 |
Roger Ebert Should Lay Off The Fatty Foods
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
I've seen the movie "Spider-Man" twice so far, and I plan on seeing it again. I eagerly awaited this film for a long time, and was very interested to hear what Roger Ebert had to say about it. His review was disappointing, but it didn't dampen my enthusiasm. If you haven't seen Spider-Man and don't want to hear any spoilers, skip to the next article.
Roger gets it right when he talks about the lighter-than-air aspect of the visual effects. I might even go further and point out that a most basic law of physics was glaringly broken: Twice, Mary Jane Watson falls from a height while Spidey watches, pauses, then dives after her, snatching her from certain death. If not for the fact that all objects plummet to earth at the same air speed, I might not have cringed when Spidey miraculously caught up to her and swung her to safety both times.
The problem I have is similar to one I had with Roger's review of Star Trek: Insurrection in 1998. You can read my original letter and Ebert's review Interestingly, Roger e-mailed me a couple days after I sent that letter. His original review was full of holes and he realized it when I brought up the "fountain" issue. I still don't agree of the displacement of people. Anyway, my point was that Roger missed some very important plot points in that movie which made his review read nonsensically.
He did it again for Spider-Man.
In the last paragraph of his review. Ebert writes, "...Does the movie go too far with his extreme social paralysis? Peter tells Mary Jane he just wants to be friends. "Only a friend?" she repeats. "That's all I have to give," he says. How so? Impotent? Spidey-sense has skewed his sexual instincts? Afraid his hands will get stuck?"
Due to his actions or inactions with his newfound powers, Peter has had a hand in the death of his uncle, the death of his best friend's father, the brutal assault of his aunt and the kidnapping and near-death of Mary Jane. Do you think that might be a bit jarring? In that last scene, Peter is talking with Mary Jane and thinks to himself that everyone close to him...everyone he loves is in danger as long as he is Spider-Man. THAT's why he pushed Mary Jane away. He fears that if he gets involved with her, another villain will learn his identity and go after her, as the Green Goblin did. His response of being "friends" has absolutely NOTHING to do with his social paralysis and everything to do with his protective nature. He loves Mary Jane but doesn't want to endanger her. If Peter is guilty of anything, it's that of being a teenager who's way too altruistic. Remember: With great power comes great responsibility. Ebert missed the connection. Probably because he wasn't paying close attention to the story.
I didn't send a letter to Ebert or the Sun-Times this time. I can't point out EVERYONE's mistakes, can I?
Special thanks to headline writer Eric Cartman.
A Question For NewsRadiophiles
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
A double-standard in Chicago news has been brought to my attention, and I'm hoping someone can give me the 411. this issue is that WBBM-AM's news anchors have been reading ad copy for a long time.
Does anyone know when this practice started?
Is anyone else alarmed at this?
Isn't this comparable to Walter Jacobsen pausing to read a Nike ad? Ron Magers taking time out to talk about acid reflux and Tagament? Warner Saunders taking us aside to promote Dunkin Donuts?
Why is it okay for radio journalists to read ad copy, but not TV journalists?
I'm thinking it's just a long-standing practice that's never been eliminated, but I can't be sure. Radio is definitely more sponsor-driven than TV these days, but it wasn't always that way.
Thoughts?
Something Special Is Happening At Channel 2
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
I'm watching lots and lots of Channel 2's news nowadays. I just can't help myself. It has nothing to do with Antonio Mora. It has nothing to do with their flashy graphics or their goofy "works for you" slogan.
Okay, I admit it.
I'm sort of enthralled with Cynthia Santana.
She's good...real good. I mean, she's as polished as you can get. Aside from the effortless anchoring she's doing on the weekends, she's a very strong general assignment reporter during the week. No disrespect to Linda MacLennan, or that other woman who used to be on at 10pm, but Cynthia should be working alongside Antonio Mora on the big shows. Think of that...two Hispanic anchors at the top positions on their station! Would that be a Chicago first? Antonio and Cynthia...Mora and Santana...Tony & Cindy...that has a good ring to it (well, maybe not the last one). She's got the whole package. Oh, and I think she's also a total babe. Easily jumped to #2 on my newsbabe list. She's a star. This past Sunday, Cynthia revealed that she's going to have another baby. Maybe it's time for Channel 2 to change their slogan to "Expecting For You" or maybe "Your Fertile News Source."
Yes, I'm weird. I recognize and appreciate legitimate talent, yet I'm oddly superficial at times. Oh, well. Deal with it. I thought about why I watch certain news programs and it became apparent that I watched most of the programs because certain female journalists appeal to me. A Channel 2 newscast with Cynthia Santana and a report from Stacia Dubin? Oh, my!
The only exception is Channel 7, which I watch purely because they have the best reporters. Although now that I think of it, Leah Hope is kinda cute...
What Number is the First Amendment?
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
On his Perspective this past Tuesday, Walter Jacobsen came out against free speech.
Who knew?
Actually, Walter profiled a woman who worked for the Chicago Public Library and kept speaking out about the internet connections at the libraries and how anyone-including kids--can easily access pornographic material. She continually spoke out on an internal intranet chat room.
Okay. First, this debate is old and the official position of professional librarians has been settled...access should be kept open and free for everyone rather than sensor the internet for everyone. Rather than use filtering software which does a very bad job of filtering, libraries are supposed to set their own policies. The library by me only allows kids to access the internet when a parent is present. Seems sensible, eh?
Anyway, a few weeks ago, Walter did the original report about how kids can access porn easily. He got some response and found this woman who feels wronged by the Chicago Public Library. She posted a message in the chat room about how deplorable it was that kids were using the library computers to see & print this clearly illegal & heinous material. Her superiors told her that those questions were inappropriate in that forum and to keep them to herself.
"Illegal & heinous"? One is incorrect; the other is her opinion. This is why librarians around the country want to keep everything open and accessible--we have a history of closed-minded nitwits trying to censor material because they have appointed themselves judges of good taste. "Huck Finn" anyone...?
Okay, so those who set the agenda rebuked her. Sounds like an open-and-shut resolution, huh? Apparently not to her…she "felt compelled" to post another message in the chat room amazed that it was "hailed as a first amendment issue."
She was suspended one day for insubordination.
She thinks that it is hypocrisy that she can't put forth her own views on the library's chat room. "...so much for free speech," she said. Walter agreed and noted 9sarcastically, of course) that the first amendment and free speech at the library is not for librarians, but for pornographers.
Now here's where the first amendment gets tricky.
I have some experience in this area, but I'm not a first amendment lawyer so maybe someone who knows the law can back me up or shoot me down. The first amendment does not apply to all speech. A few examples: You can't yell "fire" in a movie theater (though you can yell "theater" in a fire). You can't joke about blowing things up while checking in your luggage at the airport and you can't talk about killing the President. The first amendment definitely protects dissenting speech about the government...that's what it was originally intended for. The big thing here is that the first amendment applies to public settings. Once you enter a private setting, the protection gets gray.
I once spoke negatively about an issue within my company on a personal, public, non-company related web site. My supervisors had a discussion with me about the first amendment. The basic truth is this: I can say whatever I want, but they also have the right to protect their interests and fire me because they don't like or agree with what I say. When someone in the company is projecting an image or doing something that is counter to the company philosophy, they have all the right in the constitution to dismiss that employee on insubordination charges. The first amendment does not apply as strongly to the internal workings of a private organization. Needless to say, I compromised. I liked my job.
This librarian was warned once about her actions, but she ignored the warning and stepped over the line again. She used the private chat room to post her own opinions that went against the organization's policy and philosophy. Her supervisors were well within their rights to suspend her for insubordination. Heck, after talking to Walter, they are probably well within their rights to fire her ass.
The library is right in giving everyone access to the entire internet. Maybe they need a policy for kids accessing the internet-like my library has. The library also has the right to suspend the woman for insubordination. It's not hypocrisy, just internal company discipline.
We can't child-proof the world.
What about the children?
We don't have to put Nerf all over the place because of the precious children.
The children will be fine.
CBS Was Wrong - We need to see the entire Pearl Video
By JOHN F. KUCZAJ
Daniel Pearl's family is upset that CBS this week aired a portion of the videotape made by his murderers.
Boo hoo.
CBS should air the entire tape. All the networks should air the entire tape. Hey, all the networks should even air the footage of people falling to their deaths outside the WTC on 9-11.
The public has a right to know, don't we?
First, the double-standard that the news media applied to Daniel Pearl since he was kidnapped has not been overlooked by the public. Why is it that he gets to be treated with kid gloves while every angle on the plight of non-media victims is fair game. Daniel pearl was treated differently than average people, and the average viewer knows it.
Second, why is the media censoring graphic video? Who are they protecting? Doesn't the American public deserve to see the full horror of terrorism? Don't you think the sight of bodies falling to the ground outside the WTC would lend a horrific realism to the misguided yahoos who have an ounce of sympathy for the views of the terrorists? Why all of a sudden are we queasy at airing real footage?
Maybe because it's Americans?
In 1968, News executives had no problem showing a handcuffed North Vietnamese prisoner executed on the street by a shot to the head. We have no problem showing gruesome corpses in the Middle East. Or Afghanistan. I guess it's easier to show the gory truth when it happens to a foreigner, huh? They're not American, so why should we bother being sensitive to their feelings.
Show the tape. Even if the result is that 50 million people projectile vomiting simultaneously, it doesn't matter. The public has a right to know the full story.
Things That Sound Dirty, But Aren't:
The Gissy awards...5-9am Saturday on WLS-AM.
Chicago Media Examiner e-mail delivery
Send an e-mail message to chicagomuse@hotmail.com from the e-mail address you want the Chicago Media Examiner delivered to with "subscribe" in the subject line. Whenever a new issue of the Chicago Media Examiner comes out, it will be e-mailed to you automatically.
Take a look at the previous issue: Tuesday, May 7
Take a look at the issue before that: Tuesday, April 23
* Pseudonym
Published weekly...or so.
If you'd like to contribute, e-mail an article to the editor
|
|
|
|
