Bonus 13 - Class Review by JJ Leath

        Overall, I think this was a great class. I transferred to UMKC from the University of Arkansas, so this was the only discourse class I had to take. Because of this, I didn't really know what to expect from this class and I have nothing to compare it to. I really enjoyed this class, though. The format was great, and I felt like a learned some cool stuff. Further, I felt like the format gave me the opportunity to get to know my classmates, and that was great. I really enjoyed being able to connect with others, especially since this is my first semester at UMKC. The only thing that think could be improved was the discussion leaders.

        The blogging format for our assignments was very interesting. I felt that it really pushed me as a writer. I am used to academic writing, but I do find myself lacking when it comes to informal writing. I'm still not superb at writing informally, but I did get to practice it and feel that I will continue to get better at it. Further, the blogging format was enjoyable. For whatever reason, I felt far less stressed writing a 1500 work blog than I would a 1500 work paper. Additionally, the way that you structure the content of the class was enjoyable as well. I really enjoyed reviewing and writing about films. I especially enjoyed the section over Film Noir.

        In addition to being enjoyable, I felt like this class was informative as well. I had no idea about film analysis or Film Noir before this class. I really enjoyed learning about both of these topics. It definitely changed the way I look at movies, and it has made movies all the more enjoyable for me. Even though I didn't agree with all of it, I also enjoyed learning about film critique theory. I think that the paper I wrote on Big Trouble in Little China might be a little far fetched, but this class did force me to recognize that there are underlying messages in all forms of media, and I feel that this class has equipped me with some tools for uncovering these messages.

        The only thing that I would say could benefit from a little tweaking would be the discussion leader portion of the class. I think it might have been better to space it throughout the entire semester instead of cramming it into the last half of the semester. I really enjoyed the discussion leader portion of the class, and I really enjoyed the assigned readings that I was able to read. I especially liked the Omelas story. The problem was that I couldn't always make time to read each story. I work full time and go to school full time, and there are just so many hours in the day. If the readings were more spread out, I definitely would have read each. I wasn't able to read the story about the old man with wings, and I would have really liked to been apart of that discussion. My time constraints are obviously not your problem, and I am definitely not trying to make an excuse for why some of the readings weren't done, but I feel like there will be students in my situation in classes in the future that could benefit from the readings being spaced out more.

        Overall, this was a very enjoyable class that I felt I got a lot from. If you teach this class again, I would definitely recommend sticking to the structure and content used in this semester.

Bonus 12 - Response to Sam's Bonus 9 "Who has the Right?" by JJ Leath

        Deciding who can write about sensitive topics such as the Holocaust or disabilities is extremely complex, because it is a balancing act. On one hand, we have a desire for freedom of expression. The censorship of ideas is rarely a good idea. Freedom of expression, dialogue, and speech is crucial to a democracy. On the other hand, we don't want to see misinformation spread or tragedies get exploited for financial gain. I chose to respond to Sam's post because she makes a particular point that I think can help with this balancing act. In the first paragraph of her post, she writes "As readers, it is our own responsibility to interpret these stories as we see best". I think that this a great way to look at how we can balance these conflicting desires for open, honest discourse in our society. 

        I do think that there needs to be censorship of bad ideas, but I think that this censorship should be enforced not by some systematic rule, but rather by the discretion of the public. As readers, it is our responsibility to identify bad ideas and expose authors who are exploiting tragedies. I have every right to compose a paper arguing that the sky is in fact green, and nobody has the right to block me from doing this. However, it is the responsibility of the public to identify and expose this as incorrect. The same goes for the exploitation of tragedy. As Sam also said in her post, "anyone is entitled to say or feel whatever they like". No one has the right to tell an author what is acceptable and unacceptable to write about. If an author writes something exploitative, however, it is the responsibility of the public to expose this. I think this is how we can strike a balance between the conflicting desires of free speech and the condemnation of bad or exploitative works. 

        Further, Sam had another line that I thought was powerful: "Authors tend to go based off of their own research, feelings, and experiences. Therefore, it is easier to have an open mind and try to understand where they are coming from as opposed to disputing it all." I think this speaks towards how we progress as a society. Many ideas accepted now were controversial at the time of publication. The Earth being round and the sun being the center of the universe were highly controversial ideas when they were first published. If it were up to the ruling class at the time, these ideas may have never seen the light of day. Even if we read something that we don't agree with at first, we should always approach things with an open mind with understanding as our goal. 

        Overall, I thought that think that there were thought provoking lines in this post. What I think there was to be learned was that we cannot systematically censor writings, but rather it needs to be the public that accepts or rejects the works of authors. Further, I think a great lesson in this post is that we need to be careful of how quickly we dismiss an author's work. We need to approach new ideas with an open mind and a goal of understanding. 

        

Bonus 11 - What's so Funny? by JJ Leath

            Humor is really quite strange. While there may be many theories on what makes something funny, there really can never be a solid definition of what makes something funny and what is acceptable to joke about because both of these are unique to every individual. What I believe makes something funny comes down to the unexpected happening, and what is acceptable comes down to context, who is saying it, and who he is saying it to.

            First, what makes something funny at all? In the question originally posed, it is stated that “Humor usually violates personal norms that tie into cultural norms.  For instance, fart jokes.” I think there is a lot of credence, but I don’t think that this is the very thing that makes something funny. For instance, consider puns. These are not funny because they go against cultural norms. These are funny (to some people) because they use words or phrases in unexpected ways.  Further, consider Trevor Noah’s end to the “black Hitler” bit. This was funny because he previously mentioned wanting to be black, so when the German yelled “black Hitler!”, Trevor ended the bit by saying “at least she said I was black.” That’s hilarious. I would call this clever humor. You didn’t expect that to be what he said after this encounter. I think that if you were to boil humor down to its essence, I think it is just when something happens or is said that you didn’t expect. This explains why personal or cultural norms being violated is funny – you don’t expect it. It also explains why seeing someone fall down or stub their toe is funny – you expected them to walk with no issue, but issues arose regardless. Humor is a response to surprise similar to shock.   

            Secondly, what makes something okay to joke about? I think this comes down to three things: context, who is saying it, and who it is being said to. Consider Gabriel Iglesias’ bit about the “racist gift basic.” The context was a comedy show, so this is pretty harmless. Imagine, however, if he was speaking at the funeral of a black individual killed by white supremacists. The same thing said by the same person is no longer funny. With the same skit as an example, consider if Gabriel was a white man. I think that the audience would have thought it to be less okay. Because Gabriel is a minority himself, even though he’s not black, it is likely to go over better. This comes down to the history of cultures. There is a history of white people being oppressive towards black people, so further oppression is not going to be funny. The Hispanic and black community do not have the same scarred history. Finally, who you are saying the joke to is going to influence what is okay to joke about and what is funny. If you tell a joke that is about how stupid Trump is, it would probably go over well with the audience at the Democratic National Convention. However, it would likely offend many and be unfunny to the audience at the Republican National Convention. Your audience matters as well.   

            There are a lot of variables into what makes something funny and what makes something okay to joke about. These variations create a broad spectrum of comedy. You have comedians using all types of comedy (clever tie-ins, clever social commentary, puns, or “fart jokes”) appealing to all types of audiences. John Mullaney’s dry, story-telling comedy is vastly different than Daniel Tosh’s extremely crude, offensive comedy. Both are professional comedians, but an audience member of one comedian’s crowd is probably unlikely to think the other comedian is very funny at all. There will never be a formula for what is funny, there will never be a strict definition. And in a world where most things have definitions and in a world governed by the formulas of physics, this is unexpected. Isn’t that funny?

Bonus 10 - Game of Thrones and Rape by JJ Leath

Bonus 10

            I have not watched the show Game of Thrones, but I have read the books. The books are brutally violent, and there is a good amount of sexual violence. I have never gotten the notion that Martin was using this violence for cheap shock thrills, however. As Martin said in the quote given, these books show realistic depictions of human travesty against other humans. I think that this is the main theme in Game of Thrones. There are monsters and supernatural enemies, but the acts of terrible villainy are done by humans. This is important social commentary that Martin is making, and I agree with Martin’s use of it in the books. However, I disagree with the film adaptation’s likening of these acts to pornography.

            If you compare Game of Thrones to The Lord of the Rings, I think that Martin’s social commentary really shines through. At the surface, Game of Thrones and The Lord of the Rings are very similar series. The message is vastly different, however. The violence in The Lord of the Rings is minimal in comparison to Martin’s epic. There is absolutely no sexual violence at all. Humans are the “good guys”. To quote Martin, “orcs and dark lords” are the bad guys. The Lord of the Rings is a story about the human spirit (or Hobbit Spirit, but for all intents and purposes, Hobbits were analogous to humans). It is a story about how the goodness of Man can overcome any evil. It is a feel-good story that largely romanticizes war.

            Game of Thrones, however, does not romanticize war. All of the retched things that have plagued humanity’s history are graphically depicted. People do horrible things to other people. But this is exactly the point – monsters are not found in fairy tales, they are found inside us and are entrenched in human history. To exclude sexual violence would be to inaccurately describe war, and the commentary on the human condition would be diminished.  As my only experience with the series has been the books, I can speak for the books that the sexual violence is used for a deeper purpose than cheap tricks or titillation.  However, from what I know about the show, it seems like it does use the brutality for cheap tricks and it does sound like it exploits the actresses to simply use their bodies to attract a heterosexual male gaze. 

            The film adaptation of the series has perverted many of story lines from the book in my opinion. The gruesome acts done in the books, the disturbing incest, and the sexual violence against women has seemingly been turned into soft-core pornography. From the articles, it seems like one of the most highly sexualized characters is Daenerys, who in the books is a child. That is definitely concerning. I think that this is just further commentary on humanity. We might not be as evolved as we think. 

Post 4, Group B: If Christ Came to Chicago by: JJ Leath

             In class, we discussed W.T. Stead’s work If Christ Came to Chicago. In the excerpt we read in class, Stead wrote about a prostitute in Chicago by the name of Maggie Darling. Stead spent significant time within the brothel that Maggie worked at. He was there and observed their “monotonous existence” and observed when they were “pulled” by the police. Stead could have focused on their vices, or Stead could have also focused on police corruption in Chicago, for he witnessed this first-hand. Rather, he chooses to spill the most ink about Maggie’s past. This conscience choice made by the author is revealing about his purpose of writing this work. Stead has directed this work at the upper-class so that they can gain understanding of what it is like to be a person in Maggie’s position and to humanize people on the fringe of society. 

            To analyze a work, it is crucial that you examine the context from which it was written. The context of If Christ Came to Chicago can be gleaned if you consider the audience that Stead was writing for. This account was published in 1894 as a book. Lower-class audiences wouldn’t have the money to buy the book, the leisure time to read it, and the illiteracy rate in the lower-class at the turn of the 19^th century was much higher than the illiteracy rate in the upper-class. Further, I'm not sure that the audience was meant to be citizens of Chicago, I believe that this work was meant for those in Stead's home-city of London. This may have been written about Chicago, but it was widely circulated and published in England. When the time period is considered, it becomes clear that this book was written for the upper-class (possibly specifically the upper-class in London) with the specific goal of educating them on the realities of living life in the shoes of a person like Maggie Darling.  

            Given context, I believe that you can start analyzing Stead’s intentions. While on the surface Stead was just showing the life of a prostitute, I don't think Stead wanted to simply show what it was like to live like Maggie Darling. Stead wanted to humanize Maggie, and by doing so, humanize every “Maggie Darling” that we all see daily, if we live in a large city that is. The social elites of London, Chicago, and New York would likely run into “Maggie Darling” often (especially if they were frequently clients of their corner’s ‘Maggie’). They would see the impoverished on the street, and they would likely keep their distance. It is easy to blame their vices and poor decisions when you can keep a distance from them and their story. When you can keep your distance from a group, it is easy to "otherize" them. What If Christ Came to Chicago did was remove that distance. Stead threw Maggie’s story in your face; you can’t escape it. 

            Stead then took this one step further. He starts by showing the realities of Maggie’s life, he then humanized her, and he finished by telling the account of the villain of the story. The prostitute wasn’t the villain, it was a rich catholic. As a reader, I had to ask if there was anything significant about this. Given the context of the piece and Stead’s purpose, I believe that he was inadvertently telling the upper-class that the social ills that occur in the city’s underbelly is somewhat their fault. When Maggie told her story, she accounted that she was able to get out of the prostitution scene in San Francisco, and if it weren’t for the self-righteous action of the rich catholic Mrs. McD, Maggie wouldn’t have been pushed into prostitution again. She could have been an “up-standing citizen”. I believe that this aspect of Maggie’s life is what creates the most powerful social commentary of the piece – Maggie's lot in life wasn't entirely her fault. I think that this is supposed to be a metaphor to Victorian England and the economic system that was propping up the London elite. It was the economic system that was pushing the "Maggie Darlings" of London into desperate situations. The message of If Christ Came to Chicago ultimately is that the world’s “Maggie Darlings” aren’t all bad, they are desperate, and those with power and influence are somewhat responsible for this.   

            The fault of the upper-class in Victorian wasn’t explicit, but they were definitely exploiting the lower classes of London. During the Victorian period in England, the Industrial Revolution was raging in London. This became the source of much of this newfound wealth, and while industrialization created a great deal of wealth, there were many in Victorian England that were left behind.  In “Economic Development and the Demographics of Criminals in Victorian England”, the authors examined the trends of crime in this time period. The authors noted that “As industrialization proceeded, workers increasingly found their human capital unsuitable to the technology level, which forced some into crime”. In this paper, the data from Victorian England showed a 20% increase in economic crime (or non-white collar crime done for economic gain). The crime statistics in this paper show desperation within the lower-classes. While I don’t think the upper-class is guilty for their success, it is indisputable that the system propelling them was burying others.

            What makes If Christ Came to Chicago interesting and so important is its applicability today. We are in the next Industrial Revolution. Computers are affecting our economy like machines did in Victorian England. The wealth that has been created has been incredible. It has created billionaires like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. And just like the Industrial Revolution, there are members of our society being left behind. How many different homeless people have you seen while you drive to school? How many times was the widening wealth gap brought up during the 2016 election? We are living in an Industrial Revolution remix, and the question is whether we will learn the lessons being shown in If Christ Came to Chicago or if we will continue to blame the misfortune of the forgotten on "their own poor choices".

Source:

Vickers, Chris, and Nicolas L. Ziebarth. “Economic Development and the Demographics of                              Criminals in Victorian England.” The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 59, no. 1, 2016,                  pp. 191–223., doi:10.1086/684303.

Bonus 8 - Midterm Checkup - JJ Leath

            I’m doing alright this semester. I have all A’s in my classes, so that’s fine. I unfortunately have not made as much professional progress as I would have liked to. This is my first semester back after dropping out of the University of Arkansas, so I think I underestimated the amount of time that school would take out of my days. I have an idea of an algorithmic trading system, but I haven’t been able to work on it much due to school and work. Further, I have an idea for a software company that uses a dynamic correlation equation that I wrote along with predictive geometry to assist the retail trading industry in timing trades and executing orders. I think that it could have a huge impact, but I haven’t had time get it off of the ground.

            While the professional strain has been annoying, I have learned a great deal this semester. That is what is most important. If I felt like I wasn’t learning, I’d probably drop out again. I came into this semester knowing hardly anything about computers, programming, or data science. These three weaknesses have caused me a lot of professional strife. This weakness is one of the reasons I decided to return to school. My programming skills are finally to the point where I am able to create programs to observe data through the CQG platform. Further, I have started building my own computer that will use neuron-powered chips instead of binary chips. I am also now proficient in data science. I have learned enough where I am now able to write my own equations to describe market phenomenon and develop algorithms to uncover profitable strategies in the market. My skill development has been what I have been most proud of this semester.

            There isn’t a whole lot that I would change about this semester. I have become too socially involved. When I was in New York and Chicago, I knew nobody. This solitude allowed me to get a lot done. As I have returned home, I am reunited with old friends and have made new friends while at UMKC. This is great, and I am very grateful for the people in my life, but I am having a hard time striking a balance between my life and my social circles. I need to get better at this.

            As far as goals go, I have to be careful. I have too often made grandiose goals that are impossible to achieve, and then I become depressed when I fail to meet those goals. So, if I am being practical, my professional goals will not be accomplished by the end of the semester. I would like to get further, so I will say I will strive to have the skeleton of the program I want to sell to retail traders done by May 9^th. Further, I will strive to have the algorithm for my algorithmic trading system completely finished by May 9^th. I will also maintain my grades at A’s for the rest of the semester. Most importantly, I would like the skills to develop UIs from scratch and make data diagrams in Python by the end of the semester. These are all of my long-term goals. As far as short-term goals go, my main one is to get everything planned for London. I am moving to London for the summer to work at another prop firm, so I need to get everything planned for that ASAP. I hope to accomplish everything that I am wanting to, but even more, I hope that I won’t be too hard on myself if I fail to do everything I am wanting to.

Post 3, Group B - Neo-Noir, Nolan, and the Batman by JJ Leath

                          

Before Zack Snyder and Ben Affleck made Batman a pop-culture disaster, the Caped Crusader was interpreted by the British filmmaker Christopher Nolan. In class, we discussed the theory that a movie directly reflects the director’s vision, thoughts, and subconscious. This was shown through recurring themes throughout the body of Hitchcock’s work. Because Hitchcock was in control of so much in his films, his essence was reflected in them. I recently watched The Dark Knight, the second film in Nolan’s Batman trilogy, and thought it would be interesting to look at Nolan’s interpretation of Batman and how his Neo-Noir styling was reflected in these movies. Through the use of a central theme of good people falling into ruin along with classic Noir styling, Nolan not only portrayed a Batman that was completely unique to any film portrayal before, but he also furthered the genre of Film Noir in the process.

To understand Nolan, you first have to start with a foundation in classic Film Noir. Nolan’s films are riddled with classic archetypes within the Noir style. What it means to be within the Noir styling is somewhat loose, but there are certain themes and character archetypes that are nearly always present. As Nathaniel Rich puts it in his book San Francisco Noir “…[the term Noir] describes, in its most narrow application, a series of American films made during World War II and the years following, punctuated by violence and pervaded with a profound sense of dread and moral uncertainties. The heroes tend to by cynical, tough, and overwhelmed by sinister forces beyond their control. Film Noir tries to make sense of the complexities and anxieties of the postwar urban experience by exploring the rotten underside of the American city, a place where the American Dream goes to die.” Later in his book, Rich goes on to say that what it means to be Noir is somewhat loose. In other words, there are no rules, only conventions and themes. In the video we had to watch for class, some of these themes were stated. A major theme is a dive into chaos and misery for the main characters. There is no riding off to the sunset in Noir. Things either go from good to terrible or bad to worse. Further, Noir is often interested in breaches of human morality and challenges moral conventions and ideals. In a time of sexual prudence, Noir was increasingly suggestive. In a time where the heroes were good and triumphed, Noir heroes were flawed and had lives riddled with failure. Noir is dark, gritty, and often based around stories of crime and corruption. This makes Noir a perfect style for Nolan, who throughout his career has made it his style to comment on epistemological and metaphysical concepts along with the nature of human morality. And with themes of misery, crime and corruption, Noir is perfect to depict the life of Bruce Wayne.

For those of you who don’t know (spoiler alert), Bruce Wayne is Batman. In 2003, Nolan approached Warner Brothers in order to passionately pitch his version of the life of Bruce Wayne. Why would Nolan be so interested in a superhero movie? Nolan is no Michael Bay. While many directors and studios do superhero movies for the action and consequential revenue, these motivations would be extremely out of character for Nolan, especially early in his career when he was trying to make an artistic name for himself. So, if it wasn’t for the money, why would Nolan be interested in the life of Bruce Wayne? I think it is ultimately because he had a vision for what he could do with Bruce Wayne. The actual story of the Batman is simply a vehicle for Nolan, a vehicle that allowed him to push the genre of Neo-Noir to new areas and a vehicle to comment on human morality and the condition of life.

Before Nolan’s moral commentary and genre expanding endeavors are discussed, I think it is important to note many of the classic Noir homages Nolan tipped his hat to in this trilogy. First, he reused many classic Noir character archetypes for the supporting characters. For example, Anne Hathaway’s portrayal of Catwoman falls within the classic “Black Widow” archetype in Noir. She is dangerous and empowered. She meets Bruce as she is robbing him, and she pickpockets the keys to his Lamborghini at a charity event. Most importantly, she takes care of herself. As women grew more independent after World War II, this became an increasingly common character in Film Noir as an alternative to the “damsel in distress” archetype in classic film. 

In addition to characters, visual themes in Nolan’s Batman trilogy are largely derived from classic Noir as well. Most of the scenes are at night, it is often raining, and the use of light and shadow is heavily relied on. There is a particular moment in The Dark Knight that references the Noir trick of using of shadow to imply something nefarious is going on off screen when the subject matter is too risqué to show explicitly. In classic Noir, this was often done to imply sex. In The Dark Knight, this is used to imply grotesque violence. In this film, the Joker carves open the face of a mob boss using a pocket knife while murdering him. This is particularly gruesome, so it is shown by focusing on a shadow off the frame. These are clichés in Noir, and I think Nolan used them to make sure that there was no confusion about the fact that this is a Noir film. In order to push the boundaries of the genre, he needed to establish it as a movie within the genre first.

The major deviation from classic Noir for Nolan was the character archetype used for Bruce Wayne. In classic Noir, main characters are “sinners.” This was mentioned in the video we watched for homework in this class. Main characters fall into chaos and misery in Noir, but the causation of misery is the result of their own poor choices and immoral behavior. In Double Indemnity, the main character falls into chaos and misery because of murder and sexual desire. As an audience, this allows us to observe this chaos but not feel too particularly sorry for the affected character. Nolan’s Bruce Wayne, however, couldn’t be any more moral and his misery isn’t caused by deviant decisions. This is a significant deviation from Noir. From this, the main plot driver in Nolan’s Batman Trilogy comes forth: innocent decisions and moral behavior doesn’t guarantee you happiness or freedom from misery. This theme can be immediately seen in Nolan’s portrayal of Bruce’s parents murder. This event has been portrayed 100 different ways, but the main theme has always been Bruce’s parents were randomly mugged and murdered. Nolan, however, made the murder occur after Bruce wanted to leave an opera because he was afraid of the bats being portrayed by dancers. If Bruce would have stayed in the opera, his parents wouldn’t have been killed. It was innocent, he wanted to leave because he was scared, but he still blames himself and despises his own cowardice all the way into adulthood. An innocent decision led to unimaginable misery.

Upon his parents’ death, Bruce becomes a billionaire, but wealth doesn’t save him from misery. It is evident through the series that Bruce couldn’t care less about his wealth. When the before-mentioned Lamborghini was stolen by Catwoman, he didn’t care. Nolan makes sure to make it clear that wealth was an ineffective refuge from Bruce’s misery. Nolan then follows Bruce through a journey to escape the scars of his parents’ death, and this eventually results in him becoming the Batman. He does this for good; he wants to help Gotham with his wealth and courage. Bruce is a good man, and his mission is moral. The plot-driver being a moral main character behaving morally is another significant deviation from classic Noir. This is crucial though, for this theme of the “miserably moral hero” is what Nolan uses to comment on morality and the human condition. The noble decision to become Batman just causes more misery for Bruce. The woman he loves refuses to be with him while he is Batman, and in the end, the woman he loves is murdered by his archenemy, the Joker. Further, Bruce bankrolls Harvey Dent’s campaign for DA, and Batman helps Dent lock away most of the mob in Gotham. But as the Joker causes Dent to fall into madness and become Two Face, Bruce has to have Batman take the fall for Dent’s eventual death, or all of Dent’s work would be undone. This sacrifice doesn’t bring him glory, it brings the city he loves to hate him. From here, Nolan makes important commentary: you won’t always be celebrated for being the hero, and further, doing what is right isn’t a recipe for happiness. Misery is a part of life, and it isn’t always your fault that you are miserable.

Through the use of classic Noir elements, Nolan screams at you “THIS IS A NOIR!” But, through deviation from main themes, Nolan screams at you “MISERY ISN’T ALWAYS YOUR FAULT!” This does three things. First, Nolan extends the genre of Film Noir. There is now another character for the Noir archetype – the moral, miserable hero. Nolan would use this archetype in many more films, one of the most notable being Interstellar. Second, Nolan created a unique interpretation of Batman. Before, the portrayal was generally cheesy. Now, Batman is shown as a complex character with extremely dark, philosophical undertones. Third, Nolan comments on the nature of morality. Moral behavior can still lead to misery. Those who are downtrodden may not be inherently bad, they may just be unlucky. Further, doing what is right doesn't guarantee that you will be the hero in the eyes of the masses, and, in fact, it may just make you the villain. But, with Bruce as an example, I believe Nolan is saying do what is right any way. With these three elements as his vision, Nolan made a silly superhero movie something much more meaningful.

References:

Nathaniel Rich, San Francisco Noir (New York: Little Bookroom, 2005), 8  

Bonus 6 - The Oscars: Art vs. Pervert by JJ Leath

             Hollywood has been in a freefall recently. Star after star has been falling into disgrace. Extremely talented and loved stars like Louis C.K. have been taken off their pedestal. A question arises: is this how we should react to this? Should James Franco be rejected a nomination because of allegations? Should Kevin Spacey be completely erased from a movie? I personally think that stars who do despicable things should fall from grace. I believe that as a society we have a responsibility to monitor those who represent us globally and eventually historically.

I think that as a society we should scrutinize the people that we glorify. We have to decide what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is unacceptable, and if we don’t hold celebrities to that standard, we are condoning that behavior. Our celebrities represent the culture popular right now. Do we really want rapists and abusers as our representatives? If we are really progressing as a society, there should be no room for people like Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski in our spotlight. Is this policing art? Are we denying their talent? I don’t think we are. I don’t think anyone would suggest The Pianist isn’t a remarkable film or Pulp Fiction isn’t groundbreaking. The point isn’t to pretend like these individuals aren’t talented, the point is to take a stand and say that, as a society, we don’t accept their behavior and therefor won’t give them a platform.

A good metaphor, in my opinion, is if we as citizens of Earth wanted to award the most talented leader of the 1900s. Would we want to award Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin? No, we don’t want them representing us as humans because of the atrocities they did. No one would suggest they weren’t effective leaders, but that isn’t the point. The point is to award someone who we would want future leaders to emulate. We would award Churchill or Roosevelt. Now, many would say that this we are awarding those who conform to the current society’s ethical code. I would agree with that, and I would argue that this is the point. When history looks back upon who we uplifted, they should embody what we as a society deemed desirable. If we uplift Polanski, we uplift a rapist, and we give future directors a director to emulate and future societies an example of the citizens we found truly remarkable.

Now, there are issues with my position that I acknowledge. First, there is an issue with crucifying people over allegations. James Franco likely did not get a nomination over allegations. He has not been convicted of anything, and regardless of how likely the allegations are to be true, we do live in a society that you are innocent until proven guilty. If lives are destroyed over allegations, we can create a witch hunt. Further, allegations could become weapons. If I’m an actor who is going after the same part as another actor, I could just pay someone to make allegations and their career would be in shambles until they were able to clear it up. By the time they cleaned up the mess, the movie would have probably already been shot as me as the lead actor. This is a serious issue.

While there are issues with allowing stars to fall from grace after they are found to do unacceptable behavior, I think that it is our best choice with how to deal with this. It isn’t about policing art; the point is to have a standard for those we glorify. We have future generations and the portrayal of our society to think about.

Post 2, Group B - Big Justifications for Global Policing by JJ Leath

           In class, we have discussed how historical context can be used to elucidate underlying meanings within film. Insignificant, silly movies can be significant when messages and context are considered. In the 80s, Kurt Russell starred in the movie Big Trouble in Little China. Is it ridiculous? Yes. A villain dies by breathing so intensely that he literally blows up. Is it a little racist? For sure. The Chinese character is amazing at Kung Fu, but this is never actually addressed and is just assumed by the virtue of his Asian heritage. In spite of all of this, Big Trouble in Little China makes important commentary on race relations, the use of stereotypes, and how America viewed its role and how it wanted its role portrayed in interfering with Asian countries who were under communist rule. If you take the main character, a white over-the-road-trucker named Jack Burton, and ask “why did he get mixed up with all that big trouble in Little China?”, you can find the answer for “why did America get mixed up in global problems that had nothing to do with them?”

            So, as a concerned citizen, you ask yourself: why should America get involved in global problems that aren’t our problem? Well, Big Trouble in Little China is here to tell you. First, you are going to get paid, and you are going to be a hero. This movie, like the world, revolves around money and respect. The main driver of this movie is debt, both abstract and literal. One of the first lines in the movie is “Leave Jack Burton alone, we are forever in his debt!” This is not a monetary debt, but rather one of gratitude. Further, the only reason Jack gets mixed up in all that trouble going on in Little China is because he is trying to collect a debt owed to him that he won in a night of gambling. In the end, after Jack helps save Little China, Jack is paid three times what he was owed for the gambling debt because “he earned it.” Why did he earn it? Because of his heroism in a situation that really wasn’t his problem. It all seems silly, but consider that this movie was made roughly 10 years after the Vietnam War ended. America was trying to spread freedom, and freedom comes with capitalism. Communism was (and still is) huge in Asia. But, the more capitalist these countries become, the more opportunity there is for foreign investment. This isn’t just theory, this is a fact. America gets rich when other countries become more capitalistic. Just consider the billions that are being made here in The States as China becomes more capitalistic. So, if we get involved, we get rich. We are speaking paper, so we are speaking America’s language. But what about the morality of it all?

            Big Trouble in Little China will conveniently explain the morality of this intervention as well! It really is the Swiss Army Knife of movies explaining global intervention. We should get involved because there are people suffering from lack of freedom, and it is our duty to free them. Jack is a hero in this movie. He frees captives locked in the underbelly of Little China and he destroys an ancient evil. He was there for the money, but he stayed because it was his duty to help those who couldn’t help themselves. This is an interesting concept, because if you can convince the American people that there are good people who are being oppressed, they will probably support the intervention. But, why should the American people care about people who live across the planet? Further, America doesn’t have the best history with racism, so how can you convince Americans to look past their racist tendencies? Big Trouble in Little China tries to do this by using comedy to break down stereotypes and racial barriers.

            Racial comedy is used extensively in this film. Every character is reduced to a caricature of racial stereotypes, and this includes the white character. Jack is a loud-mouthed moron. He is dressed like a redneck, and he drives a semi-truck that has a naked woman decal on the grill. Chinese culture is mystified extensively, and Asian women are highly sexualized. Every Asian character is a master of martial arts. Many Asian characters are “sorcerers.” Both Chinese and American culture is made fun of. While making fun of cultures and race seems wrong and strange, it is actually a documented way to bring people of different races together. In “Naturalizing Racial Differences Through Comedy: Asian, Black, and White Views on Racial Stereotypes in Rush Hour 2,” it is stated that in Rush Hour 2 “racial jokes in film cross color lines, creating an impression that all races are subject to stereotypes.”  In other words, since all races are made fun of in Rush Hour 2, it doesn’t come across as offensive, and it causes everyone to take themselves less seriously. It is theorized that this causes racial barriers to be broken down as everyone’s guard is let down. In Big Trouble in Little Trouble, both white and Asian characters are made fun of. The white character is absolutely ridiculous, but if it weren’t for this portrayal of the white character, this movie would probably be extremely offensive. By playing on both Asian and white stereotypes, the film tries to get you to see past racial differences. While making fun of racial stereotypes to move past stereotypes seems counter-intuitive, I think it honestly makes sense. The only way to get through stereotypes is to address them, comment on how ridiculous the stereotypes are, and then move on.  Big Trouble in Little China addresses stereotypes about race with comedy, and then throughout the movie uses common goals between characters of different races to get the audience to look past race. And, once the audience looks past race, it becomes obvious that it is our duty to help the Asian community.

            So, back to the original question: why should we get involved in global conflicts that have really nothing to do with us? It is easy, just consult Big Trouble in Little China. Everyone deserves freedom and dignity. Even though those being oppressed look and act different than us, they are still humans, and it is our duty to help them. And, if the moral call to help the less fortunate isn’t enough for you, if we help, we are going to get paid big time. While this all seems silly (mostly because this is a silly movie), the debate whether America should interfere globally remains an important issue to this date, and it is a question that we all must address as citizens.

Citations:

Park, Ji Hoon et al. "Naturalizing Racial Differences Through Comedy: Asian Black, and White
        Views on Racial Stereotypes in Rush Hour 2" Wiley Online Library, Journal of Communication,
        10 Mar. 2006, onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.umkc.edu/doi/

Bonus 4: Do I Appropriate Eastern Culture? -JJ Leath

             Cultural appropriation is a topic that I have struggle with greatly. I am extremely interested in Eastern culture. I am fascinated with their philosophies, their medicine, and their overall aesthetic. This is not a new fascination either; I have been intrigued by Eastern ideas since I did a presentation on ancient Japanese mythology in 2^nd grade. As a kid, it never even crossed my mind that I may be doing something wrong. It wasn’t until my senior year in high school that I heard about cultural appropriation. I immediately became self-conscious. As I have mulled over the subject for some time now, I have come to find that there is a pretty clear line between appropriation and appreciation. From my own personal experience, I know that exploring cultures that are not your own not only broadens your worldview, but it also enhances your life. I don’t know how I would have gotten through the deepest lows in my life it wasn’t for Buddhist writings including the writings of the current Dalai Lama. Professionally, all of my work in the field of market economics is directly rooted in Eastern concepts of harmony and balance. My most important work to date directly quotes Laozi and Sun Tzu. I would not be who I am without Eastern culture. So, I am still left with a question: am I wrong? Am I stealing from the East? I don’t think so. So, what does that mean for cultural appropriation? Is it just some stupid “social justice warrior” idea that isn’t actually real? Well, I don’t think that either. Cultural appropriation is absolutely wrong, but I think the crusade against cultural appropriation is coming dangerously close to censoring the most import aspect of being in a human, and that is learning from each other. The distinction between cultural appropriation and appreciation, in my opinion, comes down to the intentions of the person in question.  

            One of the problems with the debate within cultural appropriation is that there isn’t a clear definition of what it actually is. In the SFSU video, it is said that the white student with dreadlocks is stealing from black culture. Personally, I don’t think that this is cultural appropriation. In contrast, the article discussing celebrities and cultural appropriation mentions Taylor Swift’s video for “Shake It Off.” I do believe this to be cultural appropriation, and rather appalling cultural appropriation at that. So, we are left with a question: how are these examples different? Both include white people emulating black culture. Both seem like they could fit within the definition of cultural appropriation. But, like any good student of Kant would say, it comes down to intention.

            Why did the SFSU student have dreadlocks? Why did Taylor Swift emulate black culture in her video? The SFSU student with the dreadlocks had dreadlocks because they made him feel good about himself. He was able to express himself through his hairstyle, and I think that individual self-expression should never be censored. On the other hand, Taylor Swift was not emulating black culture to express herself through her preferred aesthetics. She was making fun of black culture. When you place this in context with her ever-lasting feud with Kanye West, this becomes quite disconcerting. What Taylor Swift did was wrong. What the SFSU student did was a very human thing to do. He saw something he liked, and he wanted to emulate it. It added to his life. To me, this is where the line should be drawn.

            So, what are practical examples of this line between appreciation and cultural appropriation in everyday life? When a bunch of white guys who chanted “build that wall” in November 2017 get together on the 5^th of May, put on Sombreros and fake mustaches, and proceed to drink margaritas and eat tacos while making fun of Mexican accents and culture, you have cultural appropriation. It’s disgusting and should be called out. When you have a skinny white kid growing up in the country and trying to figure out life who then turns to Eastern culture for inspiration and enlightenment, I think you have appreciation. When you boil it down, it comes back to Kantian philosophy. Kant states you should always treat people, and as extension people’s culture, as means in themselves, not means to an end. If you are treating the culture you admire as a means in itself, you are appreciating. When you treat a culture as a means to an end, you are appropriating. The first progresses humanity, because when it comes down to it, we are all human. If an alien came to Earth, it wouldn’t see separate cultures, but rather subcultures within the overall culture of the Earth. But when you treat a culture as a means to an end, you are engaging in racist behavior that takes humanity backwards towards periods of ignorance and monstrous acts.

The Anti-Hero in Modern Cinema by: JJ Leath

             While contemplating which movie I would analyze, I thought it would be best to re-watch a movie that I haven’t seen in a while and try to catch something worth analyzing through the new-found theoretical lens that I have developed from partaking in this class. I decided that I would re-watch Suicide Squad. As I re-watched this train-wreck of a movie, I found myself intrigued by why I felt so connected to Will Smith’s representation of the villain, or "anti-hero," Deadshot, and as I pondered this connection further, I think that the root of this feeling is causing a new wave within the realm of cinema as a whole.

              In Suicide Squad, Will Smith portrays an assassin who goes by the name Deadshot. Deadshot is a criminal. He is a professional murderer. On paper, you shouldn’t find yourself rooting for him. But, something about Will Smith’s character struck a chord with me. As the movie progresses, I find myself viewing Deadshot as a hero. There are moments where he shows great virtue. He has an opportunity to turn against his friends, but he doesn’t. He has the opportunity to run away, but he doesn’t. He stays and fights because he wants his "daughter to view him as something more than a screw-up." In spite of all of his flaws, he wants to be a hero. And at the end of the movie, I found myself disappointed when he has to return to prison. As the credits began to roll, I didn’t find myself counting up all of the times a phallic shape was used by a myriad of overly-sexualized characters, but I was asking myself why I saw this professional killer as a hero and why I found myself identifying with him.

              To better analyze my question, I considered some of the film theory that we had learned. I found Mulvey’s application of Lacan’s Imaginary Order to be extremely useful. Essentially, we identify with the characters in the movies we watch. Mulvey likened this with a "(child imagining) itself to be more adult, more fully formed, perfect, than it really is." These ideas were further developments of Baudry's ideas on the cinematic apparatus that he first wrote about in 'Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus' in 1970. What these works demonstrated was that we portray ourselves onto the idealized characters in a movie. I believe this to be caused by our desire to be the characters on the screen. I want the status of Bruce Wayne, the intelligence of Sherlock, and the virtue of Superman. This, though, always leads me to disappointment. I will never live up to these heroes. I see myself as who I wish to be, but when the movie is over, I then see myself for who I really am, and I don’t measure up. I'm not an idealized person, and because of this I have a split within myself. I have things about myself that I am truly proud of, but I have things I wish I could change about myself or my past. I believe this is something within everybody. This, though, is not something within Superman, Iron Man, or any other grandiose character, but it is a struggle within Deadshot. This is where I think my conflicting view of the villain Deadshot comes in. Deadshot showed characteristics that I hope I have as well. He was skilled, intelligent, brave, and loyal. He wasn’t perfect though. He had qualities that I hope I never show, for he was still a villain. When the movie was over, and when the larger-than-life character was gone and I was just left with myself, I didn’t feel the disappointment that I do when a Sherlock or Superman movie is over. It was for this reason that I think I found myself rooting for a “bad guy.”

To take this concept further, I think this is why I, and many others, have a tendency to root for and identify with the anti-hero. I think that this dynamic is what makes Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, and Deadpool so successful. But I don’t think that the anti-hero is becoming just a niche genre within Hollywood, though. This “anti-hero” concept is starting to bleed into other films as well. Characters are becoming darker and less perfect. Compare the Batman movies from the 90s to Christian Bale’s Batman. Bale is a much darker, more broken version of Batman. Further, even though he has money and status, Bale’s Bruce Wayne isn’t perfect. This concept has even made its way to the new Star Wars movie. Luke Skywalker was an idealized hero in the 70s, but in the new film he is much darker and less perfect. He doesn’t always show the virtues that marked him in the original trilogy. I think that this interestingly marks an aging Luke, but also a changing society where anti-heroes are not only accepted, but praised.  

None of us are perfect. We all have a split within ourselves. When we portray ourselves on to the grandiose characters we see on a screen, we won’t measure up. I believe that characters like Deadshot show us that this is okay. Even though he was a villain, he wanted to be a hero, and he became a hero in spite of a troubled past. The concept of the anti-hero isn’t new, but a recent wave has made them far more prevalent. And as audiences continue to grow tired with idealized human perfection, the prevalence of anti-heroes will only grow.

Post 1, Group B--The Nutty Professor, Kendra ZeMenye

The Nutty Professor is a 1996 fantasy and science fiction comedy film starring the comedy actor Eddie Murphy and Jada Pinkett Smith who is the second wife of Will Smith. The Nutty Professor was a remake of the original movie filmed in 1963. The movie was about a nerdy, clumsy scientist who made a potion to transformed himself into a handsome guy, just to win the girl of his dream. The 1996 film portrays Eddie Murphy as Sherman Klump, a shy, but kind-hearted, an obese college professor who weighed about 400 pounds and fell in love with Carla Purty played by Jada Pinkett Smith who is Sherman’s love interest. He decides to lose 400 pounds just to win Purty's heart until he went down the wrong path. The director Tom Shadyac used the movie to portray how American society discriminates against people who are obese or who do not conform to our superficial standards.

It bothers me to hear people making fun of people who are big. Like they are saying people who are obese are lazy, clumsy, clueless, unattractive, and not bright but if you put the overweight person as a main character, the audience expects to see an obese person to be slow and dumb. Apparently, the director wanted to make a challenge by turning an unpopular overweight character into a likable character. What makes the audience like Sherman Klump was the way he respects his students, and he treated Carla Purty like a lady. He’s not like all the other guys who treat women as sex objects. 

Sherman gets humiliated because he was different, but because he did not conform to the superficial standards of American beauty. For example, in the restaurant called "Scream," Sherman and Carla were both being ridiculed and called names by a show businessman named Reggie Warrison. He said to Sherman that his big body was a full moon and he should be on his diet called “slim slow.” That hurts Sherman more. The more he was feeling embarrassed, the more he became sad, desperate, and insecure. It does compare today when you are being teased a lot because of your appearance. The restaurant scene makes me want to cry because you feel isolated by hiding somewhere where you want to get away from somebody who's been teasing you. The director Tom Shadyac conclusively shows how American society excludes people who don't conform to external standards. 

In the scene where Sherman created a blue weight loss potion that could help him transfer himself into a handsome guy just to attract Carla Purty's attention. He thinks it is the only way he could change his appearances which is why he wanted to improve his appearances. For me, I don’t approve Sherman making that kind of potion because I feel like Sherman is taking it too far and what Sherman’s doing is dangerous. At first, I thought he was damaging his body on purpose, but he was using the blue potion to lose 400 pounds. It does relate to society's today because people tried to improve themselves by getting plastic surgery, going to the gym, or using any weight loss product. For me, I try so hard to fit in and be one of the cool kids by wearing clothes that show off half of my skin and wearing make-up, but it did not make me feel like a better person. That compares to Sherman because he wanted to be accepted. It happened in real life when you had to dress to impress to change your appearances of attracting people's attention so you could act like you're a big shot.

After watching the movie, I learn that life is about how much you accept for who you are instead of pretending to be someone you’re not. I learn the most important lesson; you can't judge people based on their appearances whether if they're skinny, big, accessible, a nerd, tall or short; it's just like, "Don't the judge the book by its cover." I often learn that looks don't matter, but personality is what matters. And sometimes it is hard for someone to accept you, just because you're different. Most of all, it is not okay to joke someone based on their weight or how they dressed.