Major breaking news: I’m moving to Raleigh, NC!
While I’ve fully enjoyed my internships since graduating, I’m so excited to be transitioning, officially, to a member of the labor force. Only 45 years to go.(In case I win the lottery tomorrow. #YeahRight)
Relocating to Raleigh is also very exciting. I’ve lived most of my life on the other end of Tobacco Road, in Winston-Salem. (And in case you were wondering, I’m not a Deacon. Yuck. Carolina blue all the way baby!)
What all is there to do here? I know the basics — Umstead Park, Crabtree Mall, RBC Center, etc., but where are the fun, interesting places where you can find real people? I plan to spend my time doing well, everything a young professional is likely to do I guess, but am also very interested in connecting with others like me and attending Tweetups, industry-related events, workshops, conferences, etc., Any recommendations?
Best wishes to anyone searching for employment. I spent the last 13 months job searching, and I definitely know it’s tough out there. Not that I would consider myself a job hunting expert, but if you’d like to connect and discuss strategies, tips, or whatever, feel free to contact me.
PS — I’ve been tinkering with the idea of starting another blog, tentatively called “My Entry Level Life,” which will chronicle the ups and downs of my first year or so in the real world. A public journal of sorts, and (hopefully), a good resource for college students. Thoughts?
To my one RSS subscriber,
Thanks so much for hanging in there. I know it’s been tough — nearly 6 weeks since my last post. Between the holidays, family events, returning to my internship, getting a full-time job, and relocating to Raleigh, NC, blogging got pushed aside. I think I will have some more time for you soon.
Cheers!
An example of a movie trailer that does a horrible job at showing the real essence of a film.
Tonight I saw Brothers, chiefly because I didn’t have enough time to drive across town to see Precious. It is not the kind of movie I’m usually attracted to: the trailers sell this movie about two brothers, one a marine (Sam), and one a bad-boy lowlife (Tommy), engaged in a love triangle with the marine’s wife (Grace). However, I was convinced the film wouldn’t entirely bore me since it features three A-listers: Jake Gyllenhaal, Toby MacGuire, and Kate Beckinsale. When it was over, I was totally surprised and will definitely be getting this one on DVD.
Brothers is the story of a military family and the conflicts that occur when a marine essentially returns from the dead. While the plot does involve a love triangle, that’s hardly what movie goers will walk away remembering. This is not a film about romantic love; it is a film about family love and the struggles facing a new generation of war vets and their families. The film does a fantastic job of telling the story from everyone’s perspective including the children, the wife, the two brothers, and even the marine and lowlife’s father, a Vietnam vet. Filmed in Smalltown USA, (more precisely, Albiquiu, NM), Brothers could take place wherever marines are from, and I hope this film raises awareness about post-traumatic stress disorder and its effects on military families.
I love films based on real issues, such as the way Brothers uses the war in Afghanistan, and arguably, the inadequate psychological care/support our military receives after coming home (we learn MacGuire’s character is in counseling, but he nearly loses it when talking to his superior, and the climax of the movie is his armed meltdown near the end.) Films like this make us take a step back and think about the world around us, and perhaps, [subtly] encourage us to get involved. (I was a little disappointed that there was no ending message before the credits about PTSD and resources for moviegoers to help vets and their families.)
Of course, I have to ask — if Brothers is this kind of film, why was it not marketed as such? Why do the trailers and movie posters, and all creative media used to sell the movie emphasize the sultry love triangle? (By the way, I don’t want to spoil the plot, but fyi, this is hardly a true love triangle: There is no on-screen sex scene, not even a real kiss, and all the involved players quickly move on with their lives once Sam comes home.) Nevertheless, my guess is Hollywood knows the majority of moviegoers aren’t like me: They’re less interested in PTSD and way more intrigued by a love triangle featuring the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale and two leading Hollywood actors. In essence, sex sells, and this film’s marketers are eager to hide all of its other major themes and even blatantly misconstrue scenes in the trailers to emphasize romantic steam. (The two pairs of feet you see in the video above are not Tommy and Grace’s, but Sam and Grace’s the night before he leaves for war.)
I haven’t done any real research into movies involving the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (what a great project and film study by the way!), but films on these wars (or the Middle East in general) have not fared well, despite A-list talent and sometimes huge budgets: (data from boxofficemojo.com)
- In the Valley of Elah, directed by Oscar-winning director Paul Haggis and featuring big screen heavyweights Susan Sarandan and Tommy Lee Jones (Jones also won an Oscar for the film), earned a measly $6.5 million.
- Lions for Lambs stars Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, and Robert Redford. $7 million at the box office.
- Rendition, a 2007 thriller with a $50 million budget, featuring Reese Witherspoon and coincidentally, Jake Gyllenhaal earned less than $10 million.
- The Kingdom, starring Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, and Chris Cooper has earned $47 million to date, but still a disappointment considering its $70 million budget
With this knowledge in mind, perhaps the point of Brothers is to sell tickets today, and reflect on today’s modern times tomorrow.
Note: Brothers is a remake of the 2004 Danish film Brødre, which appears to be the exact same story told from a Danish point of view. I’d love to watch it and compare/contrast the two! Click here for the trailer.
Releavant links:
Big screen heavyweights Helen Mirren and Russel Crowe work for The Washington Globe in the
2009 thriller State of Play. Image courtesy of http://www.stateofplaymovie.net/
I might have majored in corporate communications, but I still have a fond passion for broadcast, journalism, publishing, and film. So naturally, I love movies involving PR, broadcast, and journalism. Tonight I rented State of Play, a thriller about a complex Washington D.C. murder as told through the perpsective of two newspaper reporters (played by Russell Crowe and the fantastic Rachel McAdams). The film does a great job of showing audiences the issues surrounding America’s newspapers. (And it’s also awesome, so watch it yourself!)
To start, the paper’s editor, Cameron (Helen Mirron) is interested in the story, but can see the bigger picture: The Washington Globe has got to turn a profit or go bust. She knows the paper’s owners are more concerned with dollar signs than genuine investigative reporting. It’s tempting to join the ranks of Entertainment Tonight and US Weekly and start filling the pages with surface-level, sensational news to turn a quick buck. Cal (Russel Crowe) and Della (Rachel McAdams), firmly oppose this idea of course. Fortunately for Cal and Della, investigative journalism prevails just in the nick of time and the murder story comes full circle by the end of the movie. Real news vs. sensationalism was also a theme in one of my favorite movies, 2007’s Lions for Lambs starring Tom Cruise, Robert Redford, and Meryl Streep.
In addition, I loved the film’s final scene and end title sequence. I believe it is very symbolic of the end of newspapers. In the final scene, Cal finishes typing the story on an archaic computer. Although the reporters’ have met the deadline and got to the bottom of the story, there’s a very somber mood in the air as Cal pecks the last few words into existence. He then walks out of the office, leaving Della to send the file to print (she then catches up with Cal, and the two walk into the night together). Is this symbolic of the alleged end of real journalism? I vote yes. Both are excellent, tough-nosed reporters. Cal is a seasoned journalist, but he seems tired, withdrawn, and depressed for most of the film. It’s as if his best days are behind him. By contrast, Della is fresh out of school and bursting with energy. Is Cal down and out because he knows the fate of newspapers? Will Della ever get the chance to have the career Cal had? Is there something more to be said for the two of them walking into blackness together — perhaps a throwback to the end of Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times? (I’ve heard Charlie wanted this scene to represent the end of the silent film. Watch it here).
The end sequence begins with the gigantic newspaper printing press publishing the paper for the masses. Creedance Clearwater Revival’s “Long As I Can See The Light” plays. While the visuals and music score are appropriate for the plot, I think they also are an ode to the end of newspapers. The printing process is so outdated, so mechanical, and as pallets of newspapers are loaded onto trucks, I have to say to myself “wow, we actually still get news this way.” Perhaps its no coincidence that the music is from a band that reached its peak during Watergate — an event in which I consider one of journalism’s finest moments.
Then there’s the discussion of setting. State of Play could have been set 50 or even 100 years ago. There is hardly any use of modern technology, besides some very brief scenes with cell phones. Cal confesses his computer, which has a monotone screen, is 16 years old. Both reporters use notepads and pens, and even go to the library for research. (There’s no Google!) There’s just a glimpse of television news. The film is culturally modern, however, as women and minority characters carry some high-ranking titles, but it is clear the directors purposefully avoided any technology that competes with newspapers.
State of Play raises some interesting questions about modern journalism. To what degree are newspapers swaying in favor of emphasizing surface-level, sensationalized news? Are newspapers “selling-out” and becoming more like US Weekly to maintain readers? I’m from Gen-Y, and generally don’t read newspapers as much as I should. (In short, I think they’re extremely environmentally unfriendly, too slow, too awkward to physically hold and organize, and I hate turning to some other page to finish reading an article. Plus they literally fade away over time, take up space, and put messy ink on your hands.) However, I firmly believe newspapers today offer us a slower-paced flavor of news, and I never want to lose that. Twitter and CNN are great for 24/7 breaking news, but reading a story on CNN.com moments after something’s happened, versus reading about an event 24+ hours later in The New York Times will give you two quite different perspectives. Weekly newsmagazines give you an even slower recap of the news, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it’s a great thing! You’ll never see Time or Newsweek focus on the quick facts; we turn to them for interpretive, analytical, after-the-dust-has-settled “what does this really mean” answers.
My second question is more of a follow-up. If newspapers aren’t sensationalizing more news, then are they providing better investigative news coverage than they used to? We all know there are many laid-off journalists out there. For the ones that remain on the payroll, are they the winners of survival of the fittest? Are they the ones who won’t take no for an answer, who fight for truth firmly believe in the functions of the press? Essentially, is journalism getting better? Considering Darwinism, one would assume so. Then again, newspapers aren’t exactly the best models to illustrate Darwinism. If you’re a journalist, please let me know where you stand on this!
PS: What did you think of State of Play in regards to its portrayal of newspapers?
The Web on World AIDS Day — Understanding (RED)’s Relationship With Social Media and Christmas 2009
- The folks at Twitter are using the site’s popularity to spread awareness: Today the home page is red and the hashtag “#red” turns all Tweets red! Today I’m using it on every tweet!
- Google’s homepage has a link to the (RED) website and 8 other resources for AIDS info/involvement.
- (RED) appears to be advertising heavily on Facebook today and is encouraging people to share this video and change profile pictures to a provided (RED) icon. I changed my Facebook and Twitter pictures to something red today.
- Besides the obvious Facebook ad, did Twitter charge (RED)? I’m imagning Google’s home page link was free since it is not tied exclusively to (RED). The link goes to a Google.org page with (RED)’s website and 8 others.
- If Google and Twitter did charge, then how much? How does this figure compare to television advertising to reach the same number of people? Are web impressions worth more because the viewer can quickly and efficiently become involved?
Understanding (RED)
I think it is also important to understand exactly what (RED) is. Here’s what I’ve gathered after taking a look at (RED)’s FAQ’s page: (RED) is not a non-profit organization, charity, or government-sponsored program. (RED) is a “business model created to raise awareness and money for the Global Fund by teaming up with the world’s most iconic brands.” Founded by Bono and Bobby Shriver in 2002, (RED) is now a partnership of 10 brands: American Express, Apple, Bugaboo, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, Gap, Hallmark, Nike, and Starbucks. These companies send a portion of profits gathered from (RED) branded products to The Global Fund. I’m sure you’re wondering — So, what exactly is The Global Fund? The Global Fund is “an international financing institution that invests the world’s money to save lives,” partciularily among people suffering from AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malria. The Global Fund receives money from governments and governmental organizations like the EU, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, (RED), and other sources (click here for an .xls of everyone who gives), and redistributes it to I’m imagning other organizations through grants (As its name suggests, The Global Fund is a financing mechanism — not a hands-0n, “ground-level” organization.)
So essentially, the buzz today will A) Spread awareness about AIDS, (which is awesome), and B) Make curious people like me wonder exactly what (RED) is. On one hand, I see the (RED) partners as companies being socially responsible (CSR) and responding to consumers’ new interest in supporting a friendlier, more sustainable planet. On the other hand, I feel like there’s a question of ethics — should these 10 brands be riding on the wave of buzz that World AIDS Day creates? This day was created for people — sufferers of HIV/AIDS, not for-profit companies. Even so, Apple, Nike, and the 8 others are [indirectly] contributing to causes that help people living with the disease. (RED) branded products support The Global Fund and are all things that people would already buy anyway. Shouldn’t they be rewarded for being involved?
Still, it’s hard to ignore the fact that World Aids Day is on Dec 1. How might things be different if World Aids Day was on Dec 26? These brands are arguably exploiting the charitable/giving feelings we associate with the holiday season. Through (RED), they’re giving consumers who are either lonely, allegedly “too busy to give,” or simply searching for an excuse to not feel selfish while indulging in a $5 Starbucks gingerbread latte a way to give back to the world. Suddenly the reasons for wanting a prodcut extend beyond its specific novelty, features/benefits, price/value, and other items we usually associate with what drives us to buy something. Is it wrong to create want for a product becaues it helps alleviate HIV/AIDS in Africa? Are the lines between CSR and traditional holiday marketing too blured? Watch this Starbucks commercial from last year to see what I mean:
*Note: Personally, I like (RED). I already liked GAP, Apple, and Starbucks before (RED) and will probably like these brands for as long as they make products I enjoy. However, I wanted the (RED) iPod Nano more than any other Nano because of its fantastic bright red color. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not. And I don’t for one second think buying a (RED) branded product is a substitute for AIDS volunteering, activism, direct donations, or any other sort of progressive action. Supporting CSR is one thing, being a responsible world citizen oneself is quite another.
