Nobody has ever claimed that The Interview is a good film. By all accounts, critics and audiences all seem to be giving it a vaguely half-hearted "it's alright", but the artistic quality and/or entertainment value of this James Franco and Seth Rogan screwball comedy is not what seeing this film is about. Never before has it been more important to be able to watch a film - not because of its "miss it, miss out" status, but because of what this movie has come to represent. Somehow, a fratpack irreverent lol-fest has become a major political pawn in an escalating international diplomatic crisis. Sometimes you couldn't make up news stories like these, could you?

For anyone who's been living under a rock, in early December, a major online hack was reported by Sony Pictures. Amongst other details stolen, the script for the new Bond film was leaked, embarrassing emails between studio executives surfaced and, just as the media focused on the furore around the movie bosses' uncensored opinions about Angelina Jolie and Barack Obama, a terrorist threat suddenly appeared. A group calling themselves the 'Guardians of Peace' threatened to unleash terror on cinemas showing the Sony movie The Interview, due for release over Christmas. The movie, which features the fictionalised assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, was then pulled by most cinema chains, unwilling to take the risk of screening the film. Then, without anywhere to screen the film, Sony Pictures decided to cancel its release. At this point, the FBI and the White House waded in. Supposedly tracking the hack back to North Korea, the President declared that the US would unleash an "appropriate response" on those responsible, while North Korea insisted they were not behind the hack, though they whole-heartedly supported it. Obama criticised Sony Pictures for cancelling the film and before long, independent cinemas agreed to screen the film, while Sony also simultaneously released it online. As yet, there has been no sign of any credible threat at cinemas screening the movie.

So why has its release become such a big deal? Well in the Western World (particularly in the US and UK), one of the most fundamental ideals of society is our Freedom of Speech. Though there are laws in place to curb expression that incites hatred (a clause that's mere existence proves highly controversial), when it comes to anything else, the freedom to express oneself is sanctified in law. On the one hand, this can mean speaking out against the people who govern you and being protected from persecution while you do it. On the other, it can mean speaking out against any majority, expressing contentious opinions or being able to provoke, aggravate and arouse debate in open forums. While the latter isn't always welcome, it is this freedom that democracy promotes and should therefore protect. So if a mediocre laddish American bro-movie wants to pretend to kill a living despot, then that is as protected as Fahrenheit 9/11, Elephant, The Passion Of The Christ or any film, play, artwork or book that any fundamentalist group has taken upon itself to picket in the past. 

It may seem absurd to have the American President standing up for Sony Pictures, especially after reading the racist slurs against him written by its directors, but to have another country wading into its media and using a threat of terror to censor its output is un-American. And to allow that to happen is also undemocratic. While it may seem trivial to react so heavily over what isn't even a film of any real cultural importance, had they not responded, Sony Pictures (and therefore the United States) would be seen as bowing to the will of terrorists; something that neither Obama or his government could ever be seen to do. And so with the backing of the authorities, the film is being screened in a defiant act against what *could* be a baseless threat.

Larger cinema chains are still refusing to screen the film however. After the massacre by a gunman at a screening of The Dark Knight Rises a few years ago, it's easy to see why. After all, if there is any threat that the safety of the public cannot be guaranteed, any company would be uneasy with the prospect of deliberately putting its customers in harm's way. But the choice of independent screens to release the film has been welcomed by the government, media and studio alike (albeit reluctantly for the latter). But while the threat may put many people off seeing the film, the real irony of the whole crisis will be that people who may never have considered seeing the film before will now be seeking out a screening somewhere, in acts of solidarity against would-be terrorism. In the end, The Interview will probably earn considerably more than its projected box office and end up a sleeper hit for Sony, but only time will tell at what cost. But if there's one thing we can be sure about, it's that everyone will be given the chance now to watch the North Korean leader be fictionally killed whether we take it or not, because it is our Human Right to do so. And rightly so. 

A British end of year list is very different to an American year-end film list. Due to the delay between release dates across the pond, while lists from the US are highly weighted toward the films we expect to be major players in this year’s awards season (Birdman, Selma, A Most Violent Year), the majority of these are yet to hit cinemas in the UK. However, the majority of last year’s Oscar crop were actually released in the early months of 2014 in the UK, (12 Years A Slave, The Wolf Of Wall Street, etc.) so in a British list we still see the best films of last year's filmic crop, meaning that the lists aren't devoid of the same quality as the Americans'. 

That being said, the wasteland between awards seasons (aka. summer) is usually populated with blockbusters and action franchises to keep the public entertained when it rains constantly from April until September. Except where were the big hitters of any actual quality this year? Where were the record-breaking opening weekends and the “essential next chapters” in those oh-so-important tentpole franchises that keep movie studios solvent? It’s as though each studio was relying on another to release something, hoping that the public wouldn’t notice the big hole in their release schedule, before eventually pretending Guardians Of The Galaxy was what they were all building up to. What an anti-climax.

Big releases from David Fincher (Gone Girl) and Christopher Nolan (Interstellar) were shown vague and brief moments of enthusiasm by audiences and critics, though neither film was able to set either alight. Richard Linklatter’s Boyhood finally made it to the screen after its twelve years in the making, while Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel, released in February, has somehow become a major awards player, simply because there doesn’t seem to be much better to nominate. What a good year it’s been (!)

So with the studios barely able to produce a three star film, it’s been left up to indie films to mop up the good reviews in their wake. The Babadook, Nightcrawler, Under The Skin and Stranger By The Lake were all critical darlings, while the UK’s surprise success came from Pride, which was the most powerful feel-good film in years.

So with all this in mind, let’s take a look at Haus of Phag’s Top 20 Films of 2014:

David O. Russell is a director whose rise to the Hollywood A-List has been rocket-like. Last year's Silver Linings Playbook was a real contender for Best Picture, winning his leading lady an Oscar and securing his second Best Director nomination. His film before that, The Fighter, again saw nominations aplenty and wins for both Christian Bale and Melissa Leo. Last year, Silver Linings saw acting nominations in all four categories for its cast, a feat not achieved since 1981. Russell knows how to assemble a cast, and once again he has hit the jackpot. In using the stars of his previous films, he has a assembled a David O. Russell super-cast and to say that there are no stand-out performances here is misleading, because they ALL deliver brilliant turns. I'm not Bale's biggest fan, but he knocks the ball out of the park here; Cooper is equal parts charming and cringeworthy; Lawrence is mad and neurotic and innocent in equal measure; Renner is the bent politician with a heart; and Adams positively glistens on screen as a stylish disco siren.

Any good period film should either make you want to live in that time period, or make you realise how lucky you are not to. American Hustle is definitely the former. The camera whizzes through 1970s New York with lush colours, glamorous locations and costumes that would make you think it was the coolest time ever to be alive. Its soundtrack skips through music that sounds as fresh today as the day it was recorded and with its soft-focus, unusual close-ups and wide panning shots, the camerawork leaves you feeling drunk, swimming through this heady world of chintz, hairspray and halternecks. Its art direction, cinematography and costume design are remarkable, giving us the glamour of Boogie Nights with the reality of Mean Streets. And the best way to describe the film as a whole is to say that it's as though Paul Thomas Anderson and Martin Scorsese directed a film together; and that's one hell of a compliment...

Arguably 2014 has been one of the weakest years in music in a generation. With the majority of established popstars on hiatus or limping through with featuring spots, the charts were dominated by techno-lite one-hit-wonder dance acts featuring singers who can sing and do little else. Where last year was dominated by infectious pop tunes, this year has seen Jess Glynne and Jess Glynne-alikes take centre stage. How very dull it’s been.

However, amidst this drudgery, moments of greatness peak through. Taylor Swift came of age, Ella Henderson stormed to the top of the charts and Sam Smith basically became Adele. John Legend actually became a legend, Fleur East became the coolest winner of The X Factor to date (oh wait... no she didn't...) and, twelve months on, Pharrell’s ‘Happy’ is still a tune. So let’s look back on the year in music and see Haus of Phag’s Top 40 Singles Released in 2014.

If you go out on the Queer Alt scene in Manchester, chances are you will have come across photographs by Lee Baxter. Frequently in attendance and photographing the performers at Cha Cha Boudoir and Drunk At Vogue, as well as the revellers themselves in all their Technicolor feathered-and-glitter glory, Lee is documenting an artistic movement as it happens, capturing the very essence of the creative boom currently blanketing the city. But this is not to negate the creativity of his own work – there is as much artistry in the way he catches a moment as there is in those participating in it. And if you look further into his portfolio, there are clear artistic themes that carry throughout his work, with signature motifs that have become the hallmark of Lee Baxter, photographer. 

He and I agreed that there is something special happening in Manchester right now though. “I was here in the 90s,” he told me, “when Gaychester was in full swing. I worked at Paradise Factory. But back then I didn’t pick up a camera and document what was going on, but I wish I had. This time round, I’m not making the same mistake.” Frequently in attendance at various club nights, Lee’s lens can often be seen trained at the stage as the now innumerable drag artists flock to perform, dance, or just strut through the doors in their home-made couture. With an uncanny talent for anticipating moments before they occur, his camera manages to seize that look, that nuanced tilt to the head and that moment when the light catches the glitter. “For every photo like that though,” he added, modestly, “There are four or five of people with their eyes half-closed.” But despite this, he shoots sparingly, taking only one or two shots at a time. “I use my camera as though I’m shooting on film,” he said, “that way I’m still watching what’s going on and not just shooting frame after frame without knowing what I’m looking at.”

Flamboyantly dark performer Pam Van-Damned is stepping away from the now dissolved Tranarchy. Like other members of the collective, she is focusing on new projects and heading in new directions. With her own music project on the way, plus appearances at nights like Mother's Ruin this weekend, she caught up with Haus of Phag and explained why she doesn't like to be referred to as a faux queen, or a drag queen full stop.

Haus:     Where did the name Pam Van-Damned come from?

Pam:      It was put together a few years ago. When I first joined Facebook, I didn't want people to know my real name, so I used the name Pam Grier - she's my icon because she's this amazing kickass blaxploitation action star. Once I started to get booked for things, I began to feel weird about using someone else's name. It wasn't my own name; I'd just used it to hide. So I decided to take some of my other icons and put them all into one name: Pam Grier, Jean-Claude Van Damme, The Damned, the song 'The Damned' by Wendy O. Williams and the Plasmatics. My name is a combination of all these people who give me power every day, who I've rolled all into one and now I use to pretend to be a superhero.

Haus:     And there was me thinking that your name was actually Pam and you preferred the darkness of the 'Van-Damned' part.

Pam:      Well you could say that as well...

Haus:     So despite your affiliations with the Drag Scene, you say that you don't identify as a drag queen, faux or otherwise. Why is that?

Pam:      Some people linked me as a faux queen because there's not really that many of them in Manchester. There are a few groups and they're all brilliant women, but I never felt like a part of that. Firstly, 'faux' means fake and I am not a 'fake queen'. I don't understand why you would identify as a fake queen when you're as real as everyone else. I just wanted to be a performer. 

Haus:     So if you were to actually try and give yourself a label, what would you call yourself?

Pam:      Banshee warrior from space.

Haus:     That's as good a label as any.

Pam:      I try not to label anything that I do, or who I am. I've never done that. Proper drag queens have a separation between their drag and themselves and I've never had that. Faux queens do. I'm Pam Van-Damned every day. I wake up Pam Van-Damned. I put the same makeup on. There's nothing more over the top about her than me. 

Haus:     So are you Pam Van-Damned to your friends?

Pam:      The only people who refuse to call me it are my old friends, who don't accept any bullshit. Everyone else does. But my best friend Michele shouts at me and says "I'll never fucking call you Pam!" But my name has been Pam for a long time now, even though it's not official. Though I was going to get it changed for Christmas!

Haus:     As a present to yourself?

Pam:      I just thought it would look really cool on bank cards. Then I'd be 100% Pam Van-Damned. I like that I get to choose who I want to be though. In comic books, superheroes sometimes choose who they want to be and they put the ideal person together for themselves and I just fancied doing that for myself. People who knew me before Pam know that I was always creative, so I've always been myself, but Pam Van-Damned is exactly who I want to be.

Haus:     In the past, you have been a major part of the recently dissolved Tranarchy. What was it that led to the dissolution of the collective?

Pam:      We had always wanted to be ten steps ahead of the curve. With the current Drag Boom in Manchester, we began to feel like we weren't doing anything fresh anymore or giving anyone a platform, because that platform was already there for them. So we decided we didn't want to just fade out and instead go out with a bang. It was an impulsive decision to do it with Zombie Pride - a lot of people said "We would have come if we'd known it was the last Tranarchy night". We always ran on impulsive decisions, doing what we felt and having true punk ethics. It felt right because we are all working on separate projects and they were all taking a lot of time. And it had come full circle as well; it started with Peaches Christ (Joe and Niall had the idea for Tranarchy that night) and then it finished with Peaches Christ four and half years later. And now we're planning to do something a bit more educational and workshop based in the new year. Nothing was bitter, nothing ended on a bad note and we were quite happy to just end on a big huge bang of a party. And now, we can actually go to other people's nights now! I've been going out so much, I want to die!

Haus:     So these personal projects you referred to - what's Pam Van-Damned's personal project?

Pam:      I'm making an album. I've been writing for about six months, have a bunch of songs - mostly heavy metal/rock 'n' roll - and music is becoming more important to me than ever. It has always been important for me, but this year I was beginning to hear songs in my head that weren't songs I was listening to and realised that these might actually be my own songs! I'd never found song-writing easy before, but this has been happening really organically and I've been training my voice to wail like Metallica. I'll be recording some tracks with Kurt Dirt next year and hopefully putting a small LP out. It's very aggressive. I've done a few performances now and it definitely feels right. I've been smashing up some watermelons with samurai swords and at Zombie Pride I got myself covered in blood and I just loved it. I'm all about heavy metal anyway...

Haus:     So why not join in?

Pam:      Exactly. So that's my project. To make an album. And save rock 'n' roll.

Haus:     Single-handedly. So what do you have in store for Mother's Ruin this week?

Pam:      Mother's Ruin is my favourite thing to do in Manchester, so I wanted to put together something really special. I think I have... it involves murdering Santa Claus and spending the rest of the night snorting cocaine... which is icing sugar by the way.

Haus:     Well don't tell us anything more! It sounds sensational and thoroughly in keeping with what we know of Pam Van-Damned.

Pam:      Guitars and mess.

Haus:     Or guitars and meth?

Pam:      Imagine! This booty wouldn't survive if I was on meth. I wouldn't take meth because I'd be scared of losing my ass!

It's always struck me as odd that some people choose to use the word 'queer' to refer to their sexuality. While the concept of having a word that envelopes the breadth of the spectrum of human sexuality makes perfect sense, the use of that specific word is something that doesn't necessarily sit right with me. I understand that the Gay Community has reclaimed the word from its previously offensive and homophobic root, but it's a word that essentially means 'weird'. Why has a word with such negative connotations become something that we have tried to load with enforced positivity when, essentially, that's not what the word means? And why choose a word that's modern primary meaning is still laden with negativity as our broad all-encompassing term to umbrella over all sexualities?

The word 'faggot' is similarly going through a reclamation. The closest equivalent to the n-word for gay people, it's a word that is rarely spoken without being loaded with some negativity, or even venom. It's almost become unspoken now, despite the word itself having a whole range of meanings (it can also mean a bundle of twigs, or a Welsh delicacy made from offal). The name of this website is meant as an olive branch for the word, but that doesn't negate from the fact it is a word associated with offence and upset. Meanwhile, the word 'queer' conjures images of freakshows at the seaside, or old curiosity shops, or Victorian tourists visiting asylums for laughs. By declaring myself as 'queer', does that not reinforce the idea that heterosexuality is therefore normal, natural and binary, while all other sexualities are not? Yes the word refers to variances from the status quo, but it means more than just 'different'. It's connotations are of something unsettling; something unpleasant.

Of course I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. A word is a word and the neutralisation of any that have the potential to create pain is obviously a good thing, but its adoption as an officially recognised term is peculiar. Over the years the politically correct term for black people has swung back and forth like a see-saw, but you would never expect the n-word - or any other negative word - to become a legally recognised name for any group of people. Words that bear negativity by their very meaning are hardly going to help any oppressed minority group, are they?