Surely the most hotly debated scientific issue of the past few weeks has been the case of Ashley X, the little girl who will, to all intents, never grow any older. Ashley is nine years old but suffers from a rare condition called staticencephalopathy, limiting the development of her mental and motor faculties to those of a three-month-old baby. This makes her completely reliant upon her parents for all movement, feeding and changing.

It’s a tragic story, but the thing that really marks Ashley out is that the severity of her condition and the lack of any prospect of improvement caused her parents to make the momentous decision to stop their “Pillow Angel” growing after her seventh birthday.

This was achieved first of all by a full hysterectomy, removing her uterus and ovaries to prevent her going through puberty and hence from ever menstruating. A drastic procedure was also carried out to remove her breast buds and an appendectomy was performed to rule out the risk of appendicitis later in life.As soon as Ashley had recovered from these surgeries the final stage of the treatment was enacted; high dose oestrogen injections over the course of the next two years causing her bones to fuse and meaning that her body will never grow past its current 5’4” or 75lbs.

Now I’m sure that for many of you your first reaction is, as mine was, one of horror and disgust at what seems like the grotesque maiming of a child, but, as one of Ashley’s doctors has said, we must “get past this feeling and examine what harm is actually being done to Ashley.” And indeed, upon closer examination, Ashley’s parents may well actually have some valid reasons for their actions. Though a hysterectomy is a shocking thing for a nine year old to go through, the fact is that it prevents menstruation and the attendant cramps and bleeding which could prove both painful and disturbing for Ashley if she can’t understand the cause of them. Yet while I agree that this is a good point, the same effect could have been achieved without removing her ovaries and thereby increasing her risks of osteoporosis and heart disease. Equally, the fact that she could remain childlike in appearance well into her thirties is a skin-crawling realisation. Ashley’s parents rationalise this with the claim that they struggle to lift her at her current weight so if she grew any larger they would be unable to cope alone, but surely for less than the cost of the treatment a hoist could be supplied to assist them?

Other modifications, such as the removal of her breasts and appendix are less clearly warranted. Ashley’s parents claim that she “has no need for developed breasts since she will never breastfeed” and that, as her bust is apparently likely to be large, they would only cause her discomfort and put her at risk of being ‘sexualised’ to any care-giver. This might be a convincing argument if they hadn’t stated that “other than her Mom and Dad, the only additional caregivers entrusted to Ashley’s care are her two grandmothers” and that they have ruled out additional careworkers as not being “qualified, trustworthy and affordable” enough. The appendectomy also seems like an ‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ type of job, as there is only a five per cent chance of Ashley developing appendicitis. Following this logic every child should have their appendix, tonsils and adenoids out as a matter of course as they may become infected. The reason that this doesn’t happen is that such operations are upsetting for the children and an unnecessary risk.

The main reason that the Ashley X treatment rankles with me is that she has no way of communicating her wishes. Therefore we simply must assume that her parents have thought through the risks properly and trust that their decision is in their daughter’s best interests. The difficulty with this is that almost every problem they give as a reason for the treatments could be solved by other, less extreme measures, so actions like her height restriction seem like they’ve been done for the parent’s convenience and not purely for the sake of Ashley’s well-being. India Knight in The Times also makes the interesting point that her parents may just feel more comfortable with her condition in someone with the appearance of a child that they would in a fully grown woman.

Regardless of their motivations, the publicity surrounding Ashley’s case, and the fact that it has been condoned by a medical ethics board (if not by a court of law) means that parents of other children with such disabilities may now see it as an option. British mum Alison Thorpe is now seeking a hysterectomy for her daughter Katy, even though at 14 Katy would be more likely to develop breast cancer as well as heart problems and brittle bones should the operation go ahead.

No-one who is not in such a position can understand the burdens placed upon the parents of severely disabled children but this should not be used to justify such extreme measures. In Ashley’s case the treatment may have been warranted but there is no room for shades of grey in deciding whether to apply these procedures to similar cases. A line must be drawn to ensure that Ashley’s story remains the exception, rather than the rule. After all, what happens if this is done to an individual who is aware of what is happening to them?

Around the nooks and concrete crannies of York University campus, a new species is on the increase. It walks tall, a smug expression of complete immunity from work on its face and a spring in its step. It can be seen at all times of day, basking in the midday sun or staggering home from Ziggy’s at 3 in the morning. It is the soon-to-be-graduate student. However, there is more to these soon-to-be endangered creatures than meets the eye. Beneath their carefree appearance is the knowledge that they soon must leave the university bubble and enter society. So, in an attempt to foster better understanding of this strenuous and painful process, we present a guide to the stages of its development.

Denial is, simply put, the immediate reaction of a balanced mind to the requirement that it plan its entire future in just three weeks.

The first stage is Realisation and, as the name suggests, it is the moment when that niggling feeling (which started around Christmas) finally reaches its apex and the student realises that they must decide what to do with the rest of their lives. For some, this stage is not nearly as unpleasant as for others, as they took the time to decide on an action plan before entering their final year and are, therefore, able actually to move towards their chosen life as soon as exams are finished. These lucky souls get to move straight to Stage Three, but for the rest of us Stage Two awaits: Denial.

Denial is, simply put, the immediate reaction of a balanced mind to the requirement that it plan its entire future in just three weeks. The mind worries about it for a second, undergoes a brief stage of panic and then, very wisely, decides that it can deal with the problem later and so ignores it. This may also be accompanied by a complete disregard for financial factors as it becomes clear that, while the student’s final debt could be reduced by abstaining from certain activities, a lot more fun can be had by maxing-out their overdraft and “Well, this is this the last chance I’ll really get to have fun.”

However, after the final pound has been spent and the final shot downed, there is only one place to go, Stage Three: Acceptance. This is actually quite a pleasant phase as it develops gradually and one morning the student simply wakes up with a positive outlook on the future instead of the hitherto held horror. Now there is just one step left: finally to decide what to do next, an easy choice for those who have already thought long and hard about it, but for the more unsure there are four main routes to pursue.

The easiest option is to go on the dole for a while. At a basic level of £34.60 a week it won’t allow the student a flamboyant lifestyle, but on the plus side it shouldn’t disrupt their day-to-day existence too much. If prepared to properly commit to this way of life then, with a few tweaks to their situation, the student may be able to increase this substantially. For example, getting married to a fellow student of the opposite sex who is equally committed to the plan can boost their claim to £90.10 a week (split between two) and by seriously maiming themselves to give a severe disability, this can be supplemented by £46.75 a week. Thus, with only the minor annoyance of having to attend a job centre once a week (and the loss of a limb), the student can collect up to £91.80 a week with minimum disruption to their lifestyle. (NB. If especially committed, getting a fellow student pregnant and having a child can add an extra £45.68 per week to the tally, up until the point where the child too can become a student and move into the realms of student loanship. Free milk and vitamins can also be claimed until the child is 5, cutting food bills.) Note that this plan will only succeed if you have no money whatsoever as any savings preclude one from claiming the maximum amount.

After all, who would you rather employ, someone who can only talk about maths or someone who can tell you what it’s like to white-water raft through crocodile-infested waters?

If such a stagnant approach does not appeal (or if you are quite attached to all of your body parts and would prefer to remain so) then the next best option in terms of minimum disruption to lifestyle is to take on further study. For some this can mean starting another three year degree because, having studied, for example, Chemistry they’ve realized that what they actually want to do is be a historian. This is, however, an extreme approach and requires either very deep pockets or very understanding parents. A far more realistic idea is a masters degree. These also carry a fairly hefty price-tag of c.£4000 but funding is often widely available from the university or other large companies, provided that you apply early enough, do exactly what they say and lease them your soul for a prearranged amount of time afterwards. Another advantage of this route is that an MA dissertation can potentially be on any subject and can thus allow you to indulge your passion for “Phallic imagery in the London skyline” or “Buses of the Cotswolds, 1936-1940 : Whither the petrol tank?”

Chances are, however, that after spending most of your life in the education system you may feel a little constricted by it and want to see more of the world before you decide on your place in it. This being the case, travel is probably your best option. Again it isn’t cheap but the case can be made that you are “developing people skills” and “gaining life experiences” which can help you enter gainful employment when you get back. After all, who would you rather employ, someone who can only talk about maths or someone who can tell you what it’s like to white-water raft through crocodile-infested waters? (Well, if they’re going to be your accountant then you’d probably choose the first one, but you get the point.) Here the key thing to consider is getting the maximum personal growth at the minimum actual cost.

India is generally good value as 6 months worth of bed and board can be achieved for roughly £630, provided you go the cheapest route. Indonesia is also bargain-basement at £600 for 6 months. Even Thailand can be managed for under £900 and Ecuador can be yours for just £560 (all prices from www.solotravel.org). For an excellent balance of spirituality, cheapness and safety, try Tibet at £1,200. Here robbery is mostly used to fund the people’s rebellion so when you are robbed, you will be given a receipt saying that you have already “donated” which you can show to any subsequent thieves to prevent further thefts.

All of these options require cashflow, though, and if you just can’t raise the money then your only option is to work. However, it needn’t be awful. A job is a job and even if it doesn’t pay much it can still be surprising how much one can earn. The average graduate salary is £22,000 but if you move into the right career you can earn as much as £35,000 straight away. Even if you’re at the bottom of the heap with a starting salary of £14,000 it’s still a great deal more than your student loan of £3,000 so you will still feel rich. And don’t by any means think that you’re committing yourself for life. The modern world of work allows for great flexibility, so, even if you can’t afford to travel or do an MA now, give it several years and do it then. So when you next see a graduate student in the throes of Stage Two tell them to cheer up because, however this all ends, they’re young, intelligent and (possibly) good looking, and the world is their oyster.

Runtime: 140 mins

I have to admit I wasn’t really looking forward to this big-screen outing of one of my childhood favourites. Having been slightly mystified by the success of a certain hobbit, I was afraid that The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe would turn out to just be LOTR-lite, an easy opportunity to foist another hundredweight of filthy orcs upon us. It’s nice when a film surpasses your expectations.

LWW isn’t just another sword and sorcery epic. Yes, there are huge battles and mythical creatures, but by constantly keeping the focus on the Pevensie children, allowing us to see Narnia through their eyes, Adamson ensures that the bizarre creatures and places never become humdrum. While LOTR suffered from taking itself too seriously, in LWW whenever things start to get a little overblown, they are swiftly punctured by a self-aware aside (“We’re not heroes, we’re from Finchley!”) Neither is too much made of the Christian analogies of the books. For a film promoted by the Church of England (Manchester Cathedral recently held an Aslan Worship ceremony – I’m not lying…) there is surprisingly little evangelism. Adamson has managed to capture the charm and magic of the books and successfully present it on a huge scale.

In this he is greatly aided by some excellent casting. The four children are played by unknown young British actors who are refreshingly talented. Special mention must go to Georgie Henley who, despite being the youngest of the four, is very much the centre of the story, but who deals with the position marvellously. They are supported by an excellent cast of stalwarts, both in voice (Ray Winstone, Dawn French and Liam Neeson) and in person (the chilling Tilda Swinton as the White Witch). Without doubt, however, this film’s major triumph lies in the fact that these performances are not overshadowed by the phenomenal makeup and SFX on show. Lions, tigers and bears (oh my…) but also centaurs, minotaurs, fauns and unicorns are on show and, unusually in this age of CGI, mostly done by the use of animatronics and prosthetics.

There are also a few points in this film that jar, though. The talking animals can sometimes be slightly too caricatured and, while in general the CGI is effective, it falls flat in its most important task. Aslan is one of the most important parts of this film (along with the Witch and the Wardrobe), but in making him look so true to life, the designers have made him rather unemotive and one-dimensional. This isn’t a major problem as all he has to do is stand around looking noble, but it does make it rather difficult to empathise with him.

But these are simply problems which arise with all big movies and none of them spoil the story in the slightest. This is a perfect Christmas blockbuster with even a cameo from the man himself, Father Christmas. A must-see.

Runtime: 120 min

It looks like the domestic scene so typical of modern relationship films. A couple who seem to have it all, looks, money and style, sitting across the dinner table from each other and quite deliberately not saying anything. However, there’s a twist… Most failing marriages aren’t accompanied by an oven full of hi-tech weaponry or a toolshed full of grenades.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith follows John and Jane Smith, married for half a decade but now suffering ‘marriage fatigue’ and a loss of passion. But under the well-mannered veneer of suburban sits an explosive secret – they’re both top assassins working for rival agencies. This secret is the basis of what is tearing their marriage apart but everything changes when they both get assigned – somewhat predictibly you might argue – each other as their next targets.
What follows is an excellent example of how a big dumb movie should be done. It follows the ever-reliable template of guns, explosions and car chases and it does it very well. The guns are huge, the explosions would make Jerry ‘Bang’ Bruckheimer jump and the chase scene nearly equals Liman’s Mini chase from The Bourne Identity. And yet it also has hidden depths. Liman proved his action calibre with The Bourne Identity but his roots lie in slick and ironic indie comedies such as Swingers and Go and he brings this sensibility to Mr. and Mrs. Smith as the bickering banter between the leads fairly sizzles with darkly barbed quips.

Speaking of the leads, how are they? Well they ain’t bad to look at for a start and their sexual chemistry (while unsurprising in the wake of Pitt’s divorce from Jennifer Aniston) is electric. Pitt, as usual, plays it cool-but-goofy with a winning smile but it is Jolie who really comes outsmelling of roses. One gets the feeling that the Tomb Raider films were just training for this as she gets to play a proper kick-ass heroine with quips to match.
Obviously it’s not perfect, there are several moments that feel slightly uncomfortable, not least the moment where John gives Jane a surprisingly savage kicking (thankfully off-screen). While this is not blatantly shown, the implied violence feels a little extreme despite the 15 certificate. Also, while Pitt and Jolie have a considerable amount of chemistry and screen presence, they seem to struggle somewhat with some of the comedy, meaning that some potentially excellent lines are lost.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith is unashamed action-movie fun and, lets be honest, with two such obscenely attractive leads, deep philosophy was never going to be the most important aspect. Disengage you brain, sit back, and enjoy.

Runtime: 110 min

In 1971 a young hitch-hiker lying in a field in Innsbruck, hideously drunk, looking up at the stars, had an idea. This idea was to spawn a classic radio series, a slew of bestselling novels, a hit television series and now a big budget blockbuster. The hitchiker was Douglas Adams and the idea was The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide follows put-upon English everyman Arthur Dent. Dragged screaming from the Earth, moments before its destruction to make way for a hyperspace bypass, Arthur is condemned to wander the cosmos with only his best friend Ford (revealed to be not from Guilford, but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse), a towel and the titular intergalactic Rough Guide for company.

To give director Garth Jennings his due, this movie was a sticky proposition.To strike a balance between making an audience-friendly movie and appeasing the baying hordes of hardcore fans is no easy task but he pulls it off with flying colours. All of the old familiar touches are there but bigger, louder and much much glossier. The same theme music is reatined but with orchestral backing, the same planets are there but in jaw-dropping CGI and the same characters are there but in haute couture (or an old dressing gown). And this is the key to the movie’s success. By not allowing the big budget to overwhelm the essential spirit of the movie it becomes exactly what is should be: an grand realisation of a world previously only seen on a BBC budget.

Obviously some concessions have been made. The plot is not entirely faithful to the book but most points that have been added sit fairly comfortably and overall the storyline keeps the audience engaged with very little effort. Also, the casting is a slight mish-mash. Most parts are cast excellently (Martin Freeman is great as Arthur) but there are a couple of misfires. Mos Def manages the essential weirdness of Ford Prefect very well but there are times when he’s just a little blank. At the same time, Sam Rockwell’s take on Zaphod Beeblebrox as a kind of galactic rock star is perfect but there are times when he is just simply too annoying. Thankfully though, this problem is solved after not too long and so is not a major issue.

But it’s not all perfect. There are one or two farily important criticisms to be made. For a start, though most of the new plot points fit in quite happily, a love story angle is introduced which jars with the overall mood of the film and makes Freeman look extremely uncomfortable and unconvincing.

However, the main problem is that, with so much plot to fit in and only an hour and a half to do it, the film moves at a rocketing pace meaning that there are moments where the casual watcher may be bemused. This is easily solved if you’ve heard the story before but may well affect it’s box office success.

This is a well made and consistently enjoyable movie. It should be five stars but there are just a few too many niggling little complaints. Don’t Panic, don’t expect perfection either but definitely do go and see it.

Sports movies. Love ‘em or hate’em, they’re a mainstay of cinema. The plucky underdog with the will to win. The grizzled and cynical old coach. The inevitable training montage backed by inspirational music. The eventual triumph over adversity. All standard ingredients but somehow when put together they just seem to get you right there. Therefore, when a sports movie comes along that surprises you it’s a special thing and when that movie is well written, lovingly shot and populated with talented performers it just adds to the joy.

The tale follows Frankie Dunn, the aforementioned grizzled coach, estranged from his daughter and crushed after the fighter he has given years of his life to leaves him for another manager.. He has almost given up his dream of training a champion when Maggie enters his life. Apoor trailer trash waitress surviving on tips and what table-scraps she can scavenge, Maggie has only her dream of becoming the Women’s champion to sustain her. Despite his initial reluctance to train a woman (‘Girly, tough ain’t enough…’) her grit and determination soon win through his rough exterior and together they fight their way to glory.

So far, so standard, right? Except the performances lift it the tale. Eastwood is an icon and no-one else can do granite faced like him but throughout the film he also manages to subtly hint at a man so weighed down by his past that he can’t look to the future. Hilary Swank as Maggie is also superb, carrying herself with a rangy toughness but balancing this with an almost girlish vulnerability. The later scenes between her and Eastwood, with their fatherdaughter dynamic, are a pleasure to watch, the love and reassurance between them is unspoken but always present. Add to this Morgan Freeman’s perfectly judged and understated performance as Frankie’s best friend and confidante and you have a winner. Freeman also serves as a narrator and his natural gravitas chimes perfectly with the seasoned wisdom being imparted.

Still not convinced? OK, let’s talk about visuals. Eastwood has a real eye for a shot. He uses the punching bags, the ropes, the ring itself as a frame. A particular gem is the scene where Frankie finally accepts Maggie, the bag swinging between the two of them. And the soundtrack perfectly complements all these moods.

But this film’s real strength, the thing that makes it a deserving Best Picture winner is its third act. I’m not going to tell you what happens, the masterful twist in the tale but suffice it to say that this is the first film I’ve seen in a long time that has drawn an audible gasp from the audience.

It’s also a brave move for a film that always had award potential as it deals unflinchingly with a very controversial issue. Though the prospect of watching a film which seems largely based around two women pummelling each other may not be hugely enticing, do not be discouraged. Million Dollar Baby is like one of its fighters. It lures you in for the first two rounds then floors you with a shot to the gut. Amazing

This year’s event promises to be the best for a while though, after the sober ‘Iraq War’ themed event of 2003 and the Lord of the Rings vom-fest of last year, with no single film edging ahead of the rest. While The Aviator, Martin Scorcese’s tale of filmmaker, pilot and millionaire Howard Hughes, has won the battle for nominations, taking eleven including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, it may yet lose the war for Academy accreditation should the notoriously unlucky director find himself ignored for what is only an average film for the director. The Aviator isn’t Scorcese’s best, but it could pick up votes simply in recognition of the fact that the man who brought us Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Raging Bull, has yet to pick up an Oscar, while Cher, goodness knows how, has one proudly sitting atop her mantelpiece.

Will The Aviator sweep the board then? Or will some less well-known movie come from nowhere to become the belle of Hollywood’s ball? We’ll just have to wait and see…

Best Picture
The rest of these baubles are all very nice, but the piece of gold everyone wants to get their hands on is the Best Picture award, as winners invariably find themselves added to lists of all-time movie greats, irrespective of cinematic ingenuity. This year sees a fairly open contest, with all of the nominees in with a shot at express deification. The films competing for the prestigious award include The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Ray and Sideways.

In a category bursting with melodramatic biopics, it would be nice to see melancholy comedy Sideways run away with the top prize. Beautifully written and wonderfully acted throughout, this tale of two friends’ wine-soaked mid-life crisis would make a more than worthy winner. Hollywood couldn’t stand for that though. Nominee-laden biopic The Aviator is hotly tipped to take the most prized of the statuettes, as well as a good proportion of the rest. The ultra-conservative Academy – average age of it’s privileged members is around 80 – has a thing for grand American epics, so it’s hard not to see this being Scorcese’s night.

Best Director
Ah, Best Director. If you win this prestigious gong then you can forever rest secure in the knowledge that you are a man (you almost certainly will be a man, with very few female directors bar the exceptional Sofia Coppola noticed by the Academy) of vision, skill and talent. But who will it be this year? Can Alexander Payne bag the bloke with Sideways? Will Mike Leigh suffer from a potential anti-abortion backlash against Vera Drake? Will Clint Eastwood cry if he wins for his efforts in Million Dollar Baby?

Hopefully not, as we’d actually quite like him to win. No-one does uplifting sports movies better than the Americans but Million Dollar Baby stands head-and-shoulders above recent offerings, largely due to the grit and judgement that Eastwood brings behind the lens. Excellent characters, brilliant dialogue and the reinvention of a well-trodden genre make him highly deserving in our humble opinion. In the end though, nouse predicts Martin Scorcese will walk away with the prize. Despite critical acclaim for many of his innovations in filmmaking in the seventies and eighties, and commercial success thereafter, Scorcese has had an unlucky Oscars history. Nominated five times before, he has never won, not even for Raging Bull. He might not deserve it for The Aviator but quite frankly it’d be rude not to…

Best Actor
Often a titanic clash of egos but surely a career high to work and slave for a lifetime for the chance to be given a little golden man by Charlize Theron. It’s another strong field this year though so be prepared to see the four runners up giving rapturous applause with fixed smiles and murderous looks. Nominees include Don Cheadle, Johnny Depp, Leonardo Dicaprio, Clint Eastwood and Jamie Foxx.

Many will be rooting for Don Cheadle as, with Hotel Rwanda, he finally makes the jump from excellent support to bona fide leading man in this tale of one man’s struggle to do the right thing against tremendous odds. An award for this extremely worthy film would be ideal as well as recognition for this always excellent (with the exception of his accent in Ocean’s Twelve) stalwart. However, the smart money is on Jamie Foxx (Ray) to take the gong. All the nominees are excellent but in addition Foxx has taken advantage of Oscar rule No 4: “If you want to win for sure, play someone with a disability.” Plus, the boy can sing, a rare talent amongst Hollywood’s leading men sure not to go unrewarded.

Best Actress
At last we see a category untouched by The Aviator. Indeed, refreshingly, none of this year’s nominees come from films with particularly large budgets. If only we could count upon the winner not to shed great, salty tears all down her nice new frock, all would be well with the world. This years nominees look like a steady bunch though, so here’s hoping. With the warm and inventive ‘Eternal Sunshine’ pretty much ignored elsewhere by the Academy, it’s hard not to want Kate Winslet to win here. Her wonderfully charming performance as a blue-haired eccentric is made all the more remarkable in that it marks such a difference from the Refined English Lady Winslet is usually asked to play.

Be that as it may, the bookies see this as a toss-up between Hilary Swank and Annette Bening, who faced off before in 2000 when Swank won for her role in Boys Don’t Cry (against Bening’s performance in American Beauty). Bening has the pedigree, but on the other hand nobody quite plays trailer-park trash as well as Hilary Swank. Bening has gone home empty-handed twice before though, so perhaps the Academy will take pity this year.