Gears of War - Review

The hype machine really went into overdrive on this one. What with Peter Moore and Epic’s own Cliffy B continually praising the game, breaking through the hyperbole and getting to the core of the game, up until release that is, has proved rather difficult.
Gears of War is set on a futuristic Earth-like planet called Sera. In appearance it looks like a cross between a renaissance Europe and future Earth. The gameplay itself relies on you taking control of lead character Marcus Fenix, and basically traversing fire fight after fire fight with increasingly crafty and complex baddies (not to mention bigger). These fights are intense and extremely enjoyable with the use of cover being essential. The only let down, gameplay wise, is the very out of place driving section about a quarter in.
If you don’t like violent action which plays like an updated Arnie film, then its safe to say this game isn’t for you. Most gamers shouldn’t have too much trouble with Gears on the standard difficulty. The game clocks in at about 6-7 hours. However, ramp up the difficulty and you’ll find the game takes on a much more aggressive persona and will really give you a challenge.
In terms of looks this is a very impressive debut by Epic on the 360. Bar the odd loading texture the graphics do a very good job of portraying a world ravaged by war. It’s a cliché, but this game very much offers what it says on the tin (quite literally if you bought the special edition). It’s a next gen game which plays it safe, but you can have enormous fun with. Co-op and multi-player should keep most busy and with the cliff hanger ending, it shouldn’t be too long till were back in the fight with Marcus and the rest of the Gears.

8/10 David Lynch

Blade Runner: A look into film form.

How can we effectively analyse film form, and what do we learn from doing this? Using any film other than those studied on the module, analyse its construction, in particular choosing one short segment for close examination.

While the study of films is diverse and broad all films adhere to a certain form, all films use sets, actors, directors and the way these elements put together create the images we see, etc. In the analyse of film form there is a high number of areas that can be examined. Knowing which of these to examine closely can depend on the genre of film and any number of other different aspects that must be taken in to account. Firstly the film I will be using to describe film form is Ridley Scott’s science fiction film Blade Runner. There are number of reasons why I believe this is a good example of film form. Firstly, there are two versions of the film, the original release from, 1982 which was heavily influenced by the studio and contained a quickly put together ending and voice over (V.O). Secondly the film is considered by many to contain all the hallmarks of a science fiction cult classic. These reasons alone make Blade Runner a heavily talked about and scrutinised
film.

If we are to understand how to properly analyse the film form contained in Blade Runner we must first class it in a genre. Blade Runner is undoubtedly a science fiction film, it is set in a not too distant future (2019 to be exact) and contains characters, which are robots, or as the film calls them replicants. It contains many themes, which I will later talk about, that enable us to call it a ‘science fiction’ film. But where Blade Runner differs from most other science fiction films is its main character and his narrative. This is much more reminiscent of Film Noir. When referring to Blade Runner it is called Future Noir. It is through this connection that Blade Runner’s actual story elements are witnessed. Although knowing which genre category a film falls into is important we must also look at the other elements to actually analyse its form. I refer to the script, its characters and events, etc.

Also the composition of shots. In this essay I will be looking at all these elements and also seeing how these are put into effect in two sequences from the film. Firstly I am going to look at the Science Fiction and Film Noir elements of Blade
Runner. ‘Their iconography (when referring to Film Noir) consists of images of the dark, night-time city, its streets damp with rain which reflects the flashing neon signs. Its sleazy milieu of claustrophobic alleyways and deserted docklands alternates with gaudy night clubs and swank apartments.’[1]
The Blade Runner universe that the audience witnesses is a world intensely over populated where many of the Earths inhabitants have fled ‘Off World’ leaving only the sick and the people either too stupid or unable to work. Clearly influenced by Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) the Earths is constantly shrouded in pollution and is in constant darkness, making it easy to make a connection to Film Noir. Los Angeles, where the story takes place, is a city with huge tall buildings with neon lights and large skyscraper style advertisements for Coca Cola, perhaps a hint towards a more corporate future where huge companies rule instead of governments, but this is only hinted upon and is not dwelt on in any more depth.
‘The visual style habitually employs high contrast (chiaroscuro) lighting, where deep, enveloping shadows are fractured by shafts of light from a single source, and dark, claustrophobic interiors have shadowy shapes on the walls.’[2]
This description is particularly true of the places Deckard visits. Buildings like Deckard’s apartment are shrouded in darkness only illuminated by small lights from electrical equipment and occasionally from a car that flies past the window partly lighting the entire room. The visual style of Blade Runner is only one part of the whole, which makes up its form. This is however an important part of a film as it is what an audience will remember most vividly. The special effects in Blade Runner (when I refer to special effects I mean any device used to manipulate the image captured on film, from sets to CGI) play an
important role in making the image we see. The film opens on a huge miniature of the LA skyline, with lots of lights, buildings and flying cars, this scene immediately sets an audiences imagination running at the possible number of stories and adventures that such a place could inhibit.

However it is important to note the differences in the original theatrical release of Blade Runner and its more recent director’s cut. The visual form in each differs slightly to give the film a different ending. It also changes Harrison Ford’s character of Deckard. I am referring to the ending shots of the beautiful countryside from the original release giving the film a more upbeat ending, incidentally the shots were borrowed from Stanley Kubricks film The Shining. This ending was forced on to the film after dreadful preview runs of the film. The ending was not what Ridley Scott had intended. The original ending
down played the question of whether or not Deckard was a replicant and changed the visual style of the film which originally only allowed for a small shot of sunlight as the dove, held by Roy (lead replicant) flew up into the sky perhaps to heaven. When dealing with the visual form of a film such as Blade Runner images can have many meanings. This why it is important that we examine the closing shots of the original release as the meaning of the film is changed drastically in the directors cut.

‘By examining the internal structure of film narrative, the way images are made and put together in order to tell us stories, we can discover a great deal of information about what films expect of us and we of them.’[3]
In the original release we see a show down between Deckard and the only surviving replicant Roy. The show down takes place inside Sebastian’s huge warehouse-home where the replicants have been hiding. With his superior strength we see that Deckard is no match for Roy the chase ends as Deckard attempts to escape by jumping to another building only
to miss and find himself hanging on for his life. It is only when Roy jumps across and rescues Deckard that the chase ends and the two characters sit exhausted. It is at this point that Roy has a small speech: “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”[4]
At this point Roy releases a dove he has been carrying which flies in to the sky. This all important end scene raises the most perplexing of questions in Blade Runner. What does it actually mean to be human? Deckard’s V.O explains that he didn’t understand why Roy had saved his life only that in his dying moments he must have loved life enough to want to protect it in any form. We now see Deckard leave LA with Rachael, who is also a replicant, but Deckard is warned by Gaff, a detective who has been shadowing Deckard. “It’s to bad she won’t live, but then again who does?”[5]
He is of course referring to Rachael and of the determined life span of replicants being only four years. This happy ending, with Deckard and Rachael galloping off into the sunset does not do the rest of the film justice. The film raises all sorts of questions.
‘The film additionally touches on elemental questions, the big ones. Who am I? What am I? How do I deal with violence? Love? Freedom? And why the hell do I only have
"X" days to live?’[6]
It is obvious that Ridley Scott is referring to the questions we all ask about ourselves. The film is also, on a more Science Fiction note asking ‘What does it actually mean to be
human? and ‘How do we view ourselves as human? These questions are only raised in Blade Runner not answered. But it is how they are raised which is interesting when referring to film form. To answer this question I am going to look at one theme raised in Blade Runner that is current throughout and has a visual impact on its form. I will be
looking at the theme of ‘eyes’. This theme is introduced early on in Blade Runner in the opening sequence of shots over LA.
The film opens with a green text scrolling up the screen, this is reminiscent of earlier science fiction films such as Star Wars but the text has a ‘reality’ feel to it as it is in a font that would have been familiar with its audience when it was released. This change also distances the film from science fiction ‘fantasy’ in favour of science fiction ‘reality’, which is obviously impossible but any audience can at least use their imaginations. After this text has disappeared leaving the ominous message that the killing of replicants is referred to as ‘retirement’ we see the sky line of LA. It is a dark city with huge buildings with millions of lights and hundreds of flying cars passing by. Enormous flames reach into the sky from the tops of what appear to be industrial vents of some sort. The shot then changes to an extreme close up of a person’s eye. The shot is so close that only the eye is visible making the person unidentifiable. In the eye we can see the LA sky line reflected. This is the first reference to the eye in Blade Runner and we must note its importance. What is Ridley Scott suggesting with this shot? There are of course a number of different ways to analyse this particular shot none of which can be classed as wrong. If we are to incorporate other major themes in Blade Runner we discover a very poignant message. We can read the shot, of the extreme close up, as a number of different people. Whose eye is it supposed to represent. Deckard’s, Roy’s, perhaps the other replicants, or perhaps it represents the reflection of our own eye as we view LA. Each of these theories would arise a different interpretation of the film. From this we discover the genius behind the film form found in Blade Runner that each person takes away something different from it. No interpretation is the same. ‘But the associated debate is whether a director can dictate how people view his creation - or does the creation become an entity unto itself, separated from those who
made it?’[7]
This is continued throughout the film and the continued emphasis on the eye. The way Blade Runners catch replicants is by monitoring the pupil response by using a machine called a ‘Voight-Kampf’. The owl in Tyrell’s office with its wary eyes, also Tyrell himself with his huge glasses representing perhaps an all seeing omnipotent God like character, he did after all create the replicants. This could also mirror our own faith in God. When Roy finally is able to talk to his God he is disappointed as he receives no answers and he then abruptly and brutally murders Tyrell. Perhaps Scott is creating a metaphor for our own
present day society and its lack of religion. This can be argued as a valid point as many of the problems faced in 2019 are some we facing in the present year. ‘As BR unfolds, you realize that, even though it's set in 2019, it's actually forecasting
many of the same dilemmas facing us now. Overcrowding. The police state. Cloning. Corporate dominance and corruption. Creating technology that serves our darkest interests.’[8]
Also the replicants eyes glow a faint yellow colour, also if you watch closely so do Deckard’s continuing the idea that he is also a replicant. The fact that the replicant’s get there information from the faction of the company who makes the eyes is relevant. ‘If you could only see what I’ve seen with your eyes’[9]

Also Roy’s ending speech is significant as he refers to the things that he has witnessed throughout his existence, it is important to note that he does not refer to his false implanted memories as these are ultimately false. The film seems to be suggesting that our memories our the core that makes us human and as these false humans have implanted memories they
too should be considered as human. This is further reinforced by the replicant characters as they spend the entire film searching for the same answers in life which the rest of us are looking for. It is important to look at the text and source of inspiration for the film to effectively understand its form and consequentially the form it then takes on the screen. Blade Runner is based on Philip K Dicks novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The film takes the majority of its ideas, story, characters, etc from this source. Blade Runner however is not a direct translation from book to film. The characters of the replicants went through dramatic changes from Neo-Nazi figure’s to the more sympathetic characters that the film portrays,
although the character of Roy played by Rutger Hauer was the perfect Arian. Although the question of whether or not Deckard is himself a replicant is not as obvious in the book, as it is in the directors cut version of the film, it is still a feature of his character. Ridley Scott’s take on the story seems to add a much more human dimension to the replicants making
them much more accessible to an audience. Also the script obviously went through a number of quick changes as a V.O was added creating the Future Noir angle the original film employed.
It is however, difficult to analyse a film such as Blade Runner. It has so many angles upon which opinions, ideas and theories can be formed. This is almost purely down to the filmic form that it uses to tell its story. Shot composition, characters, sets and some of the elements I have discussed all play an important role. From studying all these elements we
discover the films hidden messages and metaphors which may or may not be true it depends on the opinion of each member of the audience. This is why Blade Runner has become a cult classic that is only now being appreciated for its ideas, story and special effects.

Bibliography

Spicer, Andrew, Film Noir, Pearson Education Limited 2002
Hill, John and Gibson, Pamela Church, The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, Oxford University Press 1998
Sammon, Paul M, Interview Found at www.Brmovie.com/Anyalsis/ via yahoo.com
Found at www.Brmovie.com/Anyalasis/ via yahoo.com
Quotes from Blade Runner, Characters: Roy, Deckard and Gaff
Pringle, David, The Ultimate Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction: The Definitive Illustrated Guide, Carlton Books 1996
[1] Spicer, Andrew, Film Noir, Pearson Education Limited 2002, P.g 4
[2] Spicer, Andrew, Film Noir, Pearson Education Limited 2002, P.g 4
[3] Hill, John and Gibson, Pamela Church, The Oxford Guide to Film Studies, Oxford University Press 1998, P.g 15
[4] Character: Roy, taken from Blade Runner
[5] Character: Gaff, taken from Blade Runner
[6] Sammon, Paul M, Interview Found at www.Brmovie.com/Anyalsis/ via yahoo.com
[7] Found at www.Brmovie.com/Anyalasis/ via yahoo.com
[8] Found at www.Brmovie.com/Anyalasis/ via yahoo.com
[9] Character Roy, taken from Blade Runner

Video games Criticism and related media-The State of the Game.

With the introduction of any new technology we as an industry get a little overexcited about the possibilities it may bring. That it might be this generation of consoles which yield the games of our dreams. You know, those games you’ve had in your head since forever, which many have come close to touching but never really quite made it. As we stand at the begging of a new generation of home consoles it seems diligent that we should perhaps look back at an industry still in its infancy and to ask the age old question of ‘Where are we going?’ ‘How are we going to get there?’ ‘And will it be any good when we do?’
If we as industry take note of our other favourite older brother, the movies, and start to compare our arms size and strength, as any younger sibling would, we begin to realise that we are similar in many ways and it is not surprising that we have grown up trying to emanate such a successful industry. But as we have grown up we have begun to be taken seriously and as we begin to mature it is time to stand on our own two feet and shout loud and proudly ‘I’m a GAMER’ and I love it!! We are unlike any other entertainment industry for many reasons but the one which has the most far reaching effect is the simple fact that five or six years, give or take, I’ll be getting extremely excited about the PS4 or the WII 2 or whatever else those smart boggins in the industry have come up with to while away my precious hours. It is for this reason that essentially the games industry can remain fresh and relevant to its user base. The fact that we go through a mini revolution and


This is a work in progress and will be updated shortly.

Freedom of Speech - the video game way.

What does freedom of speech mean to you? Nothing? Is it something to do with what your grandad fought for? Or perhaps something more substantial. The topic i am going to be looking at is one that effects us all, in ways we may not even realise. Not Me!! I hear you cry. I lead a simple life. I play games, watch my films, have a beer and go to work. I keep my head down, you know, don't rock the boat.
But I'm afraid this attitude is quickly dying as more and more gamers begin to realise that freedo of speech makes up one of the most important factors of our lives. After all, if you don't do politics, you don't do anything! It is a sign of an art form growing up, the mass media is sarting to take notice. Games as an art form are begging to observe and question itslef and what it stands for.
Over the last few months this question of freedom of speech has been brought violently to the media spotlight. Examples such as the muslim 'Swedish' cartoons which caused such outrage in some communities and violent anti-western protests. While on the home front, religiou persecution has reared its ugly head in the form the muslim veil, faith specfic schools and the breaking down of once harmonious cummunities. Also the Cristians being told to remove thier Crucifex. All because someone, somewhere has taken offence.
To understand freedom of speech we must look at how it applies and effects to our own media, the video game or interactive entertainment. Let’s examine the closest relative to the videogame, film or more to the point the VCR/DVD and the revolution in home cinema system. During the 1980’s technology went through a huge boom which made previously unattainable technology mainstream. But this also brought with it unprecedented media coverage the effects of which are still felt today. The argument at the time encouraged that young children would view ‘harmful material’ and adults would lose control of what their children watched. Through this action the community feared all youth would grow in to abnormal people not fit for the civilised life. The fact that during the 80’s the ‘video nasty’ was hitting the height of its unpopularity didn’t help matters and it was not long before the media was claiming all the ills of society were to blame for this technological revolution.
In 2006/07 we have the benefit of hindsight (what a wonderful thing!), and the majority of people can see that media and the public over-reacted to the situation. A bit. Now this technology is part of our everyday and evolved so much so that most of us can watch one of these ‘morally corrupting films’ on our I pods or PSP’s if we so choose. How things have changed. The point I’m trying to make is, if the media can over- react about something we now consider tame, surely it is diligent of us to realise that perhaps history is repeating itself. It is important to remember that these papers, national and regional, are in fact businesses and as such have to earn money. They do this by appealing to certain demographics of society who conform to the papers point of view. It is not surprising that the media exploits a lot of the arts to create sensationalist claims to help sell their papers. After all they need to make money. Hence, we can assume they are bias and that means we as consumers are not being told the full story. Not then, and not now.
This cycle has now repeated itself in the form of the video game. In the deep past they said books killed conversation, then in the 50’s TV made the youth rebellious and in the 80’s video corrupted them now in the noughties videogames are making it worse. Art has always struggled for acceptance against the establishment. From riots at Mozart’s 5th symphony to Stanley Kurbick’s banning of his own film A Clock Work Orange. This is not a new phenomenon; we should not even be surprised. As an art form we have a responsibility, how we react now as a media could mean the success into the mainstream, or failure to perpetual cult status.
Art reflects life, not the other way round. With this realisation we cannot blame video games for individual’s violent outbursts. Some parts of the media have claimed that people who play violent games for extended periods become violent themselves. Not that these guinea pigs act violent, but there brains show an increased activity whilst playing. This revelation has led to some extremists to label games as ‘violence simulators’. The fact that the sort of brain activity that was witnessed during these ‘tests’ could just as easily be attributed to any activity that raises blood pressure and is exciting did not seem to past the journalists minds. The same sort of activity that arises during a film, reading an exciting book, having a heated debate or even a particularly exciting dream. If people commit violence it is because there are other forces acting on them. (E.g. troubled past, trauma, etc) If we are to point the blame for unjustified acts of violence perhaps we should look to our countries leaders, Bush and Blair who seem intent on leading us in to an unprovoked war. An unforgivable act of aggression I’m sure you’ll agree.This is a complex matter, and I don’t pretend to have all the answers, no one can. But censorship is never the way forward. As I write this one of the first games in Britain has just been banned and not granted a classification. Rules of Rose for PS2. Is this how we encourage an art form to take risks and deal wit increasingly complex subject matter. No, is the short answer. We do not want to sleep walk into an Orwellian nightmare and the protection of our freedom of speech and expression is key to our evolution as a society. This is a young art form, it is debatable that it is not even sophisticated enough to handle complex topics. But it deserves the opportunity. Every generation needs its form of expression and desires to explore its problems through art, as we stand on the brink of this explosion and exploration we should not hold back. Or allow anything to hold us back!

David Lynch


This is work is un-edited.