Unproductive Season 3

What an intense third season of Unproductive. My favorite one so far for sure. The speech Emily gives in the finale, “Pièce De Résistance” (5m:39s), had me watching with my jaw-dropped. The season addressed many serious and relative issues, most importantly the subject of women’s rights and how sexual abuse claims are handled by administrations in power. Women’s rights have been a dominant and impactful theme this year in government and entertainment affairs, most evidently in the Supreme Court nomination and appointment of Brett Kavanaugh as well the sentencing of Bill Cosby. Other topics addressed are young adult pregnancies and the concurring responsibilities, “selling out” to secure financial stability, divorce, friendship, selfishness, personal and professional growth. The introductory sequence was more to my liking than previous seasons and more fitting to the seriousness of the content of the season. Each character was presented followed by an emblem representing their guiding motivations. Furthermore, the progress made by characters throughout the season was moving and even inspirational.

An obvious connection between this season and George Rodman’s Mass Media in a Changing World is the chapter concerning media impact (pgs. 33-39). “Midnight Roxy” is clearly an influential radio persona who has the potential to have an effect on the opinions of her listeners. Her strong stands and aggressive delivery style on matters such as the “soul-sucking” corporate world and pregnancy prevention would most likely demonstrate the powerful-effects model of media influence—meaning her ideas have a strong influence on her audience’s way of thinking. Her devoted audience exhibits something called selective exposure in seeking communication that is in line with their experiences, struggles, and thought processes. During Roxy’s introductory broadcast in Episode 1, “Meet Your Host, Roxy Midnight!,” I could not help to think of a certain character named “Hard Harry” from a movie called Pump Up The Volume (1990). The similarity in their crude, yet poetic execution and their coinciding thoughts on the bleakness of the American corporate system and social inequality was unmissable (I have a feeling that Midnight Roxy could possibly have been inspired by Christian Slater’s character). They both have an intense propensity for graphic and explicit language as well. Roxy, however, was evidently more aware of her power and goals. She even said, “an hour isn’t nearly enough time to properly corrupt Brooklyn’s youth.” Later in the season, Emily proves to be an even more impactful figure in her ability to sway the student population. Just as Hard Harry was able to move his listeners to fight back against their oppressive school system, Emily’s powerful and emotionally charged speech in Episode 5 (2m:25s) got the student body to organize a women’s rights rally. The two-step flow and multistep flow of communication are portrayed through the use of social media. These are communication processes which involve the use of opinion leaders—informed people who illuminate and pass along media messages. “Hashtags” are a recurring technique of spreading news of events which occur on the radio show to audiences and those following on social media. Dylan is especially conscientious of the power of hashtags and uses them during broadcasts to draw more listeners and attention to the issues being addressed on the show. Censorship, another key term in Rodman’s book, was touched upon in the show when Roxy expressed her frustration at the control being exerted by her producer Austin over the topics she could discuss on air— “tuition, budget cuts, is the student discount really a discount…riveting.”

Watching Austin, the producer experience multiple personal and professional hardships in the season was thought-provoking to say the least. His unplanned pregnancy would have forced him to take a job someplace his heart did not lie. Alex, all grown-up from the previous season (with a baby with Alexis named Alexander! I could not help burst out laughing) even tells him he is better off not getting the job at the corporate station for the sake of his mental health and self-respect, regardless of the financial burden he will face. His struggles, and ultimate ruin, in terms of his radio show because of his difficult host, Roxy, was also eye-opening. Producers have the responsibility of managing talent that could be troublesome and uncooperative, yet they have to do their best to comprise with and appease them for the sake of the production. Ultimately, Austin recognizes that he and Roxy are not meant to work together and declines a promising job opportunity for the sake of their friendship. Sometimes, tough choices have to be made for an individual’s, friends’ and/or family’s best interest, even if it means not taking the easy or favorable course of action.

I drew a comparison between Austin being called out for his inattentiveness to the other character’s personal struggles to Striker in Season 1. They were both so absorbed in the work and their own aspirations that they failed to see and address any issues their friends/co-workers were having. Roxy and Austin address each others’ flaws in character with brutal honestly in Episode 4; making me reflect on times I may have acted without consideration for others while caught up in my own troubles.

Dylan was in contrast with the characters of previous seasons in that he did not seem as focused or inspired to work on the show. He describes himself as a “treading waters type of guy, a bong smoking sort of fellow, a blunt licking mother******.” He was a fun character to watch with his constant talk of organic marijuana snacks and ideas for safe pot smoking areas on campus. He appeared to be uninterested in putting in the proper amount of work, delegating instead to Emily and claiming the credit for himself. Dylan was a great source of comic relief with his one liners during heated situations (“prison orange would look good on you.”) Despite Austin’s expectations, or lack of, Dylan does manage to “flip the switch.” With a just cause to energize him, he rose to the occasion with his social media savviness and laissez-fair leadership style and led the team to put on the new and improved Midnight Riders show.

Episode 3, “Top of the Key”, introduces Michael McGeary, KMC’s basketball team’s star point-guard. Hesitant to have a co-host at first, especially one as dull as an athlete, Roxy rushes to ridicule him. Michael proves to be a charming and quick-witted co-host trading verbal jabs and flirtations with Roxy. All is going well until a girl named Valerie calls in. She demands to know what Mike put in her drink at a party before she lost the memory of the rest of her night. She announces that he took advantage of her, the basketball coach would not listen to her story, but now everyone will know. After vehement denial and deflection— “I have three sisters, I’d never do anything like that, I have the upmost respect for women…”—the scene and episode ends with Roxy punching Michael in the face.

At this point, I had a haunting feeling that the resolution to this appalling revelation would not be what Valerie hopes for. Based on very recent events, it has become apparent that the handling of claims of sexual assault on women is problematic. In the case of Bill Cosby drugging and raping Andrea Constand, it took more than 14 years for Ms. Constand to receive justice. Meanwhile, all the other women who came forward in regards to almost identical allegations against Cosby will have to settle for the convictions against just one (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/arts/television/bill-cosby-sexual-assault-allegations-timeline.html). Similarly, the sexual assault claims of Christine Blasey Ford against now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was dealt with in a manner resembling the events of the show (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings.html). Kavanaugh proceeded to be appointed to the Supreme Court, while Ford faces ridicule and harassment to this day. The school denounces Roxy’s violence by saying “we stand against hate,” and does nothing to investigate the grave allegations against Michael. Roxy is put to silence under threat of legal charges and losing her degree. Valerie is essentially ignored. The student body’s response to the claim is mixed; one female student believes Roxy staged everything so KMC would lose their basketball game. McGeary continues to play basketball for the school. The school values a championship more than justice for a victim of sexual abuse.

As Emily predicted, “however Midnight Roxy finishes her show, it’ll be unforgettable.” Roxy was an impassioned and contentious host to begin with. She mistreated her co-workers and was terribly hostile at times. She insults Emily one moment and expects unquestioning devotion the next. However, I found her speeches to be from a place of good intent. Episode 1’s rant about sacrificing artistic integrity for financial gains was refreshing; not everyone discusses the topic so explicitly due to their anxieties and fears of an undesirable future. The vicious and graphic public service announcement regarding pregnancy in Episode 2 may have been improper for the radio and coming from a place of spite, but it still had students’ best interests in mind. Roxy’s impulsiveness and brash delivery is what made her such a captivating personality that was hard not to listen to. Unfortunately, without thinking of the consequences, her actions jeopardized the show, and in turn, her and Austin’s futures.

Emily goes from a “more behind the scenes type of person” to becoming an enigmatic and outspoken host who battles for what matters to her and her schoolmates. After Roxy Midnight is canceled, Emily calls for action by the students to draw more attention to the unacceptable and corrupt manner in which sexual assault allegations are handled. It was fun to see her embody the spirit of Roxy in Episode 6 and give a broadcast worthy of the Midnight name. In the 12^th minute of Episode 6, Valerie, the shows new intern, reads the announcement that McGeary will not play in the championship game due to the overwhelming amount of protest.

Season 3 of Unproductive was funny, serious, touching, and revealing all at once. Some of my takes from it are to examine more closely the relationships I have with friends, family, partners and co-workers. Everyone has their own demons and it is harsh to disregard other people’s realities to make it easier for oneself to progress or be comfortable. It reminded the viewers of the sad and troubling realities women face daily and how hard it is to receive the proper consideration, attention and justice for the horrific act of sexual assault. On a more optimistic note, if taken as an example, the third season is inspirational and makes a moral outcome in such situations hopeful. It is possible to rectify the unfair treatment, examination, and processing of such an atrocious act and its consequences. It will, however, take just about everyone to do it.

Good Night and Good Luck, The Most Dangerous Man in America

Good Night and Good Luck (5 star rating) had the most epic cast: George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, David Strathairn, Robert Knepper and Frank Langella (my favorite). Each character played their role impressively in this excellent historical drama. A bit of foreshadowing in that Jeff Daniels would go on to be a lead anchor on The Newsroom one day. The supporting cast did well not to outshine the lead actor, David Strathairn (Edward R. Murrow) despite their star power. The black and white color scheme as well as the low volume and slow pace at times was able to depict a different time in history when everything was not instant, required patience and must have caused tremendous anxiety in the population which was constantly waiting for information.

Notes on the film:

It was fun to watch the studios of the past scramble to edit reels manually and do voice overs without the digital capabilities of today. Film had to be transported physically to other locations. There were only white people working the studio—the only black people at the station were musicians. People smoked everywhere and the cigarette commercials were aggressive and used some form of reverse psychology as well as declaring support from the star of the show.

The speech Edward R. Murrow gives in the beginning of the movie and finishes at the end is a perfect analysis of how television was becoming at the time and what it would eventually become. The educational programming for which he claimed great importance to the people of the nation would never go on to become highly rated or in demand. Instead the highest ratings go to reality TV shows, sports, fictional dramas and usually to the shows with the most violence and nudity. When his show was moved to the Sunday slot and eventually canceled he argued that people need this type of informative programming to be better aware of current events and their consequences. However, as sponsors and rating are the determinant factor in which shows continue to exist, his show was taken off the air because it was not bringing in enough money. It is a sad fact of television, film, and most media that what is sometimes the most beneficial to the public is seen as undesirable to networks and studios because it may not be financially profitable.

The events described in Edward R. Murrow’s speech around 42m:45s are eerily reminiscent of the political landscape of the United States presently. President Trump has created a sentiment of fear and hatred amongst his constituents. Notions of nationalism are growing as well as distrust of prominent figures within the United States. The country seems more divided then ever before and I am confident that our historical allies are concerned about these matters. Our enemies on the other hand are watching with amusement as the country figuratively falls apart. One difference that stands out to me between the past and the present is while Murrow was able to make his findings public and alter the actions of the government, the present day investigators’ and reporters’ discoveries and revelations seem to do little to nothing to political direction. As far as I can tell, Trump does whatever he wants and gets away with it.

I give The Most Dangerous Man in America a 5-star rating. Having Daniel Ellsberg as the narrator gave the documentary storytelling elements as opposed to it being historians and participants simply presenting information. Hearing Daniel’s story from beginning to end from his perspective and experience made the documentary engrossing and more vivid than what another narrator could have offered. The Most Dangerous Man in America was further dramatized with footage of the Vietnam War, court hearings, excellent transitions and musical scoring. The documentary, in my opinion, shed light on the beginning of the public’s awareness of secrecy in the government as well as distrust in the government. American history following the events of the film is a continuous series of the government hiding the truth from the public in order to propagate “democracy,” “freedom,” “national security,” as well as achieve political and financial gain. Operation Desert Storm, The Iraq War, and many other United States involvements in foreign countries are believed to have alternative motives apart from the ones made aware to the public. Sadly, as stated by Ellsberg, the public receives and processes the information and continues with their lives without any action. Similarly, as discussed in an Edward Snowden interview, the general public was not alarmed by any of the documents stolen from the NSA and released through the press. One contrast between Ellsberg and Snowden was that Ellsberg’s actions led to significant outcomes including a revision to the First Amendment, Nixon’s resignation and finally, the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg is mostly received as a hero and was released from custody, however Snowden continues to be regarded as an enemy to the state and unable to return to the United States. I am sure the governments security agencies would agree with Nixon’s request to “quit making heroes out of those who steal national secrets and publish them in the newspaper.”

I could not help but make connections between President Nixon and President Trump. Both are authoritative leaders with little regard to the effects of their actions. Both seem to think that they are able to do anything they wish without weighing the potentially disastrous results, whether political, economic, environmental, or humanitarian. Trump is the type of person to consider drastic military actions such as nuclear weapons as easy solutions. The way Trump disregards news media as “fake” is no better than the way Nixon shut down newspaper by newspaper for trying to present the American public with facts concerning their welfare and future. My only hope is that history does not repeat itself. Trump being re-elected to a second term would be devastating. Still, I am sure there is at least one thing that could lead to him being impeached as the two presidents are eerily similar in their backdoor dealings and dishonestly to the public. It is sad that the people of the U.S. have to endure the repeated abuses of power and total indifference to the law of the President all over again.

Edward Snowden

When Edward Snowden first broke news in 2013 I did not pay much attention. However, I did watch the Joseph Gordon-Levitt movie, Snowden a couple of years later and did research afterwards to find out more details. I was 9 years old when 9/11 happened and remember my social studies teacher explaining exactly what the Patriot Act entailed including increased surveillance and security. I grew up being able to walk family members all the way to the airplane and it has never been the same since 9/11. Maybe it was the propaganda of the time, but I understood that these measures were necessary for the protection of the nation. I have always been wary of government surveillance and it was no surprise to me when I watched Snowden and the assigned videos and found out that the security agencies of the country were spying on regular citizens under the guise of protection from terrorism.

John Oliver discusses how most citizens do not care about their surveillance because they are simply unaware of exactly how much information and what kind of information agencies such as the NSA are able to obtain and pull up. Once Oliver mentions that very sensitive photos are vulnerable to surveillance, the people interviewed in Times Square begin to react with concern. My opinion is that if there are national security agents sitting at computers looking over every day conversations, photos, and videos of regular civilians with the purpose of somehow protecting the citizens of the country, then so be it. What are they going to do with this information? Be entertained? I am sure they are not posting it on the web themselves in order to humiliate anyone or go viral. If there is a possibility that this surveillance could save children from kidnapping or sex trafficking, prevent crimes, or numerous other disastrous actions by people within the country, then I am personally not unnerved or bothered by it. If the interest of the government and its agencies is to protect the people of the country from domestic or foreign incidents, then this kind of surveillance is fine by me. If the goal was something more nefarious and the government was using this information to interfere with or control the lives of average people or blackmail them, etc. then I would have a much different reasoning when it comes to this matter.

If every other government in the world develops programs and technology to spy on other countries and peoples then it is only right that the United States does the same in the interest of protection. The bulk of the United States’ power lies in its military and intelligence power. If these agencies did not exist, foreign entities could obtain our personal information, take away our money, steal our identities and ruin our lives as well as shut down or corrupt our banking and governmental institutions. Like stated previously, if this causes some invasion of privacy in citizens of the U.S., then it is an unavoidable circumstance in the purpose of the protection of our way of life.

Morally speaking, what Edward Snowden did was right in some ways. He exposed to the press and in turn the people of the U.S. that the NSA was actively collecting and reviewing their personal information. From what I saw in the videos, this seems to him a massive betrayal of trust and abuse of power on the part of the government. He is upset about the lack of Congressional oversight as well as the ease with which surveillance requests are approved. Yes, the people should know that they are being watched, I agree with him on that. However, if everyone knew about this before hand, it would not have been as easily approved. The Patriot Act was written in such vague and general terms it gave security agencies power to act in the interest of security with almost unlimited and unchecked potential. I know from watching the videos that this domestic surveillance has only prevented one case of domestic terrorism. However, I am sure that the public is not made aware of every single time the security agencies prevent a crime or capture a wanted criminal. This could be speculation or the effect of watching too many spy shows and movies, but if all the people of the country were wary of exactly how much criminal activities go on within and from without our borders, there would be much more public concern than there already is. I only truly began to feel this way after watching the NSA rebuttal in the TED interview. Once deputy director Rick Ledgett explains that through making public the stolen documents, Snowden exposed the capabilities of the NSA. This changed my mind because I understood that while the NSA is collecting massive amounts of personal information from us, they are still in the business of protecting the interests of the government and country as a whole. I think that our privacy is worth the protective capabilities of security agencies. Without these programs and technologies, we risk having our country, institutions, businesses, and people being breached and potentially destroyed by foreign entities. Snowden was acting in the interest of government transparency on such matters, however, I do not know if his actions have or will incite any change of such programs. The government and its agencies will continue to do what they feel is best for the protection and prosperity of the country and its population. The only difference made by Snowden is that now people know about it. From what I saw in the John Oliver episode, most people do not know exactly how much power the government has, and what they do not know, does not hurt them.

My thoughts on the matter: if any potential threat can be prevented, even if some agent has to read my e-mails, text messages or watch what books or products I order, then I think the cost of my privacy is worth it. I would rather have people saved or crises averted–the e-mails and memes I send are much less important to me.

Unproductive Seasons 1 & 2

Unproductive needs more attention! I thought it was a great show with fantastic writing that touched on a lot of important subjects which could have been expanded on with more time and money. Within such a short timeframe, the subjects of brand ethics, gentrification, appropriation, codependence, individuality in regards to relationships, coming out to parents in regards to homosexuality, alcohol abuse, privilege, selfish youths, friendship, and much more were referenced. All the while, there is comedy and drama going on simultaneously.

I may not be the best judge, but in my opinion, the actors were great—I felt like I was watching everything happen in real life. The emotions displayed seemed authentic and never over exaggerated. I believe that the acting and production stood out a lot because of a lack of background music for dramatic effect as done on television and in movies. The writing was so well done that I could truly imagine these conversations happening in real life amongst young adults. The situations portrayed were realistic and nothing was far fetched. There was much more swearing than I expected from a school production! Although, everyone does swear way too much in reality.

Season 1 was full of hilarious references to popular culture and films, which I enjoyed, such as “I am the Catherine now” as well as episode titles such as “Breaking Ben,” “Mad Ben,” “Parker’s Recreation,” “Trio’s Company,” “The Ex Files,” etc. I thought it was really cute that the characters would go back and forth with movie quotes adding to the authenticity of the characters being TV/Film majors.

The Thanksgiving scene in Season 1 was amazing. Theo acting drunk and obnoxious while Sam’s wealthy parents are attempting to keep everything orderly and entertaining the guests. The Saudi Arabian “Soil” deal was very clever. I also recognized a great play on words in Sam’s, “it’s not ideal, but I will deal with it.” The colonial era description of the couch by De-BO-rah to Theo was also a bit bold in my opinion.

I appreciated the character of Professor Parker. She was hard on the students because in reality the industry is much tougher. However, she did show a genuine concern for the students as displayed in her conversations with Dave, Sam, and Ben. She was able to help them understand (with some tough language) why they were not working well together and what they needed to do to improve.

Season 1 did a great job of keeping things light while everything was falling apart for the characters. The situations were realistic and relatable to young adults. I wish there was more time to explore each character’s major issue more for the benefit of the audience. The resolution in the last few minutes of the season felt rushed while still very heartwarming. Many tears were shed and much frustration was experienced, but everyone and everything came together at the end.

I enjoyed Season 2 more because it felt less cluttered. Too much seemed to be going on at all times in Season 1. The relationships between the characters in Season 1 kept shifting throughout and was tiresome by the end. It is easier to pay closer attention to a couple of characters rather than trying to figure out what the big picture is amongst many.

The plots were similar in that there was a conflict in the beginning: The break-up in Season 1 and the rivalry between Colin and Brayden.

The other characters would pick sides, rejoice in the division, but regardless the split would cause issues for the production: Theo went with Ben, Sam with Cate, Dave was left to pick up the pieces. Brayden’s non-cooperation led to issues as well.

Characters developed new romantic interests: Ben and Bracha and Colin and Mia.

Romantic interests became problematic: Bracha would eventually become disinterested in Ben while there was a major dispute between Colin and Mia.

Thankfully, Colin and Mia’s issues were resolved. Bracha’s story was left unresolved (I could not make out what they said about her during the group hug.)

I was very surprised at how the final segment of “Who’s Right and Who’s Left?” turned out. Alex and Alexis never properly had a decent rehearsal so maybe I should have expected them to wing it on the last one. Nevertheless, it was very sweet. How did nobody think that they were being watched when they would receive video calls after almost every incident? I knew Colin was going to bring up Tom Petty at the end!

The show definitely displayed the less glamorous side of human nature at times but there was also a lesson to learn from each one. If any of the viewers could learn from the characters’ mistakes and not make them themselves then the show is a great success in my opinion.

Sleeping kid knows everything even though he sleeps through both seasons!

The Theo cameo in Season 2 was awesome!

War of the Worlds (1938)

I thoroughly enjoyed Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater of the Air’s adaptation of War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. It left me with a sense of longing for similar broadcasts. The acting was done extremely well to the point that I had emotional reactions to certain events such as characters counting down until their deaths and hearing them choke and fall (37:52). Podcasts or audiobooks are not the same because this broadcast was done by skilled actors with different voices complete with audio effects of horrified screaming, bombs dropping, gun shots and plane noises. The broadcast was a careful and elaborate way of telling an engrossing story. I may not be aware of anything comparable that exists today but I would love to listen to something similar. It felt like an experience between reading a book and a movie—getting to imagine the visuals in my mind while hearing the voice acting and sound effects in my ears.

Reflecting on some of the American public’s panic reaction to the broadcast is hard to do whilst knowing the facts 80 years later. It was a different time and I can understand how people who missed the initial announcement could believe the events of the presentation were happening. They may have tuned in at a point in which the characters were screaming and panicking all the while simulated news reports announcing that the army has been defeated and the world is ending. It was not until the 38 minute 52 second mark that someone reminded listeners that this is a presentation and dramatization. Understandably, by then, fear could strike impressionable people who do not have any other source besides this broadcast. According to Rodman’s Mass Media textbook, the public began to distrust the media because of this. I find that unwarranted; I think people were upset that they were fooled. Seeing as how they may have been listening to other stations before, during, and after the broadcast, they should have figured out that something is off and this may not be real. If they tuned into any other station, they would realize that no one else is reporting the same story. However, it was fantastic storytelling done by talented actors and it was a different time in history. The voices heard on the radio seemed real and without any declarations of the fiction of the story throughout, tuning in during the middle of the broadcast could be a cause for alarm during a time when “radio has a responsibility to serve in the public interest at all times” (22:26). I found that statement during the broadcast ironic because the public response to the presentation would lead people to believe the creators of it were acting against the interest of the public.

The consequences of such a broadcast and its effects on people has a frightful (Halloween pun!) parallel in the modern world. Even with journalistic integrity and high-tech real-time communications abilities, stories of events that may not be completely accurate come out and impact the public in numerous ways. It is even easier to spread unreliable news carelessly due to news providers getting their information from sources that may not be as conscientious to the truth as they are. Just as the War of the Worlds broadcast used fictional news reports and testimonies from “scientists,” “brigadiers,” and so on, there exist on social media and the internet as a whole many fictional news sources. It is easy for these unofficial news sources to write stories unfounded in reality using sources that do not exist to build credibility and much of the public will not be able to distinguish these stories from the real news. It is an unfortunate side effect of the internet and a potentially dangerous occurrence because just as the reaction to War of the Worlds, fake news stories may illicit the full range of human emotions from reports of events that may or may not have occurred. It is important to be able to distinguish between bogus news websites and reliable trustworthy ones before one day we all believe the world is ending just because the story looks and sounds real.

War of the Worlds (1938)

Reflecting on some of the American public’s panic reaction to the broadcast is hard to do whilst knowing the facts 80 years later. It was a different time and I can totally understand how people who missed the initial announcement could believe the events of the presentation were happening. They may have tuned in at a point in which the characters were screaming and panicking all the while simulated news reports announcing that the army has been defeated and the world is ending. It was not until the 38 minute 52 second mark that someone reminded listeners that this is a presentation and dramatization. Understandably, by then, fear could strike impressionable people who do not have any other source besides this broadcast. According to Rodman’s Mass Media textbook, the public began to distrust the media because of this. I find that unwarranted; I think people were upset that they were fooled. Seeing as how they may have been listening to other stations before, during, and after the broadcast, they should have figured out that something is off and this may not be real. If they tuned into any other station, they would realize that no one else is reporting the same story. However, it was fantastic storytelling done by talented actors and it was a different time in history. The voices heard on the radio seemed real and without any declarations of the fiction of the story throughout, tuning in during the middle of the broadcast could be a cause for alarm during a time when “radio has a responsibility to serve in the public interest at all times” (22:26). I found that statement during the broadcast ironic because the public response to the presentation would lead people to believe the creators of it were acting against the interest of the public.

Pump Up The Volume (1990)

I absolute loved “Pump Up The Volume”, I wish I had a movie like this growing up and the kids nowadays need movies like this too! More movies like this need to exist to help inspire and make teenagers feel better about those difficult years in their lives. The speech at the end of the film is enough to help a lot of teenagers understand what they are experiencing and help them find a sense of belonging and encouragement. The film also does not glamorize any one character in the film—they seem realistic and relatable. Movies in the present time tend to lead to insecurity in teenagers because of the comparisons they draw to the flawless and seemingly perfect portrayals of people in their age group. The teens in the film all unify because of their shared subjective feelings of inadequacy. Mark Hunter/Hard Harry (Christian Slater) helps them understand that these pressures are not specific to any one of them and that they are all in it together. The scene of the phone call between Mark and Matt (the gay teenager) was very powerful and at least to me, was way ahead of its time. Homosexuality was not yet as widely accepted and portrayed so sympathetically. However, the director/writer Allan Moyle did not display any negative judgment of Matt. Instead, the response of Mark to Matt’s story was admiration. Mark admired the strength that Matt had to go through such an experience and to come out questioning why some people acted that way instead of knocking himself down. Mark seemed to be emboldened himself to face his own complicated fears.

I am aware that the film is not of the Science Fiction genre, however I found myself discovering connections to religion throughout the film because of Professor Dunphy’s suggestion. The allusions to Christianity in the film are countless and I notice more as I deliberate. Not least of all was Mark’s speech that went, “I am everywhere, I am inside each and every single one of you, just look in and I will be there…” According to several religions people are made in the image of god and are said to be of god and have a piece of god within them. Some are more connected than others e.g. priests and their equals in various religions. Mark’s listeners are connected by their shared beliefs, feelings and experiences. They follow him (by listening to his broadcast and acting in accordance to his provocations) because he speaks to their insecurities and makes them feel like they are not the rejects or less than model students or children that their school, schoolmates, parents, etc. make them feel like. Instead, he gives them a sense of belonging and acceptance the way religions do.

The kids spread the “Gospel” of Mark by recording his broadcasts on cassettes and sharing them, just as religions do with their religious texts! They listen to the recordings at school even though the administration prohibits them. Throughout history, religions have been spread and practiced in secret because the ruling class forbid and outlawed them. Mazz Mazzilli (Billy Morrissette) is Mark’s first disciple (opinion leader); he claims to have been his first listener to a reporter. He is his biggest fans and advocates for him as often as possible. When Mark almost quits, Mazz is devastated and pushes him to keep going (even if it’s only to himself). He vehemently promotes Mark’s broadcast and brings the massive speakers for the final gathering (Last Supper) to listen to the word of Mark. He is one of the students persecuted under the authority of Principal Loretta Creswood (Jews, Romans, etc.) and knows what is going on in the school—the same as Mark. Nora Diniro is Mark’s Mary Magdalene as she is his biggest female supporter that helps him spread his word when he is being chased by the FCC (the Jews, Romans, etc.). Mark had to “sacrifice” himself by being taken in by authorities in order for others to be inspired to do the same work as him. Jesus had to die in order for Christianity to become a religion. At the end of the film, Mark’s listeners are moved and energized to begin their own radio stations (modeling!) discussing the topics that are most relevant to them hoping to spark and impassion others. Religions also have followers which take their religion’s teachings and incorporate their own knowledge and insights to preach to their congregations.

On the topic of theories of media influence and its effects on people, there are several occurrences throughout the film that demonstrate such theories. Examples of powerful effects theory would be when “Harry” tells his listeners to “Do something crazy!” they begin dancing to loud music or yelling. Page goes as far as blowing up the belongings that tied her to her fake and despised image of perfection. The different interpretations of doing something crazy is also an example of a mixed-effects model of media influence. While some kids simply turned up the volume, others went out and vandalized the school or destroyed their valuable possessions. Teachers, parents, and reporters believed that Mark’s broadcast was in line with the bullet theory of media influence. The reporters asked page if she was willing to do anything that Mark would say. I am sure that the school administration as well as the media in the movie believed that Mark had influenced Malcolm to take his own life—shifting the blame on Mark instead of analyzing the factors that may have been involved leading to the suicide. My favorite example are the kids who loved rap music. They seemed to be totally disinterested in “Happy Harry Hard-On.” Theirs would be a case of the minimal-effects model: this particular media had little to no influence on their behavior. However, the rap music that they were listening to did play a big role in their lives and behaviors.

The most interesting development throughout the movie was the increase in level of awareness of his own influence that Mark displayed. During the scene when the students were vandalizing the school with his mantras and sayings, he said “this is out of control,” unaware of how strongly he was inciting these kids to act. Malcolm’s suicide was also an example of how consequential Mark’s influence was on others. We do not know whether or not it could have turned out differently if Mark discouraged Malcolm from taking his own life. That is also a brief debate between Nora and Mark following the announcement of Malcolm’s passing. Finally, Mark recognizes his power after Nora expresses how significant his voice is: “You’re the voice. You’re the voice you’ve been waiting for.”

Gattaca (1997)

Gattaca (1997) was a great film. The theme of the movie was compelling and thought provoking. There were multiple storylines including a murder mystery, sibling rivalry, a love affair, succeeding against all odds, hope and hopelessness. The soundtrack was great and added a lot of emotion to the film. The acting was superb as well and expectedly so with such a talented and accomplished cast—Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, Jude Law, Alan Arkin, and Loren Dean were all amazing. The movie did not focus on special effects, even though it is meant to be in the future. Instead, it let the actors and director do the work of captivating the audience through the absorbing mystery, the story of discrimination, compassion and perseverance.

The movie would definitely hold up today! Scientists are now able to do many of the genetic engineering that is exhibited in the film. Will this create a better world or further the existing inequalities, prejudices, biases, racism, classism, etc.? In their desire to create perfect humans they have created a new way to categorize the “superior” and “inferior”: the Genetically Elite and the De-Gene-Erates. However, as Vincent says in the movie: “for the genetically superior, success is easier to attain, but is by no means guaranteed.” There are many privileged people in today’s world that can rise to power simply because of the family they were born into and their connections. They do not have to overcome as many difficulties, disadvantages, or impediments as most of the world. However, they are not always necessarily the most deserving nor are they always the most competent.

I wonder how much further into the future the film was because the scenes in restaurants or dancing clubs seem to be from the time period the movie was shot. I found it curious that the most futuristic things about the movie were the genetic testing and the designing of “perfect” human beings. The director/writer Andrew Niccol did not go out of his way to do much else to make it seem flashy and predict too many other things that would happen years from then. The distances in space being traveled were much greater than in the 90s but that was about as much as the film forecasted. The cars and houses were all appropriate for the 1990s as well. The main focus of the movie was the emphasis on genetic superiority and its effects on society.

The setting of the film was very dystopian and hopeless. It was sad to see that the advances in genetic engineering could create “the best” humans but not the best people. Throughout history, people with certain physical and mental disadvantages were the ones who would fight vigorously to accomplish more than they were perceived capable of. These people would use their handicaps, impairments, or abnormalities as motivation and would be determined to prove everyone wrong as well as prove to themselves that their disability is not as limiting as they may have been told it is. The culmination of this premise is explained when the real Jerome Morrow explains to Vincent that he (Jerome) had the design but not the desire—Vincent on the other hand had the desire to persist and persevere and prove to the world that his shortcomings, according to the geneticists were not what defined him, and did not necessarily mean he was not a person worthy of great things.

I loved watching Vincent (Ethan Hawke) succeed through every single obstacle that he was literally born having to face. It was sad to see that his parents who were the ones that chose to have a “God Child,” or “Faith Birth” did not support his dreams and even told him that he could never do anything great because of his genetic composition alone. It was disappointing to find this out when a quote from the movie was a “child conceived of love has a greater chance at happiness.” The parents were not encouraging Vincent to be happy and instead wanted him to accept his fate. The relationship between Vincent and his brother Anton, who the parents decided to genetically design was also a powerful factor that drove Vincent to aspire to become greater than his supposed destiny. Once he realized that he could be better than his brother who was created to be smarter, stronger, and more capable in every way, he knew he could defy the scientific prophecy he was assigned at birth. After the scene in which Vincent outswims his allegedly superior brother, he decides to set out on his own and pursue dreams which his family does not believe him capable of fulfilling. Close to the end of the film, the swimming scene happens again but much later in the characters’ lives to prove once and for all that Vincent deserves what he was worked so hard for his whole life and he is not determined entirely by his genetic construction. There are other factors which define a person in their quest for success and fulfillment besides their natural gifts (or unnatural in this case). Vincent struggled to overcome his mental and physical imperfections and in doing so was able to push and break through the limits which his society placed on him.

Jerome Morrow (Jude Law) was a fascinating character as well. He was created perfectly in every way and was meant to be gifted and accomplished in any field he chose—however, when he could go no further than second place, he did not attempt to exceed his capabilities with sheer willpower. I am only assuming the last bit because it seemed like he did not keep trying and was disappointed that his genetic design alone could not take him to first place. When Vincent took Jerome home after going out drinking Jerome admitted that he was the one who attempted to take his own life, then hints that “if you don’t succeed, try, and try again” (foreshadowing!). He tells Vincent that he’s proud of him for “pulling this off” in regards to fooling Gattaca into thinking he is Jerome and proving through his hard work that he is qualified and deserving of being sent into Space—his lifelong dream. Jerome was resentful of Vincent claiming his identity at first but later on was happy to know that his name and image would be used to achieve notable success.

Uma Thurman’s character Irene played a good role in the movie as well. I definitely suspected her of the murder because of the Director’s disapproval of her going into space due to her heart defect. The reveal of the murderer was a bit anticlimactic for me—a small detail missed by the forensic teams and investigators which could find tiny hairs and skin particles all over the place was a stretch. When Irene discovers that Vincent has been fooling her and everyone the whole time she is devastated, however, Vincent explains to her that it has been him the whole time and he was only doing what was necessary for him to live his dream. She is empathetic and even encouraged because Vincent tells her that his heart has already been “10,000 beats over due” and that it has not stopped him from getting to where he was. They are two people that do not have to be defined by their mental and physical dispositions.

My favorite character was Dr. Lamar (Xander Berkeley)! I knew something was up when Vincent caused the scene while his blood was being taken to swap out the samples and the doctor was so nonchalant about it. The conversation between Vincent and Dr. Lamar before Vincent went off into space was the most heartwarming and touching scene for me. He knew Vincent was a “Borrowed Ladder” and was rooting for him the whole time. He related Vincent’s story to his son’s, who was also born naturally and is being held back by society’s definition of who is good enough or suitable for positions of notability. Without Dr. Lamar, Vincent’s exploits at Gattaca may not have been possible.

Brett Kavanuagh

I have been following the Brett Kavanaugh incident for a while now due to being a digital subscriber to the New York Times, and shows such as Trevor Noah’s Daily Show and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. I got in trouble when my girlfriend asked me “do you believe her?,” in regards to Christine Ford’s sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanuagh, and I did not answer straight away. With each development in the situation it continues to get harder to decipher what is true and what is false – and what is straight up crazy. I streamed the first half of the hearing (Ford’s testimony), and watched Kavanuagh’s testimony through clips on news shows and late night comedy news shows such as the Daily Show. There was an emotional testimony by Christine Blasey Ford, an infuriated statement as well as sob stories and a melodramatic display by Kavanuagh, and later complete outrage by Senate Republicans. All the President could say about the matter was that “it is a scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of” (http://time.com/5412955/donald-trump-says-scary-time-men-sexual-assault-allegations/?xid=tcoshare).

I fully understand how difficult it is for women to come forward after a sexual assault—especially during the time when the attack happened—It is a horrifying event that is difficult to describe especially to authorities which more than likely do not believe you without hard evidence. Unfortunately for Christine Blasey Ford, her version of the events is not supported by the concrete evidence that would require an investigation or trial (to my understanding). The people who believe in Ford are adamant that her story is true, based on the fact that she is a nonpartisan citizen that wanted to bring the matter forward when Kavanaugh was on the short list to be nominated to Supreme Court Justice (Rachel Maddow, MSNBC 9/27/18). It is a terrible experience to re-live and tell to an audience, especially when the audience is the entire world. Ford gave an emotional testimony and answered questions as best as she could when the prosecution was doing their best to cast doubt on her character and story.

Kavanugh’s testimony was even more ridiculous than the Saturday Night Live cold opening (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8) that parodied the hearing. There was outrage, overdramatic emotional behavior and childishness such asking the Senator who asked him if he ever “blacked out,” if she had ever done the same. Kavanuagh was crying and sniffling the entire time. Kavanaugh claimed that he liked beer, and had too many beers sometimes, but never enough to blackout. It was as if the Democrat Senators were trying to get a little kid to confess to something he did wrong and the boy kept going around in circles to refuse and shift the blame for the wrongdoing. He later displayed pride and approval when Republicans would aggressively defend him. I watched an interview with Fox News that Kavanaugh had done a couple of weeks back in which he claimed he was a virgin all the way into college as well as read a later New York Times article (https://nyti.ms/2NWkUlo) in which they describe a weekend which Kavanuagh organized for his friends during which time they planned on heavy drinking as well as interacting with girls (surely of a nonsexual nature by his earlier statements in the Fox News interview). Brett Kavanaugh’s hostile behavior at the testimony as well as his statements of being a virgin, never drinking enough to forget the events which occurred while intoxicated, and his overall hysterical and furious behavior during the hearing made me think that this whole thing could not be real life (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-temperament-honesty.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer). This is meant to be a person who graduated from a prestigious university and holds one of the highest judicial positions in the country—meanwhile he is acting just like the young adult that his friends and character witnesses describe him as.

The President as well as other Republican senators claim that the entire story is a sham and fabrication by the Democrats. Trump says that this is a scary time for men and his son Trump Jr. fears more for his sons than his daughters. Watching Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina explode during the hearing claiming that the whole situation has been orchestrated by the Democrats to destroy Kavanaugh’s reputation and cast doubt on his nomination was shocking to say the least. “I hope the American people will see through this charade… This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics” Lindsey Graham exclaimed at the hearing. It is as if we are experiencing a parody of government and of the world we live in rather than the reality that is or should be. In John Oliver’s September 30th show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opi8X9hQ7q8), he asks “why Kavanaugh?” Kavanaugh is on a list of judges who support the same agenda which the Republicans believe in and want to be implemented. Even with all this controversy, the President and Republican senators vehemently protect and support Kavanuagh and his nomination.

The whole situation; Ford coming forward with her testimony, Kavanugh’s attempt to elicit pity for his mistreatment and Lindsey Graham exploding and demeaning the Democrats for this “unethical sham,” as well as threatening their candidates, “if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees,” reminds me of the show House of Cards on Netflix. The show involved Republicans and Democrats scheming against each other behind doors, finding people to falsely testify and ruin the reputation of politicians while the President fails to show any decent composure or moral support for what is right rather than promote his own selfish motive. Unfortunately, I am drawing contrasts between a fictional show about the dark, lesser known side of politics and our current reality rather than the logical conclusion to a situation such as this. If Republican Senators were half as decent, God-fearing or righteous as they often claim to be, the multiple sexual assault claims against Kavanuagh, his behavior during the hearing, displays of immaturity and lack of self control would be clear warning sides that this man should not be on the highest court of the United States for decades to come.

That’s Not Funny!, The Coddling of the American Mind, How ‘Political Correctness’ Went From Punch Line to Panic, New Rule: The ‘What Were You Thinking’ Generation | Real Time with Bill Maher, Stop Apologizing | Real Time with Bill Maher, and George Carlin – Euphemisms

The last minute of Bill Maher’s video titled “Stop Apologizing” summed up my feelings on political correctness and the state of the political and social landscape of the United States at the present time. Trump has unified the demographic that feels attacked by “coastal Ivy League whites” and created within them an identify of their own to belong to. While liberals are language shaming and protecting the feelings of others, Trump has “talked his way into the White House.” Instead of attempting to appeal to the educated, progressive or forward-thinking constituents, he has rounded up the apparently massive population which remains “uninformed;” those which still have beliefs grounded in white supremacy, nationalism, sexism, and other far-right ideologies and given them a voice which tells them that it is okay to “say whatever the hell you want” and still win.

It’s interesting how students mentioned in these articles, which generally lean left in their political ideologies are the ones that are the ones pushing to prevent “potentially harmful or offensive” language. My interpretation of liberals are people who promote thinking outside of the box and the accepting of people of different cultures and mindsets. Creating this atmosphere in which people are afraid of repercussions for expressing themselves and their thoughts and opinions, however “politically incorrect” seems counterproductive for the education process. If students are not given the chance to debate and interact with other students and teachers of opposing views, their critical thinking abilities and opportunities for developing cultural relativity—believing that other people’s beliefs and values are based on their own culture, rather than the criteria of their own, will be hindered due to the “safety” of their school environment. I firmly support free speech; be it in schools or outside of academia, as long as a person is not directly insulting someone else or prompting acts of violence towards others. It is not fair to penalize people prematurely for their speech or acts when the offense is taken subjectively based on the emotions of a small group of people—some people were raised in different countries, by parents, or around friends with different sets of beliefs and ideologies. It is not the best argument for or against political correctness, but there are some people raised to have thick skin and others sheltered, as well as those raised to be open-minded and understanding that people may have the best intentions, but have not been exposed to any contradicting ideas or opinions than the ones shaped by their upbringing and will give them a chance and present them with evidence to help them reshape their mindsets.

If the “safety” and “political correctness” of school campuses were extrapolated into workplaces, relationships, and politics, we would all be quiet and keep to ourselves in fear of losing our jobs, friends or upsetting those with opposing views (the President clearly does not care about any of this and is apparently exempt from any consequences!). George Carlin points out that he was unaware of many of the new terms for describing conditions or occurrences. Likewise, many in the general population or those that recently arrived in academic settings may have simply not received the politically correct newsletter which tells them what they can or can not say anymore. There is a difference between someone who does not know any better and one who is truly insensitive to the disposition of others. I was born in 1992 and many of the words that my parents, peers and teachers used would be considered grossly inappropriate and politically incorrect. Within the last 10 years I have been discovering that phrases and terms I have heard or even used myself are now offensive even though they were acceptable and inoffensive at an earlier time. It would be devastating if I were charged with an offense due to my unintentional ignorance of the times—they don’t send out a notice every time it’s not okay to say something anymore.