Bullying worse or technology growing?

A year ago this June a cell phone video emerged on YouTube of some middle school kids brutally tormenting a bus monitor named Karen Klein on the way to school.  The video gained national attention and over 32,000 people donated over $700,000 to Klein.  Had the bullying not been caught on video, the kids would undoubtedly continued to torture the poor woman, posing the question of how technology has affected bullying.

Growing up I was witness to all sorts of bullying in elementary, middle, and high school.  But cell phones and mainly cell phone video cameras didn’t gain mainstream popularity until the later part of my high school career.  Now more than ever there is a HUGE movement against bullying, with claims that it is at its worst.  Documentaries are being made, organizations are being established, and the general awareness for bullying has grown tenfold since cell phone cameras have come around. 

            The question is, has bullying gotten worse or is it just now getting exposed because of the technology that allows kids to do so?  I would argue that bullying has not gotten worse and that it’s just perceived to have gotten worse because now so many videos have surfaced of it.  The world hasn’t become a worse place; the media would just like us to believe it has.  When I was growing up I saw all sorts of cruel acts, but none were recorded on video for anyone to see.  My grandfather has also told me stories about bullies when he was growing up.  In fact, it could be argued that the archetypal bully is one created from old movies that depict bullies such as A Christmas Story, which recounts a man’s childhood in the 1940’s.

            So now there is this massive movement towards stopping bullying bullying because it’s seen as such a growing issue.  Not that it’s a bad thing that people are trying to stop bullying, but it’s just a result of technology being readily available to record it.

The Thankless Stuntman

The job of the stunt coordinator on a film involves planning, budgeting, designing, and executing the complex action sequences.  It's a job that requires immeasurable creativity and leadership to achieve the mind-blowing action sequences in films.  Like the stuntman, it's a thankless job - and that's the way Hollywood wants to keep it, as they again denied requests for an Academy Award for "Best Stunt Coordination."

To give recognition to the stunt coordinators, stuntmen and stunt women responsible for executing Hollywood's most dangerous and exciting scenes would be to expose the magician's illusion for being just that - an illusion.  Most actors and filmmakers would love for audiences to believe that the people they see on screen are the ones actually risking their lives doing the stunts and that the stunts aren't an highly choreographed illusion, but an actual actor doing the action.  The sad part is that these are the same people who decide who gets recognized at the Academy Awards.

The truth is that most stunt people take pride in being the work horse behind the scenes.  They are truly the athletes of the film industry and love what they do.  Most people have a perception of stunt people as aspiring actors trying to make a living on their way to something better, and while there are some who wish for that, most have worked all their lives to become the best at a skill that they can capitalize on in the film industry by doing it on screen.  Most accept the fact that it is a thankless job, but the Academy has not done their part in recognizing the people who make up a large part of the film community - the part that is responsible for creating some of the most memorable moments on screen and filling theaters with adrenaline hungry audiences.

It's not that the Academy is not aware of this discrepancy in giving credit where it's due, or that the stunt community has not made it known.  Jack Gill, a renowned stunt coordinator has been working on the problem for over 20 years to no avail.  The first reason the Academy denied the request was because they said they don't want to add another branch (like hair/make-up, sound design, acting, directing, etc.) because it will make an already long program even longer.  So the stunt community offered to be on the untelevised segment; to walk the red carpet before the media shows up and to get an award at a separate event all together, but the Academy denied that request as well.

As everyone knows, the Academy Awards has been a program that has been going down hill for years now.  Someone always hates the host and everyone complains of the length of the program.  They are constantly making attempts to get a younger viewership by getting younger hosts, such as Anne Hathaway and James Franco, and recently Seth MacFarlane, but with little success.  Wouldn't adding a stunt category give the Oscars the exciting bump they need to keep things interesting while at the same time recognizing an incredibly talented group of people?

Please comment!

Student-Athletes Get the Short End of this Deal

 Huge schools like USC make millions upon millions showcasing their athletes on national television, selling their jerseys in student stores, and reaping the benefits of their performance on the grand stage, but the athletes get very little in return.  

A large factor for many people going to a school is not just their academics, but also their athletics. Students want to attend a school with an attractive athletic program because it creates a fun college atmosphere.  My sister is a high school senior and was just recently accepted into several schools around the country.  Of course academics is the most important factor to her her decision making process, but another large part of her decision is the athletics program at the school.  It's not that she actually cares about football or basketball, but a strong athletic program bredes a strong school spirit.  The so-called "Trojan Family" at USC is a result of the strong athletic program, but it reaches into the work place as well creating a strong student atmosphere. 

So they use these athletes to essentially bolster their school in every way, but don’t give the athletes any monetary reward for doing so. Scholarships are great but one of my best friends is on a full scholarship and he literally lives from stipend check to stipend check just to get by. He’s devoted his entire college experience to being an athlete. He became a kinesiology major because it was supposed to be easier to get through, which he now greatly regrets as a senior more interested in entrepreneurship and design. Because he is so consumed with practice, meetings, weight training, and occasional homework, he rarely has time to socialize with me or any of his other friends, and when he does he literally can’t afford to do anything because he is always so strapped for cash. It’s not that he is lazy and refuses to work, but actually doesn’t have the time for a job. Like every other athlete at a major university, his sport is his job, and the only one making money from his work is that same university.

Why Not Go Green?

     As a non-smoker of marijuana who favors the legalization of the drug, I feel obligated to express my reasons for my opinion, sort of in the way a non-gay person might support gay marriage, since this is one of those issues that seems not to greatly affect those not involved.  In a recent post, blogger Eric Matthews writes:

     "All the people who say [marijuana] legalization will help America are just ignorant and uniformed. Tax revenue would be offset by higher social costs, increased usage would be a huge burden on the criminal justice system and legalization would do nothing to stop drug cartels from continuing their operation."

     While this is wrong on so many levels, the quote itself is ignorant and uninformed, but as a supporter of legalization, I am neither.  The bottom line is that the law is not stopping anyone who wants to smoke marijuana from doing it.  If I wanted to light up I literally know several people I could call anytime to get it.  For the people who don't smoke, like me, it's not because of the illegality of it, it's most likely because they just don't like to smoke it for one reason or another.

     Everyone knows the staggering statistics that the state pays to combat minor crimes like possession and use of marijuana as well as the violent war on drugs to keep out Mexican drug cartels.  Why not make the drug legal, stop cartels, and make a little coin by taxing the hell out it while we're at it.  We arrest over 750,000 people a year just for possession.

    Legalization would allow American companies to step in and compete for the business, driving cost down and cartels out.  Teens who want to smoke marijuana already do, and I'm not encouraging that, but legalization would make teens less likely to use and sell marijuana.  The sheer illegality of marijuana gives it value among teens, allowing them to capitalize on the opportunity to sell it to their peers.  Of course teenage use of alcohol and tobacco remain serious public health problems even though they're legal for adults, but the availability of alcohol and tobacco is not made worse by providing kids with economic incentives to sell either one to their friends.

     The bottom line is it doesn't cost the non-user anything, and we only have positive things to gain from the legalization.  If you don't want to smoke weed, nobody will force you too, just like how you don't have to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. In fact, marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes AND alcohol.

Theaters are here to stay… for now

In the last decade as the entertainment industry has began a drastic digital transformation, constant claims have been made about how the theater system as we know it will vanish.  One bold blogger for The Wrap states,

           

 “Movie theaters are going to go away.  There are currently about 6,000 theaters in the U.S. containing nearly 40,000 screens. In 10 years there will be under 1,000 and in 15, under 100. And we won’t miss them… I choose to accept and embrace the idea that theatrical will be entirely irrelevant for studio films within 10 years. Especially for blockbusters. With no less speed and much greater impact than 3D, the coming metamorphosis will not only provide a superior and untethered AV experience, it will enhance the communal aspect of ‘moviegoing’ to an almost unimaginable level.”

-Mark Lipsky

I call bull.  There’s something people love about the theater as much as the film they are there to see, and that’s the experience of coming together with 300 strangers to go on a journey together.  In a way it’s like church – you don’t just go for the message you go for the community.  Indeed those messages, or movies, are getting weaker in some senses (see previous blog on Hollywood crap), but to say that the home audio-visual experience will be superior to the average theater with a 50-foot projection screen and 6 channels of professional surround sound is STUPID.  In the last ten years the only change in my home AV experience has been from a ~40” plasma screen in the living room to a 56” LCD TV that recently took its place.  Tell me how in ten years time that situation could possibly evolve into something better than the movie-going experience.

The next thing Lipsky spews is that this evolution will “enhance the communal aspect of ‘moviegoing’ to an almost unimaginable level.”  I can imagine a whole lot Mr. Lipsky, so given that I imagine that my TV gets transformed into my own private multiplex in the next decade, tell me how I’m going to cram 300 of my closest friends into my living room for a more “communal” moviegoing experience.  I’m not.  And neither is the rest of the moviegoing public, not in the next ten years anyway.

My last beef with this ignorant splurge is that Lipsky says that theatrical will be entirely irrelevant for blockbusters and other studio films.  In 2012 the box office grossed over 10.9billion dollars… UP 6.5% from the year before.  I’m curious to see how exactly Lipsky sees that number magically dropping to a number that is “irrelevant” for studios within ten years’ time. 

The road ahead for exhibitors isn’t all roses, but it’s not the complete transformation that Lipsky paints the picture of above.  Undoubtedly, theaters need to become nicer and perhaps start incorporating restaurants and bars in them to draw more of a crowd.  Sure YouTube, Netflix, and home theaters draw some mild attention away from the theaters, but I don’t know anybody rushing to their living room when they want a change of scenery and a show to get their mind off things.

Comment below!

America: Land of the Free… to Watch 13 Hours of Television in One Sitting While Drinking an Entire Case of Beer and Eating Three Big Macs

Just over a month ago Netflix released its new 13 episode series titled “House of Cards” – all at once.  Finally, Americans can watch shows in the same way they eat their food and drink their alcohol – in droves. 

Many are claiming that this groundbreaking new release method is an attempt to change the way we watch television shows, while Netflix claims it simply allows people to watch shows at their own pace.  Regardless, the perceived result of this release model is that most people are watching several episodes in one sitting, coining a new term called“binge-watching.  

In reality, Netflix is not causing this style of viewing, but just rather the first company to adapt to it, since this is how many people watch television shows already.  This release model is fueling the even more concerning problem of the mass consumption habits of Americans.

            College students are undoubtedly dead center on the target demographic for a show like “House of Cards.”  The show, however, is also aimed at a much wider audience as well. This audience is one that doesn’t have time to set aside every weeknight to watch their favorite television shows when they air for the first time.  David Fincher, the director of the first two episodes and also an execute producer for the series, says, “The world of 7:30 on Tuesday nights, that’s dead.  A stake has been driven through its heart, its head has been cut off, and its mouth stuffed with garlic.  The captive audience is gone.  If you give people this opportunity to mainline all in one day, there’s reason to believe that they will do it.”  While a stake might not have been driven through that release model’s heart, it is a quickly evaporating audience who still waits for the weekly airing of their favorite show.  When I talk to my peers in college about what they did over the weekend a common response will be something to the effect of “I took it easy and watched two seasons of ‘Breaking Bad,’” or “I watched an entire season of ‘The Wire.’”  I indulged in the binge-viewing craze myself last winter break when I had a cold and watched the whole first season of “Game of Thrones” in just two days.

            Since the world has been introduced to streaming content, fewer people watch television in the traditional sense.  The writer of “House of Cards,” Beau Willimon, states: “Streaming is the future.  TV will not be TV in five years from now… everyone will be streaming.”  This furthers the statement that Netflix is not creating the binge-watcher, but rather perpetuating it.  They are the first to release all episodes of a major television show at once, but by doing so they are just fueling an over-indulgent American mentality that already exists.

            Netflix release model for “House of Cards” is essentially capitalizing on the perceived over-indulgent, “super-size-me-mentality” of most Americans.  By releasing all episodes at once, and making nearly 13 hours of content available in an instant, Netflix is banking on American’s inability to delay gratification.  This is a highly bankable idea considering the way Americans consume food, the way they consume alcohol, and the way they have begun to consume their media.  Some is good, more is better.

            Everyone knows the consequences of over-eating are becoming obese.  Binge drinking leads to poor decision making in the short-term and long-term health problems.  But in this 21^st century, technology plagued time that we live now live in, what will be the effects of binge consuming media?  Netflix is not the first to put out potential commercial break advertisers by being subscription based like HBO or Showtime, they are certainly putting pressure on advertisers to become more creative in their attempts to reach consumers.  However, just because the streaming “House of Cards” is commercial free doesn’t mean it’s free of advertisements.  Apple, Blackberry, Sony, and Nike are just a few of the brands that I have noticed being deliberately placed in frame. 

            Apart from the advertising world, how will binge viewing affect the average Joe and Jane?  Of course excessive television can melt your brain, but what’s the worst that can come from occasionally zoning out for a few days to watch a TV series?  It seems many of the long and short term effects of binge-viewing have remained to be seen, but all I know is my roommate hasn’t come out of his room since last semester when he got a Netflix account… maybe it’s time to check on him.

Argue or contribute below – both are welcome.

Guys Have Nipples Too

            During a recent period of cogitation, I began to notice how flawed the rating system is in America.  Some movies are overly violent for a simple PG-13 rating, where as others are hardly as bad, yet they get slapped with R ratings or worse.  Thinking of what can and can’t be shown in a PG-13 movie, I began to wonder why breasts can’t be shown in a PG-13 film. 

            Before doing any research the only film I could think of that showed a woman’s breasts and had a PG-13 rating was Titanic.  After more extensive research, Titanic really is just one of few films that have gotten away with a PG-13 rating after showing breasts.  Why can men take their shirts off in a film but not a woman? After all, guys have nipples too, and some really fat guys have sagging sacks of fat on their chest just like women (unfortunately).  The root of the matter is that breasts are seen as sexual body parts, and men are attracted to them - but why?  What an odd, random part of a woman’s body to be attracted to – not elbows or knee caps (though I’m sure there are some freaks out there who can prove that statement wrong), but random sacks of fat on a woman’s chest.  I imagine a small part of the reason is cultural, but part of it must also be that back in the day, we saw hips and butt as a way to carry and deliver our child, and breasts as a way to feed them, causing a natural attraction to those specific features.  So what’s the big deal with showing them in films?

            In Europe boobs are a non-issue, as they should be.  They have nude beaches, topless poster boards in public areas, and are generally just much less prude as Americans are on the issue of nudity.  To be clear I’m talking about nudity, not sexuality, which in this context are vastly different things.  A scene in a movie showing a topless woman on a beach is nudity.  A scene showing a topless woman being fondled and having sex is the latter.

              It’s not that I want to see more boobs in movies, it’s actually something contrary: to me, showing a woman’s breast is far less of an adult matter than showing some of the violence and strong themes in some PG-13 films today.  While I don’t think movie violence directly correlates to causing real violence, as I’ve stated in an earlier blog post, I still believe the rating system as a whole needs a serious overhaul.  The first film that comes to mind is Taken.  The film is full of heavy violence as a pissed-off Liam Neeson gallivants through Europe brutally murdering people in a quest to save his daughter who was violently abducted by a human and drug trafficking cartel before being sold into sex-slavery.  After seeing that movie a few years back, I still don’t want my sister going to any foreign countries, and my own first thoughts about travelling abroad are to make sure I don’t wake up in a bathtub full of ice with no kidneys – because after seeing Taken, I totally believe that stuff happens.         

            Now, seeing some exciting movie violence is all fun and swell when you’re seeing an action movie, but drug trafficking and sex slavery are some of heavy topics to take up with your 13-year-old son on the drive home from the local theater.  If I’m that parent taking my 13-year-old son to a film, I would much rather him see a woman’s bare chest and have him be thinking about that on the ride home, rather than the real-life subject of selling women into brutal sex-slavery rings.  So while I personally don’t have a problem with the actual violence of Liam Neeson kicking some ass (honestly, who doesn’t enjoy that), I do have a problem with films that carry such intense themes.

            The flip side to the problem of underrating films is overrating them.  I recently saw Blue Valentine, a film that was initially given a rating of NC-17.  The rating is a death sentence for films because it doesn’t allow anyone under the age of 17 to see the film, even with an adult.  What’s worse though, is that it can’t even play in big theater chains and it isn’t allowed to show trailers on television or put ads in the paper.  This condemns the film to small art house theaters where the film will undoubtedly tank.  To be honest, I’m not a fan of the NC-17 rating at all.  If the film is over the top, just make it R, and if the movie is super intense, you’ll know well before you set foot in the theater or take your 16-year-old kid to see it.  When was the last time you saw a movie without reading a single review or having any prior notion of what it’s about? My guess is never, because nobody wants to fork over 13 bucks without knowing what they're getting themselves into.  If you think it will be too intense, don’t see it, and if it gets too intense while you’re in the theater already, walk out, get your money back, and go see Smurfs!  

              I digress… Blue Valentine was very emotionally taxing, but it was rated NC-17 for a single scene where a husband goes down on his wife – both of whom have most of their clothes on the entire time.  This pales in comparison to the absolutely BRUTAL rape scene in David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.  Fincher is one of my top three favorite directors, but this scene is hard to watch.  Speaking of my younger sister, I saw this film with her when it came out and I wanted to cover her eyes – she’s 18 and can legally see whatever the hell she wants, but still.  This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of making Dragon Tattoo NC-17, but just that Blue Valentine definitely didn’t deserve to be in the first place.  Eventually the rating was overturned and Blue Valentine was made R.  Which brings me back to my point that showing breasts is far less offensive or mature as showing intense themes.

            To wrap this up, I would have to repeat the fact that America needs a new rating system – one that is fair and honest, and doesn’t kill the films that are deemed too edgy, but instead rates them on their themes and how they use violence, language and nudity, rather than blindly conforming to a checklist.  But until then I would guess we won’t be seeing many boobies on the big screen and I suppose we have America’s square, puritan, Pilgrim founders to blame. 

          Comment below – I’d love to hear what you think and I might even respond.

Movies Don't Cause Gun Violence!

            The Second Amendment is currently under some of the most concentrated scrutiny it has ever received since our founding fathers wrote it.  The right to bear arms is without doubt one of the most widely interpreted and debated writings of our Constitution.  Now, in the wake of several more American tragedies including the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting, people are looking for someone to blame – and who could be a better target than the folks in Hollywood who create more and more films as the years go by that are loaded with gun violence.  In a recent interview, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman openly blames the entertainment industry for the recent tragedies:

            "The violence in the entertainment culture – particularly, with the extraordinary realism to video games, movies now, et cetera – does cause vulnerable young men to be more violent.  It doesn’t make everybody more violent, but it’s a causative factor in some cases."

-Sen. Lieberman

            The simple fact of the matter is, and I am not the first to say it, that movies don’t cause violence, video games don’t cause violence, even guns don’t cause violence.  PEOPLE CAUSE VIOLENCE.

            Now, use me as an example: I grew up watching violent movies, playing violent video games, and now I even make violent movies of my own sometimes.  But I promise you if you stuck me in an elementary schoolyard during recess with a loaded AK-47, I would not shoot anyone.  That’s because I’m not mentally ill and I was taught how to properly handle a gun when I was young.  At my grandfather’s house to this day the rifle is on the wall, the shotgun is in the corner and the ammunition is in the kitchen drawer, yet nobody in the family has gone on a killing spree.  The problem isn’t in the movies or video games, it’s in the education of how to be a good human – aka parenting.           

            The worst part about the whole problem is that now the government feels like they have to take some sort of action to appease the people. Their solution is to make more laws prohibiting more guns, but this was tried in the past with the 1994 Ban on Assault Weapons, with relatively no success.   The only people that laws affect are law-abiding citizens!  That means the government is taking the guns out of the hands of the people who use them correctly and leaving them in the hands of the criminals.  Laws don’t stop criminals from doing what they want to do. Cocaine is illegal, heroine is illegal, marijuana is illegal (kinda), but if right now I had some insatiable urge to go shoot some heroine I can promise you I wouldn’t have too much of a problem finding some… Oh, but it’s illegal. So is breaking every other law, from speeding to murder, yet people who want to do those things do them regardless of the fact that that the government writes down that they are not supposed to.  No matter how illegal you make guns, people who want to shoot other people will still get them.

            This does not mean I encourage a no rules free-for-all when it comes to buying guns.  There should be more in-depth background checks, longer cooling-off periods, and things like that to make it harder for people who may end up crazy to get their hands on a deadly weapon.  But strictly banning types of guns that some government official deems more dangerous than the next just won’t do it.

            This started with the influence of movies on the people who commit violent acts, but quickly turned into my own commentary on the matter so, I digress as I wrap this up.  Movies are entertainment and those who see them as more than just that are missing the point.  You go to the movies to escape real life. That is the base assumption every time someone sets foot in the theater to view a violent action film and the number one reason people go to the movies – to experience something artificial.  Rational people who have been raised to respect guns and respect the fragility of life are not influenced by these films. So by all means lets find a solution to the problem, but the answer is NOT to take guns away from the people who follow laws and the answer is NOT to stop making a genre of films.

-Wallace West, 10 Feb. 2013