“POLITICAL LANGUAGE... IS DESIGNED TO MAKE LIES SOUND TRUTHFUL AND MURDER RESPECTABLE, AND TO GIVE AN APPEARANCE OF SOLIDITY TO PURE WIND.”

George Orwell.

Well, that sounds about right to me. I can't remember who said it, but "wolves in different shades of grey" always stuck with me.

Anyway, if you hadn't guessed this is about British politics. I planned on writing a few different posts, but for now we'll just see how this one goes over, it's bound to be more divisive than films...

Something my friend shared on Facebook. Scary, huh?

The following is NOT my own work (starting from under the image), and is re-blogged here from 3 different sites; dummies.com, thinkingpolitics.org and idontgetpolitics.co.uk. Afterwards I have included  detailed yet easy-to-grasp poster form infomationisbeautiful.net addressing "left and right wing ideology", it's well worth a look.


Anyway, it's to serve as a simple way into a complicated subject and assumes no prior knowledge. Hope this helps anyone who struggles to keep up with the news, myself included...

The last person to enter parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes

Ideologies:

Let’s face it, ideologies are confusing things. The -ism bit seems to makes them so very forgettable. But not anymore! Here’s a quick alphabetical guide to the major (and not so major) political ideas that inspire people to get involved in politics.

Anarchism:

Can be grouped around socialistic or individualistic strains. Anarchists believe that the state and forms of compulsory government are harmful or unnecessary to people’s lives.

Communism:

Communists believe that capitalist system is damaging to interests of masses, and that workers must unite and overturn it by revolutionary means. Communists also believe in the state ownership of all land, natural resources and industry.

Conservatism:

Conservative thought is coloured by the belief that – over time – history has produced institutions and modes of government that function well, and which should be largely preserved for the future. They also believe that political change should be organic and gradual, rather than revolutionary.

Environmentalism:

Key political concern is protecting and improving the condition of the natural environment. Many believe there is a need for much greater regulation of humans’ interaction with the environment, and aspects of our lifestyles are environmentally unsustainable.

Feminism:

The belief that society and the political system is patriarchal. Feminists seek to improve the political and particularly, the social and economic position of women.

Liberalism:

The belief in protecting the rights of individual, so as to ensure their maximum freedom. There have been shifts in liberal thought, the most prominent of which was the move from classical liberalism (minimal role of state, unsecured liberties) to progressive liberalism in early twentieth century. Progressive liberals argued that civil liberties and freedoms must be safeguarded and actively protected by state.

Socialism:

Socialists are motivated by the desire to improve quality of life for all members of society. They believe in a political system characterised by strong state direction in political and economic policy. Another key idea is redistribution of resources to redress inequalities inherent in free-market economy.

    

General info of the political system in the UK

 The UK is a parliamentary democracy with The Queen as the Head of State. The Prime Minister leads the government and people vote in elections for MPs who will represent them in Parliament.

The Queen

Elizabeth II is a constitutional monarch: that is, she is Britain’s head of state, but her executive powers are limited by constitutional rules. Her role is mostly symbolic: she represents Britain on state visits and on ceremonial occasions. According to the royal website, her primary role is as a “focus of national unity”.

She is queen of 16 former British colonies, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand; and head of the Commonwealth, a multinational body created after the dissolution of the British Empire.

The Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is head of the UK government, currently David Cameron of the Conservative Party. He is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions. He; oversees the operation of the Civil Service (which does the practical and administrative work of government) and government agencies, appoints members of the government, and is the principal government figure in the House of Commons.

Coalition

The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government was formed on 10 May 2010. The coalition agreement sets out a joint programme for government to “rebuild the economy, unlock social mobility, mend the political system and give people the power to call the shots over the decisions that affect their lives”.

House of Commons (the lower chamber, the UK is bicameral)

The UK public elects 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and propose new laws, and can scrutinise government policies by asking ministers questions about current issues either in the Commons Chamber or in Committees.

House of Lords

The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It is independent from, and complements the work of, the elected House of Commons. The Lords shares the task of making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government.

Shadow government

The Shadow Cabinet is made up of frontbench MPs and Members of the Lords from the second largest party, or official Opposition party. The Opposition party appoints an MP to ‘shadow’ each of the members of the Cabinet. In this way the Opposition can make sure that it looks at every part of the Government and can question them thoroughly. It also means that the Opposition has MPs and Lords that are ready to take specific jobs in the Cabinet if they win at the next General Election. In the House of Lords the term “spokesperson” is used instead of “shadow”.

Political parties in the Commons

In addition to the main three parties, the Commons has a range of other political groups also elected by the public. This includes nationalist organisations like Plaid Cymru (Wales) and the Scottish National Party, Northern Ireland’s various political parties and minority parties like the Green Party or Respect.

Political parties in the Lords

Outside of the main parties there are a small number of Members that are not affiliated with a main political party and those belonging to minority groups. In addition there are a limited number of Church of England archbishops and bishops and the Crossbench Peers group.

The Crossbench Peers group is currently the second largest group in the Lords (after Labour); and is formed by independent Members who don’t take a party whip – which means that they are not told how to vote by a political party.

Right and Left Wing - What Does it Mean?

People are always going on about ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ - but what does it mean? Well it basically means what people believe a country should do for its citizens.

Left Wing

Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality. People who are left wing believe in taxation to redistribute opportunity and wealth - things like a National Health Service and job seeker’s allowance are fundamentally left wing ideas. They believe in equality over the freedom to fail.

In the UK the main left wing parties are the Labour Party and the Green Party. They believe in making laws that protect women, ethnic minorities, and gay people against discrimination. They believe that we should tax rich people more to support people less well off, and they believe we should regulate big businesses so they serve people’s interests. They believe that a good welfare system means people are healthier, more able to work, and will put more back into the economy. They also typically believe country-wide tax-funded action on climate change is necessary.

Right Wing

Right wing beliefs value tradition, they are about equity, survival of the fittest, and they believe in economic freedom. They typically believe that business shouldn’t be regulated, and that we should all look after ourselves. Right wing people tend believe they shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s education or health service. They believe in freedom to succeed over equality.

In the UK the main right wing parties are the Conservative (or Tory) Party, and UKIP (who focus on the UK not being a part of the European Union). They believe that if you have more money, you should get to keep it, and buy better education and health services for yourself. They believe that businesses should be less regulated, and that the more money they earn, they’ll bring more benefits to the country. In 2008 2/3 of Tory MPs didn’t think climate change was a priority, but their leadership says it’s important. They are more likely to focus on energy security (oil and gas are set to run out very soon, and they won’t want to rely on other countries).

Far Left to Far Right

Communism, Socialist Worker’s Party, Green Party, Unions, ‘old’ Labour, ‘mainstream’ Labour, Lib Dems*, ‘mainstream’ Conservative, ‘traditional’ Conservative, UKIP, BNP, Nazism.

Further Notes

*The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) are another major party in the UK but people often argue about where they fall, politically. They have some traditionally left wing ideas, and some right wing ones as well, for simplicity I have put them in the middle of this diagram.

Extreme versions of either scale, Left and Right, have caused the deaths of many thousands of people; see Communism or Nazism.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/

THIS IS THE END: Carlisle's Final Word

"I don't wanna die at James Franco's house."

Jay Baruchel.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 2/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 1/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Final Score; 8/10



I had really high hopes for this as the trailer left me chuckling, but in the back of my mind I kept on remembering how disappointed I usually am in Seth Rogen comedies; he's always likeable and humorous but I rarely bust-a-gut. So imagine how surprised I was to be genuinely thrilled, horrified and shocked by this unfairly-panned gem. I could be heard laughing out loud from start to finish, and I honestly don't remember the last time I enjoyed a comedy film this much (possibly because I have quite an odd sense of humor, 'gallows' some may call it). Finally, a horror comedy that remembers that the 'horror' parts still have to be played straight, not that they ever let scares get in the way of a good laugh! The danger is real, and the humor comes organically from the response. This has much more in common with Shaun of the Dead than it does Super Bad and its ilk.

When the cast of a film play 'themselves' that's usually a warning of "pretensions ahoy" (I can't remember the last time that was done successfully, has it ever?), but here the cast send themselves up with an enthusiasm that borders on career-suicide. These winging self-absorbed pre-maddonnas bicker over egos, argue about rations, botch scavenger hunts and succumb to sheer bloody panic when Hell literally opens up in the Hollywood Hills. That may sound like a terrible thing to watch (a bunch of spoilt rich people bickering for 100mins) but it's done so well and with so much charm that you actually begin to warm to these idiots. Hell, I was starting to hope they'd all escape alive...

Be warned though, the deaths are pretty gory at points, and you'll "oooohhh" as much as you'll laugh as familiar-faces cop-it in grisly fashion left-and-right (kudos to Michael Cera and Channing Tatum for their cameos, amongst others). The film never outlasts it's welcome while  successful peppering the run-time with decent gags (itself an achievement to be applauded), and although some of the CGI  looks a little fake towards the end, you'll be too engrossed to let it spoil your good time.

Could have done without the last 5 minute segment* (daft and undermining), but on the whole; well done Seth, Baruchel, McBride, Hill, Franco and Robinson.Shame you can't make a sequel...



*No, before you ask, it's not all a dream and they don't turn-back time.

CARRIE (2013); Carlisle's Final Word.

“You pray, little girl! You pray for forgiveness!”

Margaret White.

"You've got red on you."

Script Logic; 1/2 

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 1/2

Aesthetic; 1/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Final Score; 5/10

For once I'm current!

Another unnecessary remake, one in a long line. You can’t (shouldn’t) review a film like this without considering the source material. Some might argue that a film has to ‘stand on its own merits’ but as far as I’m concerned, you remake a classic, you accept the risk of comparriosn. It’s only fair if you’re going to copy what’s already been done…

So, first the casting. Gone is the haunting and melancholic presence of Sissy Spacek, the antagonist now portrayed by the much-too-conventional Chloe Grace Moretz, totally miscast as the teenage outcast. Timidity never really fits Chloe so well as it did Spacek, and I found it hard to believe that she was ever bullied in school for the way she looked- it was like watching one of the countless American high-school rom-coms, where you’re just waiting for the nerdy girl to remove her glasses, shake her hair loose and step out as a jaw-dropping sex bomb. There’s no escaping from the fact that when Spacek walks through the fire and carnage of the climax, with her rigid figure and startling eyes, she’s a terrifying agent of malevolence and retribution, a Greek fury-made-flesh. When Chloe Moretz floats around she looks more like one of the X-Men.

Subtlety and suspense are not the film’s strongest suit, everything here is turned up to 11; From Carries psychic awakening to the cruelty of the Carrie’s worst tormentor (seen this time round slitting a pig’s throat, just so the audience knows for certain that she's the villain). The end result is a quicker, slicker and louder Carrie, but one which for all its brash editing and effects  fails completely to capture the macabre final of its predecessor.

Polish and CGI do not a good horror film make.

WORLD WAR Z; Carlisle's Final Word.

"Every person we save is one less zombie to fight."

Jurgen Warmbrunn

Visits only safe city in the world. City is over-run. Jinx.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 1/2

Aesthetic; 1/2

Originality & Intention; 1/2

Final Score; 5/10

A zombie film for people who don't like zombie movies, or, if you prefer; a zombie film without any bite. In fact, ignore that- save for the fact that it features zombies, this is not strictly a zombie film... To my mind at least, zombie films are about so much more than their antagonist; they should be claustrophobic, socially relevant, and suspenseful, but even more importantly, they are about characters (their conflicts, their hopes, their drive to survive). A typical zombie film usually follows a small cast who are given the space and time to develop before the inevitable blood shed. So I put it to you that World War Z in in reality an action film; this is Brad Pit's film and the story is interested in his character alone, as he defies the rising odds with little to assist him other than hundreds of expendable soldiers and a few minor characters who never develop past their one-line stereotypes.

World War Z has little to offer the real horror or zombie movie enthusiast. It's the Woman In Black to The Shinning, the Hunger Games to Battle Royal; it's slick, fast paced (too fast I'd argue), and designed to offer spectacle rather than any lasting chills. It's only real innovation is the 'zombie horde' effect, which I always found too CGI-rubbery to be convincing. No real acting, no need for it. Pretty but very, very fake- no rawness, no dirt, no blood.

WWZ is at least unique in the role of its protagonist, a former United Nations investigator, who by the end of the film's first act is evacuated from an over-run city because "he's the only man who can save us now" (although why him and nobody else is never explicitly explained). Usually those types ('government agents') are the mustache -twirling villains in films like this, so Brad Pitt's role here as the hero is at least novel but ultimately unrewarding, as at every turn Pitt's character is saved by a never ending tide of disposable 'meat'. He never really has to 'survive' in the traditional way of zombie movies. What could have been a savage critic of governmental failure and callousness has been dropped in favor of a more generic 'America saves the day' type plot. Honestly, the world-view and politics of the film is so simplistic, and the action so over-the-top, it's like a zombie-mod for the Modern Warfare games. Even the font they use to set each scene is exactly the same.

And finally, and possibly the most troubling aspect of the film, what's with that fucking scarf? "I know" thinks Brad, with a flick of his salon-fresh hair, "I'll protect my arms from zombie bites by wrapping them in rolled-up magazines... Now I'll put on a long pretty scarf that can easily snag or be grabbed at..." Give that man a medal.

COMPLIANCE; Carlisle's Final Word

“You're fucked without bacon, I tell you that!”

Supplier.

If only I'd realised before now how easy it was to get laid...

Script Logic; 2/2 

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 1/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Final Score; 8/10

Not sure what to write about this; in parts I’ve been yelling at the screen in despair and frustration, and at other times I’ve been left totally speechless. I guess I need to put the film into some kind of context before I continue.

Compliance is the dramatization of events surrounding a disturbing true-life case of such galling stupidity that it’s almost impossible to believe that it ever really happened! Only in America… Now I totally understand why the Transformers franchise is worth so much. Honestly, after watching the film I was compelled to look into the story it was based on, convinced that what I’d just seen couldn’t possibly have happened (even in America), only to find the film had been entirely faithful and accurate to the source. In a word, staggering. 

While not a film anyone will necessarily ‘enjoy’, it’s well worth a watch. Brilliantly acted, although the faux-documentary style looks a little shoddy, and is probably a constraint of its meager budget. While the film’s content (humiliation and sexual abuse) is often difficult to watch, it will be the breath-taking ignorance of all involved that leaves the biggest and most lingering impression…