry far too many times. 

3. My Cousin Rachel: 

So easily the most underrated film on this list. Literally, no one has seen it, but everyone should. I think most people are brushing it off as another period drama, but if anyone knows Daphne du Maurier, it isn’t going to be your average romance. Du Maurier is my favourite writer of all time and I didn’t simply love the film because I love the author, the film truly kept true to Maurier’s style and I have never seen a more accurate representation of her style and the mystery that is contained in her novels. Rachel Weiss was incredible, just so perfect I loved her and this was probably one of my favourite roles she has ever done. Just go and see it. Please.

2. Paddington 2:

If you have seen my most recent review you will know how much I adored this film. This is unlike any other children's film released in the last decade. I am in love with this film, it makes me so happy, it is hilarious, beautiful and just written perfectly. Hugh Grant was impeccable as was pretty much everyone else in this film. I have never watched a film that made me feel warm and fuzzy inside for hours, even days afterward. Just if you are brushing this film off as a children's film that doesn't deserve your time, stop and immediately watch this film. 

1. Blade Runner 2049: 

Paddington 2 pretty much starts where the first film left off, Paddington living at the Brown families residence, has become a loved member of the community, spreading his bearish charm everywhere he goes. After spotting a potential present for his Aunts 100th Birthday, he sets off on a mission to get a job in order to save up his money. A startling turn of events leaves Paddington in quite a pickle...and that is all I shall say for now! 

If I had to sum Paddington 2 up in one word it would be, charm. It is oozing with charm, from the visuals, the writing and the large cast of British actors. It is simply wonderful. It really paints London in a beautiful light, and encapsulates how I feel about the city, which is a very idealised feeling. This film in particular had moments where it was so Wes Anderson-like, without making it feel like a direct copy of his work, but it was so well done! 

One thing that I found amazing was the CGI on Paddington himself, it was perfect, the fur, his face. He really does not look out of place in the real life setting, yes obviously you can tell that he is CGI, but it is such a pleasure to take in what an amazing job they have done on the character. 

Paddington himself, as a character was never one that I was particularly familiar with as a child, I was definitely more of a Beatrix Potter kind of gal (don’t even talk to me about the new Peter Rabbit film, that looks like it is attempting to be the next Paddington....). But nevertheless, he has become one of my favourite British children’s characters ever. He is just so adorable, sweet and funny. He could so easily have been one of those annoying characters who constantly messes up, but he is written as such a naive and innocent little bear, and he really pulls it off. 

The story was just so much fun, a big surprise actually, I can’t really go into much detail because I would rather people watch the film to see for themselves, but it really took a path I wasn’t expecting and I really loved it! 

There were so many great additions to the cast, so many veteran British actors who were all amazing. Most notably, Hugh Grant, who was genuinely hilarious, for his best moment, stay during the credits...trust me. I was in stitches! It was so lovely to see him not really taking himself seriously in this role and he really pulled it off. Aside from Hugh Grant, there were plenty of scenes in Paddington 2 that were genuinely hilarious, in such a silly, yet charming way which did not feel like a cheap laugh. 

This is what makes Paddington 2 so great is how it makes you feel. I went to see it with my boyfriend and a couple of friends and when the film ended, we were all beaming for the rest of the night. There are not many films that make me that happy. It is simply because it is very silly, very well written and just so heartwarming at its very core. I adored this film, I just want every one to see it to feel as warm and fuzzy as I did! 

10/10

Nowadays I am very strongly an Atheist, I grew up, and due to my naturally questioning mindset and various other contributing factors. In my first year of university, I decided to watch The Exorcist. I watched it on the floor of the corridor of our flat, with one of my flatmates, on a small laptop. Probably not the best environment, because I remember finding parts of it a little bit dull and then finding others quite hilarious, most notably the part where she does the crab down the stairs backwards.

This Halloween, I really wanted to watch some classic horror films, The Exorcist happened to be on Amazon Prime and my boyfriend hadn’t seen it, so we gave it a shot. I wasn’t really expecting to get anything else from it, but I really felt I was missing something, as so many people hold the film in such high regard. 

At first, some elements of the plot didn’t make much sense to me, I didn’t really understand the importance of the priest in Iraq and the amulet and what that had to do with Regan, apart from that the same priest performed the exorcism. I also didn’t really understand why Regan was possessed, did it have something to do with the amulet? These questions were never really answered.

So, I turned to the 1971 novel of the same name by William Peter Blatty. First of all, I absolutely loved reading it, I haven’t been this hooked on a book for quite some time. The book did, in part give more information about the elements of the film I was wondering about, but they were never fully answered, which I came to realise was the point in the book. The ambiguity is purposeful and I think it is an element that makes the story even creepier. 

My main question was, how was Regan possessed, well she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and also decided to use a ouija board and let the demon in. I do keep referring to the thing possessing her as a ‘demon’, but this can be disputed, I mean, the priest in the book, Father Karras’ continually find other explanations for the phenomena that Regan is showing. The initial investigation into Regan’s condition is purely medical. Her brain is scanned for abnormalities, her spinal fluid is examined, all coming up blank. Yet still, the doctors and Father Karra still believe Regan to either be faking, or very mentally ill. 

This is the scary part for me. The capabilities of the human brain. To be able to transform the physical state in such a way to even become more intelligent, speak a new language. That is terrifying. The film and book didn’t terrify me because i believe in the devil or that possession from a spirit can be a legitimate thing, it terrified me because I began thinking how my own brain could turn on me, it has the capability to act how Regan was acting without any supernatural interference. 

This is why The Exorcist is still such a powerful tale, even today. It not only speaks to the religious, it has an equal, terrifying impact on the non-religious, despite having such strong religious imagery. 

Please comment below if you feel the same, or if you are religious because I would love to see what element of the film/novel creeped you out the most and why! 

Now this last question is the one I didn’t think was going to be that big of a deal. I mean, I always get excited to see the Doctor’s new look whenever they regenerate and this time I was even more hyped. I like clothes and to see my favourite character in what one would consider typically feminine clothes, is pretty exciting.  Looook how awesome!!

Firstly, I am slightly in love with the 13th Doctor’s outfit, it is practical, stylish, cute and so fabulously retro without looking silly. I cannot wait to gather the components together and someday run around with my sonic screwdriver dressed as her. I think the main aspect for me that really works is the practicality of the outfit, I mean, it looks like she has plenty of pockets (any woman’s dream) she looks comfortable, the boots are practical for running around saving the world. It is perfect. 

The one thing, however, that leaves a sour taste in my mouth is the reaction of the media and some fans. I saw a few comments on one of the posts that painstakingly attributed every aspect of her costume down to her boots to a reference to a past Doctor. Saying that her boots were a reference to the 11th Doctor, played by Matt Smith, and even her baggy trousers were a direct reference to the 2nd Doctor, Patrick Troughton, who also was apparently famed for his baggy trousers (*sarcasm*)... I mean, don’t get me wrong, Matt did wear boots and Patrick’s trousers were baggy. But to suggest that this was a purposeful reference is just so silly. Many people are attributing the stripes on her jumper as a reference to Tom Baker (the 4th Doctor’s) scarf, which I will admit was perhaps intentional. But the boots...really??

I just can’t help thinking that she is being scrutinised to the point where she isn’t seen as her own person, even worse, she is being scrutinised against the 12 men that have come before her. I don’t know if I was ignorant of this, but I can’t remember any other Doctor’s outfit being torn apart for references before (if they were, do inform me and send me links to articles, because I really can’t find any). It just frustrates me that people are not seeing her as her own Doctor yet, I only hope this changes after we see her in the show. 

The other thing that makes me rage internally is this: 

What even is this...I know, I know it is the Daily Mail, what more would I expect. But where do I even start with this monstrosity of a headline?? ‘Glam’, like really, she is literally wearing an everyday outfit...with braces...how are braces glam now, do items of clothing immediately become ‘glam’ when on a female body??? ‘Struts sultrily’, I don’t even know what to say about that because it really, it speaks for itself. The ‘sunlit meadow’ just has me in pieces. I have never read a headline that misinterprets an image so much in my life. I even tried to find a similar article about Peter Capaldi in the Daily Mail archive, but there was nothing, yet again, if you can find one, do send it my way and I will be proven wrong! 

I think my main issue with how Jodie is being received, is that, although we are getting a female Doctor, which is amazing, it really disheartens me that the media can’t seem to treat her with respect and focus on something other than her sex, and that some of the general public are being so close-minded and annoyingly misogynistic about it. I mean, even when they are saying that they like her outfit, they are picking it apart and basically saying that it is a product of the many men that have come before her. I know that this may not be the case, and some people are enjoying seeing the references, but this was really my gut instinct about the whole situation and it did leave a bad taste in my mouth. 

What is keeping me sane among all this nonsense is how many women are getting so excited at the prospect of wearing her clothes. It really shouldn’t matter, but it is so refreshing to be able to cosplay in (typically) female clothing. Soooo refreshing!!! 

If you feel differently, or the same, do leave a comment because I am genuinely interested to see what people think, and just keep in mind that I am writing this more with my initial feelings and that I do know that I could be reading far too much into it! 

So. I love Assassin’s Creed as a concept. History, running around on rooftops, assassinating like a badass, all amazing. I had so much fun playing Assassin’s Creed 2 (I didn’t play the first game, sue me...), and Brotherhood (my favourite) Revelations was a bit of a slog, but it was still good. So I bought 3 on Ebay for £2.50, bargain. And it glitched out on me within the first minute of playing it. So I forgot about my Assassin’s Creed phase for a while until I found AC3 for £2 in CEX, even cheaper, winner! Luckily this one didn’t glitch out on me, huzzah! 

After what felt like a lifetime of an introduction when playing as Englishman Haytham, discovering he is actually a Templar #spoilers, and then realising that you are actually, in fact going to be playing as his son, Connor for the remainder of the game. But wait, you have to go through a whole new set introduction sequences and it was eventually six hours of gameplay until I actually got the assassin gear. Six hours!! 

After that nonsense I actually got a bit of a chance to evaluate my surroundings. I do like the change of setting, even though I have no idea about the historical significance because the English education system doesn’t like to tell us innocent children what a terrible country we were to others in the hope that we will continue in our adulthood to be patriotic fools! Yay historical censorship! So, because of that I couldn’t really get invested or excited about the setting because I had not kind of reference point to them, the only person who I knew really was Washington, but all I know really is that he was the first President, that is it...As a result of this I found the missions rather boring, and the endless cut scenes with people who I had no interest in made it a chore to play. 

I will give the game this. They did try to do something difference and some of the gameplay, for instance the naval battles where a lot of fun and really shook the game up a little bit. But what confused me the most was the hunting aspect, I never used it for anything, but maybe I was missing a vital element of the gameplay, but still it was never made glaringly obvious. 

I couldn’t update my armour, and if I am not mistaken there was not an option to gain health during combat. Which, you know is always mega useful when surrounded by twenty soldiers. I just found it so stupid, at one point during a mission I had to run around a shed with mercenaries in pursuit just to gain my health back as I was in the red. The amount of times I had to do something like this was so ridiculous and it would have really helped to have some damn health potions!!

My main issue, and the only reason why I am really writing this, because it is an issue that I have been having with gaming recently. The lack of actually playing the game, and the amount of story driven games that are mainly cutscenes. The worst. The whole point of the game is assassinating, it is in the title. So one would assume that in the final scene of the game you would assassinate the main villain. WRONG. 

I had to sit through two agonising cut scenes after chasing the main villain. The first Connor (I emphasise Connor) shot Lee during the cutscene, I didn’t press a single button or do a thing. So then we are staggering through a road at snails pace because Connor is injured and this is the final bit of real gameplay...slowly walking. I get to a pub, guess what. ANOTHER CUT SCENE. So Connor and Lee are just sitting at this table gazing meaningfully into each others eyes for a stupid amount of time and Connor stabs Lee, killing him. Again I pressed no buttons during this scene, I just sat back and watched while the main villain of the game died in a cut scene. Satisfied. Nah. 

THEN. I had to endure cut scene after cut scene with Desmond, who I am past the point of caring about, to the end the game without pressing a single button in another, yes ANOTHER cut scene. It still isn’t over, after letting the credits roll I thought, maybe the epilogue will be different. I am Connor again, I get to run all the way to New York to be met with, you guessed it, a cut scene. Why. 

Gaming, for me is meant to be about actually playing the game, interacting etc etc. As much as I like story driven games, I want the gameplay to be the prominent feature. Games like Mass Effect do this well, even in cutscenes you still have stuff to do, it keeps your interest because you have to make important decisions. AC3 was just boring cut scene after another, even at the end when it was meant to be most exciting. This, for me is not what games should be about. 

Despite all of this I am willing to keep playing the Assassin’s Creed games, because I do love the concept, I have heard Black Flag is amazing, and I really did love the naval battles in AC3 and hopefully there will be more of the same. But mostly, I cannot wait to scale the Houses of Parliament in Syndicate and the Pyramids of Giza in Origins! 

This rant was brought to you by, 

Watching Stranger Things last year felt like a TV godsend for me. It is pretty much the perfect show for me, it is ‘my jam’ if you will; 1980′s pop culture and a good chunk of science fiction. Perfection. Annoyingly I didn’t watch the first season before the second one, and I really wish I had, I was half way through the first episode damning my awful memory, luckily, Netflix has a handy recap of season one. So if, like me you haven’t had time to binge season one again, I highly recommend watching the recap if, like me you have a terrible memory for important plot points!

Stranger Things, for many people is a source of nostalgia, and whilst this is very true, I feel like this is the element that too many people focus on, forgetting how amazingly crafted the whole show is. Even though there are countless references, that are glaringly obvious, there are so many more that are wonderfully subtle. It is actually a lot of fun to watch the series and pick out scenes that are paying homage to so many films from the 1980s. For instance there was one scene that was so reminiscent of the bedroom scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but it wasn’t in your face, it wasn’t a scene that screamed ‘look at what we are doing, look at this reference’, which, I will admit was done with Ghostbusters, but I have to say, this was so funny and wonderfully done. The mix of the subtle and ‘in your face’ references is what I love about Stranger Things.

Aside from the continuous pop culture references, Stranger Things 2 builds upon the first series without feeling stale, and without feeling like we are going on the same ride again. Although being a continuation it really feels like a standalone series in its own right, perhaps because it is still as good as the first. It holds on to the same characters you know and love but develops them making it feel fresh.

The characters, for me are what holds the show together so well. For a show primarily aimed at adults, the characters that are written the best are the children. They are never patronised, they are done so well and I love every one of them. The outcast pre-teen stereotype is used, but it feels more realistic, not some caricature of a moody, nerdy child. They are all individuals, who, to some extent fill the typical roles of a group of child friends, but are written to be relatable and more importantly not annoying.

More so with this season, I felt a strong emotional attachment to most of the characters, mainly the kids. Will in particular, I just wanted him to be safe and happy throughout the season. No show has ever made me feel this emotionally invested in a group of characters more than Stranger Things. Every time they were in some kind of peril, or in an emotional state, I was sitting on the sofa crying just desperate for them to be ok. Will, played by Noah Schnapp in particular, delivered such a great performance, he deserves all of the awards because I cried way too many times over his amazing emotional performances. The same can be said for Millie Bobby Brown who plays Eleven, and to be honest everyone in the show. Winona Ryder is amazing, as usual and even Sean Astin makes a welcome addition to the cast playing a character that could have been so annoying, but actually comes across as a loveable goofball.

It is so difficult to talk about the plot of Stranger Things 2 without spoilers, but I will try. I felt that aside from being very similar to the first series, it stood on its own two feet and continued the story, whilst taking a different route to how I thought it was going to play out. If series one was a missing person detective X-Files-esque plot, then series 2 brought in vibes of Aliens mixed with the Exorcist. It is definitely, for me scarier that the first. This addition of horror makes it entirely ‘my jam’ it is everything I love, pretty much! I honestly had no idea how the plot was going to continue, and it ended up being something totally different to what I imagined and I loved that. It is not predictable.

Because this show doesn’t rely on the major shock factor, the cliff hangers at the end of each episode have such a great effect and make you want more. There are elements of shock factor, but they are spaced out evenly and don’t feel cheap, they actually mean something.

Overall, the main thing that really stays with me in Stranger Things 2 is the acting and the amazing character development, I could easily write a section on each character and how well crafted they are, but I don’t have the time and it would be extremely spoilery! Aside from that, the visuals are stunning, the music, as always is amazing, the humour is still there, if not better; and the plot is as intriguing and mysterious as ever!

10/10

The one thing that struck me, as with my previous review, Blade Runner 2049, was not the humour or the visuals, but the score. I have never really noticed anything special about any Marvel score, they don’t really stand apart from each other and feel like variations on the same kind of theme. In places, the composer, Mark Mothersbaugh’s score did hark back to previous Marvel scores, but on a whole his score was beautiful, fun and dramatic in all the right places, and was hugely helped by a healthy dollop of synth. But despite the synth-tastic score, I was particularly struck by the piece ‘Twilight of the Gods’ which was one of the slower pieces in the score, evoking folk-y nordic beautifulness that did tug at my heartstrings quite a bit! There are also many times throughout when Mothersbaugh brings out his inner John Williams and I loved it, and would love to see him work on one of the Star Wars spin offs in the works. 

The overall feel of the film was greatly enhanced by the score, and that feel is just an overall sense of craziness, amazing, but downright madness. Think the 1980s, on LSD but in space. It was a plethora of colour, not just the nebula, rainbow road kind of colour seen in the previous Thor movies, but bright, garish and beautiful colour- especially on the planet Sakaar, which at times really evoked aspects of Blade Runner, but brighter and less depressing. I did really appreciate some of the practical effects in the film, especially with some of the city sequences on Sakaar, but it is a shame this wasn’t consistent throughout the film. 

I am very aware that this is a very fantastical film and a lot of CGI is necessary, but I like my CGI when I can’t really notice it that much. But there was one fight scene that was so obviously CGI, it was so noticeable and it really took me out of the film and had the Uncanny Valley effect that is so distracting. It is definitely understandable that a lot of this film has to be CGI, but I really expect better from Marvel at this point, for something to be so obvious, it was actually quite annoying. 

So lets get over that negative point and delve into one of the best aspects of the film, the humour. I was, I will admit a little bit worried that it may come across gimmicky and forced, but it really didn’t, the film is genuinely hilarious from start to finish. I was actually quite surprised with how much they managed to get away with really, and you will see what I mean when you see it! I have always loved the lighter side of Thor and I have always wanted it to be showcased more and it was to a huge extent in this film without it feeling out of character. All three of the familiar characters were all believably funny. 

It was also great to see some new faces, I will start with Hulk, and I know that he has been in previous Marvel films, but we do get a lot of Banner and not much Hulk. But Hulk in Ragnarok, is amazing and I am so glad we got to see more of the character of Hulk, as a separate character rather than just a violent green monster smashing up buildings. I would also love to gush about how amazing Cate Blanchett and Tessa Thompson were as new characters to the universe, but I really don’t want to spoil anything about them or the film, so I will just leave it at: they are amazing female characters!! 

So on that note, overall there were some amazing comic performances, great new characters, stunning visuals with some minor hiccups and some amazing and fun music to go along with all of it. I adored the wild, hilarious ride that was Thor: Ragnarok and I hope you do to! 

8.5/10