Keeping stuff on my hard drive finally payed off. All done in less than half an hour. God bless you, foresight.
The announcement is that as soon as these blogs are marked, i'll be shutting this place down, or possibly keeping it but starting from scratch. It feel too staged and on one subject for my liking.
Take care, y'alls.
Ollie
20/01/2010
4 more years! Er, I mean blogs
The time has come for a cramming session to fill my blog quota yet again.
However, it is far easier this time. I've been writing reviews for films for the past few months, saving them to post on this blog (as well as occasionally being published. That's right, recognised author, pretty cool, eh? No? Well then fuck you and everything you stand for! Let's see you make it n to pri- What? I don't care how long this false conversation has been going on for! I'll carry one 'til I like! Which happens to be now. No! NO! NO, YOU DID NOT WIN! I hate you, I hate you so damn ba- WILL YOU LET ME FINISH MY GOD DAMNED SENT- AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH!)
Anyway, here are the reviews
However, it is far easier this time. I've been writing reviews for films for the past few months, saving them to post on this blog (as well as occasionally being published. That's right, recognised author, pretty cool, eh? No? Well then fuck you and everything you stand for! Let's see you make it n to pri- What? I don't care how long this false conversation has been going on for! I'll carry one 'til I like! Which happens to be now. No! NO! NO, YOU DID NOT WIN! I hate you, I hate you so damn ba- WILL YOU LET ME FINISH MY GOD DAMNED SENT- AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH!)
Anyway, here are the reviews
11/11/2009
Topslicing, comedy and death
For those of you who don't know, there is an argument floating around that the license fee should be 'topsliced' and distributed to other channels that have also have public service remits. The reasoning is that these channels have to make public service programming with prvately aqcuired money while the BBC is making commercially viable prgramming with public money. People believe that the BBC should stick purely to making public service programming and leave the commercially viable programming to the commercial channels - The BBC doesn't need to make a commercial product and should not make progamming that competes with the commercial channel's interests while they (commercial channels) still have to pay large sums of money for news programming etc.
Now it's time I waded into the debate. I am wholly against this. i'll focus on the BBC's comedy output, as it's what I know best.
When we think about the public interest and what it is the beeb has to serve, we can delve into many areas. The BBC's MO is to "inform, educate and entertain" - now that does sound like a very fair and rational way to describe the public interest, but i've boiled it down to a sticky reduction.
The media exists to distract people from the fact that they will one day die.
That's it, pure and simple. The media is pure escapism, even factual programming and print media. This is why we preoccupy ourselves at all times, because we don't want to face the prospect of death. Now, what better form of escapism is there than comedy? Comedy completely tkes you out of your element and makes you feel good. Comedy makes people happy. You find me one person in the world who committed suicide after watching Trains, Planes and automobiles - It's impossible.
The BBC has a great pedigree when it comes to holiday. A bit of Fry and Laurie, The Office, Extras, Hancock's half hour, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers The Mighty Boosh, not the nine o clock news, TW3, gavin and stacey, bigipedia and innumarable others that have vastly enriched our lives throught the ages. Now what would be the purpose of stopping the BBC, with a proven track record for making comedy, from making these shows?
Here's my belief at its base level. The greatest public service a broadcaster can give is great comedy. The BBC excells in that field and long may it continue to produce such vibrant, necessary programming
Ollie
Now it's time I waded into the debate. I am wholly against this. i'll focus on the BBC's comedy output, as it's what I know best.
When we think about the public interest and what it is the beeb has to serve, we can delve into many areas. The BBC's MO is to "inform, educate and entertain" - now that does sound like a very fair and rational way to describe the public interest, but i've boiled it down to a sticky reduction.
The media exists to distract people from the fact that they will one day die.
That's it, pure and simple. The media is pure escapism, even factual programming and print media. This is why we preoccupy ourselves at all times, because we don't want to face the prospect of death. Now, what better form of escapism is there than comedy? Comedy completely tkes you out of your element and makes you feel good. Comedy makes people happy. You find me one person in the world who committed suicide after watching Trains, Planes and automobiles - It's impossible.
The BBC has a great pedigree when it comes to holiday. A bit of Fry and Laurie, The Office, Extras, Hancock's half hour, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers The Mighty Boosh, not the nine o clock news, TW3, gavin and stacey, bigipedia and innumarable others that have vastly enriched our lives throught the ages. Now what would be the purpose of stopping the BBC, with a proven track record for making comedy, from making these shows?
Here's my belief at its base level. The greatest public service a broadcaster can give is great comedy. The BBC excells in that field and long may it continue to produce such vibrant, necessary programming
Ollie
10/11/2009
On the subject of advertising
"By the way, if anyone here is in marketing or advertising...kill yourself. Thank you. Just planting seeds, planting seeds is all I'm doing. No joke here, really. Seriously, kill yourself, you have no rationalisation for what you do, you are Satan's little helpers. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show. Seriously, I know the marketing people: 'There's gonna be a joke comin' up.' There's no fuckin' joke. Suck a tail pipe, hang yourself...borrow a pistol from an NRA buddy, do something...rid the world of your evil fuckin' presence."
This is a quote from the stage performance of a hero of mine, one Mr Bill Hicks (A thousand brownie points to anyone who knew who it was).
Advertising is simply a way for the rich to try and pilfer more money from our comparatvely threadbare pockets. These companies make obscene amounts of money every year and still they infiltrate our media trying to get us, put simply, to buy more stuff. Why does coca-cola need to advertise? I'm currently drinking a diet coke, is it because of fancy ad campaigns that suggest that drinking their product would make my life immeasurably better? Hell no! I drink diet coke because i've always drank diet coke. These companies are already established, people know their products well and buy it on the strength of their merits. So why on earth spend this amount of money on advertising? in 2006 coca-cola alone spent $2.6 billion on advertising. Think about that for just a second.
Two
Point
Six
Billion
Dollars.
Could that money not be used for other things? We could feed the hungry, home the homeless, give everyone in the world a free can of coke! Of course, I am aware that advertising pays for commercial television, but guess what? These companies could just give the stations the money. Also, in the age where everyone and their nan have access to the internet, why don't companies just resort to good new-fashioned guerilla marketing? Get a bunch of creative minds together, plan a funny youtube video, film it and see what happens. Be sure to involve the words 'fail', 'kitten' or any celebrity's name to get people interested. Just show the logo at the end of the damn video. This way you aren't shoving your corporate-branded nonsense in everyone's face, they're making an active choice to click on a link. As long as your video lives up to the the expectations implied by the title, you're sound. To get around the celebrity names, whatch the Kenny Vs Spenny episode entitled "Who can make the best viral video"
In summary, I don't want to be faced with adverts from rich companies every fifteen minutes telling me to buy things I don't need. We're all aware your products exist. If we don't know, we'll find out eventually and choose for ourselves.
Ollie
This is a quote from the stage performance of a hero of mine, one Mr Bill Hicks (A thousand brownie points to anyone who knew who it was).
Advertising is simply a way for the rich to try and pilfer more money from our comparatvely threadbare pockets. These companies make obscene amounts of money every year and still they infiltrate our media trying to get us, put simply, to buy more stuff. Why does coca-cola need to advertise? I'm currently drinking a diet coke, is it because of fancy ad campaigns that suggest that drinking their product would make my life immeasurably better? Hell no! I drink diet coke because i've always drank diet coke. These companies are already established, people know their products well and buy it on the strength of their merits. So why on earth spend this amount of money on advertising? in 2006 coca-cola alone spent $2.6 billion on advertising. Think about that for just a second.
Two
Point
Six
Billion
Dollars.
Could that money not be used for other things? We could feed the hungry, home the homeless, give everyone in the world a free can of coke! Of course, I am aware that advertising pays for commercial television, but guess what? These companies could just give the stations the money. Also, in the age where everyone and their nan have access to the internet, why don't companies just resort to good new-fashioned guerilla marketing? Get a bunch of creative minds together, plan a funny youtube video, film it and see what happens. Be sure to involve the words 'fail', 'kitten' or any celebrity's name to get people interested. Just show the logo at the end of the damn video. This way you aren't shoving your corporate-branded nonsense in everyone's face, they're making an active choice to click on a link. As long as your video lives up to the the expectations implied by the title, you're sound. To get around the celebrity names, whatch the Kenny Vs Spenny episode entitled "Who can make the best viral video"
In summary, I don't want to be faced with adverts from rich companies every fifteen minutes telling me to buy things I don't need. We're all aware your products exist. If we don't know, we'll find out eventually and choose for ourselves.
Ollie
My sincere apologies
Haven't posted a blog in an age and a half, sorry to anyone who gave a shit about my previous ramblethon.
Deadline day is looming, in around 18 hours to be precise. Hold on, can an estimate be precise? Damn, my second sentence and already i'm wrong. It's looking ominous.
So, I have an ever decreasing percentage of 18 hours, my favourite stand-up comedy albums organised into a big long playlist (Anyone else have stand up albums? i'm intrigued), enough red bull knock off drinks to kill a small mining village and a veritable treasure trove of ideas to pick and choose from. Let us begin.
Is there any point to analysing the media whatsoever? Think about this for just a second. Why do we analyse the media? What is the purpose of it? We analyse the media in two separate ways: Quantitative and qualitatve (now to be referred to as qaun and qual because my fingers are cold and i'm bound to make some kind of spelling mistake). So we analyse in quan and qual ways and ne'er the two shall meet. Unless you triangulate. Here is the major flaw with both - life, and everything encapsulated within it, is subjective You undertake some kind of content anaylsis, which harvests quan data. You operationalise an abstract concept and therefore add your own, subjective, meaning. Either that or you essentially count something that's already pre-defined, which is all fine and dandy - no post-modern quibbles on my behalf. The problem comes when you try and attatch meaning to these findings. No-one undertakes research without a clearly define objective, to prove or disprove something. How do you prove a theory with simple data? Before you criticise, every study like this has a reason. Calculating how many words the murder of an indian man recieved in the media as opposed to a white man is not simply undertaken just to find out to figures - the reason they picked the study is explicitely to gain some kind of response. This is where the subjectivity comes into play.
I won't delve in too deeply into why qual is subjective - everyone reading this is either on the same course as me or is, in fact, teachng the course. The condensed version is that it isn't feasible to gain results from everyone you're doing your research about - you have to use a sample which reduces reliabilty by a ton. The subjectivity comes into play when you realise that humans are like snowflakes - no two are alike. You can't gain accurate results for a large population with a sample, even the questions are subjective by their nature by their very nature - they must be formulated.
So what's my point? My point is that we can gain no fully objective fact about the media of any kind of higher importance through media analysis. I see no point in finding out the subjective importance of the media - do as you you see fit in your mind and detracters be damned.
It comes down to this - Everything in the world is subjective. This brings an end to my anti-realist rant. Hope this has entertained/annoyed you enough to think about what i've said.
Ollie
Deadline day is looming, in around 18 hours to be precise. Hold on, can an estimate be precise? Damn, my second sentence and already i'm wrong. It's looking ominous.
So, I have an ever decreasing percentage of 18 hours, my favourite stand-up comedy albums organised into a big long playlist (Anyone else have stand up albums? i'm intrigued), enough red bull knock off drinks to kill a small mining village and a veritable treasure trove of ideas to pick and choose from. Let us begin.
Is there any point to analysing the media whatsoever? Think about this for just a second. Why do we analyse the media? What is the purpose of it? We analyse the media in two separate ways: Quantitative and qualitatve (now to be referred to as qaun and qual because my fingers are cold and i'm bound to make some kind of spelling mistake). So we analyse in quan and qual ways and ne'er the two shall meet. Unless you triangulate. Here is the major flaw with both - life, and everything encapsulated within it, is subjective You undertake some kind of content anaylsis, which harvests quan data. You operationalise an abstract concept and therefore add your own, subjective, meaning. Either that or you essentially count something that's already pre-defined, which is all fine and dandy - no post-modern quibbles on my behalf. The problem comes when you try and attatch meaning to these findings. No-one undertakes research without a clearly define objective, to prove or disprove something. How do you prove a theory with simple data? Before you criticise, every study like this has a reason. Calculating how many words the murder of an indian man recieved in the media as opposed to a white man is not simply undertaken just to find out to figures - the reason they picked the study is explicitely to gain some kind of response. This is where the subjectivity comes into play.
I won't delve in too deeply into why qual is subjective - everyone reading this is either on the same course as me or is, in fact, teachng the course. The condensed version is that it isn't feasible to gain results from everyone you're doing your research about - you have to use a sample which reduces reliabilty by a ton. The subjectivity comes into play when you realise that humans are like snowflakes - no two are alike. You can't gain accurate results for a large population with a sample, even the questions are subjective by their nature by their very nature - they must be formulated.
So what's my point? My point is that we can gain no fully objective fact about the media of any kind of higher importance through media analysis. I see no point in finding out the subjective importance of the media - do as you you see fit in your mind and detracters be damned.
It comes down to this - Everything in the world is subjective. This brings an end to my anti-realist rant. Hope this has entertained/annoyed you enough to think about what i've said.
Ollie
22/10/2009
Sell me down the River
Dizzee Rascal is a Hack. A hacky-hack Hack.
Stop your righteously indignant internal dialogue. I'm well aware that the man makes music that many people enjoy. I'm also aware that an artist is well within their rights to evolve the form their craft takes, but Dizzee's recent exploits are pure, unrefined hackery. I'm sure the neon-clad among you will have already downloaded Mr. Rascal's latest effort, Tongue N' Cheek, and enjoyed it immensely. Many of you may also have his Magnum Opus, Boy In Da Corner, stashed away somewhere in your library to boost your indie credentials. The Fact of the matter is that Dizzee has tailored his music for the burgeoning population of Indie kids who like their music to be:
a) Hyperbole of life on streets they've never walked on with a twist of social commentary (See; Immortal Technique, KRS-One)
b) So-cool-it-hurts Danceable music (Justice, ShitDisco, Klaxons)
c) Guitar-twanging, middle-class, skinny-jeans wearing ensembles. (Any amount of Tossers with a record deal)
Dizzee's latest releases combine the first two of this unholy, ungodly and downright unimaginative trifecta to cash in on as many markets as he can. His last two singles, Bonkers and Dance Wiv Me, highlight the change in his career. No more is the Dizzee some of us came to love, his inimitable style sold down the river for commercial success.
Some of you may be unsure of the concept of a Hack. A Hack is a sell-out, an artist (Director, Musician etc.) who undertakes a project solely for the the Money. Dizzee's not alone in his hackery, this is in increasingly alarming trend in the media today. Shows like the X-factor are preaching the Gospel that it's all fine and dandy to sell out your priciples for fifteen minutes of fame. One particular case strikes me from a series many moons ago. A talented band were refused entry into the latter stages of the competition because the show, at the time, had a strictly solo-artists-only policy. After prolonged discussion (15 minutes, max), the lead singer agreed to try as a solo artist and successfully gained a place in the next round. A lead singer sells out his band to try and gain commercial success and what did we do? We watched eagerly, scratching our arses and stuffing handfuls of crisps into our pathetic mouths as if nothing had happened.
This also extends to advertising. To paraphrase a great man, if you do an advert then you are off the creative roll-call. Whoring out your image to a massive company for a vast fee is the epitomy of Hackery. Whether is Jay Leno shovelling Doritos into his gob or Britney Spears hawking Pepsi, the messgae is still the same - I will endorse anything you like for a small fortune. It's a sad state of affairs.
This isn't to say Hackery is always bad, but it should only ever be the resort of the desperate. Willie Nelson has to pay the IRS $9 million, he does a string of Ads for Taco Bell. Jovial Paedophile Roman Polanski agreed to direct the remake of a film (the name of which escapes me at present, just spent 40 minutes trying to search on the internet to no avail) to help to pay his staggering legal costs. These people had real reasons to sell-out, they were facing relative financial hardship. Greed isn't a legitimate reason.
I leave you with a quote from one Michael Caine.
"I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
Ollie
Stop your righteously indignant internal dialogue. I'm well aware that the man makes music that many people enjoy. I'm also aware that an artist is well within their rights to evolve the form their craft takes, but Dizzee's recent exploits are pure, unrefined hackery. I'm sure the neon-clad among you will have already downloaded Mr. Rascal's latest effort, Tongue N' Cheek, and enjoyed it immensely. Many of you may also have his Magnum Opus, Boy In Da Corner, stashed away somewhere in your library to boost your indie credentials. The Fact of the matter is that Dizzee has tailored his music for the burgeoning population of Indie kids who like their music to be:
a) Hyperbole of life on streets they've never walked on with a twist of social commentary (See; Immortal Technique, KRS-One)
b) So-cool-it-hurts Danceable music (Justice, ShitDisco, Klaxons)
c) Guitar-twanging, middle-class, skinny-jeans wearing ensembles. (Any amount of Tossers with a record deal)
Dizzee's latest releases combine the first two of this unholy, ungodly and downright unimaginative trifecta to cash in on as many markets as he can. His last two singles, Bonkers and Dance Wiv Me, highlight the change in his career. No more is the Dizzee some of us came to love, his inimitable style sold down the river for commercial success.
Some of you may be unsure of the concept of a Hack. A Hack is a sell-out, an artist (Director, Musician etc.) who undertakes a project solely for the the Money. Dizzee's not alone in his hackery, this is in increasingly alarming trend in the media today. Shows like the X-factor are preaching the Gospel that it's all fine and dandy to sell out your priciples for fifteen minutes of fame. One particular case strikes me from a series many moons ago. A talented band were refused entry into the latter stages of the competition because the show, at the time, had a strictly solo-artists-only policy. After prolonged discussion (15 minutes, max), the lead singer agreed to try as a solo artist and successfully gained a place in the next round. A lead singer sells out his band to try and gain commercial success and what did we do? We watched eagerly, scratching our arses and stuffing handfuls of crisps into our pathetic mouths as if nothing had happened.
This also extends to advertising. To paraphrase a great man, if you do an advert then you are off the creative roll-call. Whoring out your image to a massive company for a vast fee is the epitomy of Hackery. Whether is Jay Leno shovelling Doritos into his gob or Britney Spears hawking Pepsi, the messgae is still the same - I will endorse anything you like for a small fortune. It's a sad state of affairs.
This isn't to say Hackery is always bad, but it should only ever be the resort of the desperate. Willie Nelson has to pay the IRS $9 million, he does a string of Ads for Taco Bell. Jovial Paedophile Roman Polanski agreed to direct the remake of a film (the name of which escapes me at present, just spent 40 minutes trying to search on the internet to no avail) to help to pay his staggering legal costs. These people had real reasons to sell-out, they were facing relative financial hardship. Greed isn't a legitimate reason.
I leave you with a quote from one Michael Caine.
"I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
Ollie
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)