Entertainment

A Princeton professor, Professor Edward Felten, is suing the Secure Digital Music Initiative group for blocking his publication of research on cracking the security of digital music

I was reading through the Sunday papers on the weekend, when I came across the ‘Letters to the Editor’ section and discovered a letter from Sarah Michelle Gellar. She was recently in Australia filming Scooby Doo — a dog of a film concept if ever I heard one — and had trouble with some elements of the media during her stay in this country.

Her letter was in response to comments made the week before by the paper’s gossip columnist, Ros Reines, stating that the media had the right to invade Miss Gellar’s privacy at will. But do they? Or should they?

In the eyes of Ros Reines, the paparazzi are hard-working individuals, eking out an existence by seeking out elusive pictures of celebrities at play. These photographers, and the media that run their images, are the true creators of celebrity — they make the stars. And, conversely, if an actor has the temerity to question the ethics of tabloid journalists, they can break them as well.

Incidentally, Ros Reines’ rebuttal to Sarah Michelle Gellar’s letter was pathetic. She showed all the dignity of a small child who had been reprimanded by an elder. Fawning darlings and childish tantrums do little to bolster a meagre journalistic talent.
Australia’s tabloid press, and their mainstream counterparts for that matter, have a history for being very liberal with the truth — seeming to subscribe to the principle of never let the facts get in the way of a good story. I’m sure the only reason most of the women’s magazines in this country are still in existence is due to the people they libel rarely ever getting wind of the articles written about them.

The exception to this is Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise, who have a reputation of suing publications for misrepresentative reporting. The Australian media have been amazingly well-behaved towards both actors.

An interesting example of the media’s ability to makeup a story based on nothing more than an image, was the reaction of two different tabloids to a surreptitious photograph of Callista Flockhart holding a baby around the end of last year. One rag ran the story of a secret pregnancy (ignoring the fact that this is a stick-thin woman who’d blow away in a strong wind) and the other went with the adoption angle. Interestingly enough, both magazines are from the same stable.

Sarah Michelle Gellar has a different take on the situation. She was working in a foreign country and on top of that was newly engaged to her co-star, Freddie Prinze Jr. Her movements on location were dogged by photographers, who were continually scanning the production unit’s radio band for details. Her address in Brisbane was publicly announced by a local radio station, forcing her to relocate. And unfounded rumours about her behaviour onset and towards uninvited photographers were printed in a national publication.

So who has the right end of the stick? Personally, I have to lean in favour of Sarah Michelle Gellar. I know that I would find the publication of personal information inconvenient to say the least, and I would be less than enthused to discover camera-laden stalkers in the shrubbery.

Nobody has a right to invade your privacy. The media and the public do not have a right to know what you’re having for breakfast. What if tabloid journalists suddenly decided that electricians were the new celebrities and started stalking them — a little far-fetched, but it does make you wonder at the temerity of these people.

One way to stop this monster is to stop buying the trash masquerading as journalism that lurks at the checkout of your local supermarket. It will rot your brain anyway.

I don’t know how many of you know (or care) about a recent rating turnabout on the Australian release of Hannibal.

The film was initially released with an MA 15+ rating, which allows children under 15 into cinemas if accompanied by an adult. That was until a review board, independent of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, decided that it should now be rated R 18+ and carry consumer advice that it contains high impact violence.

I’m not arguing whether the rating was right or wrong. I’m also not going into the argument that this change of rating will not stop teenagers seeing the film due to cinemas not performing age checks, in fact, if anything it will just encourage them to see what they’re missing out on. I am, however, disturbed by the way in which the review was brought about.

Daryl Williams, the Federal Attorney-General, ordered the review after a request from the Queensland Censorship Minister, Judy Spence.

Big deal, you say. A justified comment. That is until you realise that Miss Spence’s request was prompted by reviews she read about the film and not by her seeing the film for herself.
This is abhorrent. By the same token, The Wizard of Oz should be banned because scene of the witch being melted gave my friend nightmares when she was a kid. More worrying is that it also opens up the doors for every crank moral moronity advocate to demand film ratings to be reviewed on a whim.

The whole idiotic campaign has done nothing more than provide more publicity for Hannibal and give some pissant little politician a higher profile with the more conservative voters. It is a cheap and tacky way of getting your name in the papers.
It is also similar to the controversy surrounding the release of Silence of the Lambs. I had the misfortunate to be trapped in a vehicle and forced to listen to the dross that is Sydney talkback radio when the film premiered.

Alan Jones (proof that life is possible even if you don’t have a brain) was lambasting the film with his usual vitriol, manicly citing the many gory scenes that would warp the minds of our youth and lead to a spate of copycat killings. I was wondering about this particular tack, as Silence of the Lambs is a psychological film where most of the violence is left to the viewers imagination. This went on for quite some time, with the usual mindless call-ins all happily agreeing with Saint Alan like the worshipful minions they are, when somebody had the nerve to ask if Alan Jones had actually seen the film — his answer, of course, was no. Not only had he not seen it, but he would never see it, ever, ever, ever. And if you say that he did, well he’ll just hold his breathe until he turns blue. Well, it was a tantrum, even if it was slightly less childish.

This is the sort of small-minded attitude I can live without. How do you know if a film is good or bad based on a handful of reviews? If Alan Jones and Judy Spence selected films based on my opinions, they’d be watching Hudson Hawk and staying away from Gone With The Wind. You can get an indication of what reviewers thought of a film, but you won’t know if you agree or disagree with that opinion unless you get off your arse and see it.

If nothing else, I can hope that actions like this encourage people to break out of a conservative mindset that happily accepts spoon-fed party rhetoric and into a world where they can make up their own mind about issues — just like the responsible adults they are meant to be.

Incidentally the article about the rating furore was carried by the Sydney Morning Herald under the delightfully emotive banner of; ‘Children lose right to see Hannibal’. Get a clue guys.