Apocalypse Next

Forget vampires, the new movie craze is the end of the world.

There seems to be something in the Hollywood air, probably the CO² levels, that is causing filmmakers to churn out their apocalyptic visions of the future.

James Cameron's 3D movie Avatar, will be released this month and foretells mankind's ruthless invasion of alien planets for resources in the light of Earth running out. Next year sees The Book of Eli starring Denzel Washington as a man hunting for a lost book that will redeem mankind from its censurable ways and end the age of post-apocalyptic famine and death. Carriers is out soon and envisions a deadly virus spelling our doomed fate. The Armageddon has even entered the animated sector of the film industry with the release of 9 earlier this year. Calamitous nightmare is becoming a concurrent theme in films to end the decade with.

The current devastation blockbuster in theaters is 2012 and hopefully it will be the worst, because if they get poorer than that we are in for a rough 2010, let alone 2012. Roland Emmerich's film is based solely on the premise that the ominous Mayan prophecy is true, that the world is destined to end in the year 2012, simply because they didn't bother to place any more dates on the end of their calender. Shovel in some dialogue about apocryphal science and you have yourself an apocalypse.

The film would be somewhat less mundane if it was new territory for Emmerich, but tsunamis and earthquakes seem to be his passion and so we are left with simply a different cast of actors in front of a green screen of CGI catastrophe - for the best part of three hours! Yet, the concept has sold. People bought the tickets and propelled it to the number one spot at the box office in its opening week. Disaster definitely equals money.

A more honest film about the gloominess of the mankind's fate is The Road set for release in January next year. The film is based on the fantastic novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy which tells the simple tale of a man and his child journeying south in order to survive the drab post-cataclysmic world. The novel never explains what happened for such circumstances to occur, however judging from the first trailer the film may take the global warming approach to things.

If director John Hillcoat has chosen to imply man's warming of the planet has lead to his demise I would imagine it is merely a device of marketing rather than plot. The film critic Mark Kermode has recounted a conversation with him saying that they had to put guns and action shots in the trailer because that's what the average moviegoer is looking for in a post-apocalyptic film. In reality, the novel (and film so I am told) have very little action, in fact I think nearly all of it is in the aforementioned trailer. Similarly, the executive producers may believe that the audience who have not read the book will desire an explanation, maybe even a moral message if it is going to be somewhat popular and profitable.

This is the crux - why is the end of the world so lucrative? The answer is the current political climate. We are being told constantly to reduce our carbon footprint, that the ice caps are melting and that we need to find new energy resources because fossil fuels are running out rapidly. This message and public awareness can be used as a host for the film industry to make money. It provides a dramatisation of what could happen if we continue as we are - a message that is tangible and vivid, one we do not get from newspaper headlines.

Remove this message and production studios start worrying that the public will not go and see it because it does not relate to the current mindset of the masses. If The Road were being released in the mid '80s I doubt global warming would be to blame. A shot of one faulty, Russian marked nuclear warhead may have crept its way in. But that is almost cliché now; nuclear holocaust is out, global warming genocide and energy depletion disaster are in.

2010 may therefore be 'twilight' in a more literal sense for moviegoers. However, for those who still cannot get enough blood letting action there is Daybreakers out next year which blends the two fads into one big craze ball - vampires, in a future post-apocalyptic world where mankind is on the brink of extinction. They certainly know how to milk the zeitgeist don't they?

The Transatlantic Paradox

Why British drama can never be the quality of its American counterpart.

HBO is a television network that anyone can reason with sensible logic, must have a secret machine deep down in its basement where you insert a few million dollars and it pumps out a brilliantly written, acted and directed hit TV series. Furthermore, and as I am sure that you are aware, the issue has been raised more than once that us British certainly do not have one of these machines trundling away in the depths of Wood Lane. But we are trying!

Yes, trying we are. Earlier this week saw the BBC's new sci-fi thriller Paradox land in our living rooms. A show based around the rather tired concept of people receiving mysterious images from the future. However, Paradox has a clever twist - the images are of future dead people and the people receiving them are detectives. Well you cannot get much more Hollywood than that!

What is more is that it knows its born of modern American cinema. They have held no punches back here. Police speed about the place in jet black cars, they come back and sit in offices that have 3x3 high definition television grids displaying only one image. The mad physicist taps away on his keyboard whilst the viewer is unsure of his true motives. There's even a convenient countdown timer available that allows the interspersing of nail biting shots of it ticking towards "00:00:00" milliseconds after the heroes save the day. And all of this played out to a dramatic soundtrack of an orchestra backed with heavy tremolo synths - a piece undoubtedly inspired by Hans Zimmer's The Dark Knight score.

Yet with all the ingredients in the pot it still doesn't meld. The concept and aesthetics are overblown, the story is dramatic, and the acting is sound but still, I am not looking forward to the next episode of Paradox as I do The Wire. So where lies the fault?

The answer is simple; its just not American. Whether it is factually correct or not, we look at America as the land of bombast, hyperstyle and excess. The cynical amongst us may say that products from over the pond are "all style and no substance" and anyone who has been to a basketball or American football game knows where that stereotype derives from. There are cheerleaders and fireworks, jets flying overhead and cannons blasting every time the home team score - and that's just at college level. Entertainment in the States must be as grandiose and bold as the patriotism that drives so much of the country.

A culture which is not reflected by our own. In fact, much to the contrast of American sensibility the British Zeitgeist can be summarised as doubt, pessimism and the suppression of emotion in public. All of these qualities are exaggerated attempts to appear realistic. We act as if we realise the American dream is never going to happen because it probably will not, where as Americans openly strive towards it hoping it will.

So when this fantasy world is injected into our television shows a gloopy, yawn inducing mess of blandness is the result. It just does not seem right to have people with Scottish and midland accents shouting overly aggressive dialogue whilst speeding to the scene of a precrime before the big red timer beeps to zilch. The zinger, "You're out of your goddamn mind!" was not intended to be said by a blonde forty year old from Ilford, it is inherently American. I imagine the BBC to have got their hands on the blueprints for the HBO machine and they made one. They put all the ingredients in except they changed "Chicago" to "Manchester" and "Laurence Fishburne" to "Tamzin Outhwaite" and out comes Paradox; a pithy Anglicised imitation of a truly American staple mark.

Genetically Modified Food vs. Emotionally Modified Arguments

Mentioning the phrase "GM foods" in the public arena has the uncanny ability to split, divide and sometimes even offend people. It is the new religion, it comes attached with a label that says "tread carefully" and as with religion it is probably not discussed enough because of this. What is more is that those against genetically modified foodstuffs have come under criticism for using ideologies and rhetoric much of the time to argue their point rather than clear headed thought and logic. Are you seeing the link?

Anti-GM, forget Scientology, Christianity or Islam, this is it the new theory built on very little factual evidence. In The Daily Telegraph today it was suggested that those against GM food 'are more motivated by "emotion" than "reasoned" argument' and that many are sceptical of science in general and not just this specific area.'

To me, being sceptical of science makes no sense at all, it is like being sceptical about the existence of people. Moreover, those who claim to be science sceptics I don't think really are. It is all very well saying there so but these people believe whole heartedly in science when they are watching television, flying at sixteen thousand feet or even reading the paper. Science is inescapable so it is not only invalid to be a science sceptic but meaningless, it is gobbledygook in the purest sense.

So it is not surprising that the same people use emotional language over rationality when discussing GM foods.  For the very nature of arguing something with reason is by employing science. At the abstract level you are employing philosophy but that is know as the father of science.

Therefore blurting out such a loaded phrase as "Frankenstein food" is utter nonsense. It bears no significance on the subject matter but simply attempts to concoct a sense of disgust and fear in relation to the subject matter. It is pure rhetoric utilised to persuade on no solid ground.

So what are the rational arguments that the opposite side possess? Well for starters, consider that genetically modifying food has been happening for thousands years in an indirect process. Long before the discovery of genes, in fact nearly as soon as the farming profession began, people realised that breeding the big fat juicy tomatoes produced many more of a like generation than selecting the scrawny ones. OK, so now we delve into the fruits programming code, as it were, itself but it's simply a short cut.

A huge deal is made out of this because someone who doesn't really understand how these things work is worried that they are going to bite into a big juicy apple one day to find it has a face on it. A good example of such a person is the Prince of Wales, someone who I personally would not trust to persuade me on the lightest of matters. It is no surprise that a person who got some of the finest one-on-one tutoring at and still only managed to get two A levels does not trust science.

Finally, I would like to tackle the one "rational" argument, if you can call it that, that the anti-GM people possess. Yes, there may be an increase in fertilisers and pesticides used but that is only because the growth yield will increase. The same amount will be used per gram, but more in total is required because the fruit, vegetable, etc. are 50% bigger.

Let us face facts, genetically modified food is not a horrific thing like the scaremongers will have you believe. It has about as much in common with Mary Shelly's novel as a container of inert gas. The debate about whether GM would reduce starvation continues and is another matter, however one thing that is for sure is that it will increase productivity and reduce cost which is never a bad thing. So the next time someone tells you that GM food is "unnatural", "dangerous" or "Frankensteinian" ask them to prove that in reasonable, rational and clear terms.

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Boredom

This Friday represents the release date of the Hollywood megablockbuster, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen on DVD. So I thought it would be high time to give it an honest review.

Michael Benjamin Bay was born on 17th February 1965 - wait! Stop right there! The director of this film is forty-four years old?

Well you could have had me fooled because Transformers 2 was like Dreamworks had chosen a pubescent, fourteen year old boy at random and told him he has a limitless budget to do whatever the goddamn hell he likes.

Said kid then decided, as any fourteen year old virgin would do, to open the movie with a "college sequence". Which college is not clear, but their specialist subject must be a degree in supermodelling because there is a 10:1 ratio of females to males and 100% of the former are unfathomably attractive and dolled up like porn stars.

Whilst we're on the subject of pornography where the hell did they drag Megan "Lip Gloss" Fox from? Judging by her acting skills and the way she's tarted up I would say it's obvious that she took a wrong turn onto Hollywood Boulevard when she was actually looking for Ron Jeremy's offices. But I won't treat the poor girl too badly because Michael Bay has abused her far worse.

Phwoar! Look at that!

Like every other female in this film she is treated quite literally as a piece of tit 'n' ass, nothing more. Fox has absolutely no plot function in the film at all, instead she is yanked about different setpieces as they explode by Shia LaBouef like a piece of meat on a string. What more could a fourteen year old male want than shit exploding and Megan Fox's tits juggling about in slow motion.

However, some would argue that that is not what Transformers 2 is about; it is about the robots, the Transformers themselves and the amazing CGI action sequences. Well, those people would be wrong because the action scenes are anything but amazing. Gasp! Yes I said it. Some people like to see very very shiny things (no not Megan's lip gloss) smacking the living daylights out of each other whilst sounding like broken keyboard amps for 200 odd minutes. I don't! I had a toy of Optimus Prime when I was four years old and even then "transforming" it for twenty minutes would leave me wondering what else I could do. Apparently Michael Bay did not share such a short attention span but has grown up with a different kind, that of an intriguing plot.

Moreover, when there is action on screen I prefer to be able to see what the green and blue fuck is going on. The CGI may be fancy but Bay might as well have had a cartoon cloud with fists and stars popping out of it roll across the screen.

However this goes further than just an awful movie-going experience. You may think I'm overreacting but I think it is actually quite sick when you have Disney style characters juxtaposed with scantly clad females, drug references and quite severe swearing. Has everyone forgotten that this is a childrens' toy franchise? If Barbie had a movie where tiny men humped her leg, called her a "crazy bitch" and said "bullshit" every now and then, there would be uproar! But greater target audience range means more box office earnings and that's what these guys are in it for, purely and simply.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is as glossy as Fox's lips. It's about cheap thrills and mega bucks. It's degrading, idiotic, misogynistic and demeaning but above all it's dull. Bay cannot comprehend subtlety; it's more explosions, more robots, more CGI and more make up on the girls. Cut, edit, package it with a Whopper meal and you've got one hell of a putrid cash cow.

Which Brown?

Michael Caine's new film Harry Brown is set for general release this Wednesday. It is a revenge movie however, according to Caine himself, it is a revenge tale with the shiny edge of the silver screen removed. It demonstrates how violence does not always satisfy misery and torment. This is Get Carter realised.

Caine for PM?

A very true and noble message, if it is in fact that, and one rarely delivered on the medium of cinema. Although, with that in hand, purely for entertainment's sake I do love a good old revenge flick, it makes you feel just grand! Revenge movies are uplifting because for one moment it makes you believe that there is such a thing as karma and that once you've slaughtered your oppressor or abuser and left them as a bloody corpse on the ceramic tiled floor, that you will truly feel free.

In Harry Brown the titular character played by Caine avenges his friend's death by killing the yobs in the local estate who are responsible. It is nice, it simplifies the world to a place where there are good and bad people and those who are bad are wholly evil to the bottom of their rotting, putrid hearts. For evidence of this see Inglourious Basterds, a film which gleefully tars every Nazi (and German) with the same brush.

But sometimes in real life we hear about or see such rancid behaviour that the "Basterd" comes out in us. For example, on The Andrew Marr Show this morning there was a brave young soldier, Mr. Weston, who had lost three limbs whilst trying to defuse a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. He told Marr that since he had been back he had been heckled in the high street by some youths for only having one arm. Now what is your gut reaction? Gordon Brown or Harry Brown?

I know what I think would be a suitable solution: take said people and send them a nice friendly letter informing them that they have been conscripted to compulsory service for the British army. Three and half thousand miles later we can drop them in the middle of the worst minefields in the Kandahar province, 'This minefield stretches twenty miles in every direction from your current position. You have some cooling spray and a pair of pliers, get to it!' The stiflingly hot sun of the Afghan desert would be ablast on their backs, who said revenge was a dish best served cold?

Yet this is all fantasy isn't it? We can't do that to fellow British citizens - can we? A slight slip of the tongue would mean near certain death. I am sure the young ruffians would be sorry and take back their horrific comments but they would be dead ten minutes later so it would not be of much good to them.

Some would disagree, some would think Harry Brown would do a better job as PM than Gordon. Whilst I think many people could do a better job than Gordon (including Sir Michael Caine himself) I think we need to keep our hands on our heads and really think. Vengeance feels great in books and on screen but we must remember that in real life revenge is like Super Noodles; when you are hungry it looks like the best option because it is quick and easy, but really it is a dish best left on the side to cool down for a few minutes before realising it does not taste that good at all.

Comedy-22

Britain has always been a great comedy factory. Place it upon our cynicism as a nation or our ability to notice the absurdity of life, both provide a fertile breeding ground for producing some of the world's best stand up comedians and sit-coms.

The naughties has been especially good, with the likes of Ricky Gervais producing the excellent sit-coms The Office and Extras, and Channel 4's The Peep Show providing a very realistic and absurdly funny view of 30-something British life from the first person perspective.

Meanwhile stand up comedy has become incredibly popular all of a sudden, the BBC's Live at the Apollo shows sell out in seconds nowadays and it has almost already become a national treasure, introducing those fresh comedians who are semi-famous and usually deserving of the greater exposure. It is through these events that we now have the likes of Michael McIntyre and Sean Locke. The comedy quiz panel shows have also shifted the career boosting spotlight onto Frankie Boyle, Russel Howard and Alan Davies. For such a small country we have a lot of funny talent!

So the question then arises, if we produce such talent and it is within our zeitgeist as a nation, why then do we try and silence these people on the odd occasions. I am talking about making professional comedians publicly apologise.

This week, two issues have come to light concerning Jimmy Carr's joke about British soldiers in Afghanistan and Frankie Boyle's about Olympic gold medallist Rebecca Adlington. Both comedians were asked to apologise for their respective jokes - Jimmy Carr offered a semi-apology stating that he had told the joke to soldiers in Afghanistan and they loved it but he "did not mean to cause offence" and Frankie Boyle flat out refused to apologise and subsequently quit Mock the Week.

If I was to back one of them, it would definitely be Boyle. He is the only comedian that I can think of who recently has stood their ground against the torrent of hurt-feelings-cards being thrown at the comedy industry. Four words everyone: it-is-their-job! Not their job to offend, of course not, but to make people laugh and that entails that a small minority may be offended - and to this I ask "so what?"

If you are offended what good does that do? That doesn't give you an extra rights, that doesn't give you permission to ring up the BBC and demand an apology. Yet in the modern British world apparently it does. The BBC, a supposedly politically neutral organisation pushes a comedian - and a comedian that made one of their biggest shows so popular - to make an apology so rigorously that he decides to quit.

Meanwhile, Carr can proclaim that he did not mean to offend anyone but really he knew some people would be, that shouldn't stop him performing the joke, however, because it was funny. Some may say that they did not find it funny, which is precisely the point; both what is offensive and what is funny is subjective and rules cannot be enforced on subjective grounds, because the bar would be shifting across the spectrum so quickly that firstly we wouldn't be able to keep up, and secondly that is not equality.

My granny does not like Michael McIntyre, probably the most inoffensive comedian there is. Her reason? She thinks "he is too loud, is always shouting and dancing about the stage". Furthermore, his behaviour does not just produce just an unlikable disposition from her towards him, she is "offended by it".

Now see why rules cannot be enforced? We would be stifling these people whose livelihood depends on making us laugh and a side effect is that it is always aimed at someone or a group of people and may offend them. By silencing comedians we are putting one foot down the slippery slope and at the bottom of this slope is a damp, boring world that is painted in different shades of grey because ignorant, pretentious people thought that they could laugh at everyone else but when the joke was turned on them they had a right to kick up a fuss. No you do not! Sit down! Shut up! And be offended if you like because you will get over it like everyone else does throughout life. It is not an eternal scar that will disable you for the rest of your days. It was a joke made at your expense and, what is more, it was really, really funny!