Monday 12 August 2013

As Bad As It Looks? - Cyberbully (A Review)




Though my rage and alcohol-fuelled review of Keith Lemon: The Movie seemed to me, in retrospect, to be a rambling mess, it managed to generate quite a few views. That may have been down to sympathetic members of forums clicking on the article following a less-than-dignified plug, but Blogger informs me that at least one view came from the search terms "big cock", so there's a lesson in marketing for you kids.

Nevertheless, it somehow worked and with Netflix offering up a wide range of tripe to be viewed, it seemed unfair for me not to utilise the service and make the gamut of terrible films into something productive. With that, I decided to start a new series of reviews named "As Bad As It Looks?". The idea is that I will be watching films that seem like the sort of thing I would never in a million years find tolerable. I'm hoping that eventually I'll find one that I actually like, but sadly this was not the case with today's choice: Cyberbully.

Cyberbullying is a hot topic at the moment, with BBC News reporting yesterday that one in five children are subject to bullying online. To make a film surrounding the issue would take some clever story-work, some delicate touches, believable character and a clear well-executed message. This film had none of those.

Our story revolves around a high-school girl named Taylor, who finally gets her own laptop that she can use away from her over-protective mother. She signs up to a social networking site named Cliquester, and her brother gets onto her laptop and posts a ridiculous status (Frape? Crape? I dunno what you'd call it). This incomprehensibly starts a wave of vicious comments being posted on her page by classmates.

The film follows a fairly routine format in this regard. Taylor reads nasty comments, then cries whilst sad music plays, then one of her friends ditches her. The bullies themselves are actually incredibly funny in this film, as they are completely over-the-top and seem to go above and beyond to taunt their victim. They even produce a miniature film, with masks and costumes and everything, just to make fun of Taylor. I don't care what you say, they deserve some kudos for their commitment.

As well as comments from these remarkably one-dimensional villains, we have a mysterious boy called James initially posting to show support for Taylor. When he inexplicably changes his tune to claim that Taylor gave him an STD, it becomes apparent that the account was a fake. This is all too much for Taylor, who posts a farewell video before attempting suicide.

Now in fairness, the actual moment where Taylor tries to commit suicide is actually pretty well done. Her friend Samantha rushes to her house and frantically calls Taylor's mother. The ambulance arrives, they dart around the house looking for her. I think maybe the sudden moment of drama just made a nice change to the moping around and reading things online that was pretty much the entire first half of the film. When they finally find her, she's trying to open a bottle of pills while screaming "I CAN'T GET IT OPEN". This goes down as the funniest suicide attempt in film history. Samantha restrains her, and Taylor breaks down in tears.

For some reason, in the next scene she's in a hospital, being sedated and attached to a heart-monitor (they make it clear she didn't take anything, so as far as precautions go this is like wearing a helmet to put shoes on). Then the film becomes about a cause, but I think they had trouble working out what it was. First, the Mother seems determined to find out who James was even though the other bullies were far nastier and more persistent than 'James'. She even confronts Lindsay, the ringleader of the bullies, but pays no interest while she tries to find out who was responsible for the fake profile
.
Notice how contrived this is all sounding? Well the reason the story puts so much stock in finding out who was behind the James profile is because it was actually Taylor's best friend Samantha. This is completely bizarre and I was baffled as to why they felt the character should do such a thing. They eventually reveal it was because of jealousy as a boy asked her out to the dance, yet despite my theory that 99% of high-school girls are psychotic, I simply cannot fathom why this would happen. Taylor finds out and the two aren't friends anymore.

Anyway, the Mother's cause in the film becomes apparent when she chases ways for the cyberbullying to be prevented. First, she goes to the principal, who basically says he can't do anything about what happens online and claims that he has no legal right to punish children over what they do on the internet. Either this is the most spineless principal in the world, or the writer's chose another cop-out route.

So the Mother goes to her local senator, who says that he sees no reason for a law against cyberbullying. Finally, the Mother decides that talking to a journalist and pressuring the senator into a law change is her only option. This is when the film's message finally became apparent: "THERE SHOULD BE A LAW AGAINST THIS". As far as moral crusades go, putting forward the idea that constant harassment should be illegal is rather easy.

The journalist says he will do a story with Taylor, but only if Samantha is interviewed with her as well. Why a journalist would take the angle of "Let's hear two high school girls talk about their bitchy catfight" as opposed to "An isolated young girl who tried to take her own life", I don't know, but it allows the film come to a conclusion so let's not have a go at it. The two patch up their differences, and the story is so influential that the senator completely changes his mind in an instant and draws up a new law against cyberbullying.

The final scene is vomit-inducing. Taylor finally returns to school following her suicide attempt, and suffers another biting comment from Lindsay and the bullies. She decides not to let it go this time, and calmly starts to tell Lindsay how her words hurt. Just a few seconds into this quiet speech, kids from all over the cafeteria start to turn around and say "Hey look over there!". Then Taylor's friends begin to chime in saying that Lindsay is full of hate, and a couple of other bullied kids also add their thoughts. Lindsay is mildly bemused and leaves the cafeteria, leaving the viewer to wonder if that really was supposed to be the pay-off. The film ends with shots of kids using their phones to inform friends of the incredible smackdown Taylor just handed Lindsay, with one response being "Wow! So it's safe to go online again?"

So what's wrong with Cyberbully? It's by no means the worst film ever, but it doesn't present a realistic outlook on the problem of cyberbullying in the first place, and I think that is where the whole concept collapses. Cyberbullying isn't something that begins with a 'frape', or is a result of a Mother's intrusion being withdrawn. It's an extension of real-life bullying, and the worst of it can be the anonymous comments that endlessly follow a victim around.

Taylor makes no attempt to end the cyberbullying. It is quickly established that Cliquester uses a friend request system, and yet she accepts everyone who bullies her as a friend. At no point does she try to unfriend people, nor does she ever block anyone (one scene in a support group shows the therapy douche suggesting that they block a bully, and Taylor remarks "I never knew you could do that!"). The worst cyberbullying is that which a victim cannot get away from, and yet Taylor could have easily gotten away from this.

As well as this, the characters themselves are very bland and almost indistinguishable from one another. It seemed that the makers wanted a safe drama about typical teenage girls going through this "cyberbullying" thing they had heard all about, and put little effort into making it interesting or realistic. There are some scenes that work to create some drama, such as the suicide scene, but otherwise this is just a dull watch. 

My main problem though, is that this film pretends it has a message; that it's saying something profound about cyberbullying. What it's really doing is pointing at it. The solution to Taylor's problem was for her to stay off of school for a while and then tell Lindsay she's a big meanie. I don't think that's a message that any young people suffering the same problems will be able to use with any great effect.

*   *   *   *   *

My final rating for this film: 4/10. That puts it above Keith Lemon: The Movie in the ABAIL chart, which will hopefully become a catalogue of the worst-looking films available to watch.

ABAIT Chart:

1. Cyberbully - 4/10
2. Keith Lemon: The Movie - 1/10

Sunday 11 August 2013

Qat-are You Serious, FIFA?



Upon the announcement that the 2018 and 2022 World Cups would be hosted in Russia and Qatar respectively, I wrote a piece for the University newspaper defending the decision to award Russia the 2018 tournament, but displaying some confusion at the choice of Qatar for 2022. Though in the interests of writing brash and sensational articles for the University I put the decision down to money, at the time I concluded internally that such a feeling could only be a result of the anger we were all feeling that England's realistic bid for 2018 had been rejected at the first round of voting.

There was definitely a cause for concern when the choices were made. With Qatar especially, it became very difficult to rationalise how they had bluffed their way into hosting a World Cup. The national team have no presence in the world of football and construction had started on almost none of the proposed stadiums to be used for the tournament in their bid. With nations such as the USA and Australia (had they been chosen, the World Cup would have had the distinction of being held in every continent) pitted against them for the 2022 event, it simply became a question of 'why?', and the idea of money was not a stranger to many lips.

Though the thought was tempting, in truth I considered Russia to be a huge footballing nation that, by now, really should have hosted a World Cup. Though Qatar was a more difficult choice to justify, I also considered that this was the sort of region football owed a visit. Given how Formula One spends a lot of time in places like Abu Dhabi and Bahrain despite these countries having no real pedigree for the sport, it seemed that perhaps FIFA's decision came from a similar ambition to place the prestige of the World Cup in this region, and to give the unique tournament another unique location in which historic moments could take place.
 
Boy, was that a stretch.

It only took a short while for issues to be raised that made Qatar out to be a massively unsuitable location for a World Cup. The first was the problem of homosexuality, which is outlawed in Qatar. It is debatable as to whether the FIFA executives were aware of this, or whether they were ignorant enough not to see it as a problem, but with football still struggling to get to grips with the idea of  homosexuality in the sport this was a bad time to take the most prestigious event in the sport to a country with such a discriminatory attitude. Though David Cameron recently showed the sort of poise natural to a politician by dancing around the issue in relation to the Winter Olympics in Russia (we can let FIFA off with the World Cup in Russia, as the laws were not in place when they were awarded the tournament to them), Blatter clumsily clattered into the problem by commenting that gay people should "refrain from sexual activity" when attending the event.

Then came the revelation that it's quite hot in Qatar, and this has put many footballing organisations into a troublesome bind. With temperatures of up to 50°c commonplace during Qatari summers, it quickly became apparent that playing football in such weather was a terrible idea. Just as Blatter scrambled to pretend that the homosexuality issue had indeed been considered by FIFA and there was a simple answer to it, he repeated the same trick with this more practical problem by suggesting that the World Cup would be held in winter.

Naturally, many football fans weren't too impressed by the idea of overturning the whole calender of football for a season in order to accommodate for FIFA's idiotic whims, but Blatter pressed on with the idea in the face of opposition. FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce's comments today suggesting that the Premier League should just get on with it are frustrating enough, but one part of the article on BBC Sport confirmed the very worst of my fears. To quote the piece:

"[Boyce] also acknowledged that, before it voted in 2010 to award the event to Qatar, Fifa did not fully consider the implications of playing there during the summer, when temperatures can reach 50C."

I can't profess to knowing the ins and outs of how FIFA's decision making process works for the hosting of the World Cup, but if the first question is not "Can you play football there?", then something is seriously, seriously wrong.

It is impossible to put up a front and say that there is any alternative. FIFA executives, when making the decision to award the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, clearly did not take into account footballing pedigree, spreading the tournament across the world, existing infrastructure, the political situation of the country in question, or even whether it is feasible that football can take place there. I used to believe that my conclusion three years ago, that money was the root of the decision, was a cheap way to push the reader into a reaction. Now is the grim realisation that I had actually hit the nail squarely on the head.

Despite the strong opposition from the Premier League, it is difficult to envisage a way in which a winter World Cup does not take place. Playing in such heat would not only be difficult for players, it would be outright dangerous, so that possibility is out. FIFA won't reverse their decision either, as I'd imagine it would allow Qatar to take legal action against the organisation, and that would mean money coming out of executive pockets, so this is not going to happen either. The only conclusion now is for the tradition and legacy of the World Cup, and an entire domestic season, to be ruined by pigs in need of a bigger trough.