Since the introduction of the motion picture in the 19 th Century, civilisation has had the capability to visualise real and fictitious events on a mass scale. When journalistic reportage began to translate onto the big screen, we were presented with the possibility of broadcasting and documenting real life events that could catch the public eye and resonate for years after the events occurrence. Recently, this technological phenomenon has been heavily scrutinised for exploiting historically true examples of brutality and tragedy. It was recently announced that the documentary entitled, Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, has been nominated for an Oscar. Causing uproar with the families involved in the tragedy, it forces us to question: does cinema glorify awful historical moments of extreme inhumane activity, or does it lend itself to simply highlight important elements of societies past for each of us to learn from? The documentary itself, split into a trilogy, depicts the story of the murder of the three minors Stevie Edward Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore in Robin Hood Hills, Memphis, in 1993. At the time, the offence was assumed to be the result of a Satanic Ritual carried out by three teenage boys who had previous convictions for minor criminal acts and each having such ow IQ scores that they were deemed capable of such brutality. The three cub-scouts were found hogtied naked in a creek, having suffered multiples injuries such as knife wounds and suspected rape and castration. This crime hit the headlines not only for the horrific details of the murder, but also for the controversy behind the conviction of those imprisoned for it. Many have, in the past, campaigned for the release of Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin claiming that the evidence was inconclusive and the police department that dealt with it was corrupt. The three men were released last August after pleading guilty in return for freedom for the length of time they had already served. Breakthroughs in evidence are always emerging and many now suspect one of the boys’ stepfathers to be guilty. But without delving too deeply into the horrors that the trial of 1993 unearthed, one must return to the original question that was posed. In the past, films and documentaries have depicted some of the most horrific and shameful moments of human existence. Take for example Schindler's List’s retelling of the holocaust from the Second World War or World Trade centre, which portrays the disaster of 9/11. The media repeatedly offers us the opportunity to discover the details and consequences of humanities brutality upon its own race. These two films were successful in the box office and their sensitive portrayal of the specific events wasn’t so heavily criticised. So why is this documentary any different? Can it be granted exemption from the prying eyes of the public, or must it go under scrutiny just like the rest of history? Brutal and tragic events must be reopened for people to examine them. It is understandable that the individual families are infuriated by the deaths of their sons being plastered on the silver screen; it is easy to believe that the story of their death is being exploited for financial gain. But the documentary along with the many other cinematic masterpieces serves a beneficial purpose. If the legacy of these children was lost forever, nothing would have been learnt. For this act of cruelty to be forgotten, in some sense, deems it acceptable; it just becomes another every day occurrence that no one publicly asserts as completely intolerable. Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, as a specific example, allows today’s society to understand the corruption of the judicial system in America in the late 20 th century and appreciate the more transparent system that is operated nowadays. It warns us of the cruelty of humanity and the frailty of life and most of all, it highlights the undeserved suffering felt. The families have every right to be outraged by the documentary. But just like Schindler's List, (albeit the difference in the scale of murder) the cinematic footage wasn’t created to glamorise what had happened but rather to artistically create a realm in which those victims involved will always remain and never be forgotten. For that very reason, directors should have artistic license to create films and documentaries because when done tastefully, cinema has the capability of unveiling events so we can learn from them, rather than exploit them to make money. THE SPHINX 10 Ashley Manning Purgatory of the media’s artistic license March 8th was International Women’s Day (IWD), an annual event which has been attempting to draw attention to the importance of women’s rights for over a century. In the run up to the 8th, there has been a significant increase in the number of features focusing on women’s rights, both online and in newspapers and magazines. In Liverpool the _______ Soc held a number of events, including a film screening, women’s self-defence course and releasing balloons in Abercrombie Square, focusing on this year’s theme of ‘CONNECTING GIRLS, INSPIRING FUTURES’. In looking forward to the future, we should first look back. When the first IWD was held in 1911, women were regarded by society and by law as second class citizens, mainly dependent on husbands and fathers, with few legal rights. Now we have the legal right to vote, to be paid the same as our male peers, to say no to sex with anyone, even our husbands, to take control of our bodies and choose when/if we want children; we can choose to pursue a career, have a child without marrying the father, make decisions about our lives, without being totally ostracised from normal society. The perseverance and determination of many women and men, and the suffering of a few, spanning three centuries, has brought us so far. But we have a long way to go, and sometimes it feels like we have slid backwards. Women fought and died to highlight and remove the inequalities in society, but where once our mothers and grandmothers proudly called themselves feminists (even when others called them a lot of other things!), ‘feminism’ is treated as a dirty word in the media, which associates it with bra-burning hippies with bad hair and hairy legs. And it really shouldn’t be. In one of my first lectures on critical reading my lecturer asked who considered themselves a feminist. Only a handful put up their hands. Then she asked who believed that men and women should have equal rights. I couldn’t see a single hand down. But the truth is these ideas are one and the same. In recent years “SlutWalks” have sought to ‘reclaim’ traditionally female-oriented derogatory words (which have been praised and condemned by the women’s rights community); personally I think we need to reclaim the F-word. I have heard some people state that there is no need to be a feminist now - that the battle was won and women and men are now viewed as equals. How I wish this were true. The Equality Act (2010) means that women and men doing the same job should be paid the same wages, but despite the Office of National Statistics saying that in 2011 the gender pay gap was at its lowest ever level, the fact remains that it still exists and women earn 19.5% less than men. It is sad to think that over 40 years after the sewing machinists’ strike (that inspired the film Made in Dagenham) led to the Equal Pay Act of 1970 , women are still paid less for doing the same job. The Davies Report of 2011 noted that “companies with more women on their boards were found to outperform their rivals with a 42% higher return in sales, 66% higher return on invested capital and 53% higher return on equity”. Those are incredible differences which show that diversity in the top jobs could have a massive impact on enterprise, which could greatly help the economy. Yet women are still in the minority on most boards of directors, with only 7.8% of female directors in FTSE 250 companies. In Parliament there are 504 male and 145 female MPs - that three and a half times more men than women. In the Cabinet, the figures get even worse - out of 23 cabinet posts only 5 are held by women. For a group that makes up roughly 50% of the population, women are woefully under-represented in the halls of power. So why the discrepancy? Why does the glass ceiling still seem to be in place? In order to provide both our own, and the next generation of women with brighter futures, we need to end the discrimination that still seems to be endemic within our society. We need to work towards a future where men and women are equal in the board room, where everyone is paid the same for doing the same job, where women are not made to feel like evil power-hungry harpies when they speak up and demand equal rights. The F word: Why women still need to fight for equality Georgina Rose “We still need to end the discrimination which seems to be endemic in our society” “Each man plead guilty in return for his freedom” “These victims will never be forgotten”
THE SPHINX
Mar 14, 2016
Ashley Manning Georgina Rose have been praised and condemned by the women’s rights community); personally I think we need to reclaim the F-word. I have heard some people state that there is no need to be a feminist now - that the battle was won and women and men are now viewed as equals. How I But without delving too deeply into the horrors that the trial of 1993 unearthed, one must return to the original question that was posed.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Since the introduction of the motion p i c t u r e i n t h e 1 9 t h C e n t u r y, civilisation has had the capability to visualise real and fictitious events on a mass scale. When journalistic reportage began to translate onto the big screen, we were presented with the possibility of broadcasting and documenting real life events that could catch the public eye and resonate for years after the events occurrence.R e c e n t l y, t h i s t e c h n o l o g i c a l phenomenon has been heavily scrutinised for exploiting historically true examples of brutality and tragedy. It was recently announced that the documentary entitled, Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, has been nominated for an Oscar. Causing uproar with the families involved in the tragedy, it forces us to question: does cinema glorify awful historical moments of extreme inhumane activity, or does it lend itself to simply highlight important elements of societies past for each of us to learn from?The documentary itself, split into a trilogy, depicts the story of the murder of the three minors Stevie Edward Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore in Robin Hood Hills, Memphis, in 1993. At the time, the offence was assumed to be the result of a Satanic Ritual carried out by three teenage boys who had previous convictions for minor criminal acts and each having such ow IQ scores that they were deemed capable of such brutality. The three cub-scouts were found hogtied naked in a creek, having suffered multiplesinjuries such as knife wounds and suspected rape and castration. This
crime hit the headlines not only for the horrific details of the murder, but also for the controversy behind the conviction of those imprisoned for it. Many have, in the past, campaigned for the release of Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley Jr. and Jason Baldwin claiming that the evidence was inconclusive and the police department that dealt with it was corrupt. The three men were released last August after pleading guilty in return for freedom for the length of time they had already served. Breakthroughs in evidence are alwaysemerging and many now suspect one of the boys’ stepfathers to be guilty.
But without delving too deeply into the horrors that the trial of 1993 unearthed, one must return to the original question that was posed.
In the past, films and documentarieshave depicted some of the most horrific and shameful moments of human existence. Take for example Schindler's List’s retelling of the holocaust from the Second World
War or World Trade centre, which portrays the disaster of 9/11. The media repeatedly offers us the opportunity to discover the details and consequences of humanities brutality upon its own race. These two films were successful in the box office and their sensitive portrayal of the specific events wasn’t so heavily criticised. So why is this documentary any different? Can it be granted exemption from the prying eyes of the public, or must it go under scrutiny just like the rest of history? Brutal and tragic events must be reopened for people to examine them. It is understandable that the individual
families are infuriated by the deaths of their sons being plastered on the silver screen; it is easy to believe that the story of their death is being exploited for financial gain. But the documentary along with the many other cinematic masterpieces serves a beneficial purpose. If the legacy of these children was lost forever, nothing would have been learnt. For this act of cruelty to be forgotten, in some sense, deems it acceptable; it just becomes another every day occurrence that no one publicly asserts as completely intolerable.
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory, as a specific example, allows today’s society to understand the corruption of the judicial system in America in the late 20th century and appreciate the more transparent system that is operated nowadays. It warns us of the cruelty of humanity and the frailty of life and most of all, it highlights the undeserved suffering felt. The families have every right to be outraged by the documentary. But just like Schindler's List, (albeit the difference in the scale of murder) the cinematic footage wasn’t created to glamorise what had happened but rather to artistically create a realm in which those victims involved will always remain and never be forgotten. For that very reason, directors should have artistic license to create films and documentaries because when done tastefully, cinema has the capability of unveiling events so we can learn from them, rather than exploit them to make money.
THE SPHINX 10
Ashley Manning Purgatory of the media’s artistic license
March 8th was International Women’s Day (IWD), an annual event which has been attempting to draw attention to the importance of women’s rights for over a century. In the run up to the 8th, there has been a significant increase in the number of features focusing on women’s rights, both online and in newspapers and magazines. In Liverpool the _______ Soc held a number of events, including a film screening, women’s self-defence course and releasing balloons in Abercrombie Square, focusing on this year’s theme of ‘ C O N N E C T I N G G I R L S , INSPIRING FUTURES’.In looking forward to the future, we should first look back. When the first IWD was held in 1911, women were regarded by society and by law as second class ci t izens, mainly dependent on husbands and fathers, with few legal rights. Now we have the legal right to vote, to be paid the same as our male peers, to say no to sex with anyone, even our husbands, to take control of our bodies and choose when/if we want children; we can choose to pursue a career, have a child without marrying the father, make decisions about our lives, without being totally ostracised from normal society. The perseverance and determination of many women and men, and the suffering of a few, spanning three centuries, has brought
us so far. But we have a long way to go, and sometimes it feels like we have slid backwards. Women fought and died to highlight and remove the inequalities in society, but where once our mothers and grandmothers p r o u d l y c a l l e d t h e m s e l v e s feminists (even w h e n o t h e r s called them a lot of o t h e r t h i n g s ! ) , ‘ f e m i n i s m ’ i s treated as a dirty word in the media, which associates it w i t h b r a - b u r n i n g hippies with bad hair and hairy legs. And it really shouldn’t be. In one of my first lectures on critical reading my lecturer asked who considered themselves a feminist. Only a handful put up t h e i r h a n d s . Then she asked who believed that m e n a n d w o m e n should have equal rights. I couldn’t see a single hand down. But the truth is these ideas are one and the same. In recent years “SlutWalks” have sought to ‘reclaim’ traditionally female-oriented derogatory words (which
have been praised and condemned by the women’s rights community); personally I think we need to reclaim
the F-word.I have heard some people state that there is no need to be a
feminist now - that the battle was won and women and
men are now viewed as equals. How I
wish this were true. The Equality Act (2010) means that women and men doing the same job should be paid the same wages, but despite the Office of National Statistics saying that in 2011 the gender pay gap was at its lowest ever level, the fact remains that it still exists and women earn 19.5% less than men. It is sad to think that over 40 years after the sewing machinists’ strike (that inspired the film Made in Dagenham) led to the Equal Pay Act of 1970 , women are still paid less for doing the same job.The Davies Report of 2011 noted that
“companies with more women on their boards were found to
outperform their rivals with a 42% higher return in sales, 66%
higher return on invested capital and 53% higher return
on equity”. Those are incredible differences
which show that diversity in the top jobs could have a massive impact on enterprise, which could greatly help the economy. Yet women a r e s t i l l i n t h e
minority on most b o a r d s o f
directors, with only 7.8% of f e m a l e directors in FTSE 250
companies . In Parliament
there are 504 male and 145 female MPs - that three and a half times more men than women. In the Cabinet, the figures get even worse - out of 23 cabinet posts only 5 are held by women. For a group that makes up roughly 50% of the population, women are woefully under-represented in the halls of power. So why the discrepancy? Why does the glass ceiling still seem to be in place?
In order to provide both our own, and the next generation of women with brighter futures, we need to end the discrimination that still seems to be endemic within our society. We need to work towards a future where men and women are equal in the board room, where everyone is paid the same for doing the same job, where women are not made to feel like evil power-hungry harpies when they speak up and demand equal rights.
The F word: Why women still need to fight for equalityGeorgina Rose
“We still need to end the
discrimination which seems to be endemic in our society”
“Each man plead guilty in return for
his freedom”
“These victims will never be forgotten”
Related Documents
