Details of a CFPs for the Society for Cinema and Media Studies annual conference in 2006. This relates a little to the previous post. I wonder if 'What the Bleep..' will come up or the whole range of celebs who openly endorse Scientology. Even though I did walk out after 30mins (which was generous), it is certainly an interesting case study for this theme.
(I just googled this to see whether it would pick up this posting and came up with a Wikipedia entry on Scientific Celebrity).
Call for Papers: Panel on Science and Celebrity
SCMS 2006 (Vancouver)
Abstract submissions are welcome for papers that explore the
crossroads between science and celebrity in film and media. In recent
years, the field of critical science studies has offered rich new areas
of inquiry for visual culture and cinema studies. In particular, there
is renewed interest in the early history of scientific cinema, the role
of visual technologies in the culture of medicine, and the sublime
force of science fiction media. This panel will take these concerns
further by examining specifically the way in which the visual cultures
of science are themselves creating new star systems. Whether it is the
scientists or their discoveries, the visual representation of science
creates a distinct celebrity culture that builds upon ideologies of
science as the hero or saviour of the future. Topics may include:
* representations of scientific discovery * the scientist as hero in film and media * science fiction icons and fan cultures * the place of visual technologies in the culture of science
Please submit a 200-300 word abstract, including your name,
affiliation, and contact information to:
Dr. Rebecca Sullivan
Associate Professor
Faculty of Communication and Culture
The University of Calgary
rsulliva@ucalgary.ca
Deadline to submit is August 15th.
---
Dr. Rebecca Sullivan
Faculty of Communication and Culture ~ The University of Calgary
2500 University Dr NW ~ Calgary, AB ~ T2N 1N4
Tel. 403.220.3397 ~ Fax. 403.282.6716 ~ rsulliva@ucalgary.ca
Details of a CFPs for the Society for Cinema and Media Studies annual conference in 2006. This relates a little to the previous post. I wonder if 'What the Bleep..' will come up or the whole range of celebs who openly endorse Scientology. Even though I did walk out after 30mins (which was generous), it is certainly an interesting case study for this theme.
(I just googled this to see whether it would pick up this posting and came up with a Wikipedia entry on Scientific Celebrity).
Call for Papers: Panel on Science and Celebrity
SCMS 2006 (Vancouver)
Abstract submissions are welcome for papers that explore the
crossroads between science and celebrity in film and media. In recent
years, the field of critical science studies has offered rich new areas
of inquiry for visual culture and cinema studies. In particular, there
is renewed interest in the early history of scientific cinema, the role
of visual technologies in the culture of medicine, and the sublime
force of science fiction media. This panel will take these concerns
further by examining specifically the way in which the visual cultures
of science are themselves creating new star systems. Whether it is the
scientists or their discoveries, the visual representation of science
creates a distinct celebrity culture that builds upon ideologies of
science as the hero or saviour of the future. Topics may include:
* representations of scientific discovery * the scientist as hero in film and media * science fiction icons and fan cultures * the place of visual technologies in the culture of science
Please submit a 200-300 word abstract, including your name,
affiliation, and contact information to:
Dr. Rebecca Sullivan
Associate Professor
Faculty of Communication and Culture
The University of Calgary
rsulliva@ucalgary.ca
Call for Papers
2006 Northeastern Modern Language Association (NEMLA) Convention
Philadelphia, PA, 2 - 5 March 2006
Following the Second World War, a re-examination of the animal as a
category of ontological being by Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida pushed
this question of philosophical theory out of its academic margin.
Moreover, North America's ecocritical movement has produced an
increasingly visible body of work. Nevertheless, the politics of animal
representation remains quite underdeveloped in both literary theory and
criticism. This panel will take submissions on literary works that
reconsider how representations of animals function in terms of their
politics, how different types of representations may not work to
encourage or resist appropriation as metaphors, and in particular, how
these works might rearticulate other questions of race, gender and
transnationlism along the lines of species.
For consideration, please e-mail 250-word abstracts by 15 September
2005 to vjguihan@connect.carleton.ca or mail print copies to:
Vincent Guihan
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
Canada
The recent moral outrage surrounding the sale of Live8 tickets on eBay reminded me of the 1999 eBay organ trafficking scandal. The details of this are quite well-known now, though I am not sure the key questions have really been addressed. To recap, in 1999 a human kidney appeared on the internet auction website eBay. Perhaps it is needless to say that the auction was terminated by eBay, though not before the highest bid reached extraordinary figures.
The problems of organ trafficking seem to be exacerbated through the Internet, if only because it is much harder to control. However, control is not the only problem. Perhaps the bigger question relates to the degree of control that online companies have over the moral culture surrounding medicine and health. In this case - and in relation to the Live8 tickets - we see an immense institution being able to dictate what people are permitted to do. While the auctioning of human organs certainly has a considerably more complicated legal and moral context than Live8 tickets, each of them raises questions about how morality is constructed in society. In the case of the Live8 tickets, the pressure came from celebrities, particularly Bob Geldof and there was no legal reason to forbid people from selling these tickets. Yet, eBay took the moral high-ground, so to speak.
For many, the auctioning of human organs is unequivocally immoral. At the very least, it creates a messy debate about whether organs should be sold at all, though this is a more difficult issue. Offering a financial compensation for a body part is, for many, a reasonable exchange and, given the lack of organs, a necessary one. The difficulty, however, is that anybody who would want to auction an organ would clearly be someone in a vulnerable position and it is unreasonable to take advantage of that vulnerability, even if they might gain financially through it.
While programming the conference, we have thought about whether there should be a panel on academic celebrity. Perhaps Germaine Greer's brief appearance in UK Celebrity Big Brother is really at the furthest end of at least one scale and there is surely a lot to discuss about her alone. However, there are other questions, perhaps closer to serious issues for academics that are worthy of debate.
For example, does increased stardom for an academic lead to alienation from the academy and colleagues? I have spoken to some colleagues concerned about perceived jealousy from other colleagues, as their 'star' ascends, not that they put it quite like that! For me, it begs the question as to what relationship academics have with the media/public. A lot of my work is about science dissemination and these questions arise a lot. In this area, there seems to be a renewed interest to think through these matters and address public engagment through the media, perhaps as science questions seem more and more serious for the public. Institutions such as The Wellcome Trust and the British Association for the Advancement of Science seem keen to address the public-scientist divide.
The recent RAE statements on broader dissemination, perhaps, urges academics to think about how they relate to the media and communicate their work. Equally, scientists have been criticised for approaching the media, before their findings have been peer reviewed. It seems to me that media scholars play a crucial role in these discussions.
It does not seem satisfactory for academics to remain within their ivory towers, dismissive of wider dissemination. However, I doubt their are few academics in the humanities and, perhaps, the social sciences, who write a press release each time they have a new article published. Admittedly, I am not convinced that they should have to either. Writing press releases can be incredibly dull and is better done by those who have the skills for this sort of task.
Clearly, academics are perhaps not celebrities in a broader sense, though scientists such as Robert Winston, Susan Greenfield and others are certainly in the public eye a great deal.
I tread very carefully when discussing the use of technology by people with disabilities. I am skeptical of progressive transhumanist arguments associated with reparative technologies. However, this documentary seems to demand that very progressive argument. I am not sure that it lends itself to a cyborgian or posthuman discourse, unless we deal with those terms as simply the broadening of what it means to be human or, indeed, disabled.
I have only seen a trailer for the movie, but the director and actor/athletes talk about transforming the way in which athletes/people with a disability are perceived. In this sense, they are entering into a process of re-definition. I wonder whether they would see themselves as constitutiely technological as athletes. The chairs they use are quite different vehicles/ prosthetics to any that I have seen in other sports and their attitudes come across as deliberately and unapologetically aggresssive.
There is surely a paper waiting to be written about this both within sport studies and cultural studies of technology.
I was just reading an article in The Telegraph, which mentions that Aboriginal-Australian athlete Cathy Freeman is going to be a major ambassador for the London 2012 Olympic team. The Telegraph reports that she was a big hit in Singapore during the final bid presentation where "It was noticeable during the build-up to the vote how many IOC members approached Freeman to be photographed with her." (Hazel, 2005, Jul 18, Daily Telegraph, London)
I didn't really see much of the final day presentation broadcasts leading up to the International Olympic Committeee decision on 6 July, but I do recall seeing a press conference where journalists were surprised by the lack of celebrities in the Paris bid team. Something along the lines of 'but,where are your celebrities?'. I was told by some colleagues that there were, in fact, some celebs there for Paris, but, nevertheless, one might wonder how much the celebs really nailed it for London. To London's advantage, there seemed particular merit in having David Beckham alongside, specifically because he self-identified as a native of the east London region that would benefit from the regeneration the Olympics would bring.
(image, Cathy Freeman in Athens media centre during the Olympics)
I have just returned from Belgrade, where I presented a paper in an invited symposium at the 10th European College of Sport Science meeting. The title of the paper was 'Ban Drugs, Permit Gene Transfer'. Upon my return, I was updating the GMathletes website and discovered the SportsGeneTest website.
To my knowledge, this is the first site to indicate commercial tests for athletic performance. I noticed they have a policy statement, but it is only in German. If anyone can read German, perhaps you would tell me if it is an interesting statement or not!
More information is available through the Australian site 'Genetic Technologies'. In fact, at this page, the 'ethical tell' is a little clearer from their advice for coaches. I quote:
"It is important to note:
this test is primarily aimed at elite athletes, serious competitors and teenagers already involved in sport and considering the next steps in terms of professional sports development;
this test provides a complementary insight into a person's natural sport gearing and should only be considered as one aspect of a range of elements that go into being a champion, such as determination and the desire to win, enjoyment of the sport, coaching, nutrition, ability and level of fitness;
the test may only be beneficial for those children already involved in and enjoying their sport who desire some direction as to their optimum sport or event if considering sport as a career or serious hobby;
Genetic Technologies does not recommend or condone using the results of this test to pressure children into any sport or event. Children should only participate in sports that they enjoy for the purpose of fun and exercise."
So, it would seem they are concerned about:
1. These tests being used too early in a competitors life. Perhaps parents might wish to try them on their kids first, as a means of deciding whether it is worthwhile for them to play sport.
2. Genetic determinism - coaches/parents might conclude that the test result is the dominant predictor of performance capacity.
3. Tests might be imposed upon (young) athletes - though notably, they do not demonstrate a concern for adults being tested.
Well, I cover some of these issues in GMA, so perhaps no need to go over old ground. Still, genetic testing has yet to really hit home in the world of sport. It seems to be seen as merely an extension of talent identification, though I am not convinced that the principles are the same.
I was able to attend a few of the events surrounding the G8 in Gleneagles. The photo archive is located in Flickr, while this page gives some sense of an overview on particular moments and stories.
G8 Protests in Edinburgh
The problem was not that nothing much happened in Scotland on the day the G8 opened; the problem was that very soon, too much was happening elsewhere. The problem was not that celebrities were, again, taking the moral high ground over politician; the problem was that people needed to listen. While listening is no bad quality, this took the form of unquestioned acceptance of a simple moral message and seemed a little too similar to Tony Blair’s alignment with, say, Oasis in 1997. Perhaps the image of Bob Gelfof leaning on the shoulder of Tony Blair will be similarly to the regret of Sir Bob some years later, unless, of course, we see him abandoning music and pursuing a career in politics.
We arrived in Edinburgh around 1215pm on the 6th, after the morning news reported trouble in areas of Stirling. The city seemed quite quiet at this time, though we were on its outskirts. We made our way to Princes Street, while keeping the mobile phone close. At 1245pm, we were expecting a call to tell us the outcome of London’s bid to host the Olympic Games in 2012.
At 1246pm – the official and precise moment when it was supposed to be announced from Singapore, where the International Olympic Committee was meeting – we gave up waiting and called a family member who confirmed that London had won. Celebrations were already taking place. One hour later after we had had a ‘celebratory’ lunch – we really only had lunch – we then walked down towards Princes Street which, at this time, was closed off. It did not appear that there was trouble or, by now, it had been controlled by the many police officers whose wagons were circled. It seemed that we had missed out on something and we could hear the banging of drums and crowd noise.
It was quite a different picture from a few days before, when the Make Poverty History march took place along the same street and around the same city. Today felt much more unsettled, but safe enough. Fortunately for the City of Edinburgh, it did not appear that 1 million people had made their Long Walk to Justice to Edinburgh, as Sir Bob had commanded. In fact, it did not seem busy at all. Apart from a few high street shops that were boarded up, the city did not seem so different, except for the 60,000 or so people making their way to The Final Push concert, where the two Bs would mount their final stand on the eight Gs. It was a relatively grim day, at times pouring with rain, though the tv managed to make it look like a glorious Edinburgh afternoon. After getting into the stadium at around 430pm and receiving our free Scottish flag to wear around us, the concert kicked-off with Lenny Henry, who compared fully kilted.
The week leading up to the G8 was a little more interesting. In Glasgow, various theatre companies had arranged performances, inspired by politics and galleries hosted protest works of art, which were connnected the G8 alternative proceedings. These occurrences seemed to be the richer legacy of what happened, though you would not have heard much about them in the press.
Inevitably, the G8 has been quickly forgotten in Scotland. Perhaps this was too much of a stretch of mega-event hosting, though it does introduce a new twist to that literature. I am not sure that rioting counts as a mega-event, but it certainly draws the same kind of spectacular media coverage and there are a lot of peripheral activities that take place around a city when it occurs.
It's ironic that, on the same day that London won the privilege to host the 2012 Olympic mega-event, the slightly smaller G8 event was taking place.
Yet, each of them was relegated to the inside pages of the subsequent days news, as the catastrophic events of the London bombings brought home that there is little more important to the media than homeland security. Without this, the foundations of culture collapse and are quickly dismissed.
Speakers at MPH
A number of speakers kicked-off the programme in the Meadows. The first of these was the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Lesley Hinds. She was followed by Jonathan Dimbleby and then Cardinal Keith O'Brien (the only [red] Cardinal to vote on the election of the new Pope while wearing a MPH wristband).
I'm not one for overtly inspirational speeches, they always feel a little patronizing to me. The most interesting intervention took place sometime late in the afternoon, when Eddie Izzard came on to fill a few minutes and simply said 'Stuff Hyde Park'. Billy Bragg was also one of the better participants, recounting a story from the 1980s, when he was made aware of the prejudice facing homosexuals.
One of the difficulties with the Edinburgh afternoon was that one couldn't help but feel that people would just rather have had the big screens tuned into the Live8 gig in London. They switched to the concert a few times, particularly at the beginning and it seemed that this was the historical moment for the UK. Of course, this event is rather oddly position as having been defined as historical before it took place, because of the context of Live Aid. Arguably, this prohibits it from similarly gaining a memorable status.
The aftermath of Live8 seems different somehow; less historic, though the afternoon in Edinburgh's Meadows felt like an intimate, quiet protest, embedded into the right kind of networks where protest is not meaningful just because a camera is filming.
Who was at the MPH march?
this list is generated from looking through my 112 photographs taken on July 2, 2005 at the Edinburgh march and observing which logos are present. The list is not exhaustive of who attended, but what appears within the frame of the 120 photographs we took. Where applicable, the list includes the slogan used by the organisation for the day.
Activist Trauma Support Group
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmarment 'Bread Not Bombs'
Christian Aid 'World Trade Justice'
Dissent
FairTrade
Friends of the Earth
Islamic Relief
Live8 Merchandise 'The Final Push'
Methodist Relief
No Sweat 'Stamp Out Sweat Shops'
Oxfam
Scottish Socialist Party
'Make Capitalism History'
SCiAF
Socialist Worker 'World's No.1 Terrorist [image of George W. Bush]'
Stand Up for Africa
Student Times
TearFund 'We Believe it's Time for Action'
The Mirror 'Trade Justice now'
Volunteer Service Organisation 'I Told Tony at the VSO Campaign Tent'
War on Want
WaterAid
World Wildlife Foundation
It seems important to blog something about the Live8, G8, Bob Geldof activities. I read this in one of Mick Hume's columns in Sp!ked OnLine, which captures the tensions well i think:
"No doubt the pop stars and other celebrities involved in Live 8 and the Long Walk to Justice campaign see themselves as radical troublemakers, holding the politicians' feet to the flames. Yet in a sense they are more like unwitting stooges of the political class, helping to give the politicians more credibility in getting their message across. That is why government ministers and politicians of all parties have been falling over themselves to express support for Live 8. It is why chancellor Brown, not a man one would ever associate with street activism, has called on people to support the mass demonstration in Edinburgh planned to coincide with July's G8 summit of world leaders in Scotland. It is worth recalling that the Commission for Africa, which issued a highly critical report on the international community's attitude to Africa and is now commonly referred to as 'Bob Geldof's Commission', was actually set up by Blair to perform that role." (link to article)
With the G8 protests just around the corner, I doubt this will be the only entry on this subject. We still don't know how easy it will be to get to Edinbrugh on Saturday, though it seems likely that getting to Gleneagles will either be impossible or pointless. There also seems to be considerable confusion about what is happening on each day. The 'Geldof' day of the 6th is unrelated to the 'Make Poverty History' day of the 2nd.
It can be quite difficult to discern how 'important' Live8 and the G8 is for the rest of the world. We have spoken with people in Spain and the USA who have certainly not heard much about 'Make Poverty History' campaign. Over the last few weeks, the multiplex cinemas have been screening a new Orange advert featuring Ewan McGregor and the MPH work. The format is consistent with the recent Orange cinema adverts, where the celebrity makes their film pitch to the Orange funding committee.
It seems important to blog something about the Live8, G8, Bob Geldof activities. I read this in one of Mick Hume's columns in Sp!ked OnLine, which captures the tensions well i think:
"No doubt the pop stars and other celebrities involved in Live 8 and the Long Walk to Justice campaign see themselves as radical troublemakers, holding the politicians' feet to the flames. Yet in a sense they are more like unwitting stooges of the political class, helping to give the politicians more credibility in getting their message across. That is why government ministers and politicians of all parties have been falling over themselves to express support for Live 8. It is why chancellor Brown, not a man one would ever associate with street activism, has called on people to support the mass demonstration in Edinburgh planned to coincide with July's G8 summit of world leaders in Scotland. It is worth recalling that the Commission for Africa, which issued a highly critical report on the international community's attitude to Africa and is now commonly referred to as 'Bob Geldof's Commission', was actually set up by Blair to perform that role." (link to article)
With the G8 protests just around the corner, I doubt this will be the only entry on this subject. We still don't know how easy it will be to get to Edinbrugh on Saturday, though it seems likely that getting to Gleneagles will either be impossible or pointless. There also seems to be considerable confusion about what is happening on each day. The 'Geldof' day of the 6th is unrelated to the 'Make Poverty History' day of the 2nd.
It can be quite difficult to discern how 'important' Live8 and the G8 is for the rest of the world. We have spoken with people in Spain and the USA who have certainly not heard much about 'Make Poverty History' campaign. Over the last few weeks, the multiplex cinemas have been screening a new Orange advert featuring Ewan McGregor and the MPH work. The format is consistent with the recent Orange cinema adverts, where the celebrity makes their film pitch to the Orange funding committee.
Last friday, I participated in a symposium by this title. The co-presenters were Professor Wendy Hall and Professor Neil Burgess. It was hosted by the Royal Institution of Great Britain and was part of the EPSRC Futures series. The Chair of the debate and Director of the series was Dr Dan Glaser, who did a first class jobs. Chairs rarely get credit, but Dan was really superb. He has had a lot of experience with public engagement and his management of this session made it very enjoyable.
A number of possible futures were discussed and questions were asked about the use of metaphors and analogies when imagining what constitutes our memories. Movies came up a lot as well, particularly a compendium of Jim Carrey films (Bruce Almighty, Truman Show, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). Memento was also mentioned. I think we could have spent the whole evening just talking about film.
Prof. Neil Burgess also described some work on recollection that uses virtual reality environments as a means of evaluating how much people remember. Yet another example of computer game technology infiltrating the sphere of science. Last November, I learned of similar uses within surgery.
My paper attempted a socio-ethical take on the future of memory, wondering about how we might alter memories and on what basis we justify memory enhancement. Paralells are made with debates related specifically to neuroethics (recent edition of the AJOB has a number of papers about this) and the use of cognitive enhancers. It seems that the future indicates the potential to develop a refined knowledge hierarchy where some forms of knowledge will become more important than others. So, perhaps through sophisticated digital support systems, the importance of remembering factual information will be less. This could have radical implications for how we evaluate capacity and intellect.
Again, the emphasis I wish to make is that becoming posthuman need not imply radical, futuristic technologies such as memory erasure. Rather, the integration of digitisation alone into our daily lives transforms what it means to be human. A good indication of this is the use of community photograph sites, such as flickr, where your images become part of a collective memory of an event or moment.
Blurb on the Symposium
Continuing our innovative look at what the future holds for us, the second in our series of ‘Futures’ debates will ask how will we use our memory in the future and how much we will rely on technology to do it for us. This reliance has already begun – consider how many phone numbers you can remember now that you can store them on your mobile phone – and looks set to continue with projects such as ‘Memories for life’. This is one of the grand challenges in the computing world, and its aim is to develop a system to both store and protect our individual memories while being sophisticated enough to allow us to sort through them. But what effects will this have on individuals and society as our ability to access information, and our dependence on external devices, increases? How can mass-storage devices be designed to interface with people and their brains so that more and more can be retrieved with less and less reliance on biological memory? And could this help people with memory impairments? Join Neil Burgess (University College London), Wendy Hall (University of Southampton) and Andy Miah (University of Paisley) as they look at the potential of future computer systems and ask should we be embracing or resisting this move towards an age when digital and physical activities not only coexist but co-operate. (Link to Royal Institution of Great Britain website).
A few months ago, I posted on the use of genetic tests in the AFL. Since my very first talk about genomics and sport in 1999 at the First International Conference on Human Rights and Sport, I have been arguing on this subject. In 2003, the Australian Law Reforms Commission wrote about the potential for discrimination arising from genetic tests in sport.
This issue has arisen again in the context of the Australian Football League. Reports indicate that Port Adelaide and Essendon are considering the use of genetic tests to 'predict' the capacity of 'natural physical attributes'. The Age (Sydney) reported that each test would cost around AU$750 and AFL Players' Association president, Brendon Gale, has argued that such tests would be contrary to privacy laws in Australia. This issues seems about to, ahem, 'kick off' in Australia and few other countries have yet to really think it through.
Certainly, employment law might be a reasonable avenue for action within the UK, though where this takes place with young athletes, it seems likely to fall within the realm of parental consent.
Some of this relates to a piece I published a few years ago on this subject:
In March 2004, The British Medical Journal reported on the International Narcotics Control Board statement on the sale of drugs over the Internet. They highlight popular drugs such as sildenafil (viagra) and fluoxetine (Prozac) - who hasn't received email about these substances!?
It is interesting that some of these drugs are associated with so-called 'lifestyle' enhancements. While the lack of regulation over online drugs is significant, I wonder how much of their concern is about how these drugs reflect a shift in the way people use and perceive medicine. One of the difficulties facing the medical profession is how to curb the tide on lifestyle medicine. There seem to be a number of legal and moral questions arising from the development of online pharmacies and, even if the current regulations offer a structure through which action could be taken against a dodgy company, we need to take into account how online pharmacies are different social spaces, compared with high-street retail outlets. For example, how does a physician take a history of their patient through the Internet? What relationship between the physician and patient is possible?
There also seem to be difficult boundary issues facing regulation. Even if the legal issues are similar to the importation of substances from one place to another, the manner in which people transcend these boundaries is radically different - it is much easier to click on a website of a company in a country far away, than it is to go there or connnect with a supplier in that country.
A couple of weeks ago, the local art cinema screened this documentary made by Alex Cooke. There was a brief introduction from a local journalist who was, not suprisingly, a little alarmed at the state of California. The documentary seems to pursue this peculiar charcater, deliberately highlighting its wackiness - somehow it makes sense that The Terminator is Governor here. In fact, in one of the crucial candidate debates, Arnie even throws in a few one liners from his movies. Aside from the prostitute candidate, that guy from Different Strokes, and a range of superheroes who were interviewed for the documentary, this is a really regular film! Actually, it seems a little too gratitutious, as if some commissioning editor has just experienced a Eureka moment when realizing that Arnie might one day become Precident.
The celebrity as spectacle finds its paradigmatic case through this film, but it also feels a little like the bottom has dropped out of protest-documentary making, which was disappointing. There is no protest here, message here, except 'weird, huh?'.
I much preferred the Spike Lee short 'We Wuz Robbed', which was 10 times shorter (and not about Arnie's governorship). Watchable, if only to witness how lazy documentary making might become, though I am sure it was not an easy film to assemble.
A couple of weeks ago, the local art cinema screened this documentary made by Alex Cooke. There was a brief introduction from a local journalist who was, not suprisingly, a little alarmed at the state of California. The documentary seems to pursue this peculiar charcater, deliberately highlighting its wackiness - somehow it makes sense that The Terminator is Governor here. In fact, in one of the crucial candidate debates, Arnie even throws in a few one liners from his movies. Aside from the prostitute candidate, that guy from Different Strokes, and a range of superheroes who were interviewed for the documentary, this is a really regular film! Actually, it seems a little too gratitutious, as if some commissioning editor has just experienced a Eureka moment when realizing that Arnie might one day become Precident.
The celebrity as spectacle finds its paradigmatic case through this film, but it also feels a little like the bottom has dropped out of protest-documentary making, which was disappointing. There is no protest here, message here, except 'weird, huh?'.
I much preferred the Spike Lee short 'We Wuz Robbed', which was 10 times shorter (and not about Arnie's governorship). Watchable, if only to witness how lazy documentary making might become, though I am sure it was not an easy film to assemble.
Today UK Sport launched a new anti-doping campaign in London. Among the guests were Tessa Jowell MP, David Howman (WADA), Craig Reedie (IOC), and athletes Stephen Parry and Nicola Cooke. The debate was recorded for broadcast on Radio 5 Live and was definitely one of the healthier debates i have had on this subject. A promising development I think.
A few months ago, the University of California Davis Medical Center began testing its robot, Rudy, as a way of dveloping greater flexibility for physicians and more personal care for patients. At first sight, this looks like such a bad idea - there is no escaping the technological face of this charcater, it is surely better than a 'Hal' like camera, which might surely have been an alternative. It just reminds me of one of the Daleks from Doctor Who. (Let's hope there's no 'exterminate' facility, unless, of course, assisted suicide becomes more acceptable!)
Next week, I will give a paper in Sweden titled 'Designer Steroids, Cosmetic Surgery, & Wings'. The paper will explore a range of modifications and, for now, I am particularly intrigued by the use of surgery for sport performance. So far, I have spoken to a range of doping experts about this and, each time, they are perplexed. The first responses is 'Well, what kind of surgery would an athlete benefit from?'. A couple of weeks ago, I posted something about Tiger Woods and laser-eye surgery, but I am sure there are other examples worth thinking through. So, until I have an answer about this one, I thought I'd through it out there and ask 'Why don't athletes use elective cosmetic surgery to enhance their performance?'
By the way, I will also mention that such modification is NOT banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and I doubt that it could be.
Sport Medicine Ethics, 23-24 May, 2005 On Monday 23rd and Tuesday 24th of May 2005, the Stockholm Center for Bioethics, together with the Department of Philosophy at the University of Stockholm and the Oxford Centre for Applied Ethics will organize an international conference on sport medicine ethics, an area still undiscussed within the field of bioethics.
The conference site is Stockholm, and the title of the conference is
"Legitimate and illegitimate enhancements, where to draw the line?".
Details of a CFPs for the Society for Cinema and Media Studies annual conference in 2006. This relates a little to the previous post. I wonder if 'What the Bleep..' will come up or the whole range of celebs who openly endorse Scientology. Even though I did walk out after 30mins (which was generous), it is certainly an interesting case study for this theme.
(I just googled this to see whether it would pick up this posting and came up with a Wikipedia entry on Scientific Celebrity).
