Bradbury: Hotel Rwanda

The movie Hotel Rwanda starring on Cheadle is an interesting take on the events that occurred during the three month genocide of the tutsis by the hutus.  As far as I know, the facts of what happened in terms of the genocide are accurately depicted in the film. The whole aspect of the hotel is apparently based on real events but I think it is safe to say that it is a loosely based interpretation. Most movies based on real events are dramatized because real life is always less interesting than what can potentially be put on camera. Since I do not know what actually took place however, I will write this blog solely from what I saw in the film, under the knowingly false impression that it is accurate. So I begin: The events circulating Don Cheadle's hotel are extremely sad. The movie makes a point to show that the rest of the world did not care about Rwanda. One statement by a U.S. official was that the United States was not sure if the risk to American lives and dollars was worth the cost of intervening. I think this statement is completely inaccurate. Going off of the movie, I saw an army of disorganized men, most of whom did not have firearms. I do not think that small groups of men with machetes could pose much of a threat to the United States military. The real reason I believe the Americans or any other major country did not intercept this slaughter was because they would of had nothing to gain from it. Unlike the middle east, Rwanda has no resources. It also posed no threat to our economy like communism did which prompted s to help South Vietnam. All in all, the film does not paint the world in a good light. The only man that actually helps Cheadle is his boss and I am willing to bet it was because he was both guilted into it and did not need the negative publicity surrounding his hotel. The U.N. pretended to help but did not want to get their hands dirty. The only time one of them fires a shot was in his own defense. On the radio, the tutsis heard reports that the world was covering up this catastrophe by stating that acts of genocide were happening instead of all out genocide, which was the case. I think that the movie does a good job of doing what Don Cheadle advised the tutsis to do: guilt people into caring.

Bradbury: Ides of March

This is the first still picture from the Ides of March that I would like to discuss. The movie surrounds a campaign to win the state of Ohio's delegate votes in the presidential election. The movie, from what I saw, seemed fairly accurate to how a real election would happen. This scene depicts a speech by Morris (played by George Clooney) announcing that the man directly to his right supports his run for presidency. This scene in the film shows just how ruthless politics can be. That man has much pull amongst the delegates and was planning on supporting another delegate. All of a sudden, another candidate promised him more power (a cabinet seat) and he switches his support. Is there any idealism left in politics? Does anybody run for the sake of the people. When the movie starts out, the audience is lead to believe that both George Clooney and Ryan Gosling's characters are idealistic. As Clooney's true form unveils itself, Gosling's grasp on ideology is shattered, and he results to blackmail and back-room dealing to stay in control. He ends up betraying his good friend and the audience does not even know if it was worth it because it is never discovered who wins. I do not think winning is the point however. The moral of the story (if I may be so cliché) is that everyone in politics is corrupted. You can see that Clooney has brought his wife and young daughter on the stage with him. This as merely a device used to make him appear like a family man and acquire more votes.

This picture I find interesting because the face is split between Clooney and Gosling's characters. They are juxtaposed in the sense that one is an idealistic youngster and the other is merely a face that masks the true politician behind it. The two are dopplegangers of one another. As the movie progresses the audience learns that the two men are not much different: they both want to win and they both will do whatever it takes. This is what Clooney the director is trying to say in this film.

Bradbury: Human Trafficking

The film "Human Trafficking" deals with a modern form of slavery: forced prostitution. This hushed up illegal activity takes place today right here in America. Women are lured by attractive men into getting passports and then the girls are whisked away to foreign places to be used as items of sexual pleasure. The women are essentially turned into a product, to be owned, sold, and bought. Most of them come from the former Soviet Union, a place where work is scarce and hard times abound. Sex is an everlasting resource. Although young girls and attractive women are the prime target of these malicious predators, oftentimes little boys are kidnapped as well, as portrayed in the film.
Why do few women ever live to tell their tale? The threat that keeps them to stay is not necessarily one of a physical nature. Their families are threatened to be killed or physically harmed and this threat keeps the sex slaves in line. While there are divisions of America's police force that investigate illegals in the states that are forced into prostitution, many young women are never found.  The American government, in my opinion, should be able to better prevent abductions into human trafficking rings, simply because of their access to advanced technology.  ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a division of the US government that's goals include targeting human trafficking rings and sex slavery.  According to their website, most of their recent investigations have been domestic, not international.  They state on their website that they are "serious about ending human trafficking".  Hopefully in the near future, their efforts will start proving more effective, and in the future, may even eradicate sex slavery completely.

If one of my close friends or relatives were abducted into a human trafficking ring, my first reaction would be to try to find them, or at least to find someone who could.  Liam Neeson's character in "Taken" comes to mind for me; this is the type of person I would try to contact if necessary, someone who would almost literally go to the ends of the world to save the victim.  Knowing the low statistics of women found after abduction, I would employ anyone possible in addition to the Federal government in hopes of increasing the chances.  I would probably pay any amount of money desired.

Bradbury: District 9

The film District 9, directed by Neill Blomkamp takes place in South Africa, years after an intelligent alien race crash landed on earth. The aliens, now common place in South Africa, are still segregated and live in slums. Some people are advocates of equal alien rights, but for the most part the aliens are looked upon as a lower race. This movie takes place post-apartheid, but the african american community also takes advantage of the aliens addictions and naivety. I find this ironic because the blacks in South Africa were kept down by whites and now free, they pick on the aliens by installing gangs in the alien ghettos to make a profit off them. The movie is about racism. The main character is an intelligent, upper middle class man with average political views. At first, he rejects his transformation and thinks he is becoming a monster. As the evolution (or devolution) continues, the man begins to feel sympathy for the aliens. This is a statement on how if an individual looks at life through the prospective of a lower class, they learn they are not so different. Just as whites kept blacks down, now people kept aliens down. Just as at one point in history it was an atrocity for whites and blacks to mate, now a doctored image of a man experiencing coitus with an alien is considered repulsive. The issue of racism is not solved in the film, as there is a sequel looming, but this comments on the fact that there is still racism and slavery in the world. Blomkamp is showing the atrocities of racism without explicitly saying so. That is what makes the movie enjoyable for the public. One knows that they are supposed to loathe the aliens because they are the outsiders, however you tend to end up rooting for them. They come off as scary and aggressive but are just like everyone else. This shows racial profiling and the injustices that go along with it. All in all, the film was enjoyable, jam packed with action, and a good political message.

Bradbury: Restrepo

The article Sebastian Junger wrote to eulogize Tim Hetherington relates directly to their time in Afganistan filming Restrepo. They were out in one of the most dangerous places in the world, (at least for an outsider) the Konigal Valley, filming the experience of war. While countless wars have been fought over the centuries, man has now evolved to a state where they can film and show the experiences of war to the rest of the world. There is soe horrible sights in Restrepo, such ast the scenes from Operation Rock Avalanche, and there are some beautiful sights, such as the bonding of men from different backgrounds to become a single unit, a single family. In the article, Junger mentions the fact that Hetherington had the idea that soldiers in war act the way they see soldiers in movies and photos, and propaganda. In a sense this is exactly what the two photojournalists were doing, except more accurately. Now, young men can watch Restrepo and see a more realistic aspect of war. Watching Restrepo changed the way I thought of war. The way Afganistan had been propagandized to me was a desolate wasteland full of crazy terrorists. The landscape turned out to be beautiful. The people in the villages just had different views on life than americans; possibly due to the images they have seen. If I were to ask Junger three questions about the film it would be: 1. Do you think you spent enough time to accurately show the war. 2. Do you think the war can ever be won. 3. Do you think that the Americans are ignorant to the Afganis. Three questions about the War: 1. Was the road really for the people of the valley? 2. Is this a just war? 3. Should Americans be in Afganistan? About his work: 1. Are you afraid of death. 2. Do you think your presence hinders the soldiers work? 3. What is your end goal?

Bradbury: Rendition

Is torture appropriate in any situation? Looking at history, one would have to say yes since it has been used since the dawn of war. It was popular even amongst the catholic church during the spanish inquisition. Thomas Moore, renowned as a saint, tortured heretics in the name of England. Today, people that agree with torture see it as a necessary evil. The United States of America's official position is that they do not torture. They do, however, perform acts of "extraordinary rendition". They essentially kidnap suspected terrorists and hand them over to the control of countries that do torture. Former CIA agent Robert Baer was quoted saying:"If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt." Water boarding is a type of torture commonly used on prisoners. It is a simulated drowning  . One reported for the NY times subjected himself to water boarding for the sake of reporting. Paraphrasing, he stated it was the worst experience of his life and no human should be subjected to it. WHile we do not see water boarding being used in the film, we see other tactics such as electrocution. The prisoner in the movie is accurately depicted in relation to what actually happens. The prisoner was stripped naked, relieved of sight and sound, and psychologically broken down. I do not think this should happen to anyone. Especially if its done by the United States, who are a bastion of freedom and believe in due process. If we are truly a democracy, then why can the government take people secretly without our knowledge and without our say-so? There are other ways to extract information other than torture. It has been proven that being civil to prisoners has extracted more information than torture. Jake Gylennhall in the film states that if you torture one person you make 10, 100, 1000 more enemies. This means that victims of torture wil give up random names just to be relieved of pain.

Bradbury: The Social Network

Social Networking

The political agenda of the movie “The Social Network” revolves around the elitist struggle that our sudo-protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg, faces.  The movie starts out in Boston’s most renown and one of the most prestigious schools in America: Harvard University.  Harvard is surrounded by the most upscale people and is shown to be very conservative and driven by politics.  The Winklevoss twins represent the pretentious upscale probitarian-like people who have received their merits through the accomplishments of their family and the politics of the school itself.

           

The influences that we see from the social network or Facebook in general come in positive and negative forms.  The negative side is lead generally by the time spent by avid Facebook users to stay on top of things going on in the world.  As well, the social hype that surrounds the social network of Facebook outweighs the actual pleasure that one can derive from the use of the site itself.  A major problem that we see today is procrastination. Facebook can be very distracting when trying to do homework or study for tests.  A picture speaks a thousand words and many wish those thousand words can be taken back when the pictures are posted.  On the upside, Facebook can give one access to the world around and provide relief for a person to see their friends and family in pictures and let people see who is who and what is what in the social networking.

The idea of government controls is also very controversial.  The yes argument would say that it is needed for protection from cyber-bullying and the likes of predators.  The government should be able to go after flagged pictures and flagged comments.  The opposite idea would be that the government has no interference and is not allowed to butt in on the social network.  The patriot act style of government is not ideal for snooping in social networking but they should be able to know of any mysterious activity.

Some other networks are:

Picasso – Purpose is to show pictures with friends and be able to edit them

            Youtube – Be able to share videos with the public*

            Twitter – Be able to update followers public* anytime

*It is important to note the difference to things open to the public and things that are invite only.

Bradbury: West Wing

West Wing is a show that follows the staff of president Martin Sheen. I think that the image of what goes on in the white house. I really cannot comment on what happens on a daily basis between those walls, but the show gave me a good impression. The characters were all aroused early from their beds to be in the office. Aside from the comical parts of the show such as when Rob Lowe's character told the 4th grade teacher/his bosses wife that he slept with a prostitute and being so uninformed about the white house the show was fairly realistic. I enjoyed the negotiation scene between Sheen's cabinet and the christian group. It made me feel as though our rights as citizens are just thrown away so easily in back room deals just to save face. Some successful presidents to me include Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR. All these presidents stove for a better America and accomplished a major goal. It will be hard to find another president like them in my lifetime. The presidents today owe so much to the companies that support their campaign. Even if they were elected and then decided to turn the other way, they would have no way of getting their message out. Television channels could not broadcast them due to threats of losing ads by their major corporate sponsors. Radio is not as widely listened to except in cars and I find it difficult picturing a family loading into the car to listen to the president address the public. The internet could provide useful however. This is all after the fact however. A president needs much money to get elected and gets that money from corporate sponsors whom they then want to pay back with tax breaks and lax laws. Until a president can ut his people before big business then there will not be a very successful president. I believe that Martin Sheen's role as president is a realistic one as well. He seemed intelligent and did not let the Christians bully him. An unrealistic aspect of it however is the fact that they do not consider the thoughts of the legislature in their decision making process. I assume that the audience is supposed to assume that whatever President Sheen decides is the final decision. In the words of his son, he is "Winning"!

Bradbury: Love Story

Micael Moore, for lack of a better word, is a glutton. He feeds off of negativity and is the frontrunner (or should i say frontwalker) of any issue that is opposite of the government. If the government decided to give away free puppies to every seven year old girl in the country, Moore would find some issue with that. Like the politicians that Moore so vehemently opposes, he preys on the weak-minded and ignorant. His audience is blue collar men and women who feel they have been slighted by the government and he exploits them on camera. Remember the scene in Capitalism in which he shot a father reading a letter to his dead wife as the young children balled their eyes out? That had nothing to do with capitalism. It is merely a ruse to evoke an emotion from the audience. I hate to be the Negative Nancy here, but most of America eats up what Moore regurgitates because they are not informed on the whole situation. For instance, Moore lambastes Republican presidents for being in bed with big business when Clinton did the exact same thing. He hints at Obama turning America on its head and being the next coming of Jesus Christ when in reality he has done very little of what he originally proposed. In actuality, President Obama and Michael Moore are the same in that they are both full of hot air. I am bereaved to say that most Americans believe what Moore is saying in his films; and if you wade through enough of his crap you will find a valid point or two, such as that corporations including Lehman Brothers and the like did cripple Americas economy. Where I find the issue is that Moore presents his arguments the way he eats his meals, he shoves them down the audiences throat. Michael Moore does not give his opposition one once of credit. Throughout my twelve years of catholic school education, I have learned how to write a decent academic paper. A key component of any argument in the conceding point. While the point need only be one small paragraph of the whole paper, at least it is there. By leaving out a conceding point, Moore is completely losing the interest off the people whom he demands change from. If Moore wishes to actually enact change in America (and it might already be too late for him), then he needs to stick to the facts and avoid the propaganda like he does a salad. In my opinion, Michael Moore is akin to a Mogwii, when Roger and Me first came out he seemed creative and interesting, but America has fed him after midnight and he has turned into a gremlin.

Bradbuy: Traffic

The movie traffic revolves around three different story vignettes that tell different sides on the war on drugs. While many people think the war on drugs is impossible to win, the movie gives hope. Mexican drug cartels generate more money than many small countries. The task of eradicating them is no small feat. First, America needs to look at itself and its own borders before they can aid Mexico in their daily struggle against drugs. More money should be put into treatment programs and more attention should be placed in staying away from drugs in schools. A redistribution of cops should leave less in the suburbs and more in inner city neighborhoods. Not because I am saying that suburbia is any better than the city, but statistically more drugs are bought and sold in these areas. America also needs to crack down further on border control.   Although a harsh method, trespassers into America should be shot on site. This would scare more people from coming over the border smuggling drugs. On the Mexican side, more money needs to be spent in educating kids in schools. America can help be training large city police departments to be better able to combat the cartels. Mexico should also find the money to raise the pay of public officials and cops so that they do not need to be bribed by gangs. Next, although this would have serious political repercussions, America could send in an elite military force to quietly eliminate the heads of the cartels. They are not in hiding and would be easy to find. Also, America has done it before when they took out Pablo Escobar.
      Some people argue that the drug problem could be solved if America legalized Marijuana. They say that the government would generate an income and could control the supply of weed. I disagree. People are making a living off of selling drugs and will not be happy to give up their business to the government. Loyal customers would also still stick to their illegal buyers.  As for other drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methanphetamenes; not option of legalization could be presented. Here in Loyola, I think that the school has a good grasp on the situation. So far as I know, no serious accusations of major amounts of drugs have been found on campus. The school for the most part trusts its students and the students earn the schools respect by obeying the rules. Unfortunatly. I do not know if that give and take system would work in the real world.

Bradbury: Fear in America

In America today, we find ourselves a nation who looks to the past. We almost idolize the decades before in an unhealthy manner. While my peers and I did not grow up during the McCarthy era, our parents and grandparents did. The results of the Cold War and communism shaped their lives, in turn molding our own. Socialism, like communism, involves much overlook by the government. The two are very different otherwise. In a communist nation, everyone gets paid the same amount no matter your job. This causes a lack of incentive in people which is not seen in socialism. In a socialist society, people are free to do what they want but the government makes sure that big business is not ripping people off. I think people in America are so afraid of socialism because they are not fully educated about what it entails. In "The Crucible", Arthur Miller draws a scene of paranoia that reflected his present day society. He was seriously afraid of the consequences of what McCarthy was doing. That is why he **SPOILER ALERT** killed off all the sensible main characters to get his point across. In that situation, one has to ask themselves if the means justify the ends. To tie it in with "Good", Hitler wanted to create a better Germany that was left in pieces after WWI. He had the right idea of restoring his country but he went about it the wrong way. Just like in 1950's America, the people were scared so they allowed someone in charge to do the wrong thing. It only takes one man (or woman) to make a difference however. This is what we saw in "Good Night and Good Luck". People in America today need to stop thinking how America was and start changing how America will be. Sociologists say that it is never a good sign for the health of a country when they start to look backwards instead of forwards.

The movie "Good" featuring Viggo Mortensen as the "protagonist" John Halder and directed by Vincente Amorim is a drama based on a play by the same name. Why did I put protagonist in quotation marks?  The reason is that throughout the story, the question of whether or not John Halder is a decent man comes into question. In the beginning, Halder starts out a quiet spineless man who is content slaving over his crazed mother and half-crazed wife. He shews away from responsibility such as in the second scene when his father-in-law tells him to join the Nazi party. John passively avoids the question as he does with any serious subject in his life. As the movie progresses however, John slowly gains an elite status in the Nazi party and feels more and more confident about himself. He leaves his wife for a more attractive, younger, socialite, and slowly drifts apart from his jewish friend because whenever he is around him he feels ashamed of what he has become. I do not think that John Halder is a purposefully evil man. In my opinion he is just too weak to speak up. He did not openly seek out the Nazis, but he did not object to being one of them. I think that Halder felt empowered for the first time in my life where he usually was overshadowed by his wealthy Jewish friend; who was now consequently taking up Halder's old stance in society. Although the movie takes place in the 1930's, there are key issues which still are debated in present day, such as euthanasia. Halder's book focuses on the subject of euthanasia. It becomes a jumping off point for the Nazi position on the final solution. Although the final solution is not even considered in the U.S. but euthanasia is. It is legal currently in Washington and Oregon. I find it interesting that movies can show us how things can change so rapidly but core values remain the same over time.

Bradbury: Whats a Bradbury?

Yo fellow bloggers,

Hello my Politics and Reel life peers. My name is Jake Bradbury. I am an avid movie watcher and proud native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Currently I am on the schools rugby team. Rugby is a great sport that is rapidly becoming popular in the U.S. Last year my team and I won the Pennsylvania state championship and became ranked 17th nationally. Besides rugby I am an avid reader. Right now I am reading the Game of Throne series that follows the show on HBO by the same name. The show is sick so you should all check it out (I posted a link to the trailer below). I love sports and am a huge fan of all Philadelphia sports teams (Phillies, Eagles, Flyers, '6ers) and I also passionately loathe the Saints. Last summer, a group of friends and I packed up my '99 Ford Taurus named Consuela and drove over the Walt Whitman bridge from Philly to Jersey and we spent our summer living at the Jersey Shore. No, I am not a guido but I am proud to say many of my friends are. Anyone who has not been to the Jersey Shore should really go its a great time as long as u watch out for them grenades. Since this is a movie class I thought I should share with you movies that I enjoy so that hopefully someone can agree (or disagree) with me or get a chance to watch them if they have never seen it. I think I will discuss one movie per blog. "Raging Bull" is a classic Scorcese film that I find cinematically stunning. The use of lines and shadows in this black and white film really help to convey deeper messages within the movie and Robert DeNiro's rendition of Jake LaMotta, a real boxer, is one of the best acting performances I have ever seen. DeNiro actually put on and then lost all the weight in this movie and taught himself how to box so well that his trainer said he could make a living as a professional boxer. Another interesting fact is that Cathy Moriarty, who portrays Vicki La Motta in the film, was a neighborhood girl from Queens, New York (the town where Martin Scorcese grew up) who had no acting skill but was recruited because Scorcese saw her walking down the street.  Finally, I want to wish all of you good luck this upcoming semester and I am excited to blog with all of you about politics and reel life. If someone needs to reach me whether it be for a question about the homework or you just want to see whats up feel free to come find me in Biever 315.

Me down in Wildwood, New Jersey