Title: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Year Released: 1964
Genre: Black Comedy/Satire
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Medium: Feature Film
Running Time: 94 Minutes
The United States Air Force is held in high regard both at home and abroad. Comprised of seemingly the best and brightest military minds for aviation-based military policy, they're easily capable of handling the pressure of maintaining nuclear-capable aircraft, right? Well, if 1964's Dr. Strangelove is to be believed, then not entirely. What if a base commander loses it in his anti-communist paranoia and orders B-52 bombers into Soviet airspace? Can the leader of the U.S. work with the Russian leader and pull the world away from complete catastrophe? Dr. Strangelove (with the aforementioned longer title above) shows that one man's paranoia can lead to total annihilation because of the other side's perceptions of gaps in war readiness. It also doesn't hurt to satirize the era of the nuclear scare as well as communist paranoia. There's no doubt that this film has its place in history as one of the most visible movies about (and satirizing) nuclear war and the itchy trigger fingers of both the U.S. and Soviet Union, but is it any good? Let's find out!
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark when Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper (played by Sterling Hayden) calls Group Captain Mandrake (played by Peter Sellers) and orders the base to be sealed off because the 843rd bomb wing has been ordered to proceed past their fail-safe point. Ripper has done this using a wing attack plan that allows a lower-ranking officer than the President (such as a General) to order the 24-hour flying nuclear bomb wing to attack their targets. Mandrake senses something is amiss when, while impounding a civilian radio, he switches it on and hears civilian music playing. This means that there can't be a real emergency because the emergency broadcast system hasn't been activated. He takes this revelation to Ripper, who detains him in his office and the dastardly communist plot to fluoridate American food and drinking water. Meanwhile, General Buck Turgidson (played by George C. Scott) explains the situation in the War Room at the Pentagon to the President top administration and military officials as well as the Soviet Ambassador. After contact is made with the Soviet Premier, the group finds out about the Russians' ultimate weapon, a doomsday weapon capable of detonating multiple nuclear devices and creating a deadly cloud of fallout that would make the Earth uninhabitable for 93 years. What follows is a frantic attempt by the group, including the eponymous Dr. Strangelove to either recall the bomb wing or prevent them from reaching their targets.
Out of all the movies in this series, Dr. Strangelove is easily the most enjoyable in terms of humor. The fact that it's the only definitive comedy (albeit black comedy) is obvious, but also the humor is a lot less uncomfortable than in the other movies. Even the idea of nuclear apocalypse leaves me with a smile on my face here, despite what the characters are dealing with. The ridiculousness of the characters as well as the hypothetical nuclear war scenario presented (coupled with the doomsday device and cartoonish acting) make this particular nuclear war movie a lot of fun to watch and laugh at. The film's satire of the Cold War does the unthinkable and makes nuclear war okay to laugh at because of the ways the film portrays how one person's paranoid delusions can cause the entire world to go into crisis. Peter Sellers' triple roles as Mandrake, the President and Dr. Strangelove are all unique, entertaining and memorable. Turgidson and Ripper also turn in memorable performances because their overacting actually help the comedic delivery.
It may seem like I'm not saying much about the movie, but that's kind of the only way I can go. This film is a classic. Other than the unrealistic nature of the scenario (why in hell would any country build a doomsday machine that couldn't be deactivated if something goes wrong?) and perhaps the potentially grating cartoony acting of characters like Turgidson, the film manages to get by without presenting too many glaring flaws. If you don't buy into the comedy, then it might be hard to sit through, but the film is still a fun sit and manages to not only perform the rare feat of making the Cold War paranoia seem silly but also imply that human failure can cause enormous damage in a tense nuclear situation. Is Dr. Strangelove the best political satire in history as asserted by Roger Ebert? Maybe, but it is definitely a great movie and well worth watching. It'll amuse you like pretty much every other nuclear war movie simply can't do.
We're now halfway through my little series on nuclear war movies, and from here on out, the movies are gonna get tougher to sit through. I hope you will stick with me as we get closer to the end of this series, and the movie that I'm dreading the most. Take care everyone!
Monday, January 27, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Nuclear War Movies Part 2: Countdown to Looking Glass
Title: Countdown to Looking Glass
Year Released: 1984
Genre: Political Thriller/Mockumentary/Drama
Director: Fred Barzyk
Medium: HBO TV Movie
Running Time: 87 minutes
One of the most interesting parts of the Cold War was the political back and forth of the two superpowers trying to gain an advantage. The omnipresent threat of nuclear war seemed to keep the U.S. and Soviet Union from jumping over the edge of the abyss into all-out war, but how close could the two powers come to looking into the abyss before backing off? 1984's Countdown to Looking Glass attempts to examine the breakdown of Cold War foreign policy as well as the potential that one news story could change the course of a war. How well does it do those things? While it's not the best anti-nuclear film in this series, it certainly does a better job than Special Bulletin at portraying both sides of the nuclear argument from the viewpoint of news media as well as realistically portray a decaying U.S.-Soviet relationship.
Like Special Bulletin, this film is set on a fictional news network, here called the CVN News Network. We begin the film in the middle of a growing crisis in the Middle East as well as at home. What started as a debtor's cartel of South American countries defaulting on their loans and causing three major bank failures has grown into an international conflict. The government of Oman has been overthrown by Soviet-backed guerrillas and the bank crisis at home in the U.S. has caused increased tension and protest. This new government of Oman then takes control of the pivotal Strait of Hormuz and imposes a $10,000 toll on all oil tankers entering the sea lane. Saudi Arabia invites U.S. troops into the country in order to maintain western interests and deter aggression in the region. This serves as the point where tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union begin to grow. CVN's Don Tobin (played by Patrick Watson) reports on this growing crisis and, through other CVN reporters, shows us how relations between the two superpowers decay and the buildup to armed conflict begins. Meanwhile, reporter Dorian Waldorf (played by Helen Shaver) tries to push out a potentially course-changing story thanks to her White House insider boyfriend source despite stonewalling policies being forced on her by CVN.
One of my favorite aspects of this movie is just how compelling it is. Maybe it's the politics, maybe it's the drama, but this film is definitely much more interesting to watch than Special Bulletin. The level of realism and authenticity presented is not as direct as a fully simulated newscast, but the film does make a great effort to convince the audience that what is going on could actually happen. Inclusion of real-world political and media figures of the time (such as Newt Gingrich, Nancy Dickerson, Eric Sevareid, Lincoln Bloomfield and Eugene McCarthy) adds some authenticity to the events of the film and gives the audience some way to relate the story to real-world politics and news events. It also seems like this film does a better job of arguing it's anti-war sentiment while also presenting positions that support standing up and being prepared to fight if necessary. The film leaves more of an impact because of its more dramatized look at the buildup to nuclear conflict as well as its less preachy means of feeding its message. By the end, you feel like the film has respected your boundaries and not beat you over the head with its message without presenting a more intelligent platform for debate.
Another good thing about this film is its more human approach to covering a potentially world-altering crisis. Between the news stories and reports, we see characters dealing with personal dramas such as Dorian and her boyfriend as well as Don Tobin talking to his wife. These moments of drama allow us to identify more with the characters and perhaps even become attached to them. As events continue to heat up and the two superpowers move towards a showdown in the Persian Gulf, the film's tone becomes more nervous and worried as one would expect in a real crisis. The low-key acting and focus on what's going on helps to keep the spotlight on the events so you're not thinking that there are actors instead of actors and political figures. Finally, I like the gradual buildup to armed conflict in the film as well as the uncertain note that the film ends on (despite the final events of the film).
That's not to say that the film is without weakness. First, despite the film's opening saying that the scenario is based on a war game, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief and accept that the U.S. would let Oman be toppled so easily even though the guerrillas had the backing of the Soviets. Also, the dramatic scenes can feel unnecessary when the situation gets particularly grave in the Middle East. They still help lend some compelling moments, but ultimately everything else feels more important at that time. Finally, the film's ending feels kind of sudden. It's hard not to spoil it, but I will say that the ending scene feels like the situation takes a jarringly giant step before ending on the aforementioned uncertain note.
Overall, Countdown to Looking Glass is a good movie and definitely better than Special Bulletin. The impact it leaves might be somewhat muted because of the dramatization at work, but it's still compelling to watch. The film (as well as Special Bulletin) can be viewed in full on YouTube. I would recommend this film because it's compelling, authentic and an interesting look at the breakdown of Cold War foreign policy as well as how the news media can possibly change the course of a conflict (and the consequences of not taking that course-changing action). If you find yourself looking for a compelling movie about the breakdown of Cold War relations and the buildup to nuclear confrontation, try Countdown to Looking Glass.
Final Verdict: Countdown to Looking Glass is more worth watching than Special Bulletin, and serves as a reminder of the importance of news media as well as the potential consequences of political and military crises.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of my Nuclear War movie series in the next day or two. Take care everyone!
Year Released: 1984
Genre: Political Thriller/Mockumentary/Drama
Director: Fred Barzyk
Medium: HBO TV Movie
Running Time: 87 minutes
One of the most interesting parts of the Cold War was the political back and forth of the two superpowers trying to gain an advantage. The omnipresent threat of nuclear war seemed to keep the U.S. and Soviet Union from jumping over the edge of the abyss into all-out war, but how close could the two powers come to looking into the abyss before backing off? 1984's Countdown to Looking Glass attempts to examine the breakdown of Cold War foreign policy as well as the potential that one news story could change the course of a war. How well does it do those things? While it's not the best anti-nuclear film in this series, it certainly does a better job than Special Bulletin at portraying both sides of the nuclear argument from the viewpoint of news media as well as realistically portray a decaying U.S.-Soviet relationship.
Like Special Bulletin, this film is set on a fictional news network, here called the CVN News Network. We begin the film in the middle of a growing crisis in the Middle East as well as at home. What started as a debtor's cartel of South American countries defaulting on their loans and causing three major bank failures has grown into an international conflict. The government of Oman has been overthrown by Soviet-backed guerrillas and the bank crisis at home in the U.S. has caused increased tension and protest. This new government of Oman then takes control of the pivotal Strait of Hormuz and imposes a $10,000 toll on all oil tankers entering the sea lane. Saudi Arabia invites U.S. troops into the country in order to maintain western interests and deter aggression in the region. This serves as the point where tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union begin to grow. CVN's Don Tobin (played by Patrick Watson) reports on this growing crisis and, through other CVN reporters, shows us how relations between the two superpowers decay and the buildup to armed conflict begins. Meanwhile, reporter Dorian Waldorf (played by Helen Shaver) tries to push out a potentially course-changing story thanks to her White House insider boyfriend source despite stonewalling policies being forced on her by CVN.
One of my favorite aspects of this movie is just how compelling it is. Maybe it's the politics, maybe it's the drama, but this film is definitely much more interesting to watch than Special Bulletin. The level of realism and authenticity presented is not as direct as a fully simulated newscast, but the film does make a great effort to convince the audience that what is going on could actually happen. Inclusion of real-world political and media figures of the time (such as Newt Gingrich, Nancy Dickerson, Eric Sevareid, Lincoln Bloomfield and Eugene McCarthy) adds some authenticity to the events of the film and gives the audience some way to relate the story to real-world politics and news events. It also seems like this film does a better job of arguing it's anti-war sentiment while also presenting positions that support standing up and being prepared to fight if necessary. The film leaves more of an impact because of its more dramatized look at the buildup to nuclear conflict as well as its less preachy means of feeding its message. By the end, you feel like the film has respected your boundaries and not beat you over the head with its message without presenting a more intelligent platform for debate.
Another good thing about this film is its more human approach to covering a potentially world-altering crisis. Between the news stories and reports, we see characters dealing with personal dramas such as Dorian and her boyfriend as well as Don Tobin talking to his wife. These moments of drama allow us to identify more with the characters and perhaps even become attached to them. As events continue to heat up and the two superpowers move towards a showdown in the Persian Gulf, the film's tone becomes more nervous and worried as one would expect in a real crisis. The low-key acting and focus on what's going on helps to keep the spotlight on the events so you're not thinking that there are actors instead of actors and political figures. Finally, I like the gradual buildup to armed conflict in the film as well as the uncertain note that the film ends on (despite the final events of the film).
That's not to say that the film is without weakness. First, despite the film's opening saying that the scenario is based on a war game, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief and accept that the U.S. would let Oman be toppled so easily even though the guerrillas had the backing of the Soviets. Also, the dramatic scenes can feel unnecessary when the situation gets particularly grave in the Middle East. They still help lend some compelling moments, but ultimately everything else feels more important at that time. Finally, the film's ending feels kind of sudden. It's hard not to spoil it, but I will say that the ending scene feels like the situation takes a jarringly giant step before ending on the aforementioned uncertain note.
Overall, Countdown to Looking Glass is a good movie and definitely better than Special Bulletin. The impact it leaves might be somewhat muted because of the dramatization at work, but it's still compelling to watch. The film (as well as Special Bulletin) can be viewed in full on YouTube. I would recommend this film because it's compelling, authentic and an interesting look at the breakdown of Cold War foreign policy as well as how the news media can possibly change the course of a conflict (and the consequences of not taking that course-changing action). If you find yourself looking for a compelling movie about the breakdown of Cold War relations and the buildup to nuclear confrontation, try Countdown to Looking Glass.
Final Verdict: Countdown to Looking Glass is more worth watching than Special Bulletin, and serves as a reminder of the importance of news media as well as the potential consequences of political and military crises.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of my Nuclear War movie series in the next day or two. Take care everyone!
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Nuclear War Movies Part 1: Special Bulletin
Title: Special Bulletin
Year Released: 1983
Genre: Mockumentary/Fake News
Director: Edward Zwick
Medium: TV Movie
Running Time: 105 minutes
Free news media is one of the most important elements of a democratic society. When you have news and journalistic media that can report on what's going on in the world and in the government, the people have the ability to know what's going on around them. However, can the news media have a negative impact when covering a major news event, especially one that can potentially bring harm to innocent people? That's the major question that the TV movie Special Bulletin attempts to examine. Through the style of realistic mock live news, the film attempts to investigate the media's responsibilities and irresponsibility when covering breaking news. While rather preachy and one-sided, the film is still a somewhat decent (though not particularly great) realistic examination of the news media as well as nuclear stockpiles of the late Cold War era.
The story is set on the fictional RBS Network based in New York, where Susan Myles (played by Kathryn Walker) and John Woodley (played by Ed Flanders) act as our anchors covering a breaking news story in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. A small group of people have taken control of a small tugboat and have docked in the harbor. After a firefight between Coast Guard forces and the crew of the ship, a local news reporter (played by Christopher Allport) and his cameraman are taken captive on the boat along with a couple Coast Guardsmen. Their main demand in exchange for the captive Coast Guardsmen is for a live network feed over the RBS Network. Using this feed, they announce that they have a nuclear bomb on board the ship and will blow it up if they are not given all detonation modules for every nuclear warhead in the Charleston area. Their professed goal is unilateral disarmament and clearing the way for peace in the nuclear age. If they are not given the detonating modules or they are impeded from exiting the harbor, they will detonate their nuclear device on-board the ship, which is highly secured. What follows is the reveal of the nuclear bomb, the backgrounds of the members of the "terrorist group" and the increasingly ominous progression of the events of the news story as time grows tighter to fulfill the terrorists' demands. By the end, the government faces the choice of either acceding to the terrorists demands or denying them their goal in the hope that their nuclear threat is a bluff.
The main goal of the film is to show that the media has an impact on a news story when terrorists are given live access to the airwaves. The film also shows how skepticism in the news media can trivialize possible threats to innocent people. The one truly good aspect of this film is its realism in portraying news events. There are many times where you might forget you are watching a movie. This realism prompts the movie to warn that "The following program is a realistic depiction of fictional events. None of what you are about to see is actually happening" in order to prevent panic in the audience. The acting as well as the facts that the film was shot on videotape lend credibility to the realism of the film. The ways the actors trip up on words, stumble and experience technical issues also help you feel like you're watching actual news broadcasts. However, the acting does have moments where it slips into hammy/cheesy territory, especially near the end of the film. The only major break in immersion is the film's skipping several hours at a time to continue the story as well as the aforementioned hammy and cheesy acting when the characters are trying to force the idea that they're emotional and upset.
Aside from its realism, this particular film is rather clumsy in its attempts to deliver its views on the connections between the news media, news stories and the people being covered in the course of a story. The film is incredibly preachy while offering no real solutions of its own. Some might say that the film doesn't try to answer the questions it presents, but with how aggressively it criticizes the news media, to not try to approach any answers to the problem is cowardly in this case. The film also doesn't really fairly approach the other side of the issues at play here. The media figures in the film try rather limp-wristedly (particularly John Woodley) to defend the news media and their actions, but they are not given nearly as much of a platform as the critical viewpoints. This lack of fair debate in the events of the film cause me to feel less impacted by movie's end because of the feeling that the filmmakers were only interested in pushing their critical views without giving all sides their due time. In the end, the realism on the surface of the movie is what leaves the most impact, but little else. Calling attention to an issue is not enough when you try so hard to show that something is a problem.
Is there any real reason to watch this movie? Well, the realism does draw you in and welcome criticism of the news media is presented, but the ways it goes about presenting its views are clumsy and one-sided. The film, at worst, demonstrates a missed opportunity to make a stronger anti-nuclear sentiment and instead settles with its heavy-handed yet self-limiting message that the media has negative impacts on the quality of coverage of breaking news events. It's a sentiment worth exploring, but Special Bulletin does not explore it very well. Therefore, the film is watchable but not a particularly good nuclear movie, even by TV movie standards.
Final Verdict: Special Bulletin is a good example of realistic mockumentary-style film-making, but the film ultimately falls short in its anti-nuclear sentiment (there's not much substance to it) and criticism of the news media (one-sided and not allowing for a true debate). Overall, the film is not particularly bad. However, it's not particularly good either.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series on nuclear war movies in the next day or so. Take care everyone!
Year Released: 1983
Genre: Mockumentary/Fake News
Director: Edward Zwick
Medium: TV Movie
Running Time: 105 minutes
Free news media is one of the most important elements of a democratic society. When you have news and journalistic media that can report on what's going on in the world and in the government, the people have the ability to know what's going on around them. However, can the news media have a negative impact when covering a major news event, especially one that can potentially bring harm to innocent people? That's the major question that the TV movie Special Bulletin attempts to examine. Through the style of realistic mock live news, the film attempts to investigate the media's responsibilities and irresponsibility when covering breaking news. While rather preachy and one-sided, the film is still a somewhat decent (though not particularly great) realistic examination of the news media as well as nuclear stockpiles of the late Cold War era.
The story is set on the fictional RBS Network based in New York, where Susan Myles (played by Kathryn Walker) and John Woodley (played by Ed Flanders) act as our anchors covering a breaking news story in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. A small group of people have taken control of a small tugboat and have docked in the harbor. After a firefight between Coast Guard forces and the crew of the ship, a local news reporter (played by Christopher Allport) and his cameraman are taken captive on the boat along with a couple Coast Guardsmen. Their main demand in exchange for the captive Coast Guardsmen is for a live network feed over the RBS Network. Using this feed, they announce that they have a nuclear bomb on board the ship and will blow it up if they are not given all detonation modules for every nuclear warhead in the Charleston area. Their professed goal is unilateral disarmament and clearing the way for peace in the nuclear age. If they are not given the detonating modules or they are impeded from exiting the harbor, they will detonate their nuclear device on-board the ship, which is highly secured. What follows is the reveal of the nuclear bomb, the backgrounds of the members of the "terrorist group" and the increasingly ominous progression of the events of the news story as time grows tighter to fulfill the terrorists' demands. By the end, the government faces the choice of either acceding to the terrorists demands or denying them their goal in the hope that their nuclear threat is a bluff.
The main goal of the film is to show that the media has an impact on a news story when terrorists are given live access to the airwaves. The film also shows how skepticism in the news media can trivialize possible threats to innocent people. The one truly good aspect of this film is its realism in portraying news events. There are many times where you might forget you are watching a movie. This realism prompts the movie to warn that "The following program is a realistic depiction of fictional events. None of what you are about to see is actually happening" in order to prevent panic in the audience. The acting as well as the facts that the film was shot on videotape lend credibility to the realism of the film. The ways the actors trip up on words, stumble and experience technical issues also help you feel like you're watching actual news broadcasts. However, the acting does have moments where it slips into hammy/cheesy territory, especially near the end of the film. The only major break in immersion is the film's skipping several hours at a time to continue the story as well as the aforementioned hammy and cheesy acting when the characters are trying to force the idea that they're emotional and upset.
Aside from its realism, this particular film is rather clumsy in its attempts to deliver its views on the connections between the news media, news stories and the people being covered in the course of a story. The film is incredibly preachy while offering no real solutions of its own. Some might say that the film doesn't try to answer the questions it presents, but with how aggressively it criticizes the news media, to not try to approach any answers to the problem is cowardly in this case. The film also doesn't really fairly approach the other side of the issues at play here. The media figures in the film try rather limp-wristedly (particularly John Woodley) to defend the news media and their actions, but they are not given nearly as much of a platform as the critical viewpoints. This lack of fair debate in the events of the film cause me to feel less impacted by movie's end because of the feeling that the filmmakers were only interested in pushing their critical views without giving all sides their due time. In the end, the realism on the surface of the movie is what leaves the most impact, but little else. Calling attention to an issue is not enough when you try so hard to show that something is a problem.
Is there any real reason to watch this movie? Well, the realism does draw you in and welcome criticism of the news media is presented, but the ways it goes about presenting its views are clumsy and one-sided. The film, at worst, demonstrates a missed opportunity to make a stronger anti-nuclear sentiment and instead settles with its heavy-handed yet self-limiting message that the media has negative impacts on the quality of coverage of breaking news events. It's a sentiment worth exploring, but Special Bulletin does not explore it very well. Therefore, the film is watchable but not a particularly good nuclear movie, even by TV movie standards.
Final Verdict: Special Bulletin is a good example of realistic mockumentary-style film-making, but the film ultimately falls short in its anti-nuclear sentiment (there's not much substance to it) and criticism of the news media (one-sided and not allowing for a true debate). Overall, the film is not particularly bad. However, it's not particularly good either.
Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series on nuclear war movies in the next day or so. Take care everyone!
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Coming Attraction: Nuclear War Movie Series
Aside from my continuing inability to update this blog with any kind of regularity, things are progressing smoothly in my little corner of the blogosphere. One of my more odd interests I've held in my life is nuclear war movies. There's something about an end of the world scenario that almost actually happened in real life that's somewhat interesting to me. One of the most terrifying aspects of the Cold War was the near-constant threat of nuclear annihilation. I didn't live through this period of history, but it's not hard to imagine how scary it must have been to live in a world on the brink of nuclear war. Because nuclear war never actually happened between the U.S. and Soviet Union, filmmakers have attempted to recreate their own spins on the scenario for years. They have also tried to make different statements regarding nuclear war, politics and other such topics in their films. Now that I've seen a few of these nuclear war films, I would like to take a series of posts to talk about whether or not they're any good. Over the course of the next several posts, I will talk about the following films:
- Special Bulletin (1983)
- Countdown to Looking Glass (1984)
- Fail Safe (2000)
- Dr. Strangelove (1964)
- The Day After (1983)
- Threads (1984)
I chose these particular films because they all have something unique to say about nuclear war and the shortcomings of man when dealing with complete and utter destruction. Starting within the next day or two, I'll be talking about one movie per post and trying my best to articulate whether these movies are worth watching. I'm not trying to say that I like nuclear war or think its a good way to go about asserting dominance in the world, but it's still a subject worth examining in film and looking at different ways that the scenario of armed nuclear conflict could have theoretically played out. Perhaps by the time I've finished with this series, it might be a little bit clearer as to why I find nuclear war movies so interesting. Stay tuned for the first post regarding Special Bulletin in the next day or two. I apologize for the short post today, but this series will more than make up for my continued lack of updates. Take care everyone!
Monday, January 6, 2014
How to Ruin a Love Song
It seems like every other week there's a new song about love or relationships. Whether it's a club dance song about dancing with women in a club or a more intimate low key affair, the topics of love and relationships have served as very persistent fodder for music practically forever. When talking about songs about love and relationships, I've found the best ones (or at least the ones I respect the most) are ones which are genuine, heartfelt and caring on the part of the singer. Every time I listen to songs like this, I always judge them on three different criteria. Here are three standards I hold every song about love and relationships to, as well as how some songs manage to ruin that and become just unappealing to listen to.
1. Amount of Honesty/Meaning from the Singer
The first thing I always look for in a song is how much the singer sounds like they mean what they're saying. A dishonest-sounding singer is usually the easiest way for me to check out of a song. This is the reason why I don't go out of my way to listen to any song by One Direction. Nobody in that glorified boy band sounds like they mean what they say. I'm not saying they're simply out to seduce a girl to get in her pants or that they're bad people personally, but they don't sound like they genuinely love the girls they sing about. They more or less sound like they're just singing for the sake of singing and relying on their good looks to endear themselves to their audience. Honesty and meaning what you're singing can not only give new dimension to a song, but it also makes a song more endearing and the artist more interesting to listen to. That's why you can count me among the fans of songs like "Hello" by Lionel Richie and "Wrecking Ball" by Miley Cyrus. Both of these artists sound like they genuinely mean what they're singing and are invested in the message they're trying to get across. It also makes more tragic-sounding songs like "The One That Got Away" by Katy Perry sound all the more tragic because she sounds so sincere when she's singing it.
2. How Love is Depicted
If there's one thing that turns my stomach when listening to a love song, it's when a song presents an unrealistic depiction of love and what people do when in love. This means that if the song in question becomes popular, it stands to reason that some people will start to expect love to be like how it's presented in those songs. This leads to failed expectations, unrealistic standards and unnecessary heartbreak. That's why songs like "Everything I Do (I Do It For You)" by Bryan Adams baffle me. This song was so popular in 1991 (#1 on Billboard Top 100 Songs of 1991), that I have to assume that people support the unrealistic standards of love and what people do for love presented in the song. Not only does Bryan Adams sound completely dishonest, but the song makes it sound like people would go to the ends of the earth to prove to someone that they love them, which is not how love works in real life. It can also ruin parts of a song such as "Glory of Love" by Peter Cetera because despite the respectable verses, Cetera's own lack of meaning in his singing and the stupid chorus (I am a man who will fight for your honor? Yeah right Cetera) ruin the song for me. This works better in songs like "I Would Do Anything For Love" by Meat Loaf because he sounds more sincere in his singing and bases the lyrics more in the reality (what IS happening vs. what could be happening) of his life. He also doesn't try to explain everything he would do for love and instead leaves much of it up to our imagination. Some might not like this, but I find it more tolerable than Bryan Adam's dishonest warbling. Also, passionate music goes a long way in helping a love song sound better.
3. How the Singer Approaches Relationships
I could devote an entire essay to this subject, but for now let me keep it simple. This standard is why I really don't genuinely enjoy any song by Taylor Swift. I know that a lot of people can relate to breakup songs and maybe even enjoy them, but Ms. Swift's breakup songs do nothing but say to me that despite being 24 years old, she is still in high school when it comes to relationships. Number of boyfriends aside, her songs about falling head over heels in love with the next guy of her dreams and then the heartbreaking life-ruining breakup grew old a long time ago and now has become desperate and sad (not in the good way). It's almost like she dates guys just so she can feel like she has a reason to write her songs. I wouldn't hate this as much if Ms. Swift's relationships actually amounted to something. At least Adele knows how to sing convincingly and make her songs hit harder in their meaning. Adele also has had far fewer song-worthy boyfriends, which makes her songs sound more meaningful and less juvenile. I heard enough of the hopeless teenage girl moaning about breakups when I was in high school, I don't need a 24 year old repeating it for me. What I'm trying to say is this, Taylor Swift trivializes the meaning of relationships and breakups while Adele presents a more heartfelt and meaningful lamentation of lost love.
There you have it, three criteria that can either make or break a song when it talks about love and relationships. These standards help me better articulate when a love-related song hits the mark or comes up short. These aren't universal standards, but they do work for me most of the time. Try thinking about these criteria the next time you listen to a song about love or relationships and see how it helps you analyze and decide if a song is good to you or not. Take care everyone!
Friday, December 27, 2013
Dusting Off This Thing
Wow, long time no blog everybody! I thought I would've had more time and motivation to post once school started, but that didn't happen. Right before the semester started, my schedule got thrown for a loop when I was presented with an opportunity to take part in an interesting project with a few fellow Political Science students. That basically gave me an extra class and a semester long group project to add to my already full class schedule. Because of that and lack of motivation, I have been neglecting this blog over the last few months. Now that the semester and Christmas festivities are over, I hope to be able to get back into posting here somewhat regularly. I have a lot of ideas that have come up that I'd like to talk about, and it also helps to have a place to write down my thoughts. I often find it easier to explain how I feel and get across my own opinions when I have a chance to think about them and piece together my words rather than try to explain things on the fly in an active conversation. Maybe that's one reason why I prefer to listen in conversations rather than talk and take center stage.
One of the main reasons I decided to come back to this blog was because now that I have some free time to focus on things that interest me (without feeling that procrastinator's guilt that comes with having more important things to do), I realized that I have a lot I want to say. Over the course of the last semester, a lot of things happened in games, politics and anime. For example, I had a full-on anime class at school and saw a lot of new films and series (at least new to me). Because of things like that, I have no shortage of ideas and material to talk about, but my school schedule didn't allow me to write new posts without feeling guilty because of the mountain of work I had to get done. Now that I have some free time while on vacation, I am free to post to my heart's content! Maybe I'll actually be able to keep this blog going and regularly post new and interesting material! One can only hope that life will be kind to my schedule.
Before I start rambling too much and thinking up more excuses for not posting anything, I'd better wrap things up. I appreciate all the viewers this blog has garnered over the months as much as the people who have encouraged me to write new blog material. Stay tuned for new posts about anime, politics, video games and anything else that strikes my fancy! Take care everyone!
One of the main reasons I decided to come back to this blog was because now that I have some free time to focus on things that interest me (without feeling that procrastinator's guilt that comes with having more important things to do), I realized that I have a lot I want to say. Over the course of the last semester, a lot of things happened in games, politics and anime. For example, I had a full-on anime class at school and saw a lot of new films and series (at least new to me). Because of things like that, I have no shortage of ideas and material to talk about, but my school schedule didn't allow me to write new posts without feeling guilty because of the mountain of work I had to get done. Now that I have some free time while on vacation, I am free to post to my heart's content! Maybe I'll actually be able to keep this blog going and regularly post new and interesting material! One can only hope that life will be kind to my schedule.
Before I start rambling too much and thinking up more excuses for not posting anything, I'd better wrap things up. I appreciate all the viewers this blog has garnered over the months as much as the people who have encouraged me to write new blog material. Stay tuned for new posts about anime, politics, video games and anything else that strikes my fancy! Take care everyone!
Sunday, August 11, 2013
My Top 3 Most Interesting Political Narratives
Summer is generally considered to be the dry spell of American politics. When there aren't major elections to occupy your attention, there isn't a whole lot going on for political observers like myself. In spite of this, I thought I'd take some time to discuss what I consider to be the most interesting narratives that have come about since the 2012 elections. When I say most interesting, I don't mean most important or most pressing. There are important issues that are being dealt with right now, such as the immigration reform fight and looming fiscal fights in Congress, but there's more going on than just the most immediate battles. So without further ado:
1. 2016 Gossip is Hot and Thriving
General tradition dictates that most media outlets, political commentators and talking heads don't really start talking about the next presidential election until about the day after the midterm elections. However, despite the 2014 election still over a year away, the political gossip is already working full throttle when it comes to 2016. While hardly anything is definite at this point, there is still talk over who has national ambitions and how current events will shape the 2016 fights. In my experience, when media pundits or political commentators talk about a person who seemingly has aspirations for higher office, whatever they're doing is often framed at least partially in a "How will this affect them in 2016?" kind of context. For example, the recent feud between NJ Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (both Republicans considered to have 2016 aspirations) was almost always approached as a fight that will manifest on a primary debate stage. There's also the question of how the Benghazi issue might affect a potential Hillary Clinton re-attempt for the nomination/White House. Once you throw in the other seemingly aspiring political characters such as Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, it can be fun to talk about things that these people do as indications of what's in store for the future. The whole 2016 context might be appealing because of the gossipy nature of discussion right now, but it might be a more worthwhile discussion to have once there is some more definite information on who is considering running for their party nominations.
2. There is a serious divide in the Republican Party
While most in the conservative media will say that everything's fine, from where I'm standing there definitely appears to be a divide between Tea Party far-right Republicans and the more moderate establishment. The Tea Party types attack the establishment for not being conservative enough, while the establishment is stuck fighting for their political lives against not only Democratic challengers, but also against much more conservative Tea Party-based challengers from the right. The divide can also be seen in messaging conflicts and the paradox between primary and general election battlefields. Whether it's the Obamacare funding infighting, immigration reform wavering or general lack of cohesion on pressing issues, the national Republican brand has yet to establish a unified message or demonstrate that they are able to come together from all sides in opposition to Obama and the Democrats. This might not seem like a big issue right now since (as I said before) the midterm elections are over a year away, but problems like these left festering can come back to bite you in the future. In my opinion, the infighting and divided nature of the Republican party reminds me of the similar struggles that Democrats had in the 60's, 70's and ultimately coming to a head in the 80's. The new breed of Tea Party Conservative is clashing with the Establishment in such a way that currently sitting Republicans in office have to move out of the acceptable mainstream in order to win a primary. This drastic movement to the right prevents them from making the necessary move back to the center for the general election. This happened to Mitt Romney in 2012 and it can certainly happen in 2014 and beyond. I will go into the current state of the Republican party in another blog post. For now, rest assured that the divide between the Tea Party and the establishment will cost Republicans elections if they do not unify as Republicans against Democrats.
3. Hillary Clinton is making Republicans feel defeated already
Pretty much from the day Hillary Rodham Clinton left her job as Secretary of State under President Obama, everyone in the political sphere has pretty much concluded that she is GOING to run for President in 2016. Even though she's avoided answering the all-encompassing question since she left the Obama administration, that hasn't stopped commentators on both sides of the aisle pushing her likelihood of re-running for the White House This assumed inevitability has led to a wave of defeatist feelings in some parts of the Republican sphere. For example, Newt Gingrich has gone on record saying that Clinton would be a very formidable opponent in a general election. However, the most telling example comes from Myra Adams (a lifelong Republican) at The Daily Beast. She wrote up an article explaining 16 reasons why Clinton will win in 2016. While she laments the fact that she feels the urge to write up her list, she nevertheless has done it. You can read her full article here: 16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016. While I don't like the amount of inevitability people are lending to a Hillary 2016 run, I can't deny that it's having an impact among Republicans. It almost worries me to think what will happen if she does decide to run. Will she just demolish all competition in her way, or will she actually face a good fight along the way? With Chris Christie still unclear on what he plans to do, Clinton is maintaining a strong lead against all other potential challengers regardless of party in early polling. There's plenty of time between now and decision time for running for president, but as of right now Republicans are already dreading a Hillary Clinton run.
To me, politics is all about stories and deep intriguing storylines that have many different threads and points of view regarding the directions this country is taking. Out of those many storylines come larger narratives that tell a story over time regarding different issues. I might have found 3 narratives that are incredibly interesting to me right now, but there are so many more stories and events out there that are worth reading into. Hopefully you will find something in the realm of politics that interests you, and maybe what I have to say will interest you as well.
1. 2016 Gossip is Hot and Thriving
General tradition dictates that most media outlets, political commentators and talking heads don't really start talking about the next presidential election until about the day after the midterm elections. However, despite the 2014 election still over a year away, the political gossip is already working full throttle when it comes to 2016. While hardly anything is definite at this point, there is still talk over who has national ambitions and how current events will shape the 2016 fights. In my experience, when media pundits or political commentators talk about a person who seemingly has aspirations for higher office, whatever they're doing is often framed at least partially in a "How will this affect them in 2016?" kind of context. For example, the recent feud between NJ Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (both Republicans considered to have 2016 aspirations) was almost always approached as a fight that will manifest on a primary debate stage. There's also the question of how the Benghazi issue might affect a potential Hillary Clinton re-attempt for the nomination/White House. Once you throw in the other seemingly aspiring political characters such as Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, it can be fun to talk about things that these people do as indications of what's in store for the future. The whole 2016 context might be appealing because of the gossipy nature of discussion right now, but it might be a more worthwhile discussion to have once there is some more definite information on who is considering running for their party nominations.
2. There is a serious divide in the Republican Party
While most in the conservative media will say that everything's fine, from where I'm standing there definitely appears to be a divide between Tea Party far-right Republicans and the more moderate establishment. The Tea Party types attack the establishment for not being conservative enough, while the establishment is stuck fighting for their political lives against not only Democratic challengers, but also against much more conservative Tea Party-based challengers from the right. The divide can also be seen in messaging conflicts and the paradox between primary and general election battlefields. Whether it's the Obamacare funding infighting, immigration reform wavering or general lack of cohesion on pressing issues, the national Republican brand has yet to establish a unified message or demonstrate that they are able to come together from all sides in opposition to Obama and the Democrats. This might not seem like a big issue right now since (as I said before) the midterm elections are over a year away, but problems like these left festering can come back to bite you in the future. In my opinion, the infighting and divided nature of the Republican party reminds me of the similar struggles that Democrats had in the 60's, 70's and ultimately coming to a head in the 80's. The new breed of Tea Party Conservative is clashing with the Establishment in such a way that currently sitting Republicans in office have to move out of the acceptable mainstream in order to win a primary. This drastic movement to the right prevents them from making the necessary move back to the center for the general election. This happened to Mitt Romney in 2012 and it can certainly happen in 2014 and beyond. I will go into the current state of the Republican party in another blog post. For now, rest assured that the divide between the Tea Party and the establishment will cost Republicans elections if they do not unify as Republicans against Democrats.
3. Hillary Clinton is making Republicans feel defeated already
Pretty much from the day Hillary Rodham Clinton left her job as Secretary of State under President Obama, everyone in the political sphere has pretty much concluded that she is GOING to run for President in 2016. Even though she's avoided answering the all-encompassing question since she left the Obama administration, that hasn't stopped commentators on both sides of the aisle pushing her likelihood of re-running for the White House This assumed inevitability has led to a wave of defeatist feelings in some parts of the Republican sphere. For example, Newt Gingrich has gone on record saying that Clinton would be a very formidable opponent in a general election. However, the most telling example comes from Myra Adams (a lifelong Republican) at The Daily Beast. She wrote up an article explaining 16 reasons why Clinton will win in 2016. While she laments the fact that she feels the urge to write up her list, she nevertheless has done it. You can read her full article here: 16 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Will Win 2016. While I don't like the amount of inevitability people are lending to a Hillary 2016 run, I can't deny that it's having an impact among Republicans. It almost worries me to think what will happen if she does decide to run. Will she just demolish all competition in her way, or will she actually face a good fight along the way? With Chris Christie still unclear on what he plans to do, Clinton is maintaining a strong lead against all other potential challengers regardless of party in early polling. There's plenty of time between now and decision time for running for president, but as of right now Republicans are already dreading a Hillary Clinton run.
To me, politics is all about stories and deep intriguing storylines that have many different threads and points of view regarding the directions this country is taking. Out of those many storylines come larger narratives that tell a story over time regarding different issues. I might have found 3 narratives that are incredibly interesting to me right now, but there are so many more stories and events out there that are worth reading into. Hopefully you will find something in the realm of politics that interests you, and maybe what I have to say will interest you as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)