Since Hollywood realised the Chinese was the audience to make profits from by virtue of sheer numbers, there have been numerous cringe-worthy attempts to make many of its big blockbuster offerings more "appealing" to China. There is the China-exclusive version of Iron Man 3, where Tony Stark decides to go to China for a medical operation to remove the shrapnel in his chest, an operation performed by Fan BingBing in a doctor's costume. She is never brought up again for the rest of the film. And who can forget Michael Bay's Transformers: Age of Extinction, with its blatant Chinese product placement in the middle of Texas, or the final battle in Hong Kong where the Beijing government vows, "The central government will defend Hong Kong at all costs!" Finally, you have the shiny Chinese base on the Moon in Independence Day: Resurgence, relevant for a grand total of 20 minutes in the 2 hour-long movie, before the alien mothership blows it away like it is some annoying fly, after which it is promptly forgotten. Such attempts reek of laziness and ignorance. Most of us Chinese viewers cringe at what we see as a blatant propagation of Asian stereotypes, something that further, seems to indicate that movies must be stripped of artistic merit and be severely dumbed down in order to appeal to an 'Asian' audience. C'mon, give us more credit than that. But to blame the Privileged Straight White Men of Hollywood alone for this gross cultural misunderstanding is unfair; it's worth noting that these films were backed by big Chinese corporations. In fact, Transformers even got sued by a Chinese company because its product did not end up in the movie. What is happening here, then is the erection of a Great Wall of ignorance, built by parties on either side of it, where one side believes that as long as the wall is appealing enough for the other side to want to pay to see it, all is well and good, regardless of how tacky and gaudy it is.

A Rainbow Wall of Cliches

Enter Zhang Yimou's The Great Wall. Let's take a moment to remember that this is the same director who also gave us Ju Dou, Hero and House of Flying Daggers. Like all of these films, Great Wall is rich and vivid with colour. The troops are blue, red, yellow, purple and black. The Tao Tie are green, while the dullest and least well-dressed characters are the few Europeans. There is Yimou's fondness for panoramic shots, so we are treated to the scenes of battle in all their explosive, gory glory. There are uniquely Chinese moments, like the release of lanterns into the sky when a general dies, so they resemble the faint band of the Milky Way. All of this almost makes for a refreshing change of pace, until you realise the plot is essentially a rip-off of Independence Day--both 1996 and 2016--and Aliens. Horde of monsters (Tao Tie) that devours everything in their path? Check. The devouring is for the nourishment of the Queen, to breed more monsters? Check. Extraterrestrial origins because they were released by a meteor? Check. Killing the Queen ensures the defeat of their entire species? Check. For all it appears superficially, Great Wall is essentially an archetypal Hollywood alien invasion movie dressed in Chinese garb, complete with all the requisite cliches, down to the attack on the Capital City. If American audiences were hoping for a unique twist, they would be sorely disappointed. Perhaps Zhang has decided that the only way Americans can be comfortable with Chinese culture is through a familiar plot that targets their sense of patriotism. Adding to this is the issue of Chinese characters being flat to the point of being a bore. Everyone is so dedicated to defeating the Tao Tie that there is no disagreement on how to do it. Sure, everybody has xing ren (trust) in one another, but it seems the only thing that distinguishes the soldiers from one another is the colour of their armour and the role they perform in battle. There is no drama and no disagreement in tactics whatsoever. At least the US President fired his Secretary of Defense in the first Independence Day. The characters are as dull as their armour is bright. If this movie was supposed to let the wider world appreciate Chinese culture, the only thing I've learnt is that the Emperor is essentially useless. In fact, that this film <a href=" Chinese elements in it", as Zhang himself says, is utterly irrelevant to the plot, as alien invasions are pretty much the same everywhere, regardless of country or time period. The only cliche that Zhang avoided was the use of Matt Damon as the White Man who Saves Them All. Damon's character's discovery of the means by which to defeat the Tao Tie is accidental. He does not do any of the planning to engage the Queen, he follows the orders of the Chinese generals and his attempt to kill the Queen fails--twice. In the end, it is Jing Tian who does it. Criticisms of whitewashing then, in this case, is not quite justified. Rather, it is the artistic merit of the film that is questionable. As far as invasion-type storylines go, it simply doesn't add anything new or fresh.

Crossing the Wall

If Great Wall has only added on then, to the huge wall of cultural misunderstanding between China and Hollywood, can it ever be overcome? The answer is yes. In fact, it has already been done, specifically, by the film Rogue One. Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen's characters are fully integrated into the storyline. Their feats of badassery fit well into the overall aesthetic of the film. They have enough narrative presence to be significant and their actions have direct consequences on the other characters. The result? An added measure of thrill for us Chinese movie-goers, seeing ourselves represented in a film that is fun, enjoyable and also highly regarded; it sends a message to non-Chinese viewers that we are just as capable of quality acting and art. Great Wall on the other hand, in conjunction with all the atrocious examples I've mentioned earlier, epitomizes how cultural appeal simply cannot be forced. Randomly inserting Chinese scenes into huge blockbusters or setting an entire Hollywood-type blockbuster in Ancient China, for the matter, only results in terrible movies limited in artistic merit. Not only that, but it insults the sensibilities of both Western and Chinese audiences, ensuring that each side thinks the other incapable of enjoying actual art. In addition to Hollywood's whitewashing and diversity problem, this side of the Pacific also needs to be aware that the Chinese audience is smarter than they think. Top Image Credit

Grammy nominations for 2017 have just been unveiled, and as expected, Adele’s record-breaking 25 is a key frontrunner for a number of major accolades, including the coveted Album of the Year. With two consecutive albums each selling more than 20 million copies across the world, Adele is by far the most successful musical act in the past four years. Gone are the days when popular culture revolved around Katy Perry and her cotton candy wig from “California Gurls” or Lady Gaga emerging from an egg-mobile in the Grammys of 2011. These aesthetic stunts, while once seen as creative and revolutionary in the peak of social media, have quickly been cast aside in favour of what can best be termed as “realism.” Adele does not use over-the-top outfits and blatant sex appeal to top the charts—the realness of her melancholia and the powerful nuance in her voice are enough. Adele is not the only artist to embrace this low-key mode of performance to achieve mainstream success. Previously outrageous icons have shifted to “going real” in response to this emerging trend. In a promotional teaser for PRISM in 2013, Katy Perry is depicted burning her iconic pink wig, favouring a darker and apparently more “natural” image. Even Lady Gaga, a once-renowned provocateur, has decided to channel sartorial simplicity for her latest full-length album, Joanne, which unusually delves into the personal details of the icon’s family and past. The theatrical, electronic glitz and glam of Gaga’s earlier efforts have faded along with her meat dress. In essence, there is nothing inherently wrong with this movement to a more subdued aesthetic in pop music (although, I’ll admit that I’m quite bored with the scene right now). There are a number of valid reasons for why someone might dislike all the theatricality. After all, the costumes and the convoluted video plots can make it difficult to take a musician seriously, and may distract from the product core—the music. What is problematic, however, is the prevalent perception that having a toned-down aesthetic means that an artist is more authentic.

A SUPERFICIAL DEFINITION OF SUPERFICIAL

It is common to degrade personalities as pandering or superficial when they have “too much going on.” To some extent, there is indeed most likely a deliberate marketing effort behind these outsized looks and antics—what is seen as shocking or controversial normally garners media attention. At the same time, however, to suggest that all aesthetic elements are merely gimmicky add-ons creates a false dichotomy, whereby “internal” qualities are considered real and true while “external” features are inauthentic distractions. In actual practice, the lines between internal and external are much blurrier than these criticisms entail. Visual theatricality can easily be a valid expression of an artist’s interiority—the external can be a reflection of the internal, not necessarily a distraction. Lady Gaga’s infamous meat dress, while plausibly meant to get the cameras rolling, is also likely to be a valid expression of artistic intent. In previous interviews, Gaga has referred to fashion as a long-held childhood passion, and has attempted to interweave visual art with music through her creative sartorial choices. As a big fan since the advent of her mainstream success in 2009, I can attest that her seemingly bizarre outfit choices are never really arbitrary. Different looks are tailored for specific album arcs—for instance, the garish, yellow-blonde wig Gaga wore throughout The Fame Monster era references Marilyn Monroe as a doomed starlet, tying in with the EP’s thematic focus on the trappings of fame.

PRETENSION CAN GO BOTH WAYS

Even without all the costumes and theatrics, icons like Adele still run with an aesthetic nonetheless. She has a professional makeup artist, a competent publicist, and a tailored social media presence—the supposed everyday woman is no stranger to the marketing pap the pop music universe demands. Adele still has a fine-tuned exterior to display, albeit a subdued and unsurprising one. Her mature, introspective image—while not necessarily inauthentic—is still a partially manufactured one that keeps its audience in mind. True authenticity doesn’t have a face, and the same arguments about being “real” can be made against icons who don’t wear lobsters on their heads. I’m sure we all have that one friend who is devoted exclusively to indie music, refusing to listen to that new Beyoncé track because pop music is supposedly full of sell-outs. In truth, all art forms are performative, and it is no longer productive to ask ourselves whether an artist seems ‘real’ or ‘fake.’ That grungy underground guitarist who vigorously shakes his head while strumming is performing just as much as Nicki Minaj twerks on stage. By limiting our impression of what is real to the the type of “look” a public persona conveys, we are essentially shaming and muting particular modes of expression without bothering to understand what makes that character human.

LOOKING BEYOND THE “INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE” NARRATIVE

Outside of the music world, this problematic mindset can be seen in everyday life. Women who wear a full face of makeup everyday are often ridiculed for hiding their “true self” behind a superficial mask. In contrast, those who go for the more “natural” or unpolished look tend to be positively associated with realness. Both aesthetics, in fact, are equally valid modes of self-expression, and the act of denigrating one as superficial is superficial in and of itself. It goes without saying that some images are louder than others, but that doesn’t mean they should be confronted differently. Whether they are global superstars or everyday netizens, people should have the social agency to portray themselves with whatever aesthetic they choose. The “outside” is not always meant to hide or distract from the “inside”—both are integral facets that construct a human persona. In her music video for “Million Reasons,” Lady Gaga trades the otherworldly outfits and theatrical murder plots for a black t-shirt and denim shorts. She later explains the simplicity of her approach as an attempt to strike a more “human connection” with her fans. But ultimately, with or without the costumes and bling, Gaga has always been human (her early material has some pretty deep stuff), and the onus shouldn’t be on her to tell the world that. We, as listeners, should strive to avoid confining entire identities to what our eyes see. There is definitely more beyond that. Top Image Credit

Damn it, DC, you’re doing it again. Hot (or lukewarm) off the critical failures of Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad, Warner Brothers recently announced the DC Extended Universe’s (DCEU) next ensemble film: Gotham City Sirens. Based off the comic book series of the same name, GCS will feature Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn along with Poison Ivy and Catwoman. Because when DC releases a bad movie like Suicide Squad, they have to find the only good thing about the film and milk the hell out of it. Damn it, DC. God.... Damn it. My own reservations about the quality of the movie aside (David Ayer again? Really??), the announcement of GCS reeks heavily of studio desperation and, more importantly, a misguided form of feminism.

Struggling to keep up

Film is a reactionary medium. It responds to existing social issues, whilst seldom raising issues of its own, with the exception of avant-garde cinema. One of the issues that Hollywood has grappled with reacting to for many years is, of course, feminism. From Erin Brokovich to Nikita, the head honchos at Tinseltown have had a… should I say… varied history with the discussion of feminism. GCS, unfortunately, seems like it’s about to fall squarely on the not-so-favourable side of the feminist equation. Am I being unfair by judging a movie that’s not even out yet? Probably. But based on what we do know about the film, and Hollywood’s tendency towards handling female characters in a less than measured manner, I’d say my concerns are more than warranted.

Girl Power?

GCS tells the story of Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, and Catwoman – the three most prominent female characters in Batman’s Rogues’ Gallery – teaming up to take the world of crime by storm and carve out for themselves a big piece of the male-dominated pie that is Gotham’s criminal underworld. Sounds interesting, right? Well, Suicide Squad sounded interesting too, and look how that turned out. While many will draw the parallel between GCS’s premise and the real-world struggles of women trying to break the glass ceiling in the workplace and earn respect in male-dominated fields, one can’t help but ask, should we really be portraying these women as criminals? Sure, you could view it as a loose representation, but expecting audiences to look beneath the surface of a campy, colourful blockbuster and consider it on a deeper level might be a tall order. Will we see a trio of hardworking girls legitimately working hard to succeed in the workplace, or will we see three psychotic criminals cracking heads with baseball bats, because, you know, that’s what they are? Hollywood has often had a problem portraying female characters in a nuanced manner. Want to show that she’s a badass? Make her a femme fatale. Want to show that she’s independent? Make her either androgynous or overtly sexual. Want to make a film about female empowerment? Let’s have not one, but three female leads! It’s certainly not difficult to see how a film centred on the crazy girl with short shorts in Suicide Squad and the two most sexualized characters in DC’s roster would devolve into more of the same hyper-sexualized schtick. Where female characters aren’t uncharacteristically fixated on romance (Peeta?? Where’s Peeta??), they’re annoying misandrists hitting us over the head with their overt anti-establishment “I don’t need no man” rhetoric. We get it, you’re independent and you think all men are pigs. We heard you the first one hundred times. Furthermore, as popular as Harley Quinn is, she is probably the last character anyone should consider as a symbol for feminism. Many of those who find her relationship with the Joker “cute” are forgetting the fact that she is basically his slave, and that he tortured her to the point of insanity, turning her into a walking case study for Stockholm Syndrome. The whole Harley-Joker relationship is actually really messed up, and definitely not a positive model of how to deal with an abusive relationship.

Doing it right

For all the problems Hollywood has had with female characters, they occasionally get it just right, and I’d be remiss to not give them credit. One example of an amazingly portrayed female character in recent memory is Charlize Theron’s Furiosa from the excellent Mad Max: Fury Road, who shows us all exactly how to do the strong female protagonist right. Furiosa is a woman who doesn’t have to say anything about how badass she is, because her actions speak for themselves. She doesn’t tell anyone what a great shot she is, she just grabs a rifle and shoots out a headlight from half a kilometre away. She doesn’t whine about injustice, she fights for what’s right and gets sh*t done. She doesn’t try to overshadow Tom Hardy’s Max, she rides alongside him as an equal and ends up stealing the show anyway. Furiosa exudes a quiet confidence that is humble and understated, but so much more impactful as a result.

Benefit of doubt?

Is Hollywood going about gender discourse completely wrong? While a large number of female movie characters fall under the sexist caricatures that studio executives think will pander to the feminist crowd, a select few actually walk the line perfectly to give us true role models that inspire and command respect for the feminist movement. Will Gotham City Sirens give us the rare nuance and respect female characters in Hollywood so desperately need, or will it give us more of the same vapid uninspired nonsense as its predecessor? I have my doubts, but only time will tell. <a href=" Image Credit

Confession time: when Pottermore came out, I was one of those uber-keen teens that signed up for their subscription emails and who scrambled to take the Sorting Quiz the second it was released. Now, for the even bigger confession: I was sorted into Hufflepuff. Following that shattering realisation, I took it upon myself to create another account for a do over, landing myself in Ravenclaw. But that’s beside the point. Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Slytherin - it’s no secret those are the houses people aspire to. No one wants to be in Hufflepuff, the house that “took the lot”, as the Sorting Hat sang. No one wants to be in the house made up of leftovers. We may as well be muggles. So what led to decades of Hufflepuff disdain?

1. Animal preference

The Hufflepuff mascot is a badger. And when pitted against a lion, a snake, and a raven, it comes off as pretty obscure. To add insult to injury, it doesn’t exactly look like the badass of the bunch either (this video  begs to differ). J.K. Rowling herself wondered whether Hogwarts house perceptions would have shifted if she’d gone with a bear instead of a badger. If anything, it’d probably lead to a flood of Hufflepuff-related Winnie the Pooh memes.

2. House Traits

Let’s talk about how Hufflepuff was portrayed in the books. None of it was explicitly damaging, but the Sorting Hat’s infamous line “I’ll take the lot” seemed to cast Hufflepuffs as the ones who lack a special trait. Gryffindors are brave. Ravenclaws are clever. Slytherins are ambitious. And Hufflepuffs? Not quite enough to fit into any of those categories but hey, we’re loyal and hard-working! All of these characteristics are admirable in their own right, but we tend to latch on to the hidden meaning society has them tagged with. Bravery doesn’t just mean you’re fearless, it also means you’re prone to heroics and fits of self-sacrifice. Intelligence is a trait that will always be highly valued. Ambition is drive, and no one can begrudge you that. But what about being hardworking?

3. Good is boring

Well, instead of being acknowledged for a strong work ethic and determination, “hard-working” is sometimes equated with the rather conciliatory “well, you tried”. And let’s be real, no one wants to read a book about an A for effort protagonist. In fact, what made Harry such an interesting character was that he was inherently flawed. The flipside of bravery is being foolhardy, headstrong and inclined to grandeur. Ambition gives way to egocentricity and intelligence to a cold detachment. Each of these Hogwarts house traits come with baggage every bit as unattractive as Hufflepuff’s wallflower tendencies - maybe even more so, given how they play into the “brooding male hero” archetype so often seen on the silver screen.

4. Yellow is not a flattering colour

It just isn't. People can rock a red and gold scarf or a green and silver combo on any given day, and blue is a wardrobe staple. Yellow… not so much. Oh, Hufflepuff. The butt of every joke, the source of comic relief in every sketch, and the well of shame for every hardcore Potter fan due to the inevitable Twilight crossover references. But here’s my suggestion to all the Hogwarts house haters out there - it’s time to acknowledge that no one is a cookie cutter replica of the traits the Sorting Hat espouses. Let’s agree to be done with Hufflepuff hate! I wish we could all just get along. I wish I could bake a cake out of unicorns and smiles… oh wait, wrong movie. Luckily, the tide is turning for this long-maligned Hogwarts house. J.K. Rowling declared 2015 the dawn of the Age of Hufflepuff, and this year she blessed us with not one, but two new Harry Potter releases. One is a play (unfortunately, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is available to us only in written form) and the other, a brand new Potterverse film. And Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them stars - you guessed it! - A Hufflepuff, in the form of dreamboat Eddie Redmayne. Things are looking up! You only have to watch Redmayne’s PSA to prove it. #HufflepuffPride Top Image Credit

Disney has done it again. Continuing its winning streak of beloved animated feature films, Walt Disney Animation Studios hits yet another home run with Moana, an uplifting and heartfelt tale destined to adorn the awards-spangled annals of Disney’s decorated filmography. While the film wouldn’t be a Disney story without recycling some old tropes, Moana does offer some new ideas that might surprise you on a second viewing. So, without further dawdling, let’s take a deeper dive back into the sparkling aquamarine waters of Disney’s Moana.

Feminism and the Disney Heroine

Let’s be honest, Disney isn’t exactly known for its strong female characters, with their classic roster full of “princesses” defined almost entirely by their good looks, impossibly slim waists, and relationships to Prince Charming. Fortunately, Disney has been getting better at portraying female characters, with women that are strong, capable badasses in their own right (Mulan, Pocahontas), and a woman who don’t need no man (Elsa). Here’s the thing, though – they’ve never been both. Mulan and Pocahontas are both defined in part by their romantic relationships to male lovers, while Elsa, though powerful, is kind of a whiny cry-baby when you really think about it. That makes Moana the first female Walt Disney Animation Studios character who, on top of having no romantic inclinations, is also a bona-fide badass. You could say Merida also qualifies, but she’s from a Disney-Pixar production, not WDAS, and I’m a stickler for details. “How about Officer Judy Hopps from Zootopia?” Well… She’s a rabbit. But okay, fair enough. In Moana, Disney drives the feminist message farther home than in any of their prior films. Moana’s gender-blind tribe has no qualms whatsoever about a woman becoming their chief, and has both men and women contributing equally to roles like farming and exploring. Maui, on the other hand, represents the stereotypical male chauvinist, with his incredulity towards a woman like Moana being “chosen” by her tribe, and by The Ocean. He relentlessly mocks and doubts Moana’s abilities as a mortal woman, and even goes as far as to trap her in a cave and throw her into the ocean… repeatedly. It is only when Moana survives the Realm of Monsters and saves Maui’s life, that he changes his tune and becomes convinced of her worth. In the Moana-Maui dynamic of the film, the writers espouse a form of gender equality achieved through mutual respect – men and women are different, but both are equally important. Maui’s strength and raw power are essential in their quest, but so are Moana’s skills, intuition, and gentle touch. Equality between men and women, the film argues, is embracing the value of every individual, different as they may be from each other.

Religion

Aside from the story’s obvious roots in Polynesian culture and religion, Moana is rife with modern religious symbolism and references, some more subtle than others. These include references to reincarnation, aversion to eating pork, and splitting the sea à la Moses, to name a few. Not convinced? You might be when you realise that The Ocean in Moana is an analogue of the most prominent figure in Abrahamic religion – God. At the film’s opening, the narrator (Moana’s grandmother) reveals that, “in the beginning, there was only ocean”. Sound familiar? She also reveals that Tafiti, the “mother island”, emerged from The Ocean and created all life, much like the relationship between God and Darwinian evolution that some theistic evolutionists subscribe to. Unlike the sleeping Tafiti, The Ocean is an omniscient, omnipresent entity that shapes the course of the world and guides the heroes’ actions throughout the film. As helpful as The Ocean is in the story, an ever-present undercurrent in Moana is the question of why The Ocean doesn’t help more, evocative of the Problem of Evil argument against God in real-world philosophy. Put simply, if God (The Ocean) is so powerful and benevolent, why doesn’t He (It) eliminate evil (the darkness) altogether? At one point in the narrative, our heroes get surrounded by “pirates”, and Moana cries out to The Ocean for help, to which Maui responds, “The ocean doesn’t help you. You help yourself.” A weird sentiment for someone who has seen The Ocean as a living, moving entity with his own eyes, but one that brings to mind the classic “God only helps those who help themselves” argument. Help the heroes while they’re being attacked by savage pirates? Nope. Splash some water on the lava monster trying to kill our heroes? Nope. Stupid chicken falls into the water for the umpteenth time? Better save it. In one scene, The Ocean straight up sends a massive storm at Moana, marooning her on a desolate island much to Moana’s chagrin, until she realises that Maui is on that same island. The Ocean sure does work in mysterious ways, doesn’t It? And I haven’t even mentioned the similarities between Maui and other religious figures like Jesus and Prometheus, as well as Moana’s prophetic “chosen by The Ocean” story arc. This is probably a bold claim, but Moana just might be Disney’s most religiously-charged film to date, for better or worse.

In conclusion...

Throughout the length of its runtime, Moana delights, entertains, and moves viewers with Disney’s signature magic and flair, all while delivering a narrative rich in subtext and ripe for discussion. Moana is a film that proves, like the ocean it’s set upon, to be far deeper than it seems. Top Image Credit

When Starbucks starts rolling out their signature red cups, it’s official - the most wonderful time of the year has arrived. You know, the one where the capitalist giants of the world employ mythical figures to convince us to buy overpriced and probably unnecessary swag. And before you start calling me a grinch, I don’t mean Christmas. I’m talking about the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show (if my title wasn't a dead giveaway). Every year, the VS Executive Producer Ed Razek handpicks his angels and bestows the highest honour of strutting their barely-there stuff for the lingerie event of the season. It’s pomp and pageantry to the nth degree- think feathery showpieces, light-up “wings” and the million dollar Fantasy Bra. Needless to say you won’t find anything worn by the VS Angels at their Mandarin Gallery flagship store. Sure, the show is a bit of harmless fun. They’ve got a good concert going with Lady Gaga and The Weeknd slated to perform, plus it’ll be held in Paris for their 20th anniversary splurge (you guys, this show has been going for TWENTY YEARS?!). But for all the outrageous costumes, cheery model personas and celebrity performances, there is still one unifying factor - their out of this world bods. Maybe you are one of those people that can sit through the parade of bedazzled decolletage without wanting to dive headfirst into a pint of ice cream (I’m not). Or maybe you use this annual dose of legs for days as fuel for next year’s fitness goals. #NewYearNewMe, amiright? But before you sit down to plan your 2017 workout schedule, here are two things you have to know:

1. They work INSANELY hard to get those bodies

Insane in a please-do-not-put-your-body-through-this kind of way. Aside from putting in gruelling hours at the gym and subscribing to a clean eating routine that makes grabbing dinner with friends a real ordeal (spoiler: goodbye carbs, goodbye red wine), VS models do take things to the extreme. Example - Adriana Lima revealed she’d been on a liquid diet for over a week pre-show to shed weight.

2. Sometimes, it’s just in your DNA

And that’s a hard fact to swallow. Reality is a key element missing from the VSFS. From the ridiculously toned bodies on our television screens to the bikini clad images flooding our social media, it’s so easy to forget that these sort of figures are not the norm. By all means, use VS models as workout motivation but don’t make their bodies your absolute goal. And especially don’t try to emulate any of these bikini-body trends.

The Ab-Crack

Models like Bella Hadid and Emily Ratajkowski have been flaunting their ab cracks on Instagram like they got it from their mama… which, let’s be honest, they did. That shallow, defined ditch running down the center of their stomach is called the linea alba. And while you can train your abs and make them more pronounced, you can’t change their structure. That’s to say, it’s more than just working your core and having low body fat - you literally can’t split your abs if you weren’t born that way.

Thigh brows

Last year, the Kardashians truly being the gift that keeps on giving, gave us the “thigh brow”. It refers to the crease just under your hip bones that appears when you’re bent over or kneeling - apparently it indicates you’ve got booty. I say you should be doing your squats anyway, thigh brows or not.

Bikini Bridge

Another worrying trend that popped up in 2014 was the “bikini bridge”, where the space created between your bikini bottom, protruding hip bones and concave stomach when lying down was suddenly oh-so desirable. You could probably achieve this by buying bathers several sizes too big… but don’t.

Thigh Gap

All hail the thigh gap, the mother of all bikini trends. This myth has been debunked many times, but to do it once more won’t hurt. Once again, it comes down to bone structure. Getting that sliver of space between your inner thighs can be attributed to lean muscles, but it also has to do with the width of your hips and how your femoral heads are set. And there ain't nothing you can do about that. Having said all this, definitely do still watch the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show if you were planning to. It’s the perfect occasion to settle in with some ice cream, listen to Lady Gaga's latest album and cheer on the models - after all, each step they take is one step closer to being able to eat solid food again. <a href=" Image Credit

Superheroes are modern day mythology. They transcend age, language, and culture, and while primarily designed for entertainment, our favourite superhero stories hold many lessons to be learned. Here are a few of them.

1. The Hulk

There is a monster inside all of us, but it doesn’t always have to be evil Marvel’s take on the classic story of Jekyll and Hyde brought us Doctor Bruce Banner, a mild-mannered scientist who transforms into an unstoppable beast of rage and destruction. However, beneath the surface of the big green simpleton lies a surprisingly deep exploration of the human condition. The Hulk represents duality, and the inner struggle within all of us. We all have a Hulk that we wish to hide from the world, but Bruce Banner shows us that instead of letting it destroy us from the inside, our inner rage can be channelled into an indomitable force for good.

2. Wonder Woman

Don’t be afraid to be different, even if the world hates you for it Ever since their conception in 1963, the X-Men have served as Marvel’s allegory for victims of prejudice and the disenfranchised in general; a mirror of sorts to the social ills that plague the marginalized and discriminated. Not only do Xavier’s mutants teach us to be kind and tolerant towards others, they also teach us to celebrate our uniqueness, and never let society hold us down. The opinions others have of you are none of your business. Let the haters hate, as long as you know you’re walking a righteous path.

5. Batman

Defeat your enemies at all costs, but never sink to their level Driven by an all-consuming thirst for justice following the murder of his parents, Bruce Wayne put himself through hell to hone his mind and body into the weapon that is Batman. As the Caped Crusader, Bruce stops at nothing in his vendetta against the criminal world; nothing, that is, except killing. To maintain his morality and prevent himself from becoming one of the killers he hunts, Batman keeps his gauntlets free of dead men’s blood, and his conscience clear. While we may not be billionaire-ninja-vigilante-crime-fighters, we can apply the same morality that Batman lives on to our own lives. We do this by staying true to our moral code, and never letting the wrongdoing of others be used as an excuse to do the same. <a href=" Image Credit