My friend and vlogger, David O'Reilly, and I have collaborated on the latest issue of his vlog, "What the F**k!!!", discussing No More Page 3. Please check it out and we would love to hear people's views on it......
Friday 7 March 2014
No More Page 3.......
My friend and vlogger, David O'Reilly, and I have collaborated on the latest issue of his vlog, "What the F**k!!!", discussing No More Page 3. Please check it out and we would love to hear people's views on it......
Monday 25 November 2013
Child Beauty Pageants - Good or bad?
It's not often I'm lost for words but that is how I find myself after watching a documentary this evening on US style child beauty pageants being held in Ireland, for the first time.
The main emphasis of the documentary followed the opposition the US-based organisers faced from the Irish Government and the media in holding the pageant. A number of venues pulled out of holding the contest at the last minute and there was a strong media backlash against the event and the organisers.
I will say that the actual footage of the pageant wasn't as grotesque as I thought it was going to be but it still left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Whilst most of the young girls appeared to be enjoying themselves, the same couldn't be said for some of the parents. Some of the parents were competitive in the extreme and seemed to have a win at all costs attitude. My question to those parents would have to be "Why do you feel the need to cover your daughter's beauty with make up, skimpy gaudy outfits and send them a message that one can be judged on looks?"
As I'm not a parent myself, I may not be best qualified to comment on this issue but I'm going to give my tuppence worth anyway. My idea of childhood is one of freedom and in particular freedom from society's obsession with appearance. From my own experience, once you hit puberty you are bombarded with images of the so-called body beautiful which help to reinforce, on a daily basis, negative self image. I know how it feels to detest the image staring back at you from the mirror because it isn't "perfect" like the cover girls in magazines. I also know how it feels to struggle with these issues every day and make it your daily mission to avoid the mirror at all costs. It took me a long time to finally deal with these issues, have the pleasure of conquering them and accepting the person, in the mirror, as a beautiful friend.
So to see these parents parading that idea of beauty, artificial not natural, and being judged on looks seems twisted and very wrong. Watching that documentary has made me speechless but also raging with anger.
Maybe the children are enjoying themselves and who am I to judge other people and what they do. But I can't help but think that these children are being given an idea that beauty is something that you are judged on and some are better than others because they are prettier.
Am I being overly sensitive to this issue or do you agree that all children are beautiful and should be allowed to have a childhood free of judgement?
The main emphasis of the documentary followed the opposition the US-based organisers faced from the Irish Government and the media in holding the pageant. A number of venues pulled out of holding the contest at the last minute and there was a strong media backlash against the event and the organisers.
I will say that the actual footage of the pageant wasn't as grotesque as I thought it was going to be but it still left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Whilst most of the young girls appeared to be enjoying themselves, the same couldn't be said for some of the parents. Some of the parents were competitive in the extreme and seemed to have a win at all costs attitude. My question to those parents would have to be "Why do you feel the need to cover your daughter's beauty with make up, skimpy gaudy outfits and send them a message that one can be judged on looks?"
As I'm not a parent myself, I may not be best qualified to comment on this issue but I'm going to give my tuppence worth anyway. My idea of childhood is one of freedom and in particular freedom from society's obsession with appearance. From my own experience, once you hit puberty you are bombarded with images of the so-called body beautiful which help to reinforce, on a daily basis, negative self image. I know how it feels to detest the image staring back at you from the mirror because it isn't "perfect" like the cover girls in magazines. I also know how it feels to struggle with these issues every day and make it your daily mission to avoid the mirror at all costs. It took me a long time to finally deal with these issues, have the pleasure of conquering them and accepting the person, in the mirror, as a beautiful friend.
So to see these parents parading that idea of beauty, artificial not natural, and being judged on looks seems twisted and very wrong. Watching that documentary has made me speechless but also raging with anger.
Maybe the children are enjoying themselves and who am I to judge other people and what they do. But I can't help but think that these children are being given an idea that beauty is something that you are judged on and some are better than others because they are prettier.
Am I being overly sensitive to this issue or do you agree that all children are beautiful and should be allowed to have a childhood free of judgement?
Saturday 16 November 2013
A New Venture......
As anyone out there who has happened upon this blog knows, I am a huge fan of the actor Ben Whishaw. As I don't have many friends in the non-virtual world aka the "real" world who share my appreciation of this wonderful being, I'm feeling rather lonely......
I would like to start an online fan site or community for all my fellow Whishaw admirers. I have to admit to selfish motives in wanting to provide this community service..... I just want to find like-minded souls I can talk to about Ben!!!
For a long time, I have followed and read blogs and fan sites (run by some amazing people) for other fancies of mine but I never had the get up and go to start my own. I'm stabbing in the dark here as I really don't know how to go about it but I'm certainly going to give it a try....
My main ground rule in setting up anything like this is that it will be a fan site with the intention of discussing the work and not the personal life. We can all enjoy the photos from public events and photo shoots (and lets face it our boy has done some fantastic photo shoots) but the line stops there. Ben is a private person who wishes his private life to remain private. In setting up a site, I want to respect that and not offend him in any way.
I have been thinking, since I started writing this blog, about how to attract an audience.
What will make people read and connect with me and my virtual persona?
What are the best social media platforms to use?
How can I let people who may be interested in my site know that it exists?
The questions are endless and I am still at a loss to answer most of them.
I really want to start this venture and I have set up a Google + community called "I need to talk about Ben Whishaw" which can be found at this address:
Eventually, I want to set up a full fan site and get other fans who are interested to run it with me. I believe the virtual world if managed properly is a great way for us to share and collaborate with like minded people.
If you feel the same about Mr Whishaw, or social media collaboration, I would love to hear from you. Please contact me on this blog, or via the following other links:
Wednesday 30 October 2013
What does our theatre admission ticket actually entitle us to or please lay off Ben Whishaw....
I'm actually getting really tired of people feeling that some sense of their entitlement is being breached because Ben Whishaw isn't coming to the stage door after the performances of Mojo; the play he is currently performing in London which also stars Rupert Grint among others; each evening.
When actors do red carpets at movie premieres or at the Oscars and similar award shows that is expected because it is part of the deal. These events are PR opportunities to promote the product aka the movie/TV show. Publicity for the movie or TV show being promoted are normally part of an actor's contract. So they have to do it regardless of whether they want to or not.
For me theatre is different. You go because you want to experience a performance and watch a play that may transport you to another place and time for a few hours. Get you thinking in a new way about an issue and challenge your beliefs; and most importantly of all to provide entertainment and enjoyment. I know that film and television can do the same thing but theatre is different because it is a live experience happening in real time.
It is also a live experience for the performers who are actually working while we are watching. Being on stage delivering live theatre can be physically and emotionally tiring (and from what I have read of the first performances and having read the play twice it seems that Ben Whishaw's character is on a rollercoaster of emotion). That in itself could be exhausting night after night.
Fair enough other cast members are signing and chatting with fans outside afterwards and it is their choice to do that. My point is do people actually want to see a play and the acting talent of the cast or just wait outside afterwards to see them more like movie stars at Hollywood premieres.
When did it stop being about the play and the acting and become all about the "celebrity" side?
I have always thought Ben Whishaw is not comfortable with the "star" image like some of his peers. So why can't people just accept that. He is an actor doing a job of performing on stage and entertaining people. From what I have read he is doing his job amazingly well as ever. So where is the issue?
Also, since his last West End performance (in Peter & Alice, with Judi Dench) his private life may have become a little too public for his tastes (not going in to that here) and maybe he is wary of being exposed in some way. Would we like it if our personal life was on show? Probably not.
For him, I hope that isn't why he's not engaging with the crowd after the performances. He could simply be trying to shed himself of the character before he steps back into his own life. All this is merely speculative and we will never know unless he chooses to reveal all (which I very much doubt!!).
Just give him a break. Enjoy his performances but don't feel you have any right to own any part of him or his personal time. Remember the ticket price does not include an audience with the cast after the show; unless there is a Q&A session.
This is a recent example of an issue I have been pondering for quite awhile and I plan on exploring it from different angles.
How much can we, the public, expect from people in the public eye? Are such people expected to give more of themselves to the public than was previously the case. How much of their time and their private life have we a right to encroach on.
The public/private boundaries that existed before have changed with the invention of "Reality TV" and the E! channel "celebrities" who are the stars of these programmes. I have a lot to say on this issue so I will be returning to it again and as always I would love to hear what you think......
When actors do red carpets at movie premieres or at the Oscars and similar award shows that is expected because it is part of the deal. These events are PR opportunities to promote the product aka the movie/TV show. Publicity for the movie or TV show being promoted are normally part of an actor's contract. So they have to do it regardless of whether they want to or not.
For me theatre is different. You go because you want to experience a performance and watch a play that may transport you to another place and time for a few hours. Get you thinking in a new way about an issue and challenge your beliefs; and most importantly of all to provide entertainment and enjoyment. I know that film and television can do the same thing but theatre is different because it is a live experience happening in real time.
It is also a live experience for the performers who are actually working while we are watching. Being on stage delivering live theatre can be physically and emotionally tiring (and from what I have read of the first performances and having read the play twice it seems that Ben Whishaw's character is on a rollercoaster of emotion). That in itself could be exhausting night after night.
Fair enough other cast members are signing and chatting with fans outside afterwards and it is their choice to do that. My point is do people actually want to see a play and the acting talent of the cast or just wait outside afterwards to see them more like movie stars at Hollywood premieres.
When did it stop being about the play and the acting and become all about the "celebrity" side?
I have always thought Ben Whishaw is not comfortable with the "star" image like some of his peers. So why can't people just accept that. He is an actor doing a job of performing on stage and entertaining people. From what I have read he is doing his job amazingly well as ever. So where is the issue?
Also, since his last West End performance (in Peter & Alice, with Judi Dench) his private life may have become a little too public for his tastes (not going in to that here) and maybe he is wary of being exposed in some way. Would we like it if our personal life was on show? Probably not.
For him, I hope that isn't why he's not engaging with the crowd after the performances. He could simply be trying to shed himself of the character before he steps back into his own life. All this is merely speculative and we will never know unless he chooses to reveal all (which I very much doubt!!).
Just give him a break. Enjoy his performances but don't feel you have any right to own any part of him or his personal time. Remember the ticket price does not include an audience with the cast after the show; unless there is a Q&A session.
This is a recent example of an issue I have been pondering for quite awhile and I plan on exploring it from different angles.
How much can we, the public, expect from people in the public eye? Are such people expected to give more of themselves to the public than was previously the case. How much of their time and their private life have we a right to encroach on.
The public/private boundaries that existed before have changed with the invention of "Reality TV" and the E! channel "celebrities" who are the stars of these programmes. I have a lot to say on this issue so I will be returning to it again and as always I would love to hear what you think......
Friday 20 September 2013
Women Unwrapped......
There has been a lot of coverage recently on how women are depicted in the media. This discussion has been driven, in the most part, by that now infamous Robin Thicke video for his song "Blurred Lines" and his subsequent performance with Miley Cyrus, at the MTV VMA awards.
The song, in my opinion, is nothing new in terms of the misogyny of the lyrics. The sad fact is that we are exposed to these type of lyrics every day. My interest in the debate centres on how men and women are depicted in the accompanying video.
For those who are not familiar with the video, it shows Robin Thicke, Farrell and I think TI suited, booted and looking very polished. The women, on the other hand, are wearing practically nothing and striking a series of provocative poses around the men.
To me this represents control. To have the men, at all times, fully clothed shows that they are in control. The women, on the other hand, are by their nakedness shown as exposed and vunerable. This video is a striking example of how men and women are treated differently, in the media, generally.
If you scan the shelves of any newsagents, you will be assaulted with many images on the front covers of magazines. What I have noted is that women are often shown wearing very little and striking provocative poses on the cover of men's and women's magazines. The women are almost being unwrapped before our eyes.
Men, on the other hand, tend to be shown looking very handsome usually in a well tailored suit. I will admit to having a liking for handsome men (or at least those I consider to be handsome) in a well tailored suit but, for me, this again reinforces the issue of power and control.
My question is why can't women appear on the cover of magazines fully clothed, looking classy and in control of their own destiny?
I know some will say that the women are there because they chose to be and I accept that is their prerogative but what kind of message does that send out to our children. One that says girls are to be rated on physical appearance and judged by their bust measurements not their IQ.
I did have to smile when some men felt they were being "exploited" by a parody of the "Blurred Lines" video which was made by some law students, in Auckland, New Zealand. This resulted in that video being temporarily removed from You tube while the Robin Thicke video remained available. The video was subsequently reinstated to You tube. In this video, the roles are reversed and the women are in control.
Below is a link to the "Blurred Lines" parody but please note that this may not be suitable to view at work.
I would love to know your thoughts on this issue as I know it can be quite a divisive one.
The song, in my opinion, is nothing new in terms of the misogyny of the lyrics. The sad fact is that we are exposed to these type of lyrics every day. My interest in the debate centres on how men and women are depicted in the accompanying video.
For those who are not familiar with the video, it shows Robin Thicke, Farrell and I think TI suited, booted and looking very polished. The women, on the other hand, are wearing practically nothing and striking a series of provocative poses around the men.
To me this represents control. To have the men, at all times, fully clothed shows that they are in control. The women, on the other hand, are by their nakedness shown as exposed and vunerable. This video is a striking example of how men and women are treated differently, in the media, generally.
If you scan the shelves of any newsagents, you will be assaulted with many images on the front covers of magazines. What I have noted is that women are often shown wearing very little and striking provocative poses on the cover of men's and women's magazines. The women are almost being unwrapped before our eyes.
Men, on the other hand, tend to be shown looking very handsome usually in a well tailored suit. I will admit to having a liking for handsome men (or at least those I consider to be handsome) in a well tailored suit but, for me, this again reinforces the issue of power and control.
My question is why can't women appear on the cover of magazines fully clothed, looking classy and in control of their own destiny?
I know some will say that the women are there because they chose to be and I accept that is their prerogative but what kind of message does that send out to our children. One that says girls are to be rated on physical appearance and judged by their bust measurements not their IQ.
I did have to smile when some men felt they were being "exploited" by a parody of the "Blurred Lines" video which was made by some law students, in Auckland, New Zealand. This resulted in that video being temporarily removed from You tube while the Robin Thicke video remained available. The video was subsequently reinstated to You tube. In this video, the roles are reversed and the women are in control.
Below is a link to the "Blurred Lines" parody but please note that this may not be suitable to view at work.
I would love to know your thoughts on this issue as I know it can be quite a divisive one.
Sunday 15 September 2013
Labels....a rough draft.
I was inspired to write the poem below, currently in the first draft, after revisiting a film that had a profound effect on my younger self. The film in question is "An Angel at my Table" - directed by Jane Campion and starring a young Kerry Fox. This film is a biopic of the life of the celebrated New Zealand writer and poet, Janet Frame.
If you are not familiar with Janet Frame or her work, I would encourage you to take the time to read some of her writing and, if you get a chance, to watch the film "An Angel at my Table". Janet Frame suffered a mental breakdown and spent several years in an asylum, during which time, she was subjected to treatments such as electric shock treatment. Her life is a fascinating and interesting one and her story got me thinking about the labels we put on ourselves and others.
The poem below is a work in progress and I would as always love to know your thoughts on the ideas, raised in the poem, or the film if you have seen it.
"Labels"
Why do we label people and box them away?
Is it to make life feel more simple and provide comfort in structure.
Do I want to be labelled? NO
How do people see me? Am I nice, naughty, warm, angry, bright, dull.
The list of descriptions is as infinite as the heavens.
My head is spinning with all the labels that could be pinned to my collar.
My collar would fill up like a boy scout collects badges for his lapel.
Am I weighed down by the labels on my collar? YES
I am more than the sum of their parts.
They are simply words given a meaning. That meaning does not define me.
I am indefinable, indescribable, and my soul changes clothes at least once a century.
I don't get a choice in the clothes that it wears........that is the lottery of existence.
Why people spend time analysing, defining and ticking boxes is something I can't comprehend.
All that amounts to is wasted energy and hours that can never be returned.
Labels are like musty old jars on a shelf. They fill up a space but take them away and what is left - NOTHING
A void that can't be filled or a space full of infinite possibilities?
Carol O'Donovan
15th September 2013
If you are not familiar with Janet Frame or her work, I would encourage you to take the time to read some of her writing and, if you get a chance, to watch the film "An Angel at my Table". Janet Frame suffered a mental breakdown and spent several years in an asylum, during which time, she was subjected to treatments such as electric shock treatment. Her life is a fascinating and interesting one and her story got me thinking about the labels we put on ourselves and others.
The poem below is a work in progress and I would as always love to know your thoughts on the ideas, raised in the poem, or the film if you have seen it.
"Labels"
Why do we label people and box them away?
Is it to make life feel more simple and provide comfort in structure.
Do I want to be labelled? NO
How do people see me? Am I nice, naughty, warm, angry, bright, dull.
The list of descriptions is as infinite as the heavens.
My head is spinning with all the labels that could be pinned to my collar.
My collar would fill up like a boy scout collects badges for his lapel.
Am I weighed down by the labels on my collar? YES
I am more than the sum of their parts.
They are simply words given a meaning. That meaning does not define me.
I am indefinable, indescribable, and my soul changes clothes at least once a century.
I don't get a choice in the clothes that it wears........that is the lottery of existence.
Why people spend time analysing, defining and ticking boxes is something I can't comprehend.
All that amounts to is wasted energy and hours that can never be returned.
Labels are like musty old jars on a shelf. They fill up a space but take them away and what is left - NOTHING
A void that can't be filled or a space full of infinite possibilities?
Carol O'Donovan
15th September 2013
Tuesday 30 July 2013
How did I miss this......
Can someone please explain how it took me so long discover this example of television at its very best .........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)