Archived entries for Media

The Dark Knight Rises viral campaign begins

Before the release of The Dark Knight a huge viral marketing campaign took place, which wasn’t just on a large scale but was pretty damn clever too. There were scavenger hunts, Joker recruitment drives, clues online and offline, Joker wannabes, cakes, masks, the list could really go on and on (check out the Dark Knight – Viral Marketing video look at the various elements of the campaign).

Despite the fact The Dark Knight Rises isn’t set to be released until July 2012, fans of the movies have been sat twiddling their thumbs waiting for a similar kind of campaign to begin.

Well, it looks like everything kicked off today as a load of CIA documents were ‘leaked’ to bloggers and the press referring to a Doctor Leonid Pavel.

Let the fun begin…

the-dark-knight-rises-clue

the-dark-knight-rises-clues

Where did all the crazy & messed up kid’s TV go?

Kid’s TV just isn’t as weird, messed up and scary as it used to be, is it?

Here are five of my favourite shows as a kid, before my parents got Sky TV and my brother and I became brainwashed by Nickelodeon.

After watching them all back on YouTube I’ve realised that it’s no surprise I’m such an odd little human being.

Eerie Indiana (1991 – 1992)

A boy called Marshall Teller moves to the strange town of Eerie in Indiana where all kinds of weird and wonderful things start happening.

Memory that stuck with me: A guy feeds something (maybe himself) into a cash machine.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9UJJb7tMyY&w=480&h=360]

The Storyteller (1988)

A TV series created by Jim Henson, with John Hurt as the storyteller. There were only nine episodes and each was a weird interpretation of an old folk tale.

Memory that stuck with me: Strange creatures that live in a pond and drown people with music and when the soldier plays cards with lots of little devils.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAyNkZ-ZQ0k&w=480&h=360]

Round the Twist (1989)

A family live in a haunted lighthouse and again, all kinds of weird and wonderful things start happening (yes, a pattern is beginning to emerge).

Memory that stuck with me: One (or lots) of the characters starting growing what they thought were fingernails all over their body and then they turned out to be scales as they were becoming mermaids/mermen. Oh, and the ridiculously catchy theme tune.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdwK_66VClg&w=480&h=360]

The Odyssey (1992 – 1994)

A boy called Jay has an accident and falls into a deep coma. Inside his coma he finds himself in some mental apocalyptic world run by children.

Memory that stuck with me: Some really scary scene in a corn field.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hmzFqC2nrs&w=480&h=360]

Goosebumps (1995 – 1998)

Arguably the most normal out of the lot, the Goosebumps TV shows were based on the popular books by R. L. Stine. All were scary stories written for kids but many were nowhere near as tame as some of the rubbish “scary films” of the modern day.

Memory that stuck with me: The episode with the shrunken heads.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB-SOpGl8Go&w=480&h=360]

Donuts are not the answer

I’ve been really trying over the past few weeks to not let ridiculous stories anger me.

Oh, the Daily Fail is calling that woman fat or that angry, middle class journalist over there clearly has no idea about normal people or that brand is bringing out a pretty offensive and ridiculous campaign to sell a rubbish product.

Despite being prone to regular rage, I’ve been managing to ignore, walk away from and be the bigger person when it comes to things that would have usually brought me out in a cold, angry sweat.

However, something today just, well, it pissed me off.

I’ve seen the story on a few different blogs and things and basically it’s that Krispy Kreme is teaming up with Glamour magazine in order to produce a range of sickly sweet pink donuts (pink because they look like lipgloss, obvs) and start a big marketing push with product placement, social media partnerships, the usual drill.

This doesn’t bother me.

Brands team up all the time to do this kind of thing.

BUT what has had me puzzled and a little perplexed, angry and annoyed at the world is the suggestion that this is to create a positive association between fashion and food. Yes really.

As a quick aside, I’m taking all of this information from the Advertising Age piece which quotes an official spokesperson, speaking on behalf of both companies.

Here’s the quote:

“The two brands have developed a bespoke treat creating a positive association between fashion and food,” said a statement from the companies.

I’m well aware there are problems when it comes to the fashion industry and food, the fashion industry and promoting a positive body image. It’s a highly contentious issue that we, as a nation, just can’t stop obsessing over.

However, what I find so, well, just STRANGE about the Glamour and Krispy Kreme partnership is that the donuts are being hailed as an answer to all of our problems.

Donuts are lovely in small doses. I am a HUGE dessert fan.

But, sadly, they are NOT healthy and not what the fashion industry needs to get over its problems.

In the same way so many brands and publications swap size 4 models for size 20 models, why can we not find a healthy middle ground, why are Krispy Kreme donuts being held up as the sugary, fatty answer to our problems with body image?

Granted I’m taking all of this from just one quote in Ad Age, but at the same time it opens up a wider discussion about the right ways to promote a positive, healthy body image and lifestyle and get away from all of the fat / thing, curvy / anorexic labels we just can’t seem to get over.

pink-donuts

Image via.

London riots

It feels very wrong to be writing anything about the London riots as far far too many publications, organisations and individuals have written blog posts over the last few days that in my opinion really don’t bring anything to the table at all – and the cynic in me thinks they’ve quickly been published for SEO purposes, but that’s another matter…

Having said that, it also feels wrong to not be writing about everything at the same time.

To be honest it’s hard to make comments about all that’s been happening other than it’s very very sad. I’m getting sick of the hundreds of thousands of users on Twitter making assumptions and passing judgement, from racist slurs to suggesting bringing in multiple armies and crazy weaponry, to getting so irate at other users for “spreading rumours”. Everyone needs to really calm down.

Whatever your personal views are so far, I’d highly recommend reading the two articles below flagged up to me by a few different friends on Facebook. Although they’re only a small selection of the brilliant pieces out there written about the rioting, they’re the only ones that seem to… make sense. I know everyone won’t agree with that judgement, but the fact the second piece was written by a woman who runs charities to help inner city kids certainly gives her more credence than a middle class journalist.

The UK riots: The psychology of looting by Zoe Williams on the Guardian.co.uk.

Caring costs – but so do riots by Camilla Batmanghelidjh on The Independent.

Should pro-anorexia sites be banned?

self-esteemIf you’re suffering from any kind of medical condition, from headaches or mild depression, infertility problems to cancer, you don’t just have to deal with physical pain and discomfort, but you can spend a lot of your time feeling unbelievably scared and alone. Although medical professionals are there to help, you can’t call them whenever you please and their approach is often far too clinical. In the same vein, although friends and family offer love and support, how can they really empathise with what you’re going through?

This is why the Internet has always been (and is increasingly becoming) an amazing place for those living with the same problems to connect regardless of where they are or even who they are in their ‘real’ offline lives. From answering questions, sharing experiences or just offering support there are huge amounts of people who rely on online communities to help deal with their illnesses, problems or conditions in some way or another.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that there are many communities for people living with eating disorders, whether they’re run by medical professionals, charities or just a group of individuals or who aren’t connected to a wider organisation in any way at all.

In recent years the communities for those with eating disorders that have attracted the most mainstream attention are those deemed to be pro-anorexia (pro-ana) or pro-bulimia (pro-mia). These terms may have been coined by the media, but they’ve since been adopted by many members of the so-called pro-ana community. By its very definition, a community is a group of people and although they may hold the same views in many respects, it’d be impossible to say exactly how the global pro-ana community defines itself because it many ways it’s very guarded and secretive. However, it’s generally believed by some members past and present as well as online sources that pro-ana is about supporting others with anorexia, talking about the illness and sometimes (but importantly not always) seeing it as a positive lifestyle choice as opposed to something that needs to be addressed and dealt with.

It’s not hard to see why so many people have been up in arms about these kinds of communities for years now, following various reports that certain websites have been found to be worryingly reinforcing the idea that having an eating disorder shouldn’t be seen as a problem, with tips about how to not eat, so-called ‘thinspiration’ photographs and forms of bullying.

But the question is, should these communities be banned?

franca-sozzaniVarious charities, organisations and even individuals have campaigned to have pro-ana and pro-mia communities banned or at least more closely moderated over the past few years. They understandably see some the behaviour on these sites as not only damaging to those with eating disorders but also to those that don’t already.

Recently there’s been increased call for these sites to be banned from Italian Vogue editor Franca Sozzani (pictured left), who launched a campaign back in March to put an end to the most active and damaging online communities.

I understand why the communities could well be both emotionally and physically harmful and I know many of those looking to change things have everyone’s best interests at heart, but I can’t help but think that an outright ban might not be the best solution to what is a rather deep-set, complicated and personal illness.

Many of these communities have been established for years, which has led countless users to make strong connections with others, ingraining this online community into their offline lives. In this way, engaging in these communities is not just about mutual support or a bad habit that needs to be broken, it’s become an integral part of their daily lives.

Those looking to put an end to pro-ana communities think this dependency is one of the main problems, assuming that many of those suffering with eating disorders will turn to help online as opposed to confiding in friends, family and medical professionals. However, simply erasing these communities will leave a lot of people very scared and alone and it could certainly be argued that instead of pushing individuals to get help, banning their access could push them even further away.

Unfortunately there’s no sure-fire answer to any these problems and although the communities are in many ways very damaging both physically and emotional, you can’t escape the fact that for many they’re highly important support networks that will take time to step away from.

Image via S’s Flickr and Kekkoz’s Flickr.

Is Barbie really to blame?

Ahh Barbie, I’m sure many of you will remember our little playmate from your childhood days, endlessly brushing her hair, dressing her up, washing her in the bath, taking her to school, the list of things you and her got up to were endless.

However, the innocent little doll from our schooldays is also synonymous with looking fake, promoting plastic surgery in our adult years and giving us a negative view of our bodies and appearance.

So, is Barbie to blame for our insecurities later in life? Or is this a massive over-reaction and she’s actually nothing more than, well, a toy?

Every so often the media likes to regurgitate the story that Barbie dolls have unattainable proportions, which is hardly surprising considering they’re not real. Of course Barbie’s proportions aren’t attainable unless you’re willing to have a LOT of questionable surgery. But the main issue is that impressionable young people may see her day-in-and-day-out and think that’s the way they’re meant to look: long flowing blonde hair, massive eyes, lots of make-up (when did they start plastering quite so much make-up on her?!), super thin legs that lack any muscle tone and HUGE tits.

I can understand this argument. I have a younger sister who’s five years old and I’ve always found it incredible that she’s picked up on so many different things from such an early age – ever since she was bought an Ariel doll she’s wanted red hair. But, I’m sure we all played with a LOT of other toys that we’re not trying desperately to look like now. For instance, I had a cabbage patch doll and I’m certainly not going to any extreme lengths to look like one of them.

I started thinking about Barbie, her body and whether her crazy proportions have affected me in the slightest when I read about Galia Slayen. Slayen is a girl from the US who’s battled with anorexia for many years. She’s been all over US TV recently because she’s created a “life-size” Barbie doll out of some old materials in her friend’s garage. She’s admitted that all the measurements aren’t 100% accurate, but Barbie’s 37″ bust, 13″ waist and 33″ hips are pretty similar to the proportions of the miniature version. Slayen admits that her eating problems stemmed from a number of factors, but does suggest that growing up around Barbie dolls can’t have helped the way she views her body. Slayen now takes the Barbie to events that aim to raise awareness about eating disorders and uses her to show young girls just how crazy Barbie’s figure is. Her visualisation is very useful and if it’s changed some people’s perceptions about what it means to have a supposed “perfect” figure, then that’s great news.

Slayen’s certainly not the first person to suggest Barbie plays a role in making women feel insecure about their bodies, just have a quick Google around and you’ll see countless articles, opinion pieces, studies and research papers about this exact subject.

Although I’m still not convinced, I think as soon as we begin discussing issues about what affects our view of ourselves and whether we’re influenced by different things we move into a dodgy and murky territory. When I began writing this article I’d firmly decided that the Barbie dolls from my childhood had absolutely no bearing on the way I view myself today. But, how do I know? The way we think fascinates me and although I’m no psychologist, I know that there are lots of theories about how our subconcious minds work. So, as adamant as we may be that we’re not affected by something, it could be changing us more than we could even imagine under the surface… Or, you know, not at all.

On a side note, it’d be fascinating to find out if men feel inadequate in comparison to the Action Men characters they grew up with.

Image of Galia Slayen via MSNBC. Image of Barbie via Tracheotomy Bob’s Flickr.

Is there a “correct” way to talk about bodies and size?

I’ve just written a post for Behind the Looking Glass about the fact that yesterday fashion blogger Scott Schuman (or The Sartorialist) caused a bit of controversy online (in the mildest sense of the word), because he made a few comments about a fashion blogger and her… “sturdy” legs.

It got me thinking about the way we talk about bodies and figures.

Is there really a “correct” way to describe someone’s size?

I remember when Crystal Renn first became popular as a “plus size” model and all anyone could focus on was the fact that she shouldn’t be defined as “plus size” but as “normal”.

But what is normal?

I understand that many of the people shouting about her being “normal” had good intentions, but what kind of message does that give to the people who are naturally slim?

I’m not advocating Schuman’s post, but it does seem that there really is no right or wrong way to talk about our figures, bodies and shapes.

Yet at the same time we’re are so quick to criticise the language and labels that are used at every opportunity…

Read my post over at Behind the Looking Glass: How should we talk about bodies and size?

Image via.

Are we equal?

EQUALS is a partnership of charities that have come together to ask big questions about inequality throughout International Women’s Day tomorrow, including the likes of Action Aid, Amnesty UK and Oxfam.

The whole point of the partnership is to ensure that IWD is a day of celebration as well as a day of debate about why so much gender equality still exists all over the globe and according to the website there will be events, public outreach and multimedia initiatives.

Event though equal rights has come an astoundingly long way over the past century, there’s still a disparity between the sexes in many aspects of life, for instance one statistic seemed to particularly stand out from the EQUALS website:

In 2011 we still live in a world where women perform 66% of the world’s work, produce 50% of the world’s food, earn 10% of world’s income and own 1% of the world’s property.

In order to raise awareness of these issues before tomorrow, EQUALS teamed up with Daniel Craig and Judi Dench to make a short video:

I particularly love the line, “For someone with such a fondness for women, I wonder if you’ve ever considered what it means to be one?”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp4t5NYzVM]

Who to follow on Twitter:

@WeAreEQUALS

@ActionAidUK

If you can’t say anything nice…

A few weeks ago I listened to (and watched) Gala Darling‘s Radical Self Love Workshop and something which she’s echoed time and time again is the importance of not judging others. She suggests that the more you judge other people, in effect the more you’re judging yourself. Being hyper-critical, hyper-judgemental and hyper-bitchy won’t help you appreciate others and most importantly yourself. This means stop judging those around you but also stop buying into the media hype that we have to judge anyone in the first place.

I wasn’t sure I’d bought into this, but I’ve deliberately avoided every ‘gossip’ website, blog and magazine and I feel so much better.

I’m not saying I’ll keep up with it for good, but I think it’s something everyone should try once in a while…

Image via F*ck Yeah Ads.

Our growing celebrity obsession

It seems that the public has a confused love/hate relationship when it comes to the fickle and glittering land of the modern day celebrity.

If you’re anything like me you’re drawn like a hypnotised magpie to the latest shiny celebrity gossip, made as super accessible, tantalising and sensationalist as possible from magazines, newspapers and blogs both offline and online (I’m especially looking at you DM).

The red carpet

 

Once there, we spend far too long looking at Kim Kardashian’s new hairstyle, or even worse Paris Hilton’s new bikini, and then spend all of our time hating ourselves for it. “Urgh this isn’t news,” we cry, “this shouldn’t be published,” we tweet. Yet we return. Day in and day out we return for our mindless helping of celebrity feed.

I’ve begun to look up to the likes of Anne Hathaway and Natalie Portman. They’re beautiful, collected and talented. They attend some flashy events but only to talk about their veganism or their latest role. “Yes,” I think, “these are much better celebrities to fill my time with.”

So after this affirmation, why did I HAVE to spend 5 minutes this morning finding out if Kim Kardashian has or hasn’t had collagen injected into her lips? And I actually, genuinely CARED.

But what really makes us do this? Because, as much as you’d like to deny it, I imagine most people have this problem to some degree.

An article from CBS News back in 2006 explored the phenomenon of ‘celebrity worship’ quoting Stuart Fischoff, a professor at the California State University in Los Angeles. He said that this kind of obsession with heroes has been around since the beginning of time, “what’s in our DNA, as a social animal, is the interest in looking at alpha males and females; the ones who are important in the pack,” says Fischoff who believes that we are sociologically preprogrammed to “follow the leader.”

BUT WAIT. This implies that the people we’re looking at are talented, strong leaders. I can imagine how this would work in the “cave man days” (yep, I’m using that phrase), you’d align yourselves with strong people for more chance of survival maybe.

But nowadays I have to admit I’m often drawn to reading stories about those I wouldn’t trust to look after a light bulb, let alone save me from some kind of mammoth (again, history of “cave man days” and “mammoths” probably needs cleaning up).

So maybe this celebrity obsession is dividing a little. There are still those I look up to, the talented actresses who I admire the style and mannerisms of, I see their films and would love to look like them. But then there’s a large proportion of “car-crash” stories about the usual suspects “self-penning” a novel, falling out of a club with no clothes on or getting even more plastic surgery.

I’ve done very little other than Google around this subject, but would love to know what the likes of Fischoff make of those kinds of celebrities. Maybe it’s just morbid curiosity? Or maybe something in us just can’t understand why someone with no talent can appear in the media day in and day out?

Image via Confidential Club.