Placeholder Content Image

Calls for World Cup boycott after "awful" homophobic slur

<p>A Qatari World Cup ambassador has come under fire for an "awful" homophobic comment, causing several countries to call for a boycott of the event. </p> <p>In an interview on German TV, former footballer and ambassador Khalid Salman called homosexuality a “damage in the mind”, sparking criticism in Europe just 12 days before the tournament kicks off.</p> <p>Salman said Qatar will accept gay visitors but “they have to accept our rules”, before saying homosexuality was “haram” - forbidden in Islam - during the interview, which was abruptly broken off after his comments.</p> <p>In the lead up to the World Cup, Qatar has come under fire for their human rights record, including its treatment of foreign workers and its stance on women’s and LGBTQ rights.</p> <p>German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser on Tuesday called Salman’s comments “awful”.</p> <p>“That is also the reason why we are working to hopefully improve things in Qatar in the future,” said Faeser, who is also Germany’s minister for sport.</p> <p>Faeser said last week on a visit to Qatar that she will attend the World Cup after being given a “guarantee of safety” for LGBTQ fans by Qatar’s prime minister.</p> <p>The comments have prompted several sporting captains from European countries, including England, France and Germany, to call for a boycott of the event.</p> <p>To show their support for their LGBTQ fans, they will wear armbands in rainbow colours with the message “One Love” during the tournament in an anti-discrimination campaign.</p> <p>“No matter your race, your religion, your social and sexual orientation, you are most welcome, and Qataris are ready to receive you with the best hospitality that you can imagine,” FIFA secretary-general Fatma Samoura said last week.</p> <p>But Wenzel Michalski, the head of Human Rights Watch in Germany, warned there was “a big risk” that open displays of homosexuality in Qatar “will be punished – no matter what assurances there are”.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

Travel Trouble

Placeholder Content Image

How Scorsese cinema boycott will shape the future of movies

<p>Cinema has always been a medium in crisis. After the so-called golden age of Hollywood came television: why go to the movies when you can sit in the comfort of your home, watching recycled movies in letterbox format? Yet cinemas adapted and survived.</p> <p>This week, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/nov/07/why-martin-scorseses-the-irishman-wont-be-coming-to-a-cinema-near-you">major cinema chains</a> said they would not run Martin Scorsese’s upcoming film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302006/">The Irishman</a> because Netflix - who partially funded production and own distribution rights - were restricting its theatre run to four weeks before it hit small screens.</p> <p>The news signals a looming threat to cinema as we know it.</p> <h2>Big screen blues</h2> <p>Television made movies a commodity audiences could consume on their own terms. Yet cinema survived. In fact, it became a global mass cultural medium in the late 1970s and in the <a href="https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/very-short-history-of-cinema/">multiplexes</a> of the 1980s.</p> <p>Even the turbulent digital turn that brought cinema to a second crisis point in the early 2000s was navigated by the major Hollywood studios with the rebirth of the blockbuster in pristine form: <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/?ref_=nv_sr_2?ref_=nv_sr_2">Avatar</a> (2009) in stereoscopic 3-D, the high-tech Marvel <a href="https://hbr.org/2019/07/marvels-blockbuster-machine">cinematic universe</a>.</p> <p>This is all to say that cinema, for the time being, is alive and well.</p> <p>But shrinking diversity in cinema offerings - Scorsese is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/nov/05/martin-scorsese-superhero-marvel-movies-debate-sadness">no Marvel fan</a> - has forced even big name directors to seek funding from alternative sources. This is especially necessary when their movie <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/business/media/netflix-scorsese-the-irishman.html">costs US$159 million</a> (A$230 million) to make. Enter television streaming giant Netflix.</p> <h2>Are you talking to me?</h2> <p>The Irishman, Scorsese’s eagerly anticipated gangster epic, opened this week in a number of independent <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-irishman-australian-cinemas-2019-11">Australian cinemas</a>.</p> <p style="text-align: center;"><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WHXxVmeGQUc?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p style="text-align: center;"><span class="caption">The Irishman tells the story of war veteran Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) who worked as a hitman alongside Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino).</span></p> <p>Scorsese is perhaps America’s greatest living auteur, the director of films including <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Taxi Driver</a> (1976), <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Raging Bull</a> (1980), <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099685/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Goodfellas</a> (1990), and <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Casino</a> (1995).</p> <p>But what makes The Irishman unlike any other Scorsese film is that it is being distributed by Netflix. After its short theatre run it will be distributed to our homes, where it will do its major business.</p> <p>In February, the tension between Netflix and theatrical distributors escalated with the nomination of Alfonso Cuarón’s Netflix-distributed <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6155172/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2">Roma</a> for a Best Picture Oscar. Director Steven Spielberg subsequently <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/03/steven-spielbergs-netflix-fears/556550/">declared</a> a Netflix film might “deserve an Emmy, but not an Oscar”.</p> <p>A Netflix production – whether David Fincher’s monumental longform series, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5290382/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Mindhunter</a>, or Scorsese’s The Irishman – was television and therefore not cinema.</p> <h2>Goodfellas or bad guys?</h2> <p>Netflix represents a very real threat to theatrically screened cinema and its distribution apparatus, which is why several large cinema chains in the US (and, indeed, Australia) are boycotting The Irishman.</p> <p>While Netflix has consistently produced high quality content either through internal production or by acquiring and distributing titles, its assimilation of an auteur picture – a Scorsese gangster epic, no less - signals an aggressive move into the once sacrosanct domain of cinema entertainment.</p> <p>One wonders: if Scorsese capitulates to the economic strictures of the contemporary studio system, what will independent filmmakers do? How will low budget features be funded in an era in which Netflix colonises the large and small-scale productions alike?</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SshqfhmmtSE?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> <span class="caption">Scorsese has directed many of the greatest characters of modern cinema.</span></p> <p>Netflix is not cinema, but neither is it television. Directors such as Spielberg struggle to understand that the new media entertainment regime is far removed from the projection (theatre) or broadcast (television) media environment of a predigital era.</p> <p>Instead of declaring a Netflix production unworthy of an Oscar, we could invert this measure: perhaps it is the Oscar that is increasingly outmoded as an artistic and cultural mark of value.</p> <h2>‘The End’, roll credits</h2> <p>The digital economic currents that carry Netflix intuitively seek expansion into proximate markets, and cinema is a natural fit. Netflix’s move into cinema distribution – with Scorsese at the helm – is therefore a smart negotiation. Even if Scorsese is an unwilling participant, it sets a clear precedent.</p> <p>It seems unlikely that cinema will end in any formal sense, at least within the next few decades.</p> <p>But a Netflix-distributed Scorsese film gives us cause to lament the ailing cinema experience. Christopher Nolan’s <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1">Dunkirk</a> (2017) exemplified cinema’s ability to assault us with big screen images and jolt our bodies with a powerful soundscape. Only a grand technological scale can provide this kind of visceral experience.</p> <p>And yet, like Scorsese, I’m tired of Marvel. I’m tired of the rigidity of formulaic narrative and image structures intrinsic to the contemporary studio system. I’m disappointed at Hollywood’s capitulation to an instrumental economic model. Could a studio have produced The Irishman? They had a chance, and they <a href="https://variety.com/2019/film/news/theater-chief-blasts-netflix-over-handling-of-martin-scorseses-irishman-its-a-disgrace-1203390726/">turned it down</a>.</p> <p>Hollywood - and media entertainment structures more generally - will need to find a way for the big and small screen distributors to get along in order to keep the dynasty alive.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126598/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: http://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em>Written by <span>Bruce Isaacs, Senior Lecturer in Film Studies, University of Sydney</span>. Republished with permission of </em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/pass-the-popcorn-scorsese-cinema-boycott-will-shape-the-future-of-movies-126598" target="_blank"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em>. </em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Tarantino has a questionable record in the #MeToo context – so should we boycott his new film?

<p><em>This story contains spoilers for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.</em></p> <p>While promoting Once Upon a Time in Hollywood at the Cannes Film Festival, filmmaker Quentin Tarantino was asked why Margot Robbie’s character – murdered actress Sharon Tate – was given so few lines. An “angry-looking Tarantino”, as reported the ABC, curtly replied: “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-23/tarantino-snaps-at-reporter-over-question-about-margot-robbie/11141352">Well, I just reject your hypothesis</a>.”</p> <p>Tate’s implied lack of voice and Tarantino’s refusal to address the extreme violence against women in the film has renewed discussions about his representations and treatment of women on screen.</p> <p>The #MeToo movement and cancel culture have shifted the way we consume media. So what does this mean for Tarantino and his depictions of violence?</p> <p><strong>25 bloody years on the big screen</strong></p> <p>Tarantino found instant acclaim with his debut Reservoir Dogs in 1992. Two years later, Pulp Fiction solidified his cult status. Over his 25-year career, he has directed nine films spanning western to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/11/blaxploitation-shaft-foxy-brown-film">blaxploitation</a> to samurai. Across genres, his films are united by the protagonist’s quest for justice and bloody vengeance.</p> <p>Tarantino is notorious for his stylised and hyperreal violence: macabre, shocking, and comical. When Pulp Fiction first came out, I was a first-year undergraduate studying and making films. I revelled in Tarantino’s approach to storytelling and the film’s originality.</p> <p>Tarantino was the new King of Cool, and Pulp Fiction heralded a new era of filmmaking. Discussions about the violence mainly revolved around the subject of style and Tarantino’s brand of humour.</p> <p>25 years later I’m analysing Tarantino again. But now it’s in the context of one of the largest social activist movements in contemporary history.</p> <p><strong>Contemporary controversies</strong></p> <p>Tarantino has come under the #MeToo spotlight mainly because of his close partnership with Miramax and The Weinstein Company, both co-founded by Harvey Weinstein (currently facing multiple counts of rape and sexual assault), and the distributors of most of Tarantino’s films.</p> <p>The controversy, however, goes deeper than guilt by Weinstein-association: Tarantino has admitted being a knowing bystander. In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/movies/tarantino-weinstein.html">a 2017 interview</a>, Tarantino said: “There was more to it than just the normal rumors, the normal gossip. It wasn’t secondhand. I knew [Weinstein] did a couple of these things.”</p> <p>Tarantino also faced allegations of misconduct by Uma Thurman, who rose to fame in Pulp Fiction and starred in Kill Bill: Volumes 1 &amp; 2.</p> <p>In 2018, Thurman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/this-is-why-uma-thurman-is-angry.html">spoke about a car crash</a> during the filming of Kill Bill: Volume 1 which caused long-term neck and knee injuries. Despite airing her concerns about safety, Tarantino convinced her to perform the stunt.</p> <p>Tarantino has <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/02/quentin-tarantino-uma-thurman-regrets">since admitted</a> his wrongdoing.</p> <p>This is an example of the hypocrisy in Hollywood: Kill Bill was about female empowerment, but its star was being coerced by the director and pressured by the studio.</p> <p>Days after Thurman’s interview, an <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/quentin-tarantino-roman-polanski-rape-young-girl-sex-minor-uma-thurman-director-a8197811.html">audio recording</a> resurfaced from 2003 where Tarantino defended director Roman Polanski’s sexual abuse of a 13-year-old victim in 1977. Polanski was 43 at the time.</p> <p>Tarantino can be heard saying: “she was down with it. [ … ] I don’t believe it’s rape. I mean not at 13. Not – not for these 13-year-old party girls.”</p> <p>Alongside the era of #MeToo we have seen a rise in “<a href="https://oracle.newpaltz.edu/culture-critique-the-power-of-cancel-culture/">cancel culture</a>”, where questionable views and actions of influential figures are called out, and audiences are encouraged to withdraw support. Calls for “cancelling” Tarantino <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/23/cancel-quentin-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood">are growing</a>.</p> <p>He may be a groundbreaking filmmaker still breaking records at the box office – but is this enough for us to overlook his indiscretions?</p> <p><strong>What happens in the cinema, stays in the cinema?</strong></p> <p>Should we stop watching films connected with problematic individuals? What do we gain from cancelling the works of Tarantino, Polanski, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/13/ronan-farrow-interview-woody-allen-harvey-weinstein-me-too">Woody Allen</a> and <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2019/01/23/bohemian-rhapsody-director-bryan-singer-faces-new-sexual-abuse-allegations_a_23651119/">Bryan Singer</a> from our collective consciousness?</p> <p>Should judgement of a movie be separate to our judgement of the people who create them? Can we judge a movie separate to our judgement of the people who create them?</p> <p>During a screening of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood my mind drifted to these matters.</p> <p>I wondered if Tarantino still had the same admiration for Polanski as he did in 2003; whether he still holds those skewed ideas about rape.</p> <p>I was irritated that Emile Hirsch was cast as Jay Sebring - Tate’s close friend and former lover. Hirsch <a href="https://variety.com/2015/film/news/emile-hirsch-guilty-assault-15-days-jail-1201571705/">plead guilty</a> to assaulting a female studio executive in 2015.</p> <p>At a time when abusers are being publicly denounced on social media, did Tarantino have any reservations about this casting choice? Was it even an issue for him?</p> <p>Despite these questions, I could not suppress my laughter and gasps of gleeful shock at the spectacle of violence in the film’s climax.</p> <p>And it is violent. The most striking death is when one of the female members of the Manson Family is maimed in the face by a can of dog food, before being fried with a flamethrower.</p> <p>Over the course of the film, my thoughts continually wandered between the story on screen to the story off screen. Real world politics kept intruding into my viewing experience.</p> <p><strong>To boycott, or not to boycott</strong></p> <p>I left the cinema ruminating on the confusing range of emotions and responses I had, ready to unpack how the baggage of Tarantino’s opinions and treatment of female characters and cast members have influenced the way I read Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.</p> <p>Boycotting a film can send a strong message – not least of all to the studio’s bottom line. But there is also benefit to viewing these films, and using them as talking points for why we find them problematic.</p> <p>Watching Tarantino now, I still have immense respect for the artistry of his films and their aura of detached coolness. They captured the zeitgeist of a Generation X that was desperate for something different.</p> <p>But knowing some of the troubling issues surrounding a production and the filmmaker has added another layer of awareness and critique. It has given the films a different sort of relevance for the times. The questions I ask don’t look the same as those I asked before.</p> <p>Tarantino isn’t making cinema in the same world as he once was – but then again, I’m not watching it in the same world, either.</p> <p><em>Written by Christina Lee. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/tarantino-has-a-questionable-record-in-the-metoo-context-so-should-we-boycott-his-new-film-121985"><em>The Conversation</em></a><em>.</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Examining the effectiveness of consumer boycotts

<p>Are brand boycotts the most effective way to protest? Depends who you talk to.</p> <p>Advocacy group GetUp say "a boycott is a meaningful way to up the ante when other methods have proven unsuccessful."</p> <p>Kelsey Cooke, campaigns director of GetUp, said: "Governments are bound to represent their constituents – if they don't, they're often swiftly replaced. Companies, on the other hand, don't have any of the same checks and balances."</p> <p>Digital strategist Shannon Coulter created the hash tag #grabyourwallet in October in response to Donald Trump's remarks about groping women. A fan of lists, Coulter wanted to give women the space to voice their objections and hit Planet Trump where it hurts – in the wallet.</p> <p>In the US, #grabyourwallet supporters urged major businesses such as Nordstrom, Amazon and Zappos to dump Trump product. Coulter created a Google Doc list that is updated every day and includes numbers for PR departments. Shoes.com pulled Ivanka Trump's collection a few days after the election. Interiors brand Bellacor dropped all Trump House items last week.</p> <p>Brand boycotting has picked up in the recent decade. Writing in the <em>Harvard Business Review</em>, Dr Daniel Diermeier​, Provost to the University of Chicago and previously Dean of the Harris School of Public Policy, notes that most activists now focus on companies, instead of governments, as the main engine of social change.</p> <p> "As the public raises its expectations about appropriate corporate conduct … more companies will find themselves in the cross-hairs more frequently," Diermeier says.</p> <p>The #grabyourawllet boycott has spread slowly worldwide to countries like New Zealand, where consumers can access many of these companies with online shopping and international delivery. But since most of the companies are American, the boycott isn't quite having the same punch.</p> <p>"To get a company's attention, a critical mass of individuals need to change their behaviour in concert," says Cooke. "To change a company's behaviour, the company needs to be aware that they're losing customers – and what action they would need to take to correct the trend. When that happens, the impact can be profound."</p> <p>In Australia, consumers recently protested large companies underpaying dairy farmers and organic labelling on organic eggs. In March this year, Choice launched its boycott of 19 supermarket "free range" egg brands, seeking to protect consumers from the "free range egg rip off".</p> <p>"Choice initiated the boycott following the decision by Australia's consumer affairs ministers to sign off on a standard for free range that did not meet consumers expectations," says Choice spokesman Tom Godfrey.</p> <p>"Put simply, we couldn't see why consumers should be paying a significant price premium for eggs labelled as "free range" that come from hens that don't go outside and have stocking densities up to 10,000 hens per hectare."</p> <p>While chief executives at Amazon, Netflix, Starbucks, Grubhub and dozens of other major US brands have spoken out against Trump's policies and beliefs, few of them have committed to pulling tainted stock from their shelves. In fact, some caustic Trump supporters have in turn boycotted these companies, punishing them for speaking out against the President-elect.</p> <p>"The rise of social media has made it easier than ever before for individual consumers to initiate informal boycotts of products and services and gain traction. That said, it's important to look at the motivation and substance of a boycott before blindly signing on to an action," says Godfrey.</p> <p>The #grabyourwallet boycott has found focus in Ivanka Trump's line since she represents a certain type of affluent woman – likely to be offended by her father's attitude to women – with power to spend and influence social debate, and also digitally savvy.</p> <p><em>Fast Company</em> reported consumer interest in Ivanka Trump's brand has dropped by more than half since October 2016. This, a few days after she sparked outrage by hawking a $10,000 bracelet that she wore on her father's <em>60 Minutes</em> interview. Last week Ivanka Trump, responding to a storm of criticism, separated her business account from her personal account on Twitter.</p> <p><strong>Has it been successful?</strong></p> <p>In the age of tailored newsfeeds and edited Twitter lists – and in the absence of hard sales figures – how can we know if a boycott has really worked?</p> <p>According to Diermeier, for a boycott to be successful four factors must be considered: consumers must care passionately; the cost of participation must be low; issues must be easy to understand; and the mass media must be involved, separate to the interest generated on social media.</p> <p>According to these markers #grabyourwallet has gained traction but it does show signs of slowing. The recent slump in sales for Ivanka Trump's line, as reported by Shophopper, pointed toward a soft victory, but the movement hasn't had much media coverage the last few days and seems to be struggling.</p> <p>The organic eggs boycott in Australia, however, answered to these four markers. Choice recently published figures showing organic egg sales had increased for independent producers. Choice claimed it as a win for those producers.</p> <p>"Companies can be slow beasts and resistant to change," says Cooke. "Boycotts are a way to demonstrate that consumers won't stand for irresponsible corporate behaviour – and speak in a language company directors understand. Until businesses change their ways, consumers will take their funds elsewhere."</p> <p>Do you think consumer boycotts are effective? Let us know in the comments.</p> <p><em>First appeared on <a href="http://Stuff.co.nz" target="_blank"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Stuff.co.nz</span></strong></a>.</em></p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><a href="/news/news/2016/10/potatoes-hard-to-find-right-now/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>The one food that is about to become really hard to get at supermarkets</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/finance/money-banking/2016/10/stretch-money-on-a-tight-budget/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>12 ways to stretch your money on a tight budget</strong></em></span></a></p> <p><a href="/health/body/2016/10/healthy-foods-doing-you-damage/"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong>5 “healthy” foods that are doing you damage</strong></em></span></a></p>

Money & Banking