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.