Tag: analysis

How to Win Back a Girl’s Heart: “Change”

In almost every romance, there is a portion where the guy must “win” the girl back after betraying her in some way- either acting like his normal playboy self or just doing something stupid. And just about every time, he does get her back, usually by apologizing or doing something to show that he’s “changed”. But has he really changed? In some instances, the previously reckless male character does actually show a change in attitude or behavior that would warrant a yes. But most often, it’s a big fat no.

In order to examine how the guy hasn’t changed, we must first understand how the typical main guy in a romantic movie starts out. He is most often the reckless playboy, who parties and sleeps around with whoever he wants. He goes to parties, maintains a decent job, and usually an apartment to himself. He doesn’t really care about anyone but himself and his best friend, who always tries to get him to “find a girl”-to which the man always shrugs the suggestion off with a playful scoff.

But then he meets the girl of his dreams. She’s a much more lax person, someone who doesn’t really like to party, or sleep around. She’d rather sit at home and watch a movie marathon, or read a book. She isn’t affected by the guy’s flirtation, which immediately peaks the guy’s attention. He has to find a way to impress her.

After the first time he meets her, they start meeting by chance. After a few times, they finally decide to hang out with each other on purpose. Maybe even date. The guy seems to be settling down. After a few months, he seemed to have changed.

But then he does something stupid. Either indirectly, or just a stupid action he decides to do. Girl finds out, and ditches him, heartbroken. Boy does something to make it back up to her, and they end up getting back together at the end.

Now, this isn’t always how the story goes. In The Big Sick, Kumail wasn’t really a partyer, but a nerdy comedian whose parents were trying to marry him off to a Pakistani girl. This is the point of conflict for his relationship, and he remedies it by sticking up for himself and spilling the truth to his parents. In this situation, he does change. However, in most other situations, the guy doesn’t really have a meaningful change. While he does settle and stop sleeping around, that’s not really giving something up. That’s just getting into a monogamous relationship. Usually the partying also dies down as a result, but that’s usually from finding else to pass the time and satisfy the need to do something. The behavioral changes are not because of an actual effort placed in-just the indirect results of deciding to date someone. There is nothing of real value to it.

The biggest example of this is the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy. In this case, Christian Grey starts out as a young billionaire who liked to exercise control in everything, rather than the reckless party guy. Anastasia breaks up with him, upset by his violent urges when it comes to BDSM and domination in her life, and he wins her back by promising to change. I’ve only seen the first two, so I will focus on his portrayal in the second film.

To summarize my argument before it starts, let’s just say this; he doesn’t change. His possessive behavior merely shifts, to be controlling in certain ways, but in aspects that almost don’t seem noticeable, who can claim that she has more “freedom”. He buys the publishing company she works for while arguing it’s a business investment, he happens to be in the right places at the right time, and he has the money and power to get people at her work fired. He is a prime example of the faux change that people fall for.

La La Land, and the Harsh Reality of Making it in Show Biz

Although La La Land came out a few years ago, and ended up pretty fairly for the main characters (maybe not romantically, but employment-wise), it was a movie that did shed some light on some of the harsher realities of trying to make it in the show business. Whether in music or in acting, show business is a job outlet that attracts many, many more people than it will take in,becoming the golden egg that everyone is searching for. Every one who comes wants to become one of the stars, but not everyone can achieve that-in fact, it’s almost impossible to.

There is a less than one percent chance that people who try to enter show business, as either a musician or an actor, will actually make it to stardom. As La La Land shows, trying to even start in the business if tough. Working minimum wage jobs while trying to apply to as many roles as you can, going to audition after audition, and often being met with rejection. Even if you do get the role, you might run the risk of becoming a “one-hit wonder”, where you get one big role and never appear again. The lucky event that you make it beyond that are slim.

Also in the film is the idea of romance and show business. *Spoilers* Their romance ultimately can’t continue because it would interfere with each other’s dreams. If she became an actress, he would have to give up the dream of running a jazz bar. If he became a famous musician, then she would have to give up on her dream of becoming an actress. Couples trying to achieve different forms of fame ultimately cannot work, without one having to give up their dream to take care of the family. You can’t have both a relationship and reach for fame. This isn’t to say that actors and musicians can’t have relationships-only that to try and both get into the show business while starting a relationship is almost a guaranteed lost cause, unless someone is willing to give up the aim.

Plus, if you get in a relationship after you get famous, you have to be really careful in order to make it last. Usually the relationships that are never broadcasted all over the place seem to go unscathed, although cheating scandals come out all the time. These scandals can be especially prominent if you aim to be in the paparazzi’s light all the time (yes, you choose when you have the paparazzi around; it’s illegal in California to take a photo or record someone without their permission). Those who don’t want paparazzi around never appear in the tabloids for a reason. Even Jay-Z cheated on Beyonce, something many wouldn’t fathom ever doing. And if you were wondering if that album was done as a publicity stunt, it wasn’t; he made an album apologizing for it. Plus, trying to date someone who isn’t famous can be damaging, as you’re not only easily recognizable, but then attention would be brought to them, and not always positive. Like I said before, a relationship in show biz isn’t impossible, but much more difficult than it would be otherwise.

The “Pure Virgin” Trope

For a time not so long ago, there was the common but somehow romantic concept of the “pure” girl who’s never had sex falls in love with the very experienced “bad” boy. Especially in the Young Adult urban fantasy (fantasy meshing with the real world), there was the common trope of the main female protagonist being a tiny but stubborn teenager who butts head with the tall and handsome new kid, eventually falling madly and viciously in love with him (her first love, by the way). Often times as well, girls the same age who have had sex are often placed in the light as pure sluts, with their character being left very one-dimensional. At the same time, the books are promoted as “empowering” to young girls, girls who can be as young as 10 and very impressionable.

Why does this matter? Well, trying to promote this idea (plus promoting romance with male protagonists of questionable choice), this can lead many to be unaware of the toxicity of relationships like that. Let’s break it down a little bit, shall we?

Well first, the fact that the main girl is practically the only one around that is a virgin promotes the idea that she is on a level above every one else, or “pure”. Now this isn’t to say that being a virgin at 16 or 17 is a bad thing- the average age that people lose their virginity at is 17- but having her be the only one that is a virgin is saying something. Plus, these girls usually haven’t even had their first kiss yet, like how much more obvious can you get?

The girl also usually doesn’t have very many friends, being the sort of “loser” in school. She usually has around one or two friends (maybe 3), and there is always a guy that she is closest with, mostly to play the love triangle game. Unless, there is the rare chance that he is gay (True Blood), and then he is just the sassy friend trying to encourage her to get laid. This reinforces another idea-it’s not cool to be “popular”. If you’re “popular”, then you’re just like all the other girls who sleep around and party. You’re not “pure”.

The “pure” aspect contrasts greatly from the main male protagonist, the new bad boy who is always insanely attractive. He usually sleeps around, is sarcastic as all hell, and doesn’t like to follow the rules. He is the kind of guy that’s supposed to be unachievable, but always turns his attention to the nerdy not conventionally pretty female protagonist. He sweeps her off her feet, and rescues her because he knows so much more about the magical world than she does. He becomes the useful one, while she sheepishly has to follow him around for protection, and eventual romance. He takes an interest in her mostly because of her purity (a concept that appears in many different books, TV, and movies), making her all the more desirable. She is the target of his romantic advances because she is “not like other girls”.

Plus, he’s always got a broken, tortured soul for the female protagonist to save. He can have all the problems he desires, but she can’t. She’s supposed to listen to all his problems, without having any actual problems of her own to share. This can be very dangerous for an actual relationship. A girl is not supposed to only be someone’s “savior”, but should also be able to reach out to her partner. If she feels like she can’t, then that’s not a very good relationship.

To make matters worse, the idea of the man acting aggressively protective, and sometimes even controlling, gets romanticized. Any man she hangs out with is a threat (and it’s usually portrayed that way), and she must be “protected” from them. She can’t be friends with male friends either, because it turns out they just want to get in her pants, even though bad boy is the only one for her. And bad boy gets really upset when she talks to other men. Controlling behavior is made to seem romantic here, when it’s really not, which could influence young girls into believing that it is. Her heart and body should only be meant for him, and never any one else ever again, which is also not a healthy thing to romanticize. It’s dangerous and can lead to girls getting trapped in toxic relationships.

Hollywood and the Wonders of Rome

Trevi Fountain and the Mouth of Truth are both internationally renowned landmarks in the city of Rome. The former is inspired by the Baroque period, but was built in the 1700s as a grandiose way to be the end of a rebuilt aqueduct. The latter was built as a Roman sewer cap, but later became the source of a medieval tradition. We like to have the perception that these sights were always famous, and will continue to be. However, this is not the case. These monuments became famous during the 1950s, when a series of Hollywood films centered around Rome showcased these, sending tourists flocking to Rome. Three different films promoted these sights, each playing an important role in the sudden fame of the two sights.

Trevi fountain, or La Fontana di Trevi does not have a long history, although the source of its water does. Its water comes from an aqueduct that had been shut down, known as the Virgin Aqueduct. It had been shut for a while, before a pope during the Baroque period decided to reopen it and build a fountain to mark the finishing point of the aqueduct’s path, recruiting a design by Gian Lorenzo Bernini. However, it wasn’t actually built until the 1700s, designed by Nicola Salvi and finished by Giuseppe Pannini in 1762.

While the fountain was grandiose and a sight to see, it didn’t gain much international attention until the 1954 release of 3 Coins in the Fountain (Tre Soldi Nella Fontana). The film, which centers around 3 American women travelling to Rome to find love, throw coins in the fountain to make a wish, and reunite with their Italian lovers at the end of the film in front of it. Also, in 1960’s La Dolce Vita, and Italian film taking place in Rome, has a scene where Anita Ekburg takes a bath in the Trevi Fountain. While that will get you arrested if you try that now, it was fine for the time, gaining a great amount of attention internationally. These two films put the spotlight on Trevi fountain, showing off nuances of Rome that hadn’t been seen on the international level before. Now the fountain is almost always crowded with people, those who want to take photos in front of the beautiful artwork or throw a coin in and make a wish.

The same thing happened with the Mouth of Truth, or La Bocca di Verita. Once an embellished sewer cap depicting the god Ocean, it became the source of a medieval tradition which functions as a lie-detector test. Built into the exterior wall of a church, the tradition where someone placed their hand into the mouth of the cap to answer confession-type questions, where a false answer would result in the hand coming off. It was a long-standing local custom, and stayed that way until the 1953 release of Roman Holidays (Vacanze Romane), starring Audrey Hepburn. In the film, the Mouth of Truth is displayed when Gregory Peck places his hand in the mouth and fakes losing his hand to trick Audrey Hepburn. The film sent people to an otherwise normal medieval Greek catholic church, each one wanting a photo of themselves placing their hands inside the mouth of the cap. There is now a line in order to place your hand in the mouth, gaining a lot of popularity for the church, and getting them donations to continue to function and maintain their church.

The Odd but Refreshing Creativity of Kid Films

Hollywood’s big-budget movies have fallen into the trend of being either a sequel, or entirely not creative. The creative and unique movies seem to be released purely to be nominated for Oscars, drawing a great amount of criticism and the phrase that “Hollywood is unoriginal”.

While this may seem true for the most part, there seems to be a faction of Hollywood left untouched by the trend- kids’ movies. Despite being meant to entertain children with a set happy ending ever time, I’ve noticed that these films take a variety of creative routes and themes to get there. I would even go so far as to say that they display a human variance that almost never appears in other films anymore. Despite knowing how the ending goes, I am always surprised to see what paths are taken to get there.

Kids films place forth unique ideas (well, for the most part), with settings ranging anywhere from Norse dragons to Polynesian Gods, taking risks with entirely original stories, pushing the boundaries without worrying about the risk of failure. It makes each film that much more refreshing and enjoyable. It allows people to get so much more invested and interested into the film.

I will say there are exceptions to this, however. Angry Birds and The Emoji Movie are the two big ones that I could think of. Also, sequels that are deemed unnecessary (cough cough Toy Story 4) can fall under the trap. While many modern kids’ films are original, that isn’t to say that all are.

The Negative Effects of the “Pure” Trend

I can say that the “pure” trend, a trend where people look for anything and everything to try and argue that some form of media is “problematic” in the efforts of finding the “purest” media, started around 2014. It initially started as a way to avoid promoting people who did shady things, but then evolved and grew much worse, leading to people who follow the trend trying to exaggerate non-real issues in order to say why and otherwise piece of good media was actually awful. The “pure” trend is unnecessarily nasty, attempting to ruin actually good or progressive media.

The most recent case of this was Brooklyn 99. Brooklyn 99, which was marked for its genuinely funny humor (and social progressiveness), came under attack for being centered around a police force, which “media purists” argued made the show awful. They discouraged people from watching it, arguing that because it was about cops, it was promoting police brutality (what?). Fortunately, their attempts actually backfired, with people calling them out for trying to ruin a good show.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case for a few other examples, particularly Dream Daddy. The game, which is a male dating sim where you have the option of dating many fathers. It was diverse and cute, and it was harmless. However, “purists” jumped on the fact that there was an unused ending for one dad, a priest, where he ran a cult, saying that that ending was homophobic. They extended that assumption to say that the whole game was homophobic, and that the creators, a group called Game Grumps (known for their Youtube channel) were terrible people that deserved to be permanently boycotted. While the game’s popularity did resurface quickly, it took an initial hit, fading to the shadows as the “purists” continued to blast the game.

If you couldn’t tell by the examples, the “purity” trend doesn’t center around conservative Christian values. It’s rather based from the social justice warrior values, the radicalized form of progressiveness. In these values they look to ruin everything to find the most perfect media, which assumes that human beings can be perfect, and any flaws they might have ruin their image for life. These people jump on the idea that someone’s problematic past (in the case that they changed and became better people) makes them unable of redemption, which only reinforces the idea that people can’t change. It completely ignores people’s human nature and variance, placing them in an unachievable position of having to be perfect, always. It’s simply unrealistic and damaging.

How Ancient Greece and Rome get Ignored in the World of Pop Culture

I’m going to put this out here before I go into anything else: I love studying ancient Rome. Ancient Greece is interesting, too, but there is just something about Rome’s quirkiness that is a whole other realm of entertaining. Like no Greek has made their horse a senator, and no Greek ruler has ever made all the aristocracy sit during his performances, which went for hours on end. Even if you went into labor during one, you either had to give birth there or wait until the concert was done (good old emperor Nero, right?). The absurdity of ancient Rome is just endlessly entertaining.

This interest, however (plus studying ancient Greek society and politics for classes), has made me a stickler for detail and historical accuracy. Which is something that doesn’t exist in Hollywood. Or really most forms of media. Ever. Ancient Rome and Greece (particularly Sparta) seem to get constantly portrayed as nations completely consumed by war (which isn’t too far off for Rome, but war never actually happened on the peninsula), with soldiers and generals being the stars. How both are portrayed ignores both the complexity of either society, but also greatly sets up the idea that both were only the super-machismo men that we imagine today. Which is expected, as every culture gets simplified to focus on the more “interesting” aspect of warfare. But I thought I would expand other interesting parts about these cultures that are either sorely left out of media, or not elaborated enough.

When it comes to Sparta, what you might imagine is the movie 300, or any other films centered around the culture. Sparta is often portrayed as the epitome of super-machismo, with sexy men with ripped bodies in scant uniforms, while the women are often left at home in the traditional Greek tunic. This basis isn’t unfounded. Sparta was known as the “warrior kingdom”, with children training from a young age to be strong warriors and advanced athletes. Yes, I said children. Women were also trained to be fit (although to a lesser extent than guys), and had some of the most rights of all Greek women. Because men had to train to become a “real” Spartan at 30, and people were expected to marry around 18 (late relative to Greece), women had to have quite a bit of freedom, and were expected to maintain athleticism and a healthy diet to raise strong children. They could perform in sporting events, and had the rights to property, making Sparta unlike the rest of ancient Greece.

This difference in culture often attracted criticism by other ancient Greeks, especially by Athenians, who saw Spartan men as “controlled by women”, despite the intense training in athleticism and warfare that Spartan men had to go through. Sparta is often pictured also as an independent piece that focused itself around Persia. This also ignores the massive around of political influence that Sparta had in Greece, with alliances and “sibling-hood” that made up the area called Peloponnese, which would eventually bring the downfall of Athens (no kidding, the Spartans trash the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War). While Persia was an issue, Athens was a bigger issue (but we can’t show them being destroying the birthplace of democracy, can we?).

As for Rome, it often gets shoehorned as purely militaristic, or centered around the time of the rise of Caesar and Cleopatra (one of history’s most famous romances). And for some reason, Rome seems to always be directly under attack, at periods of time when direct invasion of the city just didn’t happen. In fact, most of the peninsula was never invaded until the collapse of Western Rome, brought into the Roman empire through alliances (except for Sicily). The main problems the city of Rome itself faced wasn’t invasion, but fires. Lots of fires.

Plus, after a certain point, Rome stopped trying to spread its empire, and focused on trying to maintain it. At its height, Rome was the largest empire in human history before Britain in the 1800s, extending from the base of Scotland all the way out to Western India. Which also adds another point. The Roman Empire was insanely diverse, with people of many races having the potential to be considered aristocracy (Rome had to maintain hierarchy in the further regions, in order to keep civilizations under control). Others could even rise the rank through military to be considered Roman wealthy, and were allowed to move throughout the empire. It’s important to mention, however, that while there while there was great social mobility, that Rome also brutally suppressed the groups it controlled, wanting to enforce the “Roman way” (another fact left out). There are even artworks in Rome dedicated to various successful suppression campaigns. But who cares about showing how an empire functions? People want to see the expansion and victory.

Also, when the media portrays Rome, it portrays Julius Caesar and Octavian Augustus, the dictator and first emperor, respectively. Their periods were interesting times, however, as it was the change of Rome from a Republic to and Empire, paired alongside the fall of Egypt with the tragedy Cleopatra. However, this ignores some of the biggest military conquests, which happened under emperors like Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and others, with the latter being considered one of the “big five” of the best emperors of the empire. The only issue that comes with portraying it is, there’s no easy drama to create with great emperors. There was plenty of drama in Rome’s shift to play off of; Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian didn’t really have that level of drama.

Lastly, the media tends to entirely misconstrue Cleopatra. While she was Egyptian, the story we have of her was documented by the Romans, who changed her image from the powerful and intelligent pharaoh responsible for the prospering of Egypt to a simple seductress that corrupted both Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony. Her love story with them is very commonly known through Western pop culture, with the tragic end of her committing suicide alongside Mark Anthony’s corpse rather than following Octavian Augustus to Rome. But the portrayal often ignores all her achievements, militarily and culturally. Cleopatra is responsible for the revitalization of Egyptian being used in the court, which had fallen out of practice during the Ptolemy period (established under Alexander the Great). She also caused the Egyptian economy to prosper, and revitalize the Egyptian military. She had a major amount of political influence in the Mediterranean, which the Romans vied for, making her a major threat. She spent her reign working towards protecting her empire, causing her to turn to Julius Caesar in the first place, and utilize his growing power to keep Egypt separate. And after his murder, she turned to Mark Anthony.

Her motives are seriously downplayed, as a result of her historical rewrite by the Romans, who didn’t like the fact that a woman had sole power over the empire. No, seriously, Rome was notorious for banning women from even entering the public sphere of influence, especially after getting married. Unlike Sparta, women were unable to own property, divorce their husbands, or even practice sports. The idea of one having such a massive amount of political power was unheard of to them. Cleopatra needed to be knocked down a few pegs in their minds.

Flying in a Plane in the Movies vs. Flying in a Plane in Real Life

Whenever flying is displayed in the movies, they are glitzed and glammed up to be something magical. Excited people gleefully sit and party on the plane, going to a new country with their hair done perfectly and their outfits expensive. They’re ready to party in whatever place they go to.

The reality of flying a plane is, however, boring and gross. If you fly anywhere beyond an hour, flying is painfully boring, with the occasional infant screaming their head off over who knows what. All your dirt and oils start to build up, especially on long flights. Combine that with the germs and dirty seats of the hundreds who sat in it before you, and you’ve got a breakout coming on. It’s a guarantee to not looking glamorous when you get off.

Plus, you don’t want to wear nice looking clothes on a plane. Yeah, it’s a good-sounding idea to come off ready to go like in the movies, but the reality is you’ll be really uncomfortable. It’s better to just wear looser pants if you can. Sitting in skinny jeans on a 10 hour flight is one of the worst things you can do. Also, wearing clunky jewelry probably won’t make you feel any better.

Besides, no one is loud or getting buck-wild with booze like in the movies. Everyone is pretty quiet, especially on planes that have overnight time differences. People would get mad at you really quick. You just watch movies and make a few comments hear and there, but otherwise there is nothing really going on. Especially if you’re in coach, which most people in the movies are. It’s only the rare moments when the character is shown a new rich life and gets impressed that the person flies either first class or in a private jet. For the rest of the folk, though, they get shown in a clean, spacious coach, when 99 percent of the time that’s not the case. They’re not unclean, but unless they’re new they’re guaranteed to have not been deep cleaned in a while.

Lessons Learned from Tanacon: Never Plan a Convention in a Month

People are still buzzing from the disaster known as Tanacon. It happened over the weekend as a contrarian convention to Vidcon, and quickly gained news for being disorganized, too small for the amount of people that came, and basically a big scam. So what happened?

Well, this all began when popular Youtuber Tana Mongeau felt that she had been snubbed too many times by Vidcon, who wouldn’t give a content creator’s pass, even as she starred in Escape the Night, one of Youtube Red’s larger shows. Finally, she had decided she had had enough, and decided to make a convention of her own, meant to be a fun place for her and her fans. The move was bold and inspiring, but there were a series of missteps that ultimately led it to being considered one of the worst conventions ever.

The first misstep? Trying to plan an entire convention in a month. Such a move is utterly impossible. It takes many years in order to start a convention, and none are ever perfect from the start. The fact that she tried to plan a convention in a month with no previous experience and nothing really planned is bold- too bold for a newbie.

But you know, the result of a month’s planning wouldn’t have been so bad had there not been over 5,000 people in attendance. This came as a result of Tana promising the option of free tickets, wanting it to be open to all. Tanacon gave free tickets to those who reserved online in May. For VIP or FFC (featured fucking creators), you have to pay $65 and $70 (plus $12 tax) respectively, which were supposed to allow you to skip the line and get a guaranteed spot for meet-and-greets. However, when it came down to it, there was no different lines for the VIP and the regular, and it seemed more people had bought the VIP passes than the free ones.

People also flew out from all over the country to come, wanting to see the larger Youtubers such as Shane Dawson, Elijah Daniel, and of course, Tana Mongeau herself. What they got instead was waiting over five hours in a line with no shade, no water, and no food, unable to get into a venue that couldn’t fit anywhere near the number. The line was unmoving, leaving people getting sunburnt and even getting the risk of heat stroke. Some people even went so far as to jump the fence blocking the ticketing booth, throwing passes over to the crowd waiting.

For those who could actually get in the convention, they were sorely disappointed. There was only one hall for people to go around, and the many fun events that had been promised were lacking. Plus, there wasn’t enough space for everyone to attend the meet-and-greets, leaving many people who had reserved tickets left out. Plus, half the people who said they would attend actually couldn’t, having conflicting times for panels at Vidcon. To make matters worse, at the end of the day, security kicked people out, as per order of the fire marshal.

The real cherry on top, however, would have to be the gift bags, which were supposed to have over a $60 value. What people got instead was a bag, stickers, and a condom (this is a kid friendly event). This left people furious. Now there are a few law suits, as people were basically scammed out of around $80+. It’s also a message of how not to run a convention.

The Gatekeepers of Nerdom: The Small but Obnoxious Minority

It doesn’t take a genius to tell that being nerdy is “cool”. It’s been this way for the last decade, with pop culture trends that were once considered “lame” exploding in popularity, and fandom merch being sold at practically every corner. Conventions are appearing all over the place, and old ones (Comicon, Wondercon, Anime Expo) are growing larger every year. In 2015, more than 150 million people in the United States play video games, with 42 percent of Americans playing video games regularly. The nerd is no longer a joke of a subculture.

But for some reason, the news didn’t seem to have spread to one small group, known as the “Gatekeepers of Nerdom”- a group of nerds who argue that nerds are incredibly oppressed, while at the same time zealously trying to disprove the nerdiness of others, particularly of women. They seem to believe that they’re still stuck in 1980, when nerds were the typical bully subject in films. They also seem to believe that girls won’t date them because they’re nerdy, even though they’re really just not getting dates because they harass every girl who shows signs of nerdiness, trying to disprove them wherever they can.

The Gatekeepers are a small group, but are obnoxiously loud on social media, appearing where no one asked them to. Trying to find the “real” nerds seem to be their righteous mission, making many hate them- making the group in turn see themselves as “greatly oppressed”. Acknowledging the ever-growing diversity of the nerdom in any pop culture media is considered to be “SJW bs” by them.

How do they persist? Well, the Gatekeepers seem to push this continuous cycle where they harass people, get made fun of for it, and imagine they’re oppressed, causing them to continue existing. There is also the issue of the purity complex, where minority groups in fandoms, video games, and other aspects will try and prove that they are the most “pure” of anyone else, who is fake because they aren’t. The purity complex is a toxic form of trying to prove realness, especially in the realm of nerd, where there is no real purity. The nerdom has grown so much that finding a “pure” version of a nerd is utterly impossible.

The fortunate thing is, at least, that no one takes the Gatekeepers seriously. How do you take them seriously, when they are viciously trying to “protect” a subculture like it’s still 1980? And their harassment is kind of hilarious in itself. They appear suddenly in your feed, ask a “trivia question” trying to prove that you’re not a real nerd, and get mad when you either answer it correctly or ignore them. They’re not much of a real foe. It is entertaining to watch someone interact with one of them, though.

Should Horror and Suspense Join Forces?

What ever happened to the days when horror was complex and slow-building? Now it seems that while some films shine the light on pure horror, most rely on just jump-scares and quick emotional turns. They’ve become cheap and cliche (especially the ones centered around the paranormal).

Some recent horror films, however, seem to be incorporating more long-term suspense as well. Get Out and A Quiet Place both seem to contain elements of both horror and suspense, making both movies more complex and intense. The feeling of horror is extended, and while there are a few jump scares, those aren’t the main horror aspects. They possessed another element that gave them a memorable edge.

Now, adding elements of suspense isn’t anything new. In fact, they are so often mixed together that they are practically inseparable. But over the last decade, many horror films have lost their “suspenseful” edge. In fact, it’s gotten to the point that when a movie is classified as “suspense”, it’s short-lived, and almost like a quick moment in the movie. Many films have simply become one-dimensional horror.

But at the times when suspense is fully utilized, it works really well. The best example I can think of is Guillermo Del Toro’s Crimson Peak. The film slowly built it’s horror aspect, building a long-term suspension that grows throughout the film as the audience slowly learns of the horrors of the Sharpe family. While the film did have its “innocent and overly naive” protagonist moments, it takes time to develop the horror, being both obvious and vague at the same time. It fully takes advantage of the suspense factor, making it a standout horror film.

The same situation happened with Jordan Peele’s Get Out. The film builds its horror, but this time it leaves people in the dark until almost the end, giving more room to build suspense and anxiety as the audience tries to piece together where the source of the horror comes from. The clever use of suspense is what caused it to be so good, and memorable among audiences.

So, should horror and suspense join forces? They’ve already done that before. Rather, it’s time they re-join forces, so that horror films can go back to its roots, becoming the fully -formed and artful genre that it once was.

Attack of the Hybrid Dyno

The Jurassic World series seems to be obsessed with introducing a hybrid dinosaur in each of its films. It’s incorporated in various different ways, either being entertainment (in the first film) or a cool new pet (in the second film). Both times, they are a combination of various predators (never the gentle herbivores), and both times, they get out and try to kill everyone.

Which, isn’t necessarily bad. It can make an interesting point. But can it be done without making a copy of the original hybrid?

No kidding, the hybrid dinosaur in the second film is supposed to be an edited version of the hybrid dinosaur from the first movie. When I say edited, I mean with some more velociraptor DNA (to make it obedient?), to try and improve from the fiasco from the last film. Couldn’t they have done something else? They had the potential to make it more unique. But I guess if you have the legendary hybrid dinosaur that destroyed Jurassic World as a pet, that would be a pretty good bragging point.

The only problem is, it is pretty much the central focus of the film, like the last one. In the original Jurassic Park series, each film had a different plot (centered around the island, but with very different story lines). This series, however, while it does add certain elements that make it unique, it still focuses around a hybrid dinosaur. And the same kind of hybrid dinosaur. Which kind of limits the opportunities for creative opportunities.

How Kpop got its Place in Western Media

Now that the season of music and movies has hit, Spotify has begun releasing a weekly playlist called “New Music Fridays”. I’ll listen to it sometimes to find music to add to my own personal playlists, and am unsurprised with the typical English and Latin music that comes on.

Today was different, however. Today I was pleasantly surprised to hear Blackpink’s “Ddu-Du Ddu-Du”, which had been released today (along with the music video for it). Blackpink is a prominent girl’s Kpop group, whose song “Boombayah” had broken records for being the most viewed debut song on Youtube, and achieving 150 million views in less than six months. Even as I write this, the music video “Ddu-Du Ddu-Du” became the fastest girl group Kpop music video to hit 10 million views. To hear their newest song on a playlist of otherwise Western songs was interesting.

The song (which was pretty good, by the way) got me thinking about Kpop as a whole. Just six years ago, most people outside my neighborhood (I grew up in a Korean neighborhood) had never heard of Kpop. Now, advertisements featuring BTS (the most popular Kpop group of right now) are growing increasingly less uncommon, and just about everyone I’ve spoken too knows about Kpop. This did not happen for no reason.

No, the reason Kpop has burst on to the scene goes beyond the accidental popularity of “Gangnam Style”. South Korea’s entertainment industry sits in an interesting situation, receiving direct funding and advisement from the Korean government while at the same time holding themselves as a private industry. This is because while the South Korean government is promoting a market economy with both a private and public sector, they are promoting it in a way that gives them control over how they promote the nation’s image. They want Kpop and Kdramas to spread and show how “cool” of a country South Korea is. The goal is to have their pop culture be known not only in Eastern and Western markets, but also in what’s called “developing” markets as well.

With the massive amount of funding the entertainment companies receive, they can push out higher quality media, to the levels of Japanese and Western media. They promote a Western appeal (adding rap, street wear), while at the same time keeping a unique flair that is inherent to Korean media. They were trying to make their brand known.

But even with all the effort put in, many were shocked to find that “Gangnam Style”, a lyrical satire about the Beverly Hills of South Korea, took the cake for breaking into Western markets. The song, which makes fun of the mannerisms of the rich in South Korea, was not the song the government wanted to be the first Kpop song that new audiences heard on a large scale. While that isn’t to say that they didn’t want singer Psy to make the song at all (he was a relatively popular artist within South Korea), they certainly didn’t want it to become that popular. But not everything can go according the plan, however.

I can’t say “Gangnam Style” was the song that put Kpop in the spot it holds today.  It seems more like the genre gained a more permanent footing when BTS shocked audiences by snatching the title of Top Social Artist at the American Billboard Awards in 2017, beating out prominent names like Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber. It sent the internet ablaze, being divided between fans who were excited for the win, and quite a few people who were asking “who are these guys?”. And while Kpop was popular already, I felt it opened more people to exposure from Kpop, getting more people to jump on the “Korean Craze”.

Documentary Now!, and the Beauty of Subtle Satire

I had almost forgotten about Documentary Now!, until I found the second season on Netflix last night while looking for something to watch. I had always enjoyed the show, and I thought the first two episodes kept their satirical charm. It was at the same time subtle and obvious, with a real appearance and an unreal story line.

Continue reading “Documentary Now!, and the Beauty of Subtle Satire”