Film

By Zoe Gouli

Photo: Unsplash

Clueless (1995) and Legally Blonde (2001) are iconic cult classics of the 90s and early 2000s that have managed to maintain their popularity decades later. Both films have messages that are still important today, cementing them both as pop culture cornerstones. While the feminism of any film starring a rich, white woman should be taken with a grain of salt, the undeniable message of both movies still holds true: stop expecting mediocrity when you see femininity. The protagonists, Cher and Elle, were icons of a new movement: girly feminism, in which women, and anybody who wishes to, can be unapologetically feminine whilst simultaneously being clever, strong, kind and successful.

A theme that appears in both Clueless and Legally Blonde is the importance of female friendships. Legally Blonde begins with Elle in her sorority house surrounded by her friends, or by definition her chosen sisters, who later support her through her breakup with Warner and then through the murky waters of Harvard Law School. Arguably, the most important relationships that occur in Clueless are those which Cher has with Dionne and Tai. These two dynamics are the driving forces behind most of the film’s arc; Tai arrives as the new girl in school and is taken under the wing of the two other girls. She is introduced into Cher’s world via a makeover - a cliché but fun way for Cher to show her love.

The bubbly protagonists of both films are primary examples of ‘girly feminism’, a new wave that overcame pop culture in the late 90s and early 2000s as a result of third wave feminist thinking which placed an emphasis on individualism. Elle and Cher are both presented as kind, multi-faceted and smart young women without sacrificing their interest in things deemed as ‘frivolous’, namely fashion and their looks. In fact, in Elle’s case, her interest in seemingly shallow things helped her to ‘fail upwards’; as she follows her patronising, sleazy ex-boyfriend to Harvard Law School and ends up becoming incredibly successful. She wins a major case via some unconventional methods like having extensive knowledge of perm maintenance. She ultimately exceeds all expectations and accomplishes an incredible feat by leaning into the parts of herself that have been deemed as flaws by the patriarchy. Elle begins her journey desperately seeking to get her ex-boyfriend back, only to realise that not only does she not need him, but she also doesn’t want him anymore. Clueless takes a different but just as significant approach when Cher ends up with a romantic partner, but only after she has firmly established that she does not need one. Cher and Elle show us that limiting oneself to being either feminine or successful is a thing of the past. As a very wise woman once said: “as if!”

By Ellie scott

The DC v Marvel feud is one that has been going on for several years now. Since the mid-2010s, these cinematic superhero franchises have been compared and contrasted by critics and fans alike. For a long time, Marvel appeared to be the winner in this race, outrunning DC on quality storytelling, interesting characters, quick humour, and all-round enjoyable adventures. By contrast, DC had tried replicating Marvel’s success in making an extended cinematic universe. But, unlike Marvel, its attempts were often underwhelming, and this unfinished universe faded into obscurity. The contrast in success could not have been starker. But now, things appear to be changing. Since 2019, DC has dropped attempts to create its own universe and moved on with its own thing. Audiences have been amazed with adaptations, such as Joker (2019) and The Batman (2022). Meanwhile, Marvel appears to be losing its magic touch. Whilst the franchise is not exactly in disaster mode, some fans are getting bored of the usual tropes. This is perhaps best reflected in The Eternals (2021), which has generally had the response: “it’s okay”. But why do the tables seem to be turning? An obvious answer seems to be that, since Avengers: Endgame (2019), Marvel has lost direction. But there’s also another observation to make about Marvel and DC’s differences. DC films are much braver than Marvel in terms of the subjects they tackle. Joker was essentially about a mentally ill man living in a selfish society that drove him to the edge. In 2021, Suicide Squad tackled the issue of US government interference in Latin America. Just this year, I was amazed as I watched The Batman confront the theme of police corruption. Which, in the light of recent events, is chillingly relevant. By contrast, Marvel seems to be incapable of having a serious moment without anti-climactic humour following up. After having seen a masterpiece such as Joker, Marvel films look almost grey in comparison. Could they not do something just as brave? Granted, some Marvel films have taken on certain issues. But they often tackle them in a way that’s vague and devoid of opinion. You never get the sense they have a message they really want to educate the audience about. Just to clarify, I’m not saying Marvel must become a heavily politicised, preachy, dead-serious series. Suicide Squad managed to confront a dark theme, but still be fun and avoid just shouting at the audience. Perhaps, if Marvel were to take this on, it would save it from the lack of direction it appears to be suffering from now. A lot has happened to the world in the last couple of years and people rightly want to be engaged with it. This means our media helps audiences become more aware in understanding the issues that have shaped our world. Whatever direction they go in now, let’s appreciate both Marvel and DC for the quality stories they’ve both brought us so far.

Photo: Unsplash

Have you ever watched a film and thought this is so bad but then so good? There’s just something enjoyable about a movie that is hopelessly committed to its (very bad) vision - whether it is bad special effects, awful acting, or a completely absurd plot. A movie that comes to mind released recently would be the Disney+ release of Free Guy (2021). This action-comedy film tells the story of Guy, a non-player character in an extremely popular video game, Free City. Guy learns the true nature of his existence when he meets the girl of his dreams who is a human player. There are some impressive visual effects, modern day references and well-known A-List actors. The movie is something different to anything I have watched before of this genre, but it does conform to the stereotypes and cliches of gamers. However, this movie is consistently hilarious due to Ryan Reynolds. proving that actors can really change one’s perception of a movie, and their performances can distract from the absurd nature of the film. Sequels are another example of films so bad they’re good. Is it because we fell in love with the characters from the first film the reason we watch its predecessor? Take Grease: 2 for example – this film has the same concept, but most people would consider it a bad movie, comparing it to the original. The movie itself is a good watch, and there are a few catchy songs in the soundtrack. I think more people should give this movie another chance and watch it without thinking of it as a sequel. On its own, it is a decent movie, but in comparison to the original Grease movie, it’s not as strong. Maybe you need to be in the right mood to watch these, or maybe they can be something you have on in the background - either way, these are my guilty pleasures!

Photo: Unsplash

Coverage of the 94th academy awards was dominated by the various controversies surrounding it. With stories from the cutting of several categories during the live broadcast, and the failure to invite West Side Story star Rachel Zegler to the now infamous slap, going viral on social media the actual wins and losses of the night were very much overshadowed. So for those of us that are wondering what happened at the Oscars, here is (almost) everything else that happened that night.

Dune ended up being the biggest winner with six awards, more than any other film. Composer Hans Zimmer won his second Oscar award (after The Lion King in 1990) for “Best Score”. Dune also won for “Best Sound,” beating the musical West Side Story. Dune went on to sweep the board for design, with “Best Cinematography”, “Visual Effects”, “Editing” and “Production Design”, beating strong contenders such as “Macbeth and “Power of the Dog”

Cruella and The Eyes of Tammy Faye were neck and neck for costume, hair and makeup. Cruella’s villainous fashion ended up taking home “Costume Design”. But the complete transformation of Jessica Chastain into the flamboyant TV Preacher led to Tammy Faye winning “Hair and Makeup”.

Encanto won the best-animated picture in a section dominated by Disney, beating Mitchells vs The Machines and Flee both of which were included in the 2021 best films list. However, despite live performances of two songs from Encanto, it lost “Best Original Song” to No Time to Die, the Billie Eilish hit released three years before the ceremony.

Ariana Debose won “Best Supporting Actress” for West Side Story, following in the footsteps of Rita Moreno who won the same award for the role in 1961. In “Best Supporting Actor” Troy Kotsur won for CODA, the first deaf man to ever win the award. “Best Actress” went to Jessica Chastain for her role in The Eyes of Tammy Faye, beating Oscar favourite, Olivia Coleman. Will Smith won “Best Actor”, and took the opportunity to apologise for his actions; this was apparently too little too late, since the actor has now been landed a ten year ban from the ceremony.

CODA won for “Best-Adapted Screenplay” and Belfast for “Best Original Screenplay” winning Kenneth Branagh’s first Oscar. Jane Campion became the third women to ever win “Best Director” for Power of the Dog, a triumph that highlighted again highlighted inequalities in Oscar nominations.

But the most awaited award of the night demonstrated key changes in the film industry. CODA won “Best Film”, making it the first film released only on streaming platforms to do so. The film was praised for its powerful representation of the deaf community, and led to this being the first Oscars with sign language interpretation. A powerful win for disability representation amongst the chaos of the rest of the night.

by elena rodgers

All organisms adapt to their surroundings in order to survive, this is true of television shows too. The early experimental shows of the 1930s developed into more regular broadcasting. Regular television series such as Come Dancing have evolved into Strictly Come Dancing and have subsequently continued for years.

So, has the concept of a television show changed throughout the years? Initially they were solely produced and broadcast on television sets however since the rise in the use of streaming services many shows are now available to view anytime, anywhere, on any platform. The phrase ‘television show’ takes me back to watching Doctor Who on a Saturday night in the late 2000s. It was an exciting, family event which involved a race when the adverts came on, with everyone hoping to make it back before the show resumed.

Now, television shows can be watched on any device, at any time and on various different platforms which have made it somewhat more of a solitary pastime.

The budgets of television shows have overall increased. New Marvel television series, such as WandaVision and the more recent Moon Knight were budgeted roughly $25 million per episode. To put this in context, WandaVision had more special effects than Avengers: Endgame, which begs the question: are these series more like films? WandaVision seemed to capture the balance between film and television by maintaining the characteristics of shows, with its references to previous influential television programmes, and adhering to the style of the Marvel Cinematic Universe film franchise. Before 2021, the MCU was a collection of films therefore in order to maintain their audience they could not stray too far from the familiar. Even though their format, structure and length are more like television series their visual dynamics remain similar to the films.

Television shows such as This is Going to Hurt, based on Adam Kay’s book of the same name, keep to the format of a television show whilst breaking the fourth dimension. Filmed during the pandemic when the NHS was, and still is, under immense pressure, the show received immense praise for its harrowing portrayal of the NHS, in a time where the NHS was struggling to cope due to a lack of funding, whilst also comedically lightening the bleak situation.

Weekly comedy shows, such as Have I Got News for You, beginning in 1990, Mock the Week, 2005, and The Last Leg, 2012, all discuss, mock and challenge current events. The format of these shows has remained the same with the occasional set change and revamp, remaining on BBC and Channel 4. Despite their weekly release, they are all available on the corresponding streaming services which allows the viewer leniency regarding when they watch the show.

There have been fluctuations in the popularity of streaming services, most recently shown through Netflix who took a $50 billion drop in their market value, with shares slumping 35%, after many customers cut back on streaming services due to the increase in the cost of living. This was also due to the amount of content released during the pandemic, when there was an increase in the amount of users Netflix had. Streaming services require regular paying customers in order to keep producing new content which in turn keeps their audience paying to watch.

So, will this change? Will the concept of the television show become obsolete? Television shows have adapted alongside the concept of a television, which now include streaming services alongside their channels. Personally, I think television shows, as programmes with multiple episodes and developing content, will remain because they bring joy to people. They will adapt to survive.

by laura patterson

While some might recall The Chase, Mastermind, or even University Challenge as their favourite TV quiz show, my go-to on a weekday afternoon is Pointless.

If you are unaware of this staple on the BBC, the premise of the show is simple: come up with the most obscure answer possible. Over a thousand episodes have been aired since 2009, which reflects its success.

The main reason for its popularity is the charm of its hosts: Alexander Armstrong, and particularly, Richard Osman, who creatively came up with the format for the TV hit. While Armstrong greets and asks interesting questions to the guest contestants, Osman sits beside at a desk, offering additional trivia and fun facts after each round. He’s warm and witty, and there aren’t many presenters out there who would break the fourth wall on set to compliment the viewers if they got the answer right at home.

In recent news, it has been announced that after 13 years of copresenting, Osman will be moving on from the show to do other exciting things. He will be continuing as host for House of Cards, but most importantly, he will be focusing on his career as a crime fiction writer, having already written two best-selling novels, The Thursday Murder Club and The Man Who Died Twice. Armstrong lovingly said in a statement: “Daytime television’s loss is international best-selling crime fiction’s gain. I say that like it’s a consolation - I’m going to miss the big man next to me Monday to Friday.”

So, how will the Osman shaped hole in our hearts be replaced at Pointless? More details will be announced, but it’s confirmed the show will have a rotation of guest co-presenters alongside Armstrong. The BBC show has lost a great personality, but I look forward to seeing who they choose next.

The mistreatment of queer characters in TV shows is nothing new: the ‘burying your gays’ trope has been evident in popular media for far too long. This is the idea that queer people are stripped of a happy ending or healthy relationship, likely including a fatality. Often, the queer character was only a display of tokenism in the first place, not contributing to the wider plot or instead working to improve the character development of the cishet main characters. Some of your favourite TV shows likely include this trope, including Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Larry, the only ‘out and proud’ gay character and only named fatality of the season three finale, and Hollyoaks which, though it has made waves for LGBT representation in soaps, plays heavily into the psycho lesbian trope.

On that note, Killing Eve’s recent finale similarly betrayed its queer audience by falling victim to many of these restrictive tropes. The ending of season three gave fans hope their favourite duo would finally find peace together, away from the wider corrupt systems that have confined them to a cycle of emotional turmoil. However, Laura Neal- of Sex Education fame- had other ideas. For reasons not clearly explained, Eve and Villanelle seem to have forgotten about their entire reunition on the bridge scene: Eve is on a murderous mission of her own whilst Villanelle seeks divine intervention. As sapphic audience members, the Christian rebirth journey to abolish sin is something many of us are exhausted from and reflects a wider lesbophobic discourse- that a woman-love-woman relationship is sinful, and that religious and queer identities cannot coexist.

Throughout the series, Villanelle’s bisexuality is casually a part of her identity, not dismissed yet not elevated. This type of representation is itself a rarity, and can be lifesaving to those who see themselves reflected on screen (though, hopefully, without the affinity for assassination). It is therefore beyond disappointing, and often actively harmful when, after several seasons of fan dedication and character growth. We see Villanelle embrace a softer side to life throughout the final season, that audience is rewarded with a character they align with facing the happiness they have worked for suddenly revoked. The outcry we see from queer fanbases in such cases is because the hope that a queer person could be deserving of love and peace is something many of us have felt is beyond our reach, and even fiction won’t allow us to believe it. The reason this time feels different from similar examples such as in Supernatural or The 100- for which writers merely released a statement conveying their intent to do better- is because the actors are so clearly discontent with the series finale and even Luke Jennings, the author of Codename: Villanelle which Killing Eve is based upon, was “taken aback” by the ending. Producers should be taking note that we will no longer accept the mistreatment of queer identities. Queer TV fans deserve to be able to escape the realities of a heteronormative society through the world of fiction.

by molly phIllips

Channel 4 is a much-loved British television channel, which has brought both newsworthy information, and powerful entertainment to the public since it was founded in 1982. However, the government has now announced that they intend to go ahead with plans to privatise it. The reasoning behind this change is that ministers believe Channel 4, as it is publicly owned at the moment, is not able to progress with the rapidly changing televisual scene. For example, Nadine Dorries – the Culture Secretary – stated that, in comparison to paywall companies like Netflix, Channel 4 is always going to be on the back foot while its funding comes from the government. One source even referred to the government funding of Channel 4 as its ‘straitjacket’. But, like many big changes that the Conservative party have made, it has not been a cleancut decision. Dorothy Byrne, who was formerly head of news and current affairs at Channel 4 criticised Dorries’ argument, saying, ‘the argument doesn’t stack up because Channel 4 is not there to compete with Netflix.” Byrne argued that Channel 4 is more a ‘public service’, producing, amongst other things, important news programmes, which Netflix would never make. Aside from many members of the public having an, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ attitude to the change, the decision has sparked more controversy than just Byrne’s argument that it does not add up. Channel 4 was introduced under Thatcher’s 1980s government, to enable under-privileged audiences to access more TV programmes. Channel 4 News remains an important source of information for many. Krishnan GuruMurthy, who is the main anchor for the news show, tweeted that he believes facts have become muddled in this heated discussion - ‘Channel 4’, he wrote, ‘is stateowned, but commercially funded by ads and doesn’t get public money.’ Considering that a primary argument for privatising the channel is the money it takes from the taxpayer, this throws into question the Tories’ motives. Location, Location, Location star, Kirsty Allsop, who has worked with Channel 4 many times even argued that it was an example of the Conservative government putting profit above culture. The privatisation of Channel 4 does seem a tragedy on the culture front: it has been home to powerful and important, as well as deeply-successful, shows over the years. Russell T Davies’ It’s a Sin (2021), was nominated for 11 different BAFTAs but it is likely it would never have been made if not for Channel 4: the series was turned down by every other broadcaster before it found its home. Channel 4 bosses have suggested that the privatisation would lead to the axing of many such beloved shows and highlighted the £74m surplus that the network made despite the pandemic. To privatise, and therefore inherently restructure such a staple of British culture has been a shocking decision and it is hardly surprising that people have strong opinions on the matter. The network has produced so many awardwinning programmes, and provided so many with jobs, and does not appear to be doing any harm to the tax-payer’s money. What is more, it is clear that television has been a source of some solace to many throughout the pandemic, and now with the war in Ukraine. The decision to remove an – ostensibly free – mode of access to this solace comes at a time when we are perhaps more acutely aware than ever, of the importance of accessible arts and culture.