Tag Archives: Media

VIFF 2013 Review: Antisocial

Antisocial is a Canadian-made bloody gory teen horror thriller that's very impressively made.

Antisocial is a Canadian-made bloody gory teen horror thriller that’s surprisingly high quality and entertaining.

I’ll admit that I didn’t see as many Canadian films as I hoped to see at the VIFF. Antisocial was one I did see. It was the very last movie of the official Film Festival shown: starting at 11:30pm at the Rio Theatre. It proved to be an ambitious work from Canadians at moviemaking, particularily at horror filmmaking.

The movie begins with an introduction of two girls filming what appears to be a simple video about clothing only for it be one torturing the other and killing her. Later on New Years Eve a college girl named Sam interacts with her boyfriend through a social website called The Social Redroom. It goes bad as he breaks up with her. That leads her to delete her account.

She tries to party it up with her friends to help try to forget the problem. Four of her five friends have active accounts with The Social Redroom. Unknown to them is that an epidemic is spreading outside of them out on just as they’re about to party. The epidemic gets worse and reporters show how this is affecting the world. They even trace it back to The Social Redroom. The founder of The Social Redroom even makes a video of his own warning people of a deadly tumor transmitted to its users. Then Sam and her friends get their first notice when one of their outside friends is a monster infected by this virus. The virus soon spreads throughout the campus. Those of the friends with accounts to The Social Redroom are most at risk. Now the infected are coming after their blood.

There is a way to rid one of this virus but it’s to come out of their bodies. So it’s up to Sam and her friends to try to protect each other. They try to look for everything. First the video of the original two girls to trace its origins. Then the warning video of The Social Redroom founder, in which he commits suicide. Then finding information to rid the tumor being transmitted via The Social Redroom. Then Sam to defend herself and then rid herself of the virus.

I don’t think the filmmakers intended on giving a negative message about social media sites. Anyone who sees this knows that The Social Redroom is a Facebook-like site. In fact looking at this movie, I feel it’s more of just an attempt at trying to make a teen horror movie. That’s it: nothing more than a teen horror movie meant to scare them for their entertainment pleasure. I will have to say this is a very good effort at putting one together. It features many ingredients that would make for your typical entertaining horror movie. There’s the paranormal, the action happening at a college dorm, and the all-too-common phenomenon of social media and giving everyone all the details. The visual effects, horror make-up and even the climactic moments of horror didn’t come across as too cheesy or amateurish. Even the ending didn’t look bad. It ended on the right ridiculous note. The musical score was also a good addition to the horror story as well.

I will admit that it doesn’t have the big-star fuel that Hollywood teen movies have nor does it have the mass marketing given from Hollywood to make it excel at the box office. Oh yeah, it also lacks the shirtless scenes of guys that have been standard ever since the Twilight movies. Nevertheless this is a very entertaining movie that was put together very well and very professionally. I had a hard time trying to find a moment that was very amateurish. I even found it hard to notice a moment from one of the actors that lacked believability. Michelle Mylett was good in what is her first acting role. Also good is Cody Calahan in his first ever direction of a feature-length film as well as co-writing with more experienced writer Chad Archibald. I felt it was kind of like The Ring mixed with 28 Days Later with Night Of The Living Dead mixed in.

Okay I’m sure a lot of you are wondering: “What’s a film like this doing in a Film Festival? Film festival films are supposed to take the art of filmmaking to new lengths.” True but not 100% true. The Vancouver Film Festival is an event that showcases filmmaking quality from around the world including Canada but it’s also an opportunity to have films for further distribution. Some films will go on to the big screen for bigger and better things. Some will find their way on DVD, Digital Movie Websites or movie television networks. And then there are some where the VIFF will be the furthest it gets. Antisocial made its debut at Montreal’s Fantasia Film Festival. It continues to make appearances at various film festivals. Good buzz for it can help it get picked up for further distribution. We should remember few English language Canadian-made movies make it to the big screen. Nevertheless I see good potential for this film. We’ll have to see.

Antisocial is a teen horror thriller that lacks the star-studded buzz but is excellently put together and goes beyond its modest expectations. All it needs is more film fest buzz to develop a crowd to give it a fair chance.

Advertisements

The Royal Wedding: Positive For The Royal’s Future?

Unless you’ve been under a rock all this time, you know by now that William Windsor, Son of Charles Prince of Wales and grandson of Queen Elizabeth, is engaged to commoner Catherine ‘Kate’ Middleton. The wedding will take place the morning of Friday, April 29th: tomorrow to be exact. It is scheduled to be the biggest Royal Wedding of the British Monarchy since Prince Charles wed Lady Diana Spencer in 1981. Most of the world will be watching, especially England and other members of the Commonwealth. The big questions are what will the future of the Monarchy be like? And will the new Royal couple go the distance?

The British Monarchy has always been an important symbol of the British Empire, especially in the heydays of its superiority back in the 19th Century. In fact Victoria Day is still celebrated in Canada in tribute to the Queen that granted Canada its Dominion. Even though the United Kingdom is a democracy under rule of the Prime Minister, the Queen and her Royal subjects are still an important symbol of rule in England and many other nations of what is now called the Commonwealth Of Nations.

The present-day Commonwealth is completely different from what has been known as the British Empire. The Commonwealth is an intergovernmental organization that promotes many core values amongst its fifty-three independent member states including Canada such as democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, multilateralism and world peace. Even Queen Elizabeth herself declared shortly after her Coronation in 1952: “The Commonwealth bears no resemblance to the empires of the past. It is an entirely new conception built on the highest qualities of the spirit of man: friendship, loyalty, and the desire for freedom and peace.”

The Head of the Commonwealth is the King or Queen Of England. Currently that title belongs to Elizabeth II. She is a symbol of the Commonwealth’s free association and plays an important role in shaping the Commonwealth. She attends the biennial meetings of the Heads of Government, attends dinners and makes speeches at the meetings, and has private meetings with the individual heads of state.

Now that we’ve dished out on the importance of the British monarchy–and as stated above, they actually are important in today’s world–there’s the question of the future of the one sitting on the Throne. Elizabeth II has held the throne since her coronation as Queen in 1952. She shows no signs yet of handing the throne over to the next in line: Charles Prince of Wales, first-born child of Queen Elizabeth and father of Prince William. One of the key rules of the monarchy–one that reiterated in the movie The King’s Speech–is that the King is not to be married to a woman previously divorced. Prince Charles was married to Lady Diana Spencer in 1981 but the marriage dissolved in 1992. Soon he had a relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles who was already married. It was her relationship with Charles that led her first husband, Andrew Parker-Bowles to divorce her. In 2005 the two finally married with Camilla choosing to adopt the title Duchess of Cornwall. Since the marriage, Camilla has worked to develop a more positive image away from the ‘scandals’ of the past. This may explain why Elizabeth is in no rush to hand over the Throne to Charles. As for Edward, the only one of Queen Elizabeth’s children who has kept their first marriage intact, he shows no interest in owning the Throne. Talk about a Royal dilemma!

Now outside of the future of the Throne is the big question of another future: the marriage of William and Kate. William and Kate first met when they were both students at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland back in 2001. You could say the rest is history but there’s more to it. While the world is familiar with William’s ancestry and background of privilege, Kate came from a family that started as workers for British Airways but later formed their own mail order business which succeeded well. Kate herself worked as an accessories buyer for a clothing company for some time. William has grown up in a fishbowl while Kate experienced discomfort during the first few years upon dating William but leaving the relationship ambiguous. Many times during the early years of the suspected relationship, she would complain to her lawyer and even threaten legal action against the press. In 2007 they broke up but would reconcile within months. Even after the reconciliation, they would try to keep their relationship low-key. That all ended in November of last year when their engagement was officially announced.

Now comes the personalities of the two. William may have been born into a life of privilege but he has come across as well-behaved and considerate. A lot of it is attributed to Diana raising him and Harry outside of Buckingham Palace. It’s noticeable as William appears to posess more of Diana’s personality traits than Charles’. Although he’s second in line to the throne behind his father Prince Charles, there are many who feel he should be King instead. He’s had his share of living the high life, but he has also followed in his mother’s footsteps and has done humanitarian work. He’s also part of the RAF and has done military work in recent years. Kate, like Diana, has developed a fashion sense all her own and has made many ‘Best Dressed’ lists in recent years. She has graduated university with an honors degree. She’s also known for being well-mannered. As for whether the marriage will go the distance, that remains for the future to tell. They both appear to be two intelligent people in love but anything could change. We shouldn’t forget about their breakup from years earlier. It’s possible it could happen again. As mentioned earlier, Kate had her own difficulties with living life in a fishbowl when she was just ‘seeing’ William. After the marriage, it will most likely increase and top of it Kate will now have to play a role as a public figure. Will she be able to handle her new role and the pressure of the press?

Friday April 29th will not only mark the beginning of Prince William’s marriage but also the beginning to his future fate in being heir to the Throne. We all know it’s the divorce and remarriage to a divorcee that is causing Prince Charles to wait. Only the future will tell if Prince William’s marriage will go the distance, and if whatever happens is a help or hindrance to his line of succession. Also Kate’s role in both the Royal Family and in the public eye will also come under intense media scrutiny. Will she remain calm under pressure? Or will she be a huge subject of scandal and tabloid fare? Stay tuned.

WORKS CITED:

WIKIPEDIA: Commonwealth Of Nations.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations&gt;

WIKIPEDIA: Catherine Middleton.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Middleton&gt;

WIKIPEDIA: Camilla: Duchess of Cornwall.Wikipedia.com. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall&gt;

J. Crew In The Middle Of ‘Toenailgate’

This picture in a J. Crew e-flyer is the subject of major discussion this week.

Ever notice how in the news there’s always a story that comes from nowhere and is not worth paying any mind, until some loudmouth makes a hullabaloo about it? It’s funny that while Japan is recovering from a tsunami, earthquake and nuclear meltdown, and Libya is fighting a war to depose a dictator, there’s a minor story that makes a lot of loud news. It happened this week when the picture on the right that was featured in an e-catalog from J.Crew got on a conservative pundit’s nerves to the point he spoke out about it. And it has since drawn a lot of reactions since Tuesday.

It all started when J.Crew sent out its e-catalog to subscribers on Tuesday April 5th. For those unfamiliar, J. Crew is a clothing store known for its colorful preppy looking clothes. Its most famous customer is First Lady Michelle Obama. Included is a Saturday With Jenna column written by J. Crew president and creative director Jenna Lyons. On that column’s front page that weekend was that picture of her having fun with her 5 year-old son Beckett. Why should that cause controversy? Because the fun she had with Beckett was painting his toenails with pink nail polish. She even included in the Quality Time caption: “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”

Some of the J. Crew customers who received that ad would look at it as something funny and some might raise their eyebrows over it. It was able to stay away from being a complete controversy, until Tuesday April 12th. That’s when FOX News Psychologist Dr. Keith Ablow made these comments:

 Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” is not known.

Dr. Ablow further goes on to talk about the benefits and goods of gender distinctions and continues:

Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race. They respect their own creative notions a whole lot more than any creative Force in the universe.

Dr. Ablow wasn’t the only right wing pundit speaking their mind on this. Four days earlier, Erin M. Brown, writer for the Culture and Media Institute website, wrote an article on the ad which she declared ‘blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children’. She then went on to say: “Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna’s indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future. J.CREW, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the façade of liberal, transgendered identity politics.”

Since the ad controversy, there have been a lot of responses. Numerous news stories in websites, newspapers and television have featured the heated issue. All three major networks have done discussions about this. They’ve interviewed parents on the street: some were freaked out while some liked it. Psychiatrists interviewed have said it’s normal for children to play cross-dressing games. Some news stories showed celebrity parents including Gwen Stefani with pictures of their own boys wearing nail polish.  Alyona Minkovski from RT Network responded: “Look people. Mom’s actually spending time with her child having fun, which is a lot more than what I can say about a lot of parents out there who tend to neglect their children. And if painting your child’s toenails is a way for a child and parent to connect, then have at it.” Jon Stewart even talked about it on his Daily Show, declaring the fiasco ‘Toemageddon 2011’ and commenting: “You make it sound like it’s a story about incest or cannabalism…You’re all aware that nail polish comes off, right? You’re all acting like this lady gave her son an ‘I Love Cock’ tattoo.” For the record, J. Crew have not responded because they ‘don’t want to add fuel to a non-issue.’

Even amongst the internet, there have been responses. Youtubers have also spoken their mind with one man even paining his fingernails pink. On the opposite side, there’s been at least one video in support of the complaining pundits, from the channel Final Justice Movement. Bloggers have posted their opinions. Message boards have also been loaded with comments both for the ad ‘what century is this?’ and against this ‘This is disgusting!’ Change.org started a petition thanking J.Crew ‘for the heartwarming ad’ and received 7500 signatures. The 10 year-old son of a writer for Wired magazine painted his fingernails green in response. There’s even a Pink Piggies page on Facebook where the page honors ‘people of all gender identities.’

One thing I like to say is that it’s another example of how people like to raise a big fiasco of just about anything. I’ve seen it from both the left and right side of people raising a big fuss over something simple. It seems like the thing nowadays to be offended about anything. Years ago, people were declaring The Passion Of The Christ to be anti-Semitic when it’s the story of Christ’s crucifixion that has been played out many times in the past including on film. Recently after the movie Mars Needs Moms was released, a gay Youtube personality posted on his Twitter page that it’s very offensive to non-traditional families. And now we have right-wing pundits taking a crack at this ad. Do people enjoy getting offended?

Yes, it’s a different parent-child bonding scenario but it’s not worth declaring ‘propaganda’ to turn into an issue for headlines’ sake. I also agree with Alyona: in case you didn’t notice, there’s a load of joy between Jenna and Beckett in that picture. It’s very common for parents to neglect their children in their busy lives so a moment like that should be considered fun.Secondly I don’t think paining a son’s toenails pink makes him gay. His orientation has already formed itself even before he was born. In addition when I brought this story up at work, one of my co-workers mentioned that she painted her nephew’s fingernails and they had a fun time together. Weeks later when she brought up ‘nail polish’, he said “That’s girls stuff.” So what does that tell you? Also I admire J. Crew for not responding to this and dismissing it for the ‘non-issue’ that it is.