Hello! My name is Juliette! I like unicorns, Broadway musical, obscure actors, world religions, the Midwest, vibrato, and television shows that are detrimental to my health. Not necessarily in that order.
I like politics. I like politics a lot. I really really do. I have for a while, and perhaps it started with my love of political dramas, maybe not. Anyway its irrelevant really because I love politics.
Policy and I have a tumultuous past. In fact, I started to identify as a Republican at twelve. Yes my little CAP friends, I was a firm conservative, but more on that later. As Richard Fish would say, "Bygones." (I just referenced 90's T.V. I'm sorry) I like debating policy, I like understanding our government while simultaneously whining about it. I like the idea that the laws politicians pass will ultimately help people. After all, I would do anything to the people of this country, even if it's every person, one at a time. I'm game. However, I also love communication and the humanities. I mean, I wouldn't be in CAP if I didn't. As of right now, I want to major on Political Communication when I bid high school farewell.
So, for fun, I decided to see which colleges offered a degree in Political Communication. There had to be a decent amount, right? WRONG. Try eight. Well, give or take eight. I kid you not, eight results. Of the 3,991 schools listed on Big Future, there are only eight.
Eight. Right there. These are my options for college. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. It's morbidly depressing. What else do I do? I've looked through every single school on the list and about half of them are out already.
"The 'No' List"
Ohio University Southern: This school is a regional commuter campus. Not beneficial for an out of state student. Furthermore, their website is hard to navigate. I couldn't find anything I wanted.
Suffolk University: Suffolk is a commuter campus. I wouldn't be able to do that in the middle of Boston. Also, like Ohio University Southern, their website is confusing but from what I can tell, they don't have a degree degree, but a "track" in Political Communication. Beggars can't be choosers but I'm picky.
Cedarville University: I'm on the fence because I'm not sure if I want to go to a school with a religious affiliation. That's picky but I don't want their to be a hugely dominant religion. Religion itself isn't the problem, I just want more religiously diverse than their seems to be on their campus.
The George Washington University: My mother refuses to send me their for undergraduate study, but is fine with me doing graduate work there. After all that is where she got her master's degree.
The "Still Alive" List:
Emerson College
Nebraska Wesleyan University
Missouri State University
Weber State University
*Fun Fact of Merit: Kansas State University and Fairfield University have "tracks" in Political communication*
And then there were four. I'm kind of lost about the whole thing. Do I just man up and double major in Communication Studies and Political Science? Most schools offer those degrees. Or do I stick with the legitimately perfect degree. I have varying interests, but this Political Communication degree is no joke. It's flawless. I love writing contemporary stories and world religion, but according to my friends at Nebraska Wesleyan, this Political Communication degree could lead to a degree as a speechwriter, Press Secretary, PR, or the coveted Director of Communications. That's the career I want, Public Relations, Director of Communications. I don't want to be a politician, however, I do want to work for one. I want to regulate a campaign's relation with the press. I want to manage the communication of a campaign. Heck, I just want to work for a campaign. So I can't really give up on the four way path, can I? Besides, Emerson and Nebraska have caught my fancy, I must admit.
Fratricide, genocide, sabotage, war, abuse, the pain of growing up, and suicide. Every single one of these words were explored on a "children's" show. Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Legend of Korra, and My Little Pony are good examples of "children" shows that aren't childish in their content. In fact, I'm not entirely sure how they were able to broadcast Avatar or Korra as children show, but whatever. Every single one of these shows has stellar animation and complex story lines without overdoing it. They send good messages and shouldn't be written off as worthless television by everyone over nine. Children shows can be daring, exposing children to not the only the beauty of the world, but its brutality.
We'll start with the lesser of three evils, My Little Pony. MLP is fairly lighthearted compared to the shows after it. However, it does feature a few relatable story lines, specifically, "The Cutie Mark Crusaders." The Cutie Mark Crusaders (CMC) is a trio of three fillies who haven't received their "cutie marks. " A cutie mark is the marking on a pony's flank. These marks symbolize a pony's true calling in life, what they are made to do. The CMC are the last three fillies to receive their cutie marks and feel alone because they don't know what they're true calling is. This story is legitimately the life of every high school-er ever. It's completely relatable and it offers us advice. "Scootaloo: It means she could be great at anything. The possibilities are, like, endless. Sweetie Belle: She could be a great scientist, or an amazing artist, or a famous writer, she could even be mayor of Ponyville some day..."(Call of the Cutie). A true reminder that even while growing up and finding your unique talents is challenging it really means that you are full of potential. That's a great message to send to people of all ages. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was developed by Lauren Faust. It currently airs on the Hild ub at 10 AM.
Second up is Avatar :The Last Airbender. Avatar has a large amount of violence and is set in the middle of a war. WAR. This is a children's show that heavily revolves on war and defeating an abusive tyrant. Aang, the Avatar, wakes up after being frozen in an iceberg to find the world at war. He's been asleep for 100 years. He has missed the genocide of his people, the air-benders. Genocide, I'm not kidding. The show is rated Y7 and the mass killing of a race is not only implied but seen. Add some torture, child abuse, and innuendo and you have Avatar summed up perfectly. One of the main characters, Zuko, had his face permanently scarred by his father. A princess that sacrifices herself for her people. Katara watches her mother die on screen. An elderly women "blood-bends", aka tortures, soldiers.Remember this is a kid's show. Look how many risks it took and ultimately its beautiful message. It preaches the importance of having hope even when hope seems impossible, like a 100 year war. Again, not a bad message to be sending all people. Avatar: The Last Airbender was created by Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino. It aired on Nickelodeon from 2005-2008.
I've saved the worst for last, The Legend of Korra. I'm not saying it's bad show, I'm saying it's the most mature. And boy do the creators take advantage of that! LoK, like its predecessor, is violent. The first season is set in a large city and focuses on class struggle and the corruption of politician.The show got particularly mature in the season one finale. I can't find any legit clips on YouTube, but I'll give you a rundown. The protagonist is tortured, a man kills himself and his brother. I'm not kidding,the man pictured below blew himself and his brother up for the greater good. That's a bit unsettling. Don't you think? That's the biggest offense, but really suicide? Good one, Nick.
So what am I saying exactly? That animated shows or shows aimed at children aren't worthless. Not every children's show is like Dora. Some challenge contemporary, some teach timeless lessons. We should give them a chance.
Watching television shows can show young artists what works on film and what doesn't. Effective ways to tell stories and ineffective ways. Luckily for young filmmakers, there are countless examples of what doesn't work at their disposal. For example, Glee. Glee has a surprisingly large fan base for a show of such poor quality.
There is no continuity, limited character development, and almost none of their songs advance the plot. And that is the short list. There are a plethora of cliches, stereotypes, and too large of an ensemble cast to work with. So, why do I come back every week? Why do I plan to tune in again on November 8th? Why? In this post not only do I want to explore the things Glee does that are ill fated, but I want to find out what draws the viewer in. What makes them come back? The best way to go about this is to go through an episode, highlighting not only the things they do wrong, but the things that engross a viewer.
It will remind me what works in film, and what doesn't. Hopefully it will help my group with our trailer as well. So, onward! Glee has been in syndication since 2009, and is on its fourth season. It was created by Ryan Murphy, Ian Brennan, and Brad Falchuk. The last episode to air before a hiatus, was the anticipated (and dreaded) The Break Up. The Break Up, heavily revolves around long distance relationships and whether or not the couples should "break up". The episode opens in Ohio with two seniors, Blaine ( Darren Criss) and Brittany (Heather Morris), talking about how they miss their boyfriend and girlfriend, both of which graduated in the spring. Meanwhile, in New York City, Rachel (Lea Michele) and Kurt(Chris Colfer), (Blaine's boyfriend) are visited by Finn, Rachel's maybe kind of sort boyfriend. There is no continuity, so I'm not really sure if they are dating. This is problem number one, a regular viewer should be able to tell what kind of relationship two main characters have, be it romantic or friendship. I can't really do that with Rachel and Finn. Strike one, Glee.
The episode then shifts back to Ohio, where Kurt and Blaine are talking on the phone for the first time in a while, I'm guessing it has been a week or two. Blaine feels lonely without Kurt around, and Kurt is having the time of his life in New York. Conflict alert. Similarly, Finn feels isolated from Rachel in New York. Cue first musical number featuring a nifty little montage.
Surprisingly, this piece works well with the plot. In the midst of the montage, Blaine is courted online by the mysterious Eli C. and Finn is isolated as he watches his girlfriend live out her dreams. Moving forward, later that night Kurt and Rachel are surprised when Blaine shows up at their door. And guess what? He's just in time to go a Karaoke bar! How deliciously fun! So the ragtag gang makes their way to CallBacks. Upon arriving Rachel meets her "super cool' college friend Brody and the two sing a flirty duet in front of Finn, Rachel's kind of sort of but not really boyfriend. Is that tension I'm feeling? Now this is a good song, but is really necessary? Its purpose is to show how separated Finn and Rachel are, which was achieved minutes earlier in Barely Breathing. Is it worth spending time on something conveyed minutes earlier? We are heading towards ad nauseum territory.
While at this bar, Blaine asks to sing a song. He dedicates it to his true love, Kurt. Blaine sings Teenage Dream,the first song Blaine ever sang to Kurt. So it is actually a romantic gesture. Blaine breaks down crying, something is very wrong. So we go to commercial break.
On the way home, Kurt, Blaine, Finn, and Rachel all talk with their respective partners.Blaine admits to Kurt that he cheated and Rachel tells Finn she kissed Brody. And I feel a song coming on! Oh goody. Let's not discuss our issues, why not sing about them in a very introverted manner. Take it away, Finn.
We now encounter my second problem with Glee, which is exemplified with Blaine's cheating scandal. Blaine's action are out of character, from what we know. The thing is I can't confidently say that Blaine's action were out of character, on in character for that matter because I know nothing about Blaine Anderson. Nothing. Actually, I do know something about Blaine Anderson, he was the victim of a hate crime. But sadly, since 2010, Blaine hasn't done much but sing Katy Perry songs and look pretty. Furthermore, Blaine isn't the only victim here. There are so many characters. Last season, there were fifteen regular characters and twenty one recurring characters. My second problem is there are so many characters, so many that you can't keep track, or develop them. Strike two, Glee.
Glee can never be simple or really develop anything. Now, I pose a question. Did you notice that I only covered what happened in one location? I've only covered New York, not Lima, O-H-I-O. This is Glee's third and final strike. The show is ambitious. It has so many stories to tell, but it always falls short. It fell short when it was in one location. Quinn was pregnant in season 1, no one mentioned it in season 2. Many stories are tossed aside, abandoned. Strike three, Glee. Learn to write story arcs you can complete.
I'm going to give a quick rundown on the rest of the episode. So while all those break ups are happening in New York, a similar fate is in store for our Ohioan friends. Santana (Naya Rivera) and Brittany, another couple, discuss the merits of a long distance relationship. Brittany feels left behind by Santana, and Santana wants to be mature. After, a nice long tearful goodbye. (I might have cried. OK, I did cry.) and some Taylor Swift, the two break up.
Meanwhile, Jake and Kitty, a kind of worthless couple, are entangled in a love triangle with a sophomore named Marley. Jake realizes that Kitty is catty and breaks up with her. More relationship problems! Those problems don't end with the students even the teachers are effected. Will Schuester, the Glee club sponsor that needs an adult friend, gets a new job in D.C. He asks his fiancee Emma, to come with him. She refuses and the two fall out. Cue the last song! Full of flashbacks and all things sad!
There are many problems with Glee, but what brings in the viewer? Why can I see all its fault but still watch it?
The thing is when Glee gets it right, it gets it beyond right. In this episode alone I can pick out a few examples. In The Break Up, besides the strong acting, the cinematography and lighting shine the brightest. Specifically, Blaine and Brittany feel left behind, so in group shots, like in Don't Speak, Blaine is behind and alone, running to catch up and blurry. Blaine is visually left behind. An example of lighting is in The Scientist. The lights, besides being aesthetically pleasing, help the story flow. Blaine and Santana, who were at "fault' in their relationships, are covered in shadows, while their partners are bathed in light. Blaine was wrong, Kurt didn't do anything. (etc) It's interesting and shadows in previous numbers symbolizing the pain to come, and the shadows contrasting light, exemplifying the pain they have caused.
So I guess at that end of the day, Glee can get something right. The show does a lot wrong but it does some things right. There is a lot it can teach us not to do like over complicate our stories and disregard continuity, but it can also teach us what to do. Technical things like symbolic lighting and varied/expressive camera shots.
I think it is best summed up in The Scientist, originally by Coldplay, "Nobody said it was easy/ No one ever said it would be this hard..." It sums up watching Glee perfectly.
A member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is running for president, that's a given.Mitt Romney is LDS and I'm pretty sure you know it. Since this election toke off, Americans have had an earful of magic underwear and polygamy jokes. So when I saw the cover storyof Time, I was weary. The article dominates the cover. The issue is titled "The Mormon Identity." Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but most article about Mormons and their beliefs go downhill quickly. I definitely judged before reading. I added the magazine to the grocery cart, and once I got home I dug right in. I didn't know what I would find. I was pleasantly surprised. The article doesn't focus on polygamy, it only touches on it. Every word made me feel more confident that the article was positive. This has been a year of Mormon slams galore, and I'm pleased that the author of this particular article toke it upon themselves to write about the LDS Church overcoming struggles, instead of Joseph Smith having multiple wives. Progress and baby steps right?
This very respectful and heartwarming article. The Mormon in Mitt analyzes how Romney's beliefs influence his vision for this country. The article starts by talking about the Mormon Pioneer Trail. A body of people leaving behind the lives they had known for what they believed. Jon Meacham describes the trail and its pivotal moment, "... Smith and his flock attempted to settle permanently in Nauvoo, Ill. Yet a backlash against Smith led to the arrest of the prophet, who was ultimately shot to death by an anti-Mormon mob." Meacham describes the Mormons heading west and making peace with the world around them, including prominent leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln. The Mormons are depicted as looking for liberty and religious freedom. It's best summed up by Mitt Romney in his book, No Apology. Romney writes, " People from all over the world who prized freedom — the innovators, the pioneers, the dreamers — came to America and so they continue today. ... It is this love of liberty and the accompanying spirit of invention, creativity, derring-do and pioneering that have propelled America to become the most powerful nation in the history of the world." The article goes on to explain philanthropy and charity in the Mormon Church. The members of the Church are always willing to give to the poor. The religion promotes helping others and being reliant on oneself and their beliefs. This has transferred to Romney's politics. In the end, the article explores the LDS Church; origins and how it has impacted the life of member, Mitt Romney. It's a good read and I'm picky about Mormon depiction. I enjoyed it. Let's be honest one of my favorite parts was about Romney's mission and how he kept in touch with Ann, his future wife. Honestly, it's romantic. Romance melts me, so there you go. It's a quality piece and recommended reading.
Let's think about it about Mormon depiction. This article could've easily been negative. South Park was described by LDS members as, "unexpectedly, our best treatment." Think about it. South Park got it. South Park, think about that long and hard. When doesn't South Park push the limits? The show is crude and downright disgusting at times, and they're the Church's best treatment. Let that one sink in. I thought I would take this opportunity for us to play Mormon Myths and the Legitimate Facts.
Angel Moroni Statue that is found on top of most Temples Source
Mormon Myths: 1. Mormons are polygamous. False. This is wrong, wrong, and doubly wrong. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints doesn't condone polygamy, and the Community of Christ (formerly the RLDS Church) never has. Since the 1890 Manifesto, the LDS Church has not condoned or taught plural marriage. The practice formally stopped in Second Manifesto where the church declared it would not sanction marriages that defied the law of the land. No one is denying that Mormons did in fact practice polygamy, but the Church has not been in favor of plural marriage in over 100 years. Can't we see beyond Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's polygamy and make ourselves aware that Mormon Church does not practice polygamy. Furthermore the LDS Church does not have any formal ties with any polygamist sects of "fundamental Mormons". 2. Mormons wear magic underwear. O.K. Mormons wear temple garments, which are sometimes called "magic underwear" by the nice and ignorant Americans. A temple garment, is worn after an endowment ceremony. It is worn by those worthy to enter the temple, and let me tell you there are some requirements for that kind of thing. They are viewed as symbol of the covenants one makes in a Mormon Temple. Temples are scared to Mormons and only those righteous may enter. The garment is a reminder of their intimate moments in a "house of the Lord" is not an insult to Mormons, just a reminder of how connected they feel to God. We should probably learn the proper terms huh? It is derogatory after all. 3. Mormons can't drink coffee. This is true as can be! The Words of Wisdom, Doctrine and Covenants 89:1-2, prohibits it. Mormons can't drink wine, herbal tea, or coffee. Generally all these things are healthy not to consume anyway. For Mormons it isn't that big of a loss. However, in the Community of Christ, Mormonism's largest sect, drinking and coffee are allowed. 4. Mormonism is a cult. Wrong. This is false. Go straight to the interwebs and look it up. Do not pass go and do not collect $200. Mormonism is not a cult. Does Mormonism have religion status in the United States of America? Yes, yes it does. Want to know how Merriam Webster defines a cult? It is defined as, "formal religious veneration." Well that's awkward isn't it? Wouldn't all religions be cults then if formal religious worship was what a cult was? Look, Mormonism has a respected following of over a million people. I think we can look above and beyond a "cult" label . This concludes Mormon Myths. That was fun. So now I close with two questions for the reader of this very post. (Yes, you audience of people that may not exist.) 1. What are you're least favorite religious "jokes" or religiously ignorant comments? (Like Mormon vs. Moron. ) 2. Do you think religion matters when deciding who to vote for? Would a candidate's religion sway your decision? Now please enjoy a clip of MoTab singing "Climb Every Mountain" from the The Sound Of Music.
