Now You See Me

In college, I was assigned a story to review a magic act taking place at Kent State, the school I attended. The act featured a man named Joshua Seth, a hypnotist who showed us in the audience a video of a young girl whose phobia of dental procedures was eradicated through Seth's hypnotism. Seth, I wrote, entered the stage as if he were a rock star, then proceeded to hypnotize almost twenty students. He hypnotized them to react to changes in the room temperature only they could feel, play instruments to the William Tell Overture, and he somehow got the males to give birth while the female nurses assisted. It was all a heck of a lot of fun to watch, and I haven't even mentioned the volunteers rapping in Japanese. After the show, I interviewed two of the participants. One was a physics major (one of the more rational, logic-oriented majors out there) who told me that "it was real--no acting." When I asked the second student, a biology major, if she was skeptical at first, she replied, "Skeptical as hell--that's why I did it! "It's like tripping out," Seth told me afterwards, "but without the drugs." And the whole time I sat there wondering how he did it.

That's ultimately what's wrong with Louis Leterrier's "Now You See Me," a film about magicians who act as Robin Hoods by robbing banks. With a magic act, the majority of us have no idea how the tricks are performed. With this movie, it's simple: computer generated imagery. The latter used to be magical. We've all seen movies that have had such a, well, magical effect largely due to its visuals. Think of the first time you saw "Jurassic Park," the movie that pioneered such effects, or the "Harry Potter" movies (about magic, of course). A century ago, moviegoers supposedly ran out of theaters thinking the ocean waves were going to crash through the screen onto them or that they would be shot by cowboys. Georges Melies was the finest of these early pioneers. "The inventor of numerous illusions," as his epitaph states, Melies was literally a magician and incorporated some of these magical acts into his movies, the most famous being "A Trip to the Moon" in 1902. Filmmakers have, for the most part, abandoned Melies-esque zeal for innovative visual effects in movies. Consider one of the first scenes in "Now You See Me," where Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg) shows the audience a card trick. We're told, as we would for almost any card trick, to look at the cards and find one with our eyes. As this was happening, one could hear whispers throughout the theater of people telling each other that they all saw the same card, and I, as I was for Joshua Seth, wondered how the filmmakers did that. A second later, though, I was simply angry because the card trick was abandoned for a CGI effect, which didn't impress me. "Now You See Me" is essentially a magic movie with no magic in it.

This isn't to say that it is not fun. The actors here are generally a joy to watch. Consider the cast--Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Kelly. They've all, particularly in the past decade, made better movies and given better performances. But they're given here some fun stuff and fast, old-fashioned dialogue, and they seem to be enjoying themselves. Particularly noteworthy is Melanie Laurent, who plays the Interpol agent assigned to the case with Ruffalo's character. She's terrific in everything she's been in, including this one.  (You might recognize her from "Inglorious Basterds" and "Beginners.") Additionally, Dave Franco sometimes steals the show, and I suspect we'll see a lot more good things from him in the movies. But it's not simply our four protagonists and those chasing them who are interesting; it's virtually every character. Caine plays Arthur Tressler, a wealthy insurance company owner financing the magic act (called the Four Horsemen). In a duller script, his would basically be a glorified cameo. Instead, his character is interesting, and he's not quite who he seems to be. In fact, none of these characters are. This is a mysterious, who-stole-it caper movie, part "The Prestige," part "The Da Vinci Code," and part "The Sting."

The plot has numerous holes and requires a serious suspension of disbelief, but it is tolerable nonetheless.  Dylan Rhodes (Ruffalo) tries to piece together how these four (Eisenberg, Fisher, Harrelson, and Franco) are robbing banks during magic acts. The first one involves the Four Horsemen transporting an audience member from Las Vegas to Paris so he can help them rob a bank. Rhodes is skeptical of magic, and yet its the magicians who are having the most fun at his expense.  It gets to the point where you feel bad for him, a respectable detective being embarrassed by a magic act. But that's when the movie is at its most enjoyable, especially the second of three performances, taking place in New Orleans (with some more humorous hypnotism). Rhodes is repeatedly told how stupid he is by Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), a professional magician debunker who is perfectly capable of revealing how these magicians are committing their acts.  

So ultimately this is a movie with mixed reactions. I enjoyed the actors, and the story kept my attention, despite its plot holes. But then there's the final five minutes or so. Movies like this seem like they're entitled to twist the story for one final surprise, but this ending contains probably the worst twist ending I have ever seen. I want to repeat that: it's probably the worst twist I have ever seen. It's so unbelievably stupid, so insulting to the rest of the movie. It's not even deus ex machina; it's more like the deus just said, "To hell with it--I give up." So what rating should it be given? A very, very marginal approval. It's a fun movie, if you can tolerate some stupid things (and the lack of authentic magic).           



film, movie, movies, cinema, now you see me, morgan freeman, michael caine, jesse eisenberg, franco, rufffalo, magic

Read More →

Blaming Superman: Our Gun Problem Is Caused by Guns, Not Movies

"AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes."
-"Jackie Brown"

Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained" is undoubtedly controversial, mostly because of its repeated use of the N-word (don't discuss it with Samuel L. Jackson). But the film is also controversial because of its violence. Consider the classical Greek-style violence of his earlier movies like "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction," where much of the violence is off-camera and relatively mild compared to a lot of the action films of the time. Compare this to Tarantino's more recent ones like "Kill Bill" and "Inglorious Basterds." Tarantino would argue that these recent films are homages to the gratuitous violence of the movies he's paying tribute to, particularly those from Italy and Japan. Regardless, Tarantino has come to the point where he has decided to stop defending violence in his movies.

If a boy jumps out of a window thinking he is Superman, do we blame Superman? As many of you know, "Taxi Driver" is about a borderline-insane cab driver, played by Robert De Niro, who befriends a young prostitute and who, at one point, tries to assassinate a candidate for president. A man named John Hinckley was apparently under the impression that he could impress the young star of "Taxi Driver," Jodi Foster (who played the prostitute), by assassinating President Ronald Reagan, and so he tried. In 1981, after the attempted assassination of President Reagan, there was as much controversy about violence in movies as there is today. But are movies to blame for our gun violence epidemic? (Incidentally, a picture is making its rounds on the internet, pointing out the various officials with weapons meant to protect the president on that day in 1981. The point is directed to those who say that "good guys with guns" can stop "bad guys with guns." Sometimes it doesn't work.)

Upon reading the Second Amendment (in my copy from the Heritage Foundation, no less), I am astounded by how vague it is. All arms for every citizen? Well-regulated militia? If our ancestors found it appropriate to amend the Constitution throughout history, would it not be appropriate to amend this part of it? Second Amendment or not, we have a serious problem on our hands. In 2010, over 31,000 Americans were killed by guns. Since 1968, more Americans have died from guns than the number of Americans killed in our entire country's war history. Americans are not more violent than their counterparts around the world (our levels of car left, robbery, and assault are similar to other high-income nations), but American children are 13 times more likely to die from guns than their counterparts around the world. The remedy for this is gun control, simply because it works; according to conservative estimates, Australia's relatively recent gun control policies have saved at least 200 people a year, and instead of having 13 gun massacres in 18 years before their gun control law, Australians have had 0 since. Great Britain went through a similar decrease in gun violence. After the government introduced new gun control measures, gun violence fell. It's true that England and Wales faced a rise in gun crime immediately after the ban was introduced, but since 2004, the total number of firearm offenses has fallen every year (Lau 2012). Likewise, Scotland has seen a reduction every year (except 1998), and gun crime in Scotland is a third of what it was in 1996, after the Dunblane Shootings. Last year, Great Britain had only 32 gun homicides (North 2013). Because of this, Britain and Australia have been able to largely avoid an "American-style" gun culture of violence. It's time the American people also demand we end this "American-style" gun culture.

(Here's the links for Part 2 and Part 3.)

But instead of realizing these facts, we hear from the other side that doing something "infringes" on our rights. But currently under federal law, background checks are not required for sales from private sellers. This provides prohibited batterers with easy access to guns (Zeoli, Frattaroli 2013). Passing universal background checks could help prevent the wrong people from getting guns, but according to conservative logic, this is unconstitutional. (Additionally, 90% of Americans support background checks including 74% of NRA members.) Do conservatives and libertarians believe that everyone is entitled to possess a gun? Does everyone include those with substance abuse, those who have committed violence against intimate partners, and illegal aliens? The Constitution does not provide guidance on this, yet we have decided as a society that these individuals should not be allowed to possess guns. Under current federal law, those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors are prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns for life. Does this infringe on these citizens' constitutional rights? Several studies (Vigdor and Mercy 2003, 2006; Zeoli and Webster 2010) show that state domestic violence restraining order laws significantly reduced intimate partner homicides (guns are the weapon of choice among IPH perpetrators, according to Zeoli and Frattaroli), which is another example of the efficacy of gun control. Drug abusers are prevented from possessing guns, so why can't we extend that prohibition to those with alcohol abuse, which is just as strongly associated with violence and suicide as drug abuse is?  

Fortunately, times are changing. Despite conservative rhetoric, national gun ownership is decreasing; according to data collected from the General Social Survey, gun ownership has fallen even in the South and Western regions of the U.S. Then there's the falling approval ratings of Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire after her anti-common sense votes on the expanded background checks and her pathetic response to the daughter of the principal killed in Newtown.  Also consider the recent change-of-heart of Senator Joe Machin, the conservative Democratic senator of West Virginia. As Alec MacGillis' article in The New Republic points out, "What's remarkable [about Machin's switch] is not just that he sponsored the background-check bill, but that when it failed, he kept on campaigning."

So when guns aren't to blame, movies are. There are essentially two opinions on our epidemic: one is that guns cause violence and one is that violent media causes violence. As I stated before, I am not an expert on the Constitution, on psychology, on sociology (come to think of it, I'm not an expert in anything.) But I am a lover of the movies, and I feel compelled to explain my thoughts on whether it is right or wrong to regulate movies instead of regulating guns. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns have put forth a proposal of seven recommendations, including required background checks for all gun sales, limiting the availability of military-style weapons (as General Stanley McCrystal recently advocated for), and installing a Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives director, which hasn't had a director for six years. None of the proposals focus on violence in films. Additionally, we should pass federal legislation to pass child protection prevention to reduce gun violence among children; follow the 2013 recommendations of Vitter, Webster and Vernick to raise the federal minimum age requirement for firearm possession; and prohibit alcohol abusers from possessing firearms. This problem we have is not caused by the film industry but instead the fact that a "considerable fraction of people who commit violent crimes are legally entitled to guns" (Cook and Blose 1981).

But for now, regarding our gun violence epidemic, whom should we blame?  Our lack of common sense gun control or Superman?

Read More →

All These Scandals Means...Another Four More Years?

Republicans must be really excited these days. The Obama administration is engulfed in three "scandals" (none of which can be directly linked to the President himself). Regardless, they see blood and they are thirsty. 2016 is bound to return the White House to Republican hands. For one, as mentioned, President Obama is engulfed in "scandals." Second, history is our guide--can you name many times when one of the two parties held onto the White House for more than eight years? The last time that happened was twenty years ago. (Although, technically, with Al Gore's popular vote victory in 2000, it actually wasn't too long ago.) So it's just about guaranteed that Republicans will win in 2016, no matter what. Right?

Well, maybe not. Unfortunately for them, as of now, things aren't looking too good.



1. Demographics are seriously against them.  

In a little-noticed article from Nate Silver, he presented an interactive electoral map of the U.S. from 2016 to 2048. Readers can adjust the levels of new voters, assuming an immigration reform amnesty bill were to be passed. As you can see, if you start off at 50-50 (50% of unauthorized immigrants who become citizens and 50% who vote), then the map is identical to President Obama's 2012 victory.



But let's say you're a pessimist and assume no bill will pass and the roughly 12 million undocumented workers will remain that way. Surely the Republicans are projected to do better, right?

Nope. As you can see, even if it's 0-0, the map is the same. Republicans may be concerned about their electoral chances with or without an immigration bill, but even if there is none, assuming demographic behavior stays constant, the Republicans are in a huge amount of long-term trouble.

How about 2048? Even if no immigration reform bill is passed, Democrats are projected to increase their electoral victories by more than forty votes! Now the blue spreads to North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona. And what if some sort of immigration reform is passed?

Wow. Texas--Texas--is blue.   

As you can see, demographics are changing. The Republican base (older white voters) is decreasing while the Democratic base (minorities) is increasing. Beyond that, there was a damning report this week about the GOP's perception among younger voters, who overwhelmingly voted for President Obama in both elections and are still not impressed by the Republicans. How do young Americans view the GOP?  "Close-minded," "old-fashioned," "racist," and Latino voters believe that the Republicans "couldn't care less about them." On the economy: "We've become the party that will pat you on the back when you make it, but won't offer you a hand to help you get there."

Republicans need to change--asap--if they want to start winning presidential elections again.     

2. Even without demographics, they might be in trouble.

The best book about presidential history and campaigns is Allan Lichtman's The Keys to the White House. It details a model he developed with a Russian earthquake science to predict which party would win the White House based on an analysis of every presidential election from 1860 to 1980. Their track record? From 1984 to 2012, the model accurately predicted the winner every single time. The way it works is there are thirteen statements (or "keys") regarding the economy, foreign policy, incumbent/opponent charisma, etc. None of the keys have anything to do with debates, commercials, or anything like that. If the statement is false, the key goes against the incumbent party. Six false keys means the incumbent party loses. For example, look at the 2012 race. Key 2 states that "there is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination." For 2012, this was obviously true, so it worked in President Obama's favor. For 2008, most keys worked against the incumbent Republicans.  

For 2016, as of now, I predict five false keys will be against the Democrats--1, 3, 7, 11, and 12--one short of the Republicans winning. That being said, if I'm correct that those five will be false, then all it takes is one tiny key to turn false for a Republican win, according to Lichtman's model. It's true that there could be a serious battle between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, but I doubt they will challenge each other. It's obvious that with Democrats, Biden is liked but Hillary is loved, and therefore, most Democrats are keeping their fingers crossed that she is the nominee. (Regardless, Key 12 regarding incumbent charisma will likely go against them; they're both fairly likable and great campaigners, but they don't have the charisma of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, or Barack Obama.)

3. For yet a third cycle, Republicans have mediocre candidates. 

Other than Marco Rubio, I can't see any of the possible Republican nominees being formidable. Because Chris Christie did the oh-so-un-Republican thing of being respectful to President Obama, he certainly won't be the nominee. (His recent moves regarding a replacement for the late Frank Lautenberg have done him no favors.) Bobby Jindal? He still hasn't recovered from national missteps. Rand Paul is still too extreme for the country and even for the Republican nomination. The Democrats should only fear Rubio, the Republican Obama.    

4. The economy is improving.

Facts are facts. At the beginning of President Obama's term, when he and his team hadn't even located the light switches yet, jobs were hemorrhaging by a horrifying 800,000 a month. For the past two years, however, the economy has been adding jobs. Additionally, our deficits are shrinking, and in April, the U.S. government ran a $113 billion surplus. (Obama's immediate predecessor, by the way, inherited a $5 trillion surplus and turned it into an $8 trillion deficit.) The problem with our shrinking deficits is that while we may be celebrating now, we are actually doing deficit reduction entirely the wrong way. While deficits are decreasing now, causing a drag on our economy, they are projected to increase again by the end of the decade. Essentially, we've found ways to do short-term fixes (sequestration, letting all the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest) but not long-term (health care costs, letting the Bush tax cuts expire). This may or may not help the Republicans in 2016.  
  

For the record, if I were forced to bet today about who would win in 2016, I would bet that it would be the Republicans. As everyone knows, it's very rare for a party to hold onto the White House for more than eight years. That being said, instead of numerous variables working in their favor, only some of them are. If they do want to win, they better step it up as well as hope President Obama's second term is less successful than his first term. Republicans have lost the past five out of six presidential elections. At this rate, they may lose the next eight.

Read More →

Star Trek Into Darkness

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is how Captain Kirk rationalizes working with a terrible foe. Is it logical? Is it safe? A confusing sense of morals and ethics is what drives J.J. Abrams' newest "Star Trek" adventure, "Star Trek Into Darkness," and yet it's still a lot of fun. That's what is most appealing about J.J. Abrams in his role as directing the "Star Trek" films: he understands the delicate balance between action and thought, rarely focusing too much on one or the other. Consider that in one scene Starfleet is attacked by a merciless killer--it's a loud, somewhat intense fight scene with lots of laser blasts. Only moments later, we get an allegorical debate on the ethics of counterterrorism. Most of all, the filmmakers here understand the character-driven nature of the series. The action scenes are all good fun, but the ones that are more lasting are the character scenes.  "Star Wars" fans should rest assured with Abrams directing "Episode VII" next year.

We're more or less on a new adventure here, as Starfleet is attacked by a callous Starfleet officer, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is ordered to hunt him down and destroy him. Harrison knows that he can hide in dangerous enemy territory where Starfleet would not dare chase after him, but chase they do. I could be a bit more specific in these details but as expected, the plot is a bit confusing with likely more than one hole in it. Regardless, when I watch space opera of this kind, I'm not necessarily after perfectly comprehensible details. Who cares about details when there's such a terrifying performance by Cumberbatch? Cumberbatch is particularly enjoyable as the villain, with a deep low voice that is haunting; I can only imagine that Pine, Zachary Quinto and others were just a bit frightened on the set. (Though, as an actor, Cumberbatch could probably afford to relax his jaw a bit and tone it down.) Fans will be happy that virtually every character is given something to do instead of simply pressing buttons. Scott (Simon Pegg) conflicts with Kirk about new weapons being brought on board the Enterprise, while Spock (Quinto) continues not so much to struggle with his emotions but to struggle to clarify them to those who do not understand him. Sulu (John Cho) gets to take the helm for some scenes and threatens his enemies not to test him, or else he will unleash the firepower of the Enterprise. (I'm sure George Takei was smiling.) And Pine was good as Kirk in the first one, but here he is really good, perfectly comfortable in his role, striking the right balance of brilliance and arrogance. But I think the best performance is by Peter Weller as the hawkish cold warrior intent on provoking wars with Starfleet's enemies. His constant lectures towards Kirk, not-so-subtly calling him "boy," fuel the disconnect between the two.

Oscar-winner Michael Giacchino's score is haunting, particularly the piano tune that accompanies Harrison and his actions. I'm a harsh critic of CGI, but Abrams and his team at ILM have made visual effects that actually (mostly) looked quite good. They back up half-a-dozen exciting scenes, like the opening chase through a bizarre jungle hued in red or a roller-coaster head-dive through a debris field. And instead of a gratuitous amount of green screens, Karen Manthey provides some really nice, elaborate sets. But one consistent flaw in every Abrams movie is his inability to sustain a film passed the second act; indeed, with "Star Trek Into Darkness," the third act is just as clunky as it is in his other films. Still, he and his writers (Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, his collaborator on "Lost") put together a nice, albeit somewhat unoriginal story. I'm not a fan of spoilers at all, and it will be delicate not to spoil anything. That being said, there are numerous surprises here, and some of them might cause more eye-rolling than amusement. The writers have enjoyed going further with adjusting the "Star Trek" mythology and flipping everything. Indeed, there are scenes here that mirror scenes in previous "Star Trek" films (again, I won't elaborate on why); I was touched by these scenes, but alas, not as much as the originals. Still, the scenes are clever, as is this movie.  I think I might like it more than its immediate predecessor.

On a personal note, "Star Trek" from 2009 was the last movie I reviewed for the Daily Kent Stater in undergrad.


film, movie, cinema, J.J. Abrams, Chris Pine, Kirk, Spock, Star Trek, Star Wars, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch

Read More →

400

Two weeks ago, it was revealed that there is currently 400 parts-per-million of CO2 in our atmosphere. The last time this happened, humans were not on this planet. There are detrimental consequences. As I searched around the web for a variety of different bad news, I was surprised at the good news I was finding. The good news is surprising and encouraging, but it by no means suggests that we are really making the revolutionary changes we need to sustain our planet's health. Regardless, I thought about sharing some of the news:

There's some good news.

1. The U.S. has actually lowered its emissions. As much as I would like to credit the current administration for this, much of it is due to factors outside of the government's control. And unfortunately, a large part of it is due to the recession, as people have cut back on energy use because of the economic conditions. Additionally, the shale boom is credited with lowering CO2 emissions because natural gas is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. and is about half as dirty as coal or petroleum. With coal being "dead man walking" and the increasing price of oil , natural gas seems to be benefiting the U.S.; for example, "Made in America" is making a comeback and "Made in China" is declining as it's becoming cheaper to produce goods in America than it is in China.

Supposedly, the U.S. has actually reduced its emissions the fastest, falling to levels even below what the U.S. pledged at Copenhagen several years ago. (I find this hard to believe; as the Vancouver Observer put it, "The Americans?  Really?")

But President Obama and his team deserve some credit. They have reduced pollution from cars, cut harmful emissions from power plants and proposed the first regulations of CO2-producing factories, limiting the amount of emissions from these plants. Additionally, the Recovery Act, arguably the best piece of legislation from his administration, contained over $4 billion in tax cuts for individuals to energize their homes more efficiently and $13 billion in tax cuts for  renewable energy production; the law was clearly the largest energy bill in the history of the country with vast environmental reach, covering electric vehicles, smart grids, renewables, etc. (See Michael Grunwald's glowing defense of the Recovery Act called "The New New Deal.")

But has the U.S. actually lowered its emissions? Read the bottom.

2. There are other serious steps in the right direction.  Carbon sequestration is happening. With the help of Energy Star products, last year, Americans prevented 242 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. You hate the way those eco-friendly compact florescent light bulbs take a long time to light up? Then look to the impressive (and cost-efficient) LED lightbulbs that are taking over. South Korea, one of my favorite countries, plans to launch the most aggressive carbon-trading market in the world. Bill McKibben has organized one of the most effective environmental activist groups, 350.org, and there are many other activist groups, like fossilfree.org. People are still interested in this and people are still making a difference.

3. The rise of EFH (Energy from Heaven). The price of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells per watt has immensely decreased from a high of $76 per watt to a low $0.74 per watt this year. Portugal is apparently operating at 70 percent renewable energy! Has this incredible ingenuity of renewable energy that is taking place in Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and even the United Arab Emirates been happening in America?

A little bit. Perhaps the most obvious example is renewable energy in Chicago.  Chicago and other cities have enough usable wind for energy, but as you can see in the video, conventional wind turbines are safe to use in open areas but dangerous to use in urbane areas. To solve this, scientists developed a propeller based on DNA strands (they call it "the Helix") so that it can safely power buildings. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been given about $50 million from the Sierra Club to fight coal based on public health grounds. Additionally, he's presiding over a city with massive potential for solar energy and other renewable energy sources.    

     

And some bad news.

The biggest concern is that these steps are not enough. The U.S. still is one of the two major culprits in carbon dioxide emissions. Kevin Matthews argues that this decline in U.S. emissions is highly misleading, that he U.S. actually increased its emissions and that the EIA report does not factor in methane emissions (so stop eating cows). Shakeb Afsah and Kendyl Salcito at Think Progress argue that natural gas has had a limited effect on replacing coal, that in fact the vast majority of the emissions decrease has to do with the reduction of petroleum and coal use and the increase of EFH; natural gas (an "energy from hell"), in essence might have replaced coal in some areas but actually offset its decrease by its increase in other sectors (see the graph to the right for the increase during the shale gas boom period of 2006-2011). Even those who trumpet natural gas should recognize that natural gas is not a long-term solution to this problem.    

We've made some steps in the right direction, but it's clearly not enough. We're still having fun, and we shouldn't be.





environment, 400, 350, natural gas, oil, emissions, CO2, renewable energy, Obama, New Deal, Recovery Act

Read More →

Happy (Late) Earth Day

Happy (Late) Earth Day, everyone. As I've been teaching pre-medical students the bizarre language known as English and working to complete my Master's degree, I haven't had as much free time as I would like. So now, in honor of Earth Day, I would like to take a moment to write about one of my favorite topics: the environment. Here are five observations about the current state of things and some advice on what we can do to solve it:


1. Stop using plastic (or at least try to)! Plastic is a profound problem. But there's good news and bad news--the bad news is that contrary to what we all hope, about 90 percent of all plastic bottles are in fact not recycled; about four-fifths of all plastic bottles end up in the ocean and then into our stomachs (diapers go through a similar route). Instead of being recycled into new bottles, plastic bottles are more likely to be down-cylced. The good news is that we can live in a world without plastics. There are relatively simple ways to do so. You can of course buy a reusable steel bottle to avoid plastic bottles, and probably the easiest is to buy reusable shopping bags; go a step further and buy reusable produce bags. Another easy thing to do buying a juicer so you can make your own juice, including types not often found in grocery stores, like watermelon juice and cucumber juice. This is also healthier, as store-bought juice is either too sugary and/or devoid of fiber.   

2. Students need to be taught critically about the problem. Instead of boring students with a trivia-based approach in the classroom that they will likely not retain, students need to comprehend the bigger picture, that the status quo benefits those are contributing more to the problem (e.g. China, the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia) and destroying countries that contribute less (e.g. Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nigeria, and Haiti). Bill Bigelow, a critical pedagogist, has written a curriculum described in his article "The Big One" (2009)  "Environmental justice movements," he wrote, "are beginning to imagine a future that is greener, more cooperative, more democratic, and less oriented toward profit, consumption, and economic growth." Students should be taught that they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, that it is selfish to be otherwise, and that they have the power to change things.

3. One party is greener than the other. Perhaps no finer example of this exists than the contrast between Democratic and Republican environmental policies. After the 1973-1974 oil embargo, some countries had effective responses. France, for example, established nuclear power as its main energy source (though, interestingly, America, because of its size, actually uses more nuclear power than France. Nevertheless, France powers almost eighty percent of its nation by cleaner nuclear power). Denmark, despite heavy gasoline and CO2 taxes, has had tremendous growth for decades but a fairly flat energy use increase. Under President Carter's administration, fuel standards for cars and trucks were raised (something President Obama has continued to do). How did President Reagan respond? By simply lowering the standards, from 27.5 miles per gallon to 26 miles per gallon. President Bush tried to reverse Clinton-era air conditioning regulations and by doing so would have wasted billions of dollars and 50 million metric tons of carbon, or about the equivalent of 34 million cars on the road. (A court reversed the administration's decision.) Republicans used to have a environmental legacy to be proud of; consider Teddy Roosevelt's national parks initiatives and Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA. But Reagan, the Bushes, and the Tea Party have tried to make sure that is reversed.

Thomas Friedman, in his book "Hot, Flat and Crowded," noted that after 9/11, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked if President George W. Bush believed the American people needed a lifestyle change to combat terrorism. His answer was "a big no." The President, he said, "believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." So instead of enacting what Friedman calls a "Patriot Tax" to combat mass murderers, the U.S. government gave us massive tax cuts, establishing enormous debt we are still struggling to pay off, and told us to go shopping.

(The current administration deserves praise for its green work, but more is needed.  The administration should be pressured until it adopts tough regulations for CO2 emissions for power plants.)

4. It shouldn't be easy and it shouldn't be fun. According to Friedman, we're not having a green revolution, we're having a green party. A green party is fun and easy to do. You just have to change your light bulbs and plant a tree and you can continue to mow your lawn, drive your car, eat all the meat you want, not pay any more taxes, and vote for the GOP. We're past the point where changing light bulbs can solve the problem. Consider a list of the more challenging steps needed (and Friedman claims these are the "easy" ones): replace 1,400 coal-powered plants with natural-gas powered ones, install carbon capture and sequestration at 800 plants, cut electricity by 25 percent. Consider that Indonesia and Brazil are just under China and the U.S. in terms of CO2 emissions. Why? Because of all the deforestation. How many of us could live without paper?

People of the higher-income nations, particularly Americans, have not been asked to seriously sacrifice to solve this problem. Some ways could actually help us, like converting our dumb electric grids to smart ones, so people are encouraged to use electricity at hours of the day when the grids are under less pressure (instead of the current system where people are charged a flat rate no matter when they use electricity). Mowing your lawn the old-fashioned, eco-friendly way will not only save you money but also get you some exercise. Switching to a more plant-based diet will help lower methane emissions (which are far more harmful than all those hummers we hate so much) but could also help prevent doctors removing an artery from your leg to put in your heart when you are rushed for surgery. And despite my previous complaints against President Bush, his 2007 law (a law phasing out incandescent light bulbs and one which his modern contemporaries call socialism) is a step in the right direction, and changing your light bulbs can make a difference. But we need to work much, much harder.

5. Hypocrisy is humbling. Or rather, admitting you're a hypocrite is. I myself profit off of an oil-producing nation, and I use a massive amount of CO2 just to get here (and travel internationally for vacation). Does this make me a hypocrite? Of course it does. But I recycle and don't use plastic and compost and vote Democrat! But I need to change just like everyone else. I would rather be hypocritical about this issue than dumb, but hypocrisy is nothing to be proud of.  

Finally, remember that 99 is not 100, and you should help the planet because it's the right thing to do, not because it's sexy.


UPDATE: Here's the New Yorker's interesting articles on President Obama's environmental legacy and Al Gore.

Read More →

The Amazing Spider-Man

Film critics are told to go into every movie rooting for it to be a smashing good time.  I must confess that I had no such thinking walking into "The Amazing Spider-Man." I suppose I shared the consensus view that there was no need to re-boot the franchise so soon after Sam Raimi's trilogy.  I think, though, that after the negative reaction fans had towards the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy, there has been considerable efforts from filmmakers charged with the task of rebooting franchises to do it justly, and that's why the James Bond, "Planet of the Apes," "Batman" and other reboots have been so successful. Fortunately, Marc Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man" is another one of these successful reboots.

Andrew Garfield (from "The Social Network") is Peter Parker, the awkward boy Tobey Macguire portrayed in the original trilogy. Here, as Spider-Man (which he finally becomes at almost an hour into the movie), Garfield suffices, but I suspect he needs one more go-around before getting it completely right. He has had a lot of good training from this one, as his co-stars include Rhys Ifans, Sally Field, and Martin Sheen; those three actors are worth the watch of any movie, so to see all three here is a real treat, and they're all in top form, particularly Ifans, who's given a lot of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" moments to have fun with. It's just a shame that we don't only see this portrayal but also Ifans disguised in silly-looking GGI effects. When he's in his full metamorphosis as the Lizard, he looks rather silly (but again, as a sick scientist, he's wonderful). Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is as likable and funny as she was in "Easy A" and "Zombieland," but unfortunately isn't given much to do here until near the end. Denis Leary also appears as Stacey's strict, traditional "law-and-order" father (who also happens to be the police chief who despises Spider-Man). Finally, Stan Lee, as he always does, has a cameo here, and it probably is the best Stan Lee cameo ever.

But as Peter Parker the teenage high school student, Garfield overdoes the awkwardness, overplaying his nervous stuttering in front of pretty girls. The audience is too smart to believe that Peter could be severely punched in the stomach and face several times and then waltz into class. But still, despite this taunting from a school bully whose behavior is way too unrealistic (and considering what demons high school bullies are, that is saying a lot), the audience is probably willing to suspend its disbelief and cheer when Peter has fun humiliating him in the school gym. That's after he gets his mutant powers, of course. And he gets those powers in a science lab when a spider bites him....oh, what's the point of discussing all the details of the plot? By now, everyone knows it.

And that's a problem Webb's "Spider-Man" has: it hastily checks through the "to-do" list of a "Spider-Man" reboot: Peter gets bullied, he's bitten by a spider, he gets new powers and struggles to understand how to use them. This is a lesson in the subtle differences in listing versus telling.  Webb and his team believe that they need to go through the check list with all this stuff, and these scenes usually are the ones that don't work. Case in point is the CGI scenes with Spider-Man flying around the city or his nemesis, the Lizard destroying the city. They are disguised as "show-me" moments. The parts that really work are the ones where we're being shown something genuine. Not necessarily the visuals, but the human element that makes up the "Spider-Man" mythology. As expected, a lot of this comes from the relationship between Peter and his surrogate father, Ben, played by Sheen. Sheen's character is a simple, working-class man, and yet he has a lifetime of powerful education to pass down to his nephew. But there are other show-me moments, like when Spider-Man must act quickly to save a boy from a burning car. It reminded me of those pictures of the window-washers at hospitals who sometimes dress up as Spider-Man to entertain the children.  It's evidence that the world not only needs heroes, but movies about super heroes.



This review is dedicated to Roger Ebert, who died on Thursday. He wrote the following about "Spider-Man 2," one of his favorite films of 2004: "Now this is what a superhero movie should be...it's a superhero movie for people who don't go to superhero movies, and for those who do, it's the one they've been yearning for." (In his opinion, "The Amazing Spider-Man" was the second best in the series.)












Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, celluloid, cine, cinema, cinematics, cinematograph, feature, film, flick, motion picture,moving picture, photoplay, picture, screenplay, show, silent*, silver screen, talkie,talking picture, videotape, Spiderman, Spider-Man, Spider Man, Martin Sheen, Andrew Garfield, Batman, James Bond, Planet of the Apes, Social Network, Emma Stone, amazing, lizard, rhys ifans, roger ebert

Read More →

Afghan Star

Havana Marking's "Afghan Star," the winner of the 2009 Best Director and Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival, is perhaps the most interesting look at a country we should, but probably don't, know a lot about. As the title suggests, this is a documentary about Afghanistan. Not about the current and never-ending war there, but, again as the title hints, a documentary regarding the "American Idol"-style television contest, "Afghan Star." To say this show is dangerous for the performers is an understatement, particularly for the female ones. One of them in particular, after she is voted off the show, strips her hair of its cover and dances around the stage for one last performance. The grin of a Westerner's face would likely fade as we then see the reaction of her countrymen and women. They are not pleased. "Afghanistan is an Islamic country," one of them says. Even though she is eliminated, we see her struggle to get back home and avoid the copious amount of threats from conservatives.

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country, as well, and yet their definition of what is acceptable for women is radically conservative, even by Afghanistan's terms. Considering also that the world has gone through great liberalization in this past decade, it's stunning to see that in a part of the world where women not only studied with men but also sang rock music to shouting fans is now a region where young girls are shot in the head for attending school. Music is forbidden? Why? I can only tell through brief conversations that conservative Muslims believe music has traditionally been seen as distracting Muslims from their religious duties. But what about video games? Why is permissible to be distracted by them? This is something I will never be able to comprehend. But this is a documentary made for Westerners who would like to get up and one second cheer and another lecture. My reaction was similar to the one I had after watching Alison Klayman's "Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry." While Westerners may be encouraged, what do most folks in Afghanistan and China have to say about these topics?

As hackneyed as it sounds, you're likely to learn a bit more about Afghan culture through this documentary than you do on the nightly news. Consider that the final contestants are from different ethnic groups--Hezara, Pashtun, and Tajik. I suspect the average viewer would be a bit surprised to see, frankly, what these folks look like. Some folks, particularly Westerners, might wonder why they don't look like Arabs, as it seems the rest of the world lumps Islamic countries all together into the Middle East. I remember several years ago, there was an English language learner at our school in the Czech Republic. She was from Kazakhstan (or one of the "-stans," I can't remember which), and a colleague of mine remarked that "she looks so Asian." I think Americans need to be aware that 1) Asia is not simply Japan, China and the Koreas, but a whole host of nations, and 2) we need to rethink how we "see" ethnicity. A person from Afghanistan most likely does not look too similar to a person from Oman. Regardless, there are stories here that need to be told. Those of people who hid radios during the Taliban rule. As the war begins to end (theoretically), it would be interesting and anxiety-inducing to see what kind of stories we can expect in the next documentaries about Afghanistan.
 



Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, celluloid, cine, cinema, cinematics, cinematograph, feature, film, flick, motion picture,moving picture, photoplay, picture, screenplay, show, silent*, silver screen, talkie,talking picture, videotape, Afghan, Afghan Star, Islam, controversial, Westerners, documentary, liberal, conservative, 

Read More →

Side Effects

"The good people sleep better, while the bad ones seemed to enjoy the waking hours much more."
-Woody Allen's "Side Effects"

I'm calling about Emily. The doctor-patient relationship has perhaps never been so devilishly portrayed on screen as it is in Steven Soderbergh's "Side Effects," an entirely different film from Woody Allen's collection of short stories. There are four main characters in this movie--a loving husband recently released from prison, his wife who experiences mental illness, and the current and former doctors treating her. But the main focus is on the young wife and her current doctor. The wife is played by Rooney Mara, most famous for her Oscar-nominated performance in "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." Mara is Emily, and her husband, Martin (Channing Tatum), is released from prison after serving a term for insider trading. Despite her reunion and a decent job, Emily is severely and hopelessly suffering from depression, to the point where she attempts to take her own life by crashing her car into a wall. In the hospital, she meets Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), the psychiatrist who will treat her. His remedies include a fairly aggressive approach using numerous pills, many of which cause her terrible side effects. After seeking advice from Emily's former psychiatrist (Catherine Zeta-Jones), he puts her on an experimental drug; its main side effect is sleepwalking.

The first half of the movie is an incredibly powerful and haunting look at our seemingly addictive lure to pharmaceutical drugs. Mara is haunting, and sympathetically so--how many of us will watch this movie and be reminded of an experience in which a patient pleaded for reason and clarity from their doctor? Why is this happening to me? Why isn't the medicine working? Will it ever stop? What's wrong with me? We've all heard the story of Pandora's Box being opened, unleashing terrible things into the world. Hope remained. While hope is, as "The Matrix" trilogy told us, both our best and worst quality as a species, hopelessness is undoubtedly a terrible state. Perhaps the drugs only make things worse.

But after an hour of messages that are borderline "Reefer Madness," Soderbergh begins his real fun. There's a thrilling twist, things become a bit wonky, and Soderbergh as he often does understands that his audience is too smart for a two-hour lecture. The feeling of hopelessness shifts from one character to another as our story twists and turns; it's reminiscent of Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and "Psycho," two thrillers which start with a MacGuffin and decide to re-write the whole thing half-way through. Beyond that, Soderbergh is a director comfortable challenging our current groupthink position on who's "good" and "bad" in society. Consider his "Contagion," from two years ago, where Law played a journalist, usually the moralistic character in today's media; in "Contagion" he spreads fear and anarchy. There's a lot of thought put into Soderbergh's characters, even in more two-dimensional movies he has done recently, like last year's "Magic Mike."

The actors are commendable, though Tatum isn't given too much to do and Zeta-Jones sometimes come across as too Cruella DeVille-like. But Law is brilliant here, obsessed with setting things right, regardless of where that moral compass points, and so is Rooney, who is creepy without being gratuitous. She's assisted by trademark Soderbergh features--the almost other-worldly cinematography by Peter Andrews (look it up to see who he really is) and Thomas Newman's cryptic score. It's one of the best films I've seen in a while.


act, acting, actor, actress, Catherine Zeta-Jones, pharmaceutical, Hitchcock, movie, movies, review, side effects, Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view, feature, film, flick, motion picture



         

Read More →

The Best Films of 2012

Hey there, cats and kittens. Here are some of the best movies of 2012:

(In no particular order.)

Argo
Ben Affleck (has anybody been able to explain why he wasn't nominated for Best Director?) succeeds at easily blending genres and styles in this movie. Its opening is reminiscent of the intensity of "Saving Private Ryan," and from the beginning one gets the sense that Affleck and his team went to great lengths to get the details right. It's actually this point--details--that hurt the movie, because eventually the movie strays from them. Towards the end, "Argo" seems to evolve from a smart thriller to a dumbed-down action flick, simply because the filmmakers underestimated their audience. But it's still quite a good film.

Undoubtedly, this movie will win the Best Picture Award. Voters will feel bad for not nominating him for Best Director, so they'll compensate by giving him this award (and to fellow nominees George Clooney and the white guy in this clip).

Django Unchained
Just as Affleck was robbed of a nomination for "Argo," so too were Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson for Best Supporting Actor nominations for Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained." Tarantino's style may be overly inspired by various different sources, as expected, but his screenplay is superb, particularly the sequences at Candy Land, as Django (Jamie Foxx) and Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) attempt to rescue Django's bride (Kerry Washington). DiCaprio is brilliant as Calvin Candy, a horrible slave owner with no empathy or remorse (or soul), and equally entertaining to watch is Jackson as Stephen, the Uncle Tom slave supervisor. While it's a shame that neither of them were nominated, Waltz is considered a favorite for Best Supporting Actor, though it's a peculiar nomination for him as he has the majority of lines in the film. DiCaprio, Washington, Foxx, Waltz, Jackson and the others who show up along the way all have different styles of acting, but Tarantino does a commendable job in directing them all.

Amour
Michael Heneke's "Amour" is a love story filmed as a horror movie. Just like last year's "A Separation," it's so suspenseful and intense without the use of music or the usual gimmicks. By the end of the movie, with a uniquely quiet climax, I was on the edge of my seat, and thought to myself that I rarely, if ever, have a reaction like that to movies when so little is happening on the screen.  Heneke figures out how to establish an emotional connection without playing the usual notes; we feel for these characters, and there's no score to tell us to do so.

The Woman in Black
Just when haunted house movies seemed to be too dull, "The Woman in Black" brings us that rich tradition of Hammer Films horror. Rotten Tomatoes summarizes this movie as foregoing "gores for chills." But this movie is so much more than that. Yes, it's atmospheric, but it's also terrifying.  (And it's also underrated; I couldn't find any other list where this made the top ten.) Hammer is back.

Monsiuer Lazhar
My bias towards this film is that I am a teacher, and so many memories (good and bad) were constantly coming back to me as I watched this movie. The role of the teacher, and the delicate balance one plays, is demonstrated well here, especially with Mohamed Fellaq's performance as an immigrant from Algeria teaching an elementary class in Quebec. So many elements were running through my head: fragile students, even picked on by teachers; favorite students and least favorite students (but of course equality toward all of them), East versus West in teaching styles, and young students' search for their identities. This is close to being the best film of the year.

But that goes to...

Moonrise Kingdom
This is not only the best film of the year but also Wes Anderson's best film.  Just as I have a bias towards "Monsiuer Lazhar" because I'm a teacher, I have a bias towards "Moonrise Kingdom" because I am a former Boy Scout and Eagle Scout. While watching the movie, I picked up all the bizarre eccentricities of what it's like to be a Boy Scout, but even if one has never been a member of the Scouts, it's still immensely entertaining. There are wonderful characters here: Edward Norton as a hapless Boy Scout leader, Bruce Willis as the town's police chief, and Bill Murray and Frances McDormand as the parents of a young, rebellious girl. But the real stars here are young actors Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman, playing two loners who run away for self-discovery in a far more humorous way than we usually see. I hope to see many more fantastic movies with them.

The Oscars await...


Turbo-tastic!

                           

Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, celluloid, cine, cinema, cinematics, cinematograph, feature, film, flick, motion picture,moving picture, photoplay, picture, screenplay, show, silent*, silver screen, talkie,talking picture, videotape, best movies of 2012, Ben Affleck, Argo, Moonrise Kingdom, Django Unchained, Amour, The Woman in Black

Read More →