← Return to search results
Back to Prindle Institute

movies

Posted on

Perspective, Persistence, Patience: Lessons from “The Oner”

Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg recently won an Emmy for their directing in the show The Studio, which took home an impressive 13 awards. The episode they won for, “The Oner,” was an obvious pick for production enthusiasts and its meta elements were a delight to watch. The episode follows a film crew trying to pull off a complicated single-shot sequence at sunset. Shots like this are aptly called oners. The creators of this episode demonstrate their prowess by shooting the episode in a single take. (Though Rogen and Goldberg admit that it is technically several oners stitched together, their efforts and creativity are still praiseworthy.)

Since its airing, I have rewatched the episode a few times. Perhaps one of the reasons I am attracted to this episode is because shooting a continuous take is technically demanding. It requires thoughtful planning, rehearsing, and execution by a team of people working in perfect sync. While film and TV are inherently collaborative, pulling off a oner increases the stakes. Its technical achievement is, in itself, impressive, and so I rewatch it to enjoy the spectacle of it all. But, I think its significance goes beyond its technical achievement.

In today’s media environment, we are bombarded with short-form content. The pervasiveness of Instagram reels, TikTok, and Youtube shorts, and quick posts on X or Facebook trains us to consume information in small, decontextualized bursts. And the way we are presented with content matters. In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman warns us that television has eroded our public discourse because it does not require the discipline and concentration required by print. Reading requires patience. One must move sentence by sentence, holding ideas in mind until they resolve themselves at the end of a section, chapter, or book. Television, by contrast, is able to show us images that are easier to consume but harder to organize meaningfully.

While I do not fully agree with Postman about all of his comparisons between reading and television, I think he makes a compelling argument about attending to the form of our media. The dominant form of media in one’s culture will shape the kind of information one consumes and the way one understands the information it tries to convey. Postman notes that the idea of “daily news” does not make sense before the telegraph machine arrives because prior to the telegraph news could only travel between 20-30mph (that was the speed of a train).

What fascinates me about the oner, however, is that it resists standard television logic. Unlike much of the form, it demands sustained attention. Most shows are cut-heavy, forcing us to switch perspectives. We shift from over-the-shoulder to wide shots, and between a variety of third-person vantage points, all of which are used to serve important storytelling purposes. However, these cuts also fragment our viewing experience.

Contrast this with a continuous, uncut shot. With a oner, we are allowed to occupy a singular perspective that flows with the action of the scene in real time. This allows us to be a part of the reality we are witnessing in real time, mimicking the way we actually experience the world. Watching Seth Rogen’s character, Matt Remick, infiltrate the set and disrupt the production, I felt as if I was also there on set, perhaps as a silent PA in the background. The format draws us into the scene and allows us to feel the events that unfold more naturally.

What is striking about the long, unbroken shot in “The Oner,” is that it asks us to practice something that resembles the skills of reading. Consider one of the jokes made in the beginning of the episode. Remick suggests to the director that the actress should be smoking in the scene because it will create a nice bookend, and who doesn’t love a nice bookend? Of course, this suggestion is just one of the many things that Remick does that ultimately thwarts the success of the shot in the episode. The joke for us as viewers is that this episode itself contains a bookend. Remick parks his car in the driveway in the very beginning of the episode, only to be told at the very end of the episode that his car is blocking the shot. The gag only really works if you exercise attention, much like the attention that Postman tells us is required for reading.

The oner can do more than just engage our attention. When executed properly, it has the power to bring us closer to the truth. This is also apt when we consider what Heidegger says in The Question Concerning Technology. In this piece, Heidegger attempts to uncover the nature of technology. He argues that technology is a kind of revealing or uncovering, which he traces to the ancient Greek notion of revealing or alētheia.

The video camera is undoubtedly an expression of technology. But its ability to bring us closer to truth is dependent on the way it is used. When we consider the nature of film and TV, we cannot do so without considering the edit and the final cut. Every cut and juxtaposition of one shot next to another will convey some kind of reality or another. Cuts can be used to bring us closer to something true or further away.

When presented with a single-shot scene, the viewer’s ability to accept what is happening as true increases because the alternative, viz., a cut up, edited scene, implies a certain kind of concealment. In the heavily edited scene, we must infer what happens in-between cuts. Even if the cuts appear to happen instantly, we lose something in the movement between shots.

The oner, however, does not blink. It attempts to show us an unbroken version of reality. This is why a long shot can feel more believable when it’s a part of a fictional story and why videos of real-world events often feel more trustworthy when there are fewer cuts. The longer the camera runs, the more we are forced to accept what it shows. The oner is powerful because it refuses to hide reality.

This is not to say that every single, continuous shot is inherently more truthful than an edited sequence, nor is it to suggest that one cannot fake the truth of an unbroken shot. Indeed, many one-shot takes in film and television are cheated (both Birdman and 1917 are edited to look as though they were shot in one continuous take, when in fact they were not). Even if the shot is genuinely done in one take, it is still limited by its own perspective in time and space. But the oner stands out to me because, in today’s media landscape, where we prioritize short attention spans and fast payoffs, the single-shot sequence asks us to sit down, wait for the scene to unfold, and hold our judgment until the very end.

Posted on

Movies, Beliefs, and Dangerous Messages

photograph of a crowd marching the streets dressed as witches and wearing grotesque masks

In spite of being a welcome part of our lives, movies are not always immune from criticism. One of the most recent examples has been the movie adaptation of Roald Dahl’s book “The Witches,” starring Anne Hathaway. Hathaway, who plays the role of the leader of the Witches, is depicted as having three fingers per hand, which disability advocates have criticized as sending a dangerous message. The point, many have argued, is that by portraying someone with limb differences as scary and cruel – as Hathaway’s character is – the movie associates limb differences with negative character traits and depicts people with limb differences as persons to be feared.

Following the backlash, Hathaway has apologized on Instagram, writing:

“Let me begin by saying I do my best to be sensitive to the feelings and experiences of others not out of some scrambling PC fear, but because not hurting others seems like a basic level of decency we should all be striving for. As someone who really believes in inclusivity and really, really detests cruelty, I owe you all an apology for the pain caused. I am sorry. I did not connect limb difference with the GHW [Grand High Witch] when the look of the character was brought to me; if I had, I assure you this never would have happened.”

As Cara Buckley writes in The New York Times, examples of disfigured people being portrayed as evil abound. From Joker in “The Dark Night” to the “Phantom of the Opera,” cases where disabilities are associated with scary features are far from isolated instances. For as much as these concerns regarding “The Witches” might be justified (as I believe they are), critics seem to already anticipate a criticism of their criticism: that the backlash against the movie is exaggerated, and sparked by, to use Hathaway’s words, a “scrambling PC fear.” As Ashley Eakin, who has Ollier disease and Maffucci syndrome, remarks in Buckley’s article, “[o]bviously we don’t want a culture where everyone’s outraged about everything.”

So, is the backlash against the movie exaggerated? I want to suggest here that it is not; I want to suggest that the association between disability and evil portrayed by movies is a real issue, one that connects with recent philosophical discussions. The argument in favor of the dangers of this association seems to be that by portraying people with disabilities as ugly or scary, viewers may internalize that association and then transfer it onto the real world, thus negatively (and unjustly) impacting the way they see people with visible differences. As quoted in Buckley’s piece, Penny Loker, a visible difference advocate, argues that one of the problematic aspects of “The Witches” is that it is a family movie, and this might make the association between limb differences and evil even more pernicious because “kids absorb what they learn, be it through stories we tell or what they learn from their parents.”

Loker’s line of reasoning touches upon an issue that has recently been examined in philosophy and psychology, particularly with respect to how individuals differentiate facts from fiction. Researcher Deena Skolnick Weisberg, for example, who studies imaginative cognition, argues that despite children being competent in distinguishing imagination from reality, they not always and necessarily do so when it comes to consuming fiction. Quoting a study a study from Morison and Gardner (1978), Weisberg suggests that “[e]ven though children tend not to confuse real and fictional entities when asked directly, they do not necessarily see these as natural categories into which to sort entities.” This is made even more acute in the presence of negative emotions. Weisberg says that “[c]hildren are more likely to mis-categorize pretend or fictional entities that have a strong emotional valence, particularly a negative emotional valence.” Weisberg remarks, and this is my own conjecture, seem to be relevant for the depiction of Hathaway as a witch to be afraid of. One may worry that children who are scared of Hathaway’s character might have more difficulties separating fiction from reality, thus making Loker’s concern even more pressing.

If what has been said so far may apply to children, then what about their parents? Intuitively, one would think that when adults know that what they are watching is fictional, then the worry of associating limb differences with evil does not have any application to reality precisely because adults would categorize what they see in the movie as being purely fictional.

Yet, things are not as simple. As philosopher Neil Levy argues, adults are not always good at categorizing mental representations (such as beliefs, desires, or imaginings). Levy’s argument focuses on fake news and suggests that consuming news that we know to be fake does not insulate us from dangerous consequences. Meaning, under certain circumstances we can “acquire” information as well as beliefs even when we know that the “source” is “fictional.” The main context that situates Levy’s argument is fake news, but I think that its conceptual import can teach us something even in the context of movies. If it is true that even adults have a hard time categorizing mental representations when they know they are fake, then this could potentially impact the way adults, similarly to children, absorb what they see when watching films as well as how they employ it in real life.

What should we make of this? I think one important lesson to draw from this reflection is that once the movie industry recognizes the considerable impact their films can have in the way both children and adults internalize what they see, the industry has an obligation to consider the consequences that portraying certain connections can have. Given how viewers absorb what they see, regardless of their age, the movie industry should strive to be more alert and spot problematic associations like this one.

Posted on

Could Gender-Blind Casting Limit Epistemic Injustice?

Photograph of Edwin Austin Abbey's painting of a scene from Shakespeare's King Lear

Following on the heels of her 2018 Tony award for her role in the revival of Edward Albee’s Three Tall Women, Glenda Jackson is set to reprise her portrayal of the title role in King Lear when it comes to Broadway next season. Lear’s extreme emotional range has led many to consider the role to be one of Shakespeare’s most difficult characters to portray, but Jackson’s embodiment of the mad king in Deborah Warner’s 2016 production at London’s Old Vic was hailed by audiences and critics alike as an artistic and cultural success. Undoubtedly, Jackson’s talent will once again have an opportunity to shine in New York, but this example of gender-blind casting (Jackson did not play “Queen” Lear) offers an interesting suggestion for addressing a problem within the world of entertainment — one that Miranda Fricker called “hermeneutical marginalization.”

In her 2007 book Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, Fricker outlined various ways that an individual might be wronged when they face a disadvantage to accessing or sharing knowledge that others can access freely. Some kinds of epistemic injustice are preceded by what Fricker called hermeneutical marginalization, which are particularly evident in the case of marginalized groups, whose reports of mistreatment, for example, might be ignored or minimized by audiences with greater social power. This concept, as explained by Dr. Emily McWilliams on the Examining Ethics podcast, is what happens “when members of non-dominant groups don’t get to fully participate in the process of meaning-making as we develop our shared pool of concepts through which we communicate.”

Many examples of attempts towards this sort of marginalization can be found in wide-spread responses to recent productions of shows like Hamilton, comic books like Thor and Spider-Man, and movies like Star Wars, Ocean’s Eight and the 2016 reboot of Ghostbusters. When John Boyega was named as a primary cast member of the then-unreleased Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens in 2015, white supremacists called for a boycott of the franchise on the grounds that it should be “kept white.” Donald Glover endured similarly racist criticisms after he was proposed as a possible choice to take over the role of Spider-Man in 2012, as has the cast of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s award-winning Broadway show Hamilton for its re-envisioning of the American founders. When Marvel Comics recast the character of Jane Foster as the new Thor in 2014, detractors criticized the move as “politically correct bullsh**,” a complaint also suffered by the rebooted Oceans Eight and Ghostbusters projects. The upcoming season of the BBC’s Doctor Who that will premiere later this year with Jodie Whittaker at the helm of the T.A.R.D.I.S. faced the same criticism. In particular, the 2016 Ghostbusters film withstood an organized campaign of sexist attacks that was specifically designed to damage the movie’s profitability, even before the film was actually released. In each case, the attempt to remove these criticized women and people of color from the meaning-making process of big-budget storytelling means that they have been likewise victimized by Fricker’s hermeneutical marginalization.

And while endeavors like the Time’s Up campaign and the #MeToo movement have offered opportunities to spread awareness and aid to victims of such marginalization, it seems unlikely that gender-bending reboots hold much promise for changing the landscape of American culture — in fact, as Alexandra Petri has argued, they may actually contribute to the problem of “the male experience being taken as a proxy for the human experience.” Instead of intentional gender-bending, perhaps Glenda Jackson’s gender-blind casting may offer an opportunity to provoke a more widespread “mooreeffoc” moment in the minds of an audience.

Coined by Charles Dickens as reported in his biography by G.K. Chesterton, “mooreeffoc” refers to the sign on the windowed door of a coffee room, read backwards from the inside, to indicate the sudden re-appreciation of something previously taken for granted. Much like how someone might at first be confused, then suddenly pleased to realize that they now understand something obvious in a new light (as when realizing that you can, in fact, read an at-first-confusing sign), the mooreeffoc moment comes uncontrollably when one recovers a “freshness of vision” (to quote J.R.R. Tolkien’s description of the effect) about something previously considered trite.

This is what is needed for representation in Hollywood and beyond: not simply more diverse roles and casts (although that is certainly crucial), but the proper appreciation of those casts on the part of the public at large. Though Fricker promoted a “virtue of hermeneutical justice” wherein sensitivity to “some sort of gap in the collective hermeneutical resources” might function to offset or even prevent the harms done by hermeneutical injustices like marginalization, gender-bending casting decisions do not seem to serve such a purpose. Unfortunately, dominant groups — members of which would do well to reconsider their marginalizing attitudes and actions – will likely continue to raise questions (however unfounded) of political intentions and suspicious concerns over subversive messaging surrounding these roles. Indeed, gender-bending productions may currently be too charged to promote reflective considerations that could precipitate a mooreeffoc.

Yet gender-blind casting might bypass such accusations entirely with its firm foundation on simple actorial merit. Although many may not realize it, gender or race-blind casting has led to some of the more memorable roles in cinematic history, such as Morgan Freeman’s portrayal of Red in The Shawshank Redemption and Sigourney Weaver’s depiction of Ellen Ripley in the Alien franchise. Certainly, if diverse representation is to truly become more common in Western entertainment, then even resistant audiences must come to have a freshness of vision about the possibilities for the depiction of fictional characters (and, by extension, individuals in general). Particularly in light of research that indicates the empathy-promoting power of literature and immersive storytelling, proving to suspicious members of dominant social groups that members of marginalized groups perform perfectly well in the same roles might offer the very wedge needed to provoke a mooreeffoc moment. If gender-blind-casting could bring about this effect even if only for a time — therefore offering an alternative pathway to promote a more equitable entertainment industry — then it seems like it would be worth considering more frequently.

Posted on

On Bad Artists, Good Art

Photograph of an older TV with "The Bill Cosby" displayed on it

It is becoming a common occurrence to read in the news that one of your favorite actors, musicians, filmmakers, or other celebrity does not have the quality of moral character that you perhaps thought they did. Examples are plentiful: Bill Cosby has been convicted on three cases of aggravated assault against women (and been accused of many more); Harvey Weinstein was recently indicted on rape chargers; Kevin Spacey has been accused of sexually propositioning a minor; Spotify recently decided to remove the songs of R Kelly from the platform amid many allegations of sexual assault; and most recently (at least, at the time of writing this) Rosanne Barr’s racist tweets resulted in the cancellation of the reboot of her show Rosanne. What inevitably follows each new accusation, indictment, arrest, or general revelation are articles, opinion pieces, and discussions online and in print asking the same question: is it okay for me to watch shows, or movies, or listen to music, made by people who have done reprehensible things? Continue reading “On Bad Artists, Good Art”

Posted on

When Men Dominate the Film Industry, What’s the Problem?

Watching the Oscars recently, I was struck by the fact that, for all the emphasis on women over the last year because of the #metoo movement, the winners were still mostly a parade of men. Greta Gerwig did not win for her wonderful movie Lady Bird; Guillermo Del Toro won for the overly contrived movie The Shape of Water. Yes, there were female winners in the acting categories, but there have to be: those categories are gender-segregated.

Continue reading “When Men Dominate the Film Industry, What’s the Problem?”

Posted on

Afrofuturism: The Beginning of the End for Stereotypical Black People in Media?

Art piece showing dark backdrop with pinpricks of light creating a 3D image of a woman and a kind of landscape

This article has a set of discussion questions tailored for classroom use. Click here to download them. To see a full list of articles with discussion questions and other resources, visit our “Educational Resources” page.

The box office hit Black Panther is important for a variety of reasons. Not only is it the next story in the revolutionary Marvel Cinematic Universe, but its racial implications are significant as well. A film showing a black superhero who is one of the wealthiest and smartest characters in the Marvel Universe being presented to the masses is powerful in regards to representation. But what might not be so well known among the masses of moviegoers that saw Black Panther is the genre that the film is rooted in. The Marvel Studios film has shed light on Afrofuturism, a genre where writing, film, and even music are shown through the lens of an African American. According to The Washington Post, Afrofuturism incorporates science fiction and fantasy into the history of the African diaspora. It ranges from writing to music and portrays black people in a more positive light, framing its black characters as incredibly intelligent and as visionaries. Although the Afrofuturism movement has acted as a catalyst for the empowerment of black people, should it be an indicator to white people to cast aside the stigmas and negative stereotypes associated with black people? Continue reading “Afrofuturism: The Beginning of the End for Stereotypical Black People in Media?”

Posted on

All Hail the King

image of photographers and fans with actors of the Black Panther film

In 1966, comic creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced a new character in issue #52 of the Fantastic Four. It all started when Reed Richards, Mr. Fantastic, (the guy who stretches, for those who don’t know) was gifted with a high-tech space craft from a mysterious “African chieftan” and was invited to meet him. Mr. Fantastic and the rest of the Fantastic Four obliged and visited this mysterious African chieftan, only to discover that his true identity was T’Challa, king of an advanced country called Wakanda and possessor of the mantle of the Black Panther.
Continue reading “All Hail the King”

Posted on

Harvey Weinstein and Addressing Hollywood’s Unacceptable Reality

A photo of the Hollywood sign at sunset.

On October 5, The New York Times released a report detailing various instances of sexual assault perpetrated by Hollywood director and executive, Harvey Weinstein, on many of his female colleagues. The allegations span over a period of 30 years, as Weinstein’s power in the film industry protected him from consequences. “Movies were his private leverage,” the report reads, as Weinstein often offered promotions and bonuses to his female colleagues in exchange for sexual acts, and silenced those who spoke out with payments that ranged between $80,000 and $150,000.

Continue reading “Harvey Weinstein and Addressing Hollywood’s Unacceptable Reality”

Posted on

Lord of the Flies and the Ethics of Genderbending Film Adaptations

A photo of a coconut on a deserted beach

On August 30, Deadline reported on the announcement of an upcoming film adaptation of William Golding’s 1954 novel Lord of the Flies. This would not be the first adaptation of the book—there were versions in 1963 and 1990—but the twenty-first century remake promises at least one peculiarity: this time, it will be girls instead of boys trapped on a desert island.

Continue reading “Lord of the Flies and the Ethics of Genderbending Film Adaptations”

Posted on

Gender Segregation: Empowering or Exclusive?

A black-and-white photo of a movie theatre during a film.

This article has a set of discussion questions tailored for classroom use. Click here to download them. To see a full list of articles with discussion questions and other resources, visit our “Educational Resources” page.

With over $400 million dollars in North American profits, Wonder Woman has set the record for the biggest U.S. film opening with a female director. Even before setting this record, the 2017 comic book adaptation was heralded by many as a feminist film, including actress and former Wonder Woman Lynda Carter. Despite its success, the film was not without criticism, with some women claiming that they did not find the film empowering, and even that it ignores non-white women. Perhaps the biggest controversy surrounding the film has to do with a Texas movie theatre, which offered “women-only” screenings of the film back in June. This decision was met with a wave of retaliation, accusations of discrimination, and even a lawsuit. Is it sexist to provide a women-only screening of the film? Is it fair to call the movie theatre’s actions as feminist? And most importantly, how does this reaction reflect American society’s tolerance, or lack thereof, of gender segregation?

Continue reading “Gender Segregation: Empowering or Exclusive?”

Posted on

Split and the Portrayal of Disassociative Identity Disorder

Editor’s Note: This article contains spoilers for the film, Split. 

On January 20, Split, a film about three girls attempting to escape from Kevin Wendell Crumb’s 23 split personalities, was released in theaters. In the film, Crumb suffers from dissociative identity disorder (DID). Dissociative identity disorder, commonly known as multiple personality disorder, is a mental illness that creates one or more personalities within one individual. The disorder also pairs with memory loss; therefore, the individual is sometimes incapable of realizing their multiple personalities.  Normally, the disorder arises from some form of trauma during childhood.

Continue reading “Split and the Portrayal of Disassociative Identity Disorder”

Posted on

Arrival, Nietzsche and Choosing Your Life

Editor’s Note: This article contains spoilers for Arrival and Passengers.

If you were to see your life unfold ahead of you, with all of the triumphs but interspersed with the tragedies in all of their grittiness and grief, would you choose to experience it, in all of that detail? Not just in spite of the inconveniences and harms, not full of regrets, but could you wholeheartedly say “Yes!” to the life that will be, or has been, yours?

Continue reading “Arrival, Nietzsche and Choosing Your Life”

Posted on

Whitewashing Stonewall

In just a few weeks, audiences around the country will have the chance to watch the Stonewall Inn riots of 1969 play out before their eyes. Over 45 years after the riots that sparked the LGBT movement in America, the events that took place at the Stonewall Inn will once again be immortalized in film. Directed by Roland Emmerich, Stonewall will come to theatres in September, promising to explore the story of “A young man’s political awakening and coming of age during the days and weeks leading up to the Stonewall Riots.”

Continue reading “Whitewashing Stonewall”

Posted on

What Does Ant-Man Say about our Morals?

If you have not yet viewed Marvel’s latest production, Ant-Man, take this as the obligatory spoiler alert. Those who have viewed this perplexing film about an ant-size superhero that saves the world, however, probably have several questions running through their minds: How can such a small superhero be so powerful? Will Ant-Man join other Marvel heroes in future films? But the most important question, one that has yet to be asked by the masses, is what the very idea of Ant-Man and the plot of Marvel’s film says about our morals and whether the ideas in this film allude to a bigger problem in terms of warfare.

Continue reading “What Does Ant-Man Say about our Morals?”

Posted on

Let’s Talk About…50 Shades of Grey (Part I)

50 Shades has swept audiences off their feet, selling 100 million copies worldwide, and making $237.7 million in its global opening in theaters. In many ways, this success could have been predicted by its eerie similarity to other phenomenally profitable franchises (ahem…Twilight), but in other ways, what 50 Shades presents is entirely new. The series follows the love story of an unassuming bookworm girl and an older millionaire businessman—nothing new there. But the catch? He’s into BDSM: he likes violent sex.

At a cultural moment where sex is a hot-button issue, the timing of the movie release couldn’t be more perfect (read: lucrative). But as Emma Green pointed out in her article for the Atlantic, on film, “the Fifty Shades version of hot, kinky sex will become explicit and precise, no longer dependent upon the imaginations of readers.” With the book, interested folks could discretely download the books on their e-readers and choose if they wanted to share their guilty fascinations. With the movie, it’s public.

So now that everyone knows you’re curious, let’s talk about some of the major debates surrounding the movie and the issues it brings to light.

One of the biggest arguments is the sheer volume of sex. With a full twenty-five minutes of pure sex scenes, one has to wonder what the motives are. Is it simply an empty shortcut to boost ticket sales? Or is the motive to open up the viewer to a more liberal approach to nudity and sex? One thing is clear: sex sells. But is there something inherently wrong with steamy sales tactics? Or, more specifically, is there something inherently wrong with using fetishized sex to sell?

This leads us to another point—one that was discussed in the Atlantic article: the movie’s representation of a particular community. The fact is that there really are people who are into BDSM. Some of these people have come forth, claiming that the movie misappropriates, among other things, the level of emotion and consent that’s actually involved. The movie didn’t show the couple talking, going on dates, falling in love… the focus is on the sex. And the moments not in the bedroom are uncomfortable: he sells her possessions, and pops up unannounced, and somehow maintains an constant aura of creepiness…uh, no thanks. As Green put it, “the most troubling thing about the sex… isn’t the BDSM itself: It’s the characters’ terrible communication.”

Now, it could be that the film is riding the wave of sexual liberalism, giving the public insight into a taboo community and ultimately promoting openness. And some feminists will give it this. In her HuffPost article, feminist writer Soraya Chemalay says that, “this not secret, not silent, non-judgmental openness is a feminist success”.

Many have also brought up the issue of class. Yes, this type of rare sexual preference is glamorous in a marble-floored penthouse between two good-looking people. Basically, would it have been as appealing without the helicopter?

This conversation goes on and on, back and forth and then back again. If you’re interested in reading more about the discussions surrounding the movie, as well as my personal take, head over to the PrindlePost.org. Personally, I haven’t read the book, but I saw the movie. I said it was just because everyone else was, but the truth is that I was genuinely curious…which I was 50 shades of embarrassed to admit.

Posted on

Apocalypse Now: Hollywood and the End of the World

Few events are as captivating of the human imagination as the apocalypse. Whether seen in ancient religious texts or modern novels and video games, on some level it seems we’re all concerned with and captivated by how it’s all going to end. But when such a fascination begins to reflect real life, are there any ethical concerns to address?

Continue reading “Apocalypse Now: Hollywood and the End of the World”