Final Project

For my final project we had to review something twenty years or older and critic it from a present cultural perspective. Automatically, my mind went straight to film. Movies are the only widely accepted form of “new media” that is art that is also widely consumed. Film, when done correctly, are a beautiful coupling of writing and cinematography. But there is something inherently human about movies that speaks to us. I wanted to chose something that was still widely viewed as great, but also I had never seen before. I narrowed it down to a few finalists and came to the decision of Peter Weir’s 1989 classic, “Dead Poets Society.” And I know what you’re thinking, how the hell have I not seen “Dead Poets Society?” Especially since one of my favorite films of all time is the Peter Wier’s “The Truman Show,” popularized nearly a decade later.

 truman show

And although “The Truman Show” is still my favorite of the two,

truman show gif.gif

(Much to Jim Carey’s delight) I found myself with a new favorite film that I couldn’t wait to tell people about. I’ve always hated it when someone realizes you haven’t seen their favorite movie, and they urge you to go see it not only because it’s a good movie, but because they somehow identify with that movie and want you to understand them on a deeper level. It’s like homework for real life. Within the last few months is has been circulating that the “Dead Poets Society” will be made into an off Broadway play. By my estimation this is the smallest bit of proof that proves that the “Dead Poets Society” has moved from the category of movie to film. And that distinction couldn’t be farther apart. There are books and their is literature. There are movies abd their is cinema. And for the latter is where we get our American canon, our cultural master pieces that transcend time. And after about a year and half since his death, I have abstained from enjoying Robin Williams’ work, because the wound of losing his greatness was too raw. That being said, I knew that I hadn’t seen a lot of his best work, so now I can really get an idea of what we lost with his passing.

john keeting gif

In that way we still have Robin and we can still gain wisdom through a number of his memorable roles.

Mrs-Doubtfire-Dancing-and-Vacuuming
And maybe a little whimsy and silliness.
mrs. doubtfire
And maybe a little attitude and edge that we all need from time to time.

But there are several moments where John Keeting possesses the audience’s heart and we are powerless as we are left captivated and inspired. There are so many moments in this movie that I could write 1,000 words on one of these life lessons that Keeting provides. Because I clearly can’t do that, I will leave you with some of these moments.

robin 2_1409745226_540x540 4

quote 2

Sounds like Whitney's advice...
Sounds a lot like Whitney’s advice…

dead-poets-society-quotes-3

Robin Williams’ performance as John Keeting is enough to love the movie, and it’s one of the biggest reasons, but everyone knows that already. Robin Williams might be one of the greatest when it came to inspiring an audience and eliciting emotion through film. But going into a Robin Williams movie blind like I did might be the only reason you stick around. This was not that kind of movie. I appreciated Peter Weir’s choice to focus of the boys more that Mr. Keeting. Although, John Keeting acts as the driving force behind much of the plot progression throughout the film, there are several characters that are developed well enough for the audience to connect with and carry beyond the movie. Let me start with saying of how excited I was that Kurtwood Smith played the authoritative dad, a role which Red Forman from “That 70’s Show” is likely based.

dumbass

There are many similarities between the two characters, but they are not the same. Both come from tough upbringings and believe that they are where they are today because they had it tough growing up. Although we see little change in Mr. Perry’s character, Red Forman’s character has a nobler cause and has more room to admit mistakes.

That70s

I thought that we may see a little change in Mr. Perry when he came to see Neil perform, but when it was clear that Mr. Perry wouldn’t budge from his position I knew the result would be devastating. I felt connected with Neil’s character, because I find myself having the same problems with a lack of purpose that Neil had. I understand that some critics may argue that Neil’s character is created to have a wide appeal over a vast audience, but I feel that he overcame that critic because he was so human.

neil perry

And with many of us struggling for purpose in this world, and therefore we can connect with Neil’s character. I don’t know that everyone can connect with Neil’s decision to take his life, because we realize the charisma, charm, and pure potential Neil Perry had. With that said, I am one person that understands Neil’s decision and I don’t fault the writers for this resolution because I was satisfied with the progression they laid out. And in most cases, I find myself having a hard time siding with people who chose to commit suicide, as I have dealt with depression most of my life, but in this case the writers and Robert Sean Leonard’s performance forced me to side with Neil Perry.

On a side note, I find it funny that the actor that played Neil Perry later plays the role of Dr. James Wilson on the TV show, “House,” so I guess Neil actually did become a doctor after all!

Another character I found myself connected with was Knox Overstreet, who for most of the film finds himself head over heels (for a girl he barely knows, but she’s beautiful so it’s okay). Although this is a rather tired story line in movies, I found myself liking Knox’s character despite how archaic this story line is. Knox represents all male teenage naivete and angst, and whether we’d all like to admit it or not, we were there once, and we support Knox’s pursuit, regardless of how foolish we know him to be.
knox overstreet

Charlie Dalton’s character on the other hand, is the guy we always wanted to be, but we never were. Charlie was the strong, confident and rebellious voice that the Dead Poets Society needed more of if you ask me. its godcharlie 2

nuwunda

To be honest, Todd Anderson’s character was a limited compared to some of the other great characters that I’ve previously mentioned. And I think that’s no fault to Ethan Hawke, who credits this role as his path into acting. But Todd Anderson’s character is so vanilla and slowly developed that at when the credits roll we feel like we’ve just met Todd. Maybe that’s the sort of resolution that the writers wanted, but in my eyes they could have built some more moments to focus on Todd’s transformation so that the audience could truly extrapolate the future that we’re supposed to believe Todd has in store.

Overall, I believe that “Dead Poets Society” is one of Robin Williams’ greatest performances, and there are several characters that are well developed with a fantastic plot to boot.

 

Why Netflix is the Best Place for Comedy

As a fan of comedy and a comedian myself, I am realizing what a exciting time it is to be a comedian. In most decades there seems to be a handful of influential comedians from Richard Pryor to Eddie Murphy and Sam Kinison. Mitch Hedberg and Bill Hicks ruled the 90’s. George Carlin remained at the top for close to 50 years. Now more than ever we have so many different influential comedians. Many of the best comedians we have today have been popular since the 90’s and continue to perform and produce high-quality work. Comedians like Louis CK, Chris Rock, and Joe Rogan may not be the most talented comedians of all time (although I personally think they are), but I would argue that they have still become much more popular than the greats from the 80’s and early 90’s. Honestly the race of popularity isn’t really even close. Because unlike their cohorts from earlier decades it’s now easier than ever to find great, unfiltered comedy. Comedians no longer have to rely on television to become fuel their popularity. Just as print media is dying, the old television model is on it’s way out. Comedians today have the internet to build their popularity and reach more people than ever. Comedian Bo Burnham became popular using YouTube when he was a senior in high school, and currently has over 165 million hits on his channel. Now 25, Burnham has released four comedy specials (with one on the way), co-created and starred in his own television show and released a poetry book. Burnham and comedians like him are now choosing the internet over television as the way to reach their audience. Netflix has lead the way in giving comedians a place to share their work with more fans than was ever possible with an HBO, Showtime or Comedy Central Special. Yes, it’s true that many of the best comedians are still on television, but just about any comedian is on Netflix. Whether its comedy specials or new shows, Netflix gives their content more freedom than any television network can afford. Shows like Aziz Anzari’s “Master of None” and Bill Burr’s “F is For Family” have received great reviews by critics for being vastly different from anything on television.

But here are the best reasons comedians are choosing Netflix to show off their work:

  1. Their comedy is unfiltered: A big thing for comics is the ability to be unfiltered. Comedians are big believers in the first amendment, because the best comedy often pushes the bounds of what is normally “okay” to laugh at. Comedians are at their best when they don’t have to worry about being too offensive. When I started doing open mics I was really nervous about going on stage. However, a lot of open mics would ask the comics to “work clean,” no “blue comedy,” no “alphabet letters.” (Jim Norton on Bertcast) So on top of working really hard just to get any laughs, comics like me at these open mics have to worry about saying the wrong thing, instead of saying the right thing. This is no different for comics that have their work on television. They often have to go through a rigorous process with the network to decide what can be said. When you see a comic on television, understand that you are seeing a watered-down version of his act that has been diluted for television audiences. With Netflix, anything goes. The comic only puts out what he/she wants to be seen, and that’s better for comedy.
  2. Their comedy reaches more viewers: It’s no surprise that Netflix is so popular. They have collected some of the best television and movies for their viewers for a low monthly fee. (Tom Segura or Bill Burr on JRE)But what Netflix does for comics is two-fold: Netflix has the ability to reach an audience that isn’t necessarily looking for comedy, and at any time they want it. Before Netflix, comedians had to hope that their audience would go out and find their work on television or on YouTube. If a comedian’s work is on Netflix it will probably be there for a while. People no longer have to find it and record it on television. They get it whenever they want it. And with the “Recently Added” tab, people that aren’t even looking for a comic’s work can watch it spontaneously. That’s a big difference than before Netflix. when comedians had to put their work on Comedy Central, Showtime or HBO. There aren’t very many people that aren’t comedy fans watching Comedy Central. Also, Showtime and HBO aren’t part of basic cable programming, so comics have to hope their fans upgraded to get those channels to watch their special.
  3. They still own their work: This is where Netflix is really different than any other media. Netflix understands that comedians may want to use their platform, but still own their work. When you have a special for HBO, Comedy Central or Showtime the network pays you for your special, while receiving a majority share of the material on the special. (Christopher Titus on Bertcast). What this means for comics, is that Comedy Central now owns your material and collects a majority of the profits that special brings in. Netflix doesn’t do that. Comedians pay Netflix to feature their work (quite a bit I have heard), and that’s it. Comedians still own their material, and can chose to re-purpose it later without the fear of being sued by the network they sold their material to.
  4. They don’t make direct profits from Netflix: At first this seems like a negative, but as a comedian I know that the number one goal is to put out good work. So, naturally you want the most people possible to see that good work. Today, people don’t like to pay for online media. For some reason, a dollar online is much harder to spend than a dollar in real life. (Ari Shaffir on JRE). If someone has Netflix, which most people do, it’s basically free for them to watch your special. This sounds like a bad thing, but this is how comedians get more people to come to their shows. Because people weren’t conned into paying for your work you now have plenty of fans that are happy to pay to see your show. (Pandora example Chad Daniels on Bertcast). So although you don’t make direct profits from plays on Netflix, you see an a crazy increase in your fan base.

 

 

Pitches for Think Piece

  1. Why do you think many comedians are choosing to put their comedy specials on Netflix? Several comedians have recently chose to put their new specials on Netflix, including Tom Segura, Hannibal Buress and John Mulaney. I would like figure out the benefits of publishing their work on Netflix and whether this is just because Netflix is so big now or is it because there is something inherently different that Netflix is doing.
  2. Why are comedians choosing to produce their own work? Several comedians like Louis CK and Christopher Titus have chose to forgo network money and use their own money to make TV and movies. Has there recently been a move from network television and big median production companies?
  3. Are podcasts the media for the new generation? Podcasting seems to be a new way to share ideas without censorship of networks. Will podcasting continue to boom or is podcasting just a fad?

Review: Hot Bench

I have to be honest. I had no idea what I was going to write a review for, and then it hit me: “Hot Bench.” I know that many of you have no idea what “Hot Bench” is, and I’ll explain, but first I have to explain how I came upon this. Most of my classmates doing this assignment sought out something bad to write about and wrote a review on it. I’m different because this show came to me organically, forcing it to spoil all the more quickly and causing me to seriously consider my outlook on life. This show appears on a seemingly anonymous channel that any of us have so that our television provider can say “What’s the problem? We gave you a thousand channels.” True. At a click of the remote I have access to thousands of channels, but the quality of that programming hasn’t been improved since my grandmother and her family gathered around a color television set and had the daunting task of choosing between three channels. I really tried to find what “channel” this show regularly appears on, but it seems that no television network would be stupid enough to claim this garbage. I could only find through several searches that “Hot Bench” is produced by CBS and was created by Judge Judith Sheindlin of “Judge Judy.”I’m not entirely sure if I caught this rubbish on CBS itself or on one of its affiliates. Perhaps the trashman missed it on his weekly pick-up. Whatever the case may be, I will tell you that it was correctly placed on the channel that plays court shows continuously until their five o’clock and six o’ clock gems play: “Judge Judy” and “Jeopardy.” If your best shows are “Judge Judy” and “Jeopardy,”then what in the hell are you playing at nine in the morning, when no productive member of society is in front of a television? I’ll tell you what they’re playing, they’re playing “Hot Bench!” Let me explain this show to people that have brains and realized they’re life is finite and too valuable to spend it wasting away watching shows like “Judge Joe Brown.” During the day on this network they have several shows that are formatted similarly. These are real civil cases heard by a television judge. The litigants agree to drop their lawsuit and have it heard on the show. To be truthfully honest these shows aren’t that bad, but if I’m supposed to believe that “Divorce Court,” “Judge Alex” and “The People’s Court” should be as highly regarded as actual court, then I would actually believe that “Maury” and “Jerry Springer” were actually productive talk shows that changed peoples lives for the better. This show is advertised as so wildly different than the other shows on the network. But here’s the juicy twist. Instead of having one judge “Hot Bench” has three! I don’t think anyone could handle this one! When I heard that “Hot Bench” featured three judges I almost forgot to email my application in to DeVry University! Don’t worry I didn’t. As different as this is pawned off to be by the network, the show seems to be really similar. Viewers hear the same cases and are given an ordinary court room set that they have seen recycled again and again. I watched at the edge of my couch wondering how the judges would work together and how they would interact with the litigants. This is the main reason I like watching these judge shows and what separated them from each other. But instead of tripling the excitement with adding personalities, the judges really just blend in with the gray wall of the cardboard walls behind them. The formatting is awkward. A different judge seems to take lead after each commercial break, so if you have a favorite judge on “Hot Bench” (you won’t) you can record the episode, skip past the commercial break that your judge occupies, quit your job to catch up with all the episodes (somehow there are roughly 200 of these). But just know if you leave “Hot Bench” on your DVR for too long you have to be ready to leave your family, change your name and move to a different city because you run the risk of anyone knowing you’re the kind of person that watches these shows. Just a tip for those of you trying to get information of how to file a claim on a distant family member’s no-so-recent surgery that might or might not of caused them temporary uncomfort that you can exploit through a money grabbing lawsuit. Because all the judges want to make their TV persona shine they don’t share the space of the show well. As one judge leads you have the other two judges looking as bored as the member of the audience, but because the show is advertised the way that it is, you have to watch all three of them at the same time. “Hot Bench’s” concept seems more of a failing gimmick than a real twist, and doesn’t really add anything to the show. Even in the deliberation scene of each show, the judges seem already decided and their points are intentionally balanced without much conviction or passion. This scene is not in any of the other judge shows on the network and could really set the show apart, instead the deliberation scene is hurried and is less interesting than the hilariously poorly produced commercials seen during the commercial breaks. This show, although no one is actually watching, should be skipped on your mid-morning couch sitting that viewers like me call a life. “Hot Bench’s” crazy twist is more debilitating than it is helpful. And any opportunity that “Hot Bench” has to be different is just a tired call out to an audience that is hardly listening by very virtue of them choosing this network. “Hot Bench” isn’t dangerous in the way the network would have you believe, but I suppose hot garbage could catch fire and that can be pretty dangerous. Garbage fires are no joke, but “Hot Bench” is.

Kalefa Sanneh and Greil Marcus

I really appreciated Dillon’s presentation of Kalefa Sanneh. Sanneh’s calm, soft-spoken tone really contrasted Katt Williams’ “pimp comedy.” Yet, Sanneh simultaneously spoke volumes of Williams’ comedy while not disparaging the means by which Williams gets his point across. By doing this Sanneh builds his own credibility to speak on all subjects, not just high art, because he analyzes all forms of entertainment as high art.

I read a piece in the New Yorker in 2014 from Sanneh where he discusses where Cosby stands now after his image of the perfect father and revered comedian has been tarnished. There’s several lines that I could include, but I’m going to chose one and hope you read it for yourself.

The audience laughed and applauded, still happy to listen to what Cosby had to say, and to give him an excuse to say it.

Sanneh effectively narrates the thinking of Cosby at the time. Certainly I would be interested in what Sanneh has to say about Cosby presently.

I really liked Lewis’ presentation of Greil Marcus, so much so that I sat for an hour listening to songs that Marcus said “were worth listening” to.  This isn’t a piece of writing but I sat and clicked on links to different songs from vastly different genres. I listened to everything from the Jackson 5 to Conway Twitty and from Janis Joplin to the Police. I enjoyed this so much that I’m excited for when I can sit down longer with this music and wait for my next paycheck so I can order Marcus’ book “The History of Rock ‘n’ Roll in Ten Songs.”

 

Tom Shales

 

Quick Notes

  • Won the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism in 1988
  • Born in Elgin, Illinois November 3, 1944
  • First worked at the radio station WRMN at age 18
  • Graduated from American University in Washington D.C.
  • Worked at American University’s paper, “The Eagle,” as the editor and chief and as the paper’s movie critic
  • Worked as entertainment editor at the “Washington Examiner” from 1968 to 1971
  • Joined the Washington Post as a writer in the Style section in 1972, was named chief television critic in July 1977 and was appointed TV Editor in June 1979
  • Wrote for the Post for several decades and retired in 2010

Tom Shales is a bit of a polarizing critic to say the least, most known for his television criticism at the Washington Post that earned him a Pulitzer Prize in 1988. Shales seems to fit the stereotype of the senile old man, even in his earlier years. Now in his early 70s, Shales falls further into that category ever day. That being said, I find myself not being able to trash him too much, because I want to like him. I think I do like him. He checks all the boxes as a critic. He’s a great writer, he’s defiantly not afraid to give his opinion and he’s a bit crazy, which is an essential quality for any passionate writer to have not just for a critic. However, I still don’t agree with a lot of his opinions, but I most certainly have to respect them not only for the fact that he’s much more of an expert of television than I will ever be, but also Shales is defends his positions passionately while adding a touch of humor to remind you that in the end, we’re discussing entertainment. I will admit, that Shales seems to get driven in his own opinion so much that he cannot see anything but red. In a 2013 review, he tears apart Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show “Jimmy Fallon, whose still-later late-night show on NBC is easily funnier than anything Kimmel has done.” And although he promotes Kimmel as important voice after 9/11, he trashes Kimmel some more condemning for “stooping” to a Kim-Kanye joke and “stealing” laughs from Honey Boo-Boo. He later valiantly defends the great 90’s sitcom princess Jennifer Aniston for having to spend time with Kimmel as if he is some sort of sexual predator. I mean I’m not a huge fan of Kimmel, but there has to be a reason he has his own show, right? Shales just won’t let it go. He continues to tear down Kimmel as he reveals his real reasoning behind his vendetta against Kimmel. And it’s rather simple. He condemns Jimmy Kimmel for not being the same as David Letterman or Johnny Carson. “Indeed, Letterman is such a giant compared to his two major competitors in the arena that he may look more out-of-place these days than even the underachieving Kimmel does. The worst possible outcome of the new three-way war would be for Letterman to decide he’s had enough and that the race just isn’t worth running any more.” How dare Jimmy Kimmel be a different person! But why would he so foolishly try to win the affections of Shales, when no one can compare to two out-of-touch relics of late-night’s past. The outrage is really humorous, because in an interview on the Mike ‘O Meara Show in 2015 Shales admits that the talk show model is dying, and that even Jimmy Fallon’s late-night show isn’t really a talk show.That may be true, but Jimmy Fallon is largely responsible for making late-night shows relevant at all. Before Jimmy Fallon took over, no one of my generation was bothering to watch late-night television. So if anything, he should be happy that Jimmy Fallon has willed late-night back into 21st century relevance. As much as I have found that has pointed negatively and shown Shales’ warped prespective, I have found places where he and the consensus of my generation agree. In 2003, Shales gives a glowing review to a Fox television series that has found new life of Netflix that has encouraged the writing of two additional seasons after Fox decided to pull the plug. “Arrested Development is very animated but it is not a cartoon. Cartoonish, perhaps, but it is filled with real actors playing surreal people, all of whom have frighteningly identifiable traits and tics. Together they are the Bluths, the latest and at this moment greatest of TV’s dysfunctional families. Dysfunctionalism has rarely been as ingratiating or, certainly, as hilarious.” In 2007, Shale hails “The Big Bang Theory” as “the funniest new sitcom of the season.” I wonder if he’s kept up with some of the later seasons? However this condemnation of a new flourishing generation seems to be common flaw with Shales, not a common theme, and cannot be overlooked. It seems that in some ways Shales and his views on current entertainment are fading into the realm of rhetoric you would expect from a man of a different era, a long-forgotten Golden Age of entertainment that I will probably be defending in my old age. The only difference is that I will be defending my generation, not his.