Framed

After watching and deconstructing Citizen Kane in class, I found this image on the Movies Subreddit. It features several frames from the film, one of which we analyzed in a discussion. More "9 Frame Films" can be found here. 

When I saw this, I tried to rationalize why the creator of this image would include these shots. Some of these frames show Kane's beginnings, such as the top and middle center.

However, one frame that caught my attention was the top right frame. This shot is when Susan has walked out and Kane is left alone in his empty mansion. his loneliness is emphasized by the tunnel of arches and doorways. He seems to be miles away from the only other person there, separated  by his wealth. 

I'm leaving the rest of the frames open to you. What stands out to you? Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Agents of Change?

Recently Marvel  revealed a trailer for an upcoming television series called Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The show is coming to ABC and features members of the government organization in The Avengers. Below is cast photo from the show. 

A cast photo not unlike others shown in class: we have the lead actor, in this case Clark Gregg, in front with the rest of the cast surrounding him. Just to Clark's left is Ming-Na Wen, a Chinese-American actress, who you might know from Mulan. According to the Wikipedia page, she is "an ace pilot and weapons expert." So here we have a minority character who has expertise in essential areas of the S.H.I.E.L.D.organization, possibly giving her some authority over the others in those fields. While the show has yet to air, I hope that it  breaks stereotypes and tokenism that we've seen in so many other shows. 

What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Two Thumbs Up

After 46 years of being a film critic for the Chicago SunTimes, Roger Ebert died at age 70. An  article about his life can be found here. 

A co-inventor of the "thumb up/thumb down" rating, had a passion for film, reviewing up to 306 movies a year. However, Roger Ebert did more than just review films. In 1966, a censorship board prohibited films from being screened in Chicago. Ebert took a stand and "immediately began lobbying for elimination of the censorship board." He helped ease the restrictive measures on certain films in Chicago. More recently, Ebert suggested a revised film rating system to replace the current one used by the MPAA. According to Amy Wallace of the LA Times, he wanted to add modifier to the current ratings to make them more specific and useful to parents. 

Payback

Last week, Tesla Motors announced that it had plans to repay a government loan off early. After borrowing $465 million from the government, Tesla is expected to have paid back the loan by 2017, five years ahead of the previous schedule. The article can be found here.

I think this is a good step for environmentally friendly companies. If Tesla can set a good example, them perhaps others will follow suit. I also hope that Tesla's actions will make others look at green and environmentally friendly technologies as a more feasible and lucrative option. 

However, another part of the article mentioned emission credits, which allow companies to circumvent environmental regulations. Due to the nature of the cars Tesla produces, they surpass the regulations. But companies that don't can buy their way out, and Tesla declined to disclose the companies that did this. I don't think that companies should be able to do this and remain anonymous. They should be held accountable for their shortcomings. 

What do you think? Will Tesla Motor's behavior influence others to accelerate green technology? Should other companies be able to buy out of the regulations? Post you thoughts in the comments below. 

On the Air

This past month,  Justice Sonia Sotomayor has come forward against allowing cameras in the Supreme Court. These cameras would broadcast the courtroom proceedings over television and possibly stream footage to the Internet. The article can be found here.

Sotomayor supports her stance against recording courtrooms with the reasoning that viewers would not understand what was going on. In an interview, she said that  "Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate." She believes that someone watching the case at home would not see the full case and make assumptions. A viewer's opinion of her would be skewed without context. 

However, Sotomayor is not the only Justice against this. Justice Elena Kagan also has criticisms about televising the courts: she fears that "people might play to the camera" in  an attempt to make themselves more appealing to the public. I do see why this would be a concern, but witnesses in court are sworn to the truth. However, I don't see why witnesses or defendants playing to the cameras would have any effect on the outcome of the trial. Anyone viewing at home has no bearing on the trial, and both sides are already trying to convince the justices that their side is the right one. Appealing to others would get them nowhere. 

What do you think? Should the public have the ability to see what goes on in America's Supreme Court? do you think camera coverage change anything about the trials? Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Shots Fired

This past week, former police officer Christopher Jordan Dorner set off a mass police search after attempting to take revenge on the LAPD. On Thursday, a blue Toyota Tacoma became the target for a hail of gunfire by several police officers when  they suspected it was his truck. The article about this can be found here. 

The two occupants of the truck escaped with their lives, but they were injured. Despite this, I still think that a mistake lie this is unacceptable. Had the vehicle in this situation matched Dorner's, I would understand their reaction. However, Dorner's truck that the police were looking for was a gray Nissan Titan. While the two trucks look somewhat similar, the colors were entirely different. The police should have exercised a lot more discretion before opening fire. A show-of-force or other tactic should have been used before shooting. 

What do you think? What could have the officers done differently? Were they right to fire when they did? Post your thoughts in the comments below?

On Target

On Saturday, the White House released a picture of President Barack Obama shooting a shotgun. The picture is from last August when he was at Camp David for his 51st birthday. The accompanying article can be found here.

 

The release of this picture seems like Obama is trying to show that he sympathises with the conservative gun owners. He owns at least one gun, and he knows how to use it. Why would he want to take yours away? Obama also stated that he has " a profound respect for the traditions of hunting." This would suggest that he acknowledges those who advocate for second amendment rights for hunting and sport. 

I think that while it might take a bit more to convince everyone that he isn't completely set on taking away everyone's guns, this is a good step in the right direction. Having evidence that he is familiar with firearms is much better than only saying that he understands them. What do you think? Was releasing this picture a good move for the White House? What results might come from this? Post your thoughts in the comments below .