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?

The Importance of Youth

Over the past few business days, Netflix's stock, NFLX, has gone up 60%.  I am very interested in the stock market and have my own brokerage account, so I follow stocks that have had unexpected gains.  Netflix jumped because its earnings were higher than expected; however, there is a bigger reason that this movie rental company soared above projections.  An article I read, by Jim Cramer, a stock analyst, explains why Netflix is doing so well and Apple, AAPL, is not.  

"My youngest daughter loves to get ideas from me for my birthday.  So, when she asked me what I wanted I told her I wanted the first-season DVD of Sons of Anarchy.  She writes she isn't going to buy it because it streams on Netflix".  Cramer believes that if the younger generation is talking about a product constantly, then it will be a better investment.

This is also one of the reasons why Apple has dropped recently.  Despite average earnings, the shares of Apple have plummeted 20% in the last month.  Although it owns the market share and everyone owns Apple products, Apple is not creating the buzz it used to.  No one is talking about Apple's new products because they haven't created any new products since the Ipad.  In order to rebound, Apple needs to either make a new product or buy a trending one.  The youth dictates what is popular in the future so it is important to appeal to them now.

Enough of this stock mumbo jumbo.  The point I'm trying to make is that our generation, kids aged 13-20, are the "trend-setters".  We are the ones who create the buzz and determine whether a product is a diamond in the rough or a complete bust.  For those investors out there, it is important to identify what kids are talking about and what seems second nature to them.  For my AS final, of the kids who brought in laptops, probably 90% of them had an Apple computer.  Apple was "in style" when the majority of people bought their laptops, making it a good buy within the last 5 years.  On the other hand, practically no one had a dell computer, showing how Dell has fallen off the charts.  It is just very important to know that when you go buy a stock, a good investment is one that the upcoming generation uses.

What new trend/stock do you think will do better than projections because of the younger generation?  Please leave comments below.

AS Final- "A Story we Tell Ourselves"

This political cartoon is an important contemporary artifact because it conveys our country’s current economic issue. The artifact also relates to the class because it shows an imposing threat, a clash of powers, and an incorrect focus.

In the center of the image, there is a giant, imposing fiscal cliff sign.  This echoes the idea that our country is facing a big problem that is scary and threatening. As a result, the problem must be eliminated in order to protect American citizens. Comparatively, in the movie Grizzly Man, Timothy Treadwell has the task of protecting the bears from poachers and hunters. These poachers and hunters threaten the lives and safety of the bears, putting the burden to save these animals on Treadwell. Werner Herzog recognizes Treadwell’s devotion to the bears: “I have seen this madness [anger towards poachers and hunters] before on a film set. But Treadwell is not an actor in opposition to a director. He’s fighting civilization itself”. Treadwell is willing to do whatever is necessary to protect these animals, even if it means “fighting civilization”. In comparison, Obama and Boehner are tasked with protecting US citizens from the impending fiscal cliff. If a deal had not been reached by Congress, citizens would currently be in disarray and economic hardship. Even though both political parties don’t always agree, they needed to find common ground to protect the citizens from the looming fiscal cliff, just as Treadwell protected the bears from the poachers and hunters.

Despite the compromise to arrive at a fiscal cliff deal, Obama and Boehner certainly were not just trying to find an economic solution. Obama and Boehner were more focused on making each other look bad. This idea is evidenced in the caption, “who would engineer such a thing”. It is quite ironic because Obama and Boehner were the ones who created this mess, but are now asked to fix it. However, now they are not equipped to do so because they have waited too long due to their fighting. The idea of focusing more on making another party look bad occurs in The Crucible. During Elizabeth Proctor’s trial for witchcraft, Proctor is defending her by telling the court that she isn’t a witch. However, since Parris dislikes Proctor, he wants to make a fool out of Proctor and repeatedly says, “this is a clear attack upon the court”(87) when Proctor defends Elizabeth. Parris should be focused on expelling witchcraft from Salem, but is too caught up in trying to get Proctor in trouble. This leads to an even worse witchcraft hysteria, similar to the worsening economic problems our country faces.

Despite focusing on making each other look bad, Obama and Boehner care more about the end result than the process. They have the attitude that as long a deal gets done, it doesn’t matter how they get there. Comparatively, in the poem Shhhhhhirt, by Robert Pinsky, big companies care more about meeting their quotas in order to sell $5 shirts than the working conditions of the producers: “The planter, the picker, the sorter/ sweating at her machine in a litter of cotton/ as slaves in calico headrags sweated in fields”. Workers are suffering like slaves, just because big retail companies want to sell cheap clothes. Similarly, the government just wants to arrive at a fiscal cliff deal, not worrying about the citizens that are suffering economically and the ones who may be affected by it.

The fiscal cliff is America’s biggest economic decision in years, but the government is too caught up in protecting their image. They want the story to be told positively for generations to come. So I guess V.S. Ramachandran was right: it’s just “a story we tell ourselves”.

A way to reduce the debt?

Today, one of my friends informed me of a potential solution to the debt ceiling: a trillion dollar coin.  When I heard this, I had no clue what to think because I could not even fathom the idea of $1 trillion wrapped up into a small piece of metal.  This New York times article explains how it would work.

Although this article explains that making this coin and directly depositing it in the Federal Reserve would be "an accounting trick", it could also cause mass inflation and make the value of the dollar drop drastically.  Many people think that the debt issue could be fixed by simply creating more money.  This may limit the debt, but might cause inflation, making everything cost up to 4 times its original cost.  Our economy is in a huge hole, but it can only be fixed if the government is willing to cut spending.  Although they want to fund their programs, the government cannot keep raising the debt ceiling.  Soon the interest we pay on the debt may reach the high billions.

The fact that the government couldn't even make progress on the fiscal cliff agreement until the due date is quite concerning.  The government knew that the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling were coming years in advance, but didn't make an agreement until the bottom of the ninth.  The government needs to take responsibility and cut spending themselves, instead of relying on the citizens to bail them out.  A $1 trillion coin is not the answer to fix a much bigger issue.  Even if this coin was successful in limiting the debt, it does not change the issue of spending more than the country takes in.  If the debt continues to outpace the GDP, there will be no solution and we actually my "fall off the cliff".

How do you think the government should lower the national debt?  And do you think that a $1 trillion coin would be feasible?  Feel free to comment below.

Django Unchained

Last week I saw the movie "Django Unchained", directed by Quentin Tarantino.  This was an inspiring movie and had the moral of anti-slavery.  For those of you that haven't seen "Django Unchained", here is the trailer and a brief synopsis.

One thing I found interesting about the movie is that it focused solely on Django, played by Jamie Foxx, a freed slave.  Obviously a movie with his name in it would focus on him, but it did not once mention President Lincoln, who was president at the time.  This is curious because Lincoln is credited with creating the Emancipation Proclamation and freeing the slaves.  However, Tarantino decided to focus on how Django freed himself and was resonsible for his own destiny.  This contrasts the film "Lincoln", a movie documenting Lincoln's greatness,  and how many people view history.

Tarantino focused on the lesser known story: an inspiring story that no one credits.  At the time of the 13th amendment, the amendment that freed the slaves, there was still the thought of white supremacy.  This lead to the hypothesis that Abraham Lincoln was 100% responsible for stopping slavery; however, would slavery stop if the slaves didn't mind it?  It wouldn't!  The slaves rebelled as much as they could and tried with a concerted effort to escape and run away.

In an age that claims to be anti-racism, why are there still movies, like "Lincoln", where there is hardly ever a mention of slave revolts to free themselves.  Not even one minute devoted to how the African-Americans may have lead themselves to freedom.  I believe Tarantino decided not to mention President Lincoln at all because he wanted to show how powerful and influential some slaves were.  He may have done this in response to "Lincoln", but also to take attention away from the "good white guy".

Why do you think the public consensus gives President Lincoln all the credit for freeing the slaves?  And do you think there is a bigger issue surrounding racism? Why or why not?  Please leave comments below.