When not to modify a hashtag.

The existence of social media platforms has given birth to social media activism, which has enabled people to promote their own causes independently of charities and organisations. On occasion social media has been responsible for spearheading influential campaigns, including the #BlackLivesMatter and #YesAllWomen hashtags. Both of which have played an integral part in raising awareness of issues of racism and sexism in the modern world. Despite the positive influence of these projects, amongst others, they have come up against resistance, most notably in the form of those who warp and reshape the original message of the campaign for their own purposes.

The mishandling of these campaigns has become an epidemic issue, with countless people launching spin offs of the initial campaign to serve their own needs. As a result supporters are fractured by the confused message and the message is lost amongst the fight to reclaim it.

Activists hashtags have been reshaped continually, and the #AllLivesMatter tag is a prime example of what’s wrong with it. The #AllLivesMatter hashtag emerged soon after the #BlackLivesMatter message took off. The changed message was supposedly to support caring for all people, and helping them all equally. Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton even uttered the phrase during a speech on her campaign tour. People have continued to support the #AllLivesMatter movement, claiming that it’s a more positive message because it supports all people. But, what continues to be misunderstood is that #BlackLivesMatter is not designed to be exclusionary; it is designed to draw attention to a minority who are continuing to face blatant and unchecked prejudice and racism. By supporting a cause aimed at a specific group of people you aren’t announcing hatred for all other people, but this fact seems to be lost on those who decided to alter the movement with #AllLivesMatter.

The same problem can be seen amongst hashtags promoting feminism and projects like #EverydaySexism. One of the most significant backlashes against these hashtags has been #NotAllMen, which was designed to draw attention to the fact that not all men are sexist or rapists. A fact that really wasn’t necessary to point out, but the participants in this hashtag are apparently incapable of understanding that a blanket statement drawing attention to a minority issue is not condemning all others outside of that group.

The bastardisation of these hashtags is a clear example of the continued ignorance displayed by people who decide to actively manipulate these campaigns for their own gain. Those who create these modified hashtags are often working with the best intentions, because they think that they’re promoting a positive message, but what they’re doing is actually very damaging. On occasion, though, they really are just arseholes who think that they’re better than the issue being promoted. Changing the message waters down the positive effects of the initial hashtag and wastes time, because supporters of the original message can become embroiled in fruitless arguments with those ignorant enough to modify the hashtag.

With the continuation of insular and intolerant attitudes people are able to promote these modified hashtags freely and they continue to gather support. The initial manipulation of these hashtags usually stems from people misunderstanding the root of the cause, which results in the decision to ‘correct’ the perceived wrongdoing. The warping of the cause successfully draws attention away from its original message and poisons the positive influence the campaign is trying to achieve. Consequently people have to waste time attempting to explain why their bastardisation of the initial campaign is wrong, which wastes precious time. The focus of campaigns like #BlackLivesMatter and #EverydaySexism is to help adjust the equilibrium of our society to more accurately reflect an equal and just society. But, this becomes impossible when people continue to bastardise the cause for their own gain, because they deem these hashtags as inflammatory and prejudice in themselves. To put it simply: they are not being prejudice. The hashtags are designed to gather support for the group being affected, and raise awareness of the issue. Not to hurt your precious feelings.

Modifying these campaigns fractures minority groups as each attempts to gain the attention they deserve, and are hampered by the individuals who believe that their hurt feelings deserve more attention than the primary cause. So next time you think that someone saying #BlackLivesMatter or #YesAllWomen is a personal affront to you, reconsider! I can guarantee you that it’s not designed as an insult to you, I doubt you’re important enough to have a hashtag developed just to offend you. Try reminding yourself that the world doesn’t revolve around you, there are issues that need attention drawn to them and sometimes they aren’t going to be about you. They’re aimed at raising awareness of an issue that needs addressing, that needs to be acknowledged and changed. So stop reading between the lines, and listen to the message. 

What's really wrong with Reality TV?

Reality TV has become an integral part of modern popular culture and it isn’t showing any signs of disappearing. It hasn’t completely taken over our screens yet, but it’s carved out its own place in TV history with endless new ideas and shows popping up every few months. Even though it has often been considered ‘low-brow’ entertainment the genre has continued to draw increasing numbers of fans. It has succeeded in directing its gaze onto vast groups of people, from benefits claimers on the controversial Benefits Street to drunken partygoers on shows like Geordie Shore, The Valleys and Jersey Shore.

The breadth of programming that falls under the definition of reality TV is impressive, with everything from teenage pregnancies to marriage being documented and staged. It has managed to infiltrate popular culture in countless areas and it’s allowed insight into what the typical modern audience wants to watch.  But, despite reality TV’s consistent popularity there remains an argument that its production could be damaging to the audiences who watch it. So is reality TV harmless, or is it threatening to dumb down a generation with inane programming?

Is it even reality?

The set up of reality TV accurately reflects its animal counterpart – the documentary. Documentaries often follow the lives and actions of the animal world and humans have long enjoyed watching them play out on screen whether they’re animals or not. But, what is often forgotten whilst watching such programmes is how much they’re influenced by those creating them in the first place. It’s impossible to create a reality show, documentary or otherwise, that’s completely unbiased or uninfluenced by outside factors. Every reality TV show is designed, they are very rarely allowed to flow naturally, and even those that do are not organic creations. At its root reality TV is acting portrayed as real life, nothing more. Even those shows that profess to be ‘truly real’ cannot be considered as such, because the actions of those involved are still being manipulated by outside forces. Placing people on reality shows affects their behaviour and leaves people incapable of acting naturally.

Those who place themselves on reality shows are intimately aware that they’re acting even if it’s in the smallest capacity they’re still portraying a character that they hope audiences will respond to. Everything you’re watching is being directly influenced by the creators of a show, which is designed to imitate reality whilst sucking as much money as possible out of it. So really, and pointlessly, reality TV can really be defined as drama rather than reality, but that would eliminate the interest audiences have in it in the first place. Even if it is fake all a show needs to do is suspend reality for its viewer, and reality TV has always been able to achieve this with ease by immersing audiences in the lives of others.

Is it wrong?

Despite my obsession with Geordie Shore I often end up feeling guilty when watching it, and not because I’m embarrassed to watch it (everyone needs something to zone out too), but for a completely different reason. When you’re watching shows like Geordie Shore and Keeping up with the Kardashians it’s easy to forget why you’re really watching them. Some watch reality TV for the glimpses into their favourite celebrities lives, others watch because they genuinely care about finding out what the stars are doing with their lives, but for others reality TV is all about revelling in the misery or idiocy of the genres biggest stars. I definitely fall under the last category, and I imagine many others do to, which incites some level of guilt.

Mostly I would agree that this brand of reality TV is harmless, because the shows stars are fully aware of the situation they’re putting themselves in and the pay off must be good otherwise they wouldn’t still be coming back for season after season. The same cannot be said for all reality TV programming, however, particularly with reality shows like Benefits Street beginning to crop up.

The show has been the centre of considerable controversy following its airing in 2014. Benefits Street was designed to give insight into the lives of those living on benefits, but it ultimately became a twisted portrayal. The ‘reality show’ deliberately vilified benefit claimers by highlighting the select few who manipulate the system, whilst forgetting to emphasise the importance of supporting those less able to work.

The show sparked even more controversy when participants claimed that the show had lied to them by promising to deliver content highlighting the community spirit of the area.[1] Although the programme was highly contentious it drew an impressive average viewership of 5.9 millions people per episode, which cemented its place on Channel 4.

Despite continued division over the existence of such programmes several politicians cited the show as an excuse for clamping down on benefit claimers. Amongst the most notable commentators was David Cameron who used the shows views to argue that the government should ‘intervene in people’s lives’ to help them transition from being benefit claimers to full-time workers. Some argued that the show was simply ‘poverty porn’, whilst others saw it as an excuse to instigate harsher cuts to the welfare system. Regardless which side people fell on, what was clear was the inherent cruelty of the show. It was designed to vilify those living on the bottom of the social ladder and simultaneously allowed people the chance to laugh and ridicule those involved in the show. If the show had succeeded in providing an unbiased look at that section of the society it may have been able to provide an interesting insight into it, but instead Channel 4 demonstrated the deliberate cruelty that reality TV can breed.

Is it clever?

Simply put? Yes. Reality TV is probably one of the more lucrative TV ventures in recent years, not counting the up and coming superhero takeover. It’s maintained a consistent presence on our channels for decades, and will undoubtedly continue to be a significant part of our programming. The monster industry that is reality TV has launched the careers of countless D-Listers and revolutionised the way some advertisers market their products.

The very existence of pop culture has enabled reality TV stars to make use of hundreds of thousands of Twitter and Instagram followers to earn themselves an extra payday. Perhaps not the pinnacle of human intelligence, but a perfect example of the role reality TV has played in modifying the way advertising has developed in recent years.

On top of their advertising potential reality TV shows have also shown impressive longevity, with some series reaching 10 seasons and bringing home some serious cash. Their ability to march on through the shortening attention spans of today’s audiences is characterised by their understanding of human’s natural inclination to spectate rather than participate. We as a human race have a delightful tendency to prefer to watch what others do than do it ourselves, and reality TV has manipulated this desire to keep us firmly on our sofas watching their creations. The construction of a product that can sell to any level of society has resulted in a lavish lifestyle for reality TV, with it turning camera to everything from teenage pregnancy and drunken holiday goers to ‘social experiments’ and competitions. Many may have a tendency to look down their noses at reality TV, but its very existence as an addictive, intelligent and long lasting design proves its worth.

So, is it really wrong?

Reality TV has been labelled as everything from genius to asinine, and that’s largely down to its tendency to lean toward the controversial, always toeing the line between acceptable and deplorable. Reality TV is well aware of its precarious position, but it also relies on it. It wouldn’t survive if it weren’t picked apart and criticised on a daily basis. It feeds off controversy and the attention media platforms and publications provide. For the most part it has remained a relatively harmless entity, particularly when considering tamer versions of reality TV, like Gogglebox.

But, the problems of reality TV arise when the fallout from their existence is more noticeable, exemplified by Benefits Street. Although Benefits Street isn’t the only show that has been met with significant criticism – heavy drinking shows like Geordie/Jersey Shore have been accused of promoting unhealthy drinking habits and singing shows have been criticised for flooding the market with musicians unable to endure in such a competitive industry. Comparatively 16 & Pregnant was complimented for contributing to a lower rate of teen pregnancy, but despite this rare success story not many others have followed suit. Most reality shows have begun to border on the ridiculous, especially with the recent Married at First Sight, and they aren’t showing any signs of moderating their ideas.

When will it have gone too far? My vote is that it already has with upcoming The Briefcase pitting families in need of money against one another all whilst dangling $101,000 in front of them. There’s certainly nothing wrong with enjoying a bit of mindless TV and laughing at the ridiculous antics of those involved, but where’s the limit? Mockery can easily tip the balance into becoming vindictive.

Reality TV usually provides harmless fun for our screens, but there are clear signs that it’s becoming a tool for experimentation and deliberate propaganda. It thrives on shocking its audiences, no matter the consequences, and the genre is always prepared to cross boundaries if necessary. So the question is, is reality TV always harmless, or does it have its limits?

---

[1] Stuart, Paul (6 January 2014). "Benefits Street TV show lied to us, say Winson Green residents".Birmingham Mail (Trinity Mirror). Retrieved 23 January 2014.

Are film certificates being affected by our own escalating expectations?

As cinema has become a dominant part of culture audience’s expectations have begun to change, and consequently there’s been a natural progression of ratings readjustments. Following the improvement of CGI technology film studios have been met with a rising demand for ultra-realism and they have responded with astounding authenticity. But, with the improvement of film studios’ tech there has come a point where ratings have had to give, especially with the increasing tendency of films to frequently include strong themes of violence, sex and profanity. The modern audience is far less likely to be disturbed by what a film depicts than they were a few decades ago, and the changes have had a significant impact on the escalating expectations of audiences and the UK film ratings system.

If you consider the rise of horror films and the backlash that followed, in the 1980’s, aptly named the ‘Video Nasties’, it’s clear that things have changed a hell of a lot. When films like Evil Dead and Driller Killer came bursting onto the scene audiences were shocked by what they saw. Blood and guts were bursting everywhere and we can never forget that infamous tree rape scene can we. In just a few short years the notion of the slasher film became a cult hit amongst younger audiences. But some were not so keen on it, and consequently a movement for banning these ‘heinous’ exhibitions of violence begun. Contemporary audiences used to watching films that give us hyper realistic deaths and massacres probably wouldn’t bat an eye at the unrealistic gore of the 1980s. We only see pathetically bad CGI and really fake blood, but in their era they were the height of realism and horror, but at the time the films were the pinnacle of gore and horror. People apparently even fainted during shows of Evil Dead!

Due to the limited power of the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) they were unable to control the access to these films on video release, because prior to 1984 the certificates on videos weren’t legally binding and ratings were only really effective for cinema releases. As a result a moral campaign sprung up in retaliation, which was spearheaded by Mary Whitehouse of the NVLA (National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association). A list of films was sent out dictating those films that needed to be recalled and banned, and it resulted in a lot of confusion. Titles that had received proper classifications were banned without cause and it resulted in the Video Recordings Act of 1984. The act imposed a stricter moral code on the release of films, particularly those that had cinematic releases. In recent years, however, the emphasis on morality in rating films has relaxed significantly and we get to enjoy The Evil Dead (the original, not the remake) in peace.

The initial reaction to horror films was extreme, but as time has passed gore has become the norm for the modern audience, which has had a strong impact on ratings today. The gradual acceptance of extreme violence in mainstream cinema has had a knock-on affect on how other aspects of film are treated, including graphic sex, violence and language, which is abundantly clear when considering the negative reaction to the ‘video nasties’ in comparison to the widely accepted violence in modern day film.

The boundaries between ratings have become slightly blurred as time has gone on, primarily due to the ability of film editors to decrease a films rating just by reducing the amount of shots focusing on violence or gore or by shortening a nude scene. A 12 is described as only permitting ‘moderate’ violence and occasional gory moments, but what justifies ‘moderate’? A 15 is described as allowing ’strong violence’ as long as it doesn’t dwell on the infliction of pain or injury, but much of this can be cleverly edited around so that the level of violence is the same, but the rating isn’t. This is usually done by reducing the focus on the cause of the injury or by shifting it out of the spotlight.

Some aspects of ratings are clearer though, particularly in regards to the viewing of sexual violence, which is only permitted to be shown discreetly at a 15 and must be justified by its context. The BBFC even take into consideration the portrayal of behaviour that may be considered dangerous for teens, but even this can only be policed to a limited extent. The various criteria that decide the ratings of films are often too fluid to avoid any controversy, particularly with the changing perception of what’s considered ‘moderate’ or ‘strong violence’. Thirty years ago violence depicted in the 80s era of horror would have been described as ‘heinous’ and ‘graphic’, but comparatively a film with the same level of gore and realism in the modern market would barely warrant a 15.

Audiences have become gradually accustomed to strong levels of violence, swearing and sex, but when is it too much? Many films have been criticised for the glorification of violence, most significantly The Human Centipede, and others have been disapproved of for their gratuitous display of sex and drug use, like The Wolf of Wall Street, which was still hailed as a critical success despite its highly controversial contents. The film garnered the record for the most uses of the word ‘fuck’ in a singular film, and missed a 15 rating in the UK because of it (amongst other things). But, despite some limited censuring of films in the modern day, there’s one major issue, and that lies in the description of an 18 rating, which claims that it will censor anything that may ‘cause harm to public health or morals.’ An admirable statement, but how exactly can it be moderated? Our morals are ever changing and I doubt they can be properly quantified to understand exactly how a U, PG, 12, 15 or 18 act against them.

How long will it be until there’s even less difference between a PG and a 12? Or a 15 and an 18? As realism/technology has developed the boundaries between ratings have become inconsistent and the expectations of audiences have shifted drastically. Sex is a pretty commonplace discussion now and that’s clearly been reflected in film, similarly violence and profanity have equally become more vividly portrayed across the board. In a world where those with internet access can find graphic beheadings of ISIS victims people aren’t phased by what an 18 film can deliver.

Film ratings feel almost pointless at this stage of internet dominance, because any kid who doesn’t have parental controls can access any film as long as he can download it. That doesn’t mean we don’t need ratings, but isn’t there another way we can limit what people are able to see? Graphic violence is now a normal occurrence in TV programming and films, and the development of technology can only be blamed for so much of it. Audiences are always crying out for more, so that they can be shocked once more, in a new and exciting way.

At the rate we’re becoming acclimatised to strong levels of violence and sex our ratings system could soon become obsolete, or need a complete remodel. Audiences have become accustomed to a certain level of realism, and we’re left with an industry desperately competing to bring a whole new level of gore to shock and awe an audience incapable of being surprised. With audiences who complain if things are too extreme or too boring film studios are at a loss, and the only progression to be had is to try to keep up with the ever-changing demands of impatient audiences. No wonder films ratings have begun to reflect the attitudes of audiences; they have no choice but to cater to the erratic tide or they’ll be swallowed by it.

Istanbul Perspectives.

 The Blue Mosque Perspective.

Centre of the Aya Sofya Perspective.

20 Films That Are So Shit They're Great!

Sometimes you watch a film that you’ll think about for years, some of the time it’ll be because it was a thought provoking masterpiece that will haunt you for the foreseeable future. And the rest of the time? It’s because it was such a shambles that it just makes you giggle every time a scene pops into your head.

These films nearly always fall into two categories, there are the films that are designed to be so bad that you can only watch in awe, and then there are the train wrecks that took themselves way too seriously and were met with constant ridicule.  

1. Planet Terror (2007)

Planet Terror falls into our first category – a film so bad it had to be on purpose. The plot leads us on an interesting adventure, an age-old tale, of survivors attempting to navigate a zombie apocalypse. It’s punctuated with stereotypical conflicts between survivors and the military forces, and adds an extra dash of ridiculousness. You’ll get the pleasure of watching a woman use a table leg as a prosthetic leg, which is later replaced with a machine gun. Keep an eye out for Quentin Tarantino being stabbed with her table leg (leg)!

2. Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus (2009)

Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus is one of many awful monster films, but unlike some horrors in the past, it doesn’t take itself too seriously. Instead we get to enjoy an endless sea of awful CGI and even worse acting. The overcomplicating of the plot and the beauty of the giant octopus and shark-fighting scene makes for a hell of a film.

3. Jersey Shore Shark Attack (2012)

Another shark film that definitely deserves to be on the list, it balances the parody and awful CGI so well it’s hilarious from start to finish. The combined hilarity of the stupidity of the main characters and the ludicrous plot put it up there with some of the best bad films of all time. Look out for Joey Fatone from ‘N Sync as well!

4. Shark in Venice (2008)

Last shark film I swear! I just had to put this masterpiece on the list; particularly as the sharks in the film have such a small part the title alone is hilariously stupid. The sharks only serve as convenient moments of action throughout the film, and instead it focuses on a completely unbelievable kidnapping plot. However, the film is pure comedy gold due the presence of Stephen Baldwin and because of one scene where we see his leg get bitten off and he wakes up with it miraculously untouched!

5. The Legend of Hercules (2014)

One of the most recent Hercules adaptions is probably just what you expect it to be – absolutely awful, but laughably so. Instead of embracing the cheesiness the film ends up taking itself far too seriously and in the end we are left with a film that is painful, but a good source of amusement.

6. Spiderman 3 (2007)

The original Spiderman trilogy was never fantastically made, but it supplied easy entertainment and cheap laughs. But, all of this was thrown out the window when they got to Spiderman 3. By ruining one Spiderman’s best villains, Venom, and piling on the cheese we were left with nothing more than endless cringey moments. But, if you can get through these scenes then you can enjoy it as a source of comic relief.

7. Drive Angry (2011)

One of many treasures that Nicolas Cage has delivered over the years and one of the many reasons I am glad he’ll say yes to any film nowadays! The film follows the absurd idea of Cage’s character coming back from the undead to hunt down the man who has kidnapped his granddaughter. Fast cars, unbelievable fight scenes and Nicolas Cage – what’s not to love to hate?

8. National Treasure (2004)

Another Nicolas Cage film to be cherished is National Treasure, and it’s sequel. These films combine family friendly adventures with incredibly over exaggerated connections to American History, and the result is endless hilarity at the expense of Nicolas Cage’s career.

9. Escape From L.A. (1996)

Kurt Russell is the epitome of the cheesy anti-hero in this film, and from start to finish the ridiculous plots never ceases to amuse. In an America where everything from swearing to pre-marital sex has been made illegal the island of Los Angeles has been made into a giant prison for those who choose imprisonment over death by electrocution. The plot follows Snake Plissken as he is sent to the island to retrieve the Presidents daughter and the result is cheese central.

10. Piranha 3D (2010)

The remake of the 1978 horror classic is comedy horror at its best, it’s so badly made and the acting is so awful that you will be in constant disbelief that a film this bad ever made it past the planning stages. The opening scene of Richard Dreyfuss being eaten alive is not to be missed, and the sequel is even better with the Hoff’s cameo. The entirety of both films is comedy gold and the gore is a perfect mix between ludicrous and realistic.

11. Cursed (2005)

This werewolf horror comedy perfectly encapsulates the ‘bad but great’ genre. Jesse Eisenberg stars in one of his earlier roles as one half of the brother and sister protagonist team, and he doesn’t disappoint in this cheese fest. You’ll laugh your head off at the ludicrous werewolf costumes and even more ridiculous gore.

12. Jeepers Creepers (2001)

The Jeepers Creepers films have been a guilty pleasure of mine for years and the original is the best of the lot. The Creeper, who rises every 23^rd spring for 23 days, haunts the steps of the protagonists of the film. The comedic gore is effective throughout, and you won’t be able to stop laughing all the way through at the attempts at serious horror.

13. Dracula 2000 (2000)

Gerard Butler’s first main role is absolutely priceless, it abuses the legend of Dracula ceaselessly throughout and the result is absolutely hilarious. Just sit back and enjoy its pathetic attempts at tension building and Butler’s laughable attempt at portraying the subtle evil of Dracula.

14. Paranormal Activity (2 onwards)

The first Paranormal Activity was suitably scary, with expert tension building, but every sequel since has been a massive disappointment. But, they do have comedic value. The prequel (3), in particular, is hilarious with endless supernatural tit bits popping up throughout. Instead of following the style of the first film with its slow tension building every sequel has tried to shove as many paranormal ‘happenings’ into 90 minutes as possible. But, at least these disasters result in a source of comedic nonsense for us to enjoy.

15. Crank (2006)

I could easily fill up this list with Jason Statham films if I wanted to, his films are always priceless and Crank is amongst the best. The story revolves around an assassin who has to maintain a constant adrenalin rush in order to stay alive, and the events get more and more outlandish as the film goes on. If you bear with it and embrace all the weirdness you’ll be laughing from beginning to end.

16. The Happening (2008)

The Happening is widely regarded as on of M. Night Shyamalan’s worst films, and you wouldn’t be wrong in thinking so. But, what is often forgotten is how hilarious the film actually is. If you enjoy the tragically bad acting and the stupid conclusion you can sit back and enjoy the incredulous looks on your friends faces when the final twist is revealed.

17. Wrong Turn (2003)

The Wrong Turn films are another series of horrors that are hilariously terrible, and will provide an endless source of entertainment for you. It’s a classically stupid horror so sit back and enjoy this mess of a film in all its cannibalistic glory.

18. Feast (2005)

Feast revolves around the typical character stereotypes of horror films, with characters being named after what their first impression indicates their role will be, including ‘Hero’, ‘Honey Pie’ and ‘Bozo’. It completely reverts and ends up twisting all of our expectations and the result is a train wreck of a film that remains hilarious from the first death to the last. Think Cabin in the Woods but with a much smaller budget.

19. Batman & Robin (1997)

This film successfully killed Chris O’Donnell’s career in one fell swoop and came close to ruining George Clooney’s reputation, but it still remains one of my favourite films. The terrible film is a treasure trove of comedy, and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s performance as Mr Freeze is absolutely priceless. If you haven’t seen this never-ending disaster of a film then you should watch it as soon as possible, even if it is just for Batman’s nipples.

20. Smokin’ Aces (2006)

Smokin’ Aces is a trigger-happy action fest that embraces its stupidity at every turn. It details the adventures of multiple assassins as they all seek the same man, and it never slows down as it follows the gun happy maniacs on their quest for the bounty.

Exodus: Gods and Kings - A Step Too Far in White-Washing?

The latest addition to blockbuster history, Exodus: Gods and Kings, is a film so grossly whitewashed I don’t know how it hasn’t received more criticism. It appears that the majority of film publications are uninterested in drawing attention to the blatant whitewashing that’s consistently executed in Hollywood. The subject only seems to come up on in smaller publications, and the world remains ignorant of its complete inability to deliver media in an equally representative way.

This latest addition to the mile long list of whitewashed films is unbelievable. The casting crew for this film have some serious issues if they think they could get away with making the entirety of Egypt white. Newsflash people Ancient Egyptians were not white they were black. To be so ignorant is simply inconceivable, how can audiences see a film like this in good conscious? Contrary to popular belief making the lead actors slightly more tanned does not make up for your whitewashed casting.

It isn’t the first time casting like this has happened and it won’t be the last. The recent selection of Scarlett Johansson as the lead in the American adaption of Ghost in the Shell is another blatant show of whitewashed casting. As an adaption of a Japanese anime you’d think the logical choice would be an Asian actress for the lead, but no we are left with another blatant racist casting choice. The same thing has happened over and over again with the dodgy casting in films like Prince of Persia and The Last Airbender. Fans cried out for accuracy and instead audiences were left with a film that was seriously lacking in diversity.

It’s bad enough that the film industry is lacking in films that are genuinely representative of our society, without casting directors depriving different ethnicities of roles that were literally written for them. To whitewash adaptions that deliberately portray a racially diverse setting is pure, unadulterated ignorance. I’m astounded that there are still casting directors who are still so unaware of their blatant racism. Casting a token black guy or Asian woman does not mean you are successfully representing minorities. All you are doing is proving that you are unaware of how to create a film that accurately reflects the diversity of our world.

Perhaps they are still too afraid, but that is no excuse. The online world has shown time and time again their ignorance when it comes to delivering racially diverse casting. Particularly with the recent rumours about Idris Elba being the new James Bond being met with much online criticism, and the same reception being given to Donald Glovers comments about portraying Spiderman. The derision that was piled on these actors is unbelievable, their acting ability shouldn’t be judged based on their race. In roles so open to interpretation why is there so much criticism when considering actors of different ethnicities?

Some may argue that in that case it shouldn’t matter if the actors are white either, but I think you can agree with me that it’s not as though white actors are struggling for opportunities. It’s time to produce films and TV series that are completely diverse. We cannot continue to remain ignorant of our apparent inability to do so. Wouldn’t it be lovely to live in a world that’s able to portray people in media in a way that’s representative of the reality we live in? Roles should be attributed based on their skills, not their race. And it’s about time we stop depriving people roles based on ‘accuracy’, our present is so diverse it should be appropriately reflected in our media. We already have the Bechadel test to highlight the sexism in films; surely it’s time to also turn our attention to the racial stereotyping and whitewashing in film as well.

Perspectives 1.

I a few months ago I started doing some photography again and ended up with these.

 Acropolis Perspective 1. 

 Agora Perspective 1. 

Temple of Apollo at Corinth Perspective 1.