Film review: An addiction that’s not pretty

Fassbender as Brandon just before he goes on a desperate sex binge.

I delayed seeing the movie “Shame” because I thought it would be a horribly depressing and uncomfortable spectacle to witness. I was right.

Having never left a theatre before the end of a movie (at least in the last 10 years), I nearly did this time, but I got so far as the concession, bought popcorn and forced myself to go back. This is a quietly stark and extremely dark portrait of siblings each struggling with their inner demons in their own destructive way. What those demons are, the audience is not privy to because there are only hints, no big reveal.

My discomfort was more around the way the point of the film was “hammered” (excuse the sexual innuendo here) home so thoroughly and completely. Talk about hitting you over the head with an idea. Okay, so we get it. These two are both so filled with self-loathing that they can’t have normal relationships. And one of those manifestations is blatantly sexual, the other more carelessly so. But both seem hell-bent on self-destruction in their own way.

Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of Brandon Sullivan, a seemingly confident and successful New Yorker, is all about his face. He’s not been given a whole lot to say in this screenplay. It’s his face that must tell the story. From the burning intensity of his stare at a flirtatious married woman on the subway, to his teary-eyed witnessing of his sister’s sultry vocal performance at a piano bar, all the way through to his wild pursuit of his next sexual conquest through nightclubs, gay bars and finally, to the apartment where a pair of hookers lazily welcome him (and his wallet). And that was all in one night! (No wonder he is perpetually late for work!)

Carey Mulligan, as Sullivan’s sister Sissy is a real relief against Fassbender’s intense performance. He is so controlled with his jaw muscle twitching and his taut buttocks flashing across the screen (admittedly, not too difficult to watch) and Mulligan is so, well, messy. Even her smile seems a little lop-sided when she sings, and her clothing is a mismatch of vintage hats and clumsy teenaged innocence. Even naked, she appears to be so human and normal that it’s tough not to feel sympathetic (not the perfectly perky body, her dime-store hair dyed roots glaringly obvious). She is the perfect foil for her brother, who tries to appear that he’s got it altogether. She makes no such attempt, begging her boyfriend not to break up with her and drunkenly bedding Brandon’s married boss.

Clearly, his sister’s presence in his life serves as a reminder to him about whatever his dark secret is and when Sissy shows up, he goes on a sexual bender. It turns out that the timing couldn’t have been worse since Sissy also decides to take matters into her own hands and they aren’t there for each other when they need rescuing.

What’s intriguing about this film is how sex may allow someone to become thoroughly disconnected from reality. We understand this with other substances like drugs and alcohol but this story explores how a sex addiction can do the same. There has been a lot of snickering about the movie and in general, about the idea of sex addiction. Some people question whether it is truly an addiction. I have no doubt that some people (ie. celebrities) falsely claim to have a sex addiction, perhaps to make themselves appear more dark and mysterious or just for publicity, but I also think this movie explains what that sex addiction looks like in a real person. And it’s not pretty.

It’s also a tremendous hindrance to having a normal relationship, as Brandon discovers when he develops a rapport with a woman in his office and tries to have “normal” sex (whatever that means). It would be like asking an alcoholic to have just one drink at a social gathering. He knows he can’t do it and in order to spare himself the embarrassment or perhaps spare the woman the trauma (again, his facial expressions during sex are like something out of the Exorcist), he decides not (or is unable) to go through with it. Then, he promptly produces his credit card and pays for it with a willing prostitute.

Don’t expect the sex in this flick to be titillating. Most of it occurs without the benefit of even a mood-inducing soundtrack to break the silence. I think I was holding my breath through most of the movie and the theatre was so hushed it added to the weirdness of the whole experience. Definitely NOT a date movie, by the way!

Do yourself a favour, skip this movie unless you are a real film buff and want to say that you “survived” it. If you know someone with a sex addiction, you might find it an interesting character study, I guess, or you might find it even that much harder to watch, if that’s the case.

Now I need to tune into some lighter fare (just about anything would be lighter than this one) to help me get this movie out of my head. Heavy, heavy sigh.

Tags: Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan, Sexual addiction, Shame, Steve McQueen, Movie review, film

The Iron Lady: A revealing look at an unbending approach

As I exited the theatre last week after viewing “The Iron Lady,” I overheard a group of women commenting on the film.

“I’m disappointed,” one woman said, while others chimed in. “I really didn’t like the emphasis on her dementia and had hoped it was more about what she did while she was prime minister.”

I was a little taken aback, having left the screening with a strong sense that the movie was one of the best I’d ever seen.

As a lifelong liberal, I had always believed Margaret Thatcher to be the antithesis to everything I believed in. I had no understanding of her humanity, no appreciation of her accomplishments–until watching this movie. I was walking from the theatre into the blinding light of day and into the realization that this was a woman I should admire and honour for so many reasons I had never considered.

As such, I was shocked to hear others say they were disappointed.

Thatcher reconsidered

But that is–in a nutshell–the wonder of this movie. It presented to the audience, a totally unexpected and unrelentingly human portrayal of a woman, who has largely been regarded (at least from my limited Canadian perspective) as a one-dimensional representation of a political ideology. Thatcher, the queen of conservatism, played brilliantly by Meryl Streep, held no fascination for me prior to this movie. I realized that I had never taken the time to question or challenge my own perspective of a woman who will most certainly go down in history as a great leader, a courageous person who challenged the status quo and broke down barriers.

The fact that she may be struggling with dementia now is, to me, a secondary message. This is a natural outcome of aging. The fact that we find this uncomfortable or don’t want the filmmakers to discuss it, is an indication of ongoing refusal to acknowledge the natural aging process. It’s like saying that we shouldn’t allow the director to depict her with gray hair or wrinkles. Seriously? The fact is that more than 750,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from dementia, two thirds of those people being women. Margaret Thatcher is an exceptionally brilliant woman. That does not preclude her from developing dementia and that is a worthwhile message in and of itself.

As a storytelling technique, the use of the flashback is common and I was not at all disturbed by its use in this movie. The women I overheard earlier said they found the technique to be distracting. I would argue that it was intrinsic to the telling of Thatcher’s story. How better to illustrate the complexity of this woman than to switch back and forth from the rigid youthful Thatcher to the frail woman she is now, wistfully longing for her beloved Denis and worrying about his well-being (although she knows he is long dead)?

Can’t help but compare to Mirren

Unlike the wonderfully astute portrayal of Queen Elizabeth by Helen Mirren (who is one of my personal favourites), Streep’s Thatcher did not aspire to reflect as much as to reveal.

Known for her unflinching (some might say, dogmatic) belief in a conservative view of the world, Thatcher is shown by director Phyllida Lloyd to be vulnerable, idealistic and ultimately, a woman betrayed by her own party. Her “no compromise” philosophy is illustrated throughout. It’s not WHAT she believed in that led to her downfall, but HOW unflinchingly she believed in it. Surely, this is a recipe for disaster.

This is a film that resonates with me and perhaps with others (likely in the majority) who don’t believe in a strict partisanship. I’ve noticed that the average audience member is more favourable to the movie than the critics. I find myself disagreeing with rottentomatoes.com on critics on this one–which rarely happens.

A movie ahead of its time?

The Iron Lady surprises us with a less than “steely” depiction of the Baroness Thatcher. It also reveals her unbridled ambition, hints at some decidedly un-feminine characteristics, including close relationships with several men (other than her husband) and depicts her husband as almost completely and selflessly committed to her success–talk about a complete reversal of stereotypical roles!

One does wonder if perhaps this is a movie that is ahead of its time and if the critics are not quite ready to confront a relationship that literally turns gender stereotypes upside down. There is a scene where Thatcher pours her heart out to her fiance, Denis, revealing to him that she will never be a conventional wife and instead is possessed of a particularly awful “demon” whereby she has no desire to be simply a homemaker and a mother. If he is to marry her, she demands that he recognize and accept this quality (which of course, he does, without hesitation). That scene simply melted my heart, I must admit.

Darkness and despair

The film touches on all of the major challenges to Thatcher during her 10+ years as Prime Minister. The Falkland Islands, the IRA and subsequent assassination attempt, her clashes with the unions and her actions during the Cold War–all are at least touched upon. There are scenes of discomfort and despair (her relationship with her twins is particularly heartbreaking) and the painful isolation she experienced as the only woman in an all-male “club.” Throughout it all, she stuck to her beliefs and rarely strayed. It is left up to the audience to determine if this was the best approach.

At the end of the movie, it is perhaps symbolic that Thatcher seems to dismiss her daughter Carol’s caring attention. Despite Carol’s selfless devotion, it’s her son that Thatcher pines for. And when he telephones and explains that he cannot, in fact, make it home for a visit with her, Thatcher is so visibly devastated that it is painful to watch. A sad situation for all concerned.

Seeking approval at the end of the day

I’m not sure what to make of this latter revelation except to conclude that Thatcher continously sought the approval of men, whether it was her father, her husband or the men who sat alongside her in government. At the end of the day, it was her son’s approval that eluded her and her daughter’s sacrifices that went unrecognized.

All in all, a complex story of a woman, told by women, and likely to stimulate a lot of discussion.

Tags: "The Iron Lady", Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, Meryl Streep, movie reviews, movies, Phyllida Lloyd

University PR offices need to make peer review process clear

Most of us look to academia for a neutral, well-researched and balanced answer to questions in our everyday lives. We assume that if a paper, essay or “study” is released by a post-secondary institution, that it has been thoroughly researched, the conclusions verified and the report reviewed for accuracy.

There are varying degrees of thoroughness in this regard and not all research is created equal. Our university public relations offices need to be vigilant about making the crucial distinction between in-house review and external peer review.

Peer review ensures academic quality

Most of the professional sciences publish their findings in an external academic journal. The research must go through a rigorous process to ensure the paper’s conclusions accurately reflect the discoveries detailed in the study.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. (Source: Wikipedia)

Although not perfect and undergoing some changes with the advent of new technologies, the scholarly peer review process is considered sound and dependable.

News releases often don’t differentiate

In the social sciences at some Canadian universities, academics do release their work via their own newsletters after undergoing internal peer review. In other words, they have NOT been published in external academic journals or undergone external peer review. This would rarely happen in the field of medicine, for example. The vast majority of medical research findings are submitted to external academic journals for review before they are taken seriously.

Central university communications officers need to differentiate between internal vs. externally reviewed research studies (including those in the professional sciences, such as medicine) when they release these studies to the media/public. Similarly, the media needs to recognize this explain this difference to the public. The public doesn’t always know the difference.

Clarity is needed

Any lack of clarity on the part of the university does a disservice to all research. It creates the false impression that all news releases about research should be considered on equal footing. There should be clear distinction between a study that has been internally reviewed and a research study submitted and accepted by a prestigious publication such as the New England Journal of Medicine!

Universities need to seriously consider how they release news to the media and the public, giving clearer indication of the level of external verification.

Follow the money trail

At a time when an ever increasing amount of private funding is going into university research in Canada, we also need to look at who funded the research. This is how we can judge for ourselves what vested interest that funding source may have in seeing the study  go out via the official channels of an academic institution. It may also tell us whether we can trust the conclusions of the research.

But, as individuals we’re not off the hook either. In general, we need to be more discriminating consumers of information and start asking questions of our sources. Universities, given the funding realities, should not get a free ride when it comes to asking these questions.

Tags: Academic journal, Canada, Peer review, Research

Swing Strategies: New post on persuasion vs. promotion on Facebook

Thoughts on what makes some people successful while others struggle on Facebook. Read the post here:

http://myswingstrategies.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/facebook-persuasion-vs-promotion/

Tags: communication, politics, social-media

Spent the afternoon with my daughter yesterday — she’s always entertaining!

[View the story "Emily-isms" on Storify]

Policies are like panties and other outrageous musings on politics

Let’s face it…with the upcoming provincial election in Alberta (expected to be called soon), we’re all going to need a sense of humour. I thought I should start things off by stripping it down for first-time candidates wondering how to approach their campaigns–which policy positions to profile during the campaign and how to make that choice.

You may have heard the joke about “A Team” vs. “B Team” panties, mostly in relation to women (unfair, I know). I’m not sure who originated this phrase. I thought it was Seinfeld, but my Google searches on this subject turned up a lot of…shall we say…fairly ribald sites.

Since I don’t want to spend much more time searching Google for this term (goodness knows what will turn up if I keep going), let’s just say that the idea is thus:

The “A Team” panties are the ones that (like the TV Series of the same name) represent the best of the best, heroically presenting their wearer in their best light and triumphing over other ill-fitting and unflattering under garments.

In other words, these are the exciting, colourful and frilly underwear that you prance around in to attract attention.

The “B Team” panties are the ones that provide comfort, full coverage and sturdy construction. As one of my Facebook friends says, they are “granny and beige.”

They are the ones that last the longest, are reliable and serve a useful purpose beyond just temporary titillation.

These two types of panties are a lot like a political party’s policies. Both are essential for long term success. Are you with me?

The “A Team” policies are the ones that you put out there during an election because they are interesting, appealing and will get that all-important vote out to the ballot box in a flush of excitement.

The “B Team” policies are quietly biding their time, waiting in the wings to do the real work. They “fit” with your values and vision of the future. They are the “workhorse” policies that will get the job done. But, they rarely get the recognition or the appreciation they deserve.

The B Team policies rarely get the recognition they deserve during an election.

During an election, most of the attention is reserved for the “A Team,” mostly because there is a timeline and a deadline for a decision. During the short time frame of an election, it’s the A Team that is “hung out there” to entice voters.

Let’s be clear, neither set of policies should be in conflict with the personality of the party…both need to fit, but each serves a very different purpose.

Perhaps, one day, the “B Team” will get the recognition it deserves. It is always waiting in the wings for its moment of triumph.

Until then, the “A Team” policies are what get people off the couch and interested enough to vote. They are often visceral, passionate and straightforward.

Identifying these two classes of policies and “wearing” them at appropriate times is the secret of a successful political party or campaign. Parties and politicians need to check their underwear drawer (an election is coming!) and make sure they have their panties…er…policies ready.

Suggestion of a Canadian intervention gives me a bad feeling, eh

(Corrections made on January 10, 2012)

Add this to your “yawner list,” the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) is redefining “public relations.” Not surprisingly, a “revised timeline” was announced on December 20, 2011 due to the “overwhelming response.” The website says the intitiative will : “utilize a collaborative, industry-wide effort to develop a modern definition for the new era of public relations.”

That’s PRspeak for “we totally didn’t research this or plan very well so we need more time.”

By the way, one of the first lessons of effective writing is to never use a word like “utilize.” PR writing classes have been teaching this since the 1980′s. And who uses the word “modern” any more? I have a bad feeling about this…

Canada to the rescue!

Ever helpful and polite (we are Canadian, after all), Terence (Terry) Flynn, a faculty member at McMaster University and a past president of the Canadian Public Relations Society  suggested in a blog post in early December 2011 that the PRSA look North and “incorporate the results of a redefinition project that was initiated by the Canadian Public Relations Society in 2009.”

I’m sure this will go over about as well as the latest YouTube sensation about the Canada Party (warning: colourful language):

The definition offered up by CPRS was about as exciting and enlightening as, well, any Republican presidential candidate (sorry!):

Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communications, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.

Where do I begin to list my disappointment with this lacklustre definition presented on behalf of Canuck communicators?

• the placement of the word “strategic” is redundant given the inclusion of the phrase “realize organizational goals” (isn’t that the definition of “strategic?”)
• why is the “diverse” adjective even there, since the first rule of writing is to eliminate unnecessary words–this “frou frou” inclusion of politically correct words adds nothing to improve PR credibility (of course, they are diverse, what’s your point?)
• “through the use of communications” — no kidding, I thought this would be done “through the use of hypnosis.”
• then, there is the ubiquitous phrase “to achieve mutual understanding” which is meaningless (the organization and the public each agree that the other side is out to “screw them”–wouldn’t this be achieving mutual understanding?)
• and to top the whole thing off, there is the wonderful conclusion that the whole exercise is to  ”realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.”

Might I suggest that this definition leaves a lot to be desired? For example, what is to be done if the organizational goals are deemed to NOT be in the public interest? What then?

The difficulty with this definition is that it skirts around the major issue of public relations. It fails to recognize a conundrum that has befuddled PR folks for decades–is the role of PR that of advocate or mediator? This the question that has divided the profession for two decades or longer.

Leave the advocacy to the lawyers and advertisers

I have always believed the profession to be more of mediation than advocacy. There are other professions that offer advocacy. Public relations can add value by helping the organization and its stakeholders understand each other and “achieve mutual goals.” Besides, with the proliferation of social media it is no longer possible, nor is it useful to “shout down” opposition with messaging advocating for one position over another (Prime Minister Harper, please take note). The voices are simply getting louder and more powerful. A shouting match benefits no one.

I look forward to hearing what PRSA comes up with this month. Let’s hope it recognizes reality and finally puts a longstanding dispute to rest. What are the chances?

Tags: Definition, PRSA, public relations, Public Relations Society of America

Of warlords, bananas and Canada’s battered reputation

As news broke this week that Alberta’s chief electoral officer is investigating 10 Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta (PCAA) constituency associations over alleged illegal donations, Albertans need to give their heads a collective shake and demand this be thoroughly investigated and if warranted, charges be laid.

The province’s opposition parties are not going to let the story disappear without a fight. (I will say that, for some reason, bringing Tory scandals to light in Alberta is an unbelievably tough uphill battle.)

The Alberta Liberal Party released a harshly worded presser yesterday. Newly elected party president, Todd Van Vliet came out swinging.

Referring to the long-governing Tory party he said, “their politicians swagger around their ridings like warlords, demanding fealty from their subjects.”

The Wildrose Party also called for the list of constituency associations to be released.

“This Premier promised transparency, she should demonstrate it now,” said MLA Paul Hinman. “These guys have conducted themselves as though they were above the law for years.”

Canada’s international reputation is currently in tatters. The government has resorted to engaging in ridiculous propaganda wars on a low level not seen before (boycott Chiquita bananas??!! Really!!??). And, I dare say, a lot of the criticism is due to the Alberta government’s reputation as a corrupt regime. Another scandal is the last thing that the government (both federally by association and provincially) needs.

I sincerely hope that Premier Redford acts swiftly and ruthlessly to quash any illegal and/or unethical practices. Let the proper authorities investigate and deal with the offenders harshly.

Canada can not afford to let any hint of impropriety go unpunished when we are under such unflinching international scrutiny. It’s clear the propaganda is a joke and is not proving effective. The time is now to take decisive and definitive action.

Tags: "Alison Redford", "Elections Alberta", Alberta, alberta liberal party, Alberta Liberals, Canada, corruption, Paul Hinman, Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, Tory, Wildrose, Wildrose Party of Alberta

Swing Strategies: New post on Facebook privacy settings

There are many misunderstandings and downright deceptive posts on Facebook on how to protect your privacy with the roll-out of the new timeline. Let’s not forget some of the basics about Facebook. When you receive instructions that don’t jive with the basics, proceed with caution. Read the post here:

http://myswingstrategies.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/be-careful-out-there-facebook-is-confusing/

Tags: Facebook, privacy, social media, timeline

Swing Strategies: New post on Facebook and politics

Finicky followers, the Mormon factor, YouTubing  yourself into oblivion and the sisterhood. I’ve covered it all in this analysis of what happened in Iowa (thanks to data collected and shared by Sociagility). Read the post here:

http://myswingstrategies.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/facebook-gaining-strength-as-a-political-tool/

Tags: communication, politics, social-media