How It's Meant To Be

My latest distraction technique - cubase recording






How It's Meant To Be

Another day has gone where you’ve been left alone
Footsteps surround you but there’s no-one walking home
They seem to look into your eyes so desperately
Until the sun is down you’re all for them to see

And now your mother’s asking who you’ve been around
She tells you daddy’s not surprised when they were found
This isn’t how it’s meant to be
This isn’t how it’s meant to be

Because you’re alone
Because you’re alone

And now you’re searching for the place you see in your mind
Blank people tell you it’s impossible to find
The broken heart of all the dreams you had for me
Is now the faded blood that only I can see

And your now mother’s asking who you’ve been around
She tells you daddy’s not surprised when they were found
This isn’t how it’s meant to be
This isn’t how it’s meant to be

Because you’re alone
Because you’re alone

Jack the Ripper blame game: Jew, toff or medic?

Jack the Ripper: Tabloid Killer, channel five

So I just watched a documentary on Jack the Ripper (this is fast becoming a film/tv blog, I realise) and I'm kicking myself that I didn't think to choose it for my dissertation topic! Suddenly punk seems so tame...

I've always had a strange fascination with the Jack the Ripper killings, and the Victorian East End as a whole. I think it's a culmination of feeling some sort of connection, due to my mum being from that neck of the woods (we found out recently that her great great great grandfather was a constable on the Jack the Ripper case!), and loving the London Dungeons and the 1968 Oliver! musical as a kid. Whatever the reasons, there's definitely a sense of romanticism that we attach to these parts of history (weird, considering what they actually entail).

Below: Oliver Reed as Bill Sykes in the 1968 Oliver! musical

Anyway, although I wasn't expecting to find out much new - it has been more than 120 years since the murders after all - the documentary's focus on the journalism aspect of the case was particularly fascinating.

Eight years before Lord Northcliffe had set up the Daily Mail and discovered the profits of sensational tabloid style news - along with the uttering of his immortal phrase, "Get me a murder a day!" - it was in fact the editor of the Daily Star (no, not that one) who began to reap the benefits of 'bloody' news.

In 1888, the ability to read was no longer just the privilege of the upper classes in Britain; what with education and tax reforms (the latter making newspapers cheaper and more readily available), literacy was rapidly on the rise. With a growing population of working class readers, journalism was changing, and needed to satisfy the interests of its expanding readerships.

The birth of 'New Journalism', saw a shift towards simplified, to-the-point language, alongside dramatic and/or human interest stories with sensational headlines; essentially, what we now call tabloid journalism.

Around the same time, the fledgling Daily Star picked up - seemingly by chance - on the murder of a young woman, and found that the gritty details of her death boosted their sales. When they linked her death to another murder (commonly regarded as being totally inaccurate and unrelated), bingo! They sold more.

The paper had successfully kick-started a serial killer 'panic'. The question nowadays when looking to the whole debacle, is whether this early coverage unwittingly spurred on the Ripper.

Fast forward to the five gruesome killings that followed (all widely believed to be the work of one man - Jack the Ripper) and the newspapers were full of accusations.

Drawing parallels with today's tabloids that often attribute society's 'ills' to minority groups, the coverage of Jack the Ripper at first stated, entirely on speculation, that he was a Jew, as no English man could be "capable" of such a gruesome crime.

Below: grim image of the Ripper's first victim

This was followed by the 'toff': another great figure of hate masterminded by the editors (the toff being the enemy, because the readers, like the victims of the Ripper, were vastly from the lower classes), and lastly the popularised image of a high society doctor, complete with hat and brief case.

The key aspect however, in the level of notoriety that the Jack the Ripper killings have achieved, is all down to the name: a perfect mix of normality (the very name 'Jack') and brutality. A headline writer's wet dream you might say.

How the name came about, says even more about the influence of the press in cementing the Ripper's status forever more. The name 'Jack the Ripper' was first used in the "Dear Boss" letter, which was sent conveniently to the Central News Agency, and signed off politely with, "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper".

It was none other than a journalist who is said to have written the hoax; the perfect way to drum up more interest - and profit - in the story. Convincing evidence revealed in the documentary points to one particular hack, and a letter suggests that the corporation knew fully well that it was his doing.

As presenter Kelvin Mackenzie (former editor of The Sun) points out, this man would have inevitably been protected - and more possibly, instructed - by higher powers to write the letter. The ultimate person, he says, who has the power to do so, is the editor. Takes one to know one...

Putting aside the questionable aspects to this documentary (at one stage, some sort of scientist man demonstrates where precisely, one of the victims was cut, by drawing on a woman lying on the operating table in her bra. Not sure that was necessary, but hey - it's channel Five), it's interesting to see where the serial killer phenomena really all kicked off.

The irony of Mackenzie discussing the underhand tactics employed by the newspapers to create a stir surrounding the killings is quite funny when you consider that The Daily Star was basically the 19th century equivalent to The Sun.

Add to that Mackenzie's own shady past (he alienated a generation of Liverpudlian Sun readers over the false reporting of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, which blamed Liverpool fans and included allegations of fans stealing from/urinating over the dead bodies) and it's easy to see that he belongs to the same "drama before accuracy" school of thought.

Below: Mackenzie. A quick Google search brings you to his Wikipedia page which contains the message: "the neutrality of this article is disputed". Tee hee, more irony...

Whether it's down to the romanticism of Victorian East London, or the brilliantly catchy 'Jack the Ripper' name daubed with the killings (and arguably, without this 'catchy' tag, the murders would have been confined to a forgotten chapter of history) more than a century later, the presence of the case is still plain to see, in everything from new conspiracy theories, to Jack the Ripper tours.

As one editor in the documentary points out (his name escapes me), it is quite simply the most famous of all murders, because it has never been solved.

On that note, I shall leave you with some immature Jack the Ripper cartoon parodies. My particular favourite is Jack as a child.

Fashion doc reveals seediness behind the glamour

Just as my arrival into the blog world has been spectacularly late, I am probably a bit slow on the old uptake with regards to the film I am about to discuss, but nevertheless I thought I'd get my two cents in. The film in question, is Picture Me, a video diary-type documentary following five years in the life of fashion model Sara Ziff.

Above: a fresh faced Sara Ziff

Over the course of filming, Ziff snuck her - now ex - boyfriend and film maker Ole Schell into fashion shows, shoots, and parties (often resulting in him being thrown out, and/or having his camera confiscated) in order to gain a unique insight into the ins and outs of the fashion industry, along the way exposing some gritty truths.

The various clips of footage clearly document Ziff's 'falling out of love' with the industry that she was once excited to be a part of. She appears to transform from a happy-go-lucky teenager, bemused at seeing her own image plastered up on billboards and amazed by $100,000 dollar cheques, to an exhausted and disillusioned young woman, keen to break free of the career that had her earning more than her father (a neuroscientist professor) by the age of 20.

On the surface, while it may all sound a little 'woe is me', the reality depicted is an insightful contrast between the rich and glamorous side of the fashion industry, versus the dark and seedy. While we all know deep down that dodgy deals and cocaine lurk in the shadows of fashion, it becomes more poignant to hear it first hand from the girls who are desensitised to this way of life.

Below: model Senna Cech, who reveals the seedy tactics employed by respected photographers

Fellow model Sena Cech talks to the camera matter of factly, about her experience with "a very famous" photographer, who asked her to take off her clothes during a casting. Nothing new about that, but the photographer then proceeds to take his clothes off, while his assistant says to Cech: "Sena — can you grab his cock and twist it real hard... He likes it when you squeeze it real hard and twist it."

Staring straight at the camera, Cech says, "I did it, but later I didn't feel good about it". Needless to say, she booked the job.

To her credit, Cech came to her senses and turned it down - she was never booked by that photographer again -, but it clearly demonstrates the dirty tactics and power struggle between photographers and their subjects. Here, these men use their credibility and influence in the fashion world to bribe young girls, in return for furthering their careers. What's shocking is that the film makes it clear that Cech's experience isn't a unique one.

Industry standards certainly seem to contribute to the problem; girls are discovered young, often plucked from small and remote towns, and taken to big foreign cities to model, where they are essentially left to fend for themselves, with no parent or guardian.

Below: Sena Cech. Do we take it for granted that a model hasn't felt pressured into nudity?

Ziff says: "It doesn't happen in front of anyone. It happens in the dark recesses. Pretty much every girl I have talked to has a story like it, but no one talks about it. It's all under the radar because people are embarrassed and because the people in the industry who are doing these things are much more powerful, and the model is totally disposable. She could be gone in two years."

A similar interview with a 16 year old model details her experience at a photo shoot in Paris, with "one of the world's top names" in photography. Inexperienced and unaccompanied by any guardian or parent, she leaves the studio to go to the bathroom and meets the photographer, who starts fiddling with her clothes, before suddenly putting his hand between her legs and sexually assaulting her.

The interview didn't make the final version of the film, as the day before the premiere, the girl changed her mind for fear of the repercussions.

Ziff tells the Guardian: "She has no experience of boys, she hasn't even been kissed. She was so shocked she just stood there and didn't say anything. He just looked at her and walked away and they did the rest of the shoot. And she never told anyone." She adds, "there is a lot of shame in telling a story like that, but it is really widespread.

Curious as to who these 'well known' photographers could be, a quick google search seemed to link controversial and sexually explicit photographer Terry Richardson with Sena Cech's story.

Above: Richardson's famous shot of glossy Maybelline model Josie Moran simulating fellatio with a cow's udder. Somewhere in this picture, she is apparently modelling for Italian fashion brand Sisley, although personally that's not coming through to me...

It seems that New York blog Jezebel posted a link to the Guardian article about Picture Me (the article details the aforementioned allegations made by Cech), alongside an image of Richardson receiving, ahem, 'manual stimulation'. Pretty clear what the blog is trying to suggest really, isn't it?

Except, maybe not, because in a further twist - and perhaps to cover their backs - Jezebel added a clarification, noting that Richardson's image was only used because of a comment he'd made in an interview with Hint Mag where he said: "It's not who you know, it's who you blow. I don't have a hole in my jeans for nothing."

The author of Jezebel's blog was an anonymous writer named Tatiana, who is rumoured to be none other than Sara Ziff.

Arguably, it is possible that Ziff - now said to be a student at Columbia University - would want to 'lift the lid' further than her film was able to do, by naming and shaming sordid photographers.

Below: Richardson with Daisy Lowe. Now that's just plain creepy.

Below: Richardson captures some of the world's most photographed models, blurring the lines between a 'fashion shoot' and soft porn

(Left to right): Eniko Mihalik, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Catherine McNeil, Abbey Lee Kershaw, Daisy Lowe, Gracie Carvalho, Marloes Horst, Lily Cole, Ana Beatriz Barros, Miranda Kerr, Georgina Stojiljkovic

Anyway, I digress, and of course it's only speculation that Richardson was the unnamed photographer in Cech's story. But it is a revealing insight to find out that top names in photography are abusing the silence of young, impressionable models.

Short of re-telling the entire film, I suppose the reason I felt compelled to write about it, was that it got me questioning certain aspects of the fashion industry which I don't usually consider.

Within the media, we are so used to hearing about the negative influences of fashion on normal girls i.e. the 'consumers', yet the pressures on the actual young models are often less documented.

The reality is, designers want the 'new' girl every season, and it would seem that young 'flesh' is highly desirable. In the belief that clothes look better on slim, androgynous frames, the catwalks therefore look to young gangly teenage models, whose bodies are not yet fully developed.

This very fact is attributed to the pressure to stay thin. Quite simply, 'older' models (so you're looking at 24 onwards) find themselves competing against younger, thinner girls, and thus find that they have to resort to unnatural measures in order to stay thin like them.

Above: Belarusian model Tanya D, known for her 'alien' looks is featured in Picture Me (then aged 16), where she describes feeling older than her years. She started modelling at 14, but praises the industry for being "a good school"

Another aspect of fashion that the film got me questioning, is the use of nudity. Fashion has always been sexually provocative, but I can't help but think that there has been a rise in sexually explicit material over the last few years, where full frontal nudity and/or sexually explicit shots have become even more common place in high fashion magazines and the mainstream media, than they were before.

Below: American Apparel (whose chief executive has been the subject of several sexual harassment cases) have become notorious for their use of young girls in overtly sexualised shots to advertise their products

The AA advert below was infamously banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Agency for being "seen to sexualise a model who appeared to be a child, under the age of 16 years" (although it has to be pointed out, the model was 23)

Take the recent edition of Love magazine, which featured eight of the world's most in demand models - including Kate Moss, Naomi Campbell and Lara Stone - each stark naked on one of the 8 covers.

I can't help but wonder about each individual model's circumstances and reasons for agreeing to shoots such as this; whether they are fully comfortable with nudity and whether there is a sense of obligation to comply with a photographer's vision 'because every other successful model is doing it'.

Amongst the younger, less established models, is it a case of, "well if Kate and Naomi are doing it, I can't say no"? And with the seasoned pro's, is there pressure to keep up -and prove themselves still worthy - with the younger models of the moment?

Below: each of the Love magazine covers. A cheap use of nudity in order to cause a stir, or art?

Whatever your thoughts on the ethics of the industry, the film offers a unique perspective of the fashion world, and is definitely worth a watch.

And hey, with Spencer Tunick's latest nude installation at the Sydney Opera House successfully gathering over 5000 people willing to pose sans clothing, maybe nudity is no longer so 'shocking' to the masses anyway.

Little Intro

Hello. I'm Lucy and this is my blog, "The Journal of Lucy D". As the title would suggest - and as common with most blogs - I shall be using it as a journal to write about the things that interest me (and also probably the things that don't).

Incidentally, being the procrastinator that I am, I have timed starting a blog perfectly with my impending dissertation deadline -a fluke, I'm sure (I'll soon be graduating from a BA Hons Journalism course). Anything to get out of dissertation hell. But I will at least, be exercising my writing skills. So there.

I can't think of a suitable picture (or should that read interesting) to illustrate the above, so here is a picture of Debbie Harry instead, my all time favourite pop star, pictured with Iggy Pop - a lethal combo!