When I heard that the musical Les Miserables (or Les Mis to its legions of fans) was going to be made into a movie, I wasn't sure what to think. I've always loved musicals, and Les Mis has been one of my favorites for years. I’ve seen it on stage twice, and at one point I had the original Broadway cast album practically memorized. I’m definitely a fan, but I wasn’t sold on the idea of a film adaptation. As much as I love musicals, I don’t care for the way they’ve been treated by Hollywood over the last several years. Between non-singing celebrities being cast in lead roles to movies that just seem to lack the energy of a live performance, most recent movie musicals just haven’t done it for me. I remained cautiously optimistic about the movie adaptation of Les Mis, but I was fully prepared to be underwhelmed.
Well, after seeing the movie for myself, I can honestly say that my fears were unfounded. It’s not perfect, but I think this version of Les Miserables will please fans of the stage show.
For those unfamiliar with Les Mis, it tells the story of Jean Valjean, an ex-convict in 19th Century France who violates his parole to create a new life for himself. Over the course of several years, Valjean befriends the dying prostitute Fantine, raises Fantine’s daughter as his own and gets caught up in the failed June Rebellion of 1832, all while being pursued by the fanatical police inspector Javert. It’s a story that covers a period of nearly two decades and involves several supporting characters, but the main focus is on Valjean’s journey of redemption and the lives affected by it.
Director Tom Hooper famously made some interesting choices as the director of this movie, the most significant of which was his decision to have the actors sing their parts live on set as opposed to lip synching to pre-recorded music. This may seem like an insignificant change, but it helps the film stand out from other musicals. The actors may be singing their lines, but since they’re doing it “live” they dictate the rhythm and timing of what they are singing and make it sound more like natural spoken dialogue. It also allows for far more emotional performances, which is a plus considering that Les Mis has always had a reputation of being a powerful tearjerker of a musical.
Another interesting decision that was made was to shoot most of the big musical numbers in close-up using long, uninterrupted takes. It seems like an odd choice, but it puts the focus on the performers and the emotions that their songs are supposed to convey. For example, Anne Hathaway’s much talked-about rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” probably wouldn’t be as poweful as it is had the camera not focused so closely on her. The song has always been about Fantine breaking down and losing nearly all hope, but because it’s shot in close-up we feel every bit of her pain and heartbreak. It gives the number a more intimate feeling that turns an already powerful performance into something that people will be talking about for a long time.
As for the performances themselves, they are quite good for the most part. Hugh Jackman isn’t the best singer to ever play Jean Valjean (he has to strain to hit the high notes), but he has a strong and expressive singing voice that lends itself well to the role. It also helps that he seems to be an actor first and a singer second. He seems to be more concerned with conveying emotion than with singing perfectly, and it helps him carry what is a very emotional musical. As Valjean’s adopted daughter Cosette, Amanda Seyfried reliably hits all of her high notes and is likable enough, as is Eddie Redmayne as her romantic interest, the revolutionary Marius. Samantha Barks brings a Broadway-honed singing voice to her role as Eponine, a street urchin in love with Marius. She’s easily one of the best singers in the movie, and I found her far more likable and engaging than Cosette. Meanwhile, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter bring some much-needed comic relief as a pair of crooked innkeepers.
All of these actors are good in their roles, but the real scene stealer is Anne Hathaway as Fantine. She actually has little screen time compared to many of the other characters, but to say that she leaves her mark is an understatement. Everything she does tears my heart out, and as strange as it sounds I’m kind of glad that she makes an early exit from the movie. I found myself caring for her enough to want her suffering to end, even if that means seeing her die in a hospital bed. She really is that good, and the fact that she can convey such deep sadness and despair while singing and hitting every note is pretty damn incredible.
The only real complaint that I have about this movie is that I didn’t care much for Russell Crowe’s Inspector Javert, which is a shame because Javert was my favorite part of both live performances of the stage show that I’ve seen. To me, Javert should have a menacingly deep baritone voice and an intensity that borders on psychosis. Valjean spends the better part of two decades running from him, and I like to think that part of the reason is because he’s a little afraid of the guy. Javert is scary in his fanaticism and single-mindedness, and that should be conveyed with an intense performance that demands the audience’s attention. Sadly, Russell Crowe doesn’t deliver the goods. Instead of being frighteningly intense, he just comes across as too nice, a little weary and too boring. Plus, his singing voice isn’t anything special. It’s pleasant enough and he does manage to stay on key, but any actor who plays Javert needs to do more than that.
Yes, Russell Crowe is a little weak as the story’s villain, but fortunately it isn’t enough to ruin the movie. Overall, the film version of Les Mis manages to hit most of the emotional highs and lows that the stage version does. I’m not sure I’d recommend it to those who don’t like big epic-length musicals, but die-hard Les Mis fans should be pleased.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
The Life Cycle of a Social Networking Site
I have a confession to make, a confession that I’m sure will border on sacrilege to a lot of people on the Internet.
I don’t really like Facebook, and the only reason why I have a Facebook account is because just about everyone I know has one.
I think I did like Facebook once, back when only a handful of people used it as a networking tool and before I felt like I had to check it twelve times a day. Having a Facebook account now just seems like a lot of work for very little reward. Ideally, I should log on once or twice a day and read interesting things that my friends have to say or learn the details of a party that I’m invited to. Instead, logging on means reading trite “inspirational” quotes, getting bombarded by invites to games I don’t want to play and seeing memes that stopped being funny weeks ago. It gets really irritating, yet everyone from my social circle to the mainstream media wants me to stay glued to my Facebook wall lest I become hopelessly out of touch with modern society.
Basically, Facebook has become more annoying than useful, but I think it’s actually following what I think is the lifespan of a typical social networking site. Before everyone on the planet had a Facebook account, just about everyone on the planet had a Myspace account. From a technical standpoint, I liked Myspace, and to be honest I thought it was better than Facebook is now. Myspace pages were more customizable than Facebook walls, there were message boards and chat rooms that let you easily talk to users that weren’t on your friends list, and it is still the preferred network for unsigned musicians. Of course, it started going downhill once people started to discover Facebook, but I don’t think it was out of any hatred for its interface. I think what happened was that Myspace became overcrowded with annoying users. The message boards and chat rooms were full of trolls, and it became way too easy to stumble into a really gaudy and poorly designed personal page. I would often see things like ditzy teenage girls who had way too many glitter effects on their pages and suburban white kids who had pictures of themselves flashing gang signs while loud gangsta rap plays. On top of it all, it seemed like everyone was using Myspace to bitch about other people or try to get laid by messaging random users.
Like the rest of the world, I eventually gave up on Myspace and moved on to Facebook. At the time, Facebook seemed like the more mature alternative to the drama-filled teen hangout that Myspace had become. College students and graduates used Facebook. They talked about their college courses. They talked about their careers. They talked about life, politics and society in a respectful manner. In other words, the Facebook crowd acted like adults. As someone who was tired of the constant trolling and high school drama on Myspace, I couldn’t sign up for a Facebook account fast enough.
Unfortunately, just as Myspace became too big and too crowded by stupidity, so has Facebook. Facebook’s interface usually keeps me from stumbling into pages that annoy me as much as some Myspace pages did, but between the sappy quotes, cutesy pictures, game requests and drama-filled status updates there’s plenty to keep me annoyed. Just as I got turned off of Myspace, I’m getting turned off of Facebook, something that I think was inevitable. It’s probably part of the social network life cycle. A shiny new networking site gets people’s attention, people flock to it and have a blast catching up with old friends for a few years, there’s an overload of annoying stupidity after a while, and people leave for the next big thing. Facebook may be the most visited site on the Internet now, and it will probably be going strong in a year or two, but if I’m right it will decline in popularity. People will move on to another social network, and Facebook will be the ghost town/punchline that Myspace has become.
So, if my theory about the rise and fall of social networks is correct, what will the next major social networking site be? Tumblr is already popular for blogging and photo sharing, and Google Plus (or Google+) has been trying really hard to become a Facebook killer. Maybe Myspace will have a renaissance and become king of the Internet again. It recently relaunched with an updated interface, and I would be willing to give it another chance if I knew enough people who were willing to do the same thing.
Until then, you could say that I’m suffering from social network burnout, or at least Facebook burnout. Feel free to continue updating your Facebook page and posting to your wall. If I’m not too annoyed, I might see it.
Then again, maybe I’ll be on Myspace. Hopefully I won’t be the only one.
(Just like my last "I hate Facebook" post, this will probably be shared on Facebook. I am well aware of the irony of that fact, so there's no need to remind me.)
I don’t really like Facebook, and the only reason why I have a Facebook account is because just about everyone I know has one.
I think I did like Facebook once, back when only a handful of people used it as a networking tool and before I felt like I had to check it twelve times a day. Having a Facebook account now just seems like a lot of work for very little reward. Ideally, I should log on once or twice a day and read interesting things that my friends have to say or learn the details of a party that I’m invited to. Instead, logging on means reading trite “inspirational” quotes, getting bombarded by invites to games I don’t want to play and seeing memes that stopped being funny weeks ago. It gets really irritating, yet everyone from my social circle to the mainstream media wants me to stay glued to my Facebook wall lest I become hopelessly out of touch with modern society.
Basically, Facebook has become more annoying than useful, but I think it’s actually following what I think is the lifespan of a typical social networking site. Before everyone on the planet had a Facebook account, just about everyone on the planet had a Myspace account. From a technical standpoint, I liked Myspace, and to be honest I thought it was better than Facebook is now. Myspace pages were more customizable than Facebook walls, there were message boards and chat rooms that let you easily talk to users that weren’t on your friends list, and it is still the preferred network for unsigned musicians. Of course, it started going downhill once people started to discover Facebook, but I don’t think it was out of any hatred for its interface. I think what happened was that Myspace became overcrowded with annoying users. The message boards and chat rooms were full of trolls, and it became way too easy to stumble into a really gaudy and poorly designed personal page. I would often see things like ditzy teenage girls who had way too many glitter effects on their pages and suburban white kids who had pictures of themselves flashing gang signs while loud gangsta rap plays. On top of it all, it seemed like everyone was using Myspace to bitch about other people or try to get laid by messaging random users.
Like the rest of the world, I eventually gave up on Myspace and moved on to Facebook. At the time, Facebook seemed like the more mature alternative to the drama-filled teen hangout that Myspace had become. College students and graduates used Facebook. They talked about their college courses. They talked about their careers. They talked about life, politics and society in a respectful manner. In other words, the Facebook crowd acted like adults. As someone who was tired of the constant trolling and high school drama on Myspace, I couldn’t sign up for a Facebook account fast enough.
Unfortunately, just as Myspace became too big and too crowded by stupidity, so has Facebook. Facebook’s interface usually keeps me from stumbling into pages that annoy me as much as some Myspace pages did, but between the sappy quotes, cutesy pictures, game requests and drama-filled status updates there’s plenty to keep me annoyed. Just as I got turned off of Myspace, I’m getting turned off of Facebook, something that I think was inevitable. It’s probably part of the social network life cycle. A shiny new networking site gets people’s attention, people flock to it and have a blast catching up with old friends for a few years, there’s an overload of annoying stupidity after a while, and people leave for the next big thing. Facebook may be the most visited site on the Internet now, and it will probably be going strong in a year or two, but if I’m right it will decline in popularity. People will move on to another social network, and Facebook will be the ghost town/punchline that Myspace has become.
So, if my theory about the rise and fall of social networks is correct, what will the next major social networking site be? Tumblr is already popular for blogging and photo sharing, and Google Plus (or Google+) has been trying really hard to become a Facebook killer. Maybe Myspace will have a renaissance and become king of the Internet again. It recently relaunched with an updated interface, and I would be willing to give it another chance if I knew enough people who were willing to do the same thing.
Until then, you could say that I’m suffering from social network burnout, or at least Facebook burnout. Feel free to continue updating your Facebook page and posting to your wall. If I’m not too annoyed, I might see it.
Then again, maybe I’ll be on Myspace. Hopefully I won’t be the only one.
(Just like my last "I hate Facebook" post, this will probably be shared on Facebook. I am well aware of the irony of that fact, so there's no need to remind me.)
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Discussions about Sandy Hook
By now, there’s probably not a whole lot I can say about the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that hasn’t already been said, but I feel like I should still weigh in on the subject. It’s not like I’m anybody of any real importance or anything, but when we are faced with a tragedy of this magnitude I feel that we as a country should be talking about it. It gives us a better understanding of how and why it happened, and what we can do to keep something like it from happening again. We’re already having what feels to me like the first serious discussion on gun control in years, a discussion that I think is long overdue. If there can be any positive outcome to this tragedy, that would be it. I can’t think of any good reason in this day and age why military-grade assault weapons should be made available to civilians, and we need to do more to keep them out of the wrong hands.
I definitely think there’s a lot we can learn from discussions about the Sandy Hook massacre or the many other shootings that seem to be in the news these days. Sadly, for every worthwhile observation that is made, there seem to be ten that end up doing more harm than good. They focus too much on horrific details, unsubstantiated rumors and fear mongering in an attempt to present the “truth.”
A couple of days after the Sandy Hook shooting took place, a certain quote went viral on Facebook and other social networking sites. Here’s an excerpt:
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody."
Somebody somewhere decided that this was from a statement made by Morgan Freeman. That somebody is wrong. Morgan Freeman didn’t say any of these things, and he isn’t happy that people think he did. The fact that this was going around as a statement made by Mr. Freeman is an example of Internet stupidity at work.
That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some truth to the quote. Whenever a horrific act of violence grabs the nation’s attention, one of the first things that the media likes to do is dig up as much information on the perpetrators as possible. Before long, we know all about what kind of people the killers are, what their methods were, what kinds of weapons they were using and what could’ve driven them to do such horrible things. The victims are mentioned, but they're never given as much attention as the killers who are all but elevated to legendary status by the press. With that in mind, it’s no wonder why certain people are inspired by them instead of horrified.
The Sandy Hook shooting reminds me of when the Columbine massacre happened in more ways than one. In the weeks following that particular tragedy, it seemed like every high school in the country received bomb threats from kids who wanted a "fun" way to disrupt class and stick it to their schools. For the most part, these threats didn't amount to anything; they were tasteless "jokes" meant to capitalize on a tragic event. Not surprisingly, I see the same things happening now. It seems like I can’t turn on the news without hearing about someone threatening to open fire on a school or doing something else to kill lots of people. As with all the threats that went on after Columbine, most of these threats probably aren’t serious, but it's too risky to make that assumption about every one of them. For every ten kids who think they’re being funny by saying how they’re going to shoot up a school on Facebook, there’s at least one who is actually planning a massacre and would carry it out if given the opportunity. These folks might hear about incidents like Sandy Hook and get just a little bit bolder, and the sensationalism that I always see when things like this happen just makes things worse.
I also think sensationalism in the face of tragedy plays up what seems to be another factor in violent crimes: mental illness. It’s been reported that Adam Lanza, the man responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre, had Asperger's syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism. I haven’t done a whole lot of research on Lanza or his mental state, but I haven’t heard a lot about autism driving a person to mass murder. I don’t doubt that an autistic person can kill, but a quick glance at a handful of headlines on the Internet suggest that there are plenty of people who think being on the autism spectrum makes a person a ticking time bomb.
I think this is just the latest example of the notion that mental illness makes a person dangerous. I know the general public is much better informed about mental illness than they used to be, but I still believe that there are people who lump all mentally ill people into the category of “crazy.” “Crazy” people are irrational and dangerous, and at any moment they can snap and commit mass murder for no apparent reason. Since autism is seen by many as a mental illness, those with autism must be “crazy” and therefore dangerous.
Anybody who has known people with mental illness in general and autism in particular should know how wrong the previous statement is. Autism doesn’t turn a person into a violent killer, and neither does chronic depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. There is rarely one single psychological factor that drives a person to want to commit murder, and for anybody in the media to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and immoral.
Like I said before, I think we should talk about tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. There’s too much we can learn from these discussions, and turning our backs on what happened would be a huge disservice to the victims and survivors of the shooting. We need to be careful about how we talk about things, though. The sensationalism, fear mongering and misinformation that I see when something like this happens does far more harm than good.
I definitely think there’s a lot we can learn from discussions about the Sandy Hook massacre or the many other shootings that seem to be in the news these days. Sadly, for every worthwhile observation that is made, there seem to be ten that end up doing more harm than good. They focus too much on horrific details, unsubstantiated rumors and fear mongering in an attempt to present the “truth.”
A couple of days after the Sandy Hook shooting took place, a certain quote went viral on Facebook and other social networking sites. Here’s an excerpt:
"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody."
Somebody somewhere decided that this was from a statement made by Morgan Freeman. That somebody is wrong. Morgan Freeman didn’t say any of these things, and he isn’t happy that people think he did. The fact that this was going around as a statement made by Mr. Freeman is an example of Internet stupidity at work.
That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some truth to the quote. Whenever a horrific act of violence grabs the nation’s attention, one of the first things that the media likes to do is dig up as much information on the perpetrators as possible. Before long, we know all about what kind of people the killers are, what their methods were, what kinds of weapons they were using and what could’ve driven them to do such horrible things. The victims are mentioned, but they're never given as much attention as the killers who are all but elevated to legendary status by the press. With that in mind, it’s no wonder why certain people are inspired by them instead of horrified.
The Sandy Hook shooting reminds me of when the Columbine massacre happened in more ways than one. In the weeks following that particular tragedy, it seemed like every high school in the country received bomb threats from kids who wanted a "fun" way to disrupt class and stick it to their schools. For the most part, these threats didn't amount to anything; they were tasteless "jokes" meant to capitalize on a tragic event. Not surprisingly, I see the same things happening now. It seems like I can’t turn on the news without hearing about someone threatening to open fire on a school or doing something else to kill lots of people. As with all the threats that went on after Columbine, most of these threats probably aren’t serious, but it's too risky to make that assumption about every one of them. For every ten kids who think they’re being funny by saying how they’re going to shoot up a school on Facebook, there’s at least one who is actually planning a massacre and would carry it out if given the opportunity. These folks might hear about incidents like Sandy Hook and get just a little bit bolder, and the sensationalism that I always see when things like this happen just makes things worse.
I also think sensationalism in the face of tragedy plays up what seems to be another factor in violent crimes: mental illness. It’s been reported that Adam Lanza, the man responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre, had Asperger's syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism. I haven’t done a whole lot of research on Lanza or his mental state, but I haven’t heard a lot about autism driving a person to mass murder. I don’t doubt that an autistic person can kill, but a quick glance at a handful of headlines on the Internet suggest that there are plenty of people who think being on the autism spectrum makes a person a ticking time bomb.
I think this is just the latest example of the notion that mental illness makes a person dangerous. I know the general public is much better informed about mental illness than they used to be, but I still believe that there are people who lump all mentally ill people into the category of “crazy.” “Crazy” people are irrational and dangerous, and at any moment they can snap and commit mass murder for no apparent reason. Since autism is seen by many as a mental illness, those with autism must be “crazy” and therefore dangerous.
Anybody who has known people with mental illness in general and autism in particular should know how wrong the previous statement is. Autism doesn’t turn a person into a violent killer, and neither does chronic depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. There is rarely one single psychological factor that drives a person to want to commit murder, and for anybody in the media to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and immoral.
Like I said before, I think we should talk about tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. There’s too much we can learn from these discussions, and turning our backs on what happened would be a huge disservice to the victims and survivors of the shooting. We need to be careful about how we talk about things, though. The sensationalism, fear mongering and misinformation that I see when something like this happens does far more harm than good.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Why Gangsta Culture Isn't Funny
Last Friday, Minnesota Vikings punter and famously outspoken blogger Chris Kluwe (a.k.a ChrisWarcraft on Twitter) wrote a series of tweets about a new massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) concept he came up with. The following is what he had to say in his feed:
I would ask if all of this is racist, but I’ve always been of the opinion that if you have to ask if something is racist, then it almost certainly is. This is unfortunate, because I don’t think Kluwe was intending to be racially insensitive. This is an attempt at satire, and taken from a certain point of view it’s actually kind of funny. Kluwe is making fun of “gangsta” culture, something that I’ve always found stupid, offensive and deserving of all the scorn and ridicule we can throw at it. Unfortunately, many people see “gangsta” culture and African American culture as one and the same. There are just far too many people who will read something like this and just assume he’s making fun of African Americans in general. To make matters worse, many of these people will “agree” with him that all black people are like this and find it hilarious.
In other words, Chris Kluwe wasn’t trying to be racist, but he ended up feeding into the racism inherent in our society.
This whole thing got me thinking about “gangsta” culture and what it really represents. I’ve already said that I think it’s stupid and offensive, but I didn’t talk about why I feel this way. The way I see it, “gangsta” culture, or the version of it that has been glorified by rappers since the 1990s, is just one example of institutionalized racism. It delivers the message that African Americans are violent criminals, and it tells poor young black people everywhere that this is the best kind of life they can hope for. Meanwhile, predominantly white businessmen make millions of dollars by perpetuating negative stereotypes and giving an entire race a bad name.
Like I said before, I’d love to see someone use satire to tear down “gangsta” culture and reveal the racism behind it, but Chris Kluwe isn’t the one to do it. Kluwe is a smart guy who can be very insightful and funny, but the fact of the matter is that as a white male he’s not in the position to make these kinds of jokes. Too many people will see him as just another racist making fun of black people, which is really sad.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter that someone is making these kinds of jokes. People would understand that Kluwe is making fun of a certain subculture that happens to be related to African American culture but isn't representative of African American culture as a whole. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where racism exists, and where people like to believe that the worst stereotypes of an entire culture are true. Since we live in that world, I can't read something like Chris Kluwe's tweets about "the game" and find them funny.
Heard lots of rap lyrics reference "The game", so while running I came up with an MMO rules structure for "The game". #lookoutWoW
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Name generation in "The game" begins with a normal name, Harold Douglas for example, which is then randomly altered to be contextual.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
The name database will create a combination of words from "young", "yung", "little", "lil", "big", "old", and random "z"s thrown in.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Character classes depend on gender selection. Males can choose from "gangsta", "pimp", "hustla", and "playa". Prestige class is "real".
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Female classes include "ho", "skank", "bitch", and "meat receptacle". Prestige class for women is "fly honey".
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
"The game" will have permadeath, because YOLO. Unless, of course, you unlock the extremely rare [Tupac] perk. All dungeons are autotuned.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
Any out of game communication on strategies or hints will result in loss of level, because snitches get stitches. Now to find a publisher...
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012
I would ask if all of this is racist, but I’ve always been of the opinion that if you have to ask if something is racist, then it almost certainly is. This is unfortunate, because I don’t think Kluwe was intending to be racially insensitive. This is an attempt at satire, and taken from a certain point of view it’s actually kind of funny. Kluwe is making fun of “gangsta” culture, something that I’ve always found stupid, offensive and deserving of all the scorn and ridicule we can throw at it. Unfortunately, many people see “gangsta” culture and African American culture as one and the same. There are just far too many people who will read something like this and just assume he’s making fun of African Americans in general. To make matters worse, many of these people will “agree” with him that all black people are like this and find it hilarious.
In other words, Chris Kluwe wasn’t trying to be racist, but he ended up feeding into the racism inherent in our society.
This whole thing got me thinking about “gangsta” culture and what it really represents. I’ve already said that I think it’s stupid and offensive, but I didn’t talk about why I feel this way. The way I see it, “gangsta” culture, or the version of it that has been glorified by rappers since the 1990s, is just one example of institutionalized racism. It delivers the message that African Americans are violent criminals, and it tells poor young black people everywhere that this is the best kind of life they can hope for. Meanwhile, predominantly white businessmen make millions of dollars by perpetuating negative stereotypes and giving an entire race a bad name.
Like I said before, I’d love to see someone use satire to tear down “gangsta” culture and reveal the racism behind it, but Chris Kluwe isn’t the one to do it. Kluwe is a smart guy who can be very insightful and funny, but the fact of the matter is that as a white male he’s not in the position to make these kinds of jokes. Too many people will see him as just another racist making fun of black people, which is really sad.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter that someone is making these kinds of jokes. People would understand that Kluwe is making fun of a certain subculture that happens to be related to African American culture but isn't representative of African American culture as a whole. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where racism exists, and where people like to believe that the worst stereotypes of an entire culture are true. Since we live in that world, I can't read something like Chris Kluwe's tweets about "the game" and find them funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)