Placeholder Content Image

Does screen use really impact our thinking skills? Our analysis suggests it could

<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michoel-moshel-1433565">Michoel Moshel</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-batchelor-1485101">Jennifer Batchelor</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joanne-bennett-1485102">Joanne Bennett</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-catholic-university-747">Australian Catholic University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wayne-warburton-402810">Wayne Warburton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a></em></p> <p>Screens have become seamlessly integrated into our daily lives, serving as indispensable tools for work, education and leisure. But while they enrich our lives in countless ways, we often fail to consider the potential impact of screen time on our cognitive abilities.</p> <p>In a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11065-023-09612-4">new meta-analysis</a> of dozens of earlier studies, we’ve found a clear link between disordered screen use and lower cognitive functioning.</p> <p>The findings suggest we should exercise caution before advocating for more screen time, and before introducing screens into even more aspects of daily life.</p> <h2>Young people’s screen time is increasing</h2> <p>In 2020, a UNSW Gonski Institute for Education report <a href="https://www.gie.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/UNSW%20GIE%20GUD%20Phase%201%20Technical%20Report%20MAR20%20v2.pdf">noted a concerning statistic</a>: about 84% of Australian educators believe digital technologies are distracting in a learning environment.</p> <p>And according to the ABC, a recent Beyond Blue <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/mental-health-depression-anxiety-support-coming-for-schools/102831464">survey</a> of Australian teachers identified excessive screen time as the second-most significant challenge for young people, just behind mental health issues.</p> <p>Despite mounting concerns, more than half of Australian schools have embraced a “<a href="https://www.linewize.io/anz/blog/the-rise-of-byod-in-australian-schools">bring your own device</a>” policy. Students are spending more time online than <a href="https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/students-computers-and-learning_9789264239555-en#page46">ever before</a> and starting at increasingly younger ages. A 2021 report by <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/8-18-census-integrated-report-final-web_0.pdf">Common Sense Media</a> estimated tweens spend an average of 5 hours and 33 minutes using screen-based entertainment each day, while teenagers devote a whopping 8 hours and 39 minutes.</p> <p>A surge in screen use has led to some individuals, including children, adolescents and adults, developing screen-related addictions. One example is gaming disorder, for which <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004867420962851">2–3% of people</a> meet the criteria.</p> <h2>What is ‘disordered screen use’?</h2> <p>The impact of screens on our cognitive abilities – that is, our thinking skills such as attention, memory, language and problem-solving – has sparked much debate.</p> <p>On one hand, some researchers and reporters claim screen use can have negative effects, such as <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-12701-3">health problems</a>, shortened attention <a href="https://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/">spans</a> and hindered <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312489265_The_relationship_between_television_exposure_and_children's_cognition_and_behaviour_A_systematic_review">development</a>.</p> <p>On the other, schools are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/education/tech-takeover-classrooms-crowded-with-digital-devices-20200125-p53ul1.html">increasingly adopting</a> technology to boost student engagement. Tech companies are also marketing their products as tools to help you enhance your problem-solving and memory skills.</p> <p>Our <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11065-023-09612-4">recent study</a> sought to understand the potential cognitive consequences of “disordered screen-related behaviours”. This is a broad category of problematic behaviours that may include screen dependency, and persisting with screen use even when it’s harmful.</p> <p>We conducted a meta-analysis of 34 studies that explored various forms of screen use (including gaming, internet browsing, smartphone use and social media use) and compared the cognitive performance of individuals with disordered screen use to those without it.</p> <p>Our findings paint a concerning picture.</p> <h2>Differences in cognitive function</h2> <p>Across these rigorously peer-reviewed studies, individuals with disordered screen use consistently demonstrated significantly poorer cognitive performance compared to others.</p> <p>The most affected cognitive domain was attention, and specifically sustained attention, which is the ability to maintain focus on an unchanging stimulus for an extended period.</p> <p>The second-most notable difference was in their “executive functioning” – particularly in impulse control, which is the ability to control one’s automatic responses.</p> <p>Interestingly, the type of screen activity didn’t make a difference in the results. The trend also wasn’t confined to children, but was observed across all age groups.</p> <h2>Two ways to interpret the results</h2> <p>Why do people with disordered screen-related behaviours have poorer cognitive functioning?</p> <p>The first explanation is that disordered screen use actually leads to poorer cognitive function, including poorer attention skills (but we’ll need more experimental and longitudinal studies to establish causality).</p> <p>If this is the case, it may be the result of being constantly bombarded by algorithms and features designed to capture our attention. By diverting our focus outward, screen use may weaken one’s intrinsic ability to concentrate over time.</p> <p>Crucially, impaired attention also <a href="https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2006/10/1/article-p77.xml">makes it harder to disengage</a> from addictive behaviours, and would therefore make it harder to recognise when screen use has become a problem.</p> <p>The second explanation is that people who already have poorer cognitive functioning (such as less inhibitory control) are more likely to engage in disordered screen use.</p> <p>This could be a result of the plethora of addictive cues designed to keep us glued to our screens. Being bombarded by these could make it harder to <a href="https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2006/9/4/article-p990.xml">pull the brakes</a> on screen use.</p> <p>Although the literature doesn’t seem to favour this explanation – and does seem to suggest that cognitive functioning is impaired as a result of disordered screen use – it’s still a possibility we can’t rule out.</p> <p>Attention is the bedrock of everyday tasks. People with weakened attention may struggle to keep up in less stimulating environments, such as a static workplace or classroom. They may find themselves turning to a screen as a result.</p> <p>Similarly, people with less inhibitory control would also find it more challenging to moderate their screen use. This could be what drives them towards problematic screen-related behaviours in the first place.</p> <h2>Who should shoulder the responsibility?</h2> <p>Research indicates people with impaired cognitive functioning usually aren’t as well equipped to moderate their own screen time.</p> <p>Many users with disordered screen use are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563220302326?casa_token=BQv_N_MFffYAAAAA:AsGkAfdwXjCZHJB463G40Mx-ckS2Q1c8jSOn2SWR_9iW64eWaQsru1IJAZBDCgSPXwhZ3Qwl">young</a>, with mainly males engaging in internet gaming and mainly females engaging in social media use. Neurodiverse people are <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5587">also at greater risk</a>.</p> <p>Tech companies are driven by the goal of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/netflix-competitor-sleep-uber-facebook">capturing our attention</a>. For instance, Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings acknowledged the company’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/netflix-competitor-sleep-uber-facebook">most formidable competitor was sleep</a>.</p> <p>At the same time, researchers find themselves struggling to keep up with the pace of technological innovation. A potential path forward is to encourage open-access data policies from tech companies, so researchers can delve deeper into the study of screen use and its effect on individuals. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216828/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michoel-moshel-1433565">Michoel Moshel</a>, PhD/Masters Clinical Neuropsychology Candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jennifer-batchelor-1485101">Jennifer Batchelor</a>, Associate Professor, School of Psychological Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joanne-bennett-1485102">Joanne Bennett</a>, Lecturer, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-catholic-university-747">Australian Catholic University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wayne-warburton-402810">Wayne Warburton</a>, Associate Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a></em></p> <p><em>Image credits: Shutterstock </em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-screen-use-really-impact-our-thinking-skills-our-analysis-suggests-it-could-216828">original article</a>.</em></p>

Mind

Placeholder Content Image

6 best screening hedge plant

<h4>Lillipilly</h4> <p>With its dense screen and fast growing habit, lillipilly can grow up to eight metres tall but should be pruned to thicken the foliage. The Syzygium smithii variety is commonly known as ‘Neighbours Be Gone’.</p> <h4>Juniper</h4> <p>A conifer such as Juniperas spartan is an excellent choice due to its dense evergreen dark blue-green coloured foliage. This column-shaped hardy plant grows to three metres in 10 years and no trimming or pruning is required.</p> <h4>Camellia</h4> <p>Camellias come in two main varieties, japonica and sasanqua. For hedging, the sasanqua is the preferred choice with its faster growing habit, smaller leaves and better sun tolerance. The flowers in autumn are an added bonus.</p> <h4>Photinia</h4> <p>Photinias come in larger and smaller leaf varieties with the smaller leaf types more suitable for hedges up to two metres. With an overall deep green leaf appearance, the new growth comes as striking red foliage.</p> <h4>Murraya</h4> <p>A great alternative to box hedges with a somewhat similar texture but lighter green leaves, murraya is fast growing and easy to care for, with a pretty flush of orange blossom scented flowers in spring and summer.</p> <h4>English Box</h4> <p>Box is the most popular choice for hedging and is the best choice for a more formal look. Its slow growing tendency means it will not provide privacy for several years, but the bonus is it’s easy to maintain.</p> <p><em>Image credit: Shutterstock</em></p> <p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.co.nz/gardening-tips/best-screening-hedge-plants" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.</em></p>

Home & Garden

Placeholder Content Image

Can death on the screen feel the same as a ‘real’ one?

<p>Death is a part of life, an adage usually reserved for those who physically exist in our lives – family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances. So what happens when a profound death experience happens on the screen? Is that still a legitimate experience of mourning?</p> <p>Last week, the popular TV show <em>Succession</em> had a significant “on screen” death - where even the cast filming the scene spoke as if the response to the trauma had a very <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/succession-episode-three-logan-dead-b2317366.html">real feeling</a>. </p> <p>In the same way as the cast, social media reactions to the sudden and unexpected death of a person with a complex character, after four seasons of growing to understand them, can feel like the death of someone you actually know. </p> <p>The <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2017.0267#d3e765">research</a> behind this phenomenon can be found as far back as the 1970s when early understandings around the death of a main character on children’s television served to provide real world insight into the irreversibility of death as a universal experience.</p> <p>Over time, as popular culture and television became more nuanced, the diversity of the ways in which death occurred in fictional programs began to <a href="https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/5234_Bryant__Death,_Dying,_Dead,_Popular_Culture.pdf">replicate the complexity</a> of “real” loss in our lives. Via television, we get access to catastrophic loss, multiple casualty events, loss after significant illness – as well as seeing how death impacts the people left behind.</p> <p>In the most recent episode of <em>Succession</em>, we also see what happens when a death occurs involving a person where their character or relationship to others is strained. We see ways in which grief is not always a byproduct of love.</p> <h2>Why does this grief feel real from an armchair perspective?</h2> <p>Death on screen can also act as a trigger or a reminder of the losses we have endured.</p> <p>When a show realistically portrays grief in its purest form, the emotive or reflective reaction can unlock our own grief. Engaging with the small screen is an overt act of escapism, often for entertainment. We might be switching on a program with the intention of relaxation, only to be met with trauma and sadness.</p> <p>When a sudden loss is brought into our lounge rooms, or via the devices on our laps, we experience shock, confusion and anger about the abruptness of an event, just like the feelings we can experience when loss happens suddenly in our real lives.</p> <p>Safe reporting of sudden and traumatic death on fictional TV shows is not covered by media reporting guidelines. Warnings prior to a scene, or consistent information at the end of an episode about seeking additional support, might be minimal. </p> <p><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266722">Recent research</a> identifies multiple contexts related to warnings where TV shows may note that an episode will explore death, however, the complexity of how this might be portrayed is limited.</p> <figure> <h2>What is this grief called?</h2> <p>While there is no rulebook for grief, reacting emotionally to a small screen death can bring about concerns that we look silly or that we lack awareness of the distinction between reality and fiction. This form of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00302228211014775?casa_token=qZ3_RQR6xw0AAAAA%3Awv53_SeeKUgDIH34Z3diViJjcghG-dJb39n--oZP5-Gz-vCRn8RTQOmNxVFZ34fnNjdrwNDriq8GCg">parasocial grieving</a>, described as having feelings attached to a pseudo-relationship, does feel real, does have consequences and does need space to be managed. </p> <p>We don’t all watch the same shows, we don’t all respond to the death of a character the same way, we might even struggle to understand why people have the reactions they do when a TV death occurs. I would encourage you to pause for a moment and remember the ones that did get under our skin. </p> <p>In 1985, Australian viewers lived through the death of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/feb/06/how-mollys-death-on-a-country-practice-touched-a-nation-the-writers-room-was-shedding-tears">Molly from <em>A Country Practice</em></a>, where the final image of a mother’s end-stage cancer diagnosis played out while watching her daughter fly a kite. </p> <p>Teens watching Sarah Michelle Gellar stumble across the sudden untimely death of her mother in <em><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/03/the-body-the-radical-empathy-of-buffys-best-episode/519051/">Buffy the Vampire Slayer </a></em>shaped many feelings when there is a catastrophic loss without warning. </p> <p>In the last decade, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/australia-culture-blog/2013/aug/08/offspring-fans-mourn-patrick">sudden death of Patrick from <em>Offspring </em></a>had people legitimately calling in sick from work the next day. </p> <p>The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAgpbPIVy0M">global reaction</a> to the Red Wedding scene in <em>Game of Thrones</em> had forums on Reddit unpacking why so many characters were murdered and sharing the impact of the sights and sounds of blood and murder and traumatic grief.</p> <p>We engage in a social contract when we connect to a TV show. We expect to be removed from our real life and engage in the viewing of other spaces. Death in those spaces – and the reactions to that loss – can feel as if they break that contract.</p> <p><em>Image credits: HBO</em></p> <p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-death-on-the-screen-feel-the-same-as-a-real-one-203549" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. </em></p> </figure>

TV

Placeholder Content Image

Age, not weight, should be the big decider in whether to screen for diabetes

<p><span style="font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">Because it’s possible to be diabetic or prediabetic without any symptoms, and early diagnoses lead to better health outcomes, lots of countries have screening programs for diabetes.</span></p> <div class="copy"> <p>In the US, overweight or obese people between 35 and 70 are recommended to regularly get diabetes tests.</p> <p>But <a href="https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(23)00006-5/fulltext" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">new research</a> in the <em>American Journal of Preventative Medicine</em> has called this into question, suggesting that screening based purely on age will catch the greatest proportion of diabetic and prediabetic people.</p> <p>“It might sound counterintuitive because we think of being overweight or obese as the primary cause of diabetes,” says lead author Dr Matthew O’Brien, an associate professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, US.</p> <p>“But if we make decisions about diabetes testing based on weight, we will miss some people from racial and ethnic minority groups who are developing prediabetes and diabetes at lower weights.”</p> <p>The researchers examined data from all the 2021 diabetes screenings recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Based on this data, they recommend screening every US adult aged between 35 and 70.</p> <p>“All major racial and ethnic minority groups develop diabetes at lower weights than white adults, and it’s most pronounced for Asian Americans,” says O’Brien.</p> <p>Roughly half of US adults have Type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, and 81% of adults with prediabetes don’t know they have it. Diagnoses are delayed in ethnic minorities, compared to white people.</p> <p>“Diabetes is a condition in which unacceptable racial and ethnic disparities persist,” says O’Brien.</p> <p>“That’s why we need a screening approach that maximises equity. If we can find everyone earlier, it helps us reduce these disparities and the bad outcomes that follow.”</p> <p>The researchers also found that it might be beneficial for members of some ethnic minorities to receive earlier screening, but they don’t formally recommend it.</p> <p>“It’s imperative that we identify a screening approach that is equitable across the entire US population,” says O’Brien.</p> <p>“Our findings illustrate that screening all adults aged 35 to 70 years, regardless of weight or body mass index, performs equitably across all racial and ethnic groups.”</p> <p>This age cut-off also makes it much simpler for clinicians to decide whether someone should get a diabetes test.</p> <p>“There are many ways to nudge patients and providers to complete this testing, which should be the focus of future research,” says O’Brien.</p> <p>In Australia, diabetes tests are recommended based on a <a href="https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/diabetes-screening-tests" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">range of risk factors</a>, including age, waist measurement, ethnicity, physical activity and family history. Diabetes Australia has a <a href="https://www.diabetesaustralia.com.au/risk-calculator/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">risk calculator</a> with which you can determine your own risk.</p> <p><img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=240911&amp;title=Age%2C+not+weight%2C+should+be+the+big+decider+in+whether+to+screen+for+diabetes" width="1" height="1" data-spai-target="src" data-spai-orig="" data-spai-exclude="nocdn" /></div> <div id="contributors"> <p><em>This article was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/diabetes-tests-screening-age-weight/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributor/ellen-phiddian">Ellen Phiddian</a>. </em></p> <p><em>Images: Shutterstock</em></p> </div>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

Hilarious footage emerges of Sam Neill's James Bond screen test

<p dir="ltr"><em>Jurassic Park</em> star Sam Neill appeared on the <em>Today</em> show to discuss his career and new memoir 'Did I Ever Tell You This?' but the hosts had other plans.</p> <p dir="ltr">Karl Stefanovic, Sarah Abo and Brooke Boney managed to dig up an old screen test that left the 75-year-old red-faced.</p> <p dir="ltr">"Oh, my God, no - That is so cruel to play that, so cruel," a flustered Neil said, as footage from his <em>James Bond</em> audition started rolling.</p> <p dir="ltr">In the video, a young Neill armed with a gun and donning an unbuttoned shirt bursts into a bedroom-to the surprise of a naked woman- and says the famous line "My friends called me Bond, James Bond".</p> <p dir="ltr">Neill said he was thankful that he didn’t get the part and that someone else was chosen to do the role.</p> <p dir="ltr">"I felt so awkward all day that we made that thing and it just went on and on and on," he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">"I am so relieved they offered it to someone else, they are welcome to it - you don't want to be the Bond that no-one likes, you know - that is a fate worse than death."</p> <p dir="ltr">Although he didn’t get the role of agent 007, the actor has starred in three of the J<em>urassic Park films, Event Horizon, The Dish and Peter Rabbit</em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">He also told the <em>Today </em>show hosts that he never intended on becoming a professional actor and his success was completely unexpected.</p> <p dir="ltr">"I never really imagined I would have a career in film, let alone a career as an actor," he said.</p> <p dir="ltr">"At the rather advanced age of 30 I suddenly realised I could make a living at what I loved best and I never looked back until I wrote (the memoir) and it has been good to look back - it has been really good for me."</p> <p><em>Image: Today Show, Channel 9</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Urine sample test: new way to detect and screen for early stages of Alzheimer’s disease

<p>When it comes to <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/alzheimers-peer-review/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Alzheimer’s disease</a>, an early diagnosis – one made well before signs of irreversible dementia are apparent – is key to providing effective intervention and treatment. Now early detection might be as simple as a urine test, allowing for wide-scale and early screening across large populations of the elderly.</p> <p>A collaboration of researchers in China investigated urine samples for biomarkers from a large group of patients with varying severity of Alzheimer’s disease, comparing them with healthy controls.</p> <p>A compound known as <a href="https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/molecule-of-the-week/archive/f/formic-acid.html?cid=home_motw" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">formic acid</a> (which is also produced by some ant and bee species) was a particularly sensitive marker for cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Significant increases in urinary formic acid levels were found in all samples from Alzheimer’s sufferers (including those with only early-stage subjective cognitive decline) as compared with those from the healthy controls.</p> <p>“Alzheimer’s disease is a continuous and concealed chronic disease, meaning that it can develop and last for many years before obvious cognitive impairment emerges,” say the authors. “The early stages of the disease occur before the irreversible dementia stage, and this is the golden window for intervention and treatment.”</p> <p>When blood samples of the participants were analysed for Alzheimer’s biomarkers in combination with the urinary formic acid level, the researchers were able to predict to what stage of the disease the patient had progressed. Their report is in <em><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2022.1046066/full" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Frontiers in Ageing</a></em>.</p> <p>Other methods currently used to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease, such as positron emission tomography brain scans, <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/medicine/alzheimers-blood-test-developed/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">invasive blood draws</a> and lumbar punctures, tend to be costly and invasive. Although other urinary biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease have been found, none have been able to detect the disease at its earliest stages.</p> <p>The links between urinary formic acid and Alzheimer’s disease are still not fully understood, but this research is an important step towards developing tools to diagnose and treat this debilitating condition amongst a vulnerable group in society.</p> <p>“Urinary formic acid showed an excellent sensitivity for early Alzheimer’s screening,” said the authors. “The detection of urine biomarkers of Alzheimer’s is convenient and cost-effective, and it should be performed during routine physical examinations of the elderly.”</p> <p><img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=227116&amp;title=Urine+sample+test%3A+new+way+to+detect+and+screen+for+early+stages+of+Alzheimer%E2%80%99s+disease" width="1" height="1" data-spai-target="src" data-spai-orig="" data-spai-exclude="nocdn" /></p> <div id="contributors"> <p><em><a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/urine-new-way-detect-alzheimers-disease/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This article</a> was originally published on Cosmos Magazine and was written by Clare Kenyon. </em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p> </div>

Mind

Placeholder Content Image

6 things that could happen to your eyes if you stare at a screen all day

<h2>More screen time</h2> <p>You may know that staring at a screen all day is not particularly good for you, and that it’s a good idea to give your eyes a rest and limit your screen time. This includes your phone, laptop and TV. But, on average, you probably spend more hours than you realise staring at a digital device. With more people working from home, that amount of time is on the rise.</p> <p>“Covid-19 has put screen time on steroids,” says optometrist, Dr Paul Karpecki. You may have a work-from-home arrangement, chat with friends via video call, do online on-demand workouts, see doctors via telemedicine, and more. We’re online all the time, and there’s an indication hours spent in front of a screen are spiking.</p> <p>The average adult now spends more than 13 hours per day in front of a screen, up from just over 10 hours in 2019, according to Eyesafe, which designs and develops products that protect against blue light from digital devices. (Karpecki is also a member of the Eyesafe Vision Health Advisory Board.) Eyesafe analysed data from a March 2020 report from the Nielsen Company that estimated that Covid-19 stay-at-home orders would lead to a 60 per cent increase or more in media consumption. Even with lockdowns now lifted, many of those habits established over the last two years have remained.</p> <p>Too much screen time can lead to digital eye strain, which is a condition that results in eye discomfort and vision problems, according to Eyecare Plus. It’s true that prolonged screen time does increase your exposure to blue light. However, it’s unclear whether blue light is to blame for digital eye strain, or whether products that block blue light help.</p> <h2>You may blink less</h2> <p>You’re more likely to blink less when you’re using electronic devices or even watching TV. Specifically, staring at an electronic screen can affect how often you blink and whether your eyelids close entirely as you blink. A 2015 study published in the journal Investigative Ophthalmology &amp; Visual Science found people experienced a lower blinking rate and were less likely to completely close their eyes during a blink when reading on an electronic device, like a tablet.</p> <h2>Your eyes will dry out and may burn</h2> <p>As previously stated, when you stare at a computer screen, you blink less. This can make your eyes dry out and even feel like they’re burning. “Blinking keeps the front surface of your eye moist,” says optometrist, Dr Barbara Horn. She suggests increasing the humidity in the air at home and at work (if possible). Also, sip water throughout the day to stay hydrated, a habit that benefits your whole body, including your eyes. And finally, commit to consciously blinking more often during computer work, especially if your eyes are beginning to feel dry. There’s a condition called dry eye, which is when you have inadequate or poor-quality tears. Talk to your optometrist, who may recommend simple solutions like over-the-counter artificial tears.</p> <h2>You may get (visual) migraines with or without headaches</h2> <p>Ever heard of a condition called computer vision syndrome (CVS)? It’s the more formal term for digital eye strain, and some estimates say it affects half of computer users, according to a 2018 review in BMJ Open Ophthalmology. “CVS describes a group of eye and vision-related problems that can result from prolonged computer, tablet, or [mobile] phone use,” says Horn.</p> <p>One of those symptoms of CVS is headache. Poor lighting, glare and sticking your face too close to a screen can trigger headaches. Also, poor posture when using a computer can do this too. The more you use your devices, the worse the symptoms, she says. “People who spend two or more continuous hours at a computer or using a digital screen device every day are at a greater risk of experiencing eye strain,” says Horn.</p> <p>You can also experience a visual migraine, which is characterised by visual disturbances, such as seeing spots and zigzags in your field of vision, according to Brigham and Women’s Hospital. This can last anywhere between 20 to 30 minutes and typically, will then resolve. It’s important to note that visual migraines can occur with or without headaches; this is known as a migraine with aura, according to Headache Australia. These types of migraines can be triggered by extreme lighting and staring at electronic screens.</p> <p>To treat and prevent headaches and migraines, take regular breaks from electronic devices and follow the 20-20-20 rule, which helps protect eyesight. That means stopping every 20 minutes to stare at something 20 feet (6 metres) away for 20 seconds. Also make sure that your eyeglass prescription is correct, as that can exacerbate CVS symptoms, too.</p> <h2>You may get blurry vision</h2> <p>One of the symptoms of CVS is blurry vision. “Viewing a computer or digital screen is different than reading a printed page,” says Horn. “Often the letters on the computer or handheld device are not as precise or sharply defined, the level of contrast of the letters to the background is reduced, and the presence of glare and reflections on the screen may make viewing difficult,” she explains.</p> <h2>Your eyes may have trouble focusing</h2> <p>In order to read, your eyes have to work overtime to see clearly. The good news here is that most of the time, the blurriness will go away once you stop computer work, she says. Still, it’s not pleasant and can make tasks take longer if you’re struggling to focus. In that case, Horn suggests holding your phone or tablet further away from you at a “book reading distance” rather than up close to your face. Make the font larger if you can, and adjust the brightness to match the room (for instance: lower it in the evening). This prevents your pupils from having to adjust constantly to changing light levels, something that contributes to strain.</p> <h2>Your neck may be stiff and your jaw may ache</h2> <p>How do you feel after being attached to a digital screen for 8 hours? Likely not great. Symptoms like neck stiffness and jaw tightness “could be directly linked to digital eye strain,” says Karpecki. “We have something called the trigeminal nerve that serves basically as an expressway connecting our eyes to our temple and jaw. We have found that sometimes strain that happens in the eyes is reflected in soreness, discomfort and tightness in those two other areas,” he explains. It’s important to not only take regular breaks to follow the 20-20-20 rule, but also make tweaks to your workspace so it’s healthier for your body.</p> <h2>Expand your reading materials when you can</h2> <p>Everything you read shouldn’t be from a screen – and that can be a tall order in our digital times. “There are unique challenges to managing eye health when it comes to screens and digital devices,” says Karpecki. Reading something digital is different from on paper, even if they both use the same field of vision. “Due to the pixel movement on a digital screen, something we only perceive on a subconscious level, our eyes remain focused longer and we subconsciously reduce our blink rate,” he explains. If possible, mix up your media use: grab a paper book, magazine, or newspaper for your recreational reading pleasures.</p> <p><strong>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.co.nz/healthsmart/conditions/eyes/6-things-that-could-happen-to-your-eyes-if-you-stare-at-a-screen-all-day" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.</strong></p> <p><em>Image: Shutterstock</em></p>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

Data visualisations made more accessible to screen reader users

<p>A type of assistive technology, screen readers are software programs that scan the contents of a computer screen and transform it into a different format – like synthesised voice or Braille – for people with complete or partial blindness, learning disabilities, or motion sensitivity.</p> <p>Now, scientists from the University of Washington (UW) in the US have designed a JavaScript plugin called VoxLens that allows people to better interact with these visualisations.</p> <p>VoxLens allows screen reader users to gain a high-level summary of the information described in a graph, listen to said graph translated into sound, or use voice-activated commands to ask specific questions about the data, such as the mean or the minimum value.</p> <p>The team presented their <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3491102.3517431" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">research</a> last month at the <a href="https://programs.sigchi.org/chi/2022" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems</a> in New Orleans in the US.</p> <figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio"> <div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper"> <div class="entry-content-asset"> <div class="embed-wrapper"> <div class="inner"><iframe title="VoxLens - Paper Summary and Demo Video" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/o1R-5D2WS4s?feature=oembed" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div> </div> </div> </div> </figure> <p>“If I’m looking at a graph, I can pull out whatever information I am interested in – maybe it’s the overall trend or maybe it’s the maximum,” says lead author Ather Sharif, a doctoral student in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science &amp; Engineering at UW.</p> <p>“Right now, screen reader users either get very little or no information about online visualisations, which, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, can sometimes be a matter of life and death. The goal of our project is to give screen reader users a platform where they can extract as much or as little information as they want.”</p> <p>The difficulty with translating graphs, according to co-senior author Jacob O. Wobbrock, a professor of information at UW, comes from deciphering information with no clear beginning and end.</p> <div class="newsletter-box"> <div id="wpcf7-f6-p193459-o1" class="wpcf7" dir="ltr" lang="en-US" role="form"> </div> </div> <p>“There is a start and an end of a sentence and everything else comes in between,” he explains. “But as soon as you move things into two dimensional spaces, such as visualisations, there’s no clear start and finish.</p> <p>“It’s just not structured in the same way, which means there’s no obvious entry point or sequencing for screen readers.”</p> <p><strong>Working with screen reader users to improve accessibility</strong></p> <p>The team worked with screen reader users who had partial or complete blindness when designing and testing the tool. During the testing phase, participants learned how to use VoxLens and then completed nine tasks, each of which involved answering questions about a data visualisation.</p> <p>The researchers found that participants completed the tasks with 122% increased accuracy and 36% decreased interaction time, compared to participants of a previous study who hadn’t had access to VoxLens.</p> <p>“We want people to interact with a graph as much as they want, but we also don’t want them to spend an hour trying to find what the maximum is,” says Sharif. “In our study, interaction time refers to how long it takes to extract information, and that’s why reducing it is a good thing.”</p> <p>VoxLens can be implanted easily by data visualisation designers with a single line of code. Right now it only works for visualisations created using <a href="https://www.javascript.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">JavaScript</a> libraries – such as <a href="https://d3js.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">D3</a>, <a href="https://www.chartjs.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">chart.js</a> or <a href="https://www.google.com.au/sheets/about/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Google Sheets</a> – but the team is working towards expanding to other popular platforms.</p> <p>“This work is part of a much larger agenda for us – removing bias in design,” adds co-senior author Katharina Reinecke, associate professor in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science &amp; Engineering at UW. “When we build technology, we tend to think of people who are like us and who have the same abilities as we do.</p> <p>“For example, D3 has really revolutionised access to visualisations online and improved how people can understand information. But there are values ingrained in it and people are left out. It’s really important that we start thinking more about how to make technology useful for everybody.”</p> <p><img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=193459&amp;title=Data+visualisations+made+more+accessible+to+screen+reader+users" width="1" height="1" /></p> <div id="contributors"> <p><em><a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/voxlens-accessibility-screen-readers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This article</a> was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cosmos Magazine</a> and was written by <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributor/imma-perfetto" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Imma Perfetto</a>. Imma Perfetto is a science writer at Cosmos. She has a Bachelor of Science with Honours in Science Communication from the University of Adelaide.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p> </div>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

See the stars who stunned at this year’s Screen Actors Guild Awards

<p dir="ltr">After years of virtual events and social distancing, the 2022 award season has kicked off in style with the Screen Actors Guild Awards in Santa Monica, California.</p> <p dir="ltr">The absence of events for celebrities to embrace the latest fashion trends has seen those attending this year’s event go all out, with particularly stunning moments coming from everyone from Nicole Kidman and Venus Williams to Helen Mirren and Lady Gaga.</p> <p dir="ltr">Here are some of the best looks to come out of the 2022 SAG Awards.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Venus Williams and Lady Gaga </strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Though the tennis legend and pop icon might not have much in common, they both turned heads with gorgeous white gowns at the SAG event.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-6304a5fe-7fff-7ce9-57aa-c517f0b77e28">Williams stepped out on the red carpet in a Dolce &amp; Gabbana gown with a silver bustier, high-slit white sleeve and skirt after <em>King Richard</em> - the film she co-produced with her sister Serena - was nominated for Outstanding Performance by a Cast (or Ensemble) in a Motion Picture.</span></p> <p><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/03/venus-gaga.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Though their dresses were both white, Venus Williams and Lady Gaga shone in their take on the classic gown. Images: Getty Images</em></p> <p dir="ltr">Gaga, meanwhile, posed in a strapless white column gown that hugged her figure, which she paired with a Tiffany &amp; Co necklace and with her hair worn down. She was nominated for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role for her performance in <em>House of Gucci</em>.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Helen Mirren and Jean Smart</strong></p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-1bf03d5e-7fff-a3bc-37b9-1baa08439487"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">The famed actresses wowed with the vibrancy of their attire, with Helen Mirren choosing a pastel pink dress with accenting floral pieces on her waist and shoulder, and Jean Smart opting for a rich maroon outfit complete with ruffles forming a halo around her shoulders and cuffs.</p> <p dir="ltr"><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/03/mirren-smart.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Images: Getty Images</em></p> <p dir="ltr">Unsurprisingly, both Mirren and Smart took home awards from the event.</p> <p dir="ltr">Mirren was presented with the Life Achievement Award by Kate Winslet and Cate Blanchett, and paid tribute to actors past and present in her acceptance speech.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I’ve been angsting about what to say tonight, and I’ve been waiting for inspiration,” she said.</p> <p dir="ltr">“To all those people with whom I have shared my professional life: the actors.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It is you, you: actors, that I want to thank. For your wit, and your humour, all the giggles, all the laughter - I’ve laughed my whole life honestly.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Meanwhile, Jean Smart claimed the gong for Outstanding Female Actor in a Comedy Series for her starring role in <em>Hacks</em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">Smart also took the opportunity to praise actors.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I love actors, nobody gets us actors,” she said. “What we do is valuable, we are the tribe’s storytellers since man crawled out the cave and sat around the fire together and it’s important.”</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchett</strong></p> <p dir="ltr">Opting for classic black, Nicole Kidman and Cate Blachett took their dresses in completely different directions.</p> <p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-05045047-7fff-c789-a1db-ca7e6523548d"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">Kidman - who was nominated for her role as Lucille Ball in <em>Being the Ricardos</em> - stepped out in a timeless Saint Laurent long sleeve velvet gown, accessorised with an ivory white bow.</p> <p dir="ltr"><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/03/cate-nicole.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Images: Getty Images</em></p> <p dir="ltr">Appearing on the red carpet for her nomination for her supporting role in<em> Nightmare Alley</em>, Blanchett wore a jaw-dropping Armani Prive gown with a plunging neckline edged with geometric black stones.</p> <p dir="ltr"><strong>Notable mentions</strong></p> <p dir="ltr"><strong><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/03/salma-sandra.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /></strong></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Images: Getty Images</em></p> <p dir="ltr">Bold colours and black were popular choices on the red carpet, with Salma Hayek rocking a salmon pink halter neck gown with matching sheer gloves and Sandra Oh opting for a metallic silver gown with a tight bodice and tiered skirt.</p> <p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-5583eb41-7fff-de9e-5396-bf91b3c7588e"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Beauty & Style

Placeholder Content Image

From Tarantino to Squid Game: why do so many people enjoy violence?

<p>Last month, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/13/squid-game-is-netflixs-biggest-debut-hit-reaching-111m-viewers-worldwide">more than 100 million people</a> watched the gory Netflix show, Squid Game. Whether or not screen violence is bad for us has been extensively studied. The <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-29260-002">consensus is</a> that it can have negative effects. But the question of why we are drawn to watch violence has received much less attention. </p> <p>Death, blood and violence have always pulled a crowd. Ancient Romans flocked to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199710)5:4%3C401::AID-EURO205%3E3.0.CO;2-C">carnage in the Colosseum</a>. In later centuries, <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199592692.001.0001/acprof-9780199592692">public executions were big box-office</a>. In the modern era, the film director Quentin Tarantino believes that: “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2013/01/quentin-tarantino-violence-quotes/319586/">In movies, violence is cool. I like it</a>”. Many of us seem to agree with him. A study of high-grossing movies found <a href="https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/1/71">90% had a segment</a> where the main character was involved in violence. Similarly, most Americans <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-58515-001">enjoy horror films</a> and watch them several times a year. </p> <h2>Who is watching this stuff?</h2> <p>Some people are more likely to enjoy violent media than others. Being male, aggressive and having less empathy all <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0702_5">make you more likely</a> to enjoy watching screen violence. There are also certain personality traits associated liking violent media. Extroverted people, who seek excitement, and people who are more open to aesthetic experiences, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_5">like watching violent movies more</a>. </p> <p>Conversely, people high in agreeableness - characterised by humility and sympathy for others - tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_5">like violent media less</a>.</p> <h2>…but why?</h2> <p>One theory is that watching violence is cathartic, draining out our excess aggression. However, this idea is <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/3/4/491">not well supported by evidence</a>. When angry people watch violent content, they <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Media-Entertainment-The-Psychology-of-Its-Appeal/Zillmann-Vorderer/p/book/9780805833256">tend to get angrier</a>.</p> <p>More recent research, derived from studies of horror films, suggests there may be three categories of people who enjoy watching violence, each with their own reasons. </p> <p>One group has been dubbed “<a href="https://psyarxiv.com/sdxe6/">adrenaline junkies</a>”. These sensation seekers want new and intense experiences, and are more likely <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0702_5">to get a rush</a> from watching violence. Part of this group may be people who like seeing others suffer. Sadists feel other people’s pain <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-psychopaths-to-everyday-sadists-why-do-humans-harm-the-harmless-144017">more than normal</a>, and enjoy it.</p> <p>Another group enjoys watching violence because they feel they learn something from it. In horror studies, such people are called “<a href="https://psyarxiv.com/sdxe6/">white knucklers</a>”. Like adrenaline junkies, they feel intense emotions from watching horror. But they dislike these emotions. They tolerate it because they feel it helps them learn something about how to survive. </p> <p>This is a bit like <a href="https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/musichtc_facpub/26">benign masochism</a>, the enjoyment of aversive, painful experiences in a safe context. If we can tolerate some pains, we may gain something. Just as “painful” <a href="https://tidsskrift.dk/lev/article/view/104693">cringe comedies may teach us social skills</a>, watching violence may teach us survival skills.</p> <p>A final group seems to get both sets of benefits. They enjoy the sensations generated by watching violence and feel they learn something. In the horror genre, such people have been called “<a href="https://psyarxiv.com/sdxe6/">dark copers</a>”.</p> <p>The idea that people enjoy watching safe, on-screen violence because it can teach us something is called “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000152">threat simulation theory</a>”. This fits with the observation that the people who seem most attracted to watching violence (aggressive young men) are also those most likely to be encountering or dishing out such violence.</p> <p>Watching violence from the safety of our sofa may be a way to prepare ourselves for a violent and dangerous world. Violence hence appeals for a good reason. Interestingly, a recent study found that horror fans and morbidly curious individuals were <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920305882">more psychologically resilient</a> during the COVID-19 pandemic. </p> <h2>Is it really the violence we like?</h2> <p>There are reasons to reconsider how much we like watching violence per se. For example, in one study <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210500084198">researchers showed</a>two groups of people the 1993 movie, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106977/">The Fugitive</a>. One group were shown an unedited movie, while another saw a version with all violence edited out. Despite this, both groups liked the film equally. </p> <p>This finding has been supported by other studies which have also found that removing graphic violence from a film <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549909598417">does not make people like it less</a>. There is even evidence that people <a href="https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-abstract/35/3/442/4107507">enjoy non-violent versions</a> of films more than violent versions.</p> <p>Many people may be enjoying something that coincides with violence, rather than violence itself. For example, violence creates <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12112">tension and suspense</a>, which may be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150701626446">what people find appealing</a>. </p> <p>Another possibility is that it is <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1087.404&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">action, not violence</a>, which people enjoy. Watching violence also offers a great chance for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12112">making meaning</a> about finding meaning in life. Seeing violence allows us to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12112">reflect on the human condition</a>, an experience we value. </p> <p>Other theories are also out there. “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiece049">Excitation transfer theory</a>” suggests that watching violence makes us aroused, a feeling that persists until the end of the show, making the end feel more pleasing. The “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.570826">forbidden fruit hypothesis</a>” proposes that it is violence being deemed off-limits that makes it appealing. Consistent with this, warning labels <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-06304-002">increase people’s interest</a> in violent programmes.</p> <p>Finally, it may be that it is justified punishment, rather than violence, that we enjoy watching. Indeed, whenever people anticipate being able to punish wrongdoers, the <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1100735">reward centres of their brain</a> light up like fairgrounds. That said, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-abstract/35/3/442/4107507">less than half the violence</a> on TV is inflicted on baddies by goodies. </p> <h2>Political motives?</h2> <p>All this suggests that media companies may be giving us violence that many of us <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2011.570826">don’t want or need</a>. We should hence consider what other corporate, political or ideological pressures may be encouraging onscreen violence globally.</p> <p>For example, the US government has a close interest in, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/washington-dcs-role-behind-the-scenes-in-hollywood-goes-deeper-than-you-think-80587">influence over Hollywood</a>. Portrayals of violence can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517739093">manufacture our consent</a> with government policies, encourage us to endorse the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10509208.2015.1086614">legitimacy of state power and state violence</a>, and help <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/78912/manufacturing-consent-by-edward-s-herman-and-noam-chomsky/">determine who are “worthy victims”</a>.</p> <p>The messages onscreen violence send can, however, cause us to become disconnected with reality. <a href="https://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature">When crime rates fall</a>, <a href="https://publisher.abc-clio.com/9780313015977/">onscreen violence</a> can make us think that crime is increasing. Movies also lie about the real <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071054/">impact of violence</a> on the human body – with almost 90% of violent actions showing no realistic physical consequences to the victim. Movies can also <a href="https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs101201918809">disguise the reality of male violence</a> against women and children.</p> <p>The American political scientist <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/84573/the-clash-of-civilizations-and-the-remaking-of-world-order-by-samuel-p-huntington/">Samuel Huntington once wrote that</a>, “The west won the world not by the superiority of its ideas … but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” We should be constantly aware of how fake violence on our screens serves real violence in our world.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-tarantino-to-squid-game-why-do-so-many-people-enjoy-violence-170251" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

5 blockbuster movies hitting the big screen in 2022

<p dir="ltr">After a slow two years due to the pandemic, the world of blockbuster cinema is revving back up in 2022. </p><p dir="ltr">With 2021 going out with a bang after the releases of <em>No Time to Die</em>, <em>Dune</em>, <em>The Matrix Resurrections</em> and many more, 2022 cinema has some big shoes to fill. </p><p dir="ltr">With countless blockbusters on the calendar for 2022, here are just five highly anticipated releases to add to this year’s must-watch list. </p><p dir="ltr" role="presentation"><strong>1. The Batman</strong></p><p dir="ltr">The latest instalment from DC Comics comes in the form of <em>The Batman</em>, as the dark and gritty version of the superhero flick is not one to miss. </p><p dir="ltr">Starring Robert Pattinson as Batman/Bruce Wayne, this highly anticipated movie has been gathering buzz since the first trailer was released in October last year. </p><p dir="ltr">The film boasts an all-star cast including Paul Dano, Colin Farrell and Peter Sarsgaard, and is due to hit cinemas in March.  </p><p></p><p dir="ltr"><strong>2. Top Gun: Maverick</strong></p><p dir="ltr">36 years after the success of <em>Top Gun</em>, the sequel is due to hit the big screen in May. </p><p dir="ltr">After a two-year delay due to Covid, <em>Top Gun: Maverick</em> will see Tom Cruise jump back into his iconic role for another high-stakes mission. </p><p dir="ltr">The film is directed by Joseph Kosiniski, and also stars Jon Hamm, Val Kilmer and Jennifer Connelly. </p><p></p><p dir="ltr" role="presentation"><strong>3. Jurassic World: Dominion</strong></p><p dir="ltr">In the third instalment of the <em>Jurassic World</em> trilogy, humanity must grapple with dangerous genetically enhanced reptiles on the loose. </p><p dir="ltr">The film sees the return of Chris Pratt, while also featuring nostalgic cameos from Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum. </p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38;margin-top: 0pt;margin-bottom: 0pt"><em>Jurassic World: Dominion</em> is due to hit cinemas in June<span style="font-size: 11pt;font-family: Arial;color: #000000;background-color: transparent;font-weight: 400;font-style: normal;text-decoration: none;vertical-align: baseline">. </span></p><p></p><p dir="ltr"><strong>4. Elvis</strong></p><p dir="ltr">Australian director Baz Luhrmann is taking on one of the most famous musicians in <em>Elvis</em>. </p><p dir="ltr">Austin Butler will be playing the iconic singer, with Tom Hanks playing his manager Colonel Tom Parker. </p><p dir="ltr">Other Aussie stars such as Olivia DeJonge, Richard Roxburgh and David Wenham are also joining the cast, with the film set to be released in June.</p><p></p><p dir="ltr"><strong>5. Avatar 2</strong></p><p dir="ltr">More than 10 years after James Cameron’s revolutionary film <em>Avatar</em> was released, the sequel is due to hit the big screen in 2022. </p><p dir="ltr">In the first of many sequels, familiar faces from the first movie, such as Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana, are due to return to their iconic roles. </p><p dir="ltr">While there is no official trailer for the film yet, the <em>Avatar</em> Twitter account has shared stunning concept art images with fans to get them excited for the next instalment.</p><p dir="ltr">Fans will still have a while to wait for the film, however, with a release date expected in December. </p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">ICYMI — Check out these stunning concept art images from Avatar 2! <a href="https://t.co/QVVK8cVU21">pic.twitter.com/QVVK8cVU21</a></p>— Avatar (@officialavatar) <a href="https://twitter.com/officialavatar/status/1437807131856564227?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2021</a></blockquote><p dir="ltr"><em><span id="docs-internal-guid-1a70098f-7fff-e12b-b99d-6680b65dfd7e">Image credits: DC Comics / 6th &amp; Idaho Productions / Paramount Pictures</span></em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

From fairytale to gothic ghost story: how 40 years of biopics showed Princess Diana on screen

<p>Since the earliest Princess Diana biopics appeared soon after the royal wedding in 1981, there have been repeated attempts to bring to the screen the story of Diana’s journey from blue-blooded ingenue through to tragic princess trapped within – and then expelled from – the royal system.</p> <p>A long string of actresses, with replicas of the outfits she wore and a blond wig (sometimes precariously) in place, have walked through episodic storylines, charting the “greatest hits” of what is known of Diana’s royal life.</p> <p>Biopics about the princess tend to be shaped according to the dominant mythic narratives in circulation in any given phase of Diana’s life. The first biopics were stories of fairytales and romance. From the 1990s, the marriage of Charles and Diana took on the shape of soap opera and melodrama.</p> <p>Now, with the Crown (2016–) and Spencer (2021), Diana has become a doomed gothic heroine. She is a woman suffocated by a royal system that cannot, will not, acknowledge her special place in the royal pantheon.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WllZh9aekDg?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <h2>Fairytales and soap operas</h2> <p>The first Dianas appeared on American television networks within months of the July 1981 wedding of Charles and Diana.</p> <p>Both Charles and Diana: A Royal Love Story (starring Caroline Bliss) and The Royal Romance of Charles and Diana (starring Catherine Oxenberg) invested wholesale in a fairytale lens.</p> <p>They told of the young and virginal beauty who had captured the attention of the dashing prince, whisked off to a life of happily ever after.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/54QRwogBUQI?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>The Diana biopics fell quiet for the first years of the marriage (fairytales don’t tend to interest themselves in pregnancies and apparent marital harmony), and then reemerged after the publication of Andrew Morton’s exposé, Diana: Her True Story (1992).</p> <p>Morton’s biography was written from taped interviews with the princess and inspired the next generation of Diana biopics, ones that I call the “post-Morton” biopics, which borrow from Diana’s own scripting of her life.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R7OnHYcTqLk?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>A series of actors were enlisted to play Diana in these made-for-television productions.</p> <p>Oxenberg turns up again in Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After (1992). In Diana: Her True Story (1993), Serena Scott-Thomas (who, incidentally, turns up in the 2011 television biopic William and Kate as Catherine Middleton’s mother Carole) does her best with a terrible script and series of wigs.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tUFUuGpHHPg?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>Others gave it their best shot. We had Julie Cox in Princess in Love (1996), Amy Seacombe in Diana: A Tribute to the People’s Princess (1998), Genevieve O'Reilly in Diana: Last Days of a Princess (2007) and, briefly, Michelle Duncan in Charles and Camilla: Whatever Love Means (2005).</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eNTR0nZZXn4?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>But even large budget films (such as 2013’s cinema-release Diana, directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel and starring Naomi Watts) had critics and audiences letting out <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/diana_2013">a collective yawn</a>.</p> <p>In film after film we were offered yet another uninspired, soap opera-style representation of the princess’s life.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ca2GGofxzX4?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <h2>A gothic tale</h2> <p>Critics’ voices were quelled somewhat with the appearance of Emma Corrin’s Diana in season four of The Crown.</p> <p>With Netflix’s high budget and quality production values, many — <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-crown-season-4-review-a-triumphant-portrait-of-the-1980s-with-a-perfectly-wide-eyed-diana-149633">including myself</a> — felt Peter Morgan’s deliberate combination of accuracy and imaginative interpretation of Diana’s royal life offered something approximating a closer rendition of the “real” princess than we’d been presented with before.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tedqw0gMuCI?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>And then we come to the most recent portrayal of Diana on screen, Pablo Larraín’s Spencer (2021), starring Kristen Stewart as Diana. What, royal biopic watchers wondered, could it possibly do to top The Crown’s Diana?</p> <p>Spencer’s statement in the film’s opening offers a clue: it promises to be a “fable from a true tragedy”.</p> <p>This is a film where genre imperatives and creative imaginings are placed at the forefront of its representation of the princess.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/f-FBHQAGLnY?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>Taking its cue from the gothic themes and tropes Diana can be heard invoking on the Morton tapes, Spencer’s heroine is trapped in a frozen Sandringham setting, gasping for air to the point where her voice rarely lifts above a soft, almost suffocated, whisper.</p> <p>She tears at the pearls encircling her throat. She rips open the curtains sewn shut by staff. She self-harms with wire cutters. She runs like an animal hunted down manor house corridors and across frosty Norfolk fields.</p> <p>She is haunted by the ghost of Anne Boleyn, another royal wife rejected by her husband, prompting <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a38164090/princess-diana-spencer-horror-movie/">one reviewer to ask</a>: “is Spencer the ultimate horror movie?”</p> <p>Larraín and Stewart’s Diana has her precursor in the spectral, gothic Diana who appears in the 2017 future-history television film King Charles III, based on Mike Bartlett’s 2014 play. The anguished howl of this Diana (played by Katie Brayben) echoes throughout the palace in the same way Spencer’s Diana is framed as the royal who will haunt the Windsors for decades to come.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nyckuIRtag0?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>The lamentable Diana: The Musical (2021) on Netflix (a filmed version of the Broadway production starring Jeanna de Waal) – with its cliched storyline, two-dimensional characterisation, awkward costuming and early 1980s Andrew Lloyd Webber-style aesthetic – offers some evidence that, even in 2021, the creators of Diana stories haven’t altogether abandoned their investment in the Diana of 1981.</p> <p>But with Spencer, we have a Diana shaped by both the princess’s own version of her story, and the screen Dianas that came before her. Spencer suggests new directions and potential for the telling of royal lives.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173648/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UlebsnuEI1Y?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/giselle-bastin-391174">Giselle Bastin</a>, Associate Professor of English, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972">Flinders University</a></em></span></p> <p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-fairytale-to-gothic-ghost-story-how-40-years-of-biopics-showed-princess-diana-on-screen-173648">original article</a>.</p> <p><span class="attribution"><span class="source"><em>Image: Pablo Larraín/Roadshow</em></span></span></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

Digital toys for kids you don’t have to feel guilty about

<p>Guilt has perhaps always been part of selecting and giving gifts for children. However, in 2021, after two years of increased screen time for children thanks to COVID, parents may be experiencing even more uncertainty around what to buy.</p> <p>But what if the power of play could counter some of these fears?</p> <p>The <a href="https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/3/e20182058/38649/The-Power-of-Play-A-Pediatric-Role-in-Enhancing?autologincheck=redirected">importance of play</a> is well recognised. Play holds developmental <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuu59E97igU">power</a> to facilitate communication, increase personal strengths, foster emotional well-being and enhance social relationships.</p> <p>This can be true of digital gifts as well as more traditional presents. Here are some ideas for screen-based toys that are good for both a child’s development and easing parental guilt.</p> <h2>Screen time – is there such a thing as too much?</h2> <p>Firstly, let’s address the key concern many parents have: can too much screen time harm a child’s development? The answer lies in knowing and balancing the risks and benefits of screen time.</p> <p>A recent University of Colorado Boulder <a href="https://theconversation.com/kids-and-their-computers-several-hours-a-day-of-screen-time-is-ok-study-suggests-168022">study</a> of nine and ten year-olds found even when kids spend five hours a day on screens, “it doesn’t appear to be harmful”. The study also suggests screen time can improve social relationships.</p> <p>"While parents should make sure their children are using screens in appropriate ways, our early research suggests lengthy time on screen is not likely to yield dire consequences."</p> <p>Research also indicates the <a href="https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-019-0881-7">type of screen time</a> is important. This suggests active engagement (such as playing a game or doing an activity) may be beneficial, whereas prolonged periods of passive screen time (such as watching TV or YouTube) could be detrimental.</p> <p>There are <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128">international</a> and <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/physical-activity-and-exercise/physical-activity-and-exercise-guidelines-for-all-australians#summary-by-age">Australian</a> recommendations on how much screen time is suitable for children, which vary depending on age.</p> <p>Guidelines also advise negotiating clear boundaries for screen time, limiting sedentary screen time, and incorporating <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/preschoolers/play-learning/screen-time-healthy-screen-use/screen-time-physical-activity">physical activity</a> and <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/preschoolers/play-learning/screen-time-healthy-screen-use/shared-screen-time">social relationships</a>.</p> <p>For children, this may mean sharing a family device, having clear boundaries about usage and a parent supervising.</p> <p>Ultimately, screens are a part of modern life – children need to learn how to navigate them. Modelling <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/family-life/family-media-entertainment/parent-technology-use">healthy screen time</a> as well as selecting developmentally appropriate digital toys or platforms for play are two ways parents can assist children in developing a healthy relationship with screen time.</p> <h2>Digital toys across age groups</h2> <p><strong>Babies and toddlers</strong></p> <p>Video-chatting is <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/play-learning/media-technology/healthy-screen-time-0-2-years">the only</a> recommended form of screen time for babies and toddlers. Digital devices and apps may assist parents when used together with their baby or toddler, to maintain relationships with friends and family.</p> <p>Apps on a parent’s device, such as <a href="https://apps.apple.com/au/app/baby-karaoke/id426373998">Baby Karaoke</a> can help parents to <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/guides/baby-karaoke">remember </a>and sing along to nursery rhymes and children’s songs. Joining together with your child in playful rhythm and rhyme time in the <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/guides/first-1000-days">first 1,000 days</a> supports many aspects of brain development.</p> <p><strong>Pre-schoolers (3-5 years)</strong></p> <p>Screen time, when supervised by a parent and part of a balanced <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/toddlers/play-learning/screen-time-media/healthy-screen-time-2-5-years">healthy</a> family lifestyle, can support children’s developing imagination, creativity, and storytelling.</p> <p>Apps and digital games like <a href="https://www.playosmo.com/en/">Osmo</a>, where players use objects in the real world to interact with the digital world on their device, can develop communication, social and problem-solving skills.</p> <p><strong>School-age (5-9 years)</strong></p> <p>Apps and digital games that support learning, social skills and creativity are <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/school-age/play-media-technology/media/good-apps-games-movies-school-age">recommended for school-age</a> children.</p> <p>App ideas include <a href="https://freeappsforme.com/stop-motion-apps/">Stop Motion</a>, where children use physical toys such as Lego minifigures or plasticine models to create short animated movies. <a href="https://khankids.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360004559231-Welcome-to-Khan-Academy-Kids">Khan Academy for Kids</a> allows children to read books, create and draw, solve puzzles and play games that promote social skills.</p> <p><strong>Pre-teens (9-12 years)</strong></p> <p>Pre-teens may be starting to conduct a significant part of their <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/pre-teens/entertainment-technology/digital-life/screen-time-social-life">social life</a> online. Supporting their developing sense of <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/pre-teens/entertainment-technology/digital-life/digital-citizenship">digital citizenship</a> is a crucial step and should be considered when choosing digital gifts.</p> <p>So, digital games that promote learning, hold positive messages, and allow for a sense of achievement are <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/pre-teens/entertainment-technology/gaming-gambling/video-games-apps">recommended for pre-teens</a>. As a parent of two pre-teens, Kate shares that two current favourite apps in her house are the drawing/art app <a href="https://procreate.art/">Procreate</a> and the meditation, ambient sounds and bedtime stories app <a href="https://www.calm.com/">Calm</a>.</p> <p>Other ideas include learning a new skill like a musical instrument with apps like <a href="https://www.joytunes.com/simply-piano">Simply Piano</a> or <a href="https://simplyguitar.joytunes.com/">Simply Guitar</a>. <a href="https://www.warnerbros.com/games-and-apps/heads">Heads Up!</a> allows you to play charades online, while popular video game <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/app-reviews/minecraft">Minecraft</a> promotes creativity. Finally, work together as a family to remember, preserve and write family stories using <a href="https://storycorps.org/">Story Corps</a>.</p> <p><strong>Teenagers (13-18 years)</strong></p> <p>Screen time can be included in the <a href="https://raisingchildren.net.au/teens/entertainment-technology/screen-time-healthy-screen-use/healthy-screen-time-teens">healthy lifestyle</a> of teenagers. Digital activities that foster interests and hobbies, and enhance social connections are an important consideration for development, health, and well-being.</p> <p>As a parent of a teenager, Judi shares that the current favourite at her house is the virtual reality headset <a href="https://www.oculus.com/">Oculus Quest 2</a>, which enables social connection through <a href="https://hello.vrchat.com/">VRChat</a>, <a href="https://altvr.com/">Altspace</a> and meditation with <a href="https://www.tripp.com/">TRIPP</a> and <a href="https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/2616537008386430/">Nature Treks </a>.</p> <p>Other ideas include getting out in nature for a family treasure hunt adventure using <a href="https://www.geocaching.com/play">Geocaching </a>. Or host a trivia party with family or friends using <a href="https://www.sporcle.com/groups/topics/766d10e0f72b">Sporcle</a>. Games like <a href="https://www.spore.com/">Spore</a> allow players to design their own species by evolving microscopic organisms into their own creations.</p> <h2>What to bear in mind</h2> <p>If you’re doing your own searches, use terms like “creative apps for preschoolers” and use a review site like <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/">Common Sense Media</a> to check your choice. And consider physically active screen time choices.</p> <p>Examples include the <a href="https://www.nintendo.com.au/nintendo-switch-family/switch">Nintendo Switch</a> that promote <a href="https://www.thegamer.com/10-games-like-ring-fit-adventure-on-the-nintendo-switch/">physical activity</a> such as dancing (<a href="https://www.ubisoft.com/en-au/game/just-dance/2022">Just Dance</a>) or real-life exercises, including jogging and yoga (<a href="https://www.nintendo.com.au/games/nintendo-switch/ring-fit-adventure">Ring Fit Adventure</a>).</p> <p>There is also virtual reality, which enables enjoyment, exploration and experiencing through multi-modes including movement (<a href="https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1304877726278670/">Beat Saber</a>), art-making (<a href="https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/2322529091093901?ranking_trace=0_2322529091093901_QUESTSEARCH_85b10f4f-d9f3-44a1-b964-47c4da2e9cb8">Tilt Brush</a>), and immersive experiences (<a href="https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/2078376005587859?ranking_trace=0_2078376005587859_QUESTSEARCH_f4176e13-59ec-45c0-9b14-21117290e72b">Wander</a>).</p> <p>So, pause for a moment when considering digital gifts for children and ask yourself three things:</p> <p>1) Is there a physical component?</p> <p>2) Will this gift be used together within a relationship?</p> <p>3) What is the play value?</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/digital-toys-for-kids-you-dont-have-to-feel-guilty-about-172612">The Conversation</a>. </em></p>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

From Chicago to West Side Story, how to successfully adapt a musical from stage to screen

<p>The second half of 2021 is proving to be a peak time for movie musical-goers, with the release of critically acclaimed In the Heights, disastrously received Dear Evan Hansen, and Steven Spielberg’s hotly anticipated West Side Story.</p> <p>These films lead to reflection on one of the stranger sub-genres of film history — the musical stage-to-screen adaptation. To film a stage show (as in the recent professionally shot films of Hamilton and Come from Away), or merely to create bigger stage sets in a studio (there are many examples of this, from Guys and Dolls to The Producers) is not truly to adapt a musical to film.</p> <p>Instead, adaptors should use the tools unique to film to re-interpret the musical in this different medium.</p> <p>To help us through the vicissitudes of adaptation, here is an idiosyncratic list of a few DOs and DON’Ts.</p> <h2>DO use real locations creatively</h2> <p>Location shooting is a frequent tool used to enhance the realism of film musicals, but placing the un-realism of song and dance in a real place can backfire and create an uncanny valley. Locations are best used in a super-realistic way.</p> <p>A successful recent example of this is In the Heights. Director Jon Chu and his production team shot much of the film in Washington Heights in Manhattan, but in a way that the neighbourhood seems a natural place for music-making: very careful lighting, colour-timing, and the occasional unobtrusive effects shot lift the story out of the mundane.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437093/original/file-20211213-21-hr5jsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437093/original/file-20211213-21-hr5jsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <span class="caption">In The Heights (2021) is a love letter to the Washington Heights area of NYC.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></p> <p>In the number When the Sun Goes Down, lovers Benny and Nina begin singing naturalistically on a fire escape, but then a set on hydraulics, green screen, and “magic hour” lighting come together to enable a gravity-defying dance across the rooftops and walls of the apartment buildings.</p> <p>See also: Fiddler on the Roof, Jesus Christ Superstar, On the Town</p> <h2>DON’T ghettoise all of the musical numbers to a stark dreamland covered in artistic scaffolding</h2> <p>Counter to the previous guideline about using real locations for musical numbers, some film musicals go too far in the opposite direction.</p> <p>Two musicals directed by Rob Marshall, Chicago and Nine, puzzlingly use the same solution to try and hedge their bets: the dialogue scenes happen in realistic locations (1920s Chicago and 1960s Rome, respectively) but the musical numbers are relegated to their characters’ internal fantasies, which in both cases means studio-like settings that allow for dancers to be placed in aesthetically pleasing formations.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437098/original/file-20211213-27-qhe4i9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437098/original/file-20211213-27-qhe4i9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <span class="caption">Chicago (2002), features musical numbers entirely set within the character’s internal fantasies.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></p> <p>This strategy gets the filmmakers out of having to bridge the gap between speech time and music time, but the narrative innovations of both shows are smoothed out on screen. That makes for a less interesting filmgoing experience.</p> <p>The exception that proves the rule here is Cabaret, in which director Bob Fosse removed all of the “book” songs and kept only those performed in the titular cabaret.</p> <p>Through innovative intercutting and montage the cabaret songs pervade the whole texture of the film, however, resulting in one of the most “musical” of all musicals.</p> <h2>DO fix problems with the dramatic unfolding of the source material</h2> <p>Show Boat was the first stage musical to attempt a truly epic form, covering twenty years of story time and locations all along the Mississippi River.</p> <p>In 1927, stage mechanics had not caught up with librettist Oscar Hammerstein II and composer Jerome Kern’s ambitions, and the musical, brilliant and groundbreaking as it was, suffered from overlength and a dramatically clumsy second act. The production team fixed these issues in the 1936 film version, as the technologies of montage, dissolve, and cross-cutting that were possible on film allowed for a more effective unfolding of time and place.</p> <p>The 1965 film version of The Sound of Music similarly fixes problems in the stage version; another epic musical, the stage version feels hemmed-in and stifled.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437103/original/file-20211213-21-1maqjdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437103/original/file-20211213-21-1maqjdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <span class="caption">The Sound of Music (1965) uses film techniques and editing to improve on a ‘stifled’ stage musical.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></p> <p>It is allowed to breathe on film, and the songs are moved around to better reflect what they are actually about (My Favourite Things on stage is sung by the Mother Abbess to cheer up Maria before she leaves the convent!)</p> <p>See also: Hair, Hairspray, Tick Tick Boom</p> <h2>DON’T adapt a musical to film that didn’t work on stage</h2> <p>Poor Alan Jay Lerner. After the extraordinary success of the film version of My Fair Lady, Lerner attempted film adaptations of three of his other musicals that had been less successful on stage.</p> <p>Camelot, which had a healthy run on Broadway because of its star actors (Julie Andrews, Richard Burton, and Robert Goulet), its Oliver Smith production designs, and a few excellent songs, rather more than for its unconvincing storyline and structure, was a natural for screen adaptation. But non-singer stars (Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, and Franco Nero), unconvincing plot revisions, and dull direction by Joshua Logan caused it to be an inert behemoth on screen.</p> <p>Lerner tried again with Paint Your Wagon in 1969, based on a much earlier stage musical that had been only mildly successful with a few hit songs (notably They Call the Wind Maria). But once more, non-singer stars (Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, and Jean Seberg), unconvincing plot revisions, and dull direction by (again!) Joshua Logan resulted in yet another inert behemoth.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437105/original/file-20211213-27-1dca0r1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437105/original/file-20211213-27-1dca0r1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <span class="caption">Paint Your Wagon (1969) is generally acknowledged as a poor example of a film musical, and a stage musical.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></p> <p>Third time was not a charm, with On a Clear Day You Can See Forever. This time the stars were singers: Barbra Streisand and Yves Montand. Unfortunately, their talents were hidden by another poorly revised screenplay and, unlike the other two films, this one could have used more of everything, especially music.</p> <p>Writing this has made me realise that successful stage-to-screen adaptations are quite rare. For every Cabaret there are two Annies and a Man of La Mancha. Spielberg’s new West Side Story will be the first musical he has directed in his long career, and musical-lovers everywhere are optimistic that he will do this classic musical justice.</p> <p>I merely hope that the only scaffolding to be found is on the fire escapes of 1950s Manhattan!<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169946/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gregory-camp-1280180">Gregory Camp</a>, Senior Lecturer, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a></em></span></p> <p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-chicago-to-west-side-story-how-to-successfully-adapt-a-musical-from-stage-to-screen-169946">original article</a>.</p> <p><em>Image: 20th Century Studios</em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

From Chicago to West Side Story, how to successfully adapt a musical from stage to screen

<p>The second half of 2021 is proving to be a peak time for movie musical-goers, with the release of critically acclaimed <em>In the Heights</em>, disastrously received <em>Dear Evan Hansen</em>, and Steven Spielberg’s hotly anticipated <em>West Side Story</em>.</p> <p>These films lead to reflection on one of the stranger sub-genres of film history — the musical stage-to-screen adaptation. To film a stage show (as in the recent professionally shot films of <em>Hamilton</em> and <em>Come from Away</em>), or merely to create bigger stage sets in a studio (there are many examples of this, from <em>Guys and Dolls</em> to <em>The Producers</em>) is not truly to adapt a musical to film.</p> <p>Instead, adaptors should use the tools unique to film to re-interpret the musical in this different medium.</p> <p>To help us through the vicissitudes of adaptation, here is an idiosyncratic list of a few DOs and DON’Ts.</p> <p><strong>DO use real locations creatively</strong></p> <p>Location shooting is a frequent tool used to enhance the realism of film musicals, but placing the un-realism of song and dance in a real place can backfire and create an uncanny valley. Locations are best used in a super-realistic way.</p> <p>A successful recent example of this is <em>In the Heights</em>. Director Jon Chu and his production team shot much of the film in Washington Heights in Manhattan, but in a way that the neighbourhood seems a natural place for music-making: very careful lighting, colour-timing, and the occasional unobtrusive effects shot lift the story out of the mundane.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437093/original/file-20211213-21-hr5jsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437093/original/file-20211213-21-hr5jsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <em><span class="caption">In The Heights (2021) is a love letter to the Washington Heights area of NYC.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></em></p> <p>In the number <em>When the Sun Goes Down</em>, lovers Benny and Nina begin singing naturalistically on a fire escape, but then a set on hydraulics, green screen, and “magic hour” lighting come together to enable a gravity-defying dance across the rooftops and walls of the apartment buildings.</p> <p>See also: <em>Fiddler on the Roof, Jesus Christ Superstar, On the Town</em></p> <p><strong>DON’T ghettoise all of the musical numbers to a stark dreamland covered in artistic scaffolding</strong></p> <p>Counter to the previous guideline about using real locations for musical numbers, some film musicals go too far in the opposite direction.</p> <p>Two musicals directed by Rob Marshall, <em>Chicago</em> and <em>Nine</em>, puzzlingly use the same solution to try and hedge their bets: the dialogue scenes happen in realistic locations (1920s Chicago and 1960s Rome, respectively) but the musical numbers are relegated to their characters’ internal fantasies, which in both cases means studio-like settings that allow for dancers to be placed in aesthetically pleasing formations.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437098/original/file-20211213-27-qhe4i9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437098/original/file-20211213-27-qhe4i9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <em><span class="caption">Chicago (2002), features musical numbers entirely set within the character’s internal fantasies.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></em></p> <p>This strategy gets the filmmakers out of having to bridge the gap between speech time and music time, but the narrative innovations of both shows are smoothed out on screen. That makes for a less interesting filmgoing experience.</p> <p>The exception that proves the rule here is <em>Cabaret</em>, in which director Bob Fosse removed all of the “book” songs and kept only those performed in the titular cabaret.</p> <p>Through innovative intercutting and montage the cabaret songs pervade the whole texture of the film, however, resulting in one of the most “musical” of all musicals.</p> <p><strong>DO fix problems with the dramatic unfolding of the source material</strong></p> <p><em>Show Boat</em> was the first stage musical to attempt a truly epic form, covering twenty years of story time and locations all along the Mississippi River.</p> <p>In 1927, stage mechanics had not caught up with librettist Oscar Hammerstein II and composer Jerome Kern’s ambitions, and the musical, brilliant and groundbreaking as it was, suffered from overlength and a dramatically clumsy second act. The production team fixed these issues in the 1936 film version, as the technologies of montage, dissolve, and cross-cutting that were possible on film allowed for a more effective unfolding of time and place.</p> <p>The 1965 film version of <em>The Sound of Music</em> similarly fixes problems in the stage version; another epic musical, the stage version feels hemmed-in and stifled.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437103/original/file-20211213-21-1maqjdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437103/original/file-20211213-21-1maqjdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a> <em><span class="caption">The Sound of Music (1965) uses film techniques and editing to improve on a ‘stifled’ stage musical.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></em></p> <p>It is allowed to breathe on film, and the songs are moved around to better reflect what they are actually about (<em>My Favourite Things</em> on stage is sung by the Mother Abbess to cheer up Maria before she leaves the convent!)</p> <p>See also:<em> Hair, Hairspray, Tick Tick Boom</em></p> <p><strong>DON’T adapt a musical to film that didn’t work on stage</strong></p> <p>Poor Alan Jay Lerner. After the extraordinary success of the film version of <em>My Fair Lady</em>, Lerner attempted film adaptations of three of his other musicals that had been less successful on stage.</p> <p><em>Camelot</em>, which had a healthy run on Broadway because of its star actors (Julie Andrews, Richard Burton, and Robert Goulet), its Oliver Smith production designs, and a few excellent songs, rather more than for its unconvincing storyline and structure, was a natural for screen adaptation. But non-singer stars (Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, and Franco Nero), unconvincing plot revisions, and dull direction by Joshua Logan caused it to be an inert behemoth on screen.</p> <p>Lerner tried again with <em>Paint Your Wagon</em> in 1969, based on a much earlier stage musical that had been only mildly successful with a few hit songs (notably <em>They Call the Wind Maria</em>). But once more, non-singer stars (Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, and Jean Seberg), unconvincing plot revisions, and dull direction by (again!) Joshua Logan resulted in yet another inert behemoth.</p> <p><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437105/original/file-20211213-27-1dca0r1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437105/original/file-20211213-27-1dca0r1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="" /></a><em> <span class="caption">Paint Your Wagon (1969) is generally acknowledged as a poor example of a film musical, and a stage musical.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">IMDB</span></span></em></p> <p>Third time was not a charm, with <em>On a Clear Day You Can See Forever</em>. This time the stars were singers: Barbra Streisand and Yves Montand. Unfortunately, their talents were hidden by another poorly revised screenplay and, unlike the other two films, this one could have used more of everything, especially music.</p> <p>Writing this has made me realise that successful stage-to-screen adaptations are quite rare. For every <em>Cabaret</em> there are two <em>Annies</em> and a <em>Man of La Mancha</em>. Spielberg’s new <em>West Side Story</em> will be the first musical he has directed in his long career, and musical-lovers everywhere are optimistic that he will do this classic musical justice.</p> <p>I merely hope that the only scaffolding to be found is on the fire escapes of 1950s Manhattan!<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169946/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gregory-camp-1280180" target="_blank">Gregory Camp</a>, Senior Lecturer, <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305" target="_blank">University of Auckland</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/from-chicago-to-west-side-story-how-to-successfully-adapt-a-musical-from-stage-to-screen-169946" target="_blank">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: <span class="attribution"><span class="source">20th Century Studios</span></span></em></p>

Movies

Placeholder Content Image

30 years since The Addams Family hit the big screen, it is still the perfect blend of horror and comedy

<p>The dark side of films has always had a strong relationship with the light side. Mixing comedy with horror often ensured a hit even in the early days of cinema –comedian Harold Lloyd was making such films <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-CXQspZtMs">as early as the 1920s</a>.</p> <p>This combination of light hearted horror worked on the small screen as well.</p> <p>In the 1950s and 1960s, family sitcoms The Andy Griffith Show, My Three Sons, The Beverley Hillbillies and Leave it to Beaver were all hugely popular. But the 60s were also a time of the counter-culture revolution. Beatniks, hippies and a general anti-establishment youth culture progressively dismissed the conforming stereotypes of the wholesome family.</p> <p>From this a TV show, based on a long running New Yorker cartoon by Charles Addams, was launched: The Addams Family, based around a family who, while not outright monsters, definitely played on the dark side of life.</p> <p>The series itself only ran for two seasons and was dropped for poor ratings. But in the intervening years the show’s status grew.</p> <p>Children of the 1960s to the 1980s discovered the reruns and grew in love with the weirdness and offbeat humour. These children grew into adults who never lost interest in one of the strangest shows ever made.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/F3jnymeJof4?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>In 1991 this nostalgia culminated with the release of The Addams Family Movie.</p> <p>Set around a family of oddballs whose pastimes include grave digging, cutting the heads off roses (because the thorns are far more precious) and stealing stop signs to revel in the sound of cars crashing, 30 years on the film has not lost any of its eccentric charm or quirky sensibilities.</p> <h2>A plot for the madness</h2> <p>The Addams Family Movie starts with the dilemma of attempting to contact Gomez’s brother, Fester (who has been in the afterlife for 25 years) and constantly failing. When someone claiming to be Fester turns up (the ever-versatile Christopher Lloyd), he is quickly embraced by the Addams’s as the long-lost Uncle. What they don’t know is the fake Fester is just there to find and steal their hidden riches.</p> <p>But this whole story is just a flimsy backdrop to all the crazy jokes, one-liners and sight-gags that each member of the family gets up to throughout the film.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G388UMkJIBE?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>The parents, Gomez and Morticia Addams are difficult to describe. Gomez is somewhere between a 1930s gangster and a wide eyed man-child who finds wonder at everything. But he is definitely a Renaissance man: just as skilled with a rapier sword as he is with a golf club, his dance moves are unparalleled. The late Raul Julia plays Gomez to perfection – arguably even better than John Astin who played the TV original.</p> <p>Angelica Huston steals the show as his wife Morticia. Wistful, sublime and ethereal, Huston mixes eroticism with playful innocence. She also gets many of the best lines.</p> <p>When Gomez asks Morticia if she is “Unhappy, darling?”, Morticia smoothly supines with a smile “Oh yes, yes completely” – as though that is the ultimate state of ecstasy. Gomez looks on her with constant adoring eyes, and cannot control his unbridled lust whenever Morticia speaks French.</p> <p>It is a love fuelled by constant romance. As Morticia says, “Gomez, last night you were unhinged. You were like some desperate, howling demon. You frightened me … Do it again!”. And when Gomez is racked by angst Morticia tells him “Don’t torture yourself, Gomez … that’s my job”.</p> <p>Every horror movie needs a creepy kid. And the Addams children, daughter Wednesday (Christina Ricci) and son Pugsley (Jimmy Workman), fit the bill nicely. Wednesday is like a mini version of her mother, but in a much more dour mood, with an intense interest in instruments of torture and execution. Pugsley is more playful, always following Wednesday’s lead – to the point of climbing into her electric chair to play her game of “Is there a God?”.</p> <p><iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5I0xFZ34uT4?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <h2>Ghoulish with heart</h2> <p>Horror is supposed to make you frightened; comedy is supposed to make you laugh. They’re genre polar opposites. Then why do horror-comedies work? The Addams Family is so accessible to a wide audience because, while it plays with the dark side of life, it’s a horror film without any of the horror. The darkness is very low level, and it isn’t represented as being real.</p> <p>This is why children and people who don’t like real horror films love it. They can dip their toes in the horror genre but it is played for laughs, not scares.</p> <p>In a way, it has a been a gateway film for when children grow older and watch real horror films. The Addams Family introduces them to the dark world, but there’s nothing to fear. For now, it’s just fun.</p> <p>Overall, though, the one thing The Addams Family movie teaches audiences is regardless if you’re a witch, or a ghoul, or even just a hand, the most important thing in life is family.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172042/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><span><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/daryl-sparkes-828631">Daryl Sparkes</a>, Senior Lecturer (Media Studies and Production), <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-southern-queensland-1069">University of Southern Queensland</a></em></span></p> <p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/30-years-since-the-addams-family-hit-the-big-screen-it-is-still-the-perfect-blend-of-horror-and-comedy-172042">original article</a>.</p>

TV

Placeholder Content Image

Crowd goes nuts as man learns he's a dad on the big screen

<p><em>Image: Youtube</em></p> <p>A new dad-to-be has been given the surprise of his life while attending a basketball game – and as far as pregnancy announcements go – this is up there with one of the best we've seen.</p> <p>The Orlando Magic fan was happily watching the big game with his partner when the ‘kiss cam’ panned across to them during a break.</p> <p>The man and his partner looked suitably delighted at the attention – but something about the woman's behaviour was not quite right. Almost as though she knew something ELSE was about to happen.</p> <p>Sure enough, as the camera lingered on the couple, a special message appeared along the bottom of the screen: ‘Congrats James! You are you going to be a dad’.</p> <p>At first James did not notice the message – but slowly it became apparent that the rest of the crowd certainly had, as the cheering swelled to a giant crescendo.</p> <p>Then the magic moment arrived: the dad-to-be finally looked a little closer at the big screen, took a second or two to comprehend what he was reading, and was then completely overcome with shock, surprise and pure joy. His reaction will be preserved forever for the young family, and it really was a tremendous one.</p> <p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNWuld3hwa8" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> <p>Sadly, James’ team lost the game – going down to the Charlotte Hornets 106-99. But there's no question that he went home a happy man regardless, with a story he will be able to share for many years to come.</p>

Family & Pets

Placeholder Content Image

Will you learn better from reading on screen or paper?

<p>Research now suggests that if you really need to learn something, you’re better off with print.</p> <p>Studies have shown that when people read on-screen, they don’t completely understand what they’ve read, as well as when they read it in print. Even worse, we don’t realize we’re not getting it. For example, researchers in Spain and Israel took a close look at 54 studies comparing digital and print reading. Their 2018 study involved more than 171,000 readers. Comprehension, they found, was better overall when people read print rather than digital texts. The researchers shared the results in <em>Educational Research Review</em>.</p> <p><strong>The question is, why?</strong></p> <p>Reading is reading, right? Not exactly. Reading is reading, right? Not exactly. Maryanne Wolf works at the University of California, Los Angeles. This neuroscientist specializes in how the brain reads. Reading is not natural, she explains. We learn to talk by listening to those around us. It’s pretty automatic. But learning to read takes real work. Wolf notes it’s because the brain has no special network of cells just for reading.</p> <p>To understand text, the brain borrows networks that evolved to do other things. For example, the part that evolved to recognise faces is called into action to recognise letters. This is similar to how you might adapt a tool for some new use. For example, a coat hanger is great for putting your clothes in the closet. But if a blueberry rolls under the refrigerator, you might straighten out the coat hanger and use it to reach under the fridge and pull out the fruit. You’ve taken a tool made for one thing and adapted it for something new. That’s what the brain does when you read.</p> <p>It’s great that the brain is so flexible. It’s one reason we can learn to do so many new things. But that flexibility can be a problem when it comes to reading different types of texts. When we read online, the brain creates a different set of connections between cells from the ones it uses for reading in print. It basically adapts the same tool again for the new task. This is like if you took a coat hanger and instead of straightening it out to fetch a blueberry, you twisted it into a hook to unclog a drain. Same original tool, two very different forms.</p> <p>As a result, the brain might slip into skim mode when you’re reading on a screen. It may switch to deep-reading mode when you turn to print.</p> <p>That doesn’t just depend on the device, however. It also depends on what you assume about the text. Naomi Baron calls this your mindset. Baron is a scientist who studies language and reading. She works at American University in Washington, D.C. Baron is the author of <em>How We Read Now</em>, a new book about digital reading and learning. She says one way mindset works is in anticipating how easy or hard we expect the reading to be. If we think it will be easy, we might not put in much effort.</p> <p>Much of what we read on-screen tends to be text messages and social-media posts. They’re usually easy to understand. So, “when people read on-screen, they read faster,” says Alexander at the University of Maryland. “Their eyes scan the pages and the words faster than if they’re reading on a piece of paper.”</p> <p>But when reading fast, we may not absorb all the ideas as well. That fast skimming, she says, can become a habit associated with reading on-screen. Imagine that you turn on your phone to read an assignment for school. Your brain might fire up the networks it uses for skimming quickly through TikTok posts.</p> <p><strong>Where was I?</strong></p> <p>Speed isn’t the only problem with reading on screens. There’s scrolling, too. When reading a printed page or even a whole book, you tend to know where you are. Not just where you are on some particular page, but which page — potentially out of many. You might, for instance, remember that the part in the story where the dog died was near the top of the page on the left side. You don’t have that sense of place when some enormously long page just scrolls past you. (Though some e-reading devices and apps do a pretty good job of simulating page turns.)</p> <p>Why is a sense of page important? Researchers have shown that we tend to make mental maps when we learn something. Being able to “place” a fact somewhere on a mental map of the page helps us remember it.</p> <p>It’s also a matter of mental effort. Scrolling down a page takes a lot more mental work than reading a page that’s not moving. Your eyes don’t just focus on the words. They also have to keep chasing the words as you scroll them down the page.</p> <p>Mary Helen Immordino-Yang is a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. She studies how we read. When your mind has to keep up with scrolling down a page, she says, it doesn’t have a lot of resources left for understanding what you’re reading. This can be especially true if the passage you’re reading is long or complicated. While scrolling down a page, your brain has to continually account for the placement of words in your view. And this can make it harder for you to simultaneously understand the ideas those words should convey.</p> <p>Another reseacher found that length matters, too. When passages are short, students understand just as much of what they read on-screen as do when reading in print. But once the passages are longer than 500 words, they learn more from print.</p> <p>Even genre matters. Genre refers to what type of book or article you’re reading. The articles here on <em>Science News for Students </em>are nonfiction. News stories and articles about history are nonfiction. Stories invented by an author are fiction.</p> <p>If you want to do better in school or even your career, it’s not quite as simple as turning off your tablet and picking up a book. There are plenty of good reasons to read on screens and as the pandemic taught us, sometimes we have no choice.</p>

Books

Placeholder Content Image

Cracking the code of unbreakable phone screens

<div class="copy"> <p>Unbreakable phone screens might seem too good to be true, but some chemical engineers reckon they’ve cracked the secret, developing a new material that combines glass with nanocrystals to make a resilient screen that would produce high-quality images in phones, LEDs and computers.</p> <p>The breakthrough substance could even be used to make phone screens that double as solar panels.</p> <p>The technology revolves around <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/overcoming-atomic-level-perovskite-defects/" target="_blank">perovskites</a>: nanometre-sized crystals that have a range of exciting electrical properties, making them prime candidates for better solar cells, LEDs and touchscreens.</p> <p>While perovskites have had a few early commercial successes, their physical properties have mostly stopped them from getting far out of the lab.</p> <p>“The stability of perovskites is the most difficult challenge which has hindered their commercialisation,” says Professor Lianzhou Wang, a materials scientist at the University of Queensland and co-author on a paper describing the research, <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf4460" target="_blank">published</a> in <em>Science.</em></p> <p>Lead author Dr Jingwei Hou, also from UQ, says the material is “super sensitive to almost everything – oxygen, water, gas, temperature, and even sensitive to light.</p> <p>“I think it’s a fantastic material, but it doesn’t really make sense if we want to use it on a solar panel, or display, if it’s sensitive to light.”</p> <p>The researchers have overcome this sensitivity by figuring a way to encase lead-halide perovskites in glass.</p> <p>“We created a lot of very small, nano-sized pores within the glass,” explains Hou. “That offers a very nice host material environment for the perovskite.</p> <p>“If we just put those very small nanocrystals within the pores, they will be not only stabilised against all of the external environment…it also makes the perovskite somewhere between 100 to 1000 times more efficient.”</p> <p>At the level of nanometres, the material resembles a chocolate chip cookie. “The perovskite nanocrystals are the chocolate chips, and the glass surrounds them,” says Hou.</p> <p>The material is also much more durable than normal glass. “Conventional glass is so brittle [because] it’s really dense. If you zoom in and look at the molecular structure, it’s silicon, aluminium, oxygen – very densely packed atoms,” says Hou.</p> <p>“Once you apply any pressure or any mechanical force to it, there’s no way to get it relaxed, and that’s what leads to the breakage of chemical bonds.”</p> <p>The pores, on the other hand, allow the glass to absorb more stress.</p> <p>“This is really a kind of platform technology,” says Hou. “The pore size can be tuned, the chemistry can be tuned. So that means it can be used to host a different type of perovskite.”</p> <p>In the paper, the international team of researchers – who are based at the University of Leeds and the University of Cambridge in the UK, and Université Paris-Saclay in France – demonstrate several different types of “lead halide perovskite and metal-organic framework glasses”, all of which they’ve been able to create.</p> <p>As well as their potential applications in screens and LEDs, the glasses could be used to make higher-quality X-ray images and more efficient solar panels.</p> <p>“We’re looking at trying to combine a solar panel with a display,” says Hou.</p> <p>“Think about mobile phones, for example – when you use it, it will become a display. When you don’t use it, put it in the sunlight, it will charge the battery. So it’s one device for two functions.”</p> <p>Manufacture of the material is scalable, according to Hou, and the researchers are currently looking at building prototype devices with it.</p> <p>“We’re really confident that we’ll be able to generate devices in the next stage,” says Hou.</p> <p>“We are also looking for some industrial collaborators who are really interested in bringing this exciting material into the real world.”</p> <em>Image credits: Shutterstock            <!-- Start of tracking content syndication. Please do not remove this section as it allows us to keep track of republished articles --> <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=171112&amp;title=Cracking+the+code+of+unbreakable+phone+screens" alt="" width="1" height="1" /> <!-- End of tracking content syndication -->          </em></div> <div id="contributors"> <p><em>This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/materials/unbreakable-phone-screens/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Ellen Phiddian.</em></p> </div>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

Touch screens transmit less disease the more they’re touched

<div class="copy"> <p>You’ve probably used many public touch-screen interfaces, to withdraw cash at ATMs, check-in at airports, and in numerous other places.</p> <p>As we’ve all learned during the past 18 months, they can be prime opportunities to transmit disease.</p> <p>But new research has found a surprising result: in some cases, they’re less germy if they’re touched more.</p> <p>“It was an interesting result that seemed surprising at first,” says Andrew Di Battista, senior ultrasound research scientist at Ultraleap, a UK-based company that makes touch-free displays and interfaces, and first author on a paper describing the research, <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210625" target="_blank">published</a> in <em>Royal Society Open Science</em>.</p> <p>“However, once you consider the full scenario it makes intuitive sense. Essentially, once a TUI (touchscreen user interface) has been contaminated there is a fixed number of pathogens available to ‘infect’ other users.</p> <p>“The next couple of people to use the screen will pick up most of the available pathogens (particularly if they have to touch the screen at a higher rate). As a result, the risk to these individuals goes up with higher touch rates, while simultaneously having the effect of shielding subsequent users.”</p> <p>The researchers, who are based at Ultraleap and the University of Cyprus, used computer simulations to examine the risk of disease transmission from touch screen interfaces.</p> <p>“The model is meant to work as a framework where you set certain parameters, run the simulation and watch what happens,” says Di Battista.</p> <p>“It turns out that TUIs have some nice simplifying features – the glass/non-porous surface correlates well with laboratory results from the literature involving touch deposit rates, pathogen survival times, etc.”</p> <p>They examined the model’s sensitivity with a simulation of touch screens at one location, changing factors like disease infectivity, cleaning rate, and the rate of people touching the screen.</p> <p>They then ran a simulation based on data from check-in and baggage drop screens at Heathrow Airport in the UK, focusing on cleaning rate and comparing use of the screens to a non-touch alternative.</p> <p>The simulations were used to predict the changes in the reproduction number.</p> <p>The reproduction number, or <em>R,</em> is the number of people expected to become infected by someone carrying a disease.</p> <p>A disease with an <em>R </em>value of 2.0 means that one person carrying it infects two other people, on average.</p> <p>This number varies for diseases depending on how transmissible they are, and how much opportunity there is to transmit – an area with lots of people in close contact yields higher <em>R</em> values than one with more space, for instance.</p> <p>The researchers found several predictable results: timing of use on the TUIs makes a difference to the <em>R</em> value, as pathogens rarely survive for a long time without a host, for instance.</p> <p>High cleaning rate of screens is also associated with low transmission.</p> <p>But surprisingly, the model suggested that multiple screen touches did the same thing as cleaning the screen.</p> <p>In a high-touch scenario, if an infected person used the screen and deposited pathogens, the next one or two users would pick all those germs up, removing them from the screen and preventing further transmission.</p> <p>“Overall, the <em>R</em> value goes down because this is proportional to the <em>total number</em> of people ‘infected’ in the simulation,” says Di Battista, “but this is only because the risk to those unlucky initial one or two users after contamination goes up.</p> <p>“So perhaps the <em>R</em> value doesn’t quite fully express all the risk.”</p> <p>Di Battista says the simulation could be used to examine other high-touch public devices, like keyboards, but these can be harder to predict because they’re made of a more diverse group of materials than touch screens, and they’re handled in different ways.</p> <p>Next, the researchers are planning to refine their touch-screen model, and see if they can use it to predict more complicated touch-screen interactions.</p> <p>“One of the things we would like to implement is the model’s ability to estimate cross-contamination, ie pathogens picked up from one surface onto fingers/hands that get re-deposited onto the next touched surface,” says Di Battista.</p> <p><em>Image credit: Getty Images</em></p> <p><em>This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/body-and-mind/public-touch-screens-transmit-less-disease-with-higher-use/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Ellen Phiddian.</em></p> </div>

Technology