What does the future hold for the BBC?

Hello again,

Another of my Tremr.com articles republished for my lovely readers on How To Be a Teenager. This one is about that beloved part of the British life, the BBC, and what changes to the Royal Charter mean for its future.

Enjoy!

               _________________________________________________________________

The history of the BBC is a long and winding one, but in many ways it is also one of consistency. It has been in our lives for more three generations, but with the Royal Charter drawing to a close at the end of next year, what does the future hold for the British Broadcasting Corporation?

A Brief History of the BBC

Founded in October 1922 by John Reith, the BBC has given us a unique combination of news coverage, political opinion, sports commentary, soap operas and dramas for many years. However, time is seemingly running out for the broadcasting corporation, causing the Government to wade in. George Osbourne announced on Wednesday that the BBC must provide over 75s with television licences for free, causing an estimated cut of £650m.

However, interference from the Government is a slippery slope. With increased input from the Chancellor, and by extension, Parliament, Sir Christopher Bland, former chair of the corporation, fears that the BBC will become "an arm of the government". 

"Rather subtly and unattractively it draws the BBC closer to becoming an arm of government which is always something that the BBC and government have resisted... It's transferring social policy onto the licence fees and it's shifting from direct taxation where it properly belongs the cost of a Gordon Brown giveaway that was doubtful in the first place anyhow."

The BBC is worryingly close to becoming an arm of the Government, says its own former chair

Sir Christopher Bland, who chaired the BBC between 1996 and 2001, said the Chancellor's plan to offload spending priorities onto the…

independent.co.uk

The Future

So where does all of this leave the national broadcasting service? There are several options, or combinations of options, being discussed:

1) Scrap the £145.50 annual licence fee, making television viewing free for everyone, and begin to incorporate advertising. 

Advertising is a tricky issue for the BBC, as the company prides itself on being "unbiased". Though this article does not tackle the accusation that this is a dubious claim as the BBC is frequently criticised for being left-wing, the issue of advertising will undoubtably cause conflict of interests to arise, thereby opening the BBC up to yet more criticism.

Additionally, one has to wonder what will happen in the time it takes for the BBC to adjust to whatever changes may occur. Indeed, a very real possibility is that another company will take the helm at the top of the programme-making tree. With programme scripts and concepts temporarily not being pitched to the BBC, in that hiatus a company already acclimatised to the advantages and limitations of advertising in the medium could quite easily step into the breach. Arguably, Sky Atlantic and Sky Arts are already poised to consolidate their recent gains in the areas of high-quality drama and the arts, areas in which the BBC has historically been a world leader.

2) Alter the nature of the licence fee and make it variable.

The idea comes from the criticism that £145.50 is a huge cut of some families' income. One solution to this, volunteered by Conservative MP John Whittingdale, is this:

I have been looking at other countries, how they [pay licence fees], there is quite an attractive option of linking it to a specific household tax like the council tax, or maybe utilities. That's what happens in a number of European countries."

He also says that he would like to see research on the issue move into whether the population could pay a reduced fee, such as £100, but could pay for access to other BBC channels in addition, as and when they want to watch them.  

3) Begin to charge users of iPlayer.

This option is in the hope of eliminating those viewers who continue to watch live television on catch up services without a pre-paid licence. 

In June 2014, it was estimated that almost half a million users of BBC iPlayer were doing so without a licence. 

If the bill payer of the house were to, on purchasing the licence, provide the number of family members living in the house, and then was in turn provided with a code which could be entered into the iPlayer, to verify the licence, the problem could well be reduced. This problem could be as easily solved by an extra level of security on the BBC's part. 

4) Keep the current licence fee for as long as possible.

This is an interesting idea, and one that seems, unsurprisingly, to be a favourite in the eyes of the BBC. One thing that many people like about the BBC is its lack of advertisements: programmes can be watched in their entirety without having to sit through mindless sofa company adverts. However, the licence fee is an awful lot of money, especially when viewers can in fact watch the vast majority of television for free.

A senior BBC executive announced this week that the BBC will ask over 75's to pay the licence fee voluntarily. The results could provide a barometer for the views of the public on how the BBC is viewed and whether there is the will to keep it in its present form to the point that people are prepared to pay for it. One must be careful with the results, however; older people may have a different view and also sometimes are in straitened circumstances.

So, in return for paying the licence fee each year, could the public make demands in return? 

One area that requests could be made in is comedy. With the upcoming transition of BBC Three onto solely an online platform, there will a gaping void in showcasing new comedy. Where the BBC will put any new comedy that comes its way is a tricky timetabling dilemma. The repercussions of this move could be vast, given that in recent years, BBC Three has premiered some massive successes, including Little Britain, Gavin and Stacey and Being Human. However, given that the annual budget for the channel in its current format is £85m, the BBC feels that in order to save some money, this is its best option. 

Additionally, one of the things that is quite often called for is a re-distribution of ethnicities on television. Currently, black, asian and ethnic minorities make up just 5.4% of the broadcasting workforce, a percentage that I think can be universally considered a disgrace.

Lenny Henry calls for law to boost low numbers of black people in TV industry

The actor and comedian Lenny Henry has called for new legislation to reverse the "appalling" percentage of black and Asian people…

theguardian.com

5) A final option... but probably a somewhat unpopular one.

Alternatively, it could go back in time and not pay ridiculous amounts of money to its bosses and biggest stars, though this seems unlikely. Realistically though, it could afford to give some of its high-fliers a pay cut. Although the BBC refuses to release any actual figures, many reports in recent years have found the approximately 15 broadcasters rake in a salary in excess of £500,000. One can only assume that one of these stars was the previous host of Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson, so perhaps the BBC has made a small saving there. 

Although the BBC faces some tough times ahead, I for one hope that it stays just where it is. From Doctor Who to Question Time, the BBC continues to be a source of great entertainment and news to many people in Britain and beyond. Regardless of whether one loves or hates the BBC, I fear that its demise would bring with it a diminished source of inspiration for the next generation of British journalists. However, it is clear that big changes need to happen in some form or another, as the annual payment £145.50 moves into being one of the most hotly contested issues of recent years. 

London centrism in the Arts

Hi all,

Sorry it's been a really long time - I'm now working as a political journalist intern at Tremr.com! This is one of the first articles that I wrote for my new position and thought you might be interested in reading it.

It is actually a very important topic in terms of the impact it has on arts students but it also highlights the problem with having a government based in London, making decisions that only benefit London.

Enjoy!

                 ____________________________________________________________

The news this week of plans to build a new runway at Heathrow has caused the term 'London centrism' to be bandied around a lot, but what does it actually mean? 

I thought rather than simply trying to give a hypothetical explanation, I would tackle the issue in relation to how Arts Funding is varyingly distributed across the UK. 

But first, my attempt at a definition. 

London Centrism: the idea that every decision, political or otherwise, in this country is designed with our capital in mind, disregarding the lives and welfares of the rest of the population. 

Funding

A report published in October 2013, named "Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital", revealed there were more than a few little discrepancies when it came to the distribution of funding by Arts Council England (ACE). It seems that the combined spending amounts of ACE and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2013 amounted to just £4.58 per head outside of the capital, compared to a whopping £68.99 per head inside. 

Not only does unfair distribution cost the artists themselves - it also cost tax payers and National Lottery players: the donors of ACE's funds. The report highlighted that County Durham's total contribution to the arts lottery was, at the time, £34m, whilst they had received only £12m. Westminster, on the other hand, has made a total contribution of £14.5m, but has received a shocking £408m. Of the £317m the Arts Lottery accumulated in 2012/2013, ACE distributed 45% to London alone. Just one city received £142.64m, leaving the rest of the UK with the remainder to spread out. 

In the last few years, London-centric funding distribution has threatened artistic venue closures across the North, including Scarborough Futurist theatre, famous for showcasing The Beatles, and The Arches music venue in Glasgow.

It would seem however that London is reluctant to change anything. Munira Mirza, Deputy Mayor of Education and Culture under Boris Johnson was highly critical of Peter Stark, Christopher Gordon and David Powell's report, calling it "shortsighted and disappointing". She also stated:

"To propose further funding cuts to arts in the capital, with the aim of redistributing it amongst the regions, is simplistic at best and dangerous at worst. It would seriously undermine London's status as one of the great world cities for culture, whilst bringing marginal benefits outside the capital."

Where's the mention of Manchester, whose massively diverse music scene could give London's a run for its money any day? Of Scotland's world-class conservatoire, RCS? Of Durham's excellent choral music programmes? But more importantly, what about all of those young and aspiring musicians, who aren't able to learn an instrument at school due to lack of funding? Or artists who cannot go to art classes because there isn't the funding to set them up? There's nothing marginal about the £396 million difference between the funding in Westminster and that of County Durham. 

Not only is the Deputy Mayor against changes to the current distribution pattern, but it would appear the Mayor himself is also against the idea. In November of last year, Boris Johnson made it clear that he did not think cutting arts funding to London in order to re-distribute was a good idea.

"Sacrificing this particular golden goose for a bit of glib London-bashing will do little to improve cultural provision in the regions and would be an act of sabotage for one of our country's greatest assets."  - Boris Johnson

Once again, cities in the 'desolate, barren North' have been swept aside, in favour of the superior capital. Mirza perpetuates the problem, by clearly not wishing to see a fairer re-distribution system that would mean more young people could contribute to the arts. The only logical explanation for this situation is that, the 'powers that be' reside in the capital, making their decisions in London, for London. This means they cannot see the staggeringly unfair distribution of wealth they are embroiled in, even when it is pointed out to them. What's more, they see no reason to even try to change the current situation whilst the capital prospers. 

There may, however, be a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Channel 4's potential relocation to Birmingham or Manchester could mean the beginnings of a re-distribution of major media outlets across the country. Not only that, if George Osbourne's plans to change the economic imbalance between the North and South, by establishing a 'Northern Powerhouse' are actually put into effect, Northerners could start feeling like they're actually part of the country again.

It really is no wonder that Scotland, and indeed some parts of Northern England feel disillusioned with the government's running of the country, and feel like decisions are made without any consideration for them. Although I do not claim that arts funding forms the majority of this disillusionment, it certainly is a factor when considering the ever-growing North-South divide. 

The "Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital" report can be found below.

http://www.gpsculture.co.uk/rocc.php

1989 World Tour Review

Last night I went to Manchester Arena to see Taylor Swift perform new album 1989 in her tour of the same name. The experience was unlike anything I had been to before. It was a concert-cum-feminist rally, rather than anything else.

There is no denying just how much Taylor has grown up since her previous albums, in every sense of the word. Musically, she writes with a new found articulation of maturity that means that her album packs more punch than ever. Gone are the days of teardrops on her guitar. One only has to listen to the first verse of 'This Love' to be converted to this regenerated, ultra-powerful version of Taylor Swift. "Clear blue waters, high tide came and brought you in / And I could go on and on, on and on and I will / Skies grew darker, current swept you out again / And you were just gone and gone, gone and gone". Her lyrics have an experienced, darker, poetic edge that can't be found in her other albums.

But even her older songs have been given an 80s make-over. The stripped back version of ‘I Knew You Were Trouble’ was almost unrecognisable. With little to no accompaniment and a new, slower rhythm, the song has obtained a much deeper, field-holler resonance, a far-cry from the original 2014 pop-song version.

Not only are her songs well written, but clearly she clearly has a talent for set-design too. Or at least, a talent for picking people who have a talent for set-design...
Each song was staged differently, each style original but what was really impressive about last night was just how remarkably good Taylor Swift's voice is live. The only bum-note was a finger slip on a keyboard, balanced on the end of a rotating platform high up in the arena.

But that’s enough about the music (as much as I love it). I’ve realised recently that this blog has become less ‘How To Be a Teenager’ and more ‘How To Be a Feminist’ – but I’m okay with that. I really wanted this blog post to be about the feminist message Taylor is trying to convey to the legions of fans, who endearingly refer to themselves as, the Taylornation.

Taylor took a good ten minutes out of last night's concert to give her fans a couple of life lessons. She explains that, as much as she loves the internet, there are some pit-falls when it comes to our mental health. She explained to the audience that it's easy to see the "highlight reel" of other people's lives because of social media. It's easy to see somebody enjoying themselves on a great trip or going to an amazing party. But that's not the whole story, she says. You don't get to see what goes on behind the closed doors of their life. You don't get to see the moments they can't get out of bed and face the day. You can't see "behind the scenes" of their life, like you do in yours. Taylor Swift wants you to know that everybody has those days. Even her, she says, as she sweeps her blonde locks across her face on stage to demonstrate the 'bad hair day' scenario. "Let me tell you what you are not" she states forcefully. "You are not somebody else's opinion of you. You are not damaged goods just because you've made mistakes. And you are not going nowhere because you're not exactly where you wanna be in your life right now."

For 12 and 13 year olds everywhere, this is an incredibly healthy message that can only be achieved due to Taylor’s personal connection to her fans. One finds oneself genuinely believing that someone as famous and beautiful as Taylor Swift understands how hard-going it is to be a young girl (or boy) living in 2015.

I was going to put in a little disclaimer, and apologise for being presumptuous and paraphrasing Taylor's speech – but then I realised. I don't have to. This is exactly what she intends to do at her concerts: give all of her fans something with which to identify, and allow each of them to take what they need from it.

The message I want to convey, from Taylor Swift to everyone who couldn't be there last night, is this.

You can be whoever you damn well want to be. The person you end up with should and will love you because of all your mistakes and all of your life lessons learnt the hard way. They will love you for the person you are now and the person you will be with them. That's love. And yes it was clichéd and a more than a little bit cheesy. But hey, a cliché becomes a cliché for a reason. In this case, it's because we all need reminding sometimes about what we have to go through to find love, and how it should feel when we find it. Taylor Swift teaches the Taylornation a feminist message on an unparalleled scale - a message of self-respect, compassion and empathy. Yes, love is important and to deny that would be silly - the vast majority of people want to find someone to spend their life with, no matter their gender. But Taylor makes it clear to her vulnerable teenage fan base that it is never okay to stay with someone who doesn't treat you well as well as you deserve.

All in all, the concert was a great success. I think it paves the way for a new era of concert in some ways. A ‘higher truth’ of concerts, if you will, which not only includes music and song writing of the highest standard, but also a guiding hand for fans. She is in a position of enormous influence and power, and she’s not about to shirk her responsibilities. Everybody could learn a thing or two from the, somewhat unlikely, prophet of our times – because Taylor Swift is not just a musician: she’s a role model, and a friend.

P.S. One couldn't write an article about Taylor in the last week without a shout-out to her taking on Apple. Underestimate Taylor Swift at your peril - very few artists would have stood up to a corporate giant to fight for the rights of budding musicians. Even fewer would have won.

I Shot The Sheriff: Why do news stories focus on perpetrators rather than victims?

On Wednesday 17th June 2015, at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, nine people were shot dead. A 21-year-old Dylann Roof has been named as the perpetrator, with witnesses saying he spent an hour inside the church before opening fire. He then drove away.

Now, thanks to the media, we know everything there is to know about Dylann Roof: his birthday, his birthplace, his criminal record, his family members, even what he was wearing in his Facebook profile picture. This man is famous (at least for the next few weeks). Everyone knows his name.

But what about the victims? Mentions of them personally are few and far between. The lack of media coverage of the victims themselves seems to me to be, at best, inadvertent and at worst downright offensive. I couldn't name a single one of the nine victims from the Charleston Shooting, yet the man who started it all has his life-story splashed all over the cover of every major newspaper in the world.

What's more, instead of being referred to by name, many of the newspapers simply refer to the congregation of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church as just that: victims. "Six women and three men were killed". Ageless, family-less, generic victims. No one knows what they were wearing in their Facebook profile pictures. Except their families, of course. Their loved ones, lying at home, devastated after having their family members massacred by a white terrorist America don't want to call a terrorist. Why do we continue to focus on perpetrators who committed appalling acts as opposed to those who have lost their lives?

Sadly, this issue is not limited to the Charleston Shooting. Back in 2012, Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people on Utoya island in Norway. For weeks, Brievik's picture was on front pages, starting with the incident itself and then moving onto his upbringing and life-style, all the way through to his trial and ultimate conviction. But it doesn't stop there. As recently as the 22nd of February this year, Breivik was the subject of yet another Guardian news story, as it was announced that Asne Seierstad, a Norwegian author, had written a book about the incident based on testimonies.

I am not saying that one cannot find the victims of any these crimes if they choose. Many of the national newspapers do eventually produce a comprehensive list of the victims. What is more, I fully support the argument that the victims' families, understandably, want privacy at the devastating time in their lives. One might make the argument that it is easier to refer to just one shooter, as opposed to the, sometimes huge, number of victims, but I believe this to be selective use of information. A counterexample is this: newspapers across Britain report the football scores every weekend, for every major club game. There are twenty Premier League clubs alone, which means that the media report on ten games of football a weekend (not including all other sports fixtures). And that's just a game.

Nor am I saying that newspapers shouldn't mention the perpetrators at all: one has to critically evaluate what went wrong in order to implement future change. However, there is no excuse for allowing the victims to be faceless.

So my plea to newspapers is this: please try and honour the wishes of the deceased's family. Privacy, if that is what is called for, means privacy. Parading the identity of Dylann Roof on newspapers every morning does not qualify. By all means, discuss how incidents such as these needs to security reforms, but refer to victims by name, not by insensitive generic statements that leave them with no identity and no dignity. Ask the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church or the families of the Norwegian victims what coverage they would like to see, and then honour those wishes. Let's make a concerted effort to stop focussing on the appalling acts of a terrorist, and turn our eyes to those who need our help and support. 

      _____________________________________________________________

For those who are interested, the nine victims of the Charleston Shooting, with their corresponding ages, are as follows. More information can be found here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/charleston-church-victims-profiles

Clementa Pinckney, 41.

Tywanza Sanders, 26.

Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, 45

Cynthia Hurd, 54

DePayne Middleton-Doctor, 49

Rev Dr Daniel L Simmons Sr, 74.

Ethel Lance, 70.

Myra Thompson, 59.

Susie Jackson, 87.

50 Shades of Grey

Hi all,

Sorry it's been a little while. I'm sure lots of you were waiting with bated breath for my next post...


My article today is entitled 50 Shades of Grey. Unlike my previous posts with book titles as headings this is NOT a book review. I must make it very clear that I have not read that disgusting piece of garbage, or will I be any time soon. However, I feel I know enough about, certainly if not the book then the hype around the book, to make a judgement.

So, 50 Shades of Grey. Let's start with a question that I cannot even begin to answer: what on earth attracts women to it? I mean, it's rape, right? As far as I understand, she, Ana, says no to him, Grey, on several occasions, only for him to carry right on. So, women who have read it: what do you get out of it? Is that what you want your children reading?! You are, by extension, telling your daughters, it's perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even sexually arousing, for a man to carry on if you have said no. Rape is, contrary to popular belief, okay. And for your sons? If a girl says no, don't worry, what she really means is yes.

Because let's make no mistake. The moral of this story is not, 'she says no, he rapes her, there's a big law suit because she reports him and she lives traumatically ever after in years of therapy after being raped'. Rather, the moral is this: 'she says no, but what she really means is yes, and he knows that, so he carries on regardless, and eventually she falls in love with him'. Can anyone truly believe this message is acceptable? All this book does is systematically undermine all forms of sexual abuse in an unparalleled way. I can't even begin to imagine how hurtful this must be for all of the victims of sexual violence there are out there.

What's more, even the BDSM community want nothing to do with it. Many statements that representatives have made when asked make it very clear that the involvement of BDSM in any kind of sexual contact is based on mutual consent executed with care and intimacy, and, most importantly, with the inclusion of 'safe-words', in order to make sure all acts initiated can be stopped any time. There is a (not-so) fine line between BDSM and sexual abuse.

Whilst the content may be somewhat controversial, what is undeniable is the incomprehensible popularity of this franchise. E. L. James earned an estimated $95 in 2013, making her the highest-earning author of that year. Not everyone was a fan though. One of the articles written in the Telegraph about the book, back in February of this year prior to the film's release was entitled "Protect Britain's Women from this sick filth!". Although the sentiment is, on the surface, a well-natured one, I do have a problem with the word "protect". "Protect" implies that we, as the women of Britain, are unable to make our own choices as to whether to read this damaging garbage. "Protect" implies that it is inflicted upon us. It is not.

Not only the Telegraph has a problem though. Over the last few years, I have read countless articles about how the teenage population's use of pornography is disgusting. "Why do they do it?!" the newspapers cry, "what could possibly drive them to watching these abhorrent displays of sexual acts?!".
Let's just stop and think about that for a second shall we? Is there not some kind of phenomenon that actively integrated sexual abuse pornography onto our book shelves and our televisions? Is it not conceivable that through national and well-respected newspapers doing book review after book review and film review after film review of 50 Shades of Grey, a franchise ultimately built on rape porn (which by the way is illegal, E. L. James, in case you missed that memo), that we actually perpetuate this problem? This is a problem now endemic in our society. If you give it airtime, it will continue to spout offensive rubbish. Case in point? E. L. James, who has just released 50 Shades of Grey from Christian Grey's view point, a venture she is sure to make millions from.


So, to conclude, I have really only one message for readers of 50 Shades of Grey, regardless of gender, and it is this.

Congratulations. You successfully undermine victims of rape and all kinds of sexual abuse, and glorify it at the same time. I hope you're very happy with yourselves.

And to E. L. James: I don't really know what to say. You are clearly happy to earn your living from pornography and must be surprised that this particular piece has made it off the top shelf of the newsagents and acquired a bogus literary respectability. But do not deceive yourself; pornography it certainly is, and it contributes to the abasement of women just as surely as under-the-counter material in grubby shops.

               ________________________________________________________________

It is worth noting that in this article, I make very little mention of men who read 50 Shades of Grey, partly because I suspect they are few and far between. If you are a man and you have read the book (for whatever reason) do get in touch.

Lots of love,


Philly

Krishnan Guru-Murthy

Hi everyone,

This blog post is a little bit current news opiniony, rather than anything else. 

For those of you who don't know, Krishnan Guru-Murthy is a journalist and an interviewer for Channel 4. Some of his most notable interviews (and we'll examine why that might be in a minute) include Quentin Tarantino, Richard Ayoade and recently joined the ranks is Robert Downey Jr. 

But rather than give you a life history of Guru-Murthy, I want to talk about his interviews.

SPOILER ALERT: this might get a bit feministy.

So, let's start with his Quentin Tarantino interview:

Clearly, this was never going to be the easiest of interviews - there are quite a lot of cultural and personal differences apparent in situations such as these. Nevertheless, these kinds of interviews have to be done. Tact needed to be the order of the day.

It started off well. Guru-Murthy asked him about why he made violent films. With a little bit of pushing Tarantino answered that he thought it made "good cinema". A modicum of success achieved.

Guru-Murthy then went on to ask his why he thought people liked watching violent movies, a reasonable thing to ask a director who has carved out huge successes in the movie industry, with block-busters like Django Unchained, Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino took the bait and was happy to answer: he said "Yeah, well, it's a movie. It's a fantasy. It's a fantasy -- it's not real life. It's a fantasy. You go and you watch. You know, you watch a kung-fu movie and one guy takes on 100 people in a restaurant. That's fun!". Things were picking up.

But then it started to turn sour.
Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked: "But why are you so sure that there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence?" again, a reasonable question, phrased tactfully. However, Tarantino was not impressed, and answered: "I don't... I'm going to tell you why I'm so sure? Don't ask me a question like that -- I'm not biting. I refuse your questions."

Now, for me, this is the turning point of the interview. Tarantino made it quite clear that he did not want to answer questions of this nature. He also made the point that he's talked about his opinion on the link between movie violence and real-life violence in previous interviews. He said "I've said everything I have to say". And that is fair enough. Or at least it should be.

But Guru-Murthy pushed and pushed and pushed the issue, right until the end of the interview, at which point Tarantino famously said "I'm shutting your butt down!".

And that's true: he has answered that question many, many times. He has said, categorically, that he does not believe there's a link. How many times can he say it? I mean, I understand Guru-Murthy wanting to push the issue a little, but he went on and on and on about it. Tarantino, quite understandably I think, got quite irate and told him that "it was none of [Guru-Murthy's] damn business" what he thought about violence.

As an aspiring interviewer, I hold the view that if an interviewee very much doesn't want to talk about something, and they make it clear so, then it is our job as interviewers to change the subject.
Obviously, the setting also has an impact on whether you push a question: David Frost clearly shouldn't have dropped the issue of Watergate with Richard Nixon, but this is hardly the same. If a movie director (or actor, or producer, or composer) doesn't want to answer a particular topic of question in an interview in which the main focus is his/her new movie, he/she really shouldn't have to. I understand that Channel 4 is not interested in simply plugging the interviewee's newest movie, but there are "personalised", serious but appropriate themes that you can discuss in an interview of this kind.

Take, as we are in this case, Quentin Tarantino: his newest movie at the time of this interview was Djano Unchained, a film about slavery. I believe in the full interview with Guru-Murthy, Tarantino brings up the subject of slavery but it doesn't last very long. There were plenty of questions for Guru-Murthy to bring up here: do you feel your movies might head in a new, perhaps even historical direction after this exploration of slavery? How important do you think it is that the world remembers slavery? Is there an aim to your movie with regard to slavery? How honest is your representation of the issue in the movie, or have you dramatised any of it for big-screen purposes? Could you perhaps give us a personal definition of the term slavery?...

And the list goes on.

But this wasn't to be the last of Guru-Murthy's disastrous interviews. Now let's take a look at Robert Downey Jr's most recent interview, where, although on different topics, almost exactly the same thing happened.

In this interview, Robert Downey Jr walked out after being asked a series of dull, uninspiring, uncreative and frankly inappropriate questions. I say inappropriate because, just as Downey Jr pointed out, the interview was for film for children, and therefore it was likely that children were going to see the interview.

Once again there so many more questions that could have been asked of Robert Downey Jr that were more appropriate to the theme of the movie. For example: what do you think kids get out of superhero movies? Do you watch Iron Man with your kids or is that a bit weird? Perhaps to take it to a more serious tone, Guru-Murthy could have asked something like: Iron Man is a self-made superhero, how do you think that ties into this so-called "American Dream"? In recent years we've had a shift towards darker fairy stories and fairy tales, aimed at perhaps a more adult market than children. Do you think superhero films will follow suit or do you think they'll always be 'Good vs. Evil, Good triumphs' kind of structure to them?

All of these could have been in lieu of the silly question he asked about becoming a liberal after coming out of prison. Downey Jr made it quite clear, it seems to me, that he had said that at a different stage of his life and had no idea what he had meant when he said it. He graciously stated that opinions change and flow as you grow older.

Additionally, he missed a major question that I really feel he had a kind of duty to ask him. Here's where the feminism comes in, folks.

The question is: how do you manage to balance family life with your acting career and your wife being an extremely successful film-producer? 

This question ties in with Reese Witherspoon's #AskHerMore campaign which attempts to get interviewers to ask women on the red carpet more about their creative endeavours than "who are you wearing?". The above question is particularly significant due to the statement Jennifer Garner gave about how she is always asked how she manages to balance family life at home with acting but her husband, Ben Affleck, is not. So, Guru-Murthy - missed opportunity, big time.

All in all, I have a really big problem with Guru-Murthy's interview style. I don't believe he asks tactful or appropriate questions and I also think that his interview style lacks any creativity. Although I certainly don't want to take on bigger fish than I can fry, perhaps Channel 4 should take a look at an interviewer who's most interviews are his disastrously unsuccessful ones.

        ______________________________________________________________________

If you do want to take a look at what Quentin Tarantino has said on the issue of movie vs. real-life violence, this website has accumulated all of his interviews where he has addressed the issue:
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2013/01/quentin-tarantino-violence-quotes/60900/

For the transcript of the Guru-Murthy/Quentin Tarantino interview, see here:
http://www.channel4.com/news/tarantino-uncut-when-quentin-met-krishnan-transcript

Lots of love,


Philly

Page 3 and "Choice" Feminism

Welcome back all,

As promised in my post about book review of Caitlin Moran's 'How To Be a Woman', here are my thoughts on these, so called, 'choice' feminists.

First up, for those who don't know, Choice Feminism is a branch of feminism that believes that whatever we choose to do as women is a feminist choice, and therefore shouldn't be disagreed with because we are making our own choices. Sound good, right?

Therefore, extrapolating from this train of thought, it follows that a woman who engages in sex work, topless modelling, or (and expect a sternly worded blog post on this as well) dances to Blurred Lines is making a feminist choice, and therefore it can't be criticised. Right?

WRONG.

VERY. VERY. WRONG.

So, given that it makes me so angry, I thought I'd address a couple of the reasons why this seemingly logical argument of choice feminism (because it is when you first read it) is actually just very damaging to women-kind. For now, let's focus it solely on the topic of Page 3.

Page 3 is the The Sun Newspaper's daily soft-pornography page. Every morning it features a different topless woman pouting at the reader from the confines of the newspaper. There are several big problems with this in terms of its continuing impact on feminism, and most of the women who engage with it are quick to say they aren't feminists. Or, if they are, it's okay because they are employing this technique of Choice Feminism.

The fundamental problem with Choice Feminism is this: it undermines potential 'background' reasons and influence for making the decision to model for Page 3. It fails to discuss what effect upbringing (parenting, education, class etc) has on the woman's decision.

For instance, if a girl is raised in a background in which Page 3 exists, that girl can grow up believing that this is something to aspire to, despite the fact that Page 3 continues to promote only valuing women based on their looks. Therefore, that girl grows up into a woman, having had a blue-print created about herself and woman-kind which says that feminism is evil and what they're doing is ok. And then they encourage other young impressionable girls to do it.


I've got a message for you: it's just plain wrong.

Choice Feminism also undermines for the rest of us feminists the true fight: to not be admired solely on our physical attributes, but also our intellectual ones. Page 3 is a disgusting blight on our society that perpetuates our underappreciation as women.

Many people, men and women alike, support choice feminism because they say that activities like Page 3 don't do any actual harm. Except, from a social point of view, this isn't actually true: by exposing soft pornography to young children on such a public platform we are showing younger generation that it is socially acceptable for women to be objectified and valued on their beauty and physiology as opposed to intelligence. I believe that true feminist choices can only be achieved once we eliminate platforms that encourage the exploitation of women - then and only then can women's choice to expose themselves for men or women's enjoyment be seen to be truly objective. Indeed, the only positive I can see for Page 3 still existing is that its public criticisms and inevitable downfall will serve as a very powerful political form of empowerment for the future feminist cause.

And anyway, perhaps more fundamentally, why is it acceptable for women to do this and not men? Why is it okay to have our breasts out in full view, but not men their penises?! Nowhere on Page 4 of The Sun do I see a naked man with his private parts out, reducing men to a picture of attractive physical attributes! In many ways, this highlights another problem in the media of double standards (also seen in the number of broadcasters who are women over 50).

Finally, I have seen women recently who engage in this type of work and then come out to sell their story, and say they're not feminists because modern-day feminism is wrong. They don't want anything to do with it.

I just want to address this issue by saying this: that is damaging rubbish.

To tell the nation that you're not a feminist is to continue the cycle of young girls believing that feminism is poisonous and they shouldn't support it. That it's okay to have men drool over your breasts on a daily basis. That it's okay for those guys at the bus stop to wolf whistle at you every morning. To be flattered by it, even. To aspire to be a Page 3 model, and have that as your ultimate career aspiration growing up.

Modern-day feminism is being taken forward by the United Nations and their Goodwill Ambassadors, people like Emma Watson and Angelina Jolie who are doing incredible work (expect a gushing fan-girling post about the UN's #HeforShe and IMPACT 10X10X10 campaigns). Feminism today is a hugely positive force, which aims to achieve TRUE EQUALITY. You can't just not be part of it because it doesn't suit how you feel right now. I say 'right now' because at some point in the future, when you get another job and realise that you're only paid 70% of the salary of your male counter-part, you'll realise that feminism was your friend after all.

Women who say they aren't feminists and can't identify with modern-day feminism needs to take a look at REAL FEMINISM, NOT EXTREME FEMINISTS. They let the side down just as much as Page 3. Feminism is about equality of the sexes, so to say you're not one means that you don't want men and women to have equal rights. Simple as.

And Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting, THAT GOES FOR YOU TOO.

Ladies, to conclude, you are solely responsible for letting society judge us on our physical attributes alone and ignoring our intellectual ones. The rest of us are working flat out to try and change this and... well... some of you are letting the side down.

Like my Facebook page for this blog: https://www.facebook.com/howtobeateenager for updates on blog posts!

Lots of love,

Philly