Speaking of being a journalist, I guess I should be working on that degree. I’m in the last year of Journalism with Psychology, well in the last month. In the next few weeks I need to get my dissertation done (I would say finish my dissertation but that only applies if it was actually started..), get some press photography work experience (it is much harder than it sounds) and revise for a law exam (that’s as hard as it sounds). As you can see I’m working very hard on all this, so hard in fact that I choose this time to start blogging lol. Such is procrastination.

As I try to avoid stressing about all the work I’m supposed to be doing, I find myself thinking about life after uni. For most its dreams of freedom. I guess finally not having to study, after spending pretty much your whole life doing so, sounds pretty good. But if you need to start thinking about how the rent is gona get paid now that there are no more student loans to rely on, it starts to get scary. Sometimes I wish I could have the freedom that other people my age are looking forward to.

But I’m reminded, instead of looking above you, you should always looks below. Our freedom depends on whether we have to get out of bed early, spend a few hours doing an easy job, come back to a bigger or smaller house. But we are living in the same world where people with feelings just like us dont have the freedom to say what they want, believe what they want, wear what they want, live where they want.

We see and hear about it all the time. While the news are on, its hard not to feel sympathy and wish we could do something to help them. But once the channel is changed most people forget about how hard life is for so many, and how easily that could be us.

I will probably still complain about how stressed I am and still worry about getting a job. I will also remember to pray for those with less freedom than me and hope we can help make their lives better. A few pounds, a few words, a few prayers, do what you can and it will make a difference. At least to helping you appreciate what you have if nothing else.

Costing just £99, the San Francisco is one of the cheapest Smartphones out there. It runs on Android 2.1 software which provides you with the same features as the popular HTC. The Android market is now loaded with Apps so it doesn’t come far behind the iPhone in terms of the features it can provide you with. Compared to the other Smartphones at the lower end of the market, the San Francisco is much more user-friendly with its 3.5 inch sharp capacitive touch screen.

It is also the same shape as the popular HTC Desire and iPhone, with a large screen and a few essential buttons along the bottom. The 3.2mp camera doesn’t allow for great photos but it provides autofocus and does an acceptable job. The handset also comes with Wi-Fi, GPS, Bluetooth and 3G.

Orange have well and truly made their mark on this phone by giving it a default Orange home screen with plenty of Orange widgets, both in brand and in unattractive colour. However it is easy enough to change the settings to Android which is much more flexible in terms of look.

One down side of this phone is the weakness of its outer casing. Most phones don’t take well to being dropped but with the San Francisco even slight rough handling can leave its mark. Finding a cover or accessories for it has also proven to be difficult. But with the phones low price, it’s not asking much to settle for ‘one size fits all’ screen protectors and cases for now.

The large number of apps on offer, not to mention addictive games, means there will probably be a strain on the battery life. With heavy use you may find yourself having to charge the phone every night but a full battery will usually get you through a day and a half.

The San Francisco comes with an array of attractive features making it a good example of what Smartphones can offer. The £99 price tag makes it great value for money and can allow users to overlook the not-so-great camera and build quality. Even those not wanting to spend hundreds on a mobile phone can now join the Smartphone revolution.

A survey by the Information Commissioner’s Office found that 80% of people are concerned about their personal details online. That doesn’t come as a surprise looking at all the privacy issues arising almost daily, even just from the two most popular websites, Google and Facebook.

Google has a history of treading on thin ground when it comes to privacy. Street View managed to cause much controversy by capturing people in embarrassing situations. Some countries such as Greece banned Google from carrying out the service. The controversy became lawsuits when the Street View cars started tapping into people’s unsecured Wi-Fi networks and collecting their personal data. The court battles continue as last month Spain ordered Google to remove links to newspaper articles which breach individuals’ privacy.

The retention of search results is a growing concern. Search engines store information about who is searching what. They claim this is to provide users with a faster search service with more relevant results. The issue is how long they keep this information and who it’s share with.

Pretty much any query we have is solved by ‘Googling’, or using other search engines. The fact that they store and track all this information for long periods of time implies that all our secrets are laid bare. EU privacy laws have stated that search engines can only retain users’ data for 6 months. Microsoft’s Bing says they delete the entire IP address of searchers after 6 months, unlike Google who keep the information for 9 months and even then only delete parts of the IP address.

Firefox users were even encouraged to use the Bing add-on instead of Google by Mozilla’s director of community development, Asa Dotzler. This followed one of many worrying comments made by Eric Schmidt, Google’s ex-CEO. When the man in charge of a company with so much information about so many people says things like: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”, it questions whether we have any privacy at all. He has since been replaced by Larry Page, maybe because of his lack of seriousness when it came to such an important issue for users.

Facebook is another root of ever-increasing privacy issues. Millions of people are sharing personal details not only with their friends but often with the whole world. The initial issues weren’t so sinister; cases of bosses seeing employees’ rude posts about them leading to job losses. This is down to remembering exactly who you have added as a friend and who can see what you are posting. But even that is no longer as simple as it sounds. Facebook seems to change its layout and privacy settings every few months, making it increasingly difficult to keep track of who can see what and who has access to your information. It is possible to hide parts of your profile from certain people. But for most users it’s almost impossible to figure out how.

A more serious issue is who else Facebook is giving our information to. Users share everything about themselves, from their phone numbers to what they ate last night. Having this information available to all your friends may be problematic, but when Facebook starts selling this to third parties without our knowledge it becomes a major privacy concern. Facebook apps are still sharing users’ data with advertisers to personalise the adverts that appear on our pages, though they recently had to disable an API which shared users mobile phone number and address with app developers. This has led to congressmen asking questions about Facebook’s plans to disclose users’ data. They have requested a response by the end of the month.

To mark Data Privacy Day, and after founder Mark Zuckerberg’s own fan page was hacked, Facebook has introduced the option of using HTTPS secured pages on the site. Although this may help protect users against hackers, it doesn’t protect them from Facebook itself.

Google has also celebrated the day by releasing a Chrome extension that allows users to opt out of ad-tracking. This is good news for privacy but it may just be a response to the competition rather than Google wanting to ‘increase transparency’. Mozilla beat Google to the post by announcing a day earlier their Do Not Track feature for Firefox.

These features are still opt-out, so users must actually select the option to not be tracked online. It supports the argument that we must regulate our own privacy. If we want to control who sees what parts of our Facebook page, then we need to learn how to navigate the privacy settings. Although it could be simpler, it can be done.

We are given the option to hide certain information from certain friends or certain websites, but Facebook and Google are still always tracking us. Many argue that our data and privacy is the price we pay for using search engines and social networking sites. Mark Zuckerberg actually said that people care less about privacy, “People have gotten comfortable with not only sharing more information but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that’s evolved over time.” His comments assume that people are aware of what is being shared and accept it. That may not be the case with research by the ICO finding that 60% of people believe they have lost control of the way their information is collected and processed.

Privacy can only survive if tougher regulations protect it, and things are looking up. In America, the Obama administration is planning to establish a committee dedicated to implementing internet privacy laws. In Europe the inconsistent reactions to Google Street View has highlighted to the European Commission the need for uniform regulations and stricter rules regarding privacy. In the UK, following their research the ICO has relaunched their Personal Information Toolkit which includes tips on how to protect personal details online.

Lord McNally from the Ministry of Justice said, “Technology has come a long way since the 1990s, but with fresh opportunities come fresh risks for our personal information. The Government is working to look at the law and ensure it continues to protect our personal information well into the 21^st century.” There may be hope for privacy yet, if users and regulators take more control. Whether it happens only time will tell.

All journalists, as well as press photographers, must follow various codes of ethics and have to ensure they do not break the law. But when it comes to privacy, especially that of celebrities, rules are often ignored particularly by photographers. The National Press Photographers Association’s code of ethics does not mention respecting people’s privacy despite it being such an important issue.

In many cases famous people are photographed without their permission in unflattering ways which has given paparazzi a bad reputation and can lead to complaints. Last year football manager Fabio Capello complained to the Press Complaints Commission about photographs taken of him and his wife on the beach. The News of the World and the Daily Mail admitted they were wrong to publish the pictures and had to apologise to the Capellos as well as make substantial donations to the Sir Bobby Robson Foundation charity.

If photographers get a bad name for taking pictures secretly it can make it hard for them to get more work. But some visual journalists have found the right balance. Possibly the most famous press photographer in Britain has managed to befriend celebrities rather than be hated by them. Jason Fraser has taken over 1500 front page pictures for British tabloids as well as thousands of others around the world. He famously revealed Princess Diana’s relationship with Dodi al Fayed and more recently took the first pictures of Prince William with his now fiancé Kate Middleton. Fraser even managed to photograph an international terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, while he was still on the run.

Despite being one of the most successful and well known paparazzos in Britain, Jason Fraser dislikes the term. He has even revealed that the key to being a successful celebrity photographer may not be catching them off guard but by building such a relationship with celebrities that they in fact allow you to take ‘un-posed’ photographs of them. In the weeks before Diana’s death Fraser is said to have spoken to her nearly every day.

In an interview with the BBC he said, “In a huge number of the photographs I take the celebrities aren’t exactly surprised. They want to see their pictures in the newspapers. If you pose for a picture it will end up on an inside page. If you let you hair down by a pool or on a beach, those pictures are going to be a lot sexier and run near or at the front.”

Despite all the complaints and the bad reputation of press journalists, Fraser thinks that privacy is respected more these days. He said, “There were things published in the Eighties that would never be published now. There were photographs on private property of people in rehab, photographs of people in hospital beds. The newspapers still want to beat each other but they won’t go to the lengths they used to. The depiction of photographers ramming their feet in people’s doors and making sly remarks is a load of old cobblers.”

But even the experts can get it wrong sometimes, leading not only to complaints but serious law suits.  Radio DJ Sara Cox sued the Sunday People for publishing nude photographs of her and her husband taken by Fraser. He was also found guilty of breaking French privacy laws and fined for taking the first pictures of Diana and Dodi in 1997, albeit over 10 years after their death. Initially he was cleared by a criminal court in 2006 but two years later the verdict was overturned and Fraser was ordered to pay over £3900 to Dodi’s father and an additional £2360 in fines.

After Princess Diana’s death, press photographers have been criticised more and strongly scrutinised by the public over the issue of privacy. At the time, in 1997, the Mail announced that the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Evening Standard would no longer purchase photographs taken by paparazzi. This may have endangered the job prospects of press photographers but it turns out the newspapers did not manage to stick to their promise. The papers have continued to regularly use paparazzi pictures, ensuring photographers like Jason Fraser continue earning millions from their undercover shots (Roy Greenslade, Media Guardian).

The lack of clarity on the legal implications of taking photographs in a public place without consent still remains. Other European countries such as France and Spain have specific laws on privacy protecting their citizens. In the UK, the Human Rights Act 1998 gave the British public a right to privacy for the first time.

Recent court rulings have drawn a distinction between merely taking photographs, retaining them and publishing them (Nigel Hanson, media lawyer at Foot Anstey Solicitors). Taking a photograph of someone in a public place without their consent does not break the law. Liability lies with the publisher of the pictures not the photographer and as press photographers are usually not the ones who publish the pictures (photos tend to be sold to newspapers), they are not directly accountable. In this country photographers are pretty much free to photograph whatever they like as long as they do not go onto public property, cause anyone distress or break other laws. However if you take photographs that cannot be legally printed then you will not be able to make any money from them so it is important for visual journalists to know the laws regarding privacy.

According to Article 8 of the Humans Rights Act 1998, “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life.” If a publication was to print photographs of someone’s private life then it can be sued for breaching their right to privacy. This applies if the subject had a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. This again makes things a little vague. If someone is photographed on a beach on holiday then it could be argued that they are in a public place, but it could also be said that they may have a reasonable expectation of privacy. In November 2009 the Daily Record was found to have invaded the privacy of Nicola Shields by publishing pictures of her outside her home, even though the photographer was not on private property and she was visible to any passers-by.  The Press Complaints Commission “agreed with the complainant that she was in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she was photographed”.

Some people are taking the protection of their privacy into their own hands. There have been many cases of celebrities lashing out at photographers, often violently. Hugh Grant was called an ‘angry thug’ by paparazzi after he kicked at a photographer in 2009 and two years previously had attacked a photographer with a can of beans, though the charges against him were dropped. A new less aggressive and potentially very effective method of stopping press photographers has been developed. Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has had an anti-paparazzi ‘laser shield’ installed on his yacht. This uses infrared lasers to detect light sensors in nearby cameras and focuses a beam of light at the camera so a digital image cannot be recorded. Although the success of such a device is questionable and it probably will not be able to prevent photographs to be taken by cameras that use film, the fact that celebrities are having to go to such lengths to protect their private lives shows that press photographers may be going too far in some cases.

It is journalists’ responsibility to report things that are in the public interest, not only what interests the public. Just because pictures of certain people will sell more newspapers does not mean photographers can breach any individual’s right to privacy or in some cases even endanger lives. The events surrounding Princess Diana’s death famously showed this. An inquest into the cause of the accident found that it was in part due to the drunk driver and in part due to the paparazzi chasing the car. The former editor of the News of the World, Phil Hall, said in a television documentary that he felt a huge responsibility for the accident that led to Princess Diana’s death. He said, “If the paparazzi hadn’t been following her the car wouldn’t have been speeding and the accident may never have happened.”

In 1999 David Beckham successfully argued against a speeding offence by saying he was trying to evade a photographer who was causing him to swerve. In 2007 George Clooney accused paparazzi of driving dangerously while chasing him. He pulled over his motorcycle to tell photographers: “You can take my picture all you want but what you cannot do is put people in danger.” In a later interview he compared the paparazzi to bounty hunters and said, “What they’re doing is illegal. Its high-speed chases and they’re competing with each other. They’re not trying to catch me doing something stupid, they’re trying to create me doing something stupid.”

While the laws and rules surrounding privacy may remain vague and not always strongly upheld, journalists including press photographers have a responsibility to report and inform the public but they must also respect individuals and it is in their interest to keep their subjects happy. Having good relationships with celebrities can lead to more success as a photographer than stalking them and being in danger of a lawsuit.

Luton-born RKZ is multi-talented, describing himself as a singer, songwriter and rapper. He also performs a variety of genres, namely UK urban, hip hop, R&B, spoken word and dubstep. RKZ has worked with other British artists such as Raxstar as well as supporting Tinchy Stryder in Wembley.

Singing is not a very traditional career choice, particularly for Asians, but RKZ is supported by his Indian-born parents. He said: “I have a musical family; both my parents and my sister sing. They didn’t take it up professionally themselves but I’m lucky that they support me a lot.”

Most British Asians singers tend to aim their songs at other British Asians or incorporate Indian songs in their tracks, but RKZ stands out in that he sees himself as a firm UK artist. “Asian culture has always been a part of my life and I respect the music a lot but I don’t personally have any great Indian inspiration,” RKZ said. “The Asian tracks that I been involved with were only because I was asked to collaborate with other Asian singers. I’ve grown up with a Western influence so I’ve embraced this culture more. My main inspirations are Michael Jackson, Ryan Leslie and Drake.”

RKZ is also different from other singers in how versatile he is. “Generally people rap and try to sing but I actually sing and rap. When performing, rap has a lot more hype at concerts but other than that I prefer singing. Professionally it takes much longer to produce though.”

Starting out in an industry as cut-throat as music can be difficult, but these days getting yourself known is easier because of the internet and YouTube. This has been the starting point for many starts such as Justin Bieber. RKZ also started out this way. “The first thing I done was try to get my stuff out there as much as possible. YouTube, MySpace, where ever I could. Then I got in touch with a Canadian music producer, Sureet, and sent him a track. Next thing I knew he told me he’d sent it to radio stations and I was actually getting played! This helped build up even more awareness which is an important first step.”

Some talented singers are lucky enough to get recognised by producers or record labels, but RKZ has been lucky in that he knew people who were also going into the music business at around the same time as him. “I thought if I want to do this then I might as well do it properly. One of my friends, James ‘Kaos’ Haque, bought a production studio which I could use. Then I set up my own record company, DAS records, along with Shyam Patel.”

Since then RKZ has left DAS records to make his own way in the industry. Being part of the record company allowed him to build up a reputation and much needed contacts. “I got to know people and how to do things myself so didn’t really need the record company. I work with friends and contacts to make my own tracks and videos. Record labels are rendered useless these days because most things can be done by publishers instead.”

The job of the record label was to get an artist recognised and organise everything for them while taking a cut for themselves; they owned the artist where as publishers work for the artist. Using publishers allow songwriters to get more recognition too.

Juggling a degree and a job, especially one as time consuming as starting out as a singer, can be difficult but RKZ has chosen the right subject to study. He said: “Doing Commercial Music has meant a lot of what I learn at university is useful in my work, and getting real life experience helps me with my university work. The experience is also a lot more important than just a degree, especially in an industry where it’s more important to know the right people. My studies are teaching me the background and practical skills as well though.”

Many artists move away from what they start out doing in order to be more successful, like Jay Sean who also started out singing and rapping but has since moved more mainstream to become a huge success in America. However RKZ says he will not go the same way.

“People always compare me to Jay Sean just because we’re both British Asians but I’m actually much different and so is my singing. My style is more gritty whereas Jay has always been more polished. I wouldn’t change what I do nor do I think there’s any need to. I won’t follow in his footsteps in terms of style, but in terms of his success: definitely.”

As well as not following in Jay Sean’s style, RKZ is not considering moving to America anytime soon either. “The UK scene is blowing up right now,” he is proud to say. “Usually America would dominate Urban music but their top artists at the moment are British. Artists like the Gorillaz are working with foreign companies, Chipmunk and Tinchy have had huge success as well as the likes of Pixie Lott. There was a time when people would rap with an American accent but now the UK has developed its own style and genre, like dubstep.”

Dubstep is a fairly new genre of music, a mixture of drum and bass and garage, which originated in London in the early 2000’s. It has since become popular in America as well as Europe and Tokyo. Recently hip hop figures such as Rihanna and Snoop Dog have collaborated with British drum and bass producers Chase and Status to create popular dubstep tracks.

The music industry has suffered a lot from illegal downloading, but that doesn’t make it less successful than it used to be. RKZ says there still money making opportunities out there. “Live performances are the best way of making money these days, even record companies have adapted to that because now they take a cut of everything including concerts. No one really bothers with album sales anymore; the main aim has become iTunes.”

“The music industry is still doing really well as whole. Publishers are making a lot of money but record labels are fading away,” RKZ said. “Like many industries, things are changing but I think it’s for the better. You can still make it but you have to be passionate about what you do and keep up with what’s going on.”

As for the future, RKZ hasn’t made too many plans yet: “Right now I’m not looking long term really. My main concern is making music, getting heard and most importantly enjoying what I do.”

Sandra Bullock plays the mother of the family, sassy Leigh-Anne Tuohy. She certainly proves she can pull off a more taxing role than her usual ditzy characters, but whether she deserved an Oscar for Best Actress is arguable.

Rather than being a football drama, the film is actually depicted the inspirational journey of Oher from the streets of Memphis to the home, and hearts, of his adopted family. The rest of the characters are small but played well, with Tim McGraw as Sean Tuohy and Kathy Bates with a memorable role as a tutor. But what makes the film is Quinton Aaron’s depiction of Michael Oher.

The character does not have a huge amount of dialogue as Oher is quiet and mysterious to begin with, but Aaron manages to make the audience relate with how he feels through simple expressions and glances. This is what keeps the audience engaged throughout quite a long film (with a running time of 128 minutes).

The fact that the film is based on true events is at times shocking due to how unrealistic parts of the story seem. A rich southern Republican family take in a poor African-American boy. In other circumstances this would be seen as stereotypical and even slightly racist to some, but the heart-warming nature of the film seems to cancel that out as long as you keep reminding yourself these events actually happened.

Many films of this genre try to tug on the heartstrings with characters going through complicated issues and shocking difficulties, but The Blind Side proves that a simple story can make for the best entertainment if told with the right actors.

The comic moments in the film, namely courtesy of Sean Junior Tuoy, played by Jae Head, are subtle but effective in lightening the mood and ensuring the story does not become depressing.

The Blind Side is very watchable and an entertaining film with a good message, but probably undeserving of the Oscar nomination for Best Motion Picture. Although definitely worth seeing, it is one of those films you can probably wait to come out on DVD rather than go rushing to the cinema to watch.

The search engine alone has dominated the market. Google has since acquired Blogger, the web log host. The hugely popular video site YouTube is now owned by Google. They have bought Picasa photo editing software. The mobile operating system Android now belongs to Google. They have recently taken over Aardvark, a social network search engine. These are just to name a few; the list goes on and continues to grow.

As well as the many acquisitions, Google are continuously developing their own products. They offer an email service, Gmail, which is increasing in popularity.  Google recently launched a web browser, Chrome, which boasts faster speed than the other popular browsers and is rapidly increasing its market share. They offer desktop search applications as well as Google toolbars. The list of mobile phone applications Google offer is endless.

One of Google’s many innovations is Google Docs. This is a free online service that includes word-processing, spread sheet, presentation and data storage. This has moved on with the development of Google Wave, which is a sort of mixture of email, instant messaging, social networking as well as Google Docs. It allows users can work on documents together and communicate at the same time.

Google Maps have constantly been improving, not only covering the whole world in simple map form but now allowing people to actually see everything from close up in 3D. This can be seen as a huge invasion of privacy; in some cases Google Earth can be used to look inside people’s houses! Many governments such as India and South Korea have expressed concerns over the service as a matter of national security.

You might think Google’s reach only goes as far as computers, but you would be wrong.

The Android software is already used on many smartphones by Samsung, Motorola and the popular HTC. Google have now taken their domination of the mobile phone world one step further by making their own smartphone, the Nexus One. Since its release in January, critics are calling this the best smartphone in the market right now.

After taking over almost every aspect of the internet and with their mobile phone ventures well under way, Google are now moving into another aspect of our lives: television.

According to the New York Times, Google are working with Intel and Sony to develop ‘Google TV’, a platform that will let us surf the web on our TVs. Although some TV sets and consoles already allow us to connect to the internet, the sites we can visit is pretty limited. ‘Google TV’ is supposedly based on the Android platform, and will make it a lot easier to browse web applications like social network sites and YouTube.

So Google are working their way through internet, mobile phones and television. It’s not hard to imagine a near-future where they control everything. It may not even be so bad. Unless you replace ‘Google’ with ‘Skynet’…

Britain is the largest market for Indian films outside the sub-continent. The International Indian Film Awards (their equivalent of the Oscars) were held in Sheffield a few years ago. The number of Bollywood movies released in the UK is constantly on the rise, and in 2005 a record 74 Indian films were released here compared to 61 British-made films.

The increase of Indian films in the UK is affecting both the Bollywood and the British film making industries.

The popularity of Indian films here began with the migration of South Asians to Britain. The Indian nation are avid cinema goers to say the least. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, the first Indian film to be set in England, has been showing every day at one cinema in Mumbai for the past 15 years, and still plays to a full house on Sundays and Bank holidays. The Indian devotion for their film stars was proven when Bollywood legend Amitabh Bachchan was ranked last millenniums greatest film star in a BBC poll, coming ahead of Sir Lawrence Olivier.

The Indians who moved to Britain may have brought their love of cinema with them, but the increasing success of Bollywood films here is also due to their popularity amongst people of different backgrounds.

Sarah Bailley has worked in a Cineworld complex in Luton for the past seven years. She said: “Since I first started working here, there are a lot more Bollywood films showing. One of the biggest changes these days is there’s a lot more advertising and posters for Bollywood films than before. The adverts aren’t as traditional-looking as they used to be either; they seem similar to those for Western films. This has probably led to the other big difference – people of different backgrounds are going to watch the films now, not just Asians.”

As well as better marketing, Indian films appeal to wider audiences in other ways. Atif Mahmood, an up and coming film director, said: “An increasing amount of non Asian UK residents seem to be watching the latest Bollywood releases. I think this stems from two main factors; the influence of Indian music in the West and the increasing Westernisation of Bollywood cinema”.

The music and songs that feature in Indian films are the basis of the Bollywood industry, and have been making an impression on the Western world for a long time. One of the first examples of this is when the late musical legend Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan collaborated with Peter Gabriel for the soundtrack of Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. Further success of Indian music can be seen by singer A. R. Rahman, who worked with Sir Andrew Lloyd on the West End hit Bombay Dreams and recently won a Golden Globe, a BAFTA, two Oscars and two Grammy’s for his music in Slumdog Millionnaire.

Films set in other countries appeal more to Indian audiences, which has in turn led to the production of Bollywood films that have moved away from the traditional love stories to ones that Western audiences can relate to more. Many Indian films are almost entirely set in Western countries and are often peppered with English dialogue. A higher standard of production as well as increased use of foreign locations has helped increase the popularity of Indian films in the UK. Rakesh Mehra, director of the Bollywood hit Rang De Basanti, said: “There are enough Indians across the world to watch us, but you have to reach the non-Indians as well,” in an interview with The Sunday Times.

While Bollywood films are influenced by the UK audiences, it is also having an effect on the British film-making industry. A new genre has been formed, where films are made by British directors in English and usually set in the UK, but are heavily influenced by Bollywood culture and feature Indian songs. This began with Bhaji on the Beach and continued with The Guru, Monsoon Wedding and Bride and Prejudice.

The most recent film of this genre is Slumdog Millionaire, which won eight Oscar’s, seven BAFTS’s, four Golden Globes and two Grammy’s. Its huge success indicates more than ever the influence of Bollywood on Britain films, and the popularity of a genre that fuses both.

James Williams, student and frequent cinema goer, said: “I don’t really like foreign films and I used to think Bollywood films were unoriginal but since Slumdog Millionaire I’ve watched quite a few and I really enjoyed them. They’re different and have good stories, and the songs are really catchy. I’m looking forward to seeing Karthik Calling Karthik.”

The crossover between British and Indian film-making is apparent on all levels of the industries. UTV is an Indian media conglomerate, stretching from movies and television to video games and music. The company co-produced The Happening in 2008 with News Corporation with a budget of $57m, ten times the cost of an Indian blockbuster. Disney now owns 32% of UTV, and many Western firms want to be a part of the booming Indian market.

Many Indian actors and actresses are also appearing in Western films, like Bollywood star Aishwaria Rai who starred in Bride and Prejudice and Pink Panther 2. Atif Mahmood said: “There is already a trend of Bollywood based actors appearing in film and television here in the UK and this will only increase. Also I think this trend will soon reverse and UK film and TV stars will appear in Bollywood films.” An early indicator of this is Rachel Shelley starring in the Bollywood hit Lagaan in 2001.

The collaborations of production companies and movement of actors will undeniably affect film directors, particularly the increasing British Asian talent in the industry. These directors can make best use of the new fusion genre, as shown by Gurinder Chadha with Bend it like Bekham.

Mahmood said: “Even though my main influence is not Bollywood, I can’t deny that it has had some impact on me. I have been a dedicated fan of Bollywood for as long as I can remember. Even though my films are more main stream and influenced by traditional British films, a facet of Bollywood that I do incorporate in my films is to have something for everyone. Bollywood films pride themselves in catering to all audiences and having something in every film that everyone can appreciate. That is very difficult and something I try to do in my films as well as Bollywood can.”

The collaboration between Indian and Western production companies is already having positive results, with the announcement on Thursday that the Motion Picture Association of America will work with seven Indian companies to clamp down on film piracy.

The chairman of the MPAA, Dan Glickman, said: “People are becoming more of the same mind. The Indian film industry now understands their product is getting stolen as a significant rate,” in an interview with Associated Press.

He also added: “This is a country of one billion people who love movies more than anywhere else in the world. We’d be foolish not to want to come into this market,” implying Hollywood will also aim to fuse with Bollywood the way Britain has to make more films that cater to a much wider audience.

Small, with such a big effect
Aimless, yet the reason for everything
Peaceful, but bringing so much pain
Simple, causing complication
Pure, somehow the source of much evil
Strong, leading to great weakness
Common, but often impulsive

Love is blind
Sounds like such a cliché but I must admit I agree, I think love is blind.
Not in the sense of ‘appearances don’t matter when it comes to love’, because they do.
I mean love is blind in that someone in love can’t see beyond it.
Actually, love isn’t blind.

Love is blinding

Love
It’s just a feeling, an emotion, and yet it’s so much more.
It’s nothing, and yet it’s everything.

Why do we love? No-ones perfect, what makes us feel that strongly about someone? Thinking about it, why do we hate? No-one’s all bad.
Hmm, one emotion at a time.

Love makes us do insane things, it drives us insane. But why? Just because we want to be with the person we love. Even that doesn’t make sense. What is so good about the thought of being with a person? We survived before we met them, what makes us not be able to live without them?
Why do we love the people we love? Lots of people are similar, why do we love one and not another?

We can carry on without the things we love, but the thought of being without the person we love just becomes too much. What is it about someone that drives us to these crazy extents? Is it a state of insanity? The things people do for love are not normal. But then again, what is normal?

None of these questions really have a definite answer. A cynical person would say that just proves that there’s no such thing as true love, its something people just kid themselves into believing in an unsuccessful attempt to make themselves happy. And the fact that this state of mind leads to so much pain supports the view that it should be avoided.
I was once one of these cynics. But things change; life changes our views. And life gave me…Love.

Someone once said “Love is what none of us can point out because it’s that unexplainable thing that only appears when you realize you are not asking yourself, ‘What is love?’” and I guess that sums it up. When it happens, there’s no more doubt or questions, it’s the most definite thing you could know. The fact that it is everywhere even though its true form is so rare shows how strong love really can be.

I may no longer be a cynic but I am still a realist. Everything can’t be perfect; some things are still hard and some things still hurt. But those things don’t matter so much anymore because love cancels them out. The positive impact it has on your life is unavoidable. They say it’s better to have loved and lost than never loved at all. This doesn’t seem to make sense, seeing as the pain of losing your love is almost unbearable, and after all ignorance is bliss right? That might be true most of the time, but when it comes to love this is a feeling everyone should have, as it can never be understood until experienced.

Love is not just felt, it is fallen in to. For the rare lucky ones, that person will catch them when it happens. I’m one of the lucky few who got caught.

> I never think of the future. It comes soon enough
> There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle
> A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
> Truth is what stands the test of experience
> Try not to become a man of success but rather to become a man of value
> Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind
> If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut
> Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new
> Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized
> Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow