Shampoo

Now, I admit I didn't know what to expect when we were assigned the task of watching, 'Shampoo' - from the DVD box, it appeared to be simply a camp 70s chick flick - however I was definitely wrong.

'Shampoo' actually worked for me on several different levels - it was on one level, a flick but again on the other, quite an emotional character drama which tells the story of George (Warren Beatty), a playboy hairdresser who's philandering lifestyle truly gets the better of him. This film does not have a happy ending, rather it ends on a message - a moral and most likely, a truth.

The film deals with George's lifestyle which, at first, appears glamourous, but soon we see the true effect of his ways on both himself and others - as he tries to deal with all the women in his life while trying to raise funds to open his own hair salon.

The performances are, in my opinion, average on the whole. Warren Beatty gives a credible but not outstanding performance as does Julie Christie as Jackie Shawn, Beatty's lover.

It does, however, have many comic moments and was probably rather outrageous for its time. I made the mistake of not noticing the rating on the DVD box and was surprised to hear some of the graphic references to sex and the amount of swearing! It is of a classic 70s film style - the women are glamourous and the hair is big and brilliant.

The film represents women well, all four lead female character's are strong... in fact stronger than the men - although George is essentially the film's protaganist - he is not in control. The women of the film make the desicions and control the drama.

George's lifestyle is also a reflection of the society and culture of the time - set in 1968 just as Nixon is coming into power - it was a time of free love and lots and lots of sex!

I did enjoy the film - however I feel it could be percieved as rather dated now - I believe it will be remembered more as a snapshot of life at that time rather than a timeless comedy.

Robin Hood (Longstride)

This film, to many people's surprise was not really a film about Robin Hood at all - at least not the Robin Hood we know. This is his backstory, the time before he became the outlaw we all know and love him for. This is the run up to his rejection of the law, the film finishing on his decision - a sure promise of a sequel I would think.

The film has its flaws - it did not do as well as was predicted at the box office, critics complained that Russell Crowe (as Robin Longstride) looked 'far too fat and old' to play the legendary character, and the most infamous flaw of all, the Irish accented Northern Englishman - Indeed, Crowe did not agree, exploding when interviewer Mark Lawson suggested on BBC Radio - not surprisingly this clip hit youtube in about 3 minutes (or the time it takes to upload a video) after it was broadcast.

However, contrary to the last paragraph, I really enjoyed the film - it was the perfect boys action movie. Crowe was accompanied by a tremendous supporting cast - the likes of Cate Blanchett (as Marion Loxley) and Danny Huston (as King Richard the Lionheart). It sported lots of blood and sword fights and it was a beautiful film to watch. The colours, I felt, really gave a sense of the period, and the mood of the time without seeming unrealistic.

Now one would expect, on a film of this scale, to find many a spectacular, epic, arial battle shot featuring tens of thousands of soldiers fighting to the death - this was not the case. Ridley Scott held off using these shots until towards the end, during the film's climactic battle - this resulted in these shots being a treat to watch and held a sense of power and drama which they would lack had they frequented the movie.

Only one issue I would like to bring up personally was the lack of light-hearted moments - even a few would have kept the pace moving and not made the film feel quite so depressing. Admittedly, depressing works for the story however I feel it would not have been as heavy if it had included some...... smiles perhaps? (Crowe maintains his trademark frown throughout the entire movie).

All in all, it was an entertaining movie - definitely one to see before it leaves cinemas - its not the Robin Hood you will expect - however I suppose that really is a good thing, given the thirty-odd classic Robin Hood movie that preceded this one.

This film, the characters and the story, truly stand alone.

Election 2010 coverage

This is the time that most of us 'just turned 18 year olds' have been waiting for - our first chance to vote... and I hope you all will be voting!

Now, as Andy stated in his brief for this assignment - television's function in the election should be to inform the electorate and therefore allow them to cast a sensible, logical and well informed vote on May 6th.

Now, there is no doubt there has been quantity of coverage, but the real questions is, is it quality or merely style over substance.

The usual coverage has been there, many tv news debates, a mass of party political broadcasts, coverage of the leaders visiting the public - including the recent 'scandal' involving Gordon Brown where he was caught off camera calling a women from Rochdale a 'bigot' - here is an example of where the press have made a huge fuss out of nothing, this one minor incident has reeled in far more press coverage than any other serious discussions about the election - this is a real example of how shallow our understanding of politics is - why are our television broadcasters, including the BBC (who appear to be becoming more pro Tory as every minute passes) are focussing on such a minor issue involving the Prime Minister making, in what my opinion was a very accurate judgement.

Anyway, before I was side tracked I was listing the usual tv coverage of an election - however this year saw something, up until now, unseen - a leaders debate - where the leader of each of the three leading political parties came together and debated their policies in front of a live studio audience. I believe Gordon Brown should be commended as he is the first ever Prime Minister who has agreed to do this.

I feel these debates were covered well on the most part, the host giving each leader a fair chance to speak. There was, however, an element of style over substance, with a lot of the audience being distracted from Nick Clegg's wishy-washy policies by his clear and concise delivery, people favouring David Cameron for his short, ill informed statements, refuting every word that came out of the Prime Minister's mouth, and people not hearing the substance behind a lot of Brown's arguments because of his stilted and slightly awkward delivery.

The parties have also got celebrities on board for their campaigns - the Conservatives being supported by Gary Barlow from 'Take That' and the Labour party being supported by our very own David Tennant, who I think made a sensible point when he was quoted saying - "I would rather have a Prime Minister who is the cleverest man in the room than a Prime Minister who looks good in a suit".

All in all, I think the television coverage of the election has been okay - however I think a lot of television stations have shown some biases. I know I have shown a bias throughout this blog but realistically this is how all viewers will approach and take from the coverage - taking from it what they want.

I do find that it is sad that we only have the option of voting for two parties, possibly three this year, as I would probably vote for smaller party but we do not get the coverage for these smaller parties in the media - we are only told about the mainstream parties.

I will stop here and we will soon see how the coverage of the actual election on Thursday May 6th will play out.