12 Years a Slave

To put it simply, "12 Years a Slave" is not an easy film to watch.  More specifically, it is as harrowing a motion picture as ever.  How else can it be put? Disturbing, horrifying, powerful--these are all appropriate adjectives. The point is that the film will essentially leave you speechless. The famous Roger Ebert quote that no good movie is depressing but all bad movies are depressing is not accurate here. This movie is very, very depressing, as depressing as it is exceptional. It is not an easy one to watch, but that's the way it should be.

Is it too violent? To say yes would be an insult not only to realism and history but also those who suffered and died from such terrible situations. Much criticism has been made these days about the level of violence and nudity in movies. That is another discussion for another time. But director Steve McQueen has wisely included a large amount here; not to do so would be unwise. Being stripped naked to show for potential customers is perhaps the most humiliating of acts. It is here that the movie first started to "get to me," which is odd, because by that point, roughly thirty minutes in, the audience has been shown several scenes of torture. But those scenes were expected. I did not expect to see a cruel slave seller played by Paul Giamatti demonstrate a young boy's strength by having him jump repeatedly before the boy is separated from his mother and sister. (Compare Giamatti's performance to that of the sweet driver he plays in "Saving Mr. Banks.") The scene is haunting. So too is the simplicity (aside from the practically Shakespearean dialogue) in a scene where a slave woman played by Alfre Woodard (terrific as always) discusses her strategy to use lust to avoid the whip. That strategy is not so successful for Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o), who becomes the victim of the worst violence imaginable.

Her master and also that of Solom Northup, the story's protagonist played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, is played by Michael Fassbender. I have seen Fassbender in a number of bad films, including the overrated "Shame," which is one of the two previous movies he has done with McQueen. (Fassbender has appeared in all three of McQueen's films; the other is "Hunger" from 2008.) But I have never seen him give a bad performance, and this is by far his best performance yet. From beginning to end, his portrayal is that of terrifying sadism. In a dumber version of the movie, Fassbender's Edwin Epps would be the "evil slave owner," waking his property in the middle of the night to dance, raping his slaves, whipping them until he has lost his energy. 

But Benedict Cumberbatch as William Ford would be the "good slave owner." Solomon describes Ford as a decent man, and there are scenes of actual kindness, like Ford giving Solomon a violin (Solomon was a professional violinist before he was kidnapped and thrown into slavery). But while it's discreet, the movie makes clear that there is no such thing as a good slave owner. Consider the fact that both Epps and Ford gather their slaves into the yard to listen to them read from the Bible. Epps reads a passage about obeying the Lord as one's master.  "That's scripture," he warns. In his book "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined," Steven Pinkner asks if the reader has ever noticed that "Thou shall not own slaves" is not a commandment. Neither is "Thou shall not rape," for that matter. The Bible doesn't condemn slavery; it condones it. And yet, to paraphrase Dan Savage, this is the document we are to heed, but it couldn't even get the simplest moral question correct. There is no such thing as a good slave owner.

This is a tale of a total deficit of empathy and compassion. The other major movies regarding the black American experience this year ("42" and "Lee Daniels' The Butler") are ultimately about success. "12 Years a Slave" is only about failure. It's true that there is a portion not necessarily about success and survival but about living. The primary motivation of Solomon is not to revenge, which he does only once, fighting back against a terribly vicious man played by Paul Dano. Instead, his motivation is to live, as he clearly states. I have not yet mentioned how magnificent Ejiofor is as Solomon Northup. It is one of the very best performances of the year and perhaps the decade. Of the elements of this film, particularly the direction from Steve McQueen, are incredible and worthy of their Oscar nominations.  It is truly one of the best films of the year.
      

Read More →

The Wolf of Wall Street

Greed is good. That was the unforgettable line of Oliver Stone's 1987 "Wall Street." Here, a quarter of a century later, Martin Scorsese's tweak of that infamous attitude is that greed is not just good, but really fuckin' good...and it always will be. "The Wolf of Wall Street" features arguably Leonard DiCaprio's best performance yet (and I thought the same thing of DiCaprio in "Django Unchained" the year before). He is one of those rare actors who tries to outdo himself with every performance. His portrayal of Jordan Belfort, along with the other acts of barbarism and absurdity, help make DiCaprio and Scorsese's first collaboration, "Gangs of New York," look tame.

This movie is not for the faint of heart. Remember that rumor that Jack Nicholson would snort cocaine off the rear end of a young woman in Scorsese's "The Departed" but it was left on the cutting room floor? Well, something like that exists in the opening moments of "The Wolf of Wall Street." The viewer will either think this is a small component of a larger picture of arbitrary debauchery, or be so disgusted and turn the film off. But the scenes serve a purpose--if you didn't hate Wall Street already, you will really hate it now.

The film starts with Black Monday in 1987, the year I was born. (I entered this world with the worst stock market crash since 1929, and I graduated in 2009 among the worst stock market crash since 1929.) Belfort, humbled by his experience, has to start back at the bottom. He finds a job pushing penny stocks to schmucks (the postmen, we're told; always the postmen), and they're selling garbage to garbage men. It's at this time that he meets Donnie Azoff. Azoff is played by Jonah Hill, who is quickly emerging as one of the most enjoyable actors to watch. Here, he has never been better; possibly the only performance of the year funnier was the one he gave in "This Is the End." But there is also a terrifying sense of malice to him. His monologue--explaining what he would do to the hypothetical child with disabilities he would hypothetically produce with his wife (who also happens to be his cousin)--is, believe it or not, similar to Joe Pesci's famous "funny how?" diatribe in "Goodfellas." In both cases, the intention of the dialogue is to invoke fear. These are funny wiseguys, but they're also terrifying.

The humor is actually one of the things that's so surprising about "The Wolf of Wall Street." When folks heard that DiCaprio and Scorsese were teaming up for the fifth time, we all thought this would be a gritty drama. Instead, we're treated to a very funny movie, one of the funniest of the year. Here, DiCaprio's performance is that of a risk-loving lunatic with a golden toilet. The funniest scene undoubtedly is the one where both Belfort and Azoff take expired methaqualone (commonly referred to throughout the movie as "ludes"), and the drugs only kick in just as the best laid plans of Wall Street rats go terribly, terribly awry. The plan is to have all their money transported to Swiss bank accounts. Azoff screws up awfully and their pickup man ends up in jail. Belfort rushes to a pay phone to get the news (which includes an unfortunate fact that the FBI has been bugging their phones). Belfort has to drive (while essentially in a catatonic state) back to his mansion to prevent Azoff from using the phones. The trouble is that Azoff has definitely been using the phones; he calls the French banker (Jean Dujardin) to tell him that money will be late, but he's barely able to produce any of those required syllables or syntax. The result is confusion and hysteria. "You ate ze money? What do you mean you ate ze money?"

So to say that DiCaprio and Hill are worthy of Oscar nominations is an understatement. Audiences have seen DiCaprio do humorous scenes before, but they've never seen him this funny, and it's widely known that comedy more often than not is much more challenging than drama. Terrence Winter, who worked with Scorsese on "Boardwalk Empire," certainly deserves to be nominated for his exceptional screenplay. Also providing great performances are Margot Robbie as Belfort's second wife and Rob Reiner as Belfort's father, who may have just as foul a mouth as his son but at least is wiser, more cautious, and more long-term thinking. It is surely hoped that they are rewarded with nominations tomorrow.

"How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"
-Pope Francis, "Evangelii Gaudium"

Read More →

New Advice For New English Teachers

What better way to start the new year than by writing an article that has nothing to do with movies? Well, that's what I'll do.

Last year, I wrote a bit of advice for new English teachers. I wrote about how teachers needed to talk less, know their grammar, use technology, and remember the oppressed, among other things.

I've given more thought recently as I reflect on my teaching practice, including my own strengths, my own deficiencies, my own classroom management and rapport. What works, what isn't working, what I can reconsider--things like that. So I figure I'll share some thoughts. Here is some new advice for new English teachers.  

Your students are smart (probably smarter than you are)

No, kids aren't getting dumber. In what's often called the Flynn Effect, scholars have noted that later generations have continually scored higher on IQ tests. Linguists like Steven Pinker have noted that today's students have "extraordinary brainpower" because our education system has shifted from concrete, pre-scientific modes of thinking to one that favors the ability to think in complex hypotheticals. Pinker notes Flynn's story about his father, who was incredibly racist. Flynn asked his father about his reaction if he woke up one morning with black skin. His father scoffed that it was impossible for such a thing to happen. His father not only grew up in a more racist world but also refused to think hypothetically and empathetically.

My point is that the older you are, the closer you are to the education system that favored facts (state capitals, for example) and the younger your students are, the closer they are to an education model that favors critical thinking, reason, empathy, and science.    

Additionally, you are not necessarily more knowledgeable than your students. Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator and theorist, told a story of how he was in the presence of Chilean farmers, who were humbled and honored to be with an academic of his stature, and they told him so, explaining to him how much smarter he was than they were. Freire knew they were wrong (or better yet, not right), and so to prove his point he asked them to play a game with him. He got to quiz the farmers about his work, and they got to do the same about theirs. It was a tie. Teachers need to remind themselves of the expression that "you're too educated to be smart."

Your students, on the other hand, are not only fluent speakers of their own language but likely know more of the language you are teaching than you know of the language they speak at home. It's not uncommon for children in countries like my former home of the Georgian Republic to speak as many as four languages. Just remind yourself of that every time you become frustrated when your students don't use a continuous tense correctly.

Avoid banking
The major contribution to education from Freire is his criticism of the banking model. In a banking model, according to Freire, a teacher teaches and a student is taught; the teacher is the subject but the students are mere objects. This approach can not only be arrogant but also ineffective.    

Why? Because too often, with a banking approach, the teacher assumes that the students do not possess resources or stories worthwhile in an academic area. Too often, the teacher talk increases too much, and the students, struggling to keep up, lose interest. Basic Teaching 101 says that some students may appreciate a banking approach--in other words, the student is an auditory learner and learns best when he or she hears the information. But some students are visual learners, and need to be shown something. Finally, there's probably the least understood and appreciated student of them all: the kinaesthetic or tactile learner. To this student, the classroom desk is a prison, and that can make you--the teacher--the prison guard.

Games are a good thing
Games are great because they force (or at least highly encourage) participation, far more than our typical "volleyball-style" Socratic questioning. Why is Google Earth so cool? Part of it, of course, is the cinematic quality of zooming in on our planet and finding our street ("That's my house!"). But part of it, according to Stephen Wilmarth, is the participatory nature of it. "By providing APIS (application program interface codes) to anyone who requests them," he writes, "amateurs and professionals alike can combine photos and video and blogs and wikis with stunning Google Earth imagery." Participation is the key, and games will go a long way in helping you with that.

Think games are only for children? My eighteen-year-old students thoroughly enjoy them (though that might say something about their maturity levels). I found success, as well, with adult Czech students. Games teach many things so much more effectively than traditional methods.  Need to practice a difficult grammar structure like the present perfect? The legendary "You have changed..." game covers that (and will likely leave your students in stitches). Body parts with younger children?  Total Physical Response activities (e.g. "Simon Says") are perfect. Need to review for a test?  Jeopardy, of course.

Does this mean everyone likes games? Of course not. There are even some young children who don't like to play games. Playing a game every class certainly sends a message--the wrong message--and just like any other activity up a teacher's sleeve, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. A good general rule is any game that last more than 20 minutes is usually pushing it.

Be critical, and change the world
Whether you're teaching in an ESL or EFL environment, your students are likely from African and Asian nations where tradition, cultural norms, and hierarchy are superior to change, questioning and student-led learning. Your classroom can be the first time they're exposed to a new way of thinking--a critical one that encourages challenging the status quo.

Consider Jane Elliot's famous (or infamous) Brown Eyes/Blue Eyes experiment from 1968. Disgusted and depressed, as most Americans were, at the assassination of Martin Luther King, she decided to try an experiment with her young elementary school (all white students) where they would be segregated; one would be privileged and loved while the other would lack rights and be despised. She segregated her students based on their eye color, then switched the groups. The results were shocking. As you can see, her sweet students were turned into intolerant monsters.

In June, I wrote an article called "The Personification of God." The title is borrowed from Malak Zaalouk's book "The Pedagogy of Empowerment" about community schools in Egypt. The community schools in Egypt embraced problem-solving and conflict resolution, with a classroom that was shared, decentralized and participatory.  Quality education, she argued, was one where the teacher was no longer the personification of God.  She interviewed many students, teachers, and community members,

Repeatedly, the children indicated that they no longer carried out difficult agricultural work. Nor did they have to look after the animals. The adults took over. This was indeed regarded as a promotion in status. Rasha from Manfalur, Asyur, is thirteen and states, "Before going to school, my family did not acknowledge me as a person with rights; they used to ask me to do lots of things at home and around the house. Now they ask nothing of me during school time. They never ask me to absent myself from school. They show me a lot of respect, and I am able to express my opinions freely." Describing her relationship with her family, Faten from Dar al-Salam makes the point more emphatically, "Our relationship has changed. Before I went to school, nobody listening to my opinion. Now I have an opinion that I express, and they listen to me and are convinced by what I say."

You don't have to be God, but you can still change the world as a teacher in ways you never thought possible.  

Finally, every student needs and a champion.

Read More →