Alexandra Furssedonn Howard discusses Jonas Åkerlund's upcoming film Lords of Chaos, and her hopes for the stereotypes around Black metal to be dropped.
Regardless of how surreal these often dystopian one-offs may seem, they have had a profound effect on audiences from around the world due to the disturbing truths that they hold.
Tarantino as A Post Modern Auteur (Pulp Fiction, 1994, Kill Bill Vol.1 2003)
Quentin Tarantino is considered to be one of modern cinema's finest creators. From directing, writing, and being the cinematographer on his films – to even starring in them – he is an example of a filmmaker who has truly learnt from the Hollywood star systems of the past, and used it to his advantage. It is his references to the past within the modern world that has gained him the title of 'postmodernist auteur', and that is what this essay will be discussing. Just what is it that makes Tarantino's works postmodernist? And what then makes him an auteur? To discover this, I will be looking for his marks of authorship within Pulp Fiction (1994), and Kill Bill Vol.1 (2003), and considering how they could be considered postmodern.
In order to understand Tarantino's works with a scholarly view (rather than that of a regular cinema goer), it is important to grasp the concept of postmodernism. Jameson describes it as “The consumption of sheer commodification as a process” (1991 : p. X) - meaning an acceptance of things being done for the purpose of monetary and capitalist gain. Postmodernism rejects the notion of “high art”, something that 'La Politique Des Auteurs' is often critiqued for holding in high esteem (therefore creating a hierarchy within art) – so can a postmodern auteur even exist? It's a theory, which linguistically, means “after modernism”, meaning it carries a form of self awareness that early capitalism did not contain. This is where Tarantino's strengths lie – in creating a parody of reality, which is in fact, truth. The excessive violence, drug use, casual racism, and bricolage of the past may seem to create a setting which is unreal, but is in fact a highly accurate commentary of the modern world.
The most notable mark of authorship within Tarantino's work is the use of excessive, graphic, comic book style violence. Brooker and Brooker (1997: p.91) argue that the “amoral, superficial, and self referential portrayal of violence” is also a key feature of postmodernism and its aesthetic. Pulp Fiction (1994) is the best example of this insular violence which seemingly carries no reasoning. The first section of the film (the film is split into four non chronological sections – with discontinuity being key to postmodernism) follows gang enforcers – Vincent Vega (played by John Travolta), and Jules Winnfield go to an apartment to retrieve a briefcase which appears to contain something impressive (Tarantino has never revealed what is inside), and in the process, kill three people inside the apartment, and take another hostage. This is all shown in full gory detail, with the audience feeling uncertain as to why any of it is really going on. The third segment of the film is based around a boxer named Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), who runs away from a boxing match which has a lot of money resting on it – and it is unknown to the audience as to why he does this. The series of events escalates until what is arguably the most shocking point in the film, when Coolidge, and gangster boss Marsellus Wallace , are taken hostage in a homosexual BDSM dungeon, where Wallace is anally raped. The audience are left to wonder how the characters have got into a situation this removed from the main plot, and what it's real relevance is. The truth is, it has no relevance – which is one of the tenets of postmodernism. Tarantino created this sequence in an effort to cause outrage and controversy, to create something vulgar and offensive in order to reject the idea of high art. For all the amoral violence within Pulp Fiction, we have the revenge tale of Kill Bill Vol.1 (2003)– the story of 'The Bride' (Uma Thurman), who after waking from a coma, decides to find, and kill, her former team who tried to kill her (and to her knowledge, caused her to miscarry). This violence too, is gratuitous, in one scene we see The Bride fight a group of assassins called 'The Crazy 88'- a scene that had to ben edited into black and white to navigate American censorship laws, however there is reasoning behind the bloodshed. What makes the violence in Kill Bill Vol.1 an example of postmodernism is that it shocks by rejecting genre conventions and gender representations – it is rare that you see a woman commit horrendous acts within film.
Tarantino's use of gender and sexuality within his film could also be considered highly postmodernist, as they reflect what is seen in modern media and pop and pulp culture. The character of Mia Wallace in Pulp Fiction is an example of a highly sexed, almost feminist trope seen in modern film. We are introduced to her through a story about a man who gave her a foot massage, despite the fact she is a married woman (an act that is debated between Vincent and Jules as to being highly sexual). When the audience finally see's Mia, she is spying on Vincent through CCTV camera's she has installed in her home, in an act of almost Hitchcockian voyeurism. Throughout the film, she exudes an almost childish and juvenile sexuality – something that is disturbingly favoured in modern pop culture. Thurman also plays The Bride in the Kill Bill films, a character who switches between fighter, lover, and mother simultaneously. The women she fights seem to represent these parts of her personality, O-Ren Ishii being the fighter, Elle Driver being the lover, and Vernita Green being the Mother. This is an example of a developed character fighting comic book style, 2D, dehumanised villains – which is an exemplary mark of postmodern characterisation by Tarantino.
Race is a hugely talked about subject within critique's of Tarantino's work. To consider it from a postmodernist perspective, you have to consider the anxieties that come with globalisation, a mark of capitalism. The most obvious mark of this is in Kill Bill Vol.1, when O-Ren Ishii takes over a Japanese crime syndicate, only to be met with uncertainty due to her mixed heritage (“making a Chinese Jap-American half-breed bitch its leader”). She responds swiftly by beheading the adversary, which is symbolic of a capitalist regimes response to those who do not approve. Pulp Fiction removes itself from modern politics, James Wood for example suggest “[Tarantino's films] represent the final triumph of postmodernism...artworks so entirely vacuous, so entirely stripped of any politics, metaphysics or moral interest” (1994). So much so it means that derogatory terms like “Nigger” bear no weight within a make believe society where there is no right or wrong.
The easiest way to decipher post modernism in any format is to look for references to the past. Tarantino, as a former video store worker, loves nothing more than to pay homage to films that have inspired him. Kill Bill Vol.1 is heavily influenced by Japanese culture. From the anime flashback of O-Ren's origin story, to the snowy dojo garden in which The Bride and her fight – which is taken aesthetically from the 1973 Fujita film, Lady Snowblood. Even the iconic yellow catsuit that Uma Thurman wears in the film is a reference to the one which Bruce Lee wore in Game of Death (1972). Pulp Fiction, even named after books which would tell lewd stories such as the films narrative, is a clear expansion of the gangster and film noir genre – and we only need one example to prove this, Mia Wallace, the ultimate Femme Fatale. Tarantino takes stock characters from the gangster and kung fu genres, and puts them into his imagined modern world, where there are no rules to confine them. The bright colour palettes used in his films are also a reference to 1950's technicolour, which was a revolution for filmgoers and the development of a cinema culture. Groth theorises “Tarantino's characters - and Tarantino himself – inhabit a world where the entire landscape is composed of Hollywood product”, and it is this obvious bricolage of the past which gains Tarantino his status as a postmodern auteur, above all else. It is his homage to the past, which allows him to express the present.
So, to conclude, Quentin Tarantino can be considered a postmodernist auteur. Through the blurring of genre, references to the past, and rejection of what is culturally “acceptable”, he has made his way to the top of many critics lists of top directors. I believe that Tarantino's works strive to test the viewer to be shocked, he wants to see where the limits of an audience who are constantly bombarded by violence, sex, and drugs lie. Going back to the phrase “post modern”, meaning after modernity – where does the horror lie for a society who has access to, and has seen, everything?
Bibliography
Jameson, F. 1991. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham : Duke University Press.
Brooker, P. , Brooker, W. 1997 . Pulpmodernism: Tarantino's Affirmative Action, Postmodern After- Images. London : Arnold.
Bealer, T. L. 2008. Quentin Tarantino's Destabilization of Gendered Identity in Kill Bill, Presentations of the 29th Annual SW/Texas Regional Meeting of the Popular Culture and American Culture Association: Gender. p.177. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing
Nama, A. 2015. Race on the QT: Blackness and the Films of Quentin Tarantino. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Wood, J. 1994. Pulp Fiction .The Guardian November 12th 1994.
O'Callaghan, P. 2016. 10 Great Films That Influenced Quentin Tarantino. [Online] Availiable at : <http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/lists/10-great-films-influenced-quentin-tarantino?utm_content=bufferc3dbf&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebookbfi&utm_campaign=buffer> [Accessed 7 January 2016]
Groth, G. 1995 . A Dream of Perfect Reception – The Movies of Quentin Tarantino. The Baffler No. 8.
Based on Frank Millers graphic novel of the same name, Zack Synder's 2006 action film 300 depicts the ancient battle of Thermopylae – in which 300 Spartans fought against an army of Persians reaching numbers of 170,000 soldiers. Upon the films release, there was much criticism towards depictions of race in the narrative, with some critics such as Slates Dana Stevens declaring the film “as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war”. Along with race, the underlying themes of sexuality and homoeroticism have lead critics and viewers alike to question the motivations behind the characterisation of 300's heroes and villains.
It can be said that all stories can be simplified into one basic premise – Good vs Evil. But it is what those traits are represented by which makes the stories engaging to an audience. The creators of 300 decided to forgo historical accuracy in order to entertain their audiences. The Spartans, our heroes of the film, are suitably Aryan in their colouring, despite being a collection of men from Greece. If we then compare this casting to the casting of the Persian leader Xerxes, there is a clear racist undertone to these choices. Portraying one of the few persons of colour in 300 as the villain is enforcing racial stereotypes of white = good, black = bad. However it should be noted that the casting is true to character depictions in the original graphic novel, so the dichotomies surrounding the characters are not solely the responsibility of director Zack Synder.
Physicality of characters also plays a role in the representations of good and evil in 300. The Spartans are rarely seen fully clothed, with their archetypal masculine bodies on show to further drive the idea of their supreme masculinity. Some may argue that the casting of classically attractive and muscular actors was for the “benefit” of female viewers, but I would like to argue that it makes the point of Western perfection and ideals equalling power. The reverse of this argument can be seen in the many disabled and disfigured members of the Persian army, with a major plot point being their acceptance of a deformed man who was rejected by the Spartans in an example of the films ableism. Xerxes, despite his height, is coded to be read as feminine, or even agender. From his lavish gold chains, facial piercings, to his slim build and glittering makeup – Xerxes is somewhat of a visual extrovert in comparison to the rough and rugged men of Sparta, who need little more than their sword and shield to see them through a battle. Together with race, the physicality of the protagonist and antagonist are the clearest examples of the films ideology stating that adhering to Western ideals – being Aryan and typically masculine are what makes a hero, rather than being dark skinned, disabled, and flamboyant – all traits which are demonised by their connection to the films villain.
Another point brought up by many critics was the homoeroticism within the homosocial dynamic of the Spartan warriors. Despite their muscular and masculine physiques, their bare thighs and groin areas are open for all to see, including each other. Accusations of homosexuality are deflected by parts of dialogue in the film - a specific example is when a rival group of men are called “boy lovers”, which gives viewers an insight to the Spartan thoughts on homosexuality (that it is negative and something to be joked about). The heterosexuality of the Spartans, and in particular our protagonist King Leonidas, is confirmed early on in the film, with a short but illustrative sex scene between himself and his wife Queen Gorgo. The scene itself can only be described as “vanilla”, a classic man-on-top expression of marital love and lust.
Lisa Purse suggests the film is guilty of “supplying a villain onto whom the homosexuality latent in homoeroticism can be projected”(p.141, 2011) , thus representing homosexuality negatively and again rejecting the associations between queerness and the Spartan army. This concept of homosexuality being a negative and villainous trait is enforced by a scene of a harem led by Xerxes later on in the film. In direct contrast with the earlier scene of Leonidas and his wife, this scene depicts mainly gay women – many with physical disabilities – engaging in sexual activity. In modern Hollywood cinema, depictions of lesbianism are often fetishised as a result of the male gaze, but the addition of disfigurements (which notionally make the women in question less attractive) cause the viewer to be offended and feel negatively towards Xerxes and the Persians for denying them a moment of arousal.
Comolli and Narboni suggest that film, as a material product of the system, is also an ideological product of the system. This means that every film is political as it's choices (such as representation) are determined by the ideology it is produced within. Applying this concept to 300 brings us back to the quote from Stevens, who called the film “race baiting” and an “incitement to total war”. Depicting people of colour, such as Xerxes, in a negative fashion in comparison to their “perfect” white opponents creates friction between two demographics and reinforces existing stereotypes and disharmony between the them. This film adheres to a dominant Western ideology of the strong white male having the power over a weaker person of colour.
300 was released in 2006, at a time when the Iraq war was at its most brutal, with dozens of American soldiers dying every month. Looking at this film from the perspective of it being propaganda, it again plays to the Western ideology of the white man (the Spartans being symbolic of American soldiers) being strong and masculine fighting machines. However some may argue that that would not be the case, as in the end the Persians win. Yet, I believe the ending of the film, with King Leonidas dead surrounded by his comrades, suggests a form of martyrdom – these soldiers will die for their cause – their homeland.
Snyder argues that “300 is a movie that is made from the Spartans perspective”, allowing for some form of justification of the racism, ableism and homophobia present throughout the film. Considering the film under Douglas Pye's 'Five Axes of Point of View' which are – spatial, temporal, cognitive, evaluative, and ideological – we can come to terms with some of the representations. Although the camera is generally independent , we do follow the actions of King Leonidas as he prepares for battle, and the struggles of his wife Gorgo back in Sparta. The representations are so in the film as they are being told by a Spartan storyteller, a narrator (thus giving us the ideological and cognitive axes)– and as with all myths, the heroes are made extravagantly heroic, and the villains made to seem evil to an extreme. The way stories are told are to get the best reaction from the audience, be it fear or admiration, and despite Synder's efforts to reject the criticisms he faced – he is still the real storyteller, and we are the real audience, all under the same cultural ideology.
300 is a film that was designed for reactions, and it would be ignorant to consider otherwise. However I believe 300 reinforces negative reactions towards each other, particularly in the face of differences like race, sexuality, and disability. Some may argue that mass media does not have the power to influence the public's behaviour to that degree, but when living within an ideological bubble where those views are supported there is a strong breeding ground for hate. Whilst film and its creators have the responsibility of entertainment, there should also be a responsibility for teaching tolerance.
Bibliography
Stevens, D. (2007) A Movie Only A Spartan Could Love. Slate [Online] Available at : <http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2007/03/a_movie_only_a_spartan_could_love.html> [Accessed 14th May 2016].
Purse, L. (2011). Homosexuality in the Action Film – Contemporary Action Cinema. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press .
Comolli, J. , Narboni, J. (1971) Cinema, Ideology, Criticism. Translated by Susan Bennett. Screen 12 (1) p.27 – 36.
Newgen, H. (2007) 300 Director Zack Synder. Superhero Hype [Online] Available at : http://www.superherohype.com/features/92981-300-director-zack-snyder [Accessed 14th May 2016].
Zbrowski, J. (2015) Classical Hollywood Cinema: Point of View and Communication. Oxford : Oxford University Press. p.49
Thumim, J. , Kirkman, P. (1993) You Tarzan. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Screen (1992) The Sexual Subject : A Screen Reader in Sexuality. London: Routledge.
How might Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, Soviet Union, 1974), a formally adventurous ‘art film’, be at odds with 1970s Soviet ideology?
Mirror (1974) is a film that is constantly discussed amongst cinephiles for many reasons, be it it's visual beauty, symbolism, or it's “true meaning”. Referring to Tarkovsky's childhood, the film explores themes of faith, war, family, and time – and it was these, along with the methods the director chose to express them, that drew criticism from the upper echelons of Soviet society. To be at odds with Soviet ideology was to be at odds with the people of the Soviet Union, and when working within a Socialist regime, that was deemed to be a problem.
In 1974, the year of Mirror's release, the Soviet Union was under the rule of Brezhnev, a leader who was primarily concerned with the economy, and “stabilising” Soviet society. At the dawn of cinema, the potential for the medium of film was celebrated, with Lenin stating that “Of all the arts, cinema is the most important”, and signing a decree to nationalise cinema. Due to the high illiteracy rate during this period, film was regarded the most useful tool for providing easily digestible propaganda to the Soviet people. Stalin also understood this, and made it cultural policy for all arts to fall into the genre of “Soviet Socialist Realism”. That is, realist cinema in which Soviet ideals are adhered to, and the proletariat is seen to have power and to work as one for the benefit of the Nation. After the repressive and violent regime of Stalin, the arts became liberalised under the reforms of Khrushchev, allowing for new creative freedom without fear of persecution. However when Brezhnev came in to power many of these new freedoms were taken away, with an example being made of writers Yuli Daniel and Andrei Sinyavsky, who were put on a public trial after being accused of “anti Soviet activity” (I.e not Soviet Socialist Realism) within their works. The kinds of works that were in favour at the first spark of Soviet Cinema, such as that of Eisenstein, Vertov, and Kuleshov were not only frowned upon, but could have led the directors to be sentenced to years of hard labour.
Within this fluctuating regime of liberalisation and conservatism was Andrei Tarkovsky. Celebrated internationally yet never fully accepted within the Soviet Union, his works are now deemed “art films” for their rejection of traditional realist conventions. Mirror is Tarkovsky's most formally and thematically adventurous film, and could rival modern art films in terms of complexity and depth. Notably, the films non linear narrative is the main characteristic for its labelling of being art. The film switches between three time periods of a mans life, his childhood, his adolescence, and his adulthood – yet it does not do this chronologically as realist cinema would. Amongst this non chronological sequencing is a loose narrative – yet it can be argued that nothing really happens (in a traditional sense) when compared to a classic plot which has a beginning, middle, and end. As the title suggests, the film acts as a mirror, not only for the protagonist, but for the viewers also. There is a sense of realism in the fact that events worthy of a Hollywood film do not happen in a normal persons life, but it does in the world around them. The scenes from the varying points in time are contextualised with newsreel footage, to not only reflect on Alexei (the protagonist) and Tarkovsky's past, but to look at the history of the Soviet Union itself.
The film is also considered to be artistic due to its use of symbolism – despite Tarkovsky's rejection of the idea “Symbolism is a sign of decadence”. Casting the same actress as both Mother and Wife is not only Freudian, but can be seen to make a comment on the cyclical nature of life and relationships. There are also many dream sequences within the film which include the Mother (Maria) – one where she is washing her hair in a room which has water flowing down the walls. Another scene shows her levitating from her bed, and the final scene is a pregnant Maria intercut with shots of her as an older woman. It is unclear what these sequences mean within the plot, if they do have meaning or if they are simply dreams that Alexei has had. There are also surreal moments within the narrative, for example when a mysterious woman appears in Alexei's home, and asks his son Ignat to read a letter by Pushkin. Following this, there is a scene of a young Alexei receiving rifle training, in which a dummy grenade is thrown. The rifle teacher sacrifices himself, or so he thinks – this is when the viewers are allowed to notice a growth on his head. Almost Lynchian in its body horror aesthetic, this growth pulsates and remains the focus until the end of the scene.
It is these accusations of Mirror being an art film that led to its rejection by the Goskino. They accused it of being elitist due to its complex structure. Fellow director Grigori Chukhrai suggested that “Cinema art is an art of the masses...and if the artist has something to say, he doesn't put his thoughts into code, he says what he thinks.” (p. 70, 1987) Soviet film was meant to be by the people, for the people – and simple enough that the least educated person in the Union should have their morals reinforced. It was for this reason that the film was only granted a category 3 release, which only allowed a limited release, and no returns on profits.
The religious content of the film is directly at odds with Soviet ideology – it being one of the first states to aim for the elimination of religion. It was believed, inspired by Marx, that religion was a tool for the “stupefaction of the working class”. Tarkovsky's previous film, Andrei Rublev was forced to have major cuts in order to be shown, due to this reason also. A poster for this film is shown briefly in a scene in Mirror, possibly another reflection on the directors part. Leonardo Di Vinci's art is also prominent throughout, which contains frequent references to religion. The film is bookended with two parts that suggest that Mirror is a film about the presence of hope and faith in the most repressed of times. A pre credits scene shows a young man with a stammer, who with the help of hypnosis, is able to speak again – he now has hope. The final scene is accompanied by “Johannes-Passion” by Bach (who is heavily featured on the films soundtrack), the music's words state “Lord, our Sovereign, whose glory in every land is magnificent!”. This means that God, or hope, is everywhere.
The film, it being a mirror that is held up to the Soviet Union, is negative in it's representation of the State. It depicts the proletariat as being poor and unsatisfied. In a scene where Maria tries to have a shower at work, the shower does not function properly, making a comment about how Soviet society itself does not work. Le Fanu argues “The film is replete with the possibility that the present is enchained to the past : modelled on it but somehow also cursed by it, leading to a history of forlorn, nervous, and unsatisfied lives”(p 70, 1987). Releasing a film which stirred these emotions during the “Era of Stagnation” was highly problematic for those in power, had the film been shown to the masses, a reform could have been in order.
Visually, structurally, and thematically – Mirror is a film which goes against the years of Stalinist propaganda that preceded it. It says, the Soviet Union is not happy, it's needs some form of hope in a time of poverty, war, and separation. It says “we are not one, we are individuals”.
Bibliography
Bálint Kovács, A.(2007)Screening Modernism: European Art Cinema,1950-1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Le Fanu,M. (1987)The Cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky. London: BFI.
Tarkovsky,A. (1994) Time Within Time: The Diaries, 1970-1986 . London: Faber.
Taylor, R. and Christie, I. (eds.)(1994)The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents, 1896-1939. London: BFI.
Lawton, A. (2003) The Red Screen: Politics, Society, Art in Soviet Cinema. London: Routledge.
Within the fetish community, the ability to be anonymous holds an importance for some, and artist Pandemonia Panacea makes that a key part of their masterpiece.
A walking art piece, their creation comments on society, consumer culture, and the beauty of being “female”. It is unknown who Pandemonia really is, but when you're a 7ft tall, latex clad, pop culture caricature, who cares?
A modern reference to Warholian style pop art, Pandemonia Panacea is an experiment in creating an instant celebrity, based around the feminine ideals of supermodels, singers, and actresses. With over 15K followers on Instagram, and constant invites and attention at fashion events – clearly we are all intrigued.
Pandemonia's style can be connected to the fetish act of being a Rubber Doll – encasing yourself in a female guise to become your alter ego. Many lovers of Rubber Doll-ing say that they try to become the unattainable woman, and find pleasure in seeing themselves as someone beautiful. Regardless of the motivation – be it sexuality or artistic merit – it is the creation of the perfect female that ties Pandemonia and the Rubber Doll community together.
Always armed with a puncture repair kit in case of a hair deflation situation, Pandemonia has been featured in the Sunday Times, Vanity Fair, Vogue, and even more. Sporting latex fashion from head to toe its easy to see why the fashion industry is fascinated with this plastic fantastic artist.
Pandemonia takes their name from 'Pandemonium', meaning chaos – but we think they look pretty darn perfect.
Meet the Man Who is Becoming the Worlds First Sex Robot
Now, everyone would like to have superhuman lovemaking abilities, but Rich Lee is putting the plans in place to become one of the worlds first “biohacked” sex machines.
Lee is part of a futuristic subculture called Transhumanists, or H+ as it is occasionally known, who experiment with enhancing the human body with technology. This may seem like something that would not be out of place in Sci Fi films like Blade Runner, or Robocop, but biohacking is very real and getting more extreme by the day.
Rich Lee explained that his fascination with embracing biotechnology came after the death of his Grandma. He imagined that if it had been the future, there could have been a miraculous device to save her. Inspired, Lee worked day and night to design implants that would improve the experiences of human life.
His first foray into becoming bionic was in 2013, when he implanted magnets into his ears, which connected to a copper coil around his neck. This now allows him to hear frequencies beyond that of normal hearing - think of them as internal sonic headphones.
Lee's next project, which he dubs 'Lovetron 9000', will experiment with sexual modification. He plans to implant a tiny vibrator into his pubic fat, but of course this concept has not been without its problems. Along with considering the impact of vibrations in that sensitive bodily area, there is also the issue of finding a motor that delivers an intense feeling, but in a small size. However, despite the difficulties, Rich thinks he's got a design worthy of being implanted by August this year.
Naturally, the idea of improving your sexual performance through technology is an attractive one to many, and Lee says he gets constant emails from women who want their husbands to get similar implants, and the response is inspiring him to design a whole range of sexual biohacks. These include a feedback system that works on your partners pleasure signals, and rewards you for doing a good job. Using WiFi and Bluetooth, this system could also be used to reward you for completing daily tasks, such as doing the washing up or the hoovering.
Obviously, we at Honour think sex should be the best it can be, but are electronic implants a step too far? Its recently been revealed that internet connected vibrators can be hacked, so would you run the risk of allowing your body to be too? Read Rich Lee's full interview here, and tell us in the comments if you'd ever consider becoming a walking, talking, sex robot!
Based on the true story of gangster twins Ronnie and Reggie Kray, who took over London in the 1960's, Legend brought something a little different to your classic British crime thriller– the idea of weakness.
Legend is an exploration into the side we don't see in the hyper masculine Guy Ritchie films - the vulnerabilities and hardships of being a gangster. Something I found particularly interesting about the writing is how Ronnie Kray (played by Tom Hardy) made his homosexuality common knowledge, something that would have been taboo in the 1960's, when the film was set, and certainly within the genre of the British crime thriller. It was this characters openness which also provided much of the comic relief throughout the film, and it was always the audience laughing with Ronnie and his exploits, rather than at him.
The character of Reggie Kray (also played by Hardy) was a slightly less interesting affair, with the show being stolen by his twin, which if the film is even slightly true to life, I'm sure was the case. The story of Reggie was based around his relationships, with his brother, friends, and his wife Francis (Emily Browning). Whilst on the outside he appeared to be perfect – charming, tough, organised, the reality was that he spent so long wearing a mask that he forgot to look after the ones who could see behind it, leaving him lonely and destined for rock bottom. Francis, Reggie’s first wife, was played brilliantly by Browning as she captured the fragile and timid woman who clung to The Krays to escape a life she hated, and more importantly to be protected from the world that had hurt her in the past. This is the best piece of acting I have seen from her in recent years, with her track record for films being more than a little patchy.
Hardy's performance was interesting, and I (and many other viewers) greatly preferred his acting as Ronnie Kray, as it allowed for more expression and opportunities to tell a story. The differences in physicality between Hardy's two characters was outstanding (with a little help from prosthetics), Reggie - a healthy and dapper man, Ronnie – a pale, looming figure. If it had not been the reality in the 1960's, I could see Michael Caine having played this role in his heyday in much the same way.
Brian Helgeland, the writer and director of Legend, is incredibly familiar with the crime and thriller genres, explaining why there are so many conventions packed into 131 minutes. And its interesting to see his directorial choices move away from comedy (A Knights Tale ,2001) towards a need to tell true stories, his film before Legend being 42 (2013) , the story of Jackie Robinson – who broke the colour barrier within major league baseball. It will be interesting to see where Helgeland goes next, and whether he continues with his fondness for crime stories.
The production itself was clearly high budget, with the mise en scene being as accurate as possible, through props, costume, and set. The camera work was good, not outstanding, however I do have to commend the editors on seamlessly using split screen to make it look like both Krays were in certain shots. The sound production was clear, the mumbling of Ronnie only adding to the character's strangeness, and the soundtrack gave a real sense of the time and place the film was set.
Overall, I would have been more engaged by a film based around Ronnie, and his ascent through the prison and mental health systems and his adjustment to the real world, and the world he wanted to be in. To know the full depths of the infamous gangster, rather than to have him as a device for comedy and violence (although it was enjoyable, the Reggie and Francis love story took the majority of the viewers attention). However, the film did bring something new to the British crime thriller, and I think recognising the weakness of characters might take some of the “fun” out of this style of film, but its important to make the audience remember – Gangsters are people too.
turnnoffyourmind
origamiaround
yousharknotpass