A Shattering of Voices

SOCIETY

A Shattering of Voices: A Generation’s Silence

By Jessica Miles, contributing writer

When I think of what defines my generation, I immediately think of New York City’s Times Square, splashed with a blur of cluttered confusion, littered with images and words; a statement of where we are in all aspects of our cultural spectrum. It is characterized by a scene of ever-changing advertisements and symbols controlling the wide-eyed society which makes up this generational hub. Below, people flood the streets as if on a roller coaster, in a constant rush and in constant need for more-more action, more modernization, more excitement, and more media-inspired innovation. This overwhelming nature has drastically morphed since my pre-teen years when it was a crime to miss that latest quarrel in the Tanner household on Full House and when Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop were considered celebrities. However, simplicity is no longer momentous in our media-saturated environment, as new demands are constantly being met in the most fixated ways.

Affluenza, an affliction characterized by seeking happiness through materialism, is hypnotizing us into believing this is what we desire, but a growing dependency on consumption does not seem to be getting us any closer to the top. As we relentlessly question our needs and demands we descend in our own trepidation and continue to lack answers. Instead we are falling further into dismay and drowning in our own misconceptions of where we expect our lives to lead. Imagine if Times Square was stripped of commercialization, the lights and the movement that drive us to attain bigger and better things. We would be left to rely on individual uniqueness to paint the scene, instead of concentrated corporations chasing endless profit.

I’m living in a generation characterized by disarray and fabricated, ill-minded emptiness. Unfortunately, this has emerged as the cultural norm. I’d hate to think we are viewed as scantily clad midriffs or uncaring mooks who find some muddled inspiration from the iconic, pop culture “role models” of the world. But my hope may be futile. Image and fantasy have trumped education and literacy. This status quo has become a sort of mutilated yet somehow captivating reality, and with it comes the deterioration of individualism, eccentricity, and voice.

Where have all the voices gone? It may have been somewhat before my time, but I still enjoy the sounds of raw, yet true talent. It is disappointing to think that John Mayer’s, ‘Waiting on the World to Change’ is this generation’s muted version of ‘What’s Going On?’ I grew up looking forward to being mesmerized by my generation’s rising voices and experiencing a real sense of camaraderie that would be inspired by these voices. The bellowing echoes of infamous celebrities flooding media outlets are a far cry from the voices that define past generations.

The media may be the source of what seems to be our generation’s bewilderment. It fascinates me that in spite of the vast spectrum of media sounds and images, we still struggle to find substance in content. Our choices are limited to exaggerated headlines suggesting inappropriate sexual content consistently splashed across magazine covers like Cosmopolitan and an endless number of disgraceful reality shows based on everything from celebrities to fear tactics, sports competitions to dating shows, and makeover shows to renovation shows. Furthermore, headline news has turned into a baffled mix of sensationalism. Should the daily lives of celebrities be deemed important information? In our endless desire for sensationalism have we given media moguls justification in further developing what Newton Minnow termed “the vast wasteland?” I don’t believe these are the stories for which society tunes in. It seems unlikely that mass media can become a serious, trustworthy, honest form of communication because of the tabloidism that bounds our generation.

Reality is no longer based on truth; it is based on convergence, profit, perception, and hyper-commercialism, which are overwhelming all means of communication available to us, and because of this, there is by no means any sort of control or solidity holding this generation together. We have successfully blinded ourselves from realism and authenticity and allowed a failed sense of idealism to dictate our existence. This has led to a fragmented culture with no common goal, a remote comparison to previous generations who upheld democratic principles and stood together to fashion a voice. So what will ultimately define us?

With such variability it seems our generation will continue on this cycle of pursuance – waiting for the world to change, instead of proactively changing the present for the sake of the future. The shallow insights which perpetually influence our generation’s way of life have eroded our sense of dignity. We continue to be dependent on a deficient media structure instead of using our own voices. This is my generation, where lessons will not be learned until our children are even more embedded in this artificial culture than we are. Only then will we realize what we have failed to say.

_________

Jessica Miles currently attends Bryant University as a junior majoring in Communication and is preparing to act as Assistant News Editor for the Bryant University newspaper, The Archway. She is working toward a future in the Journalism field.

Image (above): Cover of Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic, by John deGraaf, et al. (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2005)

Russia, still rising

WORLD POLITICS

Russia, Still Rising

By G. Arnold

American news media have not paid much attention to Russia for many years, but developments in that nation do occasionally get noticed. National Public Radio, for example, recently reported about Russia’s apparent efforts to reassert itself among the world powers. A new NPR Morning Edition story takes particular note of the Kremlin’s renewed attention to its military. As the story suggests, many people see this as evidence that Russia is determined to return, in some way, to the glory days of the Soviet Union, when it was clearly a superpower. The NPR story is largely dismissive of such views, however, and makes generous use of quotations from Pavel Felgenhauer, a well known critic of the Russian government and a writer on military issues for Novaya Gazeta, an opposition paper in Russia. After hearing the piece, one does not get the sense that there is much cause for concern. Indeed, Felgenhauer is quoted as saying, “This [Russian] system is unworkable, and this military is not very good for anything at all.”

The NPR piece is respectable journalism, and stories such play an important part in bringing developments in Russia to national attention. Still, the way the story is presented may unintentionally dampen what little American interest there is in Russia’s quickly changing place in world affairs. And that would be unfortunate. (See a previous Bread and Circus story here.)

Americans are not exactly overflowing with knowledge about Russian affairs. Indeed, the picture that many Americans have of a chaotic, beaten, and toothless Russia from the period immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union has not been very accurate for some time. To the contrary, there seems little doubt that Russia has the capacity to assert itself much more than has been the case since the early 1990s. It has infrastructure, highly developed research and development capabilities, enormous (and largely untapped) gas and mineral wealth, and a population with a strong sense of national identity. And what’s more, published reports indicate it still has more than 5,000 nuclear warheads that are still operational. (The United States has just over 4,000.)

Still, Russia is not the Middle East and it is not China. So it receives scant attention in the news. I suspect that Americans know far, far more about Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears than they do about the vast Russian nation.

Perhaps Americans largely ignore developments in Russia because they feel secure in the knowledge that it would be difficult for any other power to catch up to the U.S. in military terms. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recently concluded that the United States alone accounted for roughly 45 percent of the world’s total military spending last year. The Institute calculated that total worldwide military spending was $1.34 trillion (that’s $1,340,000,000,000 ). That’s a lot of cash. The breakdown, as reported in Forbes, listed American spending on weaponry at $547 billion, compared to Russia’s comparatively paltry expenditure of $35.4 billion on weaponry.

But Russia is on the move, and appearances can be deceiving. Considering that the American press pays practically no attention to Russia these days, I wonder if the few recent news stories about Russia will shed much light on what little discussion there is about the topic in the United States. It is surely seems true that the Russia military machine has many problems. But it seems equally true that the Russian government’s emphasis on its military in recent months — combined with its ongoing assertiveness in foreign affairs in Europe and the Middle East, its abundant resources, and its national will — represents more than a casual development.

But the United States remains focused on other things. There’s a strong sense of complacency with regard to thinking about Russia. Too many Americans seem to think that nation is only a concern of the past. But what is needed is more, not less, awareness of Russia’s evolving place on the world stage. The time for the United States to develop and articulate a better way of interacting with Russia is now, not later when some unanticipated new crisis presents itself.

_____________

G. Arnold is an editor of Bread and Circus on-line magazine. A version of this article appeared in his VCB blog.

Giving voice to animation

AT THE MOVIES

GIVING VOICE TO ANIMATION: LIVELY VOCAL PERFORMANCES ADD LUSTER TO KUNG FU PANDA

By G. Arnold, Bread and Circus editor

Computer-generated animated films are now one of the staples of the movie business. Pixar was the first Hollywood studio to draw worldwide attention to animation’s new look, courtesy of movies such as Toy Story and a string of titles. Other studios also got into the act, and now such movies appear with great regularity. Considering that the feature-length animated film was once all but relegated to the dustbin of history, the popularity of new-generation animated movies is an interesting story by itself.

A new title in the animation arena is Kung Fu Panda, from Dreamworks Animation, creators of the hugely popular Shrek franchise. Early reviews, such as one by Elizabeth Weitzman in The New York Post, are generally favorable.

The look — especially the three dimensional appearance of images — in most current computer-generated is one of the features that draws viewer attention. Starkly different from earlier incarnations of animated film, the new “look” can be a visual treat. The rendering, full range of motion, and visual depth allow visions of extreme fantasy and imagination to take on an almost tangible look and feel.

But the novelty of this look has worn off somewhat. The large crop of films has partially contributed to this, but perhaps more importantly, the ubiquity of computer and video games makes this sort of imagery and animation available on a daily basis to a worldwide audience. To really succeed in this environment, the new animated movies need more than a great look and state-of-the-art animation.

And that means compelling stories and on-target casting decisions in casting the actors who provide voices for the animated characters. The studios still have trouble with the story part, which is much harder to pull off than most people imagine. Like writing for children’s or youth-oriented books, many people wrongly assume that anyone could write the story or script for an animated film. (Read about misconceptions in writing for young audiences here.) Yet, it is plainly true that writing these films, like writing for for any audience, is much more difficult than it may seem. Hollywood does not usually deal in perfection, of course, and so most productions, animated or otherwise, go ahead even when scripts still have flaws.

This makes the voice casting even more crucial. Obviously, the actual animation in a film such as Shrek (Dreamworks) or Ice Age (Twentieth Century Fox Animation) or Finding Nemo (Pixar) is critically important. Yet, the voice performances can almost make or break a film. A great voice performance may not be able to salvage a movie with a bad script and lackluster animation, but it can make it better. And similarly, poor voice casting and performance can dampen the success of an otherwise solid animated movie.

This brings me to Kung Fu Panda, which seems to have made a number of right moves in the voice talent department. There are many actors who have contributed their talent to the film, including Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, Ian McShane (Deadwood), and many others. It is an impressive cast, indeed. There are two other casting decisions, however, that caught my attention.

The first of these is the casting of Jack Black, currently my favorite film actor, as the voice of Po, the lead character. Already, Black’s performance in Kung Fu Panda is getting attention. I’m not surprised. Black is a force of nature, it seems to me. Even in roles that seem fairly ridiculous, he somehow manages to provide superbly entertaining over-the-top performances that are also oddly authentic. The seeming ease with which he does this, combined with the apparent light-weight nature of the films in which he appears, may obscure how good many of these performances are. But he’s a comic actor, and like the many fine comic actors before him, it is unlikely that his performances will get the same sort of respect that an actor of similar ability would get for work in dramatic roles. Still, the casting of Black in Kung Fu Panda will certainly increase the odds for the movie’s ultimate success.

The other casting decision that caught my attentions perhaps more personal. I refer to the casting of veteran actor James Hong in the supporting role of Mr. Ping. As a student of and fan of both film and television, I find the appearance of James Hong in yet another production a pleasing development. I suspect that the name James Hong may not mean much to many people, but if you’ve seen a lot of film and television since the 1950s, you know his work. Indeed, Hong is surely one of the hardest working, least appreciated, most satisfying actors in the business. I, for one, am very happy to have the opportunity to encounter him in another new production.

James Hong is one of those actors who have often been cast in so-called “ethnic” roles, a fate that many actors of non-European ancestry faced since the beginning of the movie business. He was born in Minneapolis in 1929, but was often cast to play Chinese or other Asian characters. Hong did appear in many television series and films that are very admirable, but I remember his performances even in those instances in which the material was sub-par.

And it is true that some of the roles have perpetuated ethnic stereotypes. In many of his performances, however, Hong’s acting has transcended these stereotypes. This is a significant accomplishment that deserves recognition. To me — and I am a product of the so-called television generation — he seemed to add an air of dignity and intelligence that was often not apparent in the actual scripts. He has always been, in my opinion, better than much of the material he had to work with.

And we should not fault him for the material. After all, it is an actor’s job to act, and one can only act in those parts for which one is given the role. An actor also has little control over the messages that films and television show convey. I give Hong a lot of credit for rising above the material in the cases where the writing was less than ideal. Indeed, his understated performances often showed up inferior material.

James Hong has appeared in over 300 television shows and movies, according to the useful Imdb.com. website. Among his credits are Chinatown, Kung Fu , Seinfeld, Blade Runner, Bound for Glory, The Sand Pebbles, The X-Files, Perry Mason, Hawaiian Eye, The Outer Limits, and many, many more. I literally grew up watching James Hong, and over the years my appreciation for his performances, as well as for the performances of other unsung actors and actresses, has deepened. I’m happy to encounter his work once again.

__________

G. Arnold is an editor of Bread and Circus. His writing about film and television includes the books The Afterlife of America’s War in Vietnam (McFarland 2006) and Conspiracy Theory in Film, Television, and Politics, coming this fall from Praeger Publishers.