Entertainment - Latest News, Photos And Videos

I cannot even believe I almost missed the first part of this two night event. It's like a brush with death or something. Thankfully, I saw it recording on my DVR and now I'm watching. Phew. Okay, so Chris is going to take the women to Iowa so he has to be Very Serious Now. Some blonde confronts Chris about him not liking her, and he admits he doesn't like her. So she's out. All the other women cry, because they liked having someone around that Chris liked less than each of them.

The blonde held it together till the limo, at which point she dissolves into tears. Standing on the street in the light of the streetlamp, Chris holds his head in his hands. It's like a scene out of a Tennessee Williams play, without any depth or artistry. The women discuss "losing" the blonde, because she died. Not really, because death wouldn't be as bad as being rejected by Prince Farming. Britt pretends to be worried about the rose ceremony, even though she and Chris probably secretly tattooed each other's names on their asses during their "nap" last week.

Carly the singer and Whitney the fertility nurse and Jade the cosmetics developer all discuss why their career paths are less important than marrying Chris and moving to his farm. Or else they discuss how awesomely excited they are to go to "God's Country." God himself is amazed to see all these women literally jumping up and down at the chance to go to Iowa.

We see an aerial view of Iowa and there are three whole cars on the streets. The women are super excited that Iowa has trees. They go to a hotel which was last updated in 1992 and prance around the fashionable glass topped coffee table and beige curtains. Jade gets the one on one and the other women wonder if the old "Nair in the shampoo bottle" trick could work in real life.

We see cows and prairies. Chris is anxious that nobody is going to want to live in Iowa with him, because nobody wants to live in Iowa with him. Chris greets Jade and makes out with her. He shows her his house, and it's nice and big, and probably cost about $4500. Now he's introducing the cows by name and offers to name a cow after Jade.

Jade says Arlington Iowa is "more isolated" than she thought it would be. She doesn't seem too thrilled. It's basically a ghost town. Jade looks like she's going to vomit. Moral: hot girls don't like places without any people. If you're hot in a ghost town and nobody sees you, are you still hot? Points to ponder. Jade gets progressively more upset. They go to a high school football game and Chris can envision his and Jade's kids playing football. And she can't.

Oh now she's meeting his parents! Britt is going to flip out. Chris and Jade walk around his high school and she tells him she's made a lot of mistakes. She has a big secret to tell him, which we already know from last week's coming attractions, but I won't tell you in case you didn't see last episode, because maybe your house burned down or something that would make missing The Bachelor excusable. Anyway, I can see Jade liking living in Iowa for about six months. Everyone at the game chants "Kiss Chris" and she does. JADE! STAY ON TASK! THIS PLACE ISN'T FOR YOU! Oh, whatever. She's lost.

Now Chris is on a date with Whitney in Des Moines which is way cooler than Arlington. They have a date where all they do is kiss each other and take photos of it. Back at the house, Britt cries. The women decide to go visit Arlington themselves to see how bad it sucks. This probably won't end well. And I'm right, the women are very disappointed. They look absurdly out of place in their fashionable clothes walking down the Twilight Zone-like deserted streets. Now they see a church, which is locked. But Carly sees the same picture of Jesus in the church (through the window) as used to hang in her grandparents' house, which makes her feel good, and shows that people can really invent anything to resolve cognitive dissonance.

Whitney gets to meet Chris's friends, which will probably make Britt pass out from jealousy. Britt tells Jade she could live in Arlington after she told all the other girls all day that she would never live there. Uh oh, Britt got the group date, not the let's-get-married-F-the-other-girls date as she was hoping for. Carly makes a hand puppet of Britt being a liar, which is funny enough that she should win. But she won't, because having a sense of humor is a disqualifier on this show.

Whitney says her mother is dead and she also has no relationship with her dad. Chris is impressed by how strong she is. Whitney says she can't wait to call her in-laws Mom and Dad, and Chris loves that. One of the pictures that Chris and Whitney took of them kissing was made into a big mural, and she's so excited. This is pretty romantic. Whoever actually marries Whitney will never be able to live up to this moment.

Jade tells the girls she used to model for Playboy. The other girls are both jealous and relieved. She says her dad found out about it from his coworkers, which sounds like about the most awkward thing in the universe. Jade says sometimes she regrets posing nude. Me too, Jade. Just kidding, I don't regret it. JUST KIDDING FOR REAL, GUYS. But don't look at the April 2005 issue.

Now Britt says when they are alone, Chris is her boyfriend, but when they aren't alone, he isn't. Welcome to The Bachelor, Britt. The group date is at a hockey rink. Britt immediately straddles Chris and jumps into his arms, because she's the only woman in the world. Chris talks about making a fool out of himself on the hockey rink, which is possibly the only place that he would not make a fool out of himself. Britt asks to steal Chris, because she's the only woman in the world, again (hereafter abbreviated BSTOWITW). Britt tells Chris about road tripping to Arlington, screwing up the other women's chance to hear his reaction to this information, but damned if she cares, BSTOWITW.

Carly is mad that Britt is lying to Chris about being happy to move to Arlington. Carly says Chris deserves to know Britt's true feelings about Arlington. Britt tosses her hair and tells Chris how she loves Arlington. And Chris kisses her tenderly, BSTOWITW. He says, "Her and I could make grammatical mistakes together." I mean, "A special life together." Tomato Tomahto.

Carly stupidly wastes her portion of the group date by tattling on Chris, which NEVER EVER GOES WELL SO WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP DOING IT? Eyes on the prize, ladies. No infighting. Carly says, "I'm really protective of you... Britt said she could never live here.... no way." Chris scrunches his face in the universal signal for "trying to think for the first time ever." Carly tells Chris to be careful. Great, now you're his guardian angel. BUT STILL NOT THE WOMAN WHOSE VAGINA HE PREFERS. Winning the battle, Carly.

Now Chris and the girls raise their glasses to Arlington, and Chris wonders if Britt was actually telling the truth or not, because all Carly did was make Chris think about Britt even more, BSTOWITW. Britt runs off at the mouth about paper plates or some BS. Chris confronts Britt about her apparent dislike of Arlington, and by "confronts" I mean, "in no way confronts her and instead basically gives her the ring with his words." Britt is either super honest or super sneaky. Goddamn it! Even I'm obsessing about her now, BSTOWITW. Britt talks about wanting to be a mom and Chris cries and calls the show and proposes. Not really but really.

Carly is still in bizarro world where she think that what she says impacted Chris' overt preference for Britt. Kaitlyn says Chris isn't an idiot. So really these two women have no idea which way is up. Kaitlyn picks to talk about her own damn self during her alone time, since she's smart. I hope he does NOT pick Kaitlyn, so she can meet someone else. God, wanting the better women not to win is like when they pay the farmers not to plant crops. (Boo ya perfect farming analogy.)

Kaitlyn has drunk the Kool Aid and thinks she likes Chris. Chris likes her too, but the difference between how he likes her and how he likes Britt is palpable, by which I mean there is markedly less palpating on this date than his dates with Britt, BSTOWITW. Oh holy %^&*, Chris gives Kaitlyn the rose. WTF. I guess he slipped Britt the pitchfork last week during "naptime" so the least he can do is give Kaitlyn the rose.

Are there seriously only 15 minutes left? WHERE IS BRITT'S NERVOUS BREAKDOWN? BSTOWITW! And the only possible nutjob remaining. Oh here we go! Ominous mental collapse music..... Britt taps her purple painted fingernails. She nods cynically when Kaitlyn approaches with the rose. Then she starts shaking her head at him. She is going to lose it. How dare Kaitlyn get a rose? Carly, aka Friend Zone, takes it like a champ.

Britt pretends she is happy for Kaitlyn, and then dominates the conversation absurdly, saying that she doesn't want her husband to prioritize other women. She says, "my husband" at least three times. It's basically a narcissistic break with reality. Britt now pretends Chris is telling her, Britt, to leave, by giving Kaitlyn the rose. This CANNOT HAPPEN TO BRITT! BSTOWITW! Chris is obviously out of his element, but what else is new. Britt says her episode wasn't about Kaitlyn, which is the truest thing she could possibly say.

The other women reassure Britt that she's the front runner, because this is how people end up treating narcissists, even after being put down by them. Now Carly feels validated because Chris "saw Britt's true colors." But I still bet he picks her. Well, maybe he'll shock me. Come on Chris, shock me. In her confessional, Britt seems to have finally realized she acted like a lunatic. Kaitlyn and Carly think that Britt blew it. Britt cries.

Tomorrow on the Bachelor, we see that there won't be a cocktail party, and that Britt gets even more wackadoo, and that Britt gets EVEN MORE wackadoo than that. Then hometown visits where Chris tries to rap while wearing a pink polo shirt, which you can possibly pull off if you're Jay Z. Also, Jade tells Chris she's hot enough to pose for Playboy. And other girls pretend this is going to be anything besides a huge turn on for Chris. Till next time, I remain, The Blogapist Who Kind of Loves Britt, BSTOWITW.

For more, visit Dr. Psych Mom, or visit Dr. Rodman on Facebook and Twitter@DrPsychMom.

I was initially not going to go anywhere near the Fifty Shades of Grey frenzy. But a dear friend, who is also a survivor of domestic violence (DV), asked me to consider it on behalf of women DV survivors. So I read the first book and watched the movie over the weekend, thoughtfully processing both with domestic violence issues as a part of my filter. Here are my thoughts as a result:

What I care most about is something that is, admittedly, much clearer in the book than in the movie, and that is how terribly unsettling it is to see a "mercurial" jealous control freak depicted so clearly. I began to wonder if E.L. James had read up on the topic. Though the movie easily leaves out three-quarters of the relevant material (according to the tally I kept as I read), there was still enough to have the couple next to me in the theatre commenting loudly, "He's so controlling!"

The reason this element concerns me is pretty simple: control and jealousy form the bedrock of abusive relationships. The fact that Christian Gray may change his ways by the end of the series is truly fantasy, and on that level concerns me even more. What people who have not experienced an abusive relationship do not understand is that E.L. James depicts a manipulative man grooming a woman into submission, and it can be horrifying for those in the know.

Christian Gray is described from the very get-go as someone who desires to control everything and everyone around him. He even says it, himself. If that doesn't evoke concern from you, then congratulations on not having encountered such people in your life, thus far. The most relevant part is that, as Anastasia consistently reflects, this kind of a person keeps you constantly worrying about their mood and uncertain of where you stand with them. "Walking on eggshells" does not do the dynamic justice, and I'd like you to think about how all parts of a person's life would be effected, when living in constant fear or intimidation.

Anastasia Steele is depicted from the very get-go as a childish, deeply lacking-in-self-esteem, naïve young woman. In the book she does not yet know enough to respect her intuition, which consistently tells her to flee from this man (!), and she does not put two and two together when she consistently feels a relief when not around him. In the book and the movie it is the sexual aspect that keeps her going back to him. On one hand this piece is understandable, since Gray is the first man she has felt this way about. But on the other, even as both characters admit, Gray uses his knowledge of the erotic as a weapon to get her to comply with a "relationship" as he likes it.

I must highlight the relief she feels when not around him. This is real. Whatever enticement she may feel compelled by, when around Christian Grey, it goes hand-in-hand with something deep within that tells her to run far, far away. This element plays out for abusers, in their favor. Though there is something frightening about them, there is also an allure that is somehow stronger or exciting enough to keep the victim still engaged. The allure is an important part of what makes the grooming process possible.

For women in or familiar with situations of domestic violence, the control and ownership elements of this book and movie can jump off the page or the screen. Whatever the reasons for him "being that way," they do not justify him controlling another person.

The "if you love me you'll do this for me" piece is all over their interactions in the book, and that - not the BDSM -- is the part that made my skin crawl every time. That she does end up enjoying the bondage and being a Submissive for a time is what has made writing this piece so challenging. This is where fantasy and reality need to be held up for scrutiny. I do think that it is best not to judge what turns people on. If it doesn't work for you, then don't do it. You get no points in my book for ridiculing someone else's source of pleasure.

On a frighteningly related note, as The Rachel Maddow Show playfully highlighted for us, the movie seems to be most popular in the "Bible Belt." Many people have suggested that the correlation is due to the "most repressed, most obsessed" element. If that is the case, what does it say that people assume that Christians who read the Bible faithfully are also sexually repressed?

I think that the connection is perhaps also due to what people have been told to believe about God. If you tell people to love and even worship a God who even in the "ten commandments" claims to be a jealous God (in God's defense, creating a monotheistic tradition turned out to be pretty difficult; Ex. 20:5; see also Ex. 34:14; Deut. 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 32:21; Joshua 24:19; Ezekiel 36:5; Nahum 1:12; James 4:5), then it perhaps makes it easier to read right past the jealousy bit in Grey's character. I'm not sure. But why is it that what reads and looks like rather sketchy behavior from Grey - quick to jealousy and anger at the idea that other men like Ana, stalking her, telling her that every part of her pleasure belongs to him - is somehow justifiable from God (Isaiah 43:1; Lev. 25:55)?

Or, to put it a different way, a DV survivor has noted that Psalm 139:1-10 does not sound so lovely when read through her experiences. The control aspect of her abuser meant that he knew every step, every single thing she did, all day (139:1-3). Being hemmed in, behind and before (139:5), is what she experienced at the hand of her abuser. It is often nearly impossible for a victim to safely escape her abuser (139:7-9). And though in the Psalm it is meant to be reassuring and a source of comfort when in reference to God, the idea of an abuser's hand leading, holding fast his victim (139:10) sounds more like a threat and a reminder of who is in control. By the way, this also describes the way Christian Grey behaves toward Anastasia when they are not physically engaged.

I have seen and heard a great deal of what one could almost call panic about this movie from members of the conservative Christian community. This image somewhat sums up the sentiment. It juxtaposes an image of the Fifty Shades tie with one of the Bible, and has a heading, "Which book would you rather guide your daughter's life choices?"

What I don't think people understand is that at least the first book in the Fifty Shades series could actually serve a young woman better than the Bible, relationally, since at the end she does walk away from an emotionally controlling person for her own well-being, and she has learned a great deal about herself in the meantime. The Bible, on the other hand, tells women to stay in abusive relationships (1 Peter 3:1-6, some people say Genesis 16:7-10 does this, too) and talks about women as property of men, from beginning to end. Biblically speaking sex is the prerogative of men, not something women get a say in, except for the brief reference in 1 Corinthians 7 (which is a passage I rarely hear Christians using in discussions about relationships, oddly enough).

I do not think that I can overstate this aspect about the Bible and why it matters, still, today. What is most offensive to me from the book is the element of control and ownership that Grey wishes to have over Steele. These are elements of the precise mentality that men are taught to have towards women if they take the Bible seriously.

Biblically speaking, women are property of men. They are told to be submissive to their husbands, in all things. Ephesians 5:21-33, wherein a woman is to submit to her husband as she does to the Lord, gets a lot of air time in this conversation. The writer of Ephesians sets up a parallel: just as Christ is head of the Church, so too the husband is head over his wife. Without discrediting those couples for whom this dynamic works just fine, I would also like to suggest that insisting on it as proof of one's faithfulness to God borders on abuse and emotional control of women.

Defining a wife's role this way can and has led to a great deal of suffering and abuse for many women. But it goes beyond that, too. The gender inequality that we see in our society is strongly maintained, in part, by religious traditions that require it in the home. What a woman is told or "allowed" to do in the home will define how she "can" interact in the outside world.

If someone wants to say that Ana as an obedient Submissive is problematic (though I think the only problematic part is that she was manipulated into trying it), then please have some integrity and own that same element within your own sacred texts.

There is a reason that I got permission to quote from Alanis Morissette's "Versions of Violence" for my first book. In it she discusses various forms of violence that happen in everyday relationships - withholding, coercing, leaving, shutting down or punishing, explaining and controlling, "the sting I've been ignoring, I feel it way down, way down." It seems to me that she describes the effect of 1 Peter 3:1-6 when it plays out in people's lives. And I shudder at how well Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele's relationship (not sexual encounters) embodies these lyrics.

Do the Oscars matter? Americans are of course talking about the upcoming spectacle, and a few people are even occasionally discussing merits of the nominees rather than just handicapping the horse race. But we are also talking about emoji and whether Leo and Rihanna spent Valentine's Day together. The intellectual bar is not high for our popular attention.

What does it mean for anything to matter in our popular culture, anyway? Our most cynical countrymen would say sales are the only measure of whether a pop product matters, and it's an admittedly straightforward standard, if a bad one. The movies still hold enough imaginative value for enough moviegoers -- whether these are aesthetes, or idealists, or other people with no financial stake in the entertainment business aside from the 10 bucks occasionally shelled out for a film here and there -- that something beyond business is at stake when we discuss the movies. Maybe a reasonable starting point to think about whether manufactured cultural events, like awards shows, "matter" is by conjecturing whether said event will influence how we think about culture five years from now.

One reasonable perspective on awards shows comes from the Woody Allen character Alvy Singer in Annie Hall: "They give an award for everything nowadays. Greatest Fascist Dictator: Adolf Hitler!" Hyperbole aside, the point is a good one. If everyone in the world is an award-winning something-or-other, then what's the point of awards to begin with? And why bother pretending any subjective work of art is "the year's best" at all, when it should be good enough for the work to be recognized as interesting and worthy of some attention. With art, it makes more sense for individuals to express favorites than for committees to do so. As for Annie Hall, it did win Oscars in 1978 for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director. Woody did not attend the event.

To state the obvious: Annie Hall premiered almost four decades ago. A few things have changed since then in the realms of entertainment, digital media and society at large. Questions that once had obvious answers need revisiting.

For many decades, there was a status quo for the Academy Awards. In the 20th century, the Oscars were traditionally a good spectacle, and were likewise a place for industry self-congratulation. The show did not necessarily encourage a broader range of expression from artists in the entertainment industry, nor did it especially discourage it. In favor of the cultural value of the Awards, one could reasonably argue that the act of watching and responding to the Academy Awards, after watching some of the nominated movies, led more filmgoers to refine their critical sense as hobbyist moviegoers or even as cinephiles. This was, relative to the sales and marketing function of the Awards, simply the other side of the same coin.

Now, a decade and a half into the 21st century, the status quo is no more. Movies face unprecedented competition for screen time and attention. The audience for a successful Buzzfeed video can be larger than that for a moderately successful feature film -- which, of course, is no longer technically a film at all. Social media trends -- few of them having to do with pressing social issues or aesthetic achievements -- drive public discussion. The attention paid to emoji or to Leo/Rihanna needs to build steam somewhere. At the same time, the new digital media landscape is providing vast new opportunities for industry outsiders and insiders alike. The wit and storytelling chops that young unknowns show off in six-second video clips on Vine are one of my favorite developments of social media. For insiders, there are other glimmers of hope that they and their cash cows can remain relevant in the future. One major show-biz executive joked with me last year about the "collective orgasm" the industry has been experiencing over video streaming revenues -- the numbers for which conflate television and film-viewing, as the studios and agencies are all too aware. Industry execs seem nervous about film, and reassured by television.

Just look at the business decisions any major studio makes, and it is clear that industry executives would prefer to achieve blockbuster success with a summer tentpole action movie rather than win Best Picture for a movie that garners only a modest profit. The corporate spreadsheets no doubt prove that this is sound short-term business logic, but it could be a problem for the future of the movie industry. The actors and other creative members of the Academy, many of whom would quite reasonably see it as too unseemly to even consider voting for a superhero movie for Best Picture, can use their votes to provide marketing cachet for any studio's motion picture, but these voters increasingly seem like a group that many of the industry's big players would rather not bother with courting. The problem with this approach is that it hints of studios being too willing to compete with video games on turf that is indeed better suited for video games. The gaming industry has already eclipsed the motion picture industry in revenues. What movies have to offer that video games cannot offer, nor can Internet video-cliplets offer, are a particular strength of story structure and a particular depth of emotional experience. The next ten to twenty years will be the time frame over which the movie industry will have to differentiate itself, or else face increasing marginalization. Which brings me back to the Oscars.

The Oscars used to be -- say, before 10 years ago -- year after year a vastly successful, take-it-or-leave-it spectacle. The motion picture industry was also strong enough that any particular shortcoming related to the Oscars did not seem to stick to the industry at large. Sure, the movie industry previously went through scares at key moments, most notably when household television ownership first became widespread, but the truth is that, in the20th century, there was never another mass entertainment that surpassed the cultural clout of Hollywood. And the Oscars have traditionally had staying power. A young person exploring film history would be best off starting with a couple dozen good books from the film section of a library, and building viewing lists out from that reading. Many people will not operate that way, which is fine. My point is partly that there would indeed be worse ways to begin exploring film history than by compiling lists of all the movies ever nominated for Academy Awards, watching a couple hundred titles, and then exploring additional work by actors, directors, editors and producers that spark an interest.

My conjecture now is that, if the movies will continue to matter in the future, the Oscars will have to continue to matter. A strong film industry needs a strong film culture, which requires a hospitable environment for young filmgoers, and for grown-up cinephiles, and likewise for creative professionals, producers, agents and critics. Strengthening the industry -- its products, its audience and its culture -- is going to take a lot of work from a lot of different people. The industry will have to again prove its vivacity, and part of that will be a matter of differentiating itself from cultural drivel by reconnecting with the industry's best traditions. To me, this means visual story development, wit, emotion and clever use of genre. The Oscars are an opportunity to showcase these strengths, both through the nominees and through the structure of the telecast.

Hollywood knows how to market itself and its products. Getting attention is not the problem. Connecting with people in a manner that does not seem shallow occasionally can be a problem, however. One way to do this in the Oscars would be to emphasize the exciting variety of moviemaking styles in the world by giving more time to the categories for short films and foreign films. Another way would be to emphasize the displays of great moments from the films of decades past, while still likewise emphasizing clips that show off the good work of the present nominees. To maintain and grow the relevance of film culture in general and Hollywood in particular, Hollywood should use the Academy Awards broadcast to show that it still stands for something beyond visual effects and celebrity culture. Movies can stand for story, imagination, and the synthesis of a variety of art forms. It beats obsolescence.

George Clooney, who helped jump-start the modern era of the civically leveraged celebrity, said in 2011, "Celebrity can help focus news media where they have abdicated their responsibility." And, he added, from a dirt road in one of Africa's most political unstable regions, "If they're (the paparazzi) going to follow me anyway, I want them to follow me here (South Sudan)."

Many celebrities, to varying degrees of earnestness, effect and authenticity, share Clooney's vision and use their renown to push change and to focus eyeballs on issues underreported or ignored by the mainstream press. Leonardo DiCaprio and environmental causes, Demi Lovato and mental health, Miley Cyrus and youth homelessness, Katy Perry and domestic violence. And so on.

But the gold standard remains Angelina Jolie, the one-time wild child who reinvented herself as crusader for the imperiled and suffering. With no political office to lose, no reputation to be squandered and enough personal wealth to fund her pet projects, she's free to be a blunt media disruptor on world issues frequently glossed over by the popular press.

The special envoy for the United Nations Refugee Agency stood in Iraq on January 25th, a panoply of camera crews trained on her, and implored more decisive action on behalf of refugees displaced by ISIS's reign of terror. Angelina was direct: "We are being tested here as an international community and so far, the international community is failing."

That same night, NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, with Lester Holt sitting in, led with a report on a snowstorm blanketing the Northeast. John Stewart has since succinctly referred to Brian Williams' problem as, "infotainment confusion syndrome." You don't say.

With celebrity commodified to such a degree as to render the archetype of the swashbuckling TV news journalist anachronistic and redundant, Williams probably felt immense pressure to make his brand--that is, his professional identity--stand out. Thus, the adjunct, cringe-inducing TV appearances, late night slow jamming, career-destroying conflating and use of his perch to shill for his actress daughter.

All of this gets to the very heart of news and media--our access to it, how we consume it and how we respond to it.

Christina M. Russo wrote a harrowing call to action on Huffington Post in September 2014, "News Media, There's a War on Elephants. Act Like It," detailing the continued massacre of African elephants and the desperate and timely need for mainstream news to cover the genocide. Yet African elephants, which experts predict could become extinct within 10 years, are still waiting for mainstream media to give them their prime time moment.

As it so happens, Angelina Jolie's next big Hollywood directing project is Africa, with her real-life husband Brad Pitt set to play real-life elephant conservationist, Richard Leakey.

Leakey was recently in Hong Kong, ground zero for the illicit ivory trade. The 70 year-old anti-poaching icon was unequivocal about the power of celebrity in getting hot-button issues into the minds of the masses. "The average Chinese young person doesn't know who Richard Leakey is," he explained. "But if a superstar like Brad Pitt plays the part and says these things, many people will believe what he says."

Leakey added that producers would be actively marketing the film to Chinese audiences, and that the film would include a "certain amount of what Hollywood movies need ...fire fights, car chases and pretty women getting in and out of beds." So be it, if that's what it takes to move the public conversation forward.

Now, I'm not suggesting that that we leave it to celebrities to dictate what's news. But it's time we acknowledge and accept the loose amalgam of media elements that collide and compete for our cognitive space. Very little of it fits neatly into the common perception of what constitutes traditional or even respected journalism. Tabloids, however clumsily, are advancing public discourse on transgender issues. Twitter feeds are our source for breaking local events. Jon Stewart, as a satirist, has frequently been the voice of measured reason. Slickly produced food documentaries, such as Forks Over Knives, engage citizens in the politics and science of their food production and distribution.

Tina Brown, an expert on threading the needle between serious and sober and pop culture indulgence, put the Williams debacle in perspective on Twitter: "Time to debunk the myth that anchors are journalists."

Let me take it one step further: time to debunk the myth that journalists--those in a professional field, unlike law or medicine, where advanced degrees or adherence to established codes of conduct are not uniformly demanded--have a monopoly on deciding what's news and who is worthy of delivering it.

But take heart, Brian, there's still time for a second act. With Africa to begin production soon, Angelina will be casting the role of lantern-jawed relic of the old journalism world, too busy burnishing his own ego to notice urgent and important news as it's swirling around him.

Chris walks down the streets of his town

And Becca turns his frown upside down

She wears yellow and radiates serenity

Or maybe that's actually a halo of virginity

Chris and Becca recline and canoodle

She's very sweet, so I think he'll say toodle

Since as we know from seeing him with Britt,

He only likes ladies who pull dramatic s%&t.

Becca is behaving pretty sycophantically

Which leads Chris to lean in and kiss her romantically.

In the women's house, the drama is back.

Britt says she's leaving, is she on crack?

Britt cries and cries about being Chris's wife

Which shows she is a wackadoo in real life.

Carly tries to strangle herself with her own hair

Sadly enough I doubt Chris would care.

Britt's delusions become paranoid

If she leaves, Carly will be overjoyed.

Jade the porn star is wearing high socks

Even in a stupid outfit she is a fox.

At the ceremony, Chris starts his speech

And Britt sucks up the spotlight like a crazy leech

She asks to have a moment alone

In a very dramatic tone

Britt apologizes to Chris from the bottom of her heart

And he doesn't know what to say, since he's not smart

Whoa- he may be shooting her down!

Maybe Prince Farming isn't such a clown.

Holy moly Britt is done!

She may be crazy but she was fun.

She cries as loudly as she's able

But Chris is unmoved, since she's just too unstable

I guess Kaitlyn is now the front runner.

She is smart, friendly, and a stunner.

Thus I hope she is sent home

So she won't have to live where the buffalo roam.

Britt keeps crying hysterically for a change

But Chris doesn't go back out, because she is deranged.

Who else will Chris now send packing?

Carly, because her sexiness is lacking.

My husband says Carly was the most compatible with Chris

And I'm all like WTF are you even watching this??

Men don't understand reality TV

But at least he usually watches with me.

Now hometown dates begin

And we'll get more clues about which girl might win.

Chris and Becca kayak with joy

As she has never previously brought home a boy

He sits at dinner with all of her relations

The family is bigger than many small nations.

Chris gets along with these affable folks

They would be the type to laugh at his "jokes."

"She's not an intimate person," says Becca's bitchy sis

Who is so jealous she could nearabout piss.

Now Chris talks to Becca's momma bear

Who tells Chris not to touch any other women or beware

The undermining sister tries to get in Becca's head

And ensure that she doesn't take Chris to bed.

Chris steals Becca from her family's clutches

And on a Ferris Wheel they share lingering touches.

In the land of the fried gator

Chris may end up being a devirginator.

Next, Whitney welcomes Chris to Illinois

And they look like J Crew models full of joy

She brings him to her place of work

Which is ironic as she would leave her career for this jerk

"I make corn, I can't imagine what it would be like to make babies," Chris states

And we all hope that he really doesn't know how to procreate.

Chris asks Whitney for her family's blessing for marriage

And Whitney visualizes the baby carriage.

Whitney's family seems pretty great

Chris is thinking he wants her to be his mate.

Then her sister brings up the idea of the small town

What's up with all the sisters cutting the women down?

It's Whitney's choice if she wants to hitch her wagon to a fool

Her sister is definitely not acting cool.

Whitney's sister won't say she approves of Chris

And Whitney is extremely pissed.

Whitney says she loves Prince Farming

Everyone seems to, which is alarming.

Now Chris goes to Canada to a recording studio

His rapping is bad but it puts Kaitlyn in the mood-io

Kaitlyn says her feelings for Chris are scary

I couldn't agree more and hope they don't marry

Kaitlyn's family seems supportive while they are dining

Maybe they won't be horrible and undermining.

Kaitlyn's mom seems warm and kind

And genuinely is letting Kaitlyn make up her own mind.

Kaitlyn surprises Chris with a billboard

So she loves him too, Oh Lord.

Now Chris visits Jade the Playboy Bunny

She hasn't told him that yet though, so that should be funny

Jade's dad says she's "too much" for other guys

The brother calls her a "wild mustang" which "opens Chris's eyes."

It seems to be time to tell him about the nudes

But that could put a damper on the overall mood.

Jade tells her dad she's changed and loves Prince Farming

Her dad cries, which is sweet and charming

Jade starts to tell Chris she's posed nude

Let's see if Chris is a laid back dude.

She offers to show him the naked shots

Chris can barely look her computer and is blushing lots

Chris says it doesn't bother him if she has posed nude

Whatever he is, at least he's not a prude.

Jade is relieved and loves Chris even more

Now that he didn't call her a whore.

Rose ceremony, what do you know

I say Becca will be the one to go

Holy moly he eliminated Jade

Guess the nude pictures made him afraid.

A girl willing to model that way

Isn't going to be fulfilled by cows and hay

Moral of the story is:

Tell guys earlier about your nude photos, gee whiz.

Jade cries and seems really upset.

I think she'll meet a new man while her tears are still wet.

Jade cries attractively as she departs

And Chris goes back in to his remaining sweethearts.

Next week Chris takes the ladies to Bali

And I will continue to document this folly.

However, the hell if I will ever rhyme again

My life is not long enough to stay up past ten.

Till we meet again, I remain

The Blogapist Who Hopes You Didn't Think This Was Lame

For more, visit Dr. Rodman at Dr. Psych Mom, on Facebook, and on Twitter @DrPsychMom.

By Craig Hubert, BLOUIN ARTINFO

Some documentaries simply report history. Others try to rewrite it. "The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution" belongs to the latter group and is better for it. Making its New York premiere on February 13 as the opening film of the Museum of Modern Art's annual Documentary Fortnight festival, "Vanguard" sets out to move against the dominant narrative of the activist group as outrageous provocateurs, presenting to the audience, through vigorous archival research and extensive interviews with members and commentators, a different and more considerate way of thinking about the legacy of the Black Panthers and how it has affected the contemporary political landscape.

Rewriting the History of the Black Panthers on Film

Rewriting the History of the Black Panthers on Film

Even at roughly two hours, there is no way a theatrically released film would be able to fit, in any meaningful way, the entire history of a group like the Black Panthers. There are many histories here, many stories to be told, and the group, especially due to its scattered emergence -- although its base was undoubtedly the Bay Area -- could easily serve as the subject of a fascinating episodic documentary. But "Vanguard," through the lens of director Stanley Nelson, has on its mind something simpler and more effective: a process of demystification. For the Black Panthers, that means displaying the allure the group held through its style and swagger and projected violence, but also though the experiences of those involved, documenting the undocumented -- the community organizing and social programs, including massively successful food drives and neighborhood support centers that offered health services and catered to other needs.

This is not what we're commonly told about the Black Panthers. We know about the guns, and the cops, and too many deaths. We know the slogans -- "Free Huey" -- and the rhetoric. But that's only what was deemed newsworthy, and if the Black Panthers were truly successful at anything, it was in steering their public image in a million directions. Since there was no one image of the Black Panthers, the one that remains is the one that grabs the most attention.

The same can be said for the group's leaders. There are the ones we know, and the ones we don't. Nelson puts a lot of focus on Fred Hampton, the Chicago-based organizer who joined the group and, for a time, represented a levelheaded vision for a second wave of Black Panther activity, not just working with poor African Americans but reaching out to Puerto Rican and white groups with the idea of forming larger, stronger coalitions.

But like so many others, Hampton was the victim of vicious surveillance programs and, ultimately, one of the most blatant attacks by our government on an activist. While he was sleeping in his bed, with his pregnant wife and friends in the next room, police broke down his door on the night of Dec. 3, 1968, and fired two shots from close range into Hampton's head. Later it turned out that he had been asleep because his bodyguard, who was actually an FBI informant, had slipped a sleeping pill into his drink.

The Black Panthers were never the same after that. There were various attempts, some almost successful, to break into traditional politics. The group quieted down, focusing more heavily on its social programs as many of its original leaders spiraled into madness. It's a depressing end, more of a long fadeout than a sudden cut to black, and one that many saw coming. As a number of the people interviewed in the film attest, by the end of the 1970s, members began jumping ship. There remained little semblance of the group they once felt proud to be a part of and were even willing to die for.

What "Vanguard" lacks -- and this might be simply due to a lack of time -- is any discussion of the origins of the group. We are thrown right into its story so quickly, so powerfully, that we're left with little understanding of where Black Power emerged from: There is very little about Malcolm X, no Martin Luther King Jr., no SNCC, no Stokley Carmichael. Their work and ideas, over a number of years, laid the foundation for what would become the Black Panthers. (For a detailed history of this period, Peniel E. Joseph's great book "Waitin' for the Midnight Hour" is the place to start.)

There is also the role of women in the Black Panthers, which is touched on in "Vanguard," but thinly. Their participation, especially in later stages of the party, is important and underdocumented, even deserving of its own film. But the truth is that there was widespread misogyny that persisted throughout the Black Panthers' history, and it was a stain that hurt them. But we can still appreciate what they accomplished while admitting that this was a predominately male group that had outdated views on the role of women in society. There were people inside the group, even some of its leaders, who fought against this, but it was still there, and it was real, and it needs to be explored more fully.

But here again we run into the problem that every film like "Vanguard" arrives at. There is no way to truly do justice to something so multifaceted, although Nelson does it better than others have before him. Ericka Huggins, one-time member of the group, says in the film, "We were making history, and it wasn't nice and clean. It wasn't easy. It was complex."

More of Today's News from BLOUIN ARTINFO

The Revolution Was Televised: On the Legacy of "Black Journal"

Until recently, this was a fairly humdrum affair. Boyhood had the major categories sewn up, and that was that. Then, suddenly, American Sniper took off with historic box office, a confirmation that Clint Eastwood can literally do anything besides win presidential elections. And, since then, a steady corrosion of support for Boyhood has existed, undermining it at every turn. Like Selma before it, a mini-controversy erupted over a small portion of the film - in this case, its waiter subplot. Soon, the guilds flocked to Birdman - admittedly, another bold choice, but regrettably another film about entertainment and art.

Today, the Oscar race has splinted with many of the top categories still open-ended. If you want to know the winners, search your soul and wait until Sunday. If you want to know my informed predictions? Proceed...

BEST PICTURE
• American Sniper
• Birdman
• Boyhood
• The Grand Budapest Hotel
• The Imitation Game
• Selma
• The Theory of Everything
• Whiplash

Who will win: Birdman
Why: For a while, this was a foregone conclusion: Boyhood. It's been the movie of the year since its summer release. It won the Globe. However, in a curious turn, Birdman has recently been displaying serious momentum, including several critical guild wins. Assuming the Academy has tired of Boyhood leading the conversation - and, as always, enamored with a project with meta-references to their industry - it's time to give the win to Birdman. It will be close, but the tea leaves are pointing to Birdman.

A part of me questions whether the box office dominance of American Sniper came just in time to let the artsy Birdman and Boyhood split, and let it slip in. Eastwood has done it before.
________________________________________

BEST DIRECTOR
• Alejandro González Iñárritu, Birdman
• Richard Linklater, Boyhood
• Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher
• Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
• Morten Tyldum, The Imitation Game

Who will win: Richard Linklater
Why: It's been over a decade since the winner of the DGA - in this case, Alejandro González Iñárritu this year - did not go onto win the Oscar. However, in the surging race between Birdman and Boyhood, I am thinking the Academy will do the right thing and acknowledge the visionary direction by Linklater. Boyhood does not have Birdman's visual panache, which may sink it ultimately, but I'm hoping the modern tendency to divorce Picture/Director will continue here.
________________________________________

BEST ACTOR
• Steve Carell, Foxcatcher
• Bradley Cooper, American Sniper
• Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
• Michael Keaton, Birdman
• Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

Who will win: Eddie Redmayne
Why: This is a painful one. Interestingly, while Birdman is now poised to claim some of the Oscar's biggest prizes, the buzz has not translated to its star, Michael Keaton. In fact, while Keaton was once locked in a battle with The Theory of Everything's Eddie Redmayne, it now appears Redmayne has the edge. And why now? He's young, he plays a character who overcomes a tremendous disability, and is based on a real life genius. It screams Oscar bait. Shout out to Mr. Mom, who is in a once-in-a-lifetime role. Shame.

Likewise, I wonder if a Keaton-Redmayne split could repeat the 2002 Best Actor race, in which Day Lewis and Nicholson cancelled one another out, resulting in Adrien Brody winning (!). In this case, watch out for the much beloved pretty boy Bradley Cooper.
________________________________________

BEST ACTRESS
• Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night
• Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything
• Julianne Moore, Still Alice
• Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl
• Reese Witherspoon, Wild

Who will win: Julianne Moore
Why: Julianne Moore. But why? Julianne Moore. This is a classic example of an actor winning for the wrong role. Think Al Pacino or Paul Newman winning twenty years after their best work. Or, more recently, Kate Winslet winning for the truly dreadful The Reader.
________________________________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
• Robert Duvall, The Judge
• Ethan Hawke, Boyhood
• Edward Norton, Birdman
• Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
• J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

Who will win: J.K. Simmons
Why: Another obvious choice. Simmons' win highlights the habit of category fraud - placing essentially a lead role in the supporting category. Of course Simmons is great and deserves the Oscar - he dominates the film in every way.
________________________________________

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
• Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
• Laura Dern, Wild
• Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game
• Emma Stone, Birdman
• Meryl Streep, Into the Woods

Who will win: Patricia Arquette
Why: Likewise, Arquette is essentially the star of Boyhood, even more so than the boy himself. She has the arc. And this is a weak category.
________________________________________

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
• American Sniper, Jason Hall
• The Imitation Game, Graham Moore
• Inherent Vice, Paul Thomas Anderson
• The Theory of Everything, Anthony McCarten
• Whiplash, Damien Chazelle

Who will win: Graham Moore
Why: If they had any sense they'd give it to Inherent Vice, just so they could finally say Academy Award winner Paul Thomas Anderson. The assumption here is The Imitation Game will win as consolation, despite the fact the script is beyond messy at times. (If you're going to vote for a British biopic about a tortured math genius, The Theory of Everything is much stronger.)

A weird category with no true frontrunner. Whiplash may surprise although it's original..
________________________________________

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
• Birdman, Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo
• Boyhood, Richard Linklater
• Foxcatcher, E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman
• The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson and Hugo Guiness
• Nightcrawler, Dan Gilroy

Who will win: Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness
Why: In a perfect world, Grand Budapest might be more prominent in the discussion for Best Picture. This year, it will have to suffice for Original Screenplay, with Wes Anderson joining previous winners Cameron Crowe, Spike Jonze, and Sofia Coppola in the "you're swell, but we can't bring ourselves to give you the top prize" category.
________________________________________

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
• Birdman, Emmanuel Lubezki
• The Grand Budapest Hotel, Robert D. Yeoman
• Ida, Ryszard Lenczweski and Lukasz Zal
• Mr. Turner, Dick Pope
• Unbroken, Roger Deakins

Who will win: Emmaneul Lubezki
Why: Hard to beat the soaring cinematography of Birdman. Flashing takes the cake.
________________________________________

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
• The Grand Budapest Hotel, Milena Canonero
• Inherent Vice, Mark Bridges
• Into the Woods, Colleen Atwood
• Mr. Turner, Jacqueline Durran
• Maleficent, Anna B. Sheppard

Who will win: Milena Canonero
Why: The Best Picture nominee gets the benefit of the doubt. Further, M Gustave is going to be a helluva Halloween costume someday.
________________________________________

BEST FILM EDITING
• American Sniper, Joel Cox and Gary Roach
• Boyhood, Sandra Adair
• The Grand Budapest Hotel, Barney Pilling
• The Imitation Game, William Goldenberg
• Whiplash, Tom Cross

Who will win: Tom Cross
Why: My gut says Boyhood, but I feel the tide drifting away. The final sequence in Whiplash may just be too much.
________________________________________

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
• Foxcatcher, Bill Corso and Dennis Liddiard
• The Grand Budapest Hotel, Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier
• Guardians of the Galaxy, Eliazabeth Yianni-Georgiou and David White

Who will win: Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier
Why: Hard to beat Grand Budapest's flair. Sorry Michael Scott's prosthetic nose.

________________________________________

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
• The Grand Budapest Hotel, Alexandre Desplat
• The Imitation Game, Alexandre Desplat
• Interstellar, Hans Zimmer
• Mr. Turner, Gary Yershon
• The Theory of Everything, Jóhann Jóhannsson

Who will win: Jóhann Jóhannsson
Why: Desplat deserves a win here for Grand Budapest - he's never won - but I'm thinking The Theory of Everything's snoozefest of a score will sneak in a victory. The Grand Budapest Hotel does feel like it's dominating the techs this year.
________________________________________

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
• "Lost Stars" from Begin Again, Gregg Alexander and Danielle Brisebois
• "I'm Not Gonna Miss You" from Glen Campbell: I'll Be Me, Glen Campbell and Julian Raymond
• "Everything is Awesome" from The LEGO Movie, Shawn Patterson
• "Glory" from Selma, John Legend and COMMON
• "Grateful" from Beyond the Lights, Diane Warren

Who will win: John Legend and Common
Why: Common, man. Used to Love H.E.R. Be. Obama's favorite rapper besides Jigga. "Glory" is a tad rote for my blood, but I love the idea of this becoming the third rap song to win Best Song. Besides, the Academy would be REALLY racist to totally ignore Selma, right? ...right..?
________________________________________

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
• The Grand Budapest Hotel, Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock
• The Imitation Game, Maria Djurkovic and Tatiana Macdonald
• Interstellar, Nathan Crowley, Gary Fettis and Paul Healy
• Into the Woods, Dennis Gassner and Anna Pinnock
• Mr. Turner, Suzie Davies and Charlotte Watts

Who will win: Adam Stockhausen and Anna Pinnock
Why: Again, love the fairy tale visual of Wes Anderson. This is his year. Shout out Dignan and Mr. Henry.
________________________________________

BEST SOUND EDITING
• American Sniper, Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman
• Birdman, Martin Hernandez and Aaron Glascock
• The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Brent Burge and Jason Canovas
• Interstellar, Richard King
• Unbroken, Becky Sullivan and Andrew DeCristofaro

Who will win: Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman
Why: We have a couple war movies here. I am thinking the safe bet is going with the one nominated for Best Picture.
________________________________________

BEST SOUND MIXING
• American Sniper, John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff and Walt Martin
• Birdman, Jon Taylor, Frank A. Montaño and Thomas Varga
• Interstellar, Gary A. Rizzo, Gregg Landaker and Mark Weingarten
• Unbroken, Jon Taylor, Frank A. Montaño and David Lee
• Whiplash, Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley

Who will win: Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley
Why: Drums.
________________________________________

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
• Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Dan DeLeeuw, Russell Earl, Bryan Grill and Dan Sudick
• Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, Daniel Barrett and Erik Winquist
• Guardians of the Galaxy, Stephane Ceretti, Nicolas Aithadi, Jonathan Fawkner and Paul Corbould
• Interstellar, Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher
• X-Men: Days of Future Past, Richard Stammers, Lou Pecora, Tim Crosbie and Cameron Waldbauer

Who will win: Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher
Why: In Nolan we trust.
________________________________________

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
• Big Hero 6
• The Boxtrolls
• How to Train Your Dragon 2
• Song of the Sea
• The Tale of Princess Kaguya

Who will win: How to Train Your Dragon 2
Why: You'd think Lego Movie. You'd think that. I want to say Big Hero 6, but I'm leaning toward the franchise.
________________________________________

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
• Wild Tales, Damián Szifrón; Argentina
• Tangerines, Zaza Urushadze; Estonia
• Timbuktu, Abderrahmane Sissako; Mauritania
• Ida, Pawel Pawlikowski; Poland
• Leviathan, Andrey Zvyagintsev; Russia

Who will win: Ida
Why: Leviathan is the best of the bunch, but...

________________________________________

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
• CITIZENFOUR
• Finding Vivian Maier
• Last Days in Vietnam (Kennneddyyy)
• The Salt of the Earth
• Virunga

Who will win: CITIZENFOUR
Why: Obviously.
________________________________________

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
• Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
• Joanna
• Our Curse
• The Reaper
• White Earth

Who will win: Joanna
Why: Because
________________________________________

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
• The Bigger Picture
• The Dam Keeper
• Feast
• Me and My Moulton
• A Single Life

Who will win: Feast
Why: Just because..
________________________________________

BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT FILM
• Aya
• Boogaloo and Graham
• Butter Lamp
• Parvaneh
• The Phone Call

Who will win: Parvaneh
Why: Welp...

----
Agree? Disagree? Harass me on Twitter (@hoglundan) Sunday night. I am likely much smarter than you.

(Audience at the Metro Theatre)

Andrea Meller was on hand for the Q & A after the World Premiere of her documentary, "Now En Espanol," a film that follows the lives and careers of Latina actresses who dub Desperate Housewives into Spanish. The film weaves in the feel of the popular series as a sort of mockumentary while also giving a very real look into the unpredictable hills and valleys of working in Hollywood as a Latina actress.

(Andrea Meller, Director, and SBIFF Staffer)

Director Andrea Meller spoke about how she came to make this documentary. "In 2005, I read an article in the New York Times about these actresses and it interested me. It took me a long time to make the movie. I'd had a lot of trouble raising the money. The bulk of the shooting was done in 2008 and 2009. I had no idea how many bad things would happen for the actresses during this time." On why she plays into and mimics the show Desperate Housewives, Meller said, "I knew I wanted to play with the show. I wanted to make a fiction film, inside the documentary. I rented a house in Pasadena that looked like the same neighborhood. There was always an idea to play with the show. My intention was to put Latina women on the screen while following their dream. It mirrored me following my dream."

Incidentally, more Latinos see movies in the U.S. than any other ethnic group. Latinos make up the largest audience base in the United States.

"Agave Is Life," is a documentary exploring the history and importance of the agave plant in the cultures of Mexico and the Southwest. The filmmakers and archaeologists, David O. Brown and Meredith L. Dreiss, bring their vast research and teaching skills to the film in a very satisfying way. It took six years to make the film. They had 60 hours of film! "We tried to put 10,000 years in one hour." Edward James Olmos narrates.

(Meredith Dreiss and David Brown, Prod/Co-Directors, and SBIFF Michael Albright)

"Sins of the Father," directed by Andrew Piddington and produced by Graham Leader had its World Premiere at SBIFF. The film "has been 25 years in the making." This film has a complicated past to say the least. Originally, the film was released as "Shuttlecock" in the early 90's with mixed responses, mainly negative. "Sins of the Father" is an attempt on the part of the director and producer, to redeem the earlier film, to remake it, better. This version therefore is a continuation and a completion of the earlier film, "Shuttlecock." Both films star the late Alan Bates (as Major James Prentis) who died in 2003. The filmmakers shot new sequences with the Major's son, John, (played by Lambert Wilson), and his grandson, bringing in the layer of present time. They were able to reassemble key members of the original cast whose presence adds a rich dimension to the new version. The story behind this film makes it a fascinating tale.

"We thought we might find a way to re-address it. We gave the new film a much deeper context. It is a dream to re-address, to use the same actors, to re-visit their same roles. We wanted to add layers of emotion."

"Time is a major conceptual element in the film. Time is very plastic in film. You can create dream sequences. The film is set in 1986. What we had to decide was how to treat each time zone. To create the historical with a different look. Instead we made it seamless. How we cross time (1942) in the minds of the lead, we used Super 8 film, that immediately gives you the quality of time."

"Shuttlecock" was based on the novel by Graham Swift. "The story was initially the book but it is very different."

(Andrew Piddington, Director, and Graham Leader, Producer)

The final film of my day was the World Premiere of a German film directed by Ingo Haeb called "The Chambermaid." Michael Albright, SBIFF, described it as "a very strange and unique film." I concur with that. I think the best way to describe this is that it is "an art film." It is not what I expected nor is it like anything I have ever seen before. I came out thinking, "how did this filmmaker come up with this story?" A person walking out of the film asked very nicely, "Now why did that film have to be made?" Since we all know how hard it is to make a film and get funding and how the story needs to really mean something to you as a filmmaker, I came away asking the latter question, too. That's what's fun about film festivals though! There is variety and something for everyone!

Photo Credits: Sally Fay

The team behind the Off-Broadway musical Disenchanted! seems to be having the time of their lives. I was lucky to sit down with Dennis T. Giacino (Book, Music, Lyrics) and Fiely A. Matias (Director) to talk about the ride.

Gregory G. Allen: I'm a huge fan of this show, but tell readers in a nutshell what this 'fairy tale' is?

Fiely A. Matias: I think I'd describe it as a brassy, ballsy, hilarious, not-so-damsel-in-distress collection of musical stories.

Dennis T. Giacino: Y'see - our princesses refuse to sit around and wait for their prince to come to save the day. They're strong and have no problem flipping fairy tales on their head and telling new, twisted stories while taking a lovingly poke at the Mouse House.

Matias: And it features all the original fairy tale princesses who've decided to take a good ol' 'Norma Rae' stand against the way they're portrayed in today's pop culture.

Allen: How did this all come about?

Giacino: I used to be a history teacher who, over the years, spent a ton of time teaching about the Jamestown settlement and Pocahontas; a rough-and-tumble 10-year-old Powhatan tomboy. When the Disney movie came out, and Pocahontas was suddenly 20-something and wearing deer-pelt lingerie, and had all that flowing hair and make-up and leaves following her everywhere, all I could think was, "I wonder what the real Pocahontas would think of her sexed-up Hollywood self?" And a song was born.

Matias: We call Dennis 'The Princess Whisperer' because all the princesses from the fairy tales started talking in his ear about how their stories had been altered just to sell movie tickets and plush dolls to the masses.

Giacino: Pretty soon, I had an entire evening of song and comedy: the take-charge princess, the gay princess, the princess of color (and that color isn't frog-green, by the way!), the zaftig princess, etc. I wanted to create relatable role models that put forth the idea that self-acceptance is the key to living happily ever after.

Allen: How long have the two of you been collaborating?

Matias: We've been creating together for over 20 years now! We ran a small theater company together in Corvallis, Oregon and it was becoming more and more expensive to pay royalties for name shows by Simon, Sondheim, and Schwartz.

Giacino: The three 'S's!

Matias: So, I asked Dennis if he could write a show.

Giacino: I remember you coming to me and saying, "Write me a one-man show." So, I did. It was jam-packed with original music and a comedy script. And that show took us all over the world - suddenly, we were not just actors and theater owners, we were writers and directors!

Allen: Many people think a show just magically appears in New York. Can you share the history/journey for this one?

Giacino: You mean shows don't just magically appear in NYC? I kid.

Matias: Well, actually, we started here in NYC. We had a collection of Disenchanted! songs and we wanted to see an audience's reaction to them. So, we rented a room at Pearl Studios and put up a workshop show. So, coming back to NYC, kind of brings us full circle.

Giacino: Ah, the Circle of Life.

Matias: Right?! Well, after our NYC workshop, I had Dennis enter the show into the NJ Playwrights Contest - and we won!

Giacino: Next stop was the Orlando Fringe. That was 2011. We played to sold out houses in the 340-seat Margeson Theatre and received rave reviews and awards. That's when Don Frantz, one of our current Off-Broadway producers, caught the show.

Matias: Since 2011 we've workshopped the show around the country.

Giacino: Then producer Jon Pollard came onboard - the producer of I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change that ran 12 years at the Westside Theatre!

Matias: There's that Circle of Life again!

Giacino: In total, this overnight Off-Broadway sensation took 8 years to magically appear at the Westside Theatre. Whew!

Allen: I was so thrilled when I heard the show was getting an open-ended run - but I'm sure my excitement pales in comparison to yours. Can you describe that feeling?

Giacino: It's surreal. For 20 years you toil away, hoping that you're making a difference with your work. And then you get a chance to try it out on a small NYC stage. And then that run sells out and suddenly, you're in a famous Off-Broadway house that has featured the talents of Eve Ensler, Nora Ephron, Joe DiPietro, Kander and Ebb...

Matias: And we're so happy to share this with all those folks who've followed and have been with us all these years. It's very rewarding!

Giacino: My mom, all the people that loved and supported us over 20 years - I was just happy that they'd all finally see some exciting pay-off to their belief in us! So many people got this show to NYC. It didn't just take a village - it took a kingdom!

Allen: Any surprises from audience reactions to this show?

Giacino: Initially, I was taken with how this show appeals to women and men, young and not-so-young, straight and gay, of all backgrounds. This idea of standing up to 'the man' is universal!

Allen: Fiely, do you have a favorite moment along the way on the journey?

Matias: I feel that every woman who has stepped into one of the roles around the country has added something to this Off-Broadway show. Seeing those women watch the show here in NYC and suddenly realize that they've had a hand in this success - it's really a favorite, special moment for us.

Allen: That question that creative people always hate...what's next for the two of you?

Giacino: Rest assured, our next project will have that same snarky, original voice you hear in Disenchanted! - a point of view that loves to skewer pop culture. Hint: We like B-movies!

Matias: Y'know ... Pam Grier, prison camps, towns near nuclear fallout sites, and biker gangs! It's like Tarantino, the musical!

Giacino: And 3D glasses! Lots of 3D glasses! What's up next for us is cray ... and fun! But first, we have a kingdom to build! Princesses unite!

Performances for Disenchanted! begin March 19th at Westside Theatre, 43rd Street & 9th Avenue, New York NY.

Show Photo by Matthew Murphy
Dennis T. Giacino & Fiely A. Matias Photos provided by production team

Five 20-something Ghanaian women, draped in jewelry, sit around a table at a dimly lit restaurant in downtown Accra. One laments about the housemaid stealing her bras, another brags about scoring a pair of knock-off designer sunglasses.

This is the premiere episode of An African City, creator Nicole Amarteifio's web series chronicling the lives of five young Ghanaian women. In the comments on YouTube, someone asks, "Why are they acting like white girls?"

Filmmaker, and one of the stars of An African City, Nana Mensah has never known how to answer that question.

"It's reconciling the difference between who you are and who the general public perceives you to be," Mensah explains when we meet for drinks to discuss her upcoming film Queen of Glory. "People tell me I'm not "really black" because I'm too educated. What does that mean? We're supposed to watch Tyler Perry. I went to see Amour. I was the only black person in the theater, but does that mean I'm acting white? I don't think so. I'm a person who's been shaped by the circumstances in which I was raised, like everyone."

It's this type of person that she wants to portray with Sarah, the lead character in Queen of Glory, the story of a PhD candidate whose mother dies, forcing her to move home and take over her family's Christian book store in the Bronx.

"It's an immigrant film that's not about immigrants," Mensah says. "I don't want the movie to be about race, it's about the human experience. I want to show, not tell."

What she wants to show most importantly is that a woman of color is so much more than the roles that Hollywood currently has to offer her. For example, as Mensah puts it, the "Sassy Fat Bank Teller," the "Thieving Ratchet Hospice Nurse," or "Smutty Crack Hoe #4"—all made-up roles unfortunately not too dissimilar from what Mensah's been asked to audition for in the past. Then there are actual roles like "D Girl".

"In Hollywood, there is the 'Jungle Bunny versus Maid' problem," Mensah says. "Black women on screen often lead with their sexuality or their asexuality. It's exhausting, auditioning for the same parts all the time; maid, receptionist, cracked-out hooker."

So she created a new part, the role of Sarah, one she could actually relate to. "I don't understand why there are no weird, quirky black women on TV," she says. "I know so many weird black people! There are tons of us!"

Inspiration for Sarah came from other talented women of color in TV and film, Mensah says, like Issa Rae, creator of the web series The Misadventures of AWKWARD Black Girl, and Mindy Kaling, creator of Fox's The Mindy Project.

"Mindy Kaling is kind of shepherding the 'weird brown girl movement,'" Mensah says. "Black characters on television are not three-dimensional. We don't get that latitude that white people get. We're expected to be a certain way, and it doesn't apply to everyone."

Of the top 500 box office films of all time, only six feature a protagonist who is a woman of color, and five of those films are animated. "Like most kids, it never occurred to me to wish for things to be different," Mensah says. "I was just at my parents house and I found an old folder with some stories I'd written as a child, and my protagonists? All white. I mean, if that's not the sign of a hegemonic culture, what is?"

Mensah believes this lack of minority representation in film has far graver repercussions than most might think. "When there is a consistent lack of three-dimensional representation, there is a flattening, a dulling of humanity," she says. "Imagine what would happen if we had more people of color in roles that are not explicitly designated for people of color? I think that's the role Hollywood can play. They can do their part in humanizing these black characters, so maybe we won't have as many cases like Michael Brown and Eric Garner."

It's for these reasons that she ignores negative comments on YouTube. They are missing the point. The women in An African City aren't acting white. They are acting like themselves. That's what Mensah wants to show through Queen of Glory: truth.

"It's my sincerest hope that Queen of Glory's Sarah joins the ranks of Micah and Jo (Medicine for Melancholy), or Malcolm and Sophia (Gimme the Loot), or any of Ava DuVernay's characters who are so universal and multi-faceted to the extent that they nearly transcend race," Mensah says. "I'm hopeful. There is a movement happening, with independent book publishers and film distributors and various content providers, so that hopefully my children won't grow up so unseen that they unsee themselves."

As voting method nerds who appreciate the values of ranked choice voting (RCV) elections, we at FairVote got a kick out of the Los Angeles Times running a front-page story today on the RCV system (also called "preferential voting" and "instant runoff voting) that is used to elect the Academy Award for Best Picture and also for nearly all Oscar nominations.

The story comes with some nifty graphics that get the story right -- be sure to check them out.

Unfortunately, the news story itself is a big disappointment. Reporter Glenn Whipp gets key details wrong -- including, most disturbingly, in his implicit advice about how a voter allegedly might try to game the vote.

First, Whipp fails to mention that ranked choice voting is nothing new for Academy of Motion Picture voters. In fact, Best Picture nominees have been selected by ranked choice voting ballot since the 1930s, as has nearly every other category (acting categories, director and many more). We've explained how the multi-winner form of ranked choice voting works for nominations before. As a result, there is not a single Academy voter alive who has not been asked to cast a ranked choice voting ballot when nominating movies every year since they've became eligible to vote.

That's part of a general oversight to suggest that ranked choice voting is particularly novel. In fact, it's used to elect the parliament of Australia, president of Ireland, mayor of London and city leaders of at least ten American cities, including Minneapolis (MN), St. Paul (MN), Oakland (CA) and San Francisco (CA). It's even more commonly used in non-governmental elections. Robert's Rules of Order explains it as the best way to choose leaders when needing to vote by mail, and many major private associations and more than 50 American colleges and universities use it to pick leaders. Other awards using include the Producers Guild of America and the Hugo Awards for science fiction.

Second, Whipp tried to be provocative with his opening, writing: "The Oscar winner for best picture Sunday night probably won't be the movie that the majority of voters put atop their ballots."

Well.

If you understand "majority of ballots" to mean having more than half the votes, then Whipp is absolutely wrong. As soon as a movie has the votes of more than half of voters, that movie has won. Period.

If Whipp actually meant "having the most first choice rankings," he's correct that this does not guarantee a victory. But he's wrong to suggest that leading in first choices is somehow a disadvantage. Having the most first choices actually does help you win. As an example, San Francisco has used ranked choice voting to elect 18 city offices, including mayor, since 2004. Of the 51 administered elections that used ranked choice voting, 30 were won on the first count. Of the 21 others, 19 were won by the candidates who led after the first count. Only two were "comeback victories."

Of course a key value of ranked choice voting is to ensure that the leader in first choices isn't a polarizing choice that could win only because of a divided majority vote. Ranked choice voting avoids the controversy experienced last week when Beck defeated Beyonce for Album of the Year at the Grammy Awards. Vox has a piece explaining that Beck may well have won only because he was the only nominee with a rock album, thereby benefiting from a split vote.

Most irritatingly, Whipp gives voters bad advice about how to vote, He writes "Some academy members, particularly those with a vested interest in the outcome, know enough to rank their own movie first and their closest competitor's last."

Oops.

That's in fact not smart advice at all. In fact, long-time savvy entertainment writer Steve Pond took on that myth with a hard-hitting piece in 2011 called Oscars Best Picture Ballot: Don't Believe the Schmucks. Pond observes ""I went to a party over the weekend, and heard a producer who'd gotten a Best Picture nomination telling people, "It's a weighted ballot. You need to vote for [my movie] number one, and [our biggest competitor] number 10." He's wrong. It's not a weighted ballot. And his strategy would not do a damn thing to help his movie."

Unfortunately, Whipp just elevated the "schmuck" analysis to page one of the Los Angeles Times.

The fact is that with the ranked choice voting ballot for Best Picture, every voter has one and only one vote, and their vote never counts for more than one movie at a time. It's a series of "instant runoffs", with the last-place film eliminated after each round, and ballots cast for that movie then added to the totals of the next ranked choice on each ballot.

So yes, voters should rank movies in order of choice, as this gives their vote a backup. That backup will count only if your first choice has lost. That's why ranking your top competitor last does nothing to help your 1st choice. Your ballot will count for your first choice and ONLY for your first choice unless at some point during the count it ends up in last place and is eliminated from contention.

There's no way to "game" the vote with an insincere ballot. Anyone trying to do so is just hurting themselves -- and their favorite movies.

So Academy voters, rank your choices in order of preference, just as you can with our demonstration election with this year's nominees. And let's get out the popcorn and enjoy Oscar night on Sunday!

It's Hollywood's biggest weekend. The 87th Academy Awards takes place on Sunday, February 22, 2015. The event attracts more stars to Los Angeles than any other award show. Actors, musicians celebrities of all kinds (even reality personalities) have converged on LA to edge their way into popular annual Oscar® events.

Many of us may never experience what it's like to watch the Academy Awards live at the Dolby Theater, and there may not be a chance in hell of getting into A-list events such as the glamorous Vanity Fair Oscar party or the famed Elton John Oscar party, but don't despair...there are plenty of Oscar events for us common folk.

Be the star of your own event, and help a deserving charity while doing it. Attend with friends or make new ones. There are several events open to the public where you can glam up and strut your stuff. Of course, the amount of strutting you do may depend on your budget. Be aware that not all Oscar events are working with charities...below are some options that may peak your interest.

In West Hollywood, experience a flamboyant Oscar party presented by the well-known restaurant - the Abbey. Taking place at the Vineyard Beverly Hills, the event also doubles as a fundraiser for Aids Project Los Angeles. There is a sit-down dinner with red carpet arrivals coverage starting at 4pm. Vineyard Beverly Hills is located 1652 Tower Grove Dr., Beverly Hills, 90210. Tickets run from $100 all the way up to $1000 per person. At this time, most of the higher priced tickets are sold out. See APLA website for more info.

Another important nonprofit organization that will benefit from an Oscar viewing event is the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Although the fundraiser is not an official Leukemia & Lymphoma Society event, this will be the second year Upper West Restaurant will participate as a host donating twenty-five percent of all sales from this Hollywood inspired celebration.

Upper West Oscar Viewing Event

Sara Fay, a volunteer for LLS, came up with the concept last year. "I decided on an Oscars watch party because it seemed like a fun event to watch with friends at a bar, and it's for a good cause," explained Fay. She has been frequenting the restaurant for years. "I love the food, the beer list, and the atmosphere!"

This year, Lindsey Adelstein has teamed up with Fay to co-host this important benefit. Attendees are encouraged to arrive early for the viewing party, if they choose to participate in the Oscar winner prediction challenge. Prizes and additional drawings will be part of the event.

The Santa Monica restaurant is known for its incredible cuisine, and as always patrons will enjoy a delectable foodie experience prepared by the one and only Chef Nick Shipp. Upper West has been host to numerous fundraisers and benefits raising awareness and funds for important causes.

On Oscar night, the restaurant will once again give back to a deserving charity and donate twenty-five percent of all sales to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Be sure to make your reservations soon, as the event is filling up. There is a suggested donation $20. The Full menu will be available.

The viewing event starts at 4:30pm and runs throughout the duration of the award show. Upper West is located at 3321 Pico Blvd. in Santa Monica. For more information, call 310.586.1111 or visit TheUpperWest.com. To find out more about LLS, see LLS.org.

MEND (Meet Each Need with Dignity) hosts its fifth annual Oscar viewing party. Last year's event raised over $250,000 to aid in its mission to support the homeless. The event will feature celebrity guests and a silent auction, as well as an Oscar trivia contest.

MEND Oscar Viewing Event

Start on the red carpet at 4pm - make sure to be there by 5pm for the start of the show. At 6pm, satiate your appetite on the cuisine of the celebrated Wolfgang Puck. The gala takes place at the Globe Theatre located at Universal Studios Hollywood, 100 Universal City Plaza, Universal City, 91608. Tickets are $275 per person. Call 818 686-7323 or email to rsvptoday@mendpoverty.org

Click here for more info on this event. To find out more about this nonprofit visit http://mendpoverty.org

Or experience the Academy Awards at an enticing Masquerade Ball presented by the PULS Cardiac Test along with MEMAH and Women Network. The event will primarily benefit the GUARDaHEART Foundation whose mission is to fight heart disease with a simple message: "Learn. Detect. Prevent." Attendees are encouraged to dress in masquerade attire. The event begins at 5pm at a private location, which will be revealed after ticket purchase. Ticket price includes entertainment, dinner, cocktails and more. http://www.unmaskheartdisease.com/ Tickets range from $250 for general admission to $500 for VIP. Click here to purchase tickets.

Now in its twenty-fifth year, A Night of a 100 Stars continues at a new location...the Beverly Hilton Hotel. Offering a chance to hobnob with "stars," anyone can purchase a ticket to this event (if you've got deep pockets). You'll enjoy a glamorous event, also attended by past Oscar winners and well-known celebrities. The event features a red carpet entrance, dinner and drinks, and various Oscar related activities. The 25th Annual Night of 100 Stars Awards Gala is hosted by Norby Walters. In addition to a formal sit-down dinner during the viewing, there will be an open bar featuring Oscar inspired cocktails served for the duration of the party.

This year marks a special nod to the Walters family due to its involvement in the five- time Oscar nominated film WHIPLASH (Bold Films).

2015-02-18-NewHuffOscarsNightof100starsNorbySherylLeeRalphJonVoightFrankieValli.jpg

See image: Norby Walters Sheryl Lee Ralph Jon Voight Frankie Valli; photo by Glen Lipton Photography

The Beverly Hilton Hotel, 9876 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, 90210. The cost of a ticket will set you back...$1000 plus $25 service charge. Check out the website for more info nightof100stars.com or 310-446-5416, Nightof100stars@aol.com

Enjoy the OSCARS!!!

In a world where it's publish or perish, Oscar is always ready for his close-up.

On Sunday night, the film industry will once again take center stage with the annual Academy Awards. A worldwide audience estimated at several hundred million will revel in the fashion, the speeches, the unexpected wins and losses -- while attempting, as always, to endure the marathon length of the broadcast.

For decades, the glamour and spectacle of the Oscar® ceremony have made it a fixture in the public imagination. Engaging in speculation and criticism regarding the nominations and the ultimate winners has become a popular rite.

To some observers, however, the significance of the Oscars runs deeper. The awards -- and what they tell us about art, commerce, psychology, and society itself -- constitute a topic for scholarly investigation.

For a sampling of academic study related to the Academy Awards, we turn to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an online scholarly search and discovery platform and that indexes the contents of more than 12,000 top tier international and regional scientific and scholarly journals, along with conference proceedings, book chapters, and other materials in every area of the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. A topic search over the last 15 years turned up roughly 200 academic papers that examine some aspect of the awards--whether the films, the stars, or the broader cultural implications. Ten representative papers were selected and appear on the Thomson Reuters web resource, ScienceWatch.

The papers also appear in the table below, listed according to citations--that is, the measure of scholarly influence that tracks how often each has been consulted and explicitly footnoted by other scholars.

The list represents a mix of disciplines and approaches, including medicine, economics, marketing, and sociology. Two papers examine the matter of disability and its depiction in Oscar-winning films -- a topic germane to this year's awards, with Eddie Redmayne considered a favorite in the lead-actor category for his portrayal of wheelchair-bound physicist Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything.

And the two papers atop the list -- both from the journal Annals of Internal Medicine -- reflect a scholarly disagreement. In examining whether the rise in status associated with an Oscar might actually confer benefits in lifespan for winning actors; the authors of a 2001 study indeed determined evidence of a boost in longevity. Five years later, however, another team reanalyzed the data and concluded that the additional years suggested in the 2001 papers were due to a statistical bias. Despite the disagreement, the 2001 authors could not be faulted for their rigor in identifying actors for their three comparative categories of "won," "nominated," and "never nominated, never won." The latter designation gave rise to what will remain, for this observer, an all-time favorite phrase from any scholarly paper: "Lorne Greene was a control."

To see an expanded listing of the papers and their abstracts, please go to ScienceWatch.com.

Cite & Sound:
A Selection of Scholarly Papers
Featuring the Academy Awards
Listed by number of citations recorded in Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
The listings include excerpts from the papers' abstracts

1) D.A. Redelmeier, S.M. Singh, "Survival in Academy Award-winning actors and actresses," Annals of Internal Medicine, 134 (10): 955-62, 2001. Times Cited: 60

The paper investigates whether the status of winning an Academy Award for acting might confer lifestyle and health benefits that result in increased longevity.

After studying the lifespans of winners compared against controls, the authors determined an average benefit of 3.9 years in life expectancy.

2) M.P. Sylvestre, E. Husztl, J.A. Hanley, "Do Oscar winners live longer than less successful peers? A reanalysis of the evidence," Annals of Internal Medicine, 145 (5): 361-3, 2006. Times Cited: 48

The authors re-examine data from the 2001 paper above.

Their analysis concludes that the statistical method in the previous study gave winners an artificial survival advantage, as it credited the winner's life-years before winning toward survival after winning.

3) R.A. Nelson, et al., "What's an Oscar worth?" Economic Inquiry, 39 (1): 1-16, 2001. Times Cited: 47

To gauge the financial effects of an Academy Award nomination or win, the authors study box-office receipts for the competing films both before and after their nomination.

Results indicate that a nomination or win for best director, actor, and actress substantially elevates revenues, while that distinction in the other award categories seems to provide no discernible boost.

4) D.K. Simonton, "Film awards as indicators of cinematic creativity and achievement: A quantitative comparison of the Oscars and six alternatives," Creativity Research Journal, 16 (2-3): 163-72, 2004. Times Cited: 22

Examines 1,132 films released between 1975 and 2002 that received at least one Academy Award nomination or win compared to a similar distinction from six other awarding bodies, including the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and the National Board of Review.

The author determines that Academy Award nominations and wins provide the most reliable consensus on artistic and professional achievement.

5) G. Rossman, N. Esparza, P. Bonacich, "I'd like to thank the Academy, team spillovers, and network centrality," American Sociological Review, 75(1): 31-51, 2010. Times Cited: 16

From a sociological standpoint, the authors examine films nominated for acting, in order to gauge the importance of collaboration and collaborative networks.

The presence of elite collaborators (e.g., writer and director) is a determinant for performances that are most likely to attract nominations, as there is a "spillover" effect of talent that benefits the entire team.

6) I. Pardoe, D.K. Simonton, "Applying discrete choice models to predict Academy Award winners," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A - Statistics in Society, 71: 375-94, 2008. Times Cited: 13

The authors attempt to specify the variables that predict which nominees are likely to come away with an award.

Previous nominations seem to help directors and actors, while previous wins actually hurt actors; meanwhile, appearing in a heavily nominated film also favors a win in those categories.

7) D.K. Simonton, "The 'best actress' paradox: Outstanding feature films versus exceptional women's performances," Sex Roles, 50 (11-12): 781-94, 2004. Times Cited: 9

The author examines the hypothesis that award-winning performances by women typically occur in films that are lesser in stature and success (e.g., far less frequently nominated for Best Picture) compared to films with popular male actors.

Results support the existence of a "gender discrepancy" in which older actresses face a scarcity of substantial roles in the kinds of major films typically recognized by an Academy Award.

8) S.P. Safran, "Disability portrayal in film: Reflecting the past, directing the future," Exceptional Children, 64 (2): 227-38, 1998. Times Cited: 8

The author studies trends over the decades in Academy Award-winning films that have portrayed disability, noting that such films have increasingly attracted awards in recent years.

Psychiatric disorders have been most frequently represented, while none of the films portrayed a learning disability, and only two films featured children or youth with impairments.

9) M. Addis, M.B. Holbrook, "Consumers' identification and beyond: Attraction, reverence, and escapism in the evaluation of films," Psychology & Marketing, 27 (9): 821-45, 2010. Times Cited: 2

The paper examines nominated films in terms of key concepts for consumer marketing--notably, age and gender--and how they affect audience reaction and commercial prospects.

The most favorable audience response usually hinges on a younger, opposite-gender star (i.e., the viewer experiencing a romantic or physical attraction), along with an older director and a story set in an unfamiliar time period.

10) S.P. Safran, "Movie images of disability and war: Framing history and political ideology," Remedial and Special Education, 22 (4): 223-32, 2001. Times Cited: 2

The author surveys depictions of war-related disability in six films nominated for Best Picture, including All Quiet on the Western Front, The Best Years of Our Lives, Coming Home, and The Deer Hunter.

Despite varying accuracy in depicting the complex realities of war and disability, such films have provided useful insights into how society views disability and how these views can be modified with education.

Source: Thomson Reuters Web of Science

The cinematic adaptation of the bestselling novel Fifty Shades of Grey makes me think that the next venture for the franchise might be a ride at Disneyworld.

In attempting to explain the sexual dynamics between a dominant and a submissive, Fifty Shades of Grey renders sadomasochism as a hybrid of popular genres. The initial meeting of Christian Grey, the dashing if socially awkward, dominant millionaire, and Anastasia Steele, the scrappy ingénue who is on the cusp of graduating from college, feels like Cinderella. Christian takes Anastasia on a helicopter date to another city; he turns her frumpy VW into a brand new sports car; he magically sends his elves to fix her computer and to buy her new clothes.

Christian then mentors Anastasia in the art of sadomasochism like Mr. Miyagi teaches Daniel self-defense in The Karate Kid.

The film then attempts to illustrate Christian's dominance over Anastasia by turning him into a superhero; he appears at a late-night bar faster than a speeding bullet; he intuits what she is drinking at a hotel bar across the country; he teaches her how to fly. His dominance outside of the bedroom comes into sharp focus only when he stalks her; he shows up at her workplace or appears in her apartment uninvited. The film portrays sadomasochism more like a scene from Sleeping with the Enemy rather than as a sexual performance, which according to literary theorist Lynda Hart, lies "between the body and the flesh."

In an effort to spell out the practices of sadomasochism, Christian asks Anastasia to sign a written contract. They met in a boardroom. They sit across from each other. Mr. Grey's obsequious assistants serve sushi. Anastasia strikes out the use of nipple clips, and questions the use of butt plugs. A xylophone-inflected soundtrack plays in the background making the codes of sadomasochism feel more like an episode of the game show Let's Make a Deal than an erotic negotiation of power predicated on dominance and submission.

Yet the scene that sends the most problematic cultural message is when Anastasia asks to be whipped to experience the limits of the relationship, not because such punishment will give her pleasure. Mr. Grey obliges and whips her naked body as she sobs on a leather bed. Beyond triggering the 1970s feminist critiques of sadomasochism, this scene plays into a more contemporary cinematic context. The last time that filmgoers witnessed the brutal whipping of a female character was in last year's blockbuster hit 12 Years a Slave. The film featured the violent, sadistic master whipping a partially naked enslaved woman. In the 19th century such depictions attempted to arouse the sympathy of Northern audiences to join the abolitionist movement. In the 21st century, such depictions aimed to inform audiences of the brutal history of enslavement in the United States.

The whipping of an enslaved woman in 12 Years of a Slave and of an ingénue in a Fifty Shades of Grey raises many questions. First, how are the films connected? How has the history of chattel slavery helped to provide the language used in sadomasochism? What does it mean that the dominant and submissive are often synonymous with master and slave? For instance, Anastasia asks Christian if he wants her to be his slave? Also, what does it mean that the whips, handcuffs, ropes, and hangings, often used to discipline enslaved people, serve as the tools of sadomasochism? How has the history of slavery provided a phantom backdrop to sadomasochism?

While I realize that there might be technical answers to these questions in the broader history of sadomasochism, I am more curious to think about how these images of whipping in both Fifty Shades of Grey and 12 Years a Slave become legible in the culture. Does it matter that Christian and Anastasia are white? What would it mean if they were black? Consider, for example, another cultural moment: in 2001, in order to shred her sexy schoolgirl image, pop icon Britney Spears sung, "I'm a Slave 4 U." As a white woman, Spears used the language of sadomasochism in order to facilitate her transition into a more sexualized, mature persona. Conversely, Beyoncé, for all her theatrical dazzle, could never pull that off without triggering the troubled history of slavery, but Spears, like Anastasia in Fifty Shades can, because for white women of power and privilege, being whipped or someone's slave is a fantasy or, at least to them, the pathway to a more sexualized self.

Further, it is not a surprise that there are no Black characters in Fifty Shades of Grey, because of the ways which such characters may unwittingly trigger the violent and sexualized history of slavery. Beyoncé, however, does make a cameo in Fifty Shades, however covertly. Her popular song, Crazy in Love, forms the soundtrack of one of the first consensual scenes in the film when Anastasia agrees to be tied up and humped like a barn animal in the plantation South. On the surface, Beyoncé's sultry, breathless voice sanctions the act, serving as a lubricant into the unknown subterranean world of pleasure and pain. On a more profound level, Beyoncé cautions Anastasia. She does not sing of girl power nor does she even tell Christian "to put a ring on it", instead she whispers a warning to Anastasia about the consequences of being "crazy in love."

According to the logic of the song "Crazy in Love", only foolishness would cause Anastasia, a romantic, not a pledged submissive, to actually agree to be undressed, bound, and whipped. Only Hollywood would turn sadomasochism, a complicated sexual performance, into a white college girl's extracurricular activity. And only whiteness would allow for the whipping to be seen as elective in a coming-of-age narrative rather than as unavoidable in the violent history of slavery.

Jim Downs is the author of Sick from Freedom: African-American Illness and Suffering During the Civil War and Reconstruction. (Oxford U.P., 2012)

It was with a twinge of trepidation that I attended the movie The Theory of Everything, one of the films vying for Best Picture at this Sunday'sAcademy Awards. I have traveled the same road as Stephen Hawking, facing similar issues and challenges ushered into our lives by ALS. He and I were both diagnosed earlier than the average age (21 and 44 respectively) and we have lived with the disease well beyond the normal survival time of 2-3 years. My 22 years is dwarfed by his 51 years.

So how would I react to a Hollywood conjured representation of a nightmare that I am forced to live every day? How would I feel seeing a personal hero portrayed by some actor trying to interpret our grim realities of living in a body ravaged by paralysis juxtaposed with a vivid, robust intellect and a joie de vivre?

I was not disappointed. Eddie Redmayne was almost picture perfect in his overall accurate portrayal of Hawking. He captured minute details such as contractures of Hawking's hands due to prolonged muscle spasticity caused by ALS. Even Hawking's iconic body slant, head tilt and smile, common byproducts of muscle wasting with ALS, were effectively recreated by Redmayne's portrayal. His lines and later contortions made him appear to be a patient, acting as a patient. I marveled at how well Redmayne was able to depict the physical manifestations of the disease.

One of the poignant moments was when I watched him innocently trip and fall while walking on the campus lawn when he still did not know he was sick. I also experienced those unsettling falling episodes. They were the final straw that compelled me to see a neurologist. Watching it on the screen happening to someone else was a familiar, bittersweet flashback. So too was the scene in which he was diagnosed. It pained me to relive it.

Redmayne tried to illustrate the challenges of walking with ALS. The advancing paralysis in Hawkings legs depicted in the film by walking pigeon toed was one of the few inaccurate scenes I noticed. Patients cannot walk due to muscle weakness and foot drop. These conditions are nearly impossible for an able bodied person to replicate so the actor attempted to create another visual to convey the idea but in real ALS life, walking is much more hesitant, imbalanced and limb dragging.

I resonated with the frustration and anger shown in the scene where Hawking was being encouraged to use an augmentative communication device, an alphabet board to spell out his thoughts. The audience has no idea the isolation and terror that scene illustrated. Imagine this brilliant, prolific mind limited to expressing a single letter at a time. I am losing my ability to speak and only a few people are able to decipher my words. Watching Redmayne's rejection of the overtures to communicate stung. How will I be able to handle that final day of speaking when it comes?

Like Hawking, I am independent to a fault and I enjoyed the movie's focus on continuing to live despite overwhelming challenges. He raised a family, pursued a career and fell in and out of love (the resemblance ends here as I am still in love and married to my childhood sweetheart of 50 years). The audience was treated to a guidebook on living life to its fullest. Hawking is a model for all of us. There is no excuse for saying I can't do it and simply giving up.

My final thoughts are about something that underscores the entire movie. I am reminded of a TV show from 20 years ago when Morrie Schwartz ("Tuesdays with Morrie") appeared on "Nightline" with Ted Koppel. When asked when Morrie would know it was time for him to give up, he said when he could no longer wipe his ass without help. At the time, I was very early in my diagnosis. I had no idea how significant those words would become. Vanity ends when ALS begins. One cannot live long with ALS unless they are willing to embrace help. Stephen's wife, well played by Felicity Jones, was emblematic of caregivers everywhere who try keeping their loved ones well cared for, focused on the future and alive. I vicariously was also carried to the toilet, fed, dressed and transported as Redmayne was cared for in the movie. Without caregivers, I would not be writing this Op Ed piece. I would be dead.

Through The Theory of Everything, moviegoers were given a reasonably accurate glimpse into the lives of ALS patients. While seeing a story about a remarkable man who taught the world about astronomical concepts in the universe, the audience also learns about the limitless power within each of us. This is the message that I hope everyone who sees the movie and knows someone with ALS, someone like me, takes away from the theater.

Leslie Knope, you fantastic feminist fictional icon, it is time to bid you adieu. After seven seasons of Parks and Recreation, the show is coming to an end. Leslie has fought passionately for everything from safe sex for seniors to gay penguin marriage. However her best moments are when she ever so smartly kicks patriarchy in the balls, showing us how absurd, ridiculous and outdated gender assumptions and stereotypes are.

If you're on the fence about feminism, Leslie Knope can change your mind. Perhaps you hate your vagina or the right to vote or equal pay for equal work. Because how annoying is all that shit?! Or if you're a man, maybe you find it totally annoying that feminists hate it when you call them "sugar tits." This is why you need Parks and Rec.

Throughout the years, Leslie Knope has boldly brought feminism to the small screen showing us that women can be career-focused, smart, bossy, feminists and at the same time love men, love life and really love waffles. She is a treasure trove of brilliant ideas and displays an unabashed nerdy enthusiasm for government. She shows us how awesome feminism is simply by being herself. As Parks and Recreation comes to an end, here is a look back at five times Leslie showed us how to us why she's a kick ass feminist.

1. Leslie values brains over beauty.

In a culture where pop stars and actors are heralded as gods, it's refreshing to see Leslie proudly display photos of female politicians on her wall of "inspirational women". Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi are some of the figures decorating the wall. By showcasing women known more for their brains than their boobs (though I have nothing against tatas) she shows us that women are smart, valuable and successful. Little girls can aspire to be politicians or astronauts, not just princesses or models or Justin Bieber's girlfriend.

In the "Beauty Pageant" episode, Leslie becomes a judge in the Miss Pawnee competition and attempts to subvert this hot mess of a pageant by judging the contestants not on beauty but on something she calls "the Naomi Wolf" factor. But alas, she is the lone wolf in this absurdity. Though she champions Susan, the piano-playing, history major who volunteers at a childrens' hospital, Trish, a pretty but vapid woman who has been on YouTube, loves hanging out with her friends and whose talent is holding a baton, wins the crown. Leslie may have failed at showing her fellow judges how ridiculous pageants are, but the viewers received her message loud and clear.

2. She celebrates female friendships.

Leslie doesn't just have girlfriends. She has a seriously tight group of badass besties. She actively celebrates her friendships and cherishes her girlfriends for the beautiful little butterflies they are. Ladies, are you confused about how to prioritize your female friendships? Let Leslie set you straight. "Ovaries before brovaries", "Uteruses before duderuses" and a twist on an old classic, "Hoes before bros" are just some of her philosophical gems on the importance of lady love.

Her relationship with Ann is a genuinely sweet example of female friendship. They always have each other's back, supporting one another through breakups, job failures and life mistakes. When Leslie's crush Mark sets his sights on Ann, Leslie does not turn into a crazy banshee
like one of the mob wives when someone looks at them sideways, (though she does get a wee bit jealous.) Instead, she graciously gives Ann her blessing to date him, truly living up to the phrase "ovaries before brovaries." But her greatest girlfriend achievement was creating Galentine's Day. A day before Valentine's Day, Leslie has commemorated February 13th as a day to hang out with your gal pals, eat waffles and get down with pussy power.

3. She surrounds herself with supportive men.

Leslie does not hate men. Or marriage. Or children. Probably because being a feminist doesn't mean you're an evil sea demon who eats male babies for breakfast. On the contrary, there are many awesome men in Leslie's life.

First off there's her first boyfriend, Dave. Unfortunately when they first meet, Dave actually mistakes a photo of Madeline Albright for Leslie's grandmother causing her to reconsider whether she wants to date someone less informed than herself. He soon realizes his ignorance is not going to curry favor with Leslie. So he makes a point of learning who all the women on her inspirational wall are just to impress her.

Then there's Ron Swanson, the resident alpha male and Tom Haverford the resident pervert, who are consistently supportive of Leslie and her endeavors even if they don't agree. Her gender is never an issue as they see Leslie for who she is -- an honest, upstanding person who always stands up for her friends and what she believes in. However her most ardent and steadfast male supporter is her husband, Ben. Whether Leslie is running for city council or simply trying to get fluoride into the city's water, Ben is always Leslie's biggest cheerleader. Even if it means taking the backseat and letting her shine. Like a megawatt bulb.

4. Leslie is not afraid to challenge gender roles and assumptions.

Leslie unabashedly aspires to be the president one day and even takes on the sanitation department in a challenge to see if women can be trash collectors too, (spoiler alert, Leslie won.)

In the Pie-mary episode, Leslie is forced to make a very important decision when her husband Ben decides to run for Congress. To compete or not compete in the pie-making contest among the wives of the candidates. Though at first she says turns down this exciting opportunity, (because she has like a job and stuff), she decides to participate after journalists accused her of being against hugs and hating her family. P.S. Have you ever hugged a woman who can't bake? It's like hugging Satan himself.

Not wanting to sabotage her Ben's campaign, Leslie agrees to bake a pie in order cement her standing as a proper wife, mother and all-around perfect submissive female. However Ben is unwilling to let his wife participate in this foolishness and rushes to her defense professing his love of her smarts and independence. Leslie follows up by questioning answering all the questions she knows she's going to be asked:

• "Why did you change your hairstyle?"
• "Are you trying to have it all?"
• "Do you miss your kids while you're at work?"

She tackles these double standards head-on, questioning the way we traditionally judge women. Leslie (and that sweet, sweet hubby Ben) show us how sexist assumptions make a mockery of not just women but men as well and ultimately act as a disservice to all of us.

5. Leslie is not a stereotype.

Watch your average female-lead show and you'll come away with the following lessons:

• We LOVE shoes.
• We are obsessed with relationships.
• We are neurotic and for all the wrong reasons.
• We care solely for sparkly things, rainbows and Beyonce.

Not in Leslie's world. Leslie is less interested in Beyonce and more interested in Barbara Boxer. Leslie may be somewhat kooky and intense, but only because she's passionate about what she believes in -- parks and people. Not that there's anything wrong with loving shoes or rainbows. But Leslie shows us there's a lot more to women than chocolate and baby fever. Because we are multidimensional and crazy and weird and shit like that.

Thanks to kooky, crazy, lovable character of Leslie Knope, we get to see that feminism isn't a dirty word and feminists aren't all angry ball-busting, hairy-legged, man-haters. Unless you're Pat Robertson, in which case we all are. Or maybe he's just bitter. In the words of Leslie, "I guess some people just object to awesome ladies."

Before there was Christian Grey and before J. Lo got it on with the hunky boy next door, there was Marty of the 1955 movie of the same name.

By his own account, Marty is "fat and ugly, fat and ugly." To complete the picture, he's a hesitant never-been-married gap-toothed 34-year-old Bronx butcher who still lives with his mother.

Clearly, he's not who E. L. James would describe as "the epitome of male beauty" - fully-credentialed (facially and anatomically) to take a young woman (according to John Oliver, crediting Wikipedia) "on a journey from frumpy nerd to fully-realized sexual being."

Furthermore, Marty is light years from being obsessed with erotica in the stalker-thriller mode. Today, his awkwardness, decency, and reverences might have him tabbed as a prude; certainly socially inept. In the 60 years since the film's release, have big-box-office movie-makers increasingly shed charm along with underwear; and for particular movie-goers, is lurid the lure?

Outtakes from Inmates
In a community-college literature-and-film course I taught in a men's prison in several Spring semesters, I showed Marty as a Valentine's selection. The inmate-students (a number of whom were serving time for aggravated assault and manslaughter) had considerable experience with drabness, boredom, and a kind of loneliness that comes from being incarcerated amid hundreds.

Whereas many 18- and19-year-olds on the outside reacted to the movie derisively, with mockery, most of the inmates (ranging in age from late-twenties to mid-fifties) were gently amused and, some, even touched.

Could several shades of plain be a new black?
One inmate appreciated Marty's "high morals" for not jettisoning the plain-Jane who had already been abandoned by a blind date. Good-hearted Marty and the plain-Jane are veterans of rejection. Their heartache and companionable sorrowfulness make for a bond.

Marty resists the entreaties to get rid of her in exchange for what a lewd buddy assures him, in a low conspiratorial tone, is "a sure thing" ("a good deal here, Maahty; money in the bank").

The inmate who appreciated Marty's "high morals" wrote approvingly of Marty's "childlike" qualities. The inmate thought his nephews might do well to adopt Marty's mores in their social forays.

Several inmates noted that the Saturday-night Bronx dance-hall femmes were referred to as "squirrels" and "tomatoes" - and some as "dogs." The vast majority of the dance-hall males were "stag." Un-antlered, these bucks critically eye the herds of does, hoping "to get something" for the evening. Yet there is nothing provocative in their attire (bucks in jacket-and-tie; does in neck-to-ankle party dresses), nor in their come-ons or dance moves.

Most of the prison inmates commented sensitively regarding Marty's awkwardness, lack of self-confidence and lack of self-esteem. Repeatedly, Marty has been told that he should feel ashamed for not being married.

Perceptively, a number of the inmates wondered if rejection and disappointment worked on him to the point where there was little self-regard to be salvaged. Inmates know from shame.

Discussions turned to what it means to be a family man - for those removed and physically distanced from family. I think screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky (whose initial script was performed as a TV teleplay) would have been delighted with the inmates' discourse.

In a remake, would Marty be on the make, via the Internet?
If he were alive today, I wonder if Paddy Chayefsky (who won screenplay Oscars for Network, The Hospital, and Marty) would have Marty being coaxed and prodded into joining an Internet dating service. Here's what Marty's 2015 profile might reveal:

Relationship Status: bachelor
Ethnicity: Italian
Want Kids: Sure, I'm Catholic.
Weight: a few extra pounds (but prime cut)
Body Type: spherical, somewhat oblong
Favorite Books: pulp fiction
Favorite Writer: Mickey Spillane
Favorite Character: Mike Hammer
Occupation: Cuisine Provisioner and Food-
Market Aggregator

Ahh, but would Paddy Chayefsky still have Marty smoking cigarettes? Maybe vaping? Would Marty still be so considerate and solicitous of his mother and his grouchy no-pleasing-her aunt? Would he still be vulnerable to put-down judgments from his fellow stags regarding the girl he likes ("scrawny" - "a real nuthin").

How would Marty describe his perfect first date and his ideal match? Would he be on Facebook and Twitter?

The Marty of 1955 was not given to long walks on sun-kissed beaches followed by moonlight serenades. He wasn't the kind to go to bungee-jumping in a remote rain forest; snorkeling in shark-infested waters; long-distance cycling in the Serengeti. Hard to imagine him at an opera, a ballet, or a six-hour performance-art "show" in a hip "Beat" venue. But maybe, in a remake.

The film, which is plain spoken about the hurt feelings of the plain-spoken, warmed hearts in 1955 and won the best picture Oscar.

In an imagined 2015 movie about an Internet dating venture, would Marty be unguarded about his desires and reluctances? his loneliness? Or, would he be goaded to pose as a "player," with "an elegant profession," and warm to the ruse, in a hot-tub time-machine sequel?

Is there someone out there in screenplayland who would take on an intelligent, even reverential, update? If so, you got my 75 cents. Oh, wait, make that $12.50.

When television was in its early stages, the role of the nightly news anchor came to fruition. Journalism legends began with CBS' Walter Cronkite and eventually led to the female anchor, such as Wellesley alumna Diane Sawyer and Yahoo News' Katie Couric. Every night, viewers place their trust in these reporters to bring them the news of the day without embellishment or bias. Brian Williams has broken this trust by embellishing his stories, and as a result, broke the contract between anchor and viewer. Rather than providing us with the facts, he weaves tales, such as saving puppies from burning buildings and witnessing atrocities, that paint him as a hero.

Recent reports suggest that Williams embellished the details of several stories -- most notably a story in which he claims that his helicopter was shot down by enemy fire while covering the Iraq War in 2003. Additional reports have come under scrutiny, including Williams' coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 -- the coverage that earned his show a Peabody Award among other honors. In Williams' report, he claimed that he suffered from dysentery after ingesting flood water -- these claims were later refuted by an EMS worker who said that he did not recall a single case of gastroenteritis during Hurricane Katrina and the following month. In an earlier report, Williams claimed that he rescued a puppy from a burning home as a teenage volunteer firefighter. He later contradicts himself in an interview with GQ, Williams claims he saved not one, but two puppies from the very same fire.

In light of these allegations and a pending internal investigation, Williams and NBC released the following statement last week:

In the midst of a career spent covering and consuming news, it has become painfully apparent to me that I am presently too much a part of the news, due to my actions.

As Managing Editor of NBC Nightly News, I have decided to take myself off of my daily broadcast for the next several days, and Lester Holt has kindly agreed to sit in for me to allow us to adequately deal with this issue. Upon my return, I will continue my career-long effort to be worthy of the trust of those who place their trust in us.

As someone who watched the news every morning and evening growing up, I put a lot of trust in my news anchors. I trust that the news the anchors tell me is a factual and accurate depiction of what is happening in the world. Now, I am not saying that I believe Brian Williams is not a talented reporter -- he would not have gotten to where he is if he was not talented. Rather, his embellishments undermine the validity of all of his stories and elicit doubt from his viewers.

The doubt garnered by the allegations surrounding Williams has inevitably caused a stir, not only for NBC, but for other news channels as well. Now, viewers are a bit more cautious about blindly trusting their anchors. I believe that due to Williams' prominent position in the field of journalism, doubt has been casted on other news anchors. If Brian Williams can pull it off, who is to say that other journalists are not or will not do the same?

I do not think there is a way to prevent the fabrication or embellishment of news stories. It is indisputable that a more dramatic story sells the most papers -- or in today's age, generates more views and "likes." Viewers cannot really control what the media distributes, but they can check the facts after the story is released. My mother, a former journalist, always told me to check the facts before I render any judgments or opinions regarding a news story. While we both have faith in the institution of journalism, it is still a business -- a business whose the sole objective is to sell the story. With this objective, I believe that embellishment could be used to sell a story more effectively. All news stories are given through a lens -- a lens that differs depending on the news company and anchor -- and viewers need to acknowledge and see past the lens.

While I believe in second chances, I think Williams broke the trust he had with his viewers on multiple occasions and therefore does not deserve a reprieve. It is one thing to make a mistake, acknowledge it and move forward. It is an entirely different ball game to knowingly commit the same act multiple times and not acknowledge it. Despite the fact that Williams felt the need to prove himself, having assumed the anchor desk less than a year prior to Hurricane Katrina, it is no excuse to fabricate or embellish a story. To paraphrase Robert de Niro's character, Jack Byrnes from Meet the Parents, once someone is outside of the circle, they cannot reenter. I believe that Brian Williams broke the circle of trust between himself and NBC viewers, and should not return to the NBC Nightly News.

This post was first published in The Wellesley News, Wellesley College's student newspaper.

This week, Billboard has come out with a piece on a new open letter penned by a coalition of Swedish songwriters, speaking out jointly on the dangers of streaming music. They say that their "voices are seldom heard" on the topic, as the article reports, and they allege that streaming powerhouses like Spotify and Pandora don't compensate artists fairly for the right to play their music, in such a way that allows consumers to circumvent having to purchase songs and albums through traditional means, whether those are record stores or iTunes or anywhere else.

The conversation as of late has veritably exploded on the subject of music streaming, particularly as Jay Z has just recently made a move to acquire Swedish streaming company Aspiro, in a coup that would further enhance his status as a music mogul as well as a hip hop artist. In fact, should the platform catch on with the power of Jay Z's empire behind it, we'd even go so far as to say that the Aspiro grab could effectively make him the next hit-maker to rule them all, right up at the top alongside Simon Cowell, LA Reid, Scooter Braun and Clive Davis. Although he's already had a history of shaping some of the biggest artists of the decade (think: Rihanna), now he'll presumably have a space to package up and heavily promote the music of the artists he feels will be the next big things over the coming years.

Meanwhile, on the opposite end of the spectrum, at the recent star-studded Grammy Awards, a number of artists including Jennifer Hudson and Maroon 5's Adam Levine publicly committed to joining forces in order to hold back the oncoming tidal wave of streaming (learn more at the GRAMMY Creators Alliance website), which threatens to change the entire industry model and make it more difficult for artists to monetize their content off traditional platforms -- especially their greatest commodity: their music. Adding her star-power to the mix is heavyweight and A-lister Taylor Swift, the "1989" superstar who many say is the preeminent pop sensation of 2015. Swift also stands resolute against streaming and has made it a rule not to allow her music to be a part of the practice.

The anti-streaming stance is based on the fact that streaming platforms in general simply don't pay artists enough royalties for the artists to sustain themselves, meaning that, financially, streaming is -- at least in the short term -- not the most lucrative move.

On the contrary, apologists of streaming say that it boosts up-n-coming artists' profiles by giving them exposure to a vast mega-audience that they might not otherwise be able to reach by forcing listeners to pay for their full songs (which can be a dissuading factor for those who may not want to spend $15.99 on an album). The upshot here is getting famous faster, for the trade-off of making substantial revenue along the way -- something many artists struggle to do anyway. That said, faster fame equals more marketability, meaning that an agent can take a client who has blown up on Vevo and Vimeo and YouTube -- and now Pandora and Spotify and possibly even the new incarnation of Aspiro -- and package up their persona for a multimillion dollar brand endorsement deal. But all of that weighs on the hope that they take off via some of these free, minimal revenue-generating platforms anyway (kind of a la Justin Bieber who ascended to fame thanks to YouTube way back when). And, then the question becomes, although artists and personalities certainly care about the sizable paychecks that can result from a brand endorsement, since when did we put out content exclusively to accrue fans in the hopes that we can funnel that buzz into a contract with a corporation?

Here's our bottom line, the Reed Alexander Media takeaway from this battle over streaming: Whether or not streaming is for the better or the worse (which ultimately only time can tell), it definitely must be taken seriously as the game-changer it is. It's going to transform the music industry by fundamentally altering the very model of how artists monetize themselves and reinvest into their brands. And, it's bound to change how representatives do their jobs too.

Most importantly in all this, what do you think? You've heard the basic premise of both sides -- who's right? Tweet me and let me know how you feel about streaming. Do you use it? Do you listen to streamed music? Or does it spell out the end of the music industry as we know it? Either way, if I had to point out one genre that accurately captures the emotion that people on both sides of the turf war over streaming have invested into this debate, I'd vote that it'd be less of a ballad, and more along the lines of screeching heavy metal.

Jonny Lang is best known for his blues guitar licks and vocals. So it may come as a surprise that he's not listening to that genre much these days. Instead, he says he goes for the likes of James Taylor and Stevie Wonder.

In this interview, Lang discusses his musical tastes as well as his most recent album Fight for My Soul. He says he's also writing material for his next record, but those efforts are often usurped by fatherhood.

"Right now, I'm really focused on my kids," Lang says. "I'm trying to be a good dad and as balanced as I can since I'm out here so much of the time."

See more music interviews at youtube.com/jenserikgould

Follow Jens on twitter at @jenserik1

Bachelor Recap From Sunday, Where Britt Has a Narcissistic Break With Reality

Fifty Shades of Things People Don't Want to Face (But Should)

Do the Oscars Matter? Do the Movies Matter?

When Celebrities Replace Journalists as Sources of Vital News

The Bachelor Recapped in Rhyme

Rewriting the History of the Black Panthers on Film

My Oscar Predictions

Feb.2 -- Santa Barbara International Film Festival Indies -- "Now En Espanol" "Agave is Life" "Sins of a Father" "The Chambermaid"

The Princess Whisperers

Advancing the 'Weird Brown Girl Movement'

LA Times Clunker: Page 1 Story Fails in Explaining Oscar Voting for Best Picture

Hollywood's Biggest Night of the Year is Here!

'I'd Like to Thank the Academics...'

Fifty Shades of Whiteness

As an ALS Patient, Here's What I Thought About The Theory of Everything

Leslie Knope's Most Feminist Moments

2015: Would Hollywood Be Seduced by Marty?

Brian Williams and the Circle of Trust

Streaming Music: The Good, the Bad, and the Truthful

Jonny Lang on Fatherhood and Not Listening to the Blues