Science Vs Humanities At A-level I am studying English, History, Religious Studies and, begrudgingly, Geology. I would have liked to have studied another creative or human-based subject instead of geology. Art, music or drama if I had the talent; a language if the French teachers in my school weren’t evil witches (and I promise whoever shows them this will receive my recently fluffed quiff to the face); film studies if my timetable allowed it; creative writing or journalism if they existed. Why? Geology just doesn’t do it for me. Yes, with a moderate amount of smugness, I got the highest mark in my class. However I’m a) rarely confident and b) never interested. I cannot see the appeal in finding out when a rock was (possibly) formed. You go through this mile-long list of tasks, and then all you know is a piece of information that will help you in no way, whatsoever. This, to me, seems like the epitome of many scientific endeavours. Think, for a minute, of some of those wacky Facts you read on Twitter from such sites as @UberFacts who has just informed me that “girls go through puberty at a younger age if their father isn’t present”, and that “only 1/10 mature couples still respond to their partner with the same intensity as those in the first stages of love.” I was also just reading about a Nobel prize-winning experiment that aimed to, and did, measure the exact distance that Chinstrap Penguins can fire their poo: 40cm, according to their conclusion. Also in their conclusion was the observation that “Whether the bird deliberately chooses the direction into which it decides to expel its faeces or whether this depends on the direction from which the wind blows at the time of evacuation are questions that need to be addressed on another expedition to Antarctica.” Whoever wrote out this #quote clearly needs to learn to use that most complicated of grammatical features, the comma. But that’s beside the point. As you can see, from three examples that took me all of three minutes to find, science generates some bloody pointless results. And it’s not even as though they found that a certain combination of chemicals don’t create the cure for cancer, failing, and moved on to another method. No, they went into these experiments, like with my recently completed geology coursework, knowing that they would come off no better should their hypothesis be proven true or radically false. So why do it? Surely these scientists, who more than likely have degrees in neurosciences, nanosciences and probably just as many arguably not-sciences, would be better utilised developing, perhaps, a cure to Alzheimer’s or some crop that grows two new fruits for every one chopped off. It seems in my humble opinion to be because there are too many scientists. While on their way up the ladder, there should be less important but similarly useful products to develop and experiments to do. Instead, I can only assume that every possible avenue is being explored by a top scientist already, and so the students and younger, lowlier scientists, who may well have much more revolutionary ideas than the decrepit oldies working on flu jabs and what not, have absolutely no chance of working on anything of use, thus forced into an inane, unnecessary job. And I believe most of them don’t realise or care. The crazy penguin guy obviously had a genuine belief in, and curiosity for, what he was researching. And somehow, inexplicably, so did the people awarding the Nobel prizes. I’m going to go as far as to say this is a direr situation than the money-grabbing scientists. It is a fairly well-known problem with medical science/development, as A-level RS has taught me, that medicines are developed for the sake of developing them. By re-releasing an almost identical pill, a company can up its income. “OH MY GOD!!! EVERYONE’S GOING TO DIE!!!” Why? If the money just goes back into science, eventually it’ll make its way to an experiment of more use. However with the apparent abundance of scientists of late, these frankly ridiculous experiments literally just throw money away. I can’t begin to guess how large a sum is needed to send a team to Antarctica (or to supply the drugs those guys must have been taking), but I do know that their money went nowhere. As an industry – which it is – science lost a few thousand Great British Pounds, all to find out exactly how far a certain breed of penguin squirts their shit. In essence, they paid money and the time of some talented men and women for that Fact, that is just that: a Fact. A few words that will make a person at a party grunt with perfunctory laughter once in a while. It’s like they paid all that for a bad joke you would find in a cracker. So in conclusion, while the necessary, needed products of science are very useful, if not vital, to say the least, the unnecessary, unneeded products are utter hogwash (my thesaurus came in handy there). This seems like an ideal time to bring up my next, and in foresight, probably just as long-winded point. Creativity, and more broadly the study of humanities, is vastly superior in my opinion. For one, it is so firmly based in the world of Man (and Woman for anyone calling me sexist). If you are learning maths, biology, chemistry, etc. at A-level, then, unless they are drastically different to GCSE, I imagine you learn a minute amount of any substance; of any relevance to real, human #life. In chemistry, do you ever learn about how a king once beheaded every human with green eyes and why? In maths, do you ever hear tell of the works of the most creative literary minds ever to grace this world? In biology, do you ever read up on the ponderings of the greatest minds currently gracing this world? No. You don’t. You learn how stuff happens, not why. You likely learn incomprehensible Facts that, like the penguin poo one, will cause at best a reasonably surprised feeling, and if you’re really lucky, a period (wait for it, dirty boy/girl!) of reflection. At worst, would be the aforementioned forced laugh and instant unconscious disposal of the Fact. Other than the useful knowledge, science holds very little appeal to me. And I suppose that is what this article is about: the unnecessary Facts of science versus the unnecessary Facts of humanities. If you’re finding yourself a tad befuddled at my meaning, what I mean is this. There is some knowledge from both branches that it is virtually essential to know. Things like how to live a healthy #lifestyle, in science. Similarly, creating products from medicines to cars all require a scientific knowledge that I neither have nor deny. Likewise, the humanities have some fairly need-to-know information. For instance, how to read, write and speak (the latter is bound to cause some argument as to its place, but it certainly is more of a human creation than one of nature). Also, events that help us learn. Did George Santayana not say “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it”? If we ignored the numerous wars and ways of the past, we would be somewhere entirely different right now. However the “pointless” creations of the humanities are a little less pointless than you may suspect. Whereas these unnecessary scientific Facts (a name I seem to have unofficially christened them with) have no bearing on our lives, the creations of the human mind and world, admittedly not as true as those created by science, have a much greater effect than their opponent. The creations I speak of are creative endeavours: song, dance, poetry, fiction, film, theatre and art. While science creates stinking piles of codswallop and other, less polite terms, the humanities generate these… things, for want of a less broad term, that, though worthless in terms of survival (e.g. they cannot give us food, water, etc.), are what being human is all about – fun. It’s been by my belief for a time that fun, another broad term at the best of times, is the aim in #life. Other than desperately poor peoples who are striving for survival, can you think of anyone you know whose aim is not to enjoy themselves? Whether you’re the type of person to “live in the moment” and go to parties every other night, or, like me, work reasonably hard to invest in your future, every single person I have ever met wants happiness. And in a society where three meat-meals a day isn’t an unreasonable request, human nature makes us aim for something more. When humans have #life, they want fun. Enter, humanities – more specifically the arts, but you get the picture. This is really where subjects like English, Music, Art, Drama, and to an extent History and RS come in. Without those creative bastards, where would fiction be? Somewhere in that cupboard draw labelled ‘non-existence’ I’d think. Books, films, theatre, song, even video games would not exist without the humanities; this is what they create. Can any of you honestly tell me you’d enjoy #life anywhere near as much as you do now without those things, those brilliant evokers of emotion and joy? Seriously, how would you experience that shiver down the back of your neck or the goosebumps on your arms without fiction and music? I do not like to dwell on a world in which science is the basis of our lives. My time is so filled with all things creative that I just cannot comprehend how mundane such an existence would be. What would your ambitions be without creativity and the humanities? To become rich from some science-orientated job? And then what? Sit in your manor and eat and drink and talk? No TV, no books, no music. For me, a #life of Fact is a #life of no fun, and I know this might be coming out in a bit of a muddle as I have no agenda – I’m just writing as I think – but can you not see reason? Though these creations are not necessary like food is, they are so very necessary if we are to be human. The unnecessary Fact of science creates nothing in comparison to what the humanities do. In conclusion, I hope now you can see how big a part they play in your #life, and basically, the humanities fucking rock!

The Hunger Games Reviewed I had been dubious about The Hunger Games as a film since I first heard of the project, and I don’t entirely know why. I think the general hype surrounding the whole thing, followed by the “Oh, it’s amazing!” comments, were the main factor. However there was just something about the books that I knew wouldn’t come across well on camera… But enough of that for now (note the use of the world’s least enticing cliff-hanger there). We’ll start with the good. The Hunger Games has done its job, without a doubt. Wikipedia tells me it took the title for highest grossing non-sequel ever and “was positively received by critics”, going on to note “an average score of 7.2 out of 10” from Rotten Tomatoes. On top of this, practically every one of my friends who has seen it, whether they’ve read the novels or not, said it was “amazing”. And they’re right, in a way. I can point out many positive parts of the film. The themes that erupt throughout are overwhelming: feminism, politics, religion, reality television. Also, I think, are references to totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany, and maybe Fascist Italy, with all the Roman influence in the Capitol. We see good old ‘good versus evil’ rear its colossal, weary head, too, in addition to love, sacrifice, social class and identity. It literally deals with just about every theme imaginable, and then some. And if that last paragraph makes The Hunger Games sound like the type of film that will feed you endless dialogue until you fall asleep right before the action, think again. The opening scene depicts Katniss Everdeen (Spell Check is currently getting very angry at me) hunting a deer in some woods that she’s evidently not supposed to be in. Then we have the lengthy chunk of the film spent inside the arena where teens battle to the death. Admittedly, it’s not an all-out gore-fest, but it was never going to be with a 12 certificate; it’s too clever for that, too. The action was well done, overall. Carefully applied, it meant there was never too long a gap between fight scenes, nor was there blood so often you felt bored. Once or twice I did feel the ‘handheld camera’ style – which critics have praised for putting us in Katniss’ shoes – was just used to cover up for some of the actors’ lack of experience in stunts. It was so shaky and fast-moving, so quick to change between shots, that they could have been doing the conga, having a tickling war (don’t tell me you’ve never had one), or both, and we wouldn’t have known the difference. But like I said, all considered, the action was decent, especially for what could be labelled a kid’s film. The acting is satisfactory, with some lines leaning towards the predictable, clichéd or cheesy, but that can be put down to screenwriting and (sorry) America. Jennifer Lawrence who plays Katniss seems toughened and not overly glamorous (though, of course, they couldn’t resist a little), and does a tidy job, as do most of the cast. As a bit of a man-of-the-match award, I would have to nominate Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman. The BAFTA-nominee was suitably manipulative but slimy; genuine but so very false. So multi-talented Gary Ross (director, screenwriter, etc), who has not signed on for the sequel everyone knew would happen, has ticked all the boxes then: critics are pleased; cinemagoers are pleased; filmmakers’ pockets are pleased. Unfortunately, the minuscule, pathetic little box with ‘Sam Lewis’ written above it is not ticked. If I had to say whether this was a positive or negative review, I’m afraid it would have to tip towards the latter. I’m not quite certain that it is the fault of the film or the strangely good reception given to it by almost everyone. When I hear such glowing reviews from friends and critics alike, I expect to have my socks well and truly knocked from one end of the room to the other, fast followed by my feet. So for me, maybe it was a victim of its own hype and success. I didn’t think The Hunger Games was anything special, or worthy of comments like “There have been a number of big-gun literary series brought to screen over the past decade. This slays them all.” Nor indeed Fox News’ more direct approach of “Move over Harry Potter.” It didn’t give me the spine-tingling moments that the Harry Potter franchise mastered, nor did I prefer it in any aspect. However my one main, aforementioned complaint, that is really down to my personal and equally fudged up opinion than anything else, is the setting and feel of the film. The Capitol especially held no appeal for me at all. The wigs and make-up and… blergh! I seem to recall being similarly disgusted when reading the books, as I said in the introduction, and although you could say that the filmmakers had done their job in repulsing me, because that’s what the place is meant to do, I didn’t enjoy watching and I didn’t feel it was real. Without any effort (quite the contrary) I found images of the sets being put together and make-up being applied invading my mind. The Roman influence there was way too OTT and obvious, too. If you are going to style a setting on another, I’d rather it be subtly noticeable, not obvious to anyone who has ever seen a picture of ancient Rome, a complete rip-off. I really don’t know how to conclude, other than by saying that The Hunger Games does exactly what I expected. I entered the cinema hesitant to allow my hopes to be raised, and left feeling smug that I hadn’t. People complain sometimes about films deviating from the original story, but this needed a bit of creative oomph to adapt it from book to film. The whole thing seemed a recreation of the book, done by people who just followed a list of instructions set out by author Suzanne Collins. Contrary to Fox News’ opinion that it Gary Ross has bettered Harry Potter, I will say with utter belief that it is nothing compared to the adaptation of Rowling’s series. Yes, The Hunger Games has succeeded. But it hasn’t exactly broken any barriers, has it? 5/10

The Woman in Black Reviewed Firstly, hello! Secondly, the film… Although not perfect, The Woman in Black is worth a watch, to say the least, even with the jam-packed, Saturday-night cinema, full of hysterically screaming teenagers and one old, creepy woman who just happened to sit next to me. It delves back a few years before every horror film needed to ‘bring something new to the genre’, so, in a sense, bringing something new to the genre. The plot is, on the whole, predictable, but doesn’t pretend to be anything else. I think the lack of over-the-top Americanisms helped with this element, a lot. It is an honest, pure fright-fest that is looking to progress, not reinvent the genre. Director James Watkins (2008′s Eden Lake) throws us into the story in a ‘no nonsense’ manner, with the simultaneous, spontaneous suicide of three young girls in a haunting attic room, a scene that will surely give chills to any parents in the audience. After briefly explaining the situation of solicitor Arthur Kipps’ (played by a stubbly Daniel Radcliffe, who I kept expecting to whip out a wand) – his wife died in childbirth four years ago; he is still depressed – we are then taken almost immediately to Eel Marsh Manor, the main setting, which Kipps has been assigned by his firm. Instead of the constant increase in scares that most horror films give, this did ease watchers in, however it took an irregular pace from there on, almost as though we are being toyed with. And effective it was, too! Whether there was a lull in scares, lulling me into unexpectancy (before any of you clever cloggs tell me this isn’t a word, I know. It should be, though.) before pulling the jump lever, or a false fright before the real thing, The Woman in Black did a sterling job of keeping my head pinned to the wall behind me, with the scares coming thick and fast. I would say that the film focused more on these than any lasting creepiness, because I didn’t get the usual bedtime jumpiness that normally follows a horror, but I didn’t mind one bit. I shan’t describe any of the “jumps” for fear of spoiling your experience, however certain scenes in the fabulous finale were groundbreaking. Usually I find, in a horror, once the initial split-second of shock is over, the more effective method is to pull whatever ghost or ghoul present from the screen, leaving much to the imagination of the audience. Whilst this is what The Woman in Black does for the most part, certain scenes leave the titular character to advance on the audience for several seconds, causing screams from my fellow cinema-goers (a tad over the top, but still, a feat). Some will disagree, and although possible to consider the character a little ridiculous-looking (you’ll know what I mean when you watch it), by that point you are truly sucked in to the experience. For me, the battle between childlike terror and realistic adult was a quick one, the latter giving in to the former immediately. Camera angles play a large part in the film. Rarely have I seen them so creatively used. Likewise, another of the film’s subtle highs is its intelligence. The choice to rewrite the story from the 1983 book of the same name was a wise one. Firstly because it makes for a better story in film (more jumps, less detail, etc), and secondly because it allows writer Goldman to do her thing. Her development of Sam Daily (Ciaran Hinds) was sublime, a spectacular amount of depth for a lesser character. Goldman hints at things like drinking problems stemming from Sam’s trying to cover up the pain of his son’s death. I’ve seen comments saying that she has ‘kept the essence of the book’, but she has done more than that: she has bettered it. Radcliffe is mediocre. I had no real complaints, but neither do I have any compliments. He just stayed a little plain-faced for my liking, as has been said before of the Potter star. Other actors gave better performances, though, the aforementioned Ciaran Hinds being one of them. CONCLUSION Not without its imperfections, The Woman in Black does what any good horror should do: scares the hell outta ya! Definitely one for the cinema. 7/10

Thor Reviewed As Gilderoy Lockhart (aka Kenneth Branagh) once said, “Amazing! This is just like magic!” And I get the feeling Branagh felt the same about his first foray into the wonderful world of CGI. Full of flashing lights; impressive (yet not overdone or overused), computer-created architecture; and Avatar-ish “Frost Giants”, his first Hollywood blockbuster, Thor, certainly utilises CG to the full. Thor, the latest Marvel creation excepting Captain America: The First Avenger, tripled its $150 million budget and scored a hearty 7.0/10 on IMDB, also gleaning 77% from Rotten Tomatoes and four whole stars from film giant Empire. Starring a strong selection of up-and-comings, including the since-established Chris Hemsworth (as the titular Norse god) and Tom Hiddleston (as evil brother Loki, a name each actor has a seemingly unique way of saying – Lo-kee? Lo-ky?), on the acting front it was a bit of a mixed bag, with certain names exceeding whilst some of the more experienced were lacklustre. Director Branagh’s first behind-the-camera role in four years is also debatably his most mainstream, and certainly his first venture into the realms of comic book superheroes. He is well known for his Oscar-nominated adaptations of Shakespeare plays – notably Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, and Hamlet – so it is not surprising to notice a certain Shakespearean feel to the family issues suffered by Thor and the other residents of Asgard. What with two sons battling over a throne while their father tries to decide whether he’s dead or not, we could have been inside a futuristic-looking Shakespeare play, The Godfather or even a Bible story. Banished for his brash behaviour (just killing a Frost Giant or two, no biggie), Thor finds himself more than a little stranded on earth, and while the battles of the heavens were pretty spectacular, I found myself longing to get away from the animated action. And in general I wasn’t let down. As shown in interviews with Hemsworth, a great deal of thought went into exactly how he would fight, eventually taking influences from a) the character he was playing (no surprises there), and b) Mike Tyson. Yep, you read right. Apparently Hemsworth liked the way he was “brutal but graceful” and “low to the ground”. What are the odds on Tyson’s trainer trying to sue Marvel? I digress; the close-combat fight scenes on earth were tense in a Bourne style. However what I felt was lacking was the final battle, which felt like a set. The small-town feel was like something out of a Stephen King novel, with a typical exploding petrol station and very little actual fighting. Despite this being only a fraction of the action, as it was the penultimate clash, it should have more than lived up to previous frays. The story, like the fighting, impressed me at times. I enjoyed the Norse influences and the aforementioned Shakespearean feel, but the plots on earth felt, well, earth-bound, while those in the heavens were a great deal more ambitious and pleasing. In fact, most every scene including Natalie Portman was a letdown. Her acting was substandard next to newcomers like Hemsworth, and the plots surrounding her were soap opera-standard next to the issues we all know painted against Asgard’s beautiful background. For example the not entirely evil Loki was a much more complicated and deep character than I was expecting to see, probably stemming from the Shakespearean influences. He can be so subtly slimy one minute, and genuinely sorry the next that we don’t quite know where he’s going. I did feel a true pity for him throughout, for various reasons, not least Hiddleston’s acting. The soundtrack, a feature I don’t often feel is worthy of note, was reasonable. The fact that I’m a Foo Fighters fan probably helped because a couple of their songs sprung up, but the pieces composed for the film were just right at creating or intensifying the intended emotion. Conclusion As uneven as this review, but showing a lot more promise, Thor was a disappointment, but I’m sure made and will make a suitable watch for more than just casual watchers. The metaphors (like of the hammer in the stone) and nods to other Marvel creations, notably The Avengers (for example the mention of STARK Enterprises) will keep Marvel-buffs interested, and the gross says it all: $450 million. You can see why they’re making a sequel. 5/10

Brothers 2009 Reviewed Upon placing Brothers in my DVD player, my knowledge of the film consisted of the fact that it was a modern war film, starring Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman. Considering the devastatingly superb performances given by Tobey Maguire and Bailee Madison, Maguire’s on-screen daughter, I would have expected to have seen an advert or at least heard of this film in the year since its release. The film is the story of, as you may have guessed, two brothers. Sam (Maguire) and Tommy Cahill (Gyllenhaal) are two very different brothers: Sam, the ideal family-man and soldier, has two daughters with wife Grace (Portman) and a steady #life; Tommy on the other hand, fresh from an unexplained bout behind bars, is more of a young tearaway with a liking for alcohol. Yet to settle down, and frowned upon by his father, Tommy is sobered up one nightwhen he asks to borrow Grace’s car and is told that Sam has died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Tommy then takes it upon himself to help out around the house whilst Grace mourns. He forms a strong relationship with her (which climaxes in a kiss) and his nieces. However when the two are informed of Sam’s still being alive, they forget that anything ever happened and Sam is welcomed home by all. His mind is not at rest though, as he has been forced to do terrible deeds by his captors in the Middle-East, and he is paranoid that Tommy and Grace have had sex in his absence and asks on multiple occasions if they have done so. His madness increases, causing his family much distress, until he risks everything that he loves. Once I had decided to review the film, I immediately felt a sense of relief that I would be able to rave about so many aspects of this true to #life adaption of the Dutch original. As already mentioned, the two standout actors are Maguire and Madison. Maguire, whose real break came with the Spiderman franchise, plays a perfect madman, staying silent when others would have screamed and shouted, begging the question as to why he hasn’t had more major roles in the years since Spiderman. Madison’s character is a young girl who is deeply affected by the “death” of her father, but even more troubling for her are the mental problems that he brings home with him. There is one scene in particular that almost made me feel that she wasn’t acting at all, in which it is her sister’s birthday and she is getting little attention. She is an extremely promising young actress with a great deal of experience already, as shown by the numerous nominations she received for her performance. Aside from the acting talents in the film, it is a touching but devastating story of suspense that touches on topics that affect people around the world every day. I honestly cannot compare it to any film I have ever seen, perhaps because it is so hard to create a good film out of this sort of material. I definitely don’t expect to see a movie of a similar nature any time soon because it will not top this! I implore everyone to watch it as I have seen a film neither as touching nor as thought-provoking as this in a long while. 9/10