And it all comes to an end.

Age? 20

Sex? Male

What is your degree subject (both if joint)? Film Studies

Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking? No.
If so, how? And if not, why not? Whilst I don't think being bad relates enteirly well to Film Studies this doesn't necessarily mena I haven't enjoyed the module. Throughly entertained and intrigued week in, week out I feel this subject has been a great learning experience.

Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level? An appropriate level.

Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate? I think in hindsight the subject of bad comedy and masturbation were slightly disappointing.

Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included? I think prositituion could be an interesting topic neglected in the programme.

Do you think that the format for classes has worked well? Yes

What did you think of the module team? The module team all seemed to approach there respective topic with confidence and enthusiasm, which for me anyway helped engage my interest.

Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions? No
Discussion and debate among the class as a whole? Yes
Information and talk from lecturers? Yes

The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?

Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea? I do, I think it helps encourage scholars of various degrees to think outside of their studies, helping to prevent tunnel vision.

Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module? Through the blogging assessment is where I feel I have benefited mostly, assesing us on sharing our personal views I feel as helped broadened my horizons.

Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter? On behalf of the film students I would like to see a module within the three years that focuses upon shocking or controversial cinema.

Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2? No, instead I have opted to take all film modules however feel I have become generally more rounded and socially/poltiically aware due to the subject.

Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend? Highly.

Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea? Yes.

What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)? In parts yes I think it would be better to have a longer assignment, as I felt a little restricted with the word count in the two previous assignments.

What have you learned from the module? That the world isnt black and white, and its in the shades of grey where we can learn or attempt to learn most.

What parts of the module have you found most useful and why? The blogging aspect.

What parts do you think were a waste of time and why? The lesson entitled 'Lying With Integrity' I felt was mostly common sensical.

Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?

Pass Me A Bevvy Whilst Your At That Bar!

I found it utterly refreshing to find a a fellow friend and blogger who shared the same view with me on the nature of intoxication. This interesting read can be found at http://paulsbeingbad.blogspot.com/2008/05/intoxication-pass-me-bevvy.html.


In a module which looks at aspects of being bad, I think a lot of people will be quick to observe centrally the negative points about each topic. However I think this is not neccesarily the best route to opt for. I think with everything inherently bad in scope, its usually down to the individual that turns it more bad than it actually is.

Replying To Prostitution...not literally of course

Prostitution, the worlds oldest profression apparently makes its way onto the page of a fellow bloggers work. I found the angle in which the author directed there study towards very interesting. In the blog the author argues whether it can be considered prositution when celebrities endorse plotless relaity television for a quick dollar. Are these media company's executives pimping out these Johnny Knoxville's, Ozzy Osbournes for greater ratings? The post made me think actively about the definition of prostitution. I strongly reccomend others to read the post and question there own thoughts about what prosititution means to most.

http://tobebadornottobebad.blogspot.com/2008/04/prostitution.html

Getting Pissed!

We all do it, at least every now and then. Have a few too many, wet our whistles or in my case just get plain drunk. In fact I write this very column feeling the inevitable aftermath of a heavy night out. The typical symptons, headache, lack of apetite and the world famous line, " I'm never going to drink again!"

What drives me to write a post about drink is not the arguments for and against nor will I preach wrongly about the effects. What I do argue is there is a time, a place and most vitally a reason for going out/staying in and getting drunk. When these factors become unimportant thats when there is a problem. In its nature I argue alcohol and its consumption are not evil or bad, people wont burn in hell for sipping vodka however when that person steps into a car at the end of an evening and kills a family questions need to be raised.

A fascinating article by the telegraph I read online deatils the arrest of a Judge, I repeat Judge who was apprehended by the police for being in a state of intoxication. The article claims he called the two policemen 'arseholes' and stunk of drink. To some this may sound like the usual friday night out on the town after a bag of greasy chips but when your profession is honored and revered in evaluating the outcome of those persecuted, to not abide by the laws you advocate seems a little hypocritical. Maybe were being too harsh, after all he is human before he is Judge and lets face it, it's a stressful job. Either way it was ultimately the drink that forced this agression, but does this make drink bad? I stand proud and say no, and as far fetched a comparison it may appear but I propose this a man with a gun is not neccessarily bad, a man with a gun with the intention to assault is wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1442823/Judge-fined-for-being-drunk-and-disorderly.html

How bad are we?

http://spankyfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/short-sweet-spanky-if-you-willfirst-day.html

Finding this post about the bloggers personal experiences with what can be considered, 'being bad' made me question my own behaviour. Yes, I have smoked, Yes I have been drunk, contemplated infidelity and at times been downright sly. But do I consider myself immoral or bad? No I don't, I think as imperfect human beings it is illogical to assume we can lead wholesome and pure lives in the classical sense of the term.

The poster says that they have always had a solid sense of right and wrong and I can relate to this as in comparison to some of my peers previous ongoings I could be regarded a goody-goody by some. However I think it is this very concious understanding of the difference between right and wrong which seperates normal imperfect human beings subject to making mistakes and experimenting and those who chose to abide by a more unconventional lifestyle, living on the fringe of society with little regard in whats right and/or wrong.

In Response To Taxi Driver

Sifting through my peers work on these blogs I stumbled across a response to Martin Scorseses seminal 1976 film 'Taxi Driver'. The author of the blog can be found at this site http://wildonwilde.blogspot.com/2008/04/bad-cinema-taxi-driver.html

Although appreciating the fact the author idenitifed the film as being associated to the range of bad cinema and respecting the writers personal opinion, I feel the response was unjust in disregarding the films artistic merit and critique on society as I qoute the author claims,

'i think this was one of the most pointless films i have ever watched. i ask what was the point of the film? It is everything it says it is. Bad Cinema in every essence. "

To call the film pointless I feel is unfair. Aesthetically, yes is it flawed and moreso the politics are rudimentary however the films content can only be deemed 'bad' in what the point of the film is attempting to convey.

Choosing to ignore my personal bias in that I consider Martin Scorsese an artist amidst entertainers, I think the author misunderstood the film. The film focuses upon a vietnam veteran whose return home draws comparisons between the conflict in the war and the conflict on the streets. Scathingly the picture also questions the states negligence in dealing with the matters. Yes the film paints him out as a hero after a murderous spree, but I think I would also hail Mr Bickle a hero after ridding the world of a few less exploitative pimps. Wouldn't you?

The Truth, The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth!

In this post I will swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

With that cliche let me start by saying it is a lie that honesty is always the best policy. If I am to break up with a girl, would she rather hear its becauses shes boring in bed or because I feel that im at a point in life where I don't want a girlfriend? Im not saying I would split up with a girlfriend because of lacking ability in the bedroom department but I think it helps illustrate my point.

Deciet is an interesting sin, because everybody does it and I suspect at least once a day. We lie to others about how were feeling, we lie to ourselves about our percieved character. (In-depth alert)..Our general existence as thinking and feeling human beings is made up of a series of slight fabrications. It states on http://www.conservapedia.com/Deceit that..

"Deceit helps promote various belief systems with the public"

Politicians careers are determined arguably by there ability to lie, and those elected for power can be said come down to who is the better liar. I will make it clear I am not typecasting politicians, nor moaning about there unfulfilled promised to the land. I respect there profression and understand we would live in a lesser quality of life without there care. However we all know taxes wont be dropping anytime soon as much as we know immigration won't be tackled in the forseeable future.

Children get told off for telling 'porky pies', but I argue embrace a childs ability to lie, it might make them prime minister one day. Of course Im joking and lying, but if we promote the idea that sometimes lying is a neccesary course of action and is important to sosciety and can be done with honour and nobility then it needn't not be regarded a sin.

Can Music Really Be Subversive?

Ah music, one of my favourite pastimes. As I sit here listening to Frank Sinatra I'm enjoying every note from the vocals of the legend. Don't met me wrong I'm no music snob for every Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin I enjoy an Oasis, an Arctic Monkeys and ovvasionally I can be seen rocking out to some drum N Bass.

Enough introduction, what interests me is that some scholars, parents and conservatives feel music can be a negative influence. Is nothing safe in our decaying society? Mozart must be spinning in his grave, im sure nobody ever murdered somebody as a direct result of one of his symphonies.

Almost synonymous with violence as a result of its music, the rap and hip hop genre usually fall victim in being pigenholed a bad influence upon society. What angers me about this is that the musical genre is spoilt by a few talent-devoid artists such as 50 Cent who does little more to further the genres devlopment than advertise and glamorise a life of crime.

For instance a website I found states,

In the UK anti-gun campaigners called on stores to withdraw 50 Cent's computer game Bulletproof. Players follow Fiddy from crack-dealing gangsta to superstar by gunning down, stabbing and strangling rivals

http://www.clarkyboy.com/rapmusic.htm

Irresponsibility can be subjected upon many celebrities.Rockstars get drunk almost on a nightly basis and models almost promote anorexia but for an artist and more shockingly the computer games producers to condone this style of violence on-screen in a computer game sickens me. Yes we have all heard of Grand Theft Auto, but this game is postered with a recognisable face whose legions of fans, many I suspect vulnerable and impressionable youngsters may opt to follow suit, inspired by the game.

I consider music, in all forms and shapes as a creative form thriving in both commercial and artistic fibre. When music is subject to censorship because a few ill-advised musicians whose intention is to shock through lyric defeats the very purpose of music for me. If The Who were rebelling for an entire generation (mind the pun), then 50 Cent is merely flashing his bottom. Immature and ineffective.

Tattoos?!?? What's the big deal?

As a self-confessed bearer of being inked and likely to be inked at least once more in my life, I too can claim to have jumped on the 'must get a tattoo before I die' bandwagon. I don't regret what I have and still adhere to finding the words "its with you for life" from non-tattooed people most patronising however what I do wish is that I had a reason for wanting to get one before I made the leap. I am often asked what my tattoos symbolise or mean and I struggle to answer, largely because there is no answer.

Important to the culture of tattoo's I feel is based deep in their origins. Tribal and historically tattoos can be considered a very important aspect in creating a social identity. Although I do feel this discipline has been much lost now in an age where you can get Robbie Williams face tattooed on your bum.

I also have problems with those who wish to do nothing other than cover there body with tattoos, a love and passion for the inking they may share I feel doesn't outweigh the obvious lack of spiritual and personal meaning the tattoos represent. For instance, my picture above y'know the guy with area 51 for a back. Joking aside is it for us to guess that this great spiritual declaration of his character is simply he likes aliens and space?

As a word of advice to those who are considering getting inked I encourage active thinking in what your getting and more crucially, why? Like sex, one need not necessarily jump straight into it.

Football Hooligans!!!! I think we all know what the dingles are like...

I write this a very proud and doting West Bromwhich Albion fan, a team who recently have been promoted to the Premiership. Despite my allegiance to this team never have I personally felt any need to lash out at any rival team, even those adorable Wolverhampton fans.

As a fan of the beautiful game the idea of football holliganism fascinates me on both a sporting and socialogical level. What says social solidarity more than twenty thousand people all wearing the same shirt, singing the same song and sometimes attacking another twenty thousand people all wearing another shirt.

Hoping to discover more insight into the world of football hooliganism I found a very informative and compact site http://www.liv.ac.uk/footballindustry/hooligan.html. It claims boldy on the site

"It is impossible to claim that all "football hooligans" are of a certain age or class or possess a particular "psychological make-up".

Forever connoting the idea of hooliganism with young, boozed up males of around 19-25 I now accept that I was eager to stereotype. I mean as most films teach us, its the firms leaders who are more mature and approach the idea of a footballing firm almost at a business level determination of organisation. The term "psychological make-up" is vital in defining a football hooligan, a person who may legitimately be a family man monday through friday (dependant upon fixtures may I add) with a profressional job who turns predator on the weekend. What is it that can be said about a man that football represents to them less of a sport and more of a chance to vent some anger. Is it ritualistic, sadomasochistic?

The sport and culture of football is a wonderful thing. It can bring friends and families together, can be a honest and interesting pastime, however hooliganism taints the sport and most frustratingly those who follow the sport. In general football fans are branded ignorant at best and xenophobic at worst. My plea is enjoy the sport for sports sake, the reason you enjoyed it in the first place.

So A Man Walks Into A Bar...

Comedy by its nature, hell difinition is that it is a joke, a fabricated strectch of the truth, dissimilar to the reality of such things, I could go on but basically comedy is designed and as it would seem watching most American television manufactured to make people laugh. However its been a while since the Beverly Hillbillies and The Monkees made anyone really laugh. We all opt and favour a much more mccabre, controversial and ultimately more interesting and funny approach. Here is a short list of topics which with the wit of a comedian can be deconstructed for comedic purposes.

-Religion

-Racism

-Sexism

-Politics

-Sexuality

-Drugs

But this isnt really news to anybody, a talented comedian can with ease poke satire at all of those topics, but why is it we find this risque after all its only jokes right?

Of course I draw the line at any comedian who uses the stage and profession as a platform for propaganda, Roy Chubby Brown anyone? However I feel that some comedians can get unfairly painted as controversial through purely mentioning something political or racy. I mean is Chris Rock really controversial, yes he pokes fun at white people and trivialises the running of his country in poking fun at his nations leaders but is he really controversial? I mean after all, he is a comedian with no real voice in the world of politics and in an age where our polticians and global leaders are ridiculed and mocked on a daily basis be it by newspapers, television satire or the wit and sophistication of a standup comic, does one persons mostly unreletive views really matter?

An interesting article I found from the BBC's wesbsite discusses whether clean comedy can be funny.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6381909.stm I will let you have fun reading but leave you with this, my favourite comedian is Russel Howard, a twenty something man from bristol whose act mostly connsists of colloquialisms, jokes about curly wurlies and putting on a range of voices. So is the 'power' of so called subversive comedains like Bill Hicks, Chris Rock etc really valid?

Blasphemy?!? Offensive?!?

Mass religous insitituions are incredibly complex time old cornsertsones of the comminuty, or maybe not so much anymore. Religion has always bothered me as I have never fully understood where exactly my loyalty lies if you will. Do I, or don't I believe in God. Either way I do agree the importance in the social function for an artefact like The Holy Bible, Torah etc. However when these unintentionally conflicting pieces of prose spark fundamentalist relgiious conflict this is where my patience grows fine.

On a site I found related to atheism features a quote from George Herbert Walker Bush which frustrates me, it reads

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. "

http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html

Surely, the declaration of Independance and Americas ideolology inbringing liberty and justice to all, is thrown out of the window with this, right?

Is it blasphemous in purely being an atheist? Does the very idea that someone may not share the same beliefs as there more spiritual counterpart offend people to the point they can be classified blasphemers? Surely does this not infringe the political ideal which promotes freedom of speech? In seeking what I consider to be the only reasonable answer this site http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile5.htm reads

"I'm really sympathetic to the freedom of speech argument. But blasphemy is not a matter of free speech, it's people going out of their way to offend almighty God."

The speaker of this obviously shares my very same opinion, the right to openly debate and discuss the existence and nature of God should be praised anc celebrated. However the ignorance in meerly offended believers should be shunned by society regardless of the false notion that we live in a society with freedom of speech.

Masturbation: A Full Time Hobby?

Catholicism and potentially your mother may have you believe if you to touch yourself in those special areas you are an immoral being who is violating all those virtues usually partnered with being wholsome and all that jazz...

Interested in the concept that a serious religious establishment such as the Catholic Church so clearly frown upon masturbating I did a little research and found this site http://www.atruechurch.info/masturbation.html which states

"To pursue sexual pleasure or orgasm in manner not associated with marital intercourse that is love-giving and open to the creation of new life violates the will of God and is immoral. "

Shocked with the results I felt angered that an act as trivial and harmless as masturbation is advertised as immoral and subject to anger the will of god by religious leaders. I wish not to challenge the status quo in beliefs by these religious leaders and the religions followers but in the shade of the 21st cntury I think such dogmatic rhetoric may need a little revision.

Now accepted as an inherently natural thing for many people to do I personally don't even associate the topic of being bad to masturbating, the context obviously is a matter of taste but my faith in humanity rests on the fact that I hope most people wish to indulge in this activity indoors..in private, of course I exxagerated then but you get my point.

Its A Funny Old Game...Violence that is.

Why are we violent? What drives us to excericse physical agression against our fellow man/woman/probation officer?...of course the last is a joke, but seriously what is it that causes us to lash out?

Voilence you could argue is a necessary evil in its most basic form, I mean how many wars would have been won without violence...or even more closer to home, how many wars wouldn't have begun without violence?

Admittedly, not the most academic and painstakingly researched site, I did stumble across a site which in its very basic form explains what may trigger potential violence in adolesence and adulthood. http://people.bu.edu/pstring/children/theory.htm

I have problems with the findings on this site. It claims the glorification of violent heroes may increase the violence in later life if exposed to children. Growing up idolising Mr Shwarzaneggar and believing Rambo really could kill a jungle of 'baddies', i fail to believe in this theory too far. After all my urges to commit genocide are very slim. What I did find to have at least a margin of truth to it was that a large portion of the potential to violence is stemmed in the childhood of a lot of people. Those with families accustomed to domestic abuse usually find there temperment altered accrdingly so later on in life. I claim to have neither a pyschology dregree nor a social workers patience in discovering the root of such problems, however I find this logic resonates with me.

Allow me to be deemed controversial, conservative or even further old fashioned now but I believe discipline is a central element in shaping a childs social and personal make-up. Clear defintions between right and wrong, reward and punishment I feel are essential in teaching chldrens about morality. Am I wrong in thinking so, I argue no.

It is within our nature as humans to feel intrigue about violence. If a fight ensues we watch, in the paper the tragic and murderous headlines capture out interest the most. Media sensationalism can only be to blame so far, once we admit violence is an integral part of our society even if personally frowned upon we can only begin to understand how to prevent it.

A guide to Cheating on your spouse

Shocked, Shocked, Shocked and appalled with what I found on one site I quite simply had to read on..

You see this book was called 'How To Have An Affair And Never Get Caught!' What a novel idea I thought as I imagined a dutiful husband or wife stumbling upon the book amidst the book case in their home. I will try not and impose too much of my own views on infidelity in this post however as sleazy and deceptive an act is it, can there be something to be said about it? Is it a spontanoeus venture? Or is it a meticulosuly crafted and cunning plan in duping your lover at home with the ironing and cooking? It does make me question is there a certain seduction in beign seduced far more than the seducer her/himself? Thats enough rhetorical questions thrown at you for one post.

In regards to the very directly titled book, I think it does little more than encourage and condone infidelity and promote sexual promiscuity. I mean really, if you are going to cheat you will, Idoubt many consult a book before so. I mean it would take the fun out of it all wouldnt it.

I try to reject as many theories about infidelity as I can. For instance, its a mans primal urge to 'spread his seed' poor excuse. Or a woman can claim empowerment through infidelity and is an oppurtunity for maturity growth. Nonsense. Although, this book did get me inspired, not so much to cheat or consider the option of one day cheating but to compose a short guide to cheating myself.

For the Male

- Hs the 'finished late at work' excuse become tiresome and harder to maintain? Yes I thought so, instead tell her you have work early and make much needed use of that morning glory you greet every day at breakfast!

- Introduce your extra marital plaything as a newly discovered long lost cousin. Nobody will expect you to be cheating on the 'ball and chain' with your cousin, I should hope not anyway.

For The Female

- Allow your boyfriend to have a boys night in.Encourage him to host a poker night, farting and drinking all night with his buddies. This allows you to have your very own boys night in. Nudge Nudge Wink Wink

- Tell him you have started a new arts and crafts course and eagerly invite him along. Obviously the prospect of learning to sew is not high on your mans list of priorities so when he rejects the offer, this gives you a free night a week to be at your 'arts and crafts class'.

Of course I'm jokinh. A satirical jive at the idea a book like 'How to have an affair and never get caught' exists. In my humble opinion, the fact the book exists is far more worse than cheating itself.

The D Word...'Drugs' shhh

“Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally upon our planet. Doesn't the idea of making nature against the law seem to you a bit . . . unnatural?”

Not my words!! These are the words of a famous subversive comedian Bill Hicks. Controversial line huh? Sort of makes sense though though doesnt it!

Personally, yes I do think the world would be a better place without drugs, however that is a given. Drugs are a problem, and always will be in the forseeable future. The distribution of drugs is difficult and complex to trace. The consumption of drugs is widespread and takes the lives of many...and many around them. Again, obvious? So why is there such a moral debate about narcotics, surely everyone knows there bad news. Well not everybody

www.udreview.com/media/storage/paper781/news/2006/10/13/News/Moral.Debate.On.Marijuana.Legalization-2347982.shtml

clergy members arguing FOR the legalisation of cannabis? I think its offical hell has frozen over. Or maybe not, as Reverand Greg Chute states

""I'm not sure if making it against the law has any impact on its misuse," Chute said. "In many ways, it drives it underground, which makes it more of a problem."

I think this is a fair comment, i mean drugs are highly synonmous with rebellion so is the legalisaiton of at least cannabis a step towards making it so less desirable to impressionable young adults? Obviously this prompts the question concerning by making it open and accessible to all, does it encourage the consumption of it?

Of course though alternately, if taxed by the government at a high price funding the state rather than a drug dealer does this make it more acceptable? You could argue the average pothead may be a regular hero to the tax world, I wonder how many new hopsitals, prisons and schools could be possibly built for the sake of someone enjoying a 'toke'?

Highlighting the Folly of so called "Bad Cinema"

In 2006, a popular magazine called 'Entertainment Weekly' released a list claiming what they believe to be the 25 most controversial films, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1202224,00.html. Much less of a serious consideration of controversial films than a list where somebad 'bad' is depicted in films. In short the list resembles something alittle like this

25- Alladin

24- Caligula

23-Kids

22-Do The Right Thing

21-Bonnie And Clyde

20-Cannibal Holocaust

19-Basic Instinct

18-I am Curious

17-Freaks

16-United 93

15- Triumph Of The Will

14- The Warriors

13- The Da Vinci Code

12- The Deer Hunter

11-The Message

10- Baby Doll

9- Last Tango In Paris

8-Natural Born Killers

7- Birth Of A Nation

6- The Last Temptation Of Christ

5-JFK

4- Deep Throat

3- Faranhiet/911

2- A Clockwork Orange

1- The Passion Of The Christ

Nowehere in this list does it claim to be difintive, or a prominent source for academic studies, however is it possible that some of these choices have been elected on pure terms of its historical context rather than the filmic content? I mean any controversial film list which ignores Pier Paolo Passolini's disgusting 'Salo' and Lars Von Triers attack on the middle class 'The Idiots' in favour of Alladin needs some serious revision.

Don't get me wrong some of the inclusions like Natural Born Killers a cheap disjointed picture about the galmarising of criminals which lead to coipycat killings and Birth Of A Nation, an out and out racist film deserve recognition on this list. Besdes any film called cannibal Holocaust isnt going to be showing up on the Disney Channel anytime soon.

However what angers me with the label controversial is in spirit I often find, it is a label slapped on films lazily. Almost a euphamism for any film which would instantly be better warranted defiant maybe? Anti-establishment? Non-conformist? This especially angers me when brave and courageous filmamaking like Spike Lee's Do the right thing and Paul Greengrass's United 93 are deemed controversial. The former a character study of New York and the racial tension that amounts one day and the latter being a no-holds barred almost documentary like reconstruction of the tragic events which unfolded on september 11th 2001. What is controversial about these films? The fact that these people, these places and these situations do occur? The fact it strays away from a all too happy ending, because in real life happy endings don't neccesarily happen? What is controversial about depicting the truth?

If this is 'bad cinema' I would hate to see 'good cinema', cinema where people live in nuclear families, walk their dogs on a sunday morning and the only drug they are aware of is aspirin.

Smoking: Has it all been 'puffed' out of proportion?

Smoking cigarettes are apparently really really bad for you! Of course this isn't news to anybody. With anti-smoking campaigns bombarded at us and an outright ban on smoking in enclosed spaces, which annoyed many drinkers there is an ongoing debate concerning the nature and act of smokers.

On one camp, you have the anti-smokers, outraged that the selfishness of smokers affects their health through second-hand smoking and making the general area smelly. Then of course you have the proud smokers, who claim that by reducing smokers to a huddle outside in the cold it infringes their basic civil liberty.

However the debate and discussion goes much further than this, for instance I found on a forum on the BBC's website a poster who engages in a more political effect of the smoking ban,

"I may be being a little naive, but if smoking is banned outright, as some seem to wish, certainly the NHS may benifit from some reduced costs, but how will the government replace the lost millions of pounds it takes from smokers at the present time in the form of tobacco duty?. Will it be re-couped in higher Income tax, Fuel Duty, VAT etc. We must all be prepared for higher bills, because there is no one else to pay but ourselves."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F1625154?thread=1854719

Approaching the concern of smoking with a hypothetical ban, the poster far more concerned with a question of taxation than civil liberty thhe poster highlights the fact that if a ban were to occur, naturally the government would ultimately 'recoup' its losses in terms of hieghtening already inflated taxes. Surely, it would be in the nations interest to tolerate smokers and smoking in favour of further taxes. Obviously we are all fully aware of the dangers, so is it not a personal choice to indulge in smoking. As i precariously drift between the balance of the smokers and anti-smokers I argue the debate around smoking is a trivial debate. The infrigment of civil liberty is a two edged sword, don't affect a non-smokers health, and don't patronise a smoker and his choice to smoke freely. However in the long run, I think we can collectively agree more wasted taxes are a much greater evil than 'cancer' sticks.

Is whats meant by 'controversial cinema' as honest cinema?

http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/feature.jsp?V=3&SV=3&id=153284

After revisiting the film Kids (1995) (about underage sex and drug taking) last week in lecture, I realised again just how relentlessly the film lives in the real world. From the unpolished dialogue and script to the lack of clearly defined heroes and villains, the film doesn't try to romanticise or soften its message.

However despite the films realistic and tragic message, the censor’s conservative reactions to the picture branded it with a NC-17 rating, the worst rating a film can receive. After some research about this it seems that America has often classified films with the 'X' rating. My source from channel4.com's Mark Kermode discusses a recent mature film called, Where The Truth Lies" which also had received the NC-17 rating. Mark Kermode claims,

"It says something about the chronic infantilism of American culture that it has no idea how to deal with 'adult' cinema."and"

the NC-17 certificate carries with it the stench of smut, meaning that several leading newspapers, cinema chains, and ultimately video stores refuse to endorse or promote material bearing the brand."

Kids suffered the same problems as the film discussed, the rating not only limits the audience appeal but trivialises the films mature and complex material by thus being associated with filth.

In my opinion, even if Kids was made with the intention to shock it still depicts an honest and realistic world for some, which Hollywood and the censors would ideally ignore. I won't call the film moral or immoral because I think the film is amoral in that the world is amoral too and until the censors learn to appreciate the function of these controversial films in society then we are being denied honest cinema.

Field Trip

A weekend in smutty Blackpool with a challenge to find the raunchiest novelty gift, i.e penis shaped dummies and inflatable sheep. If not a talk with local budding filmmakers who incorporate examples of 'being bad' into their films.