Monday, 26 May 2008

Thankfully the NHS specialises in healthcare...

A recent NHS campaign attempting to highlight the dangers of excessive alcohol binges tells its devoted televisual audience in its closing message that “If a man/woman drinks more than 10 units of alcohol a week it could add up to a serious health problem.” The advert is pointless and useless in achieving its aim: to spread the word that binge drinking is a bad thing. The message is simply not specific enough! Everyone knows that too much booze is bad for your health, so what does this advert tell us that is new exactly?

Nothing in all honesty. A sane person knows about their individual limits when it comes to alcohol consumption, but most of us choose to ignore it! Drivers in my experience tend to be the most responsible drinkers, but this is unsurprising as the battle between being too lazy to walk usually triumphs of the conscious decision to get inebriated with your mates at the Monkeys.

The NHS Choices website (http://www.units.nhs.uk/media-press.html) has a multitude of facts that it flings out of the press release. Some of the facts are quite disturbing. For example, the average glass of wine contains more units of alcohol per serving than when the unit guidelines were first decreed. They claim that the campaign is all about “helping people understand how many units are in their favourite drinks, and helping them to keep an eye on their intake for the good of their long-term health.” But does the advert actually achieve this?

A series of close-ups of numerous people pouring glasses of wine casually forcing alcohol down their traps due to various peer pressure situations, also involves computer generated numbers being formed from the foam and condensation of the beverages thus indicating the number of units per glass. For some strange reason the unnecessarily ambiguous statement is then tagged onto the end. All this is achieves is for the viewer to ask “What health problems?!”  After the market has been saturated with many adverts attempting to pull at our heartstrings on various guilt laden topics ranging from speeding to smoking, why is the NHS spewing this tripe into the mix? Do they really think that the audience is so idiotically naïve that they will simply accept that too much alcohol is bad without the generic scare factor? The advert effectively tells us that alcohol is bad and may cause some kind of illness. Pointless!

But perhaps I am being a bit harsh, YouGov tells us that 77 per cent of those questioned were not able to correctly identify the number of alcoholic units in various drink combinations. If the NHS campaign can do some good then perhaps it is worth it in the long run. If it does lead to people taking more notice of what they consume and the effects that it has on their bodies then perhaps the way the message is released is not the most important thing.

Ultimately I feel though that a message as important as this cannot be mucked up without devastating effect – presuming that it has an effect at all! People need specific things to fear when it comes to their health. With smoking it is lung cancer. With fatty foods its heart disease. With alcohol you would expect it to be liver disease. But liver disease is not glamorous enough for the masses! Could this be the reason why they aren’t being specific? I’ll end this article by leaving up the NHS Direct quote for what it actually causes. For a better resulting campaign they should have listed a few of these rather than leave it up to our imagination. Adverts such as this are supposed to inform us about the world, not confuse or hide the facts.

"Excessive alcohol consumption is proven to play a significant role in the development of numerous diseases, including several cancers, heart disease and stroke. That's why this campaign is so important to the public's health." – Public Health Minister, Dawn Primarolo.

Friday, 23 May 2008

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Review

When James Bond first hit our screens back in 1962, the world was awestruck. Here was a man who had it all - charisma, wit, charm, good looks and a string of women lying in his wake. Men wanted to be him and women wanted to (apparently) be with him. But there was one problem, he was English. Or more specifically, he wasn't American. After dominating the filmic stage from day one, they simply could not stand being left in the shadow of a successful foreigner on the action stage. So Indiana Jones was born. Infinitely more human than Bond, Jones brought a level of grittiness to the genre of action hero that has made him a blockbuster hit ever since.

 So it is perhaps not a surprise that after millions of fans nagging them for the last 19 years, that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas gave in to make 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull'. Every man will resort to a childlike state on entering the cinema, wishing that he too would be able to crack that whip and rescue buried treasure from the hands of the villainous Russians. Unlike in the previous films where the baddie was usually a Nazi, the film accurately moves on in the temporal world of Indy's life. Set in 1957, 20 years on from the last, the political situation of the Cold War is accurately highlighted and encompassed by the steely persona of Irina Spalko, played by Cate Blanchett. Spalko plays a role similar to that of the female villain in 'The Last Crusade', a doctor working for an evil dictator and trying to grab as much magical material as possible to help in his world takeover bid.

 With Indiana enlisted to help stop the Russians by the young and virile Mutt Williams (Shia LaBoeuf), the adventure inevitably has the explosive action and mystical storyline that we as an audience have grown accustomed to over the years. But therein lies the problem, the story is weak and ultimately totally reliant on the previous branding of the franchise. As a standalone film it is a totally substandard despite the high level of sophistication from Lucas' effects. The only saving grace lies with the cheeky nods to the past films that will make many a die-hard fan grin with nostalgia. And that's it. John Hurt is sorely underused and Ray Winstone's recurrent cockney character fails to emit the right level of sympathy.

 Harrison Ford picks up the whip again for what will hopefully be his last foray into the world of Indy. Carrying on his smart-alik retorts he now readily fulfills the mantle of bumbling old academic taking large influences from the idiosyncrasies offered by Sean Connery in 'The Last Crusade'. LaBoeuf is not as bad as he was in 'Transformers' and seems to have finally transformed into the young male actor that is worthy of a Spielberg flick even though the director seems to have made this film in his sleep with little creative challenge and originality.

Well worth the price of a cinema ticket but only for those who love with a passion the previous 3 films. If you are one of the very few sad people left on the planet not to have seen an Indiana Jones film then you really should not start with this one! Sit down with a large tub of something sweet and enjoy the original magic of a geeky university lecturer with an amazing part time habit that will almost make you want to become an archaeologist...