A few nights ago, I had the unpleasant experience of sitting down and watching Netflix's new "rom-com," The New Romantic. It advertises as follows..."Fed up with dating and debt, a naive college senior documents her experience of being with a wealthy, older man for a gonzo journalism grant." Now, I went into this with pretty low expectations but I love Jessie Barden, Brett Dier & Camila Mendes (some of the leads), so I figured why the hell not. Well-- I should have been more prepared. This film addresses quite a few "taboo" topics: drugs, prostitution, and the hookup scene brought to university students by dating apps, but it falls short in acknowledging them in a productive way. It's hard to say exactly what more I wanted from this film, but I did not expect to witness the main character get raped and then hours later go on a date with the boy she would evidently start a relationship with. The sexual abuse sequence in this film is not quick and it's not (exactly) glorified but it should be common knowledge by this point, that when a character is raped, the film has to address it in a realistic way. A woman who gets raped, would not shed one tear and then go to brunch with the nice boy next door. This is just not how life works, and to illustrate this in that way is making light of an extremely violent and abominable act. The rest of the film is lackluster, and its indie/quirky vibe is misplaced by strange plot directions & uncharacteristic character flaws. I hesitate to give this movie two stars, however, on behalf of the performances made by the leads, I'll give it something. Do yourself a favor and take this of off of your watch list. P.S. Even stranger...whilst doing some research on the film's production I found out that the director is a woman. Ladies, if you're going to write a script, novel, or anything for public consumption, please take into account the message (or lack there of) that you are conveying. Studying communications for four years, has taught me how important attention to little details are because what happens when you don't is a film like The New Romantic. That's all for now! As always, much love. Stay safe out there ladies xx xoxo -B
0 Comments
Well guys, it has been a long road getting here but here we are. I'm so excited to launch this site, and I hope you guys are too! Stay tuned for more posts next week.
Article originally posted on Free Press Free Speech
~ Sept. 27, 2017 In the fourth chapter of Freedom For the Thought that We Hate, written by Anthony Lewis, the author highlights the Sullivan lawsuit. This suit is used as an example to display that if there were legal risks connected with reporting, journalists and civilians could be less likely to voice their opinions or criticisms. Instead of reporting for the common good and to empower citizens (the role of reporters) journalists might believe their contribution could lead them to be prosecuted. In our political climate today, this fear is magnified. Our president claims he will shut down newspapers which merely report the truth. Professor Vincent Blasi is summarized by Lewis in a statement. This statement reads that people should be able to say, “practically anything about a public person without fear of having to pay damages.” This should be true. However, the unfortunate part about our current president is that by simply being an honest reporter leads him to make threats. Therefore, journalists already face a restraint before even typing a word. Reporting should be used as a tool. It should bring forward issues to create an informed public. Reporting and investigating, today, should be used like journalism was in 1971. That being the year that journalists began an exploration into the Pentagon Papers. Bringing to light some important mistakes made by the president at the time. Similar to the case of the Pentagon Papers, now, we now have the Russia investigation. This case has yet to have a huge break, and has left most of us wondering what is going on behind closed doors in the White House. However, our current state makes it difficult for journalists to even be involved in this type of investigation. It might be more difficult to repeat history, and force a resignation like Nixon’s, but it is not impossible. I just hope it comes before journalists completely lose their voice. Article originally posted on Free Press, Free Speech
~ Nov. 2, 2017 While reading Whistleblowers, Leaks and the Media, I began to reflect on my own values, and those I want to bring to my career (if that happens to be a journalist). I have always come from the perspective that leaks are important and vital to our society, as a whole. Which I would say most journalists acknowledge is part of acting as a check on government. However, now I have to question the value of weighing certain information to the risk it poses on the American people. As much as I believe certain information should be in the hands of the citizens, some should remain protected. In chapter thirteen, “The Consequences of Leaks: The Erosion of Security,” written by Jill D. Rhodes, readers were briefed on the negative costs of leaking vital information. There are concrete consequences such as disrupting or damaging foreign policy, revealing U.S. military or security patterns to enemies, and risking the lives of civil servants and their families. However, the overarching issue is that it’s hard to determine exactly what greater or long-term consequences will emerge from sharing classified government information. Because these effects are mostly intangible, it makes proving that these leaks are a problem, more difficult. Then people too quickly dismiss what negative effects a substantial leak could have on their personal safety. Most people want to live their lives under the pretense of privacy. People want to know their personal lives are just that-personal. And that the government they put their faith in, does not abuse their privacy. The hard truth is that in order to protect its citizens the government has to take some privacy away. No matter what, citizens will always have to forfeit something to be protected, when part of a society. That in some cases, for people to literally be alive and well we have to sacrifice the assumption that we have a private life, free from government monitoring. However, that leads me to another point. If we do not have a private life, the government should expect its citizens to take some of its own “private life” away. Journalists should monitor government, but they should do so in a manner which is calculated and level-headed. Consideration to the possible risks of releasing information and how that may impact, not just the government but the people, should be taken. Journalists work under the impression they would do a disservice to the public if they kept vital information, classified. But in reality, the unfortunate truth is they could be protecting the physical safety of the public, by swishing some, risky or potentially dangerous information, under the rug. |
ArchivesCategories |