Blogcritics Author: Nukapai

TV Review: Beauty Addicts: How Toxic Are You?

Nukapai — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:16:01 EDT

A UK television documentary is full of misinformation and missed opportunity.
The recent furore in the UK over misleading television should not only focus on rigged phone-in contests and kittens called Socks; television programmes like Beauty Addicts: How Toxic Are You? (Channel 4) are an example of a new kind of highly irresponsible shock-schlock TV where the content is designed and edited for maximum tabloid value and can...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Book Review: What Do I Do When I Want To Do Everything? by Barbara Sher

Nukapai — Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:25:21 EST

It's amazing how profound simple common sense sometimes is. And it's amazing how many times we find ourselves stuck in the all too familiar not-seeing-the-wood-for-the-trees situation, or in a form of goal paralysis.The question posed in the title -- "What do you do when you want to do everything?" -- caught my eye in a magazine and I ordered the book from Amazon as soon as I could afford it. (In theory, I'm on a book-buying ban -- self-imposed -- because I have a pile of books to read so high that most people would take one look at it and proceed to spend the rest of the day rocking in a corner, dribbling from the mouth).There are some books that bypass this ban. This was one of them. It made it to the top of the reading list and was consumed in hungry gulps over just a few days. It's now bookmarked in several places and already looks well-loved. I was so excited about the message within that I emailed the author, Barbara Sher. She replied quickly and with kind words. So, what's the book about, exactly? If you've ever had that feeling of "wanting to do everything"; if you've ever wondered what is it exactly you're "supposed to be doing with your life" because you seem to be good at whatever you try out - and may seem to have an endless list of interests (some apparently unrelated, but no less interesting to you!); if you've ever felt paralysed by the sheer number of opportunities out there and by the flow of ideas from your active mind: this book is something you might not be able to put down either.Barbara introduces us to a kind of typology - people can be roughly divided between "Scanners" and "Divers". The modern Western world is set up to favour and pander to the Divers. Divers are people who specialise in one discipline and work towards becoming settled within it (at whatever level seems to work out for them). Doctors, lawyers, athletes and similar professionals whose training and career will have included long periods of focusing on just one area are usually Divers.Scanners, on the other hand, find themselves interested in many (sometimes seemingly unrelated) topics, struggled (or were never able) to choose just one subject to major in, and are often viewed and treated less favourably by our current society. Often mislabelled as dabblers or as attention-deficient, Scanners are in fact capable, intelligent and multi-talented individuals whose main problem is that they just can't choose which of their talents they should be pursuing!Barbara's simple wisdom is: Guess what? You can refuse to choose. Really. Just do everything you want to do.Sounds ludicrous? But at the same time really appealing? The book gives Scanners a way to identify which traps they have been falling into and then presents a set of tools to get out of them. Some solutions are not too unlike what I'd already been implementing in my life and it was wonderful to see that I was on the right tracks.The best part about this book was, though, that it's the first time I have encountered someone saying (well, writing): "The way you naturally think, operate, create, conceive of ideas, want to live = THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!" It's like being given permission to do what I'd already been attempting: Instead of trying to change who/what I naturally am, why not try to change my lifestyle and the environment I exist in? As previously stated, it's very simple when you think about it with common sense. Most importantly, the way Sher invites us to re-frame our attitudes towards life goals and careers is not exclusive to Scanners. It is advice that could help everyone.It's odd how many of us (all of us?) occasionally need some form of validation for our instincts and sense of self. Perhaps that is simply part of the human condition. It's not that I wasn't being drawn towards some of the right solutions already, but that for as long as I had a niggling feeling of "yes, but I'm doing this to compensate for something crucial that's obviously missing in me...", well those solutions seemed a little hollow.Now that's been cleared up, I feel oddly free. That's frightening in its own way, but luckily there are sections in the book to deal with that too. I look forward to trying out all the exercises and testing the various tools described. Barbara Sher has a website, message boards, and appears as a public speaker in various venues, including television appearances. She also holds Scanner retreats - a kind of summer camp for likeminded people with the extra bonus of one-on-one coaching. I'd love to go one day! Then again, there are about a thousand other things I'd love to do. What was the title of the book again?

I am experienced and interested in many things and write about a range of subjects from Muppets to music, from popular science to perfume and from gardening to gaming. I currently work on staff and freelance basis for a number of companies. For further information, you can view my illustration portfolio, visit my blog, or drop me a line.

Homeopathy Hocus Pocus

Nukapai — Sun, 28 May 2006 06:21:49 EDT

It's lovely to have alternatives available for conventional, Western medicine. It's nice to have an open mind. I make these statements with only a touch of wryness; I do sincerely try to keep an open mind. Nevertheless, I am really rather relieved to read news reports about a group of leading British doctors who have directly challenged the way many National Health Service (NHS) trusts use their funds. As reported by The Times Online: A group of Britain's leading doctors has urged every NHS trust to stop paying for alternative medicine and to use the money for conventional treatments. Their appeal is a direct challenge to the Prince of Wales's outspoken campaign to widen access to complementary therapies. Public funding of "unproven or disproved treatments" such as homoeopathy and reflexology, which are promoted by the Prince, is unacceptable while huge NHS deficits are forcing trusts to sack nurses and limit access to life-saving drugs, the doctors say.I have very little faith in the NHS, as some of you may already know, but, rather ironically, the aforementioned doctors' lack of faith towards unproven alternative therapies is increasing my faith towards the doctors.Some alternative therapies may form a solid support mechanism for suffering patients, but I do think they should be an optional extra -- a luxury in a way -- not something the taxpayers pay for. If any of the alternative therapies would be scientifically proven to be consistently effective in treating serious conditions, I'd be saying different things. If I have a tension headache, or if I am feeling the pressure of stress, aromatherapy might help. But I wouldn't dream of making someone else pay for my treatment. If I have an incurable disease for which I am receiving conventional treatment, I might also wish to use some additional therapies. But the additional therapies should be a choice, an extra, and entirely at the expense of the private individual.Some alternative therapies seem to hover between the line of conventional and alternative. That's when this whole thing becomes very messy and it's hard to hold on to a hard line on either side of the argument. The BBC News Online health team has a wonderful set of resources and has been examining these very issues: Research conducted by the BBC has shown that alternative medicines are becoming increasingly popular. Yet their effectiveness is yet to be proven to the majority of medical practitioners in the UK and there are concerns over safety as many of the treatments remain untested.My biggest beef is with Homeopathy. You see, it's utter bollocks. Well, apart from the sometimes, admittedly, very vividly experienced Placebo effect. Let me elaborate (although the above statement sums it all up quite tidily). The original concept of Homeopathy, when explained to a person to whom metaphysical matters are of interest, will sound inviting, promising, and even plausible; to treat the patient with a little bit of what might be making them unwell. From (the utterly scrumptious) Skeptic's Dictionary:Classical homeopathy is generally defined as a system of medical treatment based on the use of minute quantities of remedies that in larger doses produce effects similar to those of the disease being treated. Hahnemann believed that very small doses of a medication could have very powerful healing effects because their potency could be affected by vigorous and methodical shaking (succussion). Hahnemann referred to this alleged increase in potency by vigorous shaking as dynamization. Hahnemann thought succussion could release immaterial and spiritual powers, thereby making substances more active. Tapping on a leather pad or the heel of the hand was alleged to double the dilution (ibid.).So, the original concept seemed to have a little bit of potential, well, to gullible sorts anyway, but good grief. Basing the entire treatment on how much and through which very specific methods it has been diluted?Let me put this in other terms. Let's say we start with a few drops of a plant extract. All well and good. I actually do believe that plant-based medicine and treatments can be incredibly effective. After all, much of the now so-called conventional medicine started that way. However, in Hocus-pocus-pathy, you take the plant extracts, dilute, shake, take the diluted mixture, add a few drops of that to a new batch of water and dilute, shake, take the diluted mixture, add a few drops of that...well, so on and so forth, until the final remedy has as many molecules of the original plant as you would randomly find by chance in, say, sea water. Just think about that quietly for a moment.Various tincture-based elements are then added (alcohol, grapeseed oil, or perhaps something else to give the remedy a medicinal consistency) and abracadabra, a cure-all is ready! Homeopathy is based on the notion that water has a memory. That its molecules can remember the presence of a substance that, for all intents and purposes is no longer there. Did I mention the word bollocks yet? What homeopathic practitioners do very effectively is provide consultative, holistic treatment to their patients, complete with such apparent (or quite possibly very sincere) care for the well-being of the patient that the experience in itself must be very healing. And I don't dispute that. I just so wish that people weren't being told, well, bollocks. I wish that if a practitioner were to set up a counseling and spiritual support service, they'd just set up one of those, not a charlatan outfit designed to exploit the weak and vulnerable. Homeopathy is the Scientology of alternative therapies and I really don't think it's fair to charge people horrid amounts for so-called remedies and therapies when it's all a bit of a con, really.It's been bugging me for some time to know that, in this country, my tax money has gone towards paying for someone's homeopathic treatments. I would certainly let out a little whoop of delight if NHS dropped that form of alternative therapy from their list of funded services. It is none of my business if people wish to pay for this kind of stuff privately (it doesn't harm me and I know lots of people get something very real out of it), but I don't think it has any place whatsoever standing shoulder-to-shoulder with therapies that have been scientifically proven to be effective.

Will Finland RAWK the 2006 Eurovision Song Contest?

Nukapai — Sun, 7 May 2006 13:38:05 EDT

As many traditional media sources have already gleefully reported, the 2006 Finnish Eurovision song contest entry will definitely not be what you'd expect. But let me correct these aforementioned sources - the entry is very much what you'd expect if you knew about the Finnish deadpan humour and mentality.I am delighted and even a little gleeful that my lovely, quirky homeland has decided to share its sense of humour around the world by entering Lordi -- a Finnish Spinal Tap, or thereabouts -- into the contest with a song called "Hard Rock Hallelujah". Sadly, and rather predictably, not many people (not even all Finns, judging by the local media reaction) "get" the tongue-in-cheek element of Lordi.Reports from the Eurovision 2006 host country Greece and from the Finnish church authorities, asking for immediate removal of Lordi from the contest, suggest that some people seem not to be getting the joke. Lordi sounds like a hybrid between all of the '80s cheesy hard rock bands; a soundtrack to a B-list horror flick; with an underlying pop-sensibility that might even make it popular in countries other than Finland.The Guardian wrote:The trauma of losing the Eurovision Song Contest can do funny things to a country. In Finland, where the words "nul points" are burned into the national psyche, they have decided to take radical action and appoint hard-rocking death metal band Lordi as their Eurovision entry for 2006.A far cry from the breezy folk tunes and ultra-safe pop of traditional Eurovision fare [...] Wait a second there, matey! You are confusing Finland with Norway! I don't recall any folk song entries from Finland! Oh, I admit. Most people seem to happily lump Nordic and Scandinavian countries into one compartment in their heads, probably entitled "That meatball guy from The Muppets". Still, I felt it was my duty as a Finn to write the alternative announcement about Lordi, so here I am. Finland has graced the Eurovision song contest with its presence since 1961 and has always entered with a fabulously cheesy pop song in the true nature of the contest. Definitely no folk songs in sight. Who knows, with groups like V�rttin�, maybe Finland should have used a folk song once in a while?The 2006 Eurovision song contest will be broadcast from Athens on the 20th of May.

The Zombie Shop?

Nukapai — Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:20:07 EST

The Body Shop is dead, declare several Naturewatch and anti-animal cruelty organisations after the much-publicised L'Oreal acquisition. The Body Shop went from the "good guys" side on many of these organisations' ethical shopping guides to the "bad guys" side - pretty much overnight.Today, on 1st of April 2006, some had even planned a Day Of Action event to publicly protest about the sell-out. An international Day of Action is planned for the 29th of April.This is not the first time The Body Shop has come under scrutiny. The 90s leaflet and boycott campaigns attempted to dig deeper behind the marketing strategies and public image. This time, the big question is whether all this hoopla around L'Oreal and TBS deter the average customer. It's one thing to end up putting off a hardcore set of followers (that's what TBS used to inspire.) For quite some time now, TBS has gone after the "average customer" instead and various activism-heavy campaigns have been replaced by the sort of 3 for 2 promotions that you might spot at any typical UK High Street retailer.During TBS' golden era in the 80s, there was nothing average about the campaigns, stores, or products. Anita Roddick started her business in Brighton in the 70s, with just one small store, then opened a second one with a �4000 loan from a former garage owner (now TBS' biggest single shareholder) - but it could be argued that the influence of Mark Constantine and his creative team helped to lift her business to superstar status. The marketing concepts of ethical consumerism were already brewing, but when Mark introduced the anti-animal testing slant to the business and produced most of TBS' best-selling products for a decade or so to boot, things went from quirky to global at breakneck speed.When the Roddicks brought all manufacturing in-house and parted ways with Mr. Constantine, many consumers didn't notice an immediate difference, as The Body Shop had purchased the recipes and continued to make at least some of the best-selling items. This did not last. Dubious new products were introduced (dubious, in the sense that they did not seem all that "natural" after all) and by the mid 90s, as consumer awareness of cosmetic ingredients and business issues increased, The Body Shop started to lose credibility with the original customer base it had worked so hard to develop. Add to that, the extreme mistakes made in their business model (franchising and over-expanding beyond what their infrastructure could handle), by the late 90s, the value of the company had actually drastically declined, despite its inflated size.What's particularly depressing is that, once upon a time, TBS actually had a genuine positive influence on individuals' lives and on the entire legislative jungle surrounding animal testing on cosmetics. Now money spent at TBS will go to the pockets of the biggest cosmetics giant in the world -- not inherently bad per se, business is business -- but sadly, since L'Oreal does not share the principles that really made a difference, this acquisition has effectively removed the biggest single "pro-ethical cosmetics" voice from the marketplace. I suppose it could be said that TBS has been washing its ideals off bit by bit for quite some time in the lead-up to this, so the unholy marriage with L'Oreal is not really as unholy as it seems on the surface.That voice had long since left the building.It will be very interesting to watch what happens next. I would like to put forward my thoughts on this: The Body Shop is not dead; it's a zombie. It's been dead for quite some time but still seems to be able to potter around. L'Oreal has the funds to turbo-charge this walking dead of a company, so we could soon witness the Thriller of the century. It's also worth noting that not all anti-animal cruelty organisations have whipped TBS off their ethical shopping lists. This might, of course, have something to do with the fact that some ethical shopping guide producers charge the companies for inclusion on the lists, thereby effectively selling endorsement (and making a business of it).The whole world of various animal testing policies is somewhat bewildering. Fixed cut-off dates and a whole host of confusing mission statements often leave consumers so confused that when making choices about products, they just naturally gravitate towards convenience and pleasure rather than to the company whose morals and ethics most closely match with their own. I'm certainly guilty of this; choosing a product because it was there, or because I liked the way it felt, rather than because I knew what the company's stance was on, say, recycling. I wouldn't say such basic behaviour was to be categorically condemned, but I would say that the biggest mistake TBS made wasn't the sale to L'Oreal, it was their drop in product quality, which inevitably led to consumers not being quite so drawn in by these very basic shopping behaviours. Enter a period of declining profits, ripen for takeover; we know the rest.The genius of TBS in the 80s was that by attracting customers by providing new and innovative products that not only felt good but provided nice benefits, the average customer was reeled in by those things first; the education about ethical consumerism happened as part of the process. It was the perfect combination: buy something that you like and feel good about buying it. Today, when more so-called ethical companies get bought out by the not-so-ethical ones, it is getting harder to decide whether something labeled as "fair trade" or "not tested on animals" really means what you think it means. Add to that the premium price you often pay for such products, and one day soon you might find that consumers increasingly characterised by apathy rather than activism.There may very well be a backlash in the wings for many big corporations who either buy takeaway ethics to go (like L'Oreal just did) or develop special "Fair Trade" brands in house to cash in on the lucrative ethical-consumer market. Unless the products are actually better than the alternatives, people might not care.Further reading: Compassionate shopping guide (by Naturewatch).

Escape Studios Learning Day: A View into Cutting Edge Visual Effect Creation

Nukapai — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:33:52 EST

This is my report from a one-day introductory course at Escape Studios, a "hub for 3D animation and visual effects expertise" in Shepherd's Bush, London. Since I'm a largely self-taught artist and an illustrator with a strong leaning towards software geekdom, the concept of a Learning Day at Escape studios did make me salivate. I've been particularly fascinated by the awe-inspiring results that modern 3D modelling and visual effects can achieve - and have often wondered what goes into it. Having had a small glimpse into the world when I got to "peek under the bonnet" of the computer games industry a few years ago, my curiosity has been steadily increasing with time. I decided to give the Learning Day a go, even if I'd never sign up for another course again. And should I wish to, the small fee from the Learning Day is redeemable against any further courses. Overall, it was a fun experience, if totally exhausting. I can't remember the last time I felt so mentally wiped out. And really, that was a bit unexpected after only a deceptively simple set of exercises. If you're there to learn, there is definitely a lot to take in.The software packages we used at Escape were Shake and Maya. I felt immediately at home with Shake; sure, it wasn't simple, but at the same time it felt really intuitive and the concepts were fairly familiar. Shake 4 is the only compositing software with a complete toolset for both single artists and visual effects facilities. With 3D multi-plane compositing, 32-bit Keylight and Primatte keying, cutting edge Optical Flow image processing, Final Cut Pro 5 integration and an open, extensible scripting language, Shake 4 delivers all the tools required for sophisticated film and television visual effects.I've done enough Photoshop work and I "get" certain things more easily than others, so the Shake part of the day was definitely enjoyable on that level. In fact, I wished we could have done more with it. When I begun to understand the power of this package, it was time to stop. It definitely left me wanting to explore it further.Not so much with Maya. I've had the Maya personal learning edition installed for a while, but unlike Photoshop, which I was able to just play around with in the beginning, until I started learning how to use it properly... well, my experience with Maya was definitely not the same! When I'd looked around it before, I just felt overwhelmed. It didn't seem to have a natural way to learn by trial and error because even to do the simplest thing, you'd have to know some of the basics about the tools, the interface and about 3D modelling in general. So you have to have an understanding of at least some of it to even get started.Hence this introduction to the package seemed like a good way to start; to just get an idea of what Maya was like; just to see whether it'd be something I could get my head around and to possibly even enjoy, or to do something useful with.Our first task was to get somewhat familiar with the interface. So we made a simple ball shape and animated it to make it bounce. This eased us into the software. So far so good. I didn't fall behind, crash the software, or make my ball resemble a sea urchin (like some others in the class). Awesome.Then, we were asked to open a file with two elements already in place: a human hand (with one digit missing; an odd-looking four-fingered thing) - and a polygon block floating above it. We were informed that the task would be to shape the hand out of the block. So far so good. The beginning all made sense; how to modify the polygon shapes to resemble the hand's structure; how to use the different views available, and so on.However, by the time the tutor had modelled two perfect fingers, my hand was more like a fairly creepy multi-digit space sausage. At least I hadn't created a zig-zagged 3D chess board like the student next to me.Still. A space sausage. So, by this time I felt uncomfortable and like I'd just fallen off the wagon; the tutor had moved on to explaining skinning and I still had one of the four digits missing and the remaining ones wiggling at me, all misshapen and sausage-y from the screen.In the end, we animated the "hand" to wave bye-bye. I'm thinking I could apply for SFX in horror films.I stayed behind to chat with the tutor, who, incidentally, had started from a similar background to mine - from drawing and illustration to software and so on. She'd gone down the animation route fairly early on and I have a feeling that this is the crucial difference; I seem to be happier with and more intrigued by the still image and by the 2D (or 2-and-a-half-D, as described by our Shake tutor) world. I expressed my doubts to the Maya tutor and she told me not to be so discouraged. She stressed that Maya is also a powerful texturing/skinning tool and that those skills are extremely useful in the industry. She had a quick glance at my portfolio of illustration, collage and photo manipulation and seemed genuinely impressed. She was encouraging about my existing work without trying too hard sell the courses. I found that to be a positive thing. At all times, the tutors were very open about the obstacles one must face if attempting to do visual effects for a living.Overall, I really enjoyed my Learning Day. It was exactly what I had hoped - a glimpse into the world of cutting edge digital effects, and a way for me to assess whether it'd be worth trying to learn any of these packages. I think my next software investment will be Corel's Painter 9 (or whatever version will be out by the time I can afford the price tag!). It's one of the few software packages that has made me feel simply awestruck by the possibilities. I downloaded the 30-day trial not too long ago and have dreamed of getting the full version ever since.I doubt I'll be delving much deeper into 3D. I don't have the hunger for it - and the work does not happen by magic. Those packages are tools, just like Photoshop is - the work is only going to be as good as the skills and patience of the user, and the visual effects of today take a great deal of both.However, if 3D would be something that I'd want to pursue career-wise, then Escape Studios would be a very good way to get into it. I'd recommend it on many levels - the tutors all have extensive industry experience, or are currently working in the industry - and the studios and equipment all seemed appropriate and professional. The working and learning environment is set up to resemble an actual studio and there are some definite networking and work experience opportunities if you have the ability to grab them. Many students have gone on to work with tutors on real projects, for example.My only warning would be: take a packed lunch. And a book. Because at lunch, or breakfast, or just about any other time of the day, you may not want to go out. Shepherd's Bush (at least the bit around the studios/Tube) is a DUMP. Hobos falling over on the road, two branches of McDonald's within 500 metres of one another, a KFC, some dodgy all-you-can-eat buffet, a small Starbucks with sullen staff, a slum shopping centre with a Morrisons. I suppose it's reassuring to see the studios situated in such a, how shall we say, boho environment. It roots the place in art, somehow.Modified from an entry at Tomorrow Could Be Boring.

CD Review: The Panic Division - Versus

Nukapai — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:04:15 EST

The echoes of 80s rock and a new generation of intricate electro-pop melodies reverberate to us through this fresh-faced group from San Antonio, Texas. The choice of name - The Panic Division - doesn't seem to quite match the sound: there is nothing panic-inducing or anxious about their music, but perhaps the monicker is designed to appeal to those who would seek to be funky, punky and on the edge without getting too dangerous. Versus is the group's first album on the Militia Group label, but they have previously recorded two albums while unsigned. The band has worked hard to get to where it is today, but still has a long way to go. Now revered by the San Antonio community as a local treasure, The Panic Division deserves to have a future - and Versus will be purchased by later fans in order to complete their record collections with "an early rough-cut gem from The Panic Division boys".An evocative collage of loops, riffs and vocals - all skillfully adhered together but lacking a real central thread - results in an experience reminiscent of the progress of an opera. The title track on Versus is the overture, the following tracks set the scene, in "Little Child" we have a small interlude and then the album reaches a crescendo with "Sweet Devotion" at track #7, where the shouting and the raw side of rock is orchestrated just to the right side of noise.It does not surprise me one bit to discover that the group's creative process often spawns from the electro-synth loops and that many tracks are constructed around them, rather than the reverse. This could explain why track #4, "Paradise", a Duran-Duran-esque chart-worthy electro-pop track stands out to me as easily the strongest on the album. It's the only track I keep singing along to; the only one that sticks in my head for days afterwards and makes little shivers run down my spine.And this is the only problem with the group - the sound is almost too easy to get into, too easy to tune into the background, not memorable enough in its own right - yes, this music is full of feeling, it is music for the road; music for moments alone, music you reach out for when turning a new leaf, music you think back to when you're far away from home - but which tunes would you really remember? Having listened to this album for some weeks now, I can always recall the way it made me feel, but only a couple of songs come back to me as complete melodies. This suggests that whilst the group is definitely polished, well put together and likeable, they also lack a certain edge - something to make your ears perk up and tell their sound apart from the hubbub of easy-to-digest rock-pop out there. They have created a rich tapestry, but need to weave in a strong story.The experience would probably be perfectly suited to a live performance and luckily enough, the Panic Division are currently touring in the USA. Check the website for dates and locations. ****Photos courtesy of The Militia Group. Cross-posted to Tomorrow Could Be Boring.

Christmas wrapped up

Nukapai — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 20:30:37 EST

The wrapper says: Fun! Joy! Warmth, love and happiness! Good times to be had. Put your feet up for the holidays! Be kind to random strangers. Be even kinder to your friends and family. Get in the loving spirit! Celebrate!The contents reveal themselves as: Stress, Christmas ghosts from the past, being rude to random strangers, being even ruder to shop staff, being viciously territorial and aggressive, letting drinks and fights get out of hand, giving in to road rage, snapping at your family members at every opportunity, smacking your children in public (or completely blanking them out), creating drama from ordinary situations, eating until you're sick, living beyond your means and trying to out-do each other...I could go on, but I won't. What the HELL is wrong with everybody? It's like the entire Western society bottles up all their crazy for the whole year and lets it out in one, massive act of collective delusion. It's okay to be a TOTAL FUCKING LOON because you'll blend in just fine. Is that what the modern Christmas is really about? Is it the psychological fart valve in today's society?Why do we appear to willingly engage in the mass-delusion of The Perfect Christmas Celebration? Not just in terms of increased commercialism, but the whole happy-happy joy-joy marketing of it as such a splendidly jolly time - when in fact, it drives people over the edge in more ways than one.Wouldn't it be nice to have a real holiday? One where everyone calmed the hell down and spent some time on quiet reflection. And no sprouts.

TV: UK's LivingTV Menu of Charmed, Will and Grace and More

Nukapai — Wed, 7 Dec 2005 06:57:23 EST

I have developed a love & hate relationship with LivingTV. On one hand, it offers oodles of drug-like, mind-numbing, incredibly addictive mush. The kind that has managed to make me hooked to the point of SHH-SHHing Timo in the middle of a program. It satisfies my Inner Voyeur, my Inner Bitch and the almighty Ego that whispers "wow, I'm so much better than...". On the other hand, it offers offers oodles of drug-like, mind-numbing, incredibly addictive mush. And some of it is really rather crap. I feel dirty every time I utter the words: Living TEEVEE. Now it's about to get even worse.LivingTV, I have a bone to pick with you.First, you seduced with me with the "soft porn for teenage boys" (Charmed, as described by one of the cast members in a recent documentary). As a fantasy-epic, Charmed is pathetic. Scary demon appears. Witches get rid of scary demon. Put on different outfit. File nails. As a soap, it's over-simplified and derivative. Forbidden love between a witch and a demon? You mean that's not going to work out? Hmm, where have I seen something like that before? Yet the adventures of the three Charmed ones and their various side-kicks work. It's the combination. The power of three? Or a potion with just the right ingredients. It is certainly not taxing to view and it can be a visual treat (if you like that sort of thing). Then, you got me to flick over from something undoubtedly more valuable on another channel... to watch an episode of Will and Grace. Really. I could have learned more about What the Romans did for us. Or watched another half an hour of news. Instead, I had ears, eyes, mouth and every orifice full of that horrible canned laughter. Say anything. Raise an eyebrow in that way. AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Because the TV audience might not have realised that this is where one laughs. Oh, come on, quit just smirking, throw your head back and laugh out loud! We're telling you, this is comedy gold!As Grace would say: "You can move your lips from here... to here!"Jack: For your information, most people who meet me do not know that I am gay. Will: Jack, blind and deaf people know you're gay. Dead people know you're gay. Jack: Grace, when you first met me, did you know I was gay? Grace: My dog knew. ----Will: Grace, go to bed. You obviously have had a very busy day of crazy. ----Grace: Ok, here's the Thanksgiving menu so far: apple pie, pumpkin pie, blueberry tart, and ice-cream roll. What am I missing?... Cake. We need cake. Will: Did you take a bong hit before you wrote that? ----Karen: Well, if it makes you feel any better, I'm devastated, too. Jack: Mmm, it does, thanks.Quotes from IMDb.The thing is, it is funny. The awful stereotyping of homosexuality (a male homosexual is either interested in "the arts, dontcha know", or a squealing camp clown like Jack, yup, or remember that episode with the fat, blousy lesbians, boy that one was a hoot!), the gratingly dumbed down plot lines; the obnoxious character of Karen.And it's just. Funny.I console myself with the thought that poking fun at stereotypes and deluded neurotic people (don't say it!) IS the way humour works. And so actually, by liking Will and Grace, I exhibit an ability to lighten up and appreciate true comedy - the kind that comes out of tragedy. Because if you can't just cry and cry, so why not laugh.Right?Well, good comedy or not, my hate for the over-use of canned laughter remains. Maybe that's a good mechanism for preventing a Will & Grace overdose. There's just that point where you can't watch any more of it.Not so, with the most addictive program of all; the part where your seduction had reached its climax.America's Next Top Model is so hideously addictive, so unbelievably dumb, so deliciously bitchy - that not only do I watch it regularly; I must not miss an episode. I've occasionally even watched reruns.What makes it so? Well, first of all, I used to work with models, photographers and fashionistas. I know that world. In the end, I tried to avoid fashion shoots and preferred working on film and TV productions because I came to realise that the superficial, air-headed, totally narcissistic and (rather obviously) appearance-obsessed world just didn't like me and I didn't like it. Not that film and TV didn't have the flaws of fashion. It's just that they were presented in a different package - and most crucially, as a make-up artist on a film set, you're crew. Crew gets to look normal, even scruffy. Crew is a team, or at least a good crew is. In the fashion world, everyone, even people working "backstage" have to fit in to the high fashion world.I wasn't edgy enough to be a make-up artist in the fashion gang. I wasn't a guy for starters. Bummer. Nor was I stick thin, from a famous family, or outrageous. I just did really good make-up.And now, I occasionally feel wistful for even the fashion world. I mean look at those girls. They're naive, ignorant, innocently hopeful, deluded about their own abilities, looking to find self confidence and to become... models. Modelling is such a dorky ambition to have. I didn't get picked? Oh nooo! All my dreams are crushed! How will my life ever have meaning?Or is it? Dorky, I mean.The model that makes it can become extremely rich. The model that makes it will have that all-important confirmation: they really, really love me!I don't know. I think if you have a realistic idea about what the industry actually involves; if your ego and vanity can take the rejection, if you have someone like Tyra Banks shouting at you, then maybe, just maybe you'll have the ingredients to make a real career of it, get some awesome rewards, become loaded and not destroy yourself and your life in the process.I don't know whether I want my favourite girls to win or get chucked out sometimes.I do think Tyra is great. She's a business woman. Now that I can respect. Hungry capitalism; self made success. Perseverance. Adaptability. She might not win the Nobel prize, or cure anyone from anything other than a bad attitude problem, but I tip my hat to Tyra for her sheer determination to make something of herself. Anyone who learns to make the best out of what they've been given is a good egg in my book. The show has become UPN's most watched show and cycle 5 is about to start in September. I don't know when it will be available through LivingTV. They've even got Twiggy involved this time. It could be juicy!Now that Tyra is firmly standing on the platform of current television success, she has also managed to secure her own show.I wish America's Next Top Model would tell us more about what happens to the winners. The last round (cycle 4) saw Naima Mora shed the tears of joy in that age-old Miss Universe style when she was crowned the winner. I went on a hunt to see what's been going on with her since.She seems to have done at least one runway show besides the finale in the show itself. She can also be found on a top model directory. She's got her own website. Other than that, I'm not sure. Could this be that it's too soon to tell whether Naima will rocket into supermodeldom? Or could it mean that winning doesn't really guarantee anything? Except that Cover Girl contract, of course.I am looking forward to Britain's Next Top Model, which starts on LivingTV on the 14th of September.So, you have wooed me into total addiction, but just as a cherry on top, you added child torture. Because model wannabes just weren't enough.I'm referring to the carcrash-attractive "Showbiz Moms and Dads"; another import from USA and originally shown on Bravo.LivingTV has introduced me to the insane and, thus, appropriately named Duncan Nutter, who, at least according to some, should be shot. I'm not that passionate about what happens to Duncan, but I do worry that one day, one of his family members might just go ahead and empty a hail of bullets into his head on behalf of angry bloggers everywhere. Or perhaps because Duncan has ruined their lives.He doesn't have any time to listen what his wife or children have to say. He seems to lack the ability to empathise. He is obsessed and ill. He and his family need help.Then there's the stage-mom [sic] of a 4-year old Emily Tye, the woman who tells her daughter to "act like a 4 year old" when she is doing just that by being a child for once. This poor girl will be robbed of a childhood. Her memories will be linked to the smell of fake tan and to the pull and tug of backcombing. I can't imagine what will happen to her self esteem, or ability to form real relationships. This, I feel, is the biggest tragedy in the show - the other people are, at least, a little older.Jordan Moseley-Stephen is the only talented child featured in Showbiz moms and dads. Her mother is the only normal adult. She seems to be rational and reasonable. She isn't using her child; Jordan seems to genuinely enjoy what they get up to together. The way she reacted when faced with rejection was excellent; just a shrug and a: "Well, mommy, I can't book everything anyway, so it doesn't matter."And so, now to the gutter. The crass rubbish that I have never, or will never watch on LivingTV. The stuff that manages to leave a bad taste in my eyes when a trailer flickers past on the channel.They're the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (that's just taking the gay stereotyping a bit too far - it's not funny; it's not witty - what, we are meant to believe that your sexual orientation somehow automatically comes with an innate ability to either a) not be able to dress yourself properly or b) have an eye for style. Bollocks. Utter, sweaty bollocks).They're the psychic detective and Most Haunted supernatural mambo-jambo timeslot fillers. And now, this is the pits: LivingTV is about to release the Hades Bulldog on us all - Jade's Salon. Oh, lose weight for the one last time and do it so impressively that an image of your emaciated dead husk with the boob implants lolling on top gets splattered on every OK! SLUT! and CHAV! magazine in the world, then be done with us.Go Away Jade Goody.You are a discrace to the town you lived in. You are the hero of snot-nosed reality TV addicts. And your claims to fame are so devoid of skill or merit that I am embarrassed on the behalf of the general public for making you a D list celebrity (and this is saying something, considering my feelings on the faceless creature of General Public). You don't deserve to be on any list.Yet there you are, mocking us with your ability to take a turd, polish it a little, and sell it.Should I respect her for that?Didn't I just finish praising Tyra Banks for making the most of what she'd been given?Yeah, but.Tyra Banks is a human being. And gorgeous. And clever.Jade Goody is a puddle of mindnumbingly thick pond scum. And hideous.I think I will be able to live with my double standards.So, here's the final question then. Will I now be compelled to watch Jade's Salon? Will the attraction of her potential bumbling as a small business owner be irresistible? I want to start a business - wouldn't it be excellent to see a character like Jade make a total pig's ear of it?If only there was such a guarantee.I don't think I'll be watching Jade's Salon, just for the chance that she'll make a success of it. I don't think I could take it.This post first appeared in Nukapai's blog, as part of the Sunday Review series. ed: JH

CD Review: Pamela Kay Hawkins' Rockin' The Day Away

Nukapai — Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:04:37 EST

Pamela Kay Hawkins began writing children's music in the late 1990s. She'd just become a grandmother and singing lullabies to her granddaughter was just the beginning. Years later, her work as a musician has reached that all-important stage of a CD release. She retells the steps of this journey in her blog. It would be a mistake to judge the quality of her music by the appearance of her blog, or the writing in it, because whilst Pamela might not be a blogger, she clearly is a musically gifted, loving parent and grandmother. She is also a devout Christian and highly driven, entrepreneurially-spirited woman who has worked hard to promote her CD, despite some early pitfalls.The CD has ten songs, presented first as full versions sung by various artists and the second time as instrumentals. One of the artists, Joseph Tygart, is of an adorably young age and despite it, presents real blues-singer stagemanship on the track "Rocking-Horse Blues". Most of the songs feature the vocals of either Meredith Lee Easley (whose voice is good and clear, if somewhat school-matronly), or John Weller, whose strong but soothing tones exude a homely and comforting aura. The titular track on Rockin' the Day Away feels like the theme tune to a children's programme on television or radio. It isn't particularly memorable in its own right, but opens the stage for what is yet to come. The whole collection could be summarised as "simple, fun and entertaining," which is surely not a bad thing when talking about music aimed at children and their parents, relatives, teachers and companions. "Walkin' Around" has a simple melody and creates a strong visual of a mum, a dad, or a favourite auntie frog-marching an infant around the room on their tootsies. The unimaginative lyrics are a little disappointing: "We're walkin' around, to see what there is to see". It's the sort of song that any parent could have made up during the daily chores; perhaps a tip of the hat to the roots of Pamela's music creation."Love-A-Kitty" is an amusing and entertaining storybook song about love for cats, and one particular puss that runs away for a while, returns and then mysteriously multiplies! The tune also scores highly on the stuck-in-the-head-o-meter. One week and counting. It might end up on infinite repeat in a kiddie household, a la Maggie Simpson's demands in the Roofi song episode where Springfield's children turn into a rampaging mob. "Where are the yeses"; an antithesis to the Christmas classic Santa Claus Is Coming To Town, perhaps, is a witty take on what it's like to always be told NO. It made me smile, particularly because the "Don't touch!" dialogue is so familiar to me from work - everything in my shop is so fragile that the soundtrack of frantic parents forbidding their children to so much as breathe near the shelves is a permanent accompaniment to any working day."Baby-Shaped Hole in My Heart" tips the saccharine scale a little too far for me, but John's delivery rescues the song somewhat and the overall impression is that of a genuine relationship.The instrumentals are a winner for me, and would provide a soothing background track to any children's activity, be it a pyjama party, playtime with parents, or indeed, a session with the colouring booklet that comes with the CD - to call it a colouring book is a little misleading, as it's really just the booklet that comes with the CD with printed song lyrics accompanied by illustrations, but the idea is there and I am sure some of the slightly older children might be able to work with it without tearing the thin paper, or going completely outside the lines. In fact, none of that probably matters too much, as long as there is some fun to be had.It seems that the CD is somewhat mis-marketed in its presentation - the "colouring book" isn't the only thing that didn't turn out to be quite what I expected. Nowhere on the cover does it clearly state that this is a Christian recording. As I am an agnostic, I would have felt disappointed if I'd purchased this product just on its description as a children's music CD.When "Life Is a River" belted out like a fine example of a Sunday School song, I cringed, but not as much when in "Time for Sleep" - an otherwise sweet lullaby - the chorus went: "Mommy loves you, daddy does too, Jesus loves you most of all." Hoo boy.Interestingly, I found the Christian-themed songs lyrically and musically the weakest. Maybe a case of the message drowning the songs a little.This CD will be a sure hit with people for whom educating their children about how much Jesus loves them is a paramount component of good parenting. I say this as a sincere recommendation, but also to inform those who, like me, would have been less enthused about that aspect of this recording. If the producers could have swung to the direction of the fun storytelling found in "Love-a-kitty" and "Rocking-Horse Blues" style collaborations with talented young tykes, this CD would have had wider appeal. As it stands, it left me feeling a little dissatisfied, as though I'd gone through a strange Franken-mishmash of children's music and Christian propaganda. ed/pub:NB