Tricolored Tumult

Image Credit: https://www.seekpng.com/ks/movie-camera/

Not all moviegoers are created equal.

I recently watched a CNN interview of La La Land director Damien Chazelle on YouTube. In the clip, Chazelle addresses a screenwriter’s – or, in his case, writer-director’s – need to insert personal experience into his or her films to increase the emotional resonance. While thematic resonance  and personal implications are a fantastic source of audience engagement, not all moviegoers seek to engage in profound thought when going to the theater. Entertainment, quite often, is for its own sake.

As a young filmmaker, I have produced several films in the past, and I am currently as writer, director, and editor on a new film. Titled Vis-à-Vis, the film addresses the difficulties of adapting to American life as a French person. Given that I am French, I inserted a great deal of personal emotion and perception to my writing and my story. My characters serve as embodiments of my own struggles. However, I often look inward and wonder: “Shoot, what if my life and my experiences are utterly irrelevant to the general public?

Since not all moviegoers are created equal, with children and adults each preferring their own kinds of movies, I wanted to ask a question today:

What cinematic elements in a film can maximize audience engagement?

Take a film such as The Meg, released in August 2018. This film, starring the always-captivating Jason Statham, is an example of a classic “B-movie,” as the above Rotten Tomatoes link states. This half-derogatory name is self-explanatory, for it implies that the film primarily targets the box office, rather than viewers as a whole. An “A” movie has historically been one that receives a blend of critical acclaim and viewer success.

Certain movies are meant to be three-act pieces of explosive, non-sequitur storytelling. Others, such as La La Land, receive Academy Awards because they are nuanced and complex films, and they often vary from the traditional three-act structure with various twists and turns.

But let’s get to the social issue that I’m addressing here: the maximization of viewer engagement. By engagement, I mean genuine immersion and captivation of an audience, not simply for laughs or thrills. Take a film such as The Imitation Game, for example, one of my recent favorites. Its combination of great acting, excellent writing, and circular storytelling – beginning at a certain point in time, transitioning to past events, and returning to the starting point at the ending. I believe films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are always successful – I, for one, am always thoroughly in awe of them – because they combine crisp, thematic storytelling with the necessary laughs and thrills. This, as they say, keeps film audiences “at the edge of their seat” because one does not know what will happen next or how the characters, from the small-scale Ant-Man to the cinematic juggernauts of Iron Man and Captain America, will evolve.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become so successful because it has perfected the formula of maximizing viewer engagement through characters and seamless writing, blended with enthralling action.

Image Credit: https://medium.com/@rajan.nanavati/the-conclusive-ranking-of-all-movies-in-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-6bf3dd1bbb1f

One thing that has long frightened me in films is violence. I used to be scared of attending films – period. I remember watching the G-rated The Tale of Despereaux (2008), a cartoon, and feeling emotional near the film’s ending. As a 10-year-old and while younger, I used to outright fear attending a movie with my family due to the need to partake in shared emotion – or more specifically, sadness – and sensitivity.

Today, that fear has almost entirely disappeared, but it occasionally resurfaces due to fear of embarrassment while I am among my friends and family. Now, my new fear is violence and blood, as contrary to emotional story elements, they cannot be justified with the old “It’s just a movie” adage. Growing up and going through high school in the 2010s was not exactly a walk in the park. With school shootings, political division, and social issues aplenty, my loss of innocence was drastically accelerated, to my frequent dismay.

Today, I am still uncertain of how others deal with the world’s problems, as I myself find it difficult to do so. In regards to movies, I truly have no idea how others process something as brutal as a bullet to the head (a headshot) – sincere apologies, dear reader for the explicit writing – and when one thinks that millions of people see such movies and are, in effect, desensitized to such horrific acts.

Ultimately, in terms of maximizing one’s audience, it is oftentimes the most audacious, atypical, and downright gruesome that takes priority. From a social standpoint, however, I do not believe that such blood and violence should be incentivized. I mean, R-rated movies are fine, but there are not excessively many movies out there, are they? In other words, while it remains the consumer’s choice, the cinema only possesses a limited repertoire of films at a given time.

Thus, if we are to maximize our audiences, we must prioritize life over death and understand that optimism, as opposed to fatalistic attitudes, must always win out – and among all ages.

Image Credit: https://www.irishmirror.ie/showbiz/celebrity-news/six-james-bonds-one-room-6643038

In all debates – political, ideological, personal, you name it – many ideas are presented. There are those that stick and prompt the general public to action, and there are those that are flatly dismissed, for they cannot be universalized.

Such was the case recently when Barbara Broccoli – the head of Eon Productions and the ex officio executive producer of the James Bond franchise – firmly stated in October 2018 that the renowned Agent 007 would remain male. As Daniel Craig approaches his final Bond film, the currently-untitled 25^th installment in the saga, fans are wondering who, exactly, will become the next 007. British actor Idris Elba is poised to become the first man of color to play the world’s most famous secret agent, but he has admitted he possesses no real intention of committing to the role long-term.

I am writing about James Bond tonight because I feel that this dilemma represents a broader social debate – or, more appropriately as it pertains this blog, a civic issue – between tradition and change. These two values are essentially the cornerstones of all politics. The question of whether to repeat the past or to stray from it have always dominated popular conversation and rhetoric emanating from political leaders.

From a personal standpoint, after being born and spending the first five years of my life in France, I moved to Maryland, a largely-liberal state in which, I found, political generalizations and wide, encompassing statements are aplenty. While I do not criticize the existence, the legitimacy, or the cause for social concern related to these viewpoints, I believe that politics must be evaluated on the basis of the individual – that is, on a case-by-case basis, and that outright change through sweeping generalizations simply lacks pragmatism. In other words, such attempts at social reform cannot be omni-applicable if, in their very nature, they are general and thus fail to cater to individual (citizen) interests.

Now, let’s narrow in on the specific. Indeed, an individual with a license to kill.

Image Credit: http://www.awardscircuit.com/2018/06/29/top-10-best-movie-replacements-and-spinoffs/all-james-bond-actors1/

In the case of James Bond, I am keen to echo a statement that Bond’s MI6 ally, Eve Moneypenny (played by Naomie Harris) – the second iteration of the Miss Moneypenny character in the Bond franchise since the original Sean Connery era – utters in Bond’s last outing, Spectre, released in November 2015. “Sometimes the old ways are the best,” she says.

James Bond has remained an iconic figure since 1962 primarily thanks to his suave style, grit, and unphased spy personality (across six different actors, no less!) The term “Bond girl,” as well, has been so colloquialized that today, 007 is among the most famous and recognizable characters and franchises worldwide. Whereas some may claim that the charming, womanizing cinematic character of James Bond represents several social stigmas and inequalities, I think quite to the contrary. A strong female companion or match for 007 is as powerful as a female Bond herself! As former Bond girl Eva Green indicated, there is no reason for such a consistent, renowned saga to enact such a drastic alteration to itself.

In terms of the possibility for change, I also don’t know that it is necessary for Bond. Rendering Bond female would break with tradition and would eliminate various clichés that have become ingrained in the popular lingo. For example, as aforementioned, the iconic and timeless status of both Bond and Bond girls, from Ursula Address (Dr. No) to Jane Seymour (Live and Let Die), Barbara Bach (The Spy Who Loved Me), and Halle Berry (Die Another Day) would lose its luster as a thing of the past.

Dismissal of one’s roots and past for the sake of change and/or increased political acceptance – or, dare I venture, correctness – is not a worthwhile endeavor. Ultimately, I believe that the Bond franchise is correct in its choice to maintain its titular character’s male gender as author Ian Fleming created the character, and a radical change would be in complete opposition to the past works of many.

I recently came upon a speech by Captain Marvel star Brie Larson in which the Oscar-winning actress condemned the white-male majority of film critics for top-grossing films, citing a USC study. As a white male, I recognize the abundance of people who resemble me in popular media. However, I do not believe that, in the case of 007, underscoring one’s talent with racial/racist overtones and/or the need for social change is useful. The past – that is, tradition – possesses innate value from which we must learn and which we must not seek to wipe out (especially in the realm of fictional storytelling, in which no real lives are harmed).

With various movements such as #MeToo emerging, James Bond is supposed to quote “adapt to modern times.” That being said, therein lies the beauty of 007: his ability to adapt to his own times, his own stories, and his own conflicts. This is why the Bond movies work so well: because they are legitimately intriguing. In uniting past and present, they remind us of the value of entertainment for its own sake as an escape from the real world and a reminder of all that is good.

It has been a universal question ever since the days of fuming baseball managers engaged in shouting matches with umpires and kicking up dust from the field: should players and coaches protest the decisions that on-field officials make? Be it Earl Weaver of the 1970s Baltimore Orioles ; Lloyd McClendon, formerly of the Pittsburgh Pirates, throwing first base ; or various other sports coaches throwing a temper tantrum ; coaches and players’ frustration with referees and umpires alike is certainly not limited to a single league.

The proof arose once again this Tuesday as the Philadelphia 76ers’ renowned center Joel Embiid swore into the microphone immediately before departing his postgame press conference. The NBA subsequently fined him $250,000, and the 76ers’ reputation appears to have been ever so slightly tarnished as a result.

Sean Payton argues a controversial non-call in this year’s NFC Championship Game.

The question of ethical player and coach conduct applies to more than just the issue of challenging or overturning a given call. These individuals are professionals, and respect is of utmost importance. However, with millions of dollars; a city worth of fans; countless television viewers; and possible sponsorships at stake, it is quite understandable why relentless passion would be an integral facet of professional sports.

Not all athletes are so-called “class acts” – that is, notoriously mature and well-behaved people who let their on-field performance speak for itself. However, not all players have to be. From a personal standpoint, my favorite players are most definitely those who are the most classy. That being said, I recognize that personalities are among the most enjoyable and entertaining elements of sports. Ultimately, I believe player and coach conduct must act as a proper, effective example to the younger generation.

Does this entail silence and innately reserved nature when it comes to the media? It can, but it does not have to. I believe the most admirable and timeless athletes are those who love their job and who carry out their business every day on the court, the field, the ice, the track et al. because there is no other place they would rather be.

Unfortunately, there are times at which the enthusiasm and/or energy boils over. Embiid, for instance, is known for being quite outspoken, but his public use of an expletive does not bode well for his image or that of his team and league, the NBA. The public setting in which professional athletes are immersed may propel them to superstardom, but it does not grant them the ability to behave as they so choose. Just as high school and college athletes are beholden to their academic institutions, professional athletes – though independent entities that agents and various sponsors represent – still represent some form of governing body. Herein lies the great power of professional sports: a medium – indeed, an entire industry – through which athletes can positively inspire everyday citizens. They can also negatively impact their audience, as well, as was the case with Embiid. While he may possess a trademark personality both on and off the court, he is susceptible to excessive commentary after the fact.

Syracuse men’s basketball head coach, Jim Boeheim, disputes with a referee.

The stakes in sports are notoriously high. Boundless energy and enthusiasm are part of the games we love; however, athletes must accept that controversy is embedded in the fabric of sports. Missed calls or calls that are not in one’s favor will always be present. Now, I am not disputing the rights of coaches or players to argue and resort to free speech, as I myself am a baseball player and I know too well the frustrations that a subpar umpire can provoke.

Nevertheless, in a public setting, I believe it is in the players’ best interest to be polite, at the very least. Embiid’s profanity accomplishes nothing in the grand scheme of things, as the Celtics still defeated the 76ers Tuesday night. If anything, excessive condemnation of league officiating can only work to one’s detriment. Further, to a great extent, protest, anger, and the unrestricted expression of one’s disapproval are among the chief functions of fans. Supporters already let the referees hear it; however much players and coaches may chew the refs out, the crowds in the stands can make themselves heard quite well.

Thus, is player manifestation against officiating allowed? Certainly. Is it normal and can it be expected? Most definitely. Is it proper? Well, that remains to be seen, as it depends on the particular circumstances. Ultimately, as public figures, professional athletes possess a duty to inspire.

Upon occasion, it is what is left unsaid that can be the most beneficial.

Image Credit

https://me.me/i/phila-21-these-refs-f-king-sucked-joel-embiid-after-loss-4c844d779a334d88b0fd78cfe348e483

Sean Payton said Saints-Rams refs admitted they missed pass interference no-call

The 10 angriest coaches in college basketball

To alert, or not to alert? That is the question.

After the shooting that took place at the Ramada Hotel in State College on the night of Thursday, January 24, Penn State did not send a single security alert to students. As this Onward State live blog/article points out, we noticed. Students were outraged and voiced their disapproval via social media shortly after the tragedy.

A university spokesperson initially stated that the incident did not meet the criteria for the aforementioned alert because it did not take place on Penn State-owned property or on public property within striking distance of campus. Penn State then amended its statement, delving into further detail and explaining that campus and State College police carefully examine each incident on a case-by-case basis and in real time in accordance with policies established in the Clery Act of 1990. This act states that all college institutions that participate in federal financial aid programs – for example, FAFSA – must report their campus security policy and crime statistics.

I believe that, regardless of an incident or calamity’s particular location – in other words, whether it be two miles off campus or 20 – the university must notify students of its existence. The only incentive I can think of not to send out an alert is damage control – and, more critically for the university, panic control. Just think about it, dear reader: if University Park possesses 46,000 students living and studying here, that that makes 46,000 pairs of parents (92,000 total parents) left worrying about their children when a shooting occurred only “in the vicinity” of campus.

I, for one, found out about the shooting via a text on GroupMe. I find this to be truly embarrassing for Penn State, and I noticed in the Onward State article that someone else learned of the incident the same way. How can the university not at the very least announce on its website that something has taken place?

I have a few relatives who used to live in downtown State College and who still own a house there in the direction of I-99. I find that the distinction between University Park and State College is quite emphasized here on campus. Electorally, demographically, and in terms of general lifestyle, I have noticed that Penn State tries not to associate itself with its surrounding area. While this does make sense in regards to reputation, overall image, and branding – i.e., letting people know that, while the campus location may be “in the middle of nowhere,” the university is still a leading academic institution – I have no idea why Penn State deems State College mutually exclusive from itself to such an extent. This isn’t New York or Los Angeles, after all, or a town hours away; this is a nearby – check that, adjacent – town that is full of good people and law-abiding citizens.

Now, let’s take a closer look at the aforementioned Clery Act. The law’s namesake, Jeanne Clery, was a 19-year-old student at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, when she was brutally raped and murdered in 1986. Her parents subsequently fought for greater transparency among colleges with regard to campus crime reporting. The act discusses Campus Security Authorities (CSAs) and their functions. In 2013, President Obama strengthened the act through several new provisions.

It seems as though Penn State has begun to more elaborately distinguish between various types of incidents. Following the Timothy Piazza hazing debacle and the Jerry Sandusky scandal, Penn State has placed a great deal of emphasis on sexual violence prevention. However many times the university has preached its new “run, hide, fight” policy, it must absolutely give students the chance to “run” in the first place, regardless of how far away the incident is. Student and family notification and awareness must be priorities for the university, and I believe it must be more responsible than it was just two weeks ago.

In this instance, silence is far worse than awareness, for the damage that Penn State’s reputation has suffered – if only among students – is much more substantial than if an alert had been sent out. No matter the location of a future incident – Bellefonte, where the shooter was from, State College, or otherwise – Penn State must act promptly and with conviction. While the Clery Act may address the safety of students, it does not address their mental and emotional security and well-being. Penn State must now read past the “letter” of the law and into its “heart” – its spirit and intent.

My full name is Sebastien Charles Ross Kraft. Charles Ross, my great-grandfather, lived to nearly 101 years old and managed the A&P grocery store (now Weis) in Bellefonte for 41 years. My point is: the greater State College area is an excellent – and habitually safe – place to live. Thus, Penn State must not be afraid to at least loosely associate itself with its surrounding area, most notably when an emergency has taken place.

In the end, the answer to the above question is evident:

To alert.

Image Credit:

https://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_845dc31c-2056-11e9-b05d-77d4fee7ba4b.html

Gunman kills 3 men in separate shootings, then kills himself

This “Tricolored Tumult” blog pertains to issues of equality – or the lack thereof. In this post, I discuss how a negative equality that is perceived as evening the playing field for all is, in fact, a deceptive monotony in lack of effort – specifically, with regard to the National Football League, or NFL.

In recent weeks, as the league’s playoffs have taken place and fans nationwide have tuned in to see which teams – yes, as we now know, the New England Patriots and the Los Angeles Rams – would play in the highly-anticipated Super Bowl LIII, the NFL has attempted to boost its brand. I, for one, have noticed numerous league commercials advocating for increased helmet safety and concussion avoidance; the revival of football in inner cities; and the epic showdown that is to take place between the Patriots and Saints on Sunday evening in Atlanta.

What I believe matters most, however, is what wasn’t said or advertised.

Commissioner Roger Goodell held his annual Super Bowl press conference this week in Atlanta, and he was far from explicit in addressing the topic that reporters were pursuing most aggressively:

On Sunday, January 20, the New Orleans Saints were robbed of a spot in the Super Bowl when the sideline and on-field referees failed to call a blatant defensive pass interference penalty on the Los Angeles Rams’ Nickell Robey-Coleman, who visibly pushed the Saints’ Tommylee Lewis to the ground.

Part of the league’s explanation pertaining to the non-call was that overturning such an officiating mistake would contradict league policy. While the Goodell does technically possess the authority to overturn calls given league rules – as Saints star wide receiver Michael Thomas pointed out –  his choice not to is wholly based on image preservation.

This is where the issue of equality versus monotony comes in.

Monotony, vis-à-vis the NFL, signifies maintaining a status quo such that hordes of fans watch the Draft and the Super Bowl every year. As difficult as it is for me to admit as a baseball fan and player, football has become America’s new national pastime simply because so many people watch it. The NFL is the league that “owns a day of the week [Sunday],” to borrow a line from the 2015 Will Smith movie Concussion.

Goodell has been so ineffective during his tenure as commissioner because he has sought to preserve a status quo that was never truly established. This perceived equality of interest and involvement among all American households is what the NFL is desperately trying to retain. Repeated inaction does not amount to inequality; rather, it is monotony and redundancy.

The status quo that Goodell wants to maintain is his own: one of passive compliance with those who matter most to him – the fans. Their support of the league never arose through politics, for it came about thanks to the players. Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Brett Favre, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana, Jerry Ric, Deion Sanders, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady are only a few of the names who propelled the NFL to national prominence. Goodell and league officials became so perturbed about the concussion issue, the Kaepernick kneeling debate, and football’s tenuous future that they adopted their rhetoric to a style of vague non-answers. Damage control and limitations on controversy are the NFL’s aims.

Somehow, the league believes that taking decisive standpoints on key issues will go to its detriment. This philosophy infuriates me, for I know that I, for one, will not stop watching my hometown Redskins or the Super Bowl because of something that Goodell says. The press is capitalizing on Goodell’s monotony and general lack of clarity, and I believe this is a positive trend. Singling out the league lets people know that their interests are being fairly represented, and that what matters is what we all see: the plays that happen on the field, not the brouhaha off it.

Alright, I digress. It pains me that the NFL is so hesitant to appear politically-inclined that it can’t even be clear on important issues.

Such issues include fans in New Orleans being upset over their team’s season ending, possibly prematurely. Goodell’s failure to address the possibility of overturning the call or replaying the game was ineffective because it did not offer closure to incredulous fans (nationwide, not just in Louisiana) and players (many of whom, from teams who have already been eliminated, took to Twitter to express their astonishment at the non-call last weekend). The NFL’s face-saving protocol is not working. Whereas I may be consistent in method, it is far from successful in practice. Now, it is time for the league to deliver, for the popularity of the game itself likely does not need TV ads to remain sky-high. Indeed, the Rams-Saints game proved, once again, that the NFL cannot take action when it matters most.

Ultimately, the referees emulated the league, for under pressure in crunch time, they were equal in inaction.

Image Credit

NFL fans were stunned by Saints-Rams officials' egregious no-call on a clear pass interference

Saints receiver Michael Thomas refuted Roger Goodell's explanation for blown no-call

Whereas some issues are incredibly widespread, hotly-debated, and quite renowned, others tend to slip under the public’s radar. These are daily, banal issues that are often unrecognized but make a significant difference in our everyday lives. One such issue on which I hope to shed more light is a trend I have noticed recently, both at my local CVS or Walgreens and other pharmacies:

Facial care products are becoming increasingly expensive – and decreasingly affordable as a result.

While I was in middle school, I began to feel dryness in my eyes. It was nothing major, but my ophthalmologist recommended that I begin using eye drops. Thus, I promptly abided by his instructions and initiated the process of providing my dry eyes with some much-needed relief. A few years later, my ophthalmologist told me that, with 20/25 vision in my right eye and 20/30 in my left, I needed glasses for a slight correction. I didn’t particularly mind this prescription. Indeed, I distinctly remember the moment I first looked out of the doctor’s office into a nearby intersection while wearing my glasses. The slight adjustment that provided made all the difference in the world.

Today, I continue to wear my glasses while looking at screens and for reading, or simply when my eyes are tired. In fact, I’m wearing my glasses right now while composing this blog post! In addition, I am certain that I am not the only person among my peers who wears glasses intermittently, for they are quite a valuable asset. However, while one typically pays for his or her glasses all at once, facial and eye care products demand a more repetitive, long-lasting, and altogether costly commitment.

Typically, when I visit CVS Pharmacy, I purchase a small bottle of Blink Tears or Blink Gel Tears for about $10 to $12. However, given that these small bottles run out quite fast, I often opt to bypass the traditional small bottle and buy one larger bottle for $18, or six additional dollars.

The aspect of this purchase that perturbs me is that, given the daily, habitual pace at which I use up eye drops, I am forced to return to the pharmacy ever two or three weeks, approximately. My routine, therefore, puts a significant dent in my wallet!

There are 52 weeks in one year. I, for one, hail from a middle-class family, and it is sometimes difficult for me to budget medical and health expenses for myself – of course, my parents take care of the rest, for the moment. Theoretically, if I were to return to CVS every three weeks to spend another $18 on a large bottle of Blink Tears, then in one year (52 weeks divided by 3 weeks per eye drop bottle is 17.33; and then 17.33 x $18), I would spend a whopping $312 on eye drops alone!  

I address this concern from a personal standpoint because I know all too well that I am not the only one struggling to make ends meet. As a college student, I often face the harsh reality that money is at a premium.

This leads me to my second facial care product: acne cream. My bedtime routine consists of eye drops, acne cream, and hand/skin cream nightly, and a nice, refreshing drink of water to rehydrate before enjoying several hours of peaceful slumber. I typically take a bit longer to empty my acne cream than the eye drops simply because I do not need to use all that much to achieve the desired effect. The time can vary, however, because oftentimes the tubes of cream are quite small.

Nevertheless, acne cream is another expense that must be accounted for. Depending on the brand, it can cost anywhere between $8 and $10.

In hindsight, I believe I buy acne cream at least as often, and probably a bit more often, than eye drops. Thus, a fair estimate of the yearly cost of acne cream would be $350-$375. For the aforementioned hand cream, which I use predominantly during the winter months but also year-round in very large bottles, I probably pay about $250-$300. In all, I believe I spend at least $1,000 on all my face and hygienical needs; quite a burden, indeed!

I say the following with all due respect and humility, but in this regard, I am glad I am not a girl! I cannot imagine what financial hardships my female counterparts must encounter in their pursuit of quality skin care and hygiene. Whether it be overpriced brand perfume, Neutrogena skin care, or other products, my “plight,” so to speak, completely pales when compared to female health costs! This list omits makeup and hair products, too!

In sum, the everyday American evidently cannot resemble Marilyn Monroe or George Clooney simply because he or she – indeed, we – are not opulent enough to be able to afford the stylistic luxuries that can be found in a pharmacy! This is not an effort on my part to condescend on American society, but rather a commentary on my own financial challenges as they relate to my peers and fellow citizens.

Pharmaceutical companies and their subdivisions are well aware that the average American cannot avoid the pharmacy, for he or she must purchase proper bodily care. Thus, I ultimately ask: instead of taking advantage of us, could you, the pharmaceutical companies of America, agree to cater to our needs and negotiate with us?

Such a change would be greatly appreciated.

Image Credit:

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Blink-Tears-Lubricating-Eye-Drops-Mild-Moderate-Dry-Eye-1-Fl-Oz/10416207

https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/clearasil-daily-clear-acne-treatment-cream-10-benzoyl-peroxide-medication/ID=prod6006461-product?o=acs

Hi, everyone! Today, I will be discussing equality as it relates to a talent and content-based industry: professional filmmaking, or more specifically, that awards show we all fiercely anticipate and watch in late February: the Oscars.

The Academy Awards, commonly known as the Oscars, have long been a bright, golden beacon of elitism and upper-class suave. Stars dressed in fine suits and beautiful gowns will have graced the red carpet 91 times since the awards ceremony’s inception in 1929 following this year’s televised show.

In recent years, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has been criticized for the lack of diversity in its voting body. Hollywood itself has long been an exclusive, idealistic realm where dreams can be realized; however, it does indeed appear that certain measures have rendered the filmmaking (and film-awarding/celebrating) industry unnecessarily exclusive.

How might one quantify diversity? The importance of possessing a variety of races and ethnicities in an industry or a workplace is significant. The ability of a company to contain a multitude of backgrounds and viewpoints can aid its functionality and its adaptability to the real world. In my view, discrimination is unacceptable on a personal basis. Civil rights are necessary and beneficial, not just to those whom they protect, but to society as a whole. Thus, in terms of acceptance of others, I believe “the more the merrier” is the best manner in which to quantify diversity, provided the individuals of color being considered for a given post are as or similarly qualified as their white counterparts.

However, I do believe that talent and content must reign supreme in cinema. The best films must be honored, and I believe simply nominating a film because of the demographics it represents is detrimental to the industry. Yes, the sharing of new perspectives is critical to audience education and engagement, but the best must still emerge victorious. The narrative that Hollywood is selling is that excellent, minority-produced films are not being recognized. In many cases, this is true. Fantastic directors such as Ryan Coogler (Creed; Black Panther) and Barry Jenkins (Moonlight; If Beale Street Could Talk) are clearly among the most skilled in their profession. While I do believe that everyone’s story deserves to be told, I find that the notion that a particular film corresponds to the Academy’s ideals specifically because of its racial themes is only half-credible.

Filmmaking is innately a craft, not merely a subject matter. If a filmmaker can hone his or her craft and address a controversial topic simultaneously, then his ethos is undeniable. Lighting, framing, shot selection, set design, and location selection – coupled with thematic focus – are the most crucial, craft-based aspects of the industry.

This Refinery29 article states that the number of minority and female filmmakers invited to be adjudicators in the aforementioned Academy has increased dramatically over the past few years. Unfortunately, women still only represent 28% of total Academy members, according to the same article. By the same token, people of color only represent eight percent of the Academy’s membership. What, one might wonder? has caused this 91-year power imbalance?

Let’s take this opportunity to reminisce on some Hollywood classics. Singin’ In the Rain (1952) and Gone with the Wind (1939) for example, virtually did not feature any diversity. Yet, Gene Kelly’s timeless hit is one of the few films with a perfect 100 percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. One of the only African-American or minority characters in Hollywood’s “golden age,” if you will, was Dooley Wilson’s “As Time Goes By” piano player, Sam, in Casablanca (1942). Otherwise, Hollywood’s early years were predominantly white.

A great movie. But what about diversity?

Thus, to rephrase, I do not believe that members of the Academy, both young and old, must feel obliged to incorporate diversity into their Oscar selections simply to alter the status quo. Change, I believe, must be earned. If the talent is there, then yes, I am all for greater inclusion. One aspect of the Academy’s new philosophy with which I agree is its pursuit of a platform for all filmmakers to pursue (produce groundbreaking films) and achieve (be recognized, whether in nomination or award) their dreams – regardless of race or ethnicity.

If one puts in the effort, he or she is bound for success. As a young journalist and aspiring filmmaker – in both the documentary and fictional genre – this is a perspective with which I identify. However, I will acknowledge that my hardworking mindset might present a bias since, as a French-American, white man, I cannot hope to comprehend the struggles of my colored friends and coworkers.

Ultimately, the Oscars are still largely white. As this Vanity Fair article states, the Academy is filtering out its older members and bringing in the new to instill change. In the end, the Academy’s ability to effectively encompass all filmmaking perspectives is essential to the growth of the filmmaking industry. If Hollywood hopes to appeal to the general public, it must stress that all filmmakers and moviegoers are welcome – regardless of race, class, or ethnicity.

However, talent must still reign supreme and remain in the driver’s seat, with theme right beside it in the passenger’s seat to provide direction.

Image Credit

http://venturestrategic.com/articles/at-the-oscars/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045152/

*Word Count: 860

My Cultural Commentary Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/opinion/elon-musk-tesla.html

Dear reader, welcome to Tricolored Tumult! This semester, as stated in this blog’s subtitle, I will be examining a variety of civic issues as they pertain to equality. I will analyze issues of public outreach, public policy and more! Without further ado, here we go:

They are sleek, stylish, and fossil fuel-free. They are produced by billionaire Elon Musk, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Tesla vehicles are notoriously futuristic and innovative. Complete with several autonomous driving options and even over-the-air software updates similar to those found in smartphone applications, Teslas have been hailed as the vehicle of the future.

However, in order to thrive in the future, a brand must first succeed in the present by maximizing its outreach. In other words, a brand must cater to the largest number of customers possible to heighten profits. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average income among all Americans in 2016 was $57,617.

As stated on Tesla’s website, which features a facilitated, state-of-the-art  ordering system with customer-specific design options, the down payment for each Tesla vehicle is approximately $50,000, with some cheaper and more expensive options. How, one might subsequently ask, is Tesla supposed to appeal to the American middle class when the starting price of its vehicles is in the vicinity of what each American makes in an entire year?

The answer, sadly, is that they aren’t. The Tesla brand is inherently tied to Silicon Valley and wealthy technology companies. Furthermore, the worst part is that Tesla can afford to bypass the American middle class in favor of the nation’s elite, upper-class citizens who are willing to pay whatever is necessary for their advanced electric vehicles. Unfortunately, Musk himself has opted to maintain the price of Teslas at levels that many Americans – or, more aptly put, many potential Tesla customers –  would deem astronomical. Affordability is thus not among Musk’s primary concerns; gaining profit, or at least breaking even, given the advanced resources needed to construct electric cars, seems to be Musk’s sole priority.

I believe that it is in Tesla’s best interest to lower its prices by any and all means necessary. If Musk is truly the inventor and the environmentalist of the future, then he must seek to reach out to those Americans who are less prone to environmental concern. The Americans of whom I speak are poorer, everyday citizens who struggle to meet ends meet on a daily basis to sustain themselves – not to mention buy electric cars to sustain their environment and those around them!

(Above) Tesla may appeal to families, but one might wonder: how wealthy must those families be?

To reiterate, I firmly believe that the banalization and popular – not just elitist – spread of electric cars is the key to both Musk’s environmental and business goals. The future is here, and yet Musk cannot escape his own, self-centered ambitions. Is it not human nature to first care for oneself? Musk must be the one to alter this trend.

As the above New York Times article states, Elon Musk is indeed a brilliant man. I do not doubt or question this. However, there is something innately disturbing to me about Tesla’s lack of concern for social equality. I live in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. only about 15 or 20 minutes – i.e., a quick metro ride – away from certain parts of the district. Over Winter Break, I drove to the French Embassy with my maternal French relatives who were visiting my family. While driving them, I began to look in my rearview mirrors or at the cars beside me for the following insignia:

 

While navigating the Washingtonian streets, I soon observed numerous Teslas; that is, more than I had observed prior to leaving for Penn State. It is quite important to note here that the D.C. embassy neighborhood is among the area’s wealthiest. After all, the Obamas now reside there! Once again, unfortunately, Teslas are disproportionately available to the wealthy! I have no issue whatsoever with President Obama, but he and Michelle are the definition of the upper class, for they came from the White House and their home cost multiple millions! The average American is not nearly as rich as the Obamas.

Philanthropy only goes so far. This is not the Industrial Revolution or the time of Andrew Carnegie; indeed, this is – or, more appropriately, could be – a new era of renewal featuring more environmentally sustainable forms of transportation.

I fully understand that electric cars are currently in short supply and resources are scarce – and therefore, expensive. However, if this is truly to be a time of human improvement and evolution, then Elon Musk must do whatever is necessary to render Tesla available to the general public. The American middle class would likely be more than willing to make a change if only it were presented with the opportunity to do so.

Ultimately, I sincerely hope that in the near future, I will be able to pull up to a stoplight here in State College, Pennsylvania, in the hills of Penn State, and see a Tesla roll up next to me; just an everyday citizen with an everyday electric car and a newly-banalized mindset of sustainability for all.

Image Credit:

https://www.tesla.com/

Tesla Has The Highest Customer Loyalty Of All Car Brands

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/vehicle/part/tesla-logo-f2c856dc-836b-4143-82ab-e07964e7a959

*Word Count: 874