I should probably be nicer about these films seeing as I’m spending an awful lot of time working on stuff like this at the moment. But, as I am not currently a film professional or a publised/screened author, so what? It might come back to bite me in the future but hey, if I make crap then I’d rather be told about it, sulk for a bit then try to learn from my mistakes for the next time.

A couple of days ago, were were discussing writing CVs. A colleague (let’s call him Dick) was asking whether or not he should include a photo on his CV. I commented that I’d never seen a photo on a CV and would never consider including one. It’s not necessary in our line of work (i.e. code monkey - if I was an actor or a model then obviously it would be a different matter). But someone else (let’s call him Bob) suggested that he should include a photo. His reasoning was this: it would probably be apparent on Dick’s CV that he came from South Africa (because even if he didn’t explicitly state his nationality, his job history would give it away). Therefore a photo would show that he was white, so if the person reviewing his CV with a mind to interviewing him was racist then he’d probably be more likely to get pass the initial stage.

I was, in no uncertain terms, taken aback by this reasoning. I think my response might well have been a “What the fuck?” followed by a hasty “But that would be totally illegal!” Bob’s response was that it might well be illegal but even so, it wouldn’t stop the racists. The flashing moments of self assessment that were going off in my head like gunshots in Beirut made me realise that as much as I’m generally quite bitchy and cynical, I do tend to not think ill of people and their motivations. I’d never consider tailoring my CV so that it would be obvious that I was a WASP (even though I’m actually a WASC or, these days, more of a WASA. Except not so much AS - think I’d actually be classed as a WCA. Just think of all the fun you’re going to have working out what all those mean!)

At this point I think I said something along the lines of “If I didn’t get the job because I didn’t attach a photo, I wouldn’t care because I wouldn’t want to work for a racist anyway.” To which Bob said “Doesn’t that make you as bad as him because you’re discriminating too?” “Of course it doesn’t,” I replied. “Why not?” he queried. “I, ah…” My philosophical acumen failed me and I couldn’t come up with any constructive argument that was better than “It just doesn’t.” I felt so ashamed.

Reading Gert’s blog shortly after this, she said something quite simple: “the only thing we hate is hatred itself“. The logical inference from this is that Gert must hate herself for hating (under the assumption that the other thing they hate are people who hate). Yet this is one argument where logic can’t feature. I’m 99.9% certain that hating those who hate, discriminating against those who discriminate and being intolerant of those who aren’t tolerant is morally acceptable - after all, freedom of expression doesn’t make it all right - and I’m confident that it’s not being hypocritical or and that it’s not, in any way, a paradox. But for the life of me, I’m coming up blank when trying to find compelling justification for this viewpoint.

What would you say?

It’s only my opinion but I think it says a lot about the attitude and disposition of a company when the freevend coffee machine has “Choco Crème” as a label rather than the usual “Creamichoc”.

I watched a little bit of Question Time last night. The first topic up for debate concerned the anti-smoking bill (or, rather, the okay-smoke-if-you-want-to-but-we’d-prefer-it-if-you-didn’t bill.) What surprised and, ultimately, irritated me was the audiences constant referral to peoples “rights”. One non-smoker said he recognised that smokers “have a right” to smoke while a smoker also claimed not just that he had a right to smoke but also had a right to “do anything” he wanted.

Excuse me, but do you realise what you’re saying? Have you considered exactly what the implications of your statements are? If smokers have a right to smoke then don’t I, as a non - or rather ex, possibly even occasional - smoker have a right to not be made to inhale your smoke too? Do I not have the right to be able to go to a public bar and not have to sit in a smoky environment? How can these two rights co-exist if they contradict each other?

Before this descends into a “should all smoking be banned” discussion, let me move onto the second claim made, that the speaker had a right “to do anything”. Oh come on, be serious! Do you really believe that? I mean truly, deeply, honestly believe that you’ve got a right to do anything? Do you have a right to kill anybody you like? Does that mean you’ve got a right to drive at whatever speed you want to on the motorway, on whichever side of the carriageway and in whichever direction you want? Think about your answer before you say anything. Of course you’ve got a right to remain silent instead of answering but anything you do say may be ripped apart and thrown back at you in pieces.

I’m finding that the notion of the rights that we supposedly all have is becoming more and more tenuous. It seems to be one of those concepts that we all cling to and appeal to but don’t have a firm basis in any sound reasoning. Consider this question – do we have a right to kill? I’m sure that the agreed answer is no, we don’t have a right to kill. Why not? Because we have a right to life? If this is the case, then surely a country or state that imposes a death sentence on anybody is depriving that person of their right to life? Okay, getting too close to another controversial subject. How about this; if I have a right to life then I must be free to go into a supermarket – or your house – and take whatever food I need? How do I justify this? Because if I have a right to life then you cannot in anyway prevent me from doing what I need to do to live i.e. eat.

Where do these “rights” come from? I’ve been in debates with Americans who always appeal to their constitution, which grants them their rights (including the right to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms). Yet the American Constitution does not apply here in the UK – a US citizen would no longer have the right to bear arms while residing in our green and pleasant land. That makes it seem as if rights are subjective because rights do not persist across borders and time zones. And if rights are subjective then murder, torture and suchlike could, feasibly, be acceptable.

There is no answer here – hey it’s philosophy! If I was still studying I’d be tempted to write an essay in the style of one of Plato’s plays and discuss the issue in Socratic dialectic (starting with the topic of a smoking ban perhaps - I’d have to name one of the characters Profumo of course!) But just think about it the next time someone appeals to a “right” to do something and ask yourself if they’ve got a valid point or, as Jeremy Bentham argued, it’s all “nonsense on stilts”.

Personally, I’ve got the right to go and get absolutely shitfaced in a smoke filled bar because it’s Friday night and I don’t care anymore! Have a good one.

Why would an alien intelligence invade our humble green and blue planet? It’s been bugging me for a while now and with one of this years summer blockbusters being a modern adaptation of H.G. Well’s original and classic tale, it’s a question that’s starting to keep me up at night. Okay, so that’s a lie but I’m still curious.

In Independence Day, the aliens were described as being like locusts - they would find a planet and strip it of it’s resources. But this doesn’t really explain the massive swathes of destruction at the beginning? Why destroy cities? Why go after the humans when they could have just gone straight for the resources they needed? They weren’t very much like locusts at all but just seemed hell bent on blowing everything up. Sure it was impressive (about the only thing in the movie which was) but it didn’t really tie in with the explanation that they would strip a planet dry and move on to the next one.

Much more plausible explanations can be found in ‘Mars Attacks’. Those martians just loved destruction and were having a laugh (a motivation I can well understand). But the martians in the original War of the Worlds wanted to take over our world as their own planet was dying. Oh yes - and they wanted to eat us too. They invaded with violence too, using their heat rays to destroy everything in their path but that was in keeping with the fact that they had to reshape the world to support them (hence the Red Weed) so they didn’t need to keep anything around. Other escapees from a dying homeworld were The Tripods. But after invading Earth, rarther than wantonly destroy everything, they subdued the population and proceeded to enslave the human race.

The greys in the X-Files were interested in colonising us but like the Tripods, they also didn’t come in destroying everything in sight but chose to do it far more subtly and by means of coercion, deal making and deception - much like the aliens in V who pretended to be peaceful and friendly but were secretly after our water. In the 1998 BBC series ‘Invasion: Earth’, humans got caught up in the middle of an intergalactic war between two lots of aliens, the peaceful (but prone to abducting humans) Echos and the evil (prone to enslaving everyone else) nDs.

I can’t remember if there was a reason given for the alien invasion in ‘Signs’ as I was too distracted by the massive plot holes and ridiculous denouement.

One motivation that seems to be lacking in the Invasion literature* I’ve come across is that of a Holy War or a crusade; invasion by an alien race that believes we need to be wiped out for a greater cause. Or perhaps a greater cause isn’t necessary. Perhaps they see us as pests, a plague of ants that need a kettle of water poured over us. Douglas Adams destroyed our mostly harmless planet because we were in the path of a planned intergalactic bypass with the motivation of the Vogons being solely that they were just doing their job.

I’m not considering the fact that aliens might come in peace to our little ball of dirt because it’s not as much fun. Trying to find a good explanation for why an extraterrestial race would cross light years of nothingness to shout “Exterminate” and shoot us with ray guns is all I’m concerned with. We all like a big bang and seeing the great cities reduced to rubble but I personally want to understand why**. What do you think?

*watched rather than read.
** this is different to having it spelt out to me in a film in some dubious telepathic exposition. The marvellous “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” didn’t feel the need to explain why the aliens were taking over our bodies, only that they were.

Somehow this seemed appropriate given all the talk about slicing off toes and lip plumpage and so on.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder