#permanent as well as recent obsessions include roles played by: | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thepermanentrainpress · 3 years

Text

THE PERMANENT RAIN PRESS INTERVIEW WITH AZRIEL DALMAN

He may only be 7 years old, but don’t let numbers fool you. Azriel (Azi) Dalman already has nearly thirty credits to his name! The accomplished young artist from Vancouver has had a big 2020, but there’s no slowing down for Azi, who has a number of exciting upcoming projects to share with the world.

Your older brother, Aias, is also an actor. While you are only 7 years old, tell us about your interest in following his footsteps, and what made you want to start auditioning for film/TV?

I loved seeing the completed films my brother was in but I didn’t really understand how he got into them. One day, I was 3 maybe, we went to a commercial audition for my brother and the Casting Director came into the waiting room and asked the kids to practice singing “Old MacDonald.” I knew the song and sang it also. They took the kids in to audition as a group and I asked why this was happening. My mom said it was because they were going to see who should be in the commercial where they sing it. I realized what an audition was then, it meant they were trying out to see who got to be on the video. I asked if I could go do it too and my mom said no because it was not my audition, so I asked if I could get auditions too. After that I got an agent. I never got to audition by singing “Old MacDonald” though so I guess that ship has sailed.

What are your favourite movies or characters?

I love Wall-E and Soul for cartoons. For TV Characters I like Jim and Dwight from The Office a lot. I used to want to be Jake Peralta from Brooklyn Nine-Nine and I think I definitely look like him! And of course I love the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe)!

What is your favourite snack from catering? Is there a food item that you’re most excited to see on the daily menu on-set?

My favourite is a drink, it’s the iced tea. I also like M&Ms but I’m only supposed to have the yellow or orange ones or my mouth will change colours which annoys the people who do makeup... I don’t want to stress them out. I like beef jerky and ramen bowls too but they usually hide those on the truck so you have to ask for them special. For lunch I like trying the new things but my favourite most recent new food was crunchy pork! The 3rd ADs are so nice and deliver the food to my trailer but I like to go for a walk after we eat in the trailer and say hi to the catering people and look at the dessert. On this last project, they learned I liked watermelon on the first day and kept keeping special watermelon for me.

You recently wrapped Coyote Creek Christmas, your first Hallmark Christmas Movie! Congratulations! You worked opposite Ryan Paevey (as your father) and Janel Parrish, tell us about your experience working with Ryan and Janel.

Ryan and Janel are the best humans. They are both down to earth, kind, patient, friendly, funny, loving, talented, and FUN. It was so much fun to work with them because they treated me like a real friend and with a lot of respect. They included me in all of their talks and fun, and never made me feel like I was annoying them because I am a kid. I was very excited to see them every day and now I ask to see their Instagram posts because I love looking at their pictures! I am not surprised they work a lot, they are so good at acting and being around them is so easy. Ryan knows everything about bugs and Pokémon. Both of them are obsessed with dogs and when they saw someone walk by with a dog, they would hug and kiss the dogs... random dogs! It was really funny. They taught me a lot of acting tips also, both on purpose and by accident.

We saw on Instagram that Ryan took you to see Free Guy at the movie theater! Was it easy for you to bond as father-son?

It was easy and instant and it feels like I’ve always known Ryan as a real uncle or something. Sometimes when I am someone’s kid in a movie, I have to do real acting to pretend I am their kid, not because they aren’t nice but because I don’t know them well and I don’t really get to know them too well on the project. With Ryan I didn’t really have to do any acting to pretend I knew him, because I got to know him fast.

What can you share about your character, Noah Bailey?

I don’t think I can say too many spoilers, but I will say that Noah gets to be sarcastic and funny, and I love that. I don’t get to be funny on a MOW (movie of the week) usually, I just get to be cute or scared or sad. Noah was supposed to be a 10-year-old so I got to do some smart lines! And we have some funny scenes too. Ryan said one of the scenes we have together is his favourite scene he has ever done because it’s so funny and cute, and I thought that was really cool.

You can now cross this career goal off your list! Why was a Hallmark Christmas Movie on your bucket list; what do you (and your family) enjoy about them each holiday season?

Christmas movies are the kind of movies you watch every year like a tradition and I love things that are a tradition. My family lives in Vancouver, Canada but MOST of my family lives in America so we don’t get to see them at Christmas. I wanted to be in a Christmas movie so my family far away could see me on the TV at Christmas when they are missing me and so I can watch the movie with my kids when I’m a grown up and say “haha that is me!” For Christmas my family puts up a tree and we eat really good food. We also watch Christmas movies like Rankin/Bass movies, Home Alone, and Die Hard which is definitely a Christmas movie. I basically love everything about Christmas, especially the decorating. My birthday is 2 days after Christmas so I think I’m a Christmas Boy for sure.

Is it funny to see Christmas decorations and fake snow in the summer?

It was a little bit funny but it was also confusing! My brain kept forgetting what season it was. My mom warned me over and over again with every Christmas movie audition that it would be hot, but the joke was on her because we actually had some days that were cold! There were only one or two reallllly hot outside days. We got very lucky. I think the times it was hot on set it was mostly because of the gear and no air conditioning being on. Air conditioning is too loud for movies, I think. It wrecks the sound or something.

You are set to star in the short film Dragon Fruit. What can you share about this project?

Dragon Fruit is going to be so good. The Director, Jeremy Brown, is really nice and smart and made the whole experience really special for all the actors. His props and special effects are amazing... he makes them almost all himself... and the film is going to be... guess what... a sci-fi! It’s post-apocalyptic. A funny thing about it is that I am very dirty in the film so I would go to set clean and they would basically put fake dirt all over me and make my hair messy, then when I left they would clean me up! On one of the shoot dates I had to do a live interview in the middle of the day for another project, so they had to make me dirty, clean me up, and then make me dirty again, and then clean me up again!

Yvonne Chapman will play your mother. She is remarkable in the CW’s Kung Fu as Zhilan. Did it surprise you to see her as the villain in the show?

I was shocked she was a villain because in real life she is definitely NOT a villain type, she is so nice. She is obviously very good at acting! But I am not surprised she is so tough in that show because she does some really tough things in Dragon Fruit too! Yvonne is really nice to work with also, she sits and talks to me and makes jokes with me. I am wrapped on Dragon Fruit now which is sort of sad, because we did it for like 6 months or something, but at least it means the film will be out soon.

You have a part in the action sci-fi Moonfall out next year, and you even made it into the teaser trailer! How exciting! While you likely cannot say much about Sonny Child, what can you share about your initial reaction to booking this movie?

Everything about Moonfall was very exciting. The audition was one of the first ones I got after the forced break by COVID and when we saw it was in Montreal and they were auditioning kids all over Canada we thought it was a long shot, but auditions are opportunities that can be very rare, so you should always do an audition if you are comfortable with it, and always do your best. Anyway yeah, this one was far from Vancouver so when I booked it, we were extra shocked and grateful. Honestly even after the booking, we were not sure it would really happen because of the virus and how things changed every day, so we did not even believe it would happen until we were on the plane! Montreal was the best, I loved it there so much, and I hope I get to work at Grande Studios again!

Did you get to meet and interact with your director, Roland Emmerich? What did you learn from him, and had you (or maybe your parents!) watched any of his previous films?

Yes of course, Roland was the Director so he directed me! Before we left, I watched Independence Day and I was very impressed and thought “This guy really knows what he is doing! I better know my role well!” Roland was very nice and so was Harald (Kloser). They both gave me lots of compliments and I loved that! It was very full-on too, I worked every minute of my time on set there with the exception of my legal breaks and lunch. I loved it so much and I hope I will get to work with Roland on another project someday. I don’t know how to specifically describe what I learned without spoilers, but yeah it was a huge learning opportunity.

What is your favourite object you have gotten to take home from any set?

It’s impossible to choose just one! These are in no order, ok? The first thing is actually TECHNICALLY a lot of things because I often get to take home wardrobe from my character’s “closet” when we wrap. I am obsessed with clothes and was given really cool clothing from the costumers on many sets. Most recently I got a mint hoody I love. I audition in those clothes a lot for good luck. The second thing is a special prop that Jeremy Brown MADE me on Dragon Fruit as a wrap gift. There is a super cool secret weapon in the movie that I will not spoil, and Jeremy MADE me a safer toy version of it. Before my mom saw it was a toy version, she looked very scared when he handed it to me! Third, there are two special items Noah Bailey ALWAYS has with him in Coyote Creek Christmas (no spoilers!) and Ryan, David Strasser (the Director), and Antonio Cupo (the Executive Producer) presented them to me TO KEEP AS GIFTS at wrap in front of the whole crew. It was very special. I am saving these things forever, even some of the clothes! AND one more ok? Fourth, I get to keep the signs that say my name on my set chair and/or trailer door during projects. I hang those up on my wall in my room.

Is there a dream role or character you would like to play in the future? If not character, are there any specific film/TV genres or franchises you would like to be in?

Ok so here’s the thing. I had a few wishes that I wanted to come true in acting... one was the Christmas movie... and one was to play a very specific other actor’s sibling in something. GUESS WHAT? Both those things came true in 2021. Do you know the odds of that sibling thing coming true... my mom said it seemed impossible! But it did come true SOMEHOW. So now I am setting my goals super high and not worrying about how impossible they seem or how many there are. My biggest next goal is to be in Marvel ANYTHING. And you know what, I think Ryan should be in Marvel too, so I think my next goal is to be in Marvel with Ryan! I also want to be a voice of a video game character pretty badly! I also want to do some comedy!

What are your favourite places to visit or eat at in Vancouver?

I am obsessed with sushi and Korean food and lately my favourite place is Shabusen Yakiniku House because you can get both. There’s also a place on Granville Street called The Colony that has a bunch of old arcade games and I love that place too but we haven’t been since before COVID. I hope it’s still there.

You also enjoy other forms of arts like ballet, reading, and writing comics. How do you find the time for all your activities, school, and your growing career in film?

Oh I have a lot of free time. It’s weird. It sounds like I do a lot of stuff but lots of other kids tell me they do like 10 activities really well! I don’t want to do 10 activities because I really like relaxing, so instead of doing like 10, I want to do a few and just do them really well. Ballet is great because I feel like a ninja in the clothes, I don’t have to audition to do it, and it’s definitely a sport. Reading and writing comics I can do while relaxing, and even when I’m on set!

Tell us about the role your parents play in your life and career, not only for you but your brother as well! You keep them busy, but they must be so supportive of you.

My mom does mostly all the acting stuff like keeping track of the auditions and taping and going to set. My dad is a little nervous about going to set for some reason, but I think he would be fine! We are very busy but no one seems to ever complain. The only time it’s a little sad is when we are apart for long during filming but we always do video calls then.

For other young actors like yourself, do you have any advice for how to be confident in front of the camera? What (or who) has helped you prepare for roles and memorize lines?

I think to feel confident you have to know what you are doing. I was confident when I was 3 for some random reason, and then I took some acting classes at LeBlanc School of Acting and those helped me know what I was doing for sure. I have had lots of coaches teach me stuff like Julian, Athena, Kirsten, Natalie, Brian, and Beatrice are a few of their names. Sorry if I forgot anyone! For most specific auditions, I use the things ALL those people taught me and then I work with my brother on the specific scripts. Oh and on the set of my last movie, my new actor friend Naomi King told me that you should learn the scene not the lines... but you will definitely learn the lines once you learn the scene!

We have our signature question for you – if you could be any ice cream flavour, which would you be and why?

Well... I would not want to be ice cream! But if I had to be, I’d definitely be Green Tea or Mango.

Thanks for the insight into your projects and thoughts, Azi! We cannot wait to see you return to action on our screens, and follow as your career grows. To stay up to date on Azi’s upcoming projects and get a behind the scenes look into his busy and exciting life, follow him on Instagram.

Photo credit (top) to: Candace Woods Special thanks to: NoodleHead Productions

2 notes · View notes

dc-earth53 · 4 years

Photo

0012 - Oracle (Barbara Gordon)

Age: 38

Occupation: Librarian, detective, former adventurer, congresswoman.

Marital status: Single

Known relatives: James Gordon (father), Eileen Gordon (mother), Sarah Essen Gordon (stepmother, deceased), James Gordon Jr. (brother).

Group affiliation: Birds of Prey, Gotham Knights, formerly Suicide Squad, Justice League of America.

Base of operations: Gotham Clock Tower, Gotham City, New Jersey

Height: 5’7”

Weight: 126 lbs.

History:

38 years ago: Barbara Gordon is born to James Gordon and his first wife, Eileen.

22 years ago: Barbara befriends Katarina Armstrong in high school, their friendship ending about a year later when Armstrong trips her on the running track during a race.

20 years ago: The first reports of a “Bat-Man” in Gotham City start coming in, and Barbara becomes obsessed.

18 years ago: Barbara eavesdrops on a conversation between her father and Batman, and her obsession only grows. She soon enrolls in self-defense classes, getting a black belt in a short amount of time.

17 years ago:

Barbara applies for the Gotham City Police Academy, but is rejected by her father. To spite him, she fashions a feminine version of Batman’s costume to wear to a masquerade ball held by the GCPD. The newly christened “Batgirl” stumbles upon a scheme by Killer Moth, and played a crucial part in defeating the costumed criminal.

Batgirl soon befriends Batman and Robin, having a close working relationship with the latter.

16 years ago:

Batgirl and Supergirl meet, working together to defeat Mr. Mxyzptlk.

Gordon gets a job at the Gotham City Public Library after graduating from Gotham University with a degree in Library Science.

15 years ago: Barbara meets private investigator Jason Bard, and the two begin dating.

13 years ago: Barbara runs for Congress and is elected, leaving Gotham City and Bard behind for Washington D.C, continuing her adventures as Batgirl during her downtime.

11 years ago: Barbara loses her bid for re-election, returning to Gotham and briefly rekindling her relationship with Bard. She participates in the fight against the Anti-Monitor with the rest of Earth’s heroes.

10 years ago:

Barbara is shot in the spine by the Joker and paralyzed from the waist down, as part of the lunatic’s campaign to prove that just a single bad day can drive anyone mad.

Though confined to a wheelchair, Barbara is still determined to fight crime in her own way. She develops an advanced computer system and aids Amanda Waller’s Task Force X under the pseudonym of “Oracle.”

8 years ago:

Oracle founds the Birds of Prey, an all-female team of superheroes including Black Canary and Huntress operating out of Gotham Clock Tower.

Oracle is asked by Batman to join the Justice League of America.

Gordon comes into contact online with Ted Kord, the Blue Beetle, and the two hit it off, forming a long-distance relationship.

7 years ago: During the aftermath of the cataclysmic earthquake that hit Gotham City, Barbara recruits Cassandra Cain as a field agent, noticing her talents in martial arts, and starts training her to be the new Batgirl.

6 years ago:

Feeling used by Batman after his manipulation of her during a major gang war in Gotham, Oracle relocates her operations to Metropolis.

Gordon starts treatments with Dr. Pieter Cross to begin curing her paralysis, regaining a small amount of movement in her toes. She also starts using a special harness to walk for short periods of time.

5 years ago:

Oracle joins forces with the rest of Earth’s heroes to bring down Maxwell Lord and the Brother Eye satellite after Lord murders Kord.

Gordon and Armstrong, under the alias of Spy Smasher, come into conflict when Armstrong attempts to take over the Birds of Prey.

4 years ago

Cassandra Cain steps down from the role of Batgirl, passing it to Stephanie Brown, who begins training under Barbara.

2 years ago: A psychopathic James Gordon Jr. returns to Gotham, kidnapping Barbara. She stabs him through the eye, holding him off long enough for Nightwing and her father to come to her aid.

1 year ago: Jason Bard returns, revealing himself to be in league with Hush. Oracle, Batgirl, and the Red Hood team up to defeat him.

Present day: Oracle and the Birds of Prey fight against the Joker after he kidnaps Barbara’s mother, saying he’ll release her if Barbara marries him.

Commentary:

My Nightwing post wasn’t as controversial as I thought it would be, so here goes nothing...

This is Barbara Gordon. Former Batgirl, current Oracle and Oracle for the foreseeable future. Yes, the Killing Joke still happens in this timeline, no, she doesn’t return to active duty, and yes, she’s roughly fifteen years older than in mainstream continuity. Deal with it.

This Babs takes a lot of inspiration from her pre-Crisis portrayal, which has been all but forgotten about these days. There, she was a fully grown librarian and a Congresswoman for a time (a plot that didn’t really amount to anything there, but certainly would send waves here - remember when Gabrielle Giffords was shot? That’s the impact The Killing Joke would have here, with Babs having only recently lost her bid for re-election). This also means she’s older than in canon, making a relationship with Dick Grayson impractical during her early years but in turn giving her a closer bond with Black Canary, her lesbian lover- I mean... well, just look at how Gail Simone writes them!

Aaaaanywayyyy.... Barbara, like Nightwing, is another one of those Bat-family characters who has branched out to the universe as a whole, truly becoming her own character apart from Batman’s aegis. She’s built her own network of operatives with the Birds of Prey, and serves as the chief information broker for the superhero community at large, being badass even though she can’t be in the field that often.

I also didn’t keep her entirely crippled - with some difficulty and the aid of a special harness, this Babs can traverse short distances on her own two feet, although she doesn’t usually leave the clock tower with it on - it’s a good compromise between leaving her permanently in the chair and having her disability handwaved away by super-science like in the New 52.

And don’t fret, New 52 Batgirl fans - I haven’t forgotten about Burnside or the stylish as hell Batgirl costume Babs wore there. I have plans for all that, just you wait.

Speaking of costumes... she wears comfortable civilian clothes as Oracle, appearing as that weird green translucent head when speaking digitally to those who don’t know her identity. That’s all I’ve got for her.

Next up: Hakwman and Hawkwoman!

#dc #dc comics #earth 53 #profile #oracle #batgirl #barbara gordon #birds of prey #bat family

11 notes · View notes

guernsey-island · 4 years

Note

Please answer 1-98 >:3

Weird asks that say a lot

1. coffee mugs, teacups, wine glasses, water bottles, or soda cans? water bottles 2. chocolate bars or lollipops? chocolate bars 3. bubblegum or cotton candy? cotton candy, though I don't like either very much 4. how did your elementary school teachers describe you? I don't know 5. do you prefer to drink soda from soda cans, soda bottles, plastic cups or glass cups? plastic cups??? 6. pastel, boho, tomboy, preppy, goth, grunge, formal or sportswear? sportswear I guess 7. earbuds or headphones? I only have earbuds right now, but I like both 8. movies or tv shows? tv shows, but that doesn't mean I don't like movies too 9. favorite smell in the summer? the ocean 10. game you were best at in p.e.? capture the flag 11. what you have for breakfast on an average day? whatever I can find 12. name of your favorite playlist? "Good Songs :D" 13. lanyard or key ring? key ring 14. favorite non-chocolate candy? I don't particularly like any non-chocolate candy. Too artificial and sweet :/ 15. favorite book you read as a school assignment? Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes 16. most comfortable position to sit in? leaning back and with my legs out 17. most frequently worn pair of shoes? white converse 18. ideal weather? raining or a mild temperature like 80 degrees F paired with high humidity 19. sleeping position? I fall asleep on my side and wake up on my back 20. preferred place to write (i.e., in a note book, on your laptop, sketchpad, post-it notes, etc.)? Google docs heheh 21. obsession from childhood? I was one of those warrior cats kids (no, I didn't pretend to be warrior cats at recess) 22. role model? Snickers 23. strange habits? popping my back, checking sunset/sunrise times 24. favorite crystal? all crystals are great 25. first song you remember hearing? Counting Stars by OneRepublic 26. favorite activity to do in warm weather? hiking 27. favorite activity to do in cold weather? reading 28. five songs to describe you? Modern Loneliness- Lauv // Scared of Heights- Loving Caliber // backpack- slchld // By Now- Will Jay // Come True- khai dreams, Forrest., Biskwiq 29. best way to bond with you? don't annoy me 30. places that you find sacred? the beach when no one is there or deep in the mountains 31. what outfit do you wear to kick ass and take names? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 32. top five favorite vines? road work ahead, jared 19, damn daniel, 2 bros chillin in a hot tub, x files theme 33. most used phrase in your phone? probably >:3 34. advertisements you have stuck in your head? that spotify ad about peter and jumping/skipping rope. IF you knew what an 8track tape was!! 35. average time you fall asleep? ~2:30am 36. what is the first meme you remember ever seeing? the pepe the frog memes 37. suitcase or duffel bag? suitcase 38. lemonade or tea? lemonade but tea is also superb 39. lemon cake or lemon meringue pie? lemon cake bc I've never had lemon meringue pie 40. weirdest thing to ever happen at your school? I don't really remember. Let's go with Mr. Rightmyer and Mr. Mikow in general (ig matrix_multiplication). or maybe the time Sami put a lamp on her head and pretended to be Shaggy 41. last person you texted? Snickers 42. jacket pockets or pants pockets? jacket pockets 43. hoodie, leather jacket, cardigan, jean jacket or bomber jacket? hoodie 44. favorite scent for soap? hmmm something tropical 45. which genre: sci-fi, fantasy or superhero? sci-fi 46. most comfortable outfit to sleep in? clothing 47. favorite type of cheese? swiss or colby jack or parmigiano-reggiano 48. if you were a fruit, what kind would you be? peaches bc they're the best fruit 49. what saying or quote do you live by? "you become what you think about" "success is the progressive realization of a worthy goal or ideal"- Earl Nightingale "the opposite of courage is not cowardice, it is conformity" "sanity and happiness are an impossible combination"- Mark Twain "If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading"- Lao Tzu "failure will never overtake me if my determination to succeed is strong enough" - Og Mandino 50. what made you laugh the hardest you ever have? let's go with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TilHylia7rE and more recently, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voncdcV648g 51. current stresses? upcoming exams, writing essays 52. favorite font? My current favorites are Frank Ruhl Libre, Overlock, and Rajdhani 53. what is the current state of your hands? good, though I perpetually have a bump on one finger from writing too much 54. what did you learn from your first job? job?? what job? 55. favorite fairy tale? three little pigs 56. favorite tradition? sleeping 57. the three biggest struggles you’ve overcome? I don't know 58. four talents you’re proud of having? Freestyling (ground moves and juggling), shooting knuckleballs, popping my back really well, running a 5-6 minute mile 59. if you were a video game character, what would your catchphrase be? I don’t know what my catchphrase would be 60. if you were a character in an anime, what kind of anime would you want it to be? a shonen where the protagonist is trying to survive in a crazy world, become the best at something, or master some special power (examples: tower of god or solo leveling if it was an anime) OR something with a mafia 61. favorite line you heard from a book/movie/tv show/etc.? "Well, if you only knew how little I really know about the things that matter"- Elio in cmbyn the movie (think about this quote all the time) "Let us cultivate our garden"-Candide in Candide by Voltaire “The bird fights its way out of the egg. The egg is the world. Who would be born must first destroy a world. The bird flies to God. That God's name is Abraxas.”- Sinclair in Demian by Hermann Hesse “I wanted only to live in accord with the promptings which came from my true self. Why was that so very difficult?”- Sinclair in Demain by Hermann Hesse “Know yourself and go in swinging.”- More than this by Patrick Ness “Just leave me alone. I’m not myself. I’m falling apart, and I don’t want you here.”- Charlie in Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes Tons of quotes and references from Arthur, httyd, and other media 62. seven characters you relate to? Lance (vld), zuko (atla), okonkwo (things fall apart), nwoye (things fall apart), bokuto (haikyuu), sinclair (demian), hiccup (httyd) 63. five songs that would play in your club? Wednesday Girl- Elijah Who, Aso, Peachy!, Kudasaibeats, slchld // Way Back Home- SHAUN, Conor Maynard, Sam Feldt // Let Me Down Slow (Acoustic)- New Hope Club // Crush Culture- Conan Gray // All Night Long- TAEYEON, LUCAS 64. favorite website from your childhood? animal jam 65. any permanent scars? I have a ton of scars on my legs and knees. I ran into a cart at staples once and have a big scar from that. I have a few scars on my elbows too 66. favorite flower(s)? columbine (CO state flower) 67. good luck charms? none 68. worst flavor of any food or drink you’ve ever tried? I have no idea 69. a fun fact that you don’t know how you learned? I don’t know 70. left or right handed? right 71. least favorite pattern? cheetah or zebra print 72. worst subject? hmmm biology but only bc I don't put in the effort 73. favorite weird flavor combo? I don't know. I like food 74. at what pain level out of ten (1 through 10) do you have to be at before you take an advil or ibuprofen? I don't think I've experienced enough pain to accurately answer this question. I've only taken ibuprofen once (when I got my wisdom teeth taken out), but I didn't think it was that necessary to take 75. when did you lose your first tooth? probably when I was six 76. what’s your favorite potato food (i.e. tater tots, baked potatoes, fries, chips, etc.)? scalloped potatoes, hash browns, Spanish tortillas, potato salad, mashed potatoes 77. best plant to grow on a windowsill? aloe vera 78. coffee from a gas station or sushi from a grocery store? sushi from a grocery store 79. which looks better, your school id photo or your driver’s license photo? school ID 80. earth tones or jewel tones? earth tones 81. fireflies or lightning bugs? they're called fireflies 82. pc or console? pc 83. writing or drawing? writing 84. podcasts or talk radio? podcasts 84. barbie or polly pocket? no 85. fairy tales or mythology? mythology 86. cookies or cupcakes? cookies 87. your greatest fear? Accidentally biting off my tongue and then choking on it, seeing things in mirrors, being stabbed with a knife as I enter a hotel elevator, receiving emails 88. your greatest wish? Happiness??? I don’t know 89. who would you put before everyone else? Snickers 90. luckiest mistake? I don't know 91. boxes or bags? boxes 92. lamps, overhead lights, sunlight or fairy lights? sunlight 93. nicknames? let's not talk abt that,,, 94. favorite season? spring or summer 95. favorite app on your phone? google play books, goodreads, tumblr, kakaotalk, spotify, google keep 96. desktop background? it's a slideshow. the background at the moment is a photo of Manarola, Italy taken by Peter Hegedus. It's one of my favorite photographs of all time 97. how many phone numbers do you have memorized? three not including 911 (so four) 98. favorite historical era? 1300s in the Mongol empire or around when the spice trade was at its peak, 1800s in America during westward expansion, 1920s, ancient egypt, Harlem Renaissance

#ask #queen-defender-on-ice

3 notes · View notes

lilyjcollins-news · 5 years

Text

Lily Collins :“I want to dig deep, tell the truth and be more brave” by Jane Mulkerrins.

(click here to see the photoshoot and here to go to the website.)

The day before we meet, Lily Collins had what felt like a breakthrough encounter. At the end of a short, on-camera interview, the journalist had asked where she lived. Los Angeles, she told him, where her mother was born and raised, and where she has lived since the age of five, when her parents divorced. He then asked where her father lived. England, and partly in the US now, too, she answered. And what did her father do for a living? After some stifled giggling from the crew, Collins, who has just turned 30, gently explained her parentage. “And the guy just looked at me with the biggest eyes,” she laughs. “He’s like, ‘I’m sorry, what did you just say? Oh God, now I feel silly.’”

She insists that she was very grateful for his ignorance. “I’m so proud of my family, but I have also worked really hard to carve my own path and to not have that define me.’”

The daughter of superstar musician Phil Collins and his second wife, Jill Tavelman, she admits that her famous surname has inevitably opened doors, but insists that nobody has ever “made a phone call” for her. “I did get told that I could have other ways in,” she shrugs, when we meet on a rainy New York afternoon. “but I never wanted to give anyone the opportunity to say: ‘Well, she only got X or Y because of that.’ I knew it would take longer to do it on my own, but it would be so much more worth it.”

Collins’s insistence on carving her own path is now paying off, with two high-profile films – Tolkien, and Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, and the US launch of the BBC miniseries Les Miserables, for which her performance as the tragic Fantine is already creating some early awards buzz.

Tolkien, a biopic of the author’s early life, stars Nicholas Hoult as JRR Tolkien, the philologist and author of The Hobbit and the Lord of the Ringsseries, while Collins plays Edith Bratt, his childhood sweetheart and, later, his wife, who was the inspiration for Lúthien Tinúviel, the elvish princess in Tolkien’s Middle-earth. “I had auditioned to play an elven character in one of Peter Jackson’s movies, and I didn’t get it… but I’ve ended up playing the woman who inspired the elven princess,” grins Collins. It is her most mainstream, highly anticipated film to date, and a world away from the romcom roles she was getting five years ago. While there’s a heavy focus on Tolkien’s male friendships – the inspirations for his “fellowship” in his books, Bratt is fully fleshed-out and three-dimensional, too, not some flimsy, token love interest. “She was very creative and very passionate and driven, and he was intellectually stimulated by her,” says Collins. Bratt and Tolkien were both orphans. “At that time women of her status and in her position weren’t really afforded the opportunity to seek higher,” says Collins. “But she encouraged him to continue on his path. It’s very selfless, and, at times, heartbreaking.”

She sees a similar selflessness in Fantine, her once-vivacious character in Les Miserables, who becomes a prostitute and sells her hair and teeth in order to feed her child. “I died on day two of filming,” says Collins, with a laugh. She sent a picture of herself in character to her mother, who replied, “No one should have to see their daughter like this.”

“My choices have tended to go quite dark,” admits Collins of her recent roles. Just three days ago, she finished filming Inheritance, a forthcoming thriller in which she stars alongside Simon Pegg. “That’s incredibly dark, too. I really enjoy playing these characters that, under the surface, have so much more going on than they are saying, or who seem like they are barely keeping it together.

“I’ve always believed that asking for help is not a weakness, it’s a strength,” she continues. “I have a tattoo that says: ‘True delicacy is not a fragile thing.’ You can look delicate, but it doesn’t mean that you’re fragile.” I surmise, from her having it made permanent in ink, that people have, perhaps, underestimated her in the past.

Undoubtedly the darkest of her recent projects is Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile, about the serial killer Ted Bundy, who murdered more than 30 girls and women in seven US states in the 1970s. The title comes from the judge’s summation of Bundy’s acts when sentencing him to death. Collins plays Elizabeth Kloepfer, the killer’s long-term girlfriend who is convinced of his innocence, with Zac Efron playing a charismatic and persuasive Bundy.

While preparing for the role, over the Christmas holidays, Collins recounts how she would wake every night at 3.05am. “I would go downstairs and have a cup of tea, trying to figure out why I had woken up again.” Then, she says, “I started being woken up by flashes of images, like the aftermath of a struggle.” She went to the internet to investigate. “I discovered that 3am is the time when the veil between the realms is the thinnest and one can be visited.” She began to believe women who were murdered by Bundy were, perhaps, trying to contact her. “I didn’t feel scared – I felt supported. I felt like people were saying: “We’re here listening. We’re here to support. Thank you for telling the story.”

Collins tells me all of this in a completely matter-of-fact manner, as if receiving messages from long-dead murder victims were a perfectly normal part of preparing for a film. It’s pretty much the only moment in our time together when she seems more Californian than British. Even her looks – porcelain skin, dark hair and dramatic eyebrows – are eminently more London than LA. And, while in person her accent is pure California, on screen in Tolkien, her clipped, turn-of-the-century English consonants and vowels are flawless, as are her more working-class ones for Fantine. She looks deeply relieved when I tell her so. “I did worry that people were going to be like, ‘Well, she is actually British, her accent should really be better,’” she laughs. “There’s an extra level of pressure. I worked with a dialect coach as I needed it to be absolutely spot-on.”

Collins was born in Guildford, Surrey, at the height of her father’s success – six months later he would release Another Day in Paradise. Is it true, I ask, that Elton John used to babysit her? “I’ve really got to sit my parents down and ask them questions about that. I’ve been hearing it for so long, but I really have no idea,” she says.

After relocating with her mother to LA at the age of five, following her parents’ divorce, she attended the prestigious Harvard-Westlake school, where former pupils include Maggie and Jake Gyllenhaal, and began auditioning for film and TV roles. “I was getting told ‘no’ all the time,” she says, which she puts down simply to a lack of experience. “I’d done musicals and plays at school, but I hadn’t studied acting or anything, and auditioning for film and TV is very different.”

At the same time, journalism held an appeal, too. “I wanted to be the youngest-ever talk show host,” she says. After pitching ideas to magazine editors, she began writing for Teen Vogue and Elle Girl, and scored a job as a reporter for the children’s channel Nickelodeon, covering the 2008 presidential election and Obama’s inauguration. “I was 18 and I could just vote, so I was like, ‘Oh great, I get to ask all the questions that I don’t know the answers to.’” What she liked less, however, were the questions she had to ask as a roving reporter on the red carpet. “I would think, oh, that’s not what I really want to ask this person, I would hate to be asked that,” she recalls. On the other side of the microphone now, there are questions she simply doesn’t answer, about her personal life, or about politics, on which she refuses to be drawn.

She studied broadcast journalism at the University of Southern California, but dropped out in her second year when, in 2009, after several years of auditioning, she won her first film role, as Sandra Bullock’s daughter in The Blind Side. Soon after, she was perfectly cast as Snow White in Mirror Mirror, followed by Rosie Dunne in Love, Rosie, the adaptation of Cecelia Ahern’s novel Where Rainbows End.

Though acting has clearly won out over journalism and talk show ambitions are on hold for now, Collins is still a keen writer. In 2017, she published Unfiltered: No Shame, No Regrets, Just Me, a collection of personal essays in which she opened up about her struggles and self-doubts, her relationship with her father, with partners, and with her own body, writing about the eating disorders she battled for some years. “A lot of young women write to me on social media [she has more than 14m followers on Instagram], saying, ‘I just wanted to let you know that this is my situation and my insecurity, not that you would ever be able to relate to it…’ and I’ll always be like, ‘No, I really can relate,’” she insists.

Collins describes in Unfiltered how, as a child, she had only positive associations with food, but that changed when she turned 16. Her father was separating from her stepmother, his third wife, while Lily was juggling school, a budding modelling career, a social life and trying to break into acting, too. “My life felt out of control,” she writes. “I couldn’t handle the pain and confusion surrounding my dad’s divorce, and I was having a hard time balancing being a teenager with pursuing two different grown-up careers – both of which I’d chosen myself, but which also focused heavily on how I looked.” She began starving herself, exercising obsessively and became addicted to diet pills and laxatives, habits which continued well into her early 20s.

She pitched the book proposal during a dry spell in acting. “I hadn’t booked anything film-wise for a while, and I was itching to do something. The idea for the book had been at the back of my mind for a while, and I thought, well, maybe now’s the time.” Soon after, she was also sent the script for To The Bone, a film about a young woman with chronic anorexia. “It was too big a message to ignore,” recalls Collins. She attended group therapy sessions with recovering anorexics. “I didn’t want them thinking that I was just coming in to be nosy. I wanted them to know that I actually could relate. It encouraged me to really dig deep and tell the truth, to be more brave. And it was freeing,” she says. Collins sent a copy of the book to Michelle Obama “on a whim. I wanted to reach out to certain people and just thank them for being an inspirational woman, someone who I look up to,” she says. “I certainly never expected to receive a letter back thanking me and saying the same thing. I need to get that letter framed.”

This summer, she’s heading to France to film Emily in Paris, the new comedy-drama from Sex and the City creator Darren Star. “I knew I had so much baggage that I needed to get rid of in order to take on the baggage of all my characters,” she says. “And the second I did that, my career and my personal life opened up in a whole new way.” Collins, it seems, having been drawn to the darkness, professionally and personally, is now heading towards the light.

vía The Observer Magazine.

#lily collins #interview #magazine #the observer #to the bone #Extremely Wicked Shockingly Evil and Vile #tolkien #unfiltered

7 notes · View notes

neurotribe · 5 years

Text

“I was Israel Folau.” or “What hill are you prepared to die on?”

I think it was the first time Bishop Tom Wright visited Australia. I was at his public lecture at St Hilary’s Anglican Church in Kew. Wright began with the following statement:

“About a third of what I am going to tell you is wrong, however I do not know which third, because I believe I am completely correct.”

Honestly, it is the only part of his presentation I remember clearly. Upon reflection I recall the looks of shock and confusion upon the faces of audience members, including many a PhD candidate, as one of the most prolific New Testament scholars going round begins his public lecture on Beauty and the problem of Evil. I laughed and recall the way in which this opening invited (and continues to invite me), definitely not a PhD candidate at the time, to participate in what was a dense theological reflection.

I have told that story many times since and I have used this opening myself on countless occasions, especially as I regularly play the role of, and am considered by some to be a theological teacher and lecturer.

It is a great leveller, an egalitarian mechanic that brings the “teacher” and the “student” together in humility. “We learn together” is implied, as it should be.

In light of this encouragement, I have lost count of the things I used to fervently believe were true when I first came to faith as a fiery, passionate 17 year old. Some of those things I believed as a freshly minted convert, I still do. Some of those things are ones I shamefully and embarrassingly regret. Some of them were just downright funny. I think that if I were to discover time travel, I would go back to the 13th of December, 1988, the day after I made a commitment to live conscientiously as a Christian. I would tell my 17 year old self the story of Bishop NT Wright. Of course, the problem would be, would the passionate recent convert put any stock in anything the older and hopefully wiser me had to say? There are a couple of things that separate me from Israel Folau. I don’t nearly have his level of athleticism. I also don’t have anything near his level of wealth, and of course my public profile is virtually non existent compared to his.

There is however one other significant difference between myself and Folau, and that is the difference between the times in which we live. When I was a young, recent convert filled with fiery zeal, everything I said and did was not recorded and instantaneously uploaded to reside permanently “in the cloud” inviting global public scrutiny forever and ever amen. I often joke with my 40 something friends that there would be no way that any of us would be able to get jobs if the stuff we said and did left the kind of digital footprint it does in the present day.

I suspect that if Folau and I were to sit down and have a conversation, there would be allot of things that he believes now, that I did when I was his age.

Not a month goes by when I do not think about the illegal bootleg recording I made of New Order’s “Bizarre Love Triangle Tour” at their Festival Hall performance in 1987, prior to my conversion. I still recall the slight pang of regret as I tossed that beloved cassette tape onto the bonfire containing most of my vinyl records, a sizeable amount of books, comics, graphic novels and magazines as well. I can’t recall if I was encouraged to toss my Tolkien books onto the pile as the church I was part of at the time was split on whether he was ok or not.

I often think about that bonfire. I have replaced most of the music, sci fi and fantasy fiction material. The role playing material is a little more difficult to replace as some of those books don’t exist in physical or digital form anymore, except as rare editions worth thousands of dollars now. <Sigh> I destroyed things that I was led to believe were evil influences on my life and would hinder my development as a young Christian person. That quirky little church taught me many things. That these material possessions were “evil” and needed to be excised from my life were one of those beliefs. There were quite a few more quirky “beliefs” that I took on board and just the thought of confessing them publicly fills me embarrassment (don’t hold your breath, I am not about to do so!).

That quirky little pentecostal church also encouraged some beliefs that I still cling to. I remember being asked the question “who are you when no one is looking?” It was couched in a longer series of conversations about integrity, my lack of it, and how to cultivate it in my life. There are other beliefs that they instilled in those early, formative years. Oh how I would have appreciated Wright’s wisdom back then! Think of my awesome relics from the 80′s I could be sharing with my Stranger Things obsessed son!?

There is a saying popular in military circles, “is this the hill you are willing to die on?”. It begs the question, is this thing you are obsessing over, this thing you are fighting for right now, are you prepared to give it all? Is this the hill that you are prepared to fight for, and if need be, die on?

Folau believes that he is in the fight of his life, so much so that he is prepared to solicit the public in order to raise $3,000,000 Australian dollars. This is where it gets complicated.

Firstly what is he in fact fighting for? The popular phrase thrown around is that he is fighting a legal free speech test case. However it is not that straight forward. There are dimensions of unlawful dismissal (if it is indeed decided in a court of law that he was unlawfully dismissed), as well as the specific commercial dimensions of which ever agreements he reached with his employer regarding the nature of his contract, and of course whatever discussions were made behind closed doors regarding infractions of his contract prior to the last one that resulted in his dismissal.

These aspects are of no small consequence. It is important that the actions of both Folau and Rugby Australia be heard and decided upon, however, as I have already stated, this seems to be primarily about un/lawful dismissal, and not primarily about freedom of speech.

On the subject of freedom of speech, this is where it gets even more complicated, and if I am honest, frustrating for me as a person who identifies as a Christian, observing many others who also identify as Christian claiming that freedom of speech is at stake. The simple reason I find it difficult taking seriously all those who identify as Christian who are now banging on about freedom of speech is, why were they absolutely silent when Yassmin Abdel-Magied was brutalised by parts of the Australian media, exercising her right of free speech? Where were they when people bayed for her blood, called for her employers to sack her because of her public statements? Where was the spontaneous GoFundMe campaign to support here during this horrific example of racially based national bullying?

And that is just one of a few instances in recent times.

The pattern I see emerging is not a concern for “freedom of speech” rather “freedom for me/us to say what I/we want whilst a different set of rules apply when others who don’t share our values speak out”. To put it plainly, the stance smacks of hypocrisy, which unfortunately is perhaps one of the most common criticisms of Christianity not just in Australia, but around the world. In this instance we can once again see why.

If we (and yes, I am deliberately standing with my brothers and sisters who identify as Christian here and are feeling they need to protect Folau and consequently themselves as frustrating as it is for me to do so at the moment, you can pick your friends but you can’t pick your faith family) then it needs to be the defence of freedom of speech for all, and not just for us and ours. Again, I am reminded of Desmond Tutu’s passionate instruction for Christians not to hold power, but to hold power to account. When people of faith fight for the rights and protections of others there is something transcendent and noble about it. Conversely when Christian people feel they need to protect themselves, it tends to look a little ugly. And before you respond with statements including the word “persecution”, that is another conversation that needs to be had honestly. Persecution is one thing, the loss of privilege is another matter entirely.

If you are a person of faith and you claim, encouraged by the words of Desmond Tutu that you are indeed attempting to hold power to account, let me ask once again:

Is it really freedom of speech for all, or is it freedom of speech for one group in society and a different set of expectations for other groups who disagree?

Is it actually about freedom of speech, or is it more complicated than that? See my previous comments regarding unfair dismissal.

Now it gets really messy. You may be aware that a few days ago, Folau launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise $3,000,000 Australian. I deliberately said “raise $3,000,000″ and not “raise $3,000,000 to cover the costs of his legal fees” for a number of reasons.

It is estimated that Folou is already worth about AU $10,000,000. If he is in the fight of his life, and if he has estimated that it will cost him this much, why does he believe that, rather than using his own funds, he needs to elicit those funds from others? According to all of the public data available, he could easily cover those costs without needing public support.

There is a caveat, in small print on his GoFundMe profile page that states that he reserves the right to use those funds as he deems fit, and that those funds may not necessarily be used as part of his legal defence. If nothing else, this caveat is highly suspect and problematic.

A number of legal commentators have noted that a legal defence of this kind would cost in the vicinity of AU $300,000. If that is the case, why is he soliciting ten times that amount?

Finally, and more importantly, what will Folou think about his theological positions twenty or thirty years down the track? Will his position regarding interpreting the biblical material as it relates to sexuality change in any way? If not, will his position on how to engage others with biblical material whether it be via social media or in person shift significantly? Those are at least two ways in which Wright’s advice about 30% of our theology shifting and changing over the course of our lives can effect this issue as it unfolds in the public square.

Regardless, as I have been bashing away at the keys this morning, really simply trying to order my own thoughts and feelings on the matter, I received this message stating that his GoFundMe page has been taken down because it has breached the platforms guidelines. I have not read the detail, however, I wonder if this might not in fact be an invitation to pause, take a moment and ask individually and collectively, particularly in light of Jesus’ succinct summary of the gospel (love God, love neighbour as self and to love enemies), a summary that continues to challenge his followers then and now, is this really the hill that we want to die on?

#Theology #Discipleship #Folau

1 note · View note

filmstruck · 7 years

Photo

Interview with Ava Gardner: A Life in Movies Authors Anthony Uzarowski & Kendra Bean by Kimberly Lindbergs

FilmStruck has recently made a batch of Ava Gardner films available to stream and I decided to contact the authors of Ava Gardner: A Life in Movies to discuss the actress and her films. Anthony Uzarowski and Kendra Bean have also recorded an introduction for FilmStruck’s Ava Gardner collection available to subscribers now.

FilmStruck: To begin with, can you both tell me a little about yourselves, your backgrounds and what inspired you to collaborate on a book about Ava Gardner?

Anthony Uzarowski: I'm a writer and film historian and I also work as a collections assistant at the British Library. I studied film and languages at University College London, but my fascination for cinema goes way back to my childhood. I've always been fascinated with movie stars, particularly the old-timers. I remember falling in love with Marilyn Monroe when I was about 5— it was love at first sight. Ava was always very special to me because I was told she had been my grandfather's favorite movie star, I never met my grandfather so she became a link that connected me with him. I always identified with her free-spirited nature and her love of adventure and nocturnal lifestyle. Kendra and I first met through her wonderful website, vivandlarry.com. Our mutual love for Vivien Leigh and classic Hollywood brought us together and when we met in person, we became instant friends. I had been wanting to do a book about Ava for a long time– I started running a Facebook page for her back in 2009, and it soon became the largest FB page for Ava, with over 240,000 followers. It's still larger than the official page run by her estate.

After Kendra published her first book on Vivien Leigh, she suggested we collaborated on a project together, and of course Ava was an obvious subject. I'm so grateful to Kendra for giving me the confidence to go for it. If it wasn't for her, I don't know how long I would have waited before I'd feel 'ready' to write a book. Working together was a wonderful experience, and Ava, as a subject, proved to be everything I hoped for and more. We both really felt that Ava deserved a visual tribute to her life and work, and a book that would highlight her often underrated legacy as a screen star.

Kendra Bean: I'm a historian and currently work as the collections assistant at the National Science and Media Museum in Bradford, U.K. I did my B.A. in Film and Media Studies at the University of California, Irvine and then moved to London for an M.A. in Film Studies at King's College London (this was followed by an M.A. in Museum Studies). Like Anthony, I've always been obsessed with cinema. But it wasn't until college that I realized my passion for film history. In 2007 I launched the website vivandlarry.com, and online tribute to Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier. I've been fortunate to meet so many amazing people through the website, including Anthony, who was the Man of Honor at my wedding in 2016. My work with vivandlarry.com led to a book titled Vivien Leigh: An Intimate Portrait (Running Press, 2013). Afterward, I had a chat with my agent about what to do next and she suggested I try a different subject before continuing with my research on Vivien Leigh. Like Anthony said, we agreed to collaborate on a book about Ava, in part due to Anthony's social media reach with his Facebook page, and in part because she's a great subject. I didn't know much about Ava when we set out on this project, so it was really a process of discovery for me and it lead to great appreciation for her career and who she was as a person. Anthony was wonderful to work with. We encountered some pretty large obstacles when writing the book but we made it through and I'm very proud of the finished product!

FS: You're both working with FilmStruck right now to create introductions for the Ava Gardner movies we'll be streaming, so I have to ask: what are some of your favorite titles that FilmStruck has made available? And what film would you recommend to new viewers who may not be familiar with Gardner's work?

KB: I was honored to be invited to do film intros for a selection of early Vivien Leigh films that streamed on FilmStruck last October. It was a great experience! I'm a big fan of the Criterion Collection and was sad when Netflix dropped them from their streaming lineup a while back. So really, being able to view any Criterion/Janus Film titles are wonderful in my opinion. FilmStruck was recently launched in the U.K., which is cause for celebration, and I'm hoping they get licensing permission to stream films on the scale of their US counterpart. In terms of Ava films, I'm going to recommend BHOWANI JUNCTION (‘56). It's not as well-known as NIGHT OF THE IGUANA (‘64) or PANDORA AND THE FLYING DUTCHMAN (‘51), but it is an interesting historical film directed by George Cukor, in which Ava plays an Anglo-Indian woman struggling with identity issues amongst India's fight for independence from British rule. First of all, she looks stunning. I also consider her performance as Victoria Jones one of her strongest. Ava always talked down about her acting abilities but in this film she proves that she has emotional sensitivity and more depth than she ever gave herself credit for.

AU: BHOWANI JUNCTION is great! I agree with Kendra, Ava gives a very nuanced performance and I think that George Cukor is one of the directors who really knew how to get the best out of her. Ava was very insecure about her acting, she also never had a studied method or technique to rely on. In order to bring a character to life, she felt she needed to expose her own feelings and emotions, and that wasn't always easy for her. I personally love THE NIGHT OF THE IGUANA. I think the script by John Huston and Anthony Veiller (who had also written THE KILLERS (‘46) is one of the best adaptations of a Tennessee Williams play ever committed to screen, and Ava as Maxine is a revelation. She is warm, fiery, tender and heartbreaking. I think that the selection chosen by FilmStruck will be a very good showcasing of the evolution of Ava's style and the different facades of her career and her screen persona. Of course, MOGAMBO (‘53) and PANDORA AND THE FLYING DUTCHMAN are beautiful and iconic, but some of the later films are also very interesting—aside from THE NIGHT OF THE IGUANA—I think Ava gives one of her best later performances in SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (‘64). The script really doesn't give her very much to do, and her screen time is very limited, but Ava manages to craft a multilayered, complex character and her scenes are truly memorable.

FS: Ava is absolutely gorgeous and very sensual on screen, but she has an earthiness and timelessness that seems to set her apart from many of her Hollywood contemporaries. What do you think made her such a unique presence in so many great films? And why do you think modern audiences still find Ava so compelling?

AU: Such an interesting question! I completely agree, there is something very timeless about Ava's screen presence; she at once epitomizes classic Hollywood and is very contemporary. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Ava was entirely natural and spontaneous as a performer, even in her early films (THE HUCKSTERS (‘47), THE GREAT SINNER [‘49]) she is very authentic and fresh, there is no put-upon mannerism about any of her performances. It's significant that a lot of her best performances are in films she made outside of her home studio, MGM. Metro were famous for their very particular brand of manufactured glamour which can often appear dated and artificial today. Ava is at her best in films made on location, away from the constraints of a studio (MOGAMBO, ON THE BEACH (‘59), THE NIGHT OF THE IGUANA). I think another element that contributes to how relevant Ava is today is the way she lived her life–her independence and the choices she made were in many ways much more 2018 than 1950. KB: I think Ava was a true film star. She had screen presence and that something undefinable yet at the same time recognizable. She was earthy and soulful—especially as she grew older—and when she was cast in roles that she connected with on a personal level, she gave some great performances. I think people today find Ava compelling because she was memorable, sexy and mysterious at the same time. She didn’t play by the rules and lived her life the way she wanted to. As surely, her beauty still resonates with film fans today.

FS: Ava’s personal life is as fascinating as the films she appeared in, and one of the film’s streaming on FilmStruck is the documentary AVA GARDNER, THE GIPSY OF HOLLYWOOD (2017), which focuses on her life in Spain. Ava spent a lot of time there during Franco’s reign, which was a very turbulent time in Spanish history. Why do you think the country appealed to Ava? And how do you think it may have may have inspired or influenced her work?

AU: Ava's years in Spain are a huge part of her legend, her very name brings to mind images of Flamenco dancing, bullfighters and hedonistic fiestas. At the time, the fact that a major Hollywood star would dare to leave Hollywood and permanently relocate to another place was almost unprecedented—when around the same time Marilyn Monroe moved to New York—it caused a sensation. Ava's move to Europe transformed her from a successful actress to an international icon, synonymous with decadence and bohemian glamour. She lived alone and didn't apologize for it; she was independent and free-spirited, and it that sense Spain and its culture appealed to her. I don't think she took a very keen interest in the darker side of the political realities of Franco's regime. To her Spain meant dance-filled nights, exciting friendships, sexy men; all of which she enjoyed in abundance. Her life and her art certainly intertwined during this period. Many of her films during the 1950s took advantage of her real-life status as a glamorous, uninhibited expat. She also frequently played Spanish women, in the minds of the public, Ava and her adopted country were inextricably linked. Even today, decades later, Ava's spirit lingers on in the places she lived and worked. In the coastal village of Tossa de Mar, where PANDORA AND THE FLYING DUTCHMAN was shot, pictures of Ava adorn shops and cafes. In Madrid, tales of Ava's legendary escapades have become part of the local folklore. KB: I don’t think there is much to add to Anthony’s great response!

FS: Lastly, you’ve both written a lovely book (Ava Gardner: A Life in Movies) about the actress filled with gorgeous photos that I hope readers will seek out. What’s the one thing you learned about Ava while working on the book that really surprised you?

AU: I think the one thing that surprised me while researching the book was just how complex Ava was. Different people knew different Avas, and yet there's also a common thread– an unpretentious, generous spirit and a loyal friend. But within that, Ava was a bundle of contradictions: at once a wild and uninhibited man-eater and a shy romantic, a sophisticated woman of the world and a simple country girl, a talented and dedicated actress and someone who couldn't care less about her profession. And while it seems impossible to be all these things, it was the case with Ava.

KB: I actually knew very little about Ava before embarking on this project. I had to start from the beginning watching her films, reading all of the biographies and going though the archives. Looking back on it, I think I had preconceptions about Ava, that she was just a sex icon and there wasn’t much more to her than that. But as I learned more, I discovered she was more interesting than I previously gave her credit for. I especially enjoyed going through her letters to colleagues like George Cukor in the archives at the Margaret Herrick Library. She was very funny and good natured and didn’t seem to take life overly seriously. I found that refreshing. Working on this book made me into a fan. I think she was much more talented and multi-faceted than people tend to give her credit for.

#Ava Gardner #FilmStruck #Ava Gardner A Life In Movie #old hollywood #vintage #The Night of the Iguana #Bhowani Junction #Pandora and the Flying Dutchman #StreamLine Blog #Anthony Uzarowski #Kendra Bean #Kimberly Lindbergs

221 notes · View notes

ruwithmeguys · 6 years

Text

(These are just my own personal; thoughts: you may take zero seriousness in them - I may add to this)

So… John. Right.

Give me a moment…

There’s a lot, so much, to dig into here. It feels good to be talking about OTA, especially after months of newbies weirdness.

I need to air this out.

I posted something recently about my love for this show even with its many weaknesses. I still love it. I enjoyed 6.17, as god awful as it was to see Oliver being dragged through the mud again. I also don’t agree with Diggle; not with his words, because he didn’t suggest a thing: he has 100% made a decision about Oliver and it isn’t a good one. The path he’s decided to travel down however… is.

Bear with me?

For a while now, it’s been very clear that Arrow is the kind of show that gives good results but can’t seem to get a handle on the journey there. The journey often sucks: it’s either badly written, angst for the sake of angst, sacrificing character progression or just something you don’t want to see.

Best examples are: Oliver’s 7 episode lie leading to the Baby Mama drama, just to set Olicity back awhile because they knew S5 wouldn’t be the last season. The newbies drawn out reason for blaming Oliver for leaving the team just so that they could bring it up every 5 seconds for 5 episodes straight. LL’s BC arc where Sara was a plot device and then the arc died and nothing came of it.

It’s not always like this. There are good examples.

Tommy’s death led to the entirety of season 2. Olicity’s star-crossed season: a literal entire season near-dedicated to it and the journey was sweet etc.

But there have been enough moments for me to know that I might hate the newbie arc several episodes before it started. Too many components + little time = question-marks.

The term, ‘the ends don’t justify the means’, seems to only pertain to Oliver on Arrow… and Felicity. In a way, that’s a compliment to her. They’re equals. Of a higher status. But for the most part, it’s unfair. And every season it seems to be the theme. Make Oliver loose everyone, one way or another.

The newbies lashed out time and time again, then hurting John when all they really wanted was out from under Oliver’s shadow. John is ready for more, ready for weight, but he gets it by hurting his best friend 6.17. BS has killed people both for pleasure and to save her skin and yet, has received no consequence (though having Quentin’s stalker-like obsession with trying to force his daughter’s personality on her, might be deemed one) because you can’t change an individual who doesn’t see the issue with their own actions.

They all do it, all reaching for progression, more often than not by throwing Oliver’s mistakes in his face, but why do they get to get away with that? And why is Oliver the target for their choices?

Unfortunately, since I’ve been wondering about this since the start of S3, I know I won’t get what I want. Maybe not ever, but definitely not now. But this isn’t why I’m talking about this.

The point is, I understand where the writers and show runners are taking Dig. We should enjoy it greatly. But he’s done it, deliberately, by pushing Oliver into a dark corner and that’s left a bitter taste. It didn’t need to be this happy, peppy thing. But why use Oliver as a source of blame for wanting a change? For wanting more?

He lashed out. There’s a reason for it beyond plot device - it was probably one of the worst ways they could have done this.

Dig. Is. Done. With. OTA.

With being a member and not a leader.

Let’s put it into perspective.

For 6 years John has covered Oliver’s back, has followed orders and has joined in the making of them. He’s agreed/disagreed with Oliver and stood back as Oliver saved the day or made the wrong choices. But for the first time, in 5.23, John was physically and irreparably hurt by someone fixated on Oliver. Diggle and everyone else, was stranded on an island because a mad man wanted Oliver to suffer.

A mad man who’s father Oliver had made the decision to kill years before.

Not for the first time, John’s life was affected by Oliver. But for the first time, John has a reason to feel resentment. Because of Adrian, he could no longer shoot a gun, making his only real life vocation – being a soldier in some shape or form – mute. Null. Done. Imagine the fear. Fair or not, in his head Oliver is at the centre of that.

For several months, he kept it from people because he couldn’t face the very real possibility that he might be made redundant. That he was unreliable.

A very SELFISH decision (keep this in mind please). The wrong decision. But it was also, understandable. He’s human and he was terrified of letting people know. It’s why he’s forgiven later on. However.

Oliver gave him the suit and something small, grew large in John.

It had nothing to do with the suit and everything to do with what it entailed. In John’s opinion, Oliver ‘gave up’ being the Green Arrow. This was so wishful thinking.

It wasn’t permanent. But he hoped it was and acted like it was and decided that it was. Without talking to anyone. It switched a light on in Diggle; he realised what he wanted and he thought Oliver was giving it to him… because he thought - wished - Oliver had seen that he’d lost the efficacy to lead.

Now this is where it takes a slight detour from understandable to egocentric.

After being given the title, he does everything he can to keep it. He takes drugs, gets addicted. After seeing Felicity’s chair-arc being so quickly and neatly (unrealistically) tied up, we all knew the same would happen here and it did. But it left John with a feeling. Oliver had stepped away… for reasons Dig deems selfish now.

Now, when I found that out I flipped my shit because, dude – you have a family too? You left the team too?? You’ve prioritised your own wants/wishes above everyone else’s more than once??? Why doesn’t it apply????

But for Dig, it’s also about Oliver being spread too thin and, well, years of things left unsaid. Years of memories being seen in a new light and when you have to do that you validate things, it gets a little screwy.

John has very clearly had things building up inside him. Maybe it’s just been this season. Maybe it’s been longer but for sure, Adrian Chase plays a part in this.

It doesn’t give him the right throw any of it back in Oliver’s face when he was an active participant in every single thing that’s happened over the years. Oliver even says it:

“When did all these magically become my decisions? I seem to remember you. Right there. Next to me.”

And he says a few other things too:

“My trail of bodies didn’t include my own brother.”

Whelp. Normally I’d be all – TOO FAR OLIVER – but Dig started this unfairly. Prepare to meet even colder truths dude. It’s not a nice feeling is it?

John waited for Oliver to hand back the title of GA because deep down, he thinks Oliver can’t hack the leadership role anymore and you know what? Maybe he can’t. Maybe he has spread himself too thin. Maybe he needs to re-evaluate. But who is John to make that decision?

The problem is that John has lost faith in Oliver’s ability to get it back. That confidence. And if he’s lost faith in Oliver then, how can he stay?

And so, a fight ensues.

And so, Oliver finds out the truth: his best friend no longer has his back, because suddenly, John doesn’t think Oliver is a good leader. Suddenly he knows better.

Now, we all figured that John’s NEED to be GA was something beyond the mask. Either, he wanted to be more than what he was and he was feeling repressed. It was residual anger at being hurt by Oliver’s enemy (in which case, it would be solved by the end of 6.17). Or… it was EGO and the hood was just a symbol of something else. I didn’t want it to be the latter.

Of course, that means it would be the latter.

David mentioned 5.08 recently. He said that DIggle was the GA and that it was interesting but it didn’t necessarily mean the suit. It meant being a hero by himself. He also said - for people who have hated his line about 5.08 being the dream reality - was that Oliver was able to make right his wrongs to LL who, after his father, he felt the most guilt for. That literally was the title for S5. Make right his wrongs.

CONFIRMATION IS BEAUTIFUL.

Ahem.

In a way, maybe it’s all three but it definitely leads closer to ego.

It’s a legitimate reason too, wrapped up in this steady feeling of disapproval he’s been passively omitting since the start of S6. Not the one we necessarily wanted. Not a good one. But it’s a legit reason. And it doesn’t tarnish Dig’s character exactly. What it does do, is diverts John’s trajectory away from OTA. But it adds an element of… is it superiority, selfishness or the kind of judgement he only threw at Oliver once (4.01)?

But the writers put Diggle on a pedestal, one we’ve enjoyed: he’s Yoda. He’s supposed to see the wisdom and rightness of everything. He’s supposed to be fair. He’s not supposed to do this.

I’m glad he did. (I mean, where was his story headed save in a cycle?)

I’m NOT glad about how he did it.

How he did it was cruel. And utterly undeserved. Ugly, even.

I mean, he had to remind Oliver of the death of William’s mother as a way of justifying his reasoning. It’s almost conceit isn’t it?

When I mention ego, I mean this: Dig got a taste of what it meant to be in Oliver’s shoes and found that he not only liked it, but developed a sense of self that can be likened to pride or arrogance but is actually growth overshadowed by the brutal way he puts it forward.

But it’s supposed to be negative.

We’re not supposed to see this well... YET.

Maybe next season the writers/show runners etc will allow Oliver to succeed and for the blame to be thrown at someone else but this year, I think it’s about Oliver being a hero… alone.

With Felicity in his ear, yes, but: alone.

Like season 1, but inverted.

Dig’s ready to move on but it looks more like he’s disappointed in Oliver… for not being great? For having more than one vocation? For trying? I mean, at least acknowledge that.

And he does, to a degree. He tells Oliver that ‘it’s true that you’ve become a better person’. Gee. But, in becoming a better person he’s become a worse leader… because of the methods he used to become a better person?

Wow John. Didn’t realise two months as Oliver after taking drugs makes you the guru of leader-hood. In fact, seeing him as the leader of the team made me see all the ways he shouldn’t be the leader of THAT team. Another team, sure. He’s a good leader. But not the right person.

(I mean, it’s hugely hypocritical to tell Oliver he’s a bad leader when John was taking drugs as the leader. When he put people in danger because of it. But sure, Oliver’s a bad leader.)

That being said, John already had a wealth of experience before the very first season of Arrow. As a solider and a leader, just not a vigilante. Now he has both so maybe he feels righteous in believing he can do better, but did he have to walk over his best friend to do it?

That fight last night wasn’t just ego; it came from anger. Resentment. Disappointment. A six year build of opposing beliefs. I’ve felt this very passive aggressive impression from John/David throughout season 6 so far, so when details for 6.17 came out, I thought the worst. This isn’t just a team split, this is permanent guys.

Don’t worry; they’ll get their friendship back… eventually. Not yet, because they both said and did things that hurt far too much for it to happen all at once. But I’m not sure he’ll ever be in the team again.

We’ll have OTA too at some point (S7?). But after this, Dig re-joining as a team member would undermine his clear wish to grow beyond the parameters his character’s been given the last few years. It’s good that they’re having him join Argus. More SL’s for characters we care for.

And… didn’t Oliver mention it (his words and actions) being out of character?

Which means, it’s deliberate. THEY KNOW. The whole thing. They know we’ll hate it. They’re doing to keep them all apart, to make it more a bad thing at the moment, to give Diggle more story - but most of all - they’re doing it to make Oliver rise ALONE. With Felicity, sure; but still alone.

And I think they’re aiming for Diggle to start his own team. Maybe the new Suicide Squad? He’s worked with them before. The point is, we’ve got these two alpha males who can more than handle business and unfortunately, Diggle’s SL could no longer grow in the basement, not when he can be more.

He needs to spread his wings, a development I’m all for. Imagine Argus and Olicity working together in S7?

But they’ve made it come at a cost: it makes a lot of us look at Diggle and think, ‘why the hell would you do that?’

It all stems back to how his injury made him feel months ago. And when you’re alone in your hurt, you’re an outsider. You see things differently to others and he’s seen a side to Oliver that he doesn’t like.

But he’s not just turning away from Oliver; he’s turning away from Felicity. From Diaz. And that wasn’t necessary. He’s put himself first but only after lecturing Oliver on his selfishness.

He’s allowed to fall down.

But he’s metaphorically and literally crapped on the last 6 years of their work – not by walking away – but by throwing decisions that they all made and blaming the results and ramifications solely on Oliver and used it to explain his need to leave.

Yet he also made a good point: he makes us and Oliver think of how other people see us as opposed to what we want them to see. It’s the rudest awakening. He can’t grow being there with Oliver. Some people know in seconds what they need. Others take 6 years.

I’m down for this.

It’s supposed to be a big shock: that Dig suddenly does this. Says things that he wouldn’t normally say and though Oliver does address that, John’s reason wasn’t enough for me. I don’t think we’re supposed to be ok with Diggle at the moment. And I’m not.

But I’m weirdly good with not being.

I need to watch the season in full before I make a complete assessment.

And I don’t think we’re supposed to be ok with the newbies either.

By giving Diggle the suit, Oliver showed faith and trust. Respect. In return, he’s rewarded with disrespect and a lack of that same faith he’d offered.

The newbies did the same.

Now Stephen and David acted their ass’s off – they give a shit about this. There’s a reason we don’t know about yet.

Remember what we were told at the beginning of S6?

Unlike previous seasons, every character would need help/advice, be lost at sea or hurt in some way. Oliver would be their coach, their anchor, their teacher.

That doesn’t just stop.

They’ve all renounced his wisdom, teachings and faith in them, found him lacking, believing him a hypocrite who isn’t as good as he thinks he is.

Now, there have been times where Oliver has been a hypocrite. When he found out about a mole in the team, his FIRST action should have been to let them know. To bring them all together and say ‘I know and I’m giving whoever it is 24 hours to come tell me, after which I will start infringing on your privacy because I have a son to think about’.

Instead, he misused their trust and even cornered Dinah.

Because of that, they lost faith in him.

He did not deserve how they reacted after the fact.

(May I also remind that Diggle AGREED with his plan to abuse their trust? Bad leader skills Dig. Oh wait.)

He definitely does not deserve the accusations Diggle threw at him. But he does need to re-evaluate. He hasn’t made great decisions. But he hasn’t earned THIS level of scorn.

So, clearly, he’s going to be outed as the GA.

It comes back to the start of the season.

Either someone will do it to hurt him or he’ll do it, for them all but also himself. He’ll do it, because HE Is the GA. He’ll do it because prison beckons. He’ll do it to save them all. He’ll be THE hero. And he’ll face the consequences.

This season is a very reactive season. Oliver hasn’t really done any huge thing people need to be appalled at: it’s like people are looking at months, years, of choices and deciding they no longer agree with him.

The only person he’ll have on his side now is Felicity.

I’m glad she agreed with Oliver. I’m glad they showed her trying to bridge the ever-growing gap between Oliver and Diggle that’s been present since 6.07 (yup – back then). And even though he’ll lash out at her in the next episode, they’ll fix it quick because he’s going to take on Diaz alone. Not necessarily without her but since he can’t trust anyone BUT her, it will make sense to him to keep her out of it (I think... maybe??).

I hated hearing Diggle say what he said.

I hated that he thought Oliver stating that the hood was/is a part of him (of course it is) was selfish and made him a bad leader.

I hated the gap between Diggle wanting the hood to this because of the newbie arc as it left us all a little perplexed to the level of heat in Dig’s argument.

I hated another character dumping on him. Blaming him. Making it all Oliver’s fault.

And yet... I liked the episode. I really like this season.

I don’t think they’ve sacrificed Dig’s character. I think they’ve deliberately changed it.

I DO think they’ve made Dig say and do things that Oliver won’t be able to forgive for a while.

Oliver won’t want his help. Or the newbies help. And Felicity will be petrified, because her greatest fear is loosing him and she’s going to be forced to face it in one way or another.

It is the curse of Arrow. Eventually we are given a plot in each season that we disagree with. But it’s miles better than an episode of the canaries screaming at each other. I really did enjoy it. I’m just not on Dig’s side (though his scenes with Lyla were spot on).

And I like the idea of Diggle joining Argue and everything it entails. I’ve kind of wanted Diggle to split form Oliver for a while and I can see so many good SL’s coming from this in S7.

“If you feel the need to make someone feel less assured of themselves or have to call another person out, you may gain a false sense of superiority.” ― Kristin Michelle Elizabeth

Jessica’s ramble ends here.

105 notes · View notes

southeastasianists · 7 years

Link

Singapore’s two main public universities have risen in global reputation, lifted by the state’s economic might. For most Singaporeans – as well as many of the region’s brightest students – getting a place to study at the National University of Singapore or Nanyang Technological University is a proud accomplishment. In several fields, our universities have become research powerhouses, worthy of mention alongside the traditional brand names of the West.

But the NUS and NTU suffer from stunted development. Even as they rise in global rankings, their contribution to the country’s intellectual life is relatively modest. Particularly in the humanities and the social sciences, they are largely absent precisely when their expertise is most needed – when complex and controversial issues call for the clarity, context and research-based insight that we academics claim to be able to provide. This retreat from the public sphere has been so complete and enduring that it is no longer noticed. It doesn’t occur to most Singaporeans that our universities could be playing a much broader social role.

I hasten to clarify that the public shouldn’t expect university departments to replicate thinktanks, which are meant to insert themselves directly into current policy debates. Given how compressed news cycles are getting, with controversies exploding and fizzling out within a week, it would be a mistake for academics to flit about, reacting to every matter that grabs people’s attention. That shouldn’t be the job of serious scholars.

But a strong university department or scholarly association should be visible in major public debates that are relevant to its field. At the very least, universities should be able to serve as honest brokers, convening discussions on challenging topics. After all, they are the only institutions in our society that give their employees the time and resources – largely taxpayer-funded – to think differently. They are not pressed to arrive at policy positions. They are not required to be popular or profitable. They can examine problems deeply, challenge conventional wisdom, clarify issues, offer insights that are counter-intuitive and keep contrarian viewpoints bubbling on the back burner for future reference. One might even say that they have a moral responsibility to do all this.

Singapore’s two public universities have very busy calendars, but their activities focus on non-Singaporean matters. While many other universities are seeking desperately to overcome their parochialism and climb university rankings by internationalising, ours have the opposite problem (rankings organisations don’t really measure a university’s local relevance – it probably hasn’t occurred to them that universities might fail to be local enough). Singapore has already emerged as one of the top centres of learning for anyone interested in Asia; it is academia’s contribution to Singapore’s own intellectual and cultural life that is lacking. Consider, for example, the government’s move to amend the Constitution to reserve presidential elections periodically for candidates from Singapore’s racial minority groups. There were individual academics interested enough to make submissions to 2016’s Constitutional Commission, but the activity fell far short of what would be considered normal elsewhere, perhaps for want of a critical mass of such scholars. In a different setting, universities would have been falling over themselves to convene public events to discuss such a major move before the parliamentary vote. Legal scholars and political scientists would explore constitutional implications and issues concerning political representation. Sociologists might want to showcase their research into ethnic identity and politics. For anthropologists, this could be an opportunity to share their research on the construction of race. In a normal developed country, local universities might run a series of public seminars on such subjects. Not in Singapore.

Some Singaporeans might feel that there is nothing wrong with universities staying focused on teaching enrolled, fee-paying students without the distractions of public outreach. But one can’t really compartmentalise a university’s mission this way. Universities have to fertilise the soil they depend on. Just as our national orchestras give free concerts at the Botanic Gardens to help cultivate an appreciation for music, research universities need to be out there showing the public that their intellectual work is worth supporting. Furthermore, schooling that’s confined to textbooks and classroom learning, by professors who show no interest in the real world passing by their window, wouldn’t amount to much of an education.

The lack of engagement in the local can compromise institutions’ ability to mount even basic Singapore-related courses. Our universities do have a Singapore studies requirement in their undergraduate curricula, but departments often struggle to mount relevant courses, sometimes relying on adjuncts or faculty borrowed from other departments. When I worked at NTU’s communication school, I taught a freshman course called Media in Singapore, introducing all communication majors to our media industries and their political, economic and cultural contexts. Since the school’s founding, this course – or earlier iterations of it – had been considered important enough to be listed as a compulsory module. But when I left, the school didn’t consider it a priority to find a replacement teacher. It simply dropped the course. After a year, the course was revived – but no longer as a core requirement; it became an elective.

The most disappointing case of going regional and global at the expense of the local must be political science at the NUS. I’ve followed public forums on local politics for decades. In recent years, one thing that has become practically guaranteed is that none of the speakers on Singapore politics will come from the NUS department of political science. To understand why, visit the department’s website and study the faculty profiles. At the time of writing, of 29 full-time faculty members, only one – a veteran now in his sixties – claims Singapore’s domestic politics as a research interest. In contrast, 22 colleagues – including all seven assistant professors – do not have “Singapore” anywhere on their research profiles or publication lists. Just five of the department’s scholars list at least one published work with “Singapore” in the title, and only two of these publications are more recent than 2013. You have to go back to Chan Heng Chee in the 1980s to find an NUS political science don who has made a seminal contribution to our understanding of Singapore politics. It’s a situation that would be unthinkable in virtually all developed countries.

Political science is an extreme but not unique case. If you scanned the research interests and backgrounds of faculty in NUS economics, for instance, you’d have a hard time guessing which country or even region the department belonged to. You might think it was based in Greater China, or perhaps in a US university with an Asia-Pacific focus. When I checked one commonly used database of scholarly articles, I was able to find 152 articles on Singapore categorised under “economics” published since 2015, but only one was by someone currently listed as a regular faculty member of the NUS economics department. The NUS accounted for about 30 other articles, but these came from elsewhere on campus, such as the public policy and business schools, and the real estate department.

NTU’s history department website suggests that perhaps three out of 22 faculty members could claim a focus on Singapore history. The history department at the NUS is more illustrious but is nevertheless short on local expertise. Consider the books that have been published on Singapore history: the National Library has compiled a useful bibliography. Of the 27 recommended titles covering Singapore’s history up to 1964, just one is (co-)authored by a current faculty member of the NUS history department.

There are two fairly obvious reasons for our universities’ C-minus performance in Singapore studies: the lack of academic freedom and the absence of a Singaporean core in many departments. Political restrictions date back to the first decade and a half of independence from Malaysia, in the 1960s and 1970s, when the government cracked down on activism in what were then the University of Singapore and Nanyang University. From the ashes, the new NUS and NTU rose like phoenixes – with a permanent phobia of the fires of politics.

In many fields, academics are also thwarted by a lack of access to government data. For this reason, one can hardly blame economists for choosing not to specialise in Singapore. Historians have a different problem. They know too much. Declassified British records in London offer a rich vein of evidence concerning Singapore’s pre-independence history – but mining this lode puts historians on a collision course with the government’s official narrative. Sadly, this has meant that young academic historians of Singapore are able to find work more easily outside the country.

It would be simplistic, however, to blame only the government. The universities’ problems are partly own goals scored by administrators obsessed by the research productivity game. This rewards those who churn out papers in so-called top-tier journals, ignoring the fact that these journals are published in, by and for the West. To illustrate how this bias works in practice, consider an American political scientist writing a 6,000-word article about voting patterns in Ohio. He can quickly get to the heart of his findings and theoretical contributions. In contrast, a scholar researching Singaporean elections would have to devote half her paper to justifying why Singapore is worth studying, and would need to explain the local context in painstaking detail for an audience of mystified journal editors – all before she’s finally able to discuss her actual study. The problem is compounded by the fact that the off-the-shelf theoretical frameworks currently in circulation were mostly developed in the US and Europe and might not fit Singapore. It’s therefore much harder for scholars working on Singapore to sail on the main theoretical currents in their fields.

This bias results from the uneven distribution of power in global academia. The US and its concerns lie at the core of most disciplines; the rest of the world is peripheral. It is a frustration familiar not only to scholars of Singapore, but also to academics in Australia, the UK, Hong Kong and elsewhere. In these other societies, however, universities put up stiffer resistance to the imposition of key performance indicators that would undermine their core mission to study their own locales. Top-tier journal publication is still prized – but not at the expense of neglecting impactful local research or teaching needs. Our universities could do the same, prioritising Singapore-focused research even if it is likely to generate lower citation scores. Bibliometrics are not ends in themselves, but merely crude proxy measures for research impact. Our university leaders and education policymakers are free to adopt different yardsticks. As things stand, the metrics don’t encourage research into our own milieu. Furthermore, it is an open secret that, in many departments, hiring and promotion decisions focus more on a candidate’s research numbers than on what he or she is able to teach – hence the problem of not having enough faculty to teach Singapore content well.

Responding to these market signals, many locals and almost all foreigners decide to focus on regional or international topics or on purely abstract theoretical work that is not grounded in any particular context. There are still scholars who, despite the disincentives, persist and study their first love – Singapore. But in many social science and humanities fields, they lack clout. The situation suits the foreign faculty who now dominate departments – and in many cases run them. Singapore is the only place in the world where foreigners can work at a top-ranked university without feeling any shame at knowing nothing about their host society; where, indeed, such ignorance is often more of an asset than a liability.

Singaporean economists Pang Eng Fong and Linda Lim have similarly commented on the lack of a strong local core in our universities ( “Singapore’s fling with global stars sidelines local talent” , News, 24 August). But one shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that foreign faculty as such are a problem. It’s simplistic to equate local origins with local commitment. Some foreigners have had a transformative impact on Singapore studies. The NUS archaeologist John Miksic is a prominent example. Others have been conscientious institution-builders for Singapore. I personally benefited from the mentorship of two such giants, Taiwan-born sociologist Eddie Kuo, the founding dean of NTU’s communication school, and historian Anthony Reid from New Zealand, founding director of the Asia Research Institute at the NUS. Philip Holden, a professor of English at the NUS, is another model foreign-born scholar. He became a respected authority on the Singapore literary scene. But after more than 20 years, he began facing problems maintaining his permanent resident status. When his application for citizenship was denied, he and his Singaporean wife decided to relocate to Canada. Hearing this sad news, a former student who had become an English teacher commented on his Facebook wall: “Without you, a generation of Singaporeans wouldn’t have known what SingLit was, and SingLit would be nowhere near what it is today.”

Whatever the mix of reasons for the lack of emphasis on Singapore-focused work, the overall pattern is striking. The government’s new Social Science Research Council is trying to come to the rescue with substantial funds earmarked for research relevant to Singapore, but the problem has never been money. Grants alone won’t counterbalance the factors weighing against independent research on Singaporean society, especially if, as with arts funding, the council denies money to projects that are seen as critical of the government.

The university has a role that goes beyond equipping and credentialing students for employment; beyond serving the needs of industry; and beyond developing its region’s pulling power as an educational and research hub – all great strengths of the NUS and NTU. It also has a civilising mission, to show how the pursuit of knowledge and reasoned deliberation are the best ways for a society to manage its contemporary and future challenges. This can be achieved only if a university is engaged with the society of which it is part. And this is where Singapore’s institutions of higher learning should do much more to live up to their stratospheric global rankings.

Cherian George, a Singaporean, is professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University. This essay is an edited extract from his new book, Singapore, Incomplete: Reflections on a First World Nation’s Arrested Political Development (Singapore: Woodsville News, 2017).

#Southeast Asia #Singapore #Education #Cherian George #Censorship #Southeast Asian Studies

42 notes · View notes

nexlance · 3 years

Text

Adolescent Depression: causes, symptoms, treatment, and Parental Communication

Adolescence is a time of transition, and it is "natural" for adolescents to be moody, irritable, lonely. As a result, depression in teenagers is often misdiagnosed or merely due to normal teenage behavior. The stresses of everyday life are also having a negative impact on our young teens. Take a look at the numbers below and be astounded. Figures dont lie, and they are also the perfect way to highlight those details that, when introduced to the general public's attention, leave a permanent impression. It is important to capture the interest of someone who wishes to hear more about what the numbers are showing. There is no wonder that numbers are nothing more than concrete concepts with the potential to sway even the most cynical of minds, and it would even offer the young generation the real picture when it comes to teenage depression. Twenty Percent Of Teenagers Are Sufferers The first thing that will make you wake up and take notes of adolescent depression rates is the fact that almost one-fifth of the adolescent population of the United States has undergone a degree of psychiatric depression before reaching full adulthood. Not just that, but ten to fifteen percent of adolescents have signs of adolescent depression, while another five percent of the adolescent population has suffered from major depression. Second, another concerning feature of adolescent depression is the lack of social acceptance for adolescents with such an illness, and what's worst is that as many as 8% of teenagers would have witnessed the recurrence of depression at least once a year. This is concerning because depression affects just 5% of the national population. adolescent depression usually lasts for eight months. Teenagers are now at risk of having another bout of adolescent depression within two years, with the chances of this happening ranging from twenty to forty percent, and there is also a seventy percent chance that they will have another bout of adolescent depression. Third, a common characteristic of adolescence depression is that many teens experience seasonal depression. This form of depression is most common during the winter, but it can also be seen in areas of high altitudes. And the weather may play a role in the onset of seasonal depression, so teens must be mindful of these social influences on their mental health. Fourth, other data on adolescent depression show that dysthymia, or a moderate type of depression that persists for a long time, affects around 2% of adolescents, and a similar number of teenagers are more likely to develop bipolar depression as they get older. Indeed, it is estimated that up to 15% of teens who have had major depression are at risk of experiencing bipolar depression later in life. As a result, it is fair to conclude that adolescent depression can impact adolescents regardless of their socioeconomic status, economic class, ethnicity, ethnicity, or accomplishments, and that adolescent depression is a very serious mental health condition affecting teens in the United States. There are some prominent early signs of adolescent depression. If you think your underage child is troubled, you must get treatment urgently.

Adolescent Depression Different Than Adult Depression?

Depression is a mood disease in which people feel depressed, withdrawn, lose confidence in what is going on around them, have learning difficulties, and can even commit suicide. Depressive symptoms are normal, and most people will experience them at some stage in their life even though they are not diagnosed with depression. Men have a lifetime prevalence of depression ranging from 5% to 12%, whereas women have a prevalence ranging from 10% to 25%. Severe depression ranked fourth in terms of disease dysfunction and related risk factors in 1990. Depression is expected to rate second only to heart disease as a concern by the year 2020. Depression has also been attributed to an elevated risk of cancer, respiratory failure, immune dysfunction, allergies, migraine, insomnia, infectious disease, and suicide. The body responds similarly to depression and stress. Corticosteroids are hormones that are produced when a person is stressed or depressed. Cortisol levels in the adrenal glands rise and remain elevated during depression, affecting long-term memory. Individuals suffering from depression include increased development in the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, and adrenal glands. Long-term stress has been linked to a decline in hypothalamus volume. The hypothalamus is in charge of processing input from the autonomic nervous system and controlling feeding, sexual activity, sleep habits, impulses, and hormone secretion. People who have had repeated bouts of depression have irregular electroencephalograph sleep cycles. Enlarged ventricles and greater cerebral atrophy have been observed in depressive patients with psychotic characteristics. Adolescent depression can show itself in a variety of ways. Adolescents and infants, according to the DSM-IV-TR, exhibit more irritability, social withdrawal, and somatic complaints. Displays of melancholy and psychomotor retardation, as seen in people with depressive disorders, are not common in teenagers. Adolescent depression, on the other hand, may be characterized by frustration, confusion, exhaustion, and lack of interest in usually pleasurable activities. Another characteristic of teen depression is that it affects both boys and girls equally. Because of the presenting signs, adolescent depression is impossible to diagnose. Other conditions, such as Conduct Disorder, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, and Anxiety, are often associated with the disorder. There are two forms of depression. Shyness, fear, worrying behavior, and avoidance are all correlated with internalizing style. Externalizing personality is linked to substance addiction and behavior disorder. A variety of studies have associated depression and other psychosocial factors to adult pain perception. It stands to reason that depression, or symptoms of depression, will be found in teenagers who are in distress. Adolescents' sense of well-being has been attributed to low back and mid-back pain. Adolescents and children who have back pain complain that their health is bad and that they are unhappy. Physical fitness is a major indicator of depression in youth, both now and in the future. In addition, physical disorder is linked to depression.

Warning signs and symptoms Of Adolescent Depression

Poor or fluctuating grades in school, disappointment in school or at work, and a sense of inability to achieve expectations are all red flags. Withdrawal from friends, family, and hobbies is another possibility. They will become more isolated as time goes by. They can show signs of depression, hopelessness, and a lack of motivation/enthusiasm. Their self-esteem may range from poor to non-existent. They may be unable to focus, make decisions, or miss things sometimes. Changes of sleep and appetite are possible. They can become irritable, irritated, and anxious as a result. They can become addicted to substances (self-medicate), depressed, or obsessed with death. When the adolescent exhibits some of these symptoms, continue to speak to them, even if it's just to let them know you're there for them, and get treatment right away. There are some indicators that a person is suffering from adolescent depression. Changes in appetite, changes in sleep schedule, lack of interest in usually common sports, irritability and often irrational response to anger, and, last but not least, declarations of depression are among the signs. Changes in appetite or eating habits are a typical and very strong indicator of teenage depression. In reality, it is one of the primary symptoms. More specifically, the signs can include eating too much, eating too little, or not eating at all for an extended period of time. These symptoms of teenage depression should not be confused with those with an eating disorder. However, these main signs may also turn into more neurotic habits, particularly as the patient begins to feel better following a diet shift. Changes in sleep and sleep schedule, including changes of appetite or feeding pattern, are symptoms of teenage depression, but the behaviour varies from person to person. Nonetheless, a significant shift in sleep habits with no apparent cause should be regarded as a fairly solid and not-to-be-ignored warning sign. Another well-known symptom of teenage depression is a rapid and unexplained decline in involvement in previously favored hobbies. It's not the same as when a child outgrows a passion of a certain game. If your child enjoys a sport and suddenly decides not to participate during the season, you should be concerned. It may be a symptom of teenage depression. Another red flag, which is difficult to ignore, is when the child becomes enraged frequently or overreacts to his or her own annoyance. This may be more than just a case of more or less anticipated adolescent rebelliousness. However, distinguishing between typical juvenile misbehavior and depression-driven misbehavior requires the expertise of a trained and experienced healthcare professional. There is no such thing as a single symptom of depression. It's still a slew of symptoms. When your child expresses despair, it may only be a terrible hair day, so if you've recently encountered any of the above symptoms of stress, it's time to take action. Call your doctor and brace yourself and your family for a bumpy trip.

Adolescent Depression - Causes and Best Treatment Options Available

Adolescent depression is a form of depression that may develop during adolescence. This form of depression is characterized by a lack of confidence, feelings of worthlessness, persistent disappointment, and discouragement, among other negative emotions. You can't tell whether an adolescent will get sad or not; often it can be predicted, but in most situations, it can be kept silent before anything happens. It is important to treat teen depression until it worsens, which could happen at any moment. You must address the issue as soon as you know you are stressed or your adolescent is depressed. It might not be an easy problem to solve, but you have to start somewhere. Adolescent depression may be a teenager's acute reaction to such conditions or even normal stress, but it may also be a condition that they may recover from for years if they are not supported. When it comes to adolescents, depression is often caused by: - Arguments of independence from parents - a lack of liberty (in their minds). - The normal maturing mechanism, as well as the tension and worry that it entails. - Sexual hormones may play a significant role in depression. Adolescent depression can also be a transient response to upsetting circumstances that may escalate to a lasting situation, such as: - Failing school - Being the victim of bullying - Death of a relative or a close friend - A sad breakup with a partner Teenagers with poor self-esteem, those who are very critical of themselves, and those who believe they have little or no influence over such stressful experiences are at risk of depression. It is also well recognized that teenage girls are more likely than teenage boys to feel depression while they are going through a tough time. Any of the risk factors are as follows: - Unstable care giving - Weak social skills - Chronic illnesses - Sexual, mental and physical child abuse - Genetic depression - family history of the disorder - Parental loss due to divorce or death, as well as other traumatic life activities Any eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, have been linked to adolescent depression.. Treatments It is important to rule out any physical illnesses first, such as hypothyroidism or anemia. Depression should be considered after all physical causes have been ruled out. The below are some treatments for teenage depression: When pursuing care for teenage depression, psychotherapy may be the first choice. Talk counseling attempts to help the troubled adolescent to improve their way of thinking. They will be taught more reasonable ways to solve their problems, as well as how to develop their interpersonal and social skills. Medication - Antidepressants are often used for children, but with great caution. This is due to a lack of knowledge on the long-term impact of antidepressants on teenagers. Antidepressant side effects can cause children under the age of 21 to have suicidal thoughts or even attempt suicide, necessitating hospitalization. Alternative treatments such as acupuncture, acupressure, and specifically tailored fitness plans can be beneficial to teenagers suffering from depression. Before adopting any new treatments, consult with your child's doctor. Herbal supplements are completely safe and have far less, if any, side effects than antidepressants. Check with your child's doctor whether he or she is on any medications for any health issues. The herbs are not dangerous; however, they can diminish the potency of certain prescription drugs, putting your child at risk.

Coping With Adolescent Depression

Adolescent depression is highly common and can develop in children who will never feel it again. Then, what happens? It is popular for a variety of purposes. For instance, teenage hormone levels undergo drastic modifications and differences. Hormone fluctuations can disrupt a person's mental health. Technically, the condition is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. When chemicals or hormones get out of balance, a person becomes depressed. Adolescents are most likely to undergo the emotions when their hormones shift often.. Children are still suffering a great deal of tension. To an adult who may not have children, this will seem to be a humorous joke. They do, after all, have their whole life ahead of them. They have little commitments and are at a point in their lives where they will have a good time. Regrettably, this is not completely right. Teenagers are continually subjected to social pressure. They are pushed to be slim, to dress well, and to use drugs and alcohol. Any of these stresses, particularly drug and alcohol pressures, are difficult for a teenager to cope with. Drugs and alcohol are depressants, and if a teenager continues to use them, he or she can develop depression. Loss is another cause. When a loved one dies, it is common for a person to feel depression. This trigger isn't just for teens. What Should You Do? Unfortunately, there isn't anything you can do to influence a teenager's hormones or reaction to social pressure. What you should do is speak to your kid about social pressure before they reach the age of adolescence. Describe what it is and how to deal with it. Keep a good watch on your infant as well. They may be depressed if they have severe mood swings or begin to behave abnormally. It may also be a warning if they become socially isolated and refuse to hang out with their mates. Maintain a constant line of contact with your kids. This will assist you with understanding how they are feeling. If you or your kid suspects they are sad, take them to a mental health provider right away. You should begin by speaking with a school counselor. A school psychologist may be able to assist them in coping with their hormones and social pressure. However, if the emotions are more intense, you can see a therapist. Trained therapists are well equipped to treat teenage depression..

Adolescent Depression and Parent Communication

Photo by Ivan Samkov on Pexels.com It is self-evident that puberty is a time of accelerated growth. The child's social responsibility extends into the home, and peer relationships tend to take precedence. Simultaneously, molecular changes are taking place, resulting in bursts of physical and academic development. It's no surprise that so many teenagers report feeling anxious and pressured. Despite the above causes, most teenagers adapt to maturity without incident and grow up to be well-adjusted adults. In particular, study over the last ten years suggests that roughly 80% of all teenagers achieve maturity without major difficulties. Many of the remaining 20% face transition challenges as a result of a variety of reasons such as family conflicts, peer interactions, and educational pressures. For others, the end result is sadness, and normal development is halted. Depression in puberty resembles adult depression. The adolescent is filled with depression, hopelessness, and a lack of interest in a brighter future. Eating and sleeping habits may change; friendships and family relationships may suffer; and school grades may begin to fall. In certain circumstances, the stress subsides and life resumes normalcy. However, if depression persists, the adolescent's life trajectory will be permanently changed, leading to school failure, drug misuse, and an unstable adult lifestyle. Fortunately, parents may take a variety of measures to assist their teen in overcoming stress and returning to normal functioning. To begin, it is critical to understand the improvements in the teen's biochemistry predispose them to emotional control issues. As a result, juvenile populations experience emotional extremes more often than infant or adult populations. Some days can feel like a roller coaster of emotional highs and lows. As a result, adults can become irritated and impatient when a teenager expresses his or her feelings. Second, it is critical to recognize that these emotional responses are very genuine, and that often just listening can be extremely beneficial to the teen. For example, when teenagers are so dependent on their peers, the absence of a best friend or first girlfriend is always viewed as tragic. And parents who are sympathetic to their teen's sadness may grow impatient as the teen's storms of crying, sleepless nights, and sullen demeanor disrupt the family environment. However, if parents are not present, teens can find another person to speak to. Someone else is usually another teenager who lacks the loyalty, empathy, and intelligence needed to be genuinely helpful. Furthermore, as hidden confidantes become Facebook comments, trust problems often emerge. Parents wield considerable strength. Read the full article

#adolescentdepression #adolescenthealth #depression #health

0 notes

dweemeister · 6 years

Photo

Ready Player One (2018)

On a recent episode of CBS Sunday Morning, author Ernest Cline attributed his debut novel’s success as, “a testament to what happens if you be free about what you love and why you love it.” That novel, filled with 1970s and 1980s pop culture, is Ready Player One, now directed by Steven Spielberg (who, arguably, defined cinema in those decades), co-adapted to the screen by Cline and Zak Penn, and retaining the ideas Cline sought to express. After a run of topical dramas, this is Spielberg’s first legitimately “fun movie” since 2011′s The Adventures of Tintin (as much as I liked 2016′s The BFG, it is tonally scattered). Jaws (1975) and Jurassic Park (1993) scared the pants off of sensitive viewers; E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) and Hook (1991) reached into childhood fears amid the entertainment. But of all of Spielberg’s “fun movies”, Ready Player One is the only one that is pure spectacle. Its nostalgia there for show, almost never in service of whatever themes the film happens to stumble upon. This pure spectacle is a fleeting, flashy thrill and little else – take the jump, because despite its weaknesses, there is no film analogous to Ready Player One.

It is 2045 and humans are addicted to the virtual reality world of OASIS. OASIS was designed by co-creators James Halliday (Mark Rylance; whose eccentric character has been deceased for some time) and Ogden Morrow (Simon Pegg; who left the developing company before OASIS became so widespread), who hid an Easter egg requiring three keys within his game. The Easter egg promises the winner ownership of OASIS. Living in a multi-tiered trailer park in Columbus, Ohio, is the orphaned Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan), whose OASIS username is Parzival. He befriends one of the game’s best players, Art3mis (the avatar of Samantha Cook, played by Olivia Cooke) on his way to acquire Halliday’s three keys and unearth the game’s deepest secrets that millions have tried to solve. Faster than Wade can tell Samantha, “I wanna be your lover”, she rebuffs his requests to meet her in person because she fears that he will not like the real her.

Everybody wants to rule the world. One corporation, Innovative Online Industries (IOI), has essentially dedicated itself thousands of employees to find the Easter egg to gain full control of OASIS. The CEO of IOI is Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), and he finds himself in conflict with Tye’s friends – who name themselves the “High Five”. The High Five will also include (actual name/username): Helen/Aech (Lena Waithe), Zhou/Sho (Philip Zhao), and Toshiro/Daito (Win Morisaki).

One could spend much longer explaining the world inhabited by the characters, but Ready Player One is up to the challenge of excessive exposition as Penn and Cline’s screenplay spend about twenty minutes with Wade explaining what has happened to 2045 Earth (or, at least, Columbus). The screenplay also refuses to grasp any of the implications of the dystopia it presents – having not read the book, my hope is that Cline does examine those social aspects more. How did the widespread disillusionment in real life that, apparently, the whole world (?) is connected to OASIS come to be? Aren’t humans, even those who believe they have no power, more resilient than that? How can an enormous conglomerate be able to have what basically is a paramilitary that engages in domestic terrorism (police forces exist, if the ending is any indication, so do cops work one day a week or something in 2045)? Given trends in gaming today, are there microtransactions or something similar in the OASIS that creates a class structure replicating itself in the real world and allowing for certain in-game or real-life advantages by class?

Maybe it is just my imagination running away with me, but why the hell are all the best players in the world living in Columbus, Ohio?

One way or another, enduring science-fiction asks questions of its characters’ humanity and dares the reader or viewer to understand, question, and improve their own being. In cinema, Metropolis (1927, Germany) comments on class power struggles and how society is impoverished with a permanent working class; Planet of the Apes (1968) is a sharp allegory of religious and scientific tensions; A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) asks if a synthetic being programmed to simulate love can feel love. Ready Player One’s stake in cinema’s science-fiction tradition is not as weighty as those films, but there are pressing thoughts to be gleamed from the film.

The movie presents fandom that is corporatized, excessive, or taken in moderation, as well as providing an environment of pandemic video game addiction (now a disorder recognized by the World Health Organization). On corporatized fandom, Ready Player One presents audiences with IOI – a combination of video gaming as sweatshop work and individuals whose job it is to know everything about twentieth-century cinematic (I might be a decent candidate in this department but turning it into soul-sucking work is too depressing to think about), comic book, and video gaming culture. Something like IOI is laughable now, but the film stands on it, so perhaps we will not be laughing if something resembling it emerges in the decades to come.

Regarding excessive fan culture, one could argue the whole conception of OASIS is a monument to one man’s uninhibited obsession with elements of pop culture. Ready Player One – at least in this adaptation – is unwilling to examine how damaging one’s fandom, when taken to extremes, can be (the throwaway epilogue in the film’s final frames is not enough). Outside of Halliday’s story, how does one’s fixation on video games or movies or other art forms make actual life easier or more difficult? The epilogue’s reveal that Wade and Samantha no longer log into the OASIS every day makes one wonder how prepared they are to go without a virtual reality where they have essentially lived their lives. Perhaps that latter point belongs to a different movie or the fan-fiction writing corners of the Internet, but the fact that Ready Player One only superficially touches upon these points adds little else to this reference-heavy movie.

What non-readers of Ready Player One may have noticed is the presence of so many popular movie and video game characters. One begins to wonder about how much money was spent on licensing. Many detractors of Ready Player One, who aren’t gonna take it, have commented on how some of the references in the film are shallow, disrespectful of the original source materials. These critiques are mostly beside the point. Take the Iron Giant. The Iron Giant appears as Helen’s avatar in the climactic battle as she/it proceeds to punch the stuffing out of IOI’s mechanized tanks and Mechagodzilla. This goes against the character’s essence: that it will only use violence in cases of self-defense. True, but this is an Internet avatar and the OASIS not necessarily a strict role-playing environment.

Nevertheless, one’s personal sense of fandom always has some degree of appropriation. Understanding a person’s passions and the origin of those passions make for incredible emotional connections that can barely be described. Where Cline’s passion for largely 1970s and ‘80s popular culture is apparent, what about his characters? Halliday is a human compendium of knowledge and trivia of that period – its movies, television, video games, anime, comics, and more. But why does he love those things implemented into OASIS? Why is Wade’s ride a DeLorean? Is it because he identifies with Marty McFly from the Back to the Future series? Artemis has the motorcycle from Katsuhiro Otomo’s Akira (1988)? Is she an enormous anime fan, and is Akira a personal favorite anime film? Spielberg, Penn, and Cline need not have crafted indulgent soliloquies for every reference, but the audience is bereft of understanding why these references from these past works appeal so much to Ready Player One’s characters. It does not help that the romantic kindling between Sheridan and Cooke (as Samantha, she is very much ashamed of a sizable birthmark… thankfully, not to Phantom of the Opera levels of shame) is iffy at best.

The BFG was the motion-capture dress rehearsal for Ready Player One. Almost everything that occurs in the OASIS was shot using motion capture – a process that is similar to regular film shooting for actors but is more demanding for visual effects teams. The results produced by these hundreds of visual effects artists for Ready Player One are commendable, but Spielberg regulars cinematographer Janusz Kamiński and editors Michael Kahn and Sarah Broshar (not a Spielberg regular, but co-editor of 2017′s The Post) are more at ease in the non-OASIS scenes in how they use lighting to evoke the decrepit nature of Wade’s neighborhood. Production designer Adam Stockhausen (Wes Anderson’s primary production designer since 2012′s Moonrise Kingdom) makes these towers of trailer homes feel lived in and not soundstage-bound or CGI’d into the film. Contrast that with the sleek, ultramodern headquarters of IOI – which somewhat recalls the aesthetic in the Tron series.

This is only the fourth Spielberg movie not to be scored by John Williams, who withdrew from the project after scheduling conflicts with his work for Dear Basketball (2017), The Post, and Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017). So in comes Alan Silvestri (1994′s Forrest Gump, 2012′s The Avengers), who worked with Spielberg when the latter served as producer on Back to the Future. Outside of the musical quotations Silvestri uses from Back to the Future and other films, his score successfully recalls the orchestral adventurism of 1980s action movies. Several are interspersed throughout, with the most commonly-used motifs – for Wade and Halliday, respectively – incorporated into the main titles. Lushly orchestrated and allowing strings, woodwinds, and brass jumping into the action-packed or romantic frays of the plot, Silvestri’s score is weakest when the cameras are inside IOI’s headquarters and the electronic elements reminiscent of a Marvel movie do little even to increase suspense.

Separate from the score is a ‘70s/’80s soundtrack that many viewers will be familiar with. A dance sequence using the Bee Gees’ “Stayin’ Alive” echoes John Travolta’s moves in Saturday Night Fever (1977). Many other songs are included in the soundtrack, but they have already been name-dropped in this review to prove a larger point (ahem).

Having already criticized Ready Player One for its insubstantial callbacks, I may be guilty of shameful hypocrisy because of this paragraph. One musical omission that defined Ready Player One’s marketing campaign should have been implemented into the film. “Pure Imagination”, composed by Leslie Bricusse and Anthony Newley for Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971), played an important part in setting the tone for Ready Player One’s trailers. Whether integrated into the score or soundtrack, “Pure Imagination” is a widely-known song even to audiences who consider older movies not worth their time. I see Willy Wonka and Ready Player One as distant cousins: a young character embarks on an exhilarating, occasionally dangerous, adventure and – through their actions – will become the loving custodian of another person’s fantastical dream. Such a decision would not be unprecedented in a Spielberg movie. In Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), John Williams used “When You Wish Upon a Star” from Pinocchio (1940) in his score to underline the interstellar optimism and childlike wonderment in both films. Ready Player One never has a moment like that – where the film can make sense and explore the emotions behind what pieces of popular culture enabled the creation of the OASIS.

If this review seems like poop in the punch bowl, that is not my intention. As a self-identified nerd who shuns nerd culture, I enjoyed Ready Player One and got a kick out of identifying the movie and video game characters my eyes could catch in time – I had fun, and that is important in watching movies. If Ready Player One is nothing more than a celebration of how our popular culture tastes makes us who we are, then that is fine. Yet it never asks where such love comes from because that is the most exciting thing we can ever learn about another person.

My rating: 7/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

#Ready Player One #Steven Spielberg #Tye Sheridan #Olivia Cooke #Ben Mendelsohn #Lena Waithe #T.J. Miller #Simon Pegg #Mark Rylance #Philip Zhao #Tin Morisaki #Hannah John Kamen #Zak Penn #Ernest Cline #Janusz Kaminski #Michael Kahn #Sarah Broshar #Alan Silvestri #My Movie Odyssey

1 note · View note

shaizstern · 4 years

Text

Article from WSJ: While Working Remotely, Here’s How to Get Noticed—and Promoted

With millions of people working from home during the pandemic, it’s time for strategies to keep your career on track and not be overlooked

ILLUSTRATION: AJ DUNGO

By Rachel Feintzeig

Ditching your commute and working in your pajamas is nice. But is remote work hindering your career?

As millions of people hunker down in the telecommuting experiment that won’t seem to end—and some toy with making the setup permanent—they are getting a taste of what working-from-home veterans have known for years: It can be hard to climb the ladder when no one can see you.

The best projects and promotions often go to in-office workers. Those logging on from home say they feel invisible at times or find that opportunities for advancement, such as making the leap to manager, are closed off to them. Some face suspicion about what they’re actually doing all day. Without the ability to spot who’s sitting next to whom in a glass-walled conference room or talk with a colleague from another department at the coffee machine, it can be hard to read the power lines of the workplace and make connections.

In some ways, the pandemic has been a great equalizer. Now, at many companies, everyone is working remotely. But even with a level playing field it can be hard to prove over Zoom that you’re ready for a promotion.

Consider life back at the office, where people could see you plugging away each workday. “If you were showing up and sitting in your seat every day and maybe getting in a little earlier than they did and staying a little later than they did, you were a top-notch worker,” says Cali Yost, the chief executive and founder of workplace-consulting company Flex+Strategy Group. “Really, at the end of the day, they had no idea what you’re doing. You could have just been sitting there.”

Without that built-in cue for your manager, the onus shifts to you to prove your value and make sure you’re in the flow. Ms. Yost recommends providing frequent updates on your progress, asking for work and making sure you’re clear on the company’s priorities and expectations. “It’s a much more specific and intentional way of doing your job,” she says.

At ButcherBox, a meat-subscription service based in Boston, workers living in Texas, Pennsylvania and other locations often felt like second-class citizens, says CEO Mike Salguero. Corporate decisions often were made on the fly by pulling a group of people into a conference room at the office, leaving out those farther afield.

“They felt like they were not involved in the important conversations,” Mr. Salguero says. “Basically, their career was being held back by the fact that they were remote, which makes sense.”

Paula Davis, a member support manager based in Dallas, recalls not being included in a meeting in January where the rest of her team made a decision about call-center operations, a key part of her job. Another time, she opened up the email invite to a meeting and found no dial-in or videoconferencing link. She frantically emailed her colleagues, but they didn’t realize she was absent until 10 minutes before the meeting was over. She wondered how she would rise in the ranks at the company if she could so easily be overlooked.

“I just truly felt like an afterthought,” Ms. Davis says. “Does my opinion not matter?”

Ms. Davis’ manager, Joe Kelly, says he felt terrible each time he accidentally left Ms. Davis out, especially since he’d been in her shoes recently, having worked remotely in Colorado for the company for a year. “As much as you try, you definitely make those mistakes,” he says. He began to advocate for Ms. Davis in the office, urging others to loop her in when he’d overhear conversations related to her job. Ms. Davis also started pushing herself to speak up more, pointing out when lapses happened and insisting on dial-in links before meetings.

The pandemic helped solve many of the dynamics at ButcherBox. With everyone working remotely for now, and the company hiring in different locations, Ms. Davis says she sees much more potential for herself there. But Mr. Salguero, the CEO, is still wrestling with how to keep things fair for telecommuters long-term. One thought is to make sure he is out of the office as much as possible so those impromptu meetings can’t happen. “If I’m remote, there’s always that buffer,” he says.

Research shows that remote workers adapt to the pressures and disadvantages of being far from headquarters, but their coping mechanisms come with consequences. A 2019 study called “Get Noticed and Die Trying,” which analyzed interviews with 60 remote workers and dozens of their managers and peers, found that employees who aren’t co-located with their bosses tend to obsessively monitor their email and volunteer to take early-morning and late-night meetings—anything to prove they’re committed and working hard.

The result is burnout, says Paul Leonardi, a co-author of the study and professor of technology management at University of California, Santa Barbara. Many either give up trying to advance or quit their jobs.

It’s worth emphasizing that was the result when working from home was just, well, working from home, as opposed to what you did while also home schooling and navigating a recession and health crisis. These days, aiming for a promotion remotely can be even more fraught.

Haley Bryant, seen with her son, Oliver, was promoted but shifted her approach to work after feeling ‘on a treadmill that was going faster and faster.’ PHOTO: JULIA EISENBERG

Haley Bryant spent the spring trying to ascend to the chief operating officer role at content-marketing firm Animalz while sitting side by side with her son, Oliver, then 4 years old, in their Bethesda, Md., home. Having worked remotely for a few years, she knew she was prone to some unhealthy habits, like working for hours without pausing for food or a break. But now every day felt like both an audition for the new gig and an emergency. The business was shedding customers, employees were overwhelmed and her son was constantly interrupting her, sad that she didn’t have time to color with him. “I just was on a treadmill that was going faster and faster,” she says.

Working long hours, Ms. Bryant began suffering from persistent headaches. Her energy sank. She got the job, but realized her approach during the trial period wasn’t sustainable. She needed to draw firmer boundaries and preserve more time for herself. “It forced me to set a bar and change how I work,” she says. “I’m a human, not a robot.”

How to Score a Promotion From Home

Check in: Keep your boss updated on your accomplishments and raise your hand for projects.

Get aligned: Make sure you know what your manager’s expectations are and where the company’s priorities lie. Think about work you can do that would make your boss’s life easier.

Stay in the flow: Participate in group chats on technology like Slack and schedule random catch-up calls with colleagues, including those not on your immediate team. If travel is an option, schedule office visits.

Speak up: Make sure you have the phone number or link for a meeting beforehand. If you are left out of a meeting, say something.

Express your goals: Make clear you’re aiming for the next step in your career. If you’re open to transitioning back to the office to make that happen, perhaps as part of a hybrid setup where you go in once a week, spell it out for your manager.

Original Article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/while-working-remotely-heres-how-to-get-noticedand-promoted-11598184001

0 notes

techblog4u · 4 years

Text

Technologies and Our Kids

With most people plugged in all the time, My spouse and i often wonder what effect technology is having on our kids. Some say technology is another helpful learning system that is making our kids smarter and some say it is possessing no significant effect at all. Still, others propose that concept use is encouraging social isolation, increasing attentional trouble, encouraging unhealthy habits, and ultimately changing our heritage and the way humans interact. While there isn't a causal union between technology use and human development, I do feel some of the correlations are strong enough to encourage you to definitely limit your children's screen time. Is television genuinely that harmful to kids? Depending on the show and duration regarding watching, yes. Researchers have found that exposure to programs utilizing fast edits and scene cuts that flash unrealistically across the screen are associated with the development of attentional concerns in kids. As the brain becomes overwhelmed with shifting stimuli, it stops attending to any one thing not to mention starts zoning out. Too much exposure to these frenetic services gives the brain more practice passively accepting information while not deeply processing it. However , not all programs are damaging. Kids who watch slow paced television programs including Sesame Street are not as likely to develop attentional situations as kids who watch shows like The Power Use the e-cig Girls or Johnny Neutron. Educational shows are slower paced with fewer stimuli on the screen which gives youngsters the opportunity to practice attending to information. Children can then perform making connections between new and past knowledge, manipulating information in working memory, and problem solving. Effectively, a good rule of thumb is to limit television watching to an 60 minute block to two hours a day, and keep an eye out for a glossy-eyed transfixed gaze on your child's face. This is a sure indication that his or her brain has stopped focusing and it is most certainly time to shut off the tube so that he can start thinking about, creating, and making sense out of things again (all actions that grow rather than pacify the brain). If you do shut off the tube, don't be surprised if you have an important melt down on your hands. Tech blog has an addictive superior quality because it consistently activates the release of neurotransmitters which have been associated with pleasure and reward. There have been cases of harmful addictions to technology in children as young as four-years-old. Recently on Britain, a four-year-old girl was put into intensive therapy therapy for an iPad addiction! I'm sure you know how enjoyable it is to sign onto Facebook and see that reddish colored notification at the top of the screen, or even more directly how satisfying playing games on your computer can be as you accumulate more "accomplishments. " I am guilty of obsessive compulsively checking my Facebook or twitter, email, and blog throughout the day. The common answer to this challenges is, "All things in moderation. " While When i agree, moderation may be difficult for children to achieve like they do not possess the skills for self discipline and will sometimes take the easy route if not directed by an adult. In accordance with a new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, children commit about 5 hours watching television and movies, 3 hrs on the internet, 1 1/2 hours texting on the phone, along with a 1/2 hour talking on the phone each day. That's essentially 75 hours of technology use each week, and Most probably these results are mediated by parental controls and surgery. Imagine how much technology children use when left in their own defenses! In a recent Huffington Post article, Doctor Larry Rosen summed it up well, "... we all see what happens if you don't limit these active participation. Your child continues to be reinforced in the highly engaging e-world, and more routine worlds, such as playing with toys or watching TV, pale when compared. " How are you ever going to get your child to read a black and white boring old book when they could use the flashy, rewarding iPad instead? Children on average spend 37 minutes or less each day reading. Do you see a goal problem here? With such frequent technology use, it is very important understand if technology use encourages or discourages healthier habits. It's reported that among heavy technology visitors, half get C's or lower in school. Light engineering users fair much better, only a quarter of them receiving minimal marks. There are many factors that could mediate the relationship between systems use and poor grades. One could be decreased time of sleep. Researchers from the Department of Family and also Community Health at the University of Maryland found who children who had three or more technological devices of their rooms got at least 45 minutes less sleep in comparison to the average child the same age. Another could be the attention conditions are correlated with frequent technology use. Going farther, multitasking, while considered a brilliant skill to have on the job, will be proving to be a hindrance to children. It is not uncommon to discover a school aged child using a laptop, cell phone, plus television while trying to also complete a homework assignment. If we look closer at the laptop, we might notice several tabs opened to various social networks and night-life sites, and the phone itself is a mini computer today. Thus, while multitasking, children are neglecting to give the studies full attention. This leads to a lack of active understanding, a failure to transfer information from short term to long lasting memory, which leads ultimately to poorer grades in college. Furthermore, it is next to impossible for a child to engage is a few of the higher order information processing skills such as making inferences and making connections between ideas when multitasking. We would like our children to be deep thinkers, creators, and innovators, not even passive information receptors who later regurgitate information with out really giving it good thought. Therefore , we should minimize access to multiple devices as well as limit duration of use. Get older comes into play when discussing the harmful effects of products. For children younger than two-years-old, frequent exposure to technological innovation can be dangerously detrimental as it limits the opportunities pertaining to interaction with the physical world. Children two-years-old and more youthful are in the sensorimotor stage. During this stage it is crucial construct y manipulate objects in the world with their bodies so that they can learn cause-effect relationships and object permanence. Object permanence is the knowning that when an object disappears from sight, it however exists. This reasoning requires the ability to hold visual representations of objects in the mind, a precursor to becoming familiar with visual subjects such as math later in life. To produce these skills, children need several opportunities every day to make sure you mold, create, and build using materials that do not need a predetermined structure or purpose. What a technological equipment provides are programs with a predetermined purpose that can be manipulated in limited ways with consequences that often won't fit the rules of the physical world. If the child seriously isn't being given a drawing app or the like, there're likely given programs that are in essence a lot like workbooks through structured activities. Researchers have found that such activities retard the cognitive development of children this age. Even while researchers advise parents to limit their baby's display screen time to 2 hours or less each day, I would tell you it's better to wait to introduce technology to your babies until after they have at least turned 3-years-old and are displaying healthy cognitive development. Even then, technology use could be limited enormously to provide toddlers with time to engage in creative play. Technology is changing the way children learn to start conversations and use communication to learn. Many parents are using equipment to quiet there children in the car, at the dining room table, or where ever social activities may occur. The risk obtain that the child is not witnessing and thinking about the social connections playing out before him. Children learn social proficiency through modeling their parents social interactions. Furthermore, paying attention to others communicate and talking to others is how infants learn to talk to themselves and be alone. The benefits of solitude just for children come from replaying and acting out conversations that were there or witnessed during the day, and this is how they ultimately be the better choice of their world. The bottom line is, the more we expose our children for you to technological devices, the worse their social skills as well as behavior will be. A Millennium Cohort Study that adhered to 19, 000 children found that, "those who watched more than three hours of television, videos or Digital video disc a day had a higher chance of conduct problems, emotional signs or symptoms and relationship problems by the time they were 7 compared with children who did not. " If you are going to give your kid screen privileges, at least set aside a time for just that, and use technology to pacify or preoccupy your children through social events. There's no question that technology use may result in poor outcomes, but technology itself is not to blame. Mom and dad need to remember their very important role as a mediator in between their children and the harmful effects of technology. Mothers and fathers should limit exposure to devices, discourage device multitasking, ensure devices are not used during social events, and screen the content that their child is engaging in (ie. Sesame Path vs . Johnny Neutron). Technology can be a very good learning resource, but children also need time to interact with objects from the real world, engage in imaginative play, socialize face-to-face with mates and adults, and children of all ages need isolation and time to let their mind wander. We need to fit more emphasis on the "Ah-ha! " moment that happens once our minds are free of distractions. For this reason alone, technologies use should be limited for all of us.

0 notes

voxrepulsori · 7 years

Text

The French Origins of « You Will Not Replace Us »

THE NEW YORKER | 04.12.2017 | Thomas Chatterton Williams

The European thinkers behind the white-nationalist rallying cry. The Château de Plieux, a fortified castle on a hilltop in the Gascony region of southwestern France, overlooks rolling fields speckled with copses and farmhouses. A tricolor flag snaps above the worn beige stone. The northwest tower, which was built in the fourteenth century, offers an ideal position from which to survey invading hordes. Inside the château’s cavernous second-story study, at a desk heavy with books, the seventy-one-year-old owner of the property, Renaud Camus, sits at an iMac and tweets dire warnings about Europe’s demographic doom. On the sweltering June afternoon that I visited the castle, Camus—no relation to Albert—wore a tan summer suit and a tie. Several painted self-portraits hung in the study, multiplying his blue-eyed gaze. Camus has spent most of his career as a critic, novelist, diarist, and travel essayist. The only one of his hundred or so books to be translated into English, “Tricks” (1979), announces itself as “a sexual odyssey— man-to-man,” and includes a foreword by Roland Barthes. The book describes polyglot assignations from Milan to the Bronx. Allen Ginsberg said of it, “Camus’s world is completely that of a new urban homosexual; at ease in half a dozen countries.” In recent years, though, Camus’s name has been associated less with erotica than with a single poignant phrase, le grand remplacement. In 2012, he made this the title of an alarmist book. Native “white” Europeans, he argues, are being reverse-colonized by black and brown immigrants, who are flooding the Continent in what amounts to an extinction-level event. “The great replacement is very simple,” he has said. “You have one people, and in the space of a generation you have a different people.” The specific identity of the replacement population, he suggests, is of less importance than the act of replacement itself. “Individuals, yes, can join a people, integrate with it, assimilate to it,” he writes in the book. “But peoples, civilizations, religions—and especially when these religions are themselves civilizations, types of society, almost States—cannot and cannot even want to . . . blend into other peoples, other civilizations.” Camus believes that all Western countries are faced with varying degrees of “ethnic and civilizational substitution.” He points to the increasing prevalence of Spanish, and other foreign languages, in the United States as evidence of the same phenomenon. Although his arguments are scarcely available in translation, they have been picked up by right-wing and white-nationalist circles throughout the English-speaking world. In July, Lauren Southern, the Canadian alt-right Internet personality, posted, on YouTube, a video titled “The Great Replacement”; it has received more than a quarter of a million views. On greatreplacement.com, a Web site maintained anonymously, the introductory text declares, “The same term can be applied to many other European peoples both in Europe and abroad . . . where the same policy of mass immigration of non-European people poses a demographic threat. Of all the different races of people on this planet, only the European races are facing the possibility of extinction in a relatively near future.” The site announces its mission as “spreading awareness” of Camus’s term, which, the site’s author concludes, is more palatable than a similar concept, “white genocide.” (A search for that phrase on YouTube yields more than fifty thousand videos.) “I don’t have any genetic conception of races,” Camus told me. “I don’t use the word ‘superior.’ ” He insisted that he would feel equally sad if Japanese culture or “African culture” were to disappear because of immigration. On Twitter, he has quipped, “The only race I hate is the one knocking on the door.” Camus’s partner arrived in the study with a silver platter, and offered fruitcake and coffee. Camus, meanwhile, told me about his “red-pill moment”—an alt-right term, derived from a scene in the film “The Matrix,” for the decision to become politically enlightened. As a child, he said, he was a “xenophile,” who was delighted to see foreign tourists flocking to the thermal baths near his home, in the Auvergne. In the late nineties, he began writing domestic travel books, commissioned by the French government. The work took him to the department of Hérault, whose capital is Montpellier. Although Camus was familiar with France’s heavily black and Arab inner suburbs, or banlieues, and their subsidized urban housing projects, known as cités, his experience in Hérault floored him. Travelling through medieval villages, he said, “you would go to a fountain, six or seven centuries old, and there were all these North African women with veils!” A demographic influx was clearly no longer confined to France’s inner suburbs and industrial regions; it was ubiquitous, and it was transforming the entire country. Camus’s problem was not, as it might be for many French citizens, that the religious symbolism of the veil clashed with some of the country’s most cherished secularist principles; it was that the veil wearers were permanent interlopers in Camus’s homeland. He became obsessed with the diminishing ethnic purity of Western Europe. Camus supports the staunchly anti-immigrant politician Marine Le Pen. He denied, however, that he was a member of the “extreme right,” saying that he was simply one of many voters who “wanted France to stay French.” In Camus’s view, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist liberal who handily defeated Le Pen in a runoff, is synonymous with the “forces of remplacement.” Macron, he noted acidly, “went to Germany to compliment Mme. Merkel on the marvellous work she did by taking in one million migrants.” Camus derides Macron, a former banker, as a representative of “direct Davos-cracy”—someone who thinks of people as “interchangeable” units within a larger social whole. “This is a very low conception of what being human is,” he said. “People are not just things. They come with their history, their culture, their language, with their looks, with their preferences.” He sees immigration as one aspect of a nefarious global process that renders obsolete everything from cuisine to landscapes. “The very essence of modernity is the fact that everything—and really everything—can be replaced by something else, which is absolutely monstrous,” he said. Camus takes William F. Buckley, Jr.,’s injunction to stand “athwart history, yelling Stop” to the furthest extent possible, and he can be recklessly unconcerned about backing up his claims. On a recent radio appearance, he took a beating from Hervé le Bras, a director emeritus at the Institut National d’Études Démographiques, who said that Camus’s proclamations about ethnic substitution were based on wildly inflated statistics about the number of foreigners entering France. Afterward, Camus breezily responded on Twitter: “Since when, in history, did a people need ‘science’ to decide whether or not it was invaded and occupied?” Camus has become one of the most cited figures on the right in France. He is a regular interlocutor of such mainstream intellectuals as Alain Finkielkraut, the conservative Jewish philosopher, who has called Camus “a great writer,” and someone who has “forged an expression that is heard all the time and everywhere.” Camus also has prominent critics: the essayist and novelist Emmanuel Carrère, a longtime friend, has publicly reproached him, writing that “the argument ‘I’m at home here, not you’ ” is incompatible with “globalized justice.” Mark Lilla, the Columbia historian and scholar of the mentality of European reactionaries, described Camus as “a kind of connective tissue between the far right and the respectable right.” Camus can play the role of “respectable” reactionary because his opposition to multicultural globalism is plausibly high-minded, principally aesthetic, even well-mannered—a far cry from the manifest brutality of the skinheads and the tattooed white nationalists who could put into action the xenophobic ideas expressed in “Le Grand Remplacement.” (At a rally in Warsaw on November 11th, white-nationalist demonstrators brandished signs saying “Pray for an Islamic Holocaust” and “Pure Poland, White Poland.”) When I asked Camus whether he considered me—a black American living in Paris with a French wife and a mixed-race daughter—part of the problem, he genially replied, “There is nothing more French than an American in Paris!” He then offered me the use of his castle when he and his partner next went on a vacation. Although Camus presents his definition of “Frenchness” as reasonable and urbane, it is of a piece with a less benign perspective on ethnicity, Islam, and territory which has circulated in his country for decades. Never the sole preserve of the far right, this view was conveyed most bluntly in a 1959 letter, from Charles de Gaulle to his confidant Alain Peyrefitte, which advocates withdrawal from French Algeria: It is very good that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They prove that France is open to all races and that she has a universal mission. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion. De Gaulle then declares that Muslims, “with their turbans and djellabahs,” are “not French.” He asks, “Do you believe that the French nation can absorb 10 million Muslims, who tomorrow will be 20 million and the day after 40 million?” If this were to happen, he concludes, “my village would no longer be called Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées!” Such worry about Muslims has been present across Europe at least since the turn of the twentieth century, when the first “guest workers” began arriving from former French colonies and from Turkey. In 1898 in Britain, Winston Churchill warned of “militant Mahommedanism,” and Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech alleged that immigration had caused a “total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.” Anxiety about immigrants of color has long been present in the United States, especially in states along the Mexican border. This feeling became widespread after 9/11, and has only intensified with subsequent terrorist acts by Islamists, the Great Recession, and the election of the first black President. Meanwhile, white populations across the world are stagnant or dwindling. In recent years, white-nationalist discourse has emerged from the recesses of the Internet into plain sight, permeating the highest reaches of the Trump Administration. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the White House senior adviser Stephen Miller endorse dramatic reductions in both legal and illegal immigration. The President’s former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, has returned to his post as the executive chairman of the far-right Web site Breitbart. In a 2014 speech at the Vatican, Bannon praised European “forefathers” who kept Islam “out of the world.” President Trump, meanwhile, has made the metaphor of immigrant invasion literal by vowing to build a wall. In Europe, which in recent years has absorbed millions of migrants fleeing wars in the Middle East or crossing the Mediterranean from Africa, opposition to immigration is less a cohesive ideology than a welter of reactionary ideas and feelings. Xenophobic nationalism can be found on both the left and the right. There is not even unanimity on the superiority of Judeo-Christian culture: some European nationalists express a longing for ancient pagan practices. Anti-immigrant thinkers also cannot agree on a name for their movement. Distrust of multiculturalism and a professed interest in preserving European “purity” is often called “identitarianism,” but many prominent anti-immigrant writers avoid that construction. Camus told me that he refused to play “the game” of identity politics, and added, “Do you think that Louis XIV or La Fontaine or Racine or Châteaubriand would say, ‘I’m identitarian?’ No, they were just French. And I’m just French.” Shortly after Trump’s Inauguration, Richard Spencer, the thirty-nine-year-old white nationalist who has become the public face of the American alt-right, was sucker-punched by a protester while being interviewed on a street corner in Washington, D.C. A video of the incident went viral, but little attention was paid to what Spencer said on the clip. “I’m not a neo-Nazi,” he declared. “They kind of hate me, actually.” In order to deflect the frequent charge that he is a racist, he defines himself with the very term that Camus rejects: identitarian. The word sidesteps the question of racial superiority and co-opts the left’s inclusive language of diversity and its critique of forced assimilation in order to reclaim the right to difference—for whites. Identitarianism is a distinctly French innovation. In 1968, in Nice, several dozen far-right activists created the Research and Study Group for European Civilization, better known by its French acronym, GRECE. The think tank eventually began promoting its ideas under the rubric the Nouvelle Droite, or the New Right. One of its founders, and its most influential member, was Alain de Benoist, a hermetic aristocrat and scholar who has written more than a hundred books. In “View from the Right” (1977), Benoist declared that he and other members of GRECE considered “the gradual homogenization of the world, advocated and realized by the two-thousand-year-old discourse of egalitarian ideology, to be an evil.” The group expressed allegiance to “diversity” and “ethnopluralism”—terms that sound politically correct to American ears but had a different meaning in Benoist’s hands. In “Manifesto for a European Renaissance” (1999), he argued: The true wealth of the world is first and foremost the diversity of its cultures and peoples. The West’s conversion to universalism has been the main cause of its subsequent attempt to convert the rest of the world: in the past, to its religion (the Crusades); yesterday, to its political principles (colonialism); and today, to its economic and social model (development) or its moral principles (human rights). Undertaken under the aegis of missionaries, armies, and merchants, the Westernization of the planet has represented an imperialist movement fed by the desire to erase all otherness. From this vantage point, both globalized Communism and globalized capitalism are equally suspect, and a “citizen of the world” is an agent of imperialism. When Benoist writes that “humanity is irreducibly plural” and that “diversity is part of its very essence,” he is not supporting the idea of a melting pot but of diversity in isolation: all Frenchmen in one territory and all Moroccans in another. It is a nostalgic and aestheticized view of the world that shows little interest in the complex economic and political forces that provoke migration. Identitarianism is a lament against change made by people fortunate enough to have been granted, through the arbitrary circumstance of birth, citizenship in a wealthy liberal democracy. Benoist’s peculiar definition of “diversity” has allowed him to take some unexpected positions. He simultaneously defends a Muslim immigrant’s right to wear the veil and opposes the immigration policies that allowed her to settle in France in the first place. In an e-mail, he told me that immigration constitutes an undeniably negative phenomenon, in part because it turns immigrants into victims, by erasing their roots. He continued, “The destiny of all the peoples of the Third World cannot be to establish themselves in the West.” In an interview in the early nineties with Le Monde, he declared that the best way to show solidarity with immigrants is by increasing trade with the Third World, so that developing countries can become “self-sufficient” enough to dissuade their citizens from seeking better lives elsewhere. These countries, he added, needed to find their own paths forward, and not follow the tyrannizing templates of the World Bank and the I.M.F. Benoist told me that, in France’s Presidential election, in May, he voted not for Marine Le Pen but for the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who shares his contempt for global capitalism. Benoist’s writing often echoes left-wing thinkers, especially the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who wrote of “hegemony”—or the command that a regime can wield over a population by controlling its culture. In “Manifesto for a European Renaissance,” Benoist argues that white Europeans should not just support restrictive immigration policies; they should oppose such diluting ideologies as multiculturalism and globalism, taking seriously “the premise that ideas play a fundamental role in the collective consciousness.” In a similar spirit, Benoist has promoted a gramscisme de droite—cultural opposition to the rampaging forces of Hollywood and multinational corporations. The French, he has said, should retain their unique traditions and not switch to “a diet of hamburgers.” Despite Benoist’s affinity for some far-left candidates, “Manifesto for a European Renaissance” has become a revered text for the extreme right across Western Europe, in the U.S., and even in Russia. The crackpot Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, who promotes the ethnopluralist doctrine “Eurasianism,” has flown to Paris to meet Benoist. “I consider him to be the foremost intellectual in Europe today,” Dugin told interviewers in 2012. Earlier this year, John Morgan, an editor of Counter-Currents, a white-nationalist publishing house based in San Francisco, posted an online essay about the indebtedness of the American alt-right to European thought. He described Benoist and GRECE’s achievement as “a towering edifice of thought unparalleled anywhere else on the Right since the Conservative Revolution in Germany of the Weimar era.” Although Benoist claims not to be affiliated with the alt-right—or even to understand “what Richard Spencer can know or have learned from my thoughts”—he has travelled to Washington, D.C., to speak at the National Policy Institute, a white-nationalist group run by Spencer, and he has sat for long interviews with Jared Taylor, the founder of the virulently white-supremacist magazine American Renaissance. In one exchange, Taylor, who was educated in France, asked Benoist how he saw himself “as different from identitarians.” Benoist responded, “I am aware of race and of the importance of race, but I do not give to it the excessive importance that you do.” He went on, “I am not fighting for the white race. I am not fighting for France. I am fighting for a world view. . . . Immigration is clearly a problem. It gives rise to much social pathologies. But our identity, the identity of the immigrants, all the identities in the world have a common enemy, and this common enemy is the system that destroys identities and differences everywhere. This system is the enemy, not the Other.” Benoist may not be a dogmatic thinker, but, for white people who want to think explicitly in terms of culture and race, his work provides a lofty intellectual framework. These disciples, instead of calling for an “Islamic holocaust,” can argue that rootedness in one’s homeland matters, and that immigration, miscegenation, and the homogenizing forces of neoliberal market economies collude to obliterate identities that have taken shape over hundreds of years—just as relentless development has decimated the environment. Benoist’s romantic-sounding ideas can be cherry-picked and applied to local political resentments. The writer Raphaël Glucksmann, a prominent critic of the French far right, told me that such selective appropriations have given Benoist “a huge authority among white nationalists and Fascists everywhere in the world.” Glucksmann recently met me for coffee near his home, which is off the Rue du Faubourg SaintDenis, one of the most ethnically diverse thoroughfares in Paris. The Nouvelle Droite, Glucksmann argued, adopted a traditionally German, tribal way of conceiving identity, which the Germans themselves abandoned after the Second World War. The Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt argued that “all right is the right of a particular Volk.” In a 1932 essay, “The Concept of the Political,” he posed the question that still defines the right-wing mind-set: Who is a people’s friend, and who is an enemy? For Schmitt, to identify one’s enemies was to identify one’s inner self. In another essay, he wrote, “Tell me who your enemy is, and I’ll tell you who you are.” The Nouvelle Droite was fractured, in the nineteen-nineties, by disagreements over what constituted the principal enemy of European identity. If the perceived danger was initially what Benoist described as “the ideology of sameness”—what many in France called the “Coca-Colonization” of the world—the growing presence of African and Arab immigrants caused some members of GRECE to rethink the essence of the conflict. One of the group’s founders, Guillaume Faye, a journalist with a Ph.D. from Sciences-Po, split off and began releasing explicitly racist books. In a 1998 tract, “Archeofuturism,” he argued, “To be a nationalist today is to assign this concept its original etymological meaning, ‘to defend the native members of a people.’ ” The book, which appeared in English in 2010, argues that “European people” are “under threat” and must become “politically organized for their self-defense.” Faye assures native Frenchmen that their “sub-continental motherland” is “an organic and vital part of the common folk, whose natural and historical territory—whose fortress, I would say—extends from Brest to the Bering Strait.” Faye, like Renaud Camus, is appalled by the dictates of modern statecraft, which define nationality in legal rather than ethnic terms. The liberal American writer Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in his recent book, “Go Back to Where You Came From: The Backlash Against Immigration and the Fate of Western Democracy,” quotes Camus lamenting that “a veiled woman speaking our language badly, completely ignorant of our culture” could declare that she is just as French as an “indigenous” man who is “passionate for Roman churches, and for the verbal and syntactic delicacies of Montaigne and Rousseau, for Burgundy wines, for Proust, and whose family has lived for generations in the same valley.” What appalls Camus, PolakowSuransky notes, is that “legally, if she has French nationality, she is completely correct.” Faye’s work helps to explain the rupture that has emerged in many Western democracies between the mainstream right, which may support strict enforcement of immigration limits but does not inherently object to the presence of Muslims, and the alt-right, which portrays Muslim immigration as an existential threat. In this light, the growing admiration by Western conservatives for the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is easier to comprehend. Not only do thinkers like Faye admire Putin as an emblem of proudly heterosexual white masculinity; they fantasize that Russian military might will help create a “Eurosiberian” federation of white ethno-states. “The only hope for salvation in this dark age of ours,” Faye has declared, is “a protected and self-centered continental economic space” that is capable of “curbing the rise of Islam and demographic colonization from Africa and Asia.” In Faye’s 2016 book, “The Colonisation of Europe,” he writes, of Muslims in Europe, “No solution can be found unless a civil war breaks out.” Such revolutionary right-wing talk has now migrated to America. In 2013, Steve Bannon, while he was turning Breitbart into the far right’s dominant media outlet, described himself as “a Leninist.” The reference didn’t seem like something a Republican voter would say, but it made sense to his intended audience: Bannon was signalling that the alt-right movement was prepared to hijack, or even raze, the state in pursuit of nationalist ends. (Bannon declined my request for an interview.) Richard Spencer told me, “I would say that the alt-right in the United States is radically un-conservative.” Whereas the American conservative movement celebrates “the eternal value of freedom and capitalism and the Constitution,” Spencer said, he and his followers were “willing to use socialism in order to protect our identity.” He added, “Many of the countries that lived under Soviet hegemony are actually far better off, in terms of having a protected identity, than Western Europe or the United States.” Spencer said that “clearly racialist” writers such as Benoist and Faye were “central influences” on his own thinking as an identitarian. He first discovered the work of Nouvelle Droite figures in the pages of Telos, an American journal of political theory. Most identitarians have a less scholarly bent. In 2002, a right-wing French insurrectionary, Maxime Brunerie, shot at President Jacques Chirac as he rode down the Champs- Élysées; the political group that Brunerie was affiliated with, Unité Radicale, became known as part of the identitairemovement. In 2004, a group known as the Bloc Identitaire became notorious for distributing soup containing pork to the homeless, in order to exclude Muslims and Jews. It was the sort of puerile joke now associated with alt-right pranksters in America such as Milo Yiannopoulos. Copycat groups began emerging across Europe. In 2009, a Swedish former mining executive, Daniel Friberg, founded, in Denmark, the publishing house Arktos, which is now the world’s largest distributor of far- and alt-right literature. The son of highly educated, left-leaning parents, Friberg grew up in a wealthy suburb of Gothenburg. He embraced right-wing thought after attending a diverse high school, which he described as overrun with crime. In 2016, he told the Daily Beast, “I had been taught to think multiculturalism was great, until I experienced it.” Few European nations have changed as drastically or as quickly as Sweden. Since 1960, it has added one and a half million immigrants to its population, which is currently just under ten million; a nationalist party, the Sweden Democrats, has become the country’s main opposition group. During this period, Friberg began to devour books on European identity—specifically, those of Benoist and Faye, whose key works impressed him as much as they impressed Richard Spencer. When Friberg launched Arktos, he acquired the rights to books by Benoist and Faye and had them translated into Swedish and English. Spencer told me that Arktos “was a very important development” in the international popularization of far-right identitarian thought. Whether or not history really is dialectical, it can be tempting to think that decades of liberal supremacy in Europe have helped give rise to the antithesis of liberalism. In Paris, left-wing intellectuals often seem reluctant to acknowledge that the recent arrival of millions of refugees in Europe, many of them impoverished, poses any complications at all. Such blithe cosmopolitanism, especially when it is expressed by people who can easily shelter themselves from the disruptions caused by globalization, can fuel resentment toward both intellectuals and immigrants. The philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who has long embodied élite opinion on the French left, sometimes falls prey to such rhetoric. A 2015 essay, which attempted to allay fears of a refugee crisis in Europe, portrayed Syrian refugees as uniformly virtuous and adaptable: “They are applicants for freedom, lovers of our promised land, our social model, and our values. They are people who cry out ‘Europe! Europe!’ the way millions of Europeans, arriving a century ago on Ellis Island, learned to sing ‘America the Beautiful.’ ” Instead of making the reasonable argument that relatively few Muslim refugees harbor extremist beliefs, Lévy took an absolutist stance, writing that it was pure “nonsense” to be concerned about an increased risk of terrorism. Too often, Lévy fights racism with sentimentalism. Lévy recently met with me at his impeccable apartment, in a sanitized neighborhood near the Champs- Élysées. In our conversation, he offered a more modulated view. “I’m not saying that France should have received all two or three million Syrian refugees,” he said. “Of course, there’s a limited space.” But France had involved itself in Syria’s civil war, by giving support to opponents of the regime, and had a responsibility to help people uprooted by it, he said. Recent debates about European identity, he noted, had left out an important concept: hospitality. “Hospitality means that there is a place—real space, scarce, limited—and that in this place you host some people and you extend a hand.” This did not mean that he wanted an end to borders: “France has some borders, a republican tradition, it is a place. But in this place we have the duty to host. You have to hold the two. A place without hosting would be a shrinking republic. Universal welcoming would be another mistake.” A necessary tension is created between “the infinite moral duty of hospitality and the limited political possibility of welcoming.” When I asked Lévy why the notion of the great replacement had resonated so widely, he dismissed it as a “junk idea.” “The Roman conquest of Gaul was a real modification of the population in France,” he went on. “There was neversomething like an ethnic French people.” Raphaël Glucksmann made a similar critique of the idea of “pure” Frenchness. He observed, “In 1315, you had an edict from the king who said anybody who walks on the soil of France becomes a franc.” This is true, but there is always a threshold at which a quantitative change becomes qualitative; migration was far less extensive in the Middle Ages than it is today. French liberals can surely make a case for immigration without pretending that nothing has changed: a country that in 1900 was almost uniformly Catholic now has more than six million Muslims. The liberal historian Patrick Boucheron, the editor of a recent surprise best-seller that highlights foreign influences on French life throughout the ages, told me that he had little patience for people who bemoan the country’s changing demographics. French people who are struggling today, he said, are victims of unfair economic policies, not Muslims, who still make up only ten per cent of the population. Indeed, only a quarter of France’s population is of immigrant origin—a percentage that, according to Boucheron, has remained stable for four decades. Boucheron sees identitarians as manipulators who have succeeded “in convincing the dominated that their problem is French identity.” For Boucheron, it’s not simply that the great replacement is a cruel idea; it’s also false. “When you oppose their figures—when you say that there were Poles and Italians coming to France in the nineteen-thirties—they say, ‘O.K., but they were Christians,’ ” he said. “So you see that behind identity there’s immigration, and behind immigration there’s hatred of Islam. Eventually, it always comes down to that.” But to deny that recent migration has brought disruptions only helps the identitarians gain traction. A humanitarian crisis has been unfolding in Paris, and it is clearly a novel phenomenon. This summer, more than two thousand African and Middle Eastern migrants were living in street encampments near the Porte de la Chapelle; eventually, the police rounded them up and dispersed them in temporary shelters. “We don’t have enough housing,” the center-right philosopher Pascal Bruckner told me. “The welfare state is at the maximum of its capabilities. We’re broke. And so what we offer to those people is what happens at Porte de la Chapelle.” Many liberals have downplayed the homeless crisis, rather than discuss potential solutions. “We turn a blind eye to this issue, just to look generous,” Bruckner said. At one point in my conversation with Lévy, he flatly declared that France “has no refugees.” Far-right figures, for their part, have relentlessly exploited Paris’s problems on social media, posting inflammatory videos that make it seem like marauding migrants have taken over every street corner. Jean-Yves Camus, a scholar of the far right in France (and no relation to Renaud Camus), told me that there is a problematic lack of candor in the way that liberals describe today’s unidirectional mass movement of peoples. “It depends what you call Frenchness,” he said. “If you think that traditional France, like we used to see in the nineteen-fifties and sixties, should survive and remain, then certainly it will not survive. This is the truth. So I think we have to admit that, contrary to what Lévy says, there has been a change.” But what, exactly, does the notion of “traditional France” imply? The France of de Gaulle—or of Racine— differs in many ways from the France of today, not just in ethnic composition. Renaud Camus recently told Vox that white people in France are living “under menace”—victims of an unchecked foreign assault “as much by black Africa as it is by Northern Islamic Africans.” Yet feminism, Starbucks, the smartphone, the L.G.B.T.Q. movement, the global domination of English, EasyJet, Paris’s loss of centrality in Western cultural life—all of these developments have disrupted what it means “to be French.” The problem with identitarianism isn’t simply that it is nostalgic; it’s that it fixates on ethnicity to the exclusion of all else. The United States is not Western Europe. Not only is America full of immigrants; they are seen as part of what makes America American. Unlike France, the United States has only ever been a nation in the legal sense, even if immigration was long restricted to Europeans, and even if the Founding Fathers organized their country along the bloody basis of what we now tend to understand as white supremacy. The fact remains that, unless you are Native American, it is ludicrous for a resident of the United States to talk about “blood and soil.” And yet the country has nonetheless arrived at a moment when once unmentionable ideas have gone mainstream, and the most important political division is no longer between left and right but between globalist and nationalist. “The so-called New Right never claimed to change the world,” Alain de Benoist wrote to me. Its goal, he said, “was, rather, to contribute to the intellectual debate, to make known certain themes of reflection and thought.” On that count, it has proved a smashing success. Glucksmann summed up the Nouvelle Droite’s thinking as follows: “Let’s just win the cultural war, and then a leader will come out of it.” The belief that a multicultural society is tantamount to an anti-white society has crept out of French salons and all the way into the Oval Office. The apotheosis of right-wing Gramscism is Donald Trump. On August 11th, the Unite the Right procession marched through the campus of the University of Virginia. White-supremacist protesters mashed together Nazi and Confederate iconography while chanting variations of Renaud Camus’s grand remplacement credo: “You will not replace us”; “Jews will not replace us.” Few, if any, of these khaki-clad young men had likely heard of Guillaume Faye, Renaud Camus, or Alain de Benoist. They didn’t know that their rhetoric had been imported from France, like some dusty wine. But they didn’t need to. All they had to do was pick up the tiki torches and light them.

Thomas Chatterton Williams

This article appears in the print edition of the December 4, 2017, issue, with the headline ““You Will Not Replace Us”.”

Thomas Chatterton Williams, a contributing writer for the Times Magazine, is a Holtzbrinck Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin. He is at work on a book about racial identity.

#France #US #USA #Alain de Benoist #Renaud Camus #Guillaume Faye #Identité #identity #idenditarian #Immigration #gramscisme #gramscism

7 notes · View notes

junker-town · 4 years

Text

U.S. Soccer closing the Development Academy doesn’t have to be a bad thing

U.S. Soccer’s Development Academy program was inefficient and too often ineffective. Now, something better can take its place.

U.S. Soccer announced the permanent closure of its development academy Wednesday, citing financial difficulties caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. U.S. Soccer had previously anticipated spending $12 million on the DA in 2021, but between recent lost revenue and an anticipated settlement with the USWNT over its lawsuit, the federation wanted to cut costs.

The boys’ DA was founded in 2007 to create a consistent standard for top youth clubs in the United States that could then feed into the national team programs. The girls’ DA was founded in 2017 with the same mission. Several top American players came out of the DA, but the program may have garnered more complaints than praise over its lifetime. It placed tight restrictions on players’ lives, controlled training methods, limited competition against teams in other leagues, and required heavy travel. Among the DA’s most controversial rules was its insistence that players had to participate in the program exclusively, and could not play high school soccer.

More than 100 clubs and 20,000 players will now have to make difficult decisions about their futures — where they will play, or how they will remain solvent — when American youth soccer resumes play.

It is with profound disappointment that we have made the determination to end the operation of the U.S. Soccer Development Academy, effective immediately. pic.twitter.com/DB8Fr1Qkvu

— U.S. Soccer (@ussoccer) April 15, 2020

U.S. Soccer’s decision does not appear to be entirely driven by the pandemic, but merely accelerated by it. Before the announcement, boys and girls teams had been leaving the DA for an independent rival league, ECNL, that has looser requirements. And immediately following the announcement, MLS announced that it is starting its own development program, suggesting that the league has known about U.S. Soccer’s plans for some time.

NWSL hasn’t announced similar measures, but top women’s coaches have been calling for the DA’s radical reform or dissolution.

In a letter to U.S. Soccer membership, new CEO Will Wilson outlined how the federation anticipates supporting the youth game when it restarts.

At U.S. Soccer, we will also be looking at other ways to positively impact youth development moving forward, including an increased emphasis on coaching education, a more comprehensive scouting effort, and working with clubs to maintain and expand the philosophy and standards established through the Development Academies.

The story of why the DA wasn’t working will take much more than one day to piece together, and it should come out over the next few months. But the CliffsNotes version is this: The DA was annoying more people than it was helping, and that’s not worth spending $12 million during good times.

In the short-term, U.S. Soccer’s decision will be difficult for players and clubs. While some clubs will find new leagues quickly and keep players in competitions and training environments that work for them, others will need more time, and some could ultimately close shop. Thousands of players now don’t know where they’ll be once they’re allowed to play soccer again, and could miss a season at a critical time in their development.

But in the long-term, the end of the DA could be a huge positive for youth soccer in America. Having big league that was run out of an ivory tower in Chicago didn’t serve players well, and now American soccer’s various stakeholders have an opportunity to create a variety of development pathways that fit the needs of different players and regions around the country.

It was time for the DA to go for a lot of reasons, but most of them stem from three big overarching problems.

America is just too damn big

If you spend one day on Youth Soccer Twitter, you’ll run into some galaxy brain geniuses asking why U.S. Soccer doesn’t emulate the youth setup of one of Europe’s most successful footballing nations. The answer is pretty simple: All of those countries are smaller than Texas.

And yet, U.S. Soccer tried to run a national league in which teenagers spent more time on buses and airplanes than they did on playing fields. Getting the best players in the country to play against each other makes sense on a surface level, but the logistics of making those matches happen require a massive waste of time and money.

Development isn’t just technical, it’s also emotional

Getting the best players into the best environments, with the best coaches and best training programs, helps them improve the tangible parts of their games. Unfortunately, the DA also turned a lot of players into soccer robots who didn’t care about the matches and weren’t as competitive as their predecessors.

USMNT legend, pro coach and DA parent Eric Wynalda explained why the DA’s ban on high school soccer created a bigger problem than the one it was trying to solve:

Even referees complained that DA games were “manufactured “ lacked “real emotion” -thousands of practice games will never prepare you for the raw emotion of playing for your school in front of your peers with an opportunity to represent more than just yourself -define development https://t.co/7kdLrIHj17

— Eric Wynalda (@EricWynalda) April 15, 2020

Coach and former player Skye Eddy Bruce made a similar point about why a shift to regional leagues should be better for player development going forward.

Youth players today lack the understanding of what it means to be on a team and battle, to celebrate a win — or survive the pain of defeat together. We have actually fed and created this mentality in our children through our league structures where winning just doesn’t matter as much and we are more concerned with “showcasing” players instead of showing them the value of battling to win together.

The ability and desire to win matters.

With regionalized competition comes stronger rivalries and with stronger competition comes increased development.

DA was preparing players for the technical and tactical realities of pro soccer, but not for the high level of competition.

One size doesn’t fit all

In an ideal system, all players will have access to the same opportunities if they want them. But the realities of the American soccer — how young the professional scene is, how large the country is, and how many parents absolutely cannot be convinced that there is more to think about than just a college scholarship — mean that there have to be several different youth development pathways.

The different needs of players need to be considered. Some 14-year-olds are ready to go off to Soccer Army and commit to two-a-days for the rest of their lives, and some aren’t. Some kids are dying to play high school soccer and some don’t care. Some have difficult family situations, or other hobbies they’re extremely passionate about, or live an hour away from the nearest soccer field. All of these kids should have an opportunity to play soccer at a high level and be evaluated by youth national team coaches if they’re talented enough.

There is room for MLS, NWSL, USL, U.S. Soccer, ECNL and other American youth soccer organizations to execute their own visions for player development. The lack of one master league will not make finding the best players impossibles. U.S. Soccer and the big pro clubs can still host or compete against smaller clubs and find top talent. And an improved state Olympic Development Program that meets once a month could help, too.

I don’t have the solution to what ails American youth soccer, and neither does anyone else. U.S. Soccer need to admit the same thing to themselves. That the only way a system which produces great professional players and works for all people involved in the game can be achieved. What is best for New York City is not best for western Texas. What is best for a kid who’s been obsessed with becoming a great soccer player since they were in kindergarten is not what’s best for a multi-sport athlete who discovers the game at 14.

MLS can, and should, set its own standards for what an MLS academy should look like. So should NWSL, ECNL and everyone else. U.S. Soccer’s role in youth development shouldn’t be to set rigid standards, but to facilitate collaboration while establishing a wide scouting network, so that top talents who aren’t playing in hermetic environments can be noticed and given different opportunities.

The idea behind the DA was logical: create a better training standard for top players and get America’s best players to compete against each other. But there wasn’t enough consideration given to the problems it might create. American youth soccer has an opportunity to learn from the DA’s mistakes and improve dramatically in its absence.

0 notes