Skip to main content

Day: 18 February 2013

Should Manchester create alcohol free halls?

For: William Chambers

If being a massive Uni Lad (or Lass) is your top priority when it comes to choosing first year accommodation, perhaps halls that intentionally place less emphasis on alcohol wouldn’t be for you. However, if you’re like me and you’re a boring sod upon whom middle age has dawned prematurely, you’d rather be smashing the first year of their degree than anything else.

Exactly what a reduced focus on alcohol entails is hard to decipher. If by this they mean banning alcohol from halls, we all know how prohibition went down, yet for many of us averse to the effects of excessive alcohol consumption, avoiding the almost inescapable freshers culture of getting as pissed as possible may have been an inviting opportunity. So if it’s merely the option of an alternative welcome week that doesn’t involve spending every night inebriated in some dingy club busting outrageous dance moves accompanied by slurred shouting and saliva swapping with people you’ve just met, I’m all for it.

The opposition to the notion of setting up designated low alcohol halls is clear. How would it work? Will these new halls get any demand? Why not just choose appropriate accommodation from those currently available? All of which are valid concerns, highlighting that this initiative could be better channeled into offering realistic information to students about what the different residences are really like, along with expanding current provision.

Hence this proposal still draws attention to an important issue: the need for halls to cater for a variety of social interests. Rather than lazily allowing the first week’s events to be almost exclusively set up by self interested club promoters, perhaps the onus is on accommodation to take responsibility for putting on a variety of their own activities, as is done at many other universities. Further, the £40 per student which goes towards the residences association fund could easily be put into weekly social events if such groups were organised effectively by staff. Examples of such things already exist, although sporadic the free comedy nights on Campus are a resounding success and more should be done to build these events.

So, I say why stop with this focus on halls? Contrary to the hairy chested stereotype, I can see a strong desire for sports and other society socials that don’t place excessive focus on drinking. Although many of us may prefer not to leave uni with three years under a loosened belt that provides more chance of securing liver disease than job opportunities, a profound cultural shift away from binging may be a bit optimistic. But I think that ‘low alcohol’ events in halls may be one step in the right direction.

Against: Ella Speakman

Having given up alcohol for several stints over my university life, I am readily willing to admit that the thought of facing the bitter cold to catch the 143, queuing for a blocked toilet and escorting your drunk friend home as she throws up into a plastic bag does lose some of its appeal without the protection of half a bottle of basics vodka. However, creating purposely alcohol free halls is not the answer to the negatives of the university drinking culture.

The best part of my halls experience was being thrown together with 7 people from different backgrounds with different values and opinions who became some of my best friends. This kind of diversity is what makes UoM a great place to spend your academic years. Mixing drinkers with non-drinkers is just another part of this experience. Segregating people never provides an effective solution to social differences and instead only conforms to an ‘either-or’ mentality.

If alcohol-free halls are created as a place to avoid the prevalence of binge drinking, surely that suggests that the other alcohol-fuelled halls are being accepted as places where you’re expected to live on a diet of gin? Separating two groups supports the idea that the only two approaches to alcohol are excess or prohibition, when really we ought to promote moderation. The reality is that everyone consumes alcohol in different ways, and a more positive relationship towards booze comes from integrating people with different perspectives. I can accept that for someone who doesn’t drink, the experience of being in halls could be a difficult one. However, creating more alcohol free events provides a way to meet and socialise with people away from drink without creating a divided community.

As a third year student, I’m by no means tee-total, but when I look back now to how much I drank in first year, I’m shocked. However, the excess of halls was all a part of growing up, and it reflects the initial excitement of freedom. (Sun, Sex and Suspicious Parents anyone?) Being around people who drank a lot and people who didn’t taught me about my own relationship to alcohol and what I enjoyed. It gave me the confidence to say no to going out and the knowledge that I didn’t need alcohol to have fun. If we want people to have a healthier relationship to alcohol, it’s important to promote balance. Cheers!

I’m sorry but…Skyfall is overrated

With its BAFTA win the other week, the Skyfall whirlwind seems to have finally died down and talk of the next film has begun with producers courting director Sam Mendes for a return. After a record breaking £100 million at the UK box office and $1 billion worldwide Daniel Craig’s latest 007 outing is by far the most successful. Add to that its nearly universal acclaim from the critics and audiences making this 50th anniversary film a slam dunk.

All of this just makes it harder to say: it isn’t that good. I know I’ll come under more fire than the MI6 agent himself for this but I just wasn’t that impressed. Sure Javier Bardem was great, chewing up the scenery with aplomb, and Judi Dench was her usual reliable self – but something was missing.

I much preferred the gritty hard hitting action of Casino Royale. The Roger Moore-esque moments seemed noticeably from another era and was a cheesy step backwards for the franchise for me. And don’t get me started on that nonsensical ‘Home Alone’ third act.

I don’t know, maybe I’m just more of a Bourne guy.

Live: Jake Bugg

14th February 2013

Academy 1

8/10

From council estate to being announced as headliner at Reading festival, Jake Bugg has taken the industry by storm. Judging by his recent media profile, he’s unfazed by his success, but then he is not your average eighteen year old, with influences including The Beatles, Hendrix and the Gallagher brothers, and the less conventional Donovan, Don Mclean, Robert Johnson and a host of other folk and country artists. He has been complimented as sounding like a young Bob Dylan, and received the seal of approval from Noel Gallagher, who’s already taken him on tour.

Bugg arrived at the Academy as part of a long-since-sold-out tour, with transatlantic support from Dublin’s Hudson Taylor and Tennessee’s Valerie June. Taylor delivered a stunning set packed with ballads and harmonies, followed by June’s charming fusion of blues and roots music. Bugg took the stage to the strains of  Robert Johnson’s ‘Cross Road Blues’, and kicked things off with one of his – as he terms them – ‘finger-pickin’ tracks. ‘Fire’. With only one record under his belt – albeit one that topped the chart-  Bugg needs to flesh out the set somehow, and b-sides ‘Kentucky’ and ‘Love Me the Way You Do’ make the cut here. ‘Kentucky’, as the name suggests, is inspired by American country music, and Bugg has come in for a fair bit  of stick for the pseudo-American accent he adopts when singing. Not that he’s forgotten his roots – his album tells the story of his growing up in Clifton, and the songs ‘Seen It All’ and ‘Slumville Sunrise’ demonstrate this. He saved the real crowd pleasers, ‘Lightning Bolt’ and ‘Two Fingers’, for last.

Bugg turned in an accomplished performance for such a young performer; in a world full of manufactured pop, he’s a real breath of fresh air.

The best/worst thing I’ve ever seen on stage

The worst thing I have ever seen: Romeo and Juliet with Puppets

Last year I was sent to review an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet at the Contact Theatre which used puppets. Initially I was intrigued, how would these puppets be used and to what effect? Sadly, it soon became apparent that these puppets were merely a gimmick, used to detract attention away from the shortened version – a version which missed out some key moments. What was perhaps the most amusing, however, was the varying size and style of the puppets that were used: from small film character inspired puppets to larger than life more life-like puppets. The role of Juliet’s nanny was memorable largely due to the fact that a flying Star Wars-esque puppet was employed to portray her. The use of the puppetry was merely distracting – I spent a large portion of the performance trying to work out who was who and this wasn’t what I imagine the director wanted to convey.  There were of course funny moments but I couldn’t help thinking that this was unintentional. I was left feeling perplexed.

The best thing I have ever seen: Romeo and Juliet in a Church

Ironically my favourite performance is also an interpretation of Romeo and Juliet: however, this time it was held in the atmospheric grounds of St Pauls Church in Covent Garden, London. What I really enjoyed about this adaptation was how interactive it was; the audience was moved around the grounds of this church to make the most of the scenery. This led to some incredibly poignant moments, in particular the moments in which Romeo and Juliet commit suicide, an act which was held inside the church itself – finally their ‘bodies’ were laid  to rest on the altar.  I am aware that the successful use of these scenes was due to the fact that this particular company has the unique opportunity to perform in such incredible surroundings. However, the play itself was engaging: the portrayal of Juliet highlighted her youth and naivety, something which I felt brought a new slant to this infamous play.

Must See: 25th February – 4th March

The Spiral

An original piece of theatre about the inner city clash of generations as dub poet Leroy ‘Steppin Razor mentors grime artist Glitzy. This is a play that speaks for itself.

Runs 27th-28th February at the Contact. Tickets £5

 

Tull

A drama which follows the story of Walter Tull, a real life First World War hero and the first black player in the First Division of the Football League. Focusing on his relationship with suffragette Annie Williams and the societal problems that they faced Tull is ‘inspirational, dramatic and moving – proving that through perseverance and a sense of community, divisions can be overcome’.

Runs 21st February – 16th March at the Bolton Octagon. Tickets £9.50

  

The Maenad – MIFTAs performance

A piece of new writing by Hugo Timbrell, directed by Hugo Timbrell and Anna Crace

Timbrell’s piece charts the progress of the Maenad, a figure from Greek mythology, as she escapes the world of male cruelty. The piece explores the nature of gender and global suffering.

Runs 28th February – 2nd March, 7pm at the Council Chambers, Students Union. Tickets £5

 

Pomeranz: ‘I got into Chinese history by a series of accidents’

If Europeans had not discovered well-located reserves of coal in the eighteenth century, the world might have been a very different place.

Leading East Asian Historian Kenneth Pomeranz argues that this lucky geographic accident was one of the main reasons for Western success in recent history and Eastern failure, known as ‘The Great Divergence’.

In his famous book The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy, Professor Pomeranz shows surprising similarities between Northwest Europe and Southeast China as recent as 1750. And he asks, “Why did sustained industrial growth begin in Europe?”

“When coal, steam, and mechanization opened up vast new technical possibilities, western Europeans (especially in England) were in a unique position to capitalize on them,” he said in his book. “Vast untapped New World resources (and underground resources) still lay before them.

“[In China] by far the largest deposits, which theoretically might have justified major investments in production and transportation improvements, were those in the northwest,” a region thousands of miles from the core of China.

Professor Pomeranz, a Professor of History at the University of Chicago and the head of the American Historical Association, was in Manchester last week to give a guest lecture. He spoke to The Mancunion about how he formed his now famous divergence theory, what he thinks of some of his competition, and what he is working for the future.

“I got into this field of history in part by a series of accidents,” he said. “I started out thinking I was going to go to graduate school in European history, but I got bitten by the China bug during my senior year of college.

“As a historian of China, I tried to think what I could say about China that would make people who more interested in some other part of the world think again.”

The move from student to the writing of The Great Divergence was helped by a number of factors, said Pomeranz, but one that came to mind was when he read the draft of a particularly Euro-centric world history book.

“Somebody asked me to read a draft of a world history textbook they were publishing, and to be honest I read the draft and I disliked it so much that I thought, something has to be done,” he said. “The book was originally a western civilisation book and at some point had been turned into a world history book.

“So it was as if it was – ‘here is the main story, which is the West and now we have these add-ons on China, the Middle East, and South Asia, for example’. That really bothered me.

“I also had three little children at the time, and I knew I wasn’t going to be able to get to the archives in Beijing any time soon. So a project I could do from reading in the library was appealing.”

Pomeranz acknowledges that although he was “bitten by the China bug”, everyone should being paying attention to China, regardless of what he says. But through work like his people can better understand the country with the second largest economy on earth and nearly a quarter of its population.

“Clearly, China matters,” he said. “The need to pay attention to contemporary China is independent of any theory. China is big and important and so on and so forth and that’s true whether I’m right or wrong.

“What I think work like mine does is suggest that you’re not going to be able to understand contemporary China simply by saying ‘well they puttered along, they weren’t doing it right etcetera etcetera and then they learned from us,’ which is the sort of version you often get in op-eds and popular books.

“To suggest this seems to be pretty obviously wrong. The idea that the West and the West alone had this dynamism just plainly isn’t true.

“If you read certain people’s work – I do get tired of always using David Landis as a whipping boy, but he did write an enormously successful book. He basically says except for maybe the Japanese, nobody else in the world had a society that was conducive to growth and development except the Europeans. He says the Europeans developed it independently and then other places began to catch up to the extent that they imitated the West.

“I think outside of academia this hypothesis is still very popular, and it cuts against everything we are learning. As the field of Chinese history develops, it is showing more and more comparability between Europe and China, rather than less.”

Harvard professor and star of multiple history documentaries Niall Ferguson in 2011 wrote a book on the success of the West called Civilisation: The West and the Rest, which suggests Europe was unique in its ability to succeed. Pomeranz finds this fundamentally flawed.

“Ferguson says the West developed ‘six killer apps’ and the rest of the world then downloaded them,” said Pomeranz. “That has been discredited. Period.

“Like when he says things like only the West had property – No. It’s just not true.

“I find Ferguson very puzzling, because he did some quite good history once upon a time and it seems to me basically, he has stopped reading other people’s work. He seems not to have kept up with the empirical literature even on Europe, much less on other parts of the world.”

Nowadays, Pomeranz’s work plays a major part in the study of East Asian history and the title of his book spawned a phrase, “The Great Divergence”, that is known by any student of the subject. But not everyone knows that the title was born in an imaginary dentist’s chair.

“I had gone through a whole bunch of titles for the book, none of them really good, and at some point my editor said ‘imagine you’re at the dentist, he’s just given you a shot of novocaine, your jaw is going to go numb in a minute so you don’t have much time and he says to you – so what are you working on?’

“And for whatever reason that’s when it popped out. I said I’m working on the story of this divergence, which is in someway a great divergence.

“I think I had played around with the phrase before, but that was when I really decided it was the one.”

Despite the success of the book, Pomeranz finds some fault in his work.

“I think I was wrong to suggest close comparability in living standards in 1800, it was probably more like 1750, which matters. And I do think I underestimated the importance of technology. You can’t just explain the technological divergence by saying, ‘look at the cost of energy here and there of course you would get more invention of energy intensive machines where energy is cheap’, I think there is a lot to that, but it is not the whole story.

“In my defence I think I underestimated it because I was trying to respond to a literature in which it had been overestimated. But yeah, I think I went too far.

Pomeranz is currently working on a book called Why is China So Big? In which he looks at how China came to be so large in size and population, and why China has almost always been one of if not the biggest state in the world.

We need a hero!

If you were to take a cursory glance at the listings of your local multiplex lately you would  be forgiven for thinking there was some sort of ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ theme taking over your cinema. It seems, back-to-back for almost a month, we have been forced to watch geriatric thesps hobble around the silver screen.

So what? you, probably, ask.What’s wrong with old people acting?’ you, might, add.

Well, my engaged reader, nothing per se. Old people obviously have great roles in films. Personal favourites of mine include septuagenarian, nerd royalty and Coronation Street enthusiast Sir Ian McKellen AKA Gandalf. How much people shouting ‘YOU SHALL NOT PASS!’ at him annoys him will be something I look forward to learning if we ever meet.

There’s Clint Eastwood too. He, despite making himself look as relevant as a floppy disc with his infamous Republican Party conference appearance last year, still has that Dirty Harry vibe when he acts. I’m not sure if it’s his grisly voice or deadly stare, but something about his performances in the likes of Gran Torino makes me think he could still jump off bridges onto moving buses, or scare ‘punks’ by questioning them how lucky they feel.

But these actors are not the problem. The problem lies in that particular 80’s action hero that just refuses to politely fade off into the sunset.

It all started with Sylvester Stallone. In 2010 he assembled the ‘ultimate’ line-up of (mainly) old action ‘super stars’ in one film, The Expendables (a full two years before The Avengers).

As you’re probably aware the ‘beefcakes’ included Sly himself, Dolph (Russian guy from Rocky IV) Lungren, Jason ‘The Stath’ Statham, ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin and a confused looking Jet Li. Messrs Bruce ‘Yippi Kay Eh’ Willis and Arnold ‘Get to the chopper!’ Schwarzenegger, though heavily featured in trailers and posters, only briefly cameo-ed in the film.

It came out and was a big hit which lead to a sequel, The Expendables 2. Joining in on the fun of killing and blowing things up this time was the man who spawned a million jokes, Chuck Norris and muscled-Belgian, Jean-Claude Van Damme with also beefed up roles for Willis and Schwarzenegger.

This film was a hit too and now plans are afoot for a third instalment of the new franchise. Now this would be all well and good if the films were not terrible. And it is this that is precisely my problem with the ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ festival happening at my Odeon.

Sly’s ensemble pic seems to have inadvertently created a subgenre of old man action films (cleverly dubbed ‘geri-action’ online). In the past month The Last Stand, Bullet to the Head and A Good Day to Die Hard (starring Schwarzenegger, Stallone and Willis respectively) have all come out to the general annoyance of cinema goers. All were generally panned by critics, and only Die Hard was anywhere approaching a hit.

This may have started with Expendables but the underlying problem here is perhaps not that Arnie ‘came back’ like he always threatened, but that he was able to. There is a dearth of new action heroes in Hollywood, forcing us to rely on ageing figures from the past, figures that unfortunately just aren’t up to snuff anymore. Newish faces like The Rock or Vin Diesel have not really made transition into superstar status, whilst 90s breakouts like Tom Cruise, Will Smith and Matt Damon are starting to get on in years too.

So, like Bonnie Tyler before me, I’m calling for a hero. He doesn’t have to be larger than life, but I just hope they can save the day on their original hip.

5 songs in the field of: Bassists

Led Zeppelin – ‘Ramble On’

John Paul Jones gives a prime example of why less can so often be more with his sparing use of the blues scale on ‘Ramble On’. Add to that a rampant chorus and you have the spirit that defined Led Zeppelin as the apex of rock n’ roll.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers – ‘Aeroplane’

“I like pleasure spiked with pain, music is my aeroplane”. For some funky bass look no further than original Chili Pepper Michael ‘Flea’ Balzary. His sound emulates his nickname, taking the fret board for a walk, with some added slap. His bass solo on ‘Aeroplane’ is an all-time classic.

Stone Roses – ‘Breaking into Heaven’

Mani had a feel for bass that cannot be taught. Crank the speakers and enjoy an underlying groove that few bassists have recreated. The Madchester scene would not have been complete without the Stone Roses, but they, in turn, would not have been complete without Mani.

Warpaint – Undertow

Perhaps I have a slight crush on Jenny Lee Lindberg, but her bass skills are still top-notch. Some expansive bass effects in the verse are simple, but as the track picks up, so does her playing. Actually, I definitely love her (she’s the dream).

Cream – Sunshine of Your Love

Written on a double bass ‘near dawn’, Jack Bruce created a track that has become a staple for budding guitarists the world over. The riff is smooth and every time I hear the transition to the chorus I remember why the oldies still have a place in my heart.

Review: Hitchcock

Alfred Hitchcock is a name revered by film critics and fans. His identity as the master of suspense has ensured his legacy in academia and cultural art and one need only look at the last couple of months to see how Hitchcock has been culturally resurrected; dealt with firstly via the BBC’s drama The Girl (UK. December, 2012) and now, Sacha Gervasi’s biopic Hitchcock (UK. February, 2013).

Hitchcock attempts to adapt Stephen Rebello’s non-fictional account of the story behind the creation of the cult horror Psycho (1960) whilst also providing insight into the fractured psyche of the genius behind the film that brought horror to suburban America.

What Gervasi actually delivers is a shallow and mediocre glance at Alfred Hitchcock as he gambled his reputation and wealth on a “nasty little piece of work” that was met with scorn by Paramount Pictures executives determined to squeeze a final contractually obliged film out of the ageing director, whilst upholding the Hays Production Code. Rather than a film which delved into the fragility of the iconic director, Hitchcock instead felt like a naïve and self-conscious production, intent on winning silverware.

Anthony Hopkins dons the fat suit and prosthetic jowls and, whilst he visually resembles Hitchcock and has the accent near perfect, this is as far as the resemblance stretches. Hopkins delivers a safe performance which fails to deliver the depth of character to compliment his aesthetic strength. Scarlett Johansson is a convincing archetypal Hitchcock blonde girl, and James D’Arcy delivers a brilliant Anthony Perkins as the scopophilic, infantile adult, Norman Bates. These latter moments of conviction were fleeting and, as the story became concerned with the relationship between Hitchcock, his wife and Psycho, both Johansson and D’Arcy were shunned. We are left with a film which looks good but fails to bring the narrative or character development to compliment the aesthetic detail.

Bemusement arises at the fact that a film sold as a biopic of Alfred Hitchcock seemed more focused on the life of Lady Hitchcock, Alma Reville played in a routine performance by Dame Helen Mirren. Mirren plays Hitchcock’s unsung collaborator who feels the pressure of marriage to the director and battles to support Psycho whilst growing increasingly distressed at her husband’s intimacy with his leading ladies Janet Leigh (Johansson) and Vera Miles (Jessica Biel). Mirren’s plot creates sympathy greater than any felt for the anxious Alfred which undermines the film’s initial premise.

In the rare interludes when Hitchcock tries to deliver an alternative insight into the director’s delicate psyche it does so by exaggerating the influence of Wisconsin murderer Ed Gein upon Psycho’s twisted anti-hero Norman Bates. Gein appears in Hitchcock’s visions, guiding him through the mind of a psycho killer. These moments do little more than offer cheap scares and the suggested level of influence Gein had upon Robert Bloch’s original creation of Norman Bates is over played.

This film promised so much and failed to deliver. Overshadowed by the opinionated and controversial line of argument within The Girl, Gervasi’s biopic seems to be at pains not to alienate Hitchcock fans who may have felt insulted by Toby Jones’ sinister portrayal. If you are looking for something which breaks the veil of the legend behind such films as Psycho and The Birds then locate The Girl. More could have been made of the fragility of a legend staring disrepute in the face and yet a lack of bravery failed to carry this off. Hitchcock is only mildly entertaining and at its best it is a good way to avoid the Manchester rain.

Top 5: Food in film

5. Bicycle Thieves (1948)

Antonio and his son Bruno, bond over food after a difficult day searching for Antonio’s bicycle. But the waiter informs them they are in a trattoria, not a pizzeria, so Antonio improvises and orders fried bread with mozzarella.

4. The Godfather (1972)

Food is linked to family and wider kin throughout The Godfather. Even when on ‘business’ Clemenza manages to mention food, with the famous line, “Leave the gun, take the cannoli.” The references don’t end there, with the gang relaxing in their spare time, as Clemenza explains the secret to his spaghetti sauce and imparts valuable life lessons to Michael Corleone.

3. Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café (1991)

FGT is ripe with images of food, the most memorable being a food fight between Ruth and Idgie, a sequence director Jon Avnet has described as symbolic of a sex scene.

 

2. Lady and the Tramp (1955)

First dates rarely go better: the moons in the sky, Tony’s romantic music is blazing and there’s a steaming bowl of fresh spaghetti to share. Not to mention the eponymous Tramp proving he’s a keeper by offering a blushing Lady the final meatball.

 

1. Pan’s Labyrinth (2006)

In this Spanish Civil War-set fantasy, heroine Ofelia finds a table laden with glazed hams, glistening jellies and sumptuous tarts. Though forbidden she cannot resist taking (somewhat inexplicably) a couple of grapes, leading to one of the most chilling sequences of the film.

Drag: Is it Fashion?

Drag, not so much a trend as a way of life for those who do it, will probably never make it into the mainstream. From the ultra fabulous to the downright offensive, the fashion credentials of drag dressers are often overlooked because of OTT stereotypes. But with the feminine silhouette making its way on to the catwalk in many ready-to-wear menswear shows (you may have heard of J.W. Anderson, he’s only everywhere), it seems drag is finally having its fashion moment.

The art of drag, for it is truly an art, is only beginning to receive the recognition it deserves. So if drag is on the catwalks, does this mean it is fashionable? Cross-dressing is much more than an ill fitted bodycon dress paired with fishnet tights and makeup that can only be described as cakey. Done well, it is the ultimate example of statement dressing, breaking/questioning gender boundaries and forcing us to re-evaluate how we dress and why we do so. There was a time in which a woman wearing trousers was unheard of, decades later Androgyny in womenswear is considered seriously sexy. Throughout history, men have used drag as a form of self-expression, as a method of liberation against the social norm. Yet, for most people, when one hears the word drag we’re more likely to think of Alex Reid’s alter ego Roxy – an image no one needs to see- than a fashion icon.

Is this because all drag queens are simply too much to be taken seriously? No no no. Philippe Blond is a perfect example of drag done right; one half of the duo behind The Blonds (a label worn by Beyoncé and in SATC), his attention to detail in his presentation reveals the delicate and glamorous side of drag – he looks good and he knows it. Drag represents the fun and free aspects of the fashion world, the creativity channeled through Blond’s ensembles serves to remind us of this. The question on the tip of everyone’s tongue is how viable drag is as a ‘trend’, will it always be considered tacky and brash? The sentiment behind drag means it will certainly remain relevant in the fashion world, at least until a man in a dress isn’t considered abnormal. Like anything style related, we have disasters and triumphs – drag is no different. Yet daring looks, out-there garments and bold beauty will never go out of fashion.

Meggings: Marvel or Monstrosity?

Meggings – a term that invokes sheer fear within me, to the extent that when Armani sent their models down the runway for their Autumn/Winter 2013 Milan show, I felt like I was watching ‘The Exorcist’. I’d always hoped meggings (men’s leggings for those of you not in the know) were a joke, a big April fool, but Armani have proved that this is the latest trend to sweep the world of fashion and meggings are in fact becoming the next big trend in menswear. Already a concrete trend in New York and being sported by celebrities such as Justin Bieber, they’re now set to hit the UK too, with Topman discussing their viability and Uniqlo selling out on their UK website.

Photo: fashion.telegraph.co.uk

Their emergence as a trend is all very well, but I have two major gripes with meggings. First of all, trying to masculinise them by swapping the ‘L’ for an ‘M’ just doesn’t cut it with me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not taking a stab at men adapting women’s fashions- just look how skinny jeans have improved the world. Well, maybe not such a bonus for men’s nether regions, but for their style at least. But men, if you want to adopt the meggings trend, have the courage to embrace the spandex and admit that what you are rocking is a pair of leggings.

Photo: graziadaily.co.uk

My second problem with meggings is a more general one: leggings as trousers. Girls or guys, I’m afraid that there are some things in life I just don’t want to see and that much skin-tight crotch action is one of them. To the glamazon guys and girls with fabulously toned figures, I’ll let you off (as long as there’s no VPL going on), but to the rest of society, who, like me, have some (to quote Beyoncé) extra ‘jelly’, I beg you to either pull on a pair of trousers or get down to the gym! All being said, I am now an avid supporter of men in skinny jeans, so maybe this time next year I’ll be singing the praises of meggings. But, if Bieber and Boy London are representing this trend, is it not just another sign of the individuality and uniqueness we are losing within fashion?

Profile: J. W. Anderson

On his British Fashion Council profile, J. W. Anderson describes his design signatures as “things that can be borrowed from a man to a woman and from a woman to a man”, and this absolutely summarises his recently released AW13 men’s collection.

His male models strode down the catwalk in beautifully tailored pieces, which included frilled shorts, playsuits and feminine trench coats. Even the models’ slicked back and side-parted hair remained true to the androgynous style, as it almost resembled a women’s low ponytail from the front. The accessories were kept simple, with frill-topped equestrian leather boots and shiny white gloves. Women could definitely ‘borrow’ from this collection. I especially love the shocking cobalt blue trench, which made a beautiful contrast to the more neutral tones elsewhere and also the very eye-catchingly beautiful deconstructed tailored trousers.

With the general understanding that practically nothing seen on a catwalk is suitable or wearable for everyday life, the most amazing element of J. W. Anderson’s collection is that, for the most part, it doesn’t scream ‘man in women’s dress’. For example, the emphasis falls on the beauty of the clothes and the way they complement the models. However a poll of friends and course mates did show that not everyone shares this opinion.

Photo: britishfashioncouncil.com

His new collaboration with Topshop, released on the 15th of February, has been highly anticipated. In this collection too there there are frills and leather boots, and the hand-knit jumpers echo the simplicity of the jumpers of his menswear collection. Whilst this womenswear collection is far less outlandish than his catwalk shows, J. W. Anderson’s androgynous roots are still prevalent: I particularly like the patent leather Harrington jacket, which could definitely be borrowed as menswear. Another interesting piece is the argyle jumper, which oddly resembles a brilliant mix-match of your grandad’s golf jumper and a tasseled rug, and has sold out in almost all sizes only hours after being released online.

Photo: Topshop.com Photo: Topshop.com

J. W. Anderson at Topshop is definitely a go-to for fans of the androgynous style, as the fun prints make the style easier to wear. I’ll see you in the queue!

The Bell Jar’s new cover: a necessary facelift?

“How is this cover anything but a “fuck you” to women everywhere?” Dustin Kurtz, a marketing manager at Melville House, succinctly vocalises many blogs-worth of outraged reaction to the cover of Faber and Faber’s 50th anniversary edition of Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar. The cover depicts a woman reapplying her makeup, while morosely gazing at her mirrored image.

Criticism of the book cover appears to fall into two categories: first, the glamorised image as undermining the serious nature of the narrative – which includes the limitations placed on women in society. The image reduces the daring and confessional elements of the novel to a superficial exploration of artificial and artful femininity. Secondly (and related), the response is tied to a negative reaction of the so-called ‘Plath industry’. The entirely un-superficial concerns of the author are misrepresented in favour of garnering revenue, an apparent inevitability given the current commercial landscape of publishing. However, both arguments ultimately stem from the belief that a book cover should reflect the themes and concerns of the author – an element that does not fall within the author’s creative purview. Leading us to ask, should a book cover reinforce its content or can it legitimately challenge and reinterpret such content?

As the first point of contact for the reader, the image of a book cover has the power to engage, or dismantle, the interest of the reader. The image has to be able to display the broad genre of a book, while also attracting (in the publisher’s interest) as wide a readership as possible. The image becomes central to a novel’s commercial success. The increasing number of titles that are reissued and repackaged following a corresponding film release reflects the commercial drive behind book covers. The recent reissue of Jack Kerouac’s On the Road, to coincide with the new film adaptation, evidences exactly this: it placed the actors who had portrayed the protagonists, Sam Riley and Kristen Stewart, on the cover, aiming to attract the wider film audience. The image on the cover of a novel significantly directs the type of readership and popular appeal of a novel.

A drastic re-imaging of a book through the cover art always presents a danger. Readers are often tentative about a repackaging of a narrative that has been familiar, and personally significant. Faber’s paperback publisher, Hannah Griffiths, said “we often look to packaging as a way of describing an old work afresh”. However, when trying to attract new readers to a work, the core demographic of target readers are often antagonised and alinated by a controversial cover. Repackaging LM Montgomery’s classic, Anne of Green Gables with a buxom (and almost lascivious) blonde cover girl instead of heroine Anne’s fiery red locks, in the recent edition by CreateSpace, has stirred up a controversy, and possibly resulted in a loss of sales within the established readership. Many readers have contacted Amazon in an attempt to redress the distortion of the central heroine in the cover image. ‘Imaginative’ repackaging is a gamble, and the publishers will hope that a controversial reaction will bring more publicity to the re-issue, and therefore more readers (and sales) than it will alienate.

As a commercial endeavour, literary fiction has to be able to distinguish itself from the other books within its own genre and style. An interesting and arresting choice of cover image is one way to achieve reader interest and essential publicity. Undoubtedly, the controversial image from Faber’s edition of The Bell Jar has served its purpose: the cover has invoked debate, and many column inches to the novel’s re-issue. Re-branding it in the chick-lit genre, with the inevitable connotations of caricatured romantic entanglements and triviality that go with that, may prove to be a financially astute move. However, in the case of The Bell Jar, if it brings more readers to this beautifully wrought classic then it can’t be all bad.

Do creativity and mental instability really go hand in hand?

Monday 11th February marked the 50th anniversary of Sylvia Plath’s untimely death. The famous writer and wife of Ted Hughes committed suicide, aged only 30, having spent most of her adult life struggling with depression. Although her literary output was not vast, all of her work has been subsequently cherished for its resonant poignancy and wit, capturing the emotional turmoil Plath experienced.

Plath first came to prominence for her poetry, which has since been credited with originating the ‘confessional’ genre of poetry. In 1958, she began attending evening creative writing seminars where she was encouraged to write from her own experiences. While she remained anxious about doing so, her poems began to tell of the deeply painful mental struggle she dealt with. Her first collection, The Colossus and Other Poems, was published in 1960 and is less open and more abrupt than Ariel, a posthumous collection that had been written during a creative burst a few months before Plath’s death. When reading the two, you feel as though you have undertaken Plath’s own psychological journey.

Many would suggest that it is Plath who sparked the now-familiar debate about the link between creativity and mental instability. It is certainly difficult to imagine one without the other in her case, if only because her work is so intensely personal and these were two very significant aspects of her self. Her only novel, The Bell Jar, is a semi-autobiographical roman à clef, chronicling the protagonist Esther Greenwood’s decent into mental illness. Various suicide attempts lead Esther to courses of ECT, as Plath herself underwent. Throughout the novel, socially acceptable identity is questioned – does a woman have to conform to the housewife and mother ideal or can she strive to achieve her own independence?

Plath wrote The Bell Jar after her second pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, an event which made her feel as though she had failed at being a woman. Although we now live in a more progressive world than ‘60s America, this element of Plath’s work still echoes with women today. The Bell Jar is being re-issued by Faber and Faber to celebrate the book’s 50th anniversary.

Of course, Plath is not the only literary figure to have been troubled. The list of writers who have suffered from depression is a long one: William Blake, Leo Tolstoy, T.S. Eliot and Spike Milligan are but a few. Many works depict the despair felt by those suffering with mental illness. For example, J. K. Rowling drew on her own depressive experiences when describing how the Dementors suck all life and soul out of their victims. Virginia Woolf used a stream-of-consciousness style to highlight the psychological plight of her characters that she knew only too well. However, Sylvia Plath was arguably the first author to truly address the taboo surrounding mental illness: in The Bell Jar, Esther discusses with her therapist about how she feels trapped by her illness. For this reason alone, it is essential that Plath’s work is remembered as ground-breaking, for its documentation of both sides of its writer. Without her, the stigma associated with depression would undoubtedly be much greater than it is today.

What’s in a name?

Beyoncé has announced that her forthcoming world tour will be named ‘The Mrs Carter Show.’ It is now being widely debated whether this shows that she is abandoning her trademark ‘independent woman’ status, marked out since her Destiny’s Child days, for that of the traditional wife and mother. The Mancunion joins the debate:

Abandoning the independent woman, says Beth Currall:

When we think of Beyoncé, what images do we conjure up? Do we see a beautiful, curvaceous woman on stage, belting out powerful lyrics such as, ‘If you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it?’ Normally, I would argue yes, but this latest turn of events has changed minds, including my own.

I understand that when a woman marries, she willingly takes her husband’s name and legally becomes his ‘other half.’ There is no problem with that, but, when a woman has built her entire career and persona on her maiden name, such flighty abandonment of her surname makes her entire career seem like a bit of a sham. This is the Beyoncé who, up until now, has inspired millions of women to go out and enjoy being single and independent, rather than sit at home crying every Saturday night because they don’t have a man.

What message does this new tour name send to all of Beyoncé’s fans across the globe?  Being an independent woman is cool until you reach about 25, and then you should mature and surrender your liberties to your man because that’s what ‘love’ and ‘marriage’ are all about? Work hard, build a fortune in your own name, but don’t think twice about giving all that up in one fell swoop?

I just didn’t think that Beyoncé would ever be part of this frankly out-dated cliché, and can’t help but wonder whether we are turning our backs on the female independence our ancestors worked so hard to gain.

 

Reinventing herself, says Lauren Arthur:

Beyoncé and Jay-Z – music’s royal couple. Announced as the Power Couple of 2013, the pair beat real royalty, Kate and Wills, to the top spot. However, there can be no doubting that Beyoncé is still strikingly successful on her own. Announcing a huge worldwide tour, fifth studio album and a personal documentary, 2013 is set to be a big year for B.

Outnumbered though I may be, I see absolutely no problem with ‘The Mrs. Carter Show.’ Having been married to Jay-Z for five years and being mother to year old Blue Ivy, Beyoncé has come a long way from being a third of the (admittedly amazing) flare-wearing 90s pop group.

True, much of her musical image has been based upon the idea of female independence and empowerment, yet I don’t believe that this is lost by her choice to use her married name. The fact that she is comfortable enough to do so shows her security and happiness: independence in another form.

Beyoncé herself told Oprah that she considers motherhood to be her greatest achievement. She has not lost her unremitting independent attitude, but is merely merging her two worlds. The tour promo hardly shows her as an apron- wearing 50s housewife; she looks amazing as ever, wearing a Thierry Mugler haute couture corset, a crinoline, crown fascinator and a satin robe. It is clear Queen B is still very much self-governed.

Beyoncé’s albums mirror her growth and maturity both as an individual and as a musician. Mrs. Carter has arrived as a more mature Sasha Fierce.  It is unfair to criticise Beyoncé for wanting to celebrate the fact that she is also a wife and mother. She may be a superstar, but she is also an individual. It’s not like she’s given up her career as result of marriage and motherhood – far from it. It’s hardly like this is the start of her transformation into a dependent submissive wife either. After all, this is Beyoncé we’re talking about.

From the vault: Metallica – Kill ‘Em All

Originally released: 25th July 1983

Megaforce Records

2013 sees two anniversaries from Metallica’s back catalogue; probably the one fans, critics and even Metallica would want to forget is the tenth anniversary of St Anger’s release. The happier milestone is surely the marking of thirty years since their first full-length, Kill ‘Em All.

Given a choice, most people would say 1986’s Master of Puppets or 1991’s Metallica (more commonly known as The Black Album) is the band’s magnum opus, and has been their definitive thrash metal record. However, many forget about Kill ‘Em All, which includes some of their best songs, including ‘Seek and Destroy’ and ‘Hit the Lights’.

Where might the band have ended up without this record? Would Dave Mustaine (now frontman of Megadeth) been kicked out of the band and replaced by Kirk Hammett? Would the late Cliff Burton still be the inspiration to bassists that he is today? More importantly, would Metallica, along with Megadeth, Anthrax and Slayer, be part of the Big Four of Thrash?

While Hetfield and Ulrich were on good terms during the recording of Kill ‘Em All, bigger problems came from Dave Mustaine through drink and drugs, which peaked when he almost killed bassist Ron McGovney by pouring beer in his bass pickups and electrocuting him. Mustaine did help write ‘The Four Horsemen’, ‘Jump in the Fire’, ‘Phantom Lord’ and ‘Metal Militia’, but was fired before the recording sessions. ‘The Four Horsemen’ was lyrically rewritten by Hetfield and the original version can be heard on Megadeth’s debut album Killing Is My Business… and Business Is Good.

The album saw the birth, in Hetfield and Ulrich, of one of the best writing partnerships in the history of rock music, standing alongside Jagger and Richards or Lennon and McCartney. ‘Seek and Destroy’ and ‘Hit the Lights’ are easily the record’s best-known tracks, but ‘Anesthesia – Pulling Teeth’, written by the late Cliff Burton, is a bass solo that unusually utilised a wah-wah pedal, immediately drawing Hetfield’s attention to his talent, leading to his recruitment for the band.

While Kill ‘Em All may never be as well-known as Master of Puppets or as critically revered as The Black Album, without this record, heavy metal and thrash metal would definitely not be what it is today. Many fans, critics and other bands have Metallica and Kill ‘Em All to thank for laying the genre’s foundations.

 

Finally we flip the lens: The dethroning of Alfred Hitchcock

In 2012 – thirty years after Hitchcock’s death – Hollywood decided that the time had come to ‘out’ the man behind the legend. First released was HBO’s The Girl, drawing on interviews with Tippi Hedren and reports from people on the set of The Birds in order to expose Hitchcock as an abusive, perverted director who could not differentiate between the fantasy woman he brought to life on screen and the actress herself. Toby Jones plays a pompous, over-zealous Hitchcock who speaks to Hedren (played by Sienna Miller) in cryptic riddles, incapable of engaging in a mutual dialogue with a person who he perceives not only as a fantasy figure but as his own construction.

For his engrained misogyny and piercing powers of projection, Hitchcock is reprimanded in this cathartic unveiling of Hedren’s traumatic experience as a ‘Hitchcock blonde’. The Girl gives voice to the silenced woman, and should be celebrated for daring to shatter illusions about this brilliant, charming man.

Fox’s Hitchcock, currently in cinemas, achieves something quite different. It peers into Hitchcock’s private life and illuminates the back-seat involvement of his wife, Alma Reville, on his most challenging film, Psycho. This film can be aligned with the popular trope of exploring the unknown, quietly oppressed woman behind the famous male. Hitchcock, it turns out, has a cheap and unsettling purpose: to divulge the private life of a public figure for the sake of entertainment, merely seeking to add colour to the blacked-out, two-dimensional profile shot that we are so familiar with.

Hitchcock is a shallow exposé of the human behind the facade, but what is most unsavory about the film is that it plays into the postmodern sense of entitlement to know everything about our celebrities, including their – rather irrelevant – private lives. Jodie Foster, who has been in the public eye since childhood, recently gave a speech at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards in which she rejects this inappropriate societal expectation: ‘Now I’m told that every celebrity is expected to honor the details of their private life with a press conference, a fragrance and a prime-time reality show. You guys might be surprised, but I am not Honey Boo Boo Child.’ For dead celebrities, there is no such check on our growing desire to expose and ‘peep’ into their lives. Ironically, in the case of Hitchcock, this desire is indulged in his films – from Psycho to The Birds – though the voyeuristic offense is committed against fictional characters. Therein lies the critical difference.

In their making, both films legitimate our insatiable appetite for peeping into the private lives of our public figures, but whereas The Girl exposes the monster behind the genius, Hitchcock lacks the self-awareness that a biopic on a misogynist man cannot afford to sweep under the carpet.

The objectifying irony of this apparent expression of devotion goes un-noted in this twee Hollywood biopic which compliantly sings to the 60’s tune: ‘This is a man’s world […] But it would be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl’ (James Brown). Conversely, The Girl challenges the terms of this age-old tune by exposing that in the case of the ‘great and glorious’ Hitchcock it took a woman and a girl.

Review: ‘Song For Marion’

From writer/director Paul Andrew Williams, Song for Marion is the story of Arthur (Terence Stamp), a grumpy old man whose wife, Marion (Vanessa Redgrave), is dying of cancer, but still takes part in a choir for the elderly. When Marion dies Arthur eventually joins the choir, led by Gemma Arterton, and learns to find happiness through song. If the story sounds familiar, that’s because it’s been used by approximately every writer ever when they want to create an uplifting tale of redemption.

This would not be enough to condemn the film in and of itself, as sometimes a clichéd premise can be saved with good execution. Unfortunately, Song for Marion does the story badly. The whole film is essentially the first ten minutes of Up, but without any of the charm, fun or development of characters. The ending is made painfully obvious throughout, to the extent that I found myself wanting the main character to remain grumpy and alone, just to give us something even slightly resembling independent thought on the part of the writer.

Despite labelling itself as a “comedy drama” the only attempt at humour in the film comes from the old folks choir, and the fact that they sing modern songs about sex (oh the hilarity). Performance-wise, Vanessa Redgrave is good as the dying Marion, and Gemma Arterton seems to be trying her hardest, but unfortunately the whole thing is let down by Terence Stamp, whom I normally consider to be a fantastic actor. During a Q&A with the actor prior to the film’s screening at the Manchester Odeon, Terence Stamp commented on how he based his performance in the film on his own father, who had served in the navy during WWII, and had apparently been very distant as a parent. Stamp mentioned that he had been shipwrecked twice during the war, and that this probably contributed to his surly demeanour. He also stated how he was pleased to be doing a film like this, as it gave him a chance to play against type, going on to say, ‘I’m not interested in doing kids’ movies, I’m not interested in special effects movies’. Unfortunately, there’s a very good reason so many of Stamp’s most iconic roles have been bad guys, he’s very good at it. However, this does mean that when he tries to play ‘grumpy man with a heart of gold’, he comes across as a super villain, trying to take over the world one community centre choir at a time.

Not to lay all of the blame on him however, a lot of the problems lie with the script. Williams spends no time building up Arthur and Marion’s relationship, essentially just telling the audience, ‘they’re in love because I say they’re in love’ and leaving it there. I spent half the film wondering why Marion would ever have married this man whose emotional spectrum seems to range from grumpy, to slightly more grumpy, with an underlay of shouty.

To be fair, the film has some genuinely moving moments; it’s just that they all occur when the main character is off screen. If you’re one of those people who gets teary-eyed from films like Marley and Me, then this film will probably appeal to you. If you’re absolutely any other type of person, then watch Up. It’s so very much better.

‘A Liar’s Autobiography: The Untrue Story of Monty Python’s Graham Chapman’

It seems a risky proposition; have over a dozen animation studios adapt sections from Monty Python’s Graham Chapman’s fictionalised 1980 book , A Liar’s Autobiography. Such a combination of dissonant weirdness should come off as disjointed and it unquestionably does. But this is the singular charm of the film: a normal biopic would feel too safe, too cosy for the likes of Chapman. As a result, the schizophrenic nature of the film comes off as strangely befitting to the comic genius. “Anything for him”, John Cleese eulogised famously at his funeral “but mindless good taste”.

The various animations are all, on the face of it, beautiful and/or disturbing when the occasion calls for it. Take for the example the contrast between the precision and the cleanliness used to depict his first days at Cambridge and the otherworldly nightmarish visuals of his cold-turkey recovery from alcoholism. There’s no real concrete connection between segments here (each studio has clearly gone in their own preferred direction with regards to the look and feel of the film); the film is more a series of vignettes, each with its own particular message. In other words, it’s more Meaning Of Life (1979) than Life Of Brian (1982).

Compellingly attractive though the film is, there’s very little revelation into some of the lesser known parts of Chapman’s life. For example, why did Chapman fade from the public spotlight when the rest of Python only added to their comic legend? His homosexuality and alcoholism are explored in depth tough and his various forays into sexual exploration comprise the most interesting parts of the film.

So the very good aspects of the film seem to be one and the same as the bad. The lack of structure feels befitting to the man who starred in the Flying Circus all those years ago, but this same lack of structure gives the viewer very little insight into the man himself. Charmingly weird doesn’t do it justice.