The Man in the High Castle: Too Insensitive for Some Viewers?

     2015 had a lot of truly fantastic TV shows premiere, and one of the best also became one of the most controversial. Over the past few years, Amazon Prime has been attempting to stack their video lineup with hit original series in an attempt to compete with Netflix and Hulu. Some of Amazon's highlights include "Transparent," a show revolving around a 60 year old transgender man and his family, and "Mozart in the Jungle," the story about an eccentric conductor leading the New York City orchestra; but I can make a strong argument that their 2015 hit is their best show yet. "The Man in the High Castle" is a drama based off the 1963 novel of the same name, and takes place in a world where the axis powers won World War 2. Upon its release the show was lauded by critics, but was met with harsh criticism for its insensitivity. Not sure why people were surprised that a show about Nazi's could be offensive, but whatever. 

     The story kicks off in 1962 in a world where the axis powers won World War 2; Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan reign supreme, controlling much of what was once the free world. The plot revolves around several characters on all sides of the political spectrum; a young woman from San Francisco looking to join a group of rebels, her long time boyfriends out for revenge against the Empire of Japan, a Nazi going undercover to expose the rebels, a high ranking Nazi commander, and the Japanese Trade Minister in San Francisco. What follows is a truly crazy story. 

     While "The Man in the High Castle" was met with positive reviews, it was attacked on all sides. Many from the Jewish community condemned the show, calling it insensitive towards the Jewish people. Early on in the first season, a Jewish family was executed by the Japanese since they have to follow their race laws. Many also called the series racist against black people; while the show does take place in the 1960s, which was already pretty racist in reality, the parts of America under the Germans and Japanese show no black people, leading many to assume that they would have been executed. The series was also called insulting towards homosexuals and those with disabilities, with some exchanges about them being executed were played off as if they were common. So this show has been called racist, homophobic, and bigoted after only one season; but from what I can tell the people complaining are missing one important detail, the fact it takes place in an alternate reality run by Nazis. Of course it's offensive, if it wasn't then it would have meant nothing. Minus one particularly insensitive marketing stunt, the show's only insensitive if you take it as historically accurate. But there is always a way where you can stop the show if you find it offensive, don't watch it.

Image Source

Moonlight is the Movie Diversity We Needed

     What's something that the film industry is lacking? Diversity, it's always lacked diversity. And with the rise of political correctness over the past few years, that fact has never been more apparent. After the past two Academy Award ceremonies, both of which didn't have any non-white actors nominated for an acting award, the lack of diversity in Hollywood came to the masses. The issue caused such a stir, that the Academy will be making some new hires and changes in the hopes of broadening their nomination scope. As a movie fan, I'm always looking for something out of the box, and in came "Moonlight." "Moonlight" is an indie film from a no-name director, with no-name actors, and the only reason people know it exists is because the respected studio A24 produced and distributed it. When I walked into the theater ready to watch this movie I knew nothing about it other than word-of-mouth that it was good. And after seeing it, I realize that not only is it the best movie of the year so far, it might be the most important.

     "Moonlight" follows a man named Chiron through three stages of his life. As a young child when he was known as little, as a teenager when he was Chiron, and in his later 20s when he's called Black. Chiron was born in a poorer neighborhood and raised by a drug addict mother who refused to seek help until Chiron was already an adult. Chiron is gay, and where he was raised at the time wasn't exactly what you would call progressive. The film follows his life, growth, and only meaningful relationship he ever had. Chiron is a complicated and layered character; naturally he is shy, timid, and unsure of himself. So much so that in his later years he is afraid to seek out a relationship, almost ashamed of whom he is. He himself follows certain schemas and stereotypes. The idea that he is a troubled youth, and later in life he actually becomes a high ranking drug dealer. Truthfully, Chiron is one of the best characters I've seen in a movie in years.

     "Moonlight" is the best movie I've seen this year. Filled with great performances, strong direction, a brilliant screenplay, and stunning cinematography, people will look back at this movie as a gem. But it's not just great; I think it's an important movie for the film industry. This is a raw film about a gay black character that struggles with accepting himself everyday he wakes up. I think this will be remembered as a landmark film in modern "black cinema" as well as "LGTB cinema." And with so many critics praising it, I find it hard to believe that "Moonlight" won't bring some much needed diversity to this year's Academy Awards. Symbolic annihilation is a real thing when it comes to cinema, I read recently pointing out that the vast majority of movies featuring straight white characters; but this movie defies those numbers. "Moonlight" is special, it is respectfully progressive without being preachy; showing a man the way he is in a culture where many won't accept him. This isn't just the best movie of the year, it's the most important.

Image Source: 
http://www.blackfilm.com/read/2016/08/official-poster-trailer-barry-jenkins-moonlight/moonlight-poster/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/30000-hollywood-film-characters-heres-many-werent-white/

Why is it OK to Like White Chicks?

     If I were to make a list of my least favorite movies of all time, some of the titles would include "300, "Movie 42," "The Internship Games," and "Elf." But if I had to choose a movie that would top that list, it would likely be "White Chicks." Starring, written, and produced by the Wayans Brothers, and directed by their relative Keenen Ivory Wayans, the three managed to turn out one of the worst movies of all time. Poorly written, directed, acted, produced, and all around poorly put together, this film is nothing more than hot trash. Despite those facts, "White Chicks" has grown a cult following over the years, regaining enough popularity that a sequel has mentioned many times fairly recently. I truly hate this movie; it is one of the least funny pieces of cinema ever made. But I've always had a question about this film, "why isn't it racist to like it?"

     The plot of the movie revolves around two FBI agents who go under cover as two rich heiresses in order to break up a crime ring. Off the cuff it doesn't sound so bad, could work as a zany comedy. The problems arise due to the fact that the lead actors are black and where white face the entire movie (since they're playing white chicks). And throughout the entire run time they constantly make fun of white stereotypes and tropes (particularly the stuck up white bitch you see in reality TV shows). Let's make a comparison, if two white men wore black face for an entire movie pretending to be stereotypical sassy black women, people would lose their minds. So why is it alright if two black men make fun of white people the whole time? In retrospect, this is actually a very racist movie. What makes me wonder is why so many people like this movie. In all honesty it is harder to be racist towards white people who brush it off more easily, but still.

     To clarify, I don't hate this movie because it's racist but because it’s bad. To be honest I personally don't care about the films subject matter. I just find it weird that people think this movie is OK. Saying you like "White Chicks" is like saying your favorite scene in "The Jazz Singer" is when he performs in black face. "White Chicks" is a racist movie, just nobody care since it was making fun of white people.

Image Source: http://www.impawards.com/2004/white_chicks.html 

HBO and Women: A Complicated Relationship

     HBO is, by a wide margin, the greatest TV channel ever; in my opinion, there isn't even a close second. HBO's lineup over the past few decades include classics like "Oz," "Six Feet Under," "The Sopranos," "Deadwood," and "The Wire;" with more recent series such as "Game of Thrones," "True Detective" (season 1 anyways), and "The Night Of." Their most recent smash success would have to be Westworld" which began airing earlier this year. Since its premiere, the series has been praised for its characters, visuals, themes, plot, and world. Ratings have also been very strong, so much so that many are calling the show HBO's next "Game of Thrones." But with the premiere an old question that has been aimed at HBO comes up again, "why is there so much violence towards women?"

     During the fifth season of "Game of Thrones," an episode aired titled "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken." In this episode, a beloved and innocent young woman is raped by her new and sadistic husband. A major female character being raped isn't new to the series, but what drew outrage was that this story arc was not in the source material and seemed to happen for no reason. It wasn't even implied, you see her get raped by her horrendous husband. This episode was widely criticized, so much so that ratings dropped significantly for the next two episodes. HBO was heavily criticized for the episode, and many began to wonder what is it with the women on HBO shows. "Game of Thrones" wasn't the first HBO series to show women in a questionable or despicable light. Many of the shows I listed before also had elements like those. "Westworld" is the latest in this lineup. The series takes place years in the future at a high tech, 1800s themed western theme park inhabited by androids. Guest pays to experience the world and can do whatever they want. Of the female androids we've seen so far in the park, most are prostitutes or the damsel in distress. During the first episode, one of the most important characters is dragged into a barn and presumably raped. So once again, what is with HBO and women? Many will argue that it's more authentic; "Game of Thrones" takes place in a medieval style Europe and "Westworld" in 1800s America, times where women weren't treated with respect. And throughout all of human history, there have been many men who hold women in low regard and treat them terribly. The critics of HBO will argue that the violence against women is unnecessary, since they are just shows and aren't exactly historic. I don't have the answer and no one does. For the critics the question is "why are women portrayed so poorly in many HBO shows." And for HBO's defenders they ask, "Why should people compromise their artistic expression to appease people who are offended?" Either way, all I know is that I think "Game of Thrones" and "Westworld" are great. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/30/hbo-slammed-for-sexual-violence-against-women-in-its-shows.html 

Image Source

Ode to Rockstar Games: The Company that Doesn't Care About Your Feelings

     If you've ever played video games, there's a strong chance you've heard about Rockstar Games. Rockstar is a video game publisher that owns a series of video game development studios spread throughout the world, and they are widely regarded some of the best studios of all time. They're the people behind the critically acclaimed, wildly successful, and incredibly controversial "Grand Theft Auto" Franchise. And that controversy about GTA is the subject of this piece. Each GTA game places you in the role of a criminal, who spends his time killing, stealing, and making the world a worse place. Most of the games in the franchise have been acclaimed by critics, with several installments listed among some of the all time greatest games. On top of being lauded by fans and critics, they also sell very well. The most recent installment in the franchise, "Grand Theft Auto 5," broke the record for fastest entertainment property to gross $1 billion. Loved by many, and record sales sound like they would make everyone happy; but despite the success, it doesn't change the fact that GTA is the most controversial series of all time.
     Over the course of the franchise, GTA has been criticized for its portrayal of violence, sex, race, cultural practices, American culture, and many more things that gets everyone upset. The games have been subject of controversy for their incredibly brutal violence. GTA5 was particularly criticized for its portrayal of women, specifically violence against women. So much so, the game was dropped by Target for some time after an online petition (although, if I had to guess I'd say none of the signers played the game, since at no point are you forced to be violent against women, it's solely player choice). The games have also been criticized for being racist, with their caricature portrayals of minorities; often stereotyping people of color. Sex has also been a talking point when it comes to GTA. The series is notorious for allowing you to hire hookers, then kill them to get your money back. GTA5 also allowed the played to go to in game strip clubs and get private dances from the performers. So in summation, for about 20 years, GTA has been the subject of nonstop controversy (much of which are topics we address in class). But the reason I truly love Rockstar as a company is because they don't give a damn what you think. Rockstar is known for its fan given philosophy, "we make good games, if you don't like them don't play them." Whether you're offended, shocked, disgusted, or insulted, they're still going to make their game. So while you may hate them for their depiction of women, race, gender, violence, sex, etc., they simply don't care about your feelings; and that's why I love them as a company.

Image Source: https://twitter.com/RockstarGames/status/787639249864630273

The Birth of a Nation: Controversy Incarnate

     In 1915, director D.W. Griffith released the black and white silent film, "The Birth of a Nation." The film was praised upon its release, and would go on to become the highest grossing movie of its time. The film glorified the KKK, showing them as the white nights meant to save America. While the film was met with criticism from many, it didn't stop people from going to see it. Upon reflection, the film's subject matter is disgusting. On a technical level, it's nothing short of impressive; but you better have a strong stomach to watch it. The reason I bring it up is because another film titled "The Birth of a Nation" will be released soon; but this one's on the exact opposite end of the spectrum.

     2016's "The Birth of a Nation" is written, directed, and stars Nate Parker. The film chronicles the life of Nat Turner; a slave in the early 1800s that lead a short lived, but bloody rebellion. The film premiered at Sundance earlier this year to rave reviews. While many are excited to see what could be a great film, it hasn't stopped more than a few controversies from coming up. The first would be regarding the actual subject matter. Many have criticized Parker for looking at Turner through rose colored glasses. Many in the African American community view Turner as a hero who stood up against oppression, while many see him as a killer. No one cares that Turner and his group killed slave owners and their enforcers; the problem is they killed any white person they came upon, even children. By the end of it, 55-65 white people and upwards of 200 black people (many of which innocent but taken by mobs) were killed. Parker has been criticized for ignoring some of the more unsavory moments of the rebellion while painting Turner solely as a hero.

     But of the handful of controversies facing the film, the big one is aimed at the director. Seventeen years ago in college Parker was arrested for rape along with another man. Parker was found not guilty while the other was convicted. While this has been public knowledge, many are boycotting the film, saying that Parker is a rapist and should be arrested.

     Controversies about movies are nothing new, and “The Birth of a Nation” is no exception. Now I’m going to be frank, I don’t care. I don’t care about controversies, I don’t care about the people behind the movie, I just care about the film itself. “The Birth of a Nation” looks great and I’m excited to see it.  Most biopics aren’t entirely accurate and often show the hero as flawless. And I think it’s wrong to judge a man for a crime he was found innocent of (excluding O.J. Simpson). I honestly think a lot of people hate this movie because it’s a “black” movie made by a black man. Well they can hate all they want; it won’t stop me from seeing it. 

Image Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation_(2016_film)#/media/File:The_Birth_of_a_Nation_(2016_film).png

Pulitzer Panel Blog

     There are many people that say that journalism is a dying profession, being overtaken by amateurs with social media and YouTube videos; but anyone with half a brain knows that is simply not true. Journalism is still alive and kicking. It is an important field of work that serves the public, and brings information to the masses. That's why something like the Pulitzers are so important; to give recognition to the journalists, and artists, that deserve it. 

     In all honesty when I heard that there was a Pulitzer Prize panel here at UNT, I wasn't particularly interested in going. Not that I didn’t find the subject interesting, I just didn’t want to give up my evening. So when I learned that I had to go for this class, I was a bit annoyed; but since it replaced our regular time, I was alright with it. But at the end of the day, I’m glad I went. Seeing these recognized journalists and hear them talking about their work was fascinating. Ferguson, Katrina, Texas police, and women abuse around the world, all amazing stories by some amazing people. And all UNT graduates on top of that. I think that it’s important for people to know what’s happening in the world, and be informed of what’s happening in their own backyard. Sometimes the people in power, whether they are politicians or law enforcement, don’t want you to know what’s really happening out there. So it’s the job of journalists to show people the truth. That’s what I like about the Pulitzers; they reward great journalists and artists for their contribution to mankind. So while some believe that professional journalism is on the way out, they’re just plain wrong; if anything, you can argue that journalism is actually more important now than it has ever been. 

Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gen_pulitzer.jpg

Luke Cage Doesn't Just Bring Color to the MCU, it Brings Culture

     Back in 2008, Marvel Entertainment kicked of their new movie franchise, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with the critically acclaimed "Iron Man." Since then, the franchise has become the highest grossing movie series of all time. But along the way they decided movies weren't enough, and dabbled in TV. They started off with "Agents of Shield" on ABC, a moderately successful show with some dedicated fans. But back in about 2013/14, Marvel announced that they would be partnering with Netflix; with the online streaming service producing a series of more gritty and R-rated shows. First up was "Daredevil," an action packed, crime-thriller that would be go on to be named one of the year's best shows. Next was "Jessica Jones," a detective, neo-noir mystery series that did a great job tackling some complex and delicate themes, like PTSD and sexual trauma. Which brings us to today, their latest series "Luke Cage." And not only does it live up to the high standards of its predecessors, it brings some things to the table the others didn't. 

     The title character, Luke Cage, was a former soldier and cop who was turned super-human in an experiment while in prison for a crime he didn't commit. He made his MCU debut in "Jessica Jones" as the title character's love interest. His own series takes place a few months, to a year, after the events of "Jessica Jones." Cage is just trying to live in peace, but after a dear friend is gunned down by the lackey of a Harlem mob boss, Cage takes it upon himself to knock the boss down a few pegs.

     I'm going to go ahead and be blunt; the MCU doesn't exactly have the most diverse cast we've ever seen from a franchise. I'm not saying that it doesn’t have diversity, but most of the major characters from its shows and movies are white. So with "Luke Cage," a lot of people were happy to see some color added into the franchise (with the majority of major the characters being black). I agree with all of this, and am perfectly happy to see a black super-hero take the lead; but the most important thing "Luke Cage" brings to the MCU isn't color, it's culture. "Luke Cage" does right by bringing black, Harlem, and NYC culture to a franchise that has none. It shows Harlem not just as a place of crime and corruption, but of hopes and dreams of its proud residents. It highlights some of America's greatest heroes that came out of the Borough; it shows off the music of a race's culture and heritage. The show does highlight race, and the struggles that black people often face in America (but not in a preachy way, but as a fact of life). But what I think it did best was highlight the culture of a race, a people, and a city in a way that the MCU had never seen before. On top of that, the show wass great.

Image Source: 
http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/767241-misty-knight-and-claire-temple-get-marvels-luke-cage-character-posters#/slide/1

Everyone's Pissed at Moana, and Disney

     Every few years, the Walt Disney Company puts out a new installment in its series of animated princess movies. Helmed by their animation branch, Walt Disney Animation Studios, their princess movies have been some of the most beloved and critically lauded animated movies of all time; despite their success, there hasn't been a shortage of controversy surrounding them. Disney has been criticized for promoting the damsel in distress archetype, having all their princesses be extremely skinny, and promoting love of self-empowerment. But even with the criticism, Disney keeps making them and they keep making money. In a few months they have the newest installment coming along, "Moana," a story about a young Polynesian woman exploring the ocean in an attempt to save her people. When first announced, Disney was praised for tackling a new culture, often left out of their mostly monochromatic princesses; but as time has gone on, the criticism has come back.

     A majority of the criticism has revolved around another main character named Maui. In Polynesian folk lore, Maui is a powerful, shape-shifting demi-God. In the movie, he's being voiced by Dwayne Johnson. Many were happy with the casting of Johnson, since he is of Hawaiian descent. But when the character model was presented, the character was criticized by a vocal minority that he was fat. People have said the character being portrayed as fat is a stereotype of Polynesian people. Maui is supposed to be strong and powerful, but they say the character in the movie is not. They must have watched a different trailer than myself. In the trailer for the movie, it's clear that Maui is incredibly strong; at one point he lifted a boat over his head like it was a feather. While the character isn't incredibly muscular, he actually looks like an Olympic power-lifter instead of a bodybuilder; and if it's not obvious, power-lifters are much stronger. The character is drawn like he should be drawn, large and powerful. I do find it funny that the same people calling Maui fat are the same people calling Moana too skinny. Apparently it’s OK for women to be on the larger side, but men should be very athletic. Once again double standards have reared their ugly head when it comes to movies.
     There have been a few other controversies around the movie, such as a full body Maui costume with his tattoos and a darker skin color. The costume was compared to black face; Disney has since pulled the item and apologized. I usually try and play devil's advocate and understand both sides, but in this case Disney made a bad and frankly dumb move. But as always, at the end of the day, I don't really care. Disney Animation has been on a roll for the past few years, and I'm sure "Moana" will be great. When the movie rolls around, and you still may feel offended by it, there is a simple solution. Just don't go see it.

Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moana.svg

Film: Racism, Double Standards, and Everyone Hates Everyone

     The film industry has a long history of some questionable practices when it comes to a race. For years, filmmakers would go out of their way not to have people of color take part in their movies; in the 20s and 30s, it was common for white actors in black face to play stereotypical black characters. And even in the decades that followed, this practice continued. One of the more offensive portrayals of a character of color would have to be in "Breakfast at Tiffany's;" where an offensive Asian man is played by white actor Mickey Rooney. In recent years, the practice of having white actors play minority characters has gone away; but what has replaced it would be replacing people of various races all together and just having the character be white. Coined "whitewashing," this practice has caused quite a bit of controversy; and even in 2016, one of the biggest movies of the year is causing a stir with effect.

     "Doctor Strange" is an upcoming superhero movie from Marvel. It revolves around the title character, who embraces his destiny to save the world. While many are excited for the film, some are less enthusiastic. In the comics the movie is based off of, there is a character named The Ancient One. This character is Doctor Strange's teacher, and has always been portrayed as Asian; but in the upcoming movie, the character is played by Tilda Swinton, a white actress. When the casting was announced, many screamed whitewashing. People argued that there was no reason for the race of the character to be changed. The backlash was so strong Marvel released a statement regarding the affair. Some will argue the whole situation is cut and dry, Marvel didn't want a main character to be a minority. But if that's true, what's with some other Marvel casting.

     Sometime in 2017, Marvel will be releasing a new Spider-Man movie; and for the first time in a long time, people are excited about that. A few months ago Marvel announced the casting for the film, and everyone lost their minds. Zendaya, a young black actress, was cast to play the traditionally white character Mary Jane. While some argued that this was a great progressive step for the industry, others argued that this was Marvel just trying to appease the PC crowd. The question remains, what's with the hypocrisy?

     What I find funny about the situation is that the defenders of each actress condemn the casting of the other. It's pretty apparent that people support the casting that goes along with their own agenda. Personally, I don't care. Zendaya is a promising, aspiring young actress and Swinton is one of the finest actresses of her generation. I'm fine with both casting choices. And I'm perfectly fine if actors of a different race are cast to play a character, so long as they will do a good job in the role. 

Sources: 
http://variety.com/2016/film/news/doctor-strange-whitewashing-tilda-swinton-marvel-1201762267/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/spider-man-casting-controversy-revives-racial-tensions-n637111