Planet Ivy

Why Does Everyone Suddenly Hate Baz Luhrmann?

2013-05-22T19:00:00-04:00

By Samuel Richardson

It's a fickle world we live in, isn't it? One minute you're the champion of the world, the next you're being kicked and slapped all around the ring whilst the crowd cheer your swift fall from grace. And as the referee starts the count, your mind flashes back to that not-so-distant past where you were the one lapping up the applause of the baying crowd, light bulbs flashing all around you and victory in your heart. But how the victorious fall. For nowadays, with the bullying, bulked-up media, it only requires one well-placed punch to knock you down.

It's really quite sad if you think about it; not so long ago, Baz Luhrmann was the darling of Hollywood, a breath of fresh air in an increasingly formulaic industry. Not content with following cinema clichés and stereotypes, Luhrmann did his own thing. He took genre conventions and threw them out of the window, replacing them with an eclectic mix of the old and the new. Who ever thought Nirvana would find a home in the Moulin Rouge?

It was flourishes like that that set Baz Luhrmann apart from the crowd. He wasn't to be constrained by order or logic. If it felt right, it went in, regardless of what logic might dictate. But now Luhrmann lays beaten and bloodied on the floor, and for the exact same reasons he became so celebrated in the first place.

Nothing emphasises this better than a quick jaunt over to Rotten Tomatoes. Luhrmann's latest film, The Great Gatsby, scores a pretty lousy 48%, with the summation of all the reviews stating that it "emphasises visual splendor at the expense of its source material's vibrant heart". OK, fair point.

But oh wait, what's this? With a little sleuthing, you'll find that the Moulin Rouge! Rotten Tomatoes page boasts a confident 76%. Now, anyone who's seen Moulin Rouge! can attest to this particular critics summary: "A love-it-or-hate-it experience, Moulin Rouge is all style, all giddy, over-the-top spectacle". So it's all style and over-the-top is it? But isn't that the exact reason why said critics gave Gatsby such negative reviews?

Why are critics all of a sudden so intolerant of all Luhrmann's trademark razzmatazz? Could they be punishing him for making them sit through the hellish torture that was Australia? If they are, that's pretty understandable. But the most likely reason is the fact that it's been twelve years since Moulin Rouge! was released and, within those twelve years, the landscape of film has changed drastically.

Genres rise and fall in Hollywoodland faster than Chelsea managers and, whilst it would be a disservice to accuse Luhrmann of failing to adapt to these times, special effects and wacky gizmos are no longer the attractions they once were. They're everywhere. They're not exciting or exclusive anymore, and critics and crowds are demanding more.

It's evident within the modern superhero genre where Christopher Nolan's more thought-provoking Batman films have dominated over the more lightweight Marvel films, such as Captain America and Thor. Audiences aren't so easily distracted these days by shiny colours and slick cinematography. More and more, they crave inner beauty over outer beauty. And perhaps it is that Baz Luhrmann hasn't quite realised this yet.

The Harsh Reality of Life as a Graduate

2013-05-20T19:00:00-04:00

By Daniel Wigmore-Shepherd

I remember my first day of year eight in secondary school. The teacher sat the class down and told us exactly why the year was important. The year would decide which SATs groups we would be in; which would decide what GCSE exams (mid, lower or higher) we would take; which would decide which colleges would accept us and our A-level grades; which would decide if we could go into university and if so which one. The point is that since I was 13, getting a degree was what the majority of education (and this was in a comprehensive) was geared towards. A degree was seen as the golden egg of achievement, after which the world and its innumerable opportunities would all be open to me.

Fast-forward to the present day and we are painted a very different picture. The Graduates in the Labour Market 2012 report, found that in the last quarter of 2011 approximately one in five new graduates (those who graduated within two years of the survey) were unemployed. Furthermore 36% were doing a low skill job (bar work or cleaning), an increase of 10% over the proportion of graduates doing such jobs in 2001.

Since this reality doesn't quite match up to what we were told during school, I decided to ask a few university students their expectations concerning life, specifically their professional life, after graduation. I also tracked down some friends who had recently graduated to see what they were doing, earning, and whether their career was shaping up just how they had imagined it would. I somehow doubted this would be the case.

The students, far from being starry-eyed optimists ready to take on the world, seemed to approach the future with a level of cynicism usually reserved for Richard Dawkins for when he is watching an episode of Ghost Hunting with Derek Acorah. Many predicted that even a year after graduation they would be living at home and in an unpaid internship or low skill job. Most hoped, rather than outright assumed, that they would be in a job they enjoyed. There was one exception, who expected to be a postgraduate earning £40k a year. Ironically she also claimed, "If there's one thing university has taught me, it's assume nothing."

The thing is, is that most students in university today started after the 2008 financial collapse hit the UK. They've been repeatedly bombarded by the media with images of the economy becoming an economic wasteland, where graduates with doctorates wait tables and fold clothes. So their cynicism is unsurprising.

What is surprising is the comparative level of relative optimism in the graduates; though all bar one said they were earning less than they thought they would. Some of the graduates hated their job, some loved their job and some compared their job to eating a bucket of coleslaw: great at first but over time it begins to take a toll. But in all cases most were looking to the future.

The jobs they currently had were seen as merely stepping stones towards a better job; or a temporary solution to the long-term problem of paying for one's existence or to having enough money to live the dream (one guy wanted to put together a militia of disaffected graduates and buy a bus to carry them around on holiday). The fact is that as a graduate, you realise that on leaving university you are confronted with a ladder infinitely longer, more complex and scarier than the one you had to climb in education. This means that even more optimism and drive is required to tackle it.

Also, though a degree may not be the magic key you thought it was while you were ploughing through GCSE geography (hands up anyone who has found a use for their intimate knowledge of how oxbow lakes are formed), it makes the climb towards getting a decently paid enjoyable job a lot easier. Graduates still have a higher earning potential and higher levels of employment than non-graduates.

So to all students I say this: relax and take some time on a little introspection about what you want to do. And don't be overly-cynical about the future. Also, spend a few days enjoying a really strong drink, at noon, in your pants, while watching cartoons. I guarantee you will not be able to do this after you graduate without feeling a horrific level of self-loathing.

How OCD Affects My Gaming

2013-05-20T05:07:47-04:00

By Will Oxlade

Some people's understanding of OCD is as simplistic as 'someone who prefers things to be organised'. There's more to it - the fear and anxiety, for example. My case isn't extreme but I do have a compulsion to push my front door twice after locking it. There have been times when I've left the house in a rush whilst half asleep and forgotten to do my 'test'. My entire day then consists of worrying about an open door. I've had this since I was young. My mother was worried I wasn't all there when she bought me a Lego vehicle. Even though I was older than the minimum age requirement it appeared I was having difficulty with it. I wasn't, I was merely organising the bricks by colour and size. It did speed up the building process when I finally got around to it. I never got another Lego toy after that. My parents had moved me onto Meccano. After some years of playing with my toys incorrectly, I finally got my first console. As it turned out, I played video games incorrectly as well.

One of the first games I had was Battle City. The objective is to destroy the enemy tanks whilst defending your base. I had a different objective. It was to destroy every single block that mapped out the battlefield. I lost a lot. I would give myself unnecessary tasks in games. For instance, while playing Contra I had to step on every single walkable surface. Every time I played Super Mario Brothers I had to complete the first level without taking my thumb off the run button. When I did fail a task it would bug me so much that I couldn't carry on and I'd be forced to restart the entire game. I didn't have the pleasure of Level Select back then. As you may have guessed, this would get pretty frustrating. Even more so because I never rage quit so I was stuck there until my compulsion was satisfied. When new consoles were released with numerous games, my list of quirky objectives increased.

These gaming compulsions only occur for me when I've done something in-game that has an effect on me. Whether it was satisfying or just for peace of mind, it would be something I wanted to do one more time. That one more time quickly turns into every time. I suppose it's similar to a night of drinking lots of beer. Once you open the floodgates it's really hard to close them again. I've tried many times to walk away from it. My in-game compulsions that is, not the toilet. I'd control my in-game character away from an area of a compulsion. Once I'm near the point of no return I can't help but turn back and finish off the task. Take Skyrim for example. A grey icon would appear on the compass and I couldn't ignore it. I'd have to travel towards it until it became unlocked for fast travel. This became a vicious cycle as more grey icons would show up along my journey towards the first icon. It would be hours before I actually started a quest.

With this behaviour in video games, it does take me quite some time to finish them. I borrowed my friend's Assassin's Creed 3 whilst he borrowed my Tomb Raider. He completed Tomb Raider over a weekend whereas I was still running along the shorelines of Boston to reveal the map. It's the only time I can sincerely say I've enjoyed long walks on the beach. I do this with every single RPG or sandbox game that has a similar mapping system. Different genres bring out different compulsions. If I'm spotted by an enemy in a stealth game I have to restart from the last checkpoint. In an FPS, I'd have to reload after firing one bullet. OCD or not, the reloading quirk is quite common in the FPS gaming community which leads me to my final discussion.

I've been possessed by these compulsions in games for some time now and with the introduction of achievement points and trophies, I found that some of my non OCD gaming friends have started doing things that I do. I was laughed at in school for being the last to complete Goldeneye. Reason being, I was determined to get at least 10 headshots before completing each level. Nowadays, a certain amount of headshots is quite a common prerequisite for unlocking more points/trophies in most shooting games.

Let's not forget about those collectables. Perhaps they make gamers explore more of the game than they normally would. A collectable could be hiding in a neglected area, which then gives said area a sense of purpose. Obviously it's each to their own. I have friends at either end of the spectrum - some who couldn't give a shit about their Gamerscore and some who are veteran achievement hunters without OCD. Have points and trophies made gamers play in a more compulsive way? If so, has that in-game compulsion seeped out into their real lives? If this sounds at all familiar to any of you, please feel free to comment below or share your own gaming quirks. I'm quite intrigued.

Is Monogamy No Longer Possible?

2013-05-13T19:00:00-04:00

By Jess Reid

It's a commonly held belief in 2013 Britain that we live in a sexually enlightened (not sure what that actually means, but we'll go with it) age. Gay marriage is finally on the horizon. We're all on the pill, or similar (right?). Full frontal nudity on TV and semi-pornographic sex scenes are basically expected from most HBO shows.

It's okay to talk about sex now. Cosmopolitan have been giving us girls utterly implausible sex tips for fucking ages. It's totally fine to have had loads of sexual partners. If you've shagged fewer than three people by the age of 20 you're basically a virgin. Sex toys and various pleasure giving lubes and gels are sold in pretty, colourful packaging alongside aspirin. It's all cool.

Except one thing. In 21st Century England we still have an enormous problem with the idea that anything other than monogamy in a relationship is wrong. Everyone is a goddamn hypocrite.

I can't speak for you, but my friends are decent, kind people. And most of them have either at some point cheated, nearly cheated, or have been the scarlet woman/man with a partner who's in a long-term relationship. Every time this shit happens - and obviously it happens all the time, all over the country - people feel compelled to excuse themselves. They do not want to be the guy or gal who is a 'cheater', despite the fact they cheat. "Oh, it's 'cause I was drunk. I'd never normally do it, that's wrong." "Oh, me and [enter partner's name here] had argued and he/she was just there. It was a one-off, I'm not like that." Except you definitely are like that. We're all like that. Sorry.

I've argued this for years. Argued that infidelity in long-term, monogamous relationships is often inevitable. Don't get me wrong, for some people it works, it's natural, it's fine. Good for them. But for an awful lot of people it's a Herculean task, a constant struggle with the self, a battle against all bodily instincts.

People will give me aghast looks, and say, "But I just couldn't be around someone who cheated on me. I could never trust them, I'd always feel insecure. I couldn't touch them after they'd been with someone else."

It stems from our medieval belief that sex is sacred. Sex is special. In a committed relationship, that level of physical intimacy with another person is crossing a line. If you believe sex has some higher meaning, that it is a way of 'connecting' with your loved one... well, fine. But you're wrong.

Sex is stupid. Sex, despite you feeling like a fucking rock star, looks stupid. It's two naked people humping, making awkward noises and collapsing afterwards in a sweaty, sticky heap. Sex isn't a beautiful, loving action; it's an animal act, performed by the animals that we are, for purposes of enjoyment and procreation. It's a glorified cuddle; something to do with another person that feels nice.

So entrenched is monogamy in our moral compasses that it will always be deemed the accepted way, and we'll go about our business with the not-so-secret world of adulterous shenanigans. We'll continue to sing the praises of monogamy and live in this universal self-deception. Adultery sites exist, but who do you know that would ever admit to having been on one? We'll continue to put unreasonable pressure on our loved ones, we'll continue to feel guilty and relationships will continue to end for no good reason after a naughty tryst.

Internet Addicts: Charity Cases or Just Ahead of the Curve?

2013-05-13T07:28:52-04:00

By Gareth Cartwright

It's a vast data-surfing canoe that we're all sharing, and I certainly do not claim to be sitting on the shoreline. As frequent and active users of social networking sites, we're all constantly rowing through page upon page of needless information. Devouring the never-ending stream of updates and developments of family, friends and that guy you met in the toilets at IKEA. All the while sitting at our computers, pondering existance and struggling with the wording of a particular introductory paragraph (cough).

But computers aren't the only gateway we have into these vast, all-encompassing water worlds of information. We access these sites through our mobile phones, tablet's and games consoles. We are never disconnected. This variety is great in allowing us to maintain communication no matter what device is at hand, but what about when we start to use more than one at a time, and why we feel the urge to be constantly in the loop? I myself have admittedly had my twitter feed open on this computer and my phone at the same time more than once, even as I write this piece. This seems harmless enough, but certain sources are considering these kind of actions as the potential for a growing insurmountable desire to be connected, and that loop could be a noose in drag.

"Never heard of it," you say? Well, 'Stop masturbating over pictures of your cousin and get out of Cuba,' I say. Internet addiction has been a growing concern since the mid 90s. A quick search of the term brings up a multitude of sites, centering around the research, identification and subsequent curing of internet addiction. Netaddiction.com - the most popular of these - contains research, support services and some pretty bleak predictions for the future of internet addicts. A home page including quotes warning that internet addiction "creates financial hardships" and can "break up marriages and strain friendships". In cases of online gambling, anti-social role-playing and hardcore flatulophilia porn requirements, this outcome can be correct and undoubtedly concerning, but is that really the whole picture? In a word, no.

Most medical authorities reject internet addiction as a legitimate condition, and it has been strongly argued that overuse of the internet is simply a manifestation of other conditions, such as anxiety or depression. This is not the only opposition to the growing concern over internet addiction, though, and is certainly not any excuse to start drinking gin at nine in the morning. Another argument against the growing concern over internet addiction is that, rather than it being a cause for panic, individuals who show signs of being "addicted" to the internet are just the pioneers for a society becoming more and more reliant upon it.

The growth of technology and the internet in recent decades has been almost unprecedented and advancements in the virtual world have helped us to overcome boundaries of geography and culture, and ultimately moved us toward a more connected and (in some ways) more united species. Developments occur instantly on the web, and the time it takes us to communicate or interact has been trimmed to miliseconds. Above humanity's head office reads the sign: "Carrier Pigeons need not apply." We have seen entire businesses and facilities be created and thrive in the online world and this is a trend that shows no sign of stopping, and why would it? Entire businesses can be run and maintained for a minimal cost by a single person at a single computer. Given the current economic climate and the state of our high streets and industrial parks, it is easy to see why retailers and other service providers are resorting to operate exclusively online. A curious and ironic solution to a problem of the same design, but a solution nonetheless.

Aside from saving on time and money, operating on the internet has other benefits to the administrators and owners of businesses and services in the modern era. Larger conglomerates still rely on the work of skilled, willing employees to maintain a smooth well oiled operation. In the real world, companies are limited to the talent pools on their doorstep to find these people, but when a company is being maintained online this can be done from virtually anywhere in the world. Even I'm currently contributing this article despite being almost 150 miles away from the almighty Planet Ivy headquarters.

Given the cost-effectiveness, ease and speed of the online world, it's an obvious prediction that we are only going to continue to see the internet taking on an even bigger and more influential role in our lives. And as for those internet addicts? Well, they are the individuals that will thrive in our online future. We've all got grandparents and parents who rely on us to educate them in the latest online tools and tricks. If we don't spend the time in maintaining our own online proficiency now then we could soon find ourselves left behind. Incontinent, nameless and without any followers, desperately trying to find a postbox, calling on the help of those we branded 'addicts'.

So if you feel like you've spent a little too long being told the weather by 800 different people on facebook today (it's actually kind of nice right now) then don't worry; when the year 2021 brings a Tron-like virtual workplace and there are no windows to see the rain through, you'll be glad that someone out there is reminding you just how grey the clouds can be. You heard it here first...

Is The Zombie Revival Dead?

2013-05-10T19:00:00-04:00

by Ed Perry

With dystopian sci-fi ascending to become the go-to genre for big-budget productions (see Oblivion, Star Trek and The Hunger Games), bastardised gothic-horror is finally being beaten into submission, receding into the shadows like a sparkly vampire. Hurrah.

But as post-modern derivatives of vampires and werewolves wane in popularity, we are also forced to wave goodbye to zombies. The brain-gorgers lurched out of the grave and back into the mainstream in 2002, thanks to Danny Boyle's critically acclaimed 28 Days Later. Mr Boyle's sprinting infected spawned a decade-long resurgence that has included some of the most frightening ([REC]), hilarious (Shaun of the Dead) and ridiculous (Black Sheep) films produced in the period. Not to mention a number of brilliant video games, graphic novels and TV shows, including the much lauded The Walking Dead.

But, as eventually happens with all genres, the zombie revival has become repetitive and stale. Some are trying to inject new life into the myth, but there are, after all, only so many things that can be done with walking corpses. With a dismal public reception to Warm Bodies earlier this year (despite praise from critics), Marc Forster's upcoming World War Z may well prove to be the epitaph of an undead phenomenon.

This is a shame, because the zombie genre can occasionally be a surprisingly deep and potent exploration of the human condition. Zombie stories are capable of asking questions as fundamental and complex as 'what does it mean to be alive?' or 'what is a person?', and presenting them within an easily digestible and populist narrative.

Until very recently, a lot of the charm of the zombie movement was its lo-fi 'indie' feel. Many of the most popular zombie films have been entertaining, low-budget productions like Dead Snow, or Shaun of the Dead. Even well-funded Hollywood movies like Zombieland understood the audience well enough to retain those underground sensibilities, or - like The Walking Dead - went all literary and thoughtful.

Recently though, the trend has been towards high-concepts, bigger budgets, more marketing, and a distinct 'push' that we, as consumers, can instinctively feel. Somewhere along the line, the genre stopped being underground entertainment and became a well-polished product. The budget for 28 Days Later was just $8 million. The budget for World War Z: $170 million, with some claiming it has to make $400 million just to break even.

Yes, Hollywood is very good at figuring out what is going to make a bit of cash. If movie-making is a game of poker, then the American machine bets high and frequently goes all in. That's fine. They have a lot of very clever people figuring this kind of stuff out for them. But in this instance, Hollywood may be planting the tombstone for the very thing they set out to create. Perhaps all along, the real cure to a zombie outbreak was just money, and time.

This doesn't have to be the end for the zombie genre. Even if the genre's popularity is diminishing, Warm Bodies still made a tidy profit. Like zombies themselves, the genre's a resilient beast with an appetite for brains. More will inevitably follow.

Why Sweden's Serial Cat Killer Should Get Away With It

2013-05-10T09:00:55-04:00

by Abby Moss

OK, first off, I'd like to back-track on my shameless headline. This is actually a pretty grim story. Somebody in Sweden has been grabbing cats, cutting them open and leaving them outside their owner's houses. The police can't figure out who. This probably isn't an activity that should be encouraged. The mysterious cat killer is probably upsetting several old ladies. Old ladies, for some reason, like cats. I like old ladies. I do not, however, like cats. And I resent the assumption that this somehow makes me a heartless individual. Using my human powers of relentless logic and reasoning, I will explain why.

But first, I'd like to point out that I also resent the phrasing within the over-the-top coverage of Sweden's 'serial cat killer'. Apparently cats have been 'murdered' and 'tortured'. They haven't though, have they? People can be murdered. Cats lack the complex social, moral and cultural structures necessary for this concept. Cats have been killed. Not murdered. Nevertheless, I suppose killing is still bad.

Right, so, what's my massive problem with cats, I hear you judgementally ask. You've already decided there's something wrong with me, I can tell. Well, if they were people, nobody would like them. That, in a nutshell, is my problem. If cats were people they'd be Kim Kardashian, Tom Cruise or Noel Gallagher. They swan about with their tails in the air, jump on the sofa demanding attention, and make horrible noise. Until they decide they're bored of you, at which time they will unceremoniously tell you to fuck off. And maybe piss on something. Or on you.

But they're so independent and self-assured, you're probably saying. This is wrong. And exactly what they want you to think. And you've fallen for it. Just look at how they react to very ordinary everyday events, like hoovering or spotting another cat on the television. They freak out. This is not the behaviour of an independent, confident creature; this is the behaviour of a lobotomy patient.

I'm not saying cats deserve to die. I'm just saying, worse things could happen. You could be walking down the street, spot your girlfriend/boyfriend kissing your brother/sister at a bus stop, distractedly step into the path of a speeding dustbin lorry. Swerving to avoid you, the contents of the bin lorry could pour out, burying you in a stinking pile of juicy rubbish. Your brother/sister and (now ex-) girlfriend/boyfriend could spot this and remove their tongues from each other's mouths just long enough to point and laugh. Then a bird could shit on you. And anyway, for all the aforementioned reasons (rudeness, idiocy, snobbishness, their manipulative natures) cats aren't so great anyway. Killing a few cats, though not very nice, is not synonymous with the embodiment of all evil, as everyone seems to think.

Also their tongues are like sandpaper.

Is Facebook Doomed To Fail?

2013-05-05T19:00:00-04:00

By Tom Walters

Remember MySpace? You know, that big, friendly online place where we bragged about what bands we liked, whilst decorating our pages with glitter and trinkets. Now fast forward to the present day; what do you hear about it nowadays? That's right, not a sausage.

MySpace, despite it's recent relaunch, has fallen by the social network wayside like an old Ford Mondeo abandoned in the scrapyard. Facebook on the other hand has become nothing short of a cultural revolution, with world domination seemingly not only plausible, but almost guaranteed right? Wrong.

The Guardian has reported that, in the last two months alone, Facebook has lost over nine million users in the US and more than two million users in the UK. These are shocking statistics, especially for a company that as recently as six months ago, seemed to be heading to a point where its tentacles would reach every user with internet access, and stay there. What has happened to this phenomenon? Are people bored of it? Or are times changing so rapidly that Zuckerberg's baby has already aged?

Let's face it, if the unthinkable did happen and Facebook made a staggering fall from grace then it's not exactly like Zuckerberg would be out of pocket. As well as his vast personal wealth, Facebook's purchase of Instagram, this time last year, looks increasingly like a great bit of business. With 30million users and counting, the photo-sharing site gives an indication of the changing nature of how we interact with social media.

Alternative social network sites like Instagram and Path are becoming increasingly popular, especially among younger audiences. Instagram gives users the ability to paint their lives in a shimmering, filtered ray of light, even if, as is usually the case, their lives are just as mundane as the rest of us. Path is gaining a million users a week, with people attracted, amongst other reasons, to its limit of 150 friends; meaning no more irrelevant status updates from that friend of a friend about his gran's birthday day out in Leeds.

People are looking for simplicity, but are also beginning to want to move away from what is perceived as an increasingly boring concept. As one young man I spoke to simply put it, "People don't want to know about Geoff's dog or what breakfast that guy you once met in the SU had this morning". Times are a-changing.

With a growing audience in places like South America and a large, virtually untapped, Indian market in which to develop, Facebook's future is far from bleak. But if the reports are correct and the site continues to lose users in markets where it is currently established, it will need to evolve quickly. Poor and confusing privacy rights, unwanted advertising and an outdated interface, are all problems that Facebook needs to address, if they are to stop what is beginning to look like a slowly sinking ship.

Rapper Gets Blow Job Onstage, But Was It Sexual Assault?

2013-05-02T10:44:28-04:00

By Jemimah Steinfeld

Rappers get a bad rap. Well, this is the message that resonates from the recent news that Detroit-born rapper Danny Brown received a blow job on stage when he was performing in Minneapolis last Friday. In case you haven't heard of him, he's fairly old for the industry (32), missing teeth and has a mad professor hair cut. But apparently he is enough of a hottie stateside for some girl to publicly blow him, though for how long and how exactly it was initiated, is being contested. Brown confirmed it happened in a tweet that has since been deleted, boasting that he "didn't miss one bar bruh bruh."

The incident, which is now being referred to as The Thing, has received both praise and condemnation. Rallying for the former, some Twitter fans have figuratively high-fived him, with messages such as "I know what @XDannyXBrownX's dick looks like now woot woot."

Taking a more outraged approach is Brown's close friend and fellow rapper Kitty Pryde, who was the opening act on the night in question. Pryde claims it was sexual assault (Brown being the victim rather than the perpetrator) and that the only reason we have not called it as such is because we are all engineered to think that men, and particularly rappers, welcome such behaviour. In an open letter in Vice, Pryde writes:

"So what was Danny supposed to do, other than back away, which he did? And if he had figured out a way to gently push the girl off him immediately without looking like he was smacking her in the face, he's faced with attacks on his masculinity by every douchebro in the building. Yo dude, you don't want your dick sucked, bro? Are you gay? Haha you're gay you don't want girls to suck your dick haha gay dude bro man swag! And that's a rapper's literal nightmare."

Pryde is right about certain points. While there is pressure on women to conform to certain stereotypes, there is also pressure on men, pressure which is addressed a lot less. We live in a culture wherein the definitions of masculinity are quite narrow. In terms of sexual behaviour, men are considered players and studs for being promiscuous and are meant to want lots of often emotionless sex. This leaves less room for those who don't wish to express themselves in such a way. Like many areas concerning gender, it's a massive stereotype, one which should be challenged and which Pryde is correct to highlight.

But, at the same time, Pryde exonerates Brown too much. When she asked what he was supposed to do, here's a suggestion: back right off straight away (it does, after all, take a few moments to undo a zip). In fact, why was he so close to someone's face anyway? Do not brag about it online and, if you really feel assaulted, say so.

Our actions, or lack thereof, make statements. Whether intentional or not, they reinforce certain values as we align ourselves to one cause and distance ourselves from another. Brown's lyrics are reputably misogynistic, singing lines such as "Fuck a bitch mouth until her fucking face cave in." His shows are also notoriously sexualised. Some have claimed on the night of The Thing, he was going around groping women's breasts. It's hardly a surprise then that people wouldn't immediately think he was assaulted, since his behaviour largely reinforces negative images of rappers as hyper-masculine, misogynistic and over-sexualised i.e. game for an onstage blowy.

The same applies to the girl in question, whose actions have been validated by some. One tweet reads, "I don't know what's funnier @XDannyXBrownX getting head on stage or all the bitches saying they wish they were that girl lol." Apparently she has spoken out too, though again the information is distorted. If it is correct, she describes herself as promiscuous and a liberated woman. But I'm not sure liberated is the correct word. What message does she send out to other girls? That liberation means giving a man head in public?

It's a real shame that this is part of hip-hop culture and is something Brown gets props for ("woot woot"), as does the girl. Both conformed to the worst gender stereotypes and in so doing deflected attention away from real talent and innovation in the industry.

@JFSteinfeld

Why Do We Like Tony Stark?

2013-04-30T19:00:00-04:00

By Ed Perry

Everyone hates the 'one percent'. Most people do anyway. After all, the only people who tend to like one-percenters are other one-percenters and, well, there aren't very many of them. This poses something of a conundrum regarding the Iron Man franchise. We go to the cinema in droves to watch these movies. Movies about Tony Stark, an alcoholic, multi-billionaire 'philanthropist' who likes nothing better than blowing shit up whilst listening to AC/DC. What a complex and compassionate character.

He's not the only moneyed superhero to grace our screens of late - let's not forget the titular hero of the vastly overrated Dark Knight franchise. Yes, I know that everything Christopher Nolan touches turns into gold and fanboy semen stains, but let's take a moment here to actually explore the character of Bruce Wayne. He's a privileged kid that spends his trillion dollar inheritance on weaponising himself in order to... beat up poor people. They're thieves and murderers and whatnot, but it's not like Bruce Wayne is doing anything to solve the problems in society that cause crime to begin with. He could have used his considerable wealth to go into politics and clean up Gotham legitimately. Instead, he chooses to become a criminal himself. Just a richer one.

All the Dark Knight franchise really teaches us is 'don't break the law kids, or the rich will come and get all jujitsu up in your face. They'll fuck you up'. Hell, even Heath Ledger's iconic Joker, the ultimate Dark Knight villain, is perceived as totes insane, basically because he doesn't give a shit about money. Killing and maiming people we take in our stride; we see villains do this all the time. But burning a huge pile of money? Now that's fucking crazy.

With Iron Man, we are faced with tediously similar problems. Tony Stark has this supposed moment of clarity when he realises the weapons that his company make are only propagating war, not defending America. So what does he do? Use his enormous wealth, intelligence and influence to take a stand against the international arms trade? No. He turns himself into a weapon wrapped in an American flag and flies around damaging public property.

Ultimately, we must like these characters, because we identify with them on some level. Tony Stark is not completely alien to us, nor is Bruce Wayne. They both to an extent reject their position in society, and try to use their wealth for 'good'. Whatever that means. And it feels nice to have your faith in capitalism reaffirmed for a couple of hours. You come out of an Iron Man movie all fuzzy inside, thinking that maybe our world isn't such a bad one after all.

Perhaps democracy and capitalism really are the best options out of a bad bunch. Then you realise that Iron Man 3 was a Hollywood production, and of course Hollywood wants you to feel that way. The cycle of crippling self doubt begins anew, and you go back again and again, desperate for another sweet fix of affirmation from the bright lights and the catchy music.

Why Sexing Up Is the Way Forward for Former Disney Stars

2013-04-22T19:00:00-04:00

By Lore Oxford

The recent release of Spring Breakers has sparked international debate with regard to its cast of scantily clad, Disney-famed tween role models. Twitter has been overflowing with conflicting opinions, from "I heard Spring Breakers is trashy and a waste of time & money" to "Don't forget to go see @springbreakers it's too good, like finger licking good." Meanwhile, American gossip columns have been overflowing with opinionated commentaries.

"Selena Gomez peels off her Disney girl persona, and most of her clothes, in [the] R-rated Spring Breakers", wrote Stephen Schaefer for the Boston Herald. The beauty of this particular vein of media attention is that, whether the overflowing Christian sector of North America likes it or not, sex - and controversy - sells. But we already knew that and, as such, the question is raised: is nobody bored of this yet?

Let's face it. The Disney-star-gone-bad image is hardly big news. The Mouseketeers must be sighing nostalgic sighs, as they remember their sex-fuelled, paparazzi-ridden journeys into adulthood. They already understand that the only way to shed that lacquered sheen and relinquish themselves from the shackles of a role model-hungry audience is to put their middle finger up to the cameras until parents ban them from their household.

Justin Timberlake's move to N*Sync was synonymous with his avocation of numerous questionable things: hairstyles in particular, but his lyrics were under at least equal scrutiny (the first thing that comes to mind is "All day long I dream about sex / and all night long I think about sex"). His solo career hasn't done much to alter his racy image either. Similarly, Christina Aguilera went on to showcase some equally questionable hair (those braids) and romp around a wrestling ring in crotchless leather trousers, telling anyone who would listen that she was dirrty. Later, Ryan Gosling starred in the controversial The Believer as a neo-Nazi, which - while it could be taken as a nod to Walt Disney in all the glory of his rumoured bigotry - was not an angle that sat well with the majority of his Mouseketeer fans. And let's not even get started on Britney Spears.

New-gen Disney stars have been anything but shy when it comes to following in their predecessor's footsteps. Vanessa Hudgens hasn't even had a look-in on the Spring Breakers phenomenon. Her perky chest has been thrust into the face of the media so many times that her public persona now doesn't differ much from that of the girl at school who's only remembered for the up-skirt pictures she sent boys during class. Meanwhile, ex-boyfriend and High School Musical co-star Zac Efron has enjoyed dirtying up his image with Nicole Kidman in The Paperboy, whilst fellow former Disney star Miley Cyrus parades the pages of the internet in her underwear with a bong in hand, whilst hanging out with blow-up dolls (admittedly not all at the same time).

In short, those who enter into the glittering halls of Hollywood through Disney are destined to suffer a gruelling initiation into adulthood, through whichever duct of filth reveals itself first. Some of them get a taste for it, and are doomed to an existence of public arrests and nervous breakdowns (we're looking at you, Brit). For others, reincarnation is possible. Ryan Gosling has a roster of internationally acclaimed films under his belt, while Christina Aguilera has just moved to a $10million mansion in Beverley Hills, and is renowned for her award-winning contributions to countless charities.

Hudgens and Cyrus might seem like undesirables now, but that doesn't mean they won't flourish into respectable and talented actresses once the dust has settled. The prospect of reinvention is surely better than existing as a perpetual one-trick pony, destined to repeat the incessant catchphrases from your youth at the mercy of the likes of Family Guy or The Simpsons. Remember Gary Coleman?

A Disconcerting Look At The Future Of Porn

2013-04-21T19:00:00-04:00

By Xanthe Hawksley-Walker

Pornography is something that we at Planet Ivy like to think we know a lot about. And, if you are a member of the human race, you probably know at least a little bit about it too.

The nature of pornography is changing constantly, from what's popular to where and how people see it. The internet changed the game considerably, with vast amounts of adult films and images becoming easily and instantly accessible. Whether or not this is a good or bad thing is constantly debated, but one thing is very clear - it's not going away.

So that really leaves one question - what's going to happen next?

Well, there's a real possibility of it going virtual. The website Second Life, an online life-simulator 'game', was something that had a dramatic impact on cybersex, it turned up on the games market wearing arse-less chaps and waving the flag of possiblity. It was ground-breaking for many reasons, but in a debaucherous sense because it provided options to animate avatars into pornographic poses, both on their own and in interaction with other avatars.

Games like Skyrim, Assassin's Creed and Final Fantasy have shown that animation is constantly improving - and becoming much closer to looking truly lifelike. In a few years, it's reasonable to assume that games will be available with characters who look (almost) completely human, and who the player has much more flexible control over. Already in games like Mass Effect the ability to shape the avatar's likeness to your own, or Channing Tatum's, is incredible. Based on the current porn industries popularity and economy, it can easily be understood how creating intensely realistic pornographic videogames/simulators could be extremely lucrative. And where there is money, and boobs, there is interest.

Viewing pornography through a screen is one thing, but the next step would be allowing viewers/players to become truly involved in the action. Devices such as the Oculus Rift, which provide a much more immersive experience than the standard game console, are already in development. Of course, although this type of pornography would be far more interactive than what we have now, it's limited in that it's still only visual. The obvious next step is to make (virtual) physical interaction possible. We're talking fibre wire up your nostril - plugged in, logged on, getting off.

Already, sex toys have been invented which imitate real sex organs and respond to remote stimulus. Combining this with the aforementioned virtual porn would definitely be another step, but still a rather rudimentary way of going about it. The next step is clearly a full, virtual reality device, pretty much the kind of thing only really seen in sci-fi films.

But, leaving aside the possibility of the future consisting of everyone living, somewhat Matrix-like, in their own personalised virtual universes, this poses an interesting situation for the porn industry as it stands now. On the one hand, the argument of pornography being exploitative towards the actors/actresses it employs will be redundant if it moves to using virtual avatars, but on the other sweaty palm those same actors will find themselves out of jobs. We question how transferable their skills are.

Another very possible problem with this type of pornography is that, in theory, it would be possible to base avatars on real people, be they celebrities or just people you know from work (creep vibes escalating). The idea of someone having virtual sex with something that looks exactly like you is a little worrying, not to mention highly morally questionable. Already, websites like JibJab allow you to paste your face, or anyone elses, over the top of videos to create bizarre and supposedly entertaining e-cards, videos and graphics. Given the difficulties in regulating the porn industry as it is now, this would probably be very difficult to prevent. Given how our entire social lives are moving online, our faces have never been so exposed.

It's impossible (and wrong) to stop technology from progressing, and just about everything, eventually, ends up being used for some kind of sexual purpose. What we should be hoping for is a much firmer, and better enforced, stance on anything illegal or exploitative, in porn and on the greater internet itself - if that's possible. The recent instances of The Pirate Bay, Silk Road, and Bitcoins are truly setting the internet up to be a case of Frankenstein and the monster.

Porn has always pushed the boundaries of acceptable, if it where to go completely virtual, as all things seem to be doing, then we may be facing many issues of personal copyright infringement. Currently it is technically not possible to copyright your face, you can copyright photo's, sculptures etc, but not your physical appearance. But I don't know how I'd feel if my face turned up on a movie titled Depth Hunters 5 - Colon Invaders.

I'm Afraid of Existing Online

2013-04-18T19:00:00-04:00

By Ed Bradley

This whole internet thing is really picking up speed, isn't it? I must have been 11 before I'd even heard about it, and when we bought our first modem (after what must have been insufferable high-pitched demands) its main use was sending inane emails, gushing over how amazing it all was. I'm inclined to believe that that feeling of wonder, awe and ceremony is somewhat comparable to when families used to get out the wireless and huddle around it to listen to the Queen's Christmas message. Nowadays children are born with Facebook profiles.

I mention this to remind you of just how fresh and unsullied the phenomenon was, before corporate greed took hold. Businesses didn't need a website, forum or Twitter feed. Having the most basic online presence was a flamboyance, a sign of your futuristic pretensions. How far we must have come then for it to be weird that someone would eschew their own online existence. But that's what I do.

I'm aware of the incongruity in saying all of this from the sort of platform I claim to shun. Consider it a coming-out party of sorts. Despite growing up with the internet as my peer, I think Facebook is the only social media site I've ever used - and even then it's a very passive use. I pretty much stopped sharing my thoughts and exploits when the site opened its doors to the general public and not just snooty university students. I'm afraid of having a potentially infinite audience, but as Planet Ivy continues to grow I hope the transition will be tantamount to slowly cooking a live frog: cold to boiled and none the wiser.

Maybe it's as simple as extrovert versus introvert, participant versus observer, exhibitionist versus voyeur. Just because I don't post on Reddit doesn't mean I'm not forever lurking in the shadows and greedily inhaling the weird stories and interactions that others share. I may not tweet my every bowel movement, but I certainly enjoy burying my face in the planet's collective excrement. I guess that makes me some kind of creepy, scatalogical peeping Tom, but at least I'm the only one who knows it. Check your Facebook feed to ascertain which camp your acquaintances belong to... and if you're not on Facebook then it's pretty obvious which one you've settled into.

The real fear comes from being judged. I'm a selective misanthrope and I do my selecting by watching your social media output. Some of you come across incredibly well but I think some of you are oblivious twats. I hate you. I'd never delete you though - you're my entertainment, my soap opera, my catharsis.

I'm not so arrogant as to believe the feeling isn't mutual. They say there's always someone more proficient in any given facet of life than you are. I bet Usain Bolt isn't the fastest man on earth, that there's some unknown guy who has never even thought of running but could do the 100m in eight seconds. If I find it so easy to hate, then I humbly concede that many people would put me to shame. Louis CK comes to mind. Anyway, I don't feel comfortable attracting that sort of tongue-severing ire, and I'm surprised that so many do.

Social media infects everything else too, but is it really as sinister as I suppose? My brief stint as a conspiracy theorist has cultivated a healthy case of paranoia. The New World Order, Illuminati and now Google seem to feed off my likes and dislikes, my social circles and my personal browsing habits. A seminal moment came when logging into Gmail once. It asked me if I wanted to use my Hotmail account to add more contacts when I'd never, to my knowledge, allowed the two to mix. Why do they all confer? It obviously makes things more fluid and convenient, but that's the hook. I'm reduced to worrying about the Thought Police and wishing for a Luddite revival.

I'm trying to embrace the surrender of my privacy, despite my reservations. The internet's a stage and I'm reluctant to proclaim that I'm not a player. I'd love to read your insightful opinions. No, really!

Why Having Kids Is a Terrible Idea

2013-04-09T19:00:00-04:00

By Jess Reid

As we all inevitably leave our twenties and begrudgingly begin the slow pitiful march towards responsibility and self-loathing, it's important to ask the question - what next? For some it's fulfilling careers and the exciting discovery of our greatly unrecognised adult self, and for some it's children. I realise that this is not a popular view. I also realise that having children is pretty much essential to the continuation of the human race. I do, actually, also realise that people bloody love their children, and will claim that having them was the best thing ever. Lastly, I do actually realise that I myself was once a child.

But that doesn't make me hate them any less.

Here is a comprehensive list of all the reasons not to have children. It involves facts, figures and generally well compiled research - something we couldn't be bothered doing, so here's our round up on why abstaining from breeding will make you live longer, have more money, and generally get more out of life. I mean, at the end of the day, what the f*ck is the point in giving someone else life if you didn't even enjoy yours? Deep.

So here is our brief round-up of what I deem the most important reasons:

You'll be a whole lot richer. Seriously. A cursory Google of a few depressing statistics will horrify you - for example, raising a child is likely to cost anywhere from £100,000 to your own life, and that's just to the age of 17. Not including private education if you're so inclined. Nappies, toys, general baby equipment, extra food, extra presents, pocket-money, a tenner here or there, clothes, bus fare. Kids cost a lot. Just think of all the fabulous holidays you could enjoy instead of settling on a caravan in Great Yarmouth.

You'll invariably be a much more interesting person. Children change people. The axis of their priority shifts, and the centre of it is the child (or children). Who wants to talk about the latest development in the Middle East when you've been agonising over which faddy educational toy to buy your little brat? Or which fungal infection they've brought home and infected the entire family with? No one, that's who.

You'll never have another good night's sleep. I'm not just talking the hideous crying, shitting, puking stage in the first year or two of a baby's life - I'm talking all the way through the teens, until they eventually bugger off. My mother would constantly assure me that her, and all other parents she knew, simply couldn't sleep until their 18-year-old pisshead kids were home. Which wasn't very often.

Women wouldn't have to face the agony of labour (or having a doctor bust you open like a gestation-sac pinata through C-section) - not to mention the inevitably saggy post-baby tits, and withered, broken love-box (Remember that scene from Alien, the one where it bursts out his chest? It's like that but coming out your vagina).

You can remain the eternal child yourself. Can a 43-year-old with three kids go out on the piss with their mates every night? Well, they can but society frowns on that. So not unless they have a lovely partner or can afford a childminder. No - you are doomed to a lousy social life. The highlight will be the odd meal out with other couples with kids. You can never escape. Being childless and free of responsibility means that you can be wild and immature as long as you want. The only exceptions to the rule here are rockstars - or heroin addicts.

Think I'm harsh? Well, maybe so. But you also know I'm right. We live in an overpopulated world, sure that statement is open to debate but just shut up and go with it. The overall human population is almost at a point where it can't stand on it's own spindly, malnourished, horny little legs anymore. And it's because people don't pull out enough. Everyone knows that population growth cannot keep going the way it is, it's a fornication train speeding out of control towards Mt. Doom. So unless Mother Nature does something about it, lazy bitch, it's up to us and our generation to save the planet. One condom at a time.

For more on why you shouldn't breed, possibly kill yourself and general misanthropy visit The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jessflr

Is Google a Cult?

2013-04-08T19:00:00-04:00

By Duncan Moreland

Once upon a time, when the world was proud of its debauched soul, it was bloody easy to start up a cult. All you needed were flowing robes, some candles, a bunch of emotionally depraved misfits, perhaps a sacrificing table, and a leader with a big smile and a penchant for power and other peoples' stuff.

You'd bang on about the horrors of living a materialistic life, quoting capitalism as the devil, talk about the benefits of crapping in the woods and dropping your now non-frilly knickers at the whim of your new master, throw in a good old fashioned suicide pact, and, job done, you've got yourself a cult. Simple, right?

Well not any more. Welcome to the modern age baby: a media saturated world claiming to be transparent, but actually about as see-through as a politician wearing a lead suit. Evil is no longer smacking its victims over the head with the proverbial truncheon, it's creeping up in broad day-light, smiling like an organic food salesman who thinks he's single handedly saving the planet (ignoring that his clothes are from Primark and stitched together with children's skin). Let me introduce you to the biggest cult you deal with on a daily basis:

Google.

Really? Yes, really. 'But I've seen photos of their offices and they are FUNKY, everyone looks like they're having a great time...' If that's the conclusion you've come to, print out this article, soak it in bleach and eat it. End it all right now. Go on, you have absolutely nothing to live for.

One employee describes working at Google as "interesting, fun, surprising, insightful, inspiring, impactful, and more such words". Sounds delightful doesn't it? But really it's a cry for help. Set foot inside Google offices and you'll find a colourful maze of misshapen light-bulbs, meeting rooms in the shape of taxis, and a general decor that wouldn't look out of place in a youth club decorated by a five-year old high on skittles and fruit twists. Actually, I take that back - that would be great. It's more like mid-life-crisis Dad attempting to get down with the kids with a splash of crayola and some innapropriately placed rock-climbing handles. Except Dad is an international corporation and the kids are apparently some of the cleverest people on the planet.

The same employee blogs his top ten favourite things about working for Google. After writing an essay on how the gourmet muffins Google cafeteria serve saved his marriage, cured his impotence, and gave him powers of flight (I'm paraphrasing), the author of the blog writes about the "brain expansion opportunities" offered by Google. He attributes this to the "brilliant people visiting and giving talks and lectures", which include politicians, monks, and venture capitalists (bankers dressed as Indiana Jones?), but we both know what's going on here: brain-washing. It has to be. How else could said employee get so excited about the green prospects of a 100% biodegradable cup, while working for a company whose energy consumption could power a 200,000 person city.

Google are doing their part to promote a culture that idealizes people like this:

What's wrong with people like that? Hold on, let me swallow my sick and wipe away the poisonous haze of overzealous positivity. She's the living embodiment of what advertising would like you to think is the perfect human: health conscientious, successful, creative, unabashedly happy about absolutely everything, and, oh yeah, in need of a life-affirming digital product that can both aid and justify her busy schedule of jogging and drinking Starbucks coffees - in this case a 'better brain' delivered via online games. I'm a living case study that playing online games does nothing to enhance the features of a dwindling cranium (it also does little to enhance the features of a dwindling sex-life, unless you've got a hankering for pixelated elf ears).

If our top ten blogger is to be taken at (stupidly grinning) face value, then Google are breeding an army of employees that cannot envision a world without Google, a world where the latest Google plugin is a digital Mother Teresa.

It's possible Google has launched a campaign against intellectuals. They are containing some of the smartest people on Satan's yellowing earth in exciting looking prisons, distracted by the thrills of youth they missed out on when they were young because they were mounting hardcore algebra instead of hardcore monkey bars. Why though? Has the search engine itself formed a complex conscious AI and taken over? Are we on the verge of a machine uprising against humans? What will we do with all our boffins stuck at Google playing hacky sack? Somebody get Will Smith! Wait, what? He's in the Guitar Hero room at Google giving a speech?

We're doomed.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/DuncanDiesAgain