Hello Bloggerdom! How I have missed thee. In all honesty, I only remember this blog when I've exhausted all other sources of entertainment and time-killing. That's about to change.
If you recall, I began this blog as an assignment for Mass Media class, which would explain the random, dull expositions sandwiched between the good articles. I continued the blog for fun, roaming my mind for any loose thoughts, dusting them off, and presenting them to you all with a flourish. If you haven't already noticed, this blog soon became a poster child for irony: entitled Strict Lit, it is composed of exactly one literature-related post out of thirteen. It turns out, writing and reading are only a few of my interests. A funny thing about passions, though, is that they always come back to haunt you in the end. You just can't seem to shake them, to paraphrase one very passionate girl named Elena from my favorite tv show. And so, I'm returning to my roots, writing stories, politely complimenting the ones I wish I had written, and slamming the ones that should not exist if there were any decency and compassion left in this world. Didn't you miss my dramatics.
But since I'm incapable of focusing on a single theme in my normal life, much less my writing, I am now extending my discussions to my favorite tv shows (aka Vampire Diaries) and the Silver Screen. For all you fiction purists out there who are still convinced that the Kindle is the mark of the beast and relish the musky scent of "real" books (fyi, that's probably lead guys, so don't poison yourselves!), good writing can be found in every medium. If I weren't in the midst of trying to become a published novelist right now, I'd be a screenwriter, and Julie Plec would be my best friend. Random reference to someone only a handful of people recognize. Check. Oh yeah, I'm back.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
All Orphans Aren't Deranged, Bloodthirsty Sociopaths,K? Promise!
Here's the thing. There is a new movie hopscotching to theaters on July 24th. A movie about an apathetic child killer. Yep, it's that time of year again. (Omen - June 6th, 2006, Joshua - July 6, 2007...although there is also an obsession with September: the Bad Seed (1956), the Good Son (1993), the Orphanage (2007)...but I digress) This Hollywood trope, once fresh and invigoratingly shocking, has debilitated into cliche-ridden, addled scripts with more shamelessly repetitive and pointless twists than the local high school sock hop. And I haven't considered the remakes yet! These evil baby machines are money makers, nevertheless, so they will prevail. My diatribe notwithstanding, I personally enjoy goreless bad kid movies, provided they offer a creative and thematically satisfying trick and resolution. Or a couple "hide and seek in a darkened, creepy house" and 'say, why is the butcher knife missing?' scenes - I'm not that difficult to please.
The current monster kid of the year, however, is receiving not just early buzz, but an altogether unexpected audience reaction. Orphan might receive more publicity for its offensive content than anything else. You heard correctly. In the generation of torture porn, 3-D decapitations of teenagers, and entire films that serve as ninety minute tributes to snuff, someone has criticized a movie for "villainizing" parentless children. How cruel can a scary movie get? Some people prefer their bloody murderers to have a soccer mom and PTA dad, thank you very much. I guess that way, we can hold someone with a drivers license responsible for the mayhem caused. Horror movies have really gone too darn far these days.
All joking aside, this is a serious accusation. Originating with nonprofits such as the Worldwide Orphans Foundation, the complaints have impacted Congress. (http://www.hollyscoop.com/movies/orphan/us-politicians-protest-orphan-movie_1610.aspx)
Dr. Jane Aronson, CEO of the former group, says that Orphan "continues to perpetuate gross misinformation about adoption” as “the movie trailer has already caused great distress on adopted children who have seen the trailer in their neighborhood theaters and the comfort of their homes.”
Seriously, people? Who actually feared that twisted little girl because she was an orphan? If it weren't for that pesky title, who would have noticed? Beyond that, who would use a cliched horror flick to sway their opinion on a whole social group of people?! People like that are bigoted fools who probably wouldn't have adopted anyway! Are there sane people out there who would assume, after watching the trailer of course, that even .01% of orphaned children are murderous fiends? I guess I should also revile ice cream men, dentists, stepparents, parents of any kind for that matter, the guy who mows our lawns, fishermen, high school teachers, college professors, and EVERY CHILD IN EXISTENCE, whether unborn or undeniably adorable. These are only a small portion of people used as fodder for stupid horror movies.
Am I honestly defending horror movies? Not as much as I'm admonishing Congress for overreacting and encouraging paranoia in orphans everywhere. Adoption is a beautiful experience, and no movie is going to adversely affect the decision of anyone truly devoted to giving a child a loving home. And if someone is that capricious, should they be raising kids at all? By drawing attention to this movie, you are bestowing more power on it than it warrants. Let's treat it like any other crude, anti-family movie: watch it if you want to, ignore it if you don't. It's just a fanciful, possibly supernatural thriller, people, not a case study.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other horror movies that need to become societal pariahs for just being distatefully gross - the Saw series anyone? Now that's offensive. Oh, and anything by Rob Zombie. If William Shatner wants to protest a movie, let it be the one that grossly mismarkets his face. Halloween caused me great distress as a kid. I can never hear the Mr. Sandman tune again, and the original Captain Kirk still makes me uneasy.
Horror movies are kind of creepy.
The current monster kid of the year, however, is receiving not just early buzz, but an altogether unexpected audience reaction. Orphan might receive more publicity for its offensive content than anything else. You heard correctly. In the generation of torture porn, 3-D decapitations of teenagers, and entire films that serve as ninety minute tributes to snuff, someone has criticized a movie for "villainizing" parentless children. How cruel can a scary movie get? Some people prefer their bloody murderers to have a soccer mom and PTA dad, thank you very much. I guess that way, we can hold someone with a drivers license responsible for the mayhem caused. Horror movies have really gone too darn far these days.
All joking aside, this is a serious accusation. Originating with nonprofits such as the Worldwide Orphans Foundation, the complaints have impacted Congress. (http://www.hollyscoop.com/movies/orphan/us-politicians-protest-orphan-movie_1610.aspx)
Dr. Jane Aronson, CEO of the former group, says that Orphan "continues to perpetuate gross misinformation about adoption” as “the movie trailer has already caused great distress on adopted children who have seen the trailer in their neighborhood theaters and the comfort of their homes.”
Seriously, people? Who actually feared that twisted little girl because she was an orphan? If it weren't for that pesky title, who would have noticed? Beyond that, who would use a cliched horror flick to sway their opinion on a whole social group of people?! People like that are bigoted fools who probably wouldn't have adopted anyway! Are there sane people out there who would assume, after watching the trailer of course, that even .01% of orphaned children are murderous fiends? I guess I should also revile ice cream men, dentists, stepparents, parents of any kind for that matter, the guy who mows our lawns, fishermen, high school teachers, college professors, and EVERY CHILD IN EXISTENCE, whether unborn or undeniably adorable. These are only a small portion of people used as fodder for stupid horror movies.
Am I honestly defending horror movies? Not as much as I'm admonishing Congress for overreacting and encouraging paranoia in orphans everywhere. Adoption is a beautiful experience, and no movie is going to adversely affect the decision of anyone truly devoted to giving a child a loving home. And if someone is that capricious, should they be raising kids at all? By drawing attention to this movie, you are bestowing more power on it than it warrants. Let's treat it like any other crude, anti-family movie: watch it if you want to, ignore it if you don't. It's just a fanciful, possibly supernatural thriller, people, not a case study.
In the meantime, there are plenty of other horror movies that need to become societal pariahs for just being distatefully gross - the Saw series anyone? Now that's offensive. Oh, and anything by Rob Zombie. If William Shatner wants to protest a movie, let it be the one that grossly mismarkets his face. Halloween caused me great distress as a kid. I can never hear the Mr. Sandman tune again, and the original Captain Kirk still makes me uneasy.
Horror movies are kind of creepy.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Rated R for “Rose-Tinted”: An editorial on the United States’ arbitrary motion picture rating system
I am not one to fall prey to conspiracy theories surrounding secret organizations. I remain skeptical, for example, of the thought that Freemasons are Satan-worshipping occultists seeking world domination, their disturbing insignia and cryptic nature notwithstanding. I believe, therefore, that the Motion Picture Association of America ratings board originated with lofty idealism and fresh-faced ambitions. For years before its creation, there had been no standard rating system for judging the appropriateness of movies for family viewing. Then in rode the white knights of cinema, their swords of caution unsheathed. The mystical letter G was bestowed upon harmless fare, while more pervasive content was given R. Over the years, the intermediate ratings PG and PG-13 were added and the panel of judges became more enigmatic than ever. Only one person, Joan Graves, has been acknowledged as a member of this sacred board, which can literally speak life or death over a movie (Boole, Sonja (2008, July/August). Discretion Adviser. Stanford Magazine. Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/julaug/show/graves.html).
As for the nine essentially anonymous members, the MPAA insists that they “serve for periods of varying length” and “have a shared parenthood experience.” The MPAA also boldly proclaims that there is not a “jot of evidence” that the board has ever been influenced in decision-making by third parties. (Motion Picture Association of America. (2009). Who rates the movies and how does it work? Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_HowRated.asp) They neglect to inform the public that none of these board members currently have children under eighteen. Furthermore, how can anyone validly question the practices of a secret organization with unknown members? Sometimes though, the ratings themselves can be incriminatory. In my opinion, the system is not very standardized, nor is it a proper judge of parental values.
Perhaps the strongest example of this is the film Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Originally this film received an emphatic NC-17 rating due to extremely graphic sexual content, a standard reaction to the filmmaker Kevin Smith’s films. One of the main stars was even an actual porn star. In an equally standard move, Smith appealed the rating and won. My suspicions of the board’s fallibility were aroused when I discovered that Smith had not edited the film in any way before the appeal (Cox, Dan (2008, August). With Porn Star in Tow…And Wins. Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/darwin_was_right/kevin_smith_challenges_mpaa_ratings_system_with_porn_star_in_towand_wins_91025.asp). Somehow, an NC-17 movie had been repackaged into one marketable to young teenagers. Apparently the members of the appeals board do not share the criteria as the original board. Lesson learned: Always appeal. Many crude sex comedies, Scary Movie 4 as a glaring example, have even sweet-talked the panel into PG-13 territory.
On the other end of the spectrum are films that have undeservedly been laden with critical ratings. The Village barely escaped R, because of a sound effect for the knife plunging into a main character’s chest. The board told M. Night Shyamalan, the director, he could keep the violent scene, just ditch the sound. Voila, PG-13. Slumdog Millionaire, on the other hand, was relegated to the realm of R, despite mostly implied violence and minimal sexual content.
I conclude that the rating system is arbitrary enough to disregard. Many parental guidance review sites exist to describe actual content, rather than categorize it. Ultimately, however, the best judges of the suitability of a movie are the parents themselves. Of course, the next question is why we need a standard rating system at all. The only way for it to stay relevant is for it to stop contradicting itself. For all those MPAA panel fan boys who will criticize me for such impractical expectations, do not lose hope in your favorite unknown leaders. They can always appeal.
As for the nine essentially anonymous members, the MPAA insists that they “serve for periods of varying length” and “have a shared parenthood experience.” The MPAA also boldly proclaims that there is not a “jot of evidence” that the board has ever been influenced in decision-making by third parties. (Motion Picture Association of America. (2009). Who rates the movies and how does it work? Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_HowRated.asp) They neglect to inform the public that none of these board members currently have children under eighteen. Furthermore, how can anyone validly question the practices of a secret organization with unknown members? Sometimes though, the ratings themselves can be incriminatory. In my opinion, the system is not very standardized, nor is it a proper judge of parental values.
Perhaps the strongest example of this is the film Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Originally this film received an emphatic NC-17 rating due to extremely graphic sexual content, a standard reaction to the filmmaker Kevin Smith’s films. One of the main stars was even an actual porn star. In an equally standard move, Smith appealed the rating and won. My suspicions of the board’s fallibility were aroused when I discovered that Smith had not edited the film in any way before the appeal (Cox, Dan (2008, August). With Porn Star in Tow…And Wins. Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/darwin_was_right/kevin_smith_challenges_mpaa_ratings_system_with_porn_star_in_towand_wins_91025.asp). Somehow, an NC-17 movie had been repackaged into one marketable to young teenagers. Apparently the members of the appeals board do not share the criteria as the original board. Lesson learned: Always appeal. Many crude sex comedies, Scary Movie 4 as a glaring example, have even sweet-talked the panel into PG-13 territory.
On the other end of the spectrum are films that have undeservedly been laden with critical ratings. The Village barely escaped R, because of a sound effect for the knife plunging into a main character’s chest. The board told M. Night Shyamalan, the director, he could keep the violent scene, just ditch the sound. Voila, PG-13. Slumdog Millionaire, on the other hand, was relegated to the realm of R, despite mostly implied violence and minimal sexual content.
I conclude that the rating system is arbitrary enough to disregard. Many parental guidance review sites exist to describe actual content, rather than categorize it. Ultimately, however, the best judges of the suitability of a movie are the parents themselves. Of course, the next question is why we need a standard rating system at all. The only way for it to stay relevant is for it to stop contradicting itself. For all those MPAA panel fan boys who will criticize me for such impractical expectations, do not lose hope in your favorite unknown leaders. They can always appeal.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Walking in the shadow of greatness
For my shadowing project, I chose to explore neuroscience research. Fortunately, I had the opportunity to meet with three professionals in the field at once: Dr. Gregory Cole, Dr. Ju-Ahng Lee, and Dr. Joong-Youn Shim. At a round table meeting, they offered their experiences and background information on neuroscience. Later, I received an overview of neuroscience from Dr. Lee and one-on-one mentoring from Dr. Shim.
One of the first facts I learned about neuroscience from all of them was the plethora of options this field could give me. I could perform research in neuroscience with a background in any science or math. Dr. Lee, for example, is a biologist, while Dr. Shim is skilled in computer science and math. If I pursued medical school, I could become a research neurologist or one in private practice. The research concentrations are nearly endless as well. My particular interest is behavioral neurology with an emphasis on autism spectrum disorders; nevertheless, the doctors that I met were performing ground-breaking research in drug studies, Alzheimer’s disease, and the zebrafish nervous system.
Dr. Lee gave me a broad look at the basics of neurology. Neurons are cells in the nervous system that send electrical impulses to the brain and other places to control certain functions. These neurons form complete circuits through which electricity can flow. Using neuron circuits, the brain stem can control breathing and the spinal cord can control ambulatory movement. Whenever neuron systems are severed, the circuit ceases to function. Interestingly, artificially induced jolts of electricity within the body can reconnect these pathways. According to Dr. Lee, scientists have also found that the spinal neurons controlling walking can be activated using tactile stimulation. Neurology is indubitably a fascinating field.
Finally, I spent the rest of the time shadowing Dr. Shim in his computer lab. He performs computer modeling for proteins, based on their amino acid structures. There are thousands of different protein structures in the human body, and scientists are familiar with every sequence. What is more difficult, however, is determining how protein molecules fold together based on their internal and external forces. Dr. Shim uses the Protein Data Bank, a website displaying images and sequencing for all known protein structures. By studying the known, he has a better idea of unknown protein shapes. The modeling program he uses is called Visual Molecular Dynamics, or VMD. Proteins are drawn as 3D shapes based on the x, y, and z coordinates of every amino acid. The constructed simulation can then be moved and manipulated in order to study its function. Dr. Shim’s task is to study the marijuana receptors in the brain. Marijuana has the power to alter these proteins at certain sites; therefore, the goal is to discover where these drugs bind.
I am eternally grateful to the aforementioned scientists for allowing me a glimpse at neurology’s significance and wonders. I am encouraged by this shadowing to continue my plans for neuroscience research. Whether I become a neurologist or neuroscientist, however, is yet to be seen.
One of the first facts I learned about neuroscience from all of them was the plethora of options this field could give me. I could perform research in neuroscience with a background in any science or math. Dr. Lee, for example, is a biologist, while Dr. Shim is skilled in computer science and math. If I pursued medical school, I could become a research neurologist or one in private practice. The research concentrations are nearly endless as well. My particular interest is behavioral neurology with an emphasis on autism spectrum disorders; nevertheless, the doctors that I met were performing ground-breaking research in drug studies, Alzheimer’s disease, and the zebrafish nervous system.
Dr. Lee gave me a broad look at the basics of neurology. Neurons are cells in the nervous system that send electrical impulses to the brain and other places to control certain functions. These neurons form complete circuits through which electricity can flow. Using neuron circuits, the brain stem can control breathing and the spinal cord can control ambulatory movement. Whenever neuron systems are severed, the circuit ceases to function. Interestingly, artificially induced jolts of electricity within the body can reconnect these pathways. According to Dr. Lee, scientists have also found that the spinal neurons controlling walking can be activated using tactile stimulation. Neurology is indubitably a fascinating field.
Finally, I spent the rest of the time shadowing Dr. Shim in his computer lab. He performs computer modeling for proteins, based on their amino acid structures. There are thousands of different protein structures in the human body, and scientists are familiar with every sequence. What is more difficult, however, is determining how protein molecules fold together based on their internal and external forces. Dr. Shim uses the Protein Data Bank, a website displaying images and sequencing for all known protein structures. By studying the known, he has a better idea of unknown protein shapes. The modeling program he uses is called Visual Molecular Dynamics, or VMD. Proteins are drawn as 3D shapes based on the x, y, and z coordinates of every amino acid. The constructed simulation can then be moved and manipulated in order to study its function. Dr. Shim’s task is to study the marijuana receptors in the brain. Marijuana has the power to alter these proteins at certain sites; therefore, the goal is to discover where these drugs bind.
I am eternally grateful to the aforementioned scientists for allowing me a glimpse at neurology’s significance and wonders. I am encouraged by this shadowing to continue my plans for neuroscience research. Whether I become a neurologist or neuroscientist, however, is yet to be seen.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Blood Diamonds
On Thursday of last week, I watched a documentary in class about conflict diamonds in South Africa and the atrocities there. Personally, I have always felt disgrace and disgust for the monolithic diamond and gold chains adorning the necks of celebrities, especially rappers. I was sure that this video, by presenting new facts about the background of some of this excessive jewelry, would merely bolster my views. I was wrong, or rather, shortsighted. This program did not just lambast Hollywood players in the diamond rush, but anyone who is too blinded by the status and beauty of diamonds to investigate their sources. Diamonds aren't bad, but conflict diamonds are.
And what are conflict, or blood, diamonds? Well, the history of diamonds in South Africa gives us our first clue. In the 1860s, diamonds were discovered in South Africa and, like everything else in Africa, exploited by resident Europeans. Mine workers could descend 2 miles underground, although they could be injured or killed by heat and frequent mine collapses. They worked miles away from their families and lived in hostels, which were basically dilapidated slums. Loneliness led to prostitute soliciting. Needless to say, AIDS wiped out many hostels.
Then rebel soldiers decided to use diamonds to fund themselves during guerilla war. They invade hostels and villages housing workers' families. Rather than just contenting themselves with stealing diamonds, they amputate entire limbs of workers and their families. Yes, this includes women and children as young as two years old. The stolen diamonds are then sold to companies, which disperse them across the US.
As alarming as this is, there is some good news. De Beers, the leading diamond distributor in the world, has instituted the Kimberley Process, a system that tracks every diamond received to prevent the purchase of conflict diamonds. Many other jewelers have devised similar plans. A significant portion of these companies, however, are not so dependable.
The conclusion of this documentary was not to stop purchasing diamonds, but rather to be aware of their sources. Remember, diamonds may be "forever," but so are our souls.
And what are conflict, or blood, diamonds? Well, the history of diamonds in South Africa gives us our first clue. In the 1860s, diamonds were discovered in South Africa and, like everything else in Africa, exploited by resident Europeans. Mine workers could descend 2 miles underground, although they could be injured or killed by heat and frequent mine collapses. They worked miles away from their families and lived in hostels, which were basically dilapidated slums. Loneliness led to prostitute soliciting. Needless to say, AIDS wiped out many hostels.
Then rebel soldiers decided to use diamonds to fund themselves during guerilla war. They invade hostels and villages housing workers' families. Rather than just contenting themselves with stealing diamonds, they amputate entire limbs of workers and their families. Yes, this includes women and children as young as two years old. The stolen diamonds are then sold to companies, which disperse them across the US.
As alarming as this is, there is some good news. De Beers, the leading diamond distributor in the world, has instituted the Kimberley Process, a system that tracks every diamond received to prevent the purchase of conflict diamonds. Many other jewelers have devised similar plans. A significant portion of these companies, however, are not so dependable.
The conclusion of this documentary was not to stop purchasing diamonds, but rather to be aware of their sources. Remember, diamonds may be "forever," but so are our souls.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Where Are You Going? Where Have You Been? (borrowed shamelessly from Joyce Carol Oates)
I won't pretend that I've never given a thought to my death. Sometimes the thought clings to me like ghostly fetters, and all other ideas kowtow to its weight. Mostly, however, I just avoid pondering on it for long.
Since last week, I've thought about my death more than ever before. Today, I turned in my obituary, written ostensibly by myself. The assignment was awkward to put it mildly, yet exciting as well. This was my opportunity to outline every long-term goal and desire that God has put upon my heart. Of course, I added a few personal wants, such as critical acclaim and success as well. Most importantly, this write-up forced me to choose what I wanted to do in my limited life. By my choices, neurology and fiction writing, I understand my true passions even more. So these are the things I want to do for the rest of life, the life works that I can't live without. My long-term plans will probably continue to fluctuate, but at least I have a working idea of how my life could be. I guess it's a start.
Since last week, I've thought about my death more than ever before. Today, I turned in my obituary, written ostensibly by myself. The assignment was awkward to put it mildly, yet exciting as well. This was my opportunity to outline every long-term goal and desire that God has put upon my heart. Of course, I added a few personal wants, such as critical acclaim and success as well. Most importantly, this write-up forced me to choose what I wanted to do in my limited life. By my choices, neurology and fiction writing, I understand my true passions even more. So these are the things I want to do for the rest of life, the life works that I can't live without. My long-term plans will probably continue to fluctuate, but at least I have a working idea of how my life could be. I guess it's a start.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Class Guest Speaker: Kyle Serba, Sports Information Director
On Thursday, my Media and Society class had a guest speaker who works with both media and sports. Mr. Serba is in charge of filming games, releasing campus sports news, and other administrative duties. Although I have never been interested in collegiate sports media, some of the ideas he suggested for this department sounded fantastic. As a school recently upgraded to Division I, a coaches program and more filming of game play will be a step in the right direction. For anyone aiming for a career in production, this promises more opportunities for camerawork as well. Overall, I look forward to the updates being made in the sports media department.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
