The Fiction of Facts

We recently discussed how many movies do not always give a truthful recount of historical events.  Even though these movies have been nominated as some of the best movies of the year, should they give a true reenactment of events?  Movies like "Argo", "Lincoln", "Zero Dark Thirty", and "Django" have all exaggerated the truth.  This article explains where these fallacies occur.

In class we mentioned how in "Lincoln", Connecticut voted against the 13th Amendment, while in real life, they were for the amendment.  Spielberg decided to change it because he wanted there to be drama towards the beginning of the voting, which is counted alphabetically, in order to make the viewer think that the amendment may not pass.  In "Django", "a freed slave in 1858 did not lay waste to a Mississippi plantation called Candyland to free his German-speaking wife".  However, this addition to the movie added drama and was better for the viewing audience.  And isn't that what directors truly care about?

Despite this notion, directors should at least acknowledge when they do not tell the whole truth.  That is the difference between Truth and truth.  "Truth" is staying true to the intentions of the story, meaning the overall series of events are correlative to reality.  In contrast, "truth" is making sure everything matches exactly what happened in reality, with every quote correct down to the last comma.  While I believe it is alright to exaggerate the truth a little bit, there is a fine line between Truth and truth.  I think that Spielberg crossed that line in "Lincoln".  By changing the vote of a state in the most influential amendment passed for African-Americans, some people may view Connecticut differently.  However, I do not think that Tarantino crossed the line in his movie.  Although Candyland is an unlikely name for a plantation, the overall essence of the treatment of African-Americans was true to history.  

When do you think a director crosses the line between Truth and truth?  And can the line be different for each circumstance?  Please leave comments below.

Michael Jordan Turns 50

Today is Michael Jordan's 50th birthday.  It's hard to believe that Jordan hasn't played basketball in more than a decade, but he is still talked about regularly.  Jordan is arguably the best and most iconic player in NBA history.  He is so iconic that ESPN spent the last 2 weeks talking about Jordan and doing a countdown of his top 50 plays and moments.  However, I wanted to talk about the entrepreneur in him.  Michael Jordan revolutionized the marketing industry, especially for companies like Nike and Gatorade.  Here is an article explaining how Jordan got a deal with Nike.

Nike's fourth quarter 2012 sales were $6.5 billion.  A quarter of those sales can be attributed to the Jordan brand.  That is a significant amount of money and it all started because of the idea that everyone wanted to be like Mike.  When Jordan first signed a contract with Nike, they offered him $500,000 a year for 5 years.  Yes, that is a lot of money, but look at the contracts today.  Derrick Rose signed a 14 year, $260 million contract with Adidas.  Lebron James and Kobe Bryant are each making $15 million a year with Nike.  The point I'm trying to make is that Michael Jordan did not just revolutionize basketball, he changed marketing.

Everyone wanted to wear the same shoes or drink the same sports drinks as Jordan.  Businesses began to realize this and began to put significant sums of money into hiring key opinion leaders in order to appeal to consumers.  People are paid millions to associate their name with a product and many people think that advertising is a waste of money.  However, it works.   Companies don't just want a viewer to buy a product, they want the viewer to talk about the product.  Companies care about name recognition because they want you to talk about their product with your friends.

This fundamental idea of marketing is also particularly American, especially when athletes are involved.  Many athletes come from lower socioeconomic status' and don't have very much money.  When they make it to the pros, they are bombarded by large pay checks and sponsor contracts.  The idea that a poor boy in the ghetto can become a millionaire and be a role model for many others is an American idea and both Jordan and Nike capitalized on this opportunity.

Why do you think that marketing is so successful?  And besides Michael Jordan, who do you think revolutionized the advertising industry?

Happy 50th Michael!

Luxurious Ideals

This past weekend I was in Orlando with a group of New Trier students and crossed paths with some interesting people.  However, Karisha, an Argentinean girl, had some particularly interesting comparisons and contrasts between the United States and Argentina.

One thing that stuck out was her idea of socioeconomic status affecting the way one presents themselves.  In America, many people pride themselves on their "looks" and go out of the way to buy more expensive and luxurious items to demonstrate their wealth.  In contrast, Karisha mentioned how it is very difficult to distinguish social classes in Argentina because people generally do not gloat about their wealth.  I found this very interesting coming from a different perspective because as an American, I am often exposed to people that either show their wealth or make it obvious that they are poor.

I think it is important to gain exposure to how different cultures operate because it makes one question why certain things are the way they are.  Although I do not agree with showing off wealth, I understood that it occurred regularly in the United States.  This made me assume that it was the same way in other countries.  However, after getting a different vantage point from a non-American, I am beginning to wonder why this is primarily an American ideal.

I believe that showing wealth is one of the basic ideals of the United States because of the American Dream idea.  When someone comes to America, they are looking for opportunity.  They are looking for freedom.  Many people can attain both opportunity and freedom through wealth.  By working their way up the social class ladder, someone can fulfill their American Dream.  In order to demonstrate that they have reached their goal, I believe many people may display their wealth as a sign of "I did it".

Do you think luxury items are more noticeable in the US than in other countries?  And why do you think Americans show their wealth in the form of luxury items?