The Most Influential Man that Never Actually Existed

   

We see him frantically riding motorcycles across rooftops in Turkey, getting in harpoon gun fights in the Great Barrier Reef, and crashing operas in Austria. But no matter what situation he is in, we see him deal with it in a way that influences generations upon generations of sartorialists. From Sean Connery’s Savile Row getups to Daniel Craig’s midnight blue tuxedo, James Bond has graced the screen in only the finest accouterments, and, in doing so, has earn the informal right be called the most influential fictitious man in menswear. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Askmen.com recently named him the Most Influential Man of 2012. And by golly does he deserve that title. His movies continue to enthrall millions, with the latest addition, Skyfall, living up to its hype and breaking records at the box office. Rotten Tomatoes, notorious for its brutality in rating films, shows a 92% approval rating of the film, while IMDb gives it an eight out of ten, describing it as a “soaring success.” But his influence extends far past the silver screen.

Every Halloween, we know of a man who dressed up as the slick spy. If you ask any woman if they would like a James Bond in their life, their answer is an unhesitating yes. We see little kids running through hallways in school, their hands folded into a gun, stopping every now and then with their back to the wall, peeking cautiously around the corner, eyes creased with emulatory concentration. The cars he drives become instant classics, his witty quips punch-lines for thousands, and his wardrobe choices the inspiration for millions more. James Bond is everywhere in our lives. He has become more than just an ephemeral movie character. He is an international icon, a style sensation, and a classic role model.

But all of this begs the questions: why do we respect this man so much that we flock to the cinema to see him? Why do we choose to dress and act as him? Why has his name become colloquially synonymous with style and sophistication?

When it comes to clothes, Bond often shows us that less is more.

It’s all about relatability, about the history of Bond, about his grim past and his exciting present, about his elegant struggle against crime and violence, about his grim determination to make a difference. Lindy Hemming, the Bond films’ costume designer, attributes this audience fascination to the “dynamic caused by the costume.” Bond is an orphan, born of nothing, yet he has become so much, a self-made man. His tuxedos and tailored-suits belie his working-class origins, his nice cars his childhood struggles. It is this rise from nothing, the sense that Bond could have been, and still can be, any one of us. We are Bond’s familial strain of society, and while we champion him on, we never lose the notion that one day perhaps we too can be just like him. And we show our respect, our flattery, in the only way we know how, through imitation. And as we carry him with us as we go through our lives, we allow him to live forevermore.

Vijay Agusala

“Breaking Bad”--How Bad is Too Bad?

Meet Walter White of “Breaking Bad” in the show’s first season: a bumbling, Dad-jeans-wearing chemistry teacher diagnosed with lung cancer. When Walt decides to start cooking meth to pay for his own chemotherapy, we cheer him on every step of the way. It does not matter that he lies to his wife, enables his former student Jesse’s drug habit, or that his brother-in-law is a DEA agent. He is an underdog who can, literally, get away with murder as far as the audience cares. 

Flash forward to the end of season three, and Walt is ordering his accomplice Jesse to kill innocent chemist Gale, the only other cook who knows Walter’s recipe. By the end of season four, our alleged hero is poisoning children and planting car bombs in a senior citizens’ home. How much bad can viewers take before they write off Walt and shift allegiances to a different character? 

In terms of narrative strategy, director Vince Gilligan astonishes not only with the sadistic scenes he invents, but also with the relentless downward trajectory of his main character. Gilligan describes the reason why he keeps Walt bad in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, “He’s at a point where he does not take responsibility, and I guess, in a way, it makes sense that he doesn’t, because if he did, he would very quickly stop cooking meth and stop being a criminal, and then we wouldn’t have a TV show.” His strategy may keep us on our toes, but Gilligan is dangerously close to not having an audience. 

By Renée Donovan

Winter Webby Winner: Young Adult: Reflecting the Darkness of Contemporary American Society

Perhaps, no film has been as polarizing as 2011’s Young Adult, which was just released on DVD this Tuesday.

Just take a look at the film’s Rotten Tomatoes page. While 84 percent of top critics gave Young Adult a positive review (with many publications like Time Magazine and The New York Times even choosing to rank it among the year’s best), only 58 percent of the site’s users rated the film favorably, with the majority deeming it “rotten.” The same trend can be seen on Redbox, where users have given the film an average rating of 2.0 stars out of 5. This is particularly slighting given that Redbox users, wanting to feel good about their rental decisions, often tend to be lenient with their grades, which has led to an overall inflation of ratings on the site. For instance, even Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill, which has been widely panned as the worst movie of 2011, has a 2.5 average rating

So how can a film that is praised as “brilliant, brave and breathtakingly cynical” by The New York Times also be widely panned by the general public? First, let's see why Redbox users disliked the film by looking at a sample of their reviews:

What’s important to note is that none of these users mention any the film’s aesthetic features in their critiques, instead choosing to attack the emotional reaction the film provoked. Two words kept on returning in these reviews, “dark” and “depressing.” This is somewhat surprising given the premise of the film: teen fiction writer Marvis Garvey (played by Academy Award winner Charlize Theron) decides to make a visit back to her home in small-town Minnesota in hopes of winning back her high school flame Buddy (Patrick Wilson) even though he is happily married and with child. This plotline would seem to be the source of great comedy, and harkens back to earlier films like Doc Hollywood and even Cars, where an urban hotshot has to be humbled by the charms of a small town community in order to find fulfillment. Except Garvey is never humbled. At the end of this film, Garvey decides to go back to her apartment city and ends up exactly in the same position she began. Literally and symbolically. She gains no epiphany, receives no enlightenment, and exhibits no change of character. She never escapes being the "psychotic prom queen bitch," as one character puts it.

That is what audience members seem to have taken issue with: the fact that screenwriter Diablo Cody (2007’s Juno) has unapologetically refused to give us a normal Hollywood ending. Viewers believe that since Garvey does not atone for her sins by the end of the movie, her character has no arc, and the film is an incomplete work. There are many threads on IMDb slamming Young Adult for exactly this reason:

And perhaps my personal favorite...

Just because a character begins and ends at the same place does not mean that nothing has happened in between.Young Adult (while filled with many laugh-out-loud moments and witty lines) is, when it really comes down to it, a tragedy. It’s the tragedy of a woman who desperately needs to change, but finds herself unable to. The filmmakers ironically wink to this idea by choosing to have Diana Ross’ “When We Grow Up” (below) play over the closing credits, which prominently includes the line, “We don't have to change at all.” The audience can’t help but laugh because we, as objective observers, know that Garvey positively has to. She can’t continue her heavy drinking, or her obsession with her physical appearance, or her blatant disregard for others' well-being. She has emotional problems that must be dealt with.

The ending, however, implicates contemporary society for enabling Garvey to continue avoiding her deep-rooted problems, which include alcoholism, depression, and possibly even autism. Toward the end of the film, Garvey learns the true reason why Buddy has been hanging out with her throughout the entire film: it was not because he had feelings for her, but because his wife, who is a special ed teacher, believed that she may have a mental sickness and did not want her to be alone. Absolutely humiliated in a public setting, Garvey can no longer ignore her problems, and comes to the realization the following morning that she "need[s] to change.” She is prevented from making such change, however, when one of her high school classmates, Sandra, badmouths Buddy’s wife with her and convinces her that she is perfect the way she is in order to appease Garvey.

SANDRA: Everyone here is fat and dumb.

MAVIS: Don’t say that….Do you really think so?

SANDRA Yes. Everyone wishes they could be like you. You know, living in the city, famous, and beautiful and all that.

MAVIS: I’m not famous.

SANDRA: Well, you know, special... or whatever. Some days, during a slow shift, I’ll just think about you living in your cool apartment... Going out and stuff... it seems really nice.

It is hard to ignore the suggestion that we, the American public, are Sandra. After all, who has not similarly accidentally said something negative toward an acquaintance or contrary to our beliefs, in order to seek approval from someone else? The filmmakers are arguing that people like Garvey get power not from their own doing, but simply because we have given it to them. A larger social commentary seems to be made as well. Throughout the film, Garvey is shown watching shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians and Kendra. In this way, Garvey almost becomes our surrogate for them, opening up new interpretations of the film. Do we treat our reality TV stars the same way Sandra does to Garvey? The American public often finds reality stars' behavior repulsive, but then, we continue tuning into their shows, buying their products, and dreaming that we had their lifestyle. Does our concept of fame prevent individuals from changing even when they know they must?

This is probably why viewers have called the film “dark” and “depressing.” Young Adult is not merely an indictment of one individual, Garvey, but instead of everyone watching. And that’s why the film’s genius. It reflects the darkness of contemporary American culture, and asks not only Garvey, but us to change as well.

- By Kurt C.

Winter Webby Runner-up: Reinventing Historic Memories

The image is alive, come make your own!! That is what the New York Public Library (NYPL) is trying to communicate in its latest efforts of gauging audience interest through a revived form of imaging called stereoscopy. Before discussing this latest trend, what exactly is stereoscopy? To abstain from the complex physics behind this phenomenon, stereoscopy or 3D imaging is simply a technique for making images come to life by creating an illusion of depth. This is accomplished by stacking two offset images on top of each other using imaging software. With the advent of technology, making and viewing these images has become widespread.

Stereoscopy is not a novel undertaking; it has been around since the photograph first originated in the 19^th century. In fact, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were the first to receive a stereoscopic viewer at the Crystal Palace in 1851, making stereoscopy popular. This popularity allowed photographers a chance to take part in early 20^th century media markets. Everything from local history events to landscapes and war scenes became popular subjects of stereoscopy. This mass form of communication faced its demise almost 100 years after it originated with the release of technologies like radio and television. Stereo images span years of historic photographic memory and have the potential to reveal long-vanished physical and contextual reality. Today the NYPL invites us to create our own historic photographic panoramas.

With the launch of “Stereogranimator,” one can leaf through images from the past and find everything from the Brooklyn Bridge to New York’s 5th Avenue. Through the web interface, one can alter the position and change options until a desired 3D effect is obtained. NYPL’s purpose is to draw younger audiences toward untouched material and motivate users to use the information creatively. Stereographs create further use and study by bringing mass communication back to life in an imaginative form. With this new initiative, the possibilities of creating an infinite library of stereo images and attracting new “stereocreators” are unlimited. The library’s experimentation through this enterprise is impressive.

An generic example NYPL offers:

The attractive form stereoscopy inspired me to take a step forward. Unexpectedly, I was able to catch a few shots of Stanford’s campus and discover ways of creating my own stereo photographs (see below).

Through the invention of new technologies, perhaps this eye-catching form of communication can be revived in other mediums like online textbooks or newspapers. The future of this resurrected technology can be viewed in, uhh, many perspectives.

Cesar Ambriz

Winter Webby Runner-Up: My Own Attempt at a Crossword Review

The following post is brought to you by Nick Yannacone. Just, you know, FYI.

Since my presentation was centered around the online crossword community, I thought I'd try my hand at participating in that community (for a change). Here follow s m y first attempt at a crossword review, a little like those provided every day by the voracious bloggers Rex and Amy.

Ahem.

F riday, 3/16/12, NYT Crossword, by Joel Fagliano

Let me start off by acknowledging that Mr. Fagliano is, if not quite my favorite, at least one of my favorite crossword creators out there today. Partially, this is due partially to his excellent choices for the crossword's answers -- "fill" in crossworld's lingo. I liked opening up my newspaper a few months ago to see "GOD'S GIFT TO WOMEN" and "STICK IT TO THE MAN" in big, bold letters on the crossword page. Good stuff.

And, partially, I think, it's due to a twinge of jealousy: Joel's younger than I am, and he's probably already entertained the world more than I will in my entire life. (... Jerk.) But, hey, I digress. Let's get back to the puzzle on hand.

Did I mention I like Joel's fill? Yeah? I do. I still do. This puzzle does not disappoint, with marquee answers like "SPACE JAM" (best movie of the 90s? probably) and UCSC's "BANANA SLUG"s filling the grid. I can't hate anything that involves both Michael Jordan and banana slugs, and this puzzle is no exception.

Continuing the list of "things I enjoyed seeing, would like to see more of, and might sell considerable amounts of my soul in order to achieve that aim" are the following:

• "ALPHABET," clued as "It breaks the 'I before E' rule"
• Hilariously-named author "DAVE EGGERS"
• "GANDALF," including a reference to the (in?)famous Balrog scene
• Jason Bourne's "CIA AGENT"S
• A "GAG GIFT"

All good stuff, indeed.

Now, there were a few rough spots in the puzzle in order to facilitate the vast volumes of sweetness... I'm looking at you, "ECOL." You may stand for an important field of science, but you are not a word! How dare you appear in my cross-WORD puzzle! You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sorry you all had to hear that.

I'm also not totally a fan of "IONA," abbreviation "ADM.," and partial phrase "A LIE." But, hey, I got the cool stuff I came for.

The real advantage of this puzzle, though, is that it has a decidedly Stanford bent. Just look at that beautiful "TECHY," spread out right across the center of the puzzle! (There are no FUZZIES in sight, which is... sadly typical for much of my techy life. Sigh....) More significantly, right down in the southeast section of the puzzle is our very own President "HENNESSY!" Of course, the clue tries to be all "oh, there are other people who do crosswords, too" about it and references, I dunno, some kind of Brandy, but we all know what it's REALLY talking about, right?

Anyway, this was a pretty great puzzle from a pretty great puzzle creator. As I've said before, I can't hate anything with slugs AND MJ in it, and, with President Hennessy to boot? No complaints, no complaints at all. This was a pretty nice way to start the weekend, and I hope Mr. Fagliano sees fit to bestow his lexical gifts on the world again sometime soon.

I'll Take Care of You

“Racing against myself but I’m a couple steps behind. That’s why I got to ask, ‘Is anything I’m doing brand new? Is everything I’m doing too late?”

Contrary to Drake’s concerns in his hit “Brand New”, he is a one of a kind rapper producing innovative and fresh music. This Canadian Jewish rapper first made his appearance on Degrassi as wheel-chair Jimmy, but escaped this role by proving himself musically. His 2010 album Thank Me Later went platinum and instantly Drake developed into a household name. He has since become known worldwide for his performance technique and somewhat arrogant behavior.

The development from his simple confessionals in Thank Me Later to his profound and soulful hits in Take Care marks a significant growth in Drake as a performer. This album involves current day superstars like Lil Wayne, Nikki Minaj, and Andre 3000 and collaborations with legends like Stevie Wonder. Drake utilizes different sounds and instruments to craft a story for his listeners. We get a glimpse of his performance life or some of his prolific inner thoughts. He comments, "We live in a generation of not being in love" over Stevie Wonder's harmonica on "Doing It Wrong." His insight on the instability of relationships nowadays made “Doing It Wrong” a relatable song for listeners.

Some argue the quality of the songs in the sophomore album Take Care was not anywhere close to his original Thank Me Later. In my opinion the issues Drake addresses in his album are relatable and are much more lyrically compelling than the songs of most rappers nowadays. I congratulate his efforts on this album and cannot wait for the junior.

-Eden Mesfin

Wiz Khalifa

Rapper Wiz Khalifa rose to fame in a rather unconventional manner. After releasing 5 independent and free mixtapes online, the Pittsburgh lyricist began winning the respect of hip-hop fans all over the globe. His sixth release, entitled "Kush and Orange Juice," became an instant classic, and today it is still one the most highly searched mixtapes.
After this initial success, Wiz took the step of going "mainstream" with his music. After linking up with record label Rostrum Records, Wiz released his first studio album; fortunately, many of his fans were disappointed. The album received mediocre reviews on various blog sites, and even though Wiz captured the number one spot on Billboard with his hit single "Black and Yellow," may felt like he did not live up to his potential.
The cause of this disappointment was Wiz's deviation from his "expected" subject matter and tone. For his first mainstream release, Wiz seemed to be under the influence of the record companies when deciding the directions of the records. At times, the album seemed to be one composed of pop-hop, a semi-genre most rappers hate to be categorized in. This should be a warning to all artists out there; although the labels may have ideas that lead to commercial "success," only you can decide what music you are truly passionate about making. It is a trade-off that everyone must evaluate for themselves, but the fans would appreciate you staying true.

-Michael Walker

#whatshouldwecallme

For lack of something better to blog about, although it's not necessarily a mass medium, I think it should be. Or at least it takes up more of my time nowadays than most other forms of mass media, and yes, more than even Facebook at the moment. Yes, this is a blog, about a blog. Possibly the best blog ever. #whatshouldwecallme. In case you haven't seen this, here's one of my favorites:

http://whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/18456614984/getting-out-of-bed-in-the-morning

It's sort of like a meme, except animated. And other than the fact that this is good, clean humor that can entertain anyone looking to procrastinate for hours, it is also an interesting form of mass media re-using mass media. The clips are usually 2-3 seconds of a tv show or popular youtube clip, edited and then paired with a funny phrase. It sounds kind of silly, but believe me, I haven't laughed quite this hard in a while. If you scroll down to the bottom of each post, you can see who has reblogged about the post, and it's a very twitter-like form of sharing. You can view everyone sharing a stupid little video clip with an out-of-text comic, just to brighten someone's day or to poke fun at something sensitive, like eating too much, being embarrassed to work out at the gym, or not understanding what your professor is saying. I think it's a beautiful form of humor, that has no real point except to lighten up any subject, and it's becoming quite the networking trend.

Not convinced? Lighten up your stress a little and check it out for yourself.

--Althea Wallop

Each year, mid-March as the hype of college football season and the magic of the Super Bowl slips from the memory of sports fans, one major sporting event rises to dominate all others- March Madness. In the months leading up to tournament tip-off, a dim buzz of sportscaster analysis and expert predictions grows to a roar of hype. This single event, in which 64 teams go head to head dominates sports news media. Millions of Americans fill out brackets and, guided by the input of hundreds of ‘experienced’ bracketologists, attempt to guess that magical combination of teams that will win their neighborhood, class, family, or dorm bracket pools. Months of scrutiny however, cannot save even the most avid sports fans from one thing: upsets. What basketball fan can forget George Mason’s Cinderella-esque run to the final four in 2006- a fury of a win streak no one could have predicted.

Since its creation in 1939, not a single person has predicted a bracket with 100% accuracy. This year, it may all change. AT&T has begun a campaign marketed through Facebook called “Brackets by Six-Year-Olds”. This Facebook application features video clips of a man dressed as a professional sports analyst asking six-year-olds for their game-by-game predictions. These children are neither statistics prodigies nor avid fans and as such, explain their choices based upon their favorite uniform colors or mascots. This brute force decision making style seems ridiculous and ineffective but is it? As we stand now, 15^th seed Lehigh has beat the 2 seed Duke and 15^th seed Norfolk State has beat the 2 seed Missouri. It is a reasonably safe idea to assume that not a single sports fan in the country has picked both of these upsets. But who knows? There very well may be a six year old that preferred Lehigh’s mascot- a hawk to that of Duke- a devil. This same six year old may have preferred Norfolk State’s green uniform to the white and black of Missouri. AT&T’s Brackets by Six-Year-Olds is an effective (and adorable) marketing scheme, but it also hits at an expose of the high level of over-analysis that plagues the sports industry today. Of course, AT&T marketing employees do not believe that six-year-olds’ impulse decision is in any way indicative of the quality of teams. However, targeting the ever present viewers’ remorse over refusing to choose that team ‘they had a special feeling about’ makes their marketing approach relatable, creative, and boldly effective.

- Winston Joe

Star Wars Saga: past, present, future

Giant spaceships invade the big screen, bringing with them new species, cultures, planets, and even something very close to a religion. Viewers of the very first Star Wars movie had this experience—the galaxy far far away felt intimate: viewers were given a universe, in many ways as complex as our own, to explore. Such an explosive release of content was quite a unique event in the world of science fiction. Nevertheless, most successful sci-fi classics share this commonality of enormous, complex worlds: from Star Trek to Tron, this trait has often allowed viewers to imagine the many facets that such invented worlds might have. This grandiosity, however, has been lost in the latest installments of the Star Wars saga. In addition to the tremendous amount of negative feedback received by the prequel trilogy, the most recent attempts at games and cartoon series have been widely unsuccessful at appealing to the Star Wars fan base.

Personally, I have enjoyed the most of the recent Star Wars releases, but I have never been able to shrug off the feeling that there was something missing. The spaceships were all there, as well as the characters, the lightsabers, and, most importantly, C3-PO. However, the grandiosity from the sequel trilogy was not present. The universe of smugglers, exotic worlds and Jedi mind tricks was replaced by… well, by politics! While Luke Skywalker followed his gut and traveled to the Cloud City in order to help his friends, Obi-Wan sought refuge in Senator Palatine in the safety of Coruscant. In this process, the Star Wars saga not only lost sight of its more action-filled moments, but it brought the saga closer to reality. This is perhaps the worse decision one can make when dealing with science fiction: viewer imagination is limited by this new take on a universe that was once full of life. Instead, a political universe was created, controlled by means similar to the ones that would be used in an average country on Earth. The freedom of exploration, which is what the series is really about, was lost in the process.

All science fiction represents a door into a new world, which we would not have access too otherwise—Star Wars was able to do this better than any of its predecessors. The novelty, however, only lasted for so long, and was quickly taken away when the saga was made more mundane with the prequel movies. Thankfully, however, a few of the more recent attempts at reviving the Star Wars saga—such as the old republic series of books and comics—seem to have been successful at returning to the roots of freedom and exploration that were once so prevalent in the series, so that a whole new generation might enjoy the thrill of Star Wars, one last time.

-Andre Menck

The Power of An Ad: Mad Men Controversy

On March 25th, the critically acclaimed TV show Mad Men, finally comes back for its 5th season after a one year hiatus. As an avid Mad Men fan, I could not be more excited to finally have this show and all its slightly dysfunctional characters back in my life. Unfortunately, the show has been getting a lot of attention recently for a different reason than its programming--an ad. In this day and age, it feels as if print ads have the potential to be the least controversial, as they involve the smallest amount of time and only appeal to the eyes of the viewer, yet this minimalistic ad drew a lot of criticism, specifically in New York.

Arguably the most defining aspect about the ad was that it did not even include the words Mad Men, but instead relied on the preexisting knowledge of the viewer to recognize the font and image. What was shown was the black silhouette of a man falling from a skyscraper in the opening credits of the program, with the words MARCH 25, written on the bottom in he standard Mad Men fount-- all over a plain white backdrop. This likely wouldn't have caused much controversy, yet the minimalist aesthetic it created forced the ad to interact with its environment more. As a result, when New Yorkers looked at the ad, instead of that blank space, they saw buildings reflected in the image. And as a whole, this added dimension of the ad was too much more many New Yorkers, as it resembled the photographs of desperate human beings jumping from the Twin Towers during 9/11. Consequentially, this raises the question of whether or not ad companies should censor themselves based on their target audience and location.

In my opinion, there are certain topics that can be incredibly delicate for a community, and therefore ad companies only do harm to themselves by creating very controversial content. 9/11 is clearly still a sensitive topic to New Yorkers, especially given that the

10th reunion of the attacks happened this past September. It's incredibly difficult for a city to brush off such an attack lightly, and it takes years to completely heal the wound created. Therefore ad companies ought to be aware that these sensitivities exist, and that they should be avoided in cases where they would upset a large group of people. It is completely possible that the creators of the ad completely overlooked this association, yet I still get the feeling that they were trying to be controversial while maintaining the identity and images present in their show. At the same time, it should be within the freedom of expression for an ad company to show such an image to market its show, as there is no blatantly offensive material being shown, such a nudity or curse words. Yet in this circumstance, it comes across as Mad Men trying to be controversial for the sake of being controversial and creating conversation, rather than actually trying to express themselves. As a result, I believe that the designers behind the print Mad Men ad should have been more sensitive to their audience and the location of the posters, and thereby adapted them so that they wouldn't be so upsetting to so many.

-Ashleigh Wais