The Island

Michael Bay and sci-fi are truly a recipe for destruction, and The Island is no exception. Set in the dystopia of tomorrow, Ewan McGregor and Scarlet Johansson are two clones being grown for one thing: the harvesting of their organs. On the run from the ultimate bad guy, Sean Bean, a blisteringly violent chase on a staggering scale ensues. Excellent visuals and a dedicated cast. More bang per buck than a cap gun.

Sunshine

A film that exemplifies Danny Boyle’s penchant for finding the niche-iest niche and pushing its boundaries. Sunshine has provoked both critical acclaim, and unbridled hatred. Not the typical space opera, the film follows a band of humans on their way to re-ignite the dying Sun. The result is a terrible struggle on a terrific scale. The realism makes for an excellent viewing experience.

The Boat that Rocked

Richard Curtis, the legend behind Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill and Love Actually returns to regale the tale of the infamous sixties pirate radio, “Radio Rock”. It stars the usual Bill Nighy and Rhys Ifans, as well as a surprisingly lovable Phillip Seymour Hoffman. The film feels fresh throughout, a quality that few can replicate. Tom Sturridge is the young talent, innocent yet not annoying. A feel good film.

Serenity

Joss Whedon’s epic space western may have been a flop for some, but to fans of the short-lived Firefly, it was a near-satisfactory resolve to the unfinished story of a troupe of space cowboys. Other than making you want to smash every window at Fox studios for cancelling the series, the film will make you cry as cast members are ruthlessly culled. For those who didn’t see the series, you can’t go wrong for an average price of £3 a disc.

The Count of Monte Cristo

A remake of a film adaptation of a book. With strong themes such as betrayal and vengeance, The Count of Monte Cristo houses a story that will plaster over any qualms with the plethora of mediocre actors. Despite some seemingly uninspired performances, the late Richard Harris deserved an award for the strengths he brought to the production.

Yes Man

A simply genius plot. A man’s (Jim Carrey) life is changed when he vows to say “yes” to every question. A fresh, feel good film, that will not fail to make you laugh. It will make you want to leap up and do exactly the same thing.

1408

The problem with 1408 is that it’s not horrific enough to be a horror film, but the plot doesn’t lend itself to any other genre. Therefore the film is a failure by default. However, with excellent acting by John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson the intricate story is brought to life. It is a truly excellent film that was perhaps let down by misleading branding.

The Guardian

Perhaps Kevin Costner’s only credible role in the past decade. After years of dismal failure, he returns to the big screen as the rugged mentor of a surprisingly good Ashton Kutcher. Kutcher’s role is demanding, and you can almost see past his schoolboy-ish adolescence and imagine him as a real actor. A dramatic, powerful and engaging movie.

Apaloosa

Viggo Mortinsen and Ed Harris blend together to create a western sheriff and his deputy, both on top form. Although a not entirely memorable film, it is both entertaining and good value for money. A film of quality and substance.

Memento

Guy Pearce stars as a man losing his mind, whilst using his body as a notice board. The film follows his character attempting to hunt down the person who killed those closest to him, using nothing but the tattooed clues on his body. A stark and original plot, Memento is sure to blow your mind.

Trivia

What do the following films have in common?

The Island

Armageddon

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Con Air

Monsters Inc

If you REALLY want to know the answer, email me.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was the book that defined the rest of the series. Brimming with blistering detail, it put the preceding five novels into context. It also set the scene for epic battle that was the come in the final instalment.

In the film, the rich intricacies of the plot were simply lost or ignored. Major plot details have been tampered with. The result is a film without a beginning, middle or end, that could leave viewers asking: “and the Half-Blood Prince?”

What director David Yates has accomplished is more of a medley of teenage relationships, much like The OC.

Some may recall that this is the same man who directed The Order of the Phoenix, which was also considered to be a rather drab film. Worryingly, he has also been handed the reins for the two-part incarnation of The Deathly Hallows.

However, Yates can be praised. The previously cartoon-like Hogwarts teachers have now evolved into rounded characters that better resemble those of the books, more fitting for modern cinema. The special effects of the latest films have also improved, providing crisp picture quality for the HD generation.

In his defence, Yates has had to tackle thicker plotlines than his predecessors. With the ever lengthening novels also comes a greater disparity of plotline events. This makes it harder to translate into a format suitable for cinema-goers, where there is a need for a structure that is geared towards a climax. This would certainly explain why the shorter books made better films.

This suggests a quintessential flaw in the conversion of book to film. The books were not written in a film-friendly format, which means that there would have to be some compromise when it comes to plot. However, with a decade of building to a conclusion, film-makers cannot afford to take liberties. With Harry Potter, some details are set in stone.

http://www.centreforjournalism.co.uk/assignment/bluewater-shopping-centre-hit-recession

MM Layout

Why then, does the most paramount advancement of them all buck the trend for ascension? Stem cell research is thought to hold the key for the most terrible illnesses, including heart disease, diabetes, leukaemia, spinal cord injury, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Surely this holy grail of medicine should be subjected to mass rollout?

Stem cell research has attracted scathing criticism over the years. The answer to all medical questions seems to be emitting a flurry of flack. Religion, funding and ethics have all played a part in leashing the power of the technology. There is certainly the impression that stem cell research in the UK is destined to stay grounded.

The latest blow happened at the end of last year. Or at least it appeared to have. When Professor Justin St John left the UK, to move to Australia, it spelt the end of research into the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos for stem cell cultivation. Applauded by both the Government and the opposition, the research aimed to treat incurable illnesses such as heart disease and Parkinson’s. The professor had worked on the last of three projects that had embarked on the research.

This followed what was widely regarded as a leap forward in the field, the passing of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which allowed the creation of hybrid embryos.

All three projects withered away as a result of research councils, such as the Medical Research Council, refusing the license holders funding. It is unclear whether this was a result of ethical objection, or whether other projects deserved the funding more. Regardless, research licenses expired and funding applications were withdrawn. This devastated hope for the sick.

Amid the hustle and bustle of political, religious and scientific argument that is constricting funding, lies the end consumer. The patient who this is all supposedly in aid of, and could be tremendously beneficial for. One such patient is John Withey from Hartley, in Kent.

As well as helping those with heart disease, it is also thought that stem cells can be used as a treatment for myocardial infarction, more commonly known as a heart attack. Stem cells injected into a patient’s heart can help speed up recovery.

John has recently suffered a series of heart attacks, and is at risk of developing heart disease unless his condition is helped.

“I literally found out about my condition when I had the heart attack. I felt a pain in the centre of my chest, which at first I thought was indigestion. I collapsed instantly,” he said.

The first heart attack happened at the end of last year, shortly after the birth of John’s third child, Ella. “I think it was mainly down to the pressures of having the new baby, the stress of working irregular hours. Also smoking, I think my condition is more to do with my lifestyle, it certainly isn’t hereditary.”

“I was worried because I didn’t know what was going on, I didn’t know whether I was actually going to survive,” he said.

John is fairly chipper, considering his position. His wife has only recently gone back to work after her maternity leave, and he is currently working through his condition. His wife, Hilary, is less upbeat. She looks grave and worried. One can’t help thinking that her and her three children depend on John. As the breadwinner, and as flesh and blood, his loss would be devastating.

“I was always stressed, worrying about the pressure in the household. I just wanted to make sure everything was okay for him,” his wife said.

The family spoke of the speed and brilliance of the emergency services, as well as the aftercare support. Despite this, there is still doubt as to the future of John’s health.

Asked for his impression on stem cell research as a member of the public, John resounds current attitudes.

“It’s not really in the news that much really, it comes in waves. News is generally more to do with the human embryo, and even then it’s only reported when there’s an argument to say that it’s morally wrong.”

John already participates in programmes that can help his condition. He is currently partaking in experiments involving using MRI scanners to map calcium deposits throughout the body, in the aim of detecting potential relapses. An honorary “guinea pig”, John proves that he would do anything to get better.

Asked whether he would ever accept stem cell treatment, he first says that he would if it were from an ethical source. Without hesitation. When asked if he would if it were at the expense of an embryo, his response staccato. At first, he seems uneasy, aware of the moral arguments and taboo. He answers.

“It all depends on how critically ill I would’ve been at the time. If you’re that ill from something, then you would. Especially if it could save your life.”

Indeed, there are strong arguments to suggest that those who are suffering are worth the sacrifice of an embryo.

The epicentre of the debate, specifically, is embryonic stem cell research. In some ways, it is portrayed as both the most cutting edge research, and the only research.

Scientists believe that embryonic stem cells produce the best results because of their flexibility. At 5 to 6 days of growth, an embryo separates into an inner and outer mass. The inner mass contains the foetal body, which is what scientists attempt to separate in order to attain stem cells. The exciting part is that these stem cells can become anything from skin to brain cells.

Critics of the research, such as the Roman Catholic Church, may have been overjoyed by news of failings in the science. Catholicism is firmly opposed to embryonic research, which seems to be the main trend of research in the UK. In their eyes, one life is being sacrificed to save another, and the ends do not justify the means. Even if it could save people like John Withey.

Father Philip Glandfield, of the Catholic Church in Southwark, spoke about the considerations of the Church.

“The Church is against all experimentation on human embryos, and as such would not condone the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos,” he said.

“We encourage and support all ethical research, including the use of stem cells. The particular ethical dimension relating to stem cells is the source of the cells used for research.”

The father was asked what would, and what would not, be a viable source of stem cells in the eyes of the Catholic Church. “Viable stem cell research would exclude the use of cells collected in ways that contradict the principle of the sanctity of human life.

Often, an embryo for this kind will come from an IVF clinic. It is arguable whether or not these are truly “spare” embryos. Aborted foetuses are also used for the research.

Father Glandfield said that “the Church speaks out against the use of stem cells harvested from an aborted foetus, as all human life is sacred, from conception to natural death.”

He quotes the Vatican document Donum Vitae, when talking about the sanctity of life. “‘The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized’. The introduction of the same document states that, ‘from the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way.’”

Asked to compare the competing rights to life of a human embryo, where consciousness is debatable, and that of a sick person, the Church proves to be resolute in its beliefs. It stands firmly in saying that only stem cells from ethical sources can be used.

“The use of stem cells collected from a freely donated umbilical cord, donated after the birth of the child, would be ethical. The Catholic Church is keen to support all ethical advances in medical science, especially when it aims to save lives or improve quality of life. The ethical dimension, however, must always be included. The ends do not justify the means.”

“The principle of the sanctity of human life means that humanity must not abuse or end a human life in order to prolong that of another.”

In light of the debate as to when consciousness occurs, and therefore when an embryo becomes a person, the UK Stem Cell Initiative lays out the guideline that no experimentation would be carried out on embryos over the age of 14 days.

Speaking on behalf of the sick, who could benefit from stem cell technology, the Parkinson’s Disease Society claims to have invested over £2 million into stem cell research. Their official statement is that “stem cells are exciting prospects for research, to understand more about how cells work and diseases develop, for drug discovery and testing, to test whether they are safe and effective.”

Doctor Kieran Breen, Director of Research and Development at the Parkinson’s Disease Society, explained how stem cells could help those with the condition.

“For people with Parkinson’s, the hope is that we will be able to grow new dopamine producing nerve cells. These could one day be used to replace the nerve cells that are progressively lost in the Parkinson’s brain,” he said.

The morality of stem cell research has been represented in film. The 2005 film The Island depicted a futuristic world where the rich and famous paid to have clones of themselves created, so that spare organs would be available to them should they become ill. With startling similarity to the stem cell debate, the film also weighed the rights of the person in need of treatment, and the being created for bio-material. In the film, it was the clones who were the protagonists (played by Ewan McGregor and Scarlet Johansson). They were portrayed to have been wronged by the world around them.

“Stem cell research” has become a dangerous umbrella term, and seems to be tarring all of the research with the same brush. There is a danger that high-tech, cutting edge, moral technologies are being given a bad name. Like with stem cells themselves, the strands of research must be differentiated.

So, where are we now? Tests and theories aside, what stage are we at in terms of actual application of stem cell technology? Are we behind our international contemporaries?

Doctor Peter Hollands, currently at Westminster University, has worked in the field for 30 years. His PhD research at Cambridge University laid the groundwork for most of the current embryonic stem cell work. In the past, he has also worked on mouse embryos, human skin, liver and bone marrow, and now works on cord blood stem cell research.

“Current stem cell work is mainly routine transplantation of bone marrow and cord blood for blood disorders. Over and above this we then have the whole field of regenerative medicine which proposes the use of many cell types including embryonic, foetal, placenta, the umbilical cord itself, and even fat obtained from liposuction. None of these cells have been used to date with any confidence,” he said.

Doctor Hollands does not believe that human embryos provide a practical source of stem cells for regenerative medicine. “There are serious safety problems associated with embryonic and foetal cells apart from the ethical, moral and religious objections.”

He is equally sceptical about the research that was carried out by researchers, such as Professor Justin St John. “The human animal embryo, so called moo-man work, is interesting from an experimental point of view. There are nevertheless many issues related to this technology not least the animal DNA which would be in the stem cells created this way. It does not, in my opinion, represent a valid source of stem cells for clinical use”.

Currently, Hollands’ main interest is in cord blood stem cells. The important thing about cord blood stem cells, and those derived from placentas, is that they are potentially available each and every time that a baby is born. It does not require the sacrifice of embryos. Whilst ruthlessly opposing embryological research, the Catholic Church has previously shown support for banks that store umbilical cords and placentas, for use by people should they become ill and need stem cells.

“Cord blood stem cells represent not only a source of stem cells for the routine treatment of blood disorders but also a source of stem cells for use in regenerative medicine,” Hollands said. “Cord blood is biological waste with no legal, moral or religious objections to its use as a source of stem cells for therapeutic use.”

“This stem cell technology needs investment and expertise so that the full potential of these amazing cells may be seen.”

It seems that investment is currently predominantly going towards the embryonic field of research. Indeed, most arguments for the funding of stem cell research revolve around this. Because of its contention, embryonic stem cell research seems to be creating a spiral of political argument.

“Stem cell funding seems to be driven by political spin and to some extent media hype along with celebrity ‘support’ such as Christopher Reeve and Michael J Fox. Embryonic stem cells are heavily reported by the media and politicians use them as part of their political argument, for example Bush and Obama,” said Hollands.

“This has resulted in multi-million pound funding of embryonic stem cell projects despite the lack of progress and the problems associated with these cells. Funding comes from the major charities and government funding plus individuals such as Bill Gates.”

Perhaps then, the halting of human-animal hybrid embryo research in the UK may not be such a devastation after all. Perhaps the true faltering of stem cell research is the mindless treading of this stony ground.

The little investment that is going into the science seems to be going into the wrong methods. There is support for stem cells themselves, with almost universal agreement as to their worth. It is the current means of cultivation that is holding them back.

Although faced with adversity in the UK, wilting and half dead, abroad stem cell research is growing and blossoming. The UK is being left behind, where once it was considered to be at the forefront of innovation.

A team in Seattle has recently taken the cord blood research to new levels, making it a viable treatment for leukaemia. The team at the Fred Hutchenson Cancer Research Centre have found a way to increase the number of stem cells in cord blood 164 times. Today, Bone marrow transplants, and donated blood are used for treatment of the disease, but it is extremely difficult to get a match for patients, leading to a third of UK patients not getting a match. Cord blood is safe, clean and does not require a match to be made.

Cord blood contains less stem cells than bone marrow, meaning that it takes longer for patients to be cured and therefore puts them at risk. Arguably, this is one reason why embryonic research has always prevailed. There seems to be little reason to not go down the cord blood path, with private companies already running successful banks for it.

Progress in Seattle follows Barack Obama’s lifting of the stem cell funding ban, which was put in place by the Bush administration. Australia has also found success in the field, having many institutions devoted to the science.

It seems that stem cell research is much desired by patients, and when desperate enough they will do anything to survive. Cord blood offers all of the benefits of an embryo, at none of the cost. In comparison to embryonic research, it is an incredibly easy was out. Cord blood has turned Pandora’s box into El Dorado.

One way or another, stem cells must be made available to the public, but there is much potential is the more ethical cord blood option than in the embryonic research which is constantly stalling the field.

BOX OUT

Stem cells are the basic building blocks of the human body. They have the power to differentiate into different cell types, which means that they can potentially be used by scientists to repair or regenerate damaged tissues or organs. Stem cells are in every person, from embryo to adult, and also in animals. Cultivating them is the tricky part.

Regenerative medicine is the study of replacing damaged cells or tissue, inducing the body into regenerating damaged tissue from its own cells, or the transplant of stem cells into the body.

Jimmy Wales, the founder, set up Wikipedia in 2001. It had spawned from a project called Nupedia. That site had sought to create a free online encyclopedia through expert contribution and peer review. When it was closed down in 2003, the mantle was handed to Wikipedia. It is now the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, available in over 250 languages, regardless of how reliable people perceive it to be.

It is funded by donations to the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization to Wikipedia. Anyone can contribute, so long as articles meet strict criteria and are clearly referenced. Wikipedia has long been hailed as the pre-eminent poster child for crowd sourcing and user generated content.

However, by Mr Ortega’s reckoning, the site was losing popularity at a landslide rate, casting doubts over the future of crowd sourcing, and the future of Web 2.0. All over, bloggers and commentators blasted Wikipedia for deferring from its original purist Web 2.0 principles, claiming that it was becoming increasingly bureaucratic and was so fraught with regulations that editors had just given up.

Brian McNeal, spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, says that “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Wikimedia’s own statistics do not reflect that of Mr Ortega’s. By their reckoning, the only change has been the usual month to month fluctuation of users.

So, what about Web 2.0? Is Wikipedia still the pinnacle? “At the moment, by ComScore’s judgement, the Wikimedia family of websites is the 5^th most popular globally. “Pinacle of Web 2.0 is totally subjective. Readers outnumber editors thousands to one; so is it Web 2.0, where most people use it as a reference and don’t produce content?”

So where have these claims come from, that Wikipedia is losing editors? Tom May from .net magazine, believes he has the answer. “I think it’s a lot of fuss about nothing. Basically, someone found out that less people are editing Wikipedia. There’s a lot of confusion as to whether there’s less editors, or less edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the encyclopedia is pretty much finished. There’s obviously less need for edits,” he said.

Tom is what is known as a “Wikipedian”, someone who actively works on maintaining the encyclopedia. However, he has not edited recently, so has probably been made out to be one of those deserting it.

Claims of bureaucracy have emerged because of the changes in procedure regarding editing Wikipedia. It has left some people wondering whether the encyclopedia is still in the hands of the people, in line with Web 2.0 principles.

“Since this attack on Wikipedia, all these people have come out of the woodwork, complaining about regulation. People don’t really get the point of editing, they don’t get the difference between fact and opinion. They are just upset because someone told them that they couldn’t write what they wanted to write. The rules are pretty fair though, it’s all about a means to an end. In all honesty, Wikipedia is pretty accurate compared to the rest of the web.”

Indeed, Wikipedia claims that the users wanted the rules to change, so surely them changing is putting the encyclopedia in their hands? Brian McNeil said “policies and procedures have changed, the users have changed them and encouraged them to evolve. Look at the tiny fraction of Wikipedia articles that actually qualify for featured status.”

Does this mean that Wikipedia will stay with us? Tom May stated that “I know that Google’s algorithm is fairly heavily weighted in Wikipedia’s favour. There’s no real competition, no one’s come up with a reason not to go to Wikipedia.”

So what about crowd sourcing in general? “Crowd sourcing is certainly on the rise, with the rise of real time search. It’s becoming more and more the fabric of the Internet, even with corporate sites. It’s definitely something that’s going to stay with us, it’s certainly the way forward.”

Crowd sourcing is about breaking a task down, it brings a large number of people together to break tasks down to smaller chunks. Encyclopedias for example. Crowd sourcing was originally thought to have huge money making potential. Indeed, both Wikipedia and Twitter only have around 40 or 50 permanent workers at any one time.

Nic Howell, deputy features editor from New Media Age magazine, thinks that this is only true to a certain extent. “Crowd sourcing destroys the cost of making certain content, look at Twitter for example. In certain applications, it makes sense. However, it hasn’t seemed to have disrupted people’s business models – yet. I don’t think there’s a problem with the model but it doesn’t work in every situation.”

“The problem with crowd sourcing is that the crowd itself is hard to measure. Some applications have a permanent, though some have a more temporary lifespan. How long will people work on things? Nobody other than Wikipedia is trying to maintain a permanent crowd sourcing model.”

In terms of money, Wikipedia is funded through donations. Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s content is not the sort that can be advertised around, therefore is hard to monetize. Mechanical Turk, on the other hand, is a crowd sourcing system whereby micro tasks are completed in exchange for micro payments. Users complete reviews, such as reviews of streets in a city. By the end, the commissioner has a map of reviews and the users have earned small amounts of money. This is similar to the system used by 99 designs, whereby companies seeking designs can commission them over the Internet.

The problem is that the amounts of money are generally quite small, and some sites are accused of slave laboring users and mob rule. It seems that the Wikipedia model is the only one that is so far successful.

Lee plays black metal, an underground music genre that rarely warrants a section marker on HMV shelves. Despite its bespoke nature, black metal is the topic of a new film to hit theatres, “Until the light takes us”, chronicling the destruction inflicted upon Europe in the 1990’s, when black metal was last at its most prominent. The black metal bands caused waves of terror in Norway and Sweden. Churches were burned, and people were murdered and raped.

It is surprising then, that the perfectly ordinary looking man in front of me would aspire to such a genre. As I sit struggling to determine what my coffee mug came free with, I notice that Lee is wearing the uniform of a well known coffee company. He has long black hair and a pale face, and he blends in to the atmosphere of the café. He could well be a part of the establishment. My first question then, is how did this perfectly normal looking person get involved with such themes of violence?

“Basically, I was broke. Parents split up, and a lot of things happened on the financial front. I wouldn’t have liked to have stayed in school. I was still living with my mother at this point, and she was getting quite stressed about the divorce. I was listening to a lot of normal metal at the time, and I quite liked it. I can only say that my mother influenced me, as she was listening to black metal and it calmed her down”. Our breakfasts were delivered by a young boy, helping his mother in the café. He casts a dirty glance at Lee.

I ask if Lee’s preference in music was emotionally inspired. “It’s pent up rage over the past five years,” he says. It turns out that Lee had previously even changed his name to Dani Lavey, out of anger towards his father for leaving and the wish to cut him out of his life.

He tells of how his job is only temporary and of how he wants to become a full time musician. “I don’t want to be famous, I don’t want to be on the front covers of magazines or anything. I want my music to circulate through the underground, not the mainstream. My new band is called Artisian. Before that I had my own band also, Morktar. I started that in 2006. I was doing everything myself, until 2008 when I hired a drummer”.

Morktar had even produced an album, called “Cries from the Dungeon”. “We released 66 copies, we couldn’t afford the other 600,” a smile emerges, but then quickly disappears. “It was amateur made. It was released in Bergen in Norway and London only. After this the drummer chose to quit the band under his own accord. I was told by him that he became scared of what Black metal had been in the 1990’s, and scared that it would happen today. I told him if he wanted to leave, that it up to him but it is up to me if I want to continue”.

It was the new band, however, that I had the most interest in. “We are rehearsing every Sunday, which just happens to be god’s day. Christian’s day. We are embarking on a tour beginning in January, with a band called Marduk from Sweden, which was also caught up in the 90’s black metal. I feel that being with Artisian enables me to promote my feelings via a live set.”

I imply that he must have a certain sense of pride, being selected to play with a band such as Anaal Nathrankh, which is prolific in black metal circles. “Anaal Nathrankh? I’ve never heard their stuff before, which will be interesting,” he laughs, “It’s good to be supporting Anaal, but I’m definitely more proud in supporting Marduk, as it’s a band who I listen to at home.”

“I feel that being with Artisian enables me to promote my feelings via a live set.”

So the genre that ravaged Norway and Sweden in the 90’s has a wide following in the United Kingdom. Artists from this time have now become legends in this massive sub-culture. I asked Lee whether he sees a future for black metal here in the future.

“This third wave of black metal just happening is more prominent in the UK than elsewhere, it’s really just about to explode,” he said. When asked what to expect, he forecasts a lot of live shows and possibly actions like that seen in Europe. “You will just have to watch and wait, watch this space.”