Black Swan

If I were attempting to review this as a film critic, I'd probably go for something like  'psychadelic nightmarish mish-mash of reality and fiction'. Unfortunatley most of the time it is impossible to tell whether or not what is happening is actually happening or whether it's all schizophrenia or something equally nauseating.
Aronofsky's most confusing decision here was the attempt to not be too blatant with the storyline, despite narrating the entire thing at the begining. As a result it is impossible to tell which charcter is which for at least half of the film. This isn't helped by the fact that all the girls seem to look exactly the same most of the time.


The highlight is definatley Natalie Portman's performance. I know she got a hard time from critics because of Aronofsky's choice to cast an actor rather than a dancer, but then I guess he didn't want to make a film about a dance company. And Portman is excellent anyway.

Berliner

Berlin is a city still so terrified of embracing its own history that they don't seem to know whether to build museums or run around throwing grenades at the numerous spots Hitler had his get-togethers. Its hard to tell whether the trauma of the Berlin wall still lingers after 20 years. It seems to me that the majority of Berliners couldn't give a shit. They certainly seem less bothered by this than the notion that Hitler once used most of the building they live in. In fact, only last year Berliners apparently voted to have Hitler's massive bunker filled in with concrete - a sure indication that despite being utterly broke the last thing they want is to become a tourist destination for GCSE History students or army nerds. Or perhaps inspired dictators.

The strangest thing of all is that this inability to make a decision over the importance of their role in history has led the government to build a fence around the existing wall; This has to be the most ridiculous and ironic decision I have ever witnessed. Now the last remaining piece of wall stands as a testament to the continuing authority of the government, constantly surrounded by groups of tourist who can marvel about its 3 layer concrete/steel rod composition and sheer height. What a spectacle.

Do Adbusters actually bust ads?

Don't get me wrong, I've being buying Adbusters for a while now (admittedly not really because of any anti-consumerist sentiment but because I think it's pretty well designed), and I do fully admire their enthusiasm and totally straightforward mentality. But I do always wonder, when flicking through pages of instructions on the next step to bringing down the corporation who (let's be honest) made a lot of the shoes or clothes you own, whether any of their readers do actually respond or whether, like me, they just find the whole publication rather entertaining. Obviously the readers' letters suggest the former, but most of these make me wonder if such enthusiastic people are are fictional... or if they're actually tiptoeing the fine lines of sanity.
This wouldn't stop me from buying it, I'm not an avid political activist (at the moment) but I do feel it's always a good idea to keep an open mind. I just find Adbusters' SIGN HERE AND GATHER YOUR WEAPONS approach a little off-putting for a person merely interested in their activities.
Lastly, I find it incredibly ironic that for a magazine which staunchly supports its own beliefs (to the point where most recently I found myself being told to prepare for WWIV), that the publication itself costs the anti-capitalist anti-consumerist consumer a distressing £5 a go.

Don't you love it when it's carnival, and you can finally go outside dressed like a genie without attracting more attention than scantily clad 8 year-olds shaking their booty to some dirty reggae.

Facebook's Showing Off

As a result of another new Facebook service, my fellow Facebook users with fancy phones have really begun to piss me off through the use of the interface simply as a means of showing off.
Facebook places, which basically allows you to geo-tag yourself somewhere benign using fancy location services, arrived in August but now people have actually started taking it seriously. As interesting as this may sound one may never see updates such as Emi Dixon is in Leeds Sexual Health Clinic, because the service won't allow that. Instead we have to suffer updates every time some nobody enters a Starbucks or some similarly boring establishment.

Once again privacy campaigners and other people who don't actually understand the internet or social networking may freak out about the possibility of the service locating and tracking your every move whilst publishing it to all of your 400 friends. Just like the rest of Facebook, the service only publishes information which you write, you probably gave away more information when you filled out the form for your Tesco clubcard. Not to mention that nobody is remotely interested anyway so the chances of us trying to steal your identity as you make repeated visits to the local coffee shop are quite low.

The prime use of this service, as far as I can tell, is to brag about ones whereabouts - predominantly when at gigs, clubs and bars. So far I haven't noticed anybody make a visit to their local Burger King. Rather odd though is Facebook's suggestion that the service will also allow 'connection with friends nearby', as if reading that someone you know is sat only two blocks away enjoying a pint will make you dash over there and hassle them - yet another reason not to bother putting where you are, lest those creepy Facebook stalkers may actually hunt you down and force you to converse (there's no opportunity to flee and later claim you 'left chat on' when they're sat before you).

It seems the more Facebook try to improve the utility the less like social reality it becomes, until we begin to publish our every thought, experience, conversation and now movement to an army of people made up of everyone we went to school with, exclusively selected family, people we met in bars, people we don't know how we met, our actual friends, ex-friends and people who added us because they liked our picture and 'want to get to know us better' (normally not residents of our own country).

I just don't understand the need or point of it. And it is profusely annoying me.

Progression

I've been reading a lot of grumpy ol' complaints about the new Starbucks logo. Possibly because since 1992 nearly everybody has come to be able to recognize it, whether or not they drink coffee. It certainly does wind people up when big companies decide to re-brand - Ikea switch their customised Futura to Verdana in 2009, and suddenly everyone's an expert on appropriate typefaces for a Swedish furniture store.
I, however, like the new logo. It already seems to make the old logo look distinctly '90s and it was only released last month. Good decision to focus on the iconic green too, it's a refreshing move forward for the brand. Not to groundbreaking not to complicated. As it should be.

Wilhelm Scream & James Blake

James Blake's chilled out sexy vocals and downbeat music but this time Alexander Brown (think La Roux) is behind the mysterious and totally appropriate video. Limit to Your Love was alright but this is grrrreat. Whack it on full screen for full effect.

The most awful olympic logo ever?

Everybody agrees that Otl Aicher is an impossible act to follow, but the British attempt at branding the Games really is surprisingly poor. The jagged lines and cross style look undeniably like a swastika - if you can't see it just close your eyes a little. I've even read somewhere that some people see Lisa Simpson having sex; I can't imagine what made them think of that, but I can see it (with a little bit of imagination). The point is, with the huge excess of incredibly good, appropraite design, why is this the best we could do? I think it's a little bit embarassing for British design.
They typeface is equally awful.

I suppose the good thing is it will only be around until 2013, after which it will be decidedly out of date.