She's SUCH a Queen

The film The Queen artfully and accurately portrayed the current British royal family, minus the late Princess Diana and the struggle for the monarchy-wielding family unit to overcome the most petty of British politics. Celebrity worship, to be sure, was a central component of the film especially regards to the depiction of Princess Diana who, in death, became glorified for her humanitarian deeds rather than her previous, perfunctory public and private mishaps.

Despite the overall serious tone of the film, I found some of the superficial details humorous. The manual-like procedures for addressing the Queen, rules governing all variety of conduct, etc. seemed laughable and oh so outdated. After all, the Queen is but a symbolic, empty-purse-clutching diplomat who is more celebrated for her signature awkward "wave," than anything remotely productive she has accomplished politically.

While I was not particularly fond of Princess Diana at the time, I find it retrospectively shameful how her tragic demise was politicized by particularly Queen Elizabeth. It is understood that stringent, archaic and largely symbolic protocol is to be employed in the realm of the Britons, but limiting Diana's funeral to a private event for only her family-despite her status as an internationally known public figure, seemed to be a blatant example of harsh "damage control," in the most public relations sense of the term. The haggling, too, between the Queen's demands and the wishes of recently-elected Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair was revealing and unfortunate provided the circumstances.

Sort of like the assassination of JFK, Princess Diana's premature death resulted in an almost overnight romanticizing of her ultimately vapid resume. Diana often brought shame, ridicule and scrutiny to the royal family. Only in her death, did her comparably diminutive service transcript become illuminated by those seeking to capitalize on the Princesses' legacy with books, movies, D VD's and other Chinese mass-produced merchandise.

While some of advocated for the elimination of the British monarchy, the Queen will clutch her position with an unwavering firmness. Why should people even concern themselves with the cornerstone of the United Kingdom? The Royal family remains the globe's most symbolic, aging relic and their intention or potential for accomplishing anything shattering remains as likely as Somalia transforming to a peaceful, law-abiding government tomorrow. In other words, the chance is nil.

It is fascinating that even a position like the Queen, devoid of any real power yet so powerful; continues to inspire the imagination and mystique of people around the world. Perhaps, the thought is that this particular position must be the epitome of "easy-living," being able to wield prestige, yet not being encumbered with the responsibility of those who actually make decisions.

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

Romanticizing Windsor

The legacy of many of these characters extends far beyond the princess, and I believe it sells them short if taken in the context of only a princess who was in the tabloids all the time and did a lot of charity work. Tony Blair brought England back in relevance something that England was struggling with at the turn of the decade after the Thatcher revolution and loss of their empire. He brought about change needed from technology to education while he did create a camera society in England and what many consider a nanny state. The man did much to bring England back into relevance and aligned himself with Bush and over saw a great economic boom throughout all of England. While I did not know until the movie that he was in power after princess Diana died I cannot say I even remember the event. I was only in the grade school, so it was interesting to see the way he handled it because Tony Blair is the man who fought along side us in Iraq. Queen Elizabeth saw the victory after beating the Germans in World War II and saw the commonwealth restructure along more republican lines. Both of these persons have done so much for the world and their own nations that I believe the princess’ funeral was nothing more then a blip on their screen. I might not grasp the magnitude of her death failing to remember it or her but in comparison with everything else they have done it would be surprising. Princess Diana was known for her charity work with Africa and many other diseases at a time when it was considered unsafe but was hunted my the paparazzi and played to them at times. She was a humanitarian and helped many causes out. Prince Charles look like just how I have always perceived him as a bit weak and another side dangerously arrogant. He looks like a man who wants what he wants; having a mistress for example and being scared when he is actually asked what he wants. The movie might have made him look weaker then he actually is and sure it was a difficult time for everybody but he just seemed sleazy. The man has always seemed like he is portrayed in the movie although I hope he does have more backbone then was given throughout the movie. I believe the movie was fair to all except Prince Charles who clearly got the brunt of a lot of the negative portrayals. I feel that during that time Tony Blair would have been seen as that favorable and the royals foolish.

Robert Foster

God Save the Queen!

Returning to 1997 is quite the uncanny experience. It seems so close, yet when we see a representation of what that world was like, we experience quite the shock. The film, The Queen, builds upon this feeling to the point where it makes us question our own memory. When we consider the legacy of Tony Blair, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles, and Princess Diana, and then look at the film, we realize that we may have forgotten our own immediate past. It is funny that as calculating and political as Tony Blair is portrayed within The Queen, we are reminded of his relatively recent resignation from the position of Prime Minister. While Blair was able to control the aftermath of Princess Diana’s death, he was not able to control the United States’ foray into Iraq. 9/11 made life more immediate for the individual, and while there is still a surplus in celebrity worship, I do not believe that we could ever again witness the wailing and gnashing of teeth that surrounded the death of non-political, non-religious figure.

The legacy of the other three Britons has also shifted since the event portrayed within the film. There have been mentions to abolish the monarchy, but they will not gather steam as long as Queen Elizabeth is alive. Prince Charles is still portrayed as the dope that he was in 1997, but it seems as though people mistrust him more, at least with the conspiracy theorists that think that he killed Diana. If and when he assumes the monarchy, we may have reason to think that the monarchy will end with him. As short of a memory as people have, Londoners still remember Queen Elizabeth’s efforts during WWII, and they still appreciate that. Diana’s legacy, as explored within the film, experienced an immediate elevation. We no longer remember her as the floozy that the media portrayed her as, but rather for her humanitarian efforts.

I believe that the film was fair in its’ portrayal of the four Britons, as it seems perfectly reasonable that the events portrayed were the events which occurred. While some people may think that Queen Elizabeth was portrayed in a negative light, I think that the portrayal was beyond positive. The public was given a general understanding of how the Royals operate, and within this system we see that The Queen, even with all that she stands for, is subject to petty politics. I do not think that the film was unfair, but I think it cast a particularly truthful, ugly light upon the will of the masses. The grown men crying in the street after Diana’s death was a reality, a reality that we forgot about, perhaps wished to forget about. But it was there. It was there as the ugliest aspect of humanity, celebrity worship. People forgot what they were doing, and went to go “pray” for Princess Diana. We can only hope that this projection of worth onto celebrities will end, and maybe it did to the extent of Princess Diana, but I’m sure that another example will come along to show humanity at its’ most pathetic.

Jack Gustafson

Mr. Smith Gets to Filibuster

While I thought I would dislike "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," merely because I historically am not inclined toward black and white pictures, I absolutely adored it. Sure, the portrayal of a single, freshman Senator making an incredible difference is a bit far-fetched, but we have encroached on utter cynicism and over-seriousness if we cannot aspire to such a positive, populist depiction.

The film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," is the sort of wholesome, excessively patriotic and forthright portrayal of a single individual, well ahead of his time trying to make a difference. At the time the film was released, racial inequity and Hollywood's obsession with either excluding minorities or portraying them in menial roles, like "Mr. Smith," where the lone African-American is a shoe shiner, were prevalent. Mr. Smith, by all accounts, is a politically unidentified Senator but espouses rather progressive ideologies on themes of philanthropy and equity.

Rather than marginalizing the female character to the confines of "listening," to his policy ideas, the senator engages the women and seeks her consultation on how best to develop said polices. The women is, however, in an archetypal secretarial role but nonetheless by chronological standards is depicted rather favorably.

Certain pragmatic political theories can be derived from "Mr Smith." The idea of employing the filibuster, something that can be regarded as a necessary evil to 'check,' majority political power, is a mechanism unique to the United States Congress. Obviously, the conclusion of the film is predictable and in alignment with the expectation of a "feel good," film.

To those who question the validity of "Mr. Smith," and cast it as "unrealistic," I ask "Why can't we espouse the sort of equitable and wholesome political fight that Mr. Smith entails?"

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

If only it were as it used to be...

When we talk about Mr. Smith goes to Washington, I don’t know if much is outdated. I found it an amazing movie in its simplicity and candid nature about how politics is played in this country. It is a shame that this problem has been seen for so long and nobody has done anything about it. I loved the fact it was a simple American man who loved his country and tried to make it better and found it a different animal. The way it views the free press is right on and that is a shame because they are right they don’t get re-elected and so why print the facts or what really happens. With the discussion of the political machine that is what scares me the most because they are still around and cane be found in Chicago, San Francisco, New York and other cities. We do not have to look far for corruption just last year Jefferson City officials were being looked at. I believe the only thing truly out dated would be the cars and train. This movie was great it should what be idealize and what is written on marble but those in congress take it all for granted and believe it is for them to play around with. I found it perfect because you have a loving American going to Washington and what happened he sees what a mess it is and how the dreams of founding fathers have been left to die under the marble and poetic words. The ideas that the movie presents are all still relevant in today’s political theatre and we need to move as Americans to make sure our democracy is for us not subjugated to one person’s interests.

Robert Foster

Mr. Smith Goes to "Wewishthiswerethewayitwasville"

Jack Gustafson

There is a reason that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is still shown in classrooms today. This reason is because of the undeniable optimism that is voiced through the character of Mr. Smith. Even as ridiculous and over-the-top as the acting in the film was, the audience still understood the basic premise of the story: Why can’t we elect people who are more like us?

Now, when the term “people like us” gets thrown around in United States politics, it tends to translate as “white and Christian (preferably protestant)”, but as much as Mr. Smith really was just like the rest of America, he at least made attempts to mention people of other races and creeds. There were at least two incidents where Mr. Smith directly referred to people of other races, and spoke on how they should receive the same rights; this was in direct opposition to what most people thought in 1939 (particularly in Montana).

From this, it seems as thought Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was years ahead of its’ time, even if the lone African-America in the film was portrayed as a soft-shoeing Sambo. Hollywood was definitely wrapped up in the racism of its’ time, but the character of Mr. Smith seems to make up for it.

I would have to say that the only thing that is outdated within Mr. Smith would be the technical aspects, and the race relations. Mr. Smith, as a politician, was not revelatory enough of what his political issues were, in fact nobody in the film was; there was never a mention of Democratic or Republican party anywhere in the film. I think that the story still holds relevant because the idea is that the little guy is fighting the big guys to do the right thing. Of course, the film is representational, not realistic, and from this we are able to seek the politics of the film unfold.

Shitty SHIT SHIT!

Question #1: “Is True Lies a flattering or not-so-flattering portrayal of the U.S. Intelligence community? Why or why not?”

True Lies is a flattering portrayal of the U.S. Intelligence community, at least to people who cannot separate hyperbolic representation in film from reality. Yeah sure, if True Lies was real I would be more than proud of my badass government agents who tirelessly work behind the scenes to ensure my security. Do I even have to answer the rest of this question? It’s True Lies with Arnold Schwarzenegger for Christ's sake; anyone who watched the movie for thirty seconds can tell that the intelligence community (and all its’ covert violence) was glorified.

Question #2: “Should Americans worry about nuclear terrorism like al-Qaeda’s ‘American Hiroshima’ project or the nuclear terrorism depicted in True Lies? Why or why not?”

Yeah, but “worrying” about al-Qaeda acquiring a nuclear device won’t actually stop them from getting one. Maybe if I worry real hard. The fact is that I trust the American intelligence agencies enough to protect the United States, and even if I didn’t, I live in a flyover state, I’m not worried about getting nuked. I know what you said in class about terrorists’ plotting attacks against shopping malls and the like in less populated areas, but since I think that al-Qaeda’s strength has diminished, I don’t think that they are going to risk their existence on Oak Park Mall.

Question #3: How are Muslims/Arabs depicted in True Lies and Prayers for the Assassin? Are there any positive Arab portrayals in either True Lies or Prayers for the Assassin? Please provide justifications from each work for your answers.

Generally, pretty bad. Arnold’s sidekick (not Tom Arnold) seemed Arabic, so it appears that he is the exception to the James Cameron rule. In Prayers for the Assassin, the very protagonist of the novel, Rakkim, is a Muslim, albeit a lapsed one. However, most of the novel, along with most of True Lies sets Muslims up in the “bad-buy” role that has been sorely undeveloped since the end of the Cold War. Without the “Evil Soviets” us stupid Americans need a knee-jerk ethnic group to mass-demonize.

Jack Gustafson

Explosions, Exaggerations and Stereotypes, OH MY!

Blog Question 1:

Superficial and non-essential intelligence community portrayal aside, I absolutely adore "True Lives," because it provides the sort of humorous, action-packed and explosion-laden plot that Americans generally crave. Immediately upon seeing the names Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tom Arnold on the cast list, one is put on notice that the film will likely be an entertaining combination of humor and "please, do not take this seriously." I just pray, to whomever, that the actual individuals presiding over our intelligence community do not engage in the sort of "Cheaters," television show and personal investigative behavior-of their significant others, as is depicted in the film. If our intelligence community actually does act in this way, the way of constant-personal-relationship paranoia, summon God, the Saints and any other available deity to America's side, because we are unsafe against a dark and ominous, furtive evil.

Blog Question 2:

I watched an interview recently, incidentally, it was not on a real, corporate media-ran news interview program-but "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," featuring an author who has written a book on the nature of fear and how business, government and regular people capitalize on it. Sadly, I feel that without fearing us to death, many individuals in America and academia would be devoid of employment. With this being said, however, I do not advocate the utter ignorance of threats or the necessary planning that should accommodate them.

Blog Question 3:

After 9/11, I procured a copy of the Muslim Holy book, the Qu'ran and thoroughly reviewed it. Additonally, I served in the role of Islamic-Student-Affairs coordinator and worked in association with C.A.R.E. to provide fact-based answers to traditionally stereotypical question. In this respect, I can recognize a Muslim negative portrayal when I see one.

Robert is correct, Muslims and Arabs generally have contributed innumerably to our society. In Mathematics, economics and otherwise. For anyone to marginalize Arabs and Mulsims in the default category of "terrorist," is to be wholly ignorant to this group's credit for improving our modern world.

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

GREAT Points, Bob! (and now for a slutty picture)

Question #1

It is a not so flattering portrayal of the intelligence community, it seems that while terrorists are trying to kill Americans these agents spy on their wives and try to get there sad lives back together. The movie was more up to date then three days of condor and is more accurate. The only thing I believe to be true was the fact Arnold got mad when he asked for an illegal wiretap and his buddy reminded him it was against the law and he said they are doing thousands a day. I completely believe that all the patriot act and 9/11 did was give these agencies legitimacy for activities they had been doing for years. This was exposed to be a spoof on the CIA and movies that deal with this type of material while they did try to be more serious about the subject matter and it showed from time to time it was exposed to entertain not inform. These “agents” worried more about bad leads and troubled marriages then anything else.

Question #2

Absolutely, Americans should worry and worry a lot because it is only a matter of time. It is simply Moore’s law applied to nuclear technology while Moore’s law states over a certain time frame that technological power will double and the price will decrease, as technology comes easier the threat rises. The doomsday clock and the scientists predicated this after the Soviet Union fell, unstable governments with nuclear weapons, a growing black market and growing number of well funded groups will gain access and materials to make their own weapon. With technology now being understood by younger people, viruses being created by kids in high school it is only a matter of time before a group that does not act reasonable or rational will release destruction on America. We are the perfect target because we are the freest nation ever to be on earth, we have the best economy, best system of government and a common belief that ties us together and pulls us forward, the American Dream. With technology such as a nuclear weapon out in the world it is only a matter of time before the worst thing imaginable happens and a way of life is erased from the face of the earth. It will not matter if it is in the Florida Keys or New York fear will destroy this nation and cease the way we live today

Question #3

The way Arabs/Muslims are depicted in the movie and in the book is not positive at all we believe that they cling to religion, something we don’t understand by its nature because it seems alien and old fashioned. We forget that these people were once the peak of human understanding they were the great mathematicians, the great alchemists, the great warriors. Europeans imported numbers from them, they rediscovered Plato and other ancient world thinkers. Europeans ran in utter fear when they saw the Islamic armies marching toward Europe. Americans do not remember all this because it happened on another continent in a time long before our own. Armies of Islam ruled from Spain to the Pacific Ocean while not under one crown, they have a rich heritage and are a powerful people. The people from those lands have been rising empire after empire and they will continue to do so. In most movies they are shown to be weak with only religion being their own knowledge, this idea needs to change or we will underestimate people we should not ever underestimate.

Robert Foster

Oh, so true

Blog Question #1

The three things I learned about the intelligence agency is that the website was wide open. It allowed me to click on any tab and provided enough information about jobs, what they do and other organizations they are connected with. The website also had videos, speeches and other reports that were informational to knowing the website and what goes on, I had figured the website would have fake links or things that seemed planted. The website seemed to be created by a business man because it laid out objective, who they are, how I can help out and what I would get out joining or signing up from this website. The clear and easiness of the website is very welcoming and almost made me forget that NSA probably scanned my whole system and will track me for the rest of my life.

Blog Question #2- Now you see it, now you don’t

The intelligence community in the Three Days of Condor is seen as a very mysterious and dangerous animal. It is a place with no transparency or accountability it seems, the main protagonist of this film does not know who he can trust much less his own name. It seemed to take a innocent and good boy who reads comic books and likes a woman he works with into a person nobody in a free society should have to be. The idea that the intelligence community is supplying a market of assassins for hire is also very sickening. The community is portrayed as confusing and at the highest levels not completely controlled or managed, where is the oversight and checks and balance system. With one cell destroying another cell simply because one could break there codes and possible ruin their cover. The community did make one good point at the end when discussing the way people act, what they want and how they expect it to be there for them. Americans do expect everything and do not like hearing they can’t have something a good and a bad thing at times. My opinion as long as moods and demand are the same as they are now then these government agencies who work for us will have to deliver what we want.

Blog Question #3- Whose your maker?

I think the warning at the end of the movie was dead on, absolutely. I believe it applies completely with the older generation and their views on the world now as my generation begins to grow in society it might not be as true. My parent’s generation had a very privileged idea of America and being the first citizens of the world, like it or not it was true being the only free superpower. The expectations can be seen in the fact we consume a disproportionate amount of oil to the size of our population. I do see my generation accepting the fact we are one among equals when looking at other cultures and nations, my generation has already shown that taxing us is not a problem it is not our main concern. The fact our generation had a lot to do with electing the first black president is huge as well. I expect my government to do the utmost to ensure we get all the resources we need or would want but within certain boundaries there has to be a moral aspect to this thinking. The government is there to serve the people but there is a difference between dictating something to us and knowing what people want. I am aware that it is almost impossible to get it right 100% of the time but I wouldn’t expect the C.I.A. to invade Brazil to obtain their sugar supplies just for American citizens.

Put it in Bullets!

I agree with my colleague Jack that the CIA and the intelligence community, generally suffers from an incredible lack of technological foresight, or, even aesthetic inspiration. The CIA's official web presence is characterized by early 90's hyper linked, visibly highlighted text and difficulty of navigation. What the CIA needs is the sort of fluidity and "flash," interactivity of white.gov, a site that previously suffered the same sort of aesthetic and functionality ailments. Whereas picture less, visibly hyper linked text was previously the norm, it is no longer so and the CIA's website must reflect accordingly.

Furthermore, the CIA and the other reviewed intelligence website-the Office of the Intelligence Director, are fatigued from the same problem that the majority of other governmental agencies and departments face, which is an over emphasis on written text. Most Americans do not want to wade through paragraph after paragraph of written text cascading in the glory of the agency---put the shit in bullet points, something that will simultaneously reduce website clutter and appeal to the Adderal attention spans of our citizenry.

The intelligence community as portrayed in "Three Days of a Condor," another film that I practically fell out of my chair in boredom while watching, can be said to be rather accurate. Depictions of inter-departmental and agency suspicions and politicking are largely the types of behavior that have been reportedly at play within said institutions. While certainly dealing with issues of utmost national security, these agencies and organizations still rely on human occupation which is "dog eat dog."

I was not awake nor alert enough to capture the concluding blog answer. Again, the sheer lack of physicality in the plot, combined with wretched soundtrack music and a general feeling of fatigue, precluded me from capturing the entirety of the film in any way that I could honestly state its impact.

Corey S. Dutra

QUICK. someone update the Incredibly Cold-War Intelligence Websites!

Question #1:

Three Things I learned from the websites that Dr. Meiers Listed:

1. The link to the games in the “CIA for Kids” section suck. (https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/games/index.html) I mean, if I was an easily persuadable kid, I wouldn’t give two shits about word finds or any other namby-pamby “games”, I would want to see a waterboarding simulator. I guess the DHS website for kids makes up for it with muppets.
2. Both the websites supplies have terrible graphics and are difficult to navigate. It looks like they haven’t been updated since the Cold War. They obviously do not care if the “Intelligence Community” bores the majority of the population, and I’m sure they would be happy if “Joe 6-Pack” didn’t even know that they existed.
3. The “intelligence” website says more by not saying very much at all.




Question #2: How is the U.S. intelligence community depicted in The Three Days of the Condor

Poorly, but that’s what makes the movie so fun. I don’t really care if the CIA has a CIA within itself, or if Robert Redford’s level of ass-kickin’ has been enhanced, I don’t care, what I care about is that the film accomplished everything that a film is supposed to accomplish, which is to be entertaining. It’s fun to think about the conspiracies that are hatched and carried out under our noses, and it’s fun to see them dramatized on the big-screen, but that’s all it is, fun. Do I think that the Intelligence Community operates in the fashion exhibited within the film? No. Do I think it could happen? Maybe, but I handle this thought with the same disgust that I handle Ron Paul supporters. Does the Intelligence Community deserve the treatment it received in the film? Why not, when an organization operates with extreme security it is only natural for people to ponder the extremes of the philosophy that is partially hidden by the agency itself, and Hollywood is the perfect tool for it.

Question #3: Is the warning given by the Cliff Robertson character Higgins to the Robert Redford character Turner at the end of the film accurate or not?

I’m sure it is. Maybe not the exact details, but I’m sure that Turner is a marked man. Even if the New York Times were to print the story, I’m sure that the Intelligence Community (at least in this film) would do everything to silence the matter, including the murder of Turner. However, this is thinking that the story will be printed which we are not guaranteed is a possibility. Turner’s big mistake was revealing his cards too early. Turner should not have told Higgins what he was going to do, he should have let it come as a surprise, now Higgins has the opportunity to reach the editors of the Times before the article is printed. For this reason, we know that Turner’s luck may finally have run out. There have been many instances of characters within the Intelligence Community commenting on Turner’s luck as the only thing that has gotten him so far, and now we can concur that as the film finishes, so too will Turner’s life.


Jack Gustafson

Artificial ASS Movie

I believe that the global warming and overpopulation issue in the movie was the only similarities I could really see. Now the world and even New York doesn’t have people sleeping in the stairwells but I am sure many places such as Calcutta, cities in China and Mexico City do. The warming of the planet is another connection with the movie; the constant heat shown in the movie while many details were left out was a frightening outcome. My generation has lived their lives with the threat of global warming we do not have the nuclear war that was prevalent in the last 40 years of the 20th century but this threat is a much tougher problem. We need to figure out an answer and Soylent Green showed what could happen. While I seriously doubt a company could figure out a way to turn dead people into food because we can’t even figure out that too much greed is bad for everyone. I cannot see America turning into well the Soviet Union anytime soon. The separate classes shown in the movie resembled the how that communist system was set-up. While it was a scary movie the comparisons fall very short to anything that resembles the world today. The world has changed, until recently it was a brighter world with a lot of the dystopian ideas all seeming to not be as relevant or possible. The world has changed so much from the time period this film tries to get across the Soviet Union has broken and many of the flaws seen in society have been fixed or just passed over. The culture war has changed, the worry about nuclear war is less of a worry and our attitudes toward many things in society have little in common with causes that people believed would destroy the world or society. The global warming theme is incredible accurate though and has past true to the test of time.

Robert Foster

SOYLENT [SNORE]

I am not certain was actually more disastrous the potential devastation wrought by the wholly unrealistic and fictional "Soylent Green:" scenario, or the the film in holistic form.

The underwhelming and quite frankly tacky portrayal of environmental dystopia in "Soylent Green," was yawn-inducing and quite uninspiring. In fact, the entirety of the film I was literally engaging in self talk and saying "is there ever going to be any action, or are we going to continue to focus on the bullshit, closet scene of the frazzled hair elderly man and the obnoxiously immoral rent-a-cop?

Based on the mere idea alone of the sort of "absolute anarchy" power depicted within the film, the movie reiterates its artificiality. Any individual who has studied anarchy can and would conclude that the essence of a nation being devoid of a government, for instance, Somalia, is a chaotic and lawless iteration of Thomas Hobbes' "State of Nature," in which individuals are unable to govern themselves and all hell ensues. "Soylent Green," inaccurately casts anarchy in the light of modern monarchy-in which the majority of citizens' lives are dictated by a scripted, and Orwellian central institution.

Truthfully, I searched for the "environmental" portion of the movie, between the half-ass love triangle, horrible decor and focus on the two nimrods tediously climbing over the homeless, the film's actual base was ostensibly non-existent.

The Malthus theory of disease being the preeminent method in maintaining population, is clearly ignored by the film. I understand that "Soylent Green" is a piece of science fiction, yet science fiction is generally not completely liberated from existential reality.

Overall, I believe that human nature and cyclically inherent processes would preclude the sort of doomsday, farcical garbage portrayed by "Soylent Green."

Corey Scott-Vincent-William Dutra

Soylent WTF?!

Jack Gustafson


I think it is highly unrealistic to think that Soylent Green could ever be an actuality, not just because I’m basing this off of a Sci-Fi movie, but due to human nature. I find it highly unrealistic for there to be massive overcrowding, food shortages, and an environmental catastrophe without there being massive disease to weed out the human population. Without a doubt, I believe that most of the Earth would die out by the time living becomes as bad as in Soylent Green. Disease becomes the odds-on favorite for weeding out the population as there would be shit-ton of people with malnutrition running around; I’m sure people would start eating each other before there could be the illusion that they weren’t, for them that would be a godsend.

Okay. Ignoring disease and cannibal armies, we should expect law and order to completely collapse with an anarchic society occurring rather than an authoritative one. I think it is unrealistic to think that any government would be able to stay in power when there are that many people who have little faith in their government. You may point to China or North Korea but we can see that the population is controlled and conditioned to understand that their way of living is the best, but there is no way that the entire planet could be made to act like that without considering the extreme loss of life that would go along with that action.

The chances of Soylent Green actually occurring are incredibly low, even considering all the conditions that existed within the film. Perhaps I just see things in a black-and-white manner, but I think that humanity as we know it would cease to exist before anything like what happened in the film could happen. People in general are only concerned about their basic needs, so I believe that if we had massive overcrowding, overcrowding to the extent that we saw in the film, most people would support extermination of minority peoples in order to stay alive. I hate to think that I am so pessimistic about human nature, but I think that would be the natural outcome, that or vigilante groups doing what the government wouldn’t do.

Contradicting the MAN

Jack Gustafson


Outside of the way that television and Hollywood has spoofed, and will spoof, the end of Thelma and Louise, we must understand that the film itself is still relevant, even outside of the “gender wars”. Not much has changed since the early Nineties, at least in terms of how a rape victim would be treated by the law in that similar situation; most people would say, “she was asking for it”. This is a shame, but I highly doubt that attitudes towards this will change anytime soon.
The way that the film took off after the shooting of the racist may be over-the-top, but we must not see this film as realistic, but as highly representational. What Thelma and Louise represents is an overthrow of the system of male-authority. The best example of this is when the two women put the police officer in the trunk of his own car. What makes this notable is the way the power system changes so suddenly. At first, the cop (a man) is about to thwart their attempt for freedom, but they turn the table on him. They take his gun, his belt, and his ammunition, essentially emasculating the officer, leaving him a crying mess. While the officer is crying about his wife and kids, Thelma and Louise act in an authoritarian manner. This role-reversal is still relevant today in the arts.

The film may be dated---nineties fashion and Brad Pitt being a good actor—but we mustn’t see this as an indicator for us to think that these issues have been resolved. In Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, we see the same issues played with in an even more representational fashion. This dystopian novel shows what happens under a purely male-driven authority system with a heavy Christian influence. Although religion does not explicitly play a huge role in Thelma and Louise, the residual effects of Christianity are given. Thelma’s relationship with her husband is evidence of this, and I am sure that her husband would not object to living in Gilead. Her husband expected her to be completely subservient to his wishes, and as much as she breaks that mold, the film says something about the consequences. Thelma and Louise rejects the traditional male society through the actions of the characters, but at the same time reaffirms the society. The ending shows that there is no hope for women like Thelma and Louise, they are destined to fail within our society’s structure.

Gender Wars

Thelma and Louise raises significant issues related to gender. I was not in attendance for the class screening, but have previously viewed the film and vaguely remember the outlines and mainpoints. I am not certain if it is because I am seething liberal or otherwise that I attribute merit and purpose to the film.

There were many instances that made me think and that reiterated the importance of bringing issues like rape and identity to the forefront of the American, popcorn eating consciousness. Furthermore, the film's intentional portrayal of what amount to 50's era female stereotypes reminds us that even though the film was made in the early 90's, the struggle for female equality has hardly ended.

Comparing the Handmaid's tale with Thelma and Louise is rather easy. Much like an odd version of the "Stepford Wives," the characters within both of the aforementioned works are considered comparable "peons" who serve the worthless and utterly slovenly corridors of high society. Both Thelma and Louise, like the character in the novel, are portrayed as subservient, "stay at homes," and sort of fulfill the archetype of the female "June Cleaver."

The interconnected nature of expectations and the simplicity of their daily existence, the females within the movie and the novel would never be readily believed if, say, like in Thelma case she was raped. The patriarchal nature of authority both in cinema and reality dictates that females often neglect to inform medical and legal personnel about the incident. Much like an invisible ceiling exists within corporate America, the perpetration of rape constructs a rather unavoidable "it is my fault" and wounded mentality that precludes women from rightfully expressing their hurt and victimization.

When contrasting "Thelma and Louise" with Handmaid's Tale is that, unlike Thelma or Louise,the Handmaid was a resident of a highly stratified class structure that disabled her from removing herself, by choice, from the negativity and economically deprived situation that she confronted.

Some critics of feminism would view (especially) the issue of rape as a matter of women's failure to "speak up," but that is a simplistic and rather flawed logic that fails to address the reasons why many women who were, like Thelma, abused do not curb future violence by way of non-disclosure. The film does an artful and tasteful job of demonstrating the necessity of continued feminism. While many males would like to believe that we have have "outgrown" the necessity of feminism, any female can underscore the very contrary and probably provide a "Thelma and Louise" like example to demonstrate their sentiment.

I would say that the end of "Thelma and Louise" reiterates the notion that an idea or movement must be externally reinforced and the problem sort of portrayed to be perpetuated for the issue to remain legitimate and relevant. Much like the NAACP and other organizations that strive for diversity, often only the negative or most extreme examples are promoted or publicly discussed because if nothing negative is happening the organization and leaders within are devoid of a continuance catalyst. In some instances it can be said that the overwhelming positive-in the instance of feminism the progress made, can be neglected or swept under the rug so that people do not perceive the issue or series of issues to be of diminished salience.

"Thelma and Louise" concluding with the idea that women will have a difficult time advancing by way of gender structure, is real. Unfortunately,the harsh reality of gender inequality will continue to so long as there exist societal members who deny rather than acknowledge pressing matters of inequity.

Corey S. Dutra

aWW-some

The question if this film is still relevant I believe is a yes, a resounding yes. It was cleverly done and while a lot of the movie I did roll my eyes or fail to see what would be liberating about just getting into a car and driving. I have done it several times and across complete states. When watching the movie I thought it had been done maybe in the 1980’s sometime it just seemed like a world apart, even though we found out they were from Arkansas but still the whole movie seemed alien to me. Why wouldn’t women be believed, why wouldn’t they be able to drive somewhere to go fishing. I thought the fishing premise was weird I only know one girl who likes fishing and even then she goes to get a tan. The fact a woman wouldn’t be believed by the cops or the whole premise of “she was asking for it” I mean that is what struck me as when was this thing made. Granted I were only four when this movie came out but the world I grew up in was nothing like that portrayed in the movie. The whole movie would have been over 30 minutes in had they just went to the police station and said what had happened, the movie deals with a lot of prejudices; women feeling/treated as second class citizens, women being subservient to their husbands, women lacking overall freedom. The movie revolves around all these ideas, the women themselves though were either blasé and air-headed or hard and cold. So the characters in my opinion are not what I picture or know most women to necessarily to be, so this movie has a lot of built in prejudices that help to keep this movie going. This movie also takes a weird turn when they decide to turn into paladins. So was the person exposed to get from that if woman have too much freedom look at what happens; tankers for some odd reason blow up, people get shot at, stores get robbed and police officers are held captive. I mean this movie just jerks you around from one spectrum to the other and maybe that was what it was going for. We cannot forget the easy going, honest, trusting cop because police officers don’t hold grudges at all they don’t have their own baggage they bring to the job. When answering the question is this movie still relevant, I feel you would have to defer the question to a woman since the movie was based on them. From looking around the room from time to time you could see girls in the class enjoying themselves and paying attention so I believe the movie still does have some relevance. I think it is a shame it does because it means there are still some prejudices out there and those I believe need to be removed. The movie I am sure served its purpose when it was out and opened people’s eyes but it seemed that many things in the movie were relics of the past. Robert Foster

Feminism Fantastica

Blog Question: What is the legacy of “Thelma & Louise” in 2009? Is this film relevant today or is just another relic from the gender wars of the past?
I have a feeling that this blog will bring out my inner feminist, which although has a largely negative connotation, I have to remind myself often that being a “feminist” is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. The term feminist dates back to the women who worked for women’s suffrage. Not only should I be damn proud to lump myself in with those astounding women, I should feel that I am hardly worthy of that title. That tangent aside, I would like to talk about “Thelma & Louise.”

There are many aspects of “Thelma & Louise” that I find very relevant in 2009. Although the movie was dated, with a young studly Brad Pitt, and, let’s be honest, Susan Sarandon does not look that young anymore, I think that all of the major issues are still very real in the lives of women (and some men) today. Let’s start with the first hiccup; the attempted rape. The issue of rape, specifically with reporting rape, is still very much around today. Many women feel that they can’t report for the same reason Thelma couldn’t. No one would believe her and even if they did, the finger would be pointed at her. Now I’m not here to debate the epic battle of men vs. woman, and I will openly admit that men deal with some of these same issues, and even to a different extreme, but today I will limit myself to a specific gender discussion revolving around “Thelma & Louise.”

There are many similarities and differences that exist between “Thelma & Louise” and The Handmaid’s Tale. Both women had appointed roles in their society that they were expected to fulfill. Offred to be a Handmaid and provide babies for unproductive high society wives. In the same way, Thelma is expected to stay at home, clean, cook, look pretty and wait on her husband hand and foot. When Thelma drinks and dances, she is expected to “put-out.” Louise plays the role of the raped and wounded, bitter, unmarried woman. If she’s single at her age there must be something wrong with her, at least that’s what society says, and the role that Louise fulfills. However, there are some differences. For example as it was at the time and is even more so now, woman have some choice as to what role they fill in society. We can choose to be single or married, have kids or not have kids. However, the Handmaid’s had no choice. They were appointed into roles given certain circumstances that existed in their lives prior to the creation of the new class system.

I think that Thelma and Louise, although it could never be as great as this version, especially because it was on the verge of the new feminist movement. This movie is a classic and I hope that they don’t mess with it.

Beth Goin

ConspireSmire

1. The Illuminati: group that plans to take over the world. Believe in one, united world. Their symbol (pyramid with the eye) on U.S. currency.

2. Area 51: nickname for an air force base in New Mexico believed to be a holding unit for alien spacecraft.

3. Kennedy Assassination: Kennedy killed by government leaders and agencies.

4. Martin Luther King Assassination: also killed by government because if he ran for president he’d have a chance to win.

5. Marilyn Monroe’s Death: government murdered her because she learned too many government secrets during her affair with JFK.

Beth Goin