Movies in Progression or Regression?

     The other day in class after watching the Charlie Chaplin silent film called "The Kid," a comment was made that movies today have progressed from movies in the ealry 1900's when many were in black and white and had no sound. At first thought, I agreed with this statement. With all the new soundeffects and graphics that can now be added to movies, it seems like movies have progressed through the decades. But after thinking this through and reflecting on the other silent movies I've seen, which is actually only one, called "Nosferatu," I changed my mind.

     I thought about how there was not any dialogue in "The Kid." But I thought that dialogue in this film was actually irrelevant. It didn't really matter what they were saying. You could still see and feel their emotions. And that's why I believe movies have actually regressed in the past couple of decades. Without sound, the actor truly has to act. They are trying to convey an emotion to the viewer solely through their facial expressions and body. Modern actors can rely on words to convey emotions; they don't necessarily have to show the emotion on their face if they have words to do the same job.

     I also think that movie plots have regressed, too. Most movies these days are just about the "wow" factor, purely for entertainment and to make a quick buck or two. I'm not gonna lie, I love going to see chick flicks with my mom. But what I really love is a good movie that makes you think. One that doesn't have a clear cut ending, but forces the viewer to use their brain. To me, I know it's a good movie when I'm still thinking about it a week later. But unfortunately, there are not too many movies like that anymore. "The Kid" was a nice example of movies could be like, and that's why I enjoyed it so much. It had a simple plot, but the characters had very complex emotions. It didn't have a clear cut ending, and I had to infer what was going to happen to the characters based on what I knew about them. I really appreciated that, and hope that movie makers today can learnd a few things from movies of the past.

Barbie 1961

     The other day, looking for something to do, my friend pulled out a Barbie board game. It's from 1991 but it was a second edition of the original game that came out in 1961. We've played this game before, but it wasn't until now that I sensed something wrong with it. First of all, it's called "Queen of the Prom." But it really gets bad when you get to the objective of the game. To win, you have to get a boyfriend, become president of a club, and buy a dress, and that's how you become prom queen. I took some pictures of the game with my phone so I wouldn't forget things that really stuck out to me. The slogan of the game is: "A fun game with real-life appeal for all girls!" And one of the squares on the board reads: "Soda fountain. Pay $1 if without boyfriend."
     I found this game to be extremely interesting because I got a glimpse of what life must have been like for women in the 1960's, especially because this game claims to have real-life appeal for all girls. Women were expected to get boyfriends, get married, have kids, maintain the home. And this game really reinforced and reflected on the idea that in the early 1960's, a woman's place was in the home. A girl's biggest worry was getting a boyfriend, and apparently becoming prom queen. As much as I found this somewhat shocking, even though I already knew about this time period, it also made me happy at the same time because it showed me how far we've come. Girls go on to college all the time, they have careers, they can have dreams outside of the home. According the United States Department of Labor, in 2008, women made up 46.5% of the total workforce. So as much I liked having Ken as my boyfriend, I know that I don't need to depend on him for my happiness. (Well this is really going to get me a boyfriend. jk jk lol but not really).

Hello Bonjour Hola Ciao Hallo הלו Hej 喂 Witaj Hujambo Olá Merhaba

     Today in class Mr. Bolos mentioned that he had a former student currently living in Spain. The student said that it seemed like everyone he knew there was trilingual. This reminded me of my own observations from my travels in Europe. While I was in Sweden, I met only one person who could not speak English. In France, as I tried to practice my mad French skills with the locals, they only spoke English back to me.
     When I was in Italy, I had an eye-opening experience. It only lasted about five seconds of my life, but I have not forgotten it since. My family and I were in the Puma store. While my dad was trying on a pair of shoes, I happened to see this incredible exchange (at least to me it was pretty cool). A teenage boy went up to the saleswoman. He hesitated a little, but I didn't know why. Apparently the saleswoman could figure out why and said: "Italiano? Anglais? Espangnol?" And the boy said: "Si, Espangol!" And she started to speak in Spanish with him. I couldn't believe this. A retail worker at a Puma store could speak three different languages. That's more than I could say.
     After this experience I started to notice more and more that so many Europeans are at least bilingual if not trilingual. I spent the summer in France with a host family, and my host mother could speak four languages; French, English, German, and Alsatian (a mix between French and German). And her daughter was learning two different languages in school (German and English). According to the article linked in the preceding sentence, another difference between the American and European language curriculums is that many Europeans start a second language at much younger ages than Americans, and start a third language by the time they reach the equivalent of junior high. Most Americans learn only one language if any at all. Europeans travel to America and we expect them to know English. When we travel to Europe, we expect them to know English. It's ridiculous and completely unfair. Even Obama sees the problem with this situation. In this article Obama says that, "It's embarassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup."
     I agree. It is embarassing. I do understand though that geography plays a big part. The countries are very close together. For some, it's a five minute drive over the border and suddenly they have to speak a different language. The best comparison to this would be like me driving to Indiana and having to speak a different language. Nevertheless, I think it's great that New Trier offers such a wide range of languages, but there are so many that do not offer. There are over 4,000 recorded languages in the world and New Trier students can only choose between seven. Do you think the American school system should be more like Europe's in terms of language study?

Future Shmuture

     Today as I was answering questions in a packet that will go to my advisor and college counselor, I stumbled upon a question that caught me by surprise. The question was this: What tentative areas of study or preprofessional directions have you considered for the future? Now this question doesn't seem to be particularly puzzling, but I have to say that it kind of scared me. However, I answered the question right away. But after I looked it over, my response scared me even more than the question. I had written down about four or five areas of study that I have considered. I know this packet isn't a final decision on my life, but it sure feels like it. Depending on how I answer these questions, it could alter my life significantly. It's almost like a sliding doors situation in a way. If I put down one area of study that I'm interested in and not the other, it could factor in to which college I will attend in the future. What if I say this and not that? How will that affect my life? It's starting to seem like this a life-changing questionnaire when it really shouldn't be. I'm only 17! Most days I can't even decide what I want for breakfast let alone the rest of my life.
     These days I'm feeling pressured to know exactly what I want to do and how exactly I'm going to do it. Every single person I interact with has some question or another about college. When are you visiting colleges? When are you taking the ACT? What do you want to study? Have you started to think about where you want to go? And the only answer I have to all of these questions is a big fat I DON'T KNOW! But you know what? I've decided that that's ok. After consulting the expert (my mom, of course) who told me that she didn't know what she wanted to do even after she had graduated college, I realized that's it's ok not to know. I don't have to decide right now. Even if I am getting pressured from every angle to know all the details of my future life, at least I know that it's perfectly fine to just admit that I honestly don't know yet.

The End

     The other day as my cousin and I browsed the shelves of Blockbuster, we were in search of a good scary movie. Picking up every movie that had a scary name or a creepy picture, we finally stumbled across a seemingly perfect movie. It was called "Shuttle". A quick synopsis: Two girls coming home from a weekend in Mexico find themselves stranded at the airport with no ride home. A shuttle pulls up next to them saying he will give them a ride for a cheap price. There is only one other passenger on the shuttle, and the driver says there can only be a maximum of three passengers on his shuttle. Sketchy? You betcha. But they get on anyway. A lot happens in between, but when the movie comes to an end, one of the girls has been killed, and the other is packed into a box and being shipped off to East Asia to become a sex slave. Needless to say, this is not the ending I had imagined.

     There is one scene in particular that really got to me: It's down to one girl and it's the final fight scene between her and her kidnapper. She steals his gun and shoots him. And this is after she has already knifed him and crashed the shuttle in an attempt to kill him. You'd think he'd be dead after all this. But no. He is still alive, and ends up winning. I thought this movie was going to be about women empowerment. The girls get kidnapped and they fight like hell and end up beating the bad guy. I didn't expect her to fight to the end and then not win.

     But more importantly, what is the director trying to say about women? That no matter how hard they try, they will never beat men? I mean this girl was fierce. She managed to do everything possible in order to save her and her friend, but it couldn't ultimately save her. And I'm not saying that the woman always has to win. But to me, this movie in particular was about man vs. woman. And with the ending that it had, it gave me the message that men will always be superior to woman, which is completely false.

     Here is an excerpt from the full summary of the movie from imdb.com. It's of the scene described above.

          "He finds Mel, who threatens to cut herself with a shard of glass, and she stabs him in the arm with it. He attempts to disarm her, but she stabs it into his thigh before hitting him in the face with the light fittings. She finds the gun and shoots him, before attempting to escape in the bus. The Driver arrives and attacks her again, and they grapple before he forces her into a crate with the supplies she bought earlier."
     This is just absolutely ridiculous. She stabs him and shoots hims, but he still gets what he wants. I can't change the ending of the movie, but I can voice my opinion and that's what I hoped to achieve here. I know that the underdog doesn't always win in real life, but I thought this ending was just disgraceful and rude and hopefully other women will be able to see this too. 

Addicted To Technology?

     My night was ruined. Not because of anything that someone said to me or because of that physics test I have to study for tomorrow, but because my DVR did not record my scheduled recording of "Vampire Diaries". I have to say, when I saw that the newest episode was not in the "My Recordings" section, I was pissed and I took some of my anger out on my dad (Sorry, Dad!) After I cooled down a little I realized how absolutely pathetic this was. But it made me realize how technology has taken over my life. I don't watch live television anymore, just the shows I record. Not a single day goes by where I don't go on the computer or use my cell phone to send a text. I haven't used a land line in ages. And going back to the DVR, my mom once said that it "changed her life".
     What happened to the days before cell phones, where you would go out with friends and your parents would never know where you were unless you were near a land line that they could call? My mom would have panic attack if she couldn't call my cell phone to see where I was. And instead of telling war stories like my grandparents, my parents tell me stories of their childhood without cell phones or color television. The times are changing.
     The DVR fiasco of tonight showed me how much we depend on technology. One DVR glitch and my show is gone forever. The Internet is down, entire class periods are lost. No juice left in the cell phone battery and suddenly people don't know what to do with their life. Yes, technology makes our lives easier. But when it doesn't work, it sends us into a panicked frenzy and makes our lives much harder than necessary because of everyone's depedency on it.
     So what do you do when your DVR doesn't work? That, my friends, is why they created hulu.com. But what if that doesn't work? Well, then, you're just screwed.

What IS The Definition of Success?

     Three times a week I have 4th period free and I always go the the second floor rotunda to sit with my friends. While I was there today, Mr. Sally, who is apparently the assistant superintendent, came around  asking people if they would like to be filmed for a video that would be shown during the teacher's institute day. He said that in the clip, you would describe your definition of success, how you thought New Trier defined success, and if you thought they were defining it right. No one accepted for obvious reasons, but it really got me thinking. It seems like a very simple question, but I could not give an answer. Dictionary.com defines success as "a person or thing that is successful"(which is not helpful at all). But what did I define as success? Getting a B+ in physics? Moving up a level in French? I didn't know. And I still don't know. Maybe no one wanted to be in the movie because no one actually knew what success meant for them. To be honest, I don't know what success means for me. I never really feel successful. Even if I get straight A's one quarter, I don't feel like I've accomplished anything. My parents will tell me good job, and sometimes even my grandparents will call to congratulate me, but I don't understand why. I don't feel like I really did anything that amazing. I guess you could say that I succeeded, but aren't you supposed to feel something more than indifference?

     Then I tried to think about what New Trier defined as success. And I came up with two definitions, one that they tell parents and students, and one that isn't necessarily said, but everyone pretty much knows. The first and what the school would say is: getting good grades, getting into college, and having good morals, (hence the ECGC that no advisory actually does). And now the underlying definition, which is just an extension from the first: getting good grades in all 4 levels, getting into an ivy league school, participating in extracurriculars, sports, and social service, and having good morals. I think New Trier students set unrealistic goals for themselves that no one would be able to accomplish. It astonishes me that people can be in two AP classes and three other level 4 classes, all while managing a social life. In the words of my history teacher last year, "If you want to have a life next year, don't take AP history". Needless to say, I followed her advice.

     I guess what I'm trying to say is that New Trier pushes its students to the limit. They know that the students who go here will be the next generation of great lawyers, doctors, politicians, and businessmen. They push us and push us and load us with work until we crack or have a mental breakdown. And I can say from personal experience that it can definitely happen more than once a year. For me, I work so hard during the year that by the time summer comes around, I can't see my success because all the work and suffering blinded me to it during the year. But maybe that's just me.

And The Winner Is..... New Trier! Duh.

     Everyday I take my dog out for a walk, and this usually becomes my thinking time. On this particular walk I was thinking about why New Trier wins every sports event, and why the theater program is so amazing and why it pretty much kicks every other school's butts. In everything.
     I came up with what I thought is a reasonable explanation. And this is it: First of all, many people in the North Shore can afford private coaches, travel teams, and club sports. Some kids have had a private coach since they were ten. So if someone has been playing soccer since they were eight, got a private coach and joined a travel team when they were eleven, they're most likely bound to pretty good. Secondly, it's the sheer number of students. There are about 5,000 people who go to New Trier. Let's say that roughly half the school is boys and half the school is girls. So in theory, all boys' teams have the choice between 2,500 boys to put on their team, and same with all the girls' teams. Compared to Highland Park High School which has around 2,000 students, they only have 1,000 boys and girls to choose from for their teams. That is almost half the amount of people to choose from than New Trier. So it's not that many Highland Park residents can't afford private coaches either, it's just that they physically don't have as many people to choose from. So each team at New Trier is literally composed of the best of the best. In the wikipedia article of New Trier, it states that "with more than 120 state championships, New Trier High School currently has more than any other high school in Illinois. Wow.
     The same goes for the theater program. At a very young age, people in the North Shore have the resources and the money to be in plays, to take acting, dancing, and singing lesson, as well as hire an agent. Many people outside of the North Shore are equally as talented, but they won't get the job because they don't have the money to hire an agent, who will make them known in the acting community. Like sports, it's also the sheer number of students interested in theater that makes the program so amazing. New Trier simply has more people to choose from.
     Like I said, this is just a theory. But this conclusion of mine forced me to think about something very important. It goes along with the question of whether money can buy happiness. Can money buy you success? Is there any such thing as being naturally talented these days, or do you have to buy your way to the top?

Vampire Is The New Black

     The other day I was complaining to my mom about how next week's episode of "Vampire Diaries" is going to be a re-run, (Don't make fun of me, I already have people to fill that job). Anyway, that's when I realized, and I seem to be the last person in the world to realize, that the entire media, whether it be books, magazines, movies, television shows, whatever, has been completely taken over by vampires. There's the notorious Twilight series including the movie franchise, the HBO series "True Blood," the new CW series "Vampire Diaries" and its entire collection of books, not to mention the new movie The Vampire's Assistant hitting theaters this week. There are so many vampires in Hollywood right now, that in Teen Vogue's November issue, the star of "Vampire Diaries," Paul Wesley, remembers a vampire run-in with the cast of Twilight: "the cast was staying at our hotel-- we saw them everywhere and hung out all the time," while New Moon and "Vampire Diaries" were being filmed in Vancouver at the same time. Two vampire families, one city... Great.
     Vampires have made an incredible transformation from the days of Dracula. Vampires were once seen as scary creatures of the night who went around killing people without mercy. Now, vampires have a positive connotation. People see them as sexy, emotionally disturbed, and caring beings who will love you forever (in the literal sense), which are particularly attractive qualities when it comes to teenage girls. Take Edward Cullen of the Twilight series, for example. Edward practically embodies every women's dream guy, and that's what makes him so popular with every age group from young girls to older women. The entire image of a scary vampire is almost non-existent these days. Of all the vampire books, movies, and t.v. shows I've seen, the only truly scary vampire is Nosferatu from the classic silent movie.
     But what is the cause of this transformation from scary to sexy? What caused this boom of a whole new generation of vampires? Is just simply the popularity of the Twilight series that set everyone off? Or does it say something deeper about American society? Americans are no longer afraid of the vampire. They could even be your soul mate. Hell, I want to be a vampire.

                THEN VS NOW                 

Destination: America

     Over Columbus Day weekend, I went with my mom to New York City. We went last year as well, and that's when we noticed it: there were more Europeans here than usual. And again this year, it was absolutely crazy. I felt like I everywhere I went, I was just completely surrounded by Europeans. It was almost as if I wasn't in New York, but some European country. At breakfast we sat next to a German couple. In the elevator there was a man speaking Italian. At Macy's there was a father and daughter speaking Spanish with one of the shoe salesman. In line at a burger joint, a French family ordering fries. At dinner, a Swedish family sitting right next to us. A British waiter at one of the restaurants. The list goes on and on. Believe me.

     But why so many tourists? How is it that my French would become more useful in New York than in Europe? To me, the answer was obvious. The dollar sucks. Right now, the euro is almost 125% stronger than the dollar. (Use the currency converter to see other exchange rates). So basically, everything in America is dirt cheap for Europeans, considering one euro is equal to almost $1.50. It's so cheap to come to America, that even middle class Europeans can afford the trip. Even though it's from a few years ago, this article, entitled "Money Goes Far in New York, if Your're European," describes and explains almost the exact same experience I had in New York this past weekend.

     The dollar is horrible and it's not going to get better any time soon. But there could be an upside to the situation. All of this tourism must add something to our economy, even though contributers to the article above express worry of "currency tension" as the dollar becomes weaker and weaker. But it seems to me that European tourists are buying all the things that Americans can't afford anymore: second homes, expensive entertainment, shopping. The article mentions a Bristish tourist in New York City who says that she "had trouble spending all of her money". I wish I had that problem too...

I Guess You Can Use Physics for Something

     The other day in physics, we watched a movie that was about frame of reference. During the movie, the narrators would say things that kind of confused me and made me even more mad for ever deciding to put myself through such torture that society calls physics. I have to admit that physics is actually pretty interesting, but the concepts sure do not come natural to me.

     The two lines that really bothered me in the movie were this: "These are known as fictitious forces" and "If you believe in the law of inertia". I'm not completely crazy, I have my reasons.

     First of all, the fact that the forces are called "fictitious" implies that there is a possibility that they are not real. So am I wasting seven periods every week learning about something that might not even be real? And what about that ridiculous line, "If you believe in the law of inertia"? Yeah, and I believe in unicorns, too. What does that say about the law of inertia? That it's just a work of fiction and belongs in a fantasy world? For all I know, in 20 years scientists could prove this so-called "law of inertia" completely false.
     During this rant that took place in my mind, and while I was trying to figure out exactly why I ever took physics, I was amazed to realize that this issue of physics and all its uncertainties, is very relatable to another topic that everyone has studies since probably the 6th grade: Greek mythology. The ancient Greeks and Romans used myths and stories to explain things that they could not otherwise explain. They would wonder: "Why is the sky suddenly filled with lightening?" and their answer would be: "Because Zeus is angry, duh!" Their myths aren't real. They made for some pretty great Disney movies, but they're not real. I feel as though physics is trying to achieve the same purpose as Greek mythology; it's simply trying to explain the world around us.
     There is a force that pushes up on us from the ground. We can't see it, but according to physics, it's there. If we can't actually see it, how do we know for sure that it's really even there? I guess that's the annoying thing about all sciences. Everything in science is just a theory, nothing is certain and it is constantly changing. It makes me think of the discussion we had in class today. How real can science actually be? During the 1800s, scientists supposedly found numerical data that concluded African Americans are inferior to whites. The scientist basically found the numbers he wanted to find, and manipulated the information to suit his purposes.  It was a way of justifying slavery, because according to science, it was true. And apparently science never lies. FALSE. Again, the scientist was trying to explain why things were the way they were. And that's all science is. It's simply an explanation. Not necessarily the truth, but an explanation. Can science ever be completely truthful?

Just a bit from the frames of reference movie

For Men Only

     The other night my family and I went out to dinner with my grandpa. Papa is an avid golfer, and he being retired and all, he usually plays at least three or four times a week in the summer, and even takes vacations solely for the purpose of golfing. Whenever I see him, he usually has some golf story or another. So that night, he started into his usual golf story of the day.
     He told us that he had played at the Old Elm Club in Highland Park that day. Then he goes on to tell us one of the most shocking things I have heard in a long time: Old Elm is a mens-only country club. Woman are not allowed to play the course, nor are they allowed to even step into the club house. In my grandpa's own words, "Their spouses are allowed to drop them off at the club, but they can't go in."
     I probably had a very strange look on my face at that moment because I was in utter disbelief. No one but myself seemed to be very affected by this fact. I couldn't believe that places still kept such outrageous rules like that. I couldn't even start to comprehend why anyone would go to such extremes to keep woman out and be so obviously sexist. Did we honestly not learn anything in the past 50 years?
     This made me realize something very important about our society: As much as people say racism and sexism has been completely eliminated in the United States, it is utterly false. Slavery has been abolished, but that doesn't mean there aren't any racists left in the country. The same goes with women's rights. Just because women can vote and be apart of the work force, it doesn't mean that the country hasn't been completely rid of sexists. Take Old Elm country club for example. In our society, men and women are far from equal.

iListen to Protests

     The other night as I was brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed, the new Green Day song "21 Guns" came on the radio. I personally am a very big fan of this song. For some reason it just speaks to me, and that sounds really corny, but it's true. So as any teenager would do, alone in their room, half past midnight, I blasted the radio and started to air guitar. After the song was over, I started to think about what Billy Joe was actually saying. I liked the beat of the song so much, that I didn't really pay attention to the words. So I referenced good ol' lyrics.com and saw what he had to say. I interpreted it to be an anti-war song, because he says things like "Put down your arms" and "Give up the fight". After seeing the lyrics, I realized that Green Day is as much about their words as they are their music. And I also found a sort of pattern. All their songs seem to be protesting about something; war, America, etc. I mean, their 2004 album is even entitled "American Idiot". The song also called "American Idiot" is practically the epitome of protest music. The lead singer says things like "Don't want to be an American idiot", "Don't want a nation controlled by the media", and "I'm not a part of a redneck agenda". To put it simply, every line is a criticism of America. Despite the words, I still don't hesitate to rock out to it. But I can't decide if that's a good or bad thing.
     After this little epiphany of mine, I was reminded of my humanities class in seventh grade. The assignment was to bring in a protest song. I decided to bring Bob Dylan's "The Time's They Are A-Changin'". It was a very interesting assignment because people brought in everything from "War" and "Let My People Go" from the Disney movie The Prince of Egypt. This is very interesting to me because it shows that protest music has been around forever. I know the Disney movie was made in the 90's but I'm sure the Jews really had songs of their own that begged for freedom, and think about all the African American slave songs that spoke of freedom and justice. Music serves very many purposes, whether it's to get people to think in a different way or to get someone to do something. I remember that during the 2009 elections, my grandma sent me a song that a bunch of celebrities made to get people to vote for Obama. If you think about it, music is probably one of the smartest ways to get people to listen to you. The singer may not have anything intelligent to say at all, but if they're famous, people will listen. It's a very powerful way to express yourself and your opinions.
     But do people listen? Can one song really change a person? I don't necessarily agree with everything Green Day has to say, but that doesn't mean I can't air guitar every time "21 Guns" comes on the radio.

Minimum Wage: Is It Really Enough?

     This summer I got hired for my first real job. I work at a coffee shop and I earn minimum wage, which is $8.00. I wanted the job just to make a little extra cash. So the other day when I got my pay check, it got me thinking. I'm using this money just for some extra cash in my pocket. But what if I had to live on this? And some people do.
     I only work one day a week, so obviously the people who work full time 5 times a week earn more than I do. But I decided to calculate it out anyway. If you work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, earning minimum wage, that only adds up to $320 per week, $1,280 per month, or $15,360 per year. And let's not forget about income tax which is automatically deducted from your pay check. So you're not even getting all the money that you earn. I can't even imagine my family living off just $320 per week. Sometimes the grocery bill for one week adds up to $200 and that's already half of the $320 gone. And what about insurance? Rent? Social Security? Health care? Federal and state taxes? And even day to day stuff like doctor appointments and visits to the dentist? There is no possible way that someone earning minimum wage can pay for all this. I don't know how the government expects people to be able to live on such a small amount of money.
     In her book, Nickel and Dimed, journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, works four low-paying jobs, to see if she can actually survive the way most Americans do. She concludes that housing costs are just way too high for people earning minimum wage and are literally killing them. Most people have to work two jobs in order to provide for their families. She also thought that the jobs she worked, and used to refer to as "unskilled" jobs, were actually physically and mentally exhausting for her.
     Many Americans have to live on minimum wage. But are they actually living, or simply working their lives away just to make ends meet?

Hannibal Reasoning

     Last year I forced myself to watch "Hannibal Rising," which is the prequel to "Silence of the Lambs". The only reason I wanted to watch it was because a really cute French actor, who I am obsessed with, was starring in the film as Hannibal. So on a Sunday night, I plopped myself down on the couch and started to watch it. I'm not really into horror movies, so whenever I thought a scary part was coming up, I would fast forward, see what happened, then rewind and watch it in real time. It's a lame way to watch a scary movie, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
     I have never seen any of the Hannibal movies. Like I said, I didn't actually want to see "Hannibal Rising," I just wanted to see the actor who plays Hannibal. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. It starts out in Hannibal's childhood and progresses through his teen years and then through his early twenties when he starts studying to be a doctor.
     I thought the movie was very interesting. The main event that happens to Hannibal as a child is this (spoiler alert!): his parents are killed during WWII and his little sister and him are living by themselves during a harsh winter. Some soldiers force themselves into their home, steal their food, and inform them that they will be staying there until the weather clears up. Eventually the food runs out and the soldiers make the decision to either starve to death, or commit the unthinkable, and they go with the latter. They take Hannibal's sister outside, kill her, and then resort to cannibalism. And Hannibal is a witness to this disturbing act. This scene actually made me a little sick. But, it gave me such an insight as to what in the world could possibly drive Hannibal to do such horrible things later in his life. It doesn't condone him, or make it any better, but it just explains why he became the man that he did. It made me realize that people always have a rationale for doing things, but it may not always be rational.

     I remember hearing people's accounts of "Silence of the Lambs" and "Man Hunter" and just thinking That's disgusting! And it still is, but after watching "Hannibal Rising" I now understand Hannibal's rationale. Any thoughts?

Seventeen Again

     Every month I recieve my issue of Seventeen. Now it's not the most intellectual magazine out there, but that's not really why I subscribe to it. I mostly just like to look at the clothes. I've been reading Seventeen for a couple of years now and at some point last year, after going through my latest issue, I finally realized the crap I've been allowing myself to read. Seventeen is the most hypocritical magazine I've ever known.
     The message I've always gotten from Seventeen is that they want you to be yourself. They're always promoting individuality and the fact that everyone is all different shapes, sizes, and colors. In the fashion section they always find clothes to fit every body type. As a young girl I always thought, "Wow! What a great magazine! They know teens so well!" Well not anymore. As I was going through the health section of this particular issue, I flipped through the pages that outlined the workout created by Beyonce's trainer, or something like that. There is a workout in every issue so I blew right past it as usual. I didn't know what was going to make this issue make me workout. Anyway, practically the page right after the workout there's some article about how this woman hated herself in high school and how she finally learned to love herself for who she is. And right after that are three pages telling the reader to write down everything they love about themselves and what inspires them. After seeing these pages all juxtaposed like that, I thought that something about the whole thing seemed a little off. And that's when I realized the other message that Seventeen was giving; the one that I had not seen before. In my eyes, Seventeen is saying "Hey! Be yourself! But why don't you do these workouts and stop eating fatty food while you're at it." The fact that they put these two articles right next to eachother makes me sick. This magazine is targeted to teenagers (hence the name Seventeen) Don't they know that teenagers are insecure, and girls especially are at a high risk of developing an eating disorder? They shouldn't have to feel pressured to be perfect by anyone, let alone a popular teen magazine. This is extrememly hypocritical of them and I'm surprised and angry at myself for not noticing it sooner. What has become of the media these days? Why is it that a magazine meant for teen readers as young as thirteen, are pressuring girls to workout? The need for perfection has become an obsession and has gotten completely out of control, thanks to the media. I still read Seventeen and that's probably hypocritical of me, but these days I just stick to the clothes and makeup. Oh yeah, and my subscription hasn't expired yet.

TI-nspires Me to Barf

-"Are these absolutely necessary?"
-"Yes they are"
-"Well what about last year's algebra 2 students? They seemed perfectly fine without them"
-"It's a new curriculum this year"
-"Oh."
That was the first conversation I had with my math teacher this year.

     So New Trier thought it would be a great idea to make every student buy a spankin' brand new calculator called the TI-nspire. Now it's a pretty catchy name, I'll admit, but New Trier left out one tiny detail: they're $160. When I heard this, I was outraged. $160 just for a calculator? I have a TI-83 that's in perfect condition and is only three years old. It works fine and I've never had any trouble with it in the entire three years.
       And what about families who have more than one child? I have a brother who is a sophomore so my parents ended up spending $300 dollars on just the calculators. We haven't even gotten to the textbook bill. Just because we live in the North Shore, it doesn't mean that we're all made of money and can just drop a couple hundred dollars on a calculator that we'll probably never use again after high school. Not to mention the fact that it hasn't even been approved for the ACT test yet, so I won't even get to use this fancy schmancy, uber expensive calculator on probably the most important test I'll ever take in my life. Furthermore, from my conversation with my math teacher, not only is the school requiring us to buy the calculator, but apparently if you don't buy the calculator, you can't adequately participate in the class because they've changed the curriculum!
     Now most people think I'm crazy and that I'm overreacting and just blowing the whole situation way out of proportion. And maybe I am. But personally, I think the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous, and just another example of how New Trier is pinching every last penny out of us. I often claim my dad is a penny pincher, but after this whole fiasco, maybe there's some truth to his anxiety. If you don't watch out, New Trier may get ya. They're sneaky.

Dummy Post

This is a dummy post. FYI