The Arts Issue PHOTO BY ANNA LETSON
LETTER FROM THE
ED I T O R I’m a politics major who somehow wound up as the Arts Editor for this fine establishment, so it’s really all too obvious how I came up with the idea for this issue. My passion lies in politics and in art, so here we are. Art can soothe; it can heal, but it can also instigate and question. As with the sticky notes that adorned the walls of the Union Square subway station in the days and weeks following the presidential election last year, art can serve as a vessel for emotion, for political messages and for love. The sticky notes fascinated me, and I found myself spending upwards of an hour wandering along the passageway, reading each message one by one. “Always love. Hate will get you everytime.” “You should’ve voted.” “Don’t forget the way you feel right now.” “Immigration is beautiful.” “We will fight and we will protect each other.” “Voting is not enough. Thinking is not enough. Talking is not enough. Are you doing enough?” These short anonymous messages intrigued me to no end, and in a way, they were comforting. They were a physical representation of those acting against the president-elect, a number that we’d come to learn was far larger than the number who’d voted for him. The sticky notes lined the entirety of the subway stop, and as days went by it became increasingly difficult to find the actual wall. Art can do that: make you feel like you’re part of something larger than yourself. Some of the articles in this issue deal with the importance of representation in art — how seeing yourself on a screen can validate experiences that you’ve endured. It can challenge your predisposed beliefs and teach you more about a topic you thought you knew everything about. Art can do almost anything. With this issue, I wanted to explore how art and politics intersect in various ways. In reality, all art is political, whether it’s a conscious choice from the artist or not. There is no art that is created in a vacuum, and any choice to make non-political art is, of itself, political. Especially now, art has the power to change the world.
JOR
DAN
REY
NOL
DS,
Arts
Edit
or
Table of Contents A Timeline of Celebrity Political Demonstrations on TV
Female Rockers’ Fight for Equality in a Male-Dominated Arena The Enduring Politics of Warren Beatty
Power Shifts in the Music Industry
A Nonviolent Response to Bigotry Evolving Perspective of War Films
A History of Political TV
Green Day’s Persevering Political Poignancy The Role of Political Satire in the History of Film
In Music, Forgiveness is Tricky
A Lazy Solution to Inequality in Hollywood
Top 5 SNL Political Sketches 5 Worst Whitewashing Incidents
Hip-Hop’s Political Path
The Power of Political Theater The Rise of LGBTQ Cinema
Hollywood’s Turbulent Relationship with AsianAmerican Actors
A Timeline of Celebrity Political Demonstrations on TV By RYAN MIKEL Entertainment Editor As the years pass by and our political climate continues to change, highly televised events, such as the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl, often remain the platform of choice for celebrities to voice their political concerns. From selfless to selfish and controversial to acclaimed, this list brings you a timeline of the most noteworthy political demonstrations made by celebrities on television.
2017 — Meryl Streep’s Fiery Golden Globes Speech At the peak of the 2017 awards season, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association awarded Meryl Streep with the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement for her four-decade-spanning career in film. Having already delivered three Academy Awards and eight Golden Globes acceptance speeches, Streep used this opportunity, and extensive air time, to call out President Donald Trump’s own performance of mocking a disabled reporter, in addition to his administration’s xenophobic travel ban. Trump responded on Twitter, per usual, calling Streep “one of the most overrated actresses in Hollywood.” Streep was subsequently given her 20th Academy Award nomination.
2016 — #OscarsSoWhite Following the theme of boycotts, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences suffered tremendous backlash and a significant drop in ratings in light of its 2016 #OscarsSoWhite controversy. A slew of actors, including Spike Lee and Will and Jada Pinkett Smith, brought the annual awards ceremony to national attention for nominating all white actors and actresses for a second year in a row. In fact, over the
last eight decades, only 14 black actors have won, with the nominations barely exceeding that number. In response, the Academy voted to increase its female and minority membership, subsequently nominating actors of color in every acting category the following year, with four films led by nonwhite casts nominated for the coveted “Best Picture” prize.
2010 — Lady Gaga’s Meat Dress Nominated for a record-breaking 13 nominations, Lady Gaga dominated every Video Music Awards headline in 2010 for wearing a dress made entirely of raw meat. Drawing criticism from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and confusion from viewers and media outlets, Gaga wore the meat dress in protest of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. A longtime advocate for LGBT rights worldwide, the dress referenced an earlier speech of hers in which she stated, “Equality is the prime rib of America, but because I’m gay, I don’t get to enjoy the greatest cut of meat my country has to offer.” In addition to the raw meat, Lady Gaga walked the red carpet earlier in the evening alongside four discharged soldiers affected by DADT. The policy was repealed almost a year later.
2005 — Kanye West’s Hurricane Relief Controversy In response to the devastating 2005 Hurricane Katrina, celebrities came together to hold a nationally broadcasted benefit concert. While it raised $50 million in donations, the program was notoriously remembered for Kanye West’s controversial statement, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” West deviated from the script to criticize the media’s negative portrayal of black families and the government’s inadequate relief efforts for the
black and impoverished, calling it as slow as possible. Bush called West’s statement a disgusting moment in his presidency.
1992 — Sinead O’Connor’s Saturday Night Live Performance In the fall of 1992, singer-songwriter Sinead O’Connor appeared as the musical guest on “Saturday Night Live.” Choosing an a capella cover of Bob Marley’s “War” over her successful single “Nothing Compares 2 U,” O’Connor notoriously ripped a photo of Pope John Paul II to shreds, telling the camera to “fight the real enemy” in reference to sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. A huge backlash followed, with many boycotting O’Connor and her music. When asked if she would go back and change what she did, O’Connor responded with “hell no!”
1973 — Marlon Brando, Sacheen Littlefeather and the 45th Academy Awards In 1973, screen legend Marlon Brando received his sixth Oscar nomination and second win for the critically-acclaimed crime drama, “The Godfather.” However, when an absent Brando’s name was called at the ceremony, a woman garbed in traditional Apache dress refused the award for him. The woman, Sacheen Littlefeather, was a Native American civil rights activist who Brando chose to deliver a 15page speech pertaining to the Wounded Knee incident of 1973 and the negative portrayal of Native Americans in Hollywood. Brando’s boycott and Littlefeather’s speech were the first of their kind, inspiring Jada Pinkett Smith to spearhead the 2016 #OscarsSoWhite boycott. Email Ryan Mikel at rmikel@nyunews.com
VIA FACEBOOK
In Music, Forgiveness is Tricky By TYE MUSANTE Contributing Writer The online music community was recently rocked by a situation involving 19-year-old rapper and singer XXXtentacion (known as X by his fans). After being detained on weapons charges, he received domestic violence charges, specifically “aggravated battery of a pregnant woman, domestic battery by strangulation, false imprisonment and witness-tampering.” He had previously pleaded no contest to firearm and robbery charges and was ordered to serve six years probation. After this scandal and testimony from his pregnant ex-girlfriend, his career is on thin ice despite praise from rap superstar Kendrick Lamar. The parallels between this case and the infamous Chris Brown-Rihanna incident are striking, but this situation is more extreme in two ways; the charges are much more serious because the girl was pregnant, and X is only 19. The events have restarted the conversation on misogyny and violence in hip-hop culture. During the dawn of the internet, artists began to find out that slipping up was becoming increasingly deadly. In the era of instant, eternal documentation, mistakes are not easily forgotten. The public itself is a different beast, and may forget certain events and transgressions as the days go by. Whether or not the public chooses to forgive, though, and exactly why, is difficult to pin down. Why are certain artists
let off the hook more easily than others, and how does the type of mistake factor in? XXXtentacion still managed to get a feature on Noah Cyrus’s “Again” during this whole ordeal, but the track was faced with heavy criticism even before it was released. Maybe one can assume she did not know about the charges before featuring him, but collaborating with him is a undeniably bad move and a public relations nightmare, especially given that most of Noah’s audience consists of young girls. Today, we are obligated to be less lenient, especially toward perpetrators of violence toward women. Some say that it is not enough to punish X for his crimes: we must punish anyone who works with him. After all, how could a young female artist condone such violence against another young female? Again, maybe it is just bad timing, but the situation plays out badly for them both. Within niche communities, it becomes especially important for artists to understand the sensitivities of their fanbase, as they have the power to dismantle careers like digital termites. Take for instance Pwr Bttm, the queer punk duo that experienced career collapse following allegations that their lead member, Ben Hopkins, committed sexual abuse. A week and a day after the allegations broke, bands pulled out from their tour, their label dropped them and virtually all music streaming sites removed their music. The response time of the industry was staggering in this scenario, be-
VIA FACEBOOK
cause of the self-policing nature of the queer music community. The backlash was so strong that Pwr Bttm was wiped off the map, yet the same repercussions never fell upon X, who arguably committed a more serious offense. It does not seem that the community that gave X a platform to stand on is as interested in self-policing, and this points to the deeper issue of misogyny within the music industry. Perhaps it is humility that separates these cases. It is rare for an artist to avoid mistakes, and rarer to admit them. The simplest way for an artist to quickly bounce back
is an admission of wrongdoing and a promise to be better. Humility will not save X from his trial, but every day that passes without a public apology is deadly for his career. Chris Brown at least made steps to apologize and repair his reputation — not that he should be forgiven — but his actions are a positive example, especially for XXXtentacion. The key is to act quickly — the public is becoming smarter and less forgiving. Second chances are not given out every day. Email Tye Musante at music@nyunews.com.
Female Rockers’ Fight for Equality in a Male-Dominated Arena By NICOLE ROSENTHAL Contributing Writer Female-driven indie acts have made strides online in recent years, gaining popularity on platforms such as Tumblr and Bandcamp. Artists such as Cyberbully Mom Club and Frankie Cosmos have risen to popularity by means of the internet, each possessing uniquely candid vocals and a fresh take on what it means to be female in the modern music scene. These artists are not only rising above the traditional male-dominated music scene, but they are making active strides and speaking out on the topic of misogyny in the industry. “Put me on a pedestal and I’ll only disappoint you/Tell me I’m exceptional, I promise to exploit you,” Courtney
Barnett sings on the single “Pedestrian At Best” off her critically acclaimed 2015 release “Sometimes I Sit and Think, and Sometimes I Just Think.” Barnett is unapologetic, self-assured and refreshingly frank. The Australian singer-songwriter contrasts the recent indie songwriting trends of melancholia and self-pity with confrontational and confessional wit. Barnett plays no victim — she is strong, empowered and unafraid to call the shots. She speaks without restraint and is a truly honest lyricist. From Florence Welch to Alice Glass, female artists have revamped one of the most arguably sexist industries. While there are definitely still improvements to be made, these artists have taken the reigns both in the studio and on the internet to show who is really boss.
“Art gives me an outlet where I can be aggressive in a world where I usually can’t be, and part of it was asserting this abstract female power in these male-dominated arenas,” multi-instrumentalist Claire Boucher — also known as Grimes — said in a Pitchfork interview. “The video [for her song “Oblivion”] is somewhat about objectifying men.” However, the harsh reality is that there is still plenty of sexism in music today. Lauren Mayberry, the lead singer of Scottish indie-pop band CHVRCHES is widely known as an activist for women in the music industry after reporting several cases of online sexual harassment. “Why should women ‘deal’ with this?” Mayberry said in a 2013 interview with The Guardian. “I am incredibly lucky to be doing the job I am doing at the moment — and painfully aware of
the fact that I would not be able to make music for a living without people on the internet caring about our band. But does that mean that I need to accept that it’s OK for people to make comments like this, because that’s how women in my position are spoken to?” Mayberry has since launched a £50,000 fundraising campaign for the Glasgow Rape Crisis center and has remained a driving advocate of gender equality in the industry. From indie rock to alternative to experimental, women in the music industry are making strides to fight back against gender inequality and sexism. Through campaigns, tours and countactivist movements, female artists are unafraid to show how meaningful their impact on the business really is. Email Nicole Rosenthal at music@nyunews.com.
The Enduring Politics of Warren Beatty By DANIELLA NICHINSON Film Editor What defines a political filmmaker? Though there are numerous interpretations, one in particular stands out: a political filmmaker must be willing to push boundaries in order to present the most honest and unfaltering depiction of their views. Warren Beatty, having starred in his first film “Splendor in the Grass” in 1961, would soon be catapulted into stardom, seducing the City of Angels with his charm, intellect and ravishing good looks. Beatty began to take an interest in producing, writing and directing, introducing Hollywood to a creative mind that has since become an icon in the sphere of political filmmaking and the promotion of art to reflect societal unrest. Beatty’s first foray into behind-the-camera work was “Shampoo,” a film which he co-wrote with Robert Towne and was directed by Hal Ashby. Though the least explicitly political of his films, “Shampoo” would ignite Beatty’s transformation
VIA FACEBOOK
from actor to filmmaker. Set on the eve of former president Richard Nixon’s election into office, “Shampoo” follows the chaotic day of womanizing Los Angeles hairdresser, George (Beatty), as he struggles to placate three unhappy women he has been sleeping with. The script is masterful and underappreciated, utilizing the irony of knowing exactly what would be the culmination of the Nixon administration. “Shampoo” was a product of the people’s vexation and disquiet at the Watergate scandal and Beatty’s own frustrations. Set in 1968, the film focuses on sexual politics, having come out of the era of Woodstock and free love. Though George wants success and a stable relationship, his unquenchable lust hinders him from his aspirations, and by the time he realizes the consequences of his philandering, the three women he loved have left him for men offering more security. Though “Shampoo” was scathingly satirical and a triumphant feat for Beatty, his best work was yet to come. The idea for “Reds” would strike Beatty nearly 20 years before its release and would result in his most ambitious, challenging and career-defining work. Having read “Ten Days That Shook the World” and researched the man behind it, eminent journalist John Reed, Beatty became consumed by Reed and by the idea of devoting an entire film to his story.
Three and a half hours in length, “Reds” chronicles Reed’s excursions into Russia prior to and during the Russian Revolution and his attempts to bring socialism to the United States. Beatty crafted an ingenious structure for the film: he interspersed the fiction with interviews from people who knew Reed and Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), his lover and fellow activist-journalist. This served the paramount purpose of supplying the audience with factual knowledge without introducing exposition into the film. By doing this, Beatty was able to tell an invigorating story without abandoning or adulterating its politics and history. “Reds” was doomed to fail — it encountered financing problems, feuds over the script between Beatty and co-writer Trevor Griffiths and even breakdowns on set due to the excruciating hours and Beatty’s compulsive re-shooting. But a film of this caliber requires some sacrifice of sanity. The result of all this hardship was one of the most magnificent and enduring pictures of the 20th century. In “Reds,” Beatty combined the telling of a crucial time in history with a heartbreaking love story, all without losing sight of the importance of staying true to your beliefs. A film of Beatty’s that seems to be unjustly overlooked is “Bulworth,” a satire about the staged and dishonest nature of politics. Beatty, who di-
rected, wrote, produced and starred in the film, plays Senator Jay Billingsworth Bulworth. During his reelection campaign, Bulworth undergoes a transformation of mentality when he suddenly decides to preach the truth — in the form of rap. Released 18 years before 2016’s unforgettable and surreal presidential election, it is astonishing how relevant “Bulworth” is in today’s political atmosphere. As the media and politicians have become puppets in a reality show, Senator Bulworth’s unabashed voicing of his unfiltered thoughts is not so far-fetched. Hollywood has yielded few filmmakers like Beatty. A man devoted to sharing controversial ideas and presenting the wants of the people, Beatty is an extraordinary talent who has been the driving force behind the film industry’s responsibility to portray provocative and contentious stories. Beatty said this strikingly well in “Reds.” “When you separate a man from what he loves the most, what you do is purge what’s unique in him, and when you purge what’s unique in him, you purge dissent,” Beatty said. “And when you purge dissent, you kill the revolution. Revolution is dissent.” Email Daniella Nichinson at dnichinson@nyunews.com.
A Lazy Solution to Inequality in Hollywood
By JORDAN REYNOLDS Arts Editor Last year, the “Ghostbusters” reboot tanked at the box office. An all-female cast and cameos from the original actors were not enough to bolster the film to success, and a sequel is now unlikely. However, when the credits started to roll over Leslie Jones, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Melissa McCarthy gazing at the New York City skyline, I found myself starting to cry. The only thought running through my mind, cheesy and pathetic as it might have been, was, “Women can do anything! Even bust ghosts!” All-women remakes are becoming a trend. From “Ghostbusters” to “Ocean’s Eleven” and even somehow “Lord of the Flies,” reinventing old stories with a cast of only women has been Hollywood’s sole response to decades-old criticisms of male-dominated films. As it goes, if you disqualified the films nominated for Best Picture at the 2017 Academy Awards that fail the Bechdel Test — passed by simply having two women speak to each other about something other than a man — you would have been left with half as many eligible movies. Ultimately, these remakes act as a Band-Aid on the bullet-wound sized problem of gender inequality in Hollywood.
While moderately satisfying in the short term, they do nothing to address the systemic lack of diversity, both in front of and behind the camera. Most of the remakes are directed, produced and written by men, and that fact could not have been made more evident than with the news of an all-girl “Lord of the Flies” remake in the works. Scott McGehee and David Siegel have said that they want to do a “very faithful but contemporized adaptation of the book,” but most who have read William Golding’s novel know that the dynamic of the boys on the island would not exist if it had been an island of stranded girls.
McGehee and Siegel are coming up with the script themselves, which is another issue — would it not make sense to include women in the process of writing a story about the psyche of five girls stranded on
an island in the middle of nowhere? This follows a pattern that is evident in many women-centric films of late. “Hidden Figures,” a film about the three black women mathematicians who made the trip to the moon possible, was directed and written by men. “Atomic Blonde,” essentially a James Bond movie starring Charlize Theron, was also directed and written by men. Only rarely does the phenomenon of a woman directing a film about women occur — “Wonder Woman,” directed by Patty Jenkins, and “Battle of the Sexes,” directed by Valerie Faris (and her husband Jonathan Dayton, the second half of the directing duo that spawned “Little Miss Sunshine” in 2006) are two great examples, but these films were still written by male screenwriters. Two things must change in order for this problem to come close to being rectified. First, original and dynamic stories about women must take precedence over these all-women reboots that have come out in full force. Second, women directors, screenwriters and producers must spearhead the creation of these stories. “The Zookeeper’s Wife” is a shining example of the magic that can happen when films are made about strong women, by strong women. Directed by Niki Caro and written by Angela
Workman, the film tells the story of a woman who rescued and hid Jews from the Germans during the Second World War. Jessica Chastain (who starred as Antonina) penned an essay on the experience of filming with a mostly-female cast and crew. “You don’t feel a hierarchy,” she wrote. “You don’t have anyone feeling like they are being left out or bullied or humiliated. Sometimes being the only girl on a set, you can feel like a sexual object. The wonderful thing about having so many women on set is there hasn’t been anyone who has screamed or anything like that. It’s a very collaborative experience, and it’s been heaven for me. We all hang out all the time — there are no strange power plays or egos. We know how rare making this kind of film is. We’re giddy with happiness.” Diversity in Hollywood will continue to be an issue for many decades to come. It does not disappear with more female representation — race, sexuality and disability are some areas that need serious work, as well. But remaking old films with all-female casts is an inattentive, passive attempt at solving the problem. Email Jordan Reynolds at jreynolds@nyunews.com.
Power Shifts in the Music Industry By SATISH REGINALD Contributing Writer In the conversation about the politics of the music industry, there is a common notion that the internet age catalyzed a democratization — that major record labels no longer hold omnipotent power and that rather, artists can thrive through new platforms like SoundCloud and Bandcamp. Chance The Rapper is the poster boy of the possibilities of this new path to fame. However, diving deep into his discography reveals notable caveats. Using Chance as a case study ultimately raises the quesy l tion of what it means ike l l to be an independent l k wi wor e Moreover, it nc e to bels s artist. a exposes that the Ch tinu jor la o ha power might int n co h ma ing s ges stead shift to an g t wi e do is bi . entity far bigc s h sin d to esse ger than evle ucc ery major record s label combined: Apple. Evidence that Chance is the current face of artist freedom is not hard to find. There are articles that identify him as the first truly independent artist, and he tops lists like Mic’s “Artists that the Music Industry Will Never Own.” He further pedals this notion by criticizing labels in interviews, mocking them at concerts and referencing his independence in high profile songs including his “No Problem,” DJ Khaled’s “I’m the One” and Kanye West’s “Ultralight Beam.” But how legitimate is Chance’s independence? Although he has never signed with a record label, he has had contractual relationships with Apple. In 2016, Chance’s “Coloring Book” spent its first two weeks as an Apple Music exclusive, and he shot a commercial for the corporation. Additionally, in 2015 his band Donne Trumpet & The Social Experiment released “Surf” as an iTunes Exclusive. Is signing a deal with Apple
“
”
STAFF PHOTO BY ANNA LETSON
different from working with a record label simply because labels’ contracts are for longer periods of time? Regardless, during “Coloring Book’s” first two weeks, Chance wasn’t conventionally independent. Moveover, it could be argued that Chance is dependent on major labels. After all, the biggest song he’s been a part of is DJ Khaled’s “I’m the One.” Meanwhile, it’s no coincidence that Chance’s only single as a lead artist that has made the Billboard Hot-100, “No Problem,” features Lil Wayne and 2 Chainz. Probing into the credits of “Coloring Book” reveals a further relationship between Chance and major labels since typically artists’ labels receive royalties for features. While the project features some local Chicago acts, including the Chicago Children’s Choir, 17 out of the 23 featured artists appear to be signed to major labels. Interestingly, 11 of these artists are signed to subsidiaries of Universal Records and five belong to its subsidiary Def Jam. Chance will likely continue to work with major labels since doing so has led to his biggest successes. How different is that dynamic from being contractually obligated to work with them? Holistically analyzing all artists’ claims to independence would be a lengthy task. But from a glance, Chance appears to be representative of the current state of the discourse. For example, Frank Ocean’s “Blonde,” his first independent album, was released as an Apple Music exclusive and featured collaborations with major label
artists including Beyoncé. Situations like Chance’s beg the question: what does is it even mean to be an independent artist? While he isn’t entirely free from contracts and reliance, if Chance makes the music he wants in the manner he wants and only signs deals voluntarily, could he still be considered independent? By the same logic, any artist content with their major label deal could be also considered independent. Chance’s brand of independence in the music industry might boil down to semantics. But a more significant shift of power may be occurring in the backdrop. Demystifying his deal with Apple, Chance tweeted, “I needed the money and they’re all good people over there.” While no label could sway Chance, Apple unsurprisingly did the impossible as it is the world’s largest corporation in terms of market cap. Alongside Apple, three of the world’s other five biggest companies under this measure, Google, Amazon and Microsoft, have music streaming services. Such corporations possess the capital to potentially inflict anomalous rifts on the music industry as Apple has done. Unfortunately, unlike record labels, these corporations do not have decades of intimate experience working specifically with music. Time will tell if those are the power shifts to keep an eye on instead of romanticizing claims of independence by artists like Chance. Email Satish Reginald at music@nyunews.com.
Top 5 SNL Political Sketches By LILY DOLIN Staff Writer
5. Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer Sean Spicer may be gone from the White House, but Melissa McCarthy’s impression of him will live on forever. She does an amazing job of capturing Spicer’s hostility toward the press, complete with snarky comments, visual aids and a water gun. Later performances include a motorized podium so iconic, the real Spicer replicated it while performing at the Emmys.
4. 2012 Vice Presidential Debate People might not have tuned in to watch Joe Biden debate Paul Ryan in 2012, but they probably watched Saturday Night Live parody the exchange.
With incredible performances by Jason Sudeikis (Biden) and Taran Killiam (Ryan), this sketch is one of the best things to come out of the 2012 election. The show makes fun of everything from Biden’s laid back demeanor to Ryan’s annoyingly prominent widow’s peak.
3. Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton Town Hall Debate Cold Open Alec Baldwin and Kate McKinnon absolutely deserved their Emmys. This sketch is almost perfect. The caricatures of both candidates are extreme but believable as the candidates themselves were extreme. One of the best moments in the sketch comes when Baldwin stalks McKinnon to the tune of the “Jaws” soundtrack. It’s both funny and sadly realistic.
2. Sarah Palin and Hillary Clin-
ton Address the Nation
SNL has never been the same since Tina Fey and Amy Poehler left. The queens of comedy always knew how to make the audience laugh, evident in their impersonations of Sarah Palin (Fey) and Hillary Clinton (Poehler). Most people may not know all that much about the former Alaskan governor, but they probably know, thanks to Fey, that she can see Russia from her house. This skit is hilarious and accurate, and it is perhaps one of the best skits SNL has done to date.
as white supremacists, KKK members and conspiracy theorists. Whatever your political beliefs, this sketch was pretty daring in its declarations, and that’s why it’s the number one political sketch in recent SNL history. Read the full version online at nyunews.com. Email Lily Dolin at entertainment@nyunews.com.
1. Votes for Trump Ad This might not be one of the funniest sketches SNL has ever done, but it definitely was one of the most political. The show doesn’t stop short of calling Trump supporters racist, instead it outwardly portrays his base VIA FACEBOOK
5 Worst Whitewashing Incidents By RYAN MIKEL Entertainment Editor
5. John Wayne in “The Conqueror” Throwing it back to the mid1950s, one of the earliest examples of whitewashing and, more specifically, yellow face can be found in John Wayne’s “The Conqueror.” Portraying the Mongolian historical figure Genghis Khan, Wayne wore extensive makeup and facial prosthetics to appear the slightest bit East Asian. The cast eventually got what they deserved, though, with many critics citing “The Conqueror” as the worst film of all time.
4. Scarlett Johansson in “Ghost in the Shell” Almost 60 years after the yellow face debacle of Wayne’s Khan, major studios still release Asian films – often with Asian directors and Asian casts – with blonde-haired, blue-eyed white leads: for example, Scarlett Johansson in the flop-tastic “Ghost in the Shell.” Once again adapting manga to the big screen, “Ghost” received
massive backlash before production even began, with many loyal fans upset over Johansson’s casting as Motoko Kusanagi. The film later Americanized the name to Mira Killian. Johansson and director Rupert Sanders denied yellow face allegations, claiming the character was just a “shell.” The film’s plot later exposed this falsehood, revealing that Johansson’s character used to be a Japanese girl named Motoko – an obvious last-minute ploy to justify yellow face. Making matters worse, rumors surfaced that Paramount Studios was using computer-generated imagery to make Johansson appear Asian, according to ScreenCrush. Oh no, ScarJo.
3. Laurence Olivier in “Othello” Possibly the most cringeworthy submission on this list, the 1965 film adaptation of William Shakespeare’s “Othello” features a white Laurence Olivier in blackface portraying the titular Moorish character. Covered in an almost dark green makeup, Olivier attempts a Middle Eastern
accent with an unusual walk and particularly deep voice. Olivier’s performance was nominated for an Academy Award. No further comments at this time.
2. Luise Rainer in “The Good Earth” The 1973 not-so “Good Earth” is one of the earliest examples of whitewashing in the cinematic arts, continuing this list’s trend of blonde bombshells in yellow face with shiny Academy Awards. Featuring nonAsian actress Luise Rainer depicted in transformative yellow face as O-Lan, “The Good Earth” was an acclaimed adaptation of Pearl Buck’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name which, while featuring a predominantly Asian cast of children and adults, failed to cast Asian American performers in its top billed roles. Despite the unfortunate casting, the film departed from skewed stereotypes of the time by depicting the roles in a positive light, eventually going on to win two Oscars and a Best Pic-
ture nomination.
1. Mickey Rooney in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” We all remember the opening shot of a young Audrey Hepburn window shopping at Tiffany and Co. on Fifth Avenue. Many people even know that Hepburn’s character Holly Golightly was a call girl. But what a lot of people can’t seem to wrap their heads around is the overtly racist performance of Mickey Rooney as I. Y. Yunioshi. Aside from the makeup and mouth prosthetics, what makes Rooney’s performance so painfully tone deaf is the usage of every East Asian caricature, generalization and stereotype. in the book in a whopping cringeworthy 114 minutes. Upon the film’s release, the portrayal was seen as harmless. Now, almost 60 years later, it is considered a seminal example of the film industry’s present-day unwillingness to simply cast Asian actors in Asian roles. Read the full version online at nyunews.com. Email Ryan Mikel at rmikel@nyunews.com.
A Nonviolent Response To Bigotry By HONOR SASKIA MILTON Contributing Writer In 1988, Patti Smith sang, “The people have the power to redeem the work of fools,” a statement that remains true now, almost 30 years later. The political climate we live in today is built on making people feel manipulated and powerless. Throughout history, when faced with opposition that felt unmovable, people have responded in one of two ways — they’ve either given up or they’ve fought back. These campaigns against wrongful and overbearing power aren’t just expressed through protests and rallies, but through art, writing and, my personal favorite, protest songs. In the 1940s, a time of turmoil with the Great Depression having just ended and World War II rearing up, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was leading the United States into war. This era of disaster led to folk singer Woody Guthrie writing a song called “Talking Hitler’s Head Off Blues,” criticizing fascism as well as the war that was
raging, and emblazoning his guitar with the phrase, “This guitar kills fascists.” Cited as an inspiration for countless future protest song writers, Guthrie brought attention to the use of music as a tool in dissent. Twenty years later, from the 1960s to the mid-1970s, the world was in a state of renewal. The Civil Rights Movement was in full swing, there was a war in Vietnam, Cuba was threatening to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons and John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated. Through it all were protest songs. Probably the most famous protest songs from this period came from Bob Dylan. With songs like “Hurricane” and “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll,” the first about a boxer who is racially profiled by police and the latter about the murder of a black barmaid by a wealthy white man from a tobacco farming family, Dylan brought folk music, and with it protest songs, to the mainstream. Another popular Dylan protest song, and probably the most
notable, is “The Times They Are A-Changin,’” written and released after JFK’s assassination and right before the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dylan calls out members of the government to get out of the way and let change through: “Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call, don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall.” The most striking protest songs are those by artists who have experienced racism and bigotry themselves, like Nina Simone’s “Mississippi Goddam.” The uncertainty experienced daily by black people
during Jim Crow is clear in her description of “hound dogs on my trail, school children sitting in jail, black cat cross my path, I think every day’s gonna be my last.” Protest songs are a way for people to communicate their feelings and critiques about the world in which they live in such a way that those around them might just stop, and, for once, listen. Read the full version online at nyunews.com. Email Honor Saskia Milton at music@nyunews.com.
VIA TWITTER
Evolving Perspective of War Films By JESSICA XING Contributing Writer
North Vietnamese guards surround three American men and the game is Russian Roulette. This is the most infamous and shocking scene in “The Deer Hunter.” Directed by Michael Cimino, the film has been widely praised as a great American epic, described as one of the most “emotionally shattering movies ever made” by Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times. It centers around three best friends preparing to serve in Vietnam who now find themselves prisoners of war, kept in a bamboo room guarded by soldiers of the North Vietnamese Army. The NVA guards force the men to play Russian Roulette and mockingly gamble on their lives. “The Deer Hunter” is a gritty, unflinching look at the Vietnam War, focusing on themes of brotherhood and loyalty in the face of American disillusionment. Released in 1978, it is joined by “Apocalypse Now,” “Full Metal Jacket” and “Platoon” as anti-war movies made after the American retreat from Vietnam. Their resonance with a
country left frustrated and distrusting of the government after the mishandling of the Vietnam War all but erased previous films during the war glorifying American involvement — themes presented in “The Deer Hunter” directly contrasted the patriotic and jingoistic ideas shown in early Vietnam War movies such as “The Green Berets” and the short film “Mickey Mouse in Vietnam,” both released in 1968. The slew of anti-war movies made after Vietnam immortalized the disenchantment of the American public with its government: politics in war films have long since been a way to shape public sentiment — there is something addicting in the stories war films tell. On one hand, there is the heroism, brotherhood and loyalty that come from overcoming adversity. And then there’s the anger, the violence, that moment of catharsis followed by overwhelming shame. The emotional extremes war movies present are effective in getting a visceral, immediate response from the viewer, which makes the interweaving of politics all the more impactful. War movies simplify
the issue in such a way that it becomes capable of articulating the emotions people feel or want to feel about their everyday reality. “The Green Berets” shows how politics in war movies can be used to control public opinion. It is a film released the year prior to American involvement in the Vietnam War and is one of the few first ideas Americans are given about Vietnam. But in looking at the movies made after the Vietnam War, films like “The Deer Hunter” and “Platoon” show how the public has divested the power from artificially made government sentiments and taken politics into its own hands. While there is still a degree of control with both movies, in which large Hollywood corporations tell and shape what the public is meant to feel about the war, people don’t use movies like “The Deer Hunter” to understand and form their political understanding of the war. Instead, they have grown attached to it because it managed to express how angry and betrayed they felt by their own government. It expressed the hate against the enemy, it expressed the broken hope, and most of all it was
a release of anger, of the shame the American public was put through. In looking past the Vietnam War, we’ve continued to use war movies to express the narrative of political conflict, finding restored patriotism and love for our country, especially in heroic movies during the early 2000s after the 9/11 attacks. And now, looking at the war films made in 2017, with “Dunkirk” being described as Christopher Nolan’s best work yet, we have used the politics of World War II as a form of escapism. While in Vietnam the U.S. failed, the country is painted as the hero of the WWII narrative — the liberators. The politics of “Dunkirk,” which in its WWII history does not involve America, instead serves a different message — a warning to our country. In this new globalized age, in which fast social connections make it easier to spread tension, there are dire consequences. If international communications are not handled properly, WWII represents an eerie foreshadowing rather than a tale of heroism. Email Jessica Xing at arts@nyunews.com
Hip-Hop’s Political Path
VIA FACEBOOK
By CONNOR GATESMAN Music Editor The hip-hop community has always prided itself on speaking truth to power. However, how has this changed throughout the years? From its earliest roots, the genre dwelled heavily on social strife, everyday struggle and racial injustice. Artists like Kendrick Lamar and J. Cole continue to carry the torch, but countless others within the space have chosen to carve different routes for their sound. How has the sound changed from then to now? As is often the case, follow the money. Rap in its earliest of stages was a genre with very little revenue flowing either in or out. Hip-hop
was born in New York City during a time of extreme crime rates and financial instability. Old-school hiphop, likely for this reason, is often characterized by bare, stripped back beats made by the likes of legendary producers like DJ Premier, the RZA and Large Professor. The money simply didn’t exist for rappers to include the kinds of instrumental bombast that can be found on some modern hip-hop records. Take Nas’s seminal debut album “Illmatic” for instance. Its hard hitting rhymes paired with jazzy yet austere rhythms make for an unforgettable record that still resonates today. This record is also undoubtedly political. The album revolves around Nas’s experiences growing up and surviving in New York City’s Queensbridge projects. Nas makes it very clear that such a lifestyle is far from easy, and this struggle fueled not only this album, but countless other albums within the genre. On this album, Nas makes heavy use of storytelling and ruthless allegory to highlight the social inequity, violence and constant paranoia that came with living in what was at the time one of the most dangerous places in the country. The album acts as a great benchmark for the state of east coast hip-hop in the early 1990s. It’s now 2017, and music has changed. Many rappers have surpassed the dreams of economic success that rappers like Nas pursued, and their focuses have unsurprisingly shifted to re-
flect this change. It’s now the age of the rockstar rapper. If it feels like hip-hop is less political today, that’s because it is. While there are many musicians, like Kendrick Lamar, who keep their political message a priority, many of the artists leading the genre have shed their political vendettas in exchange for drug-addled ruminations on their fame and fortune. To be fair, this can still make for exceptional music A great transitory marker ushering in this era is “My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy” by Kanye West. Like Nas, West started his career with a heavy political message. Songs like “We Don’t Care” and “Never Let Me Down” from his debut album “The College Dropout” feature material clearly inspired by racial issues he witnessed growing up in his hometown of Chicago. That album, along with the many that followed, sold incredibly well. “MBDTF” is his epic reflection on his established fame and status. While the album contains political messages, many of the songs on the album, like “POWER,” “Monster” and “Hell of a Life,” focus on fame and how West copes with it. The album was a watershed for the genre. West ushered in an era less obsessed with politics and more obsessed with itself, for better or for worse. With this in mind, it’s easy to understand the shift in tone from “Illmatic” to a “MBDTF.” What drives the music of many modern
day rappers, like Travis Scott, isn’t their complex social commentary, but the indescribable vibe that they curate. Unsurprisingly, Scott has taken heavy queues from artists like West. Rap music is often just as much about the mood, if not more so, than as it is about “The Message.” Rappers like Scott, Lil Uzi Vert, 21 Savage and countless others have managed to prosper without much in the way of lyrical or political prowess. This is because they are able to appeal to a massive base of listeners that previously didn’t exist. Hip-hop has rapidly extended into suburbia. Many new hip-hop listeners are far less concerned with topics like inner city struggle, and this is reflected in the genre they consume. The lavish and extravagant lifestyles of these modern day rock stars would have been unattainable in earlier years. Their newfound listeners and wealth have clearly altered their music and in turn the genre as a whole. As is often the case with music, change in hip-hop is the only constant. Email Connor Gatesman at cgatesman@nyunews.com.
e age It’s now th kstar of the roc it feels rapper. If p is less like hip-ho , that’s day political to is. because it
“
”
A History of Political TV By ANUBHUTI KUMAR Highlighter Editor Scandal. Not long ago, the first thing to come to mind at this word would be the Shonda Rhimes show, with the Oval Office at the center of drama. Now it could just as easily evoke an image of the real life Oval Office that is also the scene of constant drama. Whether this is an instance of art imitating life or life imitating art it is certainly not the first time these two spheres collided. The current administration seems like the first to trigger reactions like protest speeches at award shows and seasons of “American Horror Story” inspired by the last election. The current iteration of the entertainment industry is not the first to elicit strong reactions from the government. Before there was President Donald Trump wailing about ratings and fake news, there was controversy about TV shows portraying single mothers, gay characters and even married couples sleeping in the same bed. Take “Will & Grace.” It was groundbreaking in its time, premiering in 1998 — a time when there was nearly no representation of LGBTQ characters on television. Just before “Will & Grace’s” premiere, Ellen DeGeneres’ sitcom “Ellen” led to so much controversy and backlash that the show first was pre-empted with a parental advisory before each episode, and later was cancelled. “Will & Grace” aired in the era of Defense of Marriage Act and conservative government, yet its depiction of nuanced gay characters on such a universal platform as network television changed perceptions of gay culture with its wide audience and long, popular run. Former Vice President Joe Biden went on to commend it for educating America. Since then, visibility and portrayal of gay characters have changed dramatically. In tandem to this change in the entertainment world, it has played a lasting part in the political world in securing basic human rights for the LGBTQ community, including that of marriage, and in the overturning of DOMA with its zany, political and biting one-liners on everything from pop culture to politics. “Murphy Brown” is another example of of an eyebrow-raising sitcom. Featuring female news anchor Murphy Brown, its storyline of Brown choosing to have a child while unmarried and raising it on her own was apparently so scandalous that then-Vice President Dan Quayle felt the need to bring the controversy into the political arena by commenting on it during the 1992 presidential campaign. He claimed it minimized the importance of a father’s role. Spoiler alert: they
didn’t win. This sparked a discussion in the public forum of American family values, all from the influence of one sitcom storyline. “The West Wing” reflected the politics of its time and the era just past by depicting a notion of the idealism, youth and hope that the Clinton administration projected. “Parks & Rec” showed prescience by portraying a government shutdown three years before it occurred during the Obama administration. “Veep” lives as a parody of the incompetence that comes with government bureaucracy, and yet Julia Louis-Dreyfus claims that its biggest problem is that even its excessively absurd content cannot outdo that of the Trump administration. “Scandal” had a season devoted to a competent, capable woman running for the presidency against a loudmouth, terrible creature parading as a man. In this alternative reality, the loudmouth did not make it past the primaries, and a woman won the office but not without backlash that led to violence, terrorism and deaths. “Designated Survivor” presents a world where an inexperienced man ends up in the Oval Office, but is willing to be reflective and thoughtful, listen and learn more than speak and misinform, drawing a sharp contrast with reality. It demonstrates the truth through art that inexperience is not the same as incompetence. Now a new crop of shows arises, one that is inspired by the Trump administration and feels the need to forewarn about the dangers of the floodgates the president and his accomplices open by rolling back Title IX or perpetuating white supremacy. “The Handmaid’s Tale” tells the story of a dystopia where women’s rights are non-existent and “American Horror Story: Cult” takes the 2016 election as a starting point to depict a post-apocalyptic world that soon emerges. Coming full circle, “Will & Grace” is back. The original is known for its influence in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and it is no coincidence that this TV icon resurfaces during another time in which political change is imperative. The revival even originated from a get out the vote ad by the cast for the 2016 election, and the very first episode took the starring foursome straight to the Trump Oval Office along with cutting commentary of the state of affairs. Clearly, television has been a reflection of political dialogue and served as a herald for change, and the realms of politics and art are only getting more intertwined.
VIA FACEBOOK
Email Anubhuti Kumar at akumar@nyunews.com.
VIA FACEBOOK
The Power of Political Theater By MATT MARKOWSKI Contributing Writer The lights dim. The house goes quiet. The curtain opens. The audience is transported to another world. It all begins. Many live by the statement that theater transports the audience to an alternate world; at times, it certainly does. But atother times, theater presents worlds that are only a sidestep from reality. The duty of the writer or performer is to make these alternate realities appear true. They must remind the audience that these worlds are definite possibilities. They are not mere imaginations of the playwright — rather, they are reflections of truth and potential that already exists. Take “1984” for example. George Orwell published his novel in 1949. Today in 2017, a new adaption of the novel, written by Robert Icke and Duncan Macmillan, comes [ succ “Hamilt to Broadway on”] eede more terrifyit to d becau ingly than ever se barr ok dow iers before. “1984” n that and wa serves as an ex-
“
h pres ad bee lls n e nt Broa dwa on the y sta too long ge for .
ample of what the future may look like. Orwell, Icke and Macmillan created this dystopian society sprinkled with bloody torture to terrify the audience. Theatergoers should not leave the performance wanting a slice of one dollar pizza; instead, they should feel their stomachs churning and begin questioning the future. Playwrights must create emotions in their audiences that allow them to speak up. They are the catalysts of change; they put down the wood and spark it allowing it to flame. Some voices are never ignited. Their voices are muted by others and never heard beyond a small audience. Everyone’s story matters — no matter their race, heritage or sexual orientation. Off-Broadway at the Signature Theater, two plays written by Pulitzer Prize winner Suzan-Lori Parks are enjoying their first fruitful revivals: “The Red Letter Plays: Fucking A” and “In the Blood,” which are modern renditions of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter.” Both plays give voice to the voiceless. In “Fucking A,” Parks creates a world surrounded by the outcast abortionist Hester. In “In the Blood,” Parks’ play circles around des-
titute adulteress Hester. These plays tell the stories of two versions of one woman that society has cast aside. They give voice to characters that are abused day in and day out, forgotten by their government and everyone else around them. Parks sheds light on poverty and on the crushing idea that after enough pressure and tribulation from fate, life explodes. “Hamilton” took the world by storm overnight, and now Lin-Manuel Miranda cannot walk down the street without being recognized. “Immigrants, we got the job done” has been turned into too many memes and gifs to count. Who would have thought that a musical based on the first Secretary of the Treasury would change the world? We need more stories that take risks and pose questions. Young kids and teenagers are seeing characters in “Hamilton” they can relate to for the first time. “Hamilton” is a completely diverse cast with Hispanics, African-Americans and Asian-Americans all portraying the Founding Fathers. Who ever said they could not? “Hamilton” did not simply succeed because of its brilliant writing. It succeeded because it took down barriers
VIA FACEBOOK
and walls that had been present on the Broadway stage for too long. It is political in its subject matter and in its execution. It presents a world that is alternate to today, but one we hope to see in the future. Theater is a weapon of mass destruction that will never end. Theater does not need to reload with ammunition. Theater does not need to be recharged. Theater does not spill blood. Writers and performers have a duty to use their voice on stage to change the world. It may not be today; it may not be tomorrow. But if enough people speak, then the world will listen. Email Matt Markowski at theater@nyunews.com.
”
The Rise of LGBTQ Cinema
By MATTHEW HOLMAN Staff Writer
Seldom do moments in film history truly attain icon status. This hyperbole radiates only when something significant occurs that might change the course of history, for better or worse. The former transpired the evening of Feb. 26, when “Moonlight,” an LGBTQ film, won Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Admittedly, this distinction is not the first thought that resonates from this event -- the cataclysmic “La La Land” mishap will eternally make this night iconic for all the wrong reasons. Yet in its wake, “Moonlight’s” victory signified several major milestones: for independent filmmaking, black cinema and once again, LGBTQ film. The latter of these is particularly potent, as “Moonlight’s” little gold statuette is perhaps a symbol of the gradual change in the magnitude of gay film and, wholly, LGBTQ affairs in general. Compare this celebratory time to 11 years ago, when “Brokeback Mountain” was also nominated for Best Picture and was heavily tipped to win the
remaining four nominees. The film swept awards predictions and contained the ingredients for an Oscars perfect storm: an acclaimed director, young but respected A-list cast and a recognizable tragic romance narrative. Despite these attributes, “Brokeback” was deprived its Best Picture award, and which went to “Crash” instead. This ignited a fiery outburst of criticism against the Academy for multiple reasons — one of which proclaimed that the predominantly older male demographic that comprises the majority of Academy Award voters was homophobic and not ready to accept change. At this time, samesex marriage was not legal and the troubles of protests surrounding it were continually escalating. Perhaps “Brokeback” losing the Best Picture race arose more from external political wariness rather than internal gauges of content. Times have undoubtedly changed in the last 11 years: following a June 26, 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision, same-sex marriage is now legal in all 50 states. With this in mind, “Moonlight’s” historical achieve-
ment can further be interpreted as a reflection of the broader welcoming of LGBTQ-centric narratives in film, coinciding with the national recognition of same sex issues. But an exclusive glance of awards prestige, while beguiling, potentially leads down a plateau with arbitrary variables. Fortunately, this upswing in the proliferation of LGBTQ cinema is ostensibly thriving in other fringes of pop culture. Over this past summer, an animated short film titled “In a Heartbeat” was released, which adorably demonstrates the anxieties of a gay boy’s crush in four minutes. With a heaping of applause, the short blew up: it surged on Twitter’s trending page and gathered an abundance of Facebook shares within days of its July 31 release. As of now, “In a Heartbeat” has over 30 million views on YouTube. It does not appear to be that the rise in prominence of LGBTQ films is going to halt anytime soon. At the New York Film Festival, one especially scorching ticket to acquire is for “Call Me by Your Name.” Based on Andre Aciman’s celebrated piece of gay prose of the same name, the
film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival to critical laurels and is one of the highest rated films of the year, donning an esteemed 97/100 on Metacritic. While most people might have to wait just a tad longer to see the film (tickets sold out minutes after they were released), it is another exemplar, conforming to a spike in popularity of LGBTQ cinema. Popularity, to some degree, is a sign of acceptance. Before being predominantly confined to the underbelly of arthouse and independent film, LGBTQ cinema is now not only more accessible, but flourishing into mainstream appreciation. It is fitting that this is occurring at the same time that the LGBTQ community is experiencing more acceptance within American society. Surely, not everything is as idyllic as it sounds yet, and more work is to be done. But for now, this is a sign of how far society has progressed since “Brokeback” hit theaters, and the results are iconic in their own right. Email Matthew Holman at film@nyunews.com.
Green Day’s Persevering Political Poignancy
By DYANNA FLEITES-CRUZ Contributing Writer
Politically charged music often orchestrates a certain sense of adrenaline, emotion and self-defined integrity, regardless of one’s personal beliefs. Although it is not a surprise to find music that provides an outlet for political thought, it is rare to find music whose political relevancy spans several decades — something Green Day proved to have accomplished at this year’s Global Citizen Festival on Sept. 23. As darkness cloaked the stage in preparation for the penultimate act of the festival, Jason White’s iconic “American Idiot” guitar solo pierced through Central Park with much nos-
talgia. The wearied crowd immediately forgot their exhaustion and jumped to their feet, ready to sing every word. The iconic punk rock band has always found its way into the political atmosphere — most famously with “American Idiot,” bashing what they saw to be a lack of individuality brought on by the George W. Bush administration’s heavy use of propaganda. With this background, it was no surprise when Green Day altered the lyrics from “I’m not part of a redneck agenda” to “I’m not part of a dumb Trump America.” This moment during the festival is a perfect example of the importance of music and its place in the political sphere. While many may not remember New York Times or Washington Post articles about Bush in 2004, everyone certainly remembers “American Idiot.” “American Idiot” is an invigorating and thunderous revolution piece delivered with indignation. It was originally written concerning the Bush administration in 2004 in response to Lynyrd Skynyrd’s “That’s How I Like It,” a song expressing contentment with
the state of America and being “proud to be a redneck.” Frontman Billie Joe Armstrong eloquently states that there is a problem with what he sees to be a corrupt government and a media industry chock full of propaganda. Not only this, but he also articulates this song to be a call for Americans to change their apathetic tendencies toward this atmosphere. The alteration of the lyrics shows that Green Day is just as anti-Trump as they were anti-Bush — and for many of the same reasons. Both Green Day and Lynyrd Skynyrd’s songs provide an outlet for two sides of an ongoing political discussion, creating a conversation that is still being put to action decades later. By changing absolutely nothing except for four words, Armstrong is proving that everything in “American Idiot” is just as relevant to him now as it was when it was released. This indicates that the band sees the U.S. as somewhat in the midst of the same political conversation that it was in four presidential terms ago. Music has represented political conversations for over seven decades,
from “Strange Fruit” by Billie Holiday in 1939, to “Revolution” by The Beatles in 1968, to “Fight The Power” by Public Enemy in 1989. Each of these songs, along with many others, is attached to a political or social movement. The release dates and lyrics in each allows one to understand their respective movements and what different groups of people thought of them on a very intimate level. The fact that Green Day’s performance at Global Citizen still gave the left wing audience an adrenaline charged sense of shared enmity and exasperation 13 years after its release shows that the song is just as relevant now as it was in 2004. It is safe to assume that songs with opposing lyrics, such as “That’s How I Like It,” would have a similar impact on a right-wing audience. This corroborates the idea that the U.S. is simply in another phase of the same political conversation, just waiting to see where it leads — while music provides an in-depth and comprehensive view of it along the way. Email Dyanna Fleites-Cruz at music@nyunews.com.
VIA FACEBOOK
The Role of Political Satire in the History of Film By JILLIAN HARRINGTON Contributing Writer As long as man has existed, there has been satire. And as long as there have been forms of government, as rudimentary as they have been, there has been political satire. By definition, satire is for comedic effect, but effective political satire is capable of swaying society’s beliefs. Though satire does not provide a solution to political errors and woes, it does identify them. Making the public aware of systematic faults is the first step in learning how to address, and eventually attempt to resolve, these faults. Political satire can be traced back to ancient Greece, where comedic playwright Aristophanes often criticized Athenian society through satire. According to Pennsylvania State University, even Ben Franklin had a reputation for his biting political satire. The genre has manifested in plays, skits, articles and cartoons, but perhaps finds its most potent ground in film. Films that satirize politics often
epitomize a certain era in time. A film about current political issues is unique to that time period and the current concerns of the people, serving as a kind of secondary source. Stanley Kubrick’s revered “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” is a prime example of a film rooted in the fears and anger of the people. Satire is a window into society, and when it coincides with politics, it is bound to portray a rather honest depiction of society. “Dr. Strangelove” is steeped in the Cold War and is in direct response to the fear of global Armageddon by nuclear war. Kubrick’s 1964 film is one of the most famous examples of political satire in film, and rightly so. One of the most blatant themes in the movie is the comparison of militaristic power to machismo sexual prowess and lust. Missiles are suggestive of phalluses, and planes are personified in acts of intercourse. While humorous, Kubrick is really pointing at men in government who exploit their power for the sake of satisfying their extreme,
primal masculinity. “Dr. Strangelove” at first hints atnuclear destruction: the men abuse their power, sometimes without the proper authority. They act immaturely and impulsively, and it is fitting that the film ends suddenly in a mass nuclear explosion — the world erupting to the tune of “We’ll Meet Again” by Vera Lynn. Watching this film today, it is certainly within the bounds of reason to imagine a governmental figure pressing the wrong button at the wrong time. The 1971 film “Bananas” is one of Woody Allen’s first movies, revolving around a New Yorker who chases his activist ex-girlfriend to the revolutionizing (and fictional) country San Marcos in Central America. Fielding Mellish (Allen), heartbroken after student activist Nancy (Louise Lasser, Allen’s second wife) leaves him for bigger and better things, follows her to San Marcos. In a surprising turn of events, Mellish is swept up in the revolution and is eventually elected president of the island by the rebels. Mellish is wholly unqualified, which is reflected in his dictator-
VIA FACEBOOK
ship, but he is far from the only source of incompetence. The rebel leader, who Mellish replaces as president, is ousted for his first decree — that includes the ruling that everyone must change their underwear every half hour. And further, as the absurdity of the story develops, the news is parodied too, with one anchor reporting, “The United States government brings charges against Fielding Mellish as a subversive imposter, New York garbage men are striking for a better class of garbage and the National Rifle Association declares death a good thing.” Read the full version online at nyunews.com. Email Jillian Harrington at film@nyunews.com.
Hollywood’s Turbulent Relationship with Asian-American Actors
VIA TWITTER
By ABE SELBY Contributing Writer Quick! Without laying a finger on your phone, could you tell me who Krishna Pandit Bhanji is? Or would you care to guess who Estelle Merle O’Brien Thompson was? What if I told you that these two are the only Asian artists to have been nominated for or won Best Actor at the Academy Awards? Yes, even O’Brien Thompson (better known as Merle Oberon) counts. What if I called Bhanji by another name? Perhaps you’d recognize him instead as Ben Kingsley. There’s a good chance you’re at least a little shocked, if not confused, that Kingsley and Oberon are the only leading Asian actors to have received such honors in 88 consecutive years of Academy Awards. But before we begin wandering down the treacherous path that will likely have us appraising both actors’ ethnicities, let’s consider the bigger issue at hand. Kingsley and Oberon are two of a select few Asians to have been recognized by the Academy Awards for their success.
What’s more important to consider than exactly how Asian they may appear, if that’s even possible to gauge, is the criteria by which they have achieved success. In both actors’ cases, the single greatest criterion was an ability to present as more Euro-centric — to reinvent their names and identities as seemingly more white. This isn’t an accusation that either Kingsley or Oberon somehow duped Hollywood and their fans. Instead, it is a recognition of the incredible pressures that compelled two people of South Asian heritage to deemphasize major parts of their identities — all for a chance of equal opportunity. Oberon, who many have described as an Anglo-Indian actress, reached the height of her fame in the 1935 film “The Dark Angel.” But few know that she was actually the daughter of a half-Sri Lankan, halfMaori woman, according to an article in Vanity Fair. The author of the article adds that Oberon’s father was a British mechanical engineer and that she was born in Mumbai. Throughout her career, Oberon strived to conceal her South Asian heritage. She reinvented herself as the daughter of a British Army Officer, born in Tasmania and raised by “aristocratic Indian godparents,” Liebman writes. To evade sticky labels like exotic, Oberon whitened her complexion with makeup and used brightening lights, which were later nicknamed after her.
Kingsley, who came to fame 50 years later, struggled with similar conflicts between identity and industry. In a 2009 interview with NewsX India, Kingsley spoke frankly about his pseudonym. When auditioning as Krishna Bhanji, Kingsley explained, the response from directors was almost always, “we don’t know how to use you in our repertoire.” The solution, Kingsley recalled his father saying, was “very simple, just change your name.” Since then, Kingsley has starred in chart-smashing films like “Schindler’s List,” “Shutter Island” and “Hugo.” But his most famous film by far was the award-winning 1982 film “Gandhi,” for which he won best actor. This film calls into question both Kingsley’s and Oberon’s battles with identity. Why go through the trouble of whitening and still play India’s most revered activist? This question hits on a serious flaw in popular media and entertainment: whitewashing. The term has come to define the practice of casting white or fair skinned actors for non-white roles, excluding equally qualified people of color. In the past, white actors donned yellow or black face and portrayed POC in intentionally derogatory caricatures. Practices soon developed into the standard substitutions of POC with white actors. But in recent years, whitewashing has come to include the omission of POC from entire casts and plot lines — a form of
cultural erasure. The problem, BBC commentator Emma Dabiri notes, is that whitewashing restricts “representation of the diverse ways of being black, Chinese or Middle Eastern” and so on. Whitewashing not only robs POC of job opportunities, it distorts the public understanding of what it means to be a POC. It is no wonder that Kingsley and Oberon used their fair skin to their advantage. It’s hard to fault them for trying to beat inequality. While Kingsley and Oberon serve as great case studies on the effect of whitewashing, the issue transcends film. Whitewashing is a remnant of colonialism and can be found in every form of media and entertainment developed by Euro-American society, whether television, music, literature, opera or animation. Change is happening, but it is gradual. POC have only recently arrived in a position where they have the power to speak out. Similarly, it is only recently that we’ve developed the kind of vocabulary needed to accompany these issues. Email Abe Selby at entertainment@nyunews.com.
“oWn hitewashing n
ly ro ot job op bs POC of po distor rtunities, it ts the pu under stand blic in what i t mean g of s to b e a POC .
”
Washington Square News
@nyunews
@nyunews
Email tips@nyunews.com to report stories
WASHINGTON SQUARE NEWS Editor-in-Chief ABIGAIL WEINBERG Managing Editors JEMIMA MCEVOY assistant NATASHA ROY deputy ABBEY WILSON Creative Directors RACHEL BUIGAS-LOPEZ LAURA SHKOURATOFF
ADVERTISING Business Manager RHEA NAYAK Sales Manager ALISON RAO Creative Director, W Media Group BRIAN ZAPIECKI Creative Designer, W Media Group ALEX HANSON University Sales Manager MAKENA MUELLER
Copy Chiefs PAMELA JEW FERNANDA NUNES deputy CISSY YUN
Senior Graphic Designer VIKAS NAIR
Multimedia Editors ANNA LETSON photo KEVIN JIANG video VIOLA MAI, JULIA SALIBA abroad VERONICA LIOW senior POLINA BUCHAK
Sales Associates APOORVA NORI
Social Media Editors CASSIDY MILLER MOLLY DOLAN deputy JUSTINA AVENT
SENIOR STAFF
news SAYER DEVLIN, MIRANDA LEVINGSTON arts JORDAN REYNOLDS features KAITLYN WANG sports MADDIE HOWARD
DEPUTY STAFF
news MACK DEGEURIN,
CAROLINE HASKINS
film DANIELLA NICHINSON books and theater KHRYSGIANA PINEDA music CONNOR GATESMAN entertainment RYAN MIKEL features THOMAS CHOU dining YASMIN GULEC beauty and style SOPHIE SHAW abroad TAYLOR NICOLE ROGERS photo KAMILA DAURENOVA,
COREY ROME
OPINION PAGE
editor ANDREW HEYING deputy ADRYAN BARLIA,
CARINE ZAMBRANO
BLOGS
violet vision MICHAELA HOFFMAN the highlighter ANUBHUTI KUMAR under the arch GEORGE HAJJAR
Sales Representative ELISE BIRKETT, ALLISON LAMBDIN
Circulations Manager DEVIN PADILLA
ADVISING Director of Operations NANCI HEALY Editorial Adviser RACHEL HOLLIDAY SMITH Editors-at-Large HAILEY NUTHALS, KATHERINE PLATZ, RACHEL RUECKER, HANNAH SHULMAN, GRACE HALIO, GABRIELLA BOWER
About WSN: Washington Square News (ISSN 15499389) is the student newspaper of New York University. WSN is published in print on Mondays and throughout the week online during NYU’s academic year, except for university holidays, vacations and exam periods. Corrections: WSN is committed to accurate reporting. When we make errors, we do our best to correct them as quickly as possible. If you believe we have erred, contact the managing editors at managing@nyunews.com or at 212.998.4302
INFORMING YOU FIRST
NYUNEWS.COM