Review: Placebo - B3

Originally posted on www.soundblab.com

It has been three years since Placebo last released a new album and over a year since their last EP. However, unlike the last one, which was a recording of a live performance, the B3 EP is a collection of five new songs to help you get excited about the next album.

With a slated release date of March 2013 for the new record, this EP gives you an idea of the direction the band are going, which seems a little different/experimental, and it appears that this will be the case on the next album as all five tracks here are completely different, in a good way.

We obviously have the heavy drums and guitars that Placebo have become well known for, coupled with Brian Molko's angst-ridden vocals, which still sound exactly the same as they did over a decade ago - quite some feat I must say. Thrown into the mix of angst, guitars and drums, we have a few synth sounds which almost make me think of space, but that's probably just because I've recently embraced my inner sci-fi geek.

The album has two tracks that stand out from the others: 'The Extra', which is slow, upbeat and rocky all at the same time, and sounds like some of their older stuff but also fresh and new. The other stand-out is the last song on the EP, 'B3', which starts with some synths before the guitars and drums burst in, giving us a blast from the past when it comes to the band - yet it doesn't get boring.

Track number two, 'Time is Money', is the only song which doesn't quite match up to the rest of them. At just over seven-minutes-long, it gets a little repetitive and boring, almost bordering on overly mopey. But I can look past that given the quality of the other songs.

With all five tracks having a different sound and feeling a little experimental, it will be very interesting to see how the next album turns out. If this EP is anything to go by, Placebo fans should be in for a treat in the new year.

The Problem with the Benefit System

Originally posted on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

When it comes to the benefit system here in the UK everyone appears to have his or her own take on it. There are those who believe some individuals and families are being given too many benefits and therefore an incentive not to work, and then there are those who believe that without these benefits some would slip into absolute poverty.

Only this year there was a huge debate about capping benefits for those claiming that saw an array of different opinions spouted out. I mean, who hasn't logged onto their Facebook or Twitter accounts and seen someone having a rant about supposed benefit scroungers and thieves, or that they aren't being given enough financial aid? But then what about those people who are living way below the breadline and simply cannot claim a penny?

Over the years I've been guilty myself of indulging in one of these rants about those on benefits, but more recently I have found myself without any form of support from working or through the benefit system.

Recently I published an article about how a number graduates were coming out of University and finding themselves without a job due them being overqualified or inexperienced. However in my case, as I'm sure is the case for many others, I wasn't always in this position.

Throughout my days as a student studying for my A level exams and my degree I worked. One job I had was as a part time cleaner, this was when I was 17 so any money earned was spent on clothes or going out. I then moved on to do a job that absolutely bored the living daylights out of me on a production line in a factory (which I did during my breaks from University and during the summer before.) But apart from sitting there and wishing the end of the world would hurry up I still worked, as I needed the money.

Now however I find myself without a job, without a student loan and without any rights to claim benefits, and because of this I regularly find myself without food.

Now you may be wondering why this is, because surely someone who has worked and needs to buy food, pay rent and other bills should be able to claim something? Well it turns out that whilst I did work throughout my A Levels and University, as I was a student I was exempt from paying tax, which now means that I can't claim. Secondly because my partner works full time he is expected to support me, which he does. But when one person's wages barely covers the bills where are you supposed to find the money for food and the bare essential to live?

These are issues I'm faced with on a daily basis and I'm sure there are others who have also been in a similar position. Now if I didn't live with my partner in my own house and lived with my parents I would be able to claim job seekers allowance, along with this I wouldn't have to pay rent or buy food or pay any bills therefore allowing me to do what I wanted with the money.

This all seems a little bizarre because surely someone who needs to pay bills is in more need of a little help financially than someone who isn't? Aside from this during one of my routine phone calls to find out why I was unable to claim any form of assistance an advisor told me that if my partner decided not to work then they could help us. Now am I wrong when I say this shouldn't be the kind of advice given to someone actively seeking employment, considering the role of the job centre is to get people off benefits and into the workplace?

It looks as though the benefit system in this country and its workers are a little confused on who needs help and what advice they need to give people (I have been told so many different things on several occasions by different members of staff.) Until this confusion is resolved and the claims made by people are assessed a little differently it looks as though those who are in desperate need of help will have to go without, whilst others will be afraid of entering the workplace as they will be worse off financially, therefore being left in the category of "benefit scrounger" despite the fact they probably aren't.

The Hypocrisy of Pornography

Originally Posted on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

For a long time now I've been thinking about the porn debate that I constantly see in the news. Whenever the debate about the negative aspects of porn rears its ugly head the public is always told about the negative effects it can have on women, such as the way it can squash the reality of feminine beauty or portray women as objects designed for one thing. On the other hand we are also told about the negative effects it can have on straight men, such as a rewiring of the brain or contributing to psychological problems.

Anti-porn activist Gail Dines has even discussed how pornography tells a false story about men and women, which ultimately lies about what it means to be male and female.

Now everyone has their own stance on pornography and with access to the Internet and cable channels, whether we like it or not porn looks as though it is here to stay for quite some time.

The reason why it has crept back into the foreground of my mind is due to a little programme on BBC Three called Unsafe Sex in the City. The programme, which is a new take on the fly on the wall documentary series that we've all become accustomed to over the last decade or two, is based in a sexual health clinic in Manchester where we are able to hear and sometimes see what many people have been up to on a night out, and believe me sometimes it isn't pleasant.

During the second episode of the show two young gay men were featured, who as well as having vey active sex lives, worked as porn stars. This got me thinking about the hypocrisy of the porn industry, especially in the world of gay porn.

As the two young men were to feature in a bareback porn movie (bareback being the act of having sex without a condom), they were sent to have full sexual health screenings. Now as many will know porn stars have to be sent for sexual health tests regularly to ensure that a breakout of something doesn't occur, and the man shooting the film explained this during the programme.

However the main reason they appeared to be getting tested was due to the nature of the film they were to shoot, which is where we get into the hypocrisy of it all. As they were to be filming a porno movie where no protection was being used then surely this is the promotion of unsafe sex?

Since the outbreak of HIV during the 1980s the general public, especially the gay community, have been made aware that unprotected sex could lead to the contraction of the HIV virus. As gay men are seemingly at a higher risk, then surely shooting a film featuring two young and vulnerable looking gay men without protection can't be doing anyone any good.

I may be wrong but in the same way it is perceived that women may think they have to act and perform a certain way during sex because of porn, then surely the same principal can be applied to naïve or impressionable gay men, which in this case could prove dangerous. Along with this the constant normalising and sometimes glamorising of unprotected sex may also be undoing much of the good work by various charities; who are trying to get people to wrap it up and prevent the spreading of this virus.

But It looks as though whilst the porn industry is acting as though they care by sending their stars for check ups they are merely doing it to cover their own backs in case anything happens to one of their performers. But when it comes to the everyday person in the street who goes out on a weekend looking for a good time, it appears they don't actually care that much as they continue to turn out pornography such as this to the masses.

Review - Elliot Loves

Originally posted on www.biggaypictureshow.com

Elliot Loves explores the turbulent love life of Elliot throughout two pivotal parts of his life, as an inquisitive 10-year-old dealing with his loving yet seemingly unhappy mother and as a naive 21-year-old looking for love in all the wrong places in New York.

The initial concept of the film intrigued me I must admit, especially as I was wondering how they would mirror the two separate parts of his life. The way it was executed by cutting segments into what appeared to be chapters and by mirroring similar and important parts of his life as a child and young adult were done effectively and allow the audience to see how the character was the way he is.

The character of Elliot himself is a very intriguing one, as we have all either been in his position or know a friend that has been there. By this I mean an extremely naïve young person looking for love in all the wrong places before they finally realise you don’t find love, love finds you.

The film is funny in parts, and bittersweet and sad in others, but the scenes in the past have to be given credit as the better parts of the film. This is mainly due to the acting from Quentin Araujo as the young Elliot and Elena Goode as his mother, as they make you laugh and feel sympathy for the characters. These are without a doubt the stand out performances of the film.

Other good points of the film include the way it was shot, as it is softly focused and looks romantic in many key parts. The music also adds to the emotions of the film. One of my personal favourite parts is the animation scene, which allows them to do things they wouldn’t have otherwise been able to and it breaks the film up a bit.

However it isn’t all good, and unfortunately the bad definitely outweighs them. At the very beginning of the film I initially thought, “What the hell is this?” as it starts off a bit hammy. Even though it gets better, the present day scenes always fall into the hammy, trying too hard to be funny category, and as we all know, when you try too hard it just isn’t funny. Much of the dialogue and scenes could have been cut or shortened, as a few parts feel like they’ve been on for around 20 minutes, despite actually only being on for about five.

One major problem I had with the film is how it tries to flit between being a comedy and being a tragedy. This almost made me lose focus and interest many times. If they had made it a complete tragedy about someone looking for love and failing, or made it a comedic take on this the entire way through the film, it would have worked a lot better.

The film is ok in parts but the bad just outweighs the good. If it had been executed a little better and stuck to one theme then it would have worked a lot better.

Inexperienced and Overqualified: A Catch 22 for Graduates

Originally posted on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

After a regular visit to the job centre where I had to convince the person sat behind the desk that I had been looking for work on a daily basis, it got me thinking about why I was still in this predicament.

Six months after losing my job I still go to my fortnightly appointment and explain the fact that employers are still not employing me. The woman who deals with my claim told me I looked a bit fed up and maybe this was coming across at interviews. The comment annoyed me slightly as I'm not a stupid person, despite what some may say given the predicaments I've gotten myself into in the past, I'm educated to degree level and work extremely hard to try and get where I won't to be, yet I just seem to fall flat at the final hurdle.

It's not just me either; youth unemployment is extremely high these days given the current economic crisis. You only have to read BBC news and you will most likely find a story at some point during the week detailing these issues.

At the age of 22 I feel that a vast amount of people my age are caught in a catch 22 situation. That situation being; we are both under-experienced and overqualified.

From a young age we've been told we can be whatever we want to be whether it's a doctor, a teacher, a writer or even an Olympian. We have been told that education is the key. We were told to get our GCSE's and then when those were done we were told to get A-Levels, as GCSE's weren't quite good enough. Finally after a two-year slog to get those A-Levels completed we were told we needed to go to University to complete our education and secure ourselves a job.

However they never prepared us for the lack of job prospects when we left, or what to do if a situation like this should arise. I mean we can't blame our teachers for the economic crisis, but when you're told from around the age of seven that you can be whatever you want to be and this is how you do it, you never think of the negative outcomes of not quite reaching your goal.

So by this point after completing a degree you can safely say that you're qualified enough. But when it comes to applying for jobs you then have to compete against thousands of other applicants who were told the same thing as you, and some are lucky enough to get the job and others aren't.

As the clock ticks on more students finish University every year creating a new batch of competitors as you seemingly get left behind and re-join the queue at the job centre time and time again, as employers tell you; "you don't have enough experience."

Now a sensible thing to do whilst hunting for your dream job is to find something that will help you get by and live. Many go and work in bars or call centres or work as waiters, but this is where the overqualified situation raises its ugly head.

I myself had to deal with a situation like this a few weeks back when I attended an interview for a cleaning position. I've worked as cleaner before for two different companies, which were both on my CV. However the woman conducting the interview seemed more concerned with how overqualified I was than my previous experience, but as I said to a friend when you're poor and need money you'll do any job you can. Needless to say I didn't get the position.

It may have been because I was overqualified or not, and if it was I can understand where they are coming from as I may up and leave the job in six weeks time.

The simple fact is when you have friends, family, the job centre, the media and the government telling you to get off the sofa, stop watching Jeremy Kyle and go and get a job it can make you feel worthless because even though you are trying it's just not that easy and you're stuck in this catch 22 situation. As some people think you don't know enough to do one job and others think you know too much to do another. Sometimes there's just no winning but a lot of losing.

Giving Thanks: Q Allan Brocka

Originally posted on www.biggaypictureshow.com

In the same way that gay characters have gained prominence in an abundance of television shows they have also gained exposure in animated television comedies. This is why the person we’re giving thanks to this week is Q Allan Brocka.

There have been a selection of gay and lesbian themed shows around the world in recent times and gay characters have gained prominence in a wide variety of television series – just look at British soaps. But one genre that has increased over the last 10 years is the animated comedy show. Initially we had The Simpsons and then South Park, and then along came Seth MacFarlane with a whole host of animated shows in the shape of Family Guy, American Dad and The Cleveland Show. But there has only been one gay-centric animated comedy, and that was thanks to Brocka.

Originally born in Guam, Brocka developed a love of film at a young age before moving to America. While growing up in States he gained a Masters in film from the California Institute of Arts.

After this he directed a queer public access television show for a number of years, and then in 1999 his animated short Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple In The World made its debut, when he submitted it to Spike and Mike’s Sick and Twisted Festival of Animation. It went on to win several awards at a number of different film festivals.

Nearly ten years later in 2007, an animated series based on the short debuted on the Logo cable network in the US and ran for two seasons. The show itself was original as it focused on a group of gay characters in an animated world. Gay characters had been used in animation before, but it was mainly for extra comic effect. This was the first time an animated comedy show centred on gay characters.

Brocka has also contributed to a number of LGBT live-action films during his career, such as the romantic comedy Eating Out and the drama Boy Culture, both of which he wrote and directed. Those films did extremely well on the festival circuits and won a number of awards. Eating Out spawned a number of sequels, including Eating Out: Drama Camp and Eating Out: The Open Weekend, which Brocka co-wrote and directed in 2011.

As well as his work for the screen, Brocka contributes a column to the gay magazine, The Advocate. It’s easy to see that over his career Brocka has dedicated himself and much of his work to proving that sexuality is an important subject that should be depicted more on both film and television, and that gay people deserve entertainment specifically made for them.

It’s a shame that his animated gay-themed comedy didn’t run longer, but then again Family Guy got cancelled before it came back, so perhaps there’s still hope.

Review: Seeking a Friend For The End of The World

Originally posted on www.moviemuser.co.uk

What would you do if you knew the world was going to end in three weeks? Maybe you'd carry on with your day-to-day life, go crazy and do all the things you'd always wanted to but just hadn't had time for yet, or maybe you simply just don't know.

These are the things that Lorene Scafaria sets out to explore in this touchingly sweet, sad and laugh out loud look at the end of the world. Where as apocalyptic films in the past have looked at how the human race can save the day and prevent the world from being smashed to pieces, this uniquely original film looks at it from the everyday person's perspective as they casually live out their last days.

Top marks have to be given to Scafaria, as the film itself is incredibly well written, with doses of ironic humour set against the near apocalyptic backdrop that will have you laughing one minute, feeling touched the next and finally have you almost balling your eyes out. It does all this whilst also sending you a clear message about everyday values and life in general, where you begin to think about what you want your life to be.

The performances from Keira Knightly (Penny) and Steve Carrell (Dodge) are both impeccable as they bring their characters to life and make them so believable that you really feel for them. Not being a massive fan of Knightley's in the past, I have to say that here she is both hilarious and touching in her performance and I can truly say she has finally won me over. Carrell is also great as the awkward background person who just plods through life not really living, a role that he has played in the past but when he does it so well you can't fault the man.

Another highlight has to be the soundtrack to the film. The music used really drives the story forward and helps reflect the tone of what the film is trying to convey as it makes the movie light hearted yet serious, funny but sad and overall very very touching.

The film is a brilliant comedic take on the traditional apocalyptic movie that still gives you the dramatic, sad and touching feelings of all the others but in a much more heart warming way, and with an ending that will hit you like a ton of bricks it also shows us that life and love know no boundaries, time or age.

Is an Emotional Affair Technically Cheating?

Originally posted on www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

We've all been introduced to the world of affairs in one way or another, though television, literature, films and music the concept of cheating and breaking someone's heart is always there. Since the 90s cheating has seemingly become easier with the introduction of email, dating websites, mobile phone apps and texting or as many refer to it sexting.

With the introduction of these virtual avenues to indulge in what many may call a bit of light-hearted flirting it looks as though cheating has fundamentally changed. But something many over look is that you don't have to venture down the road of having an illicit affair or sending someone a dirty text or email to be cheating on a partner, there is also the emotional affair.

Everyone has emotions and we can become attached to someone through a whole array of different emotions, I mean we can even become emotionally attached to someone that we hate. But as most people don't intend on embarking on an affair of the emotions with no physical contact, is it technically cheating?

An emotional affair is usually described as a relationship between a person and someone other than their partner that has a high level of emotions. It can differ from the affair we've all seen in society as in this case the main object of the affair isn't sex, and a person most probably hasn't sought it out.

Emotional affairs can begin for a number of different reasons with a number of different people. We could begin them with co-workers that we see everyday or a friend that we see quite regularly, but why do they start? After all if you're in a relationship where there's no love or no sex then you may embark on an actual affair, but an affair of the emotions could begin because of a feeling of loneliness, emotional detachment from a partner or you may simply be falling out of love but are still in love with your partner.

An emotional affair doesn't have to involve sex as it's all about the feelings, it can feel like the beginning of a new relationship all over again where you get butterfly's in your stomach and can't wait to see this other person, and it doesn't feel bad as you aren't actually cheating or you may not realise that this is happening. But when the attraction does take over when does the emotional affair switch from being emotional to you wanting to rip their clothes off next time you see them? With an attraction like that bubbling up between two people, it's surely only a matter of time before this 'special friendship' you've developed changes and the real affair begins.

So when we actually sit down and think about it, even though we aren't ripping someone's clothes off and throwing them around the bedroom, by sitting with them in the nearest coffee shop or bar we begin to become emotional dependant on them and by default this is cheating. Just as many people consider the sending of a dirty text or Facebook message as being unfaithful, an affair of the emotions can be just has damaging even without kissing or touching or everything that may follow. Lets be honest at the end of the day by depending on someone else you've removed the foundations of your relationship, and without those is there any point in staying in your relationship? Because aren't you just beginning a new one? But if this isn't the case then maybe some need to take a step back and re-assess the situation they are in before it gets too late to turn back.

Giving Thanks: Alan Ball

Originally posted on www.biggaypictureshow.com

This week I’m heading across the pond back to America to give thanks to one of the gay heavyweights working behind the scenes in film and television, Oscar, Emmy and Golden Globe award winning film, theatre and television producer, writer and director, Alan Ball.

After finishing college in 1980, Ball began working as a playwright at the General Nonsense Theatre Company in Sarasota Florida. Although we may be skipping a few years ahead, by the 1990s he was working in television and contributed to a number of shows such as Oh Grow Up, Grace Under Fire and Cybill, which starred Cybill Shepherd.

In 1999 Ball’s first film as a screenwriter, American Beauty, exploded at the box office grossing over $350 million worldwide and won five Oscars at the 72^nd Academy Awards, including Best Picture and a Best Screeplay gong for Ball. Although the film was a huge success, most of a hefty gay subplot was removed from the film until the very end, which is slightly disheartening, but luckily for the LGBT community it wasn’t entirely ripped from the film.

Venturing back into television, Ball created the hugely successful HBO drama series Six Feet Under, which was a rating’s smash and ran for five series. The show included a major gay character that broke the mould of the traditional stereotype, in the shape of David Fisher, played by Dexter’s Michael C. Hall. After the series ended his next huge hit came in the shape of vampire series True Blood.

Throughout the show a number of LGBT issues have been at the forefront, with the openly gay Layfayette, a lesbian relationship involving Tara, and at the end of the latest series a blossoming vampire lesbian relationship between Pam and Tara. We’ve even seen male vampires engaging in sex together, which despite them being dead all helps towards normalising LGBT characters on TV.

The whole show has been read as an allegory for LGBT rights, with vampires ‘coming out of the closet’ and fighting for equal rights. Although Ball has dispelled this comparison as laziness, the author of the books the show is based on has said this was the case when she wrote them. Either way it’s great to be able to see the fight for gay rights being represented in a way that isn’t overly forceful on an audience.

Along with all this Ball been named one of the most impressive gay men and women in Out magazine’s annual 100 list, and has been lauded as a strong voice for the community. As he left his position as show runner at the end of series five of True Blood, it will be interesting to see what Ball does next and whether he will continue to channel gay characters on his shows and challenge stereotypes that have existed for far too long.

Review: chernobyl Diaries

Originally posted on www.moviemuser.co.uk

The Chernobyl disaster happened back in 1986 and conspiracy theories surrounding the incident and the aftermath have been rife ever since. The surprising part about this is why a film such as this has never been made before.

Chernobyl Diaries follows a group of travellers as they venture into the land of extreme tourism, heading to the city abandoned and devastated by the disaster. Written by Oren Peli, who terrified most of the world with Paranormal Activity, you can't help but feel a little let down by this film as it try's to recreate what happened with the first Paranormal Activity film, but in the process becomes a typical mass of clichés.

The concept of the film is both original and intriguing, but given that most people have now heard of the disaster, the problem is you build it up too much and get left a little deflated. A bit of a slow starter at first, the film doesn't start to get interesting until halfway through when people start to die. In fact you start wanting to see the characters die, which is never a good thing.

The acting in the film overall is pretty hammy, but the actors do hold their own and they aren't the worst performances I've ever seen in a film, but it could have been better. The directing is also good, especially parts where you see a glimmer of something happening in the background, which does excite you about what may happen soon.

The film is tense in parts and like Paranormal Activity, you will be hiding your face from parts, only to discover that nothing actually happens and it's the suspense that has been scaring you. This is one thing this film is quite good at (as is Oren Peli in general).

The extras on the DVD are quite good, and in my opinion I would have been a little happier with the film if the alternative ending had been used, as it just makes more sense in the grand scheme of the film.

The film does have tense parts and makes your heart race a little, but it looks as though they have tried too hard to make a huge scare fest out of the disaster, which ultimately doesn't entirely grip you. In other words it's ok but they could have done a lot more with the material they had to work with.