Slumdog Someblog

There has been some talk of a backlash to recent Academy Award winner Slumdog Millionaire. Although some of it is quite valid, I think the conversation isn’t as significant as it could be. One of the criticisms is that the movie portrays India as a poverty stricken country and doesn’t focus as much on the recent development and wealth of the nation. I agree with this critique and many Americans do hold strong stereotypes of the developing world. However, India does still suffer from grim poverty.
The fact this movie is getting so much attention provides the opportunity for conversation about stereotypes of India, poverty, and the developing world at large. Our media often goes straight to stereotypical images because that is what sells. We don’t want to see an African city that looks like an American city because then it wouldn’t be exotic and that’s what people want to see.

Another criticism was that the screenplay is a fantasy that is based in reality.
“It makes a show of being anchored in a real-world social context, then asks to be read as a fantasy.”
This criticism I feel is an insult to much of the audience. As if, we aren’t able to distinguish fact from fiction. Entertainment is meant to provide elements of fantasy, but they often have real world ingredients. Take for example romance movies. Main characters fall madly in love in one day and live happily ever after. (At least, in Slumdog Millionaire the love affair developed over years.) Love happens in real life, often there are characters and situations we relate to, but everyone knows living happily ever after like that is a farce. The illusion being placed within some authenticity is the best part of romantic movies.

As for the Academy Awards, truth be told I think Benjamin Button should have won for its overall cinematic quality (acting, directing, technical skills, etc.), but Slumdog Millionaire was a beautiful flight of the imagination.

Comedic Cause

This January PBS had a series about comedy. The final installment made several points about comedy’s relationship to societal issues. As we saw during the recent U.S. presidential election, Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, late night talk shows and many others capitalized on the thin line between politics and comedy.

Politics and activism can be extremely serious and easily make people frustrated and burnt out. When comedians target issues or people that cause us the most stress it give the activist a moment to breath and laugh. Both are essential to life!

Political leaders are the most targeted by talk show and variety host. SNL became the phoenix rising from low rating when Tina Fey perfectly portrayed Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whom she has a similar appearance. For the past 8 years, our president gave us many funny moments to help break the tension created by his administration. One example is the top 10 list of Bush moments on the David Letterman show. This featured moments where the former president looked like a deer in headlights and spit as he walked across the White House lawn.

Some people may take offense to these jokes, but it is all a part of being in the public eye. Also, there is a difference between someone in the U.S. making fun of an American president than someone who lives outside our borders. People across the world have a right, even a responsibility to let us know how our government is affecting them. However, making fun of our government officials seems a bit off. It is comparable to the idea that you can say stupid things about your family, but if anyone else does then those are fighting words!

Political comedy has been around for centuries and we are lucky to have the opportunity to partake in it. As long as serious issues are resolved and people continue to educate themselves in concentrate ways through several media outlets, then I say bring on the belly ache of laughter not tears!

Loyalty Loses its Luster

Articles and books have graced our computer screens and store shelves with the idea that the younger generation is not loyal to their employers. This concept is very complicated and there are many things to consider. First of all, is loyalty a two-way street? Most people would say yes, that it takes two people in a relationship being faithful to make it work. Then why are younger workers expected to stay with companies when there is little chance for advancement, they are underpaid, charged too much for healthcare and generally not seen as an essential part of the team. Yes, they may receive lip service to the tune of team sacrifice and administrative support, but when it comes down to it the young professional knows that higher management would stick a knife in their back. Many people have experienced cut backs, lack of recognition and low wages in their work.

How do you define loyalty to a workplace? Is it just the act of staying in the same position or within the same company for most of your career? Maybe if we broaden our definition of loyalty to a feeling of being connected and making judgments with the company in mind as loyalty we would find that young people are quite loyal. Recently, the organization I’m associated with has cut operations hours and therefore salaries by a significant portion, increased healthcare costs and slashed the staff. They did all of this while demanding as much if not more work to be done. In spite of the company’s lack of loyalty, some members of the staff feel a twinge of guilt for leaving or searching for new opportunities. Wouldn’t this convey some loyalty on the part of the employees? They care about the success of the organization. They care about the well-being of the co-workers they know are affected by their exit. They are sad to leave even knowing it is the right decision. Are these not signs of loyalty?

Our overall society doesn’t promote loyalty when we see CEOs receiving golden parachutes while the average worker loses their livelihood. It is getting harder and harder to move up the class ladder. They have been told this is the first generation that won’t be better off then their parents. This could perhaps inhibit some people’s motivation from working extra hard for promotions and dream jobs.

Job loyalty is not up in smoke, but it does need to be address. They young professionals, however, are not the main obstacle in this issue. In fact, they may be are greatest asset if organizations begin to tap into their skills and start showing appropriate recognition.

Craving Celebrity

(Sorry for the delay in posting. A combination of traveling and computer troubles prevented me from posting. I will try to make up for it by posting twice next week! Yeah!)

Many people want to be famous. I can understand it to a point. Usually, celebrities don't have a lot of financial woes and it appears that they get pretty much what ever they want. However, the pressure to look good every time you leave your house would be a pain. Magazines would call it shameful if you ran to the corner store in PJs. Not to mention, the annoyance of cameras flashing in your face as you walk to that store. Your moments as a celebrity may be "glamourous," but you would have to share most them with a million people and not just your loved ones.

As much as I don't think I would like to be extremely famous there is one thing about celebrity that I envy greatly. That is that their voices are actually heard. They may be criticized, rightly or not, but there is no question they get their voice out there. When they care about an issue they can do something. No, they can't solve the problem by magic, but they can raise awareness and often coordinate some action.

Just think for a moment and many names and causes come to mind. (Please click on the names to find out more about the causes they support.)

George Clooney and Don Cheadle: Darfur
Angelina Jolie: Refugees
Bono: AIDS/African Aid
Oprah: Girls Education
Al Gore: Environment/Climate Change
Late Princess Diana: Landmines

This is what I envy. Celebrities can keep the paparatizzi, big houses, magazine covers, and red carpets (although I must admit walking a red carpet once in life might be fun, but it certainly isn't something I need to do to be happy.) What I really want is the means to get important information to the public and the means to moblize and begin change.

The celebrity culture of America has seeped into politics. Even as I write this, Entertainment Tonight is teasing an upcoming interview with John McCain. This aspect of the political process can be a good or bad thing. More people are interested in politics, but are they interested in issues or what is on the candidates' Ipods?

A big concern with politicians becoming “stars” is that the nature of celebrity isn’t one that requires much accountability. Movie stars make a living at playing a part, essentially not being themselves and telling a story that is usually fiction. We can’t have our campaigns becoming romantic-comedy or tragic screenplays.

Many political commentators get ratings from turning the election into laughs or dramatic yelling-matches. The popularity of Tina Fey’s spot on parody of Gov. Palin has given SNL a huge boost. ABC’s The View has produced some heated political arguments this season and it only takes 5 minutes of watching Bill O’Reilly to see the drama emerge.

However, there are more people registering to vote and real issues are being discussed more this year than I ever remember in the past. It is exciting that Obama was easily able to fill a football stadium with supporters/delegates while still thousands watched his acceptance speech at home. Hopefully, the excitement of politics will translate into the younger generations caring about issues, craving knowledge and demanding to be a part of the process. This is a great thing.

So is a celebrity political culture a good or bad thing? Time will tell like it always seems to do.