Why James Bond Shouldn't be Played by a Woman

*Whips out phone and sees article that Daniel Craig won't be returning as James Bond

*Cries to sleep

          I can't be the only one that is upset that Daniel Craig not returning as 007.  He's probably the best Bond of all time, or maybe that is just bias because he is the Bond that I grew up with.  However, it is too late, because he already rejected a $100 million deal to act in two movies.  With that already set in stone, it is time to look for a new Bond.

          Some actors said to be in the running are Tom Hiddleston (Loki from Avengers) and Jamie Bell (The Thing from 2015's Fantastic Four.)  However, something else caught my attention besides Loki being rumored to be 007: there were rumors that women were in the running to be cast as James Bond (or Jane Bond.)  Some actresses said to throw their name in the hat were Gillian Anderson and Emilia Clarke.  Not to mention, there is said to be a female director.

          If the rumors are true, and there is a fighting chance for a woman to be cast as Jane Bond, this could potentially change the depiction of women in media.  This is a chance for the stereotype of ditzy women to be broken, and show that women can do everything that a man can do, and even more.

          However, as much as I am all for the idea that women should have equal shots at playing characters who have traditionally been played by men for no particularly good reason, (like the new Ghostbusters,) James Bond is a different thing.  Women should get great spy and action roles. But they shouldn't play James Bond. 

          James Bond is not required to be a man because only a man can carry off a fantastic action sequence, or only a man can romance an army of beautiful women, or only a man can credibly represent the British Empire, or any other similar nonsense. Women can do all of those things in real life, and we certainly should be permitted to do them on screen.  We had definitely been proven this point time and time again with films and movies centered around strong female characters, such as Agent Carter, Jessica Jones, Black Widow, Katniss Everdeen, etc...

          Instead, James bond should be played by a man because the character is a sort of "study" of masculinity in a particular context.  Having a woman play the premier spy in the British secret service, a character who uses her sexuality to gain information and advantage without being judged for it, and goes to great lengths in defense of her country, would be fascinating. A performance like that could challenge assumptions for what men and women could do. But it would not explore the thing that James bond movies are designed to explore.

          On a random note, I also think that a female Bond can easily slip into the archetype of the "Fighting F***-Toy."

          Beyond the question of what James bond is for, I think it is worth asking serious questions about whether allowing women to occasionally step into roles that have previously been reserved for men is a significant step forward for gender equality in the entertainment industry.

          If our goal is for Hollywood to create action-oriented jobs for women that will be available for decades to come, the we need franchises that are BUILT aroud women in the first place.  We need roles like Bond's, or Jason Bourne's that are designed to be occupied by a rotating series of women.  Borrowing Bond's role might be a fun fantasy, but real power means a role that we don't have to give back to men (just like the WW2 jobs that women had to give back, once the soldiers returned.)

X-Men are Gay... Literally

          In a previous post, I talked about how superheroes have a great influence on our culture today, and because of this, they have a responsibility to give audiences the best message possible.  As Uncle Ben said, "with great power, comes great responsibility. Having this mindset, I watched and re-watched superhero movies, examining the messages that each one gives their audience.  The most curious message I found was when watching the X-Men movies.
         
          The X-Men and mutants are representative of the LGBT community.
         
          In this post, I am only going to address the X-Men films, and not the comics, because it is safe to say that way more people are viewers of X-Men movies, rather than the original comics.
          If you've ever wondered why the X-Men films get so caught up in the politics of mutant rights, that is because the issues facing these characters and how people treat them are meant to mirror the actual experiences of marginalized groups, particularly, the LGBT community.  The director of the series, Bryan Singer, is openly bi-sexual, and has stated that many of his films reflect issues that are close to him.
          I just watched X-Men: First Class yesterday, and a major plot line in the story was Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Beast's (Nicholas Hoult) acceptance of their powers.  These two mutants are both self-conscious about their abilities, and they try to hide them.  Mystique has the ability to transform her appearance, so she hides her natural blue form with a light-skinned Jennifer Lawrence. Beast, in the beginning of the story, has big feet, and tries to hide it. He doesn't even tell his colleague that he has known for years.  Near the end of the movie, Beast tried to attack his mutant cells so that he could look normal, but it hurt him more than he thought.  This situation of holding back one's natural feelings and abilities in order to fit into society is faced by the LGBT community.  If you accept your true self, then you will happy, just like Mystique, who embraced her natural form, and no longer had to hide.  But if you hold it in, then you will be like Beast, who ended up less satisfied than he originally was.
          In the X-Men universe, mutants are marginalized, so if a family member turns out to be mutant, then they will most likely be be ignored, feared, hated, or abandoned.  In X2, Bobby Drake, or Iceman, reveals to his parent that he is a mutant.  This meeting is very similar to someone from the LGBT community coming out of the closet.

          The parallels between mutants the LGBT community and continue.  I could go on. And I will.

Mutants tend to get their powers and natural abilities around puberty, similar to how LGBT member discover their feeling around this time.

Mutants can be born from regular humans, even the parents that hate mutants to the core. This is seen with Iceman (above) and Jason Stryker, the villain of  X2, hates villains, but his son is a mutant, so he exiles him.   This is similar to how often, straight couples have gay, lesbian, or bi children.

Magneto, a mutant, fights for worldwide mutant pride, and encourages mutants everywhere to embrace their powers, just how recent movements encourage people of the LGBT community to embrace their own feelings.

If you still don't believe me, here are some quotes from X-Men: First Class that I found interesting.

"I always knew I couldn't be the only one in the world.  The only one who was different."

"They'll fear us. And that fear will turn to hatred."

"I can't stop thinking about the others out there, all those minds that I touched.  i could feel them, their isolation, their hopes, their ambitions.  I tell you we can start something incredible, Erik.  We can help them."

"Can we? Identification, that's how it starts. And ends with being rounded up, experimented on, and eliminated."

*Raven transforms* CIA Agent - "Out. i want them out of my office. Now"

I Think Fant4stic is a Terrible Movie, and You Should Too

          Turns out the "Slap Her" video was not allowed because it was foreign. *sigh
          Making a film is a tough thing to do, so shouldn't reboots of original movies have an easier job at being successful. Our world is full of reboots, and the majority of them suck. Here are some reasons why.

1.  You have less talent than the original cast and crew

          I'm going to get rid of this one out of the way, because it is so obvious. "You're not as good as the first guy."  Often, actors draw their performance from previous interpretations of the character, and often try too hard to reproduce whatever the original reproduced.  However, some reboots have better talents to work with, but the original had a certain aspect to them that made them so successful.  And the same goes for directors. It is hard for directors to see, and to accept, that their film is worse than the original.

2.  You have nothing to add

         Remakes are supposed to be a fresh perspective on an old movie, but sometimes, the remake is the exact same perspective as the original.  One of the most recent instances of this, is 2012's The Amazing Spiderman, with Andrew Garfield.  The movie was pretty good, but the story was decades old. We already knew how Peter Parker would get bitten by a spider, his uncle would die, and that he would become Spider-man, so why recycle this story completely? The only difference was that instead of Parker Parker trying to game Mary Jane, the story revolves around him trying to find out more about his parents.

3.  You have something to add, but it sucks

       
          This is pretty self-explanatory. The director had good ideas, but the way they were portrayed just didn't work.  Whenever I think of this aspect, I think of last years disaster of a Fantastic Four movie.  The director tried to focus on the relationship between Reed Richards and Ben Grim.  He also tries to show audiences a different way on how the four got their powers, but he spends AN HOUR AND A HALF explaining this.  This left no room for an actual movie. BTW, this movie sucks and you shouldn't watch it.  I watched it so you guys didn't have to.

4.  The movie was a product of its time

       
          Some movies only work in the time that they were created. Take "The Breakfast Club" for example.  If they made a reboot that took place during our time, it wouldn't work. First of all, we don't have detention on weekends, which would screw up the whole plot line.  Also, the things that they do I. The movie would be unrealistic in a modern setting, like ours. Another example would be "Goonies," where it was more common for children to adventure and hang out with eachother, but today, this would be seen as terrible parenting.  I mean, how often do we see the parents in this movie, and when we do, are they actually good parents?

I could go on on how so many reboots have failed, but I'm on a bus right now, and I really want to sleep.

One thing I will say, however, is that reboots still make a lot of money, even if they are terrible as Fant4stic from last year.

We Should Use Shadows Instead of Rolexes

          Do you know how much more time it took to actually manually take this picture, Mr. Starace???
          Good thing I can now keep time, thanks to Rolex!
          One question that I always had, was why anyone would spend $2,000-more than $100,000 on something that can keep time?  I mean, its just a piece of metal on your wrist, right?  We all have phones, that have a built-in clock in them. Heck, I can keep track of time by just using shadows and other methods if we really wanted to. Why would anybody want to buy such an expensive watch.
          One of the reasons for this, are all the different messages that their advertisements makes us believe.  This ad is a perfect example.
          If the image isn't clear, the line of text below the logo reads, "Worth a second glance, even when you know the time." Just from this line of text, we already have a number of techniques and appeals being used.
          We definitely see need for prominence and need for attention.  The need for prominence makes us feel that we need to get people to look at us because we want to seem like we have a higher social status.  "Only people of higher income and social status can afford this product," is a message that is being portrayed.
          Another appeal that we see is the need for attention.  The line "worth a second glance" makes us feel that if we buy this product, then we will be looked at; maybe even twice.
          A technique that is used here is the "snob appeal."  This ad, overall, makes us feel that the customer can be part of an elite group if they buy this product, which in a way, is true.  Only the wealthy, (or the people stupid enough) can afford to burn so much cash on a watch.

Slap Her!

          Before you continue reading, first watch this video:

          Mr. Starace, I was too lazy to check with you to see if this video was alright to use, because it is not American.  My bad.  In my defense, this video is not really aimed at a particular geographical region, right?
          If you were too lazy to actually watch this video, I guess I just have to explain it to you.  The video featured a number of young boys, probably no older than the age of ten, who were asked a bunch of questions about their first impressions about a girl.  They were asked what they liked about her appearance.  Among the many answers were "her eyes," "her smile," or "her hair."  It was no secret that these young boys were infatuated by this girl.  Then, they were asked to caress her, and they were even more happy.  Just when the young boys were least expecting it, the maker of the video, told the boys to "SLAP HER!!!"
          Of course, the boys were taken aback by the two words, and none of them actually committed the action.  When asked why, the common response was, "because she is a girl," "because you're not supposed to hit girls," "because she is pretty and she is a girl," "as the saying goes, 'a girl should not be hit, not even with a flower.'"  At the end of the video, in white words across the screen, reads, "In the kids' world, women don't get hit."
          If you thought I was going to completely murder this video, I am not.  I am just going to take a knife and stab it a little.
          This video has a very positive intended message.  It encourages people, especially boys and men to not hit women.  Today, many women are subject to domestic violence, and this video is an attempt to tackle that issue.  The explicit message of this video is that women should not be hit.
          However, I had a mini-protest at my desk when I first watched this video.  I was literally yelling at the screen, "DON'T HIT HER JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A GIRL. DON'T HIT HER BECAUSE HITTING PEOPLE IN GENERAL IS WRONG!"  However, I'm not going to ignore the fact that some of the boys gave answers that did not include gender in their answer.
          40% of domestic violence is suffered by men, but these issues go unsolved.  We should be making an effort to end domestic violence in general, and not just that towards women.
          If the makers of the video really wanted to get rid of the "single story" that we studied earlier in the semester, they should have made a video with those boys being told to hit another boy, or girls being told to hit a boy.  Lucky for us, there was a response video that was released a few days after "Slap Her" was released.

          Again, my bad for not being American media.
          If you were too lazy to watch this video, too bad.  I will not  summarize this one for you.  Continue reading once you've watched it.

          Not what you were expecting?  Exactly what you were expecting?  I love the line at the end, in contrast with that of "Slap Her."  It clearly states that we should work to end domestic violence as a whole, and not just that aimed at women.

          Big question: What would happen if the media actually WAS American media?  Would the children's reactions be different?

Justin Bieber's "What Do You Mean" video is a Calvin Klein ad

          It was just another Sunday on August 30, 2015.  School was not in session yet, and I had been waiting for this day for the longest time.
          "But why, Ethan?"
          Well, I'm glad you asked.  On August 30, 2015, Justin Bieber released his music video for his single "What Do You Mean?"from his album "Purpose."  Besides the terrible story line (he and the love interest get kidnapped by people that he hired, but it turns out that they get taken to a cool underground skateboard party) I noticed something almost immediately.

          

          The above video is wack, so go to this link

          During the make out session (during 1:00 to 2:00) the camera angle kept shifting to one of two things: 1.) either the Calvin Klein jeans that Justin was wearing (during sex?) or 2.) Justin and the actress's (Xenia Deli) waist line, where in bold, was the label for Calvin Klein (1:20 and 1:26.)  Once I noticed how the product placement was present, I re-watched this scene without the music, and it very much looked like a Calvin Klein ad (and it could, if the people at Calvin Klein ever got lazy.)  When Justin and Xenia are kidnapped, they have their hands tied behind their backs, and you can clearly see that the director of this film tried to have a clear view of the jeans that Justin was wearing.

          Just when you thought the shout outs for Calvin Klein was over, the end of the video comes rolling along. The skateboard party is full in motion, Justin is dancing and making out with the girl, and the girl completely forgets that she is making out with the same person that put her through so much trauma. When Justin is singing, you can make out the words spray-painted on the skateboard ramp behind him, #mycalvins (at 4:26.)

          Recently, in a world cluttered with so many ads, brands have to come up with creative ways to reach different audiences to buy their products.  Product placement, or as the advertisers like to call it, Madison and Vine, is a common way to do this.  Having Justin Bieber as your spokesperson has its perks.  This technique is becoming more and more common in modern television and films.  Hawaii-Five-O only drives Chevrolet cars.  iCarly gives Apple shoutouts, but instead using a parody company, Pear.  The Internship film is all about google. As Deadpool would say, "This sh*t is all around us."

          Just because a form of media takes on more uses and purposes than it was initially intended, it doesn't mean that its original purpose cannot stille be taken out.

          Justin Bieber made a good music video, and Calvin Klein was able to get some advertising.  I don't see the harm in that.

Peace and Love.

Superman was a Jew? - Why the World Loves Superhero Movies

         In honor of today's release of the anticipated movie, "Captain America: Civil War"...

          About a month ago, on March 10, Marvel released this trailer for their movie "Captain America: Civil War," and the internet went crazy.  Viewers went loco over the last part of the trailer, where an unanticipated Spider-man swooped in, took Captain America's shield, and said "hey everyone."  These two words made the internet explode with a bunch of memes, reaction videos, and tweets, oozing with anticipation for the upcoming movie.

          This is just one of the few instances where superhero movies had a huge impact on the internet, and the world itself.  If you don't believe me, look at all these memes about the Civil War movie released today. 

          What makes this genre of movies so influential in our culture today?  First, we must examine the original messages that these comic books and movies convey, then we may be able to see why our culture eats it up like watermelon on a hot summers day.

          Superman first arrived from the planet Krypton in the 1930s during the gathering strorm before World War II.  In the cartoons of those early days, he fought Nazis and avenged the attack on Pearl Harbor.

          In some ways, Superman can be seen as a Jewish superhero.  The two men who created superman were Jews.  Same can even say that Superman can be a "metaphor for the Jewish immigrant experience."

          "He's a strange visitor from another place.  He's a stranger in a strange land.  He has to adapt to being [in America.]  He has to learn all the ways to be an American, the same way they did.  You come to America, it's the land of opportunity, so you can become anything, even a 'super man.'"

          Later, Vietnam and Watergate made us more cynical.  Straight-up do-gooders became outdated.  This may be why the Batman TV show of the 60s didn't take this superhero stuff too seriously.  Admitting that you like men in tights during this time became as cool as...you get the picture.  For the longest time, there was a feeling of disrespect towards comics.  Pretty much, the events of the world affected our mindset, getting us to think that nobody has the potential to be good, and there was no place for superheroes at all, because it seemed so childish.

          That changed on September 11, 2001, with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  The world was once again divided into good and evil, but was still morally complicated, flawed, and vulnerable.  Suddenly, superheroes came back in a big way.  

Actual images made after 9/11

          Captain America, who made a re-emergence in the 2000s, took on the 9/11 attacks (with the images above.)  To see Captain America at Ground Zero, was a symbol of hope in a time of mourning, who sort of portrayed, "I know we're at a low point right now, but let's hold it all together, and make things better (different from a character like Batman--"Rahhh we'll get those terrorsists. do you know why?  Because I'm Batman!!!")

          The 2008 economic collapse doubled down on the chaos and uncertainty so that by the time "The Dark Knight Rises" was released in 2012, the story told of a troubled billionaire in a bat costume battling a villain who might as well be from Occupy Wall Street.

          These are just a few of the many instances where our culture has influenced the superhero genre, and how the genre has influenced us.  Despite the differences in these different examples, however, one element is present in each.  Whether in the original Jewish Superman, the man-in-tights Batman in the 60s, or even the latest Captain America film, all the characters in these comics and films have the ability to overcome obstacles, have power over their lives, and also the lives around them, which are all things that we strive to do.   

        

Super hero movies are a lot more important, than we give them credit for.  

The heroes in these movies inspire people in all kinds of ways.  Captain America inspires people to be morally better, Iron Man inspires people to create, build, and work on their comebacks, and Spider-man proves that you CAN balance school, a job, a hot girlfriend, all while fighting crime in NYC.  Superhero moves give us "regular-folk" the inspiration to do great things, especially all the young kids that watch these movies.  i mean, I watched Spider-man growing up, and learnig that "with great power, comes great responsibility."

Can we Stop Joker Without the Bat Sonar Computer? - The Power of Loaded Language

     

          If you were Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) in the movie "The Dark Knight," would you use the "super bat sonar computer" to 1.) help the Batman catch the joker, but while doing this, also 2.) invading the privacy of millions of people in Gotham City?

          Privacy or security?  Its one of the most controversial questions that is asked today.  With the rise of terrorist attacks, the FBI has realized that one of the ways that terrorists communicate is through the internet, whether it is through private messages, emailing, or threatening through social media.  In order to prevent more extensive attacks similar to recent one's, the FBI has proposed to have Apple create a software that would allow a "backdoor" into their technology.  Of course, many people have issues with this--mainly because of the invasion of privacy.
          One of the main reasons that this is an ongoing issue is because of the language that each side uses to deliver their message.  In an article titled, "The Many Ways Terrorists Communicate Online," the point is made that "technology is often called the great disrupter [...] but we need to put the great disrupters to work in disrupting ISIS and stopping them from having this open platform for communicating with their dedicated fighters and their wannabees, like the people in San Barnardino."  Pretty much, in this text, it is saying that technology is bad (by using the word disrupter), but can be used for good by preventing terrorists (by stating "stopping them from having this open platform for communicating with their dedicated fighters and their wannabees.")  Doesn't sound bad,right?
          In this simple news article: "Woman Ordered to Unlock iPhone with Fingerprint" its shows how people are forced to give up their privacy for the sake of better security.  Essentially, the court used a 5th amendment "loophole" to force a women to unlock her phone.  The opposing side would call this action "necessary" while those against heavy security would probably call this "invasion."  The same action is taken, but different words are to describe it, each with a different emotional meaning behind it.  This proves that language can be powerful, but it leaves us in a deeper hole than we were.  Is there a happy medium?  We many never know.  Language. #powerfulthing

Peace and Love

It's Just A Prank Bro

          One of the most popular online videos today are prank videos, and I can understand why. Who doesn't like to watch a man get a garbage can thrown over his head and then kicked into a pool?  There is just something satisfying about watching a person get fooled, having no idea what is going on, while everyone else around them knows exactly what is going to play out.  But when is a prank no longer considered a prank?  Recently, there has been so many of these videos on the internet that the people that make these types of videos have been forced to step up their game.  

          Whether they become more violent, more stupid, or more controversial, there is no doubt (if you keep up with these videos) that pranks are becoming closer and closer to the point where they are no longer pranks.  The other day, I watched a "prank" video where a man pretends to be a Muslim and throws fake bombs at random people in the streets.  If this is considered a prank, I guess terrorism and the Islamic religion (or any religion in general) is funny.  Not only does this "prank"  cause public unrest, (which is a crime) by making people thank that they might die, but he is using people's pre-conceived thoughts and ignorance of Muslims to cause terror in a completely way.  If someone did this without calling it a prank, (or staging it?) he probably would have been arrested.

          The problem with these videos is that when they are classified as "pranks" the line between crimes and jovial fun is blurred.  Often, when the prankster is being attacked or threatened by the "prankee" a line that is always used is "its just a joke" or "its just a prank" which (according to the prankster) justifies their actions.  I can safely say that one hundred percent of the times when they are attacked, they say something along these lines.  In this video, a man pretends to steal gas from people's cars, and each person that is pranked, hits or threatens the prankster.  At the end of the video, he looks worn out from the remarks, and he says "I'm done.  This is NOT fun."  What did he expect?  For them to barf rainbows with joy?  Just by calling his actions  a "prank" it doesn't justify the out-of-line actions.

          Eventually, pranksters blurred the lines further by using the the word "social experiment" instead of the word "prank."  Don't get me wrong, many social experiment videos are extremely moving and powerful, like this, where male vs. female domestic violence is compared.  But some people use the label "social experiment" because the word "prank" seem evil. If you didn't notice, my last blog post was a prank, to see how people would react to the title.  In the actual blog post, I said that I was performing a "social experiment" rather than bluntly saying "I pranked you."  By saying this, my actions probably (no guarantee) caused some of the people that read it to overlook my actions.

          Why does any of this matter?  Well, if things continue the way they are going, pranks will continue to go too far, maybe causing harm and disrupting public activity, but people will disregard these actions by putting a band-aid on it by saying "it was just a prank" or "it was a "social experiment."

Peace and Love

P.S.:  If you don't trust me, read this article: "Just Because It's a 'Social Experiment,' It Doesn't Mean You're Not an Asshole."  I didn't read it , but I'm sure it's delightful.