The Harry Potter Lexicon is one of the most amazing Harry Potter sites on-line. It's a total encyclopedia of everything to do with the world in the books, compiled from a huge range of sources. It is so good that J.K.Rowling admits to using it when she needs to check on some small fact somewhere.
Anyway, they've put up the first part of a report from the set of the new film and since it's in their own detailish style I found it a great read :)
Here's a small, random quote which apart from being amusing also relates to a conversation I once had with one of you about the appropriateness of fan fiction about real people:
interviewing Jason Isaacs wearing leather head to toe (Jason, not me) and discovering that he reads fan fiction about himself and gets a huge kick out of the more far-out stuff
I really hope we're going to get the whole interview once the film is out lol
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Teletubbies and the profound effect they might be having on Polish children
Apparently Polish officials are worried that Teletubbies promote homosexuality. The reason they think this is because Tinky Winky carries a woman's handbag. They are considering taking the show off public TV if their psychologists confirm these very terrible fears.
(For those who can't read Polish - I swear, I didn't make this up! That is really what the article says!)
(For those who can't read Polish - I swear, I didn't make this up! That is really what the article says!)
Friday, May 25, 2007
A cinema boycott in Poland?
There is a cinema boycott this weekend in Poland (not that I think many people know this ;-P). It is a reaction to the closure of napisy.org - a site which distributed Polish subtitles to films illegally.
They make a couple of valid points. ZAIKS (which is the body that deals with copyright in Poland) indeed charges too much and have often been the cause for rising prices of cinema tickets. I also think that it should be ok to copy your own CDs and DVDs that you have bought legally for your own use (does anybody who owns an mp3 player not do this?). And having people who do nothing more than translate dialogues in films sued and threatened with prison is a bit extreme - it's not them who should be in the first line of fire when it comes to piracy (particularly when they're translating stuff that wasn't even released in Poland although that is of course not always the case). But the people boycotting also seem to fail to see that piracy is stealing. The film industry really needs a lot of money (more than most other industries) to be able to make professional films. Even outside of the USA making a feature film usually costs millions of dollars and that money has to come from somewhere. If everyone pirated films then the film industry would not be possible to sustain at all.
Yes, I'll agree that we need changes in the law (and that goes not just for Poland), but no, piracy is not ok and people should stop pretending it is. I mean if you don't have enough money to buy a book you want to read then you don't just go and steal it, do you? I guess what frustrates me about piracy is not just that people do it (I understand why people do it and even though I'm a lot stricter about it than most, I could find faults with myself as far as this goes). What annoys the hell out of me is that most people do it without any sort of feeling that it's wrong.
Unfortunately, for these reasons I rather take a sarcastic view point on this boycott - people who don't go to the cinema boycotting cinemas... *rolls eyes*
Anyway for those of you who can read Polish you can read more about it here and here.
Some day, I will probably follow up this post with something longer since I've been collecting links on this topic in one of my many draft posts for a while now. But I want to look at copyright in a much broader light than this (including the software industry which faces somewhat different threats than the film industry) and therefore it's going to take me a rather long time to write ;-P
If you think differently about this then I do, let me know :) I'm up for having my opinion on this challenged.
They make a couple of valid points. ZAIKS (which is the body that deals with copyright in Poland) indeed charges too much and have often been the cause for rising prices of cinema tickets. I also think that it should be ok to copy your own CDs and DVDs that you have bought legally for your own use (does anybody who owns an mp3 player not do this?). And having people who do nothing more than translate dialogues in films sued and threatened with prison is a bit extreme - it's not them who should be in the first line of fire when it comes to piracy (particularly when they're translating stuff that wasn't even released in Poland although that is of course not always the case). But the people boycotting also seem to fail to see that piracy is stealing. The film industry really needs a lot of money (more than most other industries) to be able to make professional films. Even outside of the USA making a feature film usually costs millions of dollars and that money has to come from somewhere. If everyone pirated films then the film industry would not be possible to sustain at all.
Yes, I'll agree that we need changes in the law (and that goes not just for Poland), but no, piracy is not ok and people should stop pretending it is. I mean if you don't have enough money to buy a book you want to read then you don't just go and steal it, do you? I guess what frustrates me about piracy is not just that people do it (I understand why people do it and even though I'm a lot stricter about it than most, I could find faults with myself as far as this goes). What annoys the hell out of me is that most people do it without any sort of feeling that it's wrong.
Unfortunately, for these reasons I rather take a sarcastic view point on this boycott - people who don't go to the cinema boycotting cinemas... *rolls eyes*
Anyway for those of you who can read Polish you can read more about it here and here.
Some day, I will probably follow up this post with something longer since I've been collecting links on this topic in one of my many draft posts for a while now. But I want to look at copyright in a much broader light than this (including the software industry which faces somewhat different threats than the film industry) and therefore it's going to take me a rather long time to write ;-P
If you think differently about this then I do, let me know :) I'm up for having my opinion on this challenged.
Shahrukh and Saif at the 49th Filmfare Awards
I found these clips from Filmfare Awards 2003-2004 when Shahrukh and Saif were hosting together. It must have quite soon after Kal Ho Naa Ho since they were making references to it all the time (in the film, everytime Kantaben - one of the characters - sees the two of them together it looks as if they're having some sort of romance or something). Anyway, the clips are so silly I had to post them ;)
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Random Shahrukh video
Just found this clip and thought it was hilarious, so I'm posting :) It's from one of Shahrukh's live concerts (he's hinted he might be coming to Poland on the next tour he does :) ).
Thursday, May 17, 2007
"I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship" - the Indian and American film industries working together
Collaborations between the two biggest film industries in the world sound like a very natural thing, but Indian cinema has never been taken seriously enough for it to happen.
Attitudes, however, are changing on many levels (also see my post from February).
For one thing - who'd have thought that tabloid stories from Bollywood would be the subject of a comedy show on mainstream American TV? (the story of a supposed fallout between Shahrukh and Big B is quite old now, but still talked about in India - they've both repeatedely said there's no truth in it, Shahrukh of course in his own unique way)
But there are also some much more serious changes. A fairly recent story is that UTV Motion Pictures and 20th Century Fox are co-producing M. Night Shyamalan’s next film - The Happening. India has been in co-productions before now (though AFAIK quite rarely), but this time we're talking about a major blockbuster.
That's not the end of things for UTV either. There's also talk of an international project which would co-star Uma Thurman and Hrithik Roshan.
The Shyamalan film sounds rather awful - toxic plants... er right... But I'm very curious how the situation between the Indian and American industries is going to develop.
Just to finish this post on a totally random note (and get rid of something that has been in my drafts since February or something like that ;-P), here are two funny clips - one from this year's Academy Awards with Ellen Degeneres as the host and one from the Filmfare Awards which are the most important awards in India (and take place around the same time that the Academy Awards do) - this year they were hosted by Shahrukh.
(if you desperately want to have an explanation for the sudden appearance of these two clips in this post then I suggest you assume that this is just a way of showing some similarities and differences between the two industries ;))
P.S. Unlike my dad I don't expect everyone to know the quote in the title of this post (since the film it comes from was made in 1942). It is from Casablanca which incidently might be remade in India.
Attitudes, however, are changing on many levels (also see my post from February).
For one thing - who'd have thought that tabloid stories from Bollywood would be the subject of a comedy show on mainstream American TV? (the story of a supposed fallout between Shahrukh and Big B is quite old now, but still talked about in India - they've both repeatedely said there's no truth in it, Shahrukh of course in his own unique way)
But there are also some much more serious changes. A fairly recent story is that UTV Motion Pictures and 20th Century Fox are co-producing M. Night Shyamalan’s next film - The Happening. India has been in co-productions before now (though AFAIK quite rarely), but this time we're talking about a major blockbuster.
That's not the end of things for UTV either. There's also talk of an international project which would co-star Uma Thurman and Hrithik Roshan.
The Shyamalan film sounds rather awful - toxic plants... er right... But I'm very curious how the situation between the Indian and American industries is going to develop.
Just to finish this post on a totally random note (and get rid of something that has been in my drafts since February or something like that ;-P), here are two funny clips - one from this year's Academy Awards with Ellen Degeneres as the host and one from the Filmfare Awards which are the most important awards in India (and take place around the same time that the Academy Awards do) - this year they were hosted by Shahrukh.
(if you desperately want to have an explanation for the sudden appearance of these two clips in this post then I suggest you assume that this is just a way of showing some similarities and differences between the two industries ;))
P.S. Unlike my dad I don't expect everyone to know the quote in the title of this post (since the film it comes from was made in 1942). It is from Casablanca which incidently might be remade in India.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Equus review
I'm back from London and saw Equus at the Gielgud Theatre last Saturday. Unlike Ziggy I enjoyed it, so we might have a blog war now *grin* (that is if Ziggy even reads my blog entry of course ;-P).
This was the first time for me to have known the text of a play quite well before seeing any performance of it which was an interesting experience in itself. I guess the biggest surprise for me was how many jokes that I hadn't seen in the text they found and how so many of the dialogues were a lot funnier when performed then when read.
In terms of humour perhaps what surprised me the most was that the scenes in the second act which built up into the culmination point (in which Alan Strang blinds 6 horses) were some of the funniest of the whole play.
The design of the play I think worked great with the text. I particularly liked how they did the horses. The dancers playing them did an awsome job with the movement and the lighting and the masks really created a brilliant effect.
As far as the acting goes, it varied from person to person I guess. I have to partly agree with Ziggy that Daniel Radcliffe wasn't as good as perhaps he could have been, but I'm no where near as harsh!
I think his main limitation is voice projection. More than anybody else on stage he was having to strain his voice which meant that how he could use his voice on stage was very limitted. When you compare to the older generations of actors or even to the girl who played Jill, they sounded pretty much as if they were speaking in a normal tone. It kind of created the impression that Alan was constantly speaking with a raised voice at everyone. Whether that was actually the point - I don't know. At any rate I didn't like it. When reading the text I always pictured Alan as somebody who projects this sense of being calm, but might blow up at any moment. Whereas the Alan Daniel Radcliffe was playing was somebody who was struggling with himself much more visibly. I don't know whether this was deliberate or whether it was his lack of voice training that made it seem so (I rather think the voice was the bigger issue - surely the scene in which Alan and Dysart are sitting, smoking and very calmy talking together wouldn't intentionally be interpretted that way?).
But there were positive things to be said about Daniel Radcliffe as well IMO. I actually thought he did an awsome job in the culmination scene. He really gave it all he had and that's always been something I've respected a lot in actors when they can do that. It takes guts to reveal yourself that way and I don't mean the nudity ;-P I mean yes, it takes guts to do that as well ;) but I'm talking more of what he did emotionally in that scene. I think many actors either have too much of an ego or not enough guts to really be able to do a scene like that, so to me that already commends Daniel Radcliffe a lot. I also think it's great he took such a role in the first place. That in itself tells you that he's really serious about developping himself as an actor. Personally, I think the actors who really try to challenge themselves are the ones who often turn out good work throughout their whole careers rather than just during a phase of it. Even when they have many faults to start with, they often get very far.
But ok, enough about him ;) The other actors in general did a great job as well. I thought Richard Griffiths as Dysart was really good. Perhaps he was the reason why the play somehow felt so much more funny to me in performance than on the page ;) But he really captured the character well I feel.
The horses were all absolutely brilliant, as was the young horseman (just awsome). I'm definitely going to be keeping an eye on Will Kemp now (he played Nugget and the young horseman).
Also Alan's parents were very well played - they actually made a much better impression on me in performance than when I had read them on the page.
Going back to the play itself, unlike Ziggy (;-P) I really loved the culmination point. Both in terms of acting and the choreography of it. Somehow it feels weird to be giving details since it's a major spoiler (even if you're only ever going to read the play), but the way they did it was really beautiful. The nudity was quite amazing in that lighting with that choreography and design and all. The way the horses moved, the sounds they made, the way Alan moved amongst them - really awsome choreography.
Something again that struck me when comparing text to performance was that it was so much more weirder to have Dysart talking to Alan all through that scene. It's such a private moment for Alan that it felt quite bizzarre to me (though I really liked the effect).
Something that struck me rather negatively about the text which I hadn't seen at all when reading was that the division into acts felt very weird. In the first act the scenes and places are all rather mixed up and disjointed. Time passes in a way in which the viewer (or reader) can't really even tell how long Alan has been in the hospital before one thing or another happens. This is not a bad thing by any means. I rather like it actually. It's the contrast between this and the second act which makes it feel wrong. The second act is one tightly knit unit in which you can quite precisely work out how time passes. It almost feels like just one or two scenes, something emphasized further by it being shorter than the first act. It's a silly thing really but somehow it bothered me.
Now I'll go back to Ziggy's post and refute what I don't agree with ;-P
So firstly, Daniel Radcliffe is just 17. Perhaps they could have indeed found an actor over 20 who they could make to look and act like a 17 year old and who would have done a better job, but I very much doubt they could have found a 17 year old who would have managed this. It's a very difficult role and any theatrical performance requires somebody who reaaally knows his craft (unlike film where it is indeed possible to pretty much take somebody off the street if he or she suits the part - in some film styles this is actually desirable!). And whatever one might think of Daniel Radcliffe he has had a huge amount of acting experience for his age - more than most actors have at 20 something. Yes, the lack of theatrical experience is a minus, but you probably wouldn't find many actors that age who would have much more.
As for "being over the top" - I don't really know what is meant by that. All I saw was the voice being raised for the majority of the play. Otherwise I thought he was quite subdued actually...
As for this part of Ziggy's post:
This sad spectacle has been created for two purposes only:
a) To earn bucketloads of cash, because of the Harry Potter's celebrity appearance
b) To give Daniel Radcliffe "credibility" so that he can say "Look I did a play, I'm a real actor now."
The project itself had actually been in the works for quite some time. I think there was even talk of having a big revival of Peter Schaffer's plays, but I'm not sure this has received financial backing.
Kenneth Branagh was originally supposed to direct Equus when the idea for the project first came to light and it was meant to have been ready 1 or 2 years before now. There was gossip that Daniel Radcliffe had been offered the part but that he had declined it based mainly on schedule conflicts and also not feeling old enough to play the part (he would have been about 15-16 then). The play was then supposed to go forward without Daniel Radcliffe.
Eventually, however, Branagh left the project (according to gossip because of artistic differences with the producers), the whole thing was postponed and then Thea Sharrock took over the project. The part was offered to Daniel again and this time he accepted.
In other words - the project has a history much like very many projects...
Yes, of course when you have a name as famous as Daniel Radcliffe attached then it helps a lot with publicity and of course they used it. And yes of course Daniel Radcliffe wanted to show he was capable of things other than Harry Potter, but these were hardly the reasons to make this play! Nobody sat down thought up those two reasons and decided "aha, we shall make this play with Daniel Radcliffe". It just doesn't work that way.
Besides, I don't understand the logic of it being a bad thing for Daniel Radcliffe to want to develop and challenge himself as an actor even if it didn't work out as well as it could have. If he doesn't challenge himself he'll never get better!
As for the comments about the writing - I generally like it and I can give the reasons for it if you like ;) But I'd like to hear what you didn't like ;-P
This was the first time for me to have known the text of a play quite well before seeing any performance of it which was an interesting experience in itself. I guess the biggest surprise for me was how many jokes that I hadn't seen in the text they found and how so many of the dialogues were a lot funnier when performed then when read.
In terms of humour perhaps what surprised me the most was that the scenes in the second act which built up into the culmination point (in which Alan Strang blinds 6 horses) were some of the funniest of the whole play.
The design of the play I think worked great with the text. I particularly liked how they did the horses. The dancers playing them did an awsome job with the movement and the lighting and the masks really created a brilliant effect.
As far as the acting goes, it varied from person to person I guess. I have to partly agree with Ziggy that Daniel Radcliffe wasn't as good as perhaps he could have been, but I'm no where near as harsh!
I think his main limitation is voice projection. More than anybody else on stage he was having to strain his voice which meant that how he could use his voice on stage was very limitted. When you compare to the older generations of actors or even to the girl who played Jill, they sounded pretty much as if they were speaking in a normal tone. It kind of created the impression that Alan was constantly speaking with a raised voice at everyone. Whether that was actually the point - I don't know. At any rate I didn't like it. When reading the text I always pictured Alan as somebody who projects this sense of being calm, but might blow up at any moment. Whereas the Alan Daniel Radcliffe was playing was somebody who was struggling with himself much more visibly. I don't know whether this was deliberate or whether it was his lack of voice training that made it seem so (I rather think the voice was the bigger issue - surely the scene in which Alan and Dysart are sitting, smoking and very calmy talking together wouldn't intentionally be interpretted that way?).
But there were positive things to be said about Daniel Radcliffe as well IMO. I actually thought he did an awsome job in the culmination scene. He really gave it all he had and that's always been something I've respected a lot in actors when they can do that. It takes guts to reveal yourself that way and I don't mean the nudity ;-P I mean yes, it takes guts to do that as well ;) but I'm talking more of what he did emotionally in that scene. I think many actors either have too much of an ego or not enough guts to really be able to do a scene like that, so to me that already commends Daniel Radcliffe a lot. I also think it's great he took such a role in the first place. That in itself tells you that he's really serious about developping himself as an actor. Personally, I think the actors who really try to challenge themselves are the ones who often turn out good work throughout their whole careers rather than just during a phase of it. Even when they have many faults to start with, they often get very far.
But ok, enough about him ;) The other actors in general did a great job as well. I thought Richard Griffiths as Dysart was really good. Perhaps he was the reason why the play somehow felt so much more funny to me in performance than on the page ;) But he really captured the character well I feel.
The horses were all absolutely brilliant, as was the young horseman (just awsome). I'm definitely going to be keeping an eye on Will Kemp now (he played Nugget and the young horseman).
Also Alan's parents were very well played - they actually made a much better impression on me in performance than when I had read them on the page.
Going back to the play itself, unlike Ziggy (;-P) I really loved the culmination point. Both in terms of acting and the choreography of it. Somehow it feels weird to be giving details since it's a major spoiler (even if you're only ever going to read the play), but the way they did it was really beautiful. The nudity was quite amazing in that lighting with that choreography and design and all. The way the horses moved, the sounds they made, the way Alan moved amongst them - really awsome choreography.
Something again that struck me when comparing text to performance was that it was so much more weirder to have Dysart talking to Alan all through that scene. It's such a private moment for Alan that it felt quite bizzarre to me (though I really liked the effect).
Something that struck me rather negatively about the text which I hadn't seen at all when reading was that the division into acts felt very weird. In the first act the scenes and places are all rather mixed up and disjointed. Time passes in a way in which the viewer (or reader) can't really even tell how long Alan has been in the hospital before one thing or another happens. This is not a bad thing by any means. I rather like it actually. It's the contrast between this and the second act which makes it feel wrong. The second act is one tightly knit unit in which you can quite precisely work out how time passes. It almost feels like just one or two scenes, something emphasized further by it being shorter than the first act. It's a silly thing really but somehow it bothered me.
Now I'll go back to Ziggy's post and refute what I don't agree with ;-P
So firstly, Daniel Radcliffe is just 17. Perhaps they could have indeed found an actor over 20 who they could make to look and act like a 17 year old and who would have done a better job, but I very much doubt they could have found a 17 year old who would have managed this. It's a very difficult role and any theatrical performance requires somebody who reaaally knows his craft (unlike film where it is indeed possible to pretty much take somebody off the street if he or she suits the part - in some film styles this is actually desirable!). And whatever one might think of Daniel Radcliffe he has had a huge amount of acting experience for his age - more than most actors have at 20 something. Yes, the lack of theatrical experience is a minus, but you probably wouldn't find many actors that age who would have much more.
As for "being over the top" - I don't really know what is meant by that. All I saw was the voice being raised for the majority of the play. Otherwise I thought he was quite subdued actually...
As for this part of Ziggy's post:
This sad spectacle has been created for two purposes only:
a) To earn bucketloads of cash, because of the Harry Potter's celebrity appearance
b) To give Daniel Radcliffe "credibility" so that he can say "Look I did a play, I'm a real actor now."
The project itself had actually been in the works for quite some time. I think there was even talk of having a big revival of Peter Schaffer's plays, but I'm not sure this has received financial backing.
Kenneth Branagh was originally supposed to direct Equus when the idea for the project first came to light and it was meant to have been ready 1 or 2 years before now. There was gossip that Daniel Radcliffe had been offered the part but that he had declined it based mainly on schedule conflicts and also not feeling old enough to play the part (he would have been about 15-16 then). The play was then supposed to go forward without Daniel Radcliffe.
Eventually, however, Branagh left the project (according to gossip because of artistic differences with the producers), the whole thing was postponed and then Thea Sharrock took over the project. The part was offered to Daniel again and this time he accepted.
In other words - the project has a history much like very many projects...
Yes, of course when you have a name as famous as Daniel Radcliffe attached then it helps a lot with publicity and of course they used it. And yes of course Daniel Radcliffe wanted to show he was capable of things other than Harry Potter, but these were hardly the reasons to make this play! Nobody sat down thought up those two reasons and decided "aha, we shall make this play with Daniel Radcliffe". It just doesn't work that way.
Besides, I don't understand the logic of it being a bad thing for Daniel Radcliffe to want to develop and challenge himself as an actor even if it didn't work out as well as it could have. If he doesn't challenge himself he'll never get better!
As for the comments about the writing - I generally like it and I can give the reasons for it if you like ;) But I'd like to hear what you didn't like ;-P
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Shilpa Shetty and scandal
Funnily enough it's not the biggest Bollywood stars like Shahrukh Khan, Amitabh Bachchan or Aishwarya Rai who make international headlines because of scandal. It's Shilpa Shetty - a girl who goes with her mother almost everywhere and seems to be one of the most politically correct stars in Bollywood *grin*
For those of you who have been talked into watching some Bollywood movies, you may remember Shilpa from Baazigar. Baazigar (which was made in 1993 and was her debut film) is in fact her biggest hit to date ;-P The trailer for this film is here if any of you want to see it :) (she's the first lady Shahrukh is romancing, the other leading lady as many of you will know is Kajol).
So firstly, as you may or may not know, Shilpa won the UK celebrity Big Brother not too long ago, but what happened to her in the house caused an international incident. Major British politicians such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown felt it necessary to speak up and the incident provoked a huge discussion about racism in the UK (as well as discussion about whether what happened to Shilpa was racism or just bullying). Perhaps the best way to give you more of an idea about what happened is this video (go forward to the part when she's interviewed and shown clips from what happened if you're bored with the beginning bit):
Part two of the video is here, but I imagine the first clip will be quite enough information.
But now, Shilpa has become part of another international incident. This time it involves Richard Gere, public kissing (on the cheek!) and I guess further food for thought on how different people from different cultures feel about what's appropriate and what's not (which was the topic of this post). Here's a news report on the incident:
The incident has now gone even farther with talk that Richard Gere might be sentenced to prison for "public obscenity".
For those of you who have been talked into watching some Bollywood movies, you may remember Shilpa from Baazigar. Baazigar (which was made in 1993 and was her debut film) is in fact her biggest hit to date ;-P The trailer for this film is here if any of you want to see it :) (she's the first lady Shahrukh is romancing, the other leading lady as many of you will know is Kajol).
So firstly, as you may or may not know, Shilpa won the UK celebrity Big Brother not too long ago, but what happened to her in the house caused an international incident. Major British politicians such as Tony Blair and Gordon Brown felt it necessary to speak up and the incident provoked a huge discussion about racism in the UK (as well as discussion about whether what happened to Shilpa was racism or just bullying). Perhaps the best way to give you more of an idea about what happened is this video (go forward to the part when she's interviewed and shown clips from what happened if you're bored with the beginning bit):
Part two of the video is here, but I imagine the first clip will be quite enough information.
But now, Shilpa has become part of another international incident. This time it involves Richard Gere, public kissing (on the cheek!) and I guess further food for thought on how different people from different cultures feel about what's appropriate and what's not (which was the topic of this post). Here's a news report on the incident:
The incident has now gone even farther with talk that Richard Gere might be sentenced to prison for "public obscenity".
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Yet another new Harry Potter trailer
Warner Bros have just released another trailer. This one's for the US market I think (the other one was the international one):
The beginning bit is the same as in the international trailer, but there are changes later through the trailer, but IMO the changes are bad rather than good... I mean it's even more action packed and even more pompous :-/ Of course one wants some action, but in the end what I'm excited about are the characters...
The beginning bit is the same as in the international trailer, but there are changes later through the trailer, but IMO the changes are bad rather than good... I mean it's even more action packed and even more pompous :-/ Of course one wants some action, but in the end what I'm excited about are the characters...
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Second Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix Trailer
I've left it a bit long between posts again and as usual when I leave it long, my posts are short ;-P (incidently, I'm still much better than Ziggy who has just started updating his blog for the first time in about 18 months ;)).
Anyway, the next Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix trailer is out, wheee! :D Check it out if you want to:
There's a lot about it that I like, but I hate the music. It's such a typical high drama, high action soundtrack and I think it kills a lot of the details (if you concentrate on trying to get the soundtrack out of your head you can actually see a little bit of the political aspect that the director, David Yates, has talked about). I'm also a bit worried about how overloaded with special effects both these trailers have been. I hope the whole film will not be like this.
My favourite part of the trailer is Umbridge's laugh (in fact I just generally love the way Umbridge has been portrayed full stop ;) ).
What about your thoughts? :)
Anyway, the next Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix trailer is out, wheee! :D Check it out if you want to:
There's a lot about it that I like, but I hate the music. It's such a typical high drama, high action soundtrack and I think it kills a lot of the details (if you concentrate on trying to get the soundtrack out of your head you can actually see a little bit of the political aspect that the director, David Yates, has talked about). I'm also a bit worried about how overloaded with special effects both these trailers have been. I hope the whole film will not be like this.
My favourite part of the trailer is Umbridge's laugh (in fact I just generally love the way Umbridge has been portrayed full stop ;) ).
What about your thoughts? :)
Monday, April 09, 2007
Personality Types
Unsurprisingly, psychologists have tried to work out ways of categorizing people into personality types. The most popular method as far as I know is the Myers-Briggs type indicator. This method is based on whether people are:
You can read up more about these factors on wikipedia. By using them people can be divided into 16 different personality types. You can read more about the types here or here.
Because I think it's fun, here are a couple of personality tests *grin*
The one which is definitely the most fun is a Harry Potter test ;) It assigns you to a personality type, but also to a character in the Harry Potter series which belongs to that particular personality type. This might seem like a strange thing to do, but you'll find psychologists actually write entire works about personality types in literature. In fact I rather think it's probably much easier to assign a fictional character to a personality type than it is a real person.
You can check out all the possible personalities with Harry Potter characters assigned to them here.
You can also check out the Jung Typology Test and a a test which is supposed to be for computer programmers but I think you'll be able to do it anyway :) (the cool thing about these two is that they tell you how many of your answers pointed towards which traits).
The other Myers-Briggs personality test I found is the BBC one. It uses slightly different terms, but it's basically the same thing. It's "planner or spontaneous" instead of "judging or perceiving", "heads or hearts" instead of "thinking or feeling", "facts or ideas" instead of "sensing or intuition".
Finally if you want a totally different kind of test, then check out this Big Five Personality Traits Test. This is based on a different sort of idea - rather than assign people to a personality type, they are evaluated on 5 different traits:
By the way, according to wikipedia the Myers-Briggs tests have a very low reliability rate, about 50% of people get different results upon retaking it lol
But despite that I'm rather curious what you got on those tests - maybe you could post in the comments? :)
I'm also curious if you think my results suit me ;)
On the Big 5 test I got three traits average, Extraversion low and Openness high. My exact results are here if you want to see them (though I actually think it's the least interesting of the tests ;-P).
On the Myers-Briggs tests I mostly got INTJ (which is Snape ;) ), though I also once got INFJ (Dumbledore) on the HP test and ISTJ (Hermione) on the BBC test. On both of these though when I changed some answers that I thought I could have answered in more than one way I came up as INTJ. I think the ISTJ description totally doesn't suit me though ;-P ISTJ's are supposed to be very orderly with the way they put things, excellent with time management and very systematical - which I think are not really traits that many people would associate with me ;) On the other hand a personality that I didn't get, but I think some could argue for me is INTP (Voldemort). I think I'm probably an INTJ though, which is a bit interesting in that it's apparently extremely uncommon (0.8% in the USA) amongst women ;-P
In terms of numbers this is what I got on the programmer's test:
E=4 Extraversion
I=7 Introversion
S=2 Sensing
N=18 iNtuition
T=11 Thinking
F=8 Feeling
J=16 Judging
P=3 Perceiving
And this on the Jung test:
Strength of the preferences %
89% Introverted
88% Intuitive
38% Thinking
33% Judging
On a random note, I think the part of this FAQ about INTJs in which they tell you how to deal with INTJs is hilarious ;)
- Introvert or Extravert
- Sensing or iNtuition
- Thinking or Feeling
- Judging or Perceiving
You can read up more about these factors on wikipedia. By using them people can be divided into 16 different personality types. You can read more about the types here or here.
Because I think it's fun, here are a couple of personality tests *grin*
The one which is definitely the most fun is a Harry Potter test ;) It assigns you to a personality type, but also to a character in the Harry Potter series which belongs to that particular personality type. This might seem like a strange thing to do, but you'll find psychologists actually write entire works about personality types in literature. In fact I rather think it's probably much easier to assign a fictional character to a personality type than it is a real person.
You can check out all the possible personalities with Harry Potter characters assigned to them here.
You can also check out the Jung Typology Test and a a test which is supposed to be for computer programmers but I think you'll be able to do it anyway :) (the cool thing about these two is that they tell you how many of your answers pointed towards which traits).
The other Myers-Briggs personality test I found is the BBC one. It uses slightly different terms, but it's basically the same thing. It's "planner or spontaneous" instead of "judging or perceiving", "heads or hearts" instead of "thinking or feeling", "facts or ideas" instead of "sensing or intuition".
Finally if you want a totally different kind of test, then check out this Big Five Personality Traits Test. This is based on a different sort of idea - rather than assign people to a personality type, they are evaluated on 5 different traits:
- Openness to Experience
- Conscientiousness
- Extraversion
- Agreeableness
- Neuroticism
By the way, according to wikipedia the Myers-Briggs tests have a very low reliability rate, about 50% of people get different results upon retaking it lol
But despite that I'm rather curious what you got on those tests - maybe you could post in the comments? :)
I'm also curious if you think my results suit me ;)
On the Big 5 test I got three traits average, Extraversion low and Openness high. My exact results are here if you want to see them (though I actually think it's the least interesting of the tests ;-P).
On the Myers-Briggs tests I mostly got INTJ (which is Snape ;) ), though I also once got INFJ (Dumbledore) on the HP test and ISTJ (Hermione) on the BBC test. On both of these though when I changed some answers that I thought I could have answered in more than one way I came up as INTJ. I think the ISTJ description totally doesn't suit me though ;-P ISTJ's are supposed to be very orderly with the way they put things, excellent with time management and very systematical - which I think are not really traits that many people would associate with me ;) On the other hand a personality that I didn't get, but I think some could argue for me is INTP (Voldemort). I think I'm probably an INTJ though, which is a bit interesting in that it's apparently extremely uncommon (0.8% in the USA) amongst women ;-P
In terms of numbers this is what I got on the programmer's test:
E=4 Extraversion
I=7 Introversion
S=2 Sensing
N=18 iNtuition
T=11 Thinking
F=8 Feeling
J=16 Judging
P=3 Perceiving
And this on the Jung test:
Strength of the preferences %
89% Introverted
88% Intuitive
38% Thinking
33% Judging
On a random note, I think the part of this FAQ about INTJs in which they tell you how to deal with INTJs is hilarious ;)
Friday, April 06, 2007
Take That - the manband
Here we go, yet another post that has been in my drafts since December ;-P
For those who don't know, Take That was a British boyband that was immensely popular in the early and mid 90s (Robbie Williams was part of it until 1995) and I managed to get hooked on them when I was about 12 - I think it was March-April 1996 (they split in February 1996). As you see I had terrific timing with when I chose to get hooked (but hey - uptil I was 11-12 I thought all modern music was crap and classical was the only thing worth listening to so there really was no opportunity to get hooked before that ;-P).
Anyway, they were a pop band that was particularly famous for their live shows. And I really do believe that there is no pop band or pop singer ever that did shows which were as spectacular to watch. I think there may have been quite a few boybands that made a bigger name for themselves worldwide like The Backstreet Boys, The New Kids on the Block and perhaps even Boyzone, but none of these boybands had the dancing skills, physical fitness or frankly even sense of humour and creativity to be able to pull off shows to the standard of Take That (btw, the choreography and ideas for Take That's shows came from within the band - another aspect not typically to be found in most pop acts).
Just to demonstrate what I mean, here's one of Take That's live performances at the Wembley Arena (their first arena tour) in 1992:
Apart from very energetic dance routines they also did very cheeky TV appearances, which were another thing of theirs that I loved (hey, I think it's quite obvious from this blog that I like cheeky TV appearances ;-P). Here's one that had me laughing for a whole weekend (from Italian TV I think and this was their last single so it must have been late 1995 or early 1996 - no Robbie Williams just the four of them):
And here's the bizzarre part - 10 years later Take That have decided to make a comeback. Many doubted this would work out. Take That's whole image was built on things which seem very difficult to recreate by men aged 35-38. Many also thought that they wouldn't manage without Robbie Williams (though I hardly thought it would be an issue - they managed without him very well after he left the band in the 90s).
But it seems like everybody was wrong ;-P In fact Take That are getting more impressive results in the charts than they did the first time round! They did an amazingly successful comeback tour, which sold out in a few hours. They managed their first ever chart double (no.1 single and no.1 album in the same week). "Patience", their first single was no.1 in the charts for 4 weeks. Their new album was no.1 for five weeks and after the release of their second single, "Shine" (which was no.1 for two weeks) the album has gone back to the no.1 spot on the charts, which so far makes a total of 7 weeks (more than any other of their previous albums!). Their second tour since their reunion sold out even faster than their first. And they made the most spectacular comeback in the history of the Brit Awards - winning Best Single for Patience. You can see them getting the award in the video below (I guess I put it in mainly because I was amused by the Valentine kissing bit ;) but the whole thing is rather sweet ;) ):
It's quite an amazing story considering all that happened to them after they split up. Robbie Williams was the only member who commercially survived the break up. Gary's solo career started better than Robbie's but once it went wrong it went wrong drastically. Mark although his career never went as low as Gary's also ended up losing his record deal. He got back into the public eye after winning Celebrity Big Brother, but his solo career really couldn't be called particularly successful. Howard's solo material never even got released and he ended up doing DJ work. Jason never even tried for a solo career...
And then all of a sudden they get together again and they're even more successful than they were the first time round - it's a strange business, isn't it? ;)
Anyway, I love their new live performances as much if not more than their old ones, so I'll just fill the rest of this post with youtube videos ;-P
I think my favourite performance of theirs is what they did to "It Only Takes a Minute Girl" which was a very early single of theirs (probably about 1991 or so) and it's a veeeery primitive kind of tune which I think they rightly decided they couldn't perform the way they used to. But for you to really get the "joke" I think you need to hear the original tune first, so check out this live performance from Manchester in 1995 (I think the staging of this one is great but if you don't then trust me - the modern one is drastically different ;)):
In contrast this is what the same song looked and sounded like on the 2006 reunion tour lol:
Take That apart from managing all sorts of firsts in the charts did a different sort of "first" in a TV program in December. You can read up on the concept of the "Audience With" program here. Take That are the first ever band to do the program live. And I'm going to put a youtube video (or rather playlist) of the whole thing below. I think the opening is particularly good, but otherwise just watch whatever you like - I couldn't really make my mind up so I just decided to put the whole thing into the post ;-P If you're wondering what Jason and Lulu are talking about in clip no.3 - well the whole comeback thing actually started out because of a documentary. It rekindled a lot of interest in Take That. In that documentary it was implied that Jason and Lulu had at some point slept with each other... Anyway, here's the program :) :
Finally, for the figure skating fans - you might like to see a clip of Take That performing on Dancing on Ice with Torvill and Dean. Check it out here
For those who don't know, Take That was a British boyband that was immensely popular in the early and mid 90s (Robbie Williams was part of it until 1995) and I managed to get hooked on them when I was about 12 - I think it was March-April 1996 (they split in February 1996). As you see I had terrific timing with when I chose to get hooked (but hey - uptil I was 11-12 I thought all modern music was crap and classical was the only thing worth listening to so there really was no opportunity to get hooked before that ;-P).
Anyway, they were a pop band that was particularly famous for their live shows. And I really do believe that there is no pop band or pop singer ever that did shows which were as spectacular to watch. I think there may have been quite a few boybands that made a bigger name for themselves worldwide like The Backstreet Boys, The New Kids on the Block and perhaps even Boyzone, but none of these boybands had the dancing skills, physical fitness or frankly even sense of humour and creativity to be able to pull off shows to the standard of Take That (btw, the choreography and ideas for Take That's shows came from within the band - another aspect not typically to be found in most pop acts).
Just to demonstrate what I mean, here's one of Take That's live performances at the Wembley Arena (their first arena tour) in 1992:
Apart from very energetic dance routines they also did very cheeky TV appearances, which were another thing of theirs that I loved (hey, I think it's quite obvious from this blog that I like cheeky TV appearances ;-P). Here's one that had me laughing for a whole weekend (from Italian TV I think and this was their last single so it must have been late 1995 or early 1996 - no Robbie Williams just the four of them):
And here's the bizzarre part - 10 years later Take That have decided to make a comeback. Many doubted this would work out. Take That's whole image was built on things which seem very difficult to recreate by men aged 35-38. Many also thought that they wouldn't manage without Robbie Williams (though I hardly thought it would be an issue - they managed without him very well after he left the band in the 90s).
But it seems like everybody was wrong ;-P In fact Take That are getting more impressive results in the charts than they did the first time round! They did an amazingly successful comeback tour, which sold out in a few hours. They managed their first ever chart double (no.1 single and no.1 album in the same week). "Patience", their first single was no.1 in the charts for 4 weeks. Their new album was no.1 for five weeks and after the release of their second single, "Shine" (which was no.1 for two weeks) the album has gone back to the no.1 spot on the charts, which so far makes a total of 7 weeks (more than any other of their previous albums!). Their second tour since their reunion sold out even faster than their first. And they made the most spectacular comeback in the history of the Brit Awards - winning Best Single for Patience. You can see them getting the award in the video below (I guess I put it in mainly because I was amused by the Valentine kissing bit ;) but the whole thing is rather sweet ;) ):
It's quite an amazing story considering all that happened to them after they split up. Robbie Williams was the only member who commercially survived the break up. Gary's solo career started better than Robbie's but once it went wrong it went wrong drastically. Mark although his career never went as low as Gary's also ended up losing his record deal. He got back into the public eye after winning Celebrity Big Brother, but his solo career really couldn't be called particularly successful. Howard's solo material never even got released and he ended up doing DJ work. Jason never even tried for a solo career...
And then all of a sudden they get together again and they're even more successful than they were the first time round - it's a strange business, isn't it? ;)
Anyway, I love their new live performances as much if not more than their old ones, so I'll just fill the rest of this post with youtube videos ;-P
I think my favourite performance of theirs is what they did to "It Only Takes a Minute Girl" which was a very early single of theirs (probably about 1991 or so) and it's a veeeery primitive kind of tune which I think they rightly decided they couldn't perform the way they used to. But for you to really get the "joke" I think you need to hear the original tune first, so check out this live performance from Manchester in 1995 (I think the staging of this one is great but if you don't then trust me - the modern one is drastically different ;)):
In contrast this is what the same song looked and sounded like on the 2006 reunion tour lol:
Take That apart from managing all sorts of firsts in the charts did a different sort of "first" in a TV program in December. You can read up on the concept of the "Audience With" program here. Take That are the first ever band to do the program live. And I'm going to put a youtube video (or rather playlist) of the whole thing below. I think the opening is particularly good, but otherwise just watch whatever you like - I couldn't really make my mind up so I just decided to put the whole thing into the post ;-P If you're wondering what Jason and Lulu are talking about in clip no.3 - well the whole comeback thing actually started out because of a documentary. It rekindled a lot of interest in Take That. In that documentary it was implied that Jason and Lulu had at some point slept with each other... Anyway, here's the program :) :
Finally, for the figure skating fans - you might like to see a clip of Take That performing on Dancing on Ice with Torvill and Dean. Check it out here
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Chocolate Jesus exhibit cancelled
Here's the story as it appears on BBC.
But what really caught my eye was not that the Christian group was protesting against somebody making a chocolate sculpture of Jesus, but that they were protesting just as much about portraying Jesus naked:
Ms McCaffrey had called the exhibit "an assault on Christians".
"They would never dare do something similar with a chocolate statue of the Prophet Mohammed naked with his genitals exposed during Ramadan."
Firstly, with Islam it would be a whole different deal because *any* sort of portrayal of God or Mohammed is not allowed by Islamic law AFAIK.
Secondly (and this is what I really want to talk about), Christ most likely *was* naked on the cross. The whole idea of Christianity is that God made his own son suffer torture in a very humiliating way to clear humanity of its sins. And while generally the gospels do not specify whether they took his underwear off, all four gospels do specify his clothes were taken off.
The Wikipedia entry for Crucifixion actually says that the procedure usually involved nudity:
The victim was, if able, made to drag the cross or a part of it (usually weighing 150 lb or more) to the place of execution. At this point he was stripped naked, and was either fastened to it or impaled upon it, and left to die.
I'm not sure why there's this whole attempt of hiding the fact that Jesus might have been naked on the cross (surely it just adds to his humiliation and therefore to his sacrifice?), but the attempt goes much further than just not portraying him so in art...
If you look up John 19:23 on the Bible Gateway, you'll find that the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Reader's Version, New International Version - UK and Today's New International Version all have some sort of wording indicating that only Christ's outer garments were taken off. None of the other versions (including two "new" ones) have any mention of whether it was just his outer garments and I don't think any of the other gospels have anything mentioned either (though I only checked the New International Version). I also checked out the Polish Biblia Tysiąclecia translation and again nothing specific mentioned. Some of those olds versions were really well researched (definitely the King James version for example), so can there be any other reason for these changes in the new versions?
But what really caught my eye was not that the Christian group was protesting against somebody making a chocolate sculpture of Jesus, but that they were protesting just as much about portraying Jesus naked:
Ms McCaffrey had called the exhibit "an assault on Christians".
"They would never dare do something similar with a chocolate statue of the Prophet Mohammed naked with his genitals exposed during Ramadan."
Firstly, with Islam it would be a whole different deal because *any* sort of portrayal of God or Mohammed is not allowed by Islamic law AFAIK.
Secondly (and this is what I really want to talk about), Christ most likely *was* naked on the cross. The whole idea of Christianity is that God made his own son suffer torture in a very humiliating way to clear humanity of its sins. And while generally the gospels do not specify whether they took his underwear off, all four gospels do specify his clothes were taken off.
The Wikipedia entry for Crucifixion actually says that the procedure usually involved nudity:
The victim was, if able, made to drag the cross or a part of it (usually weighing 150 lb or more) to the place of execution. At this point he was stripped naked, and was either fastened to it or impaled upon it, and left to die.
I'm not sure why there's this whole attempt of hiding the fact that Jesus might have been naked on the cross (surely it just adds to his humiliation and therefore to his sacrifice?), but the attempt goes much further than just not portraying him so in art...
If you look up John 19:23 on the Bible Gateway, you'll find that the New International Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Reader's Version, New International Version - UK and Today's New International Version all have some sort of wording indicating that only Christ's outer garments were taken off. None of the other versions (including two "new" ones) have any mention of whether it was just his outer garments and I don't think any of the other gospels have anything mentioned either (though I only checked the New International Version). I also checked out the Polish Biblia Tysiąclecia translation and again nothing specific mentioned. Some of those olds versions were really well researched (definitely the King James version for example), so can there be any other reason for these changes in the new versions?
Friday, March 30, 2007
The cover art for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is out!
The Harry Potter books must be the only books ever which have people rampantly discussing their cover art and page count every time a new one is released ;) Here is the cover art for the seventh book. The page count for the British edition is 608 pages and 784 for the American edition (the text is the same, just that the American one has illustrations and I think the size of the print is bigger or something).
Here is Arthur Levine (the American editor) talking about the American artwork.
The seventh book will set a record with 12 mln first print copies in the US (the previous record holder was the sixth Harry Potter book with 10.8mln ;-P).
Here is Arthur Levine (the American editor) talking about the American artwork.
The seventh book will set a record with 12 mln first print copies in the US (the previous record holder was the sixth Harry Potter book with 10.8mln ;-P).
New Order of the Phoenix photos
You can see the pics here. I really love almost all the pics they've released so far - there's moments when I think I'll like the pics better than the film ;-P
These new pictures first appeared in this article which I think is a fun read :)
Slightly old news, but the test screenings for the film have already taken place. You'll find some reviews here.
These new pictures first appeared in this article which I think is a fun read :)
Slightly old news, but the test screenings for the film have already taken place. You'll find some reviews here.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Speech Recognition on Windows Vista
There are certain problems that computer technology might never be able to solve. Speech recognition might get further than it is today, but I think it's unlikely that a computer will ever understand fully natural speech. That is unless AI will become reality (which I very much doubt).
Serious work on AI started in the 1950s so it's been over 50 years with relatively little progress comparing to other areas of computing. After all 50 years is like five centuries in computing history (the World Wide Web was not made public until 1991!). The web evolved to the point it is at now in only 15 years (I bet nobody in 1991 even imagined things like blogging or youtube), but as far as AI goes there are still no computers that can pass the Turing test which was introduced in 1950!
The concept behind the Turing test is that a human judge chats by text to two "people" in a different room. One of them is a human and one is a computer. If the judge is not sure which is which then the computer has passed the test. Alan Turing who thought of this test (and did a number of other amazing things relating to computers) apparently predicted that computers would eventually be able to pass the test thanks to memory power alone, but so far it has not happened.
(Alan Turing is btw a very sad story. He was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexuality and then committed suicide - or so many think - in 1954 aged just 42. Quite a way to lose somebody of such importance to science, ha?)
Anyway, really what I wanted to post is not all these ramblings (which to be honest I'm in no way qualified to be writing and may have just as well given you incorrect information :-/), but a video of how Speech Recognition works on Windows Visa (and I mainly wanted to post it because I think it's funny ;)):
Serious work on AI started in the 1950s so it's been over 50 years with relatively little progress comparing to other areas of computing. After all 50 years is like five centuries in computing history (the World Wide Web was not made public until 1991!). The web evolved to the point it is at now in only 15 years (I bet nobody in 1991 even imagined things like blogging or youtube), but as far as AI goes there are still no computers that can pass the Turing test which was introduced in 1950!
The concept behind the Turing test is that a human judge chats by text to two "people" in a different room. One of them is a human and one is a computer. If the judge is not sure which is which then the computer has passed the test. Alan Turing who thought of this test (and did a number of other amazing things relating to computers) apparently predicted that computers would eventually be able to pass the test thanks to memory power alone, but so far it has not happened.
(Alan Turing is btw a very sad story. He was prosecuted in 1952 for homosexuality and then committed suicide - or so many think - in 1954 aged just 42. Quite a way to lose somebody of such importance to science, ha?)
Anyway, really what I wanted to post is not all these ramblings (which to be honest I'm in no way qualified to be writing and may have just as well given you incorrect information :-/), but a video of how Speech Recognition works on Windows Visa (and I mainly wanted to post it because I think it's funny ;)):
Monday, March 26, 2007
Daniel Radcliffe on the Jonathan Ross show once again
Daniel Radcliffe has given a new interview on the Jonathan Ross show (the one from last year which was just as hilarious has been taken off youtube, but you can still access it - unfortunately in poor quality - here). The new interview is about Equus and the fifth Harry Potter film and IMO it's the dirtiest interview Dan has given yet ;) (although with a presenter like that it would be difficult not to ;) ).
Just on a side note (cause I keep rambling on about things like this), I think it's interesting that people are commenting that in the US a 17 year old (or any sort of big star really) would not be getting those sorts of questions (they're not saying it's bad, just pointing out that it wouldn't happen in the US). But I guess the same would be true for Poland. I'm wondering - is this specific to the UK or is it the US and Poland that are unusual?
Anyway, the interview is here (again it was on youtube and I originally intended to embed it, but it's been taken off).
Just on a side note (cause I keep rambling on about things like this), I think it's interesting that people are commenting that in the US a 17 year old (or any sort of big star really) would not be getting those sorts of questions (they're not saying it's bad, just pointing out that it wouldn't happen in the US). But I guess the same would be true for Poland. I'm wondering - is this specific to the UK or is it the US and Poland that are unusual?
Anyway, the interview is here (again it was on youtube and I originally intended to embed it, but it's been taken off).
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Pornography, sexual content and obscenity
According to this and this (both articles in Polish unfortunately!) Poland might be facing a full ban on pornography in the near future. The new legislation that some politicians want to bring in (perhaps they'll be in the minority, we shall see!) will make it possible for someone to get a prison sentence not just for distribution but even for possession of any kind of pornography.
No definition of what constitutes pornography is given in this proposal, which sort of brings me to what I want to discuss (other than how stupid our current government is I mean ;-P). I've always felt that the limit of what's ok and what's not ok as far as sexual content goes is a fascinating discussion topic. Of course it's largely about taste and I don't think I'm going to come up with any reasonable conclusions, but if you have any thoughts I'd love to hear them :)
Not so long ago in India, there was a legal complaint against the kissing scene between Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai in Dhoom 2 (imdb page, trailer on youtube). A quote from IndiaGlitz reads:
According to the complainant, the women felt offended after watching the scene and it promoted vulgarity in society, especially among the youth.
Now for anyone who read the Polish articles on the pornography ban you might have noticed that those are almost the exact reasons for which some of PiS want a full pornography ban in Poland. In case you're wondering, here's the scene which we're talking about (the actual kissing happens late in the clip and sorry for the lack of subtitles but didn't find a clip with them):
It's not even as if there's no kissing in commercial Indian cinema, so it's hard to say why this particular kiss was so controversial. In the end, the kiss was cut.
But even a Western perspective of what's ok and what's not may sound just as ridiculous at times. Having been rambling about Equus on this blog I'm going to link to a Guardian article which uses Equus as a starting point to write about the history of nudity in British theatre. Apparently 40 years ago only female nudes were ok in the theatre and only if they didn't move. If they moved they were automatically considered obscene.
Not that people in the West don't have (what I would call) weird ideas about nudity even now. If you check out some discussions about Equus on-line, a lot of people (many of whom seem to be American) think that Daniel Radcliffe appearing nude on stage is enough to constitute child pornography because he's not yet 18 (he will be in about 6 months by the way). In accordance with US laws this might actually be true, I'm not sure, but I still feel it's a bit weird...
Of course so far I've been writing about stuff which nowadays only a small minority of people in the West would call obscene or pornographic (if at all that is - I'd be shocked if someone considerd the Hrithik-Ash kiss as such!). When we think pornography we generally think about stuff which is more explicit - usually photos or films which show people really having sex rather than just pretending. But there are films which would confuse us even there because they show *real* intercourse and yet they probably wouldn't be of interest to someone who is looking for pornography. One such film is definitely Lars von Trier's The Idiots (imdb page, trailer on youtube), another (although I haven't actually seen it) is Michael Winterbottom's 9 songs (imdb page, trailer on youtube). Both of these were shown at art cinema festivals and entered normal distribution in many countries.
And it's not just with films. If you ever check out some sites which specialize in fetish photography you'll find that most of the photographs are very artistic (sometimes - especially when we're talking about the violent stuff - very unsettling, but still artistic). I'm not sure what it is specifically about the fetish community but they really take photos which are way more than something that's just supposed to turn people on (in fact I've not seen many fetish pics which show people "in the act"). And yet when people hear "fetish" we usually think "obscene". Check out Incubus Choice if you want to see some stuff (though I am warning you - if you click on the link you are straying into territory that maaaany would consider porn, not that I think that should scare you but I'm saying it all the same).
Ok, so I've gotten from kissing scenes to real intercourse and photography portraying naked people tied up. Surely there should be a limit somewhere, right?
Lets look at the law then - I found this article very interesting and useful for this. Law is obviously different in different countries. But what I think is true pretty much everywhere is that it is illegal to supply pornography to people below a certain age (usually 18 or 16 though in Poland surprisingly enough it's 15 at the moment - however most Polish shops dealing with any sort of porn would not sell it to anyone below 18). It is also illegal to force the viewing of pornography on anyone (hey, I warned you about that Incubus site so I've done nothing illegal! ;-P ). The other legislations differ. Usually depicting bestiality is illegal (though I don't think that is true in the Netherlands - I think it is ok there as long as the animal is not harmed in any way). And of course there's child pornography which also has different restrictions and definitions in different countries. Mostly nobody below the age of 18 should be depicted although sometimes it is 16. Shockingly enough until 1999 Japan was extremely liberal about child pornography:
Prior to 1999, the only Japanese statute prohibiting actual child pornography was very limited in its reach, applying only to children under 13 who filed complaints within six months of an incident. A general criminal obscenity law protected minors over 13, but it also specified that the material must depict sexual organs to be considered illegal. Consequently, pornographic materials in Japan often resorted to showing other sexually oriented depictions of children, including abuse or torture, to avoid running afoul of the law.
Most countries also have laws against possession of child pornography (reading through the imdb boards, I'm not sure if this is true but apparently in the US anybody with nude pics of Daniel Radcliffe from Equus on their computer could theoretically be arrested for child pornography - not that there are many non-photoshoped pics of him floating around but I think even those are not legal under US law).
Many countries have laws which seperate child pornography into "virtual" and "actual" penalizing the virtual kind just as much. Virtual pornography is defined as depictions in which adult models are made up to look like children, and artistic or computer simulations of children involved in sexual activity. Now while I can see the logic of this I at the same time can't help but wonder if some of the stuff I've read or seen wouldn't be considered child pornography of the virtual kind. I mean particularly when I think about Harry Potter fan fiction and fan art... there's a lot of teacher-student relationships portrayed in those. To give you some examples, here's fan art showing Snape with Draco, Snape with Harry and another of Snape and Harry. I can see how for some people this might be considered totally sick, but is it harmful?
There have been (more about this in the long article I linked to) attempts at trying to find a link between watching porn and comitting sexual offences, but generally it seems the results depended on who tried to find this out (conservatives found a correlation and liberals did not).
I think I've finally come to the end of this post, but I don't really have a conclusion... I do believe people should be left with a choice as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but when it comes to "mental harm" it's very difficult to establish what is harmful and what is not (other than making somebody watch porn when they don't want to). Obviously if pornography causes sexual offences then something should be done about it (though I'm not sure a total ban would work), but we don't even know if it does (I've even heard claims that it actually makes the amount of sexual offences drop! but unfortunately don't have a link for this). Also I think even describing what pornography is is problematic. I'm not saying that any sort of porn is ok. There is definitely a lot of things happening in the porn industry which are not right - there are many reports of children and women being forced into starring in porn films (and in the case of children even if they did this willingly there would be reasons to say this is wrong).
On a final note, I think it's interesting that porn is apparently a huge economy booster and a pioneer in technology. The BBC article even says that the switch from Beta to VHS happened because of the porn industry.
No definition of what constitutes pornography is given in this proposal, which sort of brings me to what I want to discuss (other than how stupid our current government is I mean ;-P). I've always felt that the limit of what's ok and what's not ok as far as sexual content goes is a fascinating discussion topic. Of course it's largely about taste and I don't think I'm going to come up with any reasonable conclusions, but if you have any thoughts I'd love to hear them :)
Not so long ago in India, there was a legal complaint against the kissing scene between Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai in Dhoom 2 (imdb page, trailer on youtube). A quote from IndiaGlitz reads:
According to the complainant, the women felt offended after watching the scene and it promoted vulgarity in society, especially among the youth.
Now for anyone who read the Polish articles on the pornography ban you might have noticed that those are almost the exact reasons for which some of PiS want a full pornography ban in Poland. In case you're wondering, here's the scene which we're talking about (the actual kissing happens late in the clip and sorry for the lack of subtitles but didn't find a clip with them):
It's not even as if there's no kissing in commercial Indian cinema, so it's hard to say why this particular kiss was so controversial. In the end, the kiss was cut.
But even a Western perspective of what's ok and what's not may sound just as ridiculous at times. Having been rambling about Equus on this blog I'm going to link to a Guardian article which uses Equus as a starting point to write about the history of nudity in British theatre. Apparently 40 years ago only female nudes were ok in the theatre and only if they didn't move. If they moved they were automatically considered obscene.
Not that people in the West don't have (what I would call) weird ideas about nudity even now. If you check out some discussions about Equus on-line, a lot of people (many of whom seem to be American) think that Daniel Radcliffe appearing nude on stage is enough to constitute child pornography because he's not yet 18 (he will be in about 6 months by the way). In accordance with US laws this might actually be true, I'm not sure, but I still feel it's a bit weird...
Of course so far I've been writing about stuff which nowadays only a small minority of people in the West would call obscene or pornographic (if at all that is - I'd be shocked if someone considerd the Hrithik-Ash kiss as such!). When we think pornography we generally think about stuff which is more explicit - usually photos or films which show people really having sex rather than just pretending. But there are films which would confuse us even there because they show *real* intercourse and yet they probably wouldn't be of interest to someone who is looking for pornography. One such film is definitely Lars von Trier's The Idiots (imdb page, trailer on youtube), another (although I haven't actually seen it) is Michael Winterbottom's 9 songs (imdb page, trailer on youtube). Both of these were shown at art cinema festivals and entered normal distribution in many countries.
And it's not just with films. If you ever check out some sites which specialize in fetish photography you'll find that most of the photographs are very artistic (sometimes - especially when we're talking about the violent stuff - very unsettling, but still artistic). I'm not sure what it is specifically about the fetish community but they really take photos which are way more than something that's just supposed to turn people on (in fact I've not seen many fetish pics which show people "in the act"). And yet when people hear "fetish" we usually think "obscene". Check out Incubus Choice if you want to see some stuff (though I am warning you - if you click on the link you are straying into territory that maaaany would consider porn, not that I think that should scare you but I'm saying it all the same).
Ok, so I've gotten from kissing scenes to real intercourse and photography portraying naked people tied up. Surely there should be a limit somewhere, right?
Lets look at the law then - I found this article very interesting and useful for this. Law is obviously different in different countries. But what I think is true pretty much everywhere is that it is illegal to supply pornography to people below a certain age (usually 18 or 16 though in Poland surprisingly enough it's 15 at the moment - however most Polish shops dealing with any sort of porn would not sell it to anyone below 18). It is also illegal to force the viewing of pornography on anyone (hey, I warned you about that Incubus site so I've done nothing illegal! ;-P ). The other legislations differ. Usually depicting bestiality is illegal (though I don't think that is true in the Netherlands - I think it is ok there as long as the animal is not harmed in any way). And of course there's child pornography which also has different restrictions and definitions in different countries. Mostly nobody below the age of 18 should be depicted although sometimes it is 16. Shockingly enough until 1999 Japan was extremely liberal about child pornography:
Prior to 1999, the only Japanese statute prohibiting actual child pornography was very limited in its reach, applying only to children under 13 who filed complaints within six months of an incident. A general criminal obscenity law protected minors over 13, but it also specified that the material must depict sexual organs to be considered illegal. Consequently, pornographic materials in Japan often resorted to showing other sexually oriented depictions of children, including abuse or torture, to avoid running afoul of the law.
Most countries also have laws against possession of child pornography (reading through the imdb boards, I'm not sure if this is true but apparently in the US anybody with nude pics of Daniel Radcliffe from Equus on their computer could theoretically be arrested for child pornography - not that there are many non-photoshoped pics of him floating around but I think even those are not legal under US law).
Many countries have laws which seperate child pornography into "virtual" and "actual" penalizing the virtual kind just as much. Virtual pornography is defined as depictions in which adult models are made up to look like children, and artistic or computer simulations of children involved in sexual activity. Now while I can see the logic of this I at the same time can't help but wonder if some of the stuff I've read or seen wouldn't be considered child pornography of the virtual kind. I mean particularly when I think about Harry Potter fan fiction and fan art... there's a lot of teacher-student relationships portrayed in those. To give you some examples, here's fan art showing Snape with Draco, Snape with Harry and another of Snape and Harry. I can see how for some people this might be considered totally sick, but is it harmful?
There have been (more about this in the long article I linked to) attempts at trying to find a link between watching porn and comitting sexual offences, but generally it seems the results depended on who tried to find this out (conservatives found a correlation and liberals did not).
I think I've finally come to the end of this post, but I don't really have a conclusion... I do believe people should be left with a choice as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but when it comes to "mental harm" it's very difficult to establish what is harmful and what is not (other than making somebody watch porn when they don't want to). Obviously if pornography causes sexual offences then something should be done about it (though I'm not sure a total ban would work), but we don't even know if it does (I've even heard claims that it actually makes the amount of sexual offences drop! but unfortunately don't have a link for this). Also I think even describing what pornography is is problematic. I'm not saying that any sort of porn is ok. There is definitely a lot of things happening in the porn industry which are not right - there are many reports of children and women being forced into starring in porn films (and in the case of children even if they did this willingly there would be reasons to say this is wrong).
On a final note, I think it's interesting that porn is apparently a huge economy booster and a pioneer in technology. The BBC article even says that the switch from Beta to VHS happened because of the porn industry.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
"300" controversy
Little did I know when I posted this that 300 would fall into political controversy...
Iranians are unhappy with how their history has been portrayed, saying that the film tells total lies (including changing the outcome of many battles). While I tend to believe them, I'm rather surprised that this is causing such an uproar... I mean everyone should know films like this are nonsense...
Iranians are unhappy with how their history has been portrayed, saying that the film tells total lies (including changing the outcome of many battles). While I tend to believe them, I'm rather surprised that this is causing such an uproar... I mean everyone should know films like this are nonsense...
Friday, March 16, 2007
Ricky Gervais' "Extras"
My cousin Matt tried to introduce me to The Office when he was here last year, but unfortunately (as with a lot of our film tastes) it did not go down well with me at all ;) I think it still hasn't been shown on Polish TV (though I could easilly be wrong seeing as I don't watch any TV really). The series was a huge success in the UK and was later remade for the US market. I clearly did not understand the humour of it, as demonstrated by the following clip (which is apparently a cult scene from the series) during which I did not laugh even once (something my cousin thought wasn't physically possible):
Please let me know if I'm not the only one who doesn't feel this humour - you'll make me feel better ;)
To be fair, I do believe it's a great idea for a series. I think my problem is that there's something about Ricky Gervais (the creator/writer and star of the series - seen on that clip dancing) that I just don't like.
Anyway that was off-topic ;-P My point is that in spite of not liking Ricky Gervais, his next series - Extras is going down very well with me (or at least many of the clips I've seen of it on youtube are). A major part of the series is celebrities doing guest appearances and totally destroying their images, which I guess is something that has always amused me. I love when actors do stuff against their images *grin*
Since the point of telling you all this information about my (lack of) sense of humour was to show you my favourite clips from Extras, you'll find them below (everything not related to the star in question is edited out in them, but they're perfectly easy to follow).
Anyway, here's Orlando Bloom doing an appearance. I've always thought he must be a rather boring guy with no sense of humour (that's how he comes across to me in the interviews I've seen), but clearly he can't be that bad ;)
And here's Daniel Radcliffe making an appearance. At the time he did this there were people who were surprised "that Harry Potter would do such a thing", but I guess after Equus it's rather tame ;)
Here's a totally hilarious one (I was laughing so hard I could barely breath), Sir Ian McKellan making an appearance:
And last but definitely not least - Patrick Stewart (this is from the first series, the other three are from the second series of Extras I think):
Please let me know if I'm not the only one who doesn't feel this humour - you'll make me feel better ;)
To be fair, I do believe it's a great idea for a series. I think my problem is that there's something about Ricky Gervais (the creator/writer and star of the series - seen on that clip dancing) that I just don't like.
Anyway that was off-topic ;-P My point is that in spite of not liking Ricky Gervais, his next series - Extras is going down very well with me (or at least many of the clips I've seen of it on youtube are). A major part of the series is celebrities doing guest appearances and totally destroying their images, which I guess is something that has always amused me. I love when actors do stuff against their images *grin*
Since the point of telling you all this information about my (lack of) sense of humour was to show you my favourite clips from Extras, you'll find them below (everything not related to the star in question is edited out in them, but they're perfectly easy to follow).
Anyway, here's Orlando Bloom doing an appearance. I've always thought he must be a rather boring guy with no sense of humour (that's how he comes across to me in the interviews I've seen), but clearly he can't be that bad ;)
And here's Daniel Radcliffe making an appearance. At the time he did this there were people who were surprised "that Harry Potter would do such a thing", but I guess after Equus it's rather tame ;)
Here's a totally hilarious one (I was laughing so hard I could barely breath), Sir Ian McKellan making an appearance:
And last but definitely not least - Patrick Stewart (this is from the first series, the other three are from the second series of Extras I think):
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
