So You Think You Can ...Wait?

This Tuesday, while I should have been curled up on my friend's couch with a cold beer and the promise of heated discussion following the president's speech, my debate partner and I opted instead to spend the night in the wet cold, and eventually the warm rain (as Florida's schizophrenic winter weather goes), trying to jimmy the door of my car open enough for a wire hanger to fit through. We spent two hours trying to get it in, and then carefully jabbing at the thick plastic lock. Turns out, the crooks in the movies make it look much easier than it is.

As 8:15 rolled around and we were no better off than when we started, I began to complain about missing the president's speech. His girlfriend, who had to give us a ride to my car after his tire went flat, looked at the time and suddenly realized she was missing an important televised event as well: "So You Think You Can Dance?" was on!

Well, actually, it wasn't. For the first time in several months, the Fox network carried the president's speech in the prime 8 o'clock slot, and, shocking!- bumped back their golden "reality" show a whole half hour! The network had previously snubbed the president more than once in favor of the dancing competition, and, of course, its ad revenue, on President Obama's 100th day in office, and again during his speech to Congress on health-care reform. They were the only major network to do so both times.

So what's behind the change of heart? Maybe they figured the bad PR wasn't worth it, with the speech running only half an hour this time. Maybe the pressure by the White House to shape up got to them, and they didn't want to lose anymore interview opportunities with the president. Maybe they grew a sense of shame and didn't want to run a tacky contest show while the other networks were giving the president time to outline important policy decisions for war.

Yes, most TV is just as bad. "SYTYCD?" is not the stand-out in hammy, trivial entertainment, and I know we all have the need for mindless escapism. But if you're particular thrill comes from watching feathered and sparkle-fied dancers cat-fight and get voted off, perhaps you could Tivo your favorite show until after the president announces his plan for another Middle-Eastern disaster.

And then maybe you could help me out with the $50 I spent on pop-a-lock to get my keys out of my car. Hey, we can't all be geniuses. You know. You watch "SYTYCD?".

These Stickers Don't Stick

I have to wonder if trying to make Jacksonville's downtown hip, or at least worth leaving Riverside for, is ever really going to work.

Some are trying, like they have been for the past several years, putting in that last ditch effort to save a relationship that you both know is long over. Like any relationship, though, difference of religion can become an issue. Let me explain.

The First Baptist Church, as everyone knows, owns downtown Jacksonville. They own most of the parking garages, so there's nowhere for people to park even if there was something to do there. They also buy up most of the liquor licenses, which makes it very hard to open up a new bar downtown, essentially killing the possibility of any sort of nightlife. Not to mention that many of the top honchos in the local political scene are members of the church.

So Downtown Vision Inc. thinks it can actually make a difference by adding some thought bubble stickers to the windows of downtown shops and restaurants, and parking meters(?). To be fair, that's not all they've done. They've also added handy guides that walk around in park ranger costumes preaching the gospel of downtown Jacksonville to confused passers-by.

Well, I'm sorry Smokey the Bear, but it's going to take more than a few small stunts to revive downtown. For starters, the will of the local government. Until they gather their dignity and start their walk of shame away from the mega-church/mega-political-powerhouse the've been bedding, downtown life will forevor remain a stagnant reminder of the backwards politics that led us here.

Welcome to Jacksonville: The Bold New City of the South!

Jeans That Lift Your Butt, and Your Spirits Too

Ever since the downturn began, it seems I can't turn on NPR or open up a newspaper without being bombarded with talk of the recession. Even in stories that should be completely unrelated to the economy, there it is in flashing lights: We're all in for it! Everyone's losing their jobs! Their homes! Despair! Despair!

Lagging just behind the news reports, the doom and gloom has seeped into the commercial breaks as well. Almost every ad, be it on television, in a magazine, or on a billboard, somehow references the recession, as if we needed to be reminded that we are all broke and need to save where we can. What happened to television as escapism?

While they mainly offer a gentle reminder, some ads have taken it to the next level by declaring transcendence of your money woes if you simply buy their product. In the latest Ad Report Card, a Slate Magazine column on the relationship between ads and consumers, Slate contributor Seth Stevenson breaks down the meaning behind the new Levi's ad campaign.

The "Go Forth" commercials feature readings of Walt Whitman's poetry espousing the courage and valor of the American spirit. Shots of average, and of course beautiful, people riding public transportation and frolicking beneath waterfalls, protesting greedy CEOs and circling bonfires on the beach, embody what we think we are, or wish we were. At least if you're liberal and under 35, Levi's' target audience. There is footage of interracial and homosexual couples, after all.

These ads, as well as many others, reflect a shift in the American mindset, and advertisers' need to appeal to the new American consumer. While there are still plenty of flashy, silly ads, it seems advertisers are learning that we're tired, and we want someone to understand that, and give us hope for the future. If they can sell us on the promise of a brighter tomorrow, maybe they can sell us a pair of jeans, too.

Musical Silences Lobbyists

At an insurance industry conference in D.C. last Friday, a group of pranksters interrupted the sleaze-fest with a new healthcare reform-inspired rendition of "Tommorow" from the musical Annie.

The singers, from "Billionaires for Wealthcare" and "Agit-Pop", infiltrated the meeting for members of the lobbying group America's Health Insurance Plans wearing suits and sitting in the back of the room. The groups' video of the guerilla musical has been shown on CNN's The Situation Room, The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, and, of course, The Daily Show with John Stewart. Apparently, singing can be just as effective as screaming (remember those scary gun-toting tea baggers at the town hall meetings?) when it comes to being heard in the healthcare debate.

The sometimes shaky video shows keynote speaker, republican pollster Bill McInturff, driveling on about how awesome health insurance companies are, when one of the pranksters yells out to him: "Thank you for all the good work you do!" He responds, somewhat confused, with thanks to his cheering section. Another prankster chimes in with, "No, thank you!" and then with perfect operatic pitch, (think "The sun will come out!"), "For killing the public option!"

The whole room errupts in laughter as the pranksters sing their opposing parts, some for the public option, some against. They are eventually escorted out of the room, but not before finishing their song.

The fate of Roman Polanski has been a heated topic among my friends and I for the past several weeks. They are equally divided, it seems, for and against Polanski, on the issue of whether he should be sentenced to jail time for the decades-old sex case he was arrested for last month. He has yet to be released from prison.

The debate hinges on the fact that some of the details of the case are not clear and there is some debate as to whether he forced himself on her or not. There are a few facts that are clear, though:

1. The girl involved has dropped the case, publicly forgave Polanski over 10 years ago, and appeared in the documentary, "Roman Polanksi: Wanted and Desired" in his defense.

2. Polanski was released from his 90-day prison stint for psychiatric evaluation early, after an evaluator deemed him mentally sound and unlikely to offend again.

3. The judge involved in the case was a notorious attention-hound, asked a reporter's opinion on what sentence he should give Polanski (?!) and was overheard bragging to his country club buddies that he would put away Polanski for life. The prosecuting attorney admitted, "I'm not surprised he left under those circumstances."

While there has been an uproar in the mainstream media over Hollywood's defence of the famed director, many of my friends have remained vocally supportive of him, despite the possible backlash from being seen as "pro-rape" or something equally stupid.

What surprises me is not that many of them are on his side (I do have mostly liberal friends, after all, who don't have the same twisted morals as the right-wingers would like to claim are divinely instilled in Americans, like dragging a case out for "ethical" reasons when it only hurts the "victim", the defendant, and their families.) What surprises me is that, love him or hate him, his films are considered masterpieces across the board.

This observation seems to negate what some argue is the reason why Hollywood is defending Polanski: solely on the merits of his creative genius. While some French officials have (sort of) used this point in arguing for his release, his talent has in no way shaped mine or many others' opinion. As for the others, before going on to say how he deserves to be in jail for life or even castrated, the first sentence to come out of their mouths is, "He's an amazing director, but..."

Artists and celebrities should absolutely not be exempt from the law, just as policemen, politicians, and clergymen should not be exempt, but why waste money, manpower, and valuable media coverage in chasing after a married, 76 year old man, when the woman has tried on several occasions to drop the whole thing? If it's justice the American authorities are after, I have to wonder, justice for whom? The bigger question remains: is he that much of a threat to American society (artistically, not criminally) that we must lock him up to quiet him?

The most recent Time Magazine cover story, “Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?”, asks us to ponder a question that I believe any rational person with an ear to the American political arena has already answered. The real question then becomes, is it good for rational America to pay any attention?

Glenn Beck has a built a career around being hated. He portrays himself as the underdog, the outcast of the liberal media machine. In truth, though, the mainstream media loves him, and I don't just mean Fox News. Without using Glenn Beck as the grading curve for honesty and ethics in journalism, most mainstream journalists look pretty bad. Before him that responsibility fell on the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his slightly less abrasive cousin, Bill O'Reilly. But after awhile even their rhetoric gets old, and you have to find someone louder, angrier, and quicker to pull the race card out of his bag of tricks.

After his 9/12 rally in D.C. I really started to notice the hype surrounding Glenn Beck, where before I only listened with passing amusement. Like when he said that global warming wasn't just a lie, but the greatest scam in history. Since then he has claimed that Barack Obama "has a deep seated hatred for white people," and that Cash for Clunkers was really just a ploy to gain access to your computer so the government can spy on you.

The problem with giving such madness any sort of scrutiny is, in a way, enabling it to continue. You don't give a lighter to a pyromaniac.

I've read a lot of articles, op-eds, and blogs about Glenn Beck lately, mostly discounting him as as a money-hungry hack pretending to be a newscaster, but most are unfairly dismissive of him. He's nothing if not a force to be reckoned with, a powerful messianic figure aimed to drill into the reserves of social unrest and the fear that the American racial hierarchy is turning upside-down. The angry mobs that crowded the D.C. Mall are proof that at least a few thousand are swallowing everything he has to say, poised and ready to take up arms at his whim.

The comparison made by some to the ranting newscaster with a Messiah complex, Howard Beale, of the prophetic 1976 film “Network” is not unfair. I also believe it wouldn't be insulting to Beck, who seems to have taken his character straight from Beale's play book. The difference between Beck and Beale is, however, that Beale's fears were not unfounded. He was scared that the whole world was becoming a consumer, that television was taking the place of reality, and that there is “an entire generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube!”

Which is what makes Glenn Beck's brand of hysteria that much more dangerous. He's a charismatic, if unbalanced showman, and for those who follow him blindly, he is the Messiah. If we are silent to his ravings, while keeping a watchful eye on his followers, we will do better to extinguish the fire. I just hope those affected by his fear-mongering are done protesting, and go back to sitting idly by the tube. Otherwise, Glenn Beck will not only be bad for America, he will be bad for the world.

Toronto Film Fest Muddies the Waters with Michael Moore

The Toronto International Film Festival has recently become a forum not just for critics of film, but critics of journalistic ethics as well. With activist-film darling Michael Moore's recent debut and unexpected government officials present, the festival events Sunday became fraught with politics.

A recent New York Times article aimed to shed light on the (perhaps) criminal underbelly of documentary filmmaking. Many, including Moore, have been less than honest with us in trying to accomplish a social or political goal, distorting and often completely ignoring the truth.

After the screening of Michael Moore's latest offering, "Capitalism: A Love Story," a panel of filmmakers, producers, and others, met to discuss honesty in documentary filmmaking. Adding to the theatrics, government film commissioner and national chairperson of the Film Board of Canada, Tom Perlmutter, showed up out of the blue to put his own two cents in.

Focusing on a recent report from the Center for Social Media at American University, titled “Honest Truths: Documentary Filmmakers on Ethical Challenges in Their Work”, the panel debated what alterations of the truth were allowable, if any. Some nasty revelations were made in the report, concluding that many documentary filmmakers will draw upon impact over honesty in revealing the film's "higher truth."

An unflattering parallel could be drawn to the techniques employed by exploitation filmmakers and one documentarian, who when interviewed admitted to telling crew members to break the legs of rabbits "in order to get better shots of animals being hunted by others in the wild." The only comparison in recent history as gruesome as this can be found in the controversial 1980 film "Cannibal Holocaust" which was banned in over 50 countries, partly for its real on-camera depiction of animal cruelty.

So, can these documentarians be blamed for their morally corrupt techniques? Should we ban these practices, or do the ends justify the means? I hope these filmmakers can find a way to promote social justice without degrading it in the process.