Catering to the Masses

In theatrical productions, the same play could be performed identically two nights in a row, one with an incredibly enthusiastic audience and a standing ovation, and the other with a few scattered claps. It depends on the energy of the audience for that particular evening, and that makes all the difference...to the performers, the future of the production based on reviews.

Whether it’s film, theater, music, or any other media of mass communication, the make-it-or-break-it factor isn’t the talent, it’s the audience. So the question is at what point should plots be compromised and lyrics toned down in order to target a larger market, versus one of a more selective nature.

Let’s take “Shutter Island” as an example. I thought it was another genius film by Scorsese. Really well done. But it got some pretty mixed reviews.

(From Rotten Tomatoes, professional critics)

“DiCaprio and Scorcese are a dynamic movie duo but when you add in the brilliant storytelling of Lehane you get movie magic.”

and then...

An overlong, nauseating thriller lacking palpable suspense and clever twists which can't be saved by its exquisite production values and solid performances.

But movie goers were just as conflicted: (From Moviefone.com)

CQBRA03

This movie is a complicated mess that has an ending that for me was very unrewarding and a letdown. Is it all really happening, or is it just in his head? The acting was excellent, but the coming attractions were a lot better than the movie. Just a little to weird for me.

JZekeRed

one star for decaprio...pretty darn good acting BUT, what a sucko storyline - not cohesive, twisted, interesting, frustrating...save your money .

Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but clearly these people just didn’t get it. But does that mean that the movie industry should cater to the less, shall we say, adept. There is a “type” of entertainment for everyone, so perhaps verbal members of the public need to admit if a certain genre isn’t their cup of tea, instead of just ragging on it.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with critics and reviewers saying, “this movie is fabulous if you have an inquisitive mind, don’t bother if you’re just looking for entertainment”. But they don’t differentiate because of the fear of alienating the audience. Rather, they take it out on the film makers.

Perhaps critics should just take a little step back from their self-proclaimed lime-light. Just because you hated or loved it doesn’t mean everyone else will. I know it’s your job to be critical and offer you opinions, but keep in mind is only opinions that you are offering.

Bottom line: offering different perspectives for different audiences would be much more effective than only taking your own views into account.

Play to your strengths.

There is a concept of “multiple intelligences” within the psychology discourse. Essentially, it says that intelligence cannot be based purely on IQ, but 8 other factors like interpersonal intelligence, spatial intelligence, etc. need to be included. I agree with this, and I have expounded on this theory that people should be judged primarily on their stronger intelligences within their fields of work and study. For instance, Amy Winehouse would be considered “musically smart”, so maybe her mishaps in the interpersonal realm should not affect her career.

Naturally this doesn’t always apply, like when a scandal affects the majority of the public. [see Bill Clinton]. But a certain group of professionals, namely athletes, should be seen as bodily-kinesthetically intelligent, and if they’re lacking in the social department so be it.

Which brings me to Mr. Woods.

CBS NEWS

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2010

Did Tiger's Body Language Betray Him?

Expert: It Made His Mea Culpa Seem Staged, Too-Rehearsed

There is a lot of scrutiny on whether or not his apology in Friday’s press conference was sincere or contrived. Does it matter? He made the statement, and obviously he’s not an actor or improvisational artist. To go into a press conference cold would have been disastrous. So I’m sure he had some help preparing, but that doesn’t mean it should change the outcome of his words. Not to mention he had quite some time to practice before going public. So judge the guy all you want on his lifestyle choices, but not the way he apologized.

And back to my point about the intelligences. I think that if the public is to pass judgment on certain “smarts”, then the athletes should keep that in mind as well. Yes they have been extremely successful in their fields, but this whole “god-complex” that so many of them have is extremely irritating.

Sir Charles, I know you were a great basketball player in your day. Yet you are still a US citizen and can’t just use your name to get out of charges for drunk driving with simultaneous sexual acts. Nothing personal Barkley, I’m just using you as a scapegoat for so many athletes that have that same trait.

Sports figures are important to our society for entertainment value. But society and the sports stars alike just need to keep in mind the limits of that spheres of influence.

The Secrets of the Universe Unveiled

Quarks, bosons, the Large Hadron Collider, and dark matter are all terms that are seemingly only understood by a few brilliant particle physicists. For the rest of us, they seem beyond mental grasp and comprehension. But guess what? The Einsteins of the world are not that much further ahead of you and I in that department.

Last week, I went to a presentation on “Grand Challenges” in today’s society. One of the speakers worked for CERN, the leading world research base in particle physics located in Geneva, Switzerland. He discussed the huge amount of data and resources that were required to discover the secrets of the universe. They’re trying to recreate the Big Bang, find out why particles have mass, look into antimatter and investigate black holes among other projects.

I was fortunate enough to visit CERN a few months ago and get an inside look into what the scientists are really doing. For the most part, I think the scientists were as perplexed by all the information as I was. They don’t even know what exactly they’re looking for. There’s this whole thing called the “Higgs Boson”, which supposedly will help aid the quest for why matter has mass. Except, there is no proof that this Higgs Boson even exists, or what it “looks like”. It’s just an overgrown hunch. (That’s a little bit of an understatement).

Well that’s the nature of science, I guess. Yet over 20 countries are pouring gross amounts of money into this research in search of answers to the unknown.

Granted, CERN is responsible for the development of the World Wide Web and little things like that, but still, my issue is why is there a pretense that these elite scientists are so much more entitled to the knowledge that defines our universe than the rest of society?

I think it’s because of the jargon, which goes for most professions. In training for one’s profession like doctors, lawyers and even reporters, new vocabulary becomes second nature. So due to my interests in the secrets of the physical world, I took it upon myself to rise to the level of basic proficiency in quantum physics. I know, impressive, right?

While it took a lot of repetition and hands-on exhibits at CERN to get through to me, I found this video that I think can make anyone who wants to have a basic understanding of what particle physicists are trying to find.



It’s actually very accurate. There you go, the universe in a nutshell. If you don’t get that reference, you have a little bit more work to do before you can fully count yourself an expert in the profession. As do I. But hey, it’s a start.

The Paradox of Materialism

My mom is the most down to earth person I know, and when I was a kid that did not exactly bode well for me. Remember all those fads like yo-yos and beanie babies? Lets just say it took some very convincing puppy faces to acquire a few of those overpriced beanbags.

A few years later during my pre-teens, when the “in-but-not-quite-designer” brands came into play I was ready to make my move. I wanted to start shopping at Abercrombie, where all my friends were getting the “coolest” new fashions. The Abercrombie Empire is a mystery in itself, as the clothing is mainstream, outrageously-expensive, nothing-special attire. But thanks to the A&F marketing geniuses, every middle-school girl wants to have their entire wardrobe from that shop. I remember saying to my mom, “what if my friends and I don’t shop there…the store will close down!”

BINGO.

Not that my mom was entirely convinced by that argument, but it has supported my own social conscience for spending too much money on clothes, entertainment and other material goods that I do not need. I justify my spending because of the mentality that if no one buys these seemingly “immaterial” products, the companies will go out of business, unemployment will increase and the economy will shrink. Moral of the story…shop till you drop (on a macro scale of course).

Designers, entrepreuners, inventors, and other business professionals have created a world of wealth based on toys. Not to mention the impact material goods have on globalization. These items are not only helping the US, but other national economies as well based on product exports and imports on which we thrive.

But just because these playthings are popular and exist, should we really regard those driving the industry with that much more clout?

New York Fashion Week starts Friday and in honor of the soon-to-be-released fall 2010 trends, I would like to introduce you to those who are dictating your lives based on your desires to keep up with the Jones’.

From last year’s Fashion Week….

It might be nice to be able to make a fortune off of the above. These outfits may be seemingly ridiculous, but in fact they make up the majority our GDP. Well, that is clothes combined with other non-durable goods and services. Maybe these designs specifically aren't a huge contributing factor, but so much of our consumer spending is on material items. Whatever keeps the world turning.

As Derek Zoolander was once told, "Fashion, a way of life inspired by the very homeless, the vagrants, the crack whores that make this wonderful city so unique."