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?