In the wake of several responses to my Firing Squad about Dance Marathon, I wanted to clarify a few things.
First, I don't have any doubts about the immensely positive impact that DM has had on many charities throughout the years. DM has undoubtedly "made a difference," to use the cliche.
Second, I do not dislike DM in principle. It manages to bring a relatively large portion of the campus together — this year, 750 students are dancing, in addition to a myriad of production and planning crew. I have several friends and acquaintances in DM, and I appreciate the hundreds of hours they work to make DM happen each year. And it's pretty cool when you get inside. The production — the lighting, sets, food, music, etc. are top notch — not to mention all the lead-up work that comes before the actual marathon. Canning and events such as the DM Date Auction are very visible and effective fund-raising tools every year. I am glad I danced in DM my freshman year, and I'm lucky to have had the opportunity to photograph it extensively the following year.
But, I don't think that it is perfect. Nothing is. And I feel that criticism of DM gets shoved under the rug. I know plenty of people have criticisms and dislikes about it. I've discussed them on several occasions. But when voiced publicly, one risks being labeled un-giving, lazy or un-empathetic (towards children, no less!).
I think it's unfortunate that such a generally positive organization on our campus is so uncomfortable with occasional criticism and debate.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Fact checking the Jena Six
For Cody Kittle's column and Jesse X. Yang's letter about the Jena Six, the Forum desk spent close to two hours trying to figure out the underlying facts of the case.
The Jena Six is inherently a controversial issue, and we tried to validate every fact of the case that the writers cited. This proved to be a momentously difficult task. Different details of the case are flung across the far corners of the internet – both on reliable sources such as the Washington Post and on obviously slanted activist Web sites. There is no single place where every facet of the situation can be located, and it seemed almost every bit of evidence was directly contradicted somewhere else.
Regardless of one's opinion about the Jena Six, the only clear truth arising from the story is that the whole truth will probably never be known. Does that mean we should not care about and not debate complex issues such as this? No. It just reinforces the need to do the best one can to understand and foster intelligent debate instead of mere hearsay and rumor-mongering.
The Jena Six is inherently a controversial issue, and we tried to validate every fact of the case that the writers cited. This proved to be a momentously difficult task. Different details of the case are flung across the far corners of the internet – both on reliable sources such as the Washington Post and on obviously slanted activist Web sites. There is no single place where every facet of the situation can be located, and it seemed almost every bit of evidence was directly contradicted somewhere else.
Regardless of one's opinion about the Jena Six, the only clear truth arising from the story is that the whole truth will probably never be known. Does that mean we should not care about and not debate complex issues such as this? No. It just reinforces the need to do the best one can to understand and foster intelligent debate instead of mere hearsay and rumor-mongering.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
My first real letter!
A few weeks ago I wrote on the issue of gay marriage in the upcoming presidential election, and more broadly, gay rights in general. Today, the Forum editor tells me I've got a real, tangible letter addressed to me, a thick envelope with my name scrawled on it. After joking that it was probably anthrax or a bomb, I cracked it open and found inside...a bunch of pamphlets for Homosexuals Anonymous. An organization that, as their website claims, is "a fellowship of men and women, who through their common emotional experience, have chosen to help each other live in freedom from homosexuality."
Needless to say I found this profoundly hilarious and flaunted it around the Daily offices. According to the website, they're almost ten grand in debt since apparently, being homophobic doesn't pay the bills. Oh well.
Needless to say I found this profoundly hilarious and flaunted it around the Daily offices. According to the website, they're almost ten grand in debt since apparently, being homophobic doesn't pay the bills. Oh well.
Monday, January 28, 2008
One more thing...
I just got this email from Mr. Yang. I found it to serve as some comic relief in this debacle and also an example of what a little clarification can do to a difference of opinion. I have also corrected the gender references in my blog.
Mr. Kittle,
I respect your blog response except for your huge lack of research in an aspect I find to be very important. I am not in fact a Miss Yang. I am a Mr. Yang. Next time, I hope you check your facts. Otherwise, I respect your opinion.
--
Jesse X. Yang
Mr. Kittle,
I respect your blog response except for your huge lack of research in an aspect I find to be very important. I am not in fact a Miss Yang. I am a Mr. Yang. Next time, I hope you check your facts. Otherwise, I respect your opinion.
--
Jesse X. Yang
Myths of the Jena 6
What a scathing letter from Jesse Yang.
I would have loved to address some of the other media myths that have been spread by people like Yang but because I am limited to only 500 words in my column, I'll deal with the rest now.
First of all it should be noted that Yang has no sources in her guest column. With that said let us tear her points apart one by one. I'm going to reference an article written by the associate editor of the Jena Times entitled "Media Myths about the Jena 6." He is the only reporter who has been covering the incidents in Jena since the begining and his wife is a teacher at the highschool. He has more insight than I or Mr. Yang into the matter. A link to the article can be found here.
"A day after black students asked to sit under a tree known to be "whites only," three nooses hung from that same tree. I will let the reader decide whether he can believe this to be a harmless prank gone horribly wrong. Those students who hung the nooses were only given an in-school suspension."
"Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class."
"Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events."
Note the independent investigations from the school, the police, the FBI, and the distrcit attorney.
Also note that it was way more than an in school suspension and that there were two nooses (Yang cannot even grasp the basic facts).
"Two months later, a black student by the name of Robert Bailey walked into a mostly white dance hall and was attacked by six to seven white men, at least one of whom had a beer bottle. Only one of those white students would be charged with battery and given probation."
"Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.
The attacker was also treated properly, given the punishment for hitting someone with a fist.
"Two days later, Bailey is confronted by one of the white students at a gas station. After having an unloaded shotgun pulled on him by the white student, Bailey and two friends are able to wrestle the gun away. Bailey was charged with theft of a firearm."
Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident. On Dec. 2, 2006, Bailey and two other black Jena High students were involved in an altercation at this local convenience store, stemming from the incident that occurred the night before. The three were accused by police of jumping a white man as he entered the store and stealing a shotgun from him. The two parties gave conflicting statements to police. However, two unrelated eye witnesses of the event gave statements that corresponded with that of the white male.
"Even if a truly awful person is wrongly convicted of murder, shouldn't we as a society still fight for their freedom despite our reservations? Thus, we of the NU Coalition to Free the Jena Six feel that these young men have already been punished enough for their actions (expulsion from school and one year's jail time already) and that they deserve to finally be rid of this ordeal."
This is a ridiculous statement. If an awful person is convicted of a crime they did commit, then they should be prosecuted for the crime. It is a contradiction to say you do not condone the Jena 6's actions but then to suggest that their freedom should be fought for.
I'd like to thank everyone who sent emails in support of what one person called "the pursuit of truth." People need to free their egos from false information and pursue truth to the best of their ability.
I would have loved to address some of the other media myths that have been spread by people like Yang but because I am limited to only 500 words in my column, I'll deal with the rest now.
First of all it should be noted that Yang has no sources in her guest column. With that said let us tear her points apart one by one. I'm going to reference an article written by the associate editor of the Jena Times entitled "Media Myths about the Jena 6." He is the only reporter who has been covering the incidents in Jena since the begining and his wife is a teacher at the highschool. He has more insight than I or Mr. Yang into the matter. A link to the article can be found here.
"A day after black students asked to sit under a tree known to be "whites only," three nooses hung from that same tree. I will let the reader decide whether he can believe this to be a harmless prank gone horribly wrong. Those students who hung the nooses were only given an in-school suspension."
"Myth 1: The Whites-Only Tree. There has never been a "whites-only" tree at Jena High School. Students of all races sat underneath this tree. When a student asked during an assembly at the start of school last year if anyone could sit under the tree, it evoked laughter from everyone present – blacks and whites. As reported by students in the assembly, the question was asked to make a joke and to drag out the assembly and avoid class."
"Myth 2: Nooses a Signal to Black Students. An investigation by school officials, police, and an FBI agent revealed the true motivation behind the placing of two nooses in the tree the day after the assembly. According to the expulsion committee, the crudely constructed nooses were not aimed at black students. Instead, they were understood to be a prank by three white students aimed at their fellow white friends, members of the school rodeo team. (The students apparently got the idea from watching episodes of "Lonesome Dove.") The committee further concluded that the three young teens had no knowledge that nooses symbolize the terrible legacy of the lynchings of countless blacks in American history. When informed of this history by school officials, they became visibly remorseful because they had many black friends. Another myth concerns their punishment, which was not a three-day suspension, but rather nine days at an alternative facility followed by two weeks of in-school suspension, Saturday detentions, attendance at Discipline Court, and evaluation by licensed mental-health professionals. The students who hung the nooses have not publicly come forward to give their version of events."
Note the independent investigations from the school, the police, the FBI, and the distrcit attorney.
Also note that it was way more than an in school suspension and that there were two nooses (Yang cannot even grasp the basic facts).
"Two months later, a black student by the name of Robert Bailey walked into a mostly white dance hall and was attacked by six to seven white men, at least one of whom had a beer bottle. Only one of those white students would be charged with battery and given probation."
"Myth 5: The Fair Barn Party Incident. On Dec. 1, 2006, a private party – not an all-white party as reported – was held at the local community center called the Fair Barn. Robert Bailey Jr., soon to be one of the Jena 6, came to the party with others seeking admittance.
When they were denied entrance by the renter of the facility, a white male named Justin Sloan (not a Jena High student) at the party attacked Bailey and hit him in the face with his fist. This is reported in witness statements to police, including the victim, Robert Bailey, Jr.
Months later, Bailey contended he was hit in the head with a beer bottle and required stitches. No medical records show this ever occurred. Mr. Sloan was prosecuted for simple battery, which according to Louisiana law, is the proper charge for hitting someone with a fist."
The attacker was also treated properly, given the punishment for hitting someone with a fist.
"Two days later, Bailey is confronted by one of the white students at a gas station. After having an unloaded shotgun pulled on him by the white student, Bailey and two friends are able to wrestle the gun away. Bailey was charged with theft of a firearm."
Myth 6: The "Gotta-Go" Grocery Incident. On Dec. 2, 2006, Bailey and two other black Jena High students were involved in an altercation at this local convenience store, stemming from the incident that occurred the night before. The three were accused by police of jumping a white man as he entered the store and stealing a shotgun from him. The two parties gave conflicting statements to police. However, two unrelated eye witnesses of the event gave statements that corresponded with that of the white male.
"Even if a truly awful person is wrongly convicted of murder, shouldn't we as a society still fight for their freedom despite our reservations? Thus, we of the NU Coalition to Free the Jena Six feel that these young men have already been punished enough for their actions (expulsion from school and one year's jail time already) and that they deserve to finally be rid of this ordeal."
This is a ridiculous statement. If an awful person is convicted of a crime they did commit, then they should be prosecuted for the crime. It is a contradiction to say you do not condone the Jena 6's actions but then to suggest that their freedom should be fought for.
I'd like to thank everyone who sent emails in support of what one person called "the pursuit of truth." People need to free their egos from false information and pursue truth to the best of their ability.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
On Tuesday's column regarding film violence
I got blasted with some righteous hate mail on my column about film violence, which actually made me sit back and go, "Wow." I would have been content with a simple "Smokin' Aces ruled, asshole" or "You're a moron, moron" but this guy really went all out...so I guess I'm going to respond.
When I read this column today, I was enflamed with the particular rage one feels when one encounters unrelenting stupidity. Mr. Gordan, you have demonstrated that you clearly have no conceptual grasp of film criticism or film theory. In this commentator's opinion, your argument is either non-existent or so vaguely defined that it becomes apparent that you lack any sort of intellectual aptitude.
This guy has a pretty great grasp on hyperbole. I'd be impressed if I wasn't supposed to be offended.
For instance, you say that "when "The Departed" won best picture, maybe serious filmmakers subconsciously realized that over-the-top violence had gone as far it could go" and that "they would have to get smaller and more serious". This claim lacks any sort of logical coherence; it is unbecoming that you choose to represent Northwestern University in this way. For starters, when a film wins best picture at the Oscars, or if it receives any sort of critical and/or commercial success, 99 times out of 100 it will then be emulated by other filmmakers. I could list numerous examples, but I am sure someone such as yourself, so well enlightened in the study of film history, needs no such citation.
The problem with your point is that you bring up film history, citing that "when a film wins best picture at the Oscars...it will then be emulated by other filmmakers," when a) I did not point to a general trend of best picture winners not influencing subsequent films and b) I never indicated The Departed was an influential movie. It's a remake of a few other movies that is also a remake of other Scorsese movies - I'm sorry, but I don't see what world you're living in that The Departed will be a massively influential film, considering that it didn't break any new ground and could be argued as a reiteration/hodge-podge of several films that had come before. So that's the problem with your argument on that. I am not doubting that critically acclaimed movies influence other filmmakers. In fact, I directly brought up one that did: Pulp Fiction. So your attack is both baseless (you're insulting me for something I never said) and to me, incorrect (since I don't think The Departed will have any lasting influence - it was merely the most acceptable film in a weak year).
Furthermore, I could elaborate on the fact that your claim that a particular genre or niche "had gone as far it could go" is incessantly problematic in that anyone with an understanding of film history, or of the history of storytelling itself, knows that such patterns in narrative and style never reach some define destination point. Rather, they are constantly altered and adjusted to tell the same stories in different ways. One could merely look to the recently released "Cloverfield" to know what I am talking about. I could elaborate more, but I am sure a film connoisseur such as yourself knows precisely what I have in mind.
I suppose I could have a "at this point in time" to the end of the quote you pulled out there. Yes, I realize that media is largely cyclical. Westerns used to be big, then people stopped liking them, then people started liking them again. I would think up more examples, but I am a film idiot, like you imply - it is better for you to assume that I don't know anything. However, consider that a) I was talking about 2007 and b) I did not predict the future. Had I said something like, "Exploitative violence has gone as far as it can go forever, until the end of time" then you would be right in calling me an idiot. But come on, point out a 2007 film that was shock value and over-the-top and tell me it didn't suck. It is very probable that we will see a revival on the sensationalist films I talk about in the future...which is fine with me, because it hasn't happened yet.
Moving on to, perhaps, even more troubling areas of your elevated prose, one must evaluate each of your examples. In critiquing the cinema of "mindless violence", you cite a film that is nearly 10 years old, an obscure film that faded from public consciousness a month after it was released, and a highly acclaimed film/set of films by one of the most heralded directors of the last two decades. By doing so, you select a sample of three films from the last 10 years that, I assume, is intended to prove your point (whatever that may be). Disregarding the fact that this was a highly arbitrary system of choosing your sample, may I ask if these were the best three examples you could come up with? You choose not to talk about films such as the "Saw", "Hostel", and "The Hills Have Eyes" series. Citing these blood-drenched spectacles (so-called 'torture-porn') would have actually credited your column with a sliver of validity. What a shame.
Critic, are you a magician? Do you keep all of your thoughts in a magic stone bowl, where you can pluck and pick from your memories like strands of cotton candy? Critic, I do not attend Hogwarts, and when looking for examples, I tossed out three that immediately came to me because I wasn't grasping for straws - those are THREE films among many that fit the point. I brought up Kill Bill, the Boondock Saints, and Smokin' Aces. Smokin' Aces sucked. We can accept that. As for obscure, do you forget that it played at NU last year in Norris Center? Or maybe you don't go to Northwestern, I don't know. But it played here, (possibly) sold out (since it was free), and a lot of people I know saw it. It was an example a chunk of the NU student body would be familiar with. The Boondock Saints sucked too, but it fits my point - it was a rehash of Tarantino-style filmmaking, and it has not faded from public consciousness. One of my friends' roommates had a poster of it in his room. My roommate has a poster of it in our room. We quabble about this sometimes. As for Kill Bill...come on, even a film wizard like you could see that a) all of the violence is mainly for shock (the Crazy 88 gorefest being the most prominent example) and b) it is a straight rip-off of a ton of other movies (which discredits it as offering anything more than mindless action). It rips off Lady Snowbird (or whatever the name of the film the fight with Lucy Liu cops from), A Fistful of Dollars, basically whatever Tarantino wanted to rip off. Did you think I chose Kill Bill because it offended me with its blood? Please, if you can argue that as an original/intellectually worthwhile movie, then I salute you. But I've strayed from my point.
I could have brought up Shoot 'Em Up (I can't believe I didn't). I could have brought up Equilibrium (actually, that movie was kind of badass. Never mind). I could have brought up Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. Why didn't I? Well, because either they didn't come to mind at the time, or I didn't want to fill up the column by namedropping films. Do you know how bad multiple quotation marks look in a newspaper column? They look bad. I don't need to come up with a billion examples to support an argument that is fundamentally sound in my mind.
Lastly, one must examine your arguments against Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd" picture. You say that, if the film were to win Best Picture, it would be a "step backward" (I've already said how such linear thinking is of a sophomoric quality). The violence is "exploitative", you say. A snuff film, one of your intellect, might claim. Such claims would be incalcuably idiotic and have no bearing in reality.
Aha! Now it is you who is the idiot! I never said that Sweeney Todd would be a step backward - in fact, I said it would be a step forward towards the exploitative violence that has been pervasive in film since Pulp Fiction. It is you who are interpreting my words the wrong way.
Consider the evidence: "Todd" contains, at most, three to four minutes of bloodshed. That's out of a running time of about two hours - a sizably small percentage (you don't have to calculate it; I know you're a journalism major - or a journalist, if someone of your renown would prefer). Secondly, much of the violence is presented in a realistic manner - just look at Todd's initial murder of Sacha Baron Cohen's character, the killing of the homeless woman, and Todd's own death. For the stylized deaths, they reflect the bizarre psychology of the main lead - witness the climactic killing of the corrupt judge, in which Todd, and the blood itself, seem to relish in the unholy beauty of the scene. Contrast this with the death of the seemingly insignificant woman who is, in actuality, someone of extreme importance - that death is presented in a coldly nonchalant (you would say that it "came out of nowhere") manner. The violence and blood, therefore, actually have a significant stake in the telling of the narrative. I know it may take a little while for your brain to comprehend such creative thinking, so I will stop there.
Oh puh-lease. Todd's death is realistic? A little kid perfectly slashes his throat and Todd falls into a perfect pose, bleeding from the neck over his dead wife. Killing of the homeless woman? Again, Todd perfectly slices her neck, bright red blood perfectly seeps down in an even flow, and she falls down. That is about as realistic as you making an argument that doesn't assume a bunch of crap. I suppose I should have specified that I was talking about that ridiculous montage in which Todd kills a dozen or so people in the same manner while singing (or something, I forget since I was trying not to vomit) - endless shots of people getting stabbed in the neck, people shooting blood out of their neck, people falling down, over and over again! That is a ridiculous scene. It is over-the-top and stupid. I will never agree with you that four minutes of people getting killed in the same manner is either important or meaningful.
As for the themes behind it, I concede that your point could be right, but the violence of Sweeney Todd is not why I hated the movie. That is an argument for another day.
In laying out these arguments against you, I hope you have learned something. While I don't have a stake in your personal enlightment, I sincerely hope you do not punish the readers of this publication with your unadulterated word vomit any longer. The line "we will see if violence can be violent again" is incredibly negligent in light of a higher education.
If anything, please return to writing of how you spent your winter break at Taco Bell. That, at least, was unoffensive drivel.
At this point, that is the very best you can aspire to.
The only thing I've learned is that I can't make any generalizations without some wacko making a bunch of assumptions and generally coming across as a jackass. Hopefully I'll see you at Taco Bell in the future, but don't think you'll be getting any change from me, you crazy ranting homeless man you.
Minor note: On a different level, it is impossible to take someone who insists on being a violent ass seriously at all. If my column was really that offensive to you, then I am amazed - offensive things to me are finding out the Westboro Baptist Church plans on picketing Heath Ledger's funeral, or finding an turd in the communal shower. If you're willing to make judgments about my life so quickly, then I'm going to make the same stretch and assume that you don't have much going on in your life if this is the sort of stuff that pisses you off. I would have been more contemplative had you not revealed yourself to be a zealot, so unfortunately all I can do is offer a rebuttal and dismiss you as irrelevant.
When I read this column today, I was enflamed with the particular rage one feels when one encounters unrelenting stupidity. Mr. Gordan, you have demonstrated that you clearly have no conceptual grasp of film criticism or film theory. In this commentator's opinion, your argument is either non-existent or so vaguely defined that it becomes apparent that you lack any sort of intellectual aptitude.
This guy has a pretty great grasp on hyperbole. I'd be impressed if I wasn't supposed to be offended.
For instance, you say that "when "The Departed" won best picture, maybe serious filmmakers subconsciously realized that over-the-top violence had gone as far it could go" and that "they would have to get smaller and more serious". This claim lacks any sort of logical coherence; it is unbecoming that you choose to represent Northwestern University in this way. For starters, when a film wins best picture at the Oscars, or if it receives any sort of critical and/or commercial success, 99 times out of 100 it will then be emulated by other filmmakers. I could list numerous examples, but I am sure someone such as yourself, so well enlightened in the study of film history, needs no such citation.
The problem with your point is that you bring up film history, citing that "when a film wins best picture at the Oscars...it will then be emulated by other filmmakers," when a) I did not point to a general trend of best picture winners not influencing subsequent films and b) I never indicated The Departed was an influential movie. It's a remake of a few other movies that is also a remake of other Scorsese movies - I'm sorry, but I don't see what world you're living in that The Departed will be a massively influential film, considering that it didn't break any new ground and could be argued as a reiteration/hodge-podge of several films that had come before. So that's the problem with your argument on that. I am not doubting that critically acclaimed movies influence other filmmakers. In fact, I directly brought up one that did: Pulp Fiction. So your attack is both baseless (you're insulting me for something I never said) and to me, incorrect (since I don't think The Departed will have any lasting influence - it was merely the most acceptable film in a weak year).
Furthermore, I could elaborate on the fact that your claim that a particular genre or niche "had gone as far it could go" is incessantly problematic in that anyone with an understanding of film history, or of the history of storytelling itself, knows that such patterns in narrative and style never reach some define destination point. Rather, they are constantly altered and adjusted to tell the same stories in different ways. One could merely look to the recently released "Cloverfield" to know what I am talking about. I could elaborate more, but I am sure a film connoisseur such as yourself knows precisely what I have in mind.
I suppose I could have a "at this point in time" to the end of the quote you pulled out there. Yes, I realize that media is largely cyclical. Westerns used to be big, then people stopped liking them, then people started liking them again. I would think up more examples, but I am a film idiot, like you imply - it is better for you to assume that I don't know anything. However, consider that a) I was talking about 2007 and b) I did not predict the future. Had I said something like, "Exploitative violence has gone as far as it can go forever, until the end of time" then you would be right in calling me an idiot. But come on, point out a 2007 film that was shock value and over-the-top and tell me it didn't suck. It is very probable that we will see a revival on the sensationalist films I talk about in the future...which is fine with me, because it hasn't happened yet.
Moving on to, perhaps, even more troubling areas of your elevated prose, one must evaluate each of your examples. In critiquing the cinema of "mindless violence", you cite a film that is nearly 10 years old, an obscure film that faded from public consciousness a month after it was released, and a highly acclaimed film/set of films by one of the most heralded directors of the last two decades. By doing so, you select a sample of three films from the last 10 years that, I assume, is intended to prove your point (whatever that may be). Disregarding the fact that this was a highly arbitrary system of choosing your sample, may I ask if these were the best three examples you could come up with? You choose not to talk about films such as the "Saw", "Hostel", and "The Hills Have Eyes" series. Citing these blood-drenched spectacles (so-called 'torture-porn') would have actually credited your column with a sliver of validity. What a shame.
Critic, are you a magician? Do you keep all of your thoughts in a magic stone bowl, where you can pluck and pick from your memories like strands of cotton candy? Critic, I do not attend Hogwarts, and when looking for examples, I tossed out three that immediately came to me because I wasn't grasping for straws - those are THREE films among many that fit the point. I brought up Kill Bill, the Boondock Saints, and Smokin' Aces. Smokin' Aces sucked. We can accept that. As for obscure, do you forget that it played at NU last year in Norris Center? Or maybe you don't go to Northwestern, I don't know. But it played here, (possibly) sold out (since it was free), and a lot of people I know saw it. It was an example a chunk of the NU student body would be familiar with. The Boondock Saints sucked too, but it fits my point - it was a rehash of Tarantino-style filmmaking, and it has not faded from public consciousness. One of my friends' roommates had a poster of it in his room. My roommate has a poster of it in our room. We quabble about this sometimes. As for Kill Bill...come on, even a film wizard like you could see that a) all of the violence is mainly for shock (the Crazy 88 gorefest being the most prominent example) and b) it is a straight rip-off of a ton of other movies (which discredits it as offering anything more than mindless action). It rips off Lady Snowbird (or whatever the name of the film the fight with Lucy Liu cops from), A Fistful of Dollars, basically whatever Tarantino wanted to rip off. Did you think I chose Kill Bill because it offended me with its blood? Please, if you can argue that as an original/intellectually worthwhile movie, then I salute you. But I've strayed from my point.
I could have brought up Shoot 'Em Up (I can't believe I didn't). I could have brought up Equilibrium (actually, that movie was kind of badass. Never mind). I could have brought up Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever. Why didn't I? Well, because either they didn't come to mind at the time, or I didn't want to fill up the column by namedropping films. Do you know how bad multiple quotation marks look in a newspaper column? They look bad. I don't need to come up with a billion examples to support an argument that is fundamentally sound in my mind.
Lastly, one must examine your arguments against Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd" picture. You say that, if the film were to win Best Picture, it would be a "step backward" (I've already said how such linear thinking is of a sophomoric quality). The violence is "exploitative", you say. A snuff film, one of your intellect, might claim. Such claims would be incalcuably idiotic and have no bearing in reality.
Aha! Now it is you who is the idiot! I never said that Sweeney Todd would be a step backward - in fact, I said it would be a step forward towards the exploitative violence that has been pervasive in film since Pulp Fiction. It is you who are interpreting my words the wrong way.
Consider the evidence: "Todd" contains, at most, three to four minutes of bloodshed. That's out of a running time of about two hours - a sizably small percentage (you don't have to calculate it; I know you're a journalism major - or a journalist, if someone of your renown would prefer). Secondly, much of the violence is presented in a realistic manner - just look at Todd's initial murder of Sacha Baron Cohen's character, the killing of the homeless woman, and Todd's own death. For the stylized deaths, they reflect the bizarre psychology of the main lead - witness the climactic killing of the corrupt judge, in which Todd, and the blood itself, seem to relish in the unholy beauty of the scene. Contrast this with the death of the seemingly insignificant woman who is, in actuality, someone of extreme importance - that death is presented in a coldly nonchalant (you would say that it "came out of nowhere") manner. The violence and blood, therefore, actually have a significant stake in the telling of the narrative. I know it may take a little while for your brain to comprehend such creative thinking, so I will stop there.
Oh puh-lease. Todd's death is realistic? A little kid perfectly slashes his throat and Todd falls into a perfect pose, bleeding from the neck over his dead wife. Killing of the homeless woman? Again, Todd perfectly slices her neck, bright red blood perfectly seeps down in an even flow, and she falls down. That is about as realistic as you making an argument that doesn't assume a bunch of crap. I suppose I should have specified that I was talking about that ridiculous montage in which Todd kills a dozen or so people in the same manner while singing (or something, I forget since I was trying not to vomit) - endless shots of people getting stabbed in the neck, people shooting blood out of their neck, people falling down, over and over again! That is a ridiculous scene. It is over-the-top and stupid. I will never agree with you that four minutes of people getting killed in the same manner is either important or meaningful.
As for the themes behind it, I concede that your point could be right, but the violence of Sweeney Todd is not why I hated the movie. That is an argument for another day.
In laying out these arguments against you, I hope you have learned something. While I don't have a stake in your personal enlightment, I sincerely hope you do not punish the readers of this publication with your unadulterated word vomit any longer. The line "we will see if violence can be violent again" is incredibly negligent in light of a higher education.
If anything, please return to writing of how you spent your winter break at Taco Bell. That, at least, was unoffensive drivel.
At this point, that is the very best you can aspire to.
The only thing I've learned is that I can't make any generalizations without some wacko making a bunch of assumptions and generally coming across as a jackass. Hopefully I'll see you at Taco Bell in the future, but don't think you'll be getting any change from me, you crazy ranting homeless man you.
Minor note: On a different level, it is impossible to take someone who insists on being a violent ass seriously at all. If my column was really that offensive to you, then I am amazed - offensive things to me are finding out the Westboro Baptist Church plans on picketing Heath Ledger's funeral, or finding an turd in the communal shower. If you're willing to make judgments about my life so quickly, then I'm going to make the same stretch and assume that you don't have much going on in your life if this is the sort of stuff that pisses you off. I would have been more contemplative had you not revealed yourself to be a zealot, so unfortunately all I can do is offer a rebuttal and dismiss you as irrelevant.
Monday, January 21, 2008
On the "evolutionary process" and passing judgements
Yet again I have received some unwarranted criticism for my column Fears of prescribing perfection. A certain “critic” wrote the following:
Also, who are you to decide what makes somebody an 'individual' versus... oh I don't know... suffering? You as an outsider might think, that depressed person doesn't need medication, that's just the way they are, blah blah... to that person, their depression isn't them, it gets in the way of who they are.
Though the critic has a very interesting point, it is meant for a different piece, perhaps something examining the long term effects on the human genome due to the ability of mankind to alleviate disorders and diseases that would normally be fatal. But in the context of my column it is perfectly thought out, if one is willing to read into the context of the phrase “evolutionary process.”
Furthermore the “critic” goes on to criticize my statement that “As we slowly are able to smooth out the inadequacies of ourselves, we will all become more of the same person.” The “critic” finds this to be critical of people who take drugs to alleviate suffering asking “who are you to decide what makes somebody an individual versus…oh I don’t know…suffering?”
First of all, I don’t say what makes someone an individual. Instead I address the idea of “individuality” within society. The idea is very simple, as people are more able to better themselves, they will all approach some kind of standard of perfection. The perfect height, a perfect memory, perfect skin complexion, perfect anything, defined by society’s options. It is a mere observation which I do claim to be possible “extrapolated dystopian thinking.” None the less, taken as food for thought, it can be a provocative idea to ponder. If you read a previous blog entry I wrote, I discuss a few examples of people having disorders or disabilities, but being happy with them, and seeing themselves in no other way. These people viewed their disorders as essential to their own individuality.
The “critics” reference to depression is an interesting case as well. There have been many famous artists, singers, and writers who suffered from depression and probably would not have produced the works that they did, had they not been under emotional strain. I’m not saying that it’s better for people to be depressed, just that the elimination of any defining trait within society might have unintended costs. I think it also is effective for some people to embrace any disorders they have and learn how to channel them into positive work. The Jet Blue CEO is just one example. All it requires is encouragement in one's self and the drive to not feel pressured into conforming to societal standards. Individuals however are free to choose how they deal with their own problems and it is not the place of others to pass judgment on their decisions for every situatoin is different. I do think it is important to examine how overall societal trends may effect society itself.
The presumption that I am in anyway passing judgment on people who take medications to alleviate suffering is completely misguided. Obviously it is not the case; I made it perfectly clear that I took prescription drugs to cure the illness which brought me into the possession of the sleeping pills. It would be morally pretentious and hypocritical for me to judge anyone else that tries to alleviate suffering in their life with medications. I am confused of where the “critic” derived this thought from, I clearly state that the “trend in society to fix disorders” is a “noble goal.”
I hope this clears up both how drugs can be seen as a means to improving the “evolutionary process.” Perhaps all that was needed to understand my wording was a more open, more contextual definition. Furthermore I hope that the “critic” reads more into my words instead of letting his/her personal emotions cloud rational reading abilities. Perhaps "critic" forgot to wear his glasses when reading the column.
Friday, January 18, 2008
On ADHD and the Illusion of Insensitivity
I was disturbed to read an online comment written by an "LC" for my column The Fear of Prescribing Perfection accusing me of being insensitive. The comment read as follows:
Could have been an interesting article, but I have to wonder, do you even know what ADHD is? Simple hyperactivity? Way way off. I just couldn't get past that ADHD comment to enjoy your article, because having graduated recently and currently working as a counselor in a psychiatric hospital, I have seen some very severe cases of ADHD and I can tell you it's a very real disorder and incredibly difficult for its sufferers to cope with. Do your research next time before you make such an incredibly insensitive and scientifically incorrect remark. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've never taken a psych or bio class.
First off I'd like to clear up for LC and anyone else confused that I fully acknowledge ADHD as a disorder. No where did I state otherwise. The line LC was offended by was "In our parents generation hyperactivity was a way of life; now it is ADHD and fully curable." The first part of the statement is true, Attention Deficit Disorder was added to the DSM-III, a 1980 edition, hardly the time of our parents growing up. ADHD did not appear until the DSM-IV in 1994. It was described with three different groupings, mainly inattentive; mainly hyperactive-impulsive; and both in combination. This is where I derived my equating of hyperactivity with ADHD. I am only given the chance to write 500 words, so brevity is necessary sometimes at the expense of clarity. In a longer more accurate version that would be accepted by people such as LC, I should have included the word inattentive along with hyperactivity. I claimed that ADHD was curable in that it is something that can be largely controlled. Ritalin does the trick. As a personal anecdote I can say that my cousin had a severe case of ADHD growing up, and after being prescribed 80mg of Ritalin her grades and life turned around in many ways.
Furthermore, LC, is confusing my mere observation with criticism. The following line is what summarizes my overall idea:
What our generation cannot forget as we gain better mastery for the "genetic machines" that we are is that our abilities, our mental capabilities, and even our disorders define who we are. As we slowly are able to smooth out the inadequacies of ourselves, we will all become more of the same person.
I do not doubt that individuals with ADHD suffer and have trouble coping with their disorders. Nor do I doubt that people with erectile dysfunction or even dare I say restless leg syndrome have trouble coping with their disorders. The point was that everyone has some kind of personal trait or disorder that they have trouble coping with; my examples were memory and height. I am a tall person and have been told how lucky I am to be tall by many short people who have found it at least slightly harder to be short. Studies also have shown that height in adolescent years correlates very well with later success in life. If being short is hard for some people to cope with and disadvantageous, is it out of the question to label it a disorder. Drug companies would surely love to, so would people who do not want to be short anymore. In regards to memory, we all know people with great memories and people with bad memories, and just like height a similar situation could arise. Despite this, height and memory are essentially defining traits that make us all unique, and if trends continue there is no guarantee that this individuality will be preserved.
Now think about ADHD or something even more severe like Down syndrome. Parents of children with Down syndrome would like to have it no other way because they find unique joy in the way their children are. George Will, the father of a down syndrome child and Washington Post columnist, expressed this feeling in a column entitled Eugenics by Abortion, Is perfection an entitlement? in 2005(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51671-2005Apr13.html). Down syndrome children surely have many problems that regular people do not have to deal with, but that makes them who they are, and parents like George Will would have their children no other way, nor would they let society make them think their children are anything less than divine.
ADHD may be bad for some people, but it may also be worse for some people to lose those defining qualities. The CEO and founder of Jet Blue discovered he had ADD and claimed that ADD was in fact responsible to to his success in the business. It was what had given him the unique insight he needed for making Jet Blue company that it is. (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-10-08-jetblue-ceo.htm).
Overall though I have passed no judgment on people who take pills to fix disorders, rather I question the role of prescribing perfection in our society. So LC, I must tell you that you have me all wrong. I am sorry for offending you but I stand by my words 100%. I hope this clears up any confusion.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Give our Generation a Little More Credit
Meredith Laito’s claim in American Idol: The Presidency that young voters care more about “who would be best at a cocktail party” than who would be a better President is seriously flawed. The easiest way to debunk these claims is to look at the Republican presidential candidates. Ron Paul, the 72 year old
But why? He’s not “attractive” like Mitt Romney or “likable” like Mike Huckabee. Instead he is the most popular candidate with young voters because of his strong consistent ideologies, something far more important to young voters than looks.
Obama’s popularity among 18-29 year olds is not based on his cocktail party abilities, but is instead rooted in his strong ideology of transcending partisan politics. I believe that if Hillary and Barrack were running against each other for a seat in the senate, it would be no contest; Hillary would easily win. But the oval office requires a unique set of skills far different from those of Congress. What Obama’s supporters believe is that he has something that experience cannot bring, something that makes him a catalyst for change in a year where people are desperate to escape the political status quo.
In comparing charisma and experience, let us remember 1960 when the race for the democratic nomination was between John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, the far more experienced senate majority leader who was serving in Congress before Kennedy had even finished his freshman year at Harvard. Did experience or charisma end up making the better president?
So before we snap to the conclusion that Obama derives his support from the youth by being the better looking candidate, not the better candidate, let’s remember good old Ron Paul, recognize talent outside the scope of experience, and give our generation a little bit more credit.
Online cartoons and conflicts of interest
We have read your comments about the unreadable cartoons online. Abe, the Web editor and myself are working on the problem. Our Web site is set up somewhat unconventionally, and due to circumstances we cannot control, fixing that problem is more difficult than we expected.
But we are not ignoring it. I was abroad last quarter, and I couldn't read the cartoons either, so I know how frustrating those tiny drawings are. Thanks for your patience. We will keep you updated.
--
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our stance on the DU situation, I want to be clear that we take possible conflicts of interest very seriously at the Daily. Anyone who has a personal relationship to a story (including the DU story) is removed from the process of writing or editing it. Using DU as an example, anyone who has a grudge against the fraternity or, conversely, someone who is a member of the fraternity would not take part in coverage of the story at all. This is standard Daily policy for all of our content, and it is enforced on a regular basis.
But we are not ignoring it. I was abroad last quarter, and I couldn't read the cartoons either, so I know how frustrating those tiny drawings are. Thanks for your patience. We will keep you updated.
--
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our stance on the DU situation, I want to be clear that we take possible conflicts of interest very seriously at the Daily. Anyone who has a personal relationship to a story (including the DU story) is removed from the process of writing or editing it. Using DU as an example, anyone who has a grudge against the fraternity or, conversely, someone who is a member of the fraternity would not take part in coverage of the story at all. This is standard Daily policy for all of our content, and it is enforced on a regular basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)