The Theater

Movies are often put into two categories: entertaining, and not entertaining. Movies are also looked at, and maybe more fairly, as either deep or transparent. Ironically, 3-D movies frequently contain less actual depth than movies without this level of technical sophistication. The Tree of Life, a movie written and directed by Terrence Malick, has been reviewed as a movie fitting into the "deep" category (watch trailer here)]. Unfortunately, the high level of depth of this movie seems to link it to the "not entertaining" category by some critics. It's a movie thought to potentially be difficult to sell to an audience, even with its star power of Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. The LA Times says that, "Few prominent releases in recent years present the marketing challenges of 'Tree of Life'".  A critic from Slam Magazine slams the movie by saying that it, "belongs more in the abstract section of an art museum than a movie theater". This brings up the key point, what should be shown at movie theaters? Why is it only appropriate to show movies that are transparent or broadly and obviously entertaining at theaters, and not allow the audiences to see movies with more depth, that involve serious thought? The answer really lies with the consumer. When people do not show their support by buying tickets to a movie, many believe the movie should not be in theaters in the first place. This movie should be considered to be a good movie because it won the highest prize at the Cannes Film Festival, but without winning at the box office it is deemed a failure. It is hard to believe that a movie with this star power, and actual success at Cannes, would not be popular with an American audience. But even if it is not, the movie must still be shown in theaters.

Going to the movies should not be just about kicking back, relaxing, or having a laugh. People should occasionally go to movies to expand their minds. Although one must pay attention for around two hours, it hardly seems like an enormously difficult task. We need to treat some movies in the same way people treat some books - pay attention to every line of dialogue, and look at the movie critically. Although this could seem challenging to some, it's just for a couple of hours, and for many it can actually be an enjoyable experience to think. 

Finally, movies can be shown at movie theaters that are not just comedies everyone can understand. People will go to movies that involve thinking, and enjoy them, even if the bulk of the audience is at "The Hangover 2". Movies are, after all, works of art, and although some really could be shown at the abstract art section at  a museum, all of them should be shown at the movie theater. The movie theater draws  mass audiences to see these works of art, and just like real art, occasionally pushes the viewer to think.

What CAN be done?--Part 2

On the famous comedy TV series from the nineties, "Seinfeld", an episode called "The Outing" mocks the idea of being homophobic. The characters George and Jerry see someone eavesdropping on their conversation, and for fun, decide to make up a story that they are gay. To their displeasure, the person who overhears them happens to be a reporter, and publishes a story based on their supposed homosexual relationship. Throughout the episode, the characters show their dislike for being mistakenly thought of as gay, but quickly follow with "not that there's anything wrong with that". This particular line of dialogue is used several times to emphasize that even for people who support gay rights, being labelled as gay still carries a stigma for many men. (To watch the main plot of the episode, and these scenes, click here).

After Joakim Noah's gay slur during the NBA playoff game, I wrote a blog on the inappropriate, yet somewhat common use of gay slurs. Guys make gay slurs to each other all the time, not intending to offend gays, but more as a way to tease or insult the other person. However, it is considered by many as offensive, as it should be, because it assumes that by using it as a put-down, it assumes what underlies the word is derogatory. 

As I reflect on that post, I think that it is crucial to understand that people who use gay slurs often say it as a gut reaction, almost subconsciously. Gay slurs are common for boys and men during friendly interactions, and even on the progressive North Shore we hear them often. Although speaking these words can be offensive, many people don't see a problem with using gay slurs if they are used in a joking way between friends. I think this is similar to what "Seinfeld" mocked, in that guys use gay slurs even when they truly believe "not that there's anything wrong with that". I wonder how others feel about using gay slurs, and if it matters at all if it said between friends, or said in the heat of  the moment.

The Movie Interruption

I recently read over some blog posts in our class, and Henry’s blog post inspired me to write this. I originally considered commenting on Henry’s post, but found my first comment to be too long, and slightly off topic. The key idea in the post that I agreed with was the way movies are being watched like TV. In fact, movies are often shown on TV. Watching a movie on TV, for me, is close to impossible because of the constant distraction of endless commercials. To take the distractions a step further, commercials have recently begun to be shown while the movie is being played on TV on the bottom of the screen. This not only blocks what the filmmakers originally intended the audience to see, but it draws attention away from the screen to see the advertisement.  Also, some TV movies actually delete scenes to fit in more commercials, which completely ruins the integrity of any movie. I do watch movies on TV, but when any movie is remotely serious, I make sure to watch it on DVD or in theaters.

When I think of talking during movies I specifically think of the TV series, Seinfeld. In one episode, "The  Restaurant", the three main characters wait in a restaurant before the sixth movie in a famous series. When two of the three characters, Elaine and George, comment they may not go to the movie, the main character, Jerry Seinfeld, expresses that if they don't go to the movie, then he cannot go, because he would not have nobody to talk to during the movie. This reminds me of our conversation in class where we concluded that there are certain movies you cannot talk through at the theater, and others, like "The Hangover", that are actually complimented by talking during the movie. The Seinfeld episode also makes fun of not paying attention during movies, as Jerry and his girlfriend are called out for "making out during Sophie's Choice", something that clearly should not be done. 


 To me, there are boundaries when watching movies, and although some movies beg for open discussion, most do not. By talking during movies, specifically at the movie theater, people are ruining the experience not only for the people around them, but themselves as well. To be confronted with unsolicited interruptions caused by another audience member as he responds to the movie is distracting and interrupts am individual's experience. In the end, being interrupted during a movie by an advertisement, or a friend, is not much different than making out during "Sophie's Choice".

Pardon the Interruption, but what CAN be done?

This Sunday, Bulls power forward Joakim Noah was seen on camera at a playoff game directing a gay slur to a fan-- and it resulted in a $50K fine. As a Bulls fan, I have great respect for Joakim Noah as a basketball player because of the passion and emotion he displays on the court. However, this emotion lead Noah to make a decision he admits was "disrespectful" (TMZ). Noah apologized immediately after the game by saying, "What I said wasn't right. I don't want to disrespect anybody. That's not what I'm about" (ESPN Story). The emotions felt by a professional player during a playoff basketball game is something I will never be able to comprehend, and in the heat of the moment it must be very hard to control the emotions that lead to what can come out of a one's mouth. Teammate and league MVP Derrick Rose said, "Being a basketball player you're going to be emotional sometimes. On the court, people can say some foul things" (ESPN story). Also, although what the fan said to spark Noah's reaction is unknown to me, it is probably something you wouldn't say to your grandmother. Noah's teammate, Luol Deng, said of the fan who sparked Noah's reaction, "He should've been thrown out" (ESPN story). However, even with the apology by Noah, and considering the heightened emotional state he was in, using the gay slur was not an acceptable thing to do.

The world is evolving, and more and more people are starting to finally come out and say that gay slurs are unacceptable. Very recently, the NBA in particular has been taking a stand with gay rights. Athletes, such as NBA guard Grant Hill, have been in commercials saying that gay slurs are unacceptable, and teammate and NBA All-Star Steve Nash recently spoke out in a video saying New York should legally allow same-sex marriage. In fact, the CEO and President of the Suns, Rick Welts,  recently announced publicly that he was gay. This is a man who has been influential in the NBA for decades and has "created the NBA All-Star Weekend, invented the 1992 Olympic Dream Team and cofounded the WNBA" (Forbes article). 


I believe that although Noah made this mistake, fining him $50K will hardly make a difference to him, and for that matter suspending him will also make little difference. Noah seems to have good character, and analysts have said they believe he was sincere in his apology. I, too, believe Noah was sincere in his apology, but this matter is much much bigger than the 6 foot eleven inch center on the Bulls. Noah may have wanted to take back what he said, but he still said it, not as much a reflection on him as on society as a whole. People say gay slurs without thought, but the "N-word" is much less often said without thought. People know that saying the "N-word" is unacceptable, but fewer recognize gay slurs as such. To prevent people from using gay slurs, it starts with what is acceptable and not acceptable while children grow up, and although the NBA must take a stand and fine Noah to show they do not support that behavior, it will do little to help. Very recently NBA All-Star Kobe Bryant was fined for using a gay slur in a basketball game, and that didn't stop Noah from using a gay slur only weeks later. The only thing that can be done to eradicate this behavior is to show kids at a young age that this word is unacceptable and harmful, and maybe then we won't have to fine kids' sports idols, and grown adults, for their behavior.

America's Identity

Last week during group presentations on AIS Day, my group presented on Americans' connection to cars, their lawns, and fast food. We found that these topics contribute to three significant factors in the American identity: speed, freedom and class. We also talked about the way these factors are included in American literature, such as "The Great Gatsby'. However, the topics are ingrained in our current culture more than I at first thought.  Watching the NBA Playoff's Eastern Conference Finals showdown between the Chicago Bulls, and the Miami Heat, I decided to monitor the commercials during the breaks. I tabulated the number and type of commercials played during most of the first two quarters. Out of twenty seven commercials, ten were car and fast food commercials. The dominating amount of commercials from just these two topics shows how important they are to the American consumer and to our identity.

Commercials are not randomly shown; marketing experts choose which time slots to play their commercials. Nielsen Ratings shows that the median age for the NBA is 39.3, and most likely the majority of the audience is male. Although this could contribute to more fast food and car commercials, I would believe that has a minimum effect. Learning through my partners' presentations, I learned that the car was hugely important to the freedom of women, and therefore, I would assume that females also are large consumers of cars. I know personally, my mom is the one in my family who chooses what car we should buy.

When I was a kid, my mom was the one to choose what I ate.  When we went out for a quick meal, it was ultimately my mom's decision if we ate fast food or not. Commercials for fast food must also be for the audience of mothers as well, because mothers often choose what we eat when we are young. These commercials are not only popular commercials during NBA playoff games, but popular commercials in general. This is further evidence that cars and fast food, as advertised during the basketball playoffs, are directed at both men and women and are further proof of the importance of cars and fast food to the American identity.

Celebration?

After the recent death of Osama Bin Laden, many crowds have gathered in the U.S, and chanted “USA! USA!”. At baseball games, or at the White House, in Tweets, on Facebook, and on college campuses, people have found the death of Osama Bin Laden to be a reason to celebrate. Talking with some people about this, I have found that this jubilant chanting is not welcomed by everyone. 

I have heard from some that “we should be remembering those who have passed because of this man, not celebrating his death” and that “it is kind of sad that it takes someone to die for our country to unite like this”. It seems very unlikely that the death of Osama Bin Laden will lead to the downfall of terrorism, but the death of the figure head of Al-Qaeda does bring a symbolic sense of closure to Americans. Some of the older people I talked to about this believe it is “a generational thing” and that the youth “does not understand the importance of this issue and they should not be chanting and celebrating. It is, after all, not some sporting event. ”. I believe that although it may be a little strange to celebrate another human’s death, it is not a bad thing to celebrate. Americans are united in the celebration of the death of the symbolic head of a terrorist group that killed many Americans, and brought sorrow to countless others. Although he got away from us for almost a decade, we finally got closure, and although we never had the satisfaction of a trial, it was a relief to many Americans that a man who wished for the America's demise was punished for his wrongdoings. Something seems very right about finally being able to punish this man. Although we will never get back those we lost, it is just that Osama Bin Laden was killed. What do you think of celebrating his death? Is it right of us to celebrate the death of any man?

The American Dream

Last week, in a poll during class, a question was posed about how hard it is to move up the in the ranks of class in America on a scale of 1-10 (1 being easy to move up in class, 10 being almost impossible to move up). For me, it was hard to answer this question because I have always pictured America as the land of opportunity. When I was younger, I felt anyone could get anywhere based on their intelligence, and work ethic. Now, I am finding reasons I to believe this theory is not true.

First, the wealthier one is growing up, the better colleges they are likely to gain entrance to.  Mr. Bolos told us what is already common knowledge, that almost all New Trier students (about 98%) will be going to college. In other not so affluent areas the college attendance rate will be much lower. A reason for this is that many people simply cannot afford college. From the class rankings we saw in class last week, we know that people who graduate from college are considered to be in the top-tier of class. Another reason so many New Trier students go on to college is because of their ACT score. New Trier students typically do very well on their ACT, but this is hardly a coincidence. When I had a short chat with my ACT tutor, he told me that the best indicator of ACT score is family income. This seems particularly unfair, since this score is supposed to measure one's intelligence and future success in college. People who can afford tutors will do better on the ACT by around 4 points, clearly not a fair way to compare students' intelligence.

Also, I have found that one must "get a dollar to catch a dollar". With money to invest, there is more opportunity for entrepreneurship and potential for successful careers. In a documentary called "To Catch a Dollar",  I learned about the practice of microfinancing  (a system where small amounts of money are lent to poor individuals to use in some form of entrepreneurship, and is paid back in small increments over a period of time) developed by Muhammed Yunus. This process helps lower class people produce more money. Still, microfinancing in America is limited at best, and is not the complete solution to give the poor equal opportunity as the rich.

I believe moving up in class is difficult in America, although still easier than many other countries because of things like affirmative action. I feel that "The American Dream" does not exist as it once did. There clearly is much opportunity in America, but depending on class opportunity it can be limited. I wonder how other people felt above this poll in class, and what they gave as their answers.