Tuning into the Feminist Frequency

Recently- I watched an ongoing series called Tropes VS Women in Video Games. I think it's fantastic and really gets its teeth into a lot of major problems with how women are represented in this industry. It also nods toward a larger problem of obsession with games being overly violent in general.

However, I felt the need to get in touch with Anita Sarkeesian and her team via their website contact box. 

This is what I wrote. If I am replied to I shall post it here as well.

---------------

Hello Anita and team Feminist Frequency!

I am a fairly recent viewer of the channel. 

Admittedly, having had seen some of the earlier material, I had dismissed it as being at the needlessly radical end of feminism, which does nothing to promote equality in any real terms. I now see that I have been mistaken, mainly due to not having viewed enough.

I particularly enjoy the current series- Tropes VS Women in Video Games. I am an avid gamer myself and have been since age 5 when I first switched on a SNES. Video games have always been a form of escapism for me in the same way as a novel. I agree that however beloved a game or franchise is, it should not be immune from criticism- indeed, criticism is an important part of any media. I fully agree that too many modern games are far too obsessed with violence and being "dark", "edgy", and "gritty". Despite there being more female central characters in video games than ever- the industry is not representing women fairly or correctly, and this needs to be addressed; both by external criticism and by change from within from more female game developers. I cannot understand all of these gaming trolls who think that your videos will somehow "be takin' their vidya away". Anything that serves to improve and diversify videogaming, as well as making it more accessible and enjoyable to more people ought to be celebrated.

I have a small piece of constructive criticism, particularly for Anita Sarkeesian. Anita, your criticisms of the industry and the wrongs it does to women in gaming are right on the money- the "Ms Male character" the "girls in refrigerators" and "damsel in distress" are all harmful and detrimental to attitudes towards women in a wider sense. However, when it comes to newer, more progressive games, they are glossed over quickly or largely ignored in your videos. Instead, you focus on what games of the past have gotten wrong. It's important to balance criticisms with good examples that already exist. I love that you mentioned Beyond Good and Evil, and rightly described it as a very positive game in it's representation of women- but you never went into any depth as to WHY that is. Why Jade is an excellent character. Why the plot is very gender friendly whilst still having that darker edge to it. 

Constructive criticism has to somehow suggest how a wrong can be made right, or ways in which something can actively be improved. Without that, it is seen as plain criticism at best; complaining at worst.

I have not forgotten the excellent concept "The Last Princess"- the game that you and team FemFreq coined as a woman-centric game with an empowered female lead character. I would buy this game in a heartbeat, as it sounds fantastic. In fact- why doesn't FemFreq enter talks with a studio to get this game made? If you were actively involved as design consultants then the game would set a standard for gaming attitudes. This was not only a sweeping away of harmful tropes and clichés; but a way to bypass them and actively address the issues in a very real sense.

At the very least however, I would really love to see parts of the series with a more positive spin. As well as informing and raising awareness of what developers are doing wrong; I would say it's as important (maybe even more so) to raise awareness on what they're doing RIGHT.

Sincerely yours, 

Scott Smillie.

Journey to Chickflickland - I - Pitch Perfect

On the face of it, this movie was never going to be a winner for me. 

(This retrospective/review/critique contains spoilers.)

The story is centred around head to head acapella contests- but also contains, alongside the usual teen-movie clichés, a smattering of misogyny, tokenism, chauvinism, and projectile vomit of which The Exorcist would be proud. 

The story opens with an acapella troupe, the Barden Bellas, that blow their chances at winning some competition or other, because they lose their focus, and their leader-queen-bee-type-figure (you guessed it) barfs impressively on the stage. All the while with commentators making (admittedly quite funny) quips from the balcony.

Enter Becca (or "Bec", played by Anna Kendrick) as she argues with her dad. She doesn't want to go to college and would rather be working on songs- a typical rebellious daughter trope then. During her enrolment- she is spotted by the singing group as they hunt for new members. Rather realistically, Bec exclaims that the whole premise is "pretty lame" and makes it clear she isn't interested as she can't sing anyway. However it doesn't end there. One of the  Bellas is having a quickie in the shower with "nondescript male student B" when she hears Bec singing, and confronts her. I clocked a belt round the head for my exaggerated feigned disappointment at the "opportunity wasted" in this scene to make the movie much more palatable. Instead of descending into debauchery, what we get is a rather uncomfortable harmonisation of "Titanium". Dang.

So now it seems Bec is on board, and after a serious of auditions headed by a flawlessly camp Christopher Mintz-Plasse (best performance in it, he is really selling it), joining her are:-

"Fat Amy":- one of the more likeable characters in the film, purely because of her realism, but she is the "token heavy girl" of the group, while all other members are the right side of curvaceous or tall and willowy.

"Extremely quiet softly spoken Asian girl":- I (rightly) called a "Police Academy" moment. 

"Token lesbian black girl":- because this movie likes its eggs in one manageable basket. 

 And a number of other rather nondescript, forgettable characters to make up the rest of the team. I actually had to ask Clare if two of them had been in the troupe from the start, as they literally had two lines in the entire film. The fact I can barely remember any names at all is telling.

Rivalling them are the "Treblemakers" ( The boys team! Boo! Hiss!) and while the rivalry is incredibly contrived and forced, I do honestly want to punch their ringleader- a prize douchebag named "Bumper"- right in the throat. The actor is channelling Jack Black for this performance, and does so incredibly badly- making the character not only irritating, but painful to watch. The other male characters in the film are easy to forget, apart from the object of Bec's affection who also performs in the other team *gasp!*.

The plot is actually easily surmised from here. The troupe make a stuttering start, failing to gel as they are all differing in style. Throughout the movie various classic songs from the past three and a half decades are viciously butchered, including songs by Ace of Base, Pat Benetar, Europe and The Bangles to name but a few. Coupled with their ringleader being a control freak and refusing to vary the routines as per Bec's suggestions, their performances become stagnant. Meanwhile their rivals streak ahead with innovation. Bec develops a fleeting romance with the cookie-cut teen male lead, (honestly, look at him and think of every teen movie ever made) risking her place in the troupe. They travel to a competition and hi-jinks ensue. Bec tries to innovate the wallowing performance and is thrown out. She falls out with "generic male lead" because, apparently- she has a problem with pushing people away- a development of character not explored in the film. The ringleader pukes some more. Quiet Asian girl falls into it and makes a Vom-angel (I wish I were making that up). Bec is let back in and assumes control of the troupe. They finally do it her way; with a Frankenstein's monster of a mash-up centred around a vocally flat rendition of "Don't You Forget About Me" ; arising because of "generic male lead" having introduced her to the world of film, with particular emphasis on The Breakfast Club and it's ending (well, can't fault his taste). It is a rip roaring success and they win the day. Cheers. Obligatory kiss. Curtains.

What really made this movie truly awful for me, was not just the desecration of classic songs, nor was it the yawning lack of character development, the needless and excessive "gross-out comedy" moments, or the plethora of rom-com tropes: it was the way the film was shot.

Throughout, I felt like I was watching a soap opera. The camera work was shaky, and kept following characters rather than having angles or scene placements to speak of. Couple that with pieces of text appearing on the screen and lame fading scene transitions and it all looked thoroughly amateur. You expect that in Hollyoaks or Emmerdale, but not on the big screen. The final performance had a degree of realism to it- because most of it was shot from what felt like a handicam in the crowd at a school talent show. Not a good thing.

I often rip on rom-coms for their unrealism. They create and display unachieivable standards and expectations for relationships. In this particular case however, I have to add that it is creating a romanticised illusion that acapella/glee clubs are both numerous, and incredibly sought after and desirable. These groups are in reality very niche, and you're either very into it, or give it a barge-pole berth. I am no great arbiter of what is cool and fashionable- but I do know how a generic group of Glaswegian high school teens would react to an acapella group, and those involved in it- it would make tabloid headlines. 

With that in mind, actually, it would have been interesting to explore an external bullying/victimisation angle- but instead everyone on campus seems to think it is not only completely ordinary, but something that warrants concert hall levels of production. Perhaps it's different in America.

All in; for me Pitch Perfect was woefully out of key. I won't watch it again, but regrettably I can't unsee or unhear it. It redeems a few points for a few genuinely funny moments, a couple of likeable, if fleeting characters, and also I suppose; because this is not a hetero-guy-friendly chickflick; from an "eye candy" perspective. Even with that in mind, this movie did not fill me with glee, just exasperation. 

3/10

P.s:- if this movie has scarred you, and you happen to be a fan of games, I recommend going onto YouTube to listen to the truly excellent Smooth McGroove to return to your happy place. 

Journey to Chickflickland.

Ive been neglecting this recently.

But over the next while there should be a bit more. 

You see, my girlfriend has a list of films she wants to put me through. I don't mind watching chick flicks, but they generally aren't my cup of tea, and when a movie sucks I tend to make my own fun by mocking it. 

I've got a wee notebook for the occasion, and I can take notes to do write ups on here for purpose of amusement.

Wish me luck!

How do we solve a problem like Gaza?

There always seems to be conflict of some kind in the Middle East. In my 25 years on this earth I cannot actually remember a time of peace there according to western media.

For centuries, tribes, and later countries, have been killing each other. Perhaps most notable is the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which has taken another particularly ugly turn recently. 

The sides are massively mismatched, and it shows. Over 1000 Palestinians now lie dead, as I understand it 200-300 of them are children. Meanwhile, there have been only 46 Israeli deaths (at time of writing). This is in part due to the indiscriminate bombardment by Israel, and the fact that Hamas continue to operate in built up areas, including schools and hospitals. Also a massive factor is the Israeli missile defence system, "Iron Dome"- generously set up by the United States- which blocks almost all of the incoming rockets from Hamas. 

What many people want to know though,in discussion and debate- is what side you're on. I want to give my answer here and at length; partially to limit the amount of times I have to repeat myself.

Neither.

Let's remember for a moment what this is all about. Two groups of people, with different religions (one spawned from the other I might add) have laid claim to sites they both proclaim to be "sacred" and have been fighting over them ever since. In the years that have followed, there have been numerous political and social elements compounding the issue further- but religion lies at it's black heart. Two sides fighting over who's imaginary friend exists. It's ludicrous. 

I abhor violence on any level. Anyone who knows me knows I am far more likely to seek to talk on an issue rather than blow up and wallop someone; and I feel the same about the wider world. With that in mind, there needs to be a mutually agreed ceasefire, and Israel has to stop occupying more and more Palestinian areas and forcing people out. 

It would be great if the UN could just sit down with the leaders of the two countries, draw a line on a map, set up stringent border controls and say "there, now stop it. You live there, and you live there". Basically, how you deal with a pair of troublesome children. But it won't happen, because the UN are largely toothless. Often in the media, you hear about "sanctions" being levied on nations that commit atrocities, violate human rights or commit war crimes- but on the face of it- do they really have any impact? Sanctions were levied on Libya if I remember correctly- and Gaddafi went right on slaughtering anyone who dissented his government. It was only when allied forces banded together to arm the resistance and bomb the living shit out of Libya that things changed.

I'm not suggesting we turn the area into a crater and say no-one is having it (another child strategy; taking the toys away), but we do need to make good on being the progressive human rights leaders the western world countries think they are. We need to reform the UN so it actually has some bite to hold countries like Israel, Syria; and indeed larger powers like the USA and Russia; accountable for their actions on the world stage.

But I'm getting off topic. Absolutely, I find what's going on atrocious, and something does need to be done, both about a ceasefire, and holding Israel accountable for what is looking more and more like attempted genocide with each day. Having said that- offering my full support to Palestine doesn't seem right either. Socially and politically I'm right there, but as an atheist, giving my support to either side of a religious conflict doesn't sit right with me. I firmly believe that if you took religion out of the equation, it could be resolved in a matter of years. However, it's there, and despite the fact that these two peoples have the same skin colour, are breathing the same air and have the same blood flowing in their veins- they may as well be different species.

*as of this morning the UN made a presidential statement to call for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire. This however is not a UN resolution and seems to be effectively just saying "err, you guys should um, stop blowing each other up or whatever"

Success and "Selling Out"

I did a post about music fairly recently, but I discussed music with a friend of mine recently, and I was reminded of a rather annoying characteristic of some music fans. In the past I've been called a music elitist and I accept that charge- it simply means my standards are high.  There are however, greater "sins" that some lovers of music commit. To fully understand what I'm talking about- let's examine some of the choiciest irritating phrases uttered by fans of this type, and respond to them.

"I listened to them before they got famous, now I don't":- Why? Have they changed dramatically since then in sound or attitude? If there is no legitimate shift of any kind; don't be alarmed, but you might in fact be what is commonly known as a pretentious hipster. Oh no- a relatively unknown band has broken ground and now people other than you like them. What a travesty.

"I was one of the first people to get into them":- Congratulations. We are all so very happy for you, are deeply moved by your unwavering superfandom, and think your oversized owl pendant is... Lovely. Tell me, what is it that draws you to nautical themes? Forgive the sarcasm, but I fail to see the merit in pointing this out, other than shameless posturing of course. 

"They used to be good, but they've sold out now, and they suck" :- Do they really? I'm sorry to be the one to do a little bubble-bursting, but selling out is actually a good thing. Think about it; a band you are a fan of- a band you like- has become successful and famous for their music. How is that not positive? If, as I mentioned before, the band has changed irrevocably as a result and you no longer like the actual music or it's direction in subsequent releases, that's understandable. That happened to me with Metallica. The material after "Load" didn't do anything for me, but it's enjoyed by many (yes, even St. Anger). It doesn't stop me enjoying the older records like Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning. It doesn't change how much I enjoy the grandeur of songs like "One", "Creeping Death" and "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)". It makes me wish that they were still doing that- but bands grow, experiment and, yes, change. That's just the way it is. 

And, probably my personal favourite selfish gripe:

"I hate that everyone listens to them now, they were one of my bands"

Wow. Take that in for a moment. Not only are you resentful of someone's success, but you would- given your way- keep them at an underground level: have their music reach and entertain fewer people.  You'd actually impede the progress of the bands you supposedly "love". That, to me is not how a fan of a band should behave. It's like you're saying "How dare they capitalise on what they're clearly good at. How dare they make a living from the art they've created and suffered for- they're MY band." I've honestly encountered people who will not divulge their taste in bands with other people; for fear word of their cherished artists might spread. If that does happen, they claim that they have been "ruined" for them. Such possessiveness is highly irrational- musicians are not property to claim some kind of ownership of. If someone I knew discovered a band I liked, I'd be delighted. I'd boil over with enthusiasm and spark conversation about them, because finding out someone shares a passion with you is awesome. Believe it or not- most bands out there don't want to be playing in bars to 20 people- ten of which aren't even watching- for their entire lives. Most bands have a little more ambition; a drive to share their music with more and more people, play bigger stages and entertain larger crowds. The more people you play to, the bigger the head-rush gets. Put your pathetic obsessions in perspective to that and realise that it isn't all about you- it never was. It's about musicians doing what they love and sharing it with the world.

If any of these phrases sound like you- ask yourself why that is- and whether you really feel right in saying it. If you find yourself uttering the last phrase frequently, then you are a sorry excuse for a fan, and should take a good hard look at yourself. 

I'll say it once again- selling out is a great thing. If you as a musician are accosted by some cardigan-wearing hipster and accused of it; take it as a compliment.

Five bands I've never liked

I'm a massive music fan. I love almost all walks of it from classical baroque to death metal. On the whole, I'm far more into the alternative and darker side of things for the most part (rock/metal etc); reason being, I can't stand the vacuousness of most modern pop. With that in mind, there are some bands that most people are surprised at me for not liking. A band or artist can be so widely liked that it's taken for granted that the next person will like them- and it's usually a pretty safe bet too. More recently, another has reared it's head, more as an annoyance than anything else. Babymetal seem to be capturing everyone's attention lately and I don't really understand why. The musicianship isn't that bad- but nobody pays attention to that. It's all about the cutesy outfits, the high-pitched "kawaii" squeaking and the choreography. In my view, and in my sincerest hopes, I think it'll be a fad that'll be forgotten in a year or less. Remember Skindred and their "reggae metal" sound? A bit? Vaguely? 

Exactly. 

So, here are 5 bands many people have been consistently surprised that I don't like.

Manowar:- Being a metal fan, liking Manowar is a given for many. Theyre metal personified, so they claim. Frequently. Try a drinking game with a Manowar album where you take a drink every time "metal" or "warriors" are mentioned. In fact- don't- because you'll get alcohol poisoning and I don't want that on my conscience. The band talk about battle and being "sworn to fight and die" etc. but I really do get the impression that the only way they'd defeat an enemy in true combat is through the stench of them collectively soiling themselves. Part of Manowar's appeal I suppose is that they are a parody of themselves; tongue firmly in-cheek. The problem there for me there is it just comes across as so contrived. It's the same recycled lyrics and lyrical form.  The same thing has happened for me with Tenacious D and Steel Panther- you can tell some jokes, and the first time, hell, the first couple of times, it's funny. Tell the same kind of joke over and over and it becomes dull and predictable. The only difference with Manowar is, I've never found them entertaining.

Red Hot Chilli Peppers:- Just how many songs can you write about California? Lots, seems to be the answer if you happen to be a member of RHCP. Many bands are guilty of milking tropes- Dragonforce, Motley Crüe and the aforementioned "comedy acts" to name a few, but the Chillies are  among the worst offenders. When you have musicians like guitarist John Frusciante (has now left the band) and bassist "Flea" on board, it's quite hard to fault the actual performance, and there are some killer basslines and  guitar riffs in there. RHCP however, have all the hallmarks of a band operating wholly and solely within their comfort zone. "Shall we try something new and experimental on this record that pushes us as artists, and the wider envelope of our genre of music? LOLNOPE- let's write another 8 songs that reference sunshine and Cali in some way, along with a couple that question existence with the logic of a stoner. That made us TONNES of money before!" They're a bloated stadium act, but their biggest crime against music to me is that they lack imagination. 

Motörhead:- Again, if you're into heavy music, how could you not like Motörhead? They're loud, brash, unrefined, and have been on the circuit for  decades that way. To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't hate the band, I don't even strongly dislike them, but nothing draws me to them. I would never consciously choose Motörhead. Nothing they do makes me come alive the way other hard rock or metal does, and when you're in a genre that's all about excess; that's a hard thing to reconcile yourself with. Furthermore, for as colourful and vibrant a character Lemmy is- his voice does nothing for me. It's like the man gargles gravel- and it has just about the same hue as it as well. It may sound at home on their own material, but it really stands out in sore thumb fashion whenever the band does a cover. Check out the renditions of Metallica's "Whiplash" or "Enter Sandman" and you'll see exactly what I mean. Okay, fine- I like Ace of Spades. 

U2:- Where do I start with U2? Let's get the obvious out of the way first. Bono is a twat. Self righteous and preachy about charitable causes, despite not paying tax in his native Ireland. Wearing those huge wraparound shades ("you're Irish, you shouldn't even OWN sunglasses"-- Ross Noble) and that air of smarminess. There's an urban tale of U2 once playing Glasgow that captures both this- and the stereotypical blunt directness of the Scottish people beautifully. In between songs, a light shines only on Bono as he paces back and forth across the darkened stage. The crowd has subsided and a murmuring quiet now lingers. *Clap*. Bono brings his hands together and shatters the silence. He waits for the echoes to fade and *clap* does it again. He begins to speak, "Everytime I clap my hands," *clap* "a child in Africa dies." The legend goes that a sole voice shouted up from the crowd saying "Well, stop fucking doing it then, you cunt!" Lots of rockstars have an ego, it's part of who they are, part of their persona. David Lee Roth, Randy Blythe, James Hetfield, Ozzy, Steven Tyler- all of these frontmen and many more have a commanding stage presence that is, or has been steeped in ego- but with Bono, he just comes across as a prick, like the kid in your class in school who was that little bit more well-off than everyone else, and knew it. For me, however, the worst part of U2, and the part I am most vitriolic over, is their "guitarist" David Evans. First of all, who the fuck calls themselves "The Edge"? Somebody who has picked their own nickname, that's who, (like LL Cool J- which stands for "Ladies Love Cool James, apparently)- the air of the prick runs strong in this group- but that's not why I can't stand him. No. To truly understand this, we need to examine what makes up his sound as a guitar player. In the documentary "It Might Get Loud" - David Evans discusses the origins and evolutions of the electric guitar alongside Jimmy Page and Jack White. For me, the third player should have been Joe Satriani, John Petrucci or Steve Vai- because then we would have had three genuine walks of guitarist. The "veteran" Page, the "minimalist" White, and the "virtuoso" would have all complimented one another. However, I digress; the documentary contains a scene where they examine 's live gig setup. What we find is a rack of effects and processing the size of a small caravan. That is the sound of "The Edge". Take that away, and it's gone. Everything he plays would sound simplistic and utter shit- in fact- he freely admits this in the documentary. The comedian Bill Bailey illustrates this beautifully in his live show "Part Troll" which I shall link here (http://youtu.be/H8dZwXnMrRU). How can you even call that guitar playing? Indeed, I would be loath to recognise the man as a guitarist. At times he plays one chord once and the effects do the rest! You could replace him with a keyboard- and lead electric guitar simply should not be that way. Effects add colour and depth to guitar parts; the delay and echo at the start of "Welcome to the Jungle"; the deep "jet engine" flange sound on the intro to Machine Head's "Davidian" for instance. However, that's all they are- embellishment. If you rely completely on them, is it even worth strumming strings at all?

And the number one band that everyone seems astonished at me for disliking?

Nirvana:- The big one. I cannot count the open mouthed surprise at my dislike for Nirvana. They're just not a good band. Sorry, but they're not, they are overrated and the diehard fans have delusions of grandeur. They're not even a good grunge band- bands like Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are far superior in this genre- and yet they get only a fraction of the attention. They are the archetypical example of "right place, right time" in terms of success. After the 80's, the market was saturated with glam rock and electronica- then grunge came along and swept people up in it's dour, yet fresh approach to rock music. And who was riding the crest of that wave? Nirvana. Returning again to a guitarist standpoint- if I hear one more person say that Kurt was a great underrated guitar genius I will explode. Solos that follow the vocal line are not imaginative and visionary- I've personally written and played better solos drunk. Playing powerchords in a circle is not a triumph in songwriting- listen to "Them Bones" by Alice in Chains; with it's changing time signature, offbeat groove and deep nebulous lyrics and tell me honestly you think "Heart-shaped Box" is better. Indeed, the best thing to come out of Nirvana was Dave Grohl going on to form Foo Fighters. The lyrics are bad enough- the delivery is worse still. Listening to Nirvana, for me, gives a sensation of being dragged; in fact, that's  a prevailing feel in the sound, the vocals drag, the guitar drags as the lead lines wallow around trying to find key. It's the sound of apathy; and it gives the impression of general half-arsed-ness. I like my music with a little more passion and a little less whine. Over all, what ever I smell off this band, it doesn't smell "like teen spirit"

So that's that, and I hope I've made my position clear on all of these. There are a few more than this, but none I felt strongly enough about to including in this list. If you like any of these bands, feel free to leave a reasoned counterargument in the comment section... Or an acerbic distribe about why I'm fundamentally wrong and should be killed for dissing your favourite band. Either works for me!

The future is not Orange.

Recently, there have been several large street marches by the Orange Order. For those who are unaware, it is an organisation founded by 1795 in Amagh in the sectarian conflict surrounding Ireland's secession from the rest of the UK.

Every year, these individuals march through the streets early on weekend mornings, holding up traffic and playing loud and obnoxious flute and drum music. 

My main complaint, however, is that these marches are a celebration of war and bloodshed. They are in reverence of one group of people mercilessly killing another purely because their beliefs are different. That is nothing for any human being to be proud of. The current marches serve no purpose except to provoke other people with opposing sympathies. It is disgusting, and it should not be allowed to continue. 

If anyone out there thinks it should be upheld as a "noble historical tradition" I would ask them the following question:

Do you find what ISIS is currently doing in the Middle East to be admirable and noble?

Essentially, it is the same thing as what happened all those years ago: one sect of a religion butchering another sect because they believe their own way of worship is the one true path to their god. As ever, religion is the virus that causes the condition of conflict. At their heart, religions have an in-group/out-group mentality, and at the heart of almost every conflict on the globe; religious division is often found at it's core. Whoever is with the in-group, is deemed moral, just and true. Whoever does not subscribe to their beliefs, is either a sinner who is blind and needs saving, or a heathen deserving of death. 

Sometimes war is a path that we are forced as nations, and as human beings, to walk. It is not something anyone should find gladness and glee in; but instead, a dignified respect for the lives lost and a regret that fighting was ever required in the first place.

Organisations like the orange order  have no place in our future- and belong in our past to be shamed and ultimately forgotten.