Food

After seeing the Reading and Leeds lineup, which got announced a couple of weeks ago, I voiced my excitement in a Courier article. In this article, I talked about how I thought the lineup was perfect in its blending of genres. It had something for everyone. All acts and all people could appreciate the music that was on show.

Then I did a double take, after someone voiced their disgust at the lack of female inclusivity in the lineup. Could this be true? A festival which I’ve been to a couple times since 2017, which I always saw as a hub for political open mindedness, engaging in misogyny? Well, Instagram page @ bookmorewomen showed that the proof is truly in the pudding. Posting a reviewed lineup poster, with only the acts which include at least one woman or non-binary member, showed their scarcity in the August bank holiday festival. On the main stage, one of the more popular locations for fans, only three acts over the weekend fit into this category, all early on in their respective days.

Looking at a few stats, the festival in 2018 had 19% of acts in this category, raising slightly to 21% in 2019 and 22% this year.

This brought up a big argument, ranging from industry professionals and music connoisseurs, to modern feminists understanding of the current social climate.

Let’s take a look at what some industry individuals had to say.

Annie Mac, the BBC Radio 1 DJ, stated her distaste at the lineup. She tweeted: “Feeling so disheartened about this Reading and Leeds line up. At the blatant lack of want to represent women. For all the 16 year old girls going to their first festival at Reading and Leeds 2020. Just know that you DO belong on those stages.”

Similar words were voiced by other professionals, such as Maggie Rogers, who jokingly tweeted “omg i love dudes plus dudes with more dudes and side of dudes”.

However, one of the more interesting perspectives, and perhaps linking in to how we can evolve the future of festival lineups and music, was the words of The 1975’s Matty Healy. Healy has never been one to silence his opinions on many political injustices, and he even headlined the festival last year.

On Twitter, after initially voicing his happiness at seeing Rage Against The Machine headline the festival, he responded to The Guardian’s Deputy Music Editor, Laura Snapes.

Laura stated: “Rage would be a dope booking if they used their leverage to demand equality on the bill”, and Matty respond with “Shit that’s so fucking true”.

Further discussions resulted in Healy stating his approval of a new contract for his band, in the hopes to better the future. This contract would see the band only play festivals committed to 50% on the lineup being women and nonbinary performers.

He tweeted: “Take this as me signing this contract – I have agreed to some festivals already that may not adhere to this and I would never let fans down who already have tickets. But from now I will and believe this is how male artist can be true allies”.

Sadly, during the time I’ve been producing this article, we’ve seen the backlash of a certain musician at the NME Music Awards this year. Slowthai, who’s listed to be performing at this year’s Reading and Leeds, engaged in rather physical and unwanted actions with the award host, Katherine Ryan, stating “[Katherine] wants me to tend to her flower” and constantly referred to her as “baby girl”. This was before someone in the crowd accused him of being a misogynist, to which he jumped into the crowd, having a scrap, and getting kicked out.

For someone in such a privileged position, his seemingly bulletproof nature on stage sets a dangerous precedent for men in the industry. Some made links between the rapper and R Kelly. Personally, I hope that the act didn’t reflect his true intentions, and a combination of the stage and alcohol inspired him to make such a horrendous error. He voiced his apologies on Twitter, stating “@nme please forward my award to [Katherine] or she is the hero of the year. what started as a joke between us escalated to a point of shameful actions on my part. i want to unreservedly apologise, there is no excuse and I am sorry. i am not a hero.”

However, it’s important to know that a single tweet won’t correct this mistake, and with some twitter users urging him to be taken off the Reading and Leeds lineup, and cancel culture in full swing, only the next few days will show how the consequences of his actions.

Looking back to the Leeds lineup, many twitter users voiced clashing opinions. Many appreciated the argu- ments of Healy, Mac and Rogers, admitting that Festival Republic should evolve from their masculine bias. On the T he mainstream market in music has always been subject to different trends that have developed throughout the decades. One of the most commercially successful genres in the world is guitar music, especially with rock music’s pinnacle during the 70s. I love guitar music and I think it has had a colossal impact in music history and culture across the decades. But the question is, is it still appealing to the mainstream market, is it still commercial like it used to be? The panorama in music has made a shift in the 21st Century, especially in the last years. Rock stars are not as idolized as they used to be anymore, and the excitement and adoration of guitar virtuosos has left the popular sphere to become a part of more niche music cultures. Guitar music is traditionally associated with white male bands, and nowadays, the new digital technologies have provided a platform for new genres to access more mainstream mar- kets. In this way, the music industry has become more diverse and inclusive, and these traditional white male bands have shifted towards a more niche panorama of either older listeners, passionate fans, or music lovers. Nowadays, listening habits have also changed, shifting towards a single-orientated culture. It is most common for mainstream artists to produce and release music in singles. Guitar and rock music from older generations was created in full-length albums, and it is a trend still maintained by guitar bands such as Foals, The 1975 and the Arctic Monkeys. Since the audience tendency in listening has shifted towards a playlist and single-oriented culture, guitar music’s popularity has relocated towards a more specific audience.

However, the fact that guitar music has left the mainstream it does not mean that it is dying or in decline. There is amazing guitar music being made and, as I have mentioned, there are many bands and artists that keep it alive. Bands such as Arctic Monkeys, Foals, The 1975, Catfish and The Bottlemen and many more are making guitar music that appeals to big crowds and wide audiences.

Guitar and rock music is still out there as it has always been, but nowadays it is required for the listener to actively search for it. This is due to this music appealing to more niche audiences that are passionate about specific genres and that are music fans; people who usually make their way out of the mainstream music offer.

We can’t forget that, also, there are many ways of making guitar music. Artists like Tame Impala, Rex Orange County and Tom Misch all use guitar in different ways from what traditional rock would produce. Guitar is a very versatile instrument that can produce more rocky, jazzy, bluesy, psychedelic, poppy and many more sounds. Regardless of what is in the Spotify Top UK playlist, we will keep on listening to guitar music because we love it. The music industry has become more diverse O n Sunday 16, The 1975 performed at the Utilita Arena with Beabadoobee as an opening act. Around half seven Beabadoobee came to the stage. I did not know the band before the concert, but I was glad I got a chance to see them. The 40-minute set was too short and left me wishing to hear more of the band.

Then, The 1975 made a grand entrance (as expected), playing with the lights and the music. They began playing the piano minutes before coming onto stage and then “burned out” the stage lights until there was absolute darkness.

After opening with ‘People’ and the words “Rock and Roll is dead; God bless,” the band moved on while Matty Healy smoked and sung at the same time. I was surprised to see many young teens amongst the audience, which is why I felt like he could have spared the cigarettes. Still, most of the audience were in their 20s or even older for what I could see.

While dancing to ‘Sincerity Is Scary’, Matty recreated the video clip with a treadmill, which I thought was engaging and original. The back vocals and dances of the Jaiy twins made the instrumental breaks even better. In the end, it encouraged everyone to dance, as well.

But if there is anything that should be praised is the use of lights. The 1975 can play with backgrounds and use them very effectively in live shows. In the songs ‘Fallingforyou’ and ‘Somebody Else’, the songs built up together with the special effects on the background.

For ‘People’ and ‘Love It If We Made It’ the images in the back are mostly controversial, especially for the latter. Like every time they play ‘Love It If We Made It’, the song was preceded by Greta Thunberg’s speech. Displaying the lyrics in was also a nice touch for understanding the lyrics better.

Altogether the concert was well organised, even if at some points the setlist did not make much sense. The energy of the band and dancers on stage balanced the order of the songs. Additionally, ballads were made beautiful, mixing the acoustic guitar and the violins, mainly with the ode to their friendship, while playing old clips of themselves. Elena Corcobadodiscusses whether guitar music can still appeal to the mainstream crowd The 1975 Live at the Utilita Arena It will be interesting to see how festival goers and musicians acknowledge this inequality Alex Gervas Tom Moorcroftexpresses his dissatisfaction at the distinct lack of female and non-binary artists on the line-up for Reading and Leeds festival Image: Instagram (@radvxz)

'That rock and roll, ey': is it still electric? Reading & Leeds: the UK’s least inclusive festival? Images: Instagram (tommisch), (goatgirlofficial). Flickr Anna Hans

the courier Monday 24 February 2020 23 Joe Molander culture @culture_courier thecourieronline.co.uk/music music La Roux Supervision A decade ago, La Roux were a musical duo, producing Grammy winning 00’s floorfillers, heard everywhere from Radio 1 to school discos, and characterised by energetic electronic basslines. However, the third studio album, Supervision, reinforces a sharp transition from this commercial and dance-focused sound.

After an internationally successful first album, Ben Langmaid decided to leave La Roux, turning it into a solo project for Elly Jackson. Since Langmaid’s departure, La Roux’s music has developed a buoyant beachiness, which was first encountered on her second album, Trouble in Paradise, and continues now on Supervision. The last album marked an innovative rejection of disposable chart music and so the potential for Supervision was huge. But sadly, the new album seems to regurgitate the mood and techniques of Trouble in Paradise, thus making La Roux’s exit from electro-pop slightly less exciting. With every song stretched out for a minute longer than necessary and the relaxed beats growing frustratingly repetitive by the third track, it makes it difficult to fall in love with the album. This doesn’t mean Supervision is an unenjoyable listening experience. ‘Gullible Fool’ layers synths, piano, drum loops to create a feel-good summer barbeque track, while ‘International Woman of Leisure’ pairs a feminine vocal with feminist lyrics to formulate an empowering anthem just ahead of International Women’s Day. There are remnants of New Wave fossilised into all her melodies, but these aren’t quite subversive enough to surpass a restrained coffeehouse sound.

After the first album, Jackson told NME “I’m not going to stop writing until we’ve got songs that can compete on the same level as ‘In For The Kill’ and ‘Bulletproof’” so this updated sound, which prioritises vibrancy and relaxation over commerciability, demonstrates a healthier headspace and less competitive writing process. But perhaps Supervision lacks a little fighting spirit. It seems La Roux has struggled to situate herself in the dichotomy of her two previous albums, but if you’re looking for some music to unwind to, this could be for you. Green Day Father of All Motherfuckers I n life, we all endure hardships; I – a middle-class white man – know this better than anyone. One Sunday afternoon, instead of calling my parents, doing laundry or watching two-thirds of an episode of Doctor Who, I had to force myself to devote twenty six miserable minutes to listening to the new Green Day album.

Father of All Motherfuckers is proof you absolutely can judge a book by its cover. The title alone approaches Music to be Murdered by levels of cringe, and the cover art looks like a drug trip scene from Bojack Horseman that’s been drained of all self-awareness. What is left is a soulless attempt to revitalise Green Day’s once-great offerings of angst-filled rock.

As the 2000s drift further and further away and fade increasingly into memory, it’s clear that the band is no longer fit for purpose. Those who would once have described themselves as fans of Green Day have been radicalised. Now, they are split between two camps, and are either into harder rock and metal, or are currently compiling Spotify playlists with “aesthetic” anime covers. Green Day has been left behind.

Of course, to lose a hefty chunk of your audience is no bad thing: everyone – albeit secretly – decries that at least one band they used to like has become too popular. Having a leaner fanbase comprised only of loyal listeners – to be playing to the wheat, not the chaff – can be incredibly liberating.

This is not the case, though, for Green Day. Once, the band’s lyricism was genuinely, shockingly countercultural: back in 2004, no-one who was looking for applause claimed to be “the faggot America”. No more. The opening track – ‘Father of All…’ (which is the album title without the naughty word; it’s dazzlingly clever) – is a vapid homage to rebellion. What is being rebelled against, or who’s rebelling, or how, isn’t considered. A similar blandness – and adherence to cringe-worthy tropes we all hoped had been left behind in the naughties – haunts Green Day throughout the release. ‘Sugar Youth’ bemoans how the narrator will “never ever, ever, ever fuck the prom queen” (the lead singer is 47); ‘I Was a Teenage Teenager’ is promising, but still has to remind us that “school is just for suckers”; and ‘Take the Money and Crawl’ encourages the listener to “suck my cock”. If you don’t, you needn’t worry, seeing as we are also hur- riedly reminded that “I don’t give a fuck”.

The album is not without flare: ‘Junkies on a High’ manages to combine timely concern for the future of earth with a deeper-seated nihilism, for example. The issue arises when the entire project is held together by loweffort production and chord progressions, twin testimonies to the lack of passion that’s gone into the release. Now on their 13th album, Green Day seem to be experiencing musical fatigue: they know that if they discuss the same three or four themes, they’ll sell enough CDs and downloads to make another album that’s just as soulless. Father of All Motherfuckers is what the band’s more virulent and misinformed detractors thought American Idiot was. Rock was and is an opaque genre full of crit- ics who have no sense of what is trying to be achieved. It seems a shame that those detractors have been fed an album that confirms every one of their misconceptions. other side, many Twitter users suggested that the lineup isn’t a result of misogyny, but the fact that the majority of popular acts are male.

One of these twitter users argued “Reading and Leeds has historically been a rock festival. Gotta be honest there aren’t a great deal of female rock artists alone let alone ones big enough to headline”.

Personally, I can see both sides of the argument. Whilst many acts of the lineup are male and, subsequently, only 22% are female or including a non-binary member, whether this is a result of the festival or the music industry in general is significant. Similarly, the fact that of the acts in this category in this lineup, they’re much lower down and playing much smaller stages, hence their public appearance and image will be affected.

With Reading and Leeds yet to fully respond to the allegations, and with 7 months until the festival starts, it will be interesting to see how both festival goers and musicians acknowledge this inequality, and how we can hopefully adjust the industry to become more inclusive. We’ve already seen movements emerge in the industry, such as ‘SafeGigs4Women’, and at Leeds last year Frank Carter, during his set, urged the crowd to appreciate the women in the crowd and allow them to feel safe during the festival.

However, with this recent lineup, it’s clear that more has to be done. Festival Republic should evolve from their masculine bias

What is being rebelled against, or who’s rebelling, or how, isn’t considered Green Day seem to be experiencing musical fatigue It’s clear that the band is no longer fit for purpose Jess Herbert expresses his dissatisfaction at the distinct lack of female and non-binary artists on the line-up for Reading and Leeds festival Image: Instagram (@mahalia) W e’ve all had that artist who we follow as they release new release, each time getting more and more excited until it climaxes with an LP, which we rave about for months. Eventually, after a while of listening on repeat, we get bored of the same tracks and yearn for more – but, alas, no more seems to come.

At this point we move onto new bands, finding fresh sounds and de- veloping our taste over the years. We completely forget about the artist we were once in love with as we discover recent content to replace it. Then, years down the line, the old favourite rises once again with a sudden announcement of a new record. How to react can be confusing – are we still as excited as we used to be to hear more?

Whatever material is presented years later, it is important that it doesn’t just invoke a feeling of nostalgia, as this is a short-lived emotion that is not the same as genuine appreciation of the artist moving forward, and can often result in brief success before another relapse period. The artist has to reignite interest in their music career going forward, while at least honouring their roots.

Taking on some specific ‘case studies’ as it were, the hype around returning artists tends to be biggest for bands that are reuniting from a long-time split, with My Chemical Romance being a prime example of this. Their 2019 shows brought the group back together for the first time since their 2013 split, exciting the teenage emo in all of us.

Bombay Bicycle Club went above and beyond for their first album in 6 years dropping last month, followed by a flurry of shows including a sold-out gig at Newcastle’s 02 Academy. After splitting for years to pursue solo projects, there were no complaints that they rebranded and produced a plethora of great new content in the same vein of their classic tracks.

Both these groups latest actions are examples of a comeback done right, and a lot of that is down to the hugely positive fan reaction. For certain musicians, things might not have gone so smoothly.

It is genuinely difficult for artists to make a comeback after a long pe- riod of absence – they may lose old fans for one reason, or gain new ones for another. It’s a difficult minefield to navigate, and those that slip may lose some integrity, but those that succeed can triumphantly return to the forefront of the music industry, rejuvenating their discography and performances. The artist has to reignite interest in their music career Finlay Holdenexamines My Chemical Romance and Bombay Bicycle Club’s recent comebacks Reading & Leeds: the UK’s least inclusive festival?

Living up to the hype: are re-formed bands still good?

24

c2.tv@ncl.ac.uk TV Editors Amy Brown, Sophie Hicks and Kate Dunkerton the courier Monday 24 February 2020 culture TV Tilly Williams talks her top pick of an anti-hero on television A lot of TV shows start off with characters that we can’t stand, but then as the show progresses, you end up loving them, and that was certainly the case for me with Buffy the Vam- pire Slayer. Warning: spoil- ers ahead! Spike, one of my favourite anti-heroes in all of TV history begins as a soulless vampire who ends up saving the world.

In his first episode he plans to kill the current slay- er and open the gates of hell. His alliance swiftly shifts in this season as his rivalry with Angel strengthens, deciding he only wants to run away with his girlfriend instead of causing hell on earth, join- ing the slayer. We start to learn more of his backstory, in which he starts off as a failing poet in 1880 known as William “the bloody” because of his “bloody awful poetry”.

A key difference between Spike and other vampires is his ability for love, which accord- ing to lore he should not be able to experience, and this is shown numerous times with Drusilla and eventually Buffy. When Buffy learns of his feelings she un-invites him from her house, hurting him to the extent he has a robot of Buffy built. Buffy’s sister has grown close to Spike and he risks his life saving hers, which regains Buffy’s trust and allows him back to the group. Season 6 however shows a new, darker side to Spike. Buffy starts to use Spike for sex which leads to her calling it off as she realises how much it’s hurting him. He becomes desperate to win her back and attempts to sexu- ally assault her and flees to Africa to earn his soul after his unforgivable acts.

Doing this turns him insane with guilt, begging Buffy to stake him, al- though she refuses. In the final fight, it’s revealed Spike is the chosen one and can close the Hellmouth, but it will destroy him in the process. As this takes place Buffy turns to him and tells him for the first time “I love you” to which he replies, “No you don’t, but thanks for saying it” and dies saving the world from hell. It’s admirable that he sacrifices himself, redeeming himself a little, but ultimately he still committed many crimes which can’t be forgiven, so his character had to die off. F or someone who is an obsessive fan of magical realism, supernatural drama is a near-amazing neighbour. The new Netflix release Locke & Key secures its place within this genre but remains insuf- ficient in fully embodying its tropes.

Adapted from a comic book series by Joe Hill and Ga- briel Rodriguez, it follows the story of Tyler, Kinsey and Bode Locke who have just shifted to Matheson following their father’s cold blooded murder. Locke family shifts to their father’s ancestral home, one of the oldest buildings in town which has witnessed World War brutality, espe- cially the Well House.

Named appropriately, Locke House is filled with magical keys which can take a monstrous turn if put in the hands of a wrong person, or as the narrative suggests an “echo”. In a world of whispering keys, things start to take a turbulent turn after Bode ignores the warning of his family by helping out his lady friend. Caught between trauma and teenage drama, the show follows the three Locke sib- lings trying to retrieve, explore and safe-keep the keys which have unlocked a new world to them. As if high school was not hard enough already, the kids, on one hand, are battling a supernatural creature whilst making sure that their social relationships remain intact. Even on the home front, the situation is tu- multuous as their mother Nina, in an attempt to understand her husband’s past is falling down a rabbit hole and is fighting her sobriety. However, Locke & Key has a famil- iar scent which nostalgically makes the viewers reminiscent of a Stranger Things world mixed with the supernatural horror flicks of Netflix. The narrative lacks a sense of danger and thrill by playing it too safe for its own good. Problems occur but seem to get resolved on their own, without much effort on the part of the Locke siblings. The supernatural horror premise which involves a grieving family and a magical ancestral home, promises a lot of thrill but fails to deliver it. It’s not the Locke’s but the narrative which seems to have become the saviour by downplaying its potential. Thanks to Netflix’s high budget production and de- sign, the grotesque is polished to gloss and presents a world of not-so teenager-looking teenagers. In addi- tion to the background score and visual effects, the shots of Lunenburg and Nova Scotia are better parts of the show. However, the safe and sound plot adds the show to the list of disappointing Netflix series which fail to deliver. Review: Locke and Key In a world of whispering keys, things start to take a turbulent turn Buffy and complex characters Ultimately he committed crimes we can't forgive Image: IMDb Arnojya Shree Images: IMDb

Back before the winter break I wrote a piece on the character Sheldon Cooper from the hit sitcom The Big Bang Theory and how he is represented in terms of his (unofficial but clear) Autism Spectrum Disorder.

As I stated in that article I myself have Aspergers Syn- drome (AS) and felt that perhaps I could share my per- spective on how accurate or not that portrayal was given my own experiences as an aspie. This time I am focusing on Sam Gardner from the US Netflix comedy/drama series Atypical. Sam is portrayed by actor & Death Metal vocalist Keir Gilchrist.

First a bit of background on the show. As the name suggests a major element of the show is the life of 18-year old high school (later university) student Sam Gardner. Sam has an unspecified form of high functioning autism and when he turns 18 decides he is ready to have a girlfriend and prepare for adult life.

The show was created by Robia Rashid. Rashid, to her great credit, conducted much research when creating the character of Sam. Similarly, the actor she chose to play the role, Kier Gilchrist, met with dozens of people on the spectrum to more accurately capture what he saw.

Because of this effort the portrayal of Sam’s autism is nu- anced, changing and, most importantly, not his defining feature. Here are some specific elements I noticed that I feel are both portrayed accurately and that I can relate to from my own experiences. For instance Sam has many comfort and calming techniques to help him cope when he is overwhelmed. I can relate to many of these. Sam is sensitive to sound so always carries a pair of noisecancelling headphones in public. I have my earphones on hand at all times for the same reason. Sam repeats words internally, wears the same clothes and follows a strict routine. All of these things he does to maintain a sense of control and order in a world that often feels chaotic to those of us on the spectrum. Sam, like myself, has a sanctuary where he can get away from people, something I also had when I was at school. However, when Sam does have a meltdown the show uses clever cinematography, sound design and editing to accurately portray what that feels like to go through. When I saw that scene for the first time I must admit it made me emotional.

Sam quest to find a girlfriend and lose his virginity is not initially successful. He goes back to a girls neon-lit, loud dorm room only to throw her off him when she touches him. She responds by calling him “retarded”. However, mid-way through the first season, Sam meets a fellow high school student named Paige.

She quickly estab- lishes herself as his girlfriend. This in itself is fairly groundbreaking as autistic people having any type of romantic relationship on screen is very rare. Some people have problems with the relationship be- tween Sam and Paige, feeling that her intentions with him are not good. Sam’s sister Casey even asks Paige outright “Are you desperate, or do you think you’ll get extra credit for dating the weird kid?” to which Paige is offended. Paige does love Sam and while at first, her interest in him seems to be more with his mind, it quickly becomes clear that those qualities that make it clear Sam in on the spec- trum are the very same reasons she loves him.

One of the best things this show does is dispel the myth that autistic people don’t care about others or have empa- thy. Sam – like many ASD people – has trouble recognis- ing peoples internal feelings and reading social situations. He/we can’t help that. However, once he knows he has upset someone he feels the guilt deeply and goes out of his way to make amends. Often to Paige. This is the main problem I have with Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory; he is constantly told what he says upsets or offends people but rarely apologises or strives to do better in the future. Sam is the opposite. Believe it or not, when you spend most of your life with people treating you like your some kind of alien weirdo, you know how bad that feels and in the black & white world of autism: why would you treat others in a way you would not want to be treated?

Sam’s best (only) friend is his co-worker, the extroverted ‘women’s man’ Zahid, who acts as Sam’s guide into the aspects of adult life that his therapist, school and parents perhaps don’t want him to know about. Zahid accepts Sam instantly and never talks down to him. The shows funniest moments come out of their conversations. Overall I think Atypical is about a good a portrayal of high functioning autism as there has ever been. It is compassionate, funny and truly insightful to both those with autism and without. It is important to remember that autism is a wide spectrum. No two autistics are alike so there can’t be one ‘true’ portrayal. Kier Gilchrist himself is keen to point out that he based Sam on the traits of dozens of different autistic people he met while researching the role. As he put it “He [Sam] is one per- son that is on the autism spectrum. He’s a very specific character”. What matters is the care taken to create a character that doesn’t fall victim to cheap stereotyping or is simply someone without their own will or agency. Atypical succeeds on all these fronts and for that, I com- mend it deeply. Joe Holloran discusses the hit show Big Bang Theory and if it accurately depicts the autistic spectrum or is a victim of clichés It is important to remember that autism is a wide spectrum Embodying autism on the small screen: Sam Gardner Image: IMDb Sam does these things to maintain a sense of control and order

Horror is a genre that has shown that it can work time and time again as seen in movies like Ari Aster’s Hereditary, books like Stephen King’s IT and games like Outlast. So why is such a massive genre, in comparison, not as widely discussed in TV? In a time where people are obsessed with horror, there seems to be no buzz in that area, despite such shows being successful. The only people who seem to be capitalising on this are Netflix with numerous shows in production, the latest being Ares. Horror has been the basis for many groundbreak- ing TV shows that became fan favourites. The Walk- ing Dead, before becoming more action-oriented, was primarily a horror show and the first season is what put it on the map. In its more recent seasons, the show seems to be trying to recapture some of that fear, and critics have loved it. American Horror Story is another great example, the anthology series still widely watched with its most popular season, Asylum, gaining a staggering 3 million+ views for its pilot episode. These shows have been cultural phenomenons that millions have loved to watch and discuss. upon the texts of Henry James and won’t follow the Crain Family, similar to how AHS does its seasons. Some of the scares in the first season have become iconic works of horror so hopefully, the second sea- son will keep this trend go- ing and show how TV can scare the pants off anyone just as much as a movie, if not more.

Clearly horror can work in television for several different reasons, like fearing for the safety of characters that we’ve had time to become attached to and building tension ex- pertly throughout. But at the same time, horror TV can fail, and fail hard. Horror on TV fails when it tries to explain too much and ends up becom- ing boring. A great horror movie only has to keep up Has horror ever succeeded in TV? tension for 2 hours but a show has to try and keep that throughout an entire season, rebuilding it every single episode.

While making a horror show is hard, if done right it can succeed in more ways than one. If it successfully builds tension, provides us with complex characters (both scary and not), and has the continuous ability to shock, it can be a great horror show. Netflix has proven itself a force for the alternative genre. The capacity to binge watch arguably helps these types of shows because it keeps the suspense. 3.85m Number of viewers on the pilot episode of American Horror Story: Asylum George Bell talks scares on the small screen, and whether they spook us as much as the films Streaming giant Netflix has taken the lead in creating horror TV

In more recent years, Netflix has taken the lead as far as horror goes. Most prominent is the terrifying Haunting of Hill House which not only was a criti- cal success but showed that horror can work on TV, the show successfully scaring audiences from start to finish. The show will return this year so get your pillow ready to hide behind! The two seasons of Scream were also wildly popular and a faith- ful adaptation of the iconic 1996 slasher. Stranger Things is another fantastic example of horror in television with some intense moments and mon- sters, especially in the first two seasons. One of the scariest moments came from season 2 episode 8 with the climax of Bob’s attempted escape. Thanks to the show having the time to build up the fan-favourite character, which is harder to do in a movie, we had the fear of wondering what is going to happen to him.

Netflix is set to continue this trend of horror shows/ shows set to give us all kinds of exciting projects, includ- ing the recently released Ares. The Dutch psychological horror follows two best friends who join a secret student society with deep secrets, not just about the school, but their country as a whole. While some reviews for it may be a bit iffy, Rotten Tomatoes has an audience rating of 76% showing that this is a show that may appeal to fans of other horror shows on the stream- ing service. As mentioned earlier, Haunting of Hill House is set to get a new season called Haunting of Bly Manor. The sequel, similar to how the first season was based loosely on the novel by Shirley Jack- son, is apparently based

Images: IMDb

On Thursday 13, Native Talks organised a Q&A with defence attorney David Rudolf at Venue in the Student’s Union. David Rudolf was Michael Peterson’s lawyer, accused of killing his wife in 2001. The case was widely covered, and Netflix produced a short series about the case called The Staircase, directed The Staircase: Live Q&A in Venue

on the ‘good sci- ence’, hidden from the jury and judge. After multiple problems with the presentation, the Q&A section began, and it did not take long for the most controversial topic to come up: “The Owl Theory”. This first ques- tion sent Rudolf into the alternative theory that Kathleen Peterson could have been killed by an owl as opposed to being beaten-up. The following questions focused mostly on the justice system. Rudolf was asked if he thought juries and judges should have technical knowledge in order to evaluate experts’ opinion. Rudolf believed it is necessary and that it is the lawyers’ place to do it. He added that during Peterson’s trial he “offered and they didn’t want to spend the time”.

"After that, I started to take wrongfully convicted cases"

by Jean-Xavier de Le- strade. After a delay of approxi- mately half an hour, the doors were finally opened, and not long after that, Mr Rudolf came onto the stage as charmingly as he appeared in the documentary. Rudolf blamed the delay on “technical difficul- ties” with the PowerPoint presentation, and referenced the series, to when before the first trial, Rudolf and his team had trouble making the presen- tation work. The session started by Rudolf addressing what he called “Fake Science”. In the light of the results of Peterson’s trial, the lawyer decided to talk about how ju- rors should take experts’ opinion with a grind of salt. As portrayed in The Staircase, the testimony of blood spatter analyst, Duane Deaver, was crucial for jurors to make up their minds about the verdict.

Questions sent Rudolf into discussing alternative theories

During the session, Rudolf expressed regret and disap- pointment when referring to the proceedings of the Petersons’ case. During the Q&A he said: “It took me a long time to get over,” and while he reas- sured it had not affected his other cases, he added: “After that, I started to take wrongfully con- victed cases. Despite the delays and technical dif- ficulties, Ru- dolf, manage to keep the show going with sense of humour.

Alex Gervas

With the recent reboot of Charmed on the CW, it has brought me nothing but nostalgia and a desire to re-watch the Halliwell sisters and all their adventures in the original series. Charmed ran for a total of eight seasons, from 1998-2006 and unfortunately, unlike all great shows it had to come to an end. At the time of watching, I’ve always wanted more episodes but for me, I’d rather have it end than continue it and drag it on until it becomes a shell of a TV show, not worthy of my time. On top of this, the show ended with a melancholic but happy ending that resolved all the ties and gave you the finality and resolution you desire in the finale. Yet, despite this, I miss this show.

Following three sisters – Piper, Phoebe and Prue before actress Shannen Doherty left the show and was replaced by another unknown and surprise sister Paige, Charmed is set in San Francisco, telling the narrative of this trio of women, known as The Charmed Ones, the most powerful GOOD witches of all time as they attempt to defeat the evil around them. Each sister has their own power and in the first season in particular, we get to watch them attempt to navigate and control these dangerous powers that will eventually help save their lives in multiple ways. What makes this show so unique though, is the family dynamics, the female empowerment, the relationships and the characters. If the show were to get rid of the demonic villains and plot, I’d still love it because it is the characters that bring the entertainment with their struggles, their difficulties and their friendships.

And then there’s the dialogue. Differing from the reboot that is all round just cringey when it comes to the dialogue, the Halliwell sisters have confidence, sarcasm and sass. They are funny, they are dramatic, they are empowering but most of all they’re relatable. Not a single character didn’t have depth and development, even in the later seasons with the introduction of Piper’s son from the future (one of my favourite seasons and favourite characters), every single character had an interesting arc that you just didn’t find yourself bored or wanting to turn the show off. Charmed

Not a single character didn't have depth and development

Lucy Lillystone Finally, while I would love to go on about this show forever, the couples in the show have always stuck with me. I’m one of those people gets invested in love in TV shows – quickly, all at once and at a hardcore level I don’t like to admit. The main couple is of course, Piper and Leo. They were the longest-running and one of my favourite relationships in the entire show, spanning all eight seasons and giving me the right amount of ups and downs together. Charmed was a show that had it all: the romance, the action, the danger, almost always drama in every single episode but most of all: the characters that you instantly fall in love with. If you’re looking for a show to binge with a good amount of seasons and action, Charmed is the one for you. Al- though the costumes may make you cringe a bit now, it’s still one of my favourite and one of the best shows I’ve ever watched.

Peter Lennonexplains the increasing importance of titles in this era of streaming services Fantastic titles and why they matter more than ever E arlier this week, following a disappointing box office opening, it had been reported that Warner Bros. had elected for Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) to be re-titled Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey. This was later clarified to be a kiosk and database change to make the film easier to find and identify – not an official change. Still, that didn’t stop the conversation over what makes a film title great or far from it. Parasite (2009) Kicking of the list is the Best Picture winner of 2020s Academy Awards and like most Best Picture films, Parasite has a title that is deeply resonant with its themes. The film itself follows a lower-class family as they try to infiltrate an upper-class family as unrelated members of the help. The film’s title immediately echoes the film’s lingering feelings of drainage and struggle to take control of a host. Without spoiling too much of 2019s must-see black-comedy, “Parasite” is as much a question as it is a statement, allowing audiences to reflect on their own preconcep- tions before and after the film. Blade Runner (1982) When I think of Blade Runner I think of something very slick and very violent – the film isn’t overly either. But that’s beside the point, as the title sets up a shiny Sci-fi film and delivers a dirty, neo-noir, Cyber-punk thriller with morally grey edges and unanswered questions at its core. A “misdirect” to say more simply. The title itself refers to the “protagonist” Deckard (Harrison Ford), a retired “Blade Runner” that decommissioned the android 'Replicants.' Despite the tonal misdirect, the allure of the title never really fades but rather solidifies its place in the back of your mind, certainly a lot more so than its source material’s adorable title: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Phillip K. Dick, 1968). The Breakfast Club (1985) The epitome of an era, The Breakfast Club is the quintessential coming of age film that remains popular 35 years on. But what makes the name so brilliant? Well, it immedi- ately identifies itself as a high school romp, which is exactly what it is (unlike Blade Runner’s misleading implications). But what’s better still is the undeniable fact that "The Breakfast Club" sounds like a young indie rock/new wave band from New York. This is undoubtedly brilliant when considering the film’s signature use of its soundtrack, as well as its angsty teen spirit, rebelling against all labels and implicit identities. Let The Right One In (2008) I’m sure some will consider this cheating because it takes its title from the eponymous 2004 novel, by Swedish author John Ajvide Lindqvist. Nevertheless, the title perfectly encapsulates the mood for this Vampire Romantic Horror, alluding to the classic vampiric lore that they can only enter your house once invited in. This doubles with the romantic plot – between a young boy and a vampire girl – as letting the “Right one in” conveys the emotional nakedness and risk that the boy engages with in this relationship. Not to lose its credibility as a horror piece, the beautiful vagueness of the title elicits an eeriness and paranoia that brings this entry in the vampire canon to life – at least as much to life as you can with a vampire.

Image:IMDB

To All The Boys II (PG)

Sonic The Hedgehog (PG)

Emma (PG)

Katerina Vasilaki highlights and critiques the industry's failure to recognize diverse critiques of society Hollywood's fascination with the Joker type H ollywood is an industry that unfortunately, until quite recently, lacked representation. Although in past years great efforts have been made to promote diversity, in some respects, no progress has been made.

This discrimination is particularly clear in the fascination Hollywood seems to have with the complicated male lead, who seems to be the preferred choice to comment on society’s cruelty. To illustrate my point, movies such as Joker (2019) are praised for their take on the ruthlessness of the modern world. By contrast the level of recognition for Us (2019) undeniably diminishes, despite being a production as interesting and allegorical as Joker. The question therefore is: why doesn’t Hollywood accept commentary from different points of view? Get Out (2017) is a film that successfully tackled racism and other sensitive matters in quite the original way, and got recognized for it. Nevertheless, there are many counter-examples that do not mirror the same success despite being critically acclaimed (The Hate U Give), creating the sense that Get Out is the exception to an unwritten rule about who’s story are you allowed to voice. Additionally, a distorted vision of the world seems to be tolerated only on condition that the character is male, which in this day and age should be simply unacceptable. In Hereditary (2018), a horror film that should not be missed, Toni Collette (Knives Out, The Sixth Sense) gifted us with an extraordinary performance. However, it failed to reach the success of another horror hit often compared to, A Quiet Place (2018). That creates the question of whether that is because of the lack of the male figure or simply because the movie is quite perplexing on its own.

It has been often commented that the industry is predominantly ruled by men, which may have an effect on the stories that tend to get picked up or even those who get rewarded in the end. An interesting example of this is that even though Little Women (2019) was nominated for Best Picture, Greta Gerwig was not nominated for Best Director, when the inextricable link between the

Just in time for Valentine’s Day, Netflix released charming rom-com To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You, the highly anticipated sequel to their unexpected smash hit To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before (2018). Since its release in the summer of 2018, viewers have been pining for more of golden couple Lara Jean Covey (Lana Condor, X-Men Apocalypse) and Peter Kavinsky (Noah Centineo, The Perfect Date), whose accidental romance thanks to five love letters put Netflix on the map for cheesy teen rom-coms you can’t help but enjoy. Following immediately after the end of the first film, P.S. I Still Love You opens with a musical sequence by Lara Jean as she prepares for her first real date with now-boyfriend Peter. The musical sequence fits Lara Jean’s personality perfectly: a girl who loves all things romantic but is now experiencing it in real life for the first time. After pledging not to break each other’s hearts, things are obviously going to go downhill from here for the pair when Lara Jean receives a response from childhood crush, and the recipient of her last love letter, John Ambrose McLaren (Jordan Fisher, Grease Live). Volunteering at an old folks’ home, I think you can guess who ends up being Lara Jean’s volunteering partner. That’s right, John Ambrose McLaren. Despite having not seen each other for five years, old feelings are reignited as they spend more time together, and because John took Lara Jean’s letter very seriously, making Lara Jean question her loyalty to Peter. Overall, the sequel is, like its predecessor, an easy-watch when scrolling on Netflix for hours trying to find something decent. Perhaps not as memorable as the first film, To All the Boys: P.S. I Still Love You is likely to please fans regardless as we wait for the next instalment of Lara Jean and Peter’s story. Image:IMDB

Move over Parasite, there’s a new best film and its name is Sonic the Hedgehog. This cinematic masterpiece is a video game adaptation done right and follows the adventure of one very fast and blue hedgehog.

Many expected the movie about a CGI small blue person accompanied by a white guy to be exactly like 2011s The Smurfs (The similarity is uncanny) but they are fortunately wrong.

Joking aside, I went in expecting the movie to be the equivalent of blunt force trauma and left pleasantly surprised at this adaptation of the SEGA character. First and foremost, this is a kid’s movie with loads of feel-good tones. But there’s also enough to keep the adults entertained and I actually laughed a few times. The people who will surely love this move the most are the fans of the games thanks to its ridiculous number of references that must require multiple viewing to get them all.

By far my favourite part of the movie is literally any scene with Jim Carrey as Doctor Robotnik. His performance was as over the top as some of his older movies like The Mask. One of the biggest issues I had with the movie was the borderline cringe use of advertisements from things like Olive Garden and Zillow. While clearly movies are expensive and need funding, the blatant product placement completely broke my immersion. And while yes, it is a kid’s film, it was a clichéd kids film filled with fewer surprises than I have friends. But other than that, this is a solid family flick and a member of the exclusive “I’m a video game movie that doesn’t completely suck” club. Image:IMDB

For anyone who fancies literature and cinema, adaptations naturally become an engrossing piece of art. Emma, a Jane Austen classic is a beloved romantic comedy novel when it comes to its cinematic adaptations, and Autumn de Wilde certainly attempts her best to portray it as such in her latest feature directorial debut.

Set in a fabulously verdant English countryside, the film stars Anya Taylor-Joy (Split, The Witch) in the role of Emma, who as the opening lines suggest is “handsome, clever and rich.”

Away from the “vexing” of the world, social standing, matchmaking, female companionship and jealousy is the core of Emma’s world, where sincere feelings are re- alized after the ruckus has taken place. But our heroine is also quick to make amends and is eminently devoted to her ever so sensitive father, Mr. Woodhouse which is played by the very “chill” and fashionable Bill Nighy (Love Actually, About Time). Mia Goth (Suspiria, High Life) brings out an innocent delight through Harriet Smith; the warm centre of Emma’s world who embodies a fan and friend in one. Johnny Flynn (Lovesick, Beast) validates the smouldering and dignified Austen hero, Mr. Knightley whereas Josh O’Connor (The Crown, Only You) brings out his comic side on-screen through his portrayal of the deluded Mr. Elton.

The cinematography of the film is exquisite and portrays England in its vibrant best with its art of symmetry stealing the spotlight. The wealthy affair of Emma’s world is particularly evident through the Regency Era ensemble, courtesy of Alexandra Byrne’s glamourous genius. The hypnotic music score by Isobel Waller-Bridge and David Schweitzer attempts to fill in the emotional gap in the narrative of the film. It’s a sumptuous, perplexing and vibrant world “in this time of man’s great innocence.”

Arnojya Shree Image:IMDB

All images: IMDB

The Internet is a pretty powerful tool. Give Twitter the power to make a decision (Boaty McBoaty face scandal I am looking at you), and be prepared for either immediate regret or, on some rare occasions, actual advice.

Admittedly I spend far too much time online, especially down one of the many gates to hell that is ‘film Twitter’. Predominately seen to be full of film critics from generations gone by who just can’t understand how you can call yourself a ‘film fan’ if you don’t know about La Jetee or actually liked Avatar – their aim isn’t so much as to spread the love and appreciation of film, but take it away from those who enjoy it by shaming them on how much others know about cinema. From this perspective, it’s a pretty depressing place to hang out (I swear I do have friends).

Yet sometimes the internet can work wonders. When the first trailer for Sonic the Hedgehog was released last April, few people at Paramount (let alone anyone who had seen the trailer) probably slept well. The biggest prob- lem the Internet had? The teeth. Sonics’ teeth were ter- rifying. One headline on PC Twitter trolls and nostalgic fans: the internet and film-making Harriet Metcalfediscusses the impact fans on social media sites such as Twitter have on film-making Image:IMDB

highlights and critiques the industry's failure to recognize diverse critiques of society Hollywood's fascination with the Joker type two categories has been made clear throughout the years. Another example of this is Lorene Scafaria’s case, a writer and director of Hustlers (2019), a critically acclaimed film that commented on society in an empowering way while being based on real events. One could point to Parasite (2019) was winning a multitude of awards: however, for a film that has won almost in almost all the categories that were nominated in, only one actor was nominated. Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave, Black Panther) in Us was tasked to change her voice, switching between two extremes and nearly destroying her vocal cords in the process. Her performance was outstanding. Yet, she was not nominated for any awards, contradicting 2018’s win of Get Out. It seems strange that Joker is allowed to showcase raw violence and get rewarded for it, but other films that exhibit similar qualities get snubbed despite the praise they receive from critics.

My guess as to why Hollywood has such a fascination with the white complicated male character through which we see the world, could be partly because of fear. To further elaborate, changing the viewpoint from an angle of a more disadvantaged person may create a more pessimistic feeling than the people who hold the cards in the industry are ready to face. Taking a step to embrace those narratives is essential for understanding in a nuanced way society and not base our opinions solely on the point of view of the white male character.

However, it failed to reach the success of another horror hit often compared to, A Quiet Place (2018). That creates the question of whether that is because of the lack of the male figure or simply because the movie is quite perplexing on its own.

It has been often commented that the industry is predominantly ruled by men, which may have an effect on the stories that tend to get picked up or even those who get rewarded in the end. An interesting example of this is that even though Little Women (2019) was nominated for Best Picture, Greta Gerwig was not nominated for Best Director, when the inextricable link between the two categories has been made clear throughout the years. Another example of this is Lorene Scafaria’s case, a writer and director of Hustlers (2019), a critically acclaimed film that commented on society in an empowering way while being based on real events.

One could point to Parasite (2019) was winning a multitude of awards: however, for a film that has won almost in almost all the categories that were nominated in, only one actor was nominated. Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave, Black Panther) in Us was tasked to change her voice, switching between two extremes and nearly destroying her vocal cords in the process. Her performance was outstanding. Yet, she was not nominated for any awards, contradicting 2018’s win of Get Out. It seems strange that Joker is allowed to showcase raw violence and get rewarded for it, but other films that exhibit similar qualities get snubbed despite the praise they receive from critics.

My guess as to why Hollywood has such a fascination with the white complicated male character through which we see the world, could be partly because of fear. To further elaborate, changing the viewpoint from an angle of a more disadvantaged person may create a more pessimistic feeling than the people who hold the cards in the industry are ready to face. Taking a step to embrace those narratives is essential for understanding in a nuanced way society and not base our opinions solely on the point of view of the white male character.

Twitter trolls and nostalgic fans: the internet and film-making Gamer put it best: it was “creepy as hell”, and the 46,000 dislikes it currently has on YouTube reflects that pretty well. Director Jeff Fowler, however, took the more constructive criticism on board, tweeting;

“Thank you for the support. And the criticism. The message is loud and clear… you aren’t happy with the design & you want changes. It’s going to happen. Everyone at Paramount & Sega are fully committed to making this character the BEST he can be.” And everyone stayed true to their word; the release was pushed back, and the Sonic we see in cinemas at the moment is much more reminiscent of the video games and much less likely to give you blue-hedgehog induced nightmares. But, unfortunately, trolls loom round every corner. The more ‘opinionated’ members of the online film community somehow become the loudest voice in the room. In 2018, Kelly Marie Tran left social media, after the Internet backlashed against her role in Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Despite her character, Rose Tico, being the first female lead of colour in the franchise, the “Wookieepedia” page for Rose was “altered by contributors with offensive, racist language” (as reported by Variety). But who was controlling the language and toxicity of the fandom? Who should? As Tran wrote when speaking out for the first time in her op-ed piece for The New York Times: “It wasn’t their words, it’s that I started to believe them. Their words seemed to confirm what growing up as a woman and a person of colour already taught me: that I belonged in margins and spaces, valid only as a minor character in their lives and stories.” This case of toxicity in fandom proves the need for more diverse film critics, who have a big influence online. I don’t what to know what Rose Tico meant to a middleaged man who doesn’t like the sequels – I want to know what she means to that young Asian-American women who hadn’t seen herself represented in that cinematic universe before.

These are two contradicting examples of fandom on- line. I’m extremely lucky with the interactions I’ve had, but not everyone is. Fans are supposed to be united by a mutual love; there is no ‘rule-book’ on how to be a “proper” fan. But I do know that you don’t have to know every minute detail about the Millennium Falcon. You don’t have to have seen all the films ten times over, and you don’t have to have read every Marvel comic in exist- ence. There’s no checklist to ‘become’ a fan – because as one, you’re not entitled to much, except sharing a love for cinema. discusses the impact fans on social media sites such as Twitter have on film-making The more 'opinionated' members of the online film community become the loudest

@Courier_Film thecourieronline.co.uk/film 27 film culture Should videogame adaptions level up?

Em Richardson critically assesses videogame adaptations S onic has become the latest videogame character to be immortalised in a movie, with the recent release of Sonic the Hedgehog. The film has proved exceptionally popular, becoming one of the most successful videogame adaptations of all time. However, critics’ reviews have been somewhat mixed.

Historically, videogame adaptations have struggled to win over both critics, and the viewing public. On the movie reviewing website Rotten Tomatoes, only a handful have ever received a rating of over 50%. There’s an argument that videogame plots simply don’t translate onto the big screen. They tend to be either far too simple, or far too over complex.

If a game revolves around a very simple objective, it can be hard to create a detailed screenplay based on the concept, with film-makers often resorting to including lengthy fight scenes to ‘compensate’ for a lack of plot. Afterall, it is arguably easier to hide a poor plot within a videogame, than it is to hide one within a movie. The interactive, high-speed nature of a game means players give the plot less attention than they would when viewing it as a film.

Dialogue is a particular problem, with one critic estimating that the entire 15-hour Tomb Raider game contains just 45 minutes of dialogue. That doesn’t provide much inspiration for a screenplay. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some games contain so much material that they are difficult to condense into a feature-length film. A prime example of this is Warcraft - the film’s creators tried to condense over 100 hours of game play into a single film. The end-result was described as ‘confusing’ for anyone who wasn’t familiar with the videogame.

An obvious solution for the fact videogame plots rarely make good movies could be to stray away from a game’s original plot. Yet, this tends to lead to criticism that the plot is no longer appealing for fans of the original game. Plus, it can be difficult to find a way to transplant characters from a videogame into a film setting. This was shown by Super Mario Bros., a bizarre live action adaptation of the classic Nintendo game, which saw Mario and Luigi living in modern New York, as evil Nintendo characters who evolved from dinosaurs attempted to merge their parallel universe with real-life. Yes, really. Image: IMDB

Videogame characters often end up seeming two-dimensional and simplistic

Videogame characters often end up seeming twodimensional and simplistic, when transferred to the big screen. Actors have found them notoriously difficult to play over the years, with fans often complaining that their portrayal differs massively from characters in the original game. This is most likely because of the limited characterization they are given to work with- it must be very hard to play a character who has very little dialogue. As for animated videogame adaptations, it seems ani- mators must choose between changing the characters’ appearances, and risking disappointing fans, or leav- ing them the same and facing allegations that the animation is unrealistic, and retains its ‘gamelike’ quality.

This issue was actually faced by the team be- hind the new Sonic film, with fans giving the film’s initial trailer a largely negative reaction. The titular character has since been rede- signed, much to fans’ delight, and the up- dated version now appears in the film.

Time will tell whether the redesign has managed to truly win over Sonic fans, or whether the new film will join a long list of other much-maligned videogame adaptations.

the courier Monday 24 February 2020 c2.arts@ncl.ac.uk Arts Editors Caitlin Rawlings, Charlotte Slinger & Lauren Sneath 28 culture arts NUTS takes on the First Family of horror T he Armstrong Building at night is another world – tap dance filters through the ceiling like a rhythmical hailstorm, accompanying the a capella harmony section who are warming up as they crouch along the floor of the corridor, while I catch blurred moments of different dance practices through the door windows of study spaces.

I am here to meet Holly Chinneck, director of the upcoming NUTS musical The Addams Family, and before the interview I am invited upstairs to watch the dance rehearsal. Without any spoilers, I will say that watching students in tracksuits and gymwear inhabit the characters of Morticia and Gomez so flawlessly, whilst one drags the other across a classroom carpet, is definitely not something I will see again. It made me intrigued to chat to the visionary behind this, and eager to nab a front-row seat on the 28th February. My first question is basic: why directing, and why now? As an actor, you always offer your visions to people, so there’s always a bit of director in everyone, but this is a nerve-racking thing. But I thought: I’m going to uni and this is where the opportunities are. I’d seen other people directing and thought, I just want to do it, one time. In NUTS, we do one musical in each of the semesters. In some ways a musical is easier and in other respects it’s much harder. Talk me through the pros and cons there. Harder because you’re directing a larger amount of people, and because you’re looking for people who can act, sing, and dance, so you’ve already got a narrower pool for casting, and also because it normally has this buzz around it. The musical always sells out. It’s easier because my responsibility as a director is “thirded” already: I’ve got Sam (Choreographer) and Sarah (Musical Director) on board, as well as me. I’m the boss, but they’re both really creative talented people. What kind of decisions are you responsible for? We’ve all got our domains, but everything has to be run by me first. Sam will send me a video and I’ll say: they need to exit from here, this person needs to do this at this time, I need this sound effect. You look at the ensemble in there in their gym gear, but I have to look at that and see a live band too, smoke machines, UV lights, costumes, everything. Why The Addams Family in particular? Is there anything about the story you connected to? The thing about Addams is it brings these characters that everyone knows to life in a way that they’ve never seen before. People know the characters, but don’t know the musical. It’s also… there’s singing, and dancing, but no smiling. The actors have to reverse all the things they’ve been taught. It’s like “You are dead, from the grave – but be funny.” It’s so hard to get right. With something as niche as this, if someone’s not doing it exactly right, it’s just so close and yet so far off. What exactly were you looking for? Kooky, crazy, but lovable. You want the audience to be on your side but you’re also totally ostracised from what they are. What is that human element that the audience can invest in? Everyone’s got that bit of crazy inside of them. Everyone puts out this perception of themselves on social media but when people let themselves be weird, they automatically go: Let’s do more of this! There’s a line in the show: “What’s normal for the spider is a calamity for the fly". This weirdness is what’s normal for these group of people, and I want to find our middle ground. Has being an actor affected how you direct others? I do understand how difficult it is to learn lines or not connect with material but I have to crack the whip. The thing I’ve found hardest at times is not being a member of the cast- because I want to be involved, to wear the costumes, to be everyone’s best friend too, but the job I have to do is different. I have to monitor whether they’re taking responsibility. I’m playing a role here as much as they’re playing a role on stage, for these three hours of rehearsal. If you can’t hit a note, that’s fine. If you’re not trying, that’s when I’ve got a problem. Tell me more about all the different roles you take on as a director. I’m a stand-in cast member - if someone’s not there I’ll sing a harmony, I have help but I oversee costumes, I’m thinking about our budget, props, set, lighting design, projections, seating, smoke, things you wouldn’t even think about. You’ve got to create a world. How would you describe your directing style? I really try to create positive energy. I’ve been in shows where I’ve wanted it over and done with, and shows I haven’t wanted to ever end, and that’s the difference. It’s a hard musical to sing and dance, and no-one wants to feel stupid, so that friendly atmosphere is so so important. That’s why it’s so good to support your friends - theatre people love having others inflate their egos and tell them they’re great, because through six weeks of rehearsals they’re getting told “This isn’t good enough. This needs to be better”. When they eventually hear “That was perfect,” and get given their confidence back like that, it’s the most amazing powerful thing. The Addams Family will play at Northern Stage on Friday 28 and Saturday 29 February. Lucy Adamsis curious as to the inner workings of the directive mind behind NUTS' latest creative project, The Addams Family I n celebration of LGBTQ+ history month 2020, which began 1 February, I have rounded up five amazing contemporary artists to look out for... who are not straight white cis men! Charlotte Prodger Prodger is known as the artist who "won the Turner Prize with a film shot on her iPhone", something phrased quite derogatorily because it often seems like only really expensive films and rich artists should be taken seriously. But when you see past that discourse, Prodger’s films actually showcase loving, meditative thinking on queerness and nature; explor- ing what it means to be queer when you’re alone, or in the wild, the conventions of nam- ing, and the blurring of an- cient and modern voices. Her most re- cent work has combined poetic, pensive writings with reflective shots of the Scottish countryside she grew up in, creating deeply personal narratives that also speak to universal queer experiences. Victoria Sin Victoria Sin works through drag, performance, film, and writing to create work challenging the construc- tion of identities, particularly the feminine and the queer. Sin's films illustrate the lush make-up and immersive performances through which individuals take control of the exoticizing white, cis-male gaze and confront the established systems of being ‘female’. My personal favourite work of theirs is an ongoing se- ries of prints in which, after every drag performance, Sin removes their make-up with a wipe and then takes a print of it, creating a watercolour-like render- ing of their face as a relic of this changing, performed identity.

Zanele Muholi Best known for their beautifully com- posed black-and-white photographs documenting the Black queer communities in South Africa, Muholi describes their artwork as “visual activism”, show- ing the beauty, tenderness and strength of individuals facing extreme homophobic and transphobic violence and discrimination in the country despite its ‘liberal’ reputation. Their photography is both intimate and defiant, contrasting the safety and love of queer couples in their homes with the bold bravery of living in an unaccepting public sphere. As part of their activism, Muholi has also co-founded collectives for Black lesbian solidarity and queer media in South Africa, advocating for artistic representation as well as formal political change.

Claude Cahun Not strictly contemporary but considered a pioneering artist and think- er of queer identity in the early twentieth century, Claude Cahun, along with their partner Marcel Moore, explored constructions of gender through Surrealist photography, costumes, collage and writing. Cahun used self portrait photography wearing masks and make up that more recent artists such as Cindy Sherman have taken huge influence from, questioning the violently constrictive binaries of gender while producing beautiful and gently humorous images. Kehinde Wiley And finally, the artist who painted Obama’s presidential portrait, Kehinde Wiley, whose queer identity was all-too-conveniently erased in much of his sub- sequent press coverage. Mixing historical and con- temporary references, in particular in relation to the representation (and lack thereof) of people of colour in classical art, Wiley produces gorgeous large-scale, intricate canvases with trademark vibrant floral pat- terns that are both visually striking and highly sym- bolic. In placing young Black people in compositions historically occupied by white men, Wiley questions the meaning of ‘power’ in both a political and artistic context. LGBTQ+ History Month: 5 artists to celebrate Kooky, crazy, but lovable - everyone's got that bit of crazy inside them Image: Instagram via @sinforvictory Image: Instagram via @sinforvictory Image: Instagram via @kehindewiley Leonie Bellini throws five talented queer artists into the spotlight in celebration of LGBTQ+ History Month this February