Film

In films and TV shows, ranging from 'The Godfather' to 'Peakey Blinders', gangsters are almost always depicted sympathetically. They're the heroes, the people we root for. It doesn't matter how many people they kill, we see them as being justified. But why do we look at them so favourably? It's not as simple as them being the focal point. What almost every gangster film or TV show does is show the excitement and glamour of their lives, often against a bleak backdrop. 'Broadwalk Empire', for instance, is set in the era of prohibition. It's not just that their lives are exciting though. There's this sense that they can do anything, that they have so much power. As much as we might disagree with the violence, the sense that they can do something if someone comes against them is an intoxicating thought. 'The Godfather' perfectly captured the idea of Michael getting payback when someone tried to kill his father. In fact, the whole idea of gangsters as family, whether or not they're related by blood, makes their actions more sympathetic. There's a sense of loyalty between all of them that is heightened because they are always in life or death situations. This in turn makes betrayal, even worse.

Discuss how and why films and TV shows glamorise gangsters.

There seems to be a growing trend in millennial produced cinema and television to take real life experiences and events and bring them to the screen (Girls, Master of None, Mr. Roosevelt, Lady Bird, and more, are based closely on the writer's real life). While many of these works are widely acclaimed, is there a downside to this style of filmmaking? Can we continue to pull out unique insights from films that represent life as we know it? Or is fantasy more effective? What is it about seeing something essentially identical to our lives or our friends/families lives that stands out to us?

My article on post-Weinstein and Social Media has received many compassionate comments, but also a few disparaging ones. When writing it, I knew the reception could be hit-or-miss, as I do speak out and alongside the MeToo campaign. It wasn’t just something the entertainment industry needed, but also greater society.

Certain viewpoints were “don’t turn this into ‘pity the poor men’”, and “women have had to deal with it for ages.” It was hard to advocate for the dissolution of hyper-masculinity, when it was met with “that’s meninist!” Across Australia we’ve had a new campaign of adverts, they’ve been subtle, but powerful. They have spoken out against “boys will be boys” in relation to knocking girls down in the hallway or playground. The child then turns to their parent and says, “so it’s okay for someone to hit me.” The parent is railroaded and comforts their child, “that’s not what I meant.”

When my son receives unwanted attention from a woman (or a man) in power, or is assaulted/harassed in a sexual way; am I to turn to him and say, “that’s a female issue, not a male one.”?

No. Because it was MeToo, not UsToo. It was a powerful campaign meant to be inclusive of all genders, because individuals in the industry were taking advantage of those wanting to progress their career. The truth is, assault and harassment on any spectrum should be defended and a voice given to those who are too frightened to speak up — regardless of gender.

Instead, defending a man’s experiences with sexual assault and harassment meant I inherently believed women are unintelligent. I’m a survivor of such acts, and men have told me stories of theirs after the article was published. Stories of rape in gay culture – loosely tying in with the acts of pedophilia conducted in Hollywood and the disgusting antics of Weinstein.

My views, morals, and compunction to speak for the voiceless has come from the many strong, opinionated, and vivacious women who have been in my life. It is also from them that I’ve learned to be compassionate, retrospective, and open-minded.

Gender is a social construct, but compassion is universal.

Every year, Hallmark makes a hefty profit on their Hallmark movies, particularly the Christmas ones. What makes them so popular? They are obviously predictable with recurring actors and events (interrupted kiss, small town preference, fall in love within days,etc) yet people flock to them with enthusiasm.

Analyse the impact of the Fast and the Furious film franchise on cinema-going audiences and film buffs worldwide. The continued success of each film at the box office and their potential to rake in millions worldwide as well as the non-stop sequels being released every other year.

Analyse why novel sci-fi and fantasy ideas that have been released to the cinemas recently have not had the strong effect that the same kinds of films had during the 2000-2010s. One immediate example that comes to mind would be Jupiter Ascending, which performed abysmally at the box office and was critically demolished. John Carter is another example that seemed promising, yet was not given a sequel despite being based off a series of comics.

Themes and values from the French New Wave (FNW) have become commonplace in filmmaking. Do you think the theories and underpinnings of the movement are still relevant or important? If it is or is not in your mind, why?

The second Fantastic Beast film, The Crimes of Grindelwald, will be released in November 2018. Prior to release, the film has been stirring up fan surprise and controversy. The final trailers revealed that Nagini, Voldemort's famous snake companion, would be featured as a character in the film (a female women who is slowly devolving into a snake until the effect is permanent). In the past few week, it has been rumored that a young Professor McGonagall may appear in the film. This is an event that may directly contradict Harry Potter lore established in prior Potter stories and world building. Will the fantastic beast series, once thought as a spin off/relatively unrelated prequel, totally alter our perception of the Harry Potter franchise, re contextualizing the entire chain of events in the world's most famous book series?